All-Cause Mortality—Scientists Still Baffled
https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/uk-column-news-5th-may-2023
What happens when the 5-year deaths rate average is post 2021? These excess deaths will seem normal? Why are MSM journalists not interested to find out what is causing this? Why are the vaccine harmed silenced?

Spring "booster" roll out started 21st March and was followed by a massive spike in excess deaths.

@RobinMG

https://t.me/robinmg/27924

Oh but the governments LIED! The media LIED! The scientists LIED! The doctors LIED! All opposing views were CENSORED!

Sure, they did, always do. Always will. You just didn't notice before because the millions of people they were killing were in other countries.

Yet I did not believe one of their lies. And I am not a doctor or scientist. Why is that?

Because I do not invest doctors, scientists, politicians, journalists, science, or medicine with any inherent truth.

Why don't I? Because I believe behind "rational" human nature lies deep irrationality.

One of the most irrational things is to believe that something is truthful because someone else says so, rather than following one's own intuition of where truth may be.

This is the message of Desmet's book.

The perpetrator story and focus is entirely different: Primo Levi explained it clearly:

 “Monsters exist, but they are too few in number to be truly dangerous”. More dangerous are the common men, the functionaries ready to believe and to act without asking questions”. Primo Levi

If you think this all happened only because there are a few monsters out there (the perpetrators of the oligarchy) you are missing Primo Levi's point, which is expanded in Desmet's book.

@RobinMG

https://youtu.be/D0Dv9r5xnyc

Pandemics in the age of antibiotics are a biological impossibility. Mass poisonings are not pandemics. Mass withdrawal of antibiotics, hydration, food, plus isolation, & mass poisonings in hospitals or care homes are medical mass murder.

@RobinMG

What killed people (when it was not Midazolam, Remdesivir , dehydration or starvation) was not "a virus" it was the bacterial pneumonia which came after:
https://t.me/robinmg/27869

https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1655467377335697409

Robin,
I listened to your assessment and interpretation of some important themes that sit behind “The psychology of totalitarianism” with growing excitement and agreement.
Just this morning I was thinking that I’ve nothing further to add to what I’ve already said about the technical aspects of the deception and mistreatment of people.
Yet the problem of the relentless advance of the perpetrators control agenda is not stopped, deflected or even much slowed. “Waking people up” has never been what I’ve been about. It didn’t take long to realise that those people who I describe as “adherent to the narrative” simply cannot be wrenched to a new understanding, no matter how eloquent or even correct one might be.
Voluntarism (if that’s a word) is absolutely key. My service has been to two constituencies, both receptive to developing an understanding or refining & integrating an understanding, based on the premise that we’re not only not being told the truth, but that we’re being lied to for some malign purpose.
In that, I do think I’ve been useful.

It may interest you to know that, without even being aware of the distinction between the scientific method and other, more personal & subjective, but no less valid, ways of examining the world, I’ve never believed that science alone is capable of yielding The Truth.

Far from it. I’ve retained enough humility to recognize & accept that there are distinct limitations to the scientific method. These limitations are so severe that the method, at best, offers an estimate of just one view of The Truth.

It’s not only that there are uncertainties about quantities and relationships of variables utilised in the scientific method, which there are.
These are very real and do matter, because even if a person, for any reason, decides to lean upon it to approximate some Truth, a humble scholar knows the outcome is usually an estimate, with variation, the degree of which is not always known. So if the answer is X, it’s always +/- Y. The true value of X can never be nailed down. Even the range of permissible values for X are defined only by reference to probability theory. This is the simplest kind of truths, yet look how squishy and insubstantial it quickly becomes.

The key to appreciating the limitations of the post-Enlightenment scientific method is accepting the necessity of adopting various assumptions from the get-go.

Ones that’s realised, that there is framing necessarily going on & therefore “the answer” will imperfectly describe reality, beyond the technical matter of uncertainty, can a scientist truly recognize that their art is only by unusual exception capable of yielding a good approximation of The Truth.

Convoluted language and tiredness isn’t helping me here! Suffice to say I’m not the instrumentalist that it suits me often enough to allow others to label me as.

The scientific method has greater or lesser utility depending on the nature of the situation being examined. I am guessing that predicting planetary movements, for example, lies at one end of the range of near certainty. There aren’t many assumptions required to be adopted before you can start.

My field, biology, and it’s very many subdivisions, is well over to the other end of the scales.

Why is this? It’s for several reasons but foremost I think are these two factors:
1. There is so much integration of everything, to some extent, that it’s pretty much impossible to study at all unless you first accept that it must be studied in isolation. Now it’s removed from its context. An assumption which is impossible to check is that the behaviour of the isolated pieces would be essentially the same when reintegrated into the whole, which I’ve always viewed as an UNlikelihood!
2. Clever & studious we might be as a species but we don’t know & we NEVER can know what we don’t know. Our mental and practical model of the integrated thing we’re attempting to understand is limited by our inevitably incomplete stock-taking of the ingredients, imperfect knowledge of the forces acting upon the isolated elements and much more.

In other words most things biological are, unless contrived to artificial simplicity, so complicated that only a fool or an arrogant person could believe that application of the scientific method to it can yield The Truth.

It may seem odd that a scientist would be at pains to explain how biology, necessarily of organisms, is incapable of delivering The Truth. I don’t think it’s odd. I’ve always known this about biology. It’s the reason why I was drawn to it in the first place & not physics or chemistry. The scope for playful consideration of ideas, concepts and theories makes it very special to me.

Consider the branch known as “medicinal chemistry”. I doubt a new kind of fundamental reaction had been described in years. Everything has a characteristic signature in each of a dozen analytical techniques.
Despite that, it’s still not possible to cut out the empirical cycle of design, first synthesis and testing of each structure. Patent applications usually require a court to adjudicate disputes over inventiveness and even novelty.

If a limited subset of the wider discipline called Chemistry is this resistant to predictions, it’s easier to appreciate how wonderfully messy and inexact is biology.

I believe it has long suited certain kinds of people, from which the perpetrators were largely drawn, to give the impression that the scientific method, done properly, yields neat, correct Truths, so that you may not stand against it. If you do, you must be some kind of primitive person, unable to “follow the science” !

I don’t think I’ve ever asked you about spiritual aspects of matters of faith. I have come to the very unscientific conclusion that we are engaged in a genuine, all-out battle for the soul of humanity, a biblical style Good v Evil struggle, which we cannot afford to lose.

Best wishes
Mike

"Robin Monotti On The Psychology of Totalitarianism by Mattias Desmet"

Channel: @RobinMG

https://youtu.be/D0Dv9r5xnyc

It takes incredible amounts of time, choreography, production and rehearsals to produce and film some of these dance routines. There was nothing spontaneous about this. We are talking a highly well funded and coordinated PR exercise.

@RobinMG

"Andrew Bridgen and Fraser Myers clash in fiery debate on Covid vaccine harms"

https://youtu.be/GaXJlDvZcjs

In this talk I address the critiques that Mattias Desmet’s book “The Psychology of Totalitarianism” has received and explain why while those who made those critiques have valid concerns, they may have also misunderstood the fundamental aim of Desmet’s book.

Dr Mike Yeadon responded to my video, and I decided to republish his response below, as I believe his observations on the limits of the scientific method when applied to biological organisms are very relevant.

@RobinMG

The Psychology of Totalitarianism: Robin Monotti & Dr Mike Yeadon
https://nulluslocussinegenio.com/2023/05/08/the-psychology-of-totalitarianism-robin-monotti-dr-mike-yeadon/

‘The Rollout of SMART Infrastructure in the UK & How We Can Resist’

Real Left invite all supporters to the upcoming meeting: ‘The Rollout of SMART infrastructure in the UK & How We Can Resist’ in Stockport, Greater Manchester on Saturday 13 May from 1-5pm.

https://real-left.com/real-left-public-meeting-announcement-the-rollout-of-smart-infrastructure-in-the-uk-how-we-can-resist/

Frank Zappa, 1984.

May 1, 2023

"In 1935, the Congress of American Writers was held in New York City, followed by another two years later. They called on “the hundreds of poets, novelists, dramatists, critics, short story writers and journalists” to discuss the “rapid crumbling of capitalism” and the beckoning of another war. They were electric events which, according to one account, were attended by 3,500 members of the public with more than a thousand turned away.

Arthur Miller, Myra Page, Lillian Hellman, Dashiell Hammett warned that fascism was rising, often disguised, and the responsibility lay with writers and journalists to speak out. Telegrams of support from Thomas Mann, John Steinbeck, Ernest Hemingway, C Day Lewis, Upton Sinclair and Albert Einstein were read out."

https://consortiumnews.com/2023/05/01/john-pilger-the-coming-war-time-to-speak-up/

Dr. David Martin Reveals the Truth About the Origin of SARS

“In 2002, the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill patented, and I quote, ‘an infectious replication defective clone of coronavirus,’” shared @DrDMartinWorld.

“What does that phrase actually mean?” “It means something meant to target an individual but not have collateral damage to other individuals,” he answered.

“And that patent was filed in 2002 on work funded by NIAID’s Anthony Fauci from 1999 to 2002. And that work, patented at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, mysteriously preceded SARS 1.0 by a year,” @DrDMartinWorld detailed.

“We [University of North Carolina] engineered SARS,” he declared. “SARS is not a naturally-occurring phenomenon ... And they patented it in 2002.”

https://twitter.com/dschlopesisback/status/1655737259474272256?s=46&t=G8osZoHuXTQhHbGFJD4WZg

@Dschlopes

Dr. David Martin Reveals the Truth About Coronavirus Vaccines: 28 Years of Science Said 'They Didn't Work'

Pfizer Made their first spike protein vaccine for coronavirus in 1990. "And in 1990, they found out that there was a problem with vaccines. They didn't work!" shared corporate adviser and entrepreneur with multiple PhDs @DrDMartinWorld.

"As a matter of fact, every publication on vaccines for coronavirus from 1990 until 2018, every single publication concluded that coronavirus escapes the vaccine impulse because it modifies and mutates too quickly for vaccines to be effective. And since 1990 to 2018, that is the published science," he explained.

"And there are thousands of publications to that effect, not a few hundred ... All of them show vaccines do not work on coronavirus. That's the science."

Follow @VigilantFox 🦊
Rumble | Substack | Socials

The Psychology of Totalitarianism: Robin Monotti & Dr Mike Yeadon on Mattias Desmet's Book:

I’ve never believed that science alone is capable of yielding The Truth.
Far from it. I’ve retained enough humility to recognize & accept that there are distinct limitations to the scientific method. These limitations are so severe that the method, at best, offers an estimate of just one view of The Truth.

I believe it has long suited certain kinds of people, from which the perpetrators were largely drawn, to give the impression that the scientific method, done properly, yields neat, correct Truths, so that you may not stand against it. If you do, you must be some kind of primitive person, unable to “follow the science”!

Dr Mike Yeadon

Channel: @RobinMG

https://nulluslocussinegenio.com/2023/05/08/the-psychology-of-totalitarianism-robin-monotti-dr-mike-yeadon/

https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1655786490264182784