I think this is important enough to reproduce and save:
An Outline of Post-Western Civilization
I also think it is important enough for you to invest your time reading.
With thanks to Paul Rosenberg (Freeman's Perspective) for being the OP, and Thomas Knapp (Rational Review News Digest) for highlighting it.
There is a '(sic)' next to the word 'vaccine' because it is a fact that the vaccines we are being cajoled into taking are not actually vaccines in the accepted sense of the word. For the record:
A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as a threat, destroy it, and to further recognize and destroy any of the microorganisms associated with that agent that it may encounter in the future.
— Wikipedia, 9-21-21
(Whenever, following, I use the term 'vaccine', I am using it as a convenient shorthand only.) The Covid-19 vaccine does not fit this description. It is not synthesized from the C19 virus itself. It does not provide immunity from C19, neither does it prevent future infection. It's only claim is that it attenuates the severity of C19 should the vaccinated victim become infected. Anecdotal evidence, largely from Israel, the most vaccinated country on Earth, suggests that the vaccine may, in fact, be more dangerous than C19 itself. This is especially true for the so-called Delta variant. That evidence takes the form that hospitalizations and deaths related to C19 closely parallels vaccination rates. That is: as vaccinations go up, so do deaths.
Meanwhile, news out of India and Africa is being suppressed because it does not follow 'the narrative'. That news strongly supports the view that Ivermectin (IVM) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are effective prophylactics when administered early in the disease progression. In the case of Africa, side-by-side graphs of 'vaccine countries' and 'IVM countries' show that death rates in IVM countries are a puny fraction of that in vaccine countries. In the case of India, Kerala province went the vaccine-route while much of the rest of the country relied on early widespread HCQ/IVM use and the death rates in Kerala are substantially higher when compared to the rest of the country.
It isn't possible that our government doesn't know this, yet we are urged and coerced into getting vaccinated despite mounting evidence that other options have better outcomes. Why would our government foist an unproven vaccination regimen on us when there are options that, it now appears likely if not 'certain', are better?
Given that these vaccines are by definition untested — there simply hasn't been enough time to know their long-term effects — could there be an ulterior motive?
Well, there's this:
If a third or more of our population were killed in [a nuclear] attack (a conservative estimate by the standards of the Rand Corporation's "Study of Nonmilitary Defense"), a stronger estate tax would have a tremendous revenue potential.
— from a 1963 Federal Reserve System planning document
A new mRNA 'vaccine' whose long-term effect was to shorten life spans would likewise provide much-needed relief from Social Security's fast-approaching woes, especially if that vaccine or the disease it purports to treat were highly fatal to an older population.
Alternatively, it has been suggested that our planet is severely over-populated. A nice little pandemic could fix that — if effective treatments can be suppressed. It isn't outside the envelope of possibility that the vaccines are simply used as 21st-century snake oil.
In medicine, it has long been recognized that even a quack remedy that is harmless in itself can be fatal when it substitutes for an effective medication or treatment. The time is overdue for that same recognition to apply to politics.
—— Thomas Sowell
—==+++==—
Update: As of July 8, 2021, IVM is recommended by CDC/NIH for treating C19.
The day after 9-11-2001, I wrote Another Day of Infamy as an analysis of what had transpired the day before. 20 years later, I find that I wouldn't change a word.
That's sad when you think about it. In 20 years we have learned virtually nothing about dealing with other sovereign nations. Nothing.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The government is forbidden, via the First amendment, to censor the speech (written or oral) of citizens. Recently, there was an incident where some government operative suggested that the federal government ask prominent media companies (Google, Twitter, FaceBook, &c.) to put a stop to (that is: censor) 'misinformation'. Opinion on this issue fell into two rough categories. One side opined that this should be illegal since government was effectively doing an end run around the First amendment. The other side asserts that those media companies are non-government corporations and are not bound by the First amendment, and can thus censor or not, as they see fit.
A similar public-private partnership involving banks and other financial operators was used during the Obama years to put the squeeze on gun manufacturers and sellers.
Which side do you come down on?
Back on February 3rd, I pointed out that corporations are 'creatures of the state' and have no more authority to censor anyone than does their creator. When FaceBook demonetizes one of their users or when Twitter cancels a user's account for 'violations of the terms of service', they are exercising powers the state could never have granted them — because the state never possessed those powers to begin with.
Somebody with spine and bankroll needs to sue one of these companies and let the Supreme Court rule on whether they can or cannot censor — at the behest of government or without it.
Posts
All Comments
