I would like to invite you to be included in a table of responses to 24 yes/no covid and great reset related questions. If you take one minute per question, that would be 24 minutes, but I bet you could do it in 5.
Your row in the table can be filled out by entering a comment using the following template with answers of <yes/ yes (see comments) / no / no (see comments) / ?> where any comments can be in the comments section, then I will put your answers in the table.
These questions follow the Open World Assumption:
"The Open World Assumption (OWA) is the assumption that what is not known to be true or false might be true, or absence of information is interpreted as unknown information, not as negative information"
So an assertion of one thing in the list does not negate the assertion of another thing. People will have different interpretations of different things.
1-3 - I neither "support" nor "don't support" Trump, I believe he is an unprincipled liar.
I find it is futile to exert my mind or emotions on figuring out the moves of an unprincipled liar. He will do whatever he is paid to do at that point in time as someone offers a better deal. So "support/non-support" is an exercise of guessing who is paying him for what when.
4-8 yes
9 - no
10- yes
11 - no
12 - no, but some chemical weapons were probably used, at least in some places
13- I don't care, it's a matter of personal beliefs
14 - no
15 - 16 - A "theory" is never "correct". It's a hypothesis that requires continuous investigation. I can say correct/incorrect about some specific claim/experiment. By the way, we are in the fking mess that we are because a group of people decided that some scientific theories were "correct" and therefore "settled".
17-18 I don't know what G3P means. My opinion on Putin is the same as my opinion on Trump.
19 - 22 no
23 - technically, yes, but nobody who talks about Malthus today actually read Malthus. I suggest that you read his essay on population. He did not say anything about overpopulation, nor projected an overpopulation of the Earth.
Although we can always talk about quality of a given theory judging from its practical applications and assign the risky colloquial "right" label for convenience (I would certainly do it for globe vs. flat) - just not to sound too pedantic.
13 is weird. Yes, one can believe that viruses exist or do not, but the question was for you, Sasha. What do YOU believe? "Don't care" reads like you have not formed a tentative position (hypothesis) on this one, and don't feel in any rush to do so. Would that be a fair assessment of your answer? By the way, at the time of writing this, the table has you at "no" on this question.
Consequently, if you don't have a position on the viruses (and hence their abilities), how can you say unequivocally that they don't cause diseases (14)? There seems to be a direct logical contradiction in between 13 and 14, unless Tommy logged you with 13 - "no" properly.
13 - I believe in God the Creator. Everyone else pays cash. I don’t need a “tentative hypothesis” on a matter of belief. This stupid debate is as stupid and pointless as medieval debates about how many angels dance on an needle. It is irrelevant to me whether unicorns exist. It’s not a testable hypothesis. Nobody can prove they don’t. But if you claim a unicorn is sitting next to you in a room, that can be investigated and tested. if you claim you can make a synthetic nano-unicorn, such claim can be investigated and tested.
Why would existence of a certain structure with defined qualities be not a testable hypothesis? Care or not, you can certainly have a position on existence of unicorns. But unlike with unicorns, viruses hypothesis has direct connection with the work you do, so not caring about this subject sounds disingenuous.
#13 was not a question about your theological inclinations, Sasha. Not sure why you brought up God, unless Bible talks about viruses, and I missed it.
The answer to #13 - it is a matter of belief, thanks. It is a claim of existence of something that has never been observed directly in nature, just like a unicorn, Santa Claus or a Tooth Fairy. I realize that there are adult people who believe that invisible, never directly observed things exist. I also realize it is impossible to prove they don't exist. So the belief in existence of viruses squarely meets the definition of a personal belief. And so I respect it as such, but don't care one way or the other myself. Thus, I am not triggered by people professing existence of viruses or not. If you disagree, it's your problem, not mine. You seem to be triggered by this.
OWA, Open World Assumption, means that you are only asserting something and not negating anything else.
Its an 'open world' in that no choice or combination of choices is limited.
So for example the 'yes (see comments)' really means 'yes, but' with any explanation that you want in the comments, and a 'yes' requires no explanation at all if you think something is obvious, even if it isn't obvious to other people.
I don't want people to have to get a lawyer to answer the questions, or to read the table to get a clue about a few of the thousands of substack authors.
OWA or a statement of belief, I think, those are the same things. You assert or believe something to be true (or not) with a certain degree of confidence. That's probably what you are asking about re: viruses etc., Tommy?
It would be quite surprising to hear if Sasha did not care about the question of virus existence, unless in her opinion the term virus is not well defined to even warrant a position on its qualifier.
The point of the table of questions about 'wedge issues' is this: to sort people. To sort the readers? No, to sort the *responders*, to distinguish them one from another, not to show this one is wrong and that one is right.
The point is really to find areas of agreement, not difference, and sometimes looking at the row of answers where there is strong disagreement in some columns shows unexpected agreement in *other* columns.
And another point of it is to get people to consider things like the G3P and look it up if they don't know.
'Yes' could mean 'Yes, sometimes' and 'No' could mean 'No, sometimes, and that doesn't have to be spelled out. That's the essence of OWA.
Its not a statement of belief, or it could be.
You could say 'Yes', because its true for 10 minutes at midnight on Mondays, but false every other time. The respondent, the one asserting it, will have one interpretation, and the readers may have different ones.
Hopefully Pfizer is next. I’m sick of Pfizer commercials preying on the fearful. It’s like advertising Concentration Camps during WW2 as a weekend getaway.
I just published my list of Substack’s “Top 137 Covid Contrarians and Freedom Writers.” Some Substack readers might be interested in this information, which might be a good resource for those on “our side.” FWIW, this vital newsletter (of course) made the list.
This is a little longer than my usual comments, you'll see why
We think we know who/what the liar is, and sometimes he/she is merely telling a "white lie".
Since I'm a Gospel preacher, my mind automatically goes to what Scripture has to say about a subject... lying for example.
It's not quite as simple as "Don't bear false witness". That's too easily overlooked.
At the end of the day (end of time, really), look at the company into which liars are placed.
Rev 21:8 "But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
Nice categorical company, no?
A few verses later regarding entering "Heaven"... Rev 21:27 "But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie."
And then just a few verses later... Rev 22:14 "Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.
Rev 22:15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie."
Good one! I liked this one: "If you’re concerned that you’re wasting money on health insurance because you rarely see the doctor, our vaccines will help with that. Medical records show that vaccinated individuals spend more time with their physicians, allowing them to meet their deductible twice as quickly as their unvaccinated counterparts."
Dong GOD's work of keeping humanity informed about the evil being perpetrated on humanity by a company we thought was working to heal and protect is clearly shown to be evil for what it is by the work of this Beautiful and Highly Intelligent WOMAN. Thank you for your hard work and your dedication in presenting this critical information
Poor Moderna. I wish I could give them a booster.
Hi Sasha,
I would like to invite you to be included in a table of responses to 24 yes/no covid and great reset related questions. If you take one minute per question, that would be 24 minutes, but I bet you could do it in 5.
https://tomg2021.substack.com/p/more-opinions-on-wedge-issues
Your row in the table can be filled out by entering a comment using the following template with answers of <yes/ yes (see comments) / no / no (see comments) / ?> where any comments can be in the comments section, then I will put your answers in the table.
These questions follow the Open World Assumption:
"The Open World Assumption (OWA) is the assumption that what is not known to be true or false might be true, or absence of information is interpreted as unknown information, not as negative information"
So an assertion of one thing in the list does not negate the assertion of another thing. People will have different interpretations of different things.
The questions:
1) Supports Trump
2) Trump assassination attempt faked
3) Trump is a Technocrat
4) mRNA is a bioweapon
5)All vaccines are bioweapons
6) Vaccines were always bioweapons
7) Covid was just poisoning
8) Covid was a military operation
9) Covid was dangerous
10) Covid response was dangerous
11) Covid was a pandemic
12) Covid was a bioweapon
13) Viruses exist
14) Viruses cause disease
15) Terrain theory is correct
16) Germ theory is correct
17) G3P is in charge
18) G3P runs Putin too
19) Global warming caused by humans
20) Supports Ukraine war
21) 5G is for depopulation
22) Chemtrails are for depopulation
23) Malthus was correct
24) The Earth is overpopulated
Thanks if you participate!! 🙏🙏🙏
1-3 - I neither "support" nor "don't support" Trump, I believe he is an unprincipled liar.
I find it is futile to exert my mind or emotions on figuring out the moves of an unprincipled liar. He will do whatever he is paid to do at that point in time as someone offers a better deal. So "support/non-support" is an exercise of guessing who is paying him for what when.
4-8 yes
9 - no
10- yes
11 - no
12 - no, but some chemical weapons were probably used, at least in some places
13- I don't care, it's a matter of personal beliefs
14 - no
15 - 16 - A "theory" is never "correct". It's a hypothesis that requires continuous investigation. I can say correct/incorrect about some specific claim/experiment. By the way, we are in the fking mess that we are because a group of people decided that some scientific theories were "correct" and therefore "settled".
17-18 I don't know what G3P means. My opinion on Putin is the same as my opinion on Trump.
19 - 22 no
23 - technically, yes, but nobody who talks about Malthus today actually read Malthus. I suggest that you read his essay on population. He did not say anything about overpopulation, nor projected an overpopulation of the Earth.
24 - no, not even close.
Thank you Sasha!!🙏🙏🙏
> 24) The Earth is overpopulated
>> 24 - no, not even close.
...with billionaires?
Applaud you for 15 -16, Sasha!
Although we can always talk about quality of a given theory judging from its practical applications and assign the risky colloquial "right" label for convenience (I would certainly do it for globe vs. flat) - just not to sound too pedantic.
13 is weird. Yes, one can believe that viruses exist or do not, but the question was for you, Sasha. What do YOU believe? "Don't care" reads like you have not formed a tentative position (hypothesis) on this one, and don't feel in any rush to do so. Would that be a fair assessment of your answer? By the way, at the time of writing this, the table has you at "no" on this question.
Consequently, if you don't have a position on the viruses (and hence their abilities), how can you say unequivocally that they don't cause diseases (14)? There seems to be a direct logical contradiction in between 13 and 14, unless Tommy logged you with 13 - "no" properly.
13 - I believe in God the Creator. Everyone else pays cash. I don’t need a “tentative hypothesis” on a matter of belief. This stupid debate is as stupid and pointless as medieval debates about how many angels dance on an needle. It is irrelevant to me whether unicorns exist. It’s not a testable hypothesis. Nobody can prove they don’t. But if you claim a unicorn is sitting next to you in a room, that can be investigated and tested. if you claim you can make a synthetic nano-unicorn, such claim can be investigated and tested.
Why would existence of a certain structure with defined qualities be not a testable hypothesis? Care or not, you can certainly have a position on existence of unicorns. But unlike with unicorns, viruses hypothesis has direct connection with the work you do, so not caring about this subject sounds disingenuous.
#13 was not a question about your theological inclinations, Sasha. Not sure why you brought up God, unless Bible talks about viruses, and I missed it.
The answer to #13 - it is a matter of belief, thanks. It is a claim of existence of something that has never been observed directly in nature, just like a unicorn, Santa Claus or a Tooth Fairy. I realize that there are adult people who believe that invisible, never directly observed things exist. I also realize it is impossible to prove they don't exist. So the belief in existence of viruses squarely meets the definition of a personal belief. And so I respect it as such, but don't care one way or the other myself. Thus, I am not triggered by people professing existence of viruses or not. If you disagree, it's your problem, not mine. You seem to be triggered by this.
OWA, Open World Assumption, means that you are only asserting something and not negating anything else.
Its an 'open world' in that no choice or combination of choices is limited.
So for example the 'yes (see comments)' really means 'yes, but' with any explanation that you want in the comments, and a 'yes' requires no explanation at all if you think something is obvious, even if it isn't obvious to other people.
I don't want people to have to get a lawyer to answer the questions, or to read the table to get a clue about a few of the thousands of substack authors.
Its not a party line or a struggle session.
OWA or a statement of belief, I think, those are the same things. You assert or believe something to be true (or not) with a certain degree of confidence. That's probably what you are asking about re: viruses etc., Tommy?
It would be quite surprising to hear if Sasha did not care about the question of virus existence, unless in her opinion the term virus is not well defined to even warrant a position on its qualifier.
And what's G3P anyway?
The point of the table of questions about 'wedge issues' is this: to sort people. To sort the readers? No, to sort the *responders*, to distinguish them one from another, not to show this one is wrong and that one is right.
The point is really to find areas of agreement, not difference, and sometimes looking at the row of answers where there is strong disagreement in some columns shows unexpected agreement in *other* columns.
And another point of it is to get people to consider things like the G3P and look it up if they don't know.
'Yes' could mean 'Yes, sometimes' and 'No' could mean 'No, sometimes, and that doesn't have to be spelled out. That's the essence of OWA.
Its not a statement of belief, or it could be.
You could say 'Yes', because its true for 10 minutes at midnight on Mondays, but false every other time. The respondent, the one asserting it, will have one interpretation, and the readers may have different ones.
Spam.
This company should not even exist.
Racketeering ain't what it used to be.
Oh for the good ol' days of $8/share skyrocketing to $454/share based on propaganda, government coercion and contracts.
Does mRNA fix wildfires?
I heard it fixes everything
Hopefully Pfizer is next. I’m sick of Pfizer commercials preying on the fearful. It’s like advertising Concentration Camps during WW2 as a weekend getaway.
Hopefully all the pharma employees that are fired can use it as an opportunity to change their lives for the better, so it's not a total waste.
The whole western world is a giant GRIFT extraction machine with no socially redeeming values LED by the capitol of the Griftopia, the US of A.
Let them crash...one Moderna shot almost killed my mother!
Love the Monet type watercolor.
Moderna may disappear and their investors will cry( boo boo) then the DOD will create a new entity for their clandestine purposes.
Stay safe
Mic
I just published my list of Substack’s “Top 137 Covid Contrarians and Freedom Writers.” Some Substack readers might be interested in this information, which might be a good resource for those on “our side.” FWIW, this vital newsletter (of course) made the list.
https://billricejr.substack.com/p/the-top-100-covid-contrarianfreedom
What we fail to realize about liars...
This is a little longer than my usual comments, you'll see why
We think we know who/what the liar is, and sometimes he/she is merely telling a "white lie".
Since I'm a Gospel preacher, my mind automatically goes to what Scripture has to say about a subject... lying for example.
It's not quite as simple as "Don't bear false witness". That's too easily overlooked.
At the end of the day (end of time, really), look at the company into which liars are placed.
Rev 21:8 "But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
Nice categorical company, no?
A few verses later regarding entering "Heaven"... Rev 21:27 "But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie."
And then just a few verses later... Rev 22:14 "Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.
Rev 22:15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie."
Liars won't do so well at the end of the day...
Loving your art work, Sasha, every time!
Well, there are still plenty of reasons left to get your booster:
https://www.newworldhumor.com/p/7e18da16-44c1-4978-b5af-c1506b77d312
Good one! I liked this one: "If you’re concerned that you’re wasting money on health insurance because you rarely see the doctor, our vaccines will help with that. Medical records show that vaccinated individuals spend more time with their physicians, allowing them to meet their deductible twice as quickly as their unvaccinated counterparts."
Thanks!
Why do people not see the religious fervor of vaccines which are essentially a stupid science experiment that got an award and became the paradigm.
Injecting anything foreign into your body is like stabbing yourself with a dirty nail.
But yeah, let's not worry about it.
My body, my choice. No more bullshit for me and those I love.
If people wanted to hurt themselves to "save" themselves, it's been done many times before.
Sasha, indeed good news! I normally wouldn't cheer for the financial losses of
a person or a struggling company, but in this case, may all these pharmaceutical
giants that have perpetrated and are perpetrating so much murder and harm on
the general population finds themselves destitute and on the streets!
I believe the "bird flu" scam now being perpetrated on us won't take wing at all,
and people will realize that the fear-mongering isn't all it's quacked up to be.
Thanks for all your diligent research and commentary, I look forward to reading
them all. Keep up the good work.
Blocking government support for these sham companies will prove to be one of RFK, Jr's greatest challenges.
Dong GOD's work of keeping humanity informed about the evil being perpetrated on humanity by a company we thought was working to heal and protect is clearly shown to be evil for what it is by the work of this Beautiful and Highly Intelligent WOMAN. Thank you for your hard work and your dedication in presenting this critical information