Rokazulu

Less and less.

Keep talking!!

You had me until this. Politics, Philosophy— Consciousness. This has always been a discussion about what the facts are. The facts have to be shown to others through discussion. That can't happen if one or even a few, decide they speak for the rest.

This article can help you, so I will share it as I am not attempting to solely advance my own interests here: https://medium.com/@jaronfund/self-improvement-is-the-barrier-to-enlightenment-and-the-way-to-it-157f14d34462 To paraphrase the article— no-thought improves thought and no-thought is the highest ideal One can obtain a high amount of balance by simply having more control of their thought. We use thought incessantly and therefore it will always have control over us unless we transcend that notion through meditation. So in this way, no-thought improves and refines our thought. And the goal of enlightenment will be to continually create more control of our thought. We may believe thought is always necessary, but that isn't exactly true. For example, some people have the ability to calculate numbers through imagination alone. They can see an equation and the see the number pop into their mind. No thought is needed at all, from this expanded point of view.

Third party would be nice, but we are told that this isn't an "effective strategy" for change. Most people would have voted for Sanders, but chose to vote for our 45th president instead, as an example of how much people don't like corporate leaders (Just out of rhetoric alone). But, many are swayed by the unusual idea that the "other side" would win more easily unless they vote for their corporate pawn. (And if the other more dangerous corporate pawn wins! Oh no! It is the going to be the end times!!). Third-party often require grassroots funding (so we know they aren't corporate controlled), a significant amount of signatures for ballot access (which gets increased by law through Democrats or Republicans to keep them out of the polls; and often they won't even accept legitimate signatures on grounds that the signatures are 'unreadable'), as well as they have to fend off righteous apathy on the moral ground that it is better not to vote because it doesn't matter who wins (thus better not to legitimize that whole system). And who can blame anyone for having moral apathy? We can definitely trust grass roots financing, but can we trust individuals themselves to not take hold of too much power? Green Party supported the mandates for example, and extremely strict price controls on the market. Even though, all their other policies are just common sense perspectives at this point. Yet, they will still be labeled as radical "extremists" that if elected, would be the end times for America. Real, significant, and powerful positive change would take a monumental amount of organization towards a new system or at the very least a willingness from our main influencers to say they are all voting for the non-corporate funded candidate.

Authentication of real people to curb the bots and the possibility that they just stick to removing people based on those rules alone, instead of an emotional whim. Can we avoid ad hominem? Or do we enjoy it? Would we ever want our view to be censored by people with every reason to do so? 1 + 3 = 7 The sky is purple. God is dead. Do you believe me? No? Good. Who would? Bad ideas are best when they can't assume victory. Of course, there is always the mute button...

I assume "misinformation" is still an acceptable topic. NYT admits laptop is authentic; Falsely called "Russian Disinformation" https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-nyt-now-admits-the-biden-laptop?s=r "What this means is that, in the crucial days leading up to the 2020 presidential election, most of the corporate media spread an absolute lie about The New York Post's reporting in order to mislead and manipulate the American electorate. It means that Big Tech monopolies, along with Twitter, censored this story based on a lie from “the intelligence community.” It means that Facebook's promise from its DNC operative that it would suppress discussion of the reporting in order to conduct a "fact-check” of these documents was a fraud because if an honest one had been conducted, it would have proven that Facebook’s censorship decree was based on a lie. It means that millions of Americans were denied the ability to hear about reporting on the candidate leading all polls to become the next president, and instead were subjected to a barrage of lies about the provenance (Russia did it) and authenticity (disinformation!) of these documents." Also recently: Rhetoric But No Action For Amazon Workers https://www.levernews.com/biden-offers-amazon-workers-rhetoric-but-no-action/ “It’s clear that there are these tensions inside the Democratic Party,” said John Logan, a professor of labor and employment studies at San Francisco State University. “On the one hand, you have a president who says he wants to be the most pro-union president in history, on the other you can only judge him on his accomplishments in office. We're not going to get the PRO Act, not going to get labor provisions in Build Back Better. What are we going to get?” And this article has to be discussed: Promises Of Change https://www.jacobinmag.com/2022/01/president-joe-biden-one-year-review-promises-trump-policy "Progressive groups insisted Biden really was planning a transformational program to fix the country’s many long-simmering ills. Television talking heads told us he would turn around the deadly pandemic with a science- and expert-based approach quite unlike Donald Trump’s. For many, just getting rid of Trump was enough, with the added hope of simply erasing the last four years of policy and continuing on as before. Biden himself pitched his presidency in quasi-mystical terms, as if electing him alone would serve as a kind of nationwide exorcism of all the cruelty and bigotry of the Trump years. Well, none of that happened. One year in, the most striking thing about Biden’s presidency, given the various threads of anti-Trumpism that powered his win, is the fundamental continuity between the two administrations in nearly every field of policy. Just as striking is how few are aware of this, with both die-hard blue and red voters convinced Biden’s White House is the antithesis of Trump’s, and an almost radical experiment in left-wing governance."

Inflation is more readily linked with the Federal Reserve than anything else, I would say. The only positive I have seen from this administration was that the Keystone Pipeline was shutdown. Of course this recently happened: https://news.yahoo.com/biden-administration-opens-public-lands-155752802.html Unless they are planning to re-vote on that green infrastructure bill, I don't see it happening under this administration. But, he did do an executive order stating that it would be cool if it did happen. The only thing I saw significantly positive for 45 (during the ENTIRE 4 years) was this: https://www.procon.org/president-trump-signs-bill-legalizing-industrial-hemp/ maybe something something peace talks, I don't know the effect that had

I would reconsider that position. Moderation yes. But, censorship? Censorship doesn't allow anyone to come out of their fixed ideas. The way around it, is to have the energy to discuss things you don't want to discuss.

The vaccine approach is relevant if you place emphasis away from health, yes. It is just my perspective, that the emphasis of the vaccine is not as productive as the emphasis on achieving a healthier immune system. The immune system can detect any virus, and destroy any disease if you allow it to function properly. With or without a vaccine. Can the vaccine enhance a weakened immune system? Absolutely. You have shown me evidence of that. Can it enhance a perfect immune system? Of course not. It is ok to loop around this. That is necessary to grasp the idea of what is being said.

Yes. I just feel more emphasis can be placed on achieving a healthier immune system. If the immune system cannot create immunity to the virus after the second catch, then of course the vaccine won't be able to achieve that either, because the vaccine works on the same principle. People are susceptible to disease because they are eating meat, dairy, refined sugars, gmos, and glyphosate every other night, drinking impure water, and breathing in impure air. They have no concept of fasting. They aren't exercising every day. They aren't breathing correctly, and have no concept of meditation. I can only suggest that this would be a more effective of a strategy for our health officials to consider keeping people out of hospitals. Not to say that you can't have the vaccine if you feel it will help your immune system. But, it seems as though, there has been a great emphasis on the vaccine being a panacea to the virus and future viruses.

Just go back to the beginning of the loop, then. I can change my position. I pretty much already did. See! You can help with the sharing of ideas!

I have to admit. The vaccine triggers an immune response which is therefore possible that this alone was enough for the immune system to be more effective in preventing death in certain cases. Though, again it is the immune system that is taking out the virus, and not the vaccine. I guess they say that the vaccine has a fallout of several months and then you need a booster so that would suggest you need to keep taking a booster every so often or it isn't effective. Which makes me wonder why that is necessary if I could trigger the immune response naturally. If that really effective for some people to do? https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/88036/jaw-dropping-academic-study-shows-natural-immunity-superior-to-covid-vaccine The vaccine has caused several deaths as well, and has the possibility of causing many more. https://yournews.com/2021/12/08/2262859/report-shows-nearly-300-athletes-worldwide-collapsed-or-suffered-cardiac/ But, how are we to determine it was the vaccine that caused these deaths and not... as some articles suggest... climate change? I feel it is up to our choice in the manner, and not the government. I would rather be spending these billions of tax dollars on solar, unconditional basic income, and houses for homeless, and subsides for organic produce. I still don't feel everyone needs a vaccine. Some actually prefer to use Ivermectin as it costs pennies, and is off patent. I would not even want to have Ivermectin mandated for me. No thanks. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/how-the-media-lied-about-japan-not-using-ivermectin-for-coronavirus/ The thing is, can we agree that mandating was a hasty move? I am a healthy 33 year old unvaccinated individual. Please inform me why I need to take the vaccine if I know I won't die from any disease in the future.

Do you know the long-term negative effects? We do know the positive effects of a healthy immune system. I am just a mirror, by the way.

Yes, free speech (within moderation). Misinformation could be an assumption. That is a good story. Though, I hear some viruses are less painful than others.

Tell me how you came to that conclusion that it was the vaccine that saved millions of lives and not the immune system.

This topic is tied into the main topic. Discussion can be had. What I would like to know from you, is how you know "the vaccine lowers the death toll signifcantly"?

I would like to see a study that makes a difference between Fully vaccinated vs Partially Vacccinated vs Unvaccinated that would show me how you know vaccines are preventing more deaths.

And so what is preventing the deaths of COVID, the fully vaccinated or the immune system? Keep in mind, I said "fully vaccinated".

I asked you: "How you are not your own authority?" Your answer, just to be clear, is that you felt it was stupid. I would not call anything in God's existence that. My position is that you are not stupid. You can understand the concept. I am talking from the reader's perspective. "The forum" is not an entity of consciousness that I consider "an authority". Only conscious entities who participate on the forum (aka the reader of these words) is an authority that can be relied upon. You are using your brain not anyone elses. I mean this is the same thing as saying "You are God" basically. Understand?

You are the authority. How could it be any other way?

Yes, but where is the evidence that it is a "lower chance"? Especially, if doctors are now saying everyone will 100% be getting the virus whether vaccinated or not. Pfizer, as an example said they could only release the full vaccine data after 55-years. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants-55-years-process-foia-request-over-vaccine-data-2021-11-18/ If countries are still buying the vaccine, it is because they haven't considered looking into the other information out there. I am not anti-vax! It's just that this has become a political issue involving restrictive mandates and I would like to not have that happen again for the next virus. Choice needs to be the point here. If you continue consuming the same diet suggested in the 1950's, you will likely undergo some type of disease. But, if you believe the vaccine is safe and effective, you should also have access to it. Also, if you say "you can't just make a protocol for billions of people" then what exactly are the vaccines for? There are more effective strategies that do not involve lockdowns, masks, and mandates. Those have also been shown to increase anxiety, stress (which weakens the immunity) and have caused many more suicides as a result. As well, I don't see any evidence that can back up the claim that it will be more severe if you do not have the vaccine. Especially, since there are billions of people to account for, each with their own health conditions and strength of immune system.

Well, I don't really need to go into the motive. But, can you speak about any of the points or are you just venting? Your argument is an appeal to authority and didn't quite speak about any of the statements I have made. I am not judging you for this, and I am not angry that you made it. Just consider why you made that statement towards me instead of towards the ideas I am speaking of.

Yes, but that takes us to the idea of whether or not the risk is worth the "reward". Many doctors are now saying that everyone will get the COVID virus. It will eventually spread to everyone. This is proving to be true as more and more triple vaccinated individuals are caught with the virus. Why would anyone still need to get the vaccine, as it has been proven not to be a vaccine in the traditional sense (provide immunity to the virus), but instead is claimed to now have only a certain" protection" from the virus. Two different things. But, the protection has proven to not work either. So it no longer even has a benefit. Therefore, why risk the side effects of the vaccine (which ranges from stiff necks, extreme swelling, to myocarditis and pericarditis). If you will get COVID anyways? The solution, I already provided in the health section, is what immunologists are taught in university and have been saying for years. A healthy immune system. What they haven't been saying for years, is the new data on how to obtain a healthier immune system. Appeal to authority makes no sense in a discussion. Factually correct information has to be proven. People have to understand why it is a fact, not assume it is one. Everyone has to be involved or it can easily turn into an echo chamber of ideas.

Why is censorship good if it has been proven to radicalize people, create more division among the population and create extremists? Reddit and Facebook have participated in some censorship as well, so they are not much of an alternative. How is any kind of authoritarianism positive?