Pam Popper, Fight for Health Rights |526|

However, you may give up on Eric concerning this issue, immediately - he is absolutely adamant in his rejection of the heterodox account and analysis of this event. No amount of evidence will be enough for him, and no number of arguments will dissuade him.

I would be persuaded by real evidence and a preponderance of it. I have already stated that my govt lied us into an illegal invasion of Iraq. That I know.

But I sure as hell am not going to be persuaded by what a sworn enemy (you) of my way of life has to say.

Eric and I may happen to be on different sides of a barricade or a trench, and I won't like to fight against him not just verbally and intellectually, but physically and lethally.

Likewise. War/killing is a horrible ugly thing that no one should have to experience, brother.

another possible scenario would have been the sharing of the same side of a barricade or a trench with him, since the ultimate threat nowadays is the digital totalitarianism being installed, right now, by the global power elite, under the guise of the Covid-1984. The decisive rejection of the digital totalitarianism, and deceptive Covid-1984 narrative covering it, are what we share. And, as history shows, there is nothing more unifying than a common enemy: without the Third Reich and Axis in general, who would ever think that the USSR and the USA may one day fight on the same side as Allies? A necessity to confront an even more threatening and stronger enemy sometimes forges most uncommon alliances.

Perhaps. War and politics make for strange bed fellows (or fox hole mates). I despise those tyrants as much as you. They're gay on top of sneaky. In league with Satan, IMO. They need to die.

But, after the shared threat is over, such uneasy alliances shatter almost immediately - recall the Cold War (that was pretty hot in many Third World places). So, again, I'm happy that Eric and I reside on the different sides of an ocean...

True. But if you want to try out your destructive way of life on your side of the globe, have at it. You won't have any trouble from me unless you try to bring it over here.
 
Last edited:
However, you may give up on Eric concerning this issue, immediately - he is absolutely adamant in his rejection of the heterodox account and analysis of this event. No amount of evidence will be enough for him, and no number of arguments will dissuade him.

Well, so be it - it just means that his Will is such, while mine, and yours, are otherwise. You and me are also adamant on certain issues, aren't we? This won't change, and should simply be accepted.

Yes, Vortex, I tend to agree. Maybe I should simply have kept my ‘feelings’ around 9/11 to myself, but as it is such an important event and I can’t help my deeply held sense that their is something smelly about the official narrative, that I have to let people know where I stand when the topic is brought up.

As for being adamant about certain issues. With the Covid event and 9/11 I would say I’m adamant that I can’t believe the official line, but not adamant about very much more except certain personal things. For example that I would say there is definitely a real unwillingness to even question the vaccine as a possible cause of injuries with a lot more than just a few people, I know this from personal experience from family and close friends and others. My aunt and uncle have both developed problems, one heart related and the other can no longer read as she has some undiagnosed eye problem, both developed soon after having the jab. My Mum says both become highly animated if the vaccine question is even asked. That’s not rational Imo.

Something else that’s not rational is the way that certain words and events have become equally ‘unquestionable’, with people immediately jumping to conclusions and becoming angry or extremely defensive. Anti-semitism & the Holocaust are two such examples - this is not rational either. I think that we have been ‘trained‘ or conditioned to think (or not think!) a certain way when we hear these words.

In all three examples I think this has been achieved quite deliberately, through media and TV & films over decades of propaganda. All three have developed a sort of ‘religious‘ vibe, the sort that religious fanatics give out, where certain things are beyond questioning. The motivation behind these three examples differ. The vaccine case I think has been government driven at first, ending up largely driven by pharmaceutical companies advertising budgets. It has been extremely effective.

The latter two are much more complicated, but have been deliberately manufactured mainly by zionists, (Eric‘s eyes roll upward) possibly helped by others who found it in their interest to do so for various reasons. The complicated part is common to both anti-semitism/Holocaust and the so called vaccines. I generally see people on the left (in the Uk) as being most likely to fall for this propaganda trick. They like to see themselves as being the ‘good guys’ - and they often are! With many people in the medical profession being on the left side of politics, definitely nurses, most lawyers willing to work pro-bono are likely to vote Labour ( or were until recently). And of course many others in all lines of work.

They somehow lap up the media idea that vaccines are ‘necessary, safe & effective’ and rarely question the very deliberate rubbishing of Jeremy Corbyn as being an ‘anti-Semite‘ by the mainstream media, which helped to keep him from becoming PM (though he had other fatal flaws imo). Many Jews are currently being kicked out of the Labour Party because of the weaponising of the term ‘anti-semite’ - madness! And as for the holy Holocaust. I can never see any of my own family even beginning to question anything about that - it has definitely taken on a most divine aura. And it surely was something evil, a visit to the Holocaust area in London’s Imperial War Museum is surely enough to show us that. The tears that I cried there were not crocodile ones.

But was it really more evil than many other wartime events? And what about the other genocides of the 20th century? Mao, Stalin, The Congo? We rarely hear about them, most people know exactly the number associated with ‘the Holocaust’ but I bet a tiny fraction of us know the other numbers. (I just looked them up). Does no-one ask why this may be? It’s because the media is controlled by Jews, or people liable to be sympathetic to their ‘special case‘. Jews have the protection and the self-guilt of many by being constantly portrayed as victims, this is played on by the manipulators. Yet these same Jews are known for being highly successful, in spite of the odds being against them. Very many powerful areas of banking and business and other key, influential fields are frequently Jewish run.

Some may read this and be horrified by my ideas, and automatically label me as…guess what?

I think it’s high time we put a stop to this self censorship, which I think is often caused by subconscious programming and ‘guilt‘. I am a great fan of many, many Jews. People like Miko Peled, Norman Finkelstein, Miriam Margoyles, Bret Weinstein, Richard Feynman, Einstein etc,etc. The list is endless. If my all-round thinking around Jews makes me an anti-Semite in someone’s eyes then I can’t change that. What I find most frustrating is that with the few Jews I know personally, I am too afraid to talk to them about any of this as I think they may well become offended and any chance of hearing their opinions, and possibly changing mine, would end up lost, as well as the friendship. It’s the same thing when attempting to talk about vaccines with many other friends and acquaintances.

I never intended to write all that, but there it is. As for the rest of your post, I feel kind of sad about it in one way, but in another I tend to believe it’s all meant to be. Like Eric I do favour the idea of us as being much greater than it appears, when I get annoyed at people's posts I tend to think of their souls and the bigger picture.

If it was all hunky dory, friendly and ‘nice’ - our life would surely be less than it is, the highs and the lows go to making it as rich and colourful as possible - and if I could change it - I probably wouldn’t.
 
Last edited:
This Canadian doctor, who is pro-vaccine, clearly states that there is no logical reason to separate unvaccinated people from those who are vaccinated. He says the segragation is inappropriate because vaccinated people can still get covid and spread the infection. Segregation does not protect the most at risk people (the elderly and those with co-morbidities).


Yeah. I agree with him.
This is what happens when you're rational about a topic, and not one one side or another.
We need to stop falling into these binary holes and look at the facts of the case.
And stop calling each other names. That helps or informs no one.
J
 
Good observation and thanks for the reminder. The condescending tone in comment #171 set me off.

Also, I think you are a Canadian. No offense intended to the few of you that still have a mind and soul. Most Canadians I encounter are just beer soaked socialist drones begging for more government control of their lives and "bragging" about how wonderful it is.


Well, I don't drink. I certainly don't drink beer. I also don't smoke, and I don't do recreational drugs.
So, maybe we can drop the stereotypes and we'll all be much better for it.
After all, most Canadians think most Americans are racist, ignorant, barely able to tie their shoes, paranoid of any government- especially democratic ones- and love the taste of gun powder and mowing down their own populace because they are afraid of what consensus might say about their manhood.
But, I think that's an unjust stereotype too.
J
 
Well, I don't drink. I certainly don't drink beer. I also don't smoke, and I don't do recreational drugs.
So, maybe we can drop the stereotypes and we'll all be much better for it.
After all, most Canadians think most Americans are racist, ignorant, barely able to tie their shoes, paranoid of any government- especially democratic ones- and love the taste of gun powder and mowing down their own populace because they are afraid of what consensus might say about their manhood.
But, I think that's an unjust stereotype too.
J

Canada has shown just how wrong we can be, as we thought they would surely be anti-authoritarian.
 
This is the first time I've persevered to the end with RFK. It was worth it and I think his book would be too

I think a lot of reasonable people like RFKjr are ignored by ordinary people because they believe what they hear/read in the mainstream media - which is toxic imo. This rubbishing of certain individuals has been deliberate imo. So I would not automatically exclude many people from what I read/see in the media.
 
Canada has shown just how wrong we can be, as we thought they would surely be anti-authoritarian.
Why would you think Canadians would ignore science and authority?
While your "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" provides for one set of goals,
Canadians have "peace, order, and good government" as our values.
I think that will take us much further as there's no citizen requirement in the American value.
J
 
Why would you think Canadians would ignore science and authority?
While your "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" provides for one set of goals,
Canadians have "peace, order, and good government" as our values.
I think that will take us much further as there's no citizen requirement in the American value.
J

Where did I mention the USA? I’m in the UK, and no fan of ‘God, Queen & country’, at least not all three.

The impression I had of Canadian’s was that they were good, honest, decent people. Now I think of ‘them’ (far from all of course) as being far from that, in fact, though they are still that. It’s a perplexing one.

Good government? Do such things exist? And what price will be paid for the other two?
 
Why would anyone have a generic impression of people based on where they live? Sounds weird to me.
Canadians are no different than anyone else. There are good and bad people.
I'm not a royalist either.
And yes of course good government exists. Just like bad government exists. There are many examples of good governance.
The fact that we created a healthcare system where the people don't pay through the nose alone is a perfect example of that.
And I don't know. How do you have an effective society if you don't have peace and order?
Seems like a paradox you're offering.
J
 
Why would anyone have a generic impression of people based on where they live? Sounds weird to me.
Canadians are no different than anyone else. There are good and bad people.
I'm not a royalist either.
And yes of course good government exists. Just like bad government exists. There are many examples of good governance.
The fact that we created a healthcare system where the people don't pay through the nose alone is a perfect example of that.
And I don't know. How do you have an effective society if you don't have peace and order?
Seems like a paradox you're offering.
J
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." and, I would add, will get neither.

There has never been a "good" government that lasted more than a few decades. Power corrupts. That is the history of the world and humanity. It's the story of the human soul - and governments are brought down via war from external sources/invasion, civil war, insurrection, or just fade away, but always the root cause is corruption.

Anyone thinking there can be something otherwise is a simpering coward or a utopian dreamer - or an agent of the government spewing propaganda. Human nature will not change.
 
That's an American argument for American values, and one that doesn't make sense even in that context.
So, the forefathers of America were asking for Nihilism? Of course not. They were so authoritarian they didn't believe in a straight democracy.
J
 
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." and, I would add, will get neither.

There has never been a "good" government that lasted more than a few decades. Power corrupts. That is the history of the world and humanity. It's the story of the human soul - and governments are brought down via war from external sources/invasion, civil war, insurrection, or just fade away, but always the root cause is corruption.

Anyone thinking there can be something otherwise is a simpering coward or a utopian dreamer - or an agent of the government spewing propaganda. Human nature will not change.

As for power corrupts.
Of course it does.
That is an argument for strong government oversight. Not the argument that good government is impossible.
J
 
That's an American argument for American values, and one that doesn't make sense even in that context.
So, the forefathers of America were asking for Nihilism? Of course not. They were so authoritarian they didn't believe in a straight democracy.
J
Your knowledge of the topic is both deficient and perverted, what I would expect from a Canadian willing subject of big government.

The US founders were deeply suspicious of government and stated as much many many times. They saw government as a necessary evil and, to keep the evil in check, wanted it to remain as small as possible. They even recommended throwing the entire govt all out of office from time to time, by force if necessary. The 2 amendment (guns) is specifically so we can kill the government if it becomes too tyrannical. That is a fact and it is also in writing in many places in the exchanges and notes of the founders. The freedom and emphasis of the individual is paramount in the US.

You people, on the other hand, are from a long line of subjects- and you act like it. Why I would take the opinion of government subjects in a puny country like yours as serious, escaped me entirely. There are at least 70 million like me in the US. We're armed. Go ahead and try to take our freedom. The good thing about liberals is they're punks and not armed. Easy pickings.
 
Your knowledge of the topic is both deficient and perverted, what I would expect from a Canadian willing subject of big government.

The US founders were deeply suspicious of government and stated as much many many times. They saw government as a necessary evil and, to keep the evil in check, wanted it to remain as small as possible. They even recommended throwing the entire govt all out of office from time to time, by force if necessary. The 2 amendment (guns) is specifically so we can kill the government if it becomes too tyrannical. That is a fact and it is also in writing in many places in the exchanges and notes of the founders. The freedom and emphasis of the individual is paramount in the US.

You people, on the other hand, are from a long line of subjects- and you act like it. Why I would take the opinion of government subjects in a puny country like yours as serious, escaped me entirely. There are at least 70 million like me in the US. We're armed. Go ahead and try to take our freedom. The good thing about liberals is they're punks and not armed. Easy pickings.

Please do me the very big favour of NOT telling me how I feel and what I think? It's a very authoritarian way of communicating.
You do not understand what I believe until I tell you in my own words. People are individuals. We certainly have societal tendencies, but that
doesn't mean we all walk lock-step together.

The argument that the American forefathers were suspicious of government is a beautiful fiction.
They never intended the unwashed masses to rule themselves. That much is true.
The American forefathers created very structured Republican governmental systems. If they were truly suspicious of government, they would have never given the President the power that he has. In Canada, there's no way a Prime Minister could declare war OR "police actions" in other nations on their own. For a government that wanted to be as "small as possible," they have a much larger government than most social democracies. America spends MUCH more money on social programs than Canada does per capita. The difference is they give it to massive corporations- corporate socialism.

The 2nd Amendment gun argument was all good when you have several thousands of people in the 17th century. Fast forward to even the
20th century, and such an amendment is a joke.
If you don't believe me. Ask how David Koresh did.
Do you HONESTLY think that the greatest military the world has ever seen with weapons that can kill you from remote drones without you even knowing will be defeated by a gang of people shooting their AK-47's from their Durango trucks?
Seriously?
There is zero chance that guns will stop a government that has decided to take over its citizenry.
Which is why GOOD GOVERNMENT as a requirement would be a smarter decision than hoping that guns will kill all the people you hate.
Instead, what you get is more people dying who are regular citizens because of ridiculous numbers of guns.
In fact, multiple studies show that the average American is more likely to kill themselves or their families than even bad guys let alone a corrupt
government.

I do not come from a long line of subjects thank you very much. Canadians by majority don't care about royalty or the Queen or her family.
You're thinking of my grandmother's generation.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-monarchy-polls-1.5952013

Happy to help correct your misinformation about Canadians :)
J
 
Back
Top