"Given the current context I cannot answer the question".
Many, I believe, mistake the "context" to the question asked (what is a women, a man, a human) is referring to the Transsexual debate. I think this is a mistake. I think it refers to the use of the MRNA vaccines (that we know modify DNA). The context now (the one we are living in) is that people have chosen to give up their humanity (allowed their DNA to be bought) so that they could return to the life they dreamed of before the pandemic.
The Archon, for many years have been crying out to us; What have you done w the liberty given to you? 'Repent you wicked generation', you have polluted the air, the water, the land (and the gospels too). If you do not repent we will take these liberties from you. You must decide, either repent, or give up your humanity/life/liberty.
And the vast majority chose to give up their lives for more fiat bullshit.
I call these people Pink Carnations (pinked incarnation). They are a new life form, w a new OS. We will see what they become.
A splendid essay. My writing could be interlaced with yours though some sort of ewige Wellenlänge. I too have pondered the archons and have come close to your rendering. It is an important concept for Christians particularly those of the Alexandrian persuasion. The notion is so pervasive and once clearly seen so maddeningly obvious
Of the various groups working to expose the truth about Covid-19 and even to litigate against mandates (Children's Health Defense; Swiss Policy Research; the American Association for Physicians and Surgeons; America's Frontline Doctors; Frontline Covid Critical Care Alliance; Health Freedom Defense; Stand for Health Freedom; Truth for Health Foundation; Doctors 4 Covid Ethics) Children's Health Defense stands out both for its news reporting and litigation efforts. Part 4 of its recent video series "Covid Unmasked" highlights the constitutional abuse of mandates and previous legal judgements that do not excuse "emergencies". The call for sheriffs, who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and have autonomy compared with other law enforcement, in particular to resist legal abuses may seem quixotic, but some have. As for the religious side of things, it's tough to accept "this ain't the New Jerusalem", and that martyrdom and suffering are part of the fabric of religious traditions, but they are, as is the admonishment to persevere. As for 911, inside-job skeptics need to explain the collapse of Building 7 late in the afternoon on 9/11, which the Federal Government has been unable to do. Once that domino falls, the rest follow. See also Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth and the many books by theologian David Ray Griffin, perhaps beginning with Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action.
I have been thinking about this today, and after reading for this long, I would like to put forth a few considerations:
1) How do you know that mRNA is capable of infiltrating the nucleus, where the DNA lives? I hate the archons the same as you, but in my understanding, the proposal here is physically impossible (and if it was possible, they would have already used it for far more nefarious things). It looks to me like a sort of idolatry; I think that big pharma was mostly just after the money. They don't have that much imagination.
2) I have long believed that our government is certainly evil enough to have done 9/11, but I also doubt their competence. (What else have they ever gotten right?) My general view is that their malice exceeds their actual capabilities. We are still talking about humans here, after all.
3) There is a way of thinking where anything the "experts" disagree with is automatically right. But I don't see it that way. There is an entire swamp down there, and I am of the opinion that critical thinking still matters. I like to see some sort of logos demonstration of how the whole thing works, not just some pathos appeal to the believers, which is exactly what we hate about the crowd already.
4) I can stop reading, if you wish, but I don't think the things said here are properly defended—and again, I am sympathetic to the case. This post is not clear-headed, and one of your commenters is talking gibberish (including using the names "Archon" and "God" interchangeably, which is dangerous). I just felt obliged to tell the truth as I see it. Thanks.
1) It's well-attested, for one thing. I don't know why you haven't heard about it. As I mentioned in the article, it's been known that the shots spike protein has messed with menses in a disturbing manner since early on--and ignored by the media (who get most of their advertising revenue from BigPharma), Naomi Wolf and her team have been combing through the thousands and thousands of pages of Pfizer documents that were supposed to be withheld for 75 years and they've discovered Pfizer has known there were mortal dangers all along.
2) Like I said, my jury is still out on 9-11--but if some random guys from Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda could pull it off, I'm sure the US government could.
3) I'm going on what has been reported in the Pfizer docs as well as in the medical opinions of a whole host of MDs and PhDs who have been critical of the rollout of the vaxx due to both lab-based research and experience with patients. I don't see how you haven't encountered any of this before. I hope you didn't get the shot.
Well, I did—probably wouldn't at this point (simply because the potential harm is so negligible anyway), but I didn't think much of it at the time, one way or the other. Didn't feel a thing, then or later. I suppose that I'm just a little startled by the almost apocalyptic significance you attribute to it, and also to hear you saying things that seem to contradict basic biology and statistics.
I'm fine with being wrong, even badly so, if that's how it is, but I see a disproportion going on. I was okay with it at time because of a basic understanding (in concept) of how mRNA works: degrades in a matter of hours, cannot interact with DNA, cannot enter the nucleus, et cetera. I found the tech impressive—seemed Promethean, in the good way. It could be the basis of curing cancer. I'm not exactly a fan of modern medicine, and I know big pharma just wants the money, and that they just get paid to cure the maladies that the modern world itself creates. But on the balance, I haven't seen anything to make me think that your claims here are well-founded, especially in the form of such radical certainty.
Also, they want tech that literally can change DNA, and they're sad that they haven't found it yet.
Don't get me wrong: I think the entire biopolitical regime wanted to use this event as a pretext for great evil—a culture of fear and isolation, the establishment of a permanent security state, and so on. But the notion that mRNA tech itself is a mass sterilization device just strikes me as biologically illiterate, and I am startled because you're the only intelligent person I've ever heard suggest it.
Well, if you happen to be right, let's just hope that my system was robust enough to have killed the thing. I think I got drunk right after too, so maybe it got washed out, didn't find the system hospitable enough.
Like I said, I'm concerned sterilization is a *possibility*--and it would be generally invisible in the short term. It's a pretty sensible hypothesis considering the well-documented fact that the spike attaches to the reproductive organs. For my wife, it resulted in cancer--after being around someone who'd been recently vaxxed, she started having very heavy periods every two weeks, with huge clots. Many women have told similar stories. Many post-menopausal women started having periods again following vaccination. With men, I would assume it would be more invisible in the short term, not having monthly reminders of their fertility. I am not the only relatively intelligent person drawing this conclusion, either. I know it's terrifying. The Archons never stopped the vaxx rollout, though many experts have called for an immediate moratorium.
I'm sorry to hear about what happened to your wife.
The thing, though, is that the mRNA vaccine could not possibly do anything that the virus itself wouldn't. My understanding is that it teaches your cells to make the thing they would make later if they encountered the virus. So it seems logically nonsensical to say that the vaccine would cause sterility whereas infection itself would not. Again, I have a pretty good working understanding of what mRNA is (and what it isn't), which is why I don't really get what the fuss is about.
Also, I think that it's been long enough now that, at the population level, we would have heard about mass sterility by now.
Is there a text version? Otherwise I'll take a listen later. An initial thought, though, is that I have no idea how they'd control for variables. Most young women are mRNA-vaccinated, and a lot of them also keep saying they don't want babies ever (which I personally find more concerning), so I wonder what the baseline for the comparison would be.
I posit in my manuscript that the Bible records either 1) accurate human perceptions of different deities, or 2) varying human perceptions of a single deity. I typically lean toward the latter, these days, although my fondness for the straightforward Gnostic take also hasn't really gone away. Excerpt:
"The picture shifts into greater focus if we imagine that there dwelled a veil, or filter—sometimes more transparent, sometimes more opaque—between the words of the deity and the ancient Hebrews' perceptions of those words. Depending on where a man stands in relation to that veil, God could look very different: in fact, the spread could be so wide as to encompass all of what must seem like an entire spectrum of schizoid variations. This is a reversal of perspective, through which the madness is seen to be not in God Himself but in the inconstancy with which humans have viewed Him across the eras. Some men may have seen God as if face to face and lived to tell the tale, whereas others glimpsed Him very darkly and also recorded their experiences. This dynamic could have been so extreme that some men even confused evil itself with the mandates of the divine."
Our Lady said at La Salette:
"Fight! Fight, Children of the Light!"
Let's roll.
"Given the current context I cannot answer the question".
Many, I believe, mistake the "context" to the question asked (what is a women, a man, a human) is referring to the Transsexual debate. I think this is a mistake. I think it refers to the use of the MRNA vaccines (that we know modify DNA). The context now (the one we are living in) is that people have chosen to give up their humanity (allowed their DNA to be bought) so that they could return to the life they dreamed of before the pandemic.
The Archon, for many years have been crying out to us; What have you done w the liberty given to you? 'Repent you wicked generation', you have polluted the air, the water, the land (and the gospels too). If you do not repent we will take these liberties from you. You must decide, either repent, or give up your humanity/life/liberty.
And the vast majority chose to give up their lives for more fiat bullshit.
I call these people Pink Carnations (pinked incarnation). They are a new life form, w a new OS. We will see what they become.
Awesome insights, Tom.
A splendid essay. My writing could be interlaced with yours though some sort of ewige Wellenlänge. I too have pondered the archons and have come close to your rendering. It is an important concept for Christians particularly those of the Alexandrian persuasion. The notion is so pervasive and once clearly seen so maddeningly obvious
Of the various groups working to expose the truth about Covid-19 and even to litigate against mandates (Children's Health Defense; Swiss Policy Research; the American Association for Physicians and Surgeons; America's Frontline Doctors; Frontline Covid Critical Care Alliance; Health Freedom Defense; Stand for Health Freedom; Truth for Health Foundation; Doctors 4 Covid Ethics) Children's Health Defense stands out both for its news reporting and litigation efforts. Part 4 of its recent video series "Covid Unmasked" highlights the constitutional abuse of mandates and previous legal judgements that do not excuse "emergencies". The call for sheriffs, who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and have autonomy compared with other law enforcement, in particular to resist legal abuses may seem quixotic, but some have. As for the religious side of things, it's tough to accept "this ain't the New Jerusalem", and that martyrdom and suffering are part of the fabric of religious traditions, but they are, as is the admonishment to persevere. As for 911, inside-job skeptics need to explain the collapse of Building 7 late in the afternoon on 9/11, which the Federal Government has been unable to do. Once that domino falls, the rest follow. See also Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth and the many books by theologian David Ray Griffin, perhaps beginning with Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action.
Thanks, James. It always gives my heart joy to hear from you.
I have been thinking about this today, and after reading for this long, I would like to put forth a few considerations:
1) How do you know that mRNA is capable of infiltrating the nucleus, where the DNA lives? I hate the archons the same as you, but in my understanding, the proposal here is physically impossible (and if it was possible, they would have already used it for far more nefarious things). It looks to me like a sort of idolatry; I think that big pharma was mostly just after the money. They don't have that much imagination.
2) I have long believed that our government is certainly evil enough to have done 9/11, but I also doubt their competence. (What else have they ever gotten right?) My general view is that their malice exceeds their actual capabilities. We are still talking about humans here, after all.
3) There is a way of thinking where anything the "experts" disagree with is automatically right. But I don't see it that way. There is an entire swamp down there, and I am of the opinion that critical thinking still matters. I like to see some sort of logos demonstration of how the whole thing works, not just some pathos appeal to the believers, which is exactly what we hate about the crowd already.
4) I can stop reading, if you wish, but I don't think the things said here are properly defended—and again, I am sympathetic to the case. This post is not clear-headed, and one of your commenters is talking gibberish (including using the names "Archon" and "God" interchangeably, which is dangerous). I just felt obliged to tell the truth as I see it. Thanks.
Well...
1) It's well-attested, for one thing. I don't know why you haven't heard about it. As I mentioned in the article, it's been known that the shots spike protein has messed with menses in a disturbing manner since early on--and ignored by the media (who get most of their advertising revenue from BigPharma), Naomi Wolf and her team have been combing through the thousands and thousands of pages of Pfizer documents that were supposed to be withheld for 75 years and they've discovered Pfizer has known there were mortal dangers all along.
2) Like I said, my jury is still out on 9-11--but if some random guys from Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda could pull it off, I'm sure the US government could.
3) I'm going on what has been reported in the Pfizer docs as well as in the medical opinions of a whole host of MDs and PhDs who have been critical of the rollout of the vaxx due to both lab-based research and experience with patients. I don't see how you haven't encountered any of this before. I hope you didn't get the shot.
Well, I did—probably wouldn't at this point (simply because the potential harm is so negligible anyway), but I didn't think much of it at the time, one way or the other. Didn't feel a thing, then or later. I suppose that I'm just a little startled by the almost apocalyptic significance you attribute to it, and also to hear you saying things that seem to contradict basic biology and statistics.
I'm fine with being wrong, even badly so, if that's how it is, but I see a disproportion going on. I was okay with it at time because of a basic understanding (in concept) of how mRNA works: degrades in a matter of hours, cannot interact with DNA, cannot enter the nucleus, et cetera. I found the tech impressive—seemed Promethean, in the good way. It could be the basis of curing cancer. I'm not exactly a fan of modern medicine, and I know big pharma just wants the money, and that they just get paid to cure the maladies that the modern world itself creates. But on the balance, I haven't seen anything to make me think that your claims here are well-founded, especially in the form of such radical certainty.
Also, they want tech that literally can change DNA, and they're sad that they haven't found it yet.
Don't get me wrong: I think the entire biopolitical regime wanted to use this event as a pretext for great evil—a culture of fear and isolation, the establishment of a permanent security state, and so on. But the notion that mRNA tech itself is a mass sterilization device just strikes me as biologically illiterate, and I am startled because you're the only intelligent person I've ever heard suggest it.
Well, if you happen to be right, let's just hope that my system was robust enough to have killed the thing. I think I got drunk right after too, so maybe it got washed out, didn't find the system hospitable enough.
Like I said, I'm concerned sterilization is a *possibility*--and it would be generally invisible in the short term. It's a pretty sensible hypothesis considering the well-documented fact that the spike attaches to the reproductive organs. For my wife, it resulted in cancer--after being around someone who'd been recently vaxxed, she started having very heavy periods every two weeks, with huge clots. Many women have told similar stories. Many post-menopausal women started having periods again following vaccination. With men, I would assume it would be more invisible in the short term, not having monthly reminders of their fertility. I am not the only relatively intelligent person drawing this conclusion, either. I know it's terrifying. The Archons never stopped the vaxx rollout, though many experts have called for an immediate moratorium.
I'm sorry to hear about what happened to your wife.
The thing, though, is that the mRNA vaccine could not possibly do anything that the virus itself wouldn't. My understanding is that it teaches your cells to make the thing they would make later if they encountered the virus. So it seems logically nonsensical to say that the vaccine would cause sterility whereas infection itself would not. Again, I have a pretty good working understanding of what mRNA is (and what it isn't), which is why I don't really get what the fuss is about.
Also, I think that it's been long enough now that, at the population level, we would have heard about mass sterility by now.
https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/alarming-drop-in-birthrates-and-fertility#details
Is there a text version? Otherwise I'll take a listen later. An initial thought, though, is that I have no idea how they'd control for variables. Most young women are mRNA-vaccinated, and a lot of them also keep saying they don't want babies ever (which I personally find more concerning), so I wonder what the baseline for the comparison would be.
Always enjoy your clear headed vision and courage.
I enjoyed this post a lot Michael, thanks. Love that George Carlin clip - They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it!
I posit in my manuscript that the Bible records either 1) accurate human perceptions of different deities, or 2) varying human perceptions of a single deity. I typically lean toward the latter, these days, although my fondness for the straightforward Gnostic take also hasn't really gone away. Excerpt:
"The picture shifts into greater focus if we imagine that there dwelled a veil, or filter—sometimes more transparent, sometimes more opaque—between the words of the deity and the ancient Hebrews' perceptions of those words. Depending on where a man stands in relation to that veil, God could look very different: in fact, the spread could be so wide as to encompass all of what must seem like an entire spectrum of schizoid variations. This is a reversal of perspective, through which the madness is seen to be not in God Himself but in the inconstancy with which humans have viewed Him across the eras. Some men may have seen God as if face to face and lived to tell the tale, whereas others glimpsed Him very darkly and also recorded their experiences. This dynamic could have been so extreme that some men even confused evil itself with the mandates of the divine."