Size | Seeds | Peers | Completed |
---|---|---|---|
358.79 MiB | 0 | 0 | 188 |
39 Israelis bear witness to the adverse experiences which they or their relatives
suffered after receiving the corona virus "vaccination" (including death).
The original video had hardcoded English subtitles.
(Find links on sca.news, Sitting 75.)
Normally it would also be available on archive.org, but it seems they wouldn't tolerate it.
AVC-AAC, 856x480 67 minutes
Subtitles in about 120 languages, computer-translated by Yandex, Google and Baidu
from the carefully refined English hardsubs.
Comments
Death Rates Skyrocket in Israel Following Pfizer Experimental CO
OK, my previous post to this topic was deleted. Perhaps the moderators can explain why they did not want you to hear what I had to say!
Meanwhile, people in Israel are dying -- not from Covid-19 -- but from the so-called "vaccines" (which are actually experimental mRNA shots!).
https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/death-rates-skyrocket-in-israel-follow...
Fritz_Katz wrote:
Not true. We don't delete posts unless they are duplicates. We redact phone numbers and email addresses, for obvious reasons. We ban people for spamming and being assholes, but leave their posts up.
Perhaps you can explain why you think making false accusations about ConCen will work.
sorry
I thought that I posted it correctly -- but went back latter and it wasn't there. I just assumed it had been deleted.
Also, several times during this weekend I tried accessing this site and got a "DNS -- unable to connect error". Has there been an outage (or DoS attack) in the past three days?
The server's motherboard died ...
... and the support techs took their sweet time (2 days) replacing it. There was an alternate landing page up for ~ 24 hours, but you likely missed that.
Maybe it was in that "sweet spot" . . .
Maybe it was in that "sweet spot" where I hit (Preview) reviewed it correctly, and then hit (Save) (not knowing the server's motherboard died and thinking what I had posted was OK.).
Meanwhile, people in Israel are dying -- but not just there, but MILLIONS of people all round the world -- not from Covid-19 -- but from the so-called "vaccines".
I think this is the biggest CONSPIRACY of modern times, if not all time. Bin Laden with Al Qaeda only managed to kill 3000+ Americans on 09/11/2001. This is the biggest case of MASS MURDER of humanity since Hitler in the 1940s and Stalin / Mao in the 1950s.
Fauci and his minions at the CDC / NIH have managed to kill 18000+ (and climbing) Americans as of 11/08/2021. And, ALL our major Mass Media new sources will NOT report it.
Here is just the US/Territories: https://openvaers.com/covid-data
And the VAERS database is known to be underreported by 1000%. If that is so, perhaps there are 1,800,000 or more deaths in the US alone! (since as of Oct 29th, 2021, there are 18K+ deaths in the US/Territories).
There are MILLIONS of people around the world suffering and dying from the "clot-shots" and our news media is covering it up!.
I agree
This lab engineered and leaked virus used as an excuse to kill the vulnerable, lock down the healthy and destroy the economy was bad enough. Suppressing treatments to allow the sale of untested injections is even worse. Forcing everyone to take it, even when they have natural immunity is another level of WTF. It makes even the least paranoid wonder what sick hidden agenda is behind it.
ConCen wrote:
What strikes me is that it is pretty obvious that:
(and if it wasn't clear before, it is now that)
Of course, in all the above control = OPINION.
The fact that covid is now being accepted as endemic suggests that much of the tempest was indeed an opinion in a teacup.
So we shall see where the opinion-makers go from here.
On the subject of control, here is my research into pathogen avoidance and authoritarianism.
First things first, credit for the ideas:
That said, I have now gone through 85+ research articles on the matter so I am feeling pretty confident about the observations below (and at the very bottom, you will see how strong this research data is!).
What is pathogen avoidance and authoritarianism?
In simple terms, the more germs and disease in a society, the more likely there are to be authoritarian styles of government. In one way that makes perfect sense: because many disease-causing parasites are invisible, and their actions mysterious, pathogen avoidance has historically depended on a “behavioral immune system” that reduces infection risk across groups (as opposed to a physiological immune system that just protects individual bodies). In these more restrictive societies, individuals who openly dissent from, or fail to conform to, these behavioral traditions therefore pose a health threat to self and others.
This is how social researchers connect pathogen avoidance with psychology, prejudice and authoritarianism: regions with higher levels of disease prevalence tend to be associated with higher levels of social conformity and autocratic rule. Likewise, individuals report higher levels of ethnocentrism and xenophobia. As such, concerns about pathogen avoidance contribute to the desire for order and tradition among such conservative groups, along with the harsh moral judgements associated with violations of the social order.
The research often interchanges “pathogen avoidance” with “disgust sensitivity” (since you avoid what disgusts you), and equates the avoidance/disgust measures with political ideology. In effect, the research shows the psychological and socio-political consequences of infectious diseases:
parasites --> personality --> authoritarian state
(incidentally, that is what really interests Jordan Peterson since, from about 60:00 onwards in his Personality episode, he highlights how authoritarian Nazis used these prejudices to "exterminate" the "germ" of a certain "group"...)
Randy Thornhill and Corey Fincher were among the first researchers to publish in this area (“parasite stress theory”). It is really interesting to think about their claims that collectivism exists to defend against infectious diseases. Collectivist cultures are untrusting of those outside of their in-group, which may serve as a protective behavior against interactions with those in groups that may harbor novel diseases. That has certainly been my experience visiting Asian countries which are, by definition, far more collectivist than Western countries.
Individualist societies, however, are very different to collectivists through their promotion of looking out for oneself, rather than worrying about the needs of the group. This is partly due to these cultures being predominantly in geographical locations which are under a lot less danger from parasite invasions. Unlike collectivists, individualists make much less of a distinction between in-groups and out-groups. (And this leads Peterson to ask, “So how do you fight authoritarian governments across the world?” And his answer: “You get rid of infectious disease.”)
This is where the various responses to Covid-19 across the globe get interesting, especially in the unique American political context.
On the face of it, Thornhill’s research predicts that people who are more avoidant of pathogens are more politically conservative. The behavioral immune system would strengthen feelings of prejudice against out-groups (foreigners or non-nationals? Asians from where the mystery Wuhan virus originated?), and you would likely see harsh draconian measures of social control (lockdowns? mandatory mask-wearing? hysterical governments and media?).
Some of this is readily visible in more collectivist societies like those in Asia or the Middle East. But it is interesting to ask why we aren’t seeing exactly the same response to Covid-19 among American conservatives.
Even in the USA, conservatives value social tradition, have strong views about immigration/ out-groups, and typically favor government restrictions where the public fears contamination. And it is social liberals who tend to be less pathogen-avoidant than social conservatives (because one group welcomes foreigners while the other wants immigration to be more regulated).
But that is not what we see in the USA when it comes to Covid. Why can we only say that liberals have positively associated social conservatism with Covid-19-precautions? Or as an Atlantic headline suggested, “Red and blue America aren’t experiencing the same pandemic”.
Why not?
Hand-washing and sanitizing surfaces are pathogen avoidant behaviors, but these may be contingent on living conditions—for example, having access to clean water and soap. Similarly, masks are social prophylactics, but because the virus itself is invisible the use of masks likely stems more from trust in health experts and normative pressures than whatever processes give rise to the greater disgust sensitivity among conservatives than liberals.
It seems to come down to ideology: US conservatives care less, and US liberals care more, about the disease outbreak because they have political beliefs that intersect with the COVID-19 pandemic. These political beliefs provide motives for both conservatives and liberals to view the pandemic through a lens that lead them to assign more or less threat to the disease.
For conservatives, this means that because they (for example) do not want government restrictions – and the full acknowledgment of the threat might make those restrictions more psychologically plausible – they are motivated to downplay the severity of the threat. So we may say that conservatives hold certain COVID-specific political beliefs that motivate them to reduce concern.
In addition to this critical belief of how much or how little government-involvement people want to see, the absence of a positive relationship between conservatism and COVID-19 precautions also appears to be driven by: (1) lower trust in scientists, (2) lower trust in liberal and moderate sources, (3) lesser consumption of liberal news media, and (4) greater economic conservatism (such as direct health costs versus indirect harms to the economy and individual liberties). Together, these differences in responses to the pandemic are shaping partisan beliefs in ways that overwhelm the contributions of “ordinary” social conservatism (the one where conservatives are more usually wary of disease).
Researchers speculate that Republicans—relative to Democrats—are likely exposed to and/or seek out informational environments that minimize the direct consequences of COVID-19. Instead, these informational environments may emphasize threats that resonate more strongly with the economic and libertarian dimensions of conservatism that also characterize the Republican party.
This all comes with a caveat, though: the research clearly shows that if/when people begin to be personally impacted by Covid – once they catch the disease, or loved ones catch it, or they begin to lose resources on account of it – then pre-existing ideological beliefs likely play less of a role in accounting for perceptions of the disease itself.
This brings me to the last question on my mind: How will the rise in draconian measures and enforcement affect our future? The research also shows that changes wrought by pandemics are often long term: given that historical pathogen prevalence still predicts contemporary ideological attitudes, the effects of authoritarian measures and ideologies elevated by Covid could be long-lasting, and the residues will remain long after we fully implement vaccines.
Example? We now have a precedent for lockdowns that we never had before on such a global scale. So, while covid may blow over (one hopes!), the next time there is a virus scare, it will be so easy to rapidly deploy all the same restrictions. I fear we are setting ourselves up for even greater and more seamless control as the decades go by. If nothing else, there will always be this expectation based on past precedent hanging in the air.
It shouldn’t be so easy to lock us all down, should it? Don't we also need checks and balances on that, too?
Metrics
Regarding the actual data connecting pathogen avoidance and authoritarianism, Thornhill's data is so strong it is surprising. Peterson claims it is Nobel prize-winning stuff. One study is an effect size of 0.65 and the other study is an effect size of 0.42.
To put that in perspective, Peterson says in an earlier 2015 lecture, "that's higher than the correlation between IQ and grades which is about as good as we ever get in terms of prediction" (go to 4:02 if link doesn't work). And if that still doesn't help contextualize it, he also says in an even earlier 2014 lecture: an effect size of 0.2 is pretty good; 0.3 is larger than about 2/3 of all published social science studies; 0.5 is like you're dancing on the moon because you just don't get a correlation of 0.5 between two things unless you're extraordinarily lucky -- like 95th percentile effect size (go to 1:02 if link doesn't work). And yet...Thornhill and Fincher have a 0.7 effect size...not 0.5!
The only researcher who strongly disagrees with Thornhill is Tybur (many of his articles are in the folder I shared). He thinks disease avoidance all comes down to sexual strategies (as opposed to disgust sensitivity). It's hard to accept that as an explanation for regional differences since sexuality is universal whereas parasites are far more localized to specific regions. I can't buy his arguments since, therefore, sexual strategies do not address the other means by which diseases are transmitted.