About ‘Next Time’ and Reaching People

I received an email this morning from a list I’m on asking for advice from the group about how to best reach people still adhering to the sanctioned c19 narrative (and including this creepy, if clever graphic – not Safeway’s own):

“WARNING! from a cousin of mine
Would Love Your Help!!!
MAY 28

Among my many emails this morning came this WARNINGCovid will still be here this summer. – My internist recommends that I continue to get COVID vaccinations every six months. (Thanks Nurse Dee Dee for the graphic.) When I replied with a list of links, he replied that they must be QAnon Conspiracy Links.

What would you send someone to show the latest developments in a way that they couldn’t simply brush it off as Q conspiracies? Thank you for helping. I think there are still many people in this camp who could use some info that could get a crack in their defensive door?”

About this topic of ‘reaching people’, there are endless reasonable things the cousin (and any people of that mindset) could be shown, were he curious and at all skeptical (and aware) of all that has happened the past 4 years, but his mind is made and closed, he has indicated that clearly, and he is content with his position. I wouldn’t ever spend my time or energy on such people again, and it’s always immediately obvious who they are (and they are most everybody). Not as to persuasion to the alternate position, anyway.

There is, however, another, different position we who seek to see behind the curtain (and who accept that there is a curtain to see behind) could, and will likely need to, adopt with such people when this situation replays next, as it surely will, as Bill Gates has promised it will. An offensive position, no longer a pleading, ‘back on our heels’ defensive stance. The position these people take is one that condoned and approves of force to see it implemented and observed by all, that’s baked into that cake. They are sure they are right, and that the info they consume is entirely correct, and they assume without evidence that the state and the media are not corrupted, which they both fully are, and long have been, maybe always have been.

But, at least about much of what they believed, they were wrong, and the positions they supported caused direct harm, LOTS of it, worldwide, and which is ongoing, and there is no quantifiable value difference between a harm caused by a random pathogen or one caused by human action or social policy. Harm is harm, and they chose to definitively inflict it, cause it. It wasn’t a dice roll. The harm of lockdown was guaranteed. They chose to cause a myriad of harms to possibly avoid another, very minor, and potentially fictitious one. These are super dangerous, thoughtless people who should not be placated or appeased in any way, ever again. 

Such people have to be told bluntly that they erred, that they didn’t know anything certainly (none of us do or can), and do not have any authority to impose their will on others, and were not on the moral high ground. That they were lied to and given both faulty and fraudulent information, and that there was and is another mountain of legit research and anecdotal evidence that supports there being another valid side to the story, one which should at the very least give them pause, preclude ever again such certainty of belief and comfort in exercising sweeping coercion against others. They have to be told to back off, not remonstrated with in perpetuity. Their position is ultimately one of force and violence, and that should be acknowledged and accepted as a baseline anytime such people are engaged with.

We have to accept that some people cannot be reached – and don’t want to be. We can’t be pleading with such people further. That’s a futile waste of time and energy. Occasionally one sees someone with a light in their eyes, and one can spend one’s good energies on them. The rest, next time and from now on, I imagine we’ll have to get pretty hard with. 


Where is Brian Wilkins?

Wilkins v. PayPal, Inc., 23-cv-02931-VKD | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Wilkins v. PayPal, Inc., 23-cv-02931-VKD, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

Like the Ice Age Farmer, another independent journo-blogger, Brian Wilkins, of The Covid Blog, has gone off the radar, making his last posts on his main site and any social media on or around Nov. 17th of ’23, and not responding to comments or messages on his SM, or to email or donation messages (at least to mine) since then.

The most recent outside information I readily found via search engines is about the linked case between him & PayPal, one he apparently lost, and which involves a substantial financial judgement against him.

Perhaps the legalities of this case (possibly under appeal?) prevent him from, or make it wise for him to stop posting, and without notice? It’s pretty odd. Even the IAF made a video post indicating clearly that all was not well in his world before dropping out of view.

If anyone knows anything, please leave a comment, or email me at deadmessenger (at) mailfence (dot) com

UPDATE: Land address & phone number (should anyone want to try either: from https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67502186/parties/wilkins-v-paypal-inc/

No, It Has Not Always Happened.

Not at this rate. While it’s possible, of course, that NFL player Hamlin’s recent mid-game cardiac arrest was caused by the blow to his chest on the the preceding play, the incidence of professional athletes collapsing and dying in general (most without sustaining any blow) since the advent of the c19 injections about two years ago is the same as the 38 year span between 1966 and 2004, and half of those earlier deaths happened to athletes with pre-existing heart issues. So, that’s a multiple of between (depending on how many of the athletes since 2021 had pre-existing issues) a 19 to 38x higher incidence of athlete death since the injections started.

That’s just pro athletes. Maybe even more striking is all the children and adolescents dropping, and that effectively has NEVER happened at any noticeable frequency, but always being an exceptionally rare occurrence.

It’s not a coincidence, but a major and obvious correlation, and very likely causal, not Sudden Adult Death Syndrome, nor Happy Heart Syndrome, nor the ‘stress of it all’, and it’s not ‘baffling’. It’s the shots. Pfizer’s own documents list cardiac and clotting issues as expected adverse events, and so they are. They are, at the very least, what has changed, what is new and different, and surely the most plausible explanation of all the deaths of those that should not be dying.

Full paper can be viewed or downloaded as a pdf below.

Getting Harder To Ignore

Melbourne is a major Western city of the Anglo-Saxon ‘free’ and 1st world, so whatever happens, is happening there, is absolutely possible and perhaps slated to happen also elsewhere in like places of similar values and origins. So, if this isn’t a Rubicon crossing and point to become openly worried, then I wonder what would constitute that point? I suspect that for many no such point exists.


A Reasonable Basis To Differ

How the COVID-19 Fear Peddlers Lost Their Credibility

This article will not a be a long-winded diatribe, but instead, it will be a quick and to-the-point itemization pointing readers to the reasons why those - who are still able to think critically -…

Besides being the most consistent position to take morally, philosophically, and practically, I am the voluntarist type of libertarian at this point in my life because of situations like this. That is, as the linked article lays out, there are SO MANY reasonable, plausible and significant points upon which to question, doubt and differ with the mainstream narrative about CV-19 that there is no way for a thinking person to ignore them all, nor the overwhelming appearance of impropriety, malfeasance, fraud and obvious agendas on display, whatever can actually be exactly proved at any given moment by an individual person just trying to live his life.

I’m certain that I wasn’t born to support or be forced to take part in actions that ultimately seem likely to create far more harm than the original ‘risk’ did itself, nor to spend my life in a mask or stuck in my house based on the edicts of a central authority with motivations and a track record I can have no faith in, nor in proving or endlessly arguing the wrongness or criminality of the actions or behavior of others, much less litigating them at great cost of both time and money in order to take a meaningful action in stepping away from those situations and the people involved with and responsible for them. No more so than I am required to prove the basis for some bad feelings or instinct of warning I might get in the presence of certain people. That is, if my hackles go up around someone, for whatever reason, even if unexplainable or unverifiable, I can simply choose to disassociate. Likewise, should I go into a shop and receive treatment from its personnel I consider unwelcoming or unhelpful. I just don’t go there again.

One cannot choose to disassociate with the state (and its owners), however. Not so far, but this situation is a clear example of why that option will surely be necessary if humans are to continue on as an organic species and to ever really become a free one.