A Few Words On Censorship

quietvoice wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote:
or is it all part of a big act, put on to fool the masses.

BINGO!!!

Unless you get through your head that this is a genocidal program in implementation, you will continue to be confused.

"Political "leaders"" are puppets in this implementation of the genocidal program.[/quote

Who are the masterminds in all this and what is their motive?

tokeless wrote:Who are the masterminds in all this and what is their motive?

Why do you ask? You aren't going to do anything but dis whatever I tell you. Do your own research. I refuse to do it for you.

quietvoice wrote:

tokeless wrote:Who are the masterminds in all this and what is their motive?

Why do you ask? You aren't going to do anything but dis whatever I tell you. Do your own research. I refuse to do it for you.

I'm not dissing anyone, so rein in your growing paranoia. You are stating that we are being effectively culled by forces making us have vaccines that aren't to help us but reduce the population. I'm asking why and who... you don't tell me, you just offer more conspiracy without substance. If you know share it, that's how knowledge is spread surely? I mean I have a vested interest seeing as I've been dumb enough or fooled in to having it.. back it up qv.

What is worrying is the absence of real books or plain basic observation and context on those popular conspiracy sites. At least that's my view.

David, there is plenty of research out there, seminars and academic papers that raise serious questions about 9/11. You believe in a God that has no evidence for his existence, yet you doubt events with a huge amount as paranoia and conspiracy.

tokeless wrote: I mean I have a vested interest . . . .

Having a vested interest would not spur you to do your own research?

quietvoice wrote:

tokeless wrote: I mean I have a vested interest . . . .

Having a vested interest would not spur you to do your own research?

I have actually read the research and the various clinical trials and I did this a critical eye. I came to the conclusion that it was as safe as any other vaccine and trust me I am known for my distrust of government and authority generally. This leads to your question... I would need to look at stuff that questioned my own opinion which was based on researching it. Unless I look at conspiracy sites I will see that it's safe and I feel I made the right decision. If I'm wrong and i am a chosen to cull victim, I'd be pissed if I could have a say post mortem, but too late. No one leaves here alive.

tokeless wrote:What is worrying is the absence of real books or plain basic observation and context on those popular conspiracy sites. At least that's my view.

David, there is plenty of research out there, seminars and academic papers that raise serious questions about 9/11. You believe in a God that has no evidence for his existence, yet you doubt events with a huge amount as paranoia and conspiracy.

Now there's a hint at the Da Vinci Code! Very recently I glanced at the Gospel Of Thomas and what you see is a very different Jesus to Orthodoxy. Very mystical and Zenist. Similar to Socrates, I thought. I don't see this as plain Conspiracy, however. My good guess is we got a Christianity that differs from the very wide-ranging beliefs of early Christians. We only got Orthodoxy under Constantine of Rome but, in my view, there was no plan, trickery or conspiracy to rob us of real Christianity. It just happened. The Roman State wanted to outline a whole creed of belief so the coptic texts were rejected (and hidden by Christians).

The population control idea is maybe possible but highly improbable. One of Putin's primary goals has been to increase population after a surge in mortalities after the fall of the USSR. All of that down to poor nutrition in the 1990s and alcohol.
Are we to believe a group of representatives arrived in Moscow, pointed out the dangers of climate change and persuaded him to poison the remaining Russian population with a toxic vaccine? I mean, forget the free condoms and let's join the depopulation program! Credible?
Far more probable to me seems to be the case a virus arrived on the scene that represents a danger to very vulnerable people. Panic and Paranoia then set in. The risky virus suddenly becomes hyped up as a sure killer. Massive mistakes are made on a level that could surpass the cobble produced in Iraq and Afghanistan. In acts of total folly, children are vaccinated with something that simply hasn't been tested properly. As with Afghanistan, time will judge how rash politicians have acted.
Given I oppose any type of mass hysteria, I assumed the larger forums were recruiting liberal, cautious people who were keen to counter foolhardy policy. Instead, I found hollocaust deniers who seem to think free-speech only applies to themselves. On all sides, scapegoating was the option they chose. If those people ever got elected, I dare say it would be a jump from hysteria to a kind of Taliban. Any attempt to challenge their view and your content just disappears. To put it all down to Israel, of course, makes someone very welcome. Kind of disappointing, to put it mildly.

I think another slightly more contentious view is that 'man', as the primary species is trying to control nature. What I mean is viruses exist and spread through which ever host it is linked to. They are part of natural regulation as they target vulnerable or older species and kill them. It's natures way of keeping the population strong. We, as a civilised species can't allow nature to rule over us or we would be just like other animals. Flu kills every year and we have a vaccine... we don't hear much about it. The covid 19 is a global phenomenon and that makes it different to manage... but the principles the same... we have to preserve life, we can't play God with peoples lives.... I accept death, it's inevitable so if it comes, it comes. Added to this, the global and not local situation fits with conspiracy. If this had stayed in Wuhan we wouldn't be talking about it longer than a week.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0CiTiP9DX1I

Conspiracy was satirised in King Of The Hill.

tokeless wrote: I would need to look at stuff that questioned my own opinion which was based on researching it. Unless I look at conspiracy sites I will see that it's safe and I feel I made the right decision. If I'm wrong and i am a chosen to cull victim, I'd be pissed if I could have a say post mortem, but too late. No one leaves here alive.

Unless you look in places that aren't controlled by the mainstream narrative, you will only get the mainstream official narrative.

To find the ideological roots in health matters as seen manifested today:
Germ Theory vs Terrain Theory.
You won't find that in official mainstream sources.

To find the ideological roots of freedom, you'll have to go "off mainstream".
To find the ideological roots of baphomet, you'll have to go "off mainstream".
To find information about what you are asking, you'll have to go "off mainstream".

The conspiracy theories I encountered get all their information off links to pages. It's not proper source material. You can see this with Asperger Syndrome and its comparison to what they call Geek Syndrome. Modern views simply don't tie in with the source texts. I recently found a source for Einstein's comments on autism and, going by that, he refuted any conception he himself was autistic. Einstein would have probably laughed at the idea people today were referring to him as "an aspie". Even Dr Dean Falk published a book about Asperger's called "Geek Syndrome". It all shows how peer influence and lack of attention to sources distorts perception. The reason I'm not popular in my research is I use tested sources, written by highly qualified doctors. I could easily latch onto the neurodiversity cult movement but always fact seems to me the only way to do science. People don't want to hear Einstein didn't have autism because it's not desired information.

davidbanner99@ wrote: The reason I'm not popular in my research is I use tested sources, written by highly qualified doctors.

Qualified doctors. Qualified by whom?

Qualified by a corrupt system. Qualified by a system that keeps many secrets. Secrets that are not allowed to be talked about in polite company.

quietvoice wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote: The reason I'm not popular in my research is I use tested sources, written by highly qualified doctors.

Qualified doctors. Qualified by whom?

Qualified by a corrupt system. Qualified by a system that keeps many secrets. Secrets that are not allowed to be talked about in polite company.

Wow, you are seriously paranoid if you actually believe your doctor or any doctor is part of your conspiracy. Do you think your own doctor is in on it? Listen to yourself and ask who isn't in on it. You seriously are deluded and you have lost the ability to see fact from fiction. The media don't create doctors, they create news and they are two completely different things.

quietvoice wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote: The reason I'm not popular in my research is I use tested sources, written by highly qualified doctors.

Qualified doctors. Qualified by whom?

Qualified by a corrupt system. Qualified by a system that keeps many secrets. Secrets that are not allowed to be talked about in polite company.

The geneticists and psychiatrists of the 1920s, up to the 1940s prepared very detailed notes. The discovery by Kretschmer on body type and character has been proven to be correct, for example. Whole family lines were also researched to find genetic factors. Which genes were recessive, and so forth. Hormonal studies and analysis of the brain. As Asperger himself stated, knowledge can only be gained by considering what has been passed down.
Contrary to this I noticed a kind of religious approach where hard data is ignored and generally accepted concepts are repeated at face value. However, most of it lacks any source. Science demands quotes to show what someone claimed and why you agree. Or disagree. Often the pioneer researchers did disagree but they quoted each other and made clear arguments. Myself I don't agree with Van Krevelen but I quote from and study his essays, as often he shows other insight.
I noticed the trendy approach to psychiatry these days is to try and explain everything through biology and neurology alone. This ignores the impact of so-called exogenic stress factors that interact with hormonal activity in multiple ways.
To be honest, to really try and understand aspects of Clinical Psychology I suspect current educational methods could be a disadvantage. That's just my view but it influenced me not to trust the people behind these vaccines. So, partly I agree with you except in the 1940s psychology had some awesome researchers.