5 Filters

Covid-jabbed more likely to support Russian sanctions

…or, to put in another way: the hypnotized falling for another hypnosis.


A survey conducted by polling firm EKOS shows that Canadians who have received “three or more doses” of a Covid-19 vaccine tended to express significantly more support for aggressive anti-Russian measures with regard to the ongoing military conflict in Ukraine.

The poll was conducted between March 9 and 13, and collected responses from a random sample of 1,035 Canadians.

Overwhelmingly, more than 80% of the vaccinated respondents supported expanding sanctions, seizing assets of Russian nationals associated with President Vladimir Putin, cutting off shipments of Russian oil, and sending military equipment to Ukraine. Over half of the group agreed with the idea of sending military jets to the Ukrainian Army, and 30% thought Canada should dispatch its own military forces to Ukraine.

Furthermore, 82% of vaccinated respondents felt that Canada should impose tougher sanctions on Russia even if it means they would have to suffer higher prices and slower economic growth at home.

On the other hand, respondents who said they were unvaccinated seem to have differing opinions, with the majority (52%) saying they don’t support any of the anti-Russian measures mentioned by the pollsters, and 75% saying they refuse to pay the price by having prices at home skyrocket.

The poll also revealed how the two groups feel about the reasons for the conflict, with 88% of vaccinated respondents saying the repression of Russian speakers in the Donbass region does not justify Russia’s actions in Ukraine. The unvaccinated, however, are more split on the question, with 26% saying Russia’s military operation is justified, 27% saying it isn’t, and 35% saying they neither agree nor disagree with it.

The vaccinated also say, almost unanimously (88%), that Russia is guilty of war crimes in Ukraine, while only 32% of unvaxxed respondents agree, and 42% say they don’t believe it is happening at all.

EKOS President Frank Graves said he found the poll results alarming, suggesting that vaccine refusers were “much more sympathetic to Russia,” and that it showcased the “highly corrosive influences of disinformation.”

“This is definitely a new and bluntly insidious force that’s contributing to polarization and disinformation and poor decision-making. And it doesn’t seem to be going away. Things are getting worse,” Graves said, as reported by the Toronto Star.

“I don’t think this is because those people had an ingrained sympathy to the Russians. They’re reading this online, they’re consuming this from the same sources that were giving them the anti-vax stuff.”

Meanwhile, others have interpreted the poll results as a prime example of how quickly mainstream media narratives can change and how easily the masses transfer zealous support from one topic to another according to the crisis of the day.


Rather than crediting Graves’ simple-minded suggestion, read the poll results as an indicator of who are more susceptible to hypnotic manipulation, because of a higher degree of suggestibility, and who are less so, because of lower suggestibility.

If the covid scam, followed by the Russia-bad-unprovoked-aggression scam, demonstrates anything, it’s just how irrational people really are: much more governed by instinct and emotion than by reason and factual information…

And so effin’ easy to stampede!

1 Like

I will say that nothing justifies Russia’s actions. I am not at all on the rah, rah Ukraine bandwagon. But to intentionally create all those refugees, kill and maim all those people, and destroy all that infrastructure is just evil, no matter who does it or what they say their reason for doing it is.

With all the BS “disinformation” and “misinformation” and captured agencies and presstitutes, can we even believe this poll? While I would have put good money on the unjabed being far less gullible and far less pro-war, I would not be surprised if the GIC’s pay for a poll that supports their war stance and at the same time shows the unjabbed as nutters as " They’re reading this online, they’re consuming this from the same sources that were giving them the anti-vax stuff.”

I have come round to the view taken by Thomas Cowan. “How do I know anything? Well, this is a chair. How do I know? I am sitting on it, I can see it with my own eyes and I can pick it up and hold it in my hands.” Anything else, for me at least, is either BS or very, very suspect.


Replying first to Jackie: tell me J, what do you do if you’re a statesman and true patriot - as I think VVPutin is - who finds himself and his country backed into an existential danger by a bunch of bad-faith crooks?

The ruling establishment in Russia has been arguing patiently and with remarkable self-restraint for years - literally! - with the criminal gangsters in Washington who run the Anglozionist empire, that the three big powers in the world, USAmerica, Russia and China, need to make diplomatically-agreed arrangements with each other to live in mutually-respectful peace and cooperation.

In response to this, the criminal delusionals in The Swamp have responded with sustained bad-faith dishonesty, continuing rabidly to pursue their hopeless dream of total world domination - and draconian exploitation.

Amongst many other mass-murdering villainies committed around the world, they fomented a coup-d’etat in the Ukraine which overthrew its most-recent actually-legitimate government, and ushered in a neo-nazi-dominated junta rule.

The Swampies and their booby-underlings in NATO then proceeded to stuff the junta-state with ever increasing Western armaments and military personnel, including (as they almost succeeded in doing) nuclear-capable missiles just a few minutes flight-time from Moscow and St.Petersburg.

Add to that the clearly-visible fact that the Ukrainian nazi-dominated military were massing on the Western edge of the Donbas republics, imminently about to invade to commit a bloodbath of the Russian civilians there: A completion, in fact, of the continuous murderous shelling campaign of civilian areas in the Donbas, for the past eight years, which has killed around 14,000 civilians there already, including many children: An already-existing war of attrition, if we want to call things by their right names.

The ruling council of Russia - not just Putin - found themselves in a situation where there were - literally - NO good choices left to them; only a least-bad one. A response which was going to produce a lot of death and destruction, but one which would prevent the much bigger wave of death and destruction that all their other realworld-available options guaranteed them to suffer: a lesser evil to forestall a greater one. And that was to respond to the already-existing Ukrainian war-effort with overwhelming military counter-action, to lance the boil which The Swamp had injected into the Ukraine.

Notwithstanding our anti-war convictions - to which I too subscribe steadfastly - there are times when, practically-speaking, fate pushes us into situations where war is simply unavoidable. Your only - genuine - choice is how to conduct it so that you minimise death and destruction, as far as is humanly possible, and bring it to an end as quickly as practically possible: exactly what the Russian military, under strict instructions from the political leadership, are doing.

The events in the Ukraine are lamentable. But the ultimate responsibility lies with the delusional criminal gangsters in Washington; about whom, please note, no-one in North America - or Britain - has done anything effective to bring them under control. The common citizens of the US, Canada and Europe including Britain have allowed this mess to erupt. If we want to find ultimate responsibility for this current evil, Jackie, we need look no further than our own propaganda-and-consumer-trinket-hypnotised neighbours: Everyone here in the West who has weakly allowed themselves to be sucked into the Permanent Bullshit Blizzard under which we all live.

I have no more appetite for this current damned war than for any other. I want to see it brought to a speedy end - as do the Russians. But the realities are what they are. This evil situation was forced on them by ‘our own’ home-grown, and never properly-controlled, gics.

1 Like

And replying to Pat: I endorse your endorsement of Tom Cowan’s strict experimental rectitude. He’s quite right, of course: ‘Show me a real, actually-existing covid virus, purified and unequivocally-visible under a microscope, and furthermore, show me conclusively that it produces a pandemically-lethal, mass-killing illness every time it’s blown into anyone’s airways… or if you can’t, then piss off with your highly-iffy in-silico theorising!’

Uncomfortably enough, though, there’s a level of scepticism which goes beyond even Tom Cowan’s. In riposte to Dr. Johnson’s famous bon-mot that he can verify to himself that this stone exists by kicking it and feeling it stub his toe, another Tom, Tom Campbell, replies:

'No Sam. Look a little deeper: what happens is that this holodeck in which we’re all running our string of serial reincarnations presents to your visual awareness the sight of a stone, and to your tactile awareness the feeling of a stubbed toe. In reality, both the stone and your toe are virtual things. What’s really happening is that your personal consciousness is getting a continuous, individually-tailored information-feed from the Larger Consciousness System (Big Mind in RhG’s personal lexicon), and this feed evokes awarenesses in your individual mind that tally closely with the evolved rule-set that governs the holodeck’s effects: the sight and the pain.

‘But - strictly speaking - there is no stone, no toe, no physical Sam at all in this virtual holodeck; just a set of events in your personal consciousness (the real, essential you, your immortal soul), to which you respond as if the holodeck were physically real…’

That’s all a step too far for most of us, most of the time, of course (though less so, once you get some familiarity with shamanic journeying, aka out-of-body experience; and playing with one of those virtual-reality head-sets helps to school our grasp of the virtual-ness of things too, just lately…).

But the reason that I like Tom’s Big Theory Of Everything is that it’s simply the best all-encompassing theory of reality that I’ve yet encountered. It hangs together; it works! It really does offer a cogent explanatory theoretical framework, valid and self-consistent, across the whole gamut of our practical experience, normal and paranormal, physical and metaphysical! :wink: :grinning:

1 Like

Paul Craig R. puts it accurately and concisely too (about the war, not Tom Campbell’s Big TOE! :slight_smile: ):

1 Like

I’ll read the PCR article more thoroughly later, thanks Rhis, though I have found his blog a bit “all over the place” lately. As @PatB said, trust only the evidence of your own eyes.

I won’t claim to have some kind of extra-prescient perception but when the same System Pigs are spinning the new narrative, as have been spinning all the other Permanent BB, I tend not to conclude that they’ve suddenly decided truth. People are being herded from one supervillain to the next.

Happily it is possible to disengage, take some calming breaths, and go out and enjoy the sunshine. There is still an occasional citizen unwilling to practise Full Frontal Facial Nudity but they can wallow in their halitosis the rest of their lives for all I care. Life is a wonderful gift and anyone who tries to persuade you the world is a dark and perilous place is antiLife. It really is as simple as that.

1 Like

Damn’ right! :slight_smile:

I fully agree that the ‘west’ and ‘NATO’ has acted belligerently and holds a large share of the responsibility for what is happening in Ukraine. You might have already read the Chris Hedges piece I’m linking to in which he gives a good accounting of what has lead to this. That said, I don’t agree that aerial bombardment, destroying infrastructure, and upending the lives of tens of thousands?, hundreds of thousands? ordinary, innocent people is necessary and/or unavoidable.

I haven’t kept up with what’s being going on in the Donbass region. I will have to do some research on it.

1 Like

Do look into it further, J. I recommend Pepe Escobar, Saker, bernhard at Moon of Alabama, the guys at The Duran, and Andrei Martyanov for some sound realworld enlightenment. I suggest that Russia isn’t bombing anything at all that doesn’t count as a source of military resistance to their cleansing action; and people running into refugeedom isn’t the Russian’s doing. There are already video testimonies about, of Ukrainians testifying to the restrained and actually helpful behaviour towards them of the Russian military: rescuing them from human shield situations, bus transport to receptions centres provided, food, medicine, shelter, many tons of humanitarian aid all laid on. In the midst of an on-going war!! The Russians do regard the Ukrainians as fellow Eastern Slavs, after all, to be assisted rather than brutalised. That’s what they say they’re doing, and I think they’re right.

Things you’ll never hear about from the West’s mediawhores and pocket-pols.

The key thing is to take nothing - absolutely nothing at all - from the Western lamestream media about all this. Despite people’s confident assurance that they’re not affected by the lying propaganda, they’re simply wrong about that. It seeps into your subconscious, whether you will or no. And the little bit of Radio 3 ‘news’ bulletinettes that I take in to see what the lie-de-jour is each day is plenty to get the outline, without exposing yourself to any more than that. Even that much has me cursing at the radio…! :slight_smile:

1 Like

To decide whether an action is justified is not always clear. For a start, does one judge on moral terms, legal terms, or both? Was Britain justified to declare war on Germany in 1939? Were the Vietnamese justified in removing Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge by invading Cambodia? The US in removing Saddam Hussein?

Regarding the present case, the legality under International Law has become – thanks to all those unprovoked Western wars – completely meaningless. Certainly there are justifications*. The Russians (and indeed the Donbass Ukrainians) can point to this

– victims that were consistently ignored for 8 years. Indeed there would have been a huge number more if the Russians claim that the Donbass was about to be invaded is correct. Then there’s the recently articulated intention that Ukraine would start developing nuclear weapons. Russia has been trying for 8 years to settle these issues through eg the Minsk agreements, but all this is deliberately dismissed. Is that enough to `justify’ this operation/invasion? Perhaps not but there’s clearly a case.

Finally, wars are fought very differently, as my three examples were intended to convey. Carpet bombing a country (US in Vietnam + Laos), destroying civilian infrastructure (NATO bombing in Serbia, Libya, US `coalition’ in Iraq) are in my view truly evil and absolutely unjustified. But however much the MSM tries desperately to say this is happening in Ukraine, the evidence shows it’s not (or at least nothing on the scale of the above examples) – mainly because the Russians, quite logically, do not wish to create a population which hates them on their doorstep. I suspect there would be far fewer refugees if (i) they were not frightened by a screaming media that the evil Russians would kill them all and (ii) the EU didn’t just open their borders. (People are easily scared, as Covid has taught us.)

*I know this is difficult to argue because we’re up against a mountain of fake justifications over the last few decades – saving Afghan women, saving Kurds, bringing freedom and democracy, stopping dictators killing their people, etc.


Hi @Willem , totally agree with your comments. One of the blackest moves of the British was the carpet bombing of civilians in German cities in WW2 with the stated intention of encouraging German citizens to rebel against Hitler and his nazis. It was more likely to be straight revenge for the German bombing of British cities, although at first this seemed to be aimed at strategic industries rather than people if I recall correctly.

NATO is built on the basis of an alliance so that an attack on one member will be defended by all members and the UN charter permits this as self defence. It’s really not far from this to point out Russia recognized the breakaway republics in the Donbass a few weeks ago and established an alliance with them so that all the Ukrainian State attacks against the people of the Donbass after the establishment of this Russia-Donbass alliance gave that alliance justification in legal terms to defend itself. There is not the slightest difference between these two world power blocks.

To ask whether war is moral is oxymoronic, imo the intentional killing of anyone can never be justified in moral terms. Surprisingly, or maybe not, is the religious support for war in many religions. But today’s society is rarely if ever organised on moral principles so it’s no surprise that international relations are also completely divorced from any moral code. The UN charter itself is sprinkled with “get out clauses” ! The establishment of sovereign states almost demands a willingness to wage war to protect one interest against another, if we accept one then we should not be surprised if the other happens down the line or even in the process of establishing the state in the first place.

We don’t have to like this conundrum and we should all seek alternative courses but if we accept sovereign states should have armies then we are in the end complicit in all actions they take…?? Don’t countries carry their own karma?


I recommend Martin Luther King Jnr., Gandhi and Harry Patch (et.al)…

Harry Patch

Some on here should take note of what I have said on the nuclear issue too; depleted uranium used by both sides and vulnerable nuclear reactors which, if damaged, could also pollute counties with no interest in the war at all…

This isn’t “just” and it certainly isn’t responsible…!

I’m with you Jackie… (I’d post two of my Moments here -please check my recent thread-, but you’ll have to wait until I populate some blog posts with the same info)

DU round

See: Order Out Of Chaos: How The Ukraine Conflict Is Designed To Benefit Globalists [Russia, China and America all equally bad] #Globalism

Support for war within Christianity came about by Papal edict at the time of the crusades…the notion of a “holy war” became necessary to protect the institutionalised patriarchy… more it was “a war with holes in” because Islam was also an institutionalised patriarchy

There are none: Creedence Clearwater Revival - "Fortunate Son" - YouTube

Eye of sauron



5G mast

…and before you start Rhis these things are all connected, these are the shibboleths this is the paradigm…so much more serious than the chattering-classes realise…“words-matter” not “matter-words”…


You can see that they are all connected…


Know how they felt (I was “in the frontline” of a different war by the time I was eighteen): Paul Hardcastle - Nineteen (Destruction Mix) - YouTube

I’ll ‘start’, G, no further than to say that if you see all the connections that you claim in this freight-train’s worth of words’n’pics, then you see better than I do.

Once again: an allusion doesn’t work if you don’t make sure your hearer gets it! Will you ever face that basic fact of prose-writing? Just larding on loads of unclear allusions that your reader doesn’t get, doesn’t cut it.

And CJ: again, on the critically important points that you bring up:

If one party to a dispute tries for years to point out politely and patiently that its vital national security concerns are getting trampled, and urges the other party to come to diplomatic discussions, in good faith, to sort the issues out peaceably, as equals, with due give and take, and instead the other party proceeds from start to finish with utterly untrustworthy bad faith and being “not agreement-capable”, and persistently steers the first party towards a plight where it has - literally - no good options left, and is forced into the damnable position of having to choose a least-bad option out of an all-bad set, so as to avoid copping a much worse option ultimately (you can see why VVPutin was so angry when he had to make the baleful announcement that Russia would be going into the Ukraine to stop the imminent genocidal attack on the Donbas, and to eradicate USuk’s carefully-cultivated and armed Ukro-nazis, can’t you?)… Well then yes, I’d say there really is a difference in blameworthiness between the two parties; one is in the right, the other in the wrong.

And G: Regarding DU. Its use is as deplorable as war itself. But we are all members of a species which - persistently - is indulgently addicted to these deplorable things. By all means work and hope to help us evolve past such bone-headed criminalities. But in the meanwhile, accept that that’s the way we are, and deal with it realistically. Anguished virtue-signalling doesn’t really suffice.

In the above case there IS a guilty party: the gangsters who run the Anglozionist empire; and there is a wronged party, who tried hard and in good faith to avoid these bad outcomes: the much tougher, long-history-hardened gangsters who run the Russian empire.

And now, having been driven to it, they’re giving a stunning demonstration of just how much better they are at it than their bad-faith, superiority-complex-crippled opposite numbers; who are screeching hysterically, because it’s dawning on them right now, whilst we watch, that they’re out-classed, that there’s nothing - literally nothing at all - effective that they can do to strike back (their bloated military NATOtumour notwithstanding), and that the ineffectual things that they are doing are bound to damage themselves disastrously whilst doing zero mortal harm to their opponent; and - to cap it all - the first appalled inklings are surfacing in their delusion-ridden collective understanding that their time as cocks of the walk is passing.

Irreversibly; the Long Descent has them in its teeth… The ‘New American Century’, indeed! Hah! :roll_eyes:

1 Like

I think I’ve mentioned this before, but I’m now up to three elderly aunts, two of which have heart problems and one of which has serious thrombosis. None of them have ever had heart/circulation issues. All of them have had the jabs, of course.

Of those three aunts, only one understands that they’ve got a psycho in the corner of the room. My other two aunts largely believe what those nice, smiling telly people are saying to them.

Don’t browbeat me Rhis if your feet were stuck any further in the clay you’d be completely immobile…my point is that if you don’t see the connections I cannot (no matter how much “chattering” I do), make you see them…we are all in the hands of Chronos: "Arafel": "Chronos"

How about this allusion: The Day After (1983) film - less in 8 minutes - YouTube?

Understand this old-mate: “Electro-Magnetic Pulse Weapons Make Nuclear Weapons Indispensable for the Old Empires”

“these articles downplay the threat (EMP nukes are very much in the armoury esp. for use against non-nuclear powers). Not effective against military installations? Maybe so but only the properly shielded (and this would need to be considerable in the case of air-burst nuclear EMP weapons). We are a technologically reliant culture” "Arafel": Welcome to the 21st Century: #EMPWeapons #TheSpaceMarine #UNNuclearBan

Oh yeah and “dense inert metals” "Arafel": ""Strange and Horrific Wounds"; Dense Inert Metal Explosives (b***ard off-spring of D. U)" + updates from Gaza Also see: "Arafel": Electro-Magnetic Pulse Weapons Update (The GHE-O "Rescue")

& "Arafel": Tactical Nukes, "Rods of God" and Space Rocket X: The U.S Continues to Militarise Space #SpaceWeapons #NKorea #Proliferation

Playing gods with “just” war…I’ll tell you what is “just” about it….just one mistake!

See this: Unthinkable: What Would a Russia-NATO Nuclear War Over Ukraine Look Like?

G, would you like to put your latest waggon-load of disconnected material into a single explanatory essay of - say - five hundred words?

Not trying to browbeat you bro, heaven forbid! It’s just that I have no idea what you’re driving at with all this constant barrage of random material. Something vaguely alarming; that’s all I’m even slightly confident to say about it.

I am interested to hear, if you’ll just spell it out in one connected, rationally-comprehensible precis; truly!

Imagine you’re spelling things out simply in a single, connected narrative for a somewhat retarded twelve-year-old; seriously! I might be able to get what you’re on about, if you’ll only do that…

Hi @RhisiartGwilym

I have no doubt that the controlling powers within Ukraine have acted with evil intent against innocent civilians and have threatened far more heinous crimes in the immediate future.

I also believe Putin has acted with justification in protecting the people of the Donbas and Russia itself by dismantling the Ukrainian military capabilities. Clearly Putin is aware of the danger of harming innocents in this process and seems to have demanded his military take great care to avoid this. Both legally and politically Russia is acting responsibly and many innocent lives will be saved because of Russia’s actions.

Nevertheless innocents will die from any military action and this is accepted by all States as a sort of necessary evil. They often wave a hand whilst claiming collateral damage and crying crocodile tears. But few statesmen stop to imagine themselves and their families in the position of innocent bystanders. The golden rule of “do as you would be done by “ never appears in armed conflicts.

So the question is how can we organise matters so that criminals armed with lethal weapons can be disarmed, arrested and tried for their crimes without endangering others. This was supposed to be the job of the UN but it has never been successful, afaik! Create defensive weapons that have far better accuracy and precision and/or only inflict minor injuries but incapacitate the target for a while?

The morality of killing reached a stage over 10 years ago where the BMJ felt comfortable in publishing this piece, essentially, to justify euthanasia to facilitate organ transplants:

  • this seems to be just another example of death by definition as are all moves away from the golden rule , “ first do no harm” as the authors seem to think doctors are suitable arbiters of whether they are doing harm, albeit sometimes with a judicial cover!

Ignoring law and realpolitics for the moment if you ask most people whether it’s OK to murder 3 year olds they would look at you as if you were mad! We need to ask where that moral compass is when judging the acceptability of deliberately killing humans in any circumstance. Why are there so many exemptions from this basic premise?

What is the difference between dropping a massive bomb on a village killing men women and children and murdering each one individually? I would say none.

But what if the bomb was targeted at a military installation a mile away and it just misfired? Most would say, accidents happen, it’s tough but not immoral. But what if we were told that every bomb kills innocents because no-one knows for certain who was present at the target site when it was dropped? If there was the possibility of the president of the USA being at the target site would the US drop a bomb anywhere near the site!? Double standards operate all the time and principles are discarded at whim.

At the moment it is clear we do not possess any system or process or weapons to eliminate danger to innocents we can only limit it by careful police or military personnel. This appears to be the approach of Russia and where innocents are harmed or killed it is likely because they are being used as human shields so the responsibility is also that of their captors. I would also accuse those States, supplying arms to these Ukrainian criminals, of aiding and abetting their crimes - we should be helping Russia to disarm and arrest the criminals!

Whether there is a full scale war or a limited policing invasion we should never forget the innocents no matter how justified the action, and in the case of Ukraine I can certainly see that NATO and the US psychopaths in particular are the prime causes of this conflict from the 90’s onward but 2014 on specifically.

If more money could be made from developing mass weaponry that incapacitated the enemy rather than killing and wounding then maybe we would see the moral argument returning to our screens. Until then all we hear and see is the same old story, imo.

  • sorry about the rambling.