A positive test

I’m what is called “a layman.” Now that’s supposed to be a religious word meaning that there is a clergy, a priesthood of the religious experts and I’m not part of that group. And although people claim that the term “layman” can also mean someone who is not one of the secular professionals and experts, I believe it still retains its religious quality. It’s implied that the ignorant must listen to the experts simply because of the class structure: the layman implies some ignorance and the clergy/professionals implies some better knowledge.

Anyway, so I’m what is called a “layman” in many ways, especially when it comes to medicine or science or religion. Whatever it is, I’m a layman.

Now as a layman, I get the notification that, with regards to the current virus narrative, the positive cases are rising and that someone has received a positive test result. It is my aim now to deconstruct what I, as a layman, need to assume and believe in order for that news to be meaningful to me. I do this because, at the place where I work, they mentioned that the case rate was “high” and there was an atmosphere of worry and concern when that was heard. The context of the numbers given was ignored, but the higher numbers caused people concern. So I wonder to myself what are the hidden assumptions, especially the assumptions that are baseless for the layman.

So, I hear “this dude has a positive test result.” What must I assume and believe? I don’t think it will be in the correct order, but it’s the order that I think about it.

1) I must believe that the positive test means that something is wrong with the person who got the test. That necessarily means that

2) the test accurately and always finds that something is wrong with the person. And yes, the “always” is assumed, because “maybe” isn’t enough for such concern.

3) I must accept the germ theory or some alternative where this “wrongness,” this sickness, is transferred from someone else to that person and thus there is risk of that illness passing to others or me.

4) Intrinsic to that, I must believe there is actually an invisible pathogen, that it actually exists.

5) I must believe that the pathogen is the cause of the stated illness.

6) I must trust in the experts who vouch for the test.

7) I must trust in the experts who vouch for the existence of the invisible pathogen.

8) I must believe that the test result is related to the infectiousness of a person, that it tells me that a person can pass the invisible pathogen on to others.

There may be more beliefs and assumptions underneath each one of these and these assumptions may be the most superficial, but they are what comes to mind. But I wonder how much of this is just faith, trust in the authorities and the tenets of belief from the past, and how much is based on actual experiential knowledge.

Also, if this is based on faith and not reason and experience, then doesn’t that make it subjective?

Speaking for myself, the existence of the invisible pathogen and that it causes illness has never been proved. That is the very foundation of the claim. And all I can do as a layman is listen to claims from either side that the invisible thing has been isolated and had its RNA code discovered and built which is countered by others that say that the methods of isolation don’t actually isolate the virus, that it is mixed with other chemicals and factors and that the RNA code isn’t from some complete virus discovered but rather is built from fragments found in a messy mixture and completed by expectation. I can hear all the arguments, but, as a layman, all I can do is listen to things I haven’t experienced, see that the other side admits or rejects as an outsider. But for myself, I have no experiential evidence for the existence of the pathogen or the claims for its causative power.

While I’m considering all this, I have to check myself. Sure, my faith in a lot is shot, but ain’t I a bit hyper-skeptical? Ok, maybe not “a bit.” That’s the old British reservation kicking in. But seriously, what can I trust? Of course I trust some things but, … If I ever have to deal with a doctor, and he gives me a diagnosis, would I ever just take his word for it? Because I’ve been lied to in the past, on a personal front, by convincing talkers. I learnt that time ago to treat what people say only as one-sided stories and little more until there’s more evidence. I don’t think my leaving christianity was my first “crisis of faith.” Still, aren’t I too skeptical? Shouldn’t I trust? Trust in one of these institutions?

But then, let me think about the institutions in question, the ones I would have to believe: the bunch of people who fought to get power over others, a bunch of people known for lies and breaking promises, namely, the government; and a medical industry that pushes drugs and vaccines and thus have financial interests in things going a certain way for them. I have experience with the way doctors are as mere drug and vaccine pushers and the way how politicians lie and vie for power and deal corruptly and tyrannically. There is way too much reason to distrust, too much motive to deceive.

Anyway, the assumptions. Let me get back to the assumptions.

How would I know that the tests mean anything? Why would they flag something when a person is generally well? When a person is without symptoms, why think that they are actually sick with a “potent virus?” Why are the numbers and claims so messy? Why would they include people in the death number when the claimed pathogen is not the cause only using the time between the vacuous positive case and the time of death regardless of cause?

As a layman, how the hell am I supposed to believe any of this?

Right now, if a person has had a positive test result, yet is in general good health, and then stays in the same room as me for a certain amount of time, it is assumed that I’m at risk of something, as if I had caught something. Why?

The word “asymptomatic” comes to mind because it is used a lot, but when I hear it, it doesn’t have the connotation of “healthy.” It reminds me of a jury verdict of “not guilty,” but inverted. What do I mean? Colloquially, when someone hears that a person got a verdict of “not guilty,” it is easy to think that means “innocent.” But it doesn’t mean innocent. It means there wasn’t enough evidence to reach a guilty verdict. The person may have done the crime, but, since evidence is lacking, all that can be said is that the person is “not guilty,” which again does not mean “innocent.” It is in that latter sense that I hear the term “asymptomatic.” It’s like there is the assumption that everyone may be infected but there is no evidence, no symptoms, to back up the claim. So the person could still have the bug, so “asymptomatic” (“not symptomatic”) doesn’t mean “healthy,” in the same way that “not guilty” doesn’t mean “innocent.” With regards to the bug, the suspicion lingers. To me anyway, “asymptomatic” sounds like I’m ill but I have no symptoms.

Some may say “but a healthy person is logically asymptomatic.” But there’s no point in attaching the terms “asymptomatic” to healthy people any more than innocent people should have the label, “not guilty,” attached to them. It makes no real sense. No, the language of this virus fraud has been crafted to give the assumption of sickness to everyone.

Anyway, back to the assumptions. To put it bluntly, all of those assumptions are only or mainly baseless belief for me, the layman, foisted upon me by the priesthood of government and so-called “medical science.” All of those eight are either highly suspect or without a shred of experiential evidence.

This reminds me of that time I criticised a so-called “noahide” who tried to expound to me how a secular culture is so much better than a religious one. I should have called her out right there for using a false dichotomy fallacy since one doesn’t exclude the other. In fact, this secular civilisation may be just as religious and full of zeal for baseless claims and ideas as any of the previous generations.

Again, just thinking about this makes me further realise how worthless the whole narrative is. And yet, the covidian cult moves forward.

The Utopian

Someone commented on my blog some time ago. I had been writing about the sort of community and people needed for the law of Justice from the seven laws to be kept by the humanity obligated to it. I was talking about how important it is for people to be knowledgeable enough to know right from wrong, to know basic morality and rationality, and the courage to actually do something about immorality. I think I may have been talking about applying critical thinking to the claims about the virus said to be so powerful we all are supposed to cower in fear, waiting for the holy and blessed vaccine to save us, yet is so weak that, using the crummy and questionable statistics of the government, it has a 99% survival rate and only seems to go for the aged, the elderly, even leaving babies and the young alone.

Although I applied the principles of Justice to the narrow idea of the flaccid virus, the way I spoke about the sort of people needed to uphold such a law gained an astute observation from one of the few who read my blog. He opined that he doesn’t think the world will have true justice for a long time. And the statement of his doubt stuck with me even up until now. It made me think about how bent I am towards principle. I can see myself doing some impractical things for the sake of principle. Hell, I write a blog about the most unpopular topics, isolating myself from one and all due to my extreme ideas with which I feel I must be consistent. Yet, don’t some of my ideas seem unrealistic? Don’t my ideals and standards seem utopian?

Again, let me think about this. The principles of the law of Justice as elucidated at least by Maimonides gives a standard that people are supposed to be cognizant of the prohibitions of the seven laws so as to pass judgements, to recognise and oppose injustice, theft, murder and the like. Yet, as the insightful reader observed, this world seems so far from such a standard. Take, for example, the prohibition against murder. The killing of the unborn is murder, yet people celebrate the passing of laws that allow such an act, treat it as if it is the human right of the mother to kill the unborn baby. Isn’t that a horrific sign of how far humanity is from what is supposed to be a basic standard?

Again, what about the law of justice, my favourite law from the seven? It is supposed to be bad for the ignorant to judge a case, yet it is such a wide belief that any ignoramus from the street can be in a jury which judges cases! It is supposed to be immoral for people to set up ignorant and immoral judges, yet, as a related point, they partake in a governmental system that attracts the evil and corrupt, select rulers based more on personality and the ability to successfully con and dupe the voters, and even democracy itself places the power to choose from two evils in the hands of the supposed intelligentsia and the ignorant alike. And to place both on the same moral level, both sets choose evil, another lying scumbag, many being proud of it. And to be frightfully blunt, I believe, especially glimpsing through history and looking at the acts of people today, ignorance is more prevalent than wisdom and knowledge.

Isn’t it silly to hold to an apparently unrealistic law or a value that seems practically out of reach? It’s like believing that humans are forbidden to worship idols when the whole community around you is idolatrous. Such a value seems out of place, out of reach.

And I don’t believe I currently have an answer to this. The foundation of the law is factual: the existence of the personal, volitional First Cause, the historicity of his appearing to a whole nation, Israel, and the morality that comes from this entity. Yet the law, its practical existence, seems so far away.

For me, I know there are two levels to the law: the personal and the communal. Right now, although the communal seems impossible, the personal is all too real. It’s the standard I see as useful for discerning the world around me. It is part of what makes me inspect the claims of people to see how true they are. So on a personal level, the seven laws are as real as the concept of truth, invisible yet necessary. God is real, the basis of reality, more real than what I see, so my obligation to him is just as fundamental.

Yet I look around and see, … see what? The ruins of humanity. There may be glimmers of promise, but nowhere near enough to make the promise more real and tangible.

I remember reading the Talmud, tractate Avodah Zarah, 2b-3a. It’s not an easy read, but I’ve talked about it before. It’s not literal history, but it tells a story that God looked down at non-Jewish humanity and saw that it was breaking the seven laws that were enjoined upon it. In light of such failure, it says he “released” non-Jewish humanity from the laws. Even the text itself and people commenting on it make it plain that it doesn’t mean that non-Jewish humanity was no longer obligated to keep the seven laws. But some aspect of the law was withheld.

I don’t fully know why this comes to mind when I’m contemplating this issue. But I think that even back when the tradition was being developed, it was recognised that Gentiles have failed in their basic responsibilities. Yet, despite that, the obligation continue to be in force. And this must be a good thing. Why? Despite the failure, there still needs to be the standard. My God, can you imagine how much more worse things would be if, not only were humans doing badly, but there was no standard with which to judge the actions. Dude, that’s why I hate atheism and God-rejection so much. To live in a world where, to be consistent, and I don’t believe God-rejectors can live consistently (thank God!), the rape and kill a pre-pubescent child has the same ultimate moral value as raising, feeding and keeping it, namely that there is no ultimate moral value to either. To kill or be killed is just an accident of life and a human would simply delude himself to impute some good or bad to one or the other, claiming some man-made, rationalised “universal preferable behaviour” which can be picked up and dropped at a human whim with no objective basis or reality to it.

No, despite it being currently out of reach, the God-given, the objective-external standard must remain. Yes, true justice may be a roll of the dice in this world or just something totally not in a community, the communal insight not simply to go with the claim of politicians and “experts” or the herd, but to critically analyse and stand for truth. Such insight may be a pipe-dream. But at least there is a standard to which I can appeal. How much darker the world, my world, would be without it.

No, I’m not the utopian. I see the standard and I see what seems to be a nigh-universal failure to reach what should be a basic standard. And somehow, I have to live with the tension between both.

God help me.

Murder in the Nursing Homes?

Care Home Murders Whistleblower – It’s Real & It’s True – https://brandnewtube.com/watch/care-home-murders-whistleblower-it-039-s-real-amp-it-039-s-true-please-share_d1sJV9YUT9aweQR.html

I saw this video some time ago. When I tried to find it again, I was unable to. But it appears on new video platform I’ve been using.

My question is why this video won’t embed like a Youtube video. No, that’s not it. Well, not the important question.

If what the woman claims is true, then would it be considered murder? The withdrawal of food and medication from the elderly?

Trump: Champion of the Seven Laws???

Donald J. Trump: Champion of Noahide Law – https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/290464

I will not react. I choose to respond. But at least to say, if the writer is a Jew, it is further evidence why Jews shouldn’t interfere with Gentile affairs. Whether the writer is Gentile or Jew, it is evidence that politics poisons and corrupts everything it touches.

In this article, the writer attempts to advise Orthodox Jews, the “Noahide movement” and all “Americans of faith” to support Donald Trump for reelection. Let me quote him to show this.

This article is dedicated to observant and traditional Jews, to the growing Noahide movement in the US, and to all Americans of faith. My call to all of you is to personally go to the polls on Tuesday and to support President Donald Trump for reelection, and I will explain the reasons for this in the coming paragraphs.

I am not putting words into the writer’s mouth. And it should be fairly clear that the writer begins with an empty statement. Who the hell are “all Americans of faith?” People of faith normally means people who are part of a religion. Any religion. Idolatrous religions. Or it can just mean a God-rejector (atheist or agnostic) who feels spiritual. But isn’t this supposed to be about championing the seven laws? Isn’t one of those laws against idolatry? Why is the author then using this overly-vague term that even includes idolators, people who break the law of idolatry? Something is a bit fishy, kinda like the author has an agenda other than the actual “noahide laws”.

Another sign of the dubious nature of this article is what the author chooses to write about as is evidence by the titles of each section. There is a section on same-sex marriages (related to the prohibition against certain sexual partners), a section on abortion (included in the prohibition against murder), a section on theft and a section on the law of justice. That’s all. The problem with this is that there are seven laws that were given to all non-Jewish humanity, while the author focuses on subsections of four laws. There is absolutely no meaningful mention of the law concerning idolatry, cursing God’s name or eating meat taken from a living animal. How can it be said that he champions the “noahide laws,” which means the seven laws, when he doesn’t champion the seven laws but rather, at best, parts of four laws? The seven laws are not a buffet where a person picks and chooses what they want to champion.

Let me be blunt as well. As far as I know, Trump has made no claim to champion the noahide laws. And, to be even more blunt, if he cherishes the american constitution, then he can never, NEVER, champion both the american constitution and the seven laws. You know why, right? Because the constitution states that government can’t make or enforce any law that would impinge on freedom of the practice of religion or freedom of speech. In other words, the constitution protects idolatry as freedom of religion, and cursing God’s name as freedom of speech. But the seven laws prohibits idolatry and cursing God’s name and its law of Justice states that the seven laws must be enforced by courts. Trump could never allow this in obedience to the holy scriptures he upholds, i.e., the constitution. Can a man be faithful to two masters?

So I haven’t even touched the body of the author’s content, and I already sense the strong odour of bullshit. I won’t add more to that conclusion until I start really digging in. So, next paragraph says the following.

This Tuesday’s election presents two clear choices of how to shape the American moral landscape: one which is based on God’s eternal law (while allowing for individual freedom) and another one based on the globalist dogma imposed by the social media and the mainstream media. When Orthodox Jews are asked why they support President Trump, they often list his support for Israel and his defense of religious freedom (including the call to keep houses of worship open during the pandemic). An often-ignored aspect of his administration has been its promotion of Noahide law and values. (emphasis mine)

This paragraph makes an extraordinary claim (amongst others): that Trump being president represents a system based on God’s law?!? What??? What sense does this make? If he’s talking about the seven laws, it’s already clear that the American law system contradicts God’s seven laws. Many of its principles contradict the seven laws. Many of its regions prohibit the death penalty, even for premeditated murder. It loves the rule of the ignorant so much, namely, democracy, that they use it to judge important cases using something called “a jury,” a number of plebs off the street, a group that is controlled by the marketers and advertisers called “lawyers,” both in the selection of this jury, and how evidence is presented. Wow, I never realised how similar that system is to their political system. Damn! But the seven laws included a law of Justice, where it is forbidden to use an ignorant judge (a form of the perversion of justice). I don’t hear Trump declaring these eternal laws. So Trump’s administration is against idolatry and based on its prohibition??? Yeah, right.

This claim is utter falsehood. The author of this article uses the same tactics as the American political spin-doctors, painting Trump vs Biden, or Republican vs Democrat, as a battle between good and evil when, historically, they are both two wings of the same evil bird, that of government. And he’s deceptively painting Trump as some angel of God, some ruler who serves God, basing his administration on the seven laws. Again, what utter crap!

Take careful note! The author says that Trump promotes religious freedom. The problem here is that the seven laws don’t. The law of idolatry prohibits the practice of idolatrous religions. That is antithetical to religious freedom. Another clear and obvious contradiction that the author ignores for the sake of a few votes for just another politician.

Trump’s administration promotes “Noahide law and values?” Really? I’ve already briefly gone through a number of ways that it goes against the seven laws. My question is this: what are “Noahide values?” I know God commanded seven laws. But values? Right now, without clarification from the author, it’s just another Barnum statement, something that may sound specific, but really has no clear meaning.

Carrying on.

Every Torah-observant Jew has heard of the Seven Noahide Laws. These are seven very broad universal laws (with many ramifications) that God imposed on all the nations when Noah came out of the Ark. They include the prohibition of idolatry, forbidden relations, murder, eating the limb of an animal while alive, theft and blasphemy, and the obligation to establish courts of law to punish violators. (emphasis mine)

Remember, the author is trying to show that Trump is a champion of the seven laws. Look at what I highlighted. There is an obligation to establish courts of laws to punish violators. Violators of what? Since this phrasing echoes Maimonides’ version of the law concerning this obligation, let me quote a translation of the uncensored edition of his Mishneh Torah, from the Book for Judges, section called Kings and Wars, chapter 9, law 14.

What must they do to fulfill their requirement regarding the Law of Justice? They have to set up magistrates and judges in each district to judge the people with regard to these Six Commandments; and they must issue warnings (about them) to the people. A non-Jew who violates one of the Seven Commandments is executed by means of the sword. How is this so? Anyone who worships idols or blasphemed or murdered or had sexual relations with one of those forbidden to him or stole even less than the value of a small insignificant coin or ate any amount from a limb or the flesh of a live animal or saw someone else violate one of these and failed to judge and execute him, is himself executed by means of the sword.

https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Kings_and_Wars.9.14?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en

So when the seven laws refers to punishing violators, it refers to punishing those who violates the seven laws. Excuse me, but I see no sign whatsoever of Trump setting up courts to punish violators of the seven laws, especially using the sort of capital punishment described there. Again, the author trips himself up with more vacuous claims.

By saying that the President supports Noahide law, I do not mean to say that he has imposed these laws on the US public, but rather that he has contributed to dismantle the liberal agenda to impose their secularist dogma on the entire population and has defended the rights of Americans who want to live by God’s law.

So the author makes it plain that Trump doesn’t actually support the seven commandments for humanity, but instead, Trump is battling a liberal agenda with a secularist dogma? … Huh? And he’s also defending the rights of Americans who want to live by God’s law? What sense does this make? Again, to be blunt, this paragraph helps break the backbone of this whole piece. Both of these agendas are no sign that Trump supports the seven laws. This is pure non sequitur. The conclusion (Trump’s support of the seven laws) doesn’t follow from the premises (his claimed contribution to battling some agenda and defending rights). Also take careful note of that last point, defending the rights of Americans who want to live by God’s law. This is another take of “religious freedoms.” The same rights he’s defending to allow Gentiles to keep the seven laws (which isn’t a religion in and of itself) are the same rights that allow an idolator to pray and give public worship to his false god. That muddies the waters of any claim that he simply wants to protect the God-fearer rather than just being another follower of the foolish American constitution.

The author of this political marketing piece now attempts to go through the sections of four of the seven laws to make his promotion for the politician, Trump. First he goes into murder, picking out the law of idolatry. After using four paragraphs to show the way Biden and the Democrat party has supported abortion being made the law of the land and placing pro-abortion judges in their supreme court, the author spends one paragraph showing how Trump has been against abortion. I will try to pay attention to what the author does and does not say.

Trump’s abortion policy represents a 180-degree shift from what the Obama-Biden era. He stopped abortion funding to Planned Parenthood and appointed 220 federal judges who favor returning to the states the power to decide on abortion and many other social and criminal matters. Textualist and Originalist Judges appointed by Trump believe that judicial interpretation should be limited to a reasonable reading of text of the constitution, and therefore they don’t see an inherent constitutional “right” to abort a fetus, as there is no indication of such right in the text. This jurisprudence allows for a fair playing field where both Americans of faith and their opponents in each state can compete for votes in order to decide on this. As soon as Roe vs. Wade is overturned, we will see the issue of abortion on the state ballots.

Now just to say, according to the author, “Joe Biden stated in a recent interview that, if elected President, he will make Roe vs. Wade the “law of the land.”” So let me pretend that the author has said something true, that this is what Biden has clearly said (although the fact that he’s a politician should add doubt to such a promise). In the paragraph he wrote about Trump, where does he claim that Trump made such an outright comment in the opposite direction? Absolutely nowhere.

Now let me not be overly negative. If Trump really stopped payments to Planned Parenthood, good! But all I see in this Trump paragraph are mainly possibilities and promises. Oh, some judges are said to believe something about states determining their stance on abortion. The author believes that Trump has simply put people in place that have certain feelings. What’s the problem with this? All this is still on the level of “maybe”. Where’s the actual action? Nowhere. The paragraph just ends with a political promise. And once again, at least I know how much political promises are worth: nothing!

He makes claims about “Texualist and Originalist judges believing in so and so.” How does he know what individuals believe? It’s a bit like claiming that all christians believe that God is a trinity. It’s like a stereotype fallacy, simply grouping individuals and assuming they have beliefs, but there’s no actual evidence for this claim.

Also, imagine that Trump truly simply allows freedom for states to figure out laws. If the people in those states still choose to legalise abortion, then what? “But at least people of faith have the ability to compete.” There we go again with a Barnum statement: “people of faith.” Is that another stereotype fallacy, assuming religious or spiritual people are opposed to abortion?

The author has not sufficiently proven that Trump is this champion concerning the law of murder.

BUT …

If the guy had just done some research, a little bit, and looked for Donald Trump’s statements about abortion, at least he could have shown that he appears to oppose abortion. See https://www.azquotes.com/author/14823-Donald_Trump/tag/abortion and https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-of-the-2015-gop-debate-9-pm/. It is recorded that he said that he’s pro-life and is opposed to, that he hates, the concept of abortion. But does that then make him a champion for “noahide law?”

My issue with this question, as with other aspects of this article, is that I’ve seen people very much opposed to the seven laws, calling them Talmudic lies, opposed to the existence of Jews, yet are opposed to abortion. Would the author call such people “champions of Noahide law?”

To put it like this, if someone claims to uphold a certain principle in the seven laws, yet opposed another principle in the seven laws, then it cannot be said that he upholds the seven laws.

On a final note about this murder section, how has Trump done with regards to war and dropping bombs on people? Or selling weaponry to Saudi Arabia? Prince of peace is he?

Now the Trump marketing article turns to same sex marriages. Now this part is very odd. The author writes three full paragraphs, 412 words, on this topic. He spends the first paragraph trying to lay down a principle that isn’t in the seven laws, homosexual marriages. The seven laws prohibit male homosexual penetrative sex. But at least he tries to show a connection. I won’t fault him for that. He spends the whole third paragraph talking about things unrelated to Trump’s actions, things that happened decades ago. It’s only in the middle paragraph that he writes one sentence of 36 words that shows what Trump apparently did. Do you sense something wrong here as well? Shouldn’t this have been a section packed with actual deeds of Trump to support the law against forbidden sexual partners rather than a measly 9% of three paragraphs talking about an issue only linked to the seven laws, but not the actual seven laws???

And what is this powerful sentence that the author uses to show that Trump supports “noahide law?”

By appointing three Originalist Justices to the Supreme Court and creating a solid conservative majority, President Trump has paved the way to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the ruling that imposed same-sex marriage on all 50 states.

Wait, what? Is there any evidence that the placement of this judges was for the purpose of actually overturning this ruling? Nope. Is the presence of a conservative majority evidence of actual positive active change? Nope. Again, republican/conservative and democrat are two wings of the same evil government.

Doesn’t the author’s arguments seem weak, as if pointing to things incidental, subordinate? Did Trump actually and purposefully act in a way that goes towards actually forbidding homosexual marriages? Was that his stated purpose?

Again, this whole section is a non-argument, an argument lacking any true substance. It is weak in that it tries to assume too much in an unclear act by Trump. And it doesn’t deal directly with the seven laws but rather a side issue.

The author’s attempts to show Trump in a “noahide” light doesn’t fare much better in his section about Theft. Now just to say, the law of theft is about it being forbidden to steal. You are not allowed to take another’s property without the permission of the owner. Now I know many feel the government is exempt from this prohibition; for them it is fine for the government to rob a man, take his money under threat of force in the name of taxation. But let me see how this article deals with Trump and theft.

Again, three paragraphs. Again, one sentence about what Trump actually did. And his support of the law against theft?

After the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May 2020, mobs from Black Lives Matter and other radical left-wing groups have stormed American cities with violent protests, including massive looting of local stores. President Trump reacted by sending federal troops to stop the looting and damage of private and federal property.

Now just pause with me. Four years. Four years, Donald has been in office. And the best argument the author can give is that he sent troops to stop theft and damage at one time. This is one of those things that highlights how “single issue” this author is. No, not even single issue, “single speck in time.”

If anyone dares come to me and say “hey, he lowered tax, therefore he lowered theft,” … hmmm, I couldn’t do much about that. But it’s a stupid argument. It’s like bandits raiding a home, and the chief one telling his boys to at least leave a chair. The theft is still going on. And it’s not a statement against the action of theft, which should be the point, but rather it endorses the concept of theft and keeps it in place.

Added to this, think about it: a person opposing theft is not therefore a supporter and champion of the seven laws. Again, this is “buffet” thinking. And that’s also political marketers’ trickery: focus on the minor points that help your cause and ignore the fact that the whole system of violence and evil is mainly intact.

To combat a single point with a single point, wasn’t Trump the one that spoke of taking, stealing, a person’s guns first and then, afterwards, doing due process? Statements like that only buttress the unjust “Red Flag laws” that are in the law books in various places in America. Oh yeah, I forgot: the government can’t steal, right?

The author is also prone to shaping each of his sections into the right-left paradigm, the lesser of two evils way of thinking. He makes it seem like people should vote for one rather than the other. What makes his endeavour worse is that he doesn’t paint it as the lesser of two evils, but instead as “good vs evil,” “God’s law vs liberal secularism.” And it’s a terrible thing to call evil “good.” And it’s a lie to claim God’s law for a man who has never made such a claim, nor has he really stood for it.

Just to let you know, because of the fake virus people are afraid of, Donald Trump plunged his nation into vastly more debt. Who do you think has to pay such a debt? Isn’t it the constitution that says that the US government can create debts and then force the people to pay those debts? Can anyone spell “indentured slaves?” But he’s against theft, right? It’s ok to do bad things for the greater good, right?

But at least he sent troops, right? To stop the looting on a number of occasions, right? Makes him a champion for the seven laws, right?

The author titled the final section thusly, “Dinim (the Obligation to Establish Courts of Law that will enforce Noahide law) and other commandments: Ever min haHay [meaning the prohibition against eating flesh taken from a living animal], Blasphemy and Idolatry.” This section that is supposed to deal with four laws only has one paragraph. Amazing brevity, huh? You may see why when he makes a telling admission.

With the exception perhaps of [the prohibition against eating flesh taken from a living animal], the US legal system does not allow the imposition of these laws, as the federal government is prevented by the first amendment to regulate religious practices.

So let me get this straight. This sentence says the US legal system cannot enforce the seven laws, but the title of the section refers to making courts that will enforce the seven laws. So in essence, the author wastes the time of the reader, trying to convince one to support a political system that not only cannot enforce the seven laws, but actively undermines it by legally protecting what the seven laws forbid. Thank you, author! (*sarcastic slow applause*) Thank you for advising people who love God’s law or who at least want to keep it to support a system that perpetuates the breaking of God’s law. Thank you for telling them to take a course of action that, by taking part in that voting system, should they “lose” (they’ll lose either way), will still be seen as supporting the side they oppose. Remember, in democracy, a vote is not simply asking for a certain thing, but also legitimising the system and the “authority” of the victor, even if it’s your enemy. Well done, author! Well done, you treacherous betrayer! How can a man stab himself in the back without a “friend?”

I won’t bother with the details of this most shoddy section that says nothing about the prohibition against cursing God, only giving a title mention to the prohibition against eating the meat taken from a living animal, and contradicting the law of “Dinim,” only to say that the author claims to address “idolatry” by talking about religious freedoms again. Yes, for the author, who seems to see the seven laws as some religion equal to Hinduism or Christianity, he’s just glad that people who don’t normally have places of worship (“noahides”) can have places of worship open during a “pandemic” as do idolators. Great!

In his conclusion, the author shows us just how he promotes philosophical idolatry and personal irresponsibility.

If Trump loses, his political death will carry the propagation of Noahide and Biblical ethics to his coffin

Trump is not some messiah. The message about the seven laws and the truth of Torah, God’s truth, propagated way before Trump took the American throne, was never dependent on him, and will carry on, God willing, after his political and physical death.

You want good messages distributed throughout the world, throughout your community? Do it yourself! At the very least, live as good a life as you can. A message learned from the seven laws and from Torah is personal responsibility. No stranger can take away your responsibility or purpose unless you, like this author, give it up.

Both before Trump became a politician and when he became one, I never saw him as a mentor, a role-model, in terms of being a good person. He was and is insignificant. I never saw him as a beacon of hope and the world still went to shit with him as prime political parasite of his land thereby validating my reluctance.

The best compliment I can give to this article is that it was treacherous and displayed outright disloyalty to the seven laws. It was thick with Barnum statements and light on substance. And the purpose? To win a politician some more votes, so that people would betray their own standards by participating in a system that undermines those standards, so that more voices can fill the empty man sitting on a throne built on violence and threat, so that murderers, thieves and robbers will continue to feel legitimised.

To be clear, yes, I detest both sides of socialism, socialism-lite(ish) or republicanism, and socialism-heavy or democratism.

Personal experience

I am working on an article about the seven laws. It’s just takes more work than just writing my thoughts on a topic, so … well it’s coming.

My wife challenged me, is there anything in my personal experience that causes me to rebel about the corona-story flying around? You see, I can bring up the fact that I’ve watched videos that convincingly show me how that narrative is full of holes or that the masks are more harm than good, that carbon dioxide levels rise to dangerous levels with masks on, or checked the stats from the UK government or Office of National Statistics or the CDC website, read and heard information on the trash nature of the PCR test with regards to the virus, heard that this virus has never been isolated or shown to be the cause, or this or that. I’ve seen the dictates of the tyrants, the lockdowns (of their citizen-prisoners) and the other impositions, heard the stories of the police and army adding force and threat to what the mafia demand. But what about my own experience? I’ve seen the experts flip-flop about their stated opinions or give crap advice. But … why do I oppose what is going on from my own experience? Why would I refuse to wear the mask?

In my personal experience, if I just go by my own senses and understanding, the problem goes far deeper. My life experience has made me more skeptical of claims from so-called authorities. If I were to go by my own senses and experience, then my stance would be much more simplistic.

I’ve never personally seen a germ or virus. I see people get sick at times, but I’ve never seen the link between one person having an ailment and it spreading around the place to other people. I’ve never seen a person getting tested for CV19 nor have I seen how exactly the test works. In my more antiquated view of “pandemic,” not the recently updated one where it’s just that a lot of people merely get sick or have a positive test result that I have no faith in, but rather where there are mass deaths all around or savage symptoms amongst the vast majority of those that are actually ill (not “asymptomatic”), more obvious and ghastly than simply “flu-like symptoms,” I’ve seen absolutely nothing like that at all. In no part of my life has something like the flu needed masking to protect anyone. I’ve never seen a mask protect anyone against the flu, plus I’ve never seen how viruses are transmitted, if they are even real or accord to the colloquial understanding of little things flying from person to person, or substance to person, getting into their body system, their body, for some reason, accepting that alien miniscule into its mechanisms and thereby becoming infirm.

If I just went by what is around me and my senses, I see no reason to wear a mask. I don’t see how it would protect me. In fact, a mask hinders what I need to do: breathe freely. Even the pseudo-windscreen people wear is a barrier for my breath to bounce back to my face. Whether it’s my breathing in or out, a mask is a hindrance to a life-process. Added to that, it is logical that as long as I’m breathing, something is entering and exiting my body. The mask isn’t stopping everything, so I have no idea if it’s stopping a supposed virus. Added to that, if I can touch the mask, then whatever is on my hands or the gloves that cover my hands, it’ll go on the mask. Or if particles are everywhere, they’ll go on the mask. As soon as I touch anything, something is supposed to be on me. But going by my senses, nothing is there, unless it’s visibly dirty.

I can’t see the actual people that the statisticians have put in their graphs with regards to deaths or cases. There is so much in my life that I just don’t see or sense or can’t experience.

Simply put, there is no obvious reason around me to believe the corona-story at all. I see the cult-like manner of everyone around me in my locality, and that is unrelated to a so-called virus.

So on a fundamental level, on a personal experiential level, ignoring the analysis of arguments and data I can’t verify for myself, on a bedrock basic level, I have absolutely no reason to believe the stories about a virus, this virus, or their claimed defenses for the virus.

Thinking about this, as with other topics, I realise how much of my perception is based on reports and records, on trust and faith in those reports and records. I don’t have much of that – trust/faith – left.

Mass-neglect: The mask & the control of info

Proof That Face Masks Do More Harm Than Good: https://brandnewtube.com/watch/proof-that-face-masks-do-more-harm-than-good_5Ya8cJN5eCT3vqj.html

The Banned Ebook: Proof That Face Masks Do More Harm Than Good http://www.vernoncoleman.com/bannedmaskbook.pdf

Again, it’s like a cult of self-harm gone wild. More and more blatant. And for me, it’s all around me. At work, when walking outside, when I’m at the shops, even when I’m at home. The masked comatosed, the flops of flesh, the courage-drained echoes of humanity walking the streets, in hospital corridors and store floors, the people who believe in the irrational invisible so much that they think clothe over the face, faux-facial windscreens, surgeon masks worn outside of the surgical environment will protect them from the unseen enemy. So urgent to cling to life that they play with death, either breathing back in the waste their bodies tried to expel through the mouth captured in the “protection,” or using something so ineffectual that the unseen enemy would see what should be a closed door as a city wall broken down and gate open wide.

This must be judgement. It must be. If not, then it is the preparation for it. Not some fake-virus, but the way that tyrants are taking advantage of the situation, ruining individuals, communities, economies, plunging everyone deeper and deeper into a debt that the tyrants can impose upon their slaves, giving the sort of medical advice that is equivalent to treating a patient with no symptoms with slight but toxic levels of cyanide. A western culture so steeped in folly, materialism, scientism and destruction and subsequently dragged, like a stupid, drugged-up, low-level autistic child, to foolishness, lack, ignorance and destruction. Maybe the unheard screams of the lost lives of the unborn slaughtered reached fever-pitch to the throne of Judgement. Maybe.

But just to talk about my personal experience, my workplace is forcing me to wear a mask. I voiced some of my concerns about the lack of evidence to justify what they’re demanding. During the conversation, I said that I was open to evidence to show me my resistance is misplaced and asked, what the evidence was that the virus was real and potentially everywhere in the air. The evidence I got was that some friend of the person I was talking to was fine one day and then in a coma for a few weeks (no more information than that), the fact that certain doctors have to work long hours, that nurses have marks on their faces from the masks, and that the person was scared for their elderly parents. I kinda empathise for this person, struggling under the belief of their delusion, but can anyone other than me see how all of this “evidence” was nothing more than a bunch of red herring fallacies? My actual request, the question I asked, had remained untouched. And this is typical. A person who was asking me to wear a mask when dropping off a child of mine gave me his pitch when I refused. He said that someone he knew and died of COVID. Do you already see the issue with that one? Not simply that this is anecdotal evidence, it’s also based on hearsay. Once anyone says “my doctor said COVID” or “this expert ascribed COVID” but I cannot cross-examine this doctor or expert, then it can only be equivalent to rumour, to gossip, until the claim of the so-called expert can be tested. How did he come to his conclusion? Was it simply symptoms? Was it the terrible PCR tests or antibody tests, both of which have significant issues? No way of cross-examining the witness, then it’s only hearsay. (Thank you, Legalman [@uslawreview on Twitter]!)

Anyway, the ebook I shared at the beginning of this post is just another symptom of what’s been going on lately. It was supposed to be on Smashwords, a book seller website, as was the author with multiple other books. But because of the inclusion of this book, the author, Vernon Coleman, and all of his books were ousted from the platform. Funnily enough, in the video I also shared above, the author explains that sources that give evidence for a different narrative concerning the masks are being deleted or hidden on the internet. This is not an isolated claim.

So many content creators have been kicked off mainstream platforms, be it Youtube, Facebook, or Twitter, and there is evidence that Google itself is changing its algorithms so as to make sure certain websites are pushed to the bottom of search results, if not outright removed. As is logical, if you changed the way a person is IN-formed, control what they see and hear, then that can shape the perceptions of the person. And I believe that those in control of the sharing of information – the news companies, the government, Silicon Valley, and the wise amongst us – they all know this. And they use this knowledge.

Evidence: The Library of Alexandria is Burning: https://odysee.com/@corbettreport:0/alexandria:b

With the recent American circus, the (s)election, where there were claims of voter fraud, but those in the media and Silicon Valley made sure that such claims were censored or silenced or, again, removed. Historical scientific papers and articles that disagree with the modern narrative seem sometimes to be harder to find, as if removed. I remember watching a discussion on flat earth where a globe-believing professor had written something that went against globe-think, and then magically, that whole article just disappears (thankfully the presenter had saved a copy of it).

Something odd is happening in this day and age. It’s like a wall is being built, politically and psychologically. The mind is being narrowed just as our ability to do things without government interference.

Where it will all end, who knows?

Completing a thought

I may run a risk in writing this opinion, but hardly anyone reads this blog, so I don’t think there’s a terrible risk.

So I see the protests about lockdown in various countries where the populace have been disarmed by the government, because previous generations thought that the best way to keep society safe was to disarm everyone except the government. *chuckle* Think about it. Disarm the populace mentally using state “education,” and disarm the populace physically through the forceful removal and enforced withholding of arms. Oh, those well-intentioned generations. What idiots! See how it has turned out! Now when people want to oppose the government, if the government wants to flex its muscles, they can send in the domestic army, the police, who are armed. The sheepish-populace will shout “FREEDOM! FREEDOM!” in total contradiction to how their protests are controlled and shepherded by the armed thugs of government. Just look at the pathetic attempts of the people of Australia.

Now imagine a place – I don’t think it exists – where protests were taken with deadly seriousness by the protesters, where they choose to organise not as helpless sheep, but as soldiers for a cause, where they’re not looking to simply get a message out but also where they protect their own in a similar or stronger manner than the domestic terrorists (the police) protect their own.

You see, I believe bullies and mercenaries are impacted or possibly deterred by two things: a stronger and more fearsome force; or what negatively impacts their income. The normal protest does nothing to either, so, when it’s time for the government to flex its muscles via its terroristic branch (yep, still talking about the pigs), then there’s no risk of deterence.

But if a protest group were a lot more strategic, more focused and purpose-driven than the disparate rabble, then there may be hope of a greater impact.

The problem with today’s partially braindead protester is that one will show some mercy to their abuser-in-costume. They’ll praise their abuser and bruiser for their service, saying that, as an individual, on a personal level, the protester understands the enemy soldier is only following orders and therefore can be shown kindness. The enemy has shown and will show no sign of indecision, but continues to snatch people away, attack, send message of threats, and the meek and humble protester waits like an English gentleman, armed only with an empty promise of clemency, while the pig has a full belly, gets his pay cheque, and has the “permission” to use whatever force he deems necessary to gain compliance.

It’s the perfect picture of being kind to the cruel allowing them to be cruel to the kind. It reminds me of so many superhero stories where the heroes are summarily routed, many being killed savagely, even the fictionally-powerful Superman. And why? Because they try to save everyone, including their enemies. They hold back and only strike as a last resort. The merciful will always fall to the merciless, one way or another.

If protesters “cared” as much for their opponents as their opponents “cared” for them (if you don’t understand the sarcasm, order-followers care more for following orders than for the people who they damage), if the people got their priorities straight and stopped trying to act like benevolent angels, if they remembered that king David’s hand had to be full of blood because he didn’t treat the Philistines as innocents, that even Abraham the Kind was a warrior who defeated kings in battle, then maybe there’d be a better chance of an impact.

But one of the problems with this approach is that such an uprising couldn’t simply stop at protesting a certain point. It must end in the total transformation of the system. The government and the police would have to be removed totally and replaced. Leaving a significant enough remnant will mean that they can retaliate once the crowd has dispersed, targetting key individuals.

Yet, the present weakness of the protesters, their ineffectual babbling and bleating in groups, their kind and gentle manner with their oppressors gives the tyrants and order-followers no real reason to change. Bellies full, paycheque and power, their base of comfort remains intact. For the most, they are safe.

When are they gonna feel unsafe?

Hmmm … am I thinking about revolution? Because even I know that breaking to pieces an idol without breaking the belief in the idol only means that it, or something similar, will be rebuilt in its placee

Injustice – They get away with it

Again and again, they do it. Again and again, they leave damage in their wake, broken minds, lives and bodies, and they carry on.

Again and again, I hear the victims laud their persecutors. “Oh, I respect your role, your office and what you do.” “Oh, you’re doing such a dangerous job; I have to respect that.” “I back the blue because without them, there wouldn’t be law and order.” The broken bodies and hearts keep piling up and the badge still gets admiration.

Are you surprised things turned out like this, where many nations now seem like police states, when they’ve been blowing up the blue ego for years? “Oh, it’s not their fault. They just enforce the laws; they don’t make ’em.” What a deeply ignorant and deplorable statement. Politicians and lawmakers do not create tyranny. They only write or talk. Without the police, they would only be writers and talkers. It’s the blue gang that brings the oppression!

For a long time, the government filth, their domestic army against the populace, has protected its own injustices. The lying in reports and in court trials, the physical attacks and intimidation on people that have done no wrong, the enforcement for companies, corporations and their own ego, the pile of evils just keeps piling.

But, as with government, there’s little point in eradicating them since the question will be asked: where did they come from? The answer shows why eradiction may not work. They came from the populace from the people, and for every bully that is diposed, there are plenty more ready to fill the space. Until there is a true change of mind and heart, we’re stuck with a gang of murderers, thieves, liars and self-serving brutes.

And they are comfortable. If one gets in trouble, they can call in backup. Their enemy, people, are disorganised and this works to their advantage. It would take an organised response to mount a … hmmm …

Anyway, …

The point is that true solutions are difficult. For now, what I can do is highlight the injustice in hopes that … In what hopes?

Priesthood

[This is related to one of the seven laws of Noah.]

He throws some leaves and herbs together and mutters, sprinkling invisible dust onto the mixture. The crowd nearby anticipates his divination. He singles out a young man at the edge of the mob and declares, “This, this one, he has the evil spirit and must be purged.” The young man looks startled. “I’m fine,” he whispers in fear, as the priest points a finger in his direction. “There’s no sign that I’m possessed.” The wise man says, “Just to be sure, lock yourself away for five days, praying to the gods for healing, and then you should be ok.” They all know, the priest knows best. He knows the secret rites and occult knowledge, and his declarations were true in the past, like when a girl had a belly-ache, and he gave her some flowers and fruits, and she was healed. Or when the old man was sick, and he said the eldely gentleman would die, and, amazingly enough, he died. He had the knowhow and they were sure that he had perfected his tests through years of study and discipline. They trusted him, and so they obeyed.

The doctor came back with the test results. “Your results have come back positive: you have COVID.” Ben, a strapping 26-year-old lad, was surprised. He had no symptoms. He had been fine for a long time, only submitting to a test as dictated by his manager at work. “But, Doc, I feel fine.” Dr. Turnpike said, “You may feel fine, but there’s no doubt: positive test, therefore you have the virus. It’s terribly important that you self-isolate for 14 days and stay away fror vulnerable people. Just let your girlfriend know why you can’t interact with her and I’m sure she’ll understand.” Ben, knowing that the doctor had the knowhow and experience, and trusting the test that must have been scientifically tested and verified, although he had no clue how it worked, yielded to his doctor’s expertise and obeyed.

“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.”

Insanity

Video: Congratulations, America … You played yourself.

The “free” countries of the world seem to be in disarray. But is anyone really surprised? Really? When there is contradiction and falsehoods at the core of a society or if they are elevated by the masses, then is it any wonder that things seem to implode and people do their best to devour one another?

It’s well known that politicians, those that vie for power, are not good people, at least not trustworthy people. Yet over and over again, people put their faith in the governmental institution, vote for bad people in hopes they can make positive changes necessarily using immoral or irrational means. Isn’t that the perfect mixture for crap to happen? Aren’t the voters the perfect fuel to keep the immorality going?

Is it any surprise that the corrupt will find their way into offices of power and attempt to influence things in the background for their own ends which inevitably end in deceit, pain, damage, theft and murder?

Yet so much trust and dependency is placed on an institution with the worst reputation when it comes to trust. What is that well-known phrase? Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it?

The American election is just another sign of the degradation that was already at the core of its government. The British lockdown, like another heavy punch to the side of the mouth, is a sign of a tyranny that never died. But the cults still believe, still cling to the lie, still hold up the god-forsaken flesh-idol that crushes them, still cling, with vice-like grip, to the alluring, intoxicating, venomous flower whose thorns dig deeper and deeper into the flesh. “For the love of God, let go!” But the acolyte only hears “for the love of god,” and therefore works harder to sustain the system to which they are devoted.

I think about the date when the lockdown in Britain started, November the 5th. Guy Fawkes Night. A night meant to signify some spirit of rebellion against government is used to usher in more tyranny. I think about the mind of rebellion that led to American independence. Americans are deeper in slavery than they’ve ever been while still singing “Land of the Brave, Home of the Free!” What pussies, all of us! Americans fighting with each other over figurehead kings and ways to rule each other. Too many British people wanting to just lay the head low in the hopes that a fiction used by those who abuse them would be finished, despite the fact that encouraging abusers only encourages abuse.

“But, writer, the election was rigged!”

It was always fixed. Your abusers would always win, no matter who the puppet is that they use. You’ll get raped slow and soft or fast and hard, but you’re still getting raped, yet are begging for the right rapist.

“But the lockdown is here to protect us!”

I’m sure that’s what many abuser said to their victim. “I’m keeping you here and hurting you because without me it would be worse for you. I’ve got your best interest at heart.” And like a spirit-crushed soul, the lie is believed and the captivity continues.

“But I live in reality. This is the system we have and it’s all we know.”

When I’m laid out, having been thrown to the ground, with the bully on top of me, and the fists are raining in, it is not my job to find the right bully or to encourage the one that’s hurting me in the hopes that he doesn’t punch me as hard or doesn’t aim for my eyes. It may be the real system and the only one we have, but does that really mean it’s something to maintain? To keep? To try to change it as best we can, when history shows that trying to change it only makes it more malignant??? As long as you help, the bully feels legitimised. As much as you give away ground, he will feel alright to take it.

“But if I don’t take part in the system, then I’ll be doing nothing, and I can’t complain if things go wrong.”

So if you don’t assist the ones hurting you, whose very existence guarantees immorality, then you’re doing nothing??? If you don’t help to choose the one who will bully you and steal from you, you can’t complain??? Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? I know, I know, I used different words. People normally say “if you don’t vote, then you can’t complain,” or imply that there’s only two choices, voting or doing nothing. But what is voting except applying to a violent organisation? And who does the violent organisation, regardless of the extent of Stockholm Syndrome in the victim, extort and threaten except everyone within the reach of its agents? “Do as you’re told or I’ll hurt or kill you!” “Your money or your life!” So yes, it is ludicrous to say that by withholding your support of the gang, you can’t complain or you’re essentially doing nothing.

*sigh* I just look around and see the results of societal self-harm with no remedy. Kill a politician? Strike one down and two shall rise in its place. Without destroying the foundation of the addiction, the devotion, the sufferer with raise another in its place.

Look, what about solutions? I personally believe there is no solution for an individual to deal with a societal issue when the cult is widespread. The only thing I can change is myself. But to look outside, and see the turmoil … hmmm … maybe I just need to stop looking so far outside, let the crap handle itself, and deal with what I can deal. If the world burns, then it’ll burn and I with it. It won’t be a great loss.