D
Deleted member 29235
Guest
Hmm, looks and sounds utterly missable.
Is Coronavirus as serious as they say?
- Thread starter countthree
- Start date
Hmm, looks and sounds utterly missable.
D
Deleted member 29417
Guest
D
Deleted member 29235
Guest
Hmm...
D
Deleted member 29417
Guest
The.Truth.
Every.Single.Time.
Of course the powers that be will use any crisis to further their plans.
The direction we're going in is total access to information and the end of privacy. The "passport" that Hovis mentioned for example, to allow access to public places, has a legitimate rationale behind it. And you can say, "why would 'they' care what public places I visit?" They don't care about you specifically but they do care about the ability to access that information if it serves their purposes.
To put it simply a single policy can have the ability to be used for good or bad.
And of course, if you mention the potentially bad uses for it you're considered paranoid.
Of course, people do sometimes get paranoid and think they're being watched. Some of them might be correct. But it's not about watching everyone. They don't have the time or resources for that. It's about having the ability to trace anyone if there is a reason.
So, just as 9/11 was used to get us to enter a new world of "security" the virus is being used to provide legitimate reasons to further invade your privacy. That's just a fact. It doesn't follow that every bizarre theory people deduce from this is then true. Bill Gates probably isn't trying to inject you with micro-transmitters and the coronavirus probably wasn't intentionally created and released on the public. (They have much more effective things to release on us if they really wanted to "reduce population" or create panic.) But if you trust your elected officials and the people that they actually work for to have your best interests at heart, you're naive. If you think they won't use this pandemic or any other crisis to their advantage you're much too trusting and probably just find comfort in allowing others to make decisions for you.
The direction we're going in is total access to information and the end of privacy. The "passport" that Hovis mentioned for example, to allow access to public places, has a legitimate rationale behind it. And you can say, "why would 'they' care what public places I visit?" They don't care about you specifically but they do care about the ability to access that information if it serves their purposes.
To put it simply a single policy can have the ability to be used for good or bad.
And of course, if you mention the potentially bad uses for it you're considered paranoid.
Of course, people do sometimes get paranoid and think they're being watched. Some of them might be correct. But it's not about watching everyone. They don't have the time or resources for that. It's about having the ability to trace anyone if there is a reason.
So, just as 9/11 was used to get us to enter a new world of "security" the virus is being used to provide legitimate reasons to further invade your privacy. That's just a fact. It doesn't follow that every bizarre theory people deduce from this is then true. Bill Gates probably isn't trying to inject you with micro-transmitters and the coronavirus probably wasn't intentionally created and released on the public. (They have much more effective things to release on us if they really wanted to "reduce population" or create panic.) But if you trust your elected officials and the people that they actually work for to have your best interests at heart, you're naive. If you think they won't use this pandemic or any other crisis to their advantage you're much too trusting and probably just find comfort in allowing others to make decisions for you.
V
Vegan Cro Spirit .777
Guest
the return of the 'its yes except when its no or maybe yes or maybe no' incoherent psycho babble
A
Anonymous
Guest
Do you mean Lorraine Kelly? I don't like that morning show "Lorraine".
I don't like watch the morning shows anymore Good Morning Britain (GMB), Lorraine, This Morning and Loose Women. I started noticing hate for Michael Jackson on those shows. Strangely, Piers Morgan was one of the few mainstream TV presenters who were supportive of Michael Jackson. I don't like Piers Morgan though because he hates on Morrissey.
Sorry but I don't trust Dan Wootton and Nick Ferrari. Nick Ferrari even met Michael Jackson but he still turned against him. So many people would have done anything to meet Michael Jackson. Nick Ferrari was very lucky he had the opportunity of a lifetime but he didn't appreciate it.
Douglas Murray doesn't like Michael Jackson either. Also Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson from InfoWars. I try to keep track of the haters of Morrissey and Michael Jackson.
nicky wire's legs
Christ is king!
surprise, surprise. not only is radis noir a huge pedo, but he also endorses blackface. the tweedle dee and tweedle dumm twins have really been showing their true colours these past few days!
WTF?
BLACKFACE?
plopstar
I am not a robot
Eric Clapton isn't quite so enthusiastic.
Eric Clapton – The Vaccine Took My Immune System and Shook It Around Again
countthree
Well-Known Member
OMG they forgot the acting. It's hard to believe this people are the ones who actually run the world.
countthree
Well-Known Member
I watched the full interview. It was very sad when he said that some people are not calling him any more because he dared to talk about his experience. Maybe Morrissey has suffered the same treatment when he gave his opinions about another topics. J K Rowling was quite mistreated too because of her personal opinions. It seems people aren't allowed to express their own thoughts.
I know someone who suffered acute symptoms after being injected with the first dosis of AZ too. The thing is none of these things weren't tested with people who previously had the virus, so anything can happen. There's a high chance that someone was infected and never knew it and then that person received the vaccine and had terrible consequences. I wonder if death is the only proof that something is harmful.
ThePoliticalRevolution
Well-Known Member
I went to see my first live music show last night. It was ... wait for it... The Strokes.
We were ALL unmasked. It was LOUD. I was bored and scrolling through Farfetch looking at frocks.
Anyway, get a jab and get a drink!
We were ALL unmasked. It was LOUD. I was bored and scrolling through Farfetch looking at frocks.
Anyway, get a jab and get a drink!
ThePoliticalRevolution
Well-Known Member
D
Deleted member 28251
Guest
Yes. There is a story being promoted that the passports would stop the virus. Yes, they might in principle help. But so would a host of other measures; alternatives which wouldn’t fundamentally degrade ideas of privacy and alter the relationship between the state and it citizens.
What is it with British people? There’s a general recognition that our current UK government is deceitful. But the motives around Covid measures go largely unquestioned and unchallenged at any meaningful level.
In my lifetime, this is the third big push for a national ID scheme: a first promised to take thugs off our streets (Thatcher responding to apparently runaway football violence threatening ‘decent’ people), a second (Blair’s) promised to curb illegal immigration (in a context where legal immigration was the actual hot political issue). And now this time, it is to apparently suppress a virus harmless to most people.
And this current push comes after a period where the government essentially supported practices that would guarantee the spread of Covid in environments where it was all but guaranteed to kill (through cost-cutting policies in/around the context of elderly people in care).
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 28251
Guest
From an article by Tim Stanley, in today’s Telegraph:
“T here is a spectre haunting Britain: permanent lockdown. Assuming that the June 21 date for lifting restrictions is pushed back today, on the grounds that cases and hospitalisations are rising, this narrows the window for reopening in the summer. Why? Because reopening almost inevitably triggers a spike in cases, and the later we delay that moment, the closer we will be to winter – when the NHS is under pressure anyway – and the more dangerous allowing Covid to spread becomes. It is not inconceivable that restrictions could remain in place until spring next year”.
It’s worth remembering that when the lockdown began last year, we were promised it would last weeks. Weeks turned into months. And now there’s a real danger of months turning into years.
“T here is a spectre haunting Britain: permanent lockdown. Assuming that the June 21 date for lifting restrictions is pushed back today, on the grounds that cases and hospitalisations are rising, this narrows the window for reopening in the summer. Why? Because reopening almost inevitably triggers a spike in cases, and the later we delay that moment, the closer we will be to winter – when the NHS is under pressure anyway – and the more dangerous allowing Covid to spread becomes. It is not inconceivable that restrictions could remain in place until spring next year”.
It’s worth remembering that when the lockdown began last year, we were promised it would last weeks. Weeks turned into months. And now there’s a real danger of months turning into years.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Andy Rourke lives in New York City so you might of seen him there. He might be one of your neighbours.
ZOOM FROM GLOOM
LASCIATE OGNI SPERANZA!
I don’t think that’s the kind of jab Andy is getting.
ThePoliticalRevolution
Well-Known Member
oh i think i'll be moving to the pacifiic palisades soon!
Similar threads
- Anonymous
- Off-topic archive (read-only)
- Anonymous
- Off-topic archive (read-only)
- Anonymous
- Off-topic archive (read-only)
