I think it may not have gone as badly as it seems. Many more people read it than commented on it. While some will agree you should go live in seclusion, others will think that was mean and over-the-top. People have read your questions, some will think about them--that is a win, even if you don't see them doing anything about it yet...it adds to the influences on them to question the narrative.
On a personal note, I had what I consider a successful discussion yesterday. I currently live in rural Canada, in a town where everyone except me was born here--I'm the outsider, I haven't lived here long, and I don't know all that many people. I was talking with a group of five people. One had mentioned to me earlier that eleven people on his street had died in the last year (probably 100 or so people live on his street--so eleven deaths in one year is a lot), of various causes. I asked him if any of the people that had died had not taken the vax. He was surprised by the question, thought about it, immediately realizing the implication, and said no, and voiced a concern about the possibility of the vax being a conspiracy of some sort. I don't want to push ideas that could be called conspiracy theories, as they are easier to refute, which reduces the credibility of anything else I say, so I just said it could also just be a poorly-tested vaccine. I want people to question the narrative, and from that some become allies.
I considered this successful because the guy I questioned goes to the bars a lot (requires a vax passport, so I don't go) and talks with many people. He is now questioning the narrative and he is likely to mention that to others. The other people in the group also seemed to be considering the idea that the high number of local deaths is related to the vax (about 95% are vaxxed here).
There are people who have swallowed the narrative completely (the "absolute control freaks" you mention), who will hate me for my questions, and I will not be able to reach them. But there are more people who got vaxxed because they were told to, they didn't do extensive research into it, and they aren't particularly pro-vax--these are people I can reach and make allies with. Small victories, but victories, nonetheless.
Great that you are continuing to push back against the mandates!
What a wonderful story! You came up with a non-threatening and well-placed question that planted some seeds of doubt. Would that we could all have those kinds of successes...
Thanks! A "non-threatening and well-placed question that planted some seeds of doubt" very well sums it up.
I wish I could say all my conversations went this well :), but only some do, and that is enough--that is something attainable that we can hope for and work towards.
I agree that we are on alternate planets. I recently had a troubling email/text interaction with my father in law regarding his concern that I won’t take the third jab (I was red pilled on the vax after I took, and had a bad reaction to, my second dose). His arguments are non arguments. Ignorance of all the data and research, and just “Fauxi says this and CDC says this”. There is no actual debate bc there’s only ignorance. Thus, to me, the alternate planets are populated by those of us who actually are ingesting as much info as possible and taking positions based on all that info and those who blindly follow what govt/pharma/corporate media tell them. I’m not sure the divide will ever be repaired. Advice to anyone else dealing with a similar situation: don’t mention your prescription to ivermectin. For the sheep, this is a trigger that prompts so much bizarre reaction it makes the discussion even worse.
This has sadly become the norm. Attacking tone, not content. Attacking the person, and not what they say. I am constantly amazed at the evidence of our mental devolution.
To me this is exactly how I felt about Steve Kirsch’s recent discussion with Al the Harvard Researcher who seems to be unaware of any and all actual research. No answers … I don’t know that dataset, I don’t know that methodology, I don’t look at Vaers, I’m no familiar with that expert (but I am familiar with Fauxi!), I’m not sure how that’s being defined, etc. While Kirsch was gracious and appreciated the opportunity, the hiding behind all the evasive tactics spoke volumes.
While it won’t just be in rural Idaho, the person who suggested people she disagrees with shouldn’t live with her had a fantastic idea. Come join me and let’s create a nation where all are welcome, but in which people like her won’t want to live: NewSA.substack.com
I just found your substack and love it. May I suggest helping to depoliticize the virus/vaccine situation by not mentioning or quoting people like Bannon & Trump unnecessarily. Many Democrats are highly skeptical of vaccines but the politicization of this topic is one reason they're staying mum. For them it's hard enough being labeled a conspiracy theorist and "anti-vaxxer" in their communities without being accused of belonging to an opposing (to them) political party. And quoting Bannon makes it all the less likely this article, for example, will get shared among their friends or on their social media.
Thanks for the update, Etana. You are brave for stepping into their "reality" bubble! But courage IS what we need right now, more than ever before. It truly amazes me how well the tell-a-vision combined with gov't indoctrination camps — aka, academia including med school — mind-control works on these folks. They're easily hypnotized and yet have no clue that they are, nor that their own minds are being used to carry out evil agendas here in objective reality.
I think it may not have gone as badly as it seems. Many more people read it than commented on it. While some will agree you should go live in seclusion, others will think that was mean and over-the-top. People have read your questions, some will think about them--that is a win, even if you don't see them doing anything about it yet...it adds to the influences on them to question the narrative.
On a personal note, I had what I consider a successful discussion yesterday. I currently live in rural Canada, in a town where everyone except me was born here--I'm the outsider, I haven't lived here long, and I don't know all that many people. I was talking with a group of five people. One had mentioned to me earlier that eleven people on his street had died in the last year (probably 100 or so people live on his street--so eleven deaths in one year is a lot), of various causes. I asked him if any of the people that had died had not taken the vax. He was surprised by the question, thought about it, immediately realizing the implication, and said no, and voiced a concern about the possibility of the vax being a conspiracy of some sort. I don't want to push ideas that could be called conspiracy theories, as they are easier to refute, which reduces the credibility of anything else I say, so I just said it could also just be a poorly-tested vaccine. I want people to question the narrative, and from that some become allies.
I considered this successful because the guy I questioned goes to the bars a lot (requires a vax passport, so I don't go) and talks with many people. He is now questioning the narrative and he is likely to mention that to others. The other people in the group also seemed to be considering the idea that the high number of local deaths is related to the vax (about 95% are vaxxed here).
There are people who have swallowed the narrative completely (the "absolute control freaks" you mention), who will hate me for my questions, and I will not be able to reach them. But there are more people who got vaxxed because they were told to, they didn't do extensive research into it, and they aren't particularly pro-vax--these are people I can reach and make allies with. Small victories, but victories, nonetheless.
Great that you are continuing to push back against the mandates!
Excellent, I love it!! Great job, and yes - you're right. There are 150 women in that group, some of them surely at least noticed what I had to say.
What a wonderful story! You came up with a non-threatening and well-placed question that planted some seeds of doubt. Would that we could all have those kinds of successes...
Thanks! A "non-threatening and well-placed question that planted some seeds of doubt" very well sums it up.
I wish I could say all my conversations went this well :), but only some do, and that is enough--that is something attainable that we can hope for and work towards.
I agree that we are on alternate planets. I recently had a troubling email/text interaction with my father in law regarding his concern that I won’t take the third jab (I was red pilled on the vax after I took, and had a bad reaction to, my second dose). His arguments are non arguments. Ignorance of all the data and research, and just “Fauxi says this and CDC says this”. There is no actual debate bc there’s only ignorance. Thus, to me, the alternate planets are populated by those of us who actually are ingesting as much info as possible and taking positions based on all that info and those who blindly follow what govt/pharma/corporate media tell them. I’m not sure the divide will ever be repaired. Advice to anyone else dealing with a similar situation: don’t mention your prescription to ivermectin. For the sheep, this is a trigger that prompts so much bizarre reaction it makes the discussion even worse.
This has sadly become the norm. Attacking tone, not content. Attacking the person, and not what they say. I am constantly amazed at the evidence of our mental devolution.
Yet, they are 100% certain that they have the moral upper hand, to the extent that they're happy to force others to comply with their beliefs.
It's a MIND VIRUS, a true sickness.
Actually, non-answers are themselves answers!
"First the phraseology of my questions was attacked." That is a classic diversionary, evasive tactic.
Remember that classic Bill C's line: "it depends on what "is" is"?
As for their headcase nurse:" volenti non fit injuria".
Ha! My husband and I jokingly use that line all the time - "it depends what IS is"...
To me this is exactly how I felt about Steve Kirsch’s recent discussion with Al the Harvard Researcher who seems to be unaware of any and all actual research. No answers … I don’t know that dataset, I don’t know that methodology, I don’t look at Vaers, I’m no familiar with that expert (but I am familiar with Fauxi!), I’m not sure how that’s being defined, etc. While Kirsch was gracious and appreciated the opportunity, the hiding behind all the evasive tactics spoke volumes.
One classic evasive tactic is to claim ignorance.
While it won’t just be in rural Idaho, the person who suggested people she disagrees with shouldn’t live with her had a fantastic idea. Come join me and let’s create a nation where all are welcome, but in which people like her won’t want to live: NewSA.substack.com
I just found your substack and love it. May I suggest helping to depoliticize the virus/vaccine situation by not mentioning or quoting people like Bannon & Trump unnecessarily. Many Democrats are highly skeptical of vaccines but the politicization of this topic is one reason they're staying mum. For them it's hard enough being labeled a conspiracy theorist and "anti-vaxxer" in their communities without being accused of belonging to an opposing (to them) political party. And quoting Bannon makes it all the less likely this article, for example, will get shared among their friends or on their social media.
Thanks for the update, Etana. You are brave for stepping into their "reality" bubble! But courage IS what we need right now, more than ever before. It truly amazes me how well the tell-a-vision combined with gov't indoctrination camps — aka, academia including med school — mind-control works on these folks. They're easily hypnotized and yet have no clue that they are, nor that their own minds are being used to carry out evil agendas here in objective reality.