The dichotomy in society is more intense, more universal, grander and more organized than ever.
The phrase divide and rule – in Latin divide et impera – comes from ancient Greek times. The ruling is attributed to Philip II of Macedon (382-336 BC), known as the father of Alexander the Great. He used divide and rule as a political strategy to maintain power. He did this by playing Greek city-states, or poleis, against each other. This in a tactical way. Certain territories, regions or competitors are given more rights in divide and rule than other territories or persons. As a result, no friendship or alliance developed between those parties and the third group, the ruling party, could sit back and relax.
Of course it was always there. Left against right, this football club against that football club, one country against another. But for the most part, those were fairly harmless contradictions.
But you see it now more than ever in our society and what we see happening now is of a different order.
Whether or not financially supported, we see politicians, journalists, influencers and simply nitwits, whether or not known from radio or TV, stand up from every corner and announce with great fanfare that the unsprayed are antisocial and that the vaccine obligation should simply come or that they should otherwise be excluded from participation in society.
Apparently they are already using force in Australia, using army and police, to force people into vaccines.
There is never any scientific backing. Not even numbers. At least not a correct and complete or correctly interpreted numerical substantiation.
The growth in the number of positive PCR tests, which they call 'infected patients'.
It doesn't get much further with the arguments and their substantiation.
I was listening to an excerpt from an English radio show where a listener on the phone wanted to explain why he didn't want to get vaccinated. He wanted to bring up the research he had done and present his arguments, but the two presenters were not interested in what reasons or arguments the caller had to substantiate his vaccination refusal and got beyond a bunch of empty shouting from the presenters. it doesn't.
And so it is with almost everyone. The vaccers actually have nothing substantive to say and only bleat the narrative about 'we do it together' or 'you do it for the other' or 'if you don't participate you are an egoist' and more of that kind of meaningless nonsense.
Here on CommonsenseTV a lot has been written and published about the so-called 'vaccines'. Almost all of them are substantiated by scientific studies, correct interpretation of figures and/or opinions of immunologists and microbiologists with an extensive track record. No one has ever actually been able to substantiate that anything from the CSTV publications is not true or incorrect.
Some more examples:
The words of (former) VVD member Arend Jan Boekestein, a self-exalted know-it-all, on twitter:
The antivaxers want to have the cake and eat it. They invoke the right to integrity of the body and at the same time reject social dichotomy. They will have to make a choice: vaccinate or live with limitations.
I don't need the cake bouquet. Stick 85 syringes in your body for all I care but leave me alone.
Living with you in our environment is already enough limitation and quite a task for people who do have some brain capacity.
Journalist Wouke van Scherrenburg was allowed to have her say in a well-known women's magazine. “If politics can't regulate vaccinations, then society should do it”, is her opinion.
In other words, exclusion of the people who can think. Can't we set up a quarantine facility for these mindless creatures?
Ronald Pierik of the health council and member omt was allowed to explain extensively on state television why there should be a vaccination obligation.
I could easily find a whole list of meaningless chatter about vaccination obligation or exclusion. And then you also have to consider that the Netherlands is far behind many other countries (Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand, France, Italy, Germany and many more) with these Nazi/mixed ideas and practices.
But I have a really good idea to get both camps back together:
The unvaccinated sign a contract that they will not (or only if there is enough space) receive treatment in hospital if they contract serious Covid-19.
And the vaccinated also sign up for that! They are not at risk, but they also sign that they are not, never, never treated for the harmful effects of the vaccines.
Can we agree on that? That's reasonable isn't it?
Oh no, I forgot for a moment that all reasonableness is gone with the vaccine sheep….
I repeat the words of Jacques Attali once more:
“The future is about finding a way to reduce the population. Of course, we can't do that by executing people or putting people in camps. We can get rid of them by making them believe it's for their own good. We will find or create something, a pandemic that attacks people, a real or no real economic crisis, a virus that affects the elderly, it doesn't matter, the weak and the afraid will succumb to it. The fools will believe it and will ask to be treated. We will make sure that we have the treatment ready, a treatment that is the solution. The selection of idiots comes naturally. They automatically go to the slaughterhouse.”
I copied this document from the vaccinvrij.nl foundation
Study it and try not to burst into tears.....
[pdfjs-viewer url=”https%3A%2F%2Fcommonsensetv.nl%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F07%2FCorona-vaccins-_-EMA-goedgekeurd-1.pdf” viewer_width=100% viewer_height=800px fullscreen=true download=true print=true]
Finally, a piece from the Marseillaise (translated)
Come, children of the fatherland,
the day of victory has come
is against us
raised the bloody banner of tyranny
The bloody banner has been raised.
Do you hear in the fields
the bellowing of those terrible soldiers?
They are approaching into your arms
to throat thy sons and husbands
To arms, citizens
Form your battalions
Let's march, march,
So that the unclean blood
drenched our furrows