If you really believe that you are in a war, it will tend to focus your attention where it needs to be. The object of the enemy is to kill and destroy. Your object is to keep on surviving.
There is an old World War II instructional video that is on YouTube. You can bet your sweet bippy that those who had to go fight would've paid attention because a failure to do so would contribute greatly to one's own death out on the battlefield. That video is just as valid in our current situation as it was during that war, provided that we are in a true wartime scenario.
The war, as such as it is, is not at the shooting stage. It may never get there because it may be avoided altogether. One of the things that is taught by Sun Tsu in the Art of War is that the best war is one that doesn't have to be fought. If you can subdue the enemy without firing a shot, it is the supreme skill of the warfighter to have achieved this result. Now suppose this hypothetical: what if there really is an effort to subdue us all without ever firing a shot? The commies in the Cold War claimed over and over again their intention to do so.
What do you do then? All around is evidence that a war is being waged against us all, but nobody seems to be able to muster the effort necessary to defend themselves against the onslaught.
Like the video said, the enemy doesn't kill you, your ignorance and foolishness is what kills you. To that end, and since I do not wish to be an unwitting accomplice to my own demise, I will prepare myself for this war. Anybody who wishes to live as long as it is possible under such a scenario might be wise to do so as well.
One way to know is to check info veracity. If a source is not telling you the truth, that is a great big red flag. As Sun Tsu said in the Art of War, warfare is all about deception. When somebody is lying, something is up.
How do you know if someone is lying? Being wrong about something is not lying. Being wrong when you know you are wrong, and in the effort to cause harm to another, is indeed lying. I think that if you follow that rule, you can distinguish between friend or foe. Most folks don't know what the truth is, so they have depend upon others for information. Therefore, the sources of information must be checked and double checked for accuracy at all times.
That might sound like a effort at censorship. In a shooting war, there will indeed be censorship. As of this time, therefore, any attempt to censor VALID information is to viewed with extreme suspicion. Based upon what I've heard about BIG TECH, they are censoring just about anything that doesn't further a political objective. BIG TECH should be avoided. Aside from that, I couldn't tell friend from foe, but BIG TECH should not be censoring anybody at all because they are supposed to be a neutral party.
Now read this: NIH Informed consent study
It looks like it is valid to me because it has "nih.gov". That might not be a correct assumption, but the deal is that this is what the government is saying. If BIG TECH censors this, then what does that say?
No comments:
Post a Comment