"The question is whether we should agree." Yes. If this is the truth - and this is the truth - then we should agree with the truth. If we don't, then we are "lighting a candle and hiding it under a bushel." Just so they don't think we're crazy. A virus only exists in the original Greek sense of the word, which means poison. And if there are no viruses, then any "vaccine" produced against them can only be produced with the premeditated, deliberate goal of killing humans and animals. And that's a stronger argument than just "we accidentally made a mistake"! Especially if we judge all other "vaccines" based on this truth.
I have done it before, and I will do it! I don't care if they listen to me or believe the facts. We have to talk about the truth, and they have the right to decide whether they believe it or not! We don't want to start a sect and make people believe something, but for them to know the truth and decide what to do with it individually and collectively. I am fully aware of the motive, and we must say this too. But those who know the truth must always be in reactionary mode, because they built the lie a long time ago, and only the flood of truth can wash away their construction. Otherwise they will only tighten the noose around the neck of humanity... With all kinds of laws, punishments, terror. We agree on the rest. If I knew English, I could tell you better why this is important, but these translation programs are not good enough yet. Sorry!
Hey Tereza. Thanks, I get your point and appreciate the breakdown for a better argument. I do think it matters - the question on whether virus' exist. And this comes down to # 3 - define your terms. I think that's where we run into problems.
Invisible infectious agents could be pathogens dispersed in specific locations, (what I think we saw with Covid) rather than a globally circulating respiratory infection that was contagious. The way we've been taught to think of viruses is that they are somehow natural and dangerous and we can 'catch' them from each other. We become dangerous to each other.
Does contagion exist? Lots of evidence to suggest it does not, even while we've experienced 'spread' and linked those experiences to what we've been taught, including scary viruses and contagion.
I'm not looking to convince pro-vaxxers on this. That's like skipping past reality of chemtrails to a normie who doesn't accept them, and going to straight to space aliens. Your framing: You think 'no viruses' is a stronger argument than losing your loved ones? She doesn't.
No, of courseI don't think that. I think that's a false choice you've framed. But I do think among those of us who know vaccines are dangerous, it matters a great deal. It doesn't negate the dangers of vaccines and the massive amounts of data we have now to prove that. Which is where I would focus if talking to a pro-vaxxer.
In a larger context, because scary contagious respiratory viruses are still in the mix, this sets us up for the next marketed plague. The fact that our strongest voices for no virus are who's excluded on the biggest alternative platforms tells us we are still being managed. Break this critical piece of the spell and a lot more breaks. Keep it in place, and much of the narrative-control structure stays in place.
If we recognize that model is not even possible - yes we can be poisoned, encounter a pathogen, etc. and our bodies will respond in similar ways to expel the poison - we are in a very different world. You, as a potential virus carrier is no longer scare to me, but those behind the pysop that uses localized pathogens, quickly comes into view. It changes the whole orientation.
Ultimately the debate among anti-vaxxers matters because the truth matters.
It isn't time wasting but don't concentrate everything on one of their attack columns, there are others, especially "climate change", but also nuclear annihilation, "inclusive capitalism" and probably others I'm missing. Their fortress capitol is Technocracy and that's what We The People should be storming.
I have a very big request for you, Tommy. Could you please delete the last link (above)? I don't want to advertise Meryl Nass on this Substack because she falsely preaches the existence of "Covid." This harms the true work of enlightenment. Thank you in advance, and I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you.
I have gone back and forth in my beliefs about Meryl Nass, from fanboy to believing she is the devil incarnate. Right now I'm unsubscribed to her stack but I still go and peek at it to see what's happening.
I wrote that in late May of '24 around the anniverserary of Dien Bien Phu and that's where I was with Meryl Nass at that moment in time.
I will let it stand because my stack is a combination of things: a record of my evolving thinking, a sort of identity, a pillow to cry on. I hope its also a bunch of little messages in bottles that other people read but by the time they read them I might have changed.
I don't think by leaving that link there anyone should think you endorse Meryl Nass.
Tommy, but this Substack here is not a mix; it serves a specific purpose. It's up to you who you promote on your Substack and increase its visibility. But promoting "Covid" preachers undermines the purpose of this Substack.
No, Tommy, I'm just burning the paid propagandists who don't care about the truth. We're in a serious information war, and I won't allow anyone here to litter the truth with propaganda. I've noticed your propaganda before, but at the time I wasn't entirely sure whether it was intentional or a careless oversight. I can only hope that this is another piece of propaganda by mistake. I would be foolish to allow my time-consuming enlightenment work to be so easily distorted by propaganda, as is already the case almost everywhere.
The topic of "technological unemployment" (and thus also the topic of overproduction) is indeed very important for one of the future articles on current attempts at depopulation. Thank you for sending the very useful link.
All the best,
Suavek
P.S.
Of course, I'm trying to keep an eye on the bigger picture. But I have well over 100 unfinished, and therefore unpublished, articles. The days just seem too short...
So far, there's been no sign of anyone claiming to be engaged in propaganda and trying to push false narratives. Yet, false information still seems to dominate the internet. The sheer volume of these misrepresentations means that even the "unpaid propagandists" who have no idea they're promoting paid liars are doing the same, thus undoing the work of many. This is the effect of the echo chamber, which takes on a life of its own when people write rash things without realizing their far-reaching consequences.
Directly or indirectly promoting people like Meryl N., who tirelessly propagate the existence of "Covid," is the last thing that could benefit educational work. If the author is not careful, it can quickly happen that his time-consuming work is defamed with lies and diversionary tactics from others, so that the facts remain unrecognized and all the work was in vain. This is already evident in the comment sections of many authors. And then we wonder why so many people continue to believe in "Covid".
In my own childhood the absolute lack of basic hygiene and nutrition ( as we now understand it ) appears, to have enhanced my own immune system . This is obviously my own opinion , though perhaps influenced over the years by informal and formal study ?
We actually need sufficient contact with the microbiome. Until I was three years old, I was taken to the doctor for a suspiciously high number of minor respiratory illnesses. The doctor interviewed my family and determined that I lived too sterile a life. He advised my family that I should do what I enjoy, and what I enjoyed, so I could have more contact with dirt. I remember at the time I could hardly believe what I had just heard. I remember immediately seizing the opportunity and jumping through every puddle when it rained. That was fun. The people in my family gritted their teeth but didn't say anything. Today I sometimes think that the reckless people are those who couldn't do enough of what they wanted.
P.S.
The doctor's advice actually helped a lot, because I never got sick too often afterward.
A woman I was talking to seriously suggested that those who deviate from conventional medical principles are comparable to vegans and represent a kind of sect/cult sect. Do you want this Substack to seem unscientific, as if it's home to a religious cult that has nothing to do with real science? Please forgive me for bringing this up, but I don't want this Substack to give the false impression that it's not about science. Can you understand that and forgive me for this awkward response? I'm truly sorry for writing this, and it's not my intention to offend you at all.
It may be that after a life time of swimming in their waters , I have never known any other than “ those who deviate from conventional medical principles “ . Which is indeed quite a bias .
It was only a few years ago that I learned how terrible conventional medical health "science" is.
In my language (German), medicine does not mean medication, but the economic sector of the health sector, or scientific, medical teaching. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
But that's something I can congratulate you on. It was only a few years ago that I learned what officially recognized health medicine sector ( the healthcare system ) is actually like.
In my language (German), "medicine" doesn't mean pharmaceuticals, but rather an economic sector, the healthcare system. Please excuse the misunderstanding.
While yogurt itself doesn't change your genetic code, the probiotics it contains can influence how your genes are expressed, potentially impacting your health.
In the article, I suggested that yogurt feeds certain bacteria, which in turn can influence genes. I need to check whether I expressed that clearly or whether I used a faulty phrasing. But I think we meant something similar, don't you think?
Yes, you made an important and valid point regarding the mostly unknown effects of food such as yogurt upon our health, and maybe could have noted the hormones added to milk (and animals before murdering them).
The underlying factor is the probiotics which may affect gene expression but not the genes themselves.
The ideological gene is protected - just like the ideological germ - by extensions to its control model. The idea of a fixed one-way code-instruction that can be damaged but not repaired, was adapted to evidences that repair does occur, and that such 'code' is adaptive - ie not fixed - but expressing a dynamic feedback within signature characteristics.
The gene-gods are now turned on and off by 'epi' (above) genetics - including but not limited to the life support system of the micro biome - which is in turn part of and responsive to our consciousness -as a psychic-emotional complex in physical expression.
But the high priests and worshipful followers of the genie-gods serve deeper wishes than the projections of the model give rise to - as the framing of life in ideological constructs by which to compartmentalise a loss of communioned wholeness to a blind and inverted 'getting mechanism' - set on and from fear of pain of loss.
By getting or taking 'out of true context' does a false possession operate as a false inheritance - primarily expressing life as a product or stamp of a past set irreviocably in fear of pain of loss.
The power of agreement can and does make untruth 'real' to the minds of believers in its utility as a source of meaning be-lived or masked in as real.
This can also be seen as the resonant alignment of thought-intention or purpose. Conflicted thought or purpose gives rise to conflicted perceptions that invoke conflicted responses - as a world of war in which truth can never be allowed to undermine such defences as can be set to limit fear of pain of loss, else all is undone to total fear, total pain and total loss - for truth has no degrees or exceptions.
Thus a mind and world of augmented 'truths' that sets the limits, rules and definitions for the experience of a fragmented Constellation - set by and under terrors masked in symbols given power to override or substitutr for the living one.
Excepting this, that we release such a mind to look with willingness for love of truth revealing - beneath all appearances of hate set irrevocably in vengeance on an unworthy life and world.
Do we turn on/off the genetic expression of the Informational Energy Field of a greater Consciousness restored - by yielding alignment of our heart and mind to our true Creative function?
If we choose to use a model - let it be to serve the Living - not run as claim to speak for life. The game or dream of control set over life will switch to the subjection of being controlled even as the wish dictates -by framing all that is thus falsely begotten or derived in its own stamped image.
Can a dream of fear of pain of loss be repurposed to serve awakening in truth - in place of war, death and taxes (sacrifice)?
Polarised identity runs the split mind - that is a mind in conflict with itself - projecting its split OUT or AWAY to 'scape' a sense of defended control set over a life framed separate and 'other'.
This underlies the development of a human 'consciousness' predicated by possession and control - as the underlying fear of dispossession and loss of face - and thus social validity. Thus to be scapegoated - ie sacrificed to masking socially vested and protected lies given power by guilting fear.
In 'lived experience' guilting-fear is not only real but a terrorism on which the mind is predicated to mask over and when triggered - to mask in 'righteous blame-driven attack' or denial as 'self-justified' sacrifice under pretext of 'war on evil threat'.
Who thinks to weaponise or marketise truth has accepted war in place of truth, as a self made in its image. As long as that self is unquestioned, its rules and filters operate defences against unwanted or hated and feared truth of life - to boost or give sacrifice to what life or reality 'should be' according to the shaped judgements and grievances of fear, pain and loss in the mind so purposed.
Narratives of control or weaponised thought and language - seeks to shape the fear and guilt of threat and grievance as a means to 'gain function' by denying the othered, instead of sharing functional communication.
For may, my attempts to sketch the false 'father of the lie' are too abstracted from the issues that run as invested self-illusion given power of protection. But without an understanding of context, the issue will be marketised and weaponised to serve a sense of struggle for possession and control - in which truth is denied and sacrificed that the 'war can be won'.
No matter how appealing of convincing its 'solutions' - they operate the means for the protection and projection of the problem in a packaging of 'self-validating credits against loss of self.
Calling manipulative narratives out as 'lies' will assume moral judgement over others. This is always involving the projection of our own sins instead of correcting the errors that deliver a 'lived experience' of false or mistaken convictions - whose root runs dark to the mind that thus knows not what it does as a dissociation from self, life and world.
Moral integrity has been hijacked and weaponised by control thinking, for integrality of being is fundamental to our thought, perception, word and deed. One has to extend truth, to know our self in truth.
The mind has been used to make alternative to truth that runs oppositional conflict - from which a self-concept arises in place of integral knowing - and is given power (priority) to overmask and override a now feared nature - over which it stands 'separate' as struggle within a realm of fear, threat and loss as 'Countermeasures'.
Biotech would fuse the Living and loving with the control/victim mindset as the making safe or eradication of risk - which is its 'function to gain' over life - of which is can NOT know, see or appreciate sharing in. For it is a modelling of symbolic representation of life - in grievance seeking vindication -offered to OUR acceptance, as a past remade in its image. The idols to which truth and life are subjugated and sacrificed for a personal, separate sense of credit against threat and fear of loss. That this is collectivised under systemic management is the signature of 'joining' without love, as mutually reinforced masking illusion.
Freedom to ask the question shall not be denied - because it is integral to being.
"Who told you you were naked" (said the Lord) relates to a perceived lack and need to mask against truth - keeping a private will under 'self-justifictions.
The world we 'see' darkly though a lens of such self-concept has been the basis of adaptive survival in its terms. The child learns to 'lie' or mask and hide truth under fear of pain of loss - such as to learn or gain a world at cost of Whole Souled Awareness of being.
An alloyed and conditional love set in fear is thus equated with limited sacrifice by which to 'save' the little that ye hath, from total loss of self by 'exposure' to what fear made of love by gain of fiction.
If our 'seeing' or 'perceived reality' has been set as rules and filters of distortion that block love's awareness or peace of being- then questioning the thinking that underlies such a world will encounter fear masking in false or partial and conflicting beliefs as unresolvable dilemma or impossible situation. In its OWN terms of persisting a self judged separate and apart from the object of its 'affliction'.
There is a basis for releasing appearance to a truth we do not manufacture, augment or subvert that is integral to being and thus open to simple and direct acceptance - and not the achievement or result of any means or mode of technologising the mind to 'become' worthy or whole. We simply have to want to see without guilt - that is to see shared worth instead of sins rejoiced in as self-boosting leverage for position in a 'prison planet'.
That we have choice is our remaining freedom, but while framed in false binary, it keeps us in illusions of a freedom that only bind us to the lie and the father of the lie.
When choice is framed by guilting fear - mind is locked down against true freedom as too great a threat to be moved by. This underlies fear of contagion, and sickness as defence against a truth the mind-in-a-body cannot know. Communication is Natural or Integral to being - or rather Communioned being is experienced as relational exchange within the qualities of Meaning shared. Loss or breakdown of Communication frames a projective distortion.
We may see that Separation can only run in concept (mind) - for how can a thought escape the mind that thinks it? But can I state Separation doesn't exist - when the results of its be-lived investment give rise to such an entangled world? the ego always seeks to usurp Spirit - by definition. As if to be the teller of truth that is truly revealed in love and freedom - not set as structure that would 'reach to the heavens', to be as gods.
To truly receive re-establishes the power of 'sending'.
Or our communication teaches conflict by what we think, say and do.
No one will see what they are not ready or willing to accept.
No one can make another think or see, without their willingness or participation, even if coercive attempts generate masking defences of outer compliance to the form or appearance of agreement.
Demanding others take off their 'masking defence beliefs and strategies' runs itself as a masking strategy of assuming the right to judge, correct and frame others in our own image or thought.
The call for healing is overmasked by the call for war and defence as dictate for external 'solutions' that buy time against greater exposure to feared truth.
Feared truth is a projection of a conflicted past to an imagined or expected future - given power to run as basis of fact.
There is a process for the undoing of fear as a cooperative responsibility within life.
It is not other than a real relationship, by which the mind is healed of its own errors by looking past errors seen in others, to the quality and nature of a living freedom - that underlies the mind's function of choice, decision, acceptance.
That we are making choices is denied awareness by an insistence of being forced against our will by external situations and conditions.
But the cause and effect mechanism can serve to recognise poor outcomes as resulting from poor thinking - or from old choices that no longer serve us.
Freedom to evaluate our own choices and outcomes cant be forced, but it is integral to our curious being - which can be called forth or joined with.
But guilt will absolutely lockdown and deny awareness.
Innocence of being is not to be equated with release of responsibility for consequence (Learning as transformation).
But no one acts but from selected perceptions or 'meanings' taken as fact that then frame self-interest.
A false inheritance cannot become true - yet runs as self-invested outcomes as an experience of being conflicted, driven and defended against truth feared - as loss of self.
Opening to question cannot be a frontal assault.
I choose not to join in (support) loveless choices.
If others choose to frame their self in a body subject to pathological attacks or intentions, I would see if they are willing to look at their belief - and its results rather than enact it.
Let the dead bury the dead - means attend and align in the living.
Else attempts to raise the wilfully 'dead' will join in dead thinking and suffer the fruits therof.
The basis for claim underlying global 'countermeasures' runs false as manipulative deceit at a fundamental level of human consciousness. The revealing and healing of the human mind by truth will be experienced as deeply unsettling conflicts - within a greater embrace of connected awareness.
Thanks for this. Yes, exposing the virus lie is fundamental. That goes and all the others resting on it, go too. It matters.
"The question is whether we should agree." Yes. If this is the truth - and this is the truth - then we should agree with the truth. If we don't, then we are "lighting a candle and hiding it under a bushel." Just so they don't think we're crazy. A virus only exists in the original Greek sense of the word, which means poison. And if there are no viruses, then any "vaccine" produced against them can only be produced with the premeditated, deliberate goal of killing humans and animals. And that's a stronger argument than just "we accidentally made a mistake"! Especially if we judge all other "vaccines" based on this truth.
I have done it before, and I will do it! I don't care if they listen to me or believe the facts. We have to talk about the truth, and they have the right to decide whether they believe it or not! We don't want to start a sect and make people believe something, but for them to know the truth and decide what to do with it individually and collectively. I am fully aware of the motive, and we must say this too. But those who know the truth must always be in reactionary mode, because they built the lie a long time ago, and only the flood of truth can wash away their construction. Otherwise they will only tighten the noose around the neck of humanity... With all kinds of laws, punishments, terror. We agree on the rest. If I knew English, I could tell you better why this is important, but these translation programs are not good enough yet. Sorry!
Hey Tereza. Thanks, I get your point and appreciate the breakdown for a better argument. I do think it matters - the question on whether virus' exist. And this comes down to # 3 - define your terms. I think that's where we run into problems.
Invisible infectious agents could be pathogens dispersed in specific locations, (what I think we saw with Covid) rather than a globally circulating respiratory infection that was contagious. The way we've been taught to think of viruses is that they are somehow natural and dangerous and we can 'catch' them from each other. We become dangerous to each other.
Does contagion exist? Lots of evidence to suggest it does not, even while we've experienced 'spread' and linked those experiences to what we've been taught, including scary viruses and contagion.
https://stolenhistory.net/threads/viruses-are-not-contagious.5618/
I'm not looking to convince pro-vaxxers on this. That's like skipping past reality of chemtrails to a normie who doesn't accept them, and going to straight to space aliens. Your framing: You think 'no viruses' is a stronger argument than losing your loved ones? She doesn't.
No, of courseI don't think that. I think that's a false choice you've framed. But I do think among those of us who know vaccines are dangerous, it matters a great deal. It doesn't negate the dangers of vaccines and the massive amounts of data we have now to prove that. Which is where I would focus if talking to a pro-vaxxer.
In a larger context, because scary contagious respiratory viruses are still in the mix, this sets us up for the next marketed plague. The fact that our strongest voices for no virus are who's excluded on the biggest alternative platforms tells us we are still being managed. Break this critical piece of the spell and a lot more breaks. Keep it in place, and much of the narrative-control structure stays in place.
If we recognize that model is not even possible - yes we can be poisoned, encounter a pathogen, etc. and our bodies will respond in similar ways to expel the poison - we are in a very different world. You, as a potential virus carrier is no longer scare to me, but those behind the pysop that uses localized pathogens, quickly comes into view. It changes the whole orientation.
Ultimately the debate among anti-vaxxers matters because the truth matters.
It isn't time wasting but don't concentrate everything on one of their attack columns, there are others, especially "climate change", but also nuclear annihilation, "inclusive capitalism" and probably others I'm missing. Their fortress capitol is Technocracy and that's what We The People should be storming.
Technocracy:
A Totalitarian Fantasy
Myths and Realities About a “New Order”
(March 1944)
https://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1944/03/technocracy.htm
I have a very big request for you, Tommy. Could you please delete the last link (above)? I don't want to advertise Meryl Nass on this Substack because she falsely preaches the existence of "Covid." This harms the true work of enlightenment. Thank you in advance, and I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you.
I have gone back and forth in my beliefs about Meryl Nass, from fanboy to believing she is the devil incarnate. Right now I'm unsubscribed to her stack but I still go and peek at it to see what's happening.
I wrote that in late May of '24 around the anniverserary of Dien Bien Phu and that's where I was with Meryl Nass at that moment in time.
I will let it stand because my stack is a combination of things: a record of my evolving thinking, a sort of identity, a pillow to cry on. I hope its also a bunch of little messages in bottles that other people read but by the time they read them I might have changed.
I don't think by leaving that link there anyone should think you endorse Meryl Nass.
Tommy, but this Substack here is not a mix; it serves a specific purpose. It's up to you who you promote on your Substack and increase its visibility. But promoting "Covid" preachers undermines the purpose of this Substack.
I'm not promoting Meryl Nass and neither are you.
Are we burning books here?
-edit-
I will put a link to this thread in the comments for that post. Best I can do.
-edit 2-
I pinned that comment there.
-edit 3-
oh I see you removed my comment, its very 1984 of you. You seem to think I'm advertising for Meryl Nass.
-edit 4-
For the record, my (now deleted) comment was not about Meryl Nass, but about Detechnocratization.
No, Tommy, I'm just burning the paid propagandists who don't care about the truth. We're in a serious information war, and I won't allow anyone here to litter the truth with propaganda. I've noticed your propaganda before, but at the time I wasn't entirely sure whether it was intentional or a careless oversight. I can only hope that this is another piece of propaganda by mistake. I would be foolish to allow my time-consuming enlightenment work to be so easily distorted by propaganda, as is already the case almost everywhere.
Hi Tommy,
The topic of "technological unemployment" (and thus also the topic of overproduction) is indeed very important for one of the future articles on current attempts at depopulation. Thank you for sending the very useful link.
All the best,
Suavek
P.S.
Of course, I'm trying to keep an eye on the bigger picture. But I have well over 100 unfinished, and therefore unpublished, articles. The days just seem too short...
"Germ theory is the gateway drug to Technocracy."
https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/covid-19-was-a-military-psyop/comment/123879891
Thank you Mike and Suavek!⚔️
So far, there's been no sign of anyone claiming to be engaged in propaganda and trying to push false narratives. Yet, false information still seems to dominate the internet. The sheer volume of these misrepresentations means that even the "unpaid propagandists" who have no idea they're promoting paid liars are doing the same, thus undoing the work of many. This is the effect of the echo chamber, which takes on a life of its own when people write rash things without realizing their far-reaching consequences.
Directly or indirectly promoting people like Meryl N., who tirelessly propagate the existence of "Covid," is the last thing that could benefit educational work. If the author is not careful, it can quickly happen that his time-consuming work is defamed with lies and diversionary tactics from others, so that the facts remain unrecognized and all the work was in vain. This is already evident in the comment sections of many authors. And then we wonder why so many people continue to believe in "Covid".
Damn straight! Never happened.
Such an important point !
In my own childhood the absolute lack of basic hygiene and nutrition ( as we now understand it ) appears, to have enhanced my own immune system . This is obviously my own opinion , though perhaps influenced over the years by informal and formal study ?
We actually need sufficient contact with the microbiome. Until I was three years old, I was taken to the doctor for a suspiciously high number of minor respiratory illnesses. The doctor interviewed my family and determined that I lived too sterile a life. He advised my family that I should do what I enjoy, and what I enjoyed, so I could have more contact with dirt. I remember at the time I could hardly believe what I had just heard. I remember immediately seizing the opportunity and jumping through every puddle when it rained. That was fun. The people in my family gritted their teeth but didn't say anything. Today I sometimes think that the reckless people are those who couldn't do enough of what they wanted.
P.S.
The doctor's advice actually helped a lot, because I never got sick too often afterward.
PS
Beware the Noahide laws .
Hello Kaylene,
A woman I was talking to seriously suggested that those who deviate from conventional medical principles are comparable to vegans and represent a kind of sect/cult sect. Do you want this Substack to seem unscientific, as if it's home to a religious cult that has nothing to do with real science? Please forgive me for bringing this up, but I don't want this Substack to give the false impression that it's not about science. Can you understand that and forgive me for this awkward response? I'm truly sorry for writing this, and it's not my intention to offend you at all.
All the best,
Suavek
It may be that after a life time of swimming in their waters , I have never known any other than “ those who deviate from conventional medical principles “ . Which is indeed quite a bias .
But that's something I can congratulate you on. It was only a few years ago that I learned how terrible conventional medical health "science" is.
What is , “ officially recognised medicine “ like Suavek ? How does it differ from that being promulgated by msm and world wide government machines….
Serious question though perhaps not well articulated?
Sorry. I replaced the incorrect sentence :
It was only a few years ago that I learned how terrible conventional medical health "science" is.
In my language (German), medicine does not mean medication, but the economic sector of the health sector, or scientific, medical teaching. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
😂 great example of learning through our mistakes.
Sorry :
But that's something I can congratulate you on. It was only a few years ago that I learned what officially recognized health medicine sector ( the healthcare system ) is actually like.
In my language (German), "medicine" doesn't mean pharmaceuticals, but rather an economic sector, the healthcare system. Please excuse the misunderstanding.
While yogurt itself doesn't change your genetic code, the probiotics it contains can influence how your genes are expressed, potentially impacting your health.
Hi Don,
In the article, I suggested that yogurt feeds certain bacteria, which in turn can influence genes. I need to check whether I expressed that clearly or whether I used a faulty phrasing. But I think we meant something similar, don't you think?
Yes, you made an important and valid point regarding the mostly unknown effects of food such as yogurt upon our health, and maybe could have noted the hormones added to milk (and animals before murdering them).
The underlying factor is the probiotics which may affect gene expression but not the genes themselves.
The ideological gene is protected - just like the ideological germ - by extensions to its control model. The idea of a fixed one-way code-instruction that can be damaged but not repaired, was adapted to evidences that repair does occur, and that such 'code' is adaptive - ie not fixed - but expressing a dynamic feedback within signature characteristics.
The gene-gods are now turned on and off by 'epi' (above) genetics - including but not limited to the life support system of the micro biome - which is in turn part of and responsive to our consciousness -as a psychic-emotional complex in physical expression.
But the high priests and worshipful followers of the genie-gods serve deeper wishes than the projections of the model give rise to - as the framing of life in ideological constructs by which to compartmentalise a loss of communioned wholeness to a blind and inverted 'getting mechanism' - set on and from fear of pain of loss.
By getting or taking 'out of true context' does a false possession operate as a false inheritance - primarily expressing life as a product or stamp of a past set irreviocably in fear of pain of loss.
The power of agreement can and does make untruth 'real' to the minds of believers in its utility as a source of meaning be-lived or masked in as real.
This can also be seen as the resonant alignment of thought-intention or purpose. Conflicted thought or purpose gives rise to conflicted perceptions that invoke conflicted responses - as a world of war in which truth can never be allowed to undermine such defences as can be set to limit fear of pain of loss, else all is undone to total fear, total pain and total loss - for truth has no degrees or exceptions.
Thus a mind and world of augmented 'truths' that sets the limits, rules and definitions for the experience of a fragmented Constellation - set by and under terrors masked in symbols given power to override or substitutr for the living one.
Excepting this, that we release such a mind to look with willingness for love of truth revealing - beneath all appearances of hate set irrevocably in vengeance on an unworthy life and world.
Do we turn on/off the genetic expression of the Informational Energy Field of a greater Consciousness restored - by yielding alignment of our heart and mind to our true Creative function?
If we choose to use a model - let it be to serve the Living - not run as claim to speak for life. The game or dream of control set over life will switch to the subjection of being controlled even as the wish dictates -by framing all that is thus falsely begotten or derived in its own stamped image.
Can a dream of fear of pain of loss be repurposed to serve awakening in truth - in place of war, death and taxes (sacrifice)?
Polarised identity runs the split mind - that is a mind in conflict with itself - projecting its split OUT or AWAY to 'scape' a sense of defended control set over a life framed separate and 'other'.
This underlies the development of a human 'consciousness' predicated by possession and control - as the underlying fear of dispossession and loss of face - and thus social validity. Thus to be scapegoated - ie sacrificed to masking socially vested and protected lies given power by guilting fear.
In 'lived experience' guilting-fear is not only real but a terrorism on which the mind is predicated to mask over and when triggered - to mask in 'righteous blame-driven attack' or denial as 'self-justified' sacrifice under pretext of 'war on evil threat'.
Who thinks to weaponise or marketise truth has accepted war in place of truth, as a self made in its image. As long as that self is unquestioned, its rules and filters operate defences against unwanted or hated and feared truth of life - to boost or give sacrifice to what life or reality 'should be' according to the shaped judgements and grievances of fear, pain and loss in the mind so purposed.
Narratives of control or weaponised thought and language - seeks to shape the fear and guilt of threat and grievance as a means to 'gain function' by denying the othered, instead of sharing functional communication.
For may, my attempts to sketch the false 'father of the lie' are too abstracted from the issues that run as invested self-illusion given power of protection. But without an understanding of context, the issue will be marketised and weaponised to serve a sense of struggle for possession and control - in which truth is denied and sacrificed that the 'war can be won'.
No matter how appealing of convincing its 'solutions' - they operate the means for the protection and projection of the problem in a packaging of 'self-validating credits against loss of self.
Calling manipulative narratives out as 'lies' will assume moral judgement over others. This is always involving the projection of our own sins instead of correcting the errors that deliver a 'lived experience' of false or mistaken convictions - whose root runs dark to the mind that thus knows not what it does as a dissociation from self, life and world.
Moral integrity has been hijacked and weaponised by control thinking, for integrality of being is fundamental to our thought, perception, word and deed. One has to extend truth, to know our self in truth.
The mind has been used to make alternative to truth that runs oppositional conflict - from which a self-concept arises in place of integral knowing - and is given power (priority) to overmask and override a now feared nature - over which it stands 'separate' as struggle within a realm of fear, threat and loss as 'Countermeasures'.
Biotech would fuse the Living and loving with the control/victim mindset as the making safe or eradication of risk - which is its 'function to gain' over life - of which is can NOT know, see or appreciate sharing in. For it is a modelling of symbolic representation of life - in grievance seeking vindication -offered to OUR acceptance, as a past remade in its image. The idols to which truth and life are subjugated and sacrificed for a personal, separate sense of credit against threat and fear of loss. That this is collectivised under systemic management is the signature of 'joining' without love, as mutually reinforced masking illusion.
Freedom to ask the question shall not be denied - because it is integral to being.
"Who told you you were naked" (said the Lord) relates to a perceived lack and need to mask against truth - keeping a private will under 'self-justifictions.
The world we 'see' darkly though a lens of such self-concept has been the basis of adaptive survival in its terms. The child learns to 'lie' or mask and hide truth under fear of pain of loss - such as to learn or gain a world at cost of Whole Souled Awareness of being.
An alloyed and conditional love set in fear is thus equated with limited sacrifice by which to 'save' the little that ye hath, from total loss of self by 'exposure' to what fear made of love by gain of fiction.
If our 'seeing' or 'perceived reality' has been set as rules and filters of distortion that block love's awareness or peace of being- then questioning the thinking that underlies such a world will encounter fear masking in false or partial and conflicting beliefs as unresolvable dilemma or impossible situation. In its OWN terms of persisting a self judged separate and apart from the object of its 'affliction'.
There is a basis for releasing appearance to a truth we do not manufacture, augment or subvert that is integral to being and thus open to simple and direct acceptance - and not the achievement or result of any means or mode of technologising the mind to 'become' worthy or whole. We simply have to want to see without guilt - that is to see shared worth instead of sins rejoiced in as self-boosting leverage for position in a 'prison planet'.
That we have choice is our remaining freedom, but while framed in false binary, it keeps us in illusions of a freedom that only bind us to the lie and the father of the lie.
When choice is framed by guilting fear - mind is locked down against true freedom as too great a threat to be moved by. This underlies fear of contagion, and sickness as defence against a truth the mind-in-a-body cannot know. Communication is Natural or Integral to being - or rather Communioned being is experienced as relational exchange within the qualities of Meaning shared. Loss or breakdown of Communication frames a projective distortion.
We may see that Separation can only run in concept (mind) - for how can a thought escape the mind that thinks it? But can I state Separation doesn't exist - when the results of its be-lived investment give rise to such an entangled world? the ego always seeks to usurp Spirit - by definition. As if to be the teller of truth that is truly revealed in love and freedom - not set as structure that would 'reach to the heavens', to be as gods.
To truly receive re-establishes the power of 'sending'.
Witnessing for truth must extend true with-ness.
Or our communication teaches conflict by what we think, say and do.
No one will see what they are not ready or willing to accept.
No one can make another think or see, without their willingness or participation, even if coercive attempts generate masking defences of outer compliance to the form or appearance of agreement.
Demanding others take off their 'masking defence beliefs and strategies' runs itself as a masking strategy of assuming the right to judge, correct and frame others in our own image or thought.
The call for healing is overmasked by the call for war and defence as dictate for external 'solutions' that buy time against greater exposure to feared truth.
Feared truth is a projection of a conflicted past to an imagined or expected future - given power to run as basis of fact.
There is a process for the undoing of fear as a cooperative responsibility within life.
It is not other than a real relationship, by which the mind is healed of its own errors by looking past errors seen in others, to the quality and nature of a living freedom - that underlies the mind's function of choice, decision, acceptance.
That we are making choices is denied awareness by an insistence of being forced against our will by external situations and conditions.
But the cause and effect mechanism can serve to recognise poor outcomes as resulting from poor thinking - or from old choices that no longer serve us.
Freedom to evaluate our own choices and outcomes cant be forced, but it is integral to our curious being - which can be called forth or joined with.
But guilt will absolutely lockdown and deny awareness.
Innocence of being is not to be equated with release of responsibility for consequence (Learning as transformation).
But no one acts but from selected perceptions or 'meanings' taken as fact that then frame self-interest.
A false inheritance cannot become true - yet runs as self-invested outcomes as an experience of being conflicted, driven and defended against truth feared - as loss of self.
Opening to question cannot be a frontal assault.
I choose not to join in (support) loveless choices.
If others choose to frame their self in a body subject to pathological attacks or intentions, I would see if they are willing to look at their belief - and its results rather than enact it.
Let the dead bury the dead - means attend and align in the living.
Else attempts to raise the wilfully 'dead' will join in dead thinking and suffer the fruits therof.
The basis for claim underlying global 'countermeasures' runs false as manipulative deceit at a fundamental level of human consciousness. The revealing and healing of the human mind by truth will be experienced as deeply unsettling conflicts - within a greater embrace of connected awareness.