They knew: why didn’t the unvaccinated do more to warn us?

#21

I ‘hear you’, and what I did was to start taking my own prepared food with me. Then in the final few years or so it happened that I was offered an appraisal assignment of a residence that had 27,000 sq ft of living area and was situated on 57 acres. The entire property was encompassed by a 7-foot-high chain-linked fence. It had seven barns, 2 major spring-fed ponds, and a 3-car semi-detached garage. To fully describe the property would boggle any person’s mind since it was so elaborate.

The appraisal assignment was for a re-finance of the original loan since interest rates were falling at that time. The entire assignment took me about 14 days to complete since a property of that complexity was beyond the capacity for most other real estate appraisers to deal with. No other properties like it had every sold or even been listed for sale based on research into every state bordering it.

So, to bring this to any conclusion is to say those people were good for the simple reason that they were willing to help and assist others who had been for crippled for life through no fault of own doing.

That assignment really changed everything for me when considering all those past interviews between JPF and the late, great Georgeann Hughes on her ‘Byte Show’,

2 Likes
#22

Yes, the airborne nanotech version is not easy to defend against.
Neither is food and drink nanotech. Coca Cola and Microsoft have a 10 year deal to produce nanotech drinks, and I dont think that is the only one.

2 Likes
#23

… the REAL question is: Why didn’t more individuals PROTECT themselves? Unfortunately, we can not be our brother’s keeper.

3 Likes
#24

Simplified: People do not like to be wrong, especially when others are so apparently right and it’s in their face. Human ego runs VERY deep. Some people would rather die than be wrong. Look closely, and you will see this in people you know,… or knew.

@sunnyboy is correct, this event is being capitalized upon.

2 Likes
#25

This is also why people who supported israel 50 years ago still do, making up the worst excuses known to man to find support for an ongoing genocide.
Or leftist now are everything they used to hate.
They’re now sending sexual predator freaks into womens rest rooms, suggest Big pharma is right in all and everything without looking into the matter, and on and on we can go…Sad really

2 Likes
#26

Because people are buying into the socialist-communist manifesto (being programmed through the institutions and media) – and this ideology leads to a kind of personal irresponsibility – where people no longer think it’s their own responsibility to look after their own wellbeing, but rather consider that to be the responsibility of the state. Conversely whenever something goes wrong with one’s own wellbeing, others get blamed.

Buying into a socialist-communist manifesto means you don’t have to do anything yourself, the state will do everything for you. An intellectual laziness to which many like to succumb. And here we are, with blame traps that lure people into thinking about their own wellbeing in an irresponsible manner.

#27

@sunnyboy
That alien virus like the socialist-communist mind virus is virulent, but that could be said of all ideologies. I would caution that there might be an ideology that could fit your views and infect. That is what ideologies do and are brought on earth for! An alien structure encoded in the fabric of language replacing the human mind with their own system of thought.

That alien artefact has been working on us for millennia, infiltrated our governing faculties and form a parallel society. I find it hard to look in the mirror looking for my own infection so I can remove it in a world that is infected beyond belief, becoming more dangerous and hatefull by the minute.

1 Like
#28

For sure, @neru , all of us live by our own personal (and luckily, these days, in some places, personally chosen) ideologies (which some of us also think of as values). What I don’t like about certain ideologies, though, is the idea that if the guy next to you doesn’t follow your ideology, then he needs to be killed or imprisoned or be denied the right to livelihood or property or be labelled and shunned. There is an incredible amount of violence at the heart of some historical socialist/communist structures (actually, also certain religious movements through history – the Inquisition of the Roman Church comes to mind here) – their structures require that everyone follow the one ideology. This covid stuff, the way people were going on about it, almost scared the crap out of me – that people were saying that anyone who doesn’t take an injection or wear a mask should be jailed!!! Even getting labelled as “unvaccinated” was very creepy, or labelling someone who didn’t pollute his body with some pharmaceutical substance as somehow being “unclean”. It’s these kinds of ideologies – the ones that don’t tolerate the neighbour who chooses not to participate – these are ones that I cannot support.

Indeed, the ideologies are, how you put it – brought on earth – as frameworks through which to control the minion slaves. None of these “alien” (I like your word “alien”) ideologies are there to serve us, but rather to get us to serve Someone unseen. Those of us who don’t see ourselves as minion slaves, and who refuse to buy into the ideologies that are being pushed at us via the institutions and media, well, we do have a somewhat more challenging life… (abeit perhaps also more fulfilling in some ways)

#29

That problem is already upon us. Dominant ideologies are so anti-human, and has captured many hearts already, that humanity is not up against a fringe minority.

I am no pacifist and resistance can come in many forms besides violence. I am an oldie, so no direct violence for me, but I don’t exclude it either for young peoples if their only choise to survive given is embracing anti-human ideologies.

2 Likes
#30

I guess you are right, Robert. Sometimes I think that in some shape or form we are all already being “infected”. Its just a question of trying to delay the process…

2 Likes
#31

If believing being human means killing, stealing and lying is simply “our dark side”, then yes, one is infected. Controlling the ideas and information coming into our “decoder” can and does accomplish such nonsense, read and see all about it in the media aimed at everyone.

1 Like
#32

… the warfare that is upon us, having been sub-rosa for a while but certainly out in clear view and full force now, is primarily Semeiotic Warfare with Kinetic Warfare being derivative.
It is possible to be Semeiotically “infected”. The Finns (see e.g. Finnish Defense "Left of Bang" > National Defense University Press > News Article View) have been aware of this fact longer than most. One primer for but one aspect of Semeiotic Warfare is The Gulf War Did Not Take Place by Jean Baudrillard … available gratis at

#33

… I too was called similar things. What usually put a stop to such accusations was when I asked them … Is it Ok to be a denier of bad science?

Maybe these are the same people who would have been Ok with Nazi Racial Science … see

Cleansing the Fatherland: Nazi Medicine and Racial Hygiene by
Götz Aly, Peter Chroust, and Christian Pross, M.D. (trans. by Belinda Cooper)

1 Like
#34

I really wonder what’s at the heart of these “mass experimentations”; in all fields, across the vast expanse of natures’ living universe. As if “it” is against whatever forms life takes. Who knows where else, these experimentations are going on; or where they’ve already taken place.
Is it representative of an endless battle between what form life takes; as in:
Spiritual? And, what form of corruption against life - that “IT” manifests itself.
That we’re it it from the get-go. And, if we really knew: We’ve been there, done that, and somehow are at it again. An endless time-loop of some fashion?
I get this “Deja-Vu” sense, as a radiation background, if you will.
A residue of the Cosmic War[s].
Some won by the living - some not?

Yes, there are many experimental trip wires out there, and land mines.
For we are the battlefield - and/or the prize.

1 Like
#35

Is semiotics related to mathematics?

#36

… We should possibly also think more about the idea of “experts” and the level and amount of our sovereignty we willingly give over to them …
see … https://www.panarchy.org/illich/professions.html (this piece by Ivan Illich) and sections of Loss of The Creature by Walker Percy, https://archive.org/details/loss_creature/mode/2up
(Donate to the folks at Internet Archive if you can - they have been under incredible assault as of late)

#37

… yes, but in both standard and non-standard ways. Semeiotic is an account of signification, representation, reference, interpretation and meaning. Semeiotic is distinct from Semiotics in that Peirce’s Semeiotic, within what he originally called Pragmatism, was based in Realism and Objective Idealism (for lack of a better term) while William James’ Pragmatism (and that of John Dewey et al.) was, and continue to this day to be yet more Nominalisms. James wrote a book entitled “Pragmatism” and dedicated it to Peirce. Peirce wrote back to James that he (paraphrasing here) while flattered, he recognized little of his thought in the book (James had quite the exposure to Peirce’s thought - see Reasoning and The Logic of Things: The Cambridge Conferences Lectures of 1898) and that there was one major difference between James’ Pragmatism and Peirce’s (he later changed the name of his body of thought on the subject to Pragmaticism to distinguish his thought from James et al.) James’ Pragmatism was a Theory of Truth while his (Peirce’s) was a Theory of Meaning. In summary, Semeiotic has NOTHING to do with contemporary Semiotics (although they name drop Peirce and claim lineage) and Pragmatism is NOT Pragmaticism.

#38

Thanks, I will have to chew on that for a bit. Is this a good intruduction?

#39

Lizka is pretty good on Peirce. I particularly like John Deely’s - Introduction to Semiotic: Its History and Doctrine. Of course original sources are best … see on Google Books this title … Appendices I and II are available to read there. Please don’t get frustrated as you get into this material. I’ve been studying this for a VERY long time and progress is slow but if you stay with it long enough I promise that at a certain point the learning curve will quickly turn upward. :slight_smile: What you will learn is well worth the effort.

2 Likes
#40

Robert, your thoughts brought back to mind something I’d read in a book many years ago, when I was exploring that issue (and which you’ve handled differently than I have, to avoid uncomfortable consequences, perhaps not unlike the recent “masking” and “quackzing” consequences that we experience). This “going along with the herd, when I don’t really want to…”

During those years, my husband and I were in the process of undergoing dietary change – and you know what that’s like – with family and friends. Some can go there, some cannot. We gave it a try.

During the exploration, I was trying to source different approaches to thinking, through books and articles and conversations, from people who practiced different spiritual faiths and from different cultures – what were their own experiences and ideas on going through the journey of detaching from the herd in terms of changing one’s diet?

During this process, I came across Keith Akers’ book “Disciples” (he being a Baptist), and there I read, on page 136 his thoughts:

" The Table of Demons Revisited. The most interesting characteristic of the opponents in 1 Corinthians 8-10 is the concern which they have regarding the table of demons. Paul’s opponents in 1 Corinthians are raising objections relating to eating at the table of demons - just as the later Ebionites did. Moreover, concerns about the table of demons would explain not only why the opponents in 1 Corinthians were avoiding meat sacrificed to idols; it also could explain Peter’s behavior of not eating with the gentiles, about which Paul is so upset in Galatians 2."

Later in that book (p.220) he writes:
"Peter in the Recognitions and Homilies urges everyone not to eat at the table of demons. This means, of course, not to eat meat or eat animals sacrificed to idols… " after which Mr. Akers goes on to offer intriguing (to me) thoughts, over several paragraphs, about what he thinks that meant.

His ideas opened up some curiosity for me, about ancient history connected with this idea of “eating at the table of demons”… And more than that, --an idea that even 2000 years ago, people bumped up against the theme of not wanting to sit at a table where certain foods(/topics?) cause some internal revulsion for some people… It seems, to me, to be a timeless issue.

2 Likes