Forum Comments

So, who is taking the vaccine? What will you do if you can't work, travel, go to hospital, shop or leave home without proof of the jab?
In General Discussions
How do we know the pandemic is a planned event to control humanity?
In General Discussions
scottsentinel9
Mar 27, 2021
Here is the evolving list of reasons that will be amended and re-organised so they eventually make more sense. I'll try to mark the comments with facts and opinions. Please be patient. *The list needs to be taken as a whole - not just as individual points. Collectively you cannot justify the real reasons provided to you by governments, media and Pharmaceutical companies. They make no sense and have little to do with 'science'. I will try to add some explanation as to how the points relate to the pandemic being planned later, so bear with me. Thank you. The reasons: 1. All the countries of the world working together. Ever happened before? COVID-19 must be a massive threat then right? But it’s not. The global reaction is as if this was the black death - it isn't. If you've been fooled into thinking it is then you are not looking at the statistics. If you want to find out what percentage threat COVID-19 is to you then complete this test: https://qcovid.org/Home/AcademicLicence?licencedUrl=%2FCalculation If you did the test and you still want to argue that this disease poses a serious threat then you simply have no case. The lack of the required threat level shows that it’s not the threat level that made every country more or less do something similar with lockdowns, masks and social distancing. Imagine if they had all worked together before on even more serious issues. They didn't because they are not responding to a threat - they are responding to orders from above. (opinion) 2. Borders stayed open at the beginning which allowed the spread. Borders around the world stayed open to allow the spread of the virus. The spread could have been stopped very early on it if it was really deemed dangerous. Instead all the lockdown measures came after the 'virus' spread. This was observed by everyone but we are supposed to believe you cannot contain a virus using travel bans. Of course you can. The spread of whatever this is - be it a virus, disease or something else needed to be be part of this to create this event but actually makes no logical sense. If it were real, it could have been stopped easily. No one flies in to the country from infected areas - end of spread. Did it all just accidently spread around the world - come on people - why did countries close to China and with plenty of Chinese tourists not get the infection rates of Europe and the U.S? More on that later. The maths does not add up again, something is wrong with this whole 'pandemic' idea. (mix of opinion and fact). Links: Here's an attempt to explain why travel bans wouldn't have worked. It didn't convince me. https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-05-15/Why-travel-bans-didn-t-stop-the-coronavirus-Qw1rn3vOog/index.html 3. Almost everyone survives COVID-19. It is not deadly. It is not even classified as a highly communicable disease by UK government. COVID-19 is not a deadly disease. Most people do not experience any symptoms. A lot of the cases you see on graphs shown on TV are asymptomatic people. We'll talk about death rates later. COVID-19 is not a deadly disease in comparison to other diseases. If it is not deadly then some of the reaction to it makes no sense. It is not even considered a high consequence infectious disease - see link below (Fact). Links: Here's the official status of COVID-19 according to the UK government. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid#status-of-covid-19 4. Asymptomatic spread is low to non-existent. People with no symptoms are not spreading the virus in large numbers. Asymptomatic transmission is low. Studies have shown that people who have not had symptoms are not spreading this virus. There is some debate to be had on this but this point can be backed up with studies (see below) so I'm including it as a fact. It's important because if people with no symptoms do not spread the virus then there's no need for lockdowns, masks and social distancing. (Fact). Links: Here's a study to support the above claim that asymptomatic spread is low to non-existent : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7219423/?fbclid=IwAR3gqV1oZvt4kVSD-NW2CP_Ly0tcayk169pi-lpSfDZR-XYYe3M9uTMcmvc https://lockdownsceptics.org/risk-of-asymptomatic-spread-minimal-variants-over-hyped-masks-pointless-an-interview-with-professor-jay-bhattacharya/?fbclid=IwAR3UfyCZ6gbUxGr_F1MAWEHyTkMH3IGPihTWns3x7kT1tgNCPthkgDVYxBg 5. The public are being bombarded with propaganda rebranded as science. The propaganda coming from media, experts and government is breath-taking and happens on a daily basis. First people were told by Fauci that masks were not useful then later he said they were. He cited scientific studies to defend both claims. Later people were told that science shows masks do not inhibit your breathing and are not bad for you. Anyone wearing a mask for a few hours knows this is not true. You are breathing in bacteria, you will get cold sores, you may feel dizzy because you are not getting the same oxygen. Why are people being lied and manipulated so much through this whole event? Something is not right - you know it (Fact). Here's some BBC propaganda: https://www.bbc.com/news/53108405 6. The inventor of the PCR test says that governments are using the PCR test because they have a hidden agenda. Kary Mullis was the inventor of the PCR test and was not happy with it being use for diagnostic purposes. He felt that governments were using it for nefarious purposes. You can hear his comments by viewing the video below. Why isn't he on every TV station talking about this? He died just before the start of the pandemic. Draw your own conclusions on that. More on the PCR test later. (Fact). Here he is confirming the above on video: https://www.bitchute.com/video/jTogclgl9usP/?fbclid=IwAR1Itz7VpOo2hOgqihiamy1S3TtR4ep2gSOvZHTvtshC_4ZRlB830rWMgIo 7. There is a breakdown in logic when it comes to reporting deaths about COVID-19 in comparison to vaccines. If you die after testing positive of COVID-19 with the questionable PCR test within 28 days, you are marked down as dying of the virus. If you die within 28 days of having the vaccine you did not die from the vaccine. Where's the science in that? Why the inconsistency? There seems to be an agenda. Agendas are planned. (fact) 9. The push for having the vaccine is being accompanied by the largest marketing campaign ever seen. Take a look at this one by Lenny Henry and some actors. No wonder they turned the comments off underneath. NHS video: 11. Event 201 shows that they were planning for a similar event just before the COVID-19 pandemic. They knew what to expect and had measures in place. Details of event 201 are below. Of course, many will argue that these events are necessary and it was natural to do it weeks before the outbreak of the pandemic. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. The Rockefeller 'Lockstep' document and the Spars Pandemic scenarios are blueprints and are too accurate to be dismissed as 'forward planning'. https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/videos.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrDRwH-8iNs 12. The Wuhan market bat story is ridiculous. It just is. It was far more likely to have come from the Wuhan lab. But maybe that is what they want us to think? Who knows. There are many theories discussed below. It almost doesn't matter but many believe this whole event is not about a virus threat. That's not to say that there may not be a real disease out there though. https://www.healthline.com/health/bat-soup-coronavirus#new-coronavirus-source https://www.siasat.com/covid-19-biowarfare-says-bioweapon-creator-dr-francis-boyle-1866058/ 13. There were highly questionable gain of function bat coronavirus experiments done in 2015 that enabled the virus to move from bats to humans. The idea that this was some kind of biological weapon release can be denied but not dismissed. https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985?fbclid=IwAR0zoErWDIlo9rhtr30oBVFRCl9TkcFzFuZWdpsBvzi9qz4LDyG0ayzAqhE 14. The amount of freedoms being taken away are alarming. If you don't think so then you're are not actually thinking straight. If this was a real pandemic they would eventually return – they won’t. https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2020/03/covid-19-control-measures--uk-police-powers 15. If the media and government had never mentioned COVID-19, the public would not know anything about it and would have no idea there was a pandemic because despite us being told people are dying everywhere, people just aren't able to observe that. We're told by mathematicians that this is explainable by simple maths about the size of the population. It sure would be nice for those same mathematicians to debunk the idea that covid is a serious threat to anyone at all. 16. Treatments are deliberately being ignored and demonised because of the agenda to roll out vaccines. To be completed. (opinion and fact) Links: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19851782/ https://www.sammyboy.com/threads/renowned-virologist-sucharit-bhakdi-warns-against-hastily-created-gene-altering-vaccine.300234/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/epidemiologic-analyses-on-covid19-and-ivermectin/ 17. The former head and Chief Science Officer at Pfizer believes this could be a depopulation agenda. Former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer Dr. Mike Yeadon about his views on the COVID-19 vaccine, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, the regulatory authorities, and more. At the outset, Dr. Yeadon said “I’m well aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the worlds population." “It’s my considered view that it is entirely possible that this will be used for massive-scale depopulation.” (Fact) https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/exclusive-former-pfizer-vp-to-aflds-entirely-possible-this-will-be-used-for-massive-scale-depopulation/?fbclid=IwAR1kOX0Bae3vnMLnShOQr6Pw6xFcyuspau5zDVDsXmx18mxH48uVKLIx1a8 18. There are ludicrous mismatches between countries on death rates which do not make sense. Thailand coronavirus deaths are less than 100 despite having had Chinese visitors at the height of the ‘outbreak’. UK death rates are in the hundreds of thousands. This does not make sense. Links: 19. The reasons keep changing for lockdowns. It started out as protecting the health services. To be completed. (opinion and fact) Links: 20. Studies are showing that masks and lockdowns have little to no effect on infection rates but have major negative consequences on people's lives. To be completed. (fact) Links: Listen to the first 55 minutes of this video: https://thehighwire.com/videos/vaccine-disaster-ahead/ 21. Governments know what effect the vaccines are going to have through their mutations. Experts are telling them. Listen to the interviews below. More will be added. If governments are ignoring this expert knowledge it's either yet another monumental example of incompetence or it is deliberate. There are too many examples of possible incompetence that is being repeated around the world on many of these issues. It less likely to be incompetence and more likely to be deliberate because of the frequency of the ignored advice and because it's being repeated everywhere. Listen to the expected outcome and the implications of mass vaccination during a pandemic with Geert Vanden Bossche. Governments have this knowledge. (fact and opinion) Links: Listen to the 2nd part of this video. Start from the 58 minute mark: https://thehighwire.com/videos/vaccine-disaster-ahead/ If you prefer to listen to the interview without commentary, it is here: 22. Most COVID-19 'patients' have no symptoms and only a small percentage are hospitalised. The vaccines do not stop infection so what are they for? Many people who contract the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), develop only mild and moderate symptoms. A small fraction of those infected develop severe symptoms, which usually occur in people who are at higher risk due to comorbidities. Only 2% of covid infections result in hospitalisation if there are no co-morbidities. It’s claimed that the vaccine will not stop infection but may stop the disease developing into a serious condition. This means that they are saying that 2% may benefit from the vaccine. So what benefit are the 98% of the vaccinated population getting? https://www.tfah.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/COVIDunderlyingconditions040320.pdf 23. More and more doctors are speaking out. A video of a top doctor warning against the vaccines: https://www.bitchute.com/video/6N2C0ro4viJl/ To be continued and updated.... *Individually of course, some of the points do not necessarily prove planning but it will eventually all come together to show beyond reasonable doubt, that it was.
0
0
Discussions about the 'deep state' and other conspiracies.
In General Discussions
scottsentinel9
Mar 27, 2021
OK, briefly about 'right wing'. Some of the things you have listed are nothing to do with being right wing. That's my point - 'right wing' has been and is still being rebranded to include people that media and governments don't like in order to demonise them. What if they decide to add cappacino drinkers to that list - does that mean you are right wing? Right wing is associated with bigotry - everyone knows it -it's being done deliberately to demonise people - why are you participating? So, if Joe Bloggs feels he hates PC culture he is now being classified as right wing? Why? There's no logic behind that - it's manipulation and demonisation. It's a separate issue. I'm not going to address every point in detail as there isn't time but on the sharpening up 'there isn't time' is also part of it. We've moved more to just discussions and call ins because there isn't always time for detailed analysis. We give our opinions based on what we know. When it comes to the deep state and organisations - I gave you a list. Proving for certain who the people are in a detailed way is almost futile. It will never be detailed enough. Even if you spent a year studying the subject you'd only get a little closer and more precise. Sometimes it's a question of resources and time. The same with sharpening up on the show. Unlike the BBC it's not a full time job and is unpaid. The BBC do a woeful job at getting to the truth and they have the time and the resources. It would be better to tell them to sharpen up. About the COVID stuff and the wacky conspiracy that it's planned and could be anything to do with depopulation - I need to start a new thread for that. I'm going to start compiling a list of all the reasons why we know it is a monumental lie, was planned and is aiming to bring about authoritarian control, surveillance and who knows what else. Feel free to comment on the other thread but I may adapt and update the page because it will work better as an evolving set of facts and points using logic where appropriate. I don't know if it will convince you that it was planned but it should convince you that it is not wacky - unless your rational thought is beyond saving ; )
0
0
Discussions about the 'deep state' and other conspiracies.
In General Discussions
scottsentinel9
Mar 24, 2021
I'm glad you brought this point up about facts and logic in relation to viewpoints and the idea that it is me that is unsure and muddled as to the difference. I can go back to countless discussions we have had where you seem to have forgotten the logical fallacies episode we did. If you'd like an example, here's one. Going back to our discussion about 'black holes' you immediately made the logical misstep that I was joining the hateful group of people who were slating that girl who devised the algorithm. There was nothing logical about that and this is something you seem to think you're beyond doing but it's a regular occurrence I'm afraid. I only mention it because you're mentioning it in regards to me. Here's a few more. Your accusations about me being 'right wing' are lacking in logic and facts. Your ideas about having views that coincide with other groups being something people should avoid are lacking in logic or there is at least a case that they are - it's simply your perspective. I could go back through all the comments on this forum that you have made and pull apart many statements that you have made and point out glaring mistakes in logic or point out how you have twisted facts to suit your viewpoint. I often don't do it because I'm not as keen on writing as you are. I prefer speaking. Your comments about me spewing out bile every week - where was the logic and facts in that? You didn't provide any. Here's another one. David Icke is a dangerous, hateful man who should be censored. Something I know you believe from your statements about him. Is this based on facts and logic? Yes, the facts that you want to turn into logic to suit your perspective. So, there's little point saying to me 'So try to be a bit fairer, please.' in a patronizing way. Everyone bends facts to suit their purpose, let's not pretend that you don't, or I don't or that it's not a common occurrence everywhere. I think you often misunderstand my points and think you need to explain things to me which can be a little patronizing. I mean that in a friendly way but its true. I sent you quotations that Attenborough said as evidence without any explanation. You responded with 'I think I can help you there'. As if I am a little bit simple and don't understand other viewpoints - and yes, in SOME cases they are viewpoints. When Attenborough uses the term 'plague' of course there is one way we can justify what he means by that. But there is also a cloaked meaning we can possibly ascertain from that too. A bit like when someone says 'There's a problem with immigration in London. Too many people are coming in and something needs to be done about it.' This statement can be looked at in two different ways and yet still we could establish that it could be a fact and that there is a problem with immigration in London or we could decide it is a bigoted statement... so it's not correct to say that your defence of Attenborough is entirely bourne out by facts. They are the facts that suit your perspective, sure. But facts can be manipulated to frame a perspective. People can also just lay out a selection of facts and ignore facts to the contrary. If you were to truly analyse whether Jack Posobiec (I really wish I could remember how to spell his name each time) is a white supremacist you'd have to look at facts to the contrary too. I've only picked him as an example case - I have no idea whether he is or isn't but I do know it's a label people are using too easily these days. Another point on that topic of racism. Let's assume that Jack Posobiec IS a white supremacist and hates other races - so what? That would be his problem - that's the way I see it. I'm pretty sure at least some of the students you've had (and got along with) in your classes in Ukraine and Kazakhstan are racists - that's their problem and I think we can separated people's dumb mental inadequacies and beliefs with how we would treat them as individuals. I've openly discussed racism with people I've met in Ukraine who are racist. Hopefully they will change their views one day - everyone is learning. Sometimes when I come across racism I think the person is a dumbass and a twat, that's fine, but not sure we have to assume they are failures in every part of their life. I'm not sure I agree with you that they are dangerous unless they are actively recruiting people to rise up and kill ethnic minorities - in which case, that's a different matter. There's no need to pretend I don't know the difference between what facts and logic are and that you exclusively use facts to prove something is correct. Sometimes your facts to explain what David A was saying are surface level explanations of what he means - of course that's what it sounds like he means but what happened to the coded language you mentioned before? A bigot can say 'Let's go somewhere where we can have free speech' and you say that is code for 'a place we can say racist stuff'. In David's case though, what he says is literal and there's nothing that can be gleaned or insinuated. There's no potential hatred of the human race in your perspective of him. Yes, facts and perspectives are different but facts can be used to frame different perspectives. Example: Prince Phillip says he would like to come back as a virus to kill all of humanity. We could take this fact to mean he thinks humanity is a plague on the Earth and he is a Eugenicist or we could take it to mean that he just thinks mankind need to change their ways, restrict fertility and create more sustainable lifestyles. I know the difference between facts and perspectives and how they can be used to support two different arguments - let's not pretend I'm too stupid too see the difference or that I'm playing dumb as a tactical move either. Here's another logic/facts topic. I see Germany is back in lockdown. Do you still believe this is all about flattening the curve? I'm sorry but I've lost patience with people that still believe this is all about a dangerous virus. If you want to talk about facts and logic - look no further than covid-19 to see how people's facts and logic have lead them to believe that the governments of the world are trying to protect their citizens. Facts and logic about covid-19 have lead to 2 very conflicting perspectives on the whole 'pandemic'. Same facts, different perspectives. Your facts and logic will tell you one thing and the same ones give me a completely different perspective than you. You'll explain in detail how this can't be a master plan that's been devised over decades and assume that I and others are jumping to a quick conclusion. It's nothing like that at all. Your logic on this topic is hampered by your lack of understanding of how long people have expected an incident such as this and your interpretation of the facts that are presented to you. In fact, anyone with an ounce of understanding should know there are serious flaws in the reasons given for rolling out this monumental con on the public. The fact that you can't see it is a demonstration that your critical thinking skills aren't quite as good as you think they are. Sorry to tell you that but it seems we're reaching a level of honesty here. When looking at my replies to your comments you should also remember that I am more of a speaker, rather than a writer. It's not my preferred medium (I don't have the patience) so I do my best to reply and cover all the bases but I do prefer speaking personally. You won't always find my writing answers your comments comprehensively as I find speaking to people a much easier and faster method. Take your breakdown of my comment about the terms 'breast milk' being banned or whatever it was we were talking about. I deliberately wrote; there is SOME element of truth about it. I knew it was more nuanced. But you pulled it apart and then claimed to have blown me out of the water at analysing the 'truth in the news'. I noticed you didn't comment on the more detailed one that I mentioned about the man using the 'n' word which was based on solid facts. Feel free to continue but let's maybe talk about something more light-hearted. Maybe it's better that we discuss the benefits of a good cappuccino and whether it's true that Kazakhstan has the best Shaslik.. I'm honestly not sure whether discussions about world views or politics is a healthy thing to discuss between people with such contrasting views in written form at least. I'm all for a healthy debate but I don't think it works when one party has restrictions on what should or shouldn't be said. You may take issue with that last comment but come on, if it wasn't true then we'd still be discussing issues freely on podcasts.
0
0
Discussions about the 'deep state' and other conspiracies.
In General Discussions
scottsentinel9
Mar 23, 2021
No, so far I've only been called 'right wing' but I've noticed the tendency for media to start calling people with non mainstream views 'right wing' and then take it to another level and calling people 'white supremacists' when they don't appear to be. Hence my focusing on that word. It's quite an accusation and if people are denying being it i.e Posobeic and in turn there are no direct quotations where they are being racist then I think they need to be given the benefit of the doubt. Back to Attenborough. Here are some quotes from him. They can be taken however you want to take them but this is what I would say makes people wonder whether he is a eugenicist: “As I see it, humanity needs to reduce its impact on the Earth urgently and there are three ways to achieve this: we can stop consuming so many resources, we can change our technology and we can reduce the growth of our population.” ‘"All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder - and ultimately impossible - to solve with ever more people." ‘In the long run, population growth has to come to an end." ‘We now know the disasters that continue to inflict the natural world have one element that connects them all… The unprecedented increase in the number of humans beings on the planet.’, ‘It needs actions by governments. In my view, all countries should develop a population policy’, ‘I have no doubt that the fundamental source of all our problems, particularly our environmental problems, is population growth. I can’t think of a single problem that would be easier to solve if there were less people.’ ‘....stabalise the human population as low as we fairly can’ [In a documentary where images of people of colour flashed across the screen] "We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so,” warns David Attenborough in an interview in the new issue of Radio Times magazine. “It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde,” “We keep putting on programmes about famine in Ethiopia; that’s what’s happening. Too many people there. They can’t support themselves – and it’s not an inhuman thing to say. It’s the case. Until humanity manages to sort itself out and get a co-ordinated view about the planet it’s going to get worse and worse.”
0
0
Discussions about the 'deep state' and other conspiracies.
In General Discussions
Discussions about the 'deep state' and other conspiracies.
In General Discussions
scottsentinel9
Mar 22, 2021
I generally like to always approach people with a reasonably clean slate. If I don't see evidence of them harming people or saying anything that's repugnant then I will be wary of disliking them just because the media has branded someone with a label. Most white supremacist's do not hide away from telling people what they believe. The hardcore white supremacist will probably have Adolf Hitler posters on the wall and nazi tattoos. A white supremacist is not someone who shared a coffee with someone who is a racist or liked a post on Facebook that a white supremacists posted that was about a different subject. If people are white supremacists because they have had interactions with a white supremacist or had an overlapping agreement about something - that person does not suddenly become a white supremacist - that is logically flawed reasoning and would mean you are a white supremacist if you have ever shared vodka with a racist thinking person in Ukraine or Kazakhstan . There's a tendency for the media to say that Trump supporters are white supremacists. That's ridiculous - that would mean about half of the voting population of the U.S are white supremacists. With that in mind, let's look at Jack Posobeic. You say, 'He's a white supremacist-leaning guy who crops up all over the place, and he's another of these professional culture war assholes who combines conspiracy stuff with party politics.' I didn't know who he was when you mentioned him before but I followed his posts on Twitter and over a 6 month period I didn't see one racist post. Why is that? He's a white supremacist right? I checked online and the media says that has 'connections to far-right groups and ideologies' and a few other claims. When asked if he's a white supremacist Jack Psobobeic says he isn't. I see evidence that he likes to stoke controversy and can be linked to various people but a white supremacist is a racist. I don't see clear evidence of that. Only written claims by media. I'm not saying he's a great guy - I don't know him but apart from opposing media slurs against him - I don't see evidence that he is being particularly racist. You got any hard, solid evidence to show why he is so dangerous? Dangerous would suggest he should be in prison. Should he? What's he done?
0
0
Discussions about the 'deep state' and other conspiracies.
In General Discussions
scottsentinel9
Mar 22, 2021
Let me make an observation here. It just seems to me that when you want to look at an idea that moves into the conspiracy area now, you want to break it down, analyse it, disassemble it, dilute it and inspect it e.g the deep state. When it comes to concepts such as 'far right', 'truther' and 'conspiracy theorist' you're happy to let that go and for anyone associated with or having views that touch upon it as being part of the overall blanket label - to become in intangible mass of people all part of the same thing and all deserving of that label without analysis and breaking down into splinter groups. The same with 'conspiracy theories' - you're taking a clear biased stance on 'conspiracies' and 'debunked conspiracies' without looking into them with an unbiased perspective. That's fine, as long as you are aware of it. The echo chamber echoes both ways. Why not think of the deep state in the same way? It's a wide group of people and organisations that have some fluidity and different levels. There are people and organisations that can be named and there are people and organisations that can't. Sure, someone could study who they are and write a book about who most people would think are part of them but going back to secrets - some of them will not be known. Let me turn it back at you - purely out of interest to get your take on it. Do you believe when a new president who was say an actor or celebrity before, walks into the job and is then allowed to start making decisions about who to go to war with or what new financial policies will be made? Do you think their new advisors are suddenly given that power? Do you also think that you'll be able to pick up a book and concisely read about how the government is really run including all the corruption, illegal influence and hidden advisors? I refer you back to Bill Hicks analogy. He's probably closer there to spelling out who the deep state are. Yes, I'm sure some of the agencies such as the CIA, FBI would be infiltrated by the deep state. I don't think it always means everyone in the whole agency. I think there are those that do the bidding of the deep state or come under its influence through blackmail and coercion too. That's where the child abuse network may come in that you mentioned before. That's coming to light even more these days with the Epstein case. I doubt whether we'll hear everything about it though. Some people would add another group to the 'deep state' and those are the career politicians like the Clintons, the Obamas, the Bushes who exert power even when they are not in positions of power. Sure, there is some artistic license with who the deep state is and there is an element for some that they are just the nefarious powers in the background. They are the ones pushing forward an agenda that is not good for the people. You can choose not to believe in them if you wish. I don't think you'll easily be able to get the names and addresses of the people right at the top if that's what you're looking for..
0
0
Any comments and suggestions on how to improve the show and get more viewers?
In General Discussions
Discussions about the 'deep state' and other conspiracies.
In General Discussions
scottsentinel9
Feb 26, 2021
'What I said was that, in my view, a lot of the the views expressed on Truth Sentinel help other people who are those things, that it worried me, and that it should worry you too.' You're over-estimating the reach of Truth Sentinel for one. When we hit a million viewers - there may be a debate to be had about your points - even then I'm not sure. As I keep saying, people will react how they want to react, they don't need help from me. Sticking with the nazi cheese topic. If I say 'I like cheese' and the nazis go 'Ah ha, this will help people to flock to our cheese parties so we can indoctrinate them and welcome them to our ranks' - I couldn't give a monkeys uncle. It worries you, I can see. It doesn't really worry me that much and I honestly don't think it's a massive issue. It's perfectly fine that you think it is but I'm not sure you should be telling people what they should worry about. I don't worry about a lot of things. I'm not a worrier. I am a free thinker and a free speaker. Sure, I don't set out to offend and I could make a show-reel of all the times I have given caveats when I've made a statement about something that could be misconstrued. I do that on a regular basis. But I'm not a caveat fetishist and I don't want to be. There is a limit. 'Maybe you should do more to make the distinction between what you're saying and what they're saying clearer to the listener".' Regarding being careful about what I say so as to make the distinction. I think this is an issue that is a particular thing you're concerned about which I actually don't think many other people are to be honest. It's become an issue with you and you are perfectly within your rights to be sensitive to it but you can't expect everyone else to. It could be that you're amplifying it when it's not an issue. Bring me hard evidence that the way I'm talking and the topics I'm talking about are inspiring anyone to be empowered in the way you're talking about. I've not seen any evidence. I think if I said something like 'There should at least be a criminal check at the border so dangerous criminals cannot go abroad and commit serious offenses' This could be construed by a bigot that I was on their side. I don't care - I'm not. I think you do care and that's fine, it's up to you. I would probably add a caveat to that statement if I made it but I'm not bound by the need to do it. PC gone mad is another one of your pet hates. That's fine but bear in mind a lot of people's pet hates are the opposite of yours. Where you see people over-reacting to something that happened, there are plenty of cases where it is 'PC gone mad'. For example, the security guard who got sacked for telling a kid not to say the n word. He was literally telling the kid not to say it and he got sacked for saying it! That is PC gone mad. There are enough of these similar cases to warrant discussing them sometimes. They are not the main theme of my show. You have an issue discussing them. Fine, that's your right. I have no problem with your views on that but you have to bear in mind that not everyone thinks the way you do. You may think that there are disadvantages and problems to the way I think and talk. There are disadvantages to thinking the way you do too e.g creating conflict where none existed in the first place. I think the reason why people are more wiling to talk about the PC gone mad/Woke situations is because they seem to be becoming more common. We see them in the media all the time. Are they deliberately being created to create friction? Quite possibly. In which case the people who are doing that need to be discovered and sought out. I would say you have a tolerance and bias towards thinking these PC gone mad situations are overhyped. That's fine, but not everyone feels that way. Some see it as quite nefarious and sometimes when you read a headline e.g The word 'mother' is being avoided in hospitals you might think 'This can't be true! It's being overhyped!' But then you check and there appears to be some truth to the story and people don't like this bullshit and want to discuss it. That's fine by me if the story is true. If it's later found out to be nonsense then I'll be the first to admit it and talk about that too. 'Please tell me if there are specific times when I'm saying something with a really unfortunate pedigree and I haven't realised it.' I just don't think this way. It's fine that you do. Feel free to point out things but those things will already have been said by me. People are always saying 'just be yourself'. I am being myself. I know what I believe and am thinking. I have great consideration for my fellow man, woman and everything else lest I exclude anyone. I understand what you're saying. You're concerned about the origins of things. I am too to an extent. But if I said something harmlessly and I wasn't aware of its origins I wouldn't beat myself up about it and I wouldn't apologise. The reason is not because I'm a callous, uncaring bastard. Its because I genuinely believe that intention is the most important factor when dealing with issues of offence or uttering something with a bad pedigree. Like the woman who got chastised for saying 'You cheeky monkeys' to a group of kids and there was one black kid.' Sorry, but that's not racism and she should not have to apologise. I hate the false/superficial racism that is being created these days. There are enough real racists out there without the need to turn innocent people into them. That is the real PC gone mad. 'I like this Scott. He's so measured and reasonable! Maybe I should soften my stance a little too ;-)' I believe I am measured and reasonable about matters that are important to me. Other people are measured and reasonable about matters that are important to them. Generally I've not experienced too many problems with people saying I'm offending them, being unreasonable etc. Of course, I am not saying that I'm beyond doing that. I'm sure I've upset people and if I come across someone that I upset and I agree that I was rude to them then I hope I would apologise. I do try and do that. Anyway, like I said before, judge people by their actions, not their words. Have you seen people recoiling from me in public as I bombard them with bigotted statements? No. That, at the very least is a good thing. I haven't seen people recoiling from you either so I wonder whether there is any issue that needs examining here at all. So, Anthony, I do see what you're saying. I don't necessarily agree with all of it to the extent that you do and with the emphasis that you do but there should be no surprise about that. Find me one person in the world who agrees entirely with another person about everything and I'll wager that one of them is a liar, or is madly in love with the other one, or maybe has a gun to their head. I have no problem with the way you think and the things that concern you. I think we can co-exist happily on the same planet without too many problems. We may have vastly different views on some things but we have plenty of similar views too so let's focus on them more maybe.
0
0
scottsentinel9
Admin
More actions