JutGory, on the post, “Got It: Apparently All Criticism Of Progressive Figures Or Positions Is Based Entirely On Hate And Bigotry. Good To Know!***
The Left seems obsessed with hate. They seem to see it everywhere.
I am not sure from where this form of argumentation comes.
Are they quick to accuse so that they cannot then be accused?
Is it an argument deployed because it is one that cannot be defended against?
Do they actually think that is what people are motivated by?
Is it a convenient straw-man argument?
Is it a way to deflect the argument through an ad hominem response?
Is it a way to deflect the argument away from the substance of the attack?
Is it simple demagoguery to ensure the support of like-minded observers?
I guess I tend to think that they are sincere in their arguments. Assuming good faith in arguments may be naive, but, if you don’t assume that, you really should not be arguing.
The problem is: if they are arguing in good faith, you kind of have to come to the conclusion that they are not that bright if they can’t see an opposing view as anything other than evil. The further problem is that, if one believes that they really aren’t that bright, it is equally inadvisable to continue with the argument.
49 thoughts on “Comment Of The Day: “Got It: Apparently All Criticism Of Progressive Figures Or Positions Is Based Entirely On Hate…””
This is but one of dozens of informative talks on YouTube explaining/discussing *mass formation psychosis* that we are in the grip of.
Groundwork probably laid by Team Obama, accelerated tremendously during Trump and the plandemic, and continues to steamroll forward.
Carl Jung considered this the greatest threat to mankind over and above all biological epidemics.
History has many examples of mass formation psychosis.
Continuing to speak out is considered the best and possibly only remedy which obviously includes overcoming fear of reprisal.
I posted this talk for its brevity and simplicity.
The only psychosis these two Covid conspiracists need to worry about is their own.
No because it isn’t a thing.
Take it up with Jung.
Jung never used the term “mass formation psychosis.” I’d like to say I doubt he’d ever apply such a term to the simple and responsible act of getting a Covid vaccine, but I don’t know him well enough to make that declaration. Hopefully he wouldn’t have. That would make him pretty stupid.
Jung used the term psychic epidemic and then described the same symptoms for what doctors are now calling mass psychosis. Bfd.
You are overlooking the multiplicity of symptoms of the entire psychic epidemic that we are so obviously in the throes of.
I doubt you watched either of the vids in their entirety.
Btw, characterizing getting the jab as “simple and responsible” indicates simple thinking and huge lack of research. Will you be first in line for your covid passport?
Any reservations about mandatory vaxxing of young children, etc., etc.
“Lack of research,” lmao. You consider Bret Weinstein a reliable source on this subject. You do not possess basic research skills. Your appeal to authority in your statement “ the same symptoms for what doctors are now calling mass psychosis” ignores your own dismissal of the vast majority of doctors when it comes to the subject of Covid vaccines in favor of listening to right-wing grifters like Bret.
You don’t get to decide for everyone else who is reliable and who isn’t. Ordering people to believe you might feel like an effective method when you have the weight of the state backing you up, but it is not actually a convincing argument. Agreement obtained at the point of a gun isn’t legitimate agreement.
I didn’t order anyone to do anything and I’m responding with mockery, not threats of violence. The plague of “doing one’s own research” from those who lack the ability to do so responsibly, and thus end up spreading whatever garbage on YouTube makes them feel special, deserves nothing but contempt. “The state” hasn’t stopped Covid conspiracy theorists from spreading misinformation about the pandemic, thus getting more people killed, at least not in the US, so what are you talking about?
RE Dr Desmet, “his” mass formation story line and his “teachings”…
The official framing of the mass formation (or mass psychosis) “phenomenon” is misleading and wrong in terms of what the whole true reality is. The false hope-addicted psychologists and their acolytes want you to believe this is “just some temporary occasional” madness by the masses when it is but a spike of a CHRONIC madness going on for aeons with “civilized” people — read “The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Historical Room –The Holocaustal Covid-19 Coronavirus Madness: A Sociological Perspective & Historical Assessment Of The Covid “Phenomenon”” …. https://www.rolf-hefti.com/covid-19-coronavirus.html
One of these mainstream psychologists who have been spreading this whitewashed reality, Dr. Desmet, also fails to see that the PLANNED Covid Psyop is a TOTALLY deliberate ploy because he doesn’t think (after more than 1 year, even 2+ years, into this total PLANNED scam!) it’s ALL intentionally sinister as he stated in a prior podcast (this makes him witting or unwitting controlled opposition). It should be apparent that Desmet’s lack of truth-telling is then also present in his largely plagiarized truth-distorting mass formation theory.
In the May of 2022 podcast with James Corbett he stated that “some people tend to overestimate the degree of planning and intentions” (behind the COUNTLESS, VERIFIABLE, FULLY INTENTIONAL, FULLY PLANNED atrocities by the ruling tribe of psychopaths over the last century alone) and see all of it as being planned which Desmet called “an extreme position” … Sound logical thinking is “extreme” and therefore false and sick in his demented delusional view! As MLK pointed out…
“… normal and healthy discontent .. is being termed extremist.” — Martin Luther King, Jr, 1929-1968, Civil Rights Activist
In his overpriced misleading whitewashing old material regurgitated book the psychology of totalitarianism he too states that “There are countless … examples that seem to point in the direction of a plan being implemented, such as the fact that the definition of ‘pandemic’ was adjusted shortly before the coronavirus crisis; that the definition of ‘herd immunity’ was changed during the crisis, implying that only vaccines can achieve it … [he continuous with several other obvious facts of an ENTIRELY PLANNED event, especially discerned through the totality of all these facts].” “SEEM to point in the direction of a plan”??? No! They most evidently, clearly, and irrefutably DO demonstrate and prove it IS a COMPLETELY AND FULLY DELIBERATE PlanDemic! A big scam. An Entirely Planned Holocaust against the non-ruling herd of people (see cited link above). A coherent 12-year old kid can figure that out. But not Mr. I’m entitled to teach my deep wisdom to the world professor.
It clearly shows Desmet’s own complete lunacy. But because almost everyone in the culture is a member of mass formation (madness), including the “woke” people of the alternative media domain, hardly anyone recognizes Desmet’s lunacy. Not surprising that he has even become some type of popular “guru” among the adherents of the alternative media landscape and his whitewashed fake narrative strongly resonates with both mainstream people and alternative mainstream folks.
“All experts serve the state and the media and only in that way do they achieve their status. Every expert follows his master, for all former possibilities for independence have been gradually reduced to nil by present society’s mode of organization. The most useful expert, of course, is the one who can lie. With their different motives, those who need experts are falsifiers and fools. Whenever individuals lose the capacity to see things for themselves, the expert is there to offer an absolute reassurance.” —Guy Debord
As expected, “useful expert” Desmet has been also advocating and pushing the false misleading dogma-based non-scientific holy mantra of trust the official science … “everything and everyone should follow the scientific consensus” [ https://archive.ph/9QRmw ] — meaning trust and follow the fabricated fraudulent official consensus science behind the Covid jabs that the killing of millions of people around the world is based on(!!). Are you STILL wondering whom he’s wittingly or unwittingly serving? That’s why it’s no wonder he’s been heavily popularized globally by the dominant psychopathic world instead of censored and suppressed (as lots of truth-tellers have been), yet in his crafty stylish total hypocrisy and public misdirection ploy, he wants you to buy his belief that everyone should have a voice. Everyone BUT the true truth-tellers is what the reality is.
With his SUPPORT of the Covid holocaust-driving official consensus science he OKAYS and PROMOTES the idiotic herd Covid mass formation (they way the masses “think” and act)! Yet in his absurdity, irrationality and lunacy, with his mass formation/mass psychosis notion he frames the problem as the public being a mere unaccountable non-culpable victim in this phenomenon (the gist of the circular argument is: the masses should change their thinking but they got brainwashed so they’re victims). Nothing could be further from the truth (see first referenced source above).
With his false use of language Desmet also obscures or hides the true reality instead of directly and uncompromising exposing it — aiding the obfuscation of the vital reality of what the ruling authorities really are. He speaks of ‘the elite’ (as he does in a number of podcasts) when, in reality, they are THE SCUM OF HUMANS because they are REALITY-VERIFIED PSYCHOPATHS (see referenced source above). Yet in the Corbett podcast he “teaches” us that we, the masses, need to start thinking differently. Right… how about YOU start with sane instead of insane thinking/talking/”teaching”/etc, Dr. Desmet?
How do self-styled “truth-tellers” wake up the masses to the so-called truth when they THEMSELVES use lies with their deceitful fake language???
No one is “teaching” or “waking up” the ignorant masses to the CORE truths with lies, with the official “language of lies” (see first cited source above).
This all means Desmet is ALSO a member of the masses of lunatics, an ACTIVE CARD-CARRYING MEMBER of mass formation!!! When, if at all, will he wake up from his state of mass psychosis, his “invisible” stupidity? When, if at all, will he face the TRUE and FULL reality instead of hiding behind fantasies such as his whitewashed “reality” of human civilization?
It shows we live in a global mental asylum with criminal and/or delusional mainstream psychologists, scientists, and docs as the guards, “teachers” and “therapists” … The blind/criminal/mad leading the blind/criminal/mad; the blind/criminal/mad adhere to the blind/criminal/mad = the human madhouse.
In October of 2022, once a few people caught onto his public-misdirecting game he took no responsibility for it but dishonestly and conveniently framed himself as the victim of frivolous attacks against him — https://archive.ph/9QRmw
Desmet is right in that truth-activists must fight against mass formation psychosis (human madness). That also means exposing HIS deeply destructive mad part of it. This comment serves, in part, that objective.
If you’re in the US and your employer mandates the toxic/lethal COVID jabs, register to receive a free “Medical Exemption Certificate” at https://drgastonmedicalexemption.com or https://lc.org/exempt
“… doctors and scientists are now on the same lever of public confidence as the scum living in the swamp.” — Unknown in 2022
Congratulations, you’ve outcrazied the crazies.
Moderation note: Not an acceptable comment here.
Seriously? appears to be a clone of one of the disruptive commenters who went away some months ago. Just a different moniker.
I cannot be the only one who immediately noticed this.
To be clear, wall-of-text comments comparing Covid vaccines to the Holocaust are acceptable comments here, but calling these comments crazy are not?
Remember earlier I told you to go read the comment policies particularly the banning section, it appears that you didn’t do that or what you read there went over your apparent “get Jack” obsession. Your disrespect is a boat anchor for you dragging you into the abyss.
All I’ll say to you now is, good luck.
A pure ad hominem attack without substance is never appropriate here.
What’s the “substance” of Hjaave’s claim that people who promote the vaccine are “human scum” and that the vaccine is killing millions around the globe? The first is pure ad hom and the second is just a lie.
Did you have a hard time seeing the other 1,165 words in his essay? Go back and look, you’ll be surprised to see that they are there.
Errant or not, that’s called “substance”.
Pretty sure Jack tolerates the occasional jab in a larger comment when there’s a larger comment.
You however, only had the jab with no substantive response.
That was easy.
Thank you, Jack.
Your comment was: “ Concise, logical, informative. A Comment of the Day, you bigot.”
While I was tempted to pull out a classic Curly Moe (“I resemble that remark”), I let it be.
Sadly, concise logical, and informative should be unremarkable—not COTD-worthy. After all, all my comment attempted to do was to understand opposing views without bias (and in earnest). Whether empathy is necessarily an ethical value, it certainly can combat bias.
But, honestly, when dealing with those on the Left that immediately jump to the condemnation of Hate, I have difficulty not comparing them to religious people who see the Devil in everything.
The key difference between those two groups, however, is that the Devil is metaphysical; physical evidence does not answer metaphysical questions. For the Left, though, their arguments are about people, their thoughts, and their beliefs. Evidence should be able to inform those beliefs.
However, we have created a mind-set that is directly resistant to that.
We have all heard the common refrain:
I have friends who are black.
Some of my best friends are gay.
My Brother-in-Law is Belgian.
In a strictly Bayesian sort of evidentiary-based thought process, such statements would be evidence to counter the proposition that one hates black people, gay people, or Belgians.
Yet, the prevailing logic of the day is that such statements only serve to prove the contrary. (If you are accused of hating black people, saying you have black friends only further proves that you are a racist.). In essence, there is no way to prove that you are not racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.; it is like Original Sin, but without the metaphysics.
The problem with all of this is that the way we think about prejudice and bias actually short-circuits logical thought. And it does it in a very convenient way. it makes it so that we don’t have to actually think about things if we can put it into the “prejudice” category.
My response has been to broaden the scope of categories. Generally, to me, racism does not mean prejudice plus power (the Leftist/Marxist view), or some form of racial superiority (the typical dictionary definition). It simply means “of or pertaining to race.” If we look at racism in that sense, we are all racists in the sense that racial categories can inform our knowledge of the human experience. But, “racism” is not inherently evil. Knowing that black people experience certain medical outcomes more frequently than others (sickle-cell anemia) and white people suffer others (skin cancer, probably) are literally “racist” statements.
Yet, we want to reserve the term “racism” for evil. We want to short-circuit our thinking to simplify the world into Good and Evil.
Instead, I don’t deny my prejudices and biases. I try to use them to the extent of their usefulness and hold them in check when they are not useful.
Thus, it is for that reason that I take issue with your “bigot” comment. As much as I like quoting Curly, i much prefer to quote of Chesterton: “Bigotry is an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition. Or, for another paraphrase; “Bigotry is the inability to conceive how you might be wrong.”
In that respect, I am definitely not a bigot: I know how many different ways I might be wrong.
It seems strange to make a plea for simple logic and common understanding in the same comment in which you say you intentionally define a term differently than 99% of people and the dictionary.
Simple logic? Sure.
Common understanding? I am not sure.
I think the common way of thinking is often illogical (or a-logical).
I thought my comments explained why the common way of thinking is unhelpful.
Then, yes, I suggested a point of view that few would endorse.
The thing is, I am fully aware why some may oppose me, AND I am fully capable of engaging them on their own terms.
But, back to your comment, where did you think I made “a plea for … a common understanding.”
I don’t think I did that.
Okay, I will, I think, answer my own question.
To the extent that I think people talk past each other, I would like a common understanding.
To the extent people use words in different ways, I would like a common understanding.
My proposal of an uncommon understanding was what I thought was a better way to use language, while disarming it from an inherent Good vs. Evil dichotomy.
Why would it be better to define “racism” as “of or pertaining to race,” when it has never meant that?
I argue against the leftist “prejudice + power” definition for the same reason. It’s worthwhile to point out the fact that whites in America have more institutional and political power with which to wield racism than blacks do, but that doesn’t lead to the conclusion that “blacks can’t be racist,” and when leftists argue that it does, they are talking past the vast majority of Americans in a way that is unhelpful. I don’t see how changing the definition to your liking would be any more productive.
Because my way is better and more honest.
Do environmentalists hate the environment?
Do ethicists hate ethics?
Do communists hate communes?
Do entomologists hate bugs?
Do etymologists hate the origins of words?
Do geologists hate the earth?
Do physicists hate physics?
No, no, no. It is only in areas where we like to condemn hatred that we reform our common linguistical formulae to impart a moral judgment. (As an aside, I fucking hate linguists, making me a linguistist.)
That is why I think my way is better.
It is more consistent and does not contain inherent value judgments.
That’s just silly prescriptivism. And lots of terms have inherent value judgments; what on earth is wrong with that? Transmission of values is a crucial component of language. You can’t just try to remove that because some words make you uncomfortable. Well you can, but it’s going to be fruitless.
I disagree that it is silly or prescriptivist.
Language uses structures and it does it for clarity.
The way we use language is vague in certain areas.
But, allow me to test your theory.
Are any of the following statements racist?
Blacks are more likely to live below the poverty line.
Blacks are more likely to be charged with a crime.
Blacks are more likely to die by violence.
Blacks are more likely to die from untreated medical issues.
Blacks are more likely to gave children outside of marriage.
Blacks are more likely to drop out of high school.
Blacks are more likely to dies at a younger age.
Blacks are superior athletes.
Blacks are the smartest scientists.
Blacks have greater educational outcomes at the collegiate level.
Blacks have a lower incidence of diabetes.
If you bother to separate form and content, the form is uniformly racists.
But, you want to focus on content to discern whether something is racist.
That allows bias and prejudice to determine whether something is racist.
That creates a problem.
What? How is relying on content rather than form to determine if something is racist biased and prejudiced? That doesn’t make any sense.
It is very easy for most informed people to determine which of those statements are statistical facts, which are racist, and which are just factually untrue. Do you think it is difficult?
You’re convinced that everyone else is using language wrong. Isn’t it more likely the person using language wrong is you?
“It is very easy for most informed people to determine which of those statements are statistical facts, which are racist, and which are just factually untrue. Do you think it is difficult?”
This post grew out of a post where someone was accused of anti-semitism for criticizing George Soros. So, yeah, I think people do have difficulty thinking about these things. And, part of the reason that they do is that the accusation of racism is the end-point of any discussion, when it should be the beginning.
But, people, generally, really don’t want to have those discussions.
“This post grew out of a post where someone was accused of anti-semitism for criticizing George Soros.”
No criticism of Soros whatsoever, I simply referred to him as Uncle Georgie, which is (allegedly), and I quote: “a phrase universally understood to be an anti-Semitic slur.”
Thus far, the Universe in which it is understood appears to be decidedly finite, as in the Lonliest Number.
Still patiently waiting for evidence to the contrary.
That it isn’t hard to tell whether the statements you presented to me are racist doesn’t mean there aren’t cases where it is hard.
Seriously? wrote, “It’s worthwhile to point out the fact that whites in America have more institutional and political power with which to wield racism than blacks do…”
That’s pure social justice propaganda and it’s false.
What you wrote may have been true many years ago, but it’s been shifting for a long time. What’s clear is that it’s certainly not true in the last 15 years. The shift that’s happened in our society is constantly in-your-face and self-evident in today’s social justice driven USA. That power you talk about has shifted (past tense) and the shift it’s growing all the time. Ignoring this in-your-face self-evident shift is signature significant.
Signature Significance: Signature significance posits that a single act can be so remarkable that it has predictive and analytical value, and should not be dismissed as statistically insignificant. Source: Ethics Alarms: Concepts and Special Terms
Whites do not continue to make up a majority of positions of political and institutional power in the US? Similarly situated blacks are not discriminated against in job applications, home loans, and other aspects of life? Fascinating.
You have a really bad habit of dragging the goal post around.
You initially stated in no uncertain terms that…
“It’s worthwhile to point out the fact that whites in America have more institutional and political power with which to wield racism than blacks do…”
And now you stated…
“Whites do not continue to make up a majority of positions of political and institutional power in the US” as if it’s saying the exact same thing as I quoted above but you conveniently left out the part about using that institutional and political power “with which to wield racism” as if institutional and political racism is a fact carved in stone. Now you’re dragging the goalpost down Main Street.
I reject your original racism premise outright. There are laws that have dramatically scrubbed the kind of racism you are describing our of our society. You must be one of those true believers in the false and unprovable claims of systemic racism.
Seriously wrote, “Similarly situated blacks are not discriminated against in job applications, home loans, and other aspects of life?”
If you reread what I wrote, I didn’t make any claim whatsoever that racism of any kind doesn’t still exist and furthermore, what you wrote hasn’t effectively countered my claim that there has been a shift.
I agree with your comments but the declaration that one is racist is more fundamental and sinister: it is a conversation or argument ender and the most complete ad hominen attacks around. If one is a racist or holds racist views or positions then there is not reason to discuss anything. The racist is evil and must be destroyed.
Oh, and it comes at you at the speed of light. It is the difference between redevelopment and gentrification. It is the difference between retraining police and defunding police. One position assumes the things (neighborhood or police) can be repaired and improved; the other holds that it is based on racial supremacy and superiority and must be annihilated.
Trust me, I would love if whar you were saying was true, and that calling someone a racist was a “conversation or argument ender.” So many arguments I’ve had would have ended so much more quickly! But usually, when I argue that someone or something is racist, the people I’m arguing with never seem to shut up! Heck, we could have avoided four years of a Trump presidency and (????) years of the rest of his political career if we lived in a world where merely using the term “racism” was as effective as you claim.
And there are very vibrant debates around development and policing, despite the introduction of the terms “gentrification” and “defunding.” Whether these terms are productive or not can be debated, but they certainly haven’t shut down the larger debates.
Puzzle me this, oh ye of the passive aggressive handle: What does a white person have to do to demonstrate they are not racist.
It’s a serious answer to the question you asked.
Your answer “nothing” to the question “What does a white person have to do to demonstrate they are not racist” is not a rational response.
In today’s social justice world of irrational and delusional thinkers you are guilty until proven innocent and the accusation of being a racist is the equivalent of rhetorical hot tar that sticks permanently until the accused can effectively wash it off. Your solution to do “nothing” is the equivalent to agreeing with the accusers and enables their immoral, yes immoral, rhetoric. It is immoral to accuse anyone of racism when racism is not unequivocally evident.
The proper response to an intentional defamation accusation of being a racist, is to very boldly turn the table by making a crystal clear statement that you are not a racist and DEMAND that the accuser(s) “PROVE IT” or “RETRACT IT”. Anyone that accuses another person of racism and cannot prove their accusation is an immoral bald-faced LIAR.
Take this kind of accusation very seriously and don’t ever back down.
I see the problem: I think the main goal in discussions of racism should be to reduce racism, and you and Other Bill think the main goal in discussions of racism should be to prove that individual white people are not racist.
That’s why we talk past each other on this issue, not anything to do with the word “racism” in and of itself.
Seriously wrote, “I see the problem:”
Here we go with another pompous intellectual showing off how the Dunning-Kruger effect is put into practice.
Seriously wrote, “I think… you and Other Bill think the main goal in discussions of racism should be to prove that individual white people are not racist.”
If that’s what you think then I’m going to have to apply Hanlon’s razor to what you’re thinking.
Seriously wrote, “That’s why we talk past each other on this issue…”
Nope, wrong again. You’re lack of effective comprehension of what’s being written, you’re dragging the goal post around, and you’re extrapolating things to absurdity, that’s the real problem.
Have a nice day.
Well there’s a follow up comment of note in and of itself. Thanks Jut.
Congrats on the COTD, Jut.
The supply of hate ever lags the demand, creating fertile ground for its manufacture.
JutGory wrote, “The Left seems obsessed with hate.”
Being obsessed with hate goes hand-in-hand with being completely consumed by hate.
JutGory wrote, “They seem to see it everywhere.”
They DO see it everywhere, they surround themselves with hate.
Our 21st century political left, especially activists which they’re all expected to be, has shown us that they hate the United States of America, yes they literally hate (feel intense or passionate dislike for) the USA. They hate that the 1st Amendment applies to everyone, they hate ethical journalism, they hate the concept of innocent until proven guilty, they hate the justice system and anyone or anything that supports it, they hate civility, they hate the police, they hate anyone that opposes their ideology, they hate a Constitution that dares to allow others to oppose their ideology, they hate that our basic freedoms and Liberty allow some people to make more money than others, they hate that those they oppose have any rights, they project a belief in rights for me but not for thee, they hate the fact that equal opportunity doesn’t equate to equal outcomes, they hate our system of education, they hate that all our history (both good and bad) make us what we are today, they hatethe status quo, they hate, Hate, HATE. They are completely consumed by their hate and their hate has eaten their objectivity, critical thinking and common sense and it’s a malignant cancer eating away at our entire way of life.
The modern political left hates and fears anyone that thinks different from them, that’s what cultish hive-minded propaganda does to hive minded people that have been conditioned for a long time to be extremely biased against those they disagree with. If you’re consumed with hate, it’s likely that you’re going to project that hate on others and when hate drives you, you ignore things like ethics, morality, common sense, critical thinking, logic and your psyche caves in to fear. All this leads to irrational and hysterical thinking and fear which in turn produces absurdity in the world around them. The absurdity of the left’s hate is evident all across the USA.
We now live in an absolutely absurd place :
The list is damned near endless, need I go on?
If you told the common man or woman walking down the street between 1955 and 1975 that our society and our culture would be in this kind of turmoil in the first quarter of the 21st century, you would have been shrugged off as a lunatic that needed psychiatric help, but here we are.
Our society and culture have been turned inside out and flipped on its metaphorical head by hate, fear and irrational thinking and yet there are still people out there that refuse to believe that we’re in serious societal and cultural trouble.
Be aware of reality around you but beware of what hate and fear can do to you.
Fear Is A Hammer & We’re Nails
Sheesh, I hate but three (3) things:
*The chicago Bi-Polar bares
*Running into a cold, stiff-wind-whipped rain, and
*Non-Variegated Bishops Weed (the all-green variety of Snow-On-The-Mountain)
Why the latter? As an Organic Gardener (no pesticides) I had to dig out several 1000 square feet of it clump, by clump and root by root, from our Midvale Heights spade-caking clay. Took over six (6) weeks, leading a neighbor to opine that I was going to wear out my shovel.
Difference between LUV and Non-Variegated Bishops Weed?
Non-Variegated Bishops Weed lasts forever!
Thanks Steve. You just described much of the symptomology of our present mass psychosis. There is more that could go on that list as you well know.
When I wrote: “You are overlooking the multiplicity of symptoms of the entire psychic epidemic that we are so obviously in the throes of.”
Your list (and more) is what I was referring to, along with many highly respected docs including J Peterson.
Only fixating on Covid is a red herring anyway. Plus we’ll never know the entire story for many years because the MSM is in the pocket of the corporatocracy.
Still, there are a lot of troubling reports out there for anyone willing to look.
The entire plandemic was and still is rife with deadly/devastating shenanigans.