Current issues and events

So I hope that you will research and think about this further, that you'll consider all the evidence, that you won't just adopt the opinion of some "expert," right? Whether it be an author, whether it be a celebrity, a journalist, a famous doctor, whether it be me, whether it be your parents, your spouse . . . anyone.  What you should do is learn this information, think about it, look up for more information to answer unanswered questions, and make your own opinion.  And you'll know . . . that when you arrive at something close to the truth, you'll have that settling feeling, you'll know that it's right, and you, when you talk about it to other people, you'll know that you're doing the right thing by spreading a message of truth.  And that's really the only thing that can result in us going back to the freedom and authority over ourselves that God has created us to embody on this earth.

Here's what parrhesia is, dudes:

Another irony is that the higher the level of education, the more susceptible people usually are to mass formation, Desmet says. “The people who try to get advanced degrees are usually people who think that social status is very important. And that could be the reason they are inclined to conform with the mainstream narrative.”  It may also explain why so many physicians and academics have bought into the propaganda, ignoring science in favor of the collective narrative.

Formation is the sudden cohesion of the group (the crowd) around a shared consensus. . . .

Desmet’s upcoming book, “The Psychology of Totalitarianism,” explains that mass formation has grown over the last 200 years. On a grand scale, mass formation leads to totalitarian thinking and, eventually, to totalitarian states. . . .

According to an abridged excerpt from Desmet’s book:

“If under these conditions a narrative is distributed through the mass media which indicates an object of anxiety and provides a strategy to deal with this object of anxiety, then all the free floating anxiety might be associated to this object and a huge willingness might be observed to participate in the strategy to deal with the object of anxiety.

At the same time, the field of attention gets narrower until it only contains the part of reality that is indicated by the narrative and people lose their capacity to take into account the other aspects of reality (what makes them often utterly irrational).”

The More Absurd It Gets, the More Successful It Will Be

People want to remove their feelings of social isolation and anxiety. Toward that end, mass formation involves obsessive focusing on a failure of the normal world or a particular event or person, who becomes the focus of the attention — and the more absurd the narrative becomes, the better.  Desmet says . . . :

“The narrative that leads to the mass formation typically becomes more and more absurd, and the strange thing is that people don’t seem to notice this ... The reason why people buy into the narrative is not, in the first place, because the narrative is correct or scientific or accurate.

The reason why people buy into the narrative is because it creates this new social bond. That’s why typically during mass formation, the people who don’t want to conform to the masses, who don’t go along with the narrative, are typically [accused of] lacking citizenship and solidarity.”

Desmet says that the more absurd the narrative and its surrounding measures become, the more successful they will be for a certain part of the population, usually about 30%, because the measures function as rituals, through which an individual shows that they are less important than the collective masses . . . .

Another irony is that the higher the level of education, the more susceptible people usually are to mass formation, Desmet says. “The people who try to get advanced degrees are usually people who think that social status is very important. And that could be the reason they are inclined to conform with the mainstream narrative.”  It may also explain why so many physicians and academics have bought into the propaganda, ignoring science in favor of the collective narrative. . . .

Those who are under the spell of mass formation psychosis are so convinced that their narrative will save the world that they feel justified in using manipulative tactics and lies . . . .

“Once you understand the nature of mass formation, you also understand what you can do about it. But that doesn’t mean that it is easy to do something about it. The process of mass formation is a kind of hypnosis. Most scholars agree that it is very hard to wake people up from such a state of mass formation. Mass formation is a phenomenon that’s provoked by a voice.

It’s the voice of a leader, the voice that is distributed time and time again through the mass media, that keeps people in the grasp of mass formation, and the leader himself is also grasped in this process of mass formation ... both the hypnotist and the hypnotized are into the process.”

Who’s the leader today?  “The experts. The authority and the technocrats you could say,” Desmet says. The way out involves having the courage to speak the truth, even though doing so is typically extremely dangerous.

The ancient Greeks had a word for this — parrhesia, which is having the courage to speak the truth in spite of danger. But as Desmet explains, while those who try to reveal knowledge that is in conflict with the narrative put themselves at risk, if no one speaks the truth, society cannot continue to function.

Four Steps to End Mass Formation Psychosis

The first step to ending mass formation, which is also the most important, is speaking out against the official narrative if things seem off to you. “If you want to make the mass formation less deep, then it is quintessential that there are people who continue to speak out and [are a] dissonant voice in society, because this will disrupt the process of mass formation,” says Desmet.

The second step involves connecting with other people in the real world who have a similar viewpoint as you or a feeling that something is wrong. Forming small networks in your community will help you break the mass formation cycle. It’s important, however that when you speak to people about the truth that you don’t try to take them back to the “old normal" . . . .

"What we should try to construct together is a new normal, which is not a technocratic or transhumanist new normal. We should show people that there are other options. There are other options to escape the old normal.”

In short, Desmet recommends the following four steps to break free from mass formation psychosis and enact favorable change one social circle at a time:

1. Continue to speak out

2. Seek to connect with others of like mind

3. Construct a narrative together of a new normal — not to be confused with the “new normal” the transhumanist, technocratic movements are trying to advance — showing people that there are other options to escape the old normal

4. Always stick to the principles of nonviolent resistance

The last step is an important one, because if you use aggression of any form, even in the way you speak, it will only be used as justification by the masses that they were right to oppose you. Nonviolent resistant [sic] is the most efficient strategy as you try to resist and defy the mass formation psychosis around you. . . .

We all have the capacity to generate reality with our minds and this is what the cabal has hijacked so effectively. Why? Because never in the history of mankind have the tools existed to pull it off. First radio and then TV spread the message, but then social media leveraged the effectiveness of the brainwashing exponentially.

A spellbreaker's goal is to be ever more alert to spellbinding behavior, to wake up Spellbound people, to call attention to the problem, and to enlighten . . . . Spellbound people can show up on radio and television, defining others and haranguing against people who aren't just like them.  Spellbreakers change the station or the channel.  If enough people do so, the spellbound person has no audience and the spell becomes weaker instead of stronger.

A healthy mouth cuts the risk of colds, flu, and severe covid-19 symptoms by up to 50 percent, British scientists say. How? Healthy gums reduce strain on the immune system so it can react quickly to invading viruses, explains Kourosh Maddahi, D.D.S.

University of Southern California researchers say rinsing for 30 seconds twice daily with sea salt can eradicate gum disease, plus block gum-irritating plaque growth 33 percent better than prescription rinses. To make: Combine 1 Tbs. of sea salt with 1⁄2 cup of water in a glass jar, shake well; refrigerate between uses.

Rarely do we just let ourselves stare into space these days. Like many people, I feel uncomfortable when I’m not doing something, uncomfortable “wasting time.”

We humans have become multi-tasking productivity machines. We can work from anywhere, to great effect. We can do more, and do it far more quickly, than we ever dreamed possible. . . .

So now that we have so much more time to work and do things previous generations never dreamed possible (or even deemed desirable), why do we always feel starved for time?

The obvious answer is that we have so much more work, and expectations about what we will accomplish on a good day have expanded, but the number of hours in that day have stayed the same.

That’s true, but I also think there is something else at work here: We have gotten really, really bad at just doing nothing.

Look around: We can’t even stand to wait in an elevator for 10 seconds without checking our smartphones. . . .

In 11 studies, we found that participants typically did not enjoy spending 6 to 15 minutes in a room by themselves with nothing to do but think, that they enjoyed doing mundane external activities much more, and that many preferred to administer electric shocks to themselves instead of being left alone with their thoughts. Most people seem to prefer to be doing something rather than nothing, even if that something is negative.

You read that right: Many people (67 percent of men and 25 percent of women, to be exact) actually gave themselves painful electric shocks instead of just sitting there doing nothing–after they had indicated to the researchers that they would pay money NOT to be shocked again. One guy shocked himself 190 times in 15 minutes.

This brings me back to my main point: Stillness — or the ability to just sit there and do nothing — is a skill, and as a culture we’re not practicing this skill much these days. When we can’t tolerate stillness, we feel uncomfortable when we have downtime, and so we cancel it out by seeking external stimulation, which is usually readily available in our purse or pocket. Instead of just staring out the window on the bus, for example, we read through our Facebook feed. We check our email waiting in line at the grocery store. Instead of enjoying our dinner, we mindlessly shovel food in our mouths while staring at a screen.

Here’s the core problem with all of this: We human beings need stillness in order to recharge our batteries. The constant stream of external stimulation that we get from our televisions and computers and smart phones, while often gratifying in the moment, ultimately causes what neuroscientists call “cognitive overload.” This state of feeling overwhelmed impairs our ability to think creatively, to plan, organize, innovate, solve problems, make decisions, resist temptations, learn new things easily, speak fluently, remember important social information (like the name of our boss’s daughter, or our daughter’s boss), and control our emotions. In other words, it impairs basically everything we need to do in a given day.

But wait, there’s more: We only experience big joy and real gratitude and the dozens of other positive emotions that make our lives worth living by actually being in touch with our emotions — by giving ourselves space to actually feel what it is we are, well, feeling.  In an effort to avoid the uncomfortable feelings that stillness can produce (such as the panicky feeling that we aren’t getting anything done), we also numb ourselves to the good feelings in our lives. And research by Matt Killingsworth suggests that actually being present to what we’re feeling and experiencing in the moment — good or bad — is better for our happiness in the end.

Here’s the main take-away: If we want to be high-functioning and happy, we need to re-learn how to be still. When we feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for us to get everything done, when we wish for more time… we don’t actually need more time. We need more stillness. Stillness to recharge. Stillness so that we can feel whatever it is that we feel. Stillness so that we can actually enjoy this life that we are living.

So if you are feeling overwhelmed and time-starved: Stop. Remember that what you need more than time (to work, to check tasks off your list) is downtime, sans stimulation.

As a society, we don’t just need to learn to tolerate stillness, we actually need to cultivate it. Fortunately, it’s not complicated. Try driving in silence, with your radio and phone off. (Encourage your children to look out the window while you drive them, instead of down at their devices.) Eat meals out of the sight and sound of your phones and televisions. Take a walk outside every day, preferably in nature, without a phone or music player. If it’s hard, just try a few minutes at a time, adding a few minutes each day. Just practice; it’ll get easier, and the benefits will become more apparent.

Finally, forgive yourself the next time you find yourself staring blankly into space. You aren’t wasting time. You’re catching up on your stillness.

Two days ago, Chris Pandolfo at Blaze Media revealed that his media organization had filed FOIA requests regarding the Biden Administration’s covert funding of the deadly new vaccines and the American corporate media.  What they discovered will certainly shock you — and it’s a crucial story that our corrupt media will work hard to make the least covered and least discussed news story of the year.

What did Chris Pandolfo find? He discovered that nearly the entire corporate media took money from the Biden Administration to push the vaccines to their audiences without disclosing it. More importantly, so-called “conservative” media organizations took money from the Biden Administration to spin positive stories about deadly and ineffective vaccines to their conservative viwers who were right to be suspicious — and did not disclose it.

Fox News took the money and said nothing to its conservative viewers.

Newsmax took the money and said nothing to its conservative viewers.

In response to a FOIA request filed by TheBlaze, HHS revealed that it purchased advertising from major news networks including ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as cable TV news stations Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, legacy media publications including the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post, digital media companies like BuzzFeed News and Newsmax, and hundreds of local newspapers and TV stations. These outlets were collectively responsible for publishing countless articles and video segments regarding the vaccine that were nearly uniformly positive about the vaccine in terms of both its efficacy and safety.

That is the largest and most comprehensive breach of journalistic ethics that has ever occurred. Almost everybody took the money. Almost everybody lied about the vaccines (knowingly or unknowingly). Almost everybody refused to report anything negative about the vaccines — because they were paid to close their eyes. Almost everybody is implicated.

Now that the new COVID vaccines have been shown to be not only dangerous and ineffective but highly dangerous, the American public would naturally expect the American news media to do some investigation into the biggest medical experiment in the history of the world. That’s not going to happen. The American corporate media has been paid off by the Biden Administration, and so they’re running Ukraine war footage 24/7 in the hope that the American public will forget the last two years of media-manufactured COVID mania.

There are so many newsworthy details contained in the just-released Wisconsin Special Counsel Report on the 2020 Election that it’s hard to know where to begin. Every American citizen should read this report because it explains how the election was stolen by Democrats. That alone makes it worthwhile.

Let’s start with this story:

The OSC learned that all machines in Green Bay were ESS machines and were
connected to a secret, hidden Wi-Fi access point at the Grand Hyatt hotel, which was the location used by the City of Green Bay on the day of the 2020 Presidential election. The OSC discovered the Wi-Fi, machines, and ballots were controlled by a single individual who was not a government employee but an agent of a special interest group operating in Wisconsin.

Wow. So one guy hidden at the Grand Hyatt Hotel controlled Green Bay’s election from his room? What is that guy’s name? According to the report: his name is Michael Spitzer Rubenstein. Why was a lawyer from Brooklyn in control of an election in Wisconsin?

That’s a good question. Let’s begin, though, with an explanation of why it’s been so hard to get any good questions answered at all. Just take a look at your calendar: it’s March 2022. The retired Wisconsin Supreme Court judge who conducted this Special Counsel investigation would remind all of us, first, that we’re talking about companies that are hiding their tracks. . . .

Let’s also remember that the voting machine companies have refused to comply with investigations authorized by the state officials of Wisconsin even though the state officials of Wisconsin hired them in the first place as third-party vendors.

As of the date of this Report, the voting machine companies have refused to comply
with the OSC’s legislative subpoenas, and have provided no data. The OSC considers this investigation incomplete but ongoing.

The OSC also sought information about the machines in Wisconsin used on election night from the clerks. The clerks either did not possess the data sought by the OSC or refused to provide it, with Green Bay and Madison insinuating that providing secure voting machine data to the OSC would somehow compromise election integrity. In other words, these cities claim that it is impossible to verify the integrity of the voting machines because doing that would jeopardize the integrity of both the machines and future elections.

So let’s return to the Brooklyn attorney in the hotel room running Green Bay’s election. How was that possible? How did he manage to do it? . . .

On election day, Spitzer Rubenstein had access to ballots and determined which
ones would be counted or not counted.

Our elections can be hijacked because the electronic voting machines are hooked up to the internet. You know: the simple truth that your elected officials keep insisting is not true — and which is now indisputably true. Which brings us to the next truth: your elected officials are lying to you and they’re probably lying to you because the only way they got elected was by using corrupt voting systems.

There’s another blockbuster development mentioned in the report as well. The retired Wisconsin judge got his hands on some interesting evidence.

The OSC’s investigation discovered the use of a ballot tracking and harvesting
application in Wisconsin. An extensive amount of time and effort went into this portion of the investigation. The OSC became attuned to the possibility of an application when reviewing email exchanges between the Zuckerberg 5 and third parties. This involved tracking applications in Georgia and Pennsylvania.

The OSC discovered ballot tracking programs in both Georgia and Pennsylvania.
The OSC was able to locate and identify the developer of both programs in those States. The OSC obtained the source code for the Pennsylvania application. Ultimately, that data and source code would not prove to be helpful to discovering information about the Wisconsin application.

The Democrats now have a very big problem: massive election fraud in 2020 is no longer a “conspiracy theory” — it’s a fact described in great detail in an official report conducted by the state officials of Wisconsin.

It’s official: they cheated.

*  Prestige often matters more than truth.

*  People who are already at the top of the social ladder have the strongest desire for social status.

*  Education is associated with less positive views of other people.

Many have discovered an argument hack. They don’t need to argue that something is false. They just need to show that it's associated with low status. The converse is also true:  You don’t need to argue that something is true. You just need to show that it’s associated with high status.  And when low-status people express the truth, it sometimes becomes high-status to lie. . . .

The renowned psychologists Susan Fiske and Shelly Taylor have characterized humans as “cognitive misers.”  They write, “People are limited in their capacity to process information, so they take shortcuts whenever they can.” . . .

In his influential theory of social-comparison processes, psychologist Leon Festinger suggested that people evaluate the “correctness” of their opinions by comparing them to the opinions of others.  When we see others hold the same beliefs as us, our own confidence in those beliefs increases.

Taking these ideas together, they suggest that people have a mechanism in their minds.  It stops them from saying something that could lower their status, even if it's true. And it propels them to say something that could increase their status, even if it's false.

Furthermore, considerations of what happens to our own reputation often guide our beliefs, leading us to adopt a popular view to preserve or enhance our social positions.  We implicitly ask ourselves, “What are the social consequences of holding (or not holding) this belief?”

But our reputation isn’t the only thing that matters when considering what to believe.  Equally important is the reputation of others.  Returning to the peripheral route of persuasion, we decide whether to believe something not only if lots of people believe it, but also if the proponent of the belief is a prestigious person. . . .

Which brings us to a question:  Who is most susceptible to manipulation via peripheral persuasion?  It might seem intuitive to believe that people with less education are more manipulable.  But research suggests this may not be true.

High-status people are more preoccupied with how others view them. . . .

A recent set of studies led by Cameron Anderson at UC Berkeley found that social class was positively associated with the desire for social status.  People who had more education and money were more likely to agree with statements like “I enjoy having influence over other people’s decision making” and “It would please me to have a position of prestige and social standing.”

Social-Status Loss Aversion

Who feels most in danger of losing their reputations?  Turns out, those same exact people. A survey by the Cato Institute in collaboration with YouGov asked a nationally representative sample of 2,000 Americans questions about self-censorship.

They found that 25 percent of those with a high school education or less are afraid of getting fired or hurting their employment prospects because of their political views, compared with an astounding 44 percent of people with a postgraduate degree. . . .

Highly Educated People Hold Low Opinions of Others . . .

Higher education was consistently related to less-positive views of people. . . .

So affluent people care the most about status, believe they have little power, are afraid of losing their jobs and reputation, and have less-favorable views of others.

In short, opinions can confer status regardless of their truth value.  And the individuals most likely to express certain opinions in order to preserve or enhance their status are also those who are already on the upper rungs of the social ladder.

Foundation (not building a stable enough platform for our life);

Boldness (not being brave enough to have said or done something);

Moral (not making the right ethical decision);

Connection (not staying connected to important people in our lives)

The European Union has vowed to massively expand online censorship worldwide, strictly regulate speech during times of “crisis” and impose digital passports so that online anonymity becomes a thing of the past.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both enthusiastically lobbied for the EU to back the draconian censorship bill on Thursday . . .

Infowars.com reports: Looking over the outline of the new agreement it’s striking how they seamlessly conflate child sexual abuse material with “illegal hate speech.”

Both are jumbled together as “illegal content.” . . .

The DSA also pushes for a “public electronic identity (eID),” which Politico previously described as a “National ID card” on your phone that has its origins in vaccine passports and “Digital COVID Certificates.” . . .

This law is the EU’s answer to the rising tide of populism and nationalism. Rather than offer any concessions to the masses, they’re imprisoning “far-right” leaders, outlawing “far-right” groups, sanctioning Hungarians to punish them for voting for Viktor Orban and launching witch hunts against Marine Le Pen to sabotage her election chances.

This how they “defend democracy!”

This is a very important interview between Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Dr. Theresa Deisher regarding the use of human fetal tissue to culture viruses for vaccines, because Dr. Deisher reveals that human DNA fragments are found in vaccines. . . .

One of the more interesting questions Mr. Kennedy asked Dr. Deisher was why the manufacturers of vaccines switched from exclusively using animal tissue to culture viruses for vaccines, to start using aborted fetal tissue some years back.

Dr. Deisher’s reply was that the industry was getting a lot of pressure from the animal rights movement to stop using animals for experimentation.

Mr. Kennedy was shocked, and stated [starting at 10 in the video]:

"It’s kind of weird to think that the animal rights activists have more clout with the vaccine companies than do the [pro-life] activists."

Dr. Deisher replied:

"They do. And you know what’s really alarming is the lack of outcry over human babies born alive at five to six months old so that their hearts can be obtained beating. And they have to be beating to be used in the research that’s being done.

If the heart has stopped beating, it’s not useful. You cannot use it.

And so these babies are delivered alive, and their hearts cut out without anesthesia.

I wouldn’t do that to a mouse…."

The chart that should worry the vaccinated: the yellow line shows the odds that an unvaccinated person will develop anti-nucleocapsid antibodies to Sars-Cov-2, stratified by viral load. The blue line shows the same odds for a person who received an mRNA shot.

A bombshell study - from the National Institutes of Health and Moderna, no less - should end debate

Unvaccinated people are much more likely to develop broad antibody immunity after Covid infections than people who have received mRNA shots, a new study shows.

The gap remains large whether people had mild, moderate, or severe Covid infections, the study showed - undercutting a crucial argument that vaccine advocates have made to defend the shots. . . .

Researchers already knew that many vaccinated people do not gain antibodies to the entire coronavirus after they are infected with Covid. . . .

Vaccine advocates claim the lack of nucleocapsid antibodies may occur because the mRNA shots prime people to fight off the Covid infections more quickly and have lower viral loads. In this view, the narrow immune response is a feature, not a bug - vaccinated people are less seriously infected and so do not need to generate anti-nucleocapsid antibodies.

This study essentially demolishes that theory. . . .

Once again, they found that unvaccinated people were far more likely to develop anti-nucleocapsid antibodies than the jabbed. An unvaccinated person with a mild infection had a 71 percent chance of mounting an immune response that included those antibodies. A vaccinated person had about a 15 percent chance. . . .

An unvaccinated person has an almost 60 percent chance of developing antibodies even with an extremely mild infection; a vaccinated person needs almost 100,000 times as much virus in his blood to have the same chance. . . .

The study all-but-proves the mRNA shots themselves — and not whatever reduction in viral loads they may cause — are impeding the development of the anti-nucleocapsid antibodies.

There are 10 steps that leaders who want to crush a democracy will always take. We are now in Step 10, and traitors are dissolving the boundaries and sovereignty of the United States. The same is also taking place in other nations.

It's like all the things that are being targeted are what is divine about our human journey on this planet.  I don't know where to go with that except that it seems like we're in a moment in which in addition to all the things we can do, and I'm just speaking for myself, I think we can pray. . . .

Like to me getting out of this, we don't have the ability just as human beings to get out of it.  It's too big. But I do believe that getting out of it requires an awakening that's massive.  And for myself anyway, asking for divine help, it's worked before.

Five planets are expected to move into a rare alignment in June, and observant watchers on Earth will be able to see it all.

For one night, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are lining up in order with the added bonus of a waning crescent moon joining the formation. This phenomenon, when two or three planets line up in the night sky, is called a conjunction.

Events with two or even three planets in alignment are fairly common, but having five planets line up across the night sky is a fairly rare occurrence, according to the astronomy news source Sky & Telescope. The last time five planets lined up like this was December 2004 and the next time it’s expected to happen will be in 2040. . . .

Friday, June 24 will undoubtedly be the best day to see this planetary lineup, but it’s actually possible to get a glimpse of all five planets on any morning between now and then.

For starters, set your alarm for early in the morning because all five planets will only be visible just before dawn. The window of time to see the five planets is only about 30 minutes before sunrise early in the month, and the window gradually grows to about an hour before sunrise on June 24.

Find a spot with an unobstructed view of the horizon and try to get there at least an hour early to give your eyes time to adjust to the darkness for maximum visibility.

In this lineup, Mercury will be especially low in the sky — just above the horizon — to the east-northeast, according to Sky & Telescope. Slightly higher in the sky and more eastward, Venus will be seen. From there, nearly due east and higher in the sky, the crescent moon, representing Earth, can be seen. Mars and Jupiter are higher still in the southeastern sky, while the fifth and final planet in the lineup, Saturn, is just as high in the sky as Jupiter and due south.

The leader of the Civil Rights Movement, Franco Corbelli, today on La Verità and (with a dramatic video message to the country on the tragedy of sudden deaths) on his Facebook page, released a figure he calls "shocking and disturbing, which is unprecedented, not only in Italy. It is, he says "the death, from sudden illness, in the last sixty days in Italy, of (at least) 15 doctors, mostly men, many of them very young, in their early thirties and forties. They were all vaccinated (since they were in regular practice) and healthy. There is a drama within the drama, about sudden deaths, that is incomprehensible and inexplicable; the disappearance of an impressive number of doctors, about 15, from the last week of April to yesterday, the youngest were only 33 and 37 years old. Of the latest doctor to die, from a fulminating heart attack, it was learned in the last few hours. It occurred in the province of Pistoia. The fact that so many young doctors are also dying is even more worrying and alarming. These are all vaccinated doctors who were operating in their cities. How is it possible that they collapsed so suddenly that in some cases it did not even give them time to call for help? What is going on? Why are people continuing to die in this way, at an impressive number and rate, as never before?" . . .

"In recent days," he continues, "dozens more deaths are being recorded. I don't think there is a single precedent in Italy or in the world, in all these years, of more than fifteen doctors who died in sixty days, for no valid reason, without being sick!  Why is it that the government, the so-called technicians, and the mainstream press irresponsibly talk about new vaccinations and instead continue to remain silent about this immense tragedy?  Why is the country not informed and preventative, as Civil Rights, continues to do with its interventions on La Verità, on the Civil Rights Facebook profile (with a new heartfelt video message to the country that is making thousands of adhesions and views) and on some regional online newspapers, such as Calabria7? Can one continue to even talk about new vaccinations (even for children under the age of 5 - who are at no risk with Covid - as is already being done in the U.S.!) and erase this tragedy of sudden deaths? Can one ignore the numerous international studies that, as, once again, reported yesterday in La Verità (the only one, among the major Italian newspapers, committed from the beginning to this just and fundamental battle), confirm the possible serious adverse effects of these vaccines, whose risks would outweigh the same benefits and in a great many cases would even be lethal?"


Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

In a democracy, we have always had to worry about the ignorance of the uneducated.  Today we have to worry about the ignorance of people with college degrees.  

— Thomas Sowell