I have a confession to make. I do not believe most of what I hear. That doesn’t at all mean I think it is false or untrue, I just don’t believe it is true—neither true, or untrue—neither fact or fiction.
Since all this Covid caca began I have adopted the phrase, “consider everything, believe nothing.” Which basically means I don’t commit to much of anything but I keep an open mind. This has worked pretty well for me, albeit a bit wishy-washy.
I don’t really start believing something unless I have seen some pretty compelling evidence in support of it, or someone I trust says or writes it, or there is so much science behind it, it would be impossible not to “believe.”
Also things that I have experienced directly I tend to believe, but even that can be dicey.
Now, I can be pretty sure of some things, or even pretty sure something isn’t Kosher. But I tend to always keep an open mind unless something moves into the “believed” category or the “not believed” category—even then I can always change my mind. Believable and unbelievable stuff can be found on the sheep side as well as on the shrew side.
As you all know, the shrew side can have some pretty scoogley stuff to assess. Don’t get me wrong; I love it when people have theories and ideas that contradict the mainstream, even really weird ones. But honestly, can’t I save judgment for later? Do I have to say I believe everything to stay in the clubhouse?
On my substack I wrote an article about Geert Vanden Bossche’s theories regarding the immune escape of the virus. I got an angry comment informing me that there is no virus and there never has been a virus and my article was completely whacked because to believe anything I said one would have to believe an untruth—that viruses actually exist.
I tried to defend myself as well as the point of my article but to no avail. She unsubscribed in a huff. The irony is that if I had to pick a side right now I would probably pick Terrain Theory over Germ Theory—I was introduced to this concept 20 years ago when my wife was dying of cancer. I did a deep dive into Royal Rife’s work and was convinced a lot of his theories and methods were right on. Germ Theory vs. Terrain Theory is a big part of that Rife world, and it fascinated me.
My article on Bossche and his virus exploits? Well, yeah, I cover all sides. I think Bossche’s work is very interesting, even though it resides in the forbidden realms of germ theory. That doesn’t mean I can’t look at it, write about it, and ponder about it…does it?
How about you reading this? Do you believe everything, on this side of the fence, we are expected to believe? How far down the rabbit hole are you willing to go? Where do you stop believing, and where do you stop even considering? And where down there do you say, “this is all nonsense!”
For some reason I don’t seem to get to the “nonsense” point…I am fascinated by everything, and am willing to look at it all…flat earth, fairies, aliens, lizard people, the Pope being a pedophile, I consider everything—but I don’t believe all of it. Do you?
There is some old bit of wisdom that says nothing is 100% anything. Meaning that the entire world can’t be evil, or the entire government can’t be corrupt, or all of medicine cannot be off base and ineffective. On and on.
I think in a broad sense this is probably truer than not. But I do wonder about nuance and detail. Was there a good side to Adolf Hitler? He did like dogs, or so it seemed. How about Stalin? He read a lot, how could anyone who reads a lot be all bad?
I sprinkle a little bit of this wisdom into the consideration of strange ideas and theories. Dr Carl Jung, the eminent Swiss psychiatrist and founder of archetypal “depth” psychology, said the true spice of life lies in the tension of the opposites…and probably truth lies there as well in most cases.
This tension is the grey area between two opposing dogmas.
I suppose it is dogma that sets me off. I shy away a bit from people who are so rigid they can’t even discuss a controversial situation. The same goes for information. For example, I do not spend a lot of time “looking” at the sheep side of all of this (been there, done that)…I don’t try to find “the good” or the “facts” in the mainstream agenda about the virus, or the good side to vaccines, or censorship, or corruption.
Maybe I am wrong not to spend more time “seeing their point of view.” But, if something came along that was significant, I certainly would give it a peek.
I do entertain the very slight possibility that many of these puppet masters are ignorant and don’t really know what they are doing—that is largely how cult psychology works. I even believe that Big Pharma has done some good things in the world! Same with Big Medicine.
I also don’t spend a lot of time going too far down the rabbit hole. Maybe that is wrong as well, but I just don’t have the time. I don’t bash the believers down there, but I don’t say much about what they believe, either because I simply have not thoroughly investigated their position.
I was interviewed on JermWarfare a while back and made some comment about Epstein and his notorious island. Everyone associated with Epstein is largely being considered a pedophile. I said I am not so sure that is true, but then added that I have not really investigated the whole thing that thoroughly.
I was blasted for this. “I should know more about Epstein, and then I would know the truth.” Maybe so, but I choose not to investigate everything that thoroughly, not because it doesn’t matter, but because I am interested in other things.
So what do we do with all of this?
I know I am afraid often to express even an opinion about a lot of things found in the depths of that rabbit hole. I do not say it is all crap, and I do not say it is all solid truth. I simply do not know.
I think every “movement” consisting of a large group of people has within it many conflicting ideas. That is pretty obvious.
I do not think we have to believe, and be on board, with every one of these ideas in order to consider ourselves devoted to the cause. Personally I think it is best not to call out things we do not have a positive opinion about unless we are very sure of them.
We should allow ideas to breathe, and rub our chin about weird ones we don’t fully understand at our first encounter with them. But I don’t think we have to claim loyalty to everything that comes along within our circle. And at the same time, we should refrain from bashing contradictory ideas that come into the discussion.
Todd Hayen is a registered psychotherapist practicing in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He holds a PhD in depth psychotherapy and an MA in Consciousness Studies. He specializes in Jungian, archetypal, psychology. Todd also writes for his own substack, which you can read here
For direct-transfer bank details click here.
Really enjoyed this article. I like to say “I‘m comfortable with dualities”. I can both enjoy learning about all kinds of theories, like you, but not believe them all. Covid taught me to really enjoy the weird ones, quite frankly. They now fascinate me, and even humble me, because the world might be, likely is, completely different than what I know it to be, and therefore so much more full of wonder. How cool is that?!
To respond directly to the author’s own example – my own beliefs about health and my work in permaculture lead me towards Terrain theory in general, but my experience with illnesses as a parent also tells me that germ theory isn’t all wrong either. I see the case for both, therefore I cannot throw out either. I personally believe terrain is more important than the germ, however. I don’t know if Host Theory is the same as Terrain….My assumption is terrain is about the health of the individual. I remember reading about Host theory being that the pathogen is actually helping the Host, almost like invited by the host to improve a weakness (which it can with the right support). This I also see in permaculture by a simple concept of succession fields when lands are being restored. An herbalist I love used to tell me that if I want plantain in my garden, just scratch up some soil in a poor spot and plantain will come.
It is very strange how incapacitated the reasoning process has become! Assuming the author has no ulterior motive and he’s genuinely expressing doubts, it is mostly because superficiality. This dichotomy between so called “Germ Theory” and “Terrain Theory” has been most likely concocted as a defense mechanism and a subversive method of discrediting genuine work aimed towards the very healing of the human soul. For the sake of argument, let’s assume there are two camps of ideas that allegedly are colliding. On one side we have vast majority that operates on the premise of an unproven conclusion and on the other side we have a very tiny minority that questions the very hypothesis on which the first camp concluded. The second camp has indeed some hypothesis they are proposing but they have never formulated a definitive conclusion to forcefully impose it on the vast majority. As far as it is observable so far, this is the way science is supposed to work, unless science is now another religion shoved down our throats.
With utmost respect,
I warn you against naivety in relation to this subject, because it is too complicated and is a manipulation :
Lying or unproven and medically complicated things (“non-existent viruses”) does not simplify anything. They complicate everything. They are highly manipulative. They divide us. It is classic manipulation in the sense of “divide and rule”. It is an orchestrated agenda. The trolls manipulate the symbols/likes to make us like this idea (“I like it”/” I do not like it”). There is no stable division between “woke” and “sleeping.” We have to wake up every day, at every, new trick and manipulation ! The agenda “there are no viruses at all” is such a new manipulation. Please think, why the call for a SUCH, QUESTIONABLE consensus ?
1. in this matter it is a sure defeat, because the consensus is IMPOSSIBLE here !
2. we should say only what is immediately provable. There is enough CLEAR & UNDERSTANDABLE evidence of vaccine damage, fraud in statistics and killing of the immune system.
Suddenly, there are suspiciously many people who aggressively want to push this agenda. Just like the vaccinations back then : quick, quick, you must…! This is the so-called FIFTH COLONNE. One comment prepares you for this idea (“one should be open” ) and the second pronounces it (“no viruses-the idea is great !” BUT THEY DON’T UNITE ANYONE !) This tactic was felt to divide us. Possibly this comment gets some negative symbols/likes because it disturbs this agenda ! Please forget the any idea that has no chances and no persuasion. Surely in the future will come the other “great ideas”. Please stay awake EVERY TIME ! In this sense : it does not matter at all if there are viruses or not. What is important is only what is FAST convincing and FAST provable. Do not let yourselves be driven crazy ! Believe me, I know what helps and what weakens us. I was successful in the advertising industry.
It’s not necessarily a question of believing, I rarely feel I “believe”, what I do is look at all the available information and judge what hypothesis fits it best. To me it’s always a matter of fitting the pieces of the jigsaw together. Only when there isn’t sufficient information might I resort to believing – but there’s certainly sufficient information available to determine the basics of this psyop.
What I’ve observed in every psyop I’ve seen is that they do what they want for real and fake the rest. I knew nothing of the controversy over viruses in general or specific ones such as HIV and AIDS, terrain theory or any of that stuff but because there were clear indicators of a psyop I instantly predicted there would be no virus because there was no reason to believe they actually wanted a virus – they would surely only want us to believe in one – and in order to get us to believe in one it would be much, much easier for them not to have one (working on the assumption they do exist) than try to use a real one.
It’s all about smoke’n’mirrors, it’s all about using propaganda techniques, not simulating reality as closely as possible or – heaven forbid – including reality … unless it’s wanted.
This is an interesting 7-minute video addressed to Del Bigtree where the filmmaker points out the importance of determining that there is no virus when we consider the future.
The reason I think it is so fundamentally important to get the “no virus” truth is that that simple truth massively simplifies discussion … as soon as you consider there is a virus the scope for distraction propaganda becomes boundless … and the perps love nothing better than distraction propaganda.
Petra for example beltree who I think is a shill as he appeared during covid and boom he exploded and interviewed all the shills mixed with some credible ones.
Never the less, if they can do one show with a honest person and then does 4 shows that week with shills.
Most will still go with the control op mixed message.
Especially the topic “there are no viruses” I think is a dangerous diversion propaganda (or naivety). It takes us away from a good argumentation for the long proven facts. Are these facts to be watered down with ideas that have not yet been proven ? To make us even less credible ?
I guess we can avoid the “viruses not proven” hypothesis BUT that there is no virus in this situation is of paramount importance.
There is zero evidence for a virus and a great deal against it. There is no doubt that the propaganda campaign is completely built around no special virus. Even if it so happens that there IS a novel virus somehow it’s not what they’re using for their psyop.
It’s not that I don’t believe at all that there are pathogens that can be spread by contagious means, however, I accept the scientists who say that HIV causing AIDS is a complete fraud, that polio has never been proved to be caused by a virus and so on. Quite frankly, these refutations are really very, very clear. We don’t have to say “there’s no such thing as viruses” but we can say that certain alleged viruses have never been proven to exist and the alleged disease they cause can be explained better by other phenomena.
I have to add something : The virus theory should be dealt with sometime. But not now, but later, because it takes YEARS, until one has clarified this ! Currently people die and get sick for life. This theory does not have to be wrong, but NOW CURRENTLY it harms and confuses unnecessarily. And I am sure that it is so wanted.
In a life or death situation, worrying about the truth is insane. Except one truth… of course. What or who is killing us. Why is secondary.
The author makes a fair and valid point: basically be skeptical of everything and use critical thinking.
TPTB control the MSM narrative, of course, but they also flood the alternative media with misinformation and disinformation.
This is now the third or fourth time my comment has been disappeared under a column whose writer decries censorship. I don’t believe it.
Okay the, I’ll try again…
In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. … Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.
—The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt
I can’t help but connect Todd’s reflections to the totalitarian march we’re now on. There’s currently an accelerated confusion of discourse and cognitive dissonance and dissociation strategically sown by ruling institutions to reap the reward of the monoculture of AI to rule them all. The artificial unity of the collective is engineered by divide-and-rule perspectivism which leaves atomized individuals at the mercy of those guarding the doors of perception. Only now there’s a fatal finality to the science of social control. Both in effect and by design, new normal totalitarianism, deploying tools and techniques tyrants past could hardly dream of, caps the history of capitalism and its continual crises, collapsing all into one great takedown of the system of production, profit, and power so as to radically reset the human condition across earth according to technocratic and transhuman governance by the Machine.
Skepticism has constantly been called for in the Market, uber alles, where it’s buyer beware everywhere. Given the universal alienation arising from us being sold back the resources of living robbed from us, how can the commodification of existence not produce inherent grounds, or groundlessness, for doubt, including the bottomless doubt of our own identity and reality, at most instrumental if not irrelevant to exchange value, which Descartes’ demon depicts as the disillusion of modernity at its origin, in which any god guaranteeing intrinsic value or objective meaning has died, or been killed, as Nietzsche proclaimed in its latter days? It’s doubt all the way down in a world where one can never know whether the very air we breathe, water we drink , food we eat, or any other basic sense of survival and being hasn’t just been modified, informed consent be damned, into some synthetic simulacrum by reason of some substance dumped or pumped into the earth’s ecology?*
We could not navigate the world without beliefs negotiating all that we don’t know with what we must do not only to survive but to live fully with dignity, our lives rooted in values and meanings which give them substance. Perhaps the better word here is trust, or even faith. In a world now as never before being taken from us to be given back with an iron fist, we have little choice but to question everything. But epistemic orientation by itself will prove self-defeating, a paralysis of analysis, especially in the social isolation of the digital (c)age, without existentially reclaiming the world for ourselves, establishing common senses of truth, goodness, and beauty worth living, and dying, for. Our predicament is ultimately political: build a new world within the shell of the old by rebuilding the relations with others which make for more human community and society than what the “masters (monsters) of mankind” (Adam Smith) have planned.
*To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment, indeed, even of the amount and use of purchasing power, would result in the demolition of society. For the alleged commodity “labor power” cannot be shoved about, used indiscriminately, or even left unused, without affecting also the human individual who happens to be the bearer of this peculiar commodity. In disposing of a man’s labor power the system would, incidentally, dispose of the physical, psychological, and moral entity “man” attached to that tag. Robbed of the protective covering of cultural institutions, human beings would perish from the effects of social exposure ; they would die as the victims of acute social dislocation through vice, perversion, crime, and starvation. Nature would be reduced to its elements, neighborhoods and landscapes defiled, rivers polluted, safety jeopardized, the power to produce food and raw materials destroyed. Finally, the market administration of purchasing power would periodically liquidate business enterprise, for shortages and surfeits of money would prove as disastrous to business as floods and droughts in primitive society. Undoubtedly, labor, land, and money markets are essential to a market economy. But no society could stand the effects of such a system of crude fictions even for the shortest stretch of time unless its human and natural substance as well as its business organization was protected against the ravages of this Satanic mill.
—The Great Transformation, Karl Polanyi
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors,’ and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, callous ‘cash payment.’ It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade.
—The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx
What a great quote from Hannah Arendt. How well it applies to the response by the fact-checkers to Pfizer’s statement that they didn’t test for transmission.
I, too, don’t research each and every controversial topic (aka rabbit holes). I remember way back when I was presented with evidence that the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 were both inside jobs. I watched the videos, wobbled a bit, voiced my shock and reservations and then filed it away for a few years while I plumbed the depths of some religious matters which directly affected me and mine. In the years since, I’ve learned that the two aforementioned world shaking events were violent spikes in an otherwise quiet usurpation of America’s entire being, going back to the secretive creation of the Federal Reserve. I’m still quite unlearned on many other historical things.
Ultimately, there are unfathomable hard truths bound in tapestries of lies and getting to them is exceedingly painful. For the sake of our own integrity as seekers of truth and wisdom, it’s important we not deride, sneer or take a mocking tone toward the things which we’ve not personally researched because, quite frankly, we’re afraid of what we might learn.
“Yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge. I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.” Ecclesiastes 1:16-18
Hello Todd Hayen: As a registered psychotherapist – trained in depth psychotherapy, it may benefit your “consciousness” to review the text of your article. Nearly every paragraph of the text begins with “I”. I read the entire article, yet failed to realize any suggested benefits to the reader…
There are organized gangs of racketeers, extortionists, economic thugs, and cold blooded murderers, romping around our romper room theater. Perhaps some rational advice regarding correction of these behaviors would be more appropriate. Peace…
A trip to classical philosophy helps to clarify many controversial events. Two main camps inhabit philosophy, Idealism and Materialism. The former belives the human mind to be the focus of truth, whilst philosophical Materialism underlines the material world as primary. Most people are materialists, paticularly if they have banged a knee against a table leg, indicating the external world to be very real indeed. It’s from this fundemental starting point that complex events of the real world can be understood. In simple terms what is the material evidence?
Theories like the Judy Wood super weapons of limited extinction, or the Capricorn 1 version of the Apollo program fall to nothing as sufficient investigation informs us that the evidence for such ideas is zero. One can therefore deduce that anyone believing in such charlatanism would benefit from a little more mental support.
Conversely phenomenon such as 9/11, JFK assasination, MH17 and a whole host of state crimes can be clearly understood from real evidence, and as for 9/11 the evidence is so overwhelming that it’s sufficient for criminal trail. (Some people still have illusions in the state judiciary, but both 9/11 culprits and judges eat from the same table).
This is of course the scientific method, a method that, as all Off-G readers are well aware, was completely absent regarding Covid19.
Hello CGwynne: All events are interactive. That is: All events are sensory on a molecular scale… Philosophy attempts to interpret events on a limited physiological scale. Further: Human emotions are molecular reactions to a limited set of stimulation’s… The touch of a lovers hand can sooth and fulfill the urge toward mutual experience. This “touch” echoes existentially throughout the entire experience of Universe…
The chaos being generated by induced trauma, is destroying human capacity’s toward resolution of information and sensory data… If I were creator of a sensory derived Universe, how would I feel if I were limited to this tiny and remote planet?
Most ridiculous headline of the week. To wit –
(thank you CNN)
Permanent Daylight Saving Time will hurt our health, experts say
Yet another article that attempts to get you to fixate on something that is “destroying your health” – in this case the attempt is to make you constantly worry that the clock is “wrong” and you are constantly out of step with it.
I look forward to the meticulously researched proposition that the colour red is damaging to psychic health along with the taste of salt and any notes above middle C.
Don’t know about red, but quite a few years back “they” came up with the conclusion that blue – which parents associate with boys – is actually more aggression inducing even than red.
And that – here it comes! – boys should therefore have more pink in their rooms and their lives.
(BTW, this was an offshoot of a hot trend in the ’70’s equating color (colour) and personality. Before the internet; but there were numerous books on the topic. And since I’m a sucker for esoterica, I lapped it all up.)
It’s a pity that Paul Mauriat evidently was unaware of this research.
If he had been, surely he would’ve entitled his 1968 hit “Love Is Pink”. 😎
Regarding the alleged “virus” the evidence about the existence or not is very clear. All virologists have never proved real science trials to the public, based on their theories and they are absolutely debunked by Stefan Lanka(Germany) and Mark Bailey(New Zealand). There is no need for further investigation in matters, which are crystal clear and confuse people, with a mindset that continously questions basic and established science.
The above example is to understand, that basic knowledge should be a rock solid approach, on which one can investigate furthermore on things, that puzzles the human curious mind. Almost all of us, sometimes let the fantasy and/or the imaginary world dismantle reality, leading to wrong conclusions. The ability to distinguish between right/wrong, reality/fantasy etc. is the filter to make clever judgements and that’s why the necessity to have settled and basic knowledge, is very important. We must naturally always question, why and how statements/arguments/theories is presented, but realising and using basic principles in the contexts presented, one will be far more safe and secure by using a sane mindset. It can make a huge difference for our daily life and distractions and confusions will be a minor hurdle for almost everyone.
A very good example of how the mind-control is constructed:
1) Frame the debate in such a way that pre-supposes the underlying issue is resolved when it isn’t. Look for proof there is such a thing as gravity waves and it’s as elusive as the proof of viruses, if not more so. Huge problems like how do waves travel through the vacuum of space are just ignored.
2) Offer two alternatives – one backs up a crucial part of the official narrative (nothing can travel faster than light = Einstein was a genius) and the other is pseudo-mystical twaddle.
3) Wrap it up in a parcel that flatters the reader’s ego that you’re really clever if you go along with this.
And the virus discussion shouldn’t be about any theory, spreading of, or efficacy of vaccines. First of all it should be whether or not it exists, with an open mind offcourse. Are the experiments we are using valid? Is somerhing we die or a step we take influencing the result. Can the experiments be reproduced. Only than we can start a discussion on a possible theory.
Truth is an antonym for Belief.
Interesting points in the science of astrology – Pisces key phrase is “I believe”. Aquarius key phrase is “I know”. Seems to me we are slowly moving from the Age of Pisces to the Age of Aquarius as we find more and more of our beliefs are illusions and lies.
Truth is absolute. A statement is either true or false. There is no middle ground, and it is an example of false compromise to think that the truth is somewhere in between a statement A (which is true) and a statement B (which is false). Logic only works on true statements.
It is 100% true that black is black; 2 + 2 = 4; a guitar is a musical instrument. False statements might be like all colors are grey; 2 + 2 = 5; a guitar is my lover. Every false statement is false. It doesn’t matter how much we lie about something, whether we lie that 2 + 2 = 200 045 or that 2 + 2 = 3,9, all lies are lies.
Truth is not an opinion. It is not a theory. It is not a dogma or doctrine or organization, ism or a person.
Truth is truth. And whatever is true, is true completely, 100 %.
What is the purpose of the lie? It is to mislead.
Whenever we believe a lie, we follow it; we let it lead us, but where do lies lead us?
Not to truth. Truth can only be discovered by the truth itself. Only pure logic tells us that 2 + 2 = 4, because we first know these symbols, we know what they stand for; we know the meaning of those symbols, and when we know that, we know the truth of those symbols. Words are symbols.
Only what is true itself knows what the truth is. I can know only that what I have understanding of, for example knowing what ”2” or ”=” mean. I can only know what I have direct experience of. Words mean nothing when there’s a liar behind them.
Only direct experience can be trustworthy, because one can never know if the other person is lying. Many liars don’t do it intentionally. They just believe it.
Truth is the absolute necessity in everything. We can’t even cook an egg, if we believe lies how to do it.
We are human beings and we are endowed with the qualities of reason and conscience. With reason (logic) we know the truth, with conscience we know the difference between good and bad, between good and evil. Lies are on the side of evil. Truth is good. Knowledge is wisdom.
2+2=4 is true within the base 10 system we call math. Blue is blue only because we call it blue. No one knows whether one person’s blue is the same as another’s. Saying blue is blue is meaningless and useless. Like saying truth is truth. There is no advancement, only stating the obvious. We all know it is blue. How is it blue? Give me a truthful answer to that question. How is it blue?
“No one knows whether one person’s blue is the same as another’s.”
That’s a great, salient example. I’d go further and say this applies to much, and maybe nearly everything, that any individual human believes, vs another. Even the supposed precision of language can be just a tapping on the wall, a hope that the other person “gets it” the way you do, that all your connotations etc. line up with theirs. It’s so tempting to believe in the illusion we are directly connecting to another mind.
Of course, one needs to know the context of words. The English word ”blue” has several meanings. When used for a color, or a set of colors, it can be defined clearly. If one is blind, one cannot see the colors. In order to see the color blue, one needs to know what exactly is blue. Blue is one of the main colors, and it is in fact impossible to be confused about the color blue and mistake it for red or yellow.
In themselves words have no meaning. In other languages, the word ”blue” is quite different. So it is the idea of blue that’s important. But what is the use of the word ”blue”; in other words, what is the context where the word is used. Are we talking about paint? Are we talking about eye color, color of the skin, hair dye, mold, sky, clouds?
You can argue the same about any word, but what is your point?
Basic mathematics is logical, and it is an exact science.
Logic is the basis of every real and true thought. In logic, there is one Law, the law of identity: A is A.
Whenever people argue that A is not A, but something less or more or different, they are not using logic. And that’s the problem.
Basic mathmatics is a closed system of logic. It is only exact within its defined parameters. To say that A is not A is illogical and no one will try to deny that in good faith. Often when we accuse someone of saying A is not A, you are failing to see that they are actually trying to say A is not B. You are making my point when you talk about context. The absolute blue, which may exsist has no use for us when trying to solve issues. How does the absolute blueness of blue support your case for anything other than that it is blue. Or put differently, give me a case where someone is attempting to say A is B, when its actually A, and you have factual evidence that they are wrong and that it makes a difference in how we see the world. That’s a tall order, I know, but my point is we lay claim to facts like say the U.S. invaded Russia in 1918. Now there is no A is A in this claim, or blue is blue, or even any math. The logical truth of things does not address the issues we are trying to get at here.
Anyway, it is possible we’re trying to say pretty similar things from slightly different angles. I agree with what you say above about liars and deception, which if eliminated, (fat chance) would clear the playing field for much improvement, I think.
In 2020 flu was called covid. Covid had the same symptoms as flu, it spread like flu, and old and sick people died from it like they had previously died from flu. So the attributes or properties of covid are the same as those of flu. Where’s the difference? There is no difference.
If we only look at the words, we are being distracted. And distraction is the whole point of this war on flu.
Distraction and destruction.
Simple logic reveals things as they are, and therefore it is the most effective method of arriving at truth.
Only logical, simple thought is required. Even toddlers know it.
People who don’t know the way things are are easily misled. They have been driven to confusion.
Mental confusion or distraction can be genuine, experienced as reality. But they are not reality. Only from the clarity of mind, Logic, we know the difference between real and fake, truth and lies.
The war on flu is actually war on Humanity.
As I have nothing against humanity, I am not participating in this war.
It’s those who war who are at war.
War against what? What does humanity mean? It means conscious creatures in existence. Consciousness is knowledge of one’s existing and abstract thought.
always asked that question too.. whose colour, what version of a “colour”? shade tone texture form, plain old perception of a thing… ? according to words that describe a sense…
how can you answer that unless you are… all, omni-…
a bit riddler-nism?
“I keep an open mind. This has worked pretty well for me, albeit a bit wishy-washy.”
Assumptions becomes less wishy-washy by testing theory against experiment.
“Test all things. Hold on to what proves good” — The Revolutionist’s Handbook.
“Rats are not fussy feeders. If a rat comes across a new food it will try a tiny bit, then go away and reflect. Next time it will try a bit more, and so on.” — Robert Harkness
“It ain’t the things you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s the things that you knows for sure but which just ain’t so” — Artemus Ward
Unstructured play is important for the mind. From games of imagination and pretence, children acquire the knowledge that not everything is as it seems. Unfortunately, such play is often a luxury for many of them. They may grow up to become news hounds, cultists or belief junkies.
I don’t recall reading so many “may be” “could be” “likely to be” “tend to be” phrases before.
It certainly is Lizzie! The surge of content free scare mongering is appalling!
Noting that the page invited me to type in my postcode to see the devastating effects of climate change in my area, I did so and up came this:
See? “If …could be….could be….”
I tried the post code for Bishopsgate and got this:
So all it does is add 2 then 4 degrees. Implemented by “If … could be …. could be….”
So just a programme to try and “personalise” the scare by software imputing it to your area.
many news articles contain phrases such as ‘ believed to be ‘ etc , in other words simply made up . hope i get authorised as i keep seeing comment pending even though i am just making legitimate comments
You were getting flagged as Spam, I fished your comments out. A2
Of course we don’t have to believe everything that truth seekers come up with.
Simply because some of it is even contradictory. Flat Earth, Hollow Earth, Torus Earth and Globe Earth can’t all be true at the same time, or can they?
It’s all about being open minded.
This is my truth, tell me yours.
Ultimately it is common sense, an honest appraisal of history and open minded study of the issue in question that determine what is true and what isn’t. Scepticism of the propaganda system is a prerequisite. The size of the lies and their frequency is quite astonishing. Most truthseeking people think of JFK and 9/11 as examples of media lies. But the list of psyops is very long. Hawking, Polanski, James Forrestal, USS Liberty, the alleged “terrorist” attack on the sacreligeous French magazine- the list is incredibly long.
Krishnamurti probably summed it up best with the term ‘Choiceless Awareness’ or, as Barry Long called it ‘Diminishing Ignorance’
Judgement free observation based on one’s experience of the world. After all, we can only experience the world through our own senses. Everything else is illusion or mind projection.
Wake. And smell the roses.
This is true:
I came across the following, a few hours ago. A powerful document.
I wonder whether the two recipients of the following Open Letter will react in the way that they should…
“An Open Letter to the UK Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer”, at:
In the face of intelligent readers, this would, indeed, be a powerful document.
But this bunch of jokers currently running our country will just laugh.
They have their ‘narrative’, you see. Which means they never need to listen to intelligent discourse again.
I regret that as much as you do.
Its a good letter, but there is no money in the UK economy. Money being “weighted metal”. Now its all fiat debt-based currency. Have you noticed that both the dollar and pound symbols have lost the double horizontal lines through the symbols? Now there is only one line, a minus sign.
The globos want the economy to collapse so they can steal our assets to pay for their debt. They assume that we will then have nothing and be desperate for their UBI (universal basic income) – if they decide to grant this to you – on their terms.
Writing to the current government is a waste of time. They are a corporation registered off-shore, so they avoid any future liabilities they have created, but you don’t!
Mission Impossible: Discover the Truth episode. “Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to discover the truth. As always, should you be caught or killed, the authorities, the MSM and even, perhaps, your friends will disavow you and call you a conspiracy theorist. This message will self destruct in….”
You’re right. The hangman doesnt have to believe you are guilty to do his job. He doesnt even have to have an opinion one way or another. His opinion changes nothing. He is a technician. A function. A cog in the wheel.
I just can’t respect fully a person any more unless they know two fundamentals: that covid is a hoax and that 911 was an inside job.
I’ll up the ante:
That viruses don’t exist.
Wait – there’s more. Most of what we were told in school/university was false. Most of what we read in history books was/is false. Most of our beliefs were/are false, etc. etc.
Solution – firstly, keep and open mind and secondly, research like mad on the internet, with discernment. Try to check the information. Make changes in your belief system. Again, keep an open mind before you dismiss what sounds ridiculous at first.
Here’s an example of another version of history:
Thank you, Todd. And while we’re recognizing that it’s belief that matters, we need also to take the next step, and recognize that “it’s all belief” — that knowledge is just a powerful illusion. To “know” something is possible only by being one with it. For mere mortals, that leaves out a hell of a lot.
Couldn’t agree more!
Scamdemic and all the lies with it, and there were many, has made me a total cynic.
That said, I do believe complete suspicion is totally justified. There is very little truth coming from any “authority” any more.
No truth at all, in fact.
Everything has been tainted by you-know-who.
You no longer even get to be ‘in authority’ without proving your loyalty to him by nailing your parents and children to a wall…
I challenge anybody here to give me one fact that isn’t something we already know, like the sky is blue. (Of course all the blatant ones can be questioned as well) Lets hear it, give me a fact, that actually matters, but its gotta be a fact, not an opinion, or a theory, or a likelihood.
I ran into a neighbor who said almost the same thing. She has detached herself almost entirely from media and no longer digs deeply into anything; “it’s all BS, anyway.” I think TPTB want all of us to do that, so we don’t pay attention to what they’re doing to us.
I also have noticed more and more authors are being screamed at in the comment sections of their articles, even on Substack. It’s like none of us has any tolerance for others’ points of view. And here Substack was supposed to be a place where civil discourse was still possible.
“Substack was supposed to be a place where civil discourse was still possible.”
I think it’s more like “Substack is supposed to be a place where free speech is still possible.” Big difference. In the current censorship environment, I’d say it’s also far more important.
If you are in the US, you may remember the (fairly brief and minor) face-to-face meetings “Coffee Party” organization (vs the modern Tea Party movement) c.2010. Its express purpose was to support civil dialogue, which was a newly widespread meme. However, not only certain topics, but also the meta-topic of agenda-setting by the powerful within the organization, was studiously avoided. You can guess where that went…
you should consider that some, many or maybe all of those screaming comments were not from among we normal people, but trolls paid by the rulers to run around sowing confusion and conflict, usually the louder and more ’emotional’ some commenter presents as, the quicker you can decide to ignore them.
Questioning our reality – as a desire to be true founded rather than ruled by deceit – which is the same as desire to heal rather than hurt – must question our beliefs about it. For we only have an experience reality through an interpretive ‘consciousness’ of definitions or beliefs.
Clearly we cannot Really question, align or heal our beliefs from any particular belief or identity and worldview already accepted. Else the circular reasoning seeks and finds only as its internalised rules and filters dictate.
So the first recognition of a mind and world of lies is the need to choose not to use it.
Put the mind down. relax, be still and let being move you.
This can be short-circuited by the projection of the hate of pain set in grievance OUT as blame, onto Other, to World and to shifting targets or scapegoats in the world, whose shadow is then seen in all who don’t see as you.
Watching our thought in the act, is no longer choosing to fall or focus in its use as our own narrative adjustment or boosting of identity. Not living in our own movie as a mask or adjustment layer over living relationships, recognised or as yet to be revealed.
Therefore meeting ideas that evoke emotional reaction in any situation, is also looking within, at the same instant as looking out to form and appearances. Looking within is then discernment within life, in place of a ruleset of comparative judgements based on an inherited or acquired adaptation to a world you are now at least not entirely asleep in.
The factioning of beliefs set in narrative identity operates an exclusion zone to awareness rising from peace that your dramatic attachments rightly sense to be threat, or rather the undoing of your allegiance and support, without which the story is dropped or repurposed to a call for connection in place of a call for distancing, masking, denial and attack – set of course as virtue.
Until we recognise the signature patterns, we are taken by the same game in a different form. Hence the lie and the father of it is a shapeshifting deceit, but lockstepped at the level of image and form, or appearances running as if built-in meanings.
The meaning you give to your relationships and world is the measure you set and receive.
The meaning arising from wholeness as of an uncarved block can be shaped by your thought and desire, but taking or making novel ‘meanings’ out of any true relational context, as mutually agreed currency, sets a path of separation from peace and power at heart, to tip into conflicts persisted in as invested treasure. Such that the maker of his dream is subjected by it as against his will. Or as if a mind can be trapped or even attacked by its own thought. Only in concept can thoughts separate from their source. yet by such means are we phished by reaction to give fear power by belief. And then seek to limit terror in masking beliefs to offset the pain. Albeit by getting rid of blame to anywhere or anyone else as ‘survival’ under masked terror.
Masking is where fear sets us in guilt of a fundamental disintegrity.
Choosing not to invest in guilt or blame must discern responsibility where it is, and release it from where it isnt. But unless we uncover the thinking that runs a fear and guilt operating system, we will act within its terms as the reinforcement for mind set in being right – set against a wrong.
Believing is clearly not contextual when we game the nature of our own assumptions. Fortunately, discernment shifts when a realization polarizes those same beliefs and forward looking assumptions. An absolute is not always a priority whether the path is intended or forced. What we dream, or see, separates from any authentic emotion when the investment is partial … I think the rest is just obvious, so I’ll stop here.
Agree Todd if only we could all possess a state of generalised agnosticism about everything. You can’t really know anything ala Friedrich Nietzsche’s “There is no absolute truth” dogma
“[I]f only we could all possess a state of generalised agnosticism about everything.”
Exactly. Every human is both limited and capable of error, and unavoidably so. Ultimately, nothing external to currently conscious thoughts can be (known to be) known. It’s both the true basis for democracy and for modern science.
“You can’t really know anything ala Friedrich Nietzsche’s “There is no absolute truth” dogma”
Yes. I understand that we’re also backed up by Socrates’ “I neither know nor think I know”, as well as its complement, Protagoras’ “Humans are the measure of all things”. I imagine this has also been shown in various ways by numerous other respectable philosophers.
It’s not rocket science. But, boy, is it a hard pill to swallow! IMO, this confusion is at the root of the current Western epistemological crisis, where everyone from mad genius Neocons to the idiot Woke mob, pile-driving their (baseline stealth) opposition onto the rest of the world — no opposition permitted. It’s not evil, but it is colossally pretentious. Diplomacy is substituted with war. I’ll go so far as to say that the word “knowledge” (and related forms) should be banished from the language, and substituted with only human-centered claims (“perception”, “evidence”, “belief”, etc.)
Leave it to religions to have the audacity to claim knowledge.
Wrong. We know covid is a hoax and a mother knows she loves her kids. Ergo, some things are knowable. Claiming otherwise is pure sophistry.
No, we (here) all believe it is a hoax. But in the past, we (most of the population) also believed that the earth is flat, that bloodletting cured diseases, that witchcraft caused misfortune; that Newtonian mechanics explained all; that evolution, plate tectonics, and an-asteroid-killed-the-dinosaurs, were all laughable ideas; that Iraq had WMDs; etc. etc. etc.
Point is, the vast majority of humans are not intentional fraudsters, but true believers also. They are/were just true believers in something else. When there are interpersonal beliefs that are not compatible, it’s unlikely truth-tellers vs liars, it’s far more likely believers-in-idea-1 vs believers-in-idea-2.
Don’t get me wrong. I, too, believe the available evidence that COVID (and especially its management) is a psy-op is rock-solid. I, too, believe those at the top are too often liars (about what they believe). We can be certain that proper trials will reveal this, and we can be confident in punishing them. But those beliefs, intentions, actions, etc. do not prove knowledge, only, and unavoidably only, shared certainty.
So why am I saying this? Because I believe humankind desperately needs to recover the humility that brought us, until recently, such things as democracy, Western justice, and modern science.
I don’t know, the ‘belief’ that the people pushing the covid fraud were and remain an evil bunch of fucks who at best need to be locked up for the rest of their lives seems pretty solid … some might argue ‘nono guillotine’, but I’m fine with that just variations on a theme – and I’m sure we could come up with a little list of similar things …
I believe and value those things too. But unlike you and most here, I recognize they are beliefs and values, not knowledge and truth. Knowledge and truth are impossible.
I think it depends on each person’s interpretation of the problem, and the goal, the mission, or what you think needs to be done. If you think the problem is that the rich and their institutions have completely captured our political systems and are intent on creating a technocratic one world order limiting or completely abolishing our freedom and liberty, and your goal is to overturn the political and power structure, i.e., a revolution against the totalitarians, then I’m not sure the utility in spending time on analyzing terrain theory vs germ theory or whether Sandy Hook was real or Memorex. Maybe those who spend their time on those things just don’t have a good handle on the problem and what needs to be done. Or maybe they like rabbit holes.
To recruit people (if that was the purpose) to a revolutionary cause, it’s better to breakdown the relatively smaller reasons, getting a wedge in the door of doubt and pushing from there.
’We need to overturn the system and revolt because rich people’ will always be a non-starter.
The effort has to be made to learn something of the deceit that fills the system and to spread those messages, before you can begin to rail against it effectively.
while on the other hand, the rulers of the world, aka some subset of ‘rich people’, will always have a limitless number of trolls running around spreading just that message, along with other ‘have to wait!!’ stuff –
And what do you recon your time frame is for that… find a maximum of evidence, and convince a maximum of people (in layman’s terms, forcibly), to eventually have enough power to do something. Because if the goal is yelling at them, there’s going to be some disappointment
right – prioritization is important in any situation
This article rings so true to me. The very basic concept of being open to all ideas should be taught to every human being (Geez that sounds like I am wanting to force my belief onto others, oh well). However, non contemplation of information because it does not quite fit within one’s belief system is so dangerous and of course is what is happening now. I have a good friend whose beliefs in current events are far more extreme than mine…in conversations I often will be thinking to myself that she is 100% wrong wrong wrong…but then I remember…people have been shutting me down, ending friendships because they believe I am 100% “wrong” about the current situation. And I could be…but shutting me down, ignoring anything I have to say is dangerous. They don’t have to agree…but just to be open to ideas outside of their beliefs.
Who the fuck down votes facts?
I haven’t a clue.
The mods must have access to these votes?
we don’t want the twitter propagandists deciding what ‘facts’ are but the OffG mods are ok???? lol
Nope we don’t. We have no control over them. And that these are ‘facts’ is largely disputed by other commenters.
Unfortunately the votes are increasingly a tool for trollers lately and are becoming increasingly meaningless as a result, making genuine votes hard to decipher. The votes aren’t very stable either, often glitching, possibly due to VPN voting abuse which they constantly suffer.
I suggest ignore them, I do nowadays. It’s sad, but true.
I predict this comment will receive mutli-downvotes, since all admin posts are targeted lately. Oh joy lol A2
What facts? Because its a list with dates and bold type they’re facts?
Unfortunately, they can still be facts, regardless of the dates and the bold type.
lol … who let the baby critters in over the last few days…?
can be but dont have to be
probably they saw the 1938 one
They are not facts – i down voted
Are they all false claims?
well, given that the ‘stats’ about “Russia’ (actually the USSR), Germany and China are quite clearly US propaganda lies, it’s not ‘facts’ being voted down …
Some are facts others aren’t. Armed Americans didn’t exactly lead resistance to the plandemic.
And just how might that have worked? Do you really think armed overthrow is even possible at this point? One may have a nice arsenal of guns, but you ain’t going to hold off a drone or a tank with an AR-15. So a bunch of armed Americans try that and we end up with martial law even quicker than it may already come to be? And then we can blame all those loony armed Americans for making that happen…. But hey, the blame game is fun, while it lasts.
Turkey’s gun culture: Sales soar as one in three households owns a firearm
Number 4 is also bollocks – German citizens were not disarmed they were actually encouraged to own fire arms that’s rifles, shotguns and ammunition – look it up!.
And so is the Holocaust ™
Oh and i voted you down as i am not scared to admit to a bullshitter like you who posts crap like that – are you trying to show Eric Matheney’s stupidity or your own – did you even bother to look any those “facts” are true?
Hey Derek don’t blow a gasket, I only posted it to see what reaction I got.
In the long term, we should certainly insist on a thorough examination of Terrain Theory vs. Germ Theory. But in the short term, it’s completely irrelevant. Even if there is a unique new virus causing a unique new disease, it’s nowhere near as serious as advertised and certainly not a valid reason to completely reorganize society as we’ve known it.
Enough of the trappings of the “Covid response”, like masks, “social distancing”, lockdowns, ventilators, Remdesivir, the “vaccines”, PCR “tests”, etc., are clearly BS that it’s obvious that we should also make it a priority to prove or disprove the existence of this “virus” and the existence of viruses in general.
The Germ Theory that most modern societies live under is the perfect disempowering ideology; it diverts attention away from caring for your diet; your stress and your gut microbiota and when these three aspects become neglected; it is ultimately the cause of all disease. Your body is the terrain.
Germ theory is the foundation of allopathic/Rockefeller medicine joined at the hip with big pharma. Those who have researched the notion of a pathogenic virus have come back with ZELCH. NADA. It’s not about proving it doesn’t exist. It’s about proving the hypothesis that it does and not promote it as some sort of evidence based fact. That was the foundation of Operation COVID.
And all the modern poisons we’re subjected to, the depleted soils – ergo nutrient deficient foods, etc.
Some additional thoughts on past associations and trusting someone….
Anyone who has past associations with an intelligence agency, the military or some globalist oligarch’s organisation should have an uphill battle for credibility. This is why I’ve steered well clear of the likes of Robert Maone and those who give him a platform like Stew Peters or Joe Rogan.
Ah, but what about the genuine whistleblower? Aren’t they a potentially highly valuable source? Yes, they are – but one to be treated with great caution. We’ve seen obvious examples of fake whistleblowers being paraded in hearings so this is clearly something they do. Assange’s past membership of a cult that looks very like an intelligence front is one reason why I’ve never been able to take him seriously.
This leads on to the second ‘tell’ which is the quality of the information they reveal. It isn’t all going to be lies, disinfo isn’t that crass. However how much of what they reveal is really new and what ultimately does it steer one towards? Assange, Manning and Snowden never revealed anything that unknown. All have been used to re-inforce other narratives important to the elite (Assange about male violence, Manning about transgenderism and Snowden about Russia and Cold War 2.0). Are the practical logistics of their stories credible? How does Assange fund all those servers and how exactly was Snowden able to get to Russia?
The real whistleblowers are not plastered all over the mainstream media and the subjects of Hollywood films. There have been real NSA and CIA whistleblowers but they get flushed down the memory-hole.
All this is why I’m inclined to give writers like John Coleman and Antony Sutton more credibility. Yes, Coleman’s intelligence background and Sutton’s work for the Hoover Institute bother me – however their information doesn’t serve the elite agenda in any plausible way I can see and what they’ve revealed was genuinely new and damaging to the elite project which is why the controlled media ignore them. Sutton’s credibility seems to me particularly strong.
Two I’m particularly uncertain about are Eustace Mullins and Dave McGowan. MURDER BY INJECTION and THE CURSE OF CANAAN by the former and PROGRAMMED TO KILL and WEIRD SCENES INSIDE THE CANYON by the latter are certainly essential reading and offer imo convincing challenges to some key mainstream narratives. BTW re PTK, have you noticed how serial killers seem to have disappeared? Convid must have scared them like it did those Islamic Fundamentalists!
John Lear had CIA connections. But his long aviation experience made him an asset to the No Planer 9/11 truthers. His take on the Murray Street engine fragment was not correct but that was probably because he was unaware of the brilliant research that showed that the fragment was from a Pratt and Whitney JT9D 7A/F engine used on B747 200 aircraft and never on the B767.
was not a fragment
I find that the lies we are required to believe are stacked one on top of another. Rather than chase one’s tail on mid-level lies, one should drill down to the most fundamental potential lie. If this one proves to be fraudulent, then the whole house of cards collapses.
The first rule of logic is that one can never prove a negative. In relationship to the scamdemic, the fundamental question is whether the purported SARS-CoV-2 virus exists, and if so, is it pathogenic? Obviously if it doesn’t exist, it cannot be pathogenic. But I put them together because so many of the pseudo science papers combine these two assertions. It is not incumbent that we “prove” that it doesn’t exist. Nor is it incumbent upon one to come up with an alternative theory to the causes of flu like diseases. When I am challenged in this regard, I claim that cv-1984 is caused by inhaling unicorn farts. Prove me wrong!! My evidence for this assertion is just as valid as the fraudulent, pseudo science papers which “prove” that SARD-CoV-2 exists and causes cv-1984. Not to go into details in this comment, when one examines the fraudulent papers “proving” the existence of the “novel virus,” the methodology sections demonstrates that the lung soup was never properly purified. As to its pathology, that portion of the papers never runs a control, validation study without the purported virus, lung soup and all. When the evidence of this virus is properly dispatched, then all the dogshit piled on top of it is invalidated, including the fake rt-PCR tests, fake cases, fake mandates for face diapers, social distancing, and lockdowns, mutations and deviants, and most of all, fake vaccines.
Drilling down to the most fundamental fraud will save you a lot of valuable time, Mr. Hayen, including writing an article on Geert Vanden Bossche’s theories, a man who has received his paycheck for most of his career from Bill Gates.
Yea, but who listens? The normies certainly won’t. The scientists and doctors whose jobs depend on the virus myth won’t either.
Regarding Germ Theory vs Terrain Theory, Pasteur vs Bechamp, I believe there are two essential academic histories of medicine and public health:
Death is a Social Disease: Public Health and Political Economy in Early Industrial France by William Coleman
and Cultures of Bacteriology: Formation and Transformation of a Science in France and Germany 1870-1914 by John Andrew Mendelssohn (his 1996 unpublished dissertation).
First off, Mendelsohn frames the matter as Pasteur vs Koch, not Pasteur vs Bechamp, that today we live with the germ theory of Robert Koch not Louis Pasteur, and that to establish Koch’s version of germ theory, there had to be some evidence. Mendelsohn is THE mainstream academic historian on this evidence. He shows that despite the lack of robust evidence (and, in fact, the strongest evidence supported the contrary viewpoint of Koch’s German rival, Max Von Pettenkofer) Koch’s version was established by the German government during its preparations for WWI. This was the version that was literally brought from Berlin to New York in 1885 by T. Mitchell Prudden and his more famous colleague William H. Welch, Johns Hopkins… in that year, they took Koch’s one-month bacteriology course together. In general, American medical bacteriology took its cue from Berlin not Paris (p.491 Cultures of Bacteriology. Footnote p. 556 on the dominance of the Koch tradition after 1900 and its institutional determinants, see Olga Amsterdamska,) Prudden was a member of the Board of Scientific Directors of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, which was headed by Welch’s student Simon Flexner, brother of Abraham Flexner.
Coleman’s Death is a Social Disease, considers the terrain of populations, not the individual’s terrain. The studies of Villerme around 1830 provide the best, unbiased evidence we ever had as to the cause(s) of excess morbidity and mortality in certain segments of populations.
Thank you for this much needed addendum to this ongoing argument.
Thanks, Howard. To expand a little: before the germ theory, the terrain theory, and Big Pharma, there was the introduction of statistics on the part of nations to evaluate the status of their populations. To overgeneralise, the most important conclusion of such studies was that poverty is the cause of excess mortality and morbidity in populations. This is well documented in Coleman’s Death is a Social Disease. Thus, Koch and Pasteur, 50 or so years later, provided a choice: introduce radical measures to reduce poverty or fight trillions upon trillions of invisible ever changing microbes one at a time.
To convince anyone that focus and measures should be on invisible microbes, there had to be evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence presented is well documented in Mendelsohn’s Cultures of Bacteriology. Pivotal in Mendelsohn’s 1996 dissertation is the case of the “shot felt round the world.” At the height of a cholera epidemic when the germ theory was being debated/established, Max Von Pettenkofer swallowed a shot glass of cholera vibrio with no ill effects. This most famous of all self-experiments was repeated in several laboratories around the world with similar results. Thus, based on the evidence of the day, the germ theory was refuted.
Until Mendelsohn, there was no academic deep dive into germ theories. Interestingly Mendelsohn’s dissertation was written during the recognition of the microbiome.
As near as I can tell, the microbiome began to be seriously discussed sometime in the 1990s. I think the human body has a trillion or ten trillion cells, ten times that bacteria, ten times that “viruses,” times whatever more retroviruses, times whatever is next smallest in size, prions I suppose. The normal healthy human microbiome contains many microbes considered to be pathogenic, however these generally cause no harm. Pierre-Olivier Methot’s 2015 paper “What is a pathogen? Toward a process of host-parasite interactions” sheds a lot of light on this. See also: Casadevall: “What is a Host?” “What is a Pathogen?”
Knowledge of the microbiome required historians to reconsider the establishment of and evidence for the germ theory and revise it. Thus in the 1990s there began to appear critical works such as Mendelsohn’s and also that of Mendelsohn’s mentor at Princeton, Gerald Geison, notably Geison’s The Private Science of Louis Pasteur. Other mainstream works appeared critical of “Koch’s” Postulates and of the foundational public health myth of John Snow and the Broad Street Pump.
Covid of course, pushed all this revision deep into the background.
The point I’m trying to make is that, whether or not germs actually can cause disease, the belief that they can was established without evidence. Furthermore, it was through heavy propaganda that fear of germs was taught to our grand parents and great grandparents. See Nancy Tomes, The Gospel of Germs. Mendelsohn in his other writings, appearing in anthologies edited by various authors, traces this lack of evidence up to the 1930s. I think Mendelsohn currently believes/claims the germ theory was “proven” at some point in the 1950s or 60s by the use of vaccines. Very late in the game. Too late in the game for my money.
Interestingly, Mendelsohn and the microbiome writers began to collaborate a few years back.
Sadly, as far as I can tell, Terrain Theory advocates do not seem at all interested in this history, even though the history doesn’t contradict Terrain Theory, in fact it grounds it. However, and this is perhaps an unrecognised conflict of interest at work, it does so in a way that does not endorse individual treatments and therapies, but rather social change.
Excellent Todd, I’m sending this one to my baa-baa people.
I recall my father saying when it comes to new music one has not heard before, it’s prudent to listen with an open mind.
This is a very thought provoking article. But not actually one for a change I agree with as whole-heartily as I often do. I take issue with a few points – not least the notion one has to be almost sure to be qualified to comment. As an example, genocides of the past – and the collective evidence from the last two years, suggests the onus is on those the assert safe and effective. They haven’t.
In any event we’ve done the homework and even if we are only 95% sure a new genocide has started – we dont patiently await evidence we were wrong when lie after lie has been exposed for many years. This article should have spent time looking at weighing up evidence. In my opinion it fluffed around it to personal hurt feelings
We need to research hard and think on our feet.
Many of us have. Not cop out of a debate on the basis of little understanding of the issues. Theres a difference between lack of knowledge, persuasive evidence and undisputed facts. We need to grow some balls and not indulge in word salads. That, and I admit have been guilty of that in the past. Not any more.
At this stage I feel Off G have done good. Thats why I supported them last week. But if we see 3 of such articles in a row then plenty of US sites to go to. We really need to start being really discerning.
Research hard for what goal? Don’t you know enough by now?
Nope. Do you? I want to know everything – not half, two thirds . But I dont require 100% certainty – as Yeadon says ” It aint my crime”, so I cant be 100% sure”
Just think if there werent folk out there researching we’d be in a far bigger mess and less credible than now.
I accept some of the authors points but hes substantially wrong in the round.
I’m entertaining the epiphany that every event in this modern times was orchestrated by an elaborate AI system; foot and mouth bungle, war in iraq, social-equality, the 2008 crash, gmo experiments, colour-revolution agenda, event 201, mass immigration, re-wilding, vaxxes, CERN, nasa, climate change, covid all of it planned by an AI system and carried out by the money men; they all signed up for it and it messes up but they are perfecting it; so they clear up and carry on; trying to create a autonomous computer global control system.
Every now and then they hint at the computer models but overall they find a scapegoat (Fauci, Ferguson, Hancock, Epstein etc.) to take the blame when it goes awry. They tidy up and carry on. It’s not a model, it’s an entire core system being taught to control every aspect of life on Earth. The IoT. It explains why no-one in the establishment questions the ridiculousness of modern political, environmental and economical decisions, they have to keep the faith that the system will perfect itself.
Re wilding ? I haven’t seen any. Quite the opposite instead. AI has shown itself to be an effective censorship tool but may not be good for anything else. Why not assign blame where it belongs – to the banksters ?
Some of us have been around the block 10 x times,
we’ve seen this before and how it plays out.
Respectfully we have more in are arsenal in the understanding .
For example if you call Dr. Robert what a loads of Maloney and then types luminaries, your googles are slightly smudged.
Catt Black calls this fake binary – we call it controlled op.
As a means of delving into the Covid Scam, I studied virology during lockdown. I found it a compelling, well-researched & holistic scientific approach. When I encounter those who disagree with germ theory, I don’t find that, I’m afraid, all too often, I encounter cranks, well-meaning as they might be.
The reality of parasitism in nature is undeniable, at a more macro level, so I find the idea that it exists at sub-microscopic levels quite acceptable. Anyway, given that both approaches, terrain & germ theory, are trying to describe a complex, pre-existing system in nature, there may be truth in both but I reckon most terrain theory advocates wouldn’t accept such a possibility.
With your new-found confidence level in virology and virologists, perhaps you would like to spend 40 min viewing a recent interview with a virologist (he narrowly escaped criminal prosecution by German authorities a year ago): Dr Sucharit Bhakdi
Germ vs terrrain is indeed a fascinating debate but there is a massive crime against humanity in progress – Focus! Focus!
He needs to focus further. From parasitism and germ theory, he goes on to imply that virology is beyond question.
I always thought that people on “our” side of the fence were pragmatic and we sneered at the dogmatism of the “normies” – until the argument of germ v terrain reared it’s head.
I know from personal experience that I got sick in the past and, yes, I had been around sick people.
Okay, so my mum sending me to mumps parties didn’t work but that would have been a bit too clear cut if it worked every time !
I’m not calling the terrainists nutters so why call me one just because I am inclined to believe, using my own logic derived from events that happen to me that I think that there’s something in the idea of germs being spread around?
The method of isolating viruses are nonsense. If your hypothesis is correct then convid and it’s multitude of variants are true. Presumably your research had led you to filter your breath, avoid contact with your fellow humans and have yourself injected with life saving broths.
I largely agree with you. I’ve always been “non-religious” but basically consider myself agnostic. It doesn’t entirely fit, but it’s the closet I’ve found. It’s not so much that we can’t understand, just that we don’t typically have the proper information needed to for whatever reason. Time, availability, mental capacity, etc.
It’s really hard to get down to the true truth of things. There is so much history, interpretation along the timeline of events that led to whatever <it> is, that it means with just a small alteration in one of many different avenues, it could fundamentally change our understanding of a wide variety of things.
I’ve often wondered if there are some truly staggering “breakthroughs” to be made that once done people will say “seriously, no one tried that before?” Only to find that because some “peer reviewed” article said it wasn’t true 20 years ago and we couldn’t go against “the science” we locked ourselves in the dark ages.
An Intelligent Thinker understands subtleties, nuances, and has discernment. A Critical Thinker always questions their hypothesis/premises and conducts “due diligence.” An Aware Thinker is awake and keeps their “reality goggles” clean, focused, and calibrated. And occasionally puts them on.
It’s a very simple matter: where there’s an Ideology lurking behind, above, below or around an idea – I give that idea a very very very wide berth.
I don’t care how bizarre or absurd an idea is, I’ll give it a go just as long as it’s not part of some agenda.
And dogma…well, perhaps it’s no accident dogma sounds a bit like smegma.
Your alternative update on #COVID19 for 2022-11-02. Safety signal for myocarditis 10 weeks post-rollout, hidden from public. Sewage into ‘fossil’ fuel in 2 days (blog, gab, tweet).
I always enjoy digitally speaking with PhD’s from the scoundrel area of “psycho-the-rapist”!
So, here goes another try…
Imagine the following event. You are sitting down near an Wi-Fi router and you’ve your smart”brain” even nearer to you (of course!) and sometimes you’re holding the device in your hand! These simple actions of modern daily existence lasts for about 2 hours.
During these 2 yours the radiation causes the disintegration of many DNA and RNA pieces. These pieces of “bad” DNA and RNA are detected by your Immune System (yes you have one of those also, and without the need of the miracle mRNA toxic spew jab) and the cells that keep the Organism clean from debris and crap start to work!
Do you label those pieces of DNA and RNA a “virus”?