A note on propaganda and mind control

The terms "propaganda" and "mind control" have negative connotations of fascist and totalitarian regimes, but it should be remembered propaganda and mind control can be used to convince people as easily to love their neighbour as to hate them.

So the terms don't refer to the morality of the goal, but rather, to the technique used to achieve it!

Propaganda, war and vaccines

1. When enough people come to the conclusion that war is a con they bring in conscription, so people are forced to go. Now that many people are questioning vaccines they are bringing in mandates.

2. The ruling powers really have no respect for the free will of the individual.

Their only concern is increasing their own wealth and power at any cost, and to achieve it, they convince the population that it's in their best interests to submit to their plans.

3. This is achieved by the use of (i) propaganda, (ii) rewarding compliance and punishing non-compliance, and (iii) by mobilising the population against dissent - i.e. by encouraging "the mob" to attack and vilify any who resist.

It's the same process used to convince people to support and fight wars, as it is to convince them to support vaccine mandates, or anything else that is an important part of the agenda of the power elite.

Mind control and mobilise "the mob" against those who resist, or against any group that are seen as an obstacle to the ruling powers achieving their goals.

A note on criticism

It should be remembered that criticising something doesn't make you an enemy of it. In fact, in just shows your appreciation, by illustrating that you care enough to want to see something improved. Others who don't care, don't care about improvement, or what could be done to fix a situation, because they're not even looking at it with a discerning eye.

The law prohibiting idolatry

The law prohibiting idolatry refers to as much to ideas and practices, as it does to objects of worship. Nothing should be seen as infallible. Everything important needs to be closely examined and not taken on blind faith. To do otherwise is to cede responsibility of our lives to others, which is a primary sin.

Medicine is a reflection of society

The idea that the medical industry is being driven by an impersonal force called "science" is naive at best and dangerous at worst.

Health science could look entirely different than the world of medicine we see today.

The medical industry is as a result of our society, with its unique perspectives on life, its technologies, and its overwhelming financial pressures, rather than as an inevitable result of some mystical process called science.

Is life inherent in all matter?

It seems the reason why the boundary between life and non-life is unclear is because life is somehow inherent in even the most inert seeming substance.

I mean, look how crystals naturally form. They are not thought of as alive, and yet they exhibit the character of life which is organised growth.

With more complex forms, like viruses, it is not clear whether they are alive or not.

After all, they do not reproduce themselves, but instead program living cells to do it for them.

It seems irrational for life to appear from non-life, but this may be because there is actually no such thing as non-life, rather just the appearance of it.

Perhaps all matter is alive with living consciousness, as the mystics tell us.

Agriculture, environment, sustainability

With all the talk of climate change, and with the supposed recycling of waste that now gets done, we think we are environmentalists now.

The reality is many of our industries as literally at war with nature.

Agriculture drenches the environment in poisons, slaughters wild animals by the million, ruins waterways, and destroys native bushland.

Other resource-based industries are similarly brutal and destructive.

This is justified under the banner of necessity. But is it really?

Do we really need to be at war with nature to live comfortable and fulfilling lives?

I would like to think not.

There are far more efficient ways that are more nurturing to the earth than current techniques.

Permaculture is one example of a far more efficient food producing system, than the current petrochemical model, in terms of land use and such.

Vast areas of monoculture crops are just unsustainable, no matter how you look at it.

It's just not in harmony with the ways of nature, which none of us are above.

When industries investigate their own products systemic bias will usually be in place...

... blinding investigators to the negative qualities of their products.

Truth just angers those enamoured with the lie.

The Dark Side is brilliant.

The dark side is brilliant.

Their traps, if not invisible, are well-hidden, if not actually attractive to many people, offering something THAT APPEARS to be worth having.

They may even appear to be essential.

But ask yourself this: are they natural? Are they REALLY essential? Do they come from a pure heart? Or is there something perverted about their use?

The dark side takes a good thing and twists it, to serve its own purposes. It has no respect for persons. They are all disposable. A means to an end. Not valued in and of themselves.

Get to the bottom of it.

Is the system set up or twisted by darkness, or is it a pure, untainted process?

Trust your heart.

It is the ONLY pure guide you have.

The mind has been corrupted by the world.
That's just life.

Without bringing the heart online we have no true compass of what is good and noble and what is not.

Is the belief that biological processes are purely deterministic based on knowledge...

or is it purely an assumption of a mechanistic view of life?

I would prefer governments did not herd people...

But rather, gave them choice.

"Anti-science" decoded

"Anti-science" generally decodes as "anti- corporate interests dressed as science", except in the case of climate change, where it refers to a different kind of skepticism. A broader distrust of everything promoted by the establishment.

That's what you get for lying so much, people start to disbelieve all of it, whether it be true or not.

A bit like religion, I guess.

Folks throw out the baby with the bathwater. Assuming there is any baby in the bathwater, of course!

My view on hate speech

I don't usually like to address hate speech directly, because I don't like to promote those who use it, but it is prevalent on the internet.

It seems to mainly be used by ignorant people attempting to slander another group, or by those overcome with heightened emotion, who lash out wildly.

In either case, it results in a high noise to signal ratio, and repels even-minded folks.

I don't think hate speech can possess much sustained value, like reasonable statements by balanced people can.

It's just a phase a disgruntled person goes through, and at the end of it, there will only be shame.

Matthew 15:

17 "Do you not yet realize that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then is eliminated?
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a man."

Math and experience

Some people are bedazzled by statistics, but I would prefer to read first-hand accounts of people who have had unique experiences, and who can tell of them in an entertaining, coherent and believable way.

I find statistics too emotionally dry to engage with on an ongoing basis. I also don't see the key understandings of life as being mathematical in nature. Not to say there is no value in applying math, but this isn't where my interests lie.

Analyzers will analyse, but my own analysis of life is not primarily mathematical, even if much of my formal education was mathematically based, with a focus on economics.

But math is clean and dry and gives the impression of certitude, and people like this in an uncertain world. However, we must guard against the use of math to deliver false certitude, through poor data collection or analysis, or when applied to an area where it doesn't belong!

Bacteria versus viruses in causing illness

It's interesting to learn how viruses operate v the bacteria that cause infectious disease.

Viruses seem to lie in wait until our body is compromised in some way before launching an assault.

Bacteria seem a more local phenomenon that also flourish under certain conditions.

It seems to be the ingestion of significant numbers of "bad" bacteria that aren't quickly neutralised that cause sickness, which begins quite quickly, whereas with viruses they are something that hibernate in the body until conditions are right for taking control, which can take years.

A doctor responds to non-vaccinating parents

From Dr. Ray Andrew, MD~

“I am running into increasing numbers of patients who decline to receive vaccinations. I don’t call them “anti-vaxxers” because that is the most immature way I can imagine to refer to another human being with an opinion, whether I consider it informed or not. Name-calling is what people do in politics when they don’t have an intelligent response to an opposing party’s argument. This is supposed to be science, not politics.

Based on my experience, those who choose not to vaccinate care just as much about their children as you and I do. But they are looking for information. They no longer consider the AAP and the CDC as unbiased sources of information because the former has ties to the drug industry and the latter actually owns vaccine patents. These parents want me to show them long-term safety studies, which I am unable to find.

They are bothered by the ingredient lists of vaccines, knowing that there are EPA-listed toxins in many of them. Some don’t like knowing that cells and DNA from aborted fetuses as well as animals are used in vaccine production. Some demand true double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled (using saline controls, not adjuvants) trials proving efficacy, which simply do not exist, even though we keep telling everyone that this is the gold standard in medicine. Some ask why—if informed consent exists for every other procedure in medicine—doctors and governments are trying to force vaccination on them, throwing informed consent (a legal right, I was taught) out the window. Some make the argument that, if vaccines are so effective, the vaccinated shouldn’t worry about getting sick from the unvaccinated. And they ask me for scientific proof of the theory of herd immunity. I don’t remember being shown any evidence of this in medical school. It was simply taught as a self-evident fact. But my patients don’t accept that anymore, not without seeing some proof.

So, when I receive all of these communications from different state health organizations telling me how I am supposed to combat the growing threat of vaccine deniers, I feel like a straw man because these communications never present actual evidence to respond to the questions of these parents. They’re just talking points, empty claims, and official pronouncements.

In conclusion, some of my patients vaccinate, and some don’t. I respect both kinds. They are both intelligent and care for their children. Last I checked, the Hippocratic oath doesn’t require me to insult people with whom I don’t agree. I present what evidence I can find, and let them choose based on their values, not mine. Maybe that’s not allowed anymore. Maybe I’m supposed to kick them out of my practice if they disagree with me. Maybe they should be kicked out of school. Out of the country, even. If that’s the America of the future, that’s not a country I would want to live in.”

22 March 2019