GREAT! A dialog. The psychoanalyst Polly Young-Eisendrath states that only in differences of opinion can we learn more. The legislature was the NY State legislature because it was our governor who "passed a law" --actually she created a resolution (the equivalent of the presidential executive order). The resolution stated that NY wou…
GREAT! A dialog. The psychoanalyst Polly Young-Eisendrath states that only in differences of opinion can we learn more. The legislature was the NY State legislature because it was our governor who "passed a law" --actually she created a resolution (the equivalent of the presidential executive order). The resolution stated that NY would start building quarantine facilities in upstate NY (great because we have the land and real estate developers were or became major donors to her campaign). After they were built the governor could place anyone into these facilities if she suspected they were carrying infection--or they had been exposed to anyone carrying infection. There were no tests for infection necessary, no ability to appeal your incarceration, unless you hired a lawyer, and no way to get out of incarceration unless the governor decided to release you. It could be any infection--not just Covid. A similar law had just been defeated in the previous legislative session. So Hochul took it upon herself to resurrect it. (Her sister in law is a major lobbyist for BIo N Tech which makes Pfizer vaccines) You know this can't be for public health. It's more for profit (real estate development?) and ability to manage dissent by threat and intimidation. SHE ALMOST LOST THE ELECTION!
I'm so glad Polly Tommy, lawyer for CDC, found a way to defeat this bill. Hochul has threatened to appeal. We shall see. You want to take bets? No one knows about this bill. Censorship keeps nefarious government actions out of the public eye so we can believe Hochul when she says vaccines are God's will, and she will be sending her representatives to make sure we all get vaccinated. WHAT--or we will end up in her quarantine facilities? No, those are just for well known doctors/politicians to make examples of them so everyone else is afraid to defy her.
I'm for doing EVERYTHING. Yes, everything that you advise. PLUS PUBLICIZE this stuff. People were sticking up flyers about this and brainwashed public were tearing the flyers down. Once a kid dies nothing gives them back their life. I want to PREVENT kids from dying. If we can get rid of vaccine mandates, if we can forbid vaccines for young people as so many European countries are now doing--that's going to keep kids from dying so that we don't have to bring them back to life.
So TRANSPARENCY. Make sure everyone knows how corrupt our government and these large pharmaceutical companies are. Make sure the statistics "proving" vaccines are safe and effective get shown to be invalid or false. 3500 respondents eliminated from the trials--on what basis? Absolute risk from Covid is small. Most people don't GET Covid so reducing that risk isn't terribly effective. Make sure people can understand this. BUT, as you say, with great fear comes great expectations. Pfizer will save us and our government will make sure it happens with our best interests at heart.
Follow the science! Only Trump--no, wait, only Biden will save us. Provided we all follow the mandates and get vaccinated as soon and as often as possible.
Tell us--how can we stop them from having the power to kill? Advise us--what are you doing how can we make this happen?
I'm sincere. This is not a rhetorical question. I do hate conflict. I am fearful of conflict. But this issue is so important I want to overcome my fear. And do what I can to oppose death and oppression.
I getcha. & I'm a great person to have when everyone else is losing their heads. I just cool down even more. However, no one listens to me. My name should be Cassandra.
Brass tacks: mandates don't impose themselves. Neither do the vaccine-manufacturers. Trying to figure out why, in a society of non-tyranny people act as if decisions made by politicians are Decrees from On High I delved into the world of Social Psychology to see if there were reasons why.
There are: they're not pleasant.
Simply put, I wanted to learn how to read so I could read books whenever I wanted. I wanted that ability & that it gave me a further ability, to act on my own decision-making.
The vast majority of people want Mommy to tuck them in & Daddy to read stories TO them. As one not very bright person once said "these things, fealty, submission, loyalty do not fade, they only shift targets" & was right. Everything we felt towards our parents in childhood (before age eight) has shifted COMPLETELY onto 'Government' (or the concept OF it as there is no such person as 'Government').
Media because it talks at us always telling us what is & isn't acceptable is viewed the way we viewed our peers when we were teens.
This all happens at a semi-conscious level. When we're children, our entire would view depends upon our parents being honest with us. When we're in our teens we would defy our parents to gain their social acceptance.
Theses were practice trials. In adulthood, people cling to the status quo FAR more strongly & automatically. & they don't get some 'adult(erated, HA!)' version OF loyalty to Mummy & Daddy via being blindly loyal to politicians. They ARE children desiring comforting lies & behavior from Mummy & Daddy.
& the only way to get enough people out of doing that is to give the majority of people something else to shift their Blind Faith onto, sadly.
It's a good idea to make your Own Notes as you read this because every point is a good one to stick a pin in to return to later. I can juggle all this in my head easily. Experience tells me that most people can't.
In reality, the solution is easy: the politicians DO have limits on what the public will accept. We DON'T want to go there. But constitutional law makes it impossible for them to mandate we take untested products.
Obviously.
Yet here we are. & the only reason? The public sees ONLY politicians as those whose imaginary love they want to earn.
So asking them to USE those laws against politicians is like asking a 5-year-old child to knowingly act to harm their own parents. You could trick them into doing it. But they would rather sacrifice themselves & their own children before doing it knowingly. Otherwise, why DON'T any of the people who "know" the jabs are killing children use this mass communication device to amass public support for ending the mandates, legally, non-violently & now?
Because that would require abandoning the delusion that Daddy-Government cares & they can't do that.
Sorry I read most of your comment and then saw there was more that I didn't read. Let me add this response. Censorship of mass media is almost total. So people ONLY hear that vaccines are safe and effective. They don't hear criticism of their desired political party, and if they do hear it they dismiss it, and both parties claim vaccines are safe and effective except maybe for Florida and/or Texas. So each political party tells their constituents what they want to hear and blames the other party for everything. That way it becomes rare to blame the system. Do you believe Catherine Fitts? She thinks the goal is economic. The elites want complete control over the currency which will come with mandates and digital currency (as they have in China).
If Kim Jong-un was the Only One pushing these untested products & "Our" politicians weren't, how far do you think he'd get? What % of Americans would inject untested products into their children out of fear & what % would continue after the First Bad Side Effect was reported?
So bang goes the whole notion that hearing something in the media or "propaganda" is by itself a factor. It matter WHOSE propaganda it is.
& if the people discussing the phenomenon of propaganda refuse to discuss this important aspect of it, they are victims of what is truly at work here themselves & are consciously avoiding discussing it. That's why I (sorry) find discussions OF propaganda useless. They're excuses, more people shifting the blame.
I never lose sight of what's important here. I at least am trying to get something started to break this Divine Worship of authority FIGURES for its own sake so we can do What's Right without having to ask permission & save lives as well as move on as a species. All that saying "it's propaganda's fault" does is shift blame & make people feel more comfortable in the lie that they're helpless because some Great Force, "propaganda" is working against them & they're helpless to stop it.
The fact is is that if some movement against corporate power & influence were to show up looking like it already had some support, people would jump on it in relief: the same people who are prone to excusing their inaction on "propaganda."
So all we need is that movement, for it to be acceptable to even less than 10% of the populace to start with, then it becomes so big that those who follow propaganda want to be a part & follow this too & it grows until someone with a large enough following to make it too big to stop (like The Corbett Report) merely covers it &/or gives it verbal support & then people shift their Blind Devotion onto the movement.
I don't LIKE it, but again, I never lose sight of what this is for. If anyone is too worried that trying to save a child's life might cause Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell to shoot them one constipated-looking Scowl of Disapproval, then they allow children to be injured or killed for profit then sleep well at night?
You've been making some great posts. As a result of you and Steve Kirsch I intend to be more direct and less apologetic to my friends when I speak to them about vaccine dangers. On Thursday I listened to a great Rumble interview with Ed Dowd and his coauthor. They are working on exposing the dangers of vaccines through the insurance companies. With excess mortality over 20%, insurance companies are going to have to address the danger they face. (I.e. will lose money due to higher pay outs.) Due to vaccine injury, younger people and employed people are now dying at higher rates than unvaccinated older people. This is a huge anomaly and deserves explanation. The usual death rate for young adult athletes is about 35 per year. We now have 800 and climbing. What is the reason? Will this just become the new normal? Ed Dowd thinks that insurance companies will help awaken the public to the failure of vaccines and the threat of vaccine injury. In his experience money talks. I saw this effect on a TV show where families swapped wives. One show featured a very very religious woman who denounced the show as ungodly and said she would decline the payments for participating. By the end of the show we learned that her family had convinced her to take the money despite her religious objections. It was a substantial payout. Something like $50,000.
The vaccines do not mandate THEMSELVES. If even their manufacturers said "here little girl, take this candy" WITHOUT the support of the people here on THIS LIST http://allaregreen.us/ then that wouldn't force anyone to take them, would they? They can only 'be mandated by' the people on that list.
If your goal is to end the harmful mandates, then what in what you are doing LEADS TO that goal? How does speaking at people, listing facts etc. cause the mandates to end?
Speaking at people is nice even if it doesn't cause the mandates to end. We can do lots of things. Many people believe only a small minority of deranged Trump voters oppose global vaccination. As we all start speaking, we realize we are not alone. Our community realizes that support for vaccination is not embraced by the majority. Legislators become less grandiose in their plans for the future. Maybe our governor will think twice before imposing lock downs again. Hey Hey What Do you Say. How many small businesses can you close today?!!
Then what ARE you doing, about what & why? Is it important to end the mandates because you "don't like" them? Or because they're crippling &/or killing children? Are you doing this to try to convert others to your POV? What IS all the talking to people about?
Okay, so you & Steve speak to people more directly & less apologetically. What happens because you do that? Do the jabs become less harmful? Or do the people mandating them despite knowing that they're harmful all voluntarily reject millions of $ in lobbying $ because you changed your tone of voice?
How does what you're doing (A) lead to the harms no longer being mandated (B)?
We HAVE to speak more directly when we feel morally challenged. It's part of being honest and transparent. But knowing that most people won't listen means we won't be able to speak to everyone we see. Too exhausting. So speaking more directly is not the only thing that I'm going to do. But it's a nice thing to add it to my arsenal. Just as we can have several different approaches to reducing the threat of Covid. Why should rejecting early medical treatment be a prerequisite for handling Covid? Does taking vitamin D mean your vaccination won't work?
I'm gonna sound nasty, but sorry: you're talking like an upset child trying to "make Daddy" talk to you honestly. The problems are that there is no Daddy here to respond to this childish desire to answer to you. You're dealing with POLITICIANS who aren't "accidentally" mandating the jabs any more than they're accidentally cashing the lobbying checks.
They KNOW the jabs are untested. You're upset that they lied? Pardon my English, but grow tf up. This isn't about you, the mandates weren't drawn up to upset you, & how up your own imaginary Personal Relationship with God Himself via His Own Hand-Picked Representatives does your ego have to be to make Him Responding To You on par with stopping children being killed for Fun & Profit? HOW are you mixing those things?
Try & get WHY this is worth screaming at others about straight in your head, please? That is if you care at all about actually stopping https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CE0fMdXjYM from happening to anyone else.
& if you're still upset with Daddy for not responding to You Personally after that, then by all means, start a movement to make it The Law that they have to respond to you AFTER helping stop the other, in my opinion SLIGHTLY more pressing concern.
I agree with most of your post. Do you agree with Mattias Desmet who believes people are in a "mass formation" which means that they unquestionably accept the government propaganda because it gives them a reason to handle their fear (vaccines will keep us safe) and way to blame someone else (unvaccinated are to blame because if everybody were vaccinated we could all be safe) He says it's impossible to get such a person to change their beliefs because then they will risk rejection. Many physicians have written that privately other physicians have confessed they don't believe in vaccines, but won't make their views public (especially in CA) for fear of losing their jobs. I have some sympathy. Losing your expensive job is really horrible.
No. He's CLOSE. We are all taught from an early age that decisions made by politicians are definitely NOT to be treated as decrees from the monarchy. So when people behave as if they are, that's out of internal impulses. We HAVE laws to help us counter these. It's not propaganda that stops us from using them. It isn't both.
What propaganda has anyone heard ever saying our own judges have turned against us?
But he's right about the mental gymnastics people put THEMSELVES through out of fear. Based on what I've read in soci-psy, it's something like this: before age eight, children cannot separate their sense of self from their sense of their parents being Perfect. If they lie, they cannot handle it. Around age eight, we develop the means to separate out a lie from the reason FOR it. So we start thinking to ourselves "maybe there's 'Some Reason' Mummy & Daddy lied to us that I just don't know about yet."
Once we become able to work out this separation, we can deal with lies. But what about the need to feel grounded, that there is some easily-identifiable source of Complete Truth & Honesty that we can fall back on for a sense of security?
That actually goes into hiatus for a while.
In our teens, a part of our minds activates or grows in & starts seeking approval from the group, not just our parents. Now THEY have the ability to influence us. We desire their approval so strongly that they can overcome our sense of going against what our parents taught. School makes us feel alone against this desire.
This too is practice. In both instances our SUBCONSCIOUS (SC) minds learn that they fear ostracism. But they also don't tell themselves (& I'll do whatever it takes to avoid ostracism For Myself, not others." (Although Jane Elliott has proved that people remain semi-conscious of this at all times. That's an aside for now).
I stick to the big picture. The fear of ostracism by what we view at the time as those who we see as Representing Authority warps everything to itself. You only need to IMAGINE yourself facing it once in order to react with terror for the rest of your life. So the SC, where all our most primitive instincts live is Always On Alert for the danger of social ostracism Above All Other Considerations. So he's right about that.
& I'm not afraid of that. Never really was.
So I can & do put a pin in all this & ask "how can I get mass support against politicians DESPITE all this? Legally & non-violently if possible." I haven't figured out a way to do this 100% by myself. The bystander effect https://www.corbettreport.com/the-bystander-effect-solutionswatch-video/ means that until I get at least One Other Person on board with anything, no one else will either. The same fear of ostracism also applies to the First Supporter.
Not to the second or through. So it's REALLY just a question of getting One Of the people with websites, podcasts or newsletters to, even anonymously to start, promote one effective idea for a movement that the public wants, but will only join in on when many others do. Because they already have a social media following as well as the respect of others doing these, & can get one or more of the others to promote it as well.
& there are ALWAYS people at the margins of the amount of supporters you have now. Always. Always. So the best approach is a soft break, not a direct attack upon beliefs based upon SC fears. I've heard Mattias speak, & while he has identified the most negative aspects of this correctly, he stops there. He doesn't ask "how can we get around this?"
I do. For me, I never lose sight that this is about saving children's lives. I'm able to juggle all these aspects in ways that it seems no one else can.
It's tiresome. I hate this constant going back over everything we already know like The Corbett Report does constantly. All that they all keep doing is pointing out the same problem. Repeatedly. "Yes, it IS such a shame that our political leaders do not VOLUNTARILY side against their corporate paymasters. Shall we meet here & repeat this sentiment again next week?" They can't get past that point when that point is pointless if you do not acknowledge it as fact AND move beyond it.
GREAT! A dialog. The psychoanalyst Polly Young-Eisendrath states that only in differences of opinion can we learn more. The legislature was the NY State legislature because it was our governor who "passed a law" --actually she created a resolution (the equivalent of the presidential executive order). The resolution stated that NY would start building quarantine facilities in upstate NY (great because we have the land and real estate developers were or became major donors to her campaign). After they were built the governor could place anyone into these facilities if she suspected they were carrying infection--or they had been exposed to anyone carrying infection. There were no tests for infection necessary, no ability to appeal your incarceration, unless you hired a lawyer, and no way to get out of incarceration unless the governor decided to release you. It could be any infection--not just Covid. A similar law had just been defeated in the previous legislative session. So Hochul took it upon herself to resurrect it. (Her sister in law is a major lobbyist for BIo N Tech which makes Pfizer vaccines) You know this can't be for public health. It's more for profit (real estate development?) and ability to manage dissent by threat and intimidation. SHE ALMOST LOST THE ELECTION!
I'm so glad Polly Tommy, lawyer for CDC, found a way to defeat this bill. Hochul has threatened to appeal. We shall see. You want to take bets? No one knows about this bill. Censorship keeps nefarious government actions out of the public eye so we can believe Hochul when she says vaccines are God's will, and she will be sending her representatives to make sure we all get vaccinated. WHAT--or we will end up in her quarantine facilities? No, those are just for well known doctors/politicians to make examples of them so everyone else is afraid to defy her.
I'm for doing EVERYTHING. Yes, everything that you advise. PLUS PUBLICIZE this stuff. People were sticking up flyers about this and brainwashed public were tearing the flyers down. Once a kid dies nothing gives them back their life. I want to PREVENT kids from dying. If we can get rid of vaccine mandates, if we can forbid vaccines for young people as so many European countries are now doing--that's going to keep kids from dying so that we don't have to bring them back to life.
So TRANSPARENCY. Make sure everyone knows how corrupt our government and these large pharmaceutical companies are. Make sure the statistics "proving" vaccines are safe and effective get shown to be invalid or false. 3500 respondents eliminated from the trials--on what basis? Absolute risk from Covid is small. Most people don't GET Covid so reducing that risk isn't terribly effective. Make sure people can understand this. BUT, as you say, with great fear comes great expectations. Pfizer will save us and our government will make sure it happens with our best interests at heart.
Follow the science! Only Trump--no, wait, only Biden will save us. Provided we all follow the mandates and get vaccinated as soon and as often as possible.
Tell us--how can we stop them from having the power to kill? Advise us--what are you doing how can we make this happen?
I'm sincere. This is not a rhetorical question. I do hate conflict. I am fearful of conflict. But this issue is so important I want to overcome my fear. And do what I can to oppose death and oppression.
I getcha. & I'm a great person to have when everyone else is losing their heads. I just cool down even more. However, no one listens to me. My name should be Cassandra.
Brass tacks: mandates don't impose themselves. Neither do the vaccine-manufacturers. Trying to figure out why, in a society of non-tyranny people act as if decisions made by politicians are Decrees from On High I delved into the world of Social Psychology to see if there were reasons why.
There are: they're not pleasant.
Simply put, I wanted to learn how to read so I could read books whenever I wanted. I wanted that ability & that it gave me a further ability, to act on my own decision-making.
The vast majority of people want Mommy to tuck them in & Daddy to read stories TO them. As one not very bright person once said "these things, fealty, submission, loyalty do not fade, they only shift targets" & was right. Everything we felt towards our parents in childhood (before age eight) has shifted COMPLETELY onto 'Government' (or the concept OF it as there is no such person as 'Government').
Media because it talks at us always telling us what is & isn't acceptable is viewed the way we viewed our peers when we were teens.
This all happens at a semi-conscious level. When we're children, our entire would view depends upon our parents being honest with us. When we're in our teens we would defy our parents to gain their social acceptance.
Theses were practice trials. In adulthood, people cling to the status quo FAR more strongly & automatically. & they don't get some 'adult(erated, HA!)' version OF loyalty to Mummy & Daddy via being blindly loyal to politicians. They ARE children desiring comforting lies & behavior from Mummy & Daddy.
& the only way to get enough people out of doing that is to give the majority of people something else to shift their Blind Faith onto, sadly.
It's a good idea to make your Own Notes as you read this because every point is a good one to stick a pin in to return to later. I can juggle all this in my head easily. Experience tells me that most people can't.
In reality, the solution is easy: the politicians DO have limits on what the public will accept. We DON'T want to go there. But constitutional law makes it impossible for them to mandate we take untested products.
Obviously.
Yet here we are. & the only reason? The public sees ONLY politicians as those whose imaginary love they want to earn.
So asking them to USE those laws against politicians is like asking a 5-year-old child to knowingly act to harm their own parents. You could trick them into doing it. But they would rather sacrifice themselves & their own children before doing it knowingly. Otherwise, why DON'T any of the people who "know" the jabs are killing children use this mass communication device to amass public support for ending the mandates, legally, non-violently & now?
Because that would require abandoning the delusion that Daddy-Government cares & they can't do that.
Still with me?
Sorry I read most of your comment and then saw there was more that I didn't read. Let me add this response. Censorship of mass media is almost total. So people ONLY hear that vaccines are safe and effective. They don't hear criticism of their desired political party, and if they do hear it they dismiss it, and both parties claim vaccines are safe and effective except maybe for Florida and/or Texas. So each political party tells their constituents what they want to hear and blames the other party for everything. That way it becomes rare to blame the system. Do you believe Catherine Fitts? She thinks the goal is economic. The elites want complete control over the currency which will come with mandates and digital currency (as they have in China).
If Kim Jong-un was the Only One pushing these untested products & "Our" politicians weren't, how far do you think he'd get? What % of Americans would inject untested products into their children out of fear & what % would continue after the First Bad Side Effect was reported?
So bang goes the whole notion that hearing something in the media or "propaganda" is by itself a factor. It matter WHOSE propaganda it is.
& if the people discussing the phenomenon of propaganda refuse to discuss this important aspect of it, they are victims of what is truly at work here themselves & are consciously avoiding discussing it. That's why I (sorry) find discussions OF propaganda useless. They're excuses, more people shifting the blame.
I never lose sight of what's important here. I at least am trying to get something started to break this Divine Worship of authority FIGURES for its own sake so we can do What's Right without having to ask permission & save lives as well as move on as a species. All that saying "it's propaganda's fault" does is shift blame & make people feel more comfortable in the lie that they're helpless because some Great Force, "propaganda" is working against them & they're helpless to stop it.
The fact is is that if some movement against corporate power & influence were to show up looking like it already had some support, people would jump on it in relief: the same people who are prone to excusing their inaction on "propaganda."
So all we need is that movement, for it to be acceptable to even less than 10% of the populace to start with, then it becomes so big that those who follow propaganda want to be a part & follow this too & it grows until someone with a large enough following to make it too big to stop (like The Corbett Report) merely covers it &/or gives it verbal support & then people shift their Blind Devotion onto the movement.
I don't LIKE it, but again, I never lose sight of what this is for. If anyone is too worried that trying to save a child's life might cause Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell to shoot them one constipated-looking Scowl of Disapproval, then they allow children to be injured or killed for profit then sleep well at night?
Yep.
How 'bout you?
You've been making some great posts. As a result of you and Steve Kirsch I intend to be more direct and less apologetic to my friends when I speak to them about vaccine dangers. On Thursday I listened to a great Rumble interview with Ed Dowd and his coauthor. They are working on exposing the dangers of vaccines through the insurance companies. With excess mortality over 20%, insurance companies are going to have to address the danger they face. (I.e. will lose money due to higher pay outs.) Due to vaccine injury, younger people and employed people are now dying at higher rates than unvaccinated older people. This is a huge anomaly and deserves explanation. The usual death rate for young adult athletes is about 35 per year. We now have 800 and climbing. What is the reason? Will this just become the new normal? Ed Dowd thinks that insurance companies will help awaken the public to the failure of vaccines and the threat of vaccine injury. In his experience money talks. I saw this effect on a TV show where families swapped wives. One show featured a very very religious woman who denounced the show as ungodly and said she would decline the payments for participating. By the end of the show we learned that her family had convinced her to take the money despite her religious objections. It was a substantial payout. Something like $50,000.
The vaccines do not mandate THEMSELVES. If even their manufacturers said "here little girl, take this candy" WITHOUT the support of the people here on THIS LIST http://allaregreen.us/ then that wouldn't force anyone to take them, would they? They can only 'be mandated by' the people on that list.
If your goal is to end the harmful mandates, then what in what you are doing LEADS TO that goal? How does speaking at people, listing facts etc. cause the mandates to end?
Speaking at people is nice even if it doesn't cause the mandates to end. We can do lots of things. Many people believe only a small minority of deranged Trump voters oppose global vaccination. As we all start speaking, we realize we are not alone. Our community realizes that support for vaccination is not embraced by the majority. Legislators become less grandiose in their plans for the future. Maybe our governor will think twice before imposing lock downs again. Hey Hey What Do you Say. How many small businesses can you close today?!!
Then what ARE you doing, about what & why? Is it important to end the mandates because you "don't like" them? Or because they're crippling &/or killing children? Are you doing this to try to convert others to your POV? What IS all the talking to people about?
Okay, so you & Steve speak to people more directly & less apologetically. What happens because you do that? Do the jabs become less harmful? Or do the people mandating them despite knowing that they're harmful all voluntarily reject millions of $ in lobbying $ because you changed your tone of voice?
How does what you're doing (A) lead to the harms no longer being mandated (B)?
We HAVE to speak more directly when we feel morally challenged. It's part of being honest and transparent. But knowing that most people won't listen means we won't be able to speak to everyone we see. Too exhausting. So speaking more directly is not the only thing that I'm going to do. But it's a nice thing to add it to my arsenal. Just as we can have several different approaches to reducing the threat of Covid. Why should rejecting early medical treatment be a prerequisite for handling Covid? Does taking vitamin D mean your vaccination won't work?
I'm gonna sound nasty, but sorry: you're talking like an upset child trying to "make Daddy" talk to you honestly. The problems are that there is no Daddy here to respond to this childish desire to answer to you. You're dealing with POLITICIANS who aren't "accidentally" mandating the jabs any more than they're accidentally cashing the lobbying checks.
They KNOW the jabs are untested. You're upset that they lied? Pardon my English, but grow tf up. This isn't about you, the mandates weren't drawn up to upset you, & how up your own imaginary Personal Relationship with God Himself via His Own Hand-Picked Representatives does your ego have to be to make Him Responding To You on par with stopping children being killed for Fun & Profit? HOW are you mixing those things?
Try & get WHY this is worth screaming at others about straight in your head, please? That is if you care at all about actually stopping https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CE0fMdXjYM from happening to anyone else.
& if you're still upset with Daddy for not responding to You Personally after that, then by all means, start a movement to make it The Law that they have to respond to you AFTER helping stop the other, in my opinion SLIGHTLY more pressing concern.
I agree with most of your post. Do you agree with Mattias Desmet who believes people are in a "mass formation" which means that they unquestionably accept the government propaganda because it gives them a reason to handle their fear (vaccines will keep us safe) and way to blame someone else (unvaccinated are to blame because if everybody were vaccinated we could all be safe) He says it's impossible to get such a person to change their beliefs because then they will risk rejection. Many physicians have written that privately other physicians have confessed they don't believe in vaccines, but won't make their views public (especially in CA) for fear of losing their jobs. I have some sympathy. Losing your expensive job is really horrible.
No. He's CLOSE. We are all taught from an early age that decisions made by politicians are definitely NOT to be treated as decrees from the monarchy. So when people behave as if they are, that's out of internal impulses. We HAVE laws to help us counter these. It's not propaganda that stops us from using them. It isn't both.
What propaganda has anyone heard ever saying our own judges have turned against us?
But he's right about the mental gymnastics people put THEMSELVES through out of fear. Based on what I've read in soci-psy, it's something like this: before age eight, children cannot separate their sense of self from their sense of their parents being Perfect. If they lie, they cannot handle it. Around age eight, we develop the means to separate out a lie from the reason FOR it. So we start thinking to ourselves "maybe there's 'Some Reason' Mummy & Daddy lied to us that I just don't know about yet."
Once we become able to work out this separation, we can deal with lies. But what about the need to feel grounded, that there is some easily-identifiable source of Complete Truth & Honesty that we can fall back on for a sense of security?
That actually goes into hiatus for a while.
In our teens, a part of our minds activates or grows in & starts seeking approval from the group, not just our parents. Now THEY have the ability to influence us. We desire their approval so strongly that they can overcome our sense of going against what our parents taught. School makes us feel alone against this desire.
This too is practice. In both instances our SUBCONSCIOUS (SC) minds learn that they fear ostracism. But they also don't tell themselves (& I'll do whatever it takes to avoid ostracism For Myself, not others." (Although Jane Elliott has proved that people remain semi-conscious of this at all times. That's an aside for now).
I stick to the big picture. The fear of ostracism by what we view at the time as those who we see as Representing Authority warps everything to itself. You only need to IMAGINE yourself facing it once in order to react with terror for the rest of your life. So the SC, where all our most primitive instincts live is Always On Alert for the danger of social ostracism Above All Other Considerations. So he's right about that.
& I'm not afraid of that. Never really was.
So I can & do put a pin in all this & ask "how can I get mass support against politicians DESPITE all this? Legally & non-violently if possible." I haven't figured out a way to do this 100% by myself. The bystander effect https://www.corbettreport.com/the-bystander-effect-solutionswatch-video/ means that until I get at least One Other Person on board with anything, no one else will either. The same fear of ostracism also applies to the First Supporter.
Not to the second or through. So it's REALLY just a question of getting One Of the people with websites, podcasts or newsletters to, even anonymously to start, promote one effective idea for a movement that the public wants, but will only join in on when many others do. Because they already have a social media following as well as the respect of others doing these, & can get one or more of the others to promote it as well.
& there are ALWAYS people at the margins of the amount of supporters you have now. Always. Always. So the best approach is a soft break, not a direct attack upon beliefs based upon SC fears. I've heard Mattias speak, & while he has identified the most negative aspects of this correctly, he stops there. He doesn't ask "how can we get around this?"
I do. For me, I never lose sight that this is about saving children's lives. I'm able to juggle all these aspects in ways that it seems no one else can.
It's tiresome. I hate this constant going back over everything we already know like The Corbett Report does constantly. All that they all keep doing is pointing out the same problem. Repeatedly. "Yes, it IS such a shame that our political leaders do not VOLUNTARILY side against their corporate paymasters. Shall we meet here & repeat this sentiment again next week?" They can't get past that point when that point is pointless if you do not acknowledge it as fact AND move beyond it.