In order to sustain a friendship, there must be grounds for complicity. To know what these grounds might be, it is necessary to see the other as clearly as possible. Nonetheless, you seem to be interested not in finding out who I am but in making declarations about my character. Perhaps you want rebuttals. Maybe you want me to say, “Oh, no. I’m not right-wing. I’m not a kook. Here, I have proof.” The burden of proof does not lie with me but with you. And you have offered none.
So what kind of a response am I left with? Would you like me to proceed with declarations about your character, which you would then feel compelled to rebut, the waters getting muddier with each exchange, the gulf between us growing wider as you drag political binaries into the discussion of Covid, where they don’t belong, even as you profess to oppose the state’s divide-and-conquer strategies? No, I’m not taking that bait either.
So what is left? You suggest that we compare science, but that is the domain of peer review, and everything that I have ever published about Covid (or about anything else, for that matter, including 9/11) is supported by peer review. So what is there to compare? To take the simplest aspect of Covid (the masks), both the peer-reviewed studies and common sense (the pores of a mask being macroscopic and the virus being microscopic) tell us that the mask mandates were useless and did more harm than good. See, for instance, the March 2023 issue of Druthers, published in Alberta, which you may deem to be a right-wing province, but I assure you that science, when done and reported properly, is right-left blind.
Every part of the official Covid narrative is in fact false, from the masks to the PCR tests to the death rates to the safety and effectiveness of the “vaccines,” but since it is not my place to convince you of that, I will not burden you with web links in support of the point. Rather, I will lay out a comparison of two perceptions of reality, and you can tell me whether there are any grounds for complicity between us across this divide.
|
Official reality Maskers protected themselves and others.
No existing remedies could treat Covid, so society needed to shut down until there was a “vaccine.” Vaxxers protected themselves and others by helping to halt the spread of the virus.
Anti-vaxxers are selfish, irresponsible, and anti-science. |
Unofficial reality Maskers were duped into helping the state create an atmosphere of mass obedience, necessary for vaccine compliance. Proven remedies for Covid were slandered to permit emergency use of the “vaccines.” Vaxxers helped to create a false sense that the “vaccines” were safe and effective, paving the way for genocide. Anti-vaxxers are courageous and clear-sighted, as demonstrated by the fact that the “vaccines” have led to horrible injuries, miscarriages, and infertility, along with a staggering increase in mortality – a genocide – among healthy, working-age people over the past two years. |
By your account, I am a right-wing kook for embracing the unofficial reality. By my account, you are a do-gooder without a clue for embracing the official one. I don’t blame you for not having a clue. You have been subjected to relentless propaganda for more than three years. I have written elsewhere on the phenomenon of trance and how it can be triggered by fear, so I know what you’ve been up against. But the question remains of whether there can be any grounds for complicity between us when we are not living in the same world. Should we agree to disagree? Should we live and let live? Aren’t the stakes too high? What about the next “crisis”? The next false flag, the next plandemic? Will we have to go through this gut-wrenching dance again, friendships and families wrecked? Will we have learned nothing? I think that depends on you.
This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
