"The minority of people saw through that, decided accordingly, and refused vaccination. Who was that? You, my readers. What made you decide this? I am sure that there were just as many reasons as people here. The main factor is that you all took a few minutes to think about it critically. You were independently minded and decided to think for yourselves.
1 Was it your general distrust of the government?
2 Was is your deep knowledge of virology and molecular biology?
3 Was it your experience with wheeling and dealing, exposure to scams and knowing how con men operate?
4 Was it your ability to think independently without needing people to agree with you?"
Here are my answers to these questions:
#1 - Are you kidding? Nobody who's been paying even a little bit of attention and thinks even a tiny bit for themselves should trust their government as far as they can spit a rat!
#2 - I don't have a deep knowledge of virology and molecular biology; however, I have a generalist's familiarity with various subjects (sciences/humanities) which all come with their own theory units explaining the epistemological basis that underpins their various knowledge claims. On that basic level, it was clear to me that various claims about the vaccines had not and could not have been properly tested, and that therefore those claims did not deserve the epistemological certainty that they were being badged/sold/pushed with. Also, many of the arguments 'special experts' made in support of the vaccines were obviously lies, gaslighting, logical fallacies, etc which raised further suspicion.
#3 - I have personal experience working for government, so yes, I most certainly have experience with wheeling and dealing, exposure to scams and knowing how con men operate (see point #1).
#4 - I am an anarchist by disposition and this tends to inform how I think and behave when it comes to dealing with experts. Sorry for the long quote to follow, but Bakunin explains this better than I can, and he has some good advice in the second paragraph about dealing with 'special experts' when they impose their authority upon one rather than allow one to accept/subordinate oneself to the expert's ideas/authority based on one's own reason:
"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.
If I bow before the authority of the specialists and avow my readiness to follow, to a certain extent and as long as may seem to me necessary, their indications and even their directions, it is because their authority is imposed upon me by no one, neither by men nor by God. Otherwise I would repel them with horror, and bid the devil take their counsels, their directions, and their services, certain that they would make me pay, by the loss of my liberty and self-respect, for such scraps of truth, wrapped in a multitude of lies, as they might give me.
I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labor. I receive and I give-such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination."
Plus, I am superstitious, so no mark of the beast for me thanks :) (see point #1 again)
I'm also a long time lurker on Mr Greer's websites and those of a few others. I don't follow anybody just for their politics, or whatever, but instead I'm drawn to read the views of people who appear to understand that we are living on a finite planet, with limited and dwindling resources etc. Those kinds of critical thinkers are actually pretty rare, or at least it seems like it is rare for people with those thoughts to speak their minds publicly in an easy to access format and to not be afraid to discuss them. On this last point it was interesting to me to find that all of the thinkers that I follow: - are 'vaccine sceptics' when it comes to these 'experimental gene therapies' - appear to have arrived at that place independently, and - are ready to draw a line in the sand and make their own stands in their own ways about it.
Perhaps they all have something 'anarchistic' in them as well?
Or at least it seems to me that there is something anarchistic about being willing to speak the truth about these matters despite the flak that is sure to follow from pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.
Anyway, anyone else interested in sharing their answers?
Re: Dr Colleen Huber's "COVID-19 VACCINE Considerations"
1 Was it your general distrust of the government?
2 Was is your deep knowledge of virology and molecular biology?
3 Was it your experience with wheeling and dealing, exposure to scams and knowing how con men operate?
4 Was it your ability to think independently without needing people to agree with you?"
Here are my answers to these questions:
#1 - Are you kidding? Nobody who's been paying even a little bit of attention and thinks even a tiny bit for themselves should trust their government as far as they can spit a rat!
#2 - I don't have a deep knowledge of virology and molecular biology; however, I have a generalist's familiarity with various subjects (sciences/humanities) which all come with their own theory units explaining the epistemological basis that underpins their various knowledge claims. On that basic level, it was clear to me that various claims about the vaccines had not and could not have been properly tested, and that therefore those claims did not deserve the epistemological certainty that they were being badged/sold/pushed with. Also, many of the arguments 'special experts' made in support of the vaccines were obviously lies, gaslighting, logical fallacies, etc which raised further suspicion.
#3 - I have personal experience working for government, so yes, I most certainly have experience with wheeling and dealing, exposure to scams and knowing how con men operate (see point #1).
#4 - I am an anarchist by disposition and this tends to inform how I think and behave when it comes to dealing with experts. Sorry for the long quote to follow, but Bakunin explains this better than I can, and he has some good advice in the second paragraph about dealing with 'special experts' when they impose their authority upon one rather than allow one to accept/subordinate oneself to the expert's ideas/authority based on one's own reason:
"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.
If I bow before the authority of the specialists and avow my readiness to follow, to a certain extent and as long as may seem to me necessary, their indications and even their directions, it is because their authority is imposed upon me by no one, neither by men nor by God. Otherwise I would repel them with horror, and bid the devil take their counsels, their directions, and their services, certain that they would make me pay, by the loss of my liberty and self-respect, for such scraps of truth, wrapped in a multitude of lies, as they might give me.
I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labor. I receive and I give-such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination."
Plus, I am superstitious, so no mark of the beast for me thanks :) (see point #1 again)
I'm also a long time lurker on Mr Greer's websites and those of a few others. I don't follow anybody just for their politics, or whatever, but instead I'm drawn to read the views of people who appear to understand that we are living on a finite planet, with limited and dwindling resources etc. Those kinds of critical thinkers are actually pretty rare, or at least it seems like it is rare for people with those thoughts to speak their minds publicly in an easy to access format and to not be afraid to discuss them.
On this last point it was interesting to me to find that all of the thinkers that I follow:
- are 'vaccine sceptics' when it comes to these 'experimental gene therapies'
- appear to have arrived at that place independently, and
- are ready to draw a line in the sand and make their own stands in their own ways about it.
Perhaps they all have something 'anarchistic' in them as well?
Or at least it seems to me that there is something anarchistic about being willing to speak the truth about these matters despite the flak that is sure to follow from pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.
Anyway, anyone else interested in sharing their answers?