I sensed my flippant remark would trigger a reaction.
Yours is hyperbolic mischaracterization.
(To go along with my hyperbolic remark, granted)
My
contempt is primarily placed on the conditioning and control mechanisms in place that instill an exaggerated sense of fear, which in turn minimizes discernment and critical thinking, resulting in our current circumstances:
- excessive and unwarranted govt overreach;
- further restrictions to livelihoods;
- misleading premises accepted as a given.
People are lining up to take a vaccine that was fast-tracked in unprecedented fashion, and by the manufactures own admission, has numerous potential side-effects, some of which won't be known for at least another year. In other instances, some unfortunately won't be able to wait very long: people have died shortly after taking this vaccine, or otherwise have experienced acute side-effects.
Damage-control commentary in the press will suggest these serious reactions may not be tied directly to the vaccine.
Caveat Emptor.Not to mention that it doesn't prevent one from catching the virus again in the future. Meanwhile, pharma companies and major stockholders reap in $$$$.
I've presented numerous alternative, and demonstrably effective, methods for proactive/reactive treatment for this virus (as suggested by case studies, physicians, doctors) -- so how can you, in good faith, use the word 'contempt', other than as a means to defame?
(I mean, I personally don't take offense to it -- i forgive you, for you know not what you say)
I've cited case studies that show how low-cost treatments (ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, zinc and others) have been very successful as treatment options.
Why aren't these treatments being referenced more broadly?
More than a fair share of those lining up for these vaccines, and the reason why at least a portion of the public wear masks increasingly outdoors, is in part because they want this to END. They are being largely compliant because they just want to GET BACK to what was before, not so much because they subscribe fully to notions proclaiming restrictive methods are as effective as stated. Apart from that, there will be many that comply based primarily on FEAR. Generally, there hasn't been too much due diligence research undertaken by those playing along.
Scrutiny is increasing, however. A growing number are questioning at least certain aspects.
I type this based in part on my anecdotal observations:
I've had many conversations over the past year with friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, individuals I encounter as part of my 'job', and even those I happen to converse with out there in the real world. Yes, I still interact with people out there in the streets (apart from online interaction), though it's admittedly a far more challenging task, given how fearful, generally, humans have now become of interaction with fellow humans... tragic, that.
How many of you have done the same in the past ~year, I wonder? Especially those of you holding more tightly to the standard storylines?
I will wager that there is indeed
contempt that some harbor. And my wager would be that -- along with fear-based and/or conditioning reasons -- those clamoring for or
agreeable with lockdown measures are more likely to be individuals that weren't 'fans' of much social interaction to begin with. Germaphobes, in particular, are surely perfectly fine with current arrangements. Anecdotally, it appears those that are
fervently pro-lockdown/pro-mask/pro-vaccine have shown themselves, increasingly, and perhaps not fully consciously,
to have more contempt for their fellow human, Especially those humans holding a contrary view to all of this.
In other words, an unprecedented and large-scale psychological experiment has been undertaken over the past ~year, for a number of reasons that, ultimately, has little to do with
repairing public health. To the contrary, the measures taken have dramatically impacted overall health for the worse, not for better. This much is clear.
Lockdowns and other mandates were maintained for this duration to increase the acceptance of 'vaccine' as the primary/sole solution.
(Side-note: if Ct thresholds are lowered across the board for PCR tests, there will indeed be far less 'positive' cases -- which can be spun as preferred by the press/govt talking heads).
It's wasteful to continue with this commentary, at this point: most who continue to subscribe to current narratives are unlikely to see it any other way, at least in the near-term.
We'll see how these talking points age in another ~3yrs or so.
In the meantime, wrongful and -- in my view -- agenda-driven policies detrimental to the majority will likely continue.
