If you click on the "See Link" hyperlink, below, you will be able to view a short panel discussion about COVID-19 vaccines.
Several claims are made by the person who first addresses the panel.
- that the vaccines contain fetal cells.
- that Dr. Andreas Noack, who reported that the vaccines contain graphene hydroxide, was murdered.
- that a German doctor committed suicide after admitting the vaccines were really about totalitarian control.
- that the vaccines contain self-assembling, tentacled nanobots.
Like most people, I regard these claims as being rather "out there," in terms of credibility.
Nevertheless, I did watch the entire video. Unlike those who are being "protected" from such claims by shadowy "fact-checkers," employed by social media corporations, I like to hear BOTH sides of the story.
I don't have to go out of my way to hear the ONE side of the story: the one that has been jackhammered into all of our brains by politicians, the Trudeau-subsidized corporate media in Canada, and the social media giants.
On the other hand, we have information and opinion that all the above-mentioned interests have been diligently trying to jackhammer OUT of our minds.
Since nature, the history I have learned, and my lived experience have have allowed me to imagine degrees of evil in this world that the majority of my compatriots cannot imagine, I tend to bite the apple. My curiosity is driven, not so much by a desire to hear what these untermensch are saying, but rather by a desire to know why the establishment DOESN'T want me to see it.
There are things you can learn by this approach. One involves credible information and opinion that is being censored on all fronts. Another one of them is an answer to this question: Are the "fact-checkers" being honest?
In this particular case, it should be obvious that the "fact-checkers" are not being honest at all, since the video encompasses much more than the claim that COVID-19 vaccines contain cells from aborted fetuses. Much more.
Secondly, the contents of the panel discussion reveal areas of concern in which questions should be asked. It suggests the real reason for the bullying and intimidation employed by Facebook is not to prevent misinformation, but to prevent the incurious from being exposed to some of the important questions that are being asked about the vaccines.
So, if you are one of the majority, and you see my post with the warning image plastered on top of it, you will probably click on "See Why," if at all. If curious at all, you will probably also click on "See Link."
I recommend doing both. Do the "See Why" first. Then tell me if you think the "debunking" of the claim about fetal cells in vaccines honestly addresses the contents of the suspect video. And if you think the panelists come across as a group of tinfoil hatters raving about self-assembling nanobots.
Just now, at about 7:40 PM, I posted the following clip on Facebook. It's an experiment to see if this one gets "fact-checked."
Does anyone want to place a bet?
Mob Rule
Back around 1995, Morgan Kranstz argued in favour of making bicycle helmets mandatory in Ontario. Mr. Kranstz said, "Personal freedom is essential in our society, but when I have to pay for someone else making a mistake while exercising that freedom, it becomes intrusive."
The demands for most other Na.... Nanny State impositions, from mandatory seatbelts, to smoking edicts, flow from the same logic. I understood this simple principle back in 1974, when I was 20 years old.
At least, within the context of a socialized medicare system, the view has some logic. If you want free stuff, kiss your freedom goodbye. It's either/or, not both.
The view that everyone should be forced to accept an experimental injection flows, in part, from the same collectivist logic, but then it is carried to a hysterical extreme. It's like arguing that bicycle helmets only work if everyone wears one.
It ought to be obvious, by now, that the vaccines have done nothing to stop the spread of the Coof. So the argument that getting vaccinated protects others is nonsense. (As is the argument that banning smoking on patios and in public parks protects innocent bystanders, even if there are no bystanders. That's where the hazards of tertiary smoke chime in. Even the sight of or, the thought of, someone smoking can be "harmful.")
All that is left is the argument that certain perceived risky behaviours ought to be prohibited if they compete for medical resources. Broadly applied, and given there is almost no human behaviour devoid of risk, the pro-mandate mob are unwittingly embracing unlimited violations of personal choice.
Thus, in a collectivized society, all freedom becomes "intrusive".
Article:
Public outrage over the unvaccinated is driving a crisis in bioethics
Who is Morgan Kranstz?
This is the megalomaniac that is issuing commands to the people of Canada. This guy. This chamelion. This pissant. I doubt this posturing, sociopathic phony could even hammer a nail in straight, yet he is deciding the fate of MILLIONS of Canadians. It has nothing to do with his abilities. The system installed this joker.
I know what you're thinking,
How could a sleazebag, whose actual skills would make it difficult for him to get a job as a janitor, possibly be the Prime Minister of Canada? I mean, you've got to be fucking kidding.
Enough is Enough!
