Living Will Kill You
Will it? I don’t think so. But that seems to be a foundational tenet of the sheep worldview. Interestingly, though, the sheep-set fear most things that are rather innocuous, yet do not fear the things that will more than likely kill them, like chem-trails, fluoride, vaccines, and 5G (few listed here among many). Risk exists in unconventional things they don’t fear.
Why is that?
As you know, I say “why is that?” to an awful lot of things these days. But this one is kind of at the top of the heap. It goes hand in hand with a lot of similar things. Like why does everyone hate Trump with a passion, but love Joe Biden and Kamala Harris?
I can see why some people dislike stuff about Trump (I know I did for a long time)—his hair, his voice, his scowl, his lips, his “asshole-ness,” his narcissism, etc. Some even have a point when they cite his crassness when it comes to how he relates to women, his xenophobic response to immigrants, or his silly preposterousness with topics such as buying Greenland or making Canada the 51st state.
But most of these things are personality issues, and not his alleged inability to make sound decisions regarding the nation and the people in it (Canada, after all, would be nice to have). Sure, we can all have an opinion on the best way a country should be run, but HATE its leader?
And when I say “hate” I mean HAAAATE—a depth of hate beyond anything rational. Such irrational feelings involve a significant risk of losing objectivity.
At the same time, these folks LOVE Kamala Harris, and LOVE Joe Biden. For what? Creepy personality traits? Traits at times that are even less appealing than Trump’s? And certainly, there is reason to deeply dislike their political policies, such as dumping billions of dollars into a corrupt war, advocating mutilating children, or opening the borders to unvetted criminals.
Isn’t there enough there to dislike? Or even hate? Nope. I guess not.
We see this strange dichotomy in a lot of things these days. It just doesn’t make any sound rational sense to, for example, embrace all vaccines yet fear eating a handful of peanuts because of all of the killer fat they contain. How many things are we told daily to avoid due to their likelihood of killing us? It’s clear that misunderstanding real levels of risk impacts our decisions significantly. Yet statistically they are less likely to kill us than taking a drive to the grocery store—much less likely.
We see this primarily with stuff we put into our body, like food or drugs. But we see it in other places as well. Like why is it perfectly safe to stare at a cell phone all day, but not safe to take a walk in the sun without sunscreen? Or that it is perfectly fine for your kid to play video games ad nauseam, but dangerous for them to ride their bikes out in the open air and play street hockey with their friends?
Many people seem to have lost the true definition of health—which is not, as they appear to think, “avoiding all risk.” If they were truly avoiding “all risk” they wouldn’t eat cheeseburgers, or inject untested, poisonous, substances into their bodies. Risk and health considerations go hand in hand. Health isn’t only about avoiding risks, it is about building a sound character, it is about expanding the mind, and it is about nurturing an emotional system that is resilient, robust, durable, and decent. What happened to that?
And again, even if people “got” this, it would still make sense for them to avoid the seriously risky elements of life, like pumping meds into their body they know little about, or staring at a techno screen all day, or supporting world war, and various other obviously risky behaviours and actions.
But that is the problem, isn’t it? People can no longer tell the difference between what truly is dangerous and what is not. Not only are many of these things I am describing not dangerous, but they are the healthier choice. And yes, some things that are good for you, or are the better choice, are indeed risky. But that sort of risk is healthy. I think people are believing that any risk is to be avoided, yet, at the same time, they engage in highly risky and intensely dangerous things.
Go figure.
Of course, the answers to my questions are easy to come up with. But simple they are not. The easy answer is the agenda is dead set on training us to respond to certain things a certain way, regardless of how illogical that response may be. It is also set on whittling us down into quivering little masses of Jello when it comes to dealing with life in general. What better way to make us compliant with authority? They will make us fear our own shadow so they can offer a solution as to how to get rid of our shadow.
They will not train us to not fear the shadow, because that would give us something of value, but rather they will train us to fear nearly everything, so they retain total control over our lives.
I say it is not simple because this training is very complex. Some of it, of course, may just be the evolution of a culture hell-bent on making life easy, convenient, and lazy. The agenda may have just picked up on this natural human compulsion and is using it to their advantage. It is interesting to note that most people “up there” in the category of “elite” are big personal risk-takers.
They are doers, shapers, and movers They fly around the world in their multimillion-dollar jets, they expose themselves to danger in foreign countries at war, they play hard on ski slopes and drive fast cars. They are risk-takers. They know the advantages of living life to its fullest. It is the rest of us they want cowering in the corner begging them to keep us safe.
And if you are a dog owner forget it!
I am surprised that the 90 million or so pet dogs in the US are not all dead since something is just around the corner to see to it. Ticks are rampaging through our parks and forests, grapes are rolling on the kitchen floor ready to be gobbled up by food-obsessed pooches—avocados, chocolate, oranges, cheese, and just about every other savoury snack a dog could dream of—all deadly. But no one bothers to see how much of these poisons a dog has to ingest before the death knell tolls. Anyone with a dog knows each day comes with some level of risk.
Usually, it is quite a bit. And the things that kill instantly (like grapes, supposedly) probably are deadly only because of the ubiquitous vaccines the poor animal receives throughout its life. And are dog owners concerned about that? Nope. Not the least bit. Why does the agenda care about dogs? Who knows? It is just one more way to get at us.
I suppose all of these innocuous dangers are shoved down our throats as distractions. Things we are warned about to prove that mommy and daddy do indeed have our best interests at heart, while the real dangers are still lurking in the shadows. Hell, they aren’t in the shadows but are in plain sight. And many of us continue to stumble through what we have been brainwashed to believe is a risk-filled life—entirely blind to the real risks, eyes wide shut.
