There is nothing to say that has not already been said. There is nothing to do that has not already been done. There is nothing to see that hasn't already been seen. And yet, here we are. Thank you for your tireless effort towards waking up a coma-induced world!
When laypeople hear of a decision by the ‘World Health Organization’, they might imagine it’s a grand consensus of hundreds of physicians and scientists gathered at a special WHO meeting. I’m not comfortable with even all 15 physicians on that little panel making decisions for the entire world, much less one Tedros having special revelation. It’s truly oligarchical , especially as what used to be mere guidelines are now increasingly taken as mandates that overrule and compel local physicians.
Hi Dr. Ma-Lion/ess! The hubris, greed and depravity of the pharmaceutical-medical-industrial complex is without end . Humans don't have much self awareness about their deeply flawed natures.
Pharma et al in dedicated to jabbing every human on planet earth with poison. This time it is called cov2 blah blah blah. Last time it was Gardasil, hundreds of thousands of fertile young humans were irretrievably rendered sterile, immuno-compromised, or dead. Before that it was MMR and generations of autistic young boys. Before that the real big killer was to deal with AIDS, AZT. Among the AZT murdered were among the greatest (tortured) talent in the nation. It isn't that THIS vaccine alone is bad-they ALL are more harmful than helpful.
If your cook poisoned your lunch, why would you trust him with your dinner?
I'm not sure Hannah Arendt is correct when she is talking about the banality of evil.
What the argument revolves around is the word "think" or "thinking." It's a bit vague. As it happens, I'm interested in stories, consequently in characters, and their mental dynamics. I've found it's convenient to divide the mind into four parts: the visceral, the emotional, the rational, and the spiritual. That's probably an oversimplification from the point of view of specialists in psychiatry or neurophysiology, but it works well as a starting point when examining stories and characters. The first three -- visceral, emotional, and rational -- are properties of brain function. But the fourth isn't. Nowadays considerations of the spiritual aspect of mind have gone out of fashion, owing to the influence of Enlightenment Philosophy and its concern with rationality. But we might do well to maintain focus on it, if possible, especially since various well-thought-of authors, such as Shakespeare, Tolstoy, and Tolkien, have concerned themselves with it when devising their stories.
From their point of view -- what C.S. Lewis once termed the "discarded image" -- the spiritual is the more significant. Moreover the lower levels can operate more or less independently of it. So for example we might have a character who can "think" at a high degree of activity or competency on the level of reason, and nevertheless be evil: "He is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety in the scales of his malice" as someone once put it.
If we go back and review the writings of, say, St. Thomas Aquinas, we might find a more detailed analysis of what is really going on. It boils down to the opposition between sin and virtue. Everyone is at least passingly familiar with the Seven Deadly sins, for instance, but what is not often remembered is that each has a corresponding virtue. And if we really want to be technical we can go back to Hildegard von Bingen (twelfth century), who devised a list of 35 sin/virtue pairs (reminds one of DNA). From this standpoint what is happening, in certain people, is not the result of incompetency in the sphere of rational thought, but rather a wrong orientation of the will. And there is such a thing as the Theory of the Progression of Evil, too, unfortunately (perhaps well exemplified in Macbeth, among other works). That's what we're dealing with here, and what we have always been dealing with. What did Tolstoy say about it, it was something like, "The whole history of pagan times is nothing but a recital of the incidents and means by which the more wicked gained possession of power over the less wicked and maintained it by cruelties and deceptions, ruling over the good under the pretense of guarding the right and protecting the good from the wicked."
St. Thomas Aquinas was the intellectual giant of his time, and the observations of greed, glutony, pride etc...as a manifestation of imbalance and disorderly character is priceless.
I would like to see the opinion of homicide detectives and experts on serial killers regarding Hanna Arendt's banality of evil theory.
But what never seems to be considered is how did the wicked gain that power in the first place? From my admitted low level of historoical knowledge, I got the impression that feudalism arose by agrarian people ceding to those more violently inclined their defense from marauders. They paid them off and ultimately found themselves in the position of being under their protectors thumbs. In other words, acquiescence by the "good" to the "evil'". And we are seeing that same sort of acquiescence in force today
For what I know, part of the process that created Feudalism in Europe was the arrival of warrior-like groups of foreigners (Germanic tribes after the Roman Empire colapse) that created a cast system putting them on top of the food chain.
The land and native peoples were divided in fiefdoms which the conqueror elites divided among themselves.
The feudal lords did protect the land and serfs living there from raids and incursions by neighboring feudal lords, marauders or a new wave of invading armies.
The Germanic tribes were themselves pushed Westwards over the Roman Empire by invading Huns... and round and round we go.
There was also no COVID-19 pandemic. A lot of people got sick in Northern Italy and New York City in 2020, but we don't know what they had. The COVID-19 test is a fraud, so they may have had coronavirus SARS COV2 or they may not have. We simply have no idea. Same with everyone else subsequently diagnosed with "COVID-19". All could have SARS COV2 infections, none, or anywhere in between. There is no evidence that can be brought to bear that would prove or disprove any of these possibilities. It is all fine and well to say, that's highly unlikely, or that is an absurd idea! So was heliocentrism when it was first proposed. So was Semmelweis' notion of contagion of delivering women by medical professionals. So was the notion that HIV isn't the cause of AIDS. Many "ridiculous" ideas find subsequent support from science. There was a pandemic of fear. There was a pandemic of vaccine induced illness. But there is simply no proof there was a pandemic of SARS COV2 -- hence Iain Davis's reframe "pseudo pandemic".
The only good coming from this entire fiasco...many are waking up to the truth...that there are no real vaccines, period. There are only money making products marketed by the drug industry with lies as to their effectiveness. if people had been taught to question in our educational system and not accept everything being taught verbatim, we would not be in the mess we are today.
Does the lack of efficacy of the Monkeypox vaccine cast doubt on the "foundational vaccine narrative" that the WHO's smallpox vaccine eliminated smallpox?
I believe if we continue to look close enough at all of the microscopic “stuff” of which we are all composed, those with an agenda will surely find something else with which to scare us! Ludicrous!
I’ve noticed that these agencies tend to experiment on the very populations they purport to support and defend.
roger that
Well I wasn't pointing to China or anything in the US.
My word! So appreciate your brilliance around this and other junk swirling around us. Above all, thank you. Just saw this from Epoch Times. https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/the-first-choice-natural-alternative-to-ivermectin-expert_5151952.html?utm_source=Ccpv&src_src=Ccpv&utm_campaign=2023-04-07&src_cmp=2023-04-07&utm_medium=email&est=Xcye2aRXMqHmZv8o3Fkf7e2WcKCc7lr9zgBcCn%2FE2zWhJS5jLVGau4%2BS0cBQIjEhBk0%3D The study is linked within the article. We have high hopes it is an equivalent to IVM because many of us still have no access to it. Thank you and Dr. Jill for your perseverance. I cannot imagine it. Prayers always
Indeed!
To summarize, “Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”
― George Orwell, 1984
There is nothing to say that has not already been said. There is nothing to do that has not already been done. There is nothing to see that hasn't already been seen. And yet, here we are. Thank you for your tireless effort towards waking up a coma-induced world!
What's the point in having a panel of experts if your plan is to choose a specific, desired outcome from the start?
amen, shouts the choir
When laypeople hear of a decision by the ‘World Health Organization’, they might imagine it’s a grand consensus of hundreds of physicians and scientists gathered at a special WHO meeting. I’m not comfortable with even all 15 physicians on that little panel making decisions for the entire world, much less one Tedros having special revelation. It’s truly oligarchical , especially as what used to be mere guidelines are now increasingly taken as mandates that overrule and compel local physicians.
Thank you for paying attention, James Flynn!
Ever notice that it's always referred to as a "SELECT" panel of the finest individuals.
Maybe your first clue about accuracy, as on par with "TRUTH" in lending by Banks!
Talk about being put through a daily intelligence test post the year 2020. Yikes!
Time to improve our mind/eyesight to that same measure. 20/20!
If Eric Ding has not received at least 5 covid shots by now, he needs to be encouraged to get up to date.
Hi Dr. Ma-Lion/ess! The hubris, greed and depravity of the pharmaceutical-medical-industrial complex is without end . Humans don't have much self awareness about their deeply flawed natures.
"And their evil actions often stem from..."
How about ...greed?
In some cases I suspect it is pure sadism.
Excellent stack Doc! 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
Pharma et al in dedicated to jabbing every human on planet earth with poison. This time it is called cov2 blah blah blah. Last time it was Gardasil, hundreds of thousands of fertile young humans were irretrievably rendered sterile, immuno-compromised, or dead. Before that it was MMR and generations of autistic young boys. Before that the real big killer was to deal with AIDS, AZT. Among the AZT murdered were among the greatest (tortured) talent in the nation. It isn't that THIS vaccine alone is bad-they ALL are more harmful than helpful.
If your cook poisoned your lunch, why would you trust him with your dinner?
I'm not sure Hannah Arendt is correct when she is talking about the banality of evil.
What the argument revolves around is the word "think" or "thinking." It's a bit vague. As it happens, I'm interested in stories, consequently in characters, and their mental dynamics. I've found it's convenient to divide the mind into four parts: the visceral, the emotional, the rational, and the spiritual. That's probably an oversimplification from the point of view of specialists in psychiatry or neurophysiology, but it works well as a starting point when examining stories and characters. The first three -- visceral, emotional, and rational -- are properties of brain function. But the fourth isn't. Nowadays considerations of the spiritual aspect of mind have gone out of fashion, owing to the influence of Enlightenment Philosophy and its concern with rationality. But we might do well to maintain focus on it, if possible, especially since various well-thought-of authors, such as Shakespeare, Tolstoy, and Tolkien, have concerned themselves with it when devising their stories.
From their point of view -- what C.S. Lewis once termed the "discarded image" -- the spiritual is the more significant. Moreover the lower levels can operate more or less independently of it. So for example we might have a character who can "think" at a high degree of activity or competency on the level of reason, and nevertheless be evil: "He is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety in the scales of his malice" as someone once put it.
If we go back and review the writings of, say, St. Thomas Aquinas, we might find a more detailed analysis of what is really going on. It boils down to the opposition between sin and virtue. Everyone is at least passingly familiar with the Seven Deadly sins, for instance, but what is not often remembered is that each has a corresponding virtue. And if we really want to be technical we can go back to Hildegard von Bingen (twelfth century), who devised a list of 35 sin/virtue pairs (reminds one of DNA). From this standpoint what is happening, in certain people, is not the result of incompetency in the sphere of rational thought, but rather a wrong orientation of the will. And there is such a thing as the Theory of the Progression of Evil, too, unfortunately (perhaps well exemplified in Macbeth, among other works). That's what we're dealing with here, and what we have always been dealing with. What did Tolstoy say about it, it was something like, "The whole history of pagan times is nothing but a recital of the incidents and means by which the more wicked gained possession of power over the less wicked and maintained it by cruelties and deceptions, ruling over the good under the pretense of guarding the right and protecting the good from the wicked."
St. Thomas Aquinas was the intellectual giant of his time, and the observations of greed, glutony, pride etc...as a manifestation of imbalance and disorderly character is priceless.
I would like to see the opinion of homicide detectives and experts on serial killers regarding Hanna Arendt's banality of evil theory.
But what never seems to be considered is how did the wicked gain that power in the first place? From my admitted low level of historoical knowledge, I got the impression that feudalism arose by agrarian people ceding to those more violently inclined their defense from marauders. They paid them off and ultimately found themselves in the position of being under their protectors thumbs. In other words, acquiescence by the "good" to the "evil'". And we are seeing that same sort of acquiescence in force today
For what I know, part of the process that created Feudalism in Europe was the arrival of warrior-like groups of foreigners (Germanic tribes after the Roman Empire colapse) that created a cast system putting them on top of the food chain.
The land and native peoples were divided in fiefdoms which the conqueror elites divided among themselves.
The feudal lords did protect the land and serfs living there from raids and incursions by neighboring feudal lords, marauders or a new wave of invading armies.
The Germanic tribes were themselves pushed Westwards over the Roman Empire by invading Huns... and round and round we go.
It is amazing to finally draw back the veil behind which history has been relegated to see how damn smart our ancestors were.
Of course, perhaps asking people to temper and moderate their promiscuity is off the table. Silly me.
But "Dr. Eric Feigel-Ding????" Seriously????
The push to continue the fear factor to control your mental atitude towards medicine continues without abatement! https://thomasabraunrph.substack.com/p/battle-for-your-brain
There was also no COVID-19 pandemic. A lot of people got sick in Northern Italy and New York City in 2020, but we don't know what they had. The COVID-19 test is a fraud, so they may have had coronavirus SARS COV2 or they may not have. We simply have no idea. Same with everyone else subsequently diagnosed with "COVID-19". All could have SARS COV2 infections, none, or anywhere in between. There is no evidence that can be brought to bear that would prove or disprove any of these possibilities. It is all fine and well to say, that's highly unlikely, or that is an absurd idea! So was heliocentrism when it was first proposed. So was Semmelweis' notion of contagion of delivering women by medical professionals. So was the notion that HIV isn't the cause of AIDS. Many "ridiculous" ideas find subsequent support from science. There was a pandemic of fear. There was a pandemic of vaccine induced illness. But there is simply no proof there was a pandemic of SARS COV2 -- hence Iain Davis's reframe "pseudo pandemic".
The only good coming from this entire fiasco...many are waking up to the truth...that there are no real vaccines, period. There are only money making products marketed by the drug industry with lies as to their effectiveness. if people had been taught to question in our educational system and not accept everything being taught verbatim, we would not be in the mess we are today.
Does the lack of efficacy of the Monkeypox vaccine cast doubt on the "foundational vaccine narrative" that the WHO's smallpox vaccine eliminated smallpox?
I believe if we continue to look close enough at all of the microscopic “stuff” of which we are all composed, those with an agenda will surely find something else with which to scare us! Ludicrous!