Disclaimer: the following article is for educational and entertainment purposes only and should not be taken as medical or legal advice. If in doubt, please consult your own brain!

Every year some of my older children organize a cowboy fun day for the local horse lovers, which they advertise with a poster that is passed around mainly by email. On the poster this year they included a note stating that people who have received the so called Covid-19 vaccine are not welcome and that face masks are not encouraged. It caused quite a few reactions, many of them sympathetic, encouraging and supportive, some of them angry and rude. It also drew the attention of a few of the local and national newspapers and radio/tv stations, keen on making a story out it and asking us for an interview or a statement.

One newspaper in particular that asked us for a statement couldn't wait for an answer and quickly published a "report" on the front page of their website, only to remove it again within a few hours. Luckily, I managed to capture the page before it disappeared down the memory hole. One particular comment from New Zealand's own expert, Siouxie Wiles, who identifies as a "microbiologist and bioluminescence enthusiast" (https://bit.ly/3rFp5mk) drew my attention. She said "it was really important to understand why people might have that view."

In what follows then I will do my best to explain why we, and it seems quite a few people like us, have come to hold the view that Wiles in the same article claimed made her "immensely sad."

When in early 2020 Covid-19 became the threat of the day and our governments and state sponsored media tried to convince us that there was a world wide pandemic of biblical proportions unfolding, their mantra to convince us that the sky is indeed falling was "follow the science." Today, a year and a half later, when I look around me, I see very little evidence of "the science" being taken seriously.

So, let's have a quick look at the official narrative, and see whether the town criers did indeed follow that science they touted as justifying their own conduct in response to the alleged pandemic.

What virus?​

We were told by the official narrators that there's a virus out there, called Sars-Cov-2, which is the cause of the symptoms attributed to a most deadly disease, dubbed Covid-19. But what does the science say?

In order to prove that a pathogen (viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites) causes a disease, scientists use what is known as Koch's postulates. These are four criteria to establish a relationship between the pathogen and the disease. To date, and to the best of my knowledge, these postulates have not been fulfilled with regards to Sars-Cov-2 by anyone, anywhere in the world. In other words, it has not been scientifically proven that there is a virus that causes the Covid-19 symptoms. There is much fanfare and scaremongering, many claims of proof, many "fact checkers" happy to "debunk" anything or anyone that dares to question or contradict the official narrative, a lot of hot air indeed, but no real substance. If anyone wishes to prove me wrong, I'd be very interested to have them forward me the scientific facts — not rhetoric — that prove that Koch's postulates have been fulfilled for Covid-19. One scientific peer reviewed paper would be a great start.

For more information on Koch's postulates, check out this video by Dr. Andrew Kaufman. (https://bit.ly/3f2SwK0)

What test?​

We were told by the official narrators that the so called PCR test can detect the Sars-Cov-2 virus and diagnose Covid-19, and based on this test they assured us that there is a dangerous and deadly pandemic in full swing out there. But what does the science say?

The inventor of the PCR test, a gentleman by the name of Dr. Kary Mullis, a scientist by the way, not a politician or a journalist, has told us that the PCR test "doesn't tell you that you are sick" and that "these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all." In other words, the PCR test is useless for detecting the presence of a pathogenic virus, like Sars-Cov-2, and therefore also useless for diagnosing a disease, like Covid-19. The manufacturers of the PCR test kits know this, as they usually have disclaimers stating that their PCR test kits are not suitable for diagnostic purposes and that they are non-specific, meaning, they can only detect genetic fragments which may be present in many other organisms as well, even dead ones, but they cannot be used to detect one specific organism. Many independent and credentialed scientists are on record as confirming and explaining the science behind the fact that the PCR test has been used, or rather abused, for something it was not designed to do.

In simple layman's terms, using the PCR test to detect Sars-Cov-2 is as scientific as saying that any organism that has two eyes is a human, or that every person that wears glasses is a psychopath and that therefore we have a pandemic of psychopaths on our hands. That's how solid the science behind using the PCR test for diagnosing Covid-19 truly is.

Moreover, not only is the PCR test completely useless to test for one specific organism, its results can easily be manipulated by stakeholders to throw false positives, simply by increasing the number of amplification cycles. Surely, nobody would do such a thing, right?

Could this perhaps be why already in late 2020 the courts in Portugal ruled that PCR tests are unreliable, referring to a scientific study that found that when running PCR tests with 35 cycles or more, the accuracy dropped to 3%, meaning up to 97% of positive results could be false positives? (https://bit.ly/37aP77q) I wonder whether these conspiracy nuts at that Portuguese court have been fact-checked yet?

Interestingly, just a few days ago the Center for Disease Control in the US quietly withdrew it's emergency use authorization for the PCR test, because it cannot distinguish between Covid and the flu. (https://bit.ly/3iRLZTz) I wonder, did they use science to authorize the PCR test for diagnostic purposes, or did they use science to withdraw that same authorization?

For more information about the PCR test, check out this video by Dr. Sam Bailey. (https://bit.ly/3laZsZc)

Who invented the snake oil?​

Right at the start of the alleged Covid-19 pandemic, we were told by the official narrators that millions of people will die from this highly contagious and deadly disease. Was it science that prompted them to make this alarming prediction, and has reality been able to fact-check or debunk their prediction yet? Let's find out.

The earliest suggestion of any form of "science" being the basis for New Zealand's decision to lock down for "a few weeks" in order to "flatten the curve," was an admission by our government that their decision was based on a computer model, designed by a certain Neil Ferguson at the Imperial College in London. (https://bit.ly/3y93x3P) And yet, one only has to take 2 minutes out of one's busy scientific agenda to do a simple background check on the genius behind the government's clairvoyance in order to discover that this is indeed the same Neil Ferguson who in 2002 predicted up to 150,000 deaths from "mad cow disease" — more than 55 times the actual death toll of 2,704 — while in 2005 he predicted that bird flu could kill up to 200 million people — it turned out the actual death toll was a mere 455! And yes, this is also the same Neil Ferguson who has since been disgraced for violating the same measures he managed to convince his government of were necessary for everybody else.

And to top it all off, this weird and wonderful computer model on the basis of which governments all over the world decided to implement their draconian and destructive lockdowns had, at the time it was passed off as science, never been reviewed by peers, which is a standard practice in any scientific research to sift the wheat from the chaff. Our government just took it all at face value and ran with it. Is that what they mean by "following the science"?

By the way, the same Imperial College that featured the genius that has been nick named "Professor Lockdown", is credited with producing another bright spark closer to home, i.e. New Zealand's very own spin doctor who has been trying very hard to keep the fear mongering cogs turning at full speed for us Kiwis. (https://bit.ly/3rFp5mk) Coincidence, no doubt.

Who died?​

But what about the millions of people that have died of Covid-19? Isn't that a fact?

No, that's what I would call a conspiracy theory. Why? Consider for a moment how our government (like most other governments) has been counting Covid-19 deaths. Anyone who dies and who within the last 28 days has been tested positive for Covid-19 (mind you, by a questionable PCR test) is considered to have died of Covid-19, regardless of any comorbidities and regardless of any other possibly lethal causes, like running under a bus for example. On the other hand, it is no secret that an alarmingly high number of people have already died of the so called Covid-19 "vaccine", many of them within the first three days after receiving the jab, and many of them very healthy people before their jab. And yet, these deaths are not counted as "vaccination deaths" but are brushed aside as merely a coincidence.

Am I the only one that smells a rather unscientific rat with double standards? You see, this is the kind of thing that makes any homo sapiens become a little bit suspicious that there is much more than science going on here.

And then we have all the reports of nurses, doctors and common people who had a patient, a friend or a family member die from a cause they knew very well to be anything but Covid-19, only to find out that their death was counted as a Covid-19 death. Sure, it is possible that all these people reporting the fraud that has been going on all over the world are conspiracy theorists or villains taking enjoyment in twisting or hiding the truth from everybody else. That's possible, but is this plausible? I would say that given the great number of medical professionals — some of them with impressive credentials and good reputations — turning whistleblowers at the expense of losing their job, their reputation and their livelihood, and all at the same time and for the very same reason, this idea that they are all villains sounds more like our government apparatchicks are peddling in a few crazy conspiracy theories themselves.

In short, given the double standards in counting deaths, given the many credible reports of the numbers being fraudulently inflated and given the complete uselessness of the PCR test in diagnosing Covid-19 in the first place, I very much doubt that the numbers the media has been pushing down our throat are anything but based on reality.

What perspective?​

But even if these numbers were correct, how about we put them in perspective? It has been estimated that worldwide, over 60 million people die each year. About 5.28 million die of heart disease, 3.72 million die of stroke, 1.92 million die of lower respiratory infections, 1.92 million die of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 1.02 million die of lung cancer, etc.. 840,000 die each year of diarrhea, including one child under five each and every minute! (https://bit.ly/3rCWIFn)

So how does that compare with the official Covid-19 numbers? According to the worldometer, at the time of this writing, nearly 4.2 million people are claimed to have died of Covid-19. Given that they started "counting" these deaths in February 2020, that works out to be about 3.36 million per year. Funny that, I could have sworn that 3.36 million deaths a year is less than 5.28 million deaths, and less than 3.72 million deaths. And yet, our government nannies never locked us down and took our freedoms away because of a pandemic of heart disease or stroke. Were those deaths not important enough? Did those lives not matter?

Add to this the fact that in some countries, like the UK for example, governments, to their most happy surprise, discovered that since early 2020 the flu has all but completely disappeared from the face of the earth. What happened? Did the little Sars-Cov-2 critters not like competition? Maybe they have cannibalistic tendencies and ate their confreres at the ordinary flu department?

Or, could it be perhaps that the Covid-19 death numbers we've been dished up are indeed tweaked a little, for whatever reason? Nah, that's impossible because our government would never lie to us, would they?

What's with the face masks?​

We are told by the official narrators that wearing a face mask will help us stop the spread of the alleged Covid-19 virus and keep us all safe and healthy. But what does the science say?

Before we delve into the science behind mask wearing, let's be daring and try to use something that people in the old normal used to call "common sense," and that unfortunately is not so common anymore in today's world of computer models and aparatchicks identifying as experts.

Look up the size of viruses and compare this with the size of the orifices in a face mask. Trying to stop a virus with a face mask is like trying to keep mosquitos out of your home by installing a chainlink fence around it. Do you think it'll work?

The highest medical authority in the US, a man who goes by the name of Dr. Fauci, is on record as being a medical weather vane in a tornado with regards to face masks. For the last year and a half, he has flip-flopped his advice regarding face masks almost on a daily basis. On Monday he assures us that face masks don't work. On Tuesday we need to wear a mask in public but not in private. On Wednesday we need to wear one in the shower, but not when having a bubble bath. On Thursday masks don't work anymore, but are still recommended for virtue signalling. On Friday we need to wear face masks when sitting down for a meal but not when standing at the bar. On Saturday we need to wear two masks, except when wearing pantaloons, then we need only one. And on Sunday we all need to wear three masks for better protection, but only two if we are wearing pink socks. I sure hope the virus can keep up with the growing list of absurdities. Do you think this is what science looks like?

And while we're on the topic of weather vanes trying to run your life, last week I saw a clip from across the ditch, where the official narrative touted by the government buffoons over there was that people were not allowed to have their friends over for dinner, but they could take these same friends out to have dinner in a restaurant. Sounds like science, doesn't it? And here in NZ we've had our own sages last year tell us that we can't go to the local grocery store even if we're the only customer in the whole store, but we can go to the supermarket where we are joined by hundreds of other customers who have nowhere else to do their grocery shopping. I sure hope the virus appreciates the science (and the economics!) behind it all, because I don't.

OK, enough uncommon common sense, let's look at the science now. Do scientists believe face masks work to stop the spread of viruses?

The short answer is no. There is a lot of scientific evidence supporting the fact that masks should not be worn, except perhaps in very limited and specific circumstances, like for example by a surgeon operating on a patient in theatre. Outside of these very limited circumstances, many scientific papers show clearly that masks are ineffective in preventing the movement of infective organisms and/or that they reduce oxygen levels and expose wearers to increased levels of carbon dioxide. In 2011, an analysis of 17 separate studies proved that none of the research showed masks to be useful in preventing influenza infection. The available medical evidence proves overwhelmingly that masks do no good in preventing the spread of infection but do a great deal of harm to those wearing them.

I cannot possibly delve here into the nitty gritty details of all the studies that have been done on the use and effectiveness of face masks, but I do know where to find the information, and I am convinced that the information is credible and worthy of us at least having that debate, in public, without being labelled a conspiracy theorist. So far I've seen no honest debate, only statements, senseless mandates, press releases and cheap shots in the local rag.

For a whole list of facts and references on face masks, among other issues, I highly recommend Dr. Vernon Coleman's website (vernoncoleman.org) as well as Del Bigree's website (thehighwire.com). Once on their site, just do a search for "face mask" and follow the trail. Alternatively, if you can't be bothered educating yourself, just do what most of the other lemmings in the team of 5 million do, i.e. look the other way and pretend you're well educated because you just read the local rag from cover to back including today's horoscope.

What vaccine?​

We are told by the official narrators that the Covid-19 vaccines they are trying to mandate to every living human being on the planet are proven to be safe and effective. But what does the science say?

This is where the rubber meets the road. Some of the more clear sighted people among us have been saying right from the start of this alleged "pandemic" in early 2020 that this whole hullabaloo is all about sticking a needle in everybody's arm. In case anyone is tempted to bring out the misinformation or conspiracy card again, have a listen to what Dr. Peter McCulough has to say about the hidden agenda behind "the vaccine." (https://bit.ly/3i9ycbV) Did you check this man's credentials and history? No doubt, the fact-checkers will be putting in overtime to try and destroy this man's reputation, as they have been doing with so many other people questioning or contradicting the official narrative.

At this point I believe it is important to have a good hard look at the fact checkers, to see what kind of wood they are made of and to fact check their fact checking abilities. The following story may shed some much needed light on this issue.

Voices For Freedom, founded by "three passionate Kiwi mums intent on making sure our beautiful country remains a safe and free place for our families and friends", recently published a flyer with 8 vaccine facts. (voicesforfreedom.co.nz/vaccine-facts-flyer/) It was quickly fact checked and debunked by New Zealand's own "leading vaccinologist Associate Professor Helen Petousis-Harris," who in turn was given some of her own medicine and whose report was fact checked by Amanda Vickers. Anyone wishing to educate themselves on the issue of Covid-19 vaccination, as well as the credibility of our nannies' fact-checkers, would do well to read all three parts mentioned above, i.e. the original flyer (https://bit.ly/3x8eYaD), the fact checker's report (https://bit.ly/3BJaYku), and the fact checker's fact checker's report (https://bit.ly/3BMpxE9).

So what can we learn from this? Which fact checkers shall we trust? The fact checkers that get their pay cheque from the ones that have a vested interest to keep the official narrative going as long as possible, or the independent fact checkers that more often than not are ridiculed, slandered, censored, threatened, marginalised or punished in one way or another? Sorry, I don't need a doctorate in psychology and social sciences to figure that one out.

Here's another beautiful example, this time by Dr. Sam Bailey, one of a group of about 43 NZ doctors, 227 NZ nurses, 6 NZ pharmacists, 17 NZ dentists, 457 NZ Allied Health Practitioners, 186 NZ scientists and academics, and a whole lot of ordinary NZ citizens. These brave New Zealand patriots have dared to stick out their head by questioning and contradicting the powers that should not be, and have called their Organisation "New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science" (nzdsos.com). Rather than me regurgitate the facts mentioned in this video, have a listen for yourself. I assure you, you won't regret spending a few minutes of your most valuable time on this one. (https://bit.ly/3rDsbXU)

Given the above mentioned inventory of one such organisation in New Zealand, do you think the politburo's claim that their critics are nothing but a handful of weird wackos is an accurate and scientific assessment of reality? Sorry, I tend to disagree once more.

Here is another great video that was forwarded to me recently and that explains some of the issues we need to be aware of in order to give or withhold our informed consent. (https://bit.ly/2WydYAb)

Bottom line for me is this, there is a great deal of information out there that suggests these "vaccines" are not safe — unless of course you believe that thousands of reported deaths and hundreds of thousands of reported adverse reactions is an acceptable level of collateral damage — and they are not effective by our government's own admission, i.e. these experimental jabs do not stop you from getting the virus, they do not stop you from passing on the virus, and they do not stop you from getting the symptoms of the disease. All they may possibly do is lessen the symptoms an unspecified amount.

Can someone remind me why I would want to inject myself with an experimental substance that does not stop me from getting, transmitting or suffering the symptoms of a disease that has a 0.04% Infection Fatality Rate, on a par with the flu, and that has been shown to cause more harm than it is supposed to prevent? What happened to that beautiful Hippocratic oath doctors have to take, and the principle "first do no harm"? Is that just for the show? Or has that been cancelled too now? Is that racist maybe?

What else?​

And there is so much more that I didn't mention yet, like for example the immense harm that lockdowns have caused all over the world and that even some of the more honest (or clumsy) governments are starting to admit. The suicides, the loss of livelihoods, the tanking economy, the cancelled treatments for other diseases, the effect on our children, the looming hyperinflation caused by senseless government policies, the scandalous suppression of affordable and effective treatments for Covid-19, Dr. Fauci's gain of function research in Wuhan, etc. I will leave this as food for thought, and possibly a follow up article.

Which debate?​

I have absolutely no doubt that the fact checkers and spin doctors will quickly descend on the information I have presented above and be able to craftily "debunk" and dismiss it all as misinformation in record time. They'll probably also have a go at trying to destroy my own reputation. They have to do this, it's in their nature. As in the story of the scorpion crossing the river on the frog's back, they simply can't help themselves, they must at all costs keep the official narrative going, it's their bread and butter and their own health and well being depends on it.

To everyone else however, I would like to say this: "search and you will find", "knock and the door will be opened."

And to those people on the other side of the fence who do manage to muster enough integrity to face their critics, who find the courage to look at the real facts, who do care about defending the truth, who do care about educating people, who do care about the health and well being of others, to those people I would suggest the following. If you have the truth, there is only one way you are going to be able to convince those of us that disagree with you:

Have an open and public debate between experts on both sides.

I can understand that if the alleged conspiracy theorists refused to have an open and public debate, that the official narrators would be able to say "see, they're scared of the truth," and rightly so. But as it turns out, it is the critics that would like to debate these issues in public but have been refused this courtesy. Why? Why is our government and media so terrified of giving their critics an honest chance to defend themselves? Why the dogmatic and totalitarian attitude? For our own good? Sure! It really makes me wonder why these experts are so terrified of simple people asking good questions, and especially of the growing number of medical professionals that disagree with the official dogmas!

Sure, cheap shots in the media will be able to fool some people, but I see signs that the number of fools is smaller than I initially thought. I believe there are a lot of people out there who are starting to wake up, who can see that we have a problem that runs a little deeper and differently than what we are led to believe. But many of these people are scared of losing their family and friends, their reputation and their livelihood if they make too much noise. To these people I would suggest a quote from someone who can speak from experience:

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if... We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

The greater picture​

After all that I think it is necessary to step back from the battle field and ponder why it is that our society has become so polarised, so full of snowflakes and snitches, with totalitarian governments seemingly eager to destroy the livelihoods of millions of people and happily taking away their freedoms, and what is worse, a great number of people happily swallowing the lies hook, line and sinker and going along with it all without giving as much as a peep. How could this happen? Aren't we supposed to be the smarter generation with all our easy access to information, and with all these wonderful technological achievements under our belt?

I believe the answer is rather simple. Like it or not, but our western societies were built on Christian principles, and became great because people knew and believed that there is a God out there, a God of Truth, a God Who created us, Who Loves us and Whose commandments ought to be respected and obeyed in order to receive His blessings, and Whose wrath would await us if we disobey His laws.

Today however, a great many people have not only pushed God out of their personal lives, they are also hell bent on pushing God out of our society. And when the God of truth is pushed out of our lives and out of our societies, it creates a vacuum that is immediately filled up by the father of lies.

Note also that there simply is no middle ground, no option to hide and let others do the fighting for us. We all have to choose sides, and those who think they don't have to choose have already chosen. As Our Lord said, "whoever is not for me is against me."

The only effective long term solution then to fix the problem, is for a sufficient number of people to turn back to God, to fight for the rights of God instead of the rights of man, and to respect and obey God's laws, even if it means going against man's laws.


Next, I would like to answer a few of the objections we have come across so far.

"We are not specialists and most of the people you have quoted in links are definitely not specialist epidemiologist or virology experts. They have all been discredited.."

It is very easy to discredit all your critics with a wide brush like this. Many of them have been slandered, yes, but that is not the same as discredited. And gratuitously claiming that most of them are not experts is simply disingenuous. Many of those scientists that today are supposed to have been "discredited" by online warriors, were well respected and recognized by their peers as experts, until they stopped following the official script. I consider the claim that they all lost the plot at the same time as a rather silly conspiracy theory.

"One of the most dangerous ideas that has come about in the last 3 years is that all points of view are equally valid, and that Average Citizen (YOU) are just as equipped to judge which has merit as anyone else... Genuinely smart people look for answers from people who are smarter than themselves. Only ignorant people believe their guess is as good as anyone else's."

The original quote was a lot longer, but I think the gist of this argument can be summarised as follows: we are not equipped to judge, therefore we should trust those who are presumed to be better equipped than us.

You have simply shifted the goalpost from making a judgement on the basis of microbiology and immunology to making a judgement on the basis of psychology, politics and social sciences. In other words, instead of judging which scientists speak the truth and deserve our trust and which ones don't, you have judged which politicians and journalists speaks the truth and deserve our trust and which ones don't. To put it more bluntly still, you have simply decided to outsource your thinking and discrediting to politicians and media pundits instead of outsourcing it to medical professionals. It doesn't take all that much critical thinking to discern which of the two is the safer option.

"..and most don't work anymore. They make their money by convincing people through fear that they are telling the truth."

Apart from noticing that this is yet another easy and gratuitous accusation aimed at shooting the messenger, I find it sad that I have to point this out to you: do you not realize that fear mongering has been the driving force behind this whole Covid campaign? Does the name Neil Ferguson ring a bell? Please, if you would like to talk about fear mongering, a good place to start would be to have a long and hard look at the official narrative first. Take fear out of the equation and Covid will be reduced to the level of an ordinary flu faster than you can sneeze!

"Critical thinking and cognitive reasoning are very important. The fact is there is absolutely no Covid19 in the community in Whanganui or NZ and the Covid19 vaccine is not a live vaccine it is an RNA."

I am pleased to see that you recognize the value of critical thinking and cognitive reasoning, and that you even have a go at it yourself, but I am sorry to break the news to you, parroting what you hear on the radio and read in the local rag does not really qualify as critical thinking and cognitive reasoning. Have you ever heard the saying "garbage in, garbage out?"

If you want to have a go at critical thinking and cognitive reasoning, you better make sure that you get the facts you intend to use as your input from a reputable source. Otherwise you can be guaranteed that your output will be of same quality as the input. And no, the babble box or the local rag are not considered a reputable source of quality input suitable for any form or shape of thinking process, and neither is the Ministry of Truth.

Your statement that "there is absolutely no Covid19 in the community in Whanganui or NZ" rests on some assumptions that all need to be verified and/or proven before your conclusion can be considered reasonable, let alone factual. Here's a few of these assumptions to get you started: "we have proven that Covid-19 is a new disease and not the ordinary flu with a new label and a slick marketing campaign, we have proven that it is caused by a virus and not by some other causative agent (have you heard of terrain theory?), we have a test that can detect this virus, we have proven that this test is accurate and reliable, we have tested everyone in NZ, the tests were all done correctly, the results were accurately and honestly recorded and the results have been accurately and honestly accumulated, each and every person that passed on these test results is honest and reliable, including politicians and the media.." I think this would be a good place to stop, as not many people with critical thinking abilities will dare to go past that last assumption with a straight face. So, have you satisfied your cognitive reasoning machine that all these assumptions are correct? If so, you must be a very lonely person up there at the top of humanity!

On a practical note​

And lastly, a few words about the feedback we've already received at this point, since I am starting to see some interesting patterns.

About 70-80% of the feedback was positive, respectful and in support of our position. Some of these people added their own arguments for agreeing with us and gave clear indication that they had done their own research. I found that very encouraging.

The other 20-30% of feedback was from people most of whom did not bring up any arguments at all, not even regurgitated arguments from the official script writers. They just felt compelled to spew their hatred, often using profane language and often in rather poor English. I found this encouraging as well, seeing that we find ourselves on the opposite side of the fence.

The few that did bring up good arguments, well done! An open and honest debate is what we need to counter the polarisation in society and bring some sanity into this crazy world. But please, don't stop with a few quick shots and then run. Keep going forward!

The 'official' response was a little more refined, but the lack of objective arguments and the political agenda and tactics behind it all rather obvious. Before the ink had time to dry, we were told that we are no longer allowed to use the local sports grounds for the planned event. We are confident though that we will find another venue before too long, hopefully and probably on private land. We've had one possibility offered to us already, but in order to avoid the owner being bullied or pressured into boycotting us, we decided to make the announcement of the venue just before the event.

In reply to the media pundits asking us how we are planning to police this, I would suggest you look up in a dictionary the meaning of the words 'welcome' and 'encouraged.' Policing is something typical for authoritarian governments and their lackeys. We prefer to be a little bit more democratic and leave room for people to disagree with us.. at a distance.


  • Like
Reactions: Elisa and Ginny D