Sky News Australia discuss the WHO’s drive to a global pandemic treaty and correctly recognise that this is a crucial world government building block. A path towards a new Tower of Babel. They also correctly recognise the fact that the pattern resembles the discussion on climate change. It’s not left vs. right but authoritarianism vs. freedom. The collective “greater good” vs. individualism. (6 min)
Peer-Reviewed Study Confirms Fatal Flaw in PCR Testing
42% False Discovery Rate for SARS-CoV-2 nonQ-RT-PCR Test. This means COVID-19 Vaccine Outcomes Rate Data are Unreliable and Invalid
Far-left extremism linked to narcissism: study
From the “Postmillennial”:
A study out of the University of Bern in Switzerland has revealed that those who partake in far-left activism are more likely to exhibit narcissistic personality traits and psychopathic tendencies.
Researchers Alex Bertrams and Ann Krispenz found that many activists do not believe in what they purport to stand for, and are simply using the cause to prop up their own perceived moral superiority and social standing.
In an interview with PsyPost, Bertrams and Krispenz explain that narcissists are drawn to endorsing left-wing antihierarchical aggression via the dark-ego-vehicle principle, which arues that activism can be used “as a vehicle to satisfy their own ego-focused needs instead of actually aiming at social justice and equality.”
“In particular,” they argued, “certain forms of activism might provide them with opportunities for positive self-presentation and displays of moral superiority, to gain social status, to dominate others, and to engage in social conflicts and aggression to satisfy their need for thrill seeking.”
They made sure to note that, “involvement in (violent) political activism is not solely attributable to political orientation but rather to personality traits manifesting in individuals on the (radical) left and right of the political spectrum.” Essentially, narcissists tend to gravitate towards whichever side “seems to be more opportune to them given a specific situation.”
Bertrams and Krispenz lamented the fact that while there has been exhaustive research into right-wing authoritarianism, literature on their left-wing counterparts is lacking.
The pair have completed a number of studies on left-wing activism, including one which argued that those who took part in LGBTQ protests were more likely to exhibit pathological narcissism, which can be described as “an exaggerated sense of uniqueness, immodesty, and a desire for high praise by others.”
They pointed out that “exploitativeness (e.g., ‘I can make anyone believe anything I want them to’)” was a major draw, as it could give participants a feeling of superiority.
If You Get More Doses, You Put Others at Higher Risk
The Cleveland Clinic Study is Now Published as Peer Reviewed Science
Writes James Lyons-Weiler:
Finally, after peer review, the Cleveland clinic study that report that “The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19” has been properly published.
“Risk of COVID-19… increased with time since most recent prior COVID-19 episode and with the number of vaccine doses previously received.’
In the Great Default, What Will Happen to Local Churches?
Like the Curious Bride in “Bluebeard”
Investigating the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex leads inexorably to a place of horror.
Dr. Peter McCullough, MD, MPH says he has found strong indicators of “eminent Scripps Institute virologist, Kristian Andersen”, changing his tune on the possibility of the Covid virus having been engineered. On 31st January 2020 he still thought parts of the genome “(potentially) look engineered”. Then, on 4th February 2020, “shortly after a phone conference with Dr. Fauci and others—Dr. Andersen completely changed his tune. By then, the decision had been to submit a letter to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2.”
For more than a year thereafter, anyone suggesting an artificial, lab-engineered source of the virus was vilified mercilessly in the press. Then suddenly and strangely, it became an allowed opinion. Despite however the enormity of this suggestion, the media are strangely silent about it.
What on earth could inspire a virologist to adopt a posture of such Machiavellian duplicity about an infectious agent that—as he well knew—was about to inflict a catastrophe on all of mankind? He had to have known that such pronouncements—coming from a virologist of his eminence—would likely retard a thorough and impartial investigation of the virus’s origin.
Contemplating this question this evening, I thought Bluebeard’s young bride when she discovers the chamber of horrors in her husband’s castle. I suspect that Tess Lawrie felt the same way in her encounter with Dr. Andrew Hill, which she recounted in the short documentary film Dear Andy.
I have blogged about that documentary film here.
Propaganda Restricts Speech More Than Censorship Does
Writes Caitlin Johnstone:
The biggest impediment to free speech is people’s belief that they have it. Not censorship. Not refusal to platform critical voices. Not the war on journalism. It’s the fact that most people are propagandized into saying what the powerful want them to say, and don’t know it.
What makes our dilemma so historically unique is that we live under an empire which makes extensive use of the post-Bernays science of mass-scale psychological manipulation to trick its subjects into believing that they are thinking, speaking, and gathering information freely. In this way our rulers suppress any revolution long before it starts, not by making people’s lives better, nor by violent repression, but by manipulating people into thinking there’s nothing to revolt against, because they have no rulers and they are already free.
[. . .]
This problem can be addressed simply by bringing awareness to it in every way we can. Manipulation only works if you don’t know it’s happening, so drawing attention to it and describing how it happens in as many ways as possible helps people start seeing through it.
The Proper Attitude Towards Truth
It exists, but is never fully knowable by humans
The Christian, or at least Christian-based attitude towards truth is that an objective truth exists, but is never fully knowable. Not by humans, that is. Only God knows the whole truth. However, truth is approachable. We can come close to it – or move away from it. We are called by God to come as close to it as we possibly can. As we say during baptism: “With the help of God, we will.”
Part of the age-old struggle against Christianity is to call this stance into question. It can be done in two ways. One is to insist that the objective truth is out there AND that it is knowable by humans. This is the enlightenment or “modern” stance. (The – usually unspoken – implication is that those who know the truth automatically have the right to rule over those who don’t – and be it only for benevolently guiding and protecting the latter.)
The other way to negate the Christian theory of truth is to deny the existence of an objective truth altogether. This is the “post-modern” stance. Ironically, this theory leads necessarily and immediately to the proclamation of an ostensible, incontrovertible “truth”, namely that there is only one driving force in society, and that is the will to power. (Everything else, including the Christian claim, is a clever ruse to cover up this will to power.)
Interestingly, the “modern” and “postmodern” stances complement each other: If there is no truth but power, then those who “know the truth”, i.e. “have the power”, have the right to use it no matter what.
Did anyone say “satanic”?
I was prompted to write the above after reading this. Thierry Breton, an EU commissioner, who unironically calls himself “the enforcer”, is going to the US to tell Big Tech companies to “join the [EU] code of practice on disinformation”. The author of the above linked article comments:
And who gets to decide the truth? Hunter Biden? Joe Biden? Dr. Anthony Fauci? Hillary Clinton and her totally discredited Russia campaign? I guess the answer of the day is Thierry Breton. As “The Enforcer”, he is apparently in a unique position to understand the truth about everything.
When Pilate asked the famous question: “What is truth?” (John 18:38), Jesus chose not to answer the man of power.
Not to worry: We now have Thierry Breton.
Something smells of sulphur.
Countries with high Covid vaccine hesitancy. What were the outcomes?
The example of Papua-New Guinea
Very interesting video (17 min). Vaccine uptake was some 4 % (!), but they had very few Covid deaths. They were also, in a separate health program, taking Ivermectin at the time …
They are going after your kids
Insidious propaganda from the BBC
The BBC is incentivising children to break the commandment tohonour father and mother.
Writes Eric Meder in his newsletter of today:
The worst type of manipulation is one that targets children. And that is the kind of manipulation that Big Tech companies and the Government are doing. Recently, the BBC released an article called “Earth Day: How to talk to your parents about climate change”
[See here, remove gap: www.bbc. co.uk/news/science-environment-65339214?ck_subscriber_id=1916028067]
The start of the article says “You want to go vegan to help the planet, but you’re not paying for the shopping. You think trains are better than planes, but your dad books the summer holiday. Young people are some of the world’s most powerful climate leaders and want rapid action to tackle the problem.”
This is very manipulative writing. It’s using phrases like “you want” to put the reader in a position that they might not even be in. Then, they reinforce it by trying to be relatable.
It’s easy to read something like this when you are young and identify with it. Because they are writing it in a specific way. A self-righteous way. They are telling the children that it’s their DUTY to educate their parents.
This makes the children think that they have a responsibility. And they reinforce that responsibility with social pressure.
In the article they talk about three different points, How to talk about going meat-free, How to talk about flying less, and How to talk about being waste free.
Throughout the article they ask young kids/adults for advice on how they can talk to (or manipulate) their parents into following these agendas.
So, let’s take a look at these three different points and the advice that BBC is giving out to children in talking to their parents.
In the first point, How to talk about going meat-free, they talk about Ilse, who at 13 years old did research about climate change and read that cutting out red meat was a good start.
Because of this information she decided to go vegetarian. Her parents admitted that at first it was a burden, but they adapted and started cooking only vegetarian meals even though they all miss the flavor of meat.
Then in the second point, How to talk about flying less, a 21 year old named Phoebe convinced her family to go somewhere by train instead of flying abroad. Phoebe’s advice to children is ”Say something like, ‘I’m really scared about my future, these are the reason I want to do something’,”
That’s not great advice, in fact it sounds like borderline fear tactics or emotional blackmail.
Finally, in the third point, How to talk about being waste-free, in this section a 20 year old named Becky convinced her family to be waste free. She said that you need to be well-informed to show your family you have done your research.
And after that, she says you should do things like “explain why it will make their lives easier or cheaper,” and “Make connections with things they care about.”.
I was shocked when I read this article. It is a blatant attempt to manipulate children.
They even mentioned a UK based campaign called ‘Teach the Parent’ in the article.
It’s shameless to go after the youth for spreading an agenda, especially this deceptively. Members of the youth have a key role, and that is to learn, not teach.
And as adults, you have an important role as well. And that role is to teach. And part of teaching is understanding.
You have to understand that the youth of today is being manipulated.
So, when you hear them preaching, and you hear them feeling self-righteous, remember it is because of manipulation. And instead of getting angry at them, we need to retaliate with calm education.
If we get angry at the younger generation for being this way, it will only add fuel to their fire.
If you have kids, I recommend that you keep a close eye on what they consume content wise. And make sure that you teach them critical thinking skills. Because if they don’t think for themselves, someone else will think for them.
I hope you enjoyed this article. Please share our blog with your friends and family. Thank you! Eric Meder