What does the "science" say?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (63)
sorted by:
There is substantial evidence that the vaccines interfere with pregnancy. The problem is, the vaccine causes an autoimmune response. That is its entire design purpose. It also causes substantial shock to the human body. Both of those also cause spontaneous abortion in the first 6 months of pregnancy, which is the time period where the evidence suggests the pregnancy problems are occurring (there is no substantial evidence that I have seen that it is occurring in the final trimester).
Just because you count miscarriages along with general sterility doesn't mean that biologically they are the same idea. Losing a baby due to a system shock and autoimmune response, and not being able to get pregnant and/or later having pregnancy issues are biologically very different things. There is data to support the first, not the second.
Maybe, maybe not. I have a TON of evidence for all sorts of things that are being suppressed. I have no evidence of this. We go with what we have, not what we can suppose. We can suppose all sorts of untrue things. That is the capacity of the human mind. That is why it is essential that we use actual evidence in the decision making process.
See above.
I honestly don't think I am doing that at all. Using the phrase "standing theory" really does give an unsubstantiated idea more support than it deserves. It also causes fear in others by using that appeal to authority.
I am basically writing a book on how the Cabal uses words to cast spells (its a report on the Matrix in which we live, but it boils down to that statement, and its become so long its practically a book). I have become pretty critical of how people use rhetoric to support their ideas. People are constantly casting spells on each other without realizing it. It has become our culture. I am pointing it out because it is harmful to use unbased fears to influence others decisions. That is how we got here in the first place.
Yup, that is all part of the report. You will understand my perspective much better when I am done. Hopefully very soon.
"Common sense" is an illusion of truth. Common sense is actually more often a lie designed to control the population than anything having to do with the truth. Common sense is exploitable and it pretty much always is exploited by the Cabal to mislead.
I've seen no other reports of this in the VAERS reports. One piece of anecdote does not count as substantive evidence, no matter how much anyone might want it to. Anecdotes are great, for pointing in the direction of an investigation, but by themselves they are meaningless as evidence. If you get enough anecdotes you can create a statistical argument, but one anecdote is, outside of a direction for investigation, otherwise completely meaningless.
Here's the deal, and I've given this great thought.
Let's say I'm going over to a my wife's friend's house.
The friend has gotten into a ton of weird health stuff, and it's been getting weirder.
I enter the house with my wife and the friend has made some pie.
The pie looks a little rough, but no different than any other home-made pie.
The only thing is, the friend's hands are covered in shit. It smells, and looks like shit.
The friend offers my wife and I some pie.
Now, here's the deal. I have no evidence that shit is in the pie. The shit on the friend's hands could be completely coincidental, even though the friend seems to be making no effort to clean it off.
I maintain hesitation, not fear, and refuse to eat the pie.
Continuing with the scenario -- despite, my hesitation and my recommendation that she not eat the pie, my wife eats some of the pie, assuring me that her friend would not put shit in it. The friend is silent on the matter.
She seems to enjoy it, but this is my wife's friend, not mine. I don't know enough about the friend to make any conclusions on whether or not my wife has or has not become a shit eater. I only have anecdotal evidence that the friend has been getting into some weird stuff.
I do trust my wife, however, but I can't trust her judgement because it could be blinded by the trust she has with her friend.
Finally, we move past the shit pie segment and later in the evening my wife goes in for a kiss.
Now, I still don't know for certain if she ate a shit pie. The ultimate question I have for you is this:
Am I fear mongering to resist the kiss? Would I be fear mongering if another friend came over and I suggested they not eat the pie or kiss someone who has?
I personally have no capacity to prove whether or not the pie has shit in it, and I think it is safe to not trust my wife's friend on account of their previous behavior before the event.
So, my ultimate point is this: I absolutely do not need to formally declare a hypothesis or substantiate that hypothesis with physical proof or evidence to come to the conclusion there is a non-zero chance shit is in the pie, even if by accident due to the carelessness of the friend.
Oh, and if there is shit in the pie, I really don't care that the science of baking would result in the germs being killed off. Personally, regardless of its sanitary nature, I don't want to eat a shit pie or kiss someone who has.
Personally, I do not see it as fear mongering.
Rather, it's justifiable hesitation. I'm not afraid of the pie, I simply just don't trust it and as such cannot make a recommendation for anyone else to either. The only way I would trust to eat the pie is if I saw it made from scratch, which, in the case of the "vaccines" they flagrantly refuse to disclose, which only adds to my hesitation.
In the case of the pie, you have ONLY one piece of evidence to go on. In the case of the vaccine, there is a metric shit ton of evidence. Because there is so much, and none of it supports the shit hypothesis, we don't assume there is shit just because we might have seen some at some point in the past in an unrelated event (something that is problematic with your hypothetical).
A better hypothetical would be, there was shit in a pie they made years ago. There isn't any on the hands of the current pie makers, at least none that we have seen.
Since all we have is the shit from years ago to go on, and all the evidence does not support the current shit theory, we discard that theory and assume that the Caltrops that were actually found in the current pie are the problem with this pie.
If you started talking about how there might be shit in the pie, even though there was no evidence of it after a year of studying it, yes, that is fear mongering. If you talked about the caltrops for which there is supporting evidence, and you showed that evidence, that would be a report of evidence, and not fear mongering.
As a researcher (and as a human being) you have a responsibility to present the evidence and not your fears for which there is no evidence. I mean, you can talk about your fears, but presenting your fears as if it were evidence is irresponsible. Even when talking about your fears it is essential that you present it as such so that people can take it in the appropriate context. It helps with their decision making process to know that you are basing your statements on your fears, and not evidence that you aren't presenting.
Think about it. you are literally telling someone that they should not have a relationship with someone who got the vaccine because of something for which there is no substantive evidence. Do you not see how irresponsible that is? You have no right to tell people to not have a relationship with other people just because you are afraid of something for which there is no evidence. That type of shit is the opposite of We The People.
Separating us is their victory condition and our loss condition. We can't win this war if we give them the win.
You see, that's why I closed with the following:
Because ultimately, I don't care what you or anyone else does.
My claims don't have to be excessively substantiated, and I don't even have to even believe them.
Its like a card match, and I know what cards have already been played out of the deck. Meanwhile a newcomer comes to the table, and I just give him a heads-up that half the deck has already been played.
It doesn't really change the odds of the game, but the information is essential to how he plays his hand. He knows that I have knowledge of the already played cards and he doesn't. It doesn't change his odds, but it does mean I have a possible advantage.
If I didn't tell him half the deck had been played however, it still wouldn't have changed his odds of winning, but he would be playing riskier on account of my reserved knowledge, whether or not I have the capacity to utilize that knowledge.
In this way, that I know there is a possibility that he's at a disadvantage is information he would like to have, regardless of whether or not it ultimately matters in the unknown that is the odds of a card game.
Do you kind of get what I'm going at here?
I'd rather know there is a chance of bad things happening when others have suspicions rather than go in blind. Just knowing something is possible but not probable isn't reason to have fear.
Honestly, this is getting into simple personal preference now.
When I look at anything before me I consider all possibilities and I reject nothing presented to me by others on its face, because I have nothing to fear. We all face death eventually, so why should I care what happens so long as my soul is intact?
What this is called is Discernment. People fear monger on everything all day every day, and that is just nature. You can't know if someone is trying to dupe you or not, so just assume they are, tell fear to go fuck itself, and temper your actions accordingly.
In the end, the only poor decision is one made in haste when the Truth need only time to reveal itself.
As far as the card game goes, it costs the newcomer nothing just to wait until all the cards are played and the House cracks open a new deck.
Okay, as an aside, I tried to make a post about 2 months back and it got ate because it was too long.
I think I'm 100% with you on this point.
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jJe3ag0y/layers-of-lies-how-magic-works/
If you can't read it, I'll copy-paste in a comment. Tell me what you think.
I was only able to read the comment. There was nothing in the main body. Working with the comment though:
I'll do my best, but as Deep Thought said, "You aren't going to like it."
Before I get to the part you won't like, I think it is plausible that Satan is a real entity, and that that entity sits at the top of the pyramid. Though I think it is unlikely that it calls itself Satan, or that any of its worshipers do, but the name is unimportant. I think "Moloch" or Ba'al is likely a more apt name, though even those are likely incorrect, even if they are temporally more appropriate.
As for a Creator God and a direct meaningful relationship Humans may have with that entity, I don't know what to think. I have seen some things lately that make me think the idea of a Christian God may have some merit, though not in the way Christianity constructs the idea. But underneath it, within the teachings of Christ I think there is merit to the idea of a personal Creator God, or a Creator that actually gives a crap about Humans. What type of entity that is, what scope of Creation that entity created has conflicting evidence (such as it is). Note that the teachings of Christ, which I have recently revisited quite a bit, and Christianity are actually pretty different. When I was a Christian I could have never understood that concept.
There are two definitions of faith. One is the ability to transcend rational thought and delve into the subconscious or "spiritual" realm. In this definition it is the transcendence of the Matrix that is our mind that is the important concept of faith.
The other definition is to assign the powers of transcendence to another entity, to the extent that we also assign critical thinking and discernment over as well. It is in all ways demeaning to the individual, even though it is not seen that way by its adherents. For example, if I find something within the Bible that doesn't agree with evidence, I take it on faith that it is my meagre mind that can't make it comprehensible and that the Bible is right and my interpretation of the evidence is what is wrong.
I believe that definition of faith was put in by Satan (or people representing that entity, real or imagined). I think almost the entire OT and possibly some of the NT was put into the Bible by Satan (where by "Satan" I mean what I just stated, the entity themselves, or people representing that entity). There is so much in the OT that makes zero sense for a Creator God, but makes so much more sense if you replace the word "God" with the word "Moloch." When you do that, all the cognitive dissonance goes away and there becomes no more need to rationalize things like the Passover, where a Creator God has to choose the lesser of two evils by enacting murder by thug to slaughter children to save "the chosen race" (the one race above all the rest of "God's creations").
In other words, I think the second (and most commonly adhered to definition of) Faith is the lie that has controlled humanity for millennia.
As for the first; transcendence of the rational brain, I think there is a lot there worth exploring. It may bring a better idea of what "God" is (and what "God" Is not within the common dogma).
Okay, let me put it this way.
Satan isn't a formal name. It is a translation for the word "adversary"
Devil actually means "Slanderer"
Lucifer means "Bearer of Light" but that is a butchered translation of a translation for the real name of the demon/angel in question.
It's Haylel.
El usually means God.
Angel means Messenger of God.
Michael, Gabriel, Raphael -- they aren't names God gave to His angels. They are an aspect of his glory bestowed upon His loyal followers. They are their respective anointings.
Michael means Who is like of God.
Gabriel means Strength of God.
Raphael means Healer of God
Raziel means Secrets of God
Haylel then would mean Light of God, right? Lucifer means Light Bearer, so Light of God is correct in translation, right?
No. English doesn't have a word for it. Few languages do. Praise of God is closer, but is still incorrect.
It's more akin to the Narrator or Director of a story, rather than its Author. It's the Spotlight in a stage play. It's what directs the attention of a story.
Haylel is, or rather was, the stage operator. Haylel was God's chief Cherub. Haylel was God's entertainer and Choir director. Haylel was, effectively, Hollywood.
Rather, HE HIMSELF wasn't these things, but he was given authority over these things.
And he had one big job, his Magnum Opus. God gave each of the angels a Great Work to do, and they had free will to accept or reject it.
Haylel's job was to tell the Good News of the World. He was tasked to announce the coming of Man. Adam.
He rejected this Great Work, and with it he rejected his Stone. He rejected God's will, and therefore rejected God.
And so Haylel held trial in the Heavens before the Throne and tasked God to explain what this Man he planned on bringing into the World was, and how it was that something lesser than the Angels would be given Authority over them.
"What are humans that you are mindful of them, mere mortals that you care for them? Yet you have made them little less than a god, crowned them with glory and honor, You have given them rule over the works of your hands, put all things at their feet: all sheep and oxen, even the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, the fish of the sea, and whatever swims the paths of the seas." - Psalms 8: 5-9
This passage is David recanting the objection Haylel spoke before his fall. David, through the Psalms, was transcribing the infinite prayers of the Angels, which they say every day, timeless beings as they are. However, Haylel's namesake, his "praise" was forever more tinged with obstination.
Rebellion ensued, and God cast out a third of the angels who refused to do their tasked Great Works.
And so, all the demons who rejected their Authority, their namesake, became Satan -- The Adversary.
But first among them was the Devil, once called Haylel/Lucifer, who was the Slanderer who set them upon that path. All fell due to his Slander of the Word. Instead of disclosing to the World the true nature of the Son of Man, he withheld the news of the Authority of Adam; to have Authority equal to God as is his rightful inheritance.
From then on, he was the Devil, Slanderer of God's word. He cannot create, and so he takes that which is good and convinces Man to use it at the wrong time, in the wrong place, and for the wrong reasons. Nothing God made is evil. Evil is using a tool of God against its nature.
You would not use a hammer to turn a screw, just as you would not kill your fellow Man. Killing is not always wrong. You must kill to eat. The concept is not incorrect, but is misuse is. And so, the Slanderer would say "Is it not better to kill your fellow Man that you would advance your station? Is it not right that the ends justify the means?"
That is the definition of Evil, whose Author is the Adversary we call Satan. Any who reason thusly ARE Satan. Haylel/Lucifer is simply its author. He does not sin personally, and every moment he bares his hands as proof that they are clean. But he does not open his mouth in the presence of the Lord, as no greater vitriol exists in all Creation.
You see, what really sets humans apart from angels is that we can choose our own Great Works, as well as refuse them outright. It's our own limitations that give us that choice, and so our Free Will is something far greater than the Spiritual Free Will of the angels.
Through our limitations we have infinite choice but limited time to choose. This grants us the Divine Spark, and enables us to uniquely serve God such that He, the know-er of all things, may be pleasantly surprised by our flattery of Him.
Jesus' Great Work was the Passion. He created the Stone as a carpenter, which is to say he is the Stone and gave proof of it so that the Universe may know him, and once he had achieved mastery of the Art of Creation, it was then time to Perfect the Stone as the only one who possibly could.
Love is the Greatest of Works, and no act is more proving of Love than Sacrifice of the Self.
He was perfect in every way, and so the Unblemished Offering, the Sacrificial Lamb shed his blood into the World and the World knew Him as its master.
But what is the World that it have any need of reverence to itself?
One name for the world is the Father, but another is the Lord.
The Lord is the Law. It is the rules of the Universe which are held ever in balance such that we may find one another in it.
The Law is the harvest. If you would plant a seed, tend to it, and Love it, it will bear great fruit. If you mistreat the seed, rush it to grow, and take it for granted, it will respond to you in kind.
The Lord is the God of the Old Testament, and breaking its Law garnered you no favor and immediate wrath. The Lord was just, and his mercy was reserved for the merciful.
But the Blood of the Stone lived in the World, and mercy bled through to the followers of the God of Abraham. All that was done by the Lord was to the letter, with only as much grandeur as a careful machine would have done, not as a Man who Loves would have done.
Jesus fulfilled the Law, and is the Son of God whose Authority he wields. He is known for his Mercy above all, which is the Law given unto Love. For what is Justice but a cold and blind mistress. Justice and Love together form Mercy, and such is the fulfillment of the Law.
They Mercy of God, of Christ Jesus, is infinite. It breaks all bounds of logic and reason and revels at the Sinner who has but one virtue to his name, because by that singular virtue and a repentant heart, that Sinner is saved. That is why those in heaven celebrate wildly at the redemption of the greatest sinners.
For the Love of God is so great that the only thing necessary for redemption is that you not cast blame but accept your failures and ask for forgiveness. God knows your heart, and if you are truly sorry, you will be forgiven.
There is no measure of time for how quickly God can forgive.
That is the mystery of Faith.
I hope this finds you well.
God bless.
Here's the main bit
Get ready for a long read...
I've been going down some rabbit holes the last few days. Isisian Codes, harmonic frequencies, meditation focusing on controlling your own sympathetic nervous system, and all other kinds of stuff.
I've come to some conclusions on how magic REALLY "works."
To preface, let's get some things straight first. God is real, demons are real, and they constantly influence the earth. God didn't make occult magic, so that must mean demons made it, right?
But you might ask, "aren't demons destructive and unable to create?"
Well, keep reading to find out what might be going on there.
There are layers of magic. Some are simply superstition and others actually get to the point of objects moving on their own, levitation, and electrical disturbances all the way to occult rituals designed to harvest demonic powers. I'll get to those, but let's start with superstition.
Superstition is attributing to a random act a predictable result. Break a mirror, you get bad luck. You walk under a ladder, you'll get bad luck. You step on a crack, break your mother's back. Those types of things.
Superstition has its use in the human psyche. It is nestled in cause-effect and pattern recognition, and those are very useful skills to develop. The only problem with superstition is that the cause rarely has anything to do with the effect aside from statistical coincidence. People attribute a pattern to happenchance and begin to think falsely concerning what can be predicted to happen given certain specific events. You begin to spot patterns that aren't there and ignore ones that are.
So why does it have power over people enough to influence their actions? You may have figured it out just with that line, so let me diverge a little before I spoil the surprise.
Let's break down the types of "magic."
Superstition: Believing that certain specific events predict future outcomes with more than chance regularity.
Rituals: By the placement of objects, the saying of chants, and the orchestration of a carefully ordered set of actions, one hopes to influence the world, thereby putting a hex or a spell on a person, object, or reality as a whole.
Potions: "Drink this, you will feel better and all your ails will fade away." Basically the idea that certain ingredients put together can influence the human body more than by mere chemical interaction or nutrition.
Omens/Brands/Symbols/Totems/Talismans: Objects or patterns that seek to influence the surrounding space or idea to which it is ascribed. For instance, Shinto priests will write words on paper sheets and pin them to doors, Satanists will hide occult symbols in social media logos, animal totems will try to invoke the spirits of the wild, and some groups even make an effort to use numerology as a means for complex ciphers with double-meaning.
Illusion: Tricking the eye of onlookers to think you have abilities that you do not actually have. Illusion, like magic tricks, in and of itself is benign, but the mystery and showmanship is where the magic actually is. Convincing people you can do things they cannot and in inexplainable ways can give you power over them. Real power of suggestion. Even to a point of mind control.
.
So, what is going on here?
Well, you could come to the conclusion that these things actually work. By placing a circle of candles, and stabbing a doll of the person you hate with a needle, that you can actually do harm to them. 99% of the time, if you were to try that, it won't work. But that off chance it does... Is it still worth it to try, considering you do have malicious intent?
Let's talk about the first layer of "magic."
First Layer Magicians
There are people who believe they do have the ability to influence the world through spells and rituals. They do things and let their victim know, or not know, what they are actually doing. They think their power comes from demonic powers, and seek to grant favor with demons to attain it.
...
Consider the following.
You believe that someone has put a spell on your. Or at the very least, someone you know who does occult stuff may have put a spell on you. You don't believe it, but something in the back of you mind keeps you wondering.
Something bad happens to you. Aww, it must be coincidence.
Another thing bad happens to you. Well, that's strange.
Another really bad thing happens to you. This is freaky, how is this happening?
Another really really bad thing happens to you. THAT WITCH PUT A SPELL ON ME!
And so on and so forth.
Think about what is really happening here. Did the witch actually put a spell on you? Or is it your own mind leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy? I think it would be the latter, correct?
...
Okay, now think about this.
The Placebo effect is a well documented medical phenomena. People given medicine and told it will help them actually do get nominally better. They don't know it is actually sugar pills, but despite the medicine being categorically ineffective, they still get better.
What's going on here?
Well, the person's own positivity and determination is what is actually making them better. They have faith that they will get healthier, and those positive vibrations/feelings/beliefs actually propel them to physically manifest what they believe to be happening.
...
What do those two previous examples have in common?
The short answer, is the victim/patient's own belief into what is actually going on. If they think they have been cursed, they will actually seek to validate that belief by making clumsy and poor decisions because they subconsciously believe it to be so. Likewise, with the Placebo effect they act as if they will get better and so their bodies respond in kind.
You can view that as just a psychology trick, but in reality something "magical" is going on beyond the explanation of science. The luck of the cursed person does seem to legitimately be unexplainable at times, beyond just self-destructive psychological torture.
And so stands the second layer of "magic."
Second Layer Magicians
Some know that people have doubts about the non-existence of magic. They likewise know that superstition doesn't in and of itself result in predictable outcomes. They realize that it is people's own perception working against them is the real power, because they know the power of suggestion and superstition can be used to self-sabotage those who have poor faith, or rather, too much faith in the wrong thing.
Furthermore, they believe that "real magic" comes from belief alone. They believe that as long as they will something to be, it will come to pass. They believe that every person has the ability to affect reality in substantial ways simply by believing something can/will occur. They also believe that by manipulating another person's belief system, it will force reality to shift and change to meet what the majority of peoples' perception is.
This type of occultist believes, without a doubt, that the world is ever-changing and if a group of people believed in something hard enough they can even will aliens into being, wholesale. They believe if they plant symbols and double-messages everywhere, that they are branding the world to shift in their favor.
They have that much faith in the power of suggestion.
The only problem with such people is that they too have been duped.
Enter, the third layer of "magic."
Third Layer Magicians
Now comes the real shtick. Who puts people like the Cabal in charge?
More to the point, why, if the previous is true, aren't the most faithful Satanist and Cabalists not on the front line of "willing" into being their preferred machinations? Why aren't there massive rituals taking place in honor of their delusional belief system?
Because the third layer magicians know the "truth."
To them, it is all just the placebo effect. People cannot change reality just because they believe hard enough. Rather, these occultists "know" that the only real power is by deluding people into believing something so much that they grow a form of determination and unwavering faith that something will happen because of the "magic" cast on them that they become a veritable force of nature. They become so certain in their assumptions about what is going on that they become unstoppable. They truly believe they can do it, and so they can, even to the point of ignoring their own demise.
This explains why the Cabal won't stop even though they know...
Nothing Can Stop What Is Coming.
The second layer think they can control the world by willing things into being, and that by duping enough people into believing the same, they will have their way.
The third layer knows that this is a force that can be harvested, so they appease the second layer and use money and leverage to make it seem like reality is shifting to the will of the second layer, thereby emboldening them to act fervently for their beliefs.
In other words, the third layer turns the second layer magicians into ZEALOTS who are so thoroughly brain-washed that they think anything is possible, even willing flat-earth into being a reality.
Such a slave is hard to come by, and takes decades of brain-washing. But the results speak for themselves.
But, we are missing one more layer.
Well this certainly makes the part I read make more sense.
I don't know what to think about it. I still retain the protests of my previous post on it, but there is merit to the overarching idea outside of the scope of possible differences on what it means to say the word "God" or "Satan" or "Demon" or "Faith."
The truth is, I don't know what those words mean. I don't think anyone else I have ever spoken to does either though, and I have spent my whole life talking to people about those words, including some of the most learned people on the topic from every conceivable religion or spiritual endeavor.
It is only recently that I have come to revisit those topics, and I think your ideas of what it means to be a Magician and/or the idea of magic have a lot of merit. I'm not sure I agree with it completely, because I think there may be real influence in the second tier of Magician (and third tier), but I can't say conclusively that that is so, and you have given me something to contemplate in that regard. I do like your tiers, and I have had similar thoughts of categorization, even if not formally defined like you have.
I will keep this in mind in future contemplation on the matter.