Why is it that otherwise perfectly intelligent, thoughtful and rationally minded people baulk at the suggestion that sociopaths are conspiring to manipulate and deceive them? And why will they defend this ill-founded position with such vehemence?
History catalogues the machinations of liars, thieves, bullies and narcissists and their devastating effects. In modern times too, evidence of corruption and extraordinary deceptions abound.
We know, without question, that politicians lie and hide their connections and that corporations routinely display utter contempt for moral norms - that corruption surrounds us.
We know that revolving doors between the corporate and political spheres, the lobbying system, corrupt regulators, the media and judiciary mean that wrongdoing is practically never brought to any semblance of genuine justice.
We know that the press makes noise about these matters occasionally but never pursues them with true vigour.
We know that in the intelligence services and law enforcement wrongdoing on a breathtaking scale is commonplace and that, again, justice is never forthcoming.
We know that governments repeatedly ignore or trample on the rights of the people, and actively abuse and mistreat the people. None of this is controversial.
So exactly what is it that conspiracy deniers refuse to acknowledge with such fervour, righteousness and condescension?
Why, against all the evidence, do they sneeringly and contemptuously defend the crumbling illusion that 'the great and good' are up there somewhere, have everything in hand, have only our best interests at heart, and are scrupulous, wise and sincere? That the press serves the people and truth rather than the crooks? That injustice after injustice result from mistakes and oversights, and never from that dread word: conspiracy?What reasonable person would continue to inhabit such a fantasy world?
The point of disagreement here is only on the matter of scale. Someone who is genuinely curious about the plans of powerful sociopaths won't limit the scope of their curiosity to, for example, one corporation, or one nation. Why would they? Such a person assumes that the same patterns on display locally are likely to be found all the way up the power food chain. But the conspiracy denier insists this is preposterous.
Why?
It is painfully obvious that the pyramidical societal and legal structures that humanity has allowed to develop are exactly the kind of dominance hierarchies that undoubtedly favour the sociopath. A humane being operating with a normal and healthy cooperative mindset has little inclination to take part in the combat necessary to climb a corporate or political ladder.
So what do conspiracy deniers imagine the 70 million or more sociopaths in the world do all day, born into a 'game', in which all the wealth and power are at the top of the pyramid, while the most effective attributes for 'winning' are ruthlessness and amorality? Have they never played Monopoly?
Sociopaths do not choose their worldview consciously, and are simply unable to comprehend why normal people would put themselves at such an incredible disadvantage by limiting themselves with conscientiousness and empathy, which are as beyond the understanding of the sociopath as a world without them are to the humane being.
All the sociopaths need do to win in the game is lie publicly whilst conspiring privately. What could be simpler? In 2021, to continue to imagine that the world we inhabit is not largely driven by this dynamic amounts to reckless naiveté bordering on insanity. Where does such an inadvertently destructive impulse originate?
The infant child places an innate trust in those it finds itself with - a trust which is, for the most part, essentially justified. The infant could not survive otherwise.
In a sane and healthy society, this deep instinct would evolve as the psyche developed. As self-awareness, the cognitive and reasoning abilities and scepticism evolved in the individual, this innate trust impulse would continue to be understood as a central need of the psyche. Shared belief systems would exist to consciously evolve and develop this childish impulse in order to place this faith somewhere consciously - in values and beliefs of lasting meaning and worth to the society, the individual, or, ideally, both.
Reverence and respect for tradition, natural forces, ancestors, for reason, truth, beauty, liberty, the innate value of life, or the initiating spirit of all things, might all be considered valid resting places in which to consciously place our trust and faith - as well as those derived from more formalised belief systems.
Regardless of the path taken to evolve and develop a personal faith, it is the bringing of one's own consciousness and cognition to this innate impulse that is relevant here. I believe this is a profound responsibility - to develop and cultivate a mature faith - which many are, understandably, unaware of.
What occurs when there is a childish need within us which has never evolved beyond its original survival function of trusting those in our environment who are, simply, the most powerful; the most present and active? When we have never truly explored our own psyches, and deeply interrogated what we truly believe and why? When our motivation for trusting anything or anyone goes unchallenged? When philosophy is left to the philosophers?
I suggest the answer is simple, and that the evidence of this phenomenon and the havoc it is wreaking is all around us: the innate impulse to trust the mother never evolves, never encounters and engages with its counterbalance of reason (or mature faith), and remains forever on its 'default' infant setting.While the immature psyche no longer depends on parents for its well-being, the powerful and motivating core tenet I have described remains intact: unchallenged, unconsidered and undeveloped. And, in a world in which stability and security are distant memories, these survival instincts, rather than being well-honed, considered, relevant, discerning and up to date, remain, quite literally, those of a baby. Trust is placed in the biggest, loudest, most present and undeniable force around, because instinct decrees that survival depends on it.And, in this great 'world nursery', the most omnipresent force is the network of institutions which consistently project an unearned image of power, calm, expertise, concern and stability.
In my view, this is how conspiracy deniers are able to cling to and aggressively defend the utterly illogical fantasy that somehow - above a certain undefined level of the societal hierarchy - corruption, deceit, malevolence and narcissism mysteriously evaporate. That, contrary to the maxim, the more power a person has, the more integrity they will inevitably exhibit. These poor deluded souls essentially believe that where personal experience and prior knowledge cannot fill in the gaps in their worldview - in short, where there is a barred door - mummy and daddy are behind it, working out how best to ensure that their little precious will be comfortable, happy and safe forever.
This is the core, comforting illusion at the root of the conspiracy denier's mindset, the decrepit foundation upon which they build a towering castle of justification from which to pompously jeer at and mock those who see otherwise.
This explains why it is that the conspiracy denier will attack any suggestion that the caregiving archetype is no longer present - that sociopaths are behind the barred door, who hold us all in utter contempt or disregard us completely. The conspiracy denier will attack any such suggestion as viciously as if their survival depended on it - which, in a way, within the makeup of their unconscious and precarious psyche, it does.Their sense of well-being, of security, of comfort, even of a future at all, is completely (and completely unconsciously) invested in this fantasy. The infant has never matured, and, because they are not conscious of this, other than as a deep attachment to their personal security, they will
fiercely attack any threat to this unconscious and central aspect of their worldview.
The tediously common refrain from the conspiracy denier is, 'there couldn't be a conspiracy that big'.
The simple retort to such a self-professed expert on conspiracies is obvious: how big?
The biggest 'medical' corporations in the world can go for decades treating the settling of court cases as mere business expenses, for crimes ranging from the suppressing of adverse test events to multiple murders resulting from undeclared testing to colossal environmental crimes.
Governments perform the vilest and most unthinkable 'experiments' (crimes) on their own people without consequence.
Politicians habitually lie to our faces, without consequence.
And on and on. At what point,
exactly, does a conspiracy become so big that 'they' just couldn't get away with it, and why? I suggest it's at the point where the cognitive ability of the conspiracy denier falters, and their unconscious survival instinct kicks in. The point at which the intellect becomes overwhelmed with the scope of events and the instinct is to settle back into the familiar comforting faith known and cultivated since the first moment one's lips found the nipple. The faith that someone else is dealing with it - that where the world becomes unknown to us, a powerful and benevolent human authority exists in which we have only to place our faith unconditionally in order to guarantee eternal emotional security.
This dangerous delusion may be the central factor placing humanity's physical security and future in the hands of sociopaths.
To anyone in the habit of dismissing people who are questioning, investigative and sceptical as tin foil hat wearing, paranoid, science-denying Trump supporters, the question is: what do you believe in? Where have you placed your faith and why?
How is it that while no one trusts governments, you appear to trust nascent global governance organisations without question? How is this rational?If you are placing faith in such organisations, consider that in the modern global age, these organisations, as extraordinarily well presented as they are, are simply grander manifestations of the local versions we know we can't trust. They are not our parents and demonstrate no loyalty to humane values. There is no reason to place any faith whatsoever in any of them.If you haven't consciously developed a faith or questioned why you believe as you do to some depth, such a position might seem misanthropic, but in truth, it is the opposite. These organisations have not earned your trust with anything other than PR money and glossy lies. True power remains, as ever, with the people.
There is a reason why Buddhists strongly advise the placing of one's faith in the Dharma, or the natural law of life, rather than in persons, and that similar refrains are common in other belief systems.
Power corrupts. And, in the world today, misplaced and unfounded trust could well be one of the greatest sources of power there is.
Massive criminal conspiracies exist. The evidence is overwhelming. The scope of those currently underway is unknown, but there is no reason to imagine, in the new global age, that the sociopathic quest for power or the possession of the resources required to move towards it is diminishing. Certainly not while dissent is mocked and censored into silence by gatekeepers, 'useful idiots', and conspiracy deniers, who are, in fact, directly colluding with the sociopathic agenda through their unrelenting attack on those who would shine a light on wrongdoing.It is every humane being's urgent responsibility to expose sociopathic agendas wherever they exist - never to attack those who seek to do so.Now, more than ever, it is time to put away childish things, and childish impulses, and to stand up as adults to protect the future of the actual children who have no choice but to trust us with their lives.This essay has focussed on what I consider to be the deepest psychological driver of conspiracy denial.
There are certainly others, such as the desire to be accepted; the avoidance of knowledge of, and engagement with, the internal and external shadow; the preservation of a positive and righteous self-image: a generalised version of the 'flying monkey' phenomenon, in which a self-interested and vicious class protect themselves by coalescing around the bully; the subtle unconscious adoption of the sociopathic worldview (e.g. 'humanity is the virus'); outrage addiction/superiority complex/status games; a stunted or unambitious intellect that finds validation through maintaining the status quo; the dissociative protective mechanism of imagining that crimes and horrors committed repeatedly within our lifetime are somehow not happening now, not 'here'; and plain old fashioned laziness and cowardice.
My suggestion is that, to some degree, all of these build on the foundation of the primary cause I've outlined here.
Reader Comments
You don't need to read this whole article - it boils down to laziness (refusal to even care about truth or even question the architecture of the society, economics, and thus your time on earth)...much less educate yourself concerning
Laziness, Ignorance, and Naivety (another way of saying ignorance). Farm animals are sweet and innocent, but that's why they're farm animals.
With the stupid-19 virus and the genocide therein (I'm not talking out my arse, guess what, I cloned some corona genes in grad school and worked on new age "vaccines" that are not...you WILL DIE PREMATURELY if you take the jab)...I was saying, with the horse sh*t diaper faces I see every day... THE PEOPLE I DESCRIBED ABOVE... I HAVE PARTED WAYS WITH THEM EMOTIONALLY AND PHYSICALLY... LET THE DEAD BURY THEIR DEAD.
This global scamdemic has shown to me like never before; the over-attachment (another way of saying addiction) to physicality is the number one reason why 'good men' throughout the ages do nothing thus allowing evil to prevail. Such attachment to this world will inevitably, and quickly, then follows on into that Benjamin Franklin quote (pinned up on that SOTT t-shirt ad left or bottom of our screens):
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither and will lose both”
“Those who would give up essential Spirit to purchase a little temporary Material deserve neither and will lose both”
[Link]
The hardest conspiracy for people to accept is that social conditioning and programming is multi-generational and ongoing
RC
None of these people can really think, because the known and unknown worlds are never bridged with anything they come up with. It all dies when their cultural context dies, and their cultural context dies because it's formed of ephemera - rootless concepts and habitual behaviors. The ones who really think are termed 'philosophers', and they're mostly ignored or even derided as useless. That despite the fact that the best of them do the hard work of mining for the treasure of clear thinking that undergirds every great thrust of human evolution. True thinking is cultural gold.
I also grew up without nurturing parents and I've often thought that that made me more resilient in times of adversity, like the bamboo bending in the wind.
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
My own inner infant is often tempted to be much less diplomatic about how it feels regarding the matter. And often is.
It can be SO frustrating, as many here know all too well!
Though.., remember back when you were first confronted by the idea of lizard beings and underground bases and all of that claptrap, true or not, in the wee hours it loomed huge as a very terrifying possibility which needed to be digested and sorted out and made sense of. It probably messed up your whole week. Except, the fact that you went looking in the first place means you were probably more able to deal with the body slam of fear and loathing which came along with it, more so than the average hobbit.
I've seen how some people respond to blasts of news about reality; it makes them shake and their hearts race as their adrenal glands go wild. I've accidentally triggered that in people simply by talking about stuff which interests me; I forget sometimes that a lot of folks need their cushy illusions in order simply to function.
Knowledge is power, and too much power means you have to be careful.
Superman has to consciously be careful to not break bones when he shakes somebody's hand. Think about that. That's what the, "With great power comes great responsibility" line actually means, I think. It doesn't mean you must go trounce purse snatchers because you are able. It means, "Don't batter people's souls apart with too much too soon. Be externally considerate."
But yeah, when the hobbits turn on you for being right, it sure sucks.
It's weird how tightly related "Helpfulness" and "Punishment" are. -If you try to help somebody, often you have to suffer for it. It seems to almost be a universal principle. Either that, or a carefully cultivated response put into us in order to keep our species trapped.
I've never been able to decide which it is. Probably a bit of both.
As a child I learnt to distrust everyone and take care of myself. I see how that has made me very different as an adult.
I have experienced all the negative comments and loss of friendship that comes with trying to talk to those who are soundly asleep and will not wake up.
For example those who actually believe that there will soon be people on Mars when it is fifty years since we were told man landed on the moon and never returned, In the last fifty years no other country even bothered to try and get a man there.
The mineral rights , strategic military implications of a moon base, and no-one even tried to get back! Right.
I carry in my pocket a million times more computing power in my phone than was availble in 1969--and in 1969 there were no portable comuters, they were the size of room in a house .Man never went back because, according to Don Pettit the supposed astronaut, NASA lost the technology and it is painful to get it back. That is a direct quote which is available on Youtube. Similarly there is video of space station astronauts saying that the goal is to eventually for man to leave low earth orbit. The truth slips out.
Do you really believe we went to the Moon and cannot get back because we lost the technology ?
You will even hear a world class conman like Ellon Musk occasionally talking some truth. He says he has to develop massive powerful rockets to get to Mars. You know, the ones that keep on blowing up on the launchpad.
The grain of truth there is that powerful rockets are required to first get man to the Moon because the weight of the shielding required to protect any human from the deadly radiation of the Van Allen belt is prohibitive to even getting above low earth orbit.
So if they will lie to you about that for fifty years then what else are they capable of lying to you about.
Look up and open your eyes to Geoengineering..
www.geoengineeringwatch.org
Wake up to the fact that you are advised to take a vaccine that is not a vaccine. Does not stop you from spreading the disease, and dose not make you immune.You are told to still wear a mask. It does however reduce symptoms if you get the disease! This is simply BS people but most do not want to see it as they want to be looked after.
Research 911.
Watch the video of the cruise missile hitting the pentagon on 911 and Bill Clinton talking about the bombing of the Pantagon. I have posted this on Gab if anyone is interested. @OWAIN_GLYNDWR.
In general I have given up trying to persuade people, It just attracts anger and ridicule.If it makes you angry and want to ridicule me then OK go ahead and upset yourself all you like.
The bottom line is that the powerful and elite think that the majority of people are stupid and they are right. They care nothing about you.
Unless you are in some way a useful slave to them you are useless eater.
Nearly everything most people think they know, is a lie.
Thanks for the article.
I do think however there is more to this denial of reality and it is a very interesting subject worthy of more research.
Yes I do. It's very easy to lose the knowledge of something used back then and never used again.
I won't get into debates with people who think it was all a hoax as it's pointless, but you may find this, [Link] (and related videos) very interesting. Linus from 'Tech Tips' learns a thing or two about 60s computers! [Link]
Seamstresses hand weaving memory modules, entering machine code by hand (yes, really!), and a mountain of stuff even I didn't know about, and I lived through it all.
With respect... I tell you what happened 50 years ago, not the other way around! That's not how things work. Really, no offence intended, but you simply weren't there. I won't discuss this any further as it just turns into a minefield! Enjoy the videos.
However, I never saw any of them land on the moon - try as I might, the binoculars were never strong enough. However, (and conveniently) they'd proven that people could stay in space eleven days on Apollo 7 - the other missions were shorter than that.
For me, some killer - and thoroughly entertaining - points are those made by Center For An Informed America (CIA, get it?) by Dave McGowan (RIP) in Moondoggie: [Link]
I remember when Hubble was launched, we were told that they would now have the photo resolution to 'prove' the moon landing sites were what we'd been sold. Then they claimed, as I recall, that the moon was 'too bright' or such. Then they said that when they reworked its mirrors? / replaced its computer software? (an STS mission as I recall) THEN they would prove it to us. I'm still awaiting such. (I won't go into the fact that if Hubble can do what its done (which I believe) that it surely could have imaged the moon sites.)
My final verdict? Odds are 97% it's BS. (The highest I'll ever go on anything other than cogito ergo sum is 99%.)
I've gotta say, the launch of Apollo 17 was the only night launch and it was like literally watching the sun rise in high speed; the sky over Orlando to our west looked just like 10am on a summer morning. Incredible stuff - and real.
RC
lsjarvi, infra: That's my best conclusion, too. (If you've never read the above, it's hilarious and worthwhile.) RC
I spent a day going through point by point his many objections, deep-diving on each one, and every single time, it turned out that he'd not done adequate research and there were, not just logical answers to his objections, but places where he'd simply failed to read easily available information. It was sloppy.
He'd make jokes which, while much more amusing than my cheap paraphrasing: "They took a car to the Moon! How very American! But c'mon, man! We're expected to believe they took a CAR to the Moon?" -And that would be the extent of his argumentation; a Twitter-style joke, and then he'd move on as though he'd made a real argument.
When I went to find an answer to, "Yeah.., how DID they take a moon buggy up there?" I'd find detailed schematics and ridiculously clever engineering solutions for a lightweight folding car which you could tell from the effort spent that some very excited engineers obviously derived a ton of satisfaction from figuring out how to effectively solve that problem. So yeah, they took a car to the Moon, and just because Dave made a joke about it doesn't negate that it 99% likely happened. (That 1% uncertainty being due to the possibility that my brain is actually in a jar on a shelf somewhere plugged into the Matrix.)
There was a lot of stuff like that in his series, and after I got about half way through, (I wrote a long entry on the subject in the forum), I threw in the towel, having determined that he was just not on the right track. -And a little research into Dave himself, (the fact that he could be so sharp but then disintegrate on the Moon stuff raised some flags for me; I discovered that he'd seemed to have gotten a bit 'funny' in his personal life shortly after his Laurel Canyon expose), led me to thinking that he was possibly targeted with some sort of mind-melting psy-op. The Moon stuff was the result. I think the PTB 'Charlie Sheened' him.
Anyway, there's a long thread I've put a lot of research into, which has been archived in the forum on all things Moon related, and stubbornly ignorant members aside, (who are amazingly able to read but then completely ignore what they just read), it has been roundly established that the Moon shots happened in earnest and that whole Fake Moon Landing narrative is a tarball meant to bog people down.
Your 'deep dives' are into documents created by government entities that have a stake in maintaining the narrative, despite its silliness. All you have to do is watch the videos and look at the pictures and you know it didn't happen, if for no other reason than the space suits didn't provide adequate protection, the astronauts are moving in slow-mo, the lunar lander is a poorly-constructed prop, and conversations between Houston and 'the moon' occurred practically instantly. It didn't take much to convince people in the 1960s that it was happening. We should certainly know better!
"you can tell it's real because it looks so fake" - Elon Musk on seeing his standard Tesla with standard paint, standard glass and standard air filled tyres being released into orbit
[Link]
I'll settle for photos to 'prove' that Hubble exists - Can't tell the difference between images from Hubble and those from SOFIA
[Link]
RC
You're telling me that I should NOT trust my long hours of reading, study and comparative analysis and instead use your method of simply "knowing" a thing merely by looking at surface impressions. Those are your words.
Really consider how that sounds. Don't avoid it or pretend you meant something different.
Nothing comes for free, and knowledge is one of the least free things there are.
Hard study, combined with learning how to wrangle your ego is the way one susses out truth from fiction. In this particular area, I have done a lot of that work, and based on your comments, you have not: None of that is true. It took many hours to learn about each of those items (among a long list of others) and to determine the truth behind them. -And I'll tell you that was very inclined to believe it was all a hoax when I started; I was working against a strong primary bias.
If the Moon landing was faked, I guarantee I'd be just as happy to say so as I am to say that Global Warming is a scam, the Dems stole the 2020 election and JFK wasn't killed by a magic bullet. -Among other things. But in each case I've also taken the time to know what I'm talking about.
In a world where lies are everywhere, and where they can (and do) kill, being soft in the psychological arts and lazy with the homework leaves people at a distinct disadvantage. At some point you have to leave the GUI and simple categorizations behind and learn to code if you're going to make real progress beyond a certain level.
There are methods for verifying claims and they do work, but they take a lot of effort.
Your assertions are provided with virtually no effort. Countering them, and I can, indeed have already done so at length in other places linked on this site, (check the forum, enter a search for, "Moon Landing"; there is a wealth of information at your disposal discussing the points you raise among many others, representing several years worth of hard thinking and critical examination by a host of members). But to compile a reproduction of that for you here and now would take enormous work -for your benefit- which I don't think you are in good faith asking for. I suspect it would be waived aside with the same amount of effort used to make your assertions in the first place; that is, almost none.
You must understand that your level of awareness is your responsibility. Laboring in ignorance is a curse and it is nobody's obligation to spend energy fighting you in order to lift it. I'm not your friend or your family and if you drown under ignorance, it's really no skin off my nose. But you are here, which indicates a loose sense of comradeship.
So what I have done is provide a discordant note to your knowledge structure; I've told you something which doesn't fit. I'm not casting ad homs at you. I'm not calling you names. I am observing your behavior and describing it to you. That's not the same thing.
In any case, a reasonable man open to learning should be at least curious. A dogmatic person would not want to know anything which would disturb their immediate convictions.
I have indicated where you may further explore; it's just around the corner.
Whether you look or not, what kind of man you are, is up to you.
My assumptions, and yes, I am certainly making those, are based on observation only. Please correct me if I am wrong:
Your conclusions wrt the moon are run-of-the-mill, cut-n-paste standards which I and everybody else interested in the subject have also read about at length in probably many of the same places you found them. There is nothing new or ground-breaking among them. If you have made some sort of special inroad, have managed to actually validate anything, I'd certainly be happy to hear about it.
Either:
a) Space travel is as difficult and dangerous as its always made out to be to the general public and therefore; its highly doubtful the moon landings happened the way its portrayed it is when the astro-peeps back then where repeatedly going out into Space using the rudimentary 60's tech and mech and 'knowhow' available at the time (and assuming no cheating was helped along by advanced black-project's high-tech).
Or
b) The Moon Landings really di d happen the way it is portrayed on TV (more or less)... In which case; space travel isn't at all difficult nor particularly dangerous precisely for the reason because it can be done with rudimental 60's tech and mech and 'knowhow', and it matters not one jot if so-called 'the technology' was lost in a house move. We don't need much fancy materials for anti-radiation mech (f'rinstance, most of the time passing quickly through the Van Allen Belts aren't dangerous), we don't need much complicated computer control systems for high precision navigation-tech, and we don't need to be super fit super-men/women to adapt for zero-gravity and the such prepping our bodies with special training for many many months beforehand each time... (I would say anyone whose physiology can adapt to the mountain peaks here on Earth at altitudes of, say, 4500 meters above sea level should find adapting to being in Space a doddle). And so with that said; there is a concerted effort by our overlords to tightly control the human race from going out into Space.
I lean strongly to b)... In any case, either way there's a conspiracy.
The designers were shown a compartment on the LEM and told that it had to fit in there and weigh no more than (can't remember, look it up). There's a video somewhere of them pulling it out and the wheels folding out.
Look up 'The Vintage Space' channel on YouTube, where a nice young girl will explain it all to you [Link]
Each wheel had its own electric drive made by Delco, a direct current (DC) series-wound motor capable of 0.25 horsepower (190 W) at 10,000 rpm
Front and rear steering motors. Each series-wound DC steering motor as capable of 0.1 horsepower (75 W)
Power was provided by two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries with a charge capacity of 121 A·h each (a total of 242 A·h), yielding a range of 57 miles (92 km). These were used to power the drive and steering motors and also a 36-volt utility outlet mounted on the front of the LRV to power the communications relay unit or the TV camera
For the Apollo 17 mission, the LRV drove 35.7km (4 hours 26 minutes total drive time)
The cost of the LRV project was $38 million - the equivalent to $300 million today
RC
While the masses are being permanently entertained with endless music and movies they have little inclination to delve deeper and that's the whole point of the Bread & Circus entertainment industry.
So true. This should be it, this should be everything we need. Why is this not the human mission?
As long as your own shadow has been exposed and dealt with, Humanity is safe
How on lovingearth do you think humanity even has a chance to survive? Eventually to thrive?
Speak from the gut (or heart).
(You know I speak for me).
Bringing in some Daily Health methods.
When the argument I put forward was really friendly, on purpose, so as not to give them the opportunity to bite.
But still it is as if they feel that it's their inherent right to try to bully people who think differently. I think alot comes down to false pride too, and arrogance. The inability to let go of their opinion as maybe they identify too much with the old system. When it happens to close family you love, hard to know how to respond
Man did we ever get us into a MESS!!
Transparency certainly has not been on our MonkeyMinds. Nothing but fake = Masked, World Wide.
Beyond comprehension!!
Man did we ever get us into a MESS!!
Transparency certainly has not been on our MonkeyMinds. Nothing but fake = Masked, World Wide.
Beyond comprehension!!
ls, many teachers about, masks are coming off, i pray, soon enough
[Link]
[Link]
[Link] "Healing Vision Exercises to Improve Your Eyesight | Dr Alan Mandell, DC" on YouTube
[Link]
[Link]