I have 2 adult kids with Down syndrome and have been writing about eugenics since they were born 20+ years ago now. 2020 was a deja-vu moment for me and I immediately pulled them out of school (they were still in school back then).
As we've seen before, the vulnerable are at the frontlines of the depopulation because a. the perps can easily get away with it by blaming it on their 'condition' or 'vulnerability', b. people with disabilities/chronic illness etc. are portrayed as a (financial) burden and c. while the perps hate all of us, they hate the vulnerable (who bring out our soft and caring side) the most.
While society at large is told to take these shots to protect the vulnerable, the vulnerable are given extra shots because of their so-called vulnerability.
The entire medical profession, and the wider general Public (including the Judiciary) projected what they *wanted to believe* onto this thing. They did ZERO due diligence.
Couple extreme ignorance with the hubris and arrogance of these characters, across several sectors, and it ensured they got it completely wrong - grossly mismanaging what would've been over in 3-4 months, and instead turning it into a years-long medical, social, and economic disaster.
When all of this was kicking into high gear and they mandated it for the entire medical workforce, I expected mass protests, but there were none. When they told people they couldn't work without it, I expected an outcry from the legal profession, but there was nothing.
They all just cowered and caved.
When a Judge doesn't know about the paltry 0.07% fatality rate, or that it was never designed to stop transmission, or that it was woefully ineffective (Moderna 1.1%, Pfizer 0.7%), or that they were violating multiple laws and statutes in enforcing it - we had ignorance of “the learned” on a grand scale, operating not on facts, but fantasy.
They were great little soldiers for the true malefics driving the whole show, and I doubt they are any better informed today.
Laymen everywhere could see it, but the credentialled class fell for the propaganda as easily as Mrs Muggins next door glued to her TV.
There was no outcry from the legal profession because private businesses have the right to decide who they will accept on their premises. It is just a pity that the entire workforce of such businesses did not simply down tools and walk out in protest at these gross infringements of their civil liberties. I am pretty sure that if all airline pilots had refused to get vaccinated the airlines would have caved in pretty quickly.
I'm reading with great interest your latest about what we can do if Substack goes full social media soon. I'll share my thoughts once I've taken it all in.
SP, just as an aside, I had to log in three times to make this comment and use a 'code' on my email. You may want to check your settings...or you are heavily censored.
A most incisive and revealing article, but nowhere did it mention that there was no legal requirement for everyone in Australia to be vaccinated. As far as I am aware, unvaccinated lepers were simply prohibited from entering various places and using public transport, so unless this person was confined to an institution which insisted that all residents must be vaccinated, no-one had the right to compulsorily. vaccinate him and that includes his guardians.
As horrible as it sounds, the law does actually give them the right to force-vaccinate people who, the State decides, cannot "consent" for themselves.
You're right though, this wasn't about an existing PHO or requirement by the home he was in. But that's even worse. It can just happen at any old time if the State decides.
Thanks for the clarification. To my my mind it makes the injustice even worse. It is astonishing tbat some jumped up psychiatrist can arbitrarily decide that one of his patients MUST receive an invasive medical treatment whether he likes it or not.
I have 2 adult kids with Down syndrome and have been writing about eugenics since they were born 20+ years ago now. 2020 was a deja-vu moment for me and I immediately pulled them out of school (they were still in school back then).
As we've seen before, the vulnerable are at the frontlines of the depopulation because a. the perps can easily get away with it by blaming it on their 'condition' or 'vulnerability', b. people with disabilities/chronic illness etc. are portrayed as a (financial) burden and c. while the perps hate all of us, they hate the vulnerable (who bring out our soft and caring side) the most.
While society at large is told to take these shots to protect the vulnerable, the vulnerable are given extra shots because of their so-called vulnerability.
Thanks for your article.
Thank you Renate.
I am humbled by your comment.
I learned the same thing in 2020.
Until then, I would never have questioned the orthodoxy.
So much has changed now.
How you describe our treatment of the vulnerable applies equally to how we treated (and continue to treat) those in our aged care homes.
Complete abandonment.
No dignity.
The entire medical profession, and the wider general Public (including the Judiciary) projected what they *wanted to believe* onto this thing. They did ZERO due diligence.
Couple extreme ignorance with the hubris and arrogance of these characters, across several sectors, and it ensured they got it completely wrong - grossly mismanaging what would've been over in 3-4 months, and instead turning it into a years-long medical, social, and economic disaster.
You're right Sez. 100%.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance" - as defenders of the Pfaith say.
This was more than ignorance.
It was calculated and in lockstep globally.
Quite frightening really.
When all of this was kicking into high gear and they mandated it for the entire medical workforce, I expected mass protests, but there were none. When they told people they couldn't work without it, I expected an outcry from the legal profession, but there was nothing.
They all just cowered and caved.
When a Judge doesn't know about the paltry 0.07% fatality rate, or that it was never designed to stop transmission, or that it was woefully ineffective (Moderna 1.1%, Pfizer 0.7%), or that they were violating multiple laws and statutes in enforcing it - we had ignorance of “the learned” on a grand scale, operating not on facts, but fantasy.
They were great little soldiers for the true malefics driving the whole show, and I doubt they are any better informed today.
Laymen everywhere could see it, but the credentialled class fell for the propaganda as easily as Mrs Muggins next door glued to her TV.
And THAT is truly frightening.
There was no outcry from the legal profession because private businesses have the right to decide who they will accept on their premises. It is just a pity that the entire workforce of such businesses did not simply down tools and walk out in protest at these gross infringements of their civil liberties. I am pretty sure that if all airline pilots had refused to get vaccinated the airlines would have caved in pretty quickly.
Very thankful for your work SP. Saved offline in my digital repository with all your other articles and documents.
Thank you EDAU.
Hopefully we're still here in a month.
I'm reading with great interest your latest about what we can do if Substack goes full social media soon. I'll share my thoughts once I've taken it all in.
SP, just as an aside, I had to log in three times to make this comment and use a 'code' on my email. You may want to check your settings...or you are heavily censored.
Good and accurate summation!
Thanks for reading Rochelle.
A most incisive and revealing article, but nowhere did it mention that there was no legal requirement for everyone in Australia to be vaccinated. As far as I am aware, unvaccinated lepers were simply prohibited from entering various places and using public transport, so unless this person was confined to an institution which insisted that all residents must be vaccinated, no-one had the right to compulsorily. vaccinate him and that includes his guardians.
Thanks for reading David and for the comment.
As horrible as it sounds, the law does actually give them the right to force-vaccinate people who, the State decides, cannot "consent" for themselves.
You're right though, this wasn't about an existing PHO or requirement by the home he was in. But that's even worse. It can just happen at any old time if the State decides.
Thanks for the clarification. To my my mind it makes the injustice even worse. It is astonishing tbat some jumped up psychiatrist can arbitrarily decide that one of his patients MUST receive an invasive medical treatment whether he likes it or not.