MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
In independent circles there are critical thinkers that are not popular because not only do they believe the truth will set you free, they also believe that the truth can be scary and that secret agendas are secret because they hide corruption and deceit.
The mainstream status quo often see revolutionary thinkers as mentally disturbed and they go to great lengths to try and ridicule anyone who questions their actions and try to uncover motives.
Living in this moment in time has become a bit of a psychological operation. It is certainly becoming more apparent that there are structured organizations that are being contracted to use the internet and social media to shape the culture through what can be called viral social engineering.
In political agendas of the day it is the nefarious art of telling the untruth that is an attractive strategy.
Those who use misinformation are well aware of the potential benefits and costs which it brings, and the shadowy lines between outright lies, distortion, misrepresentation, propaganda and spin.
There is an old saying that applies to what is happening today. In the shadow of abuses of power, whether it be in government or religion – if we don’t see it or if it doesn’t affect us, we can all pretend it is not there.
We live in a time of rampant impunity and we also live in a time where this impunity is marketed to people using bought and paid for endorsements from faceless technocrats.
Impunity is defined as an exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action. We are seeing this happening in our corrupt system.
State impunity is at the root of the problem with government corruption and alliances with potentially dangerous groups that we all believe have our best interests at heart.
Over the past decades, social science has cataloged numerous knowledge gaps in the human mind. Many of us suffer from selective hearing and selective thinking. We are complacent about what we know and oblivious to what we miss. This is a condition known as hypocognition. It is a condition that is being exploited by social media and various other media outlets in order to give them justification for binding certain types of media from speaking against state oligarchies and their proclivities.
If you don’t know that hypocognition is, then you just experienced it.
Hypocognition, a term introduced to modern behavioral science by anthropologist Robert Levy, means the lack of a linguistic or cognitive representation for an object, category, or idea.
It means that when you are introduced to a new concept that you are unaware of – you tend to think it is unimportant or you reject it. If you do not understand a new idea or if you cannot come to terms with a new concept – it may cause confusion, and with any type of confusion you run to an authority to have it explained to you.
Council should be a personal experience based on trust, however, with social media and other mainstream outlets we allow total strangers to dictate or shape the decisions we make.
There is plenty of information that our media excludes or finds a way to exclude. Sometimes important research and new information is ignored because of what can be called impossible criteria or because an editor sees to it that a particular item is ignored for a more sensational item that can jar an emotional complacent response.
This is why we have been bombarded with stories of scandal in the mainstream narrative and not much else. The other stories that are peppered in the news room are manipulated in the best interest of the networks because of sponsorship issues or because networks want to avoid a conflict of interest with a sponsor.
This adds to the idea that if you don’t see it then you can assume it is not there. If it is not reported in a mainstream framework then it must be a conspiracy theory.
This is a very dangerous way of rendering a population ignorant.
The media is successfully taking advantage of hypocognition.
And who do they use to push hypocognition?
Experts who are confined by their own expertise.
From Global Warming to Glyphosate to vaccines, there are experts who overuse the constricted set of concepts and rigid thinking within their own profession while neglecting a broader array of equally valid concepts.
Throw in political meddling and it becomes an all or nothing discussion and there is an overbearing manufactured consensus that believes their findings without listening to another side of the story.
It can be said that mainstream technocrats who speak on behalf of politicized science believe that science is under attack and so they must circle the wagons.
Americans need to understand this.
Within so-called scientific opinion and statements there is something called data selection bias meaning that what is most advantageous for the Scientist to say will be the opinion based on biased data selection – other data will be ignored for an agenda.
Many times we have heard the statement that anyone who doesn’t believe in Global Warming is anti-science, or the majority of scientists say the chemtrails are a hoax, or that the ill effects of vaccines are outright lies.
We have been told that some random figure, like 97% believe all of this.
What is really happening is that many of these scientists like the ones who work at Monsanto or those who call anti-vaxxers criminals believe that they are under attack and that admitting to anything other than a selective agenda will get them fired or that they will be crippled financially.
There is a lot of money to be made from lying and exaggerating data and following the mainstream keeps these greedy technocrats from being victimized by some of their high paying benefactors.
It is highly paid deception and the people sense it – the technocrats deny it and data secrecy keeps the average person in the dark.
Society is now being herded in echo chambers of thought control and anti-critical thinking. Without the ability to examine an issue impartially and completely there is little hope of maintaining liberty and freedom, as history repeatedly demonstrates.
The recent measles outbreak has certainly brought into the light the massive arguments over whether children should be immunized. The debate is getting nasty because of biased data selection and as a last resort it appears that those in the CDC and in other health groups are willing to enforces a medical police state so they can weaponize health to further their agenda.
Big pharmaceutical companies are now under attack and they are circling the wagons and they use whatever tools necessary to force children and adults to get vaccines.
It is like forcing people to be vaccinated at gunpoint. They are invoking what I have called “The Harm Principle.”
The harm principle says people should be free to act however they wish unless their actions cause harm to somebody else. It is a core belief of liberalism.
Forty-seven states allow parents to exempt their children from getting immunized, but an increase in measles cases is raising red flags. While most states allow them to do this for religious reasons, 17 states allow for philosophical exemptions because of personal, moral or other beliefs, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures
with the measles outbreak, powerful individuals are now invoking the harm principle and wish to push their agenda of forced vaccination to the limit.
The head of the FDA says the federal government may have to intervene if states don’t get tougher on making sure children get vaccinated.
FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb said on CNN that some states are engaging in such wide exemptions that they’re creating the opportunity for outbreaks on a scale that is going to have national implications,” He went on to say that if some states don’t change course, it may “force the hand of the federal health agencies.”
Are we actually proposing that children get vaccines against their will?
Wealthy countries that require the highest number of vaccines for children under the age of 1 also have the highest rates of death in that age group, according to a study conducted by an independent computer scientist and a researcher from the Think Twice Global Vaccine Institute, and published in the journal Human & Experimental Toxicology in 2011.
The study stemmed from the recognition that while the U.S. vaccine schedule calls for more vaccine doses than any other country, the United States still ranks 34th among nations in terms of infant mortality.
For the purposes of the study, the researchers defined a “vaccine dose” as “an exact amount of medicine or drug to be administered.” Thus, triple vaccines such as DTaP or MMR are each considered to be three vaccine doses, since three drugs are being given at the same time.
The U.S. vaccine schedule calls for 26 vaccine doses before age 1.
Law makers like Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff from California has pushed YouTube into demonetizing all videos on YouTube that pushes an anti-vaccination message.
YouTube said it would prevent channels that promote anti-vax content from running advertising, saying explicitly that such videos fall under its policy prohibiting the monetization of videos with what they call “dangerous and harmful” content. The move comes after advertisers on YouTube pulled their ads from these videos claiming that it contributes to the exploitation of children.
In addition to demonetizing anti-vax content, YouTube also introduced a new information panel pertaining to vaccines. Previously, information panels appeared on anti-vax videos that explicitly mentioned the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine, and only described what the MMR vaccine is for and linked to its Wikipedia page. Now, a considerably larger number of anti-vax videos have an information panel that links to the Wikipedia page for “vaccine hesitancy”, where it is described as “one of the top ten global health threats of 2019” according the World Health Organization.
Technically, YouTube/Google is a private company, so they are entitled to create the policies that they feel are best for their business. However, as many have argued, the connections between these “private” companies and the government are more than peripheral.
And obviously with a Democratic Congressman involved doesn’t this look like there is a government agenda behind all of this?
Wake up, this is a stark reminder that we are entering an age of government meddling into what we read, see, and hear.
It can be said that technical platforms can be seen as incubators for geopolitical agendas. The ability to deliver the any alternative information is severely restricted by the algorithm, as well as any financial reward for providing the service of information delivery.
It is like the Mob breaking the legs of someone that does not comply.
All of our knowledge makes use of frames, and every word and subject is defined through the frames it neurally activates.
All thinking and talking involve “framing.” And since frames come in systems, controlling the system and what it believes is vital if the consensus reality can’t be turned by information alone, more drastic methods can be authorized.
In fact, if it isn’t enough to threaten people to get vaccinated they can also push the fear factor into other areas – like telling adults that the vaccines they got when they were kids are now ineffective.
Health experts are bow warning that some adults, already vaccinated against measles may still be at risk of contracting it.
Dr. Roy Buchinsky, Director of Wellness for University Hospitals, based at the Ahuja Medical Center in Ohio states that pretty much everybody born before 1956 was exposed to the measles virus and therefore they have immunity. Those people generally do not need to worry about being vaccinated again, however, anyone born in the late 1950s through the 1960s might need another measles vaccination, even if they received one as a child.
“That vaccine was not as effective as the current MMR vaccine. As a result, people may have been vaccinated, but they may not have immunity,” he said.
It looks like the authorities are circling the wagons.
The conversation about vaccination has taken an ugly turn. We are now seeing that Zero Tolerance laws are being used as threat.
Prominent medical doctors and professors at leading universities are publishing articles in academic journals and are being quoted in media reports attacking the intelligence, emotional and psychological stability, and moral values of anyone who dares to question vaccine safety.
It is unfortunate because no two children are alike. Some children are genetically, biologically or environmentally more susceptible to being injured or killed by vaccines without warning.
Since Congress gave doctors a broad liability shield in 1987 similar to the one they gave to vaccine manufacturers to protect them from most vaccine injury lawsuits, doctors no longer have to worry about getting sued for being militant enforcers of vaccine policies and laws that punish children for the genes they were born with and leave too many of them disabled and chronically ill for the rest of their lives.
So the question is should there be limits placed on the authority that public health officials and their physician colleagues exercise when it comes to the game of roulette that often comes with vaccines?
This appears to be a case of unchecked power and those who mingle science and politics support unchecked power because they see antivaxxer movement as an organized attack and a danger to their well-being.
It is becoming more apparent that the forced vaccination lobby backed by the industry and medical trade is already making plans to double down and target multiple states in 2019 for removal of religious and conscientious belief exemptions, while also placing further restrictions on medical exemptions to vaccinations.
This is where the argument goes from a matter of health to a matter or freedom.