# Self-Abandonment
If you are asking for an authority to declare that certain medical treatments are now fundamentally required to be performed on you to validate you as a legitimate member of society, you are asking for the deprecation of the human form in its entirety.

This isn't to say that there can't be laws against being infected with a pathogen and purposely attempting to transmit your infection to others. Some might try to say these are the same things, but they are fundamentally different. You would have to assume there's no contention in the disparity when perceiving those supposedly attempting to spread an infection they do not have or that they are unaware of vs that of someone purposely trying to come into close contact with others specifically because they are aware that they are infected.

One would argue that there's a plurality of biological threats affected by actions one performs and treatments one receives, and that for in any scenario for which a treatment is proposed to you, you either make a decision through a process which, at the very least, expresses your acknowledgment to the value of free will, and at the very most, is a process which expands your potential and helps you to learn and become wiser by virtue of having sought knowledge in order to consciously make a decision, or you are delegating that evaluation to an entity which has special knowledge. Regardless of the utility such an entity provides in a social structure, this is a form of gnosticism in its own rite, so perhaps you might say that "well they have done the appropriate research, and thus I am going to abide by it". But, this is essentially permanently relinquishing your ability to advocate on your behalf. Once this is done, there is no point in the future where you can ever disagree with the entity in question, for you have already acknowledged that it is in a better place to make decisions about you than you are.

You are, by virtue of your faith, deciding to commit yourself to a self-limiting logical conclusion regardless of the degree to which you are informed and the nature of the particulars concerning your unique circumstances, leaving no room for error, at the very least, and leaving no room for an expectation of your own intellectual growth.

# Progression of Variance
It's been an interesting progression. I find it difficult to consolidate the methodologies, observations sought, confounding variables, bias, and so forth. But, there are many observations which can be made and these bring about some clear questions.

## What are we seeing?
1. Escape variants
- What is the environment for these viral pathogens?
- What are the selection pressures being applied to these viral pathogens?
2. High infectivity among vaccinated
- Is ADE becoming observable as a result of having a higher proportion of vaccinated (such as in Israel and Scotland)?
3. The real efficacy of hyped vaccines
- Revisionist perspectives about meaning of initial efficacy claims
- Misleading statements and articles about the purpose of vaccination
4. The consequence of antigen drift
- How can we separate this from selection pressures?
- What is the logical conclusion of comprehensive immunity in the fact of antigen whose specifications are always drifting?
- How much should drift be a concern?

## Effects
The effect of the vaccine is not such that it causes mutations directly, but that it imposes a selection pressure which causes a particular dominance in the proportion of viral variance. This leads to a competitive advantage towards precisely the viral variants that can evade the anti-spike antibodies which are specifically calibrated towards the specification of genetic sequence for spike protein as found in the vaccines.

Considering that the spike protein is itself the factor most responsible for infectivity, this translates to having an effect imposed from the vaccines such that the dominant strains are the most infectious strains.

# Belief in God
It's no about believing or disbelieving in God, so much as it's the realization that I am engaged in an experience in a physical space.

If it is such that this experience is completely contained in the absolute perceivable reality, as is perceived by a human mind, then such a realization would give peace fo mind that none of the actions performed in this experience have any bearing on any other part of reality. That would be getting off easy.

And given that nature never seems to allow for waste, whether as seen through ecological studies across the world, or by the basic principles of physics and thermodynamics. This seems to be deducible everywhere in our understanding of physiology and microbiology.

So why wouldn't this be the case with conscious thought and expression of being?

# The Toy and Toil of Language
Playthings, these words that we can have, create and transform.

What is our world most primarily revealed by? The words to describe it, or the shapes by which one is beholden to it?

The shapes which must be conformed to in order to even believe that they are there. But what is that shape, ultimately?

The true shape which one assumes exists without the self, or that which exists for one's pleasure insofar that it has been created for the act of conception?

Is there an easily inferred precedence to them? An ultimate one? One which either is shared by all or shared by none?

# Orderliness in State
THe state is continuously attempting to produce a more comprehensively ordered structural representation of its obsolete idea. Like a blind, tyrannical father who kills his own children and then perishes but is continually resurrected by the malcontent who scorn those who aren't as tortured by their perceptions.

# Risk to Children
There are loads of parents who don't want to hear that their kids aren't at risk. Some parents even find the utterance offensive. They aren't looking for good news which removes the emergency because, as has been said, they have already sunk a cost. It's also a munchausen extravaganza. Our theory rationalizes it, the state is incentivized by it, adn the aloof parents have ever excuse to enhance their predisposition to police their child - particularly if they are prone to anxiety over things they can't control. If the whole world is out of control, they can easily regain a sense of control as they advise the child as to what they should be doing.

That isn't to say that parents shouldn't be adviing their children, but the opportunity to give stern and serious direction is now continually present, and it can be very enticing.

# Real Professionals
I am constantly surprised when I speak to a profession in a domain that I am no expert in, and make the observation that they hold something they don't fully grasp as a solid opinion by virtue of the assumptions of their domain. This is particularly the case if it seems plausible that a stronger expert might have greater awareness as to whether they are signaling to an observer that they might not fully grasp the thing in question.

# DIEversity
When you assert political power through the doctrines of diversity, inclusion and equity (DIE), you are using all those people whom you believe to fit the descriptions associate dwith the philosophy and demanding the precise means by which to resolve their affairs. It is your subjective preference.

# Far-Right Predispositions
If you are preoccupied with the risk of infection, you probably have a personality type which predisposes you to Far-Right ideology. You may not have realized this, because our culture presents progressive leftist thinking as mainstream, but this is marketing and social positioning.

Put another way, left-leaning politics are portrayed as more common and the only "acceptable" form of public opinion. This produces incentives which attract those with a personality type which values order and purity, rather than openness. Being "open" to established order defies the very concept of openness, which should be predicated on accepting ideas which are not the norm. That is, the notion of what is being espoused as "open", new and tolerant is actually allowing pre-existing structures with sociopolitial and material advantages to remain the default and become even more sacrosanct.

## False Dichotomy
We have grown accustomed to the concept of a left-right divide wherein the Liberal left are those who welcome new ideas, and the Conservative right protect old ideas, but this has grown into a fabricated falsehood as one is assumed to be an adopter of a convention of thought by virtue of demonstrable membership.

The problem is that the theoretical intertwining of Liberalism with Democratic practice permits one to believe that the practices of Liberalism are adhered to by undertaking a democratic process to indicate which idea is dominant. The issue here is that there is no clear agreement about whether democratic principles are sufficiently adhered to or able to be qualified in a given society, as many criticize the application of democracy in a society on the basis of whether or not all prospective participants have equal access to the implements through which democracy can be actioned upon. This changes the concept of a democracy to one which is not fundamentally Liberal, but one which is collectivist. Moreover it allows for a sleight of hand to take place wherein an idealist representation of democracy is contingent on an unspoken assumption that society must first reach a state which has never before been seen to exist, at least not in any community of substantial scale, and that shared principles are subject to disregard unless this society is reached, or unless to chosen actions and measures are ones which are prioritizing the realization of such a society.

This complex and subjective redefining of terms occurs implicitly, and makes it such that the contention is not so much about Liberalism itself, but merely about power and authority, which works against the principles that were once more simply defined and understood. This is, unfortunately, also a mistaken crux of Liberalism, which assumes tolerance to all new ideas, including ones which aim to redefine Liberal and Democracy implicitly, and perhaps using descriptions that would remain forever contentious if ever they were fully elucidated.

The true pillar of Liberalism endures as the belief that all ideas must be challenged, and no single opinion can be regarded as final authority.

## Separate To Preserve the Vulnerable
It is precisely through separation that they create the conditions of vulnerability, and this potentiates the ability to continuously and perpetually declare a state of emegency.