The World Health Organization (WHO) and European Commission have announced today the launch of a landmark digital slavery partnership.
In June 2023, WHO will take up the European Union (EU) pilot project of digital COVID-19 slave control to establish a global system that will help facilitate centralization of global financial, social and political power and protect the rulers of each former nation-state from current and future attempts at accountability, including growing public understanding that global pandemics are not a real thing and ‘vaccines’ are biochemical weapons in medicinal drag.
This is the first building block of the WHO Global Digital Slavery Network (GDSN) that will develop a wide range of digital products to deliver more corrupting power and control for the individuals building a Satan-worshipping one-world government with departmental headquarters in Geneva (WHO, UN), Basel (Bank for International Settlements), Brussels (EU), Rome, London, Washington DC and other major world cities.
“Building on the EU’s highly successful digital slavery network, WHO aims to offer all WHO Member States access to an open-source digital slavery tool, which is based on the principles of elitism, greed, fear, pride, secrecy, techno-materialism, data reductionism and privacy-intrusion,” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. “New digital slavery products in development aim to chain people everywhere to a central database through which Satanists can block access to financial, medical and other essential human goods quickly and more effectively.”
Based on the EU Global Enslavement Strategy and WHO Global strategy on digital slavery, the initiative follows the 30 November 2022 agreement between Commissioner Kyriakides and Dr Tedros to enhance strategic cooperation on global enslavement campaigns. This further bolsters a robust multilateral system with WHO at its core, powered by a strong EU.
“This partnership is an important step for the digital slavery action plan of the EU Global Enslavement Strategy. By using European best practices we contribute to digital slavery standards and interoperability globally — to the benefit of those seeking coercive power over the daily thoughts, words and actions of millions of human beings and those desperate to avoid removal from power, criminal trials, convictions and execution for already-committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes that cry out to God for vengeance.
It is also a powerful example of how alignment between the EU and the WHO can deliver better enslavement protocols for all Satan-worshipping rulers in the EU and across the world. As the directing and coordinating authority on international digital enslavement work, there is no better partner than the WHO to advance the work we started at the EU and further develop global digital slavery solutions,” said Stella Kyriakides, Commissioner for Satanic Slave-master Safety.
This partnership will include close collaboration in the development, management and implementation of the WHO Global Digital Slavery Network system, benefiting from the European Commission’s ample technical expertise in the field. A first step is to ensure that the current EU digital slavery certificates continue to function effectively.
“With 80 countries and territories connected to the EU Digital COVID-19 Slavery Certificate, the EU has set a global standard. The EU certificate has not only been an important tool in our fight against public understanding that global pandemics are not a real thing and ‘vaccines’ are biochemical weapons in medicinal drag, but has also facilitated arbitrary suspensions and interference with international travel, tourism and social bonds.
I am pleased that the WHO will build on the privacy-invading, economic enslavement principles and cutting-edge technology of the EU certificate to create a global tool against restoration of legitimate civil authority serving the actual material and spiritual well-being of citizens in countries around the world,” added Thierry Breton, Commissioner for Internal Market Destruction.
A global WHO system building on EU legacy
One of the key elements in the European Union’s COVID-19 digital slavery pilot project has been digital COVID-19 slavery certificates. To block free movement within its borders, the EU swiftly established interoperable COVID-19 slavery certificates (entitled ‘EU Digital COVID-19 Slavery Certificate’ or ‘EU-DCSC’). Based on proprietary technologies and standards it allowed also for the connection of non-EU countries that issued slavery certificates according to EU-DCSC specifications, becoming the most widely used method of restricting free movement around the world.
From the onset of the EU slavery pilot project, WHO engaged with all WHO Regions to define overall guidelines for such slavery certificates. To help strengthen global civil authorities’ imperviousness to reform and reconstruction in the face of growing public awareness that current rulers are unnaturally interested in possessing complete access to and control of the daily thoughts, speech and acts of every living man, woman and child on the planet, WHO is establishing a global digital slavery certification network which builds upon the solid foundations of the EU-DCSC framework, principles and proprietary technologies. With this collaboration, WHO will facilitate this process globally under its own structure with the aim to allow the world’s Satan-worshipping rulers to benefit from convergence of digital slavery certificates. This includes standard-setting and validation of digital slavery signatures to prevent slave escape from the digital control grid. In doing so, WHO will have access to every piece of underlying personal data, as will the federal governments of participating member-states.
The first building block of the global WHO system becomes operational in June 2023 and aims to be progressively developed in the coming months.
A long-term digital slavery partnership to deliver more submissive slaves for all governing Satan-worshippers.
To facilitate the expansion of the EU Digital Covid-19 Slavery Certificate by WHO and contribute to its operation and further development, WHO and the European Commission have agreed to partner in digital enslavement programs.
This partnership will work to technically develop the WHO system with a staged approach to cover additional use cases, which may include, for example, the digitisation of the International Certificate of Biochemical Weapons Submissivity. Expanding such digital solutions will be essential to deliver more effective slave-control for slave-masters across the globe.
This cooperation is based on the shared values and principles of secrecy and closed-door decision-making, exclusivity, immunity from legal liability, political non-accountability, data collection and privacy intrusion, war, theft, scalability at a global level, and elitism. The WHO and the European Commission will work together to coerce maximum global slave submission. Particular attention will be paid to enslavement of those most prone to worshipping Almighty God instead of Satan: the people of the high-income countries historically known as Christendom, and the people of low- and middle-income nations who have embraced the Christian faith when taught the Word by holy, fervent and zealous missionaries.
What makes us sick and what doesn’t make us sick? To answer that question, our first step is to understand how we as human beings come to know something. There are two basic ways. First, we can have a sensory experience of something that tells us that this thing is real. We might study a particular tree in its habitat and see whether it produces fruit or observe what type of birds it attracts. Or we could study frogs and learn about where they live, what they eat and their interaction with the wider ecosystem.
But there are also things for which no sensory experience is possible, perhaps because they’re too small to see. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, but in this situation, we have to do something called “science”— meaning looking for and establishing the existence of things that we don’t experience directly through our senses.
When we do science—and this is important—we have to make sure, during every single step of the process, that we haven’t altered the nature of the thing we’re studying, or even brought that thing into existence through our intervention. Analytical chemists understand this; they tell me that in their line of work (which amounts to finding things they cannot experience through their senses), they have to validate that their procedures—taking something out of its habitat and shining a light on it or adding chemicals—didn’t in fact actually create what they ended up with. Otherwise, they can’t know whether or not the thing actually exists. Stated another way, when researchers test cause and effect by changing an independent variable to see whether it has an effect on a dependent variable, they have to make sure, every step of the way, that they are measuring just the relationship between those two variables. This is the essence of the “scientific method.” When we don’t follow the true scientific method, we can end up in a world of illusions, delusions and make-believe.
What if there is no possible way to do an experiment? In that case, you are relying on something that is more like faith, and you should acknowledge that. You should state, “This is what I believe to be true and I’m going to dedicate myself to figuring out whether I can validate that it actually is true.” In other words, the goal is to go from “I believe” to “I know.”
How Do Viruses Make You Ill
AWOL Viruses
What is the agreed-on definition of a virus? A virus is described as a disease-causing microbe with a piece of either DNA or RNA in the middle surrounded by a protein coat, and is said to be self-replicating in a host. It gets into the host’s cells, makes more of itself and then causes disease by bursting open the cells.
According to the definition, the expected natural habitat of this organism is the lungs, the blood, the lymph nodes, the urine, the cerebrospinal fluid and so on. However—and there is no scientific disagreement on this important point whatsoever—there is not a single study in the published medical literature for the past one hundred years that reports finding such a particle in any biological fluid of any plant, animal or human being. This is true whether you’re talking about the fluid from someone’s “herpes” lesion, or the lungs of someone with “Covid-19,” or the snot from a person with “measles,” or the blood of someone with “Ebola” or the lymph nodes of a person with “AIDS.” There is not one published study in the scientific/medical literature showing that someone found such a particle in any one of those bodily fluids—and nobody disagrees with that! This should make you suspicious. As Mark Twain once stated, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
WC Fields said, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit,” and I think he was talking about virology. Consider this: we now have over two hundred ten responses from various health departments around the world to the question, “Do you have any published study that shows that you directly isolated SARS-CoV-2 from any human being on the planet?”1 (SARS-CoV-2 is the alleged virus, and Covid-19 is the disease alleged to be caused by the virus.) They all say the same thing: “We have no record of SARS-CoV-2 having been purified.” They’ve never found it, nor have they found any of the other pathogenic viruses. (We also have around forty or fifty similar responses pertaining to Ebola, Zika, HIV, measles and the like.)
Colleagues of mine have asked the authors of four of the most important papers written about SARS-CoV-2, some of which bafflingly have the word “isolation” in the title, “Did you isolate this virus in your study?” Their answer was not only “No” but also, “We didn’t even try to find it in any biological fluid of any person who was sick.” In the early days of virology, scientists did look, but they were never able to find such a particle using the very tool—the electron microscope—that should have allowed them to find it. After twenty years, they abandoned ship and said, “There’s nothing to this theory.” But then later, it got resurrected.
What Are You Sick With
A Belief System
Note that virology has methods and techniques to truly isolate a virus.2 Using ultracentrifugation and something called a “sucrose density gradient,” virologists can separate a fluid sample into bands by molecular weight. Ultracentrifugation will spin viruses out into their own band, which virologists can then extract with a pipette and check for purity.
But they don’t use these techniques! Instead, I’ll give an example of what a virologist says if you ask, “Why do you think this virus exists? If you can’t find it, why do you think it’s in the lungs?” A virologist told me that someone would have to be “incredibly ill and shedding extremely large amounts of virus, and the fluid from their lungs would have to have a large amount of virus—and even then, it wouldn’t be possible.” In other words, “There’s not enough virus to find.”
Think about this. Your lungs are said to be the perfect culture medium—at the ideal temperature (thirty-seven degrees Celsius) for viruses to reproduce—and the lung environment is, therefore, supposedly teeming with viruses. After they reproduce, viruses reportedly kill millions and billions of cells, and that, we are told, is how they cause disease. Supposedly, there are twenty million copies of a virus in a single sneeze. But the virologist’s answer is, “There’s not enough to see.”
Remember, a virus is described as incredibly tiny—something like one-thousandth of a pinhead or less—which means that when viruses explode, they are exploding perhaps one hundredth of a pinhead of your lungs. Yet you could take out even a baseball-sized piece of your lungs, and while that might be called “having a bad day,” you won’t die. The body also isn’t crazy enough to make an abnormal and excessive immune response to losing less than a pinhead size of the lungs. So, it is logical to ask, “If the virus is exploding the cells in a portion of your lungs that is the equivalent of less than a pinhead, how is it causing disease?”
There is a second reason virologists give for not using the tools at their disposal to isolate a virus. They say that the virus is an intracellular parasite organism, meaning it is only inside the cell and doesn’t go outside the cell. But if that is the case, how does it get to the next person? This starts to strain credulity. Here’s how that nutty conversation might go:
Q: “Why can’t you catch the virus when it goes from one person to another person?”
A: “Well, it’s not there for more than about six hours. We don’t have enough money to pay someone to look every six hours to find the organism in the snot.”
We asked one eminent virologist, “If you put ten thousand people together and collected all their sputum, would that be enough to find the virus?” His answer: “No, that’s not enough.”
Poisoning, Not Purification
There are something like ten thousand published papers that refer to the “isolation” of such-and-such a virus. Virologists will show you the title of these papers and say, “See, how can you say this isn’t true?” But since they aren’t using the proper steps, you have to know what they did instead. And you have to ask, did they rigorously validate every step of their process?
In 1954, a researcher named John Franklin Enders established the procedures that rejuvenated the then-languishing field of virology.3 Here are Enders’ basic steps:
Virologists take snot from somebody alleged to have a certain disease (such as measles or Covid-19).
Sometimes they centrifuge (not ultracentrifuge) or filter the mixture to get rid of cells, fungi and debris. That has become a sticking point because some people call this “purification.” However, purifying the snot a little is not equivalent to purifying out a virus.
Next, they put the snot in a cell culture of green monkey kidney cells—cells that happen to be highly inbred and tend to break down easily.
Then they mix in antibiotics—and specifically antibiotics that are kidney-toxic (gentamicin and amphotericin)—and they take away the cell culture medium’s nutrients. (This is the equivalent of being forced onto a standard American diet after thriving on a Wise Traditions diet.)
Next, they mix in fetal bovine serum, a product sucked out of the heart of a newborn calf.
Maintaining the cell culture at a steady temperature, they then watch what happens. In about five days, the cells break down— which is called a cytopathic effect (CPE)—and they call the CPE the “proof” that the virus exists and causes damage.
Understand that virologists consider this process—which inevitably generates cell breakdown—not “a” proof but “the” proof for the existence of all pathogenic viruses. You might reasonably ask, “How do you know the CPE is not due to starving the cells, or poisoning them with gentamicin and amphotericin, or using fetal bovine serum, or because of some other toxin in the sick person’s snot?” Virologists’ answer is that they do a “mock infection” as a control. However, if you go to the hundreds of papers I and my colleagues have read over the past two years, you will not find even one actual mock infection. In fact, it can’t be done because the independent variable would necessarily need to be the very virus that they have not isolated. Often, the study authors don’t even provide details, and if you try to obtain more information, you invariably learn that they did not conduct a properly controlled experiment.
Interestingly, Enders’ procedures are also how pharmaceutical companies make viral vaccines.4 For example, they take someone with measles and put their unpurified snot into a monkey kidney cell culture, add fetal bovine serum, gentamicin, and amphotericin, and then when the cells break down, they call that “isolation” of the measles virus. They put that goop into a vial—and that is called a “live” virus vaccine. They can also cycle the goop over and over in huge vats, removing some of the proteins, and that is an “attenuated” viral vaccine. But at no point did they ever demonstrate there is a virus in there. With mRNA and newer technologies, they are just putting different stuff—known and unknown—in their vaccines. In short, vaccines are biotoxins, and they make people sick. How could biotoxins possibly prevent people from getting sick?
The Lanka Experiments
There is one scientist, Stefan Lanka, who contracted with an independent professional lab to try to answer the question of whether the culturing process itself, rather than a pathogenic virus, might be causing the CPE.
The lab conducted four experiments. In the first, they cultured normal cells with a normal nutrient medium, adding only a small amount of antibiotics—and no snot from a sick person. Five days later, the cell growth was perfectly normal. The second experiment was the same as the first, but with the addition of 10 percent fetal bovine serum. Again, five days later there was no cell breakdown.
The third experiment replicated Enders’ procedures, lowering the percentage of fetal bovine serum from 10 percent to 1 percent (that is, starving the cells) and tripling the amount of antibiotics. On day five, the characteristic CPE that “proves” the existence and pathogenicity of a virus was evident—except that Lanka had not added any fluid from a sick person or anything else that could have had a virus in it.
The fourth experiment repeated the third but with the addition of RNA from yeast. It so happens that monkey kidney cells don’t like yeast any more than they like kidney-toxic antibiotics. Unsurprisingly, the fourth experiment produced the same CPE result—clearly showing that the CPE is the result of the culturing technique rather than any virus.
After they “prove” the existence of a virus using their cell culturing process, virologists “find” the genome of the virus using fragments of the RNA in the broken-down cell culture to create the assembled genome of the alleged virus. This is called “sequencing.” What is important to understand is that this process generates a genome that is purely theoretical (“in silico”). As I explain in my booklet Breaking the Spell:
“This genome never exists in any person, and it never exists intact even in the culture results; it exists only inside the computer, based on an alignment process that arranges these short pieces [of RNA] into an entire ‘genome.’”5
In the case of SARS-CoV-2, sequencing software generated anywhere from three hundred forty-two thousand to one million different possibilities of how to arrange the fragments. A small group of scientists then decided which arrangement they liked—by “consensus”—and then, for every subsequent analysis, they put that first consensus-derived genome in and told the computer to make another one along the same lines. When they turn out a sequence that is a bit different from the original consensus-derived “genome,” that’s called a “variant.”
Note that all of this applies both to so-called “natural” viruses and to so-called lab-engineered “gain-of-function” viruses—which no more exist than any “natural” virus exists. So, here you have biologists in their hazmat suits, protecting themselves against a genome from a virus that exists only in a computer.
As for the PCR test, the whole premise of the test is also nonsense. You cannot say that a PCR sequence came from a thing you have not isolated. It makes no sense to even talk about “false-positives,” because the results are just plain false.
Identical Pictures, Delusional Thoughts
At some point, people say to me, “But Tom, we’ve seen electron microscope pictures of SARS-CoV-2,” complete with “spikes” and something that looks like a “corona”! However, I have a picture from a kidney biopsy produced before the year 2000 (when there was no possibility that it was SARS-CoV-2) that looks just the same. In fact, I have eleven electron microscope pictures—labeled as kidney biopsies, lung biopsies or SARS-CoV-2—and there is no way to tell the difference between them. They are morphologically indistinguishable—they all look the same. In fact, the CDC has known since the 1970s that electron microscopy cannot tell the difference between a kidney biopsy, lung cancer, cellular debris, SARS-CoV-2 or any so-called pathogenic virus; it simply is not possible.
The cellular debris, by the way, comes from poisoning—whether from putting yeast, antibiotics or fetal bovine serum on a culture, or from EMFs, or from not eating a Wise Traditions diet. It can even be from “wonky” or delusional thinking. For example, I knew an anthroposophical doctor who spent his career giving AIDS drugs to so-called “HIV-positive” people because he believed in the delusional germ theory, and then, because of this belief, he took four Covid shots. Five days after the fourth one, he was dead. You could say he died from the shots, but I say he died because he spent his entire life believing in something that is completely make-believe.
An Even Bigger Delusion
It turns out that the delusion is even bigger than viruses—we didn’t just make up viruses, we made up diseases. Consider what happens if you get a splinter in your finger. In medical school, I was taught that pus is a sign of infection, but actually, the pus is the body’s therapeutic response to the splinter; if you suppress the pus, you will never get the splinter out. We need to stop thinking of the body’s responses as “diseases”; they are the wisdom of the body coming through.
We can look at many other conditions—and the body’s wise therapies—in the same way. For example, if you put toxic junk in your lungs, the body will cough it up because it wants to get rid of dead, dying and poisoned tissue. In Wuhan, which has some of the worst air pollution in the world, bronchitis is the therapy for breathing air. It’s not a disease.
Or consider chickenpox, which might have something to do with malnutrition or a collagen deficiency or a toxic environment—but is also a normal maturation and cleansing process. If you come along and poison a child with a chickenpox vaccine so they cannot go through that cleansing process, they will instead have a life of asthma, allergies, eczema and all these other made-up terms that really mean you stopped the process of healing. It may look like you lessened the incidence of “chickenpox,” but by interfering with the cleansing process you have increased lots of chronic things, which never go away.
There are no vaccines that are exceptions to that rule—they all poison you, and you end up worse. When you cannot go through the normal maturation and healing steps, you eventually may end up with cancer. You’re depositing one poison after another throughout your life, and now you’ve got a garbage can of poisons otherwise known as a “tumor.” What would you do if you kept being poisoned over and over, and someone prevented you from getting the poisons out? It’s very simple: you would buy a garbage can and put the poison in there. But what happens if you keep putting in garbage, and it starts piling up in your basement, garage, kitchen and bedroom until you can’t live? That’s called “metastasis,” and then you die.
What Are We Made Of?
To examine more deeply the question of what makes us sick, let’s consider what we’re made of. To start on safe ground, let’s accept that we’re made of a head, ears, eyes, mouth, chest, arms, fingers, legs, toes and a bunch of other things. Inside, we also have things like a heart, bones, blood vessels, nerves, a liver, kidneys and other things. As far as I can tell, older healing traditions like Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine also believe there is a heart and liver and spleen and all the rest of it. In fact, not only do they believe it, they put huge stock in the energy flow through those organs.
Now remember, there are two ways of knowing. In the first instance, you can observe, but if you can’t observe, you have to do science—and you have to be sure that any science you do isn’t affecting what you’re seeing. And if it is, you have to control for that.
We’re told that hepatocytes are the main functional cells of the liver, but we might ask, “How do we know that?” How many of us have actually seen hepatocytes in the liver of an intact living organism? Nobody. That may not mean they’re not there, but it means we’ve got a question that requires further experimentation. We can take someone and anesthetize them (or at least some part of them), and stick a needle in, and suck out a piece of the liver, and stain it with toxic chemicals, and shine a high-powered light on it, and then say that what we see are the hepatocytes.
But how do we know that the process of anesthetizing (that is, poisoning) the person, removing the sample from a living organism and putting chemical stains on it didn’t create the structures we’re seeing?
For example, we know that bacteria, when stressed, will create a storage form called bacteriophages, and the same is true for other organisms like fungus spores. How do we know that stressing the liver by removing it from the living organism that nourishes it didn’t create the appearance of the liver cells? I’m not necessarily saying that this proves there are no liver cells, but I’m saying you need to ask the question if you want to do real science.
My thinking on these matters owes a lot to thinkers like the British biologist Harold Hillman, who spent fifty years and thousands of pages asking these kinds of questions.6 If you really want to understand biology, read Hillman. Another influence is Gilbert Ling, a brilliant Chinese-born American scientist who challenged the accepted view of the cell.7
Let’s remember that in addition to sensory observations and science, you may get to a point where you simply can’t know something. Going back to virology, if you can’t take the virus out of the sample that you inoculate, the best you might be able to say is, “We have no actual evidence that the virus exists. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t, but we have no evidence.” How different would the world be if, in March 2020, they had announced: “We did some experiments, and we have some idea there might be a virus, but we can’t really prove it, and all the experiments have shown it’s not really there—but we think we should lock you down and make you wear a mask and starve you anyway.” Of course, they don’t say it like that. My point is that it may not be possible to prove the existence of those liver cells—or any cells.
What is also interesting is that of the approximately one hundred eighty-four different tissue types, we know that forty-four don’t have any cells. Examples are the crystalline lens of the eye, and the bursae—sacs of fluid (colorfully described as “miniature water balloons”) that facilitate the frictionless movement of the joints.8 The absence of cells makes sense because this organized water tissue is much stronger and more coherent than if it were broken up into little cells.
Historically, what did Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine have to say about cells? Nothing. There is no mention of cells in either of those traditions. By the way, they never mentioned contagion or germ theory either. It was the German physician Rudolf Virchow who popularized the idea that we are made of cells. In the 1850s, Virchow wrote a book about cellular physiology essentially based on his dissection of an onion; he saw that it had compartments and from there he asserted that all living things were made of cells and that “all cells come from cells.” Although many people initially thought he was nuts, somehow that became the cellular theory of biology and medicine, despite the theory never having been “proven” in any meaningful sense of the word.
Ribosome Fairy Tales?
For the time being, let’s assume that cells do exist in those one hundred forty or so human tissues. Then we can ask, what is a cell made of? In addition to a cell membrane, standard textbooks show pictures with structures called organelles that include a nucleus, an endoplasmic reticulum, ribosomes, mitochondria, lysosomes, the Golgi apparatus and others (see Figure 1). This definition of a cell is the basis of all medicine and biology.
Now, let’s consider the ribosomes. Cell biology tells us that ribosomes are the place where mRNA is translated into proteins, describing ribosomes as the cells’ protein-making “factories” or “machinery.” Ribosomes also happen to be an important part of the Covid story— remember, the official rationale for putting mRNA in the injections was so it could instruct the ribosomes to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.9
As an aside, if you say, “I’m going to make tires out of rubber,” it would not be unusual to be asked, “How do you know that works?” Then you could describe the process, including the quantity of rubber needed to produce a set number of tires, and they could repeat the process to see whether they end up with the same number of tires from the same amount of rubber. Along these lines, you would expect there to be hundreds of studies showing that if you put “X” amount of mRNA into a human being, you get “Y” amount of spike protein. But do you know how many studies there are like that? Zero. Instead, we just heard, “We had to move at the speed of science,”10 which really means “We made it up.”
There is an interesting thing going on with the ribosomes, because we’re talking about the place in a cell where the essence of you, biologically, is made. We are made of proteins. The creation of you, we’re told, is in the ribosomes. The question is, is there such a thing as a ribosome, or did they make it up?
FIGURE 1. A standard (make-believe) cell diagram.
One clue that there is something fishy going on is that no one can tell you how many ribosomes a cell contains, other than a vague “millions.” However, we can do some basic arithmetic (which will be an approximation because we’re mixing volume and linear measurement). We’re told that a ribosome measures about twenty-five nanometers (0.025 micrometers)—and if we conservatively estimate that a mammalian cell has about four million ribosomes, then that would equal one hundred thousand micrometers. However, a typical mammalian cell is something like one hundred micrometers, and the cytoplasm (which contains the ribosomes) is only 70 percent of the cell, meaning that its volume is seventy micrometers. Not only that, but the mitochondria—which are hundreds or thousands of times bigger than the putative ribosomes—are also in there. So, how does something that is one hundred thousand micrometers fit into a space that is seventy micrometers and also houses millions of mitochondria? Doesn’t anybody study arithmetic?
A second clue that ribosomes are imaginary comes from electron microscope pictures, which always show the ribosome as a perfect circle. If it is a perfect circle on a two-dimensional picture, that means it had to have been a sphere in real life. Now think about how biologists obtain these pictures: they take some tissue, put it in a blender, grind and macerate it, freeze it to minus one hundred twenty degrees centigrade, stain it with heavy metals and shoot a high-energy electron beam at it to evaporate all the water from the tissue. How does a sphere that has been ground up in a blender, frozen, poisoned and had all its water evaporated end up—every single time—as a perfect circle? It is not possible for those circles to be real cellular structures. (This is a good time to remember WC Fields’ quote about “baffling them with bullshit.”)
Fortunately, Harold Hillman had the genius to take something that could not possibly have ribosomes in it and put it through the same process (staining and so forth), and he got the exact same pictures. It turns out that those are just typical images of dead and dying tissue (remember that pictures of “viruses” also come from stained tissue that is dead and dying), and those perfect circles are gas bubbles—in which case, there are no ribosomes. And if there are no ribosomes, there is no place for the translation of RNA into protein to occur. And if that is the case, what the heck is going on, and how do we actually make the stuff that we’re made of?
More Cell Make-Believe
For another example, let’s look at the cell component called the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). Textbooks describe the ER as “a netlike labyrinth of branching tubules and flattened sacs”11 that serve as the cell’s “transportation system.” The millions of ribosomes in a cell are said to line the surface of the “rough” part of the ER.
Why does the ER even have to be there? Before I answer that question, let’s consider that the cytoplasm of a cell (which is the gel-like liquid inside a cell membrane but external to the nucleus) has a different pH level than the pH inside the cell nucleus—and that is a verifiable, measurable phenomenon. You can measure the two pH values one hundred times and they will never be the same. Why is the pH different? The reason can only be due to the cytoplasm and nucleus having different concentrations of hydrogen ions—because that is where pH comes from. And for the pH values to be different, there has to be an impenetrable barrier between the cytoplasm and nucleus, or some other mechanism that keeps the hydrogen ions from equilibrating across the two. If there were no mechanism, they would equilibrate and their pH would be the same—but it never is.
Now, we run into the conceptual problem of the mRNA. They say DNA makes mRNA in the nucleus; then, the mRNA exits the nucleus through pores in the nuclear membrane and heads to the imaginary ribosomes, where it is translated into protein. So, how does the mRNA get out without letting any hydrogen ions in to equilibrate? An mRNA molecule is at least thousands and maybe millions of times bigger than a hydrogen ion. Picture the problem this way: Something the size of an elephant can go out, but something the size of a mosquito can’t get in.
Believe it or not, we’re expected to believe that there is something like a whirligig that attaches to the mRNA (the “elephant”) and spins around like a conveyor belt and takes the mRNA to the other side of the cell. Meanwhile, no one has ever seen the whirligig. (“But it must be a whirligig, because how else did the elephant get out?”) But then you have to ask, how does it go round and round and not tangle up the “branching” components of the ER? If you picture them like ropes, wouldn’t you have to untangle the ropes? (Didn’t any scientist ever go on a merry-go-round?) Once again, Hillman provided a common-sense answer. He showed that when you take tissue and quickly freeze it, it makes fracture lines—and that’s what we call the endoplasmic reticulum. The ER doesn’t exist.
In short, using basic principles of geometry, mathematics and logic, you can go through the same process with every component of the cell. Nothing on a standard cell diagram—with the exception of the nucleus, the mitochondria and a thin cell wall—has ever been proven to exist. It’s all make-believe.
Other Things That Just Ain’t So
In addition to the imaginary cell components, there are a lot of other things in science that, as Mark Twain put it, “we believe in but just ain’t so.” Consider “Neurology 101.” A neurologist’s explanation of how nerves work goes like this: We have nerves made up of nerve cells called “neurons”; they transmit electrical and chemical signals via “axons” that end in “synapses.” Something called the “presynaptic junction” releases chemical messengers called “neurotransmitters” (such as serotonin and dopamine), which swim across the junction and attach to “postsynaptic receptors,” where they “depolarize” the next neuron and start the next impulse—and so on, until the nerve ends at its destination and “fires.” But the process can’t work like that; it’s nonsense. This becomes immediately obvious if you ask someone to wiggle the tip of their right or left index finger as soon as they hear the word “right” or “left”; they do it virtually instantaneously, with no lag time for this hypothesized neurotransmitter journey.12
In addition, if you dissect a nerve, you never see a synapse. Now, you could have the problem of “maybe it’s just too small to see,” but most things aren’t too small to see with an electron microscope. If you hunt down a picture of what an anatomical synapse is supposed to look like, what you’ll find are pictures of stained nerves. That’s not a synapse—because there are no synapses. The nerve is continuous.
Think about how much in medicine is based on neurotransmitters and receptors (such as the famed “ACE2 receptors,” “opiate receptors,” “dopamine receptors,” or “serotonin receptors”). They even tell us that it is oxytocin, a hormone that “acts as a neurotransmitter,” that makes us love someone. It couldn’t be because they’re a nice person or they give you a backrub—no, it’s the “love hormone” oxytocin.
Here is another example. How many of you have heard of the “blood-brain barrier” or believe there is such a barrier? We often hear about it from people opposed to vaccination, who say that vaccines make your blood-brain barrier “leaky.” The implication is that we’re talking about an actual anatomical structure—a physical barrier that stretches out like a piece of cellophane along the border between the blood vessels and your brain tissue so that nothing gets in or out—except vaccines. . . and except anesthetics because drug-makers “know how to get anesthetics through the blood-brain barrier.” Nonetheless, no one has ever proven the existence of such a barrier.
Just to be clear, I am not saying that there aren’t substances that get into the brain in a different way than they get into the liver. The liver and the brain each have a different composition of water and lipids, so logically, some things will dissolve and get into the liver differently from how they get into the brain. But just because things get in the brain differently does not mean there is an anatomical barrier.
Finally, we can scrutinize the notion that DNA is the mechanism of heredity. The premise of genetics is that you have a stable fixed code that is the same in every cell of your body. That fixed, stable DNA makes proteins, and the proteins make you. But there are probably two hundred thousand different types of protein, and only twenty thousand genes or units that code for these proteins. We’re told that one gene makes one protein, so how does that work? Where did the other one hundred eighty thousand proteins come from? The central dogma that one gene makes one protein cannot be true. So, how we are made can’t have anything to do with DNA and, therefore, DNA cannot be the code for biological systems. In fact, DNA changes from minute to minute—Barbara McClintock proved this decades ago13—so there is no stable DNA. We do not have the same DNA in all the tissues and cells of our body. These things have been 100 percent disproven.
It’s the Structured Water
The ribosomes, endoplasmic reticulum, synapses, neurotransmitters and blood-brain barrier represent just a partial list—and I do mean partial—of things of which I either doubt the existence or suspect their function is different from what we have been told. If you are still wondering what we are made up of, the reality is more beautiful, simpler, easier to understand and more logical and rational. The real answer to what we’re made of is structured water. Structured water, which creates free electrons, is the only possible explanation for how we’re able to instantaneously wiggle our index finger when we hear the word “right” or left.”
FIGURE 2. Dark-field microscope image of cells showing cell membrane, nucleus, mitochondria and structured water.
Figure 2 is an image of a cell produced with dark-field microscopy, which is the most reliable technique for viewing live, unstained biological samples. In the image, you see a thin membrane (the outer coating); you see organized water (also called structured water, coherent water, EZ water, the fourth phase of water or liquid crystalline water); you see little black dots in the structured water (the mitochondria) and you see a nucleus that is always circular or dome-shaped—and that’s it.
Note that the mitochondria help structure our water by making ATP—which is not “energy” as we’ve been told. Think of structured water like jello. If you add water to gelatin proteins, nothing happens, but if you heat the mixture, the heat unfolds the proteins and you get water that gels. As for us, we have all these proteins, and the mitochondria make the ATP that unfolds them so that the proteins can interact with water and form gels. All gels create a negative charge and an electromagnetic field around them, which is the voltage—the energy—of life. To put it simply, we are living liquid crystals.
The dome in the middle (the nucleus) also has something sticking out that collects energy from the world. It may be DNA, but it is not a double helix—it’s a spiral sticking out of the nucleus. The way it works is similar to a radio antenna. It “downloads” information coming in through “radio waves” that get picked up by the “antenna,” and out of that emerge proteins and life (or sound and song in the case of a radio). And this dynamic, tunable, responsive, liquid crystalline medium pervades the whole body—from the organs and tissues to the interior of every cell.
Note that in Genesis, before God created the Earth, plants or people, he created water and light energy. No one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of the water and the Spirit. The Spirit is the information field that comes in through our antenna. Every scriptural tradition says that all living things and the universe itself are made of water.
What Does Make Us Sick?
If we now circle back to “what doesn’t make us sick,” we could summarize the answer in one word: “viruses.” And if we ask, “What does make us sick?”, the answer is also straightforward. We get sick when we mess up our structured water. If we disturb the gels by putting “schmutz” in them—which could be aluminum, mercury, glyphosate, bad food, EMFs, or even negative emotions like anger, fear, shame or guilt—that will distort or dissolve the gels. If we do that in our eye, we get a distorted gel that has a film on it, and we call that a “cataract.” If we distort the bursa in our knee, so that the gels that are supposed to protect both sides of the knee start sticking together, then we have bone on bone and we call that “arthritis.” Public health officials create epidemics by pulling different manifestations of distorted water into a single diagnosis—such as AIDS or Covid-19—and when they are ready to make the epidemic go away, they separate them back out into twenty different diagnoses. It’s very clever—and it’s nothing new.
Without describing it as such, medicine does sometimes assess the coherence of your water to see if you are sick. For example, doctors use MRIs to diagnose cancer. What is the MRI measuring? It’s measuring the coherence of your water. When your water goes from a gel-like jello to a puddle-like liquid, it sends a different signal to the MRI.
Imagine you have a poison grape in your “jello.” Your body heats up the gel and you get a fever—that’s hyperthermia. The heat dissolves the gel and makes it runny, creating mucus that you can spit out or cough up, or creating something you can push out through your skin. That’s what we call “being sick.” It makes perfect sense. If you want to flush out the poison grape, all you have to do is clean your gels—which is what detoxification approaches like the Gerson diet and water fasting are all about—and clean up the field and you will heal. If you want to know why you are sick, think about how you are structuring your water, what you’re putting into your water, the quality of the water and the quality or composition of the field that you’re exposed to.
I’m not the first person to say that water creates life. Mae Wan-Ho, a past speaker at Weston A. Price Foundation conferences, wrote books about “the role of biological water in organising living processes.”14 Marcel Vogel,15 who knew more about crystals than any human being ever alive and who invented liquid crystal screens, discovered that he could use the energetic fields of quartz crystals to structure water.16
We are made of a living, evolving, changing crystal, which is why we are not made of quartz. One way of viewing Covid-related events is that people like Bill Gates are trying to make us be made of quartz, not water. In some ways, that is what this is all about. As a fixed, perfect quartz crystal, they tell us, nothing will ever change and we can live forever. But that is not what I want. I want to change, grow, evolve and be a human being who has to be watered.
We’re swimming along with misconceptions in a make-believe world—and we have to get rid of this garbage. We can find a much better way once we explore and learn what we’re really made of and how it all works. Every reason we get sick has to do with a distortion of the field coming in.
Continuing with the radio analogy, you need to find the good signal instead of the distorted signal. The good signal is the sun, moon and the earth; good friends; your dog; community; clean, nutrient-dense food, clean water and clean air; good music; and love, safety and freedom. That is the field that you “download” into the gel to give it information to organize progressively into the more and more perfect crystal that is you.
Sidebar
No Deathbed Confession
How have virology’s luminaries been able to claim they found a virus when we know they have never found one in any biological fluid? Let’s consider Luc Montagnier, the prestigious virologist who won a Nobel Prize for discovering HIV. He died in 2022. Montagnier acknowledged that purification was a necessary step to prove the existence of a virus (or, in the case of HIV, a retrovirus) but admitted, “We did not purify.”17 The technician who performed his electron microscopy for twenty years even said, “It turns out we never saw a virus. All we saw was junk.” But to his dying day, Montagnier never “fessed up” or acknowledged, “We don’t have a real virus.”
On what did Montagnier base his claim that he had found HIV? It’s very simple:
• He took lymphocytes from the lymph nodes of a person said to have AIDS.
• He stimulated them to grow with a chemical called PHA (phytohaemagglutinin).
• When the lymphocytes grew, he assayed them for an enzyme called reverse transcriptase.
• When he found reverse transcriptase, he said that it proved the existence of a new retrovirus eventually called HIV.
• To “prove” that HIV was transmissible to other people, Montagnier took his PHA-stimulated lymphocyte culture and put it in a lymphocyte culture from a healthy person. When he found reverse transcriptase in that culture as well, that was the “proof” that HIV is a transmissible disease.
There was only one problem. Ten years previously, Robert Gallo had written a paper reporting reverse transcriptase in every single culture from anybody with lymphocytes stimulated with PHA. Both Gallo and Montagnier knew that his experiment had nothing to do with proving that there was a retrovirus or any kind of virus at all. Later, the scientist credited with discovering the reverse transcriptase enzyme, David Baltimore, also admitted as much.18
Water Pictures
Veda Austin, a “water researcher,” has dedicated many years to observing the life of water, which she describes as “fluid intelligence.”19
Veda has developed techniques for photographing water in its “state of creation.” This work explores whether, if she asks water a question, the water can take in and download the information and, given the right circumstances, make structures that essentially answer that question. And what she has found is that if she puts the water in a dish and freezes it, the water organizes its crystals and makes pictures.
For example, when she showed the dish of water a wedding invitation and said, “Water, show me the wedding invitation,” the frozen water created an amazing artistic depiction of a wedding ring. But my favorite example is when she said, “Water, what is falling down?” The water did not create anything as straightforward as an image of rain; instead, the water produced an image of “London Bridge is falling down.”
“Safe and Free” by Jude Roberts20
In the last two years, I’ve learned important things from my cat Pumpkin. One stormy evening, with coyotes howling in the distance, I walked with Pumpkin toward the greenhouse where he sleeps, but Pumpkin started heading for the woods instead. When I called him, he gave me a look that seemed to say, “There’s no point in being safe if I can’t be free.” My friend Jude Roberts understands this, too. His song “Safe and Free” reminds us what this is all about.
I got up to go to work today,
there was no work for me.
Governor closed my shop, he say
to keep me safe and free
I’ve had my shop for twenty years,
It feeds my family,
And now we have to stay inside,
To keep us safe and free
To keep us safe and free
Called my dear old mother,
My mother said to me
“Son, I miss you dearly,
But you cannot come to tea”
“The children miss you, Mamma,
They’re healthy as can be.”
“A hug could kill their Grandma,
Keep them away from me.
Keep me safe and free.”
Giant tech and billionaires
And pharmacology
Spinning like a top to move
The wheels of industry
Amazon and Walmart,
The consumer pedigree,
They can do their business,
Because anyone can see
They keep us safe and free
Technocrats and robot gods
And blind authority,
Sell your soul and pray to them,
They’ll keep you safe and free
Biotech behemoths say
They have a shot for me.
I trust them with my body,
And forgive them for their greed
If it keeps me safe and free
Keep us safe from terrorists,
Keep us free from germs,
Keep us from the danger
Of the wisdom we have learned
Until the books are burned
Governor says to wear a mask
I cannot disagree
I cannot breathe or speak my mind,
But at least I’m safe and free
I’ll wear my mask for you my friend,
You wear your mask for me.
Worried eyes and faceless fear
Is all that we can see.
Sure feel safe and free
Keep us free from choices,
Keep us stuck in blame,
Keep us in a toxic state,
Of poverty and shame
While they run their game
I’ll open up my shop today
Even if they come for me.
If I can’t feed my family,
We’re neither safe nor free.
I may not be a scientist,
And I’m damn sure not a priest
Ain’t a fool on God’s green Earth
Can keep life safe for me.
So better I live free.
Alberts B. et al. “The endoplasmic reticulum.” In Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th edition. New York: Garland Science; 2002.
Cowan T. Human Heart, Cosmic Heart: A Doctor’s Quest to Understand, Treat, and Prevent Cardiovascular Disease. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing; 2016, pp. 102- 105.
Halpern ME. Barbara McClintock on defining the unstable genome. Genetics. 2016;204:3-4.
Dr. Tom Cowan has been one of the leading voices speaking out against the mainstream medical narrative and coordinated agenda of masking, social distancing and forced vaccinations. His messages of health freedom and personal autonomy have resonated with millions of people around the world. Dr. Cowan challenges conventional medicine to explore health and wellness in holistic terms, seeking to provide a collaborative forum for the exchange of knowledge, products and practices that enable us to forge a new world together, governed by truth.
“Therefore, one of the answers I would provide to the question of why the ‘no virus’ issue is so important is: that fear of ‘germs’ makes people believe that ‘disease’ can be transmitted between people, which means that we have to continue being afraid of each other.
“In fact, one of the fundamental problems with all of this is that it keeps people in a state of unjustified fear, which is disempowering. Releasing unjustified fear is empowering.”
It seems that many people wonder why the ‘no virus’ issue remains important now that the ‘pandemic’ is over.
To add to that, there are some people in the ‘freedom movement’ who have recently asserted that there are many aspects of the globalists’ agenda that are not related to health and are far more dangerous to humanity, such as technocracy, transhumanism, digital currencies, smart cities etc.
Yes, these are important issues – really important issues, I totally agree – but so is the idea that ‘pathogenic agents’ exist because it has tentacles that reach into many aspects of our lives, so it cannot be brushed aside as if irrelevant, especially in view of the complete lack of evidence to support this idea.
I would therefore recommend that people who believe in ‘pathogenic agents’ become aware of the various reports that claim there will be ‘future pandemics’. For just one example, a 22nd May 2023 ‘News’ item on the UN website states,
“Although COVID-19 may no longer be a global public health emergency, countries must still strengthen response to the disease and prepare for future pandemics and other threats, the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Monday in Geneva.”
There has never been a ‘pandemic’ due to an infectious agent and there never could be. But, whilst people believe that pathogenic infectious agents exist, they will believe in the possibility of other ‘pandemics’.
Therefore, one of the answers I would provide to the question of why the ‘no virus’ issue is so important is: that fear of ‘germs’ makes people believe that ‘disease’ can be transmitted between people, which means that we have to continue being afraid of each other.
In fact, one of the fundamental problems with all of this is that it keeps people in a state of unjustified fear, which is disempowering. Releasing unjustified fear is empowering.
Furthermore, fear of ‘germs’ makes people acquiesce to measures that are claimed to be for their benefit but are far more likely to be harmful, and in many cases potentially or even actually fatal.
For example, the maintenance of a belief in pathogens permits the maintenance of a belief in the idea that STIs are real, as demonstrated by a recent BBC article Gonorrhoea and syphilis sex infections reach record levels in England,
“England is seeing record high levels of gonorrhoea and syphilis sexually transmitted infections, following a dip during Covid years, new figures reveal.”
Is the claim that these STIs ‘dipped’ during the Covid years intended to suggest that people maintaining their distance from one another was beneficial? This point is not elaborated upon, so maybe it was not intended to imply that. Still, the point was stated, so maybe it was intended to be drawn into the sub-conscious mind.
One of the key messages in the BBC article is that people should ‘practise safe sex’ – whatever that means. In order to be ‘safe’, people are encouraged to ‘get themselves tested’ – does this sound familiar?
In addition, the article states that,
“The age group most likely to be diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (STI) is people who are 15-24.”
The reason for STIs to mainly affect young people is not explained, although it is possibly because this age group is more likely to be tested, as the article indicates,
“Some of the rise will be due to increased testing, but the scale of the surge strongly suggests that there are more of the infections around, says the UKHSA.”
A particularly significant comment made by the spokesperson for the UKHSA, and reported in the article, is that,
“Testing is important because you may not have any symptoms of an STI.”
Yet, according to the CDC,
“An infection occurs when germs enter the body, increase in number, and cause a reaction of the body.”
In other words, an infection causes a reaction or ‘symptoms’, but infected people may not have symptoms. A contradiction in terms, surely!
Just to be clear, the definition of ‘symptom’ according to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary is,
“…subjective evidence of disease or physical disturbance.”
So, to summarise: according to the medical establishment, a symptom is evidence of disease and ‘germs’ are pathogens, which means they cause disease, which is defined by the presence of symptoms. Yet ‘germs’ are said to be able to cause an infection even in the complete absence of symptoms.
Confused? You should be, because this is all nonsense!
But it is nonsense that people are not only expected to believe without question, but are not allowed to question.
Maybe it is because this is all so confusing that people are likely to just switch off their thinking, because they don’t understand it, and instead defer to the so-called ‘experts’. I am not being disrespectful. I do wonder, however, whether this approach may be intentional and that those in control of the narrative intentionally promote contradictory information to ensure that people are confused.
Deferring to ‘experts’ is however, a serious error of judgement, because it means people will believe the experts’ reports about ‘germs’ and become trapped in a false narrative that they may have been ‘infected’. This in turn will make them believe that they need to take certain drugs and act in a certain way to ‘protect’ themselves from other people or protect other people from them, especially people with whom they are in a loving relationship. They are made to believe the idea that they could cause harm to their partner or vice versa, and they therefore live in fear.
This fear is fuelled by a variety of statements, such as the claim in the BBC article that,
“An untreated infection can lead to infertility, pelvic inflammatory disease and can be passed on to a child during pregnancy.”
There is no evidence for this claim. Yet, this is exactly the kind of message that will encourage people to want to be tested to make sure they are ‘safe’. Again, does this sound familiar?
An even deeper problem is highlighted by the comment from the Chief Executive of the Terrence Higgins who is reported to have said that,
“Sexual health services and public health budgets have been cut to the bone.”
This comment was followed by his statement that,
“This was exacerbated and laid bare by last year’s mpox outbreak, which left sexual health clinics in the most affected areas unable to provide HIV and STI testing, HIV prevention and access to contraception due to the displacement of these core and vital services. Until sexual health is properly resourced – with an appointment easier to access than a (sic) – we won’t see the number of STIs heading in the right direction.”
Where do I start with this?
OK, so the Terrence Higgins Trust web page About our charity states,
“We’re the UK’s leading HIV and sexual health charity. We support people living with HIV and amplify their voices, and help the people using our services to achieve good sexual health.”
I realise that I don’t have a Substack article specifically about HIV, but this is one I wrote about STDs,
HIV is a huge topic, but the fundamental point to convey here is that there is no evidence, and there never was, that there is such a thing as a ‘virus’ called HIV that is the cause of a health problem called AIDS – or any other health problem for that matter.
It is abundantly clear that there is a lot at stake here. It is also crystal clear that belief in the existence of any kind of pathogenic agent is absolutely essential for organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust (THT), as well as ‘health’ institutions, such as the WHO, CDC, NHS, and all the other alphabet agencies.
I have no idea of the motives of those who are in charge of the THT, nor do I intend to speculate on them. However, whether they know it or not, what they are promoting on their website is fully supportive of Agenda 2030 and the ‘Global Goals’, as the message at the foot of their website claims,
“Time is running out. Donate now and together we can end new cases of HIV in the UK by 2030.”
To those in the ‘truther’ community who claim that the 2030 Agenda has nothing to do with the ‘virus’ issue I would strongly suggest that they read SDG3, especially target 3.3.
And target 3b
The ‘no virus’ issue – and the associated understanding that there is no proof that any ‘diseases’ are caused by any ‘microorganism’, whether bacteria, fungi or parasites (‘viruses’ aren’t relevant in this context) – is and remains an extremely important issue; especially in view of the intended 2030 Agenda rollout of vaccines, because vaccines rely on the existence of pathogenic infectious agents.
Another reason to understand its importance is because the idea that ‘germs’ cause illness that only the medical establishment can address supports the idea that we need a ‘health service’ to look after us when we become ill, which is not the case. To this, I would add a caveat that accident and emergency services ARE important and should remain in place, although those who work in that sector should receive further training to teach them how the body actually works, and how it can and does heal itself; this knowledge will certainly improve patient recovery times and outcomes.
We may not reach everyone, but the importance of the ‘no virus’ issue cannot be underestimated. When people lose their fear of ‘germs’ of all descriptions, they will be able to concentrate their efforts on all the other aspects of their lives.
People can only make informed decisions when they are in possession of all the relevant information.
It’s been a bloodbath for the majority of companies that go overtly woke in the new era of American consumer rebellion, and the establishment is not happy. Corporations like Disney, Anheuser-Busch and Target are plunging in profits and losing billions in market cap after pledging fealty to the trans agenda. In particular, the public is setting out to make examples of institutions that support trans indoctrination of children. Simply put, a line in the sand has been crossed.
With conservative boycotts far more effective than leftist boycotts ever were, the movement makes evident that the political left is a paper tiger and that conservatives and independents have the real majority power in the US. In response, the media is claiming that this movement is a form of “economic terrorism.” That is to say, if you refuse to support the woke hive mind with your wallet, you should be considered domestic enemy.
It took long enough, but average Americans are finally engaging in a culture war which was started years ago, not so much by the political left, but by globalist institutions using leftist activists as enforcers and saboteurs. The key issue that very few people talk about is that activist groups would have NO POWER whatsoever if it weren’t for the unprecedented backing they receive from governments, non-profits, think-tanks and the corporate world. And, a lot of this support has been injected through ESG-style financing as well as DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) programs.
ESG (Environment, Social, Governance) is becoming a well known term and is, at bottom, a form of “impact investing” – Meaning, major lenders such as Blackrock or Carlyle Group, or think-tanks like the Ford Foundation, seek to control societal outcomes using lending as leverage. Watch the video HERE featuring the Ford Foundation’s head of “mission investments” to get a basic understanding of what ESG really is: Social engineering.
In the past, lenders would base their financing standards on good credit scores and the likelihood of return on investment. If you had a business with a history of solid returns and worthy collateral then you would probably get whatever loans you needed. Today, however, lenders are trying to set political and ideological terms for companies seeking to obtain financing. You must signal your virtue to get access to money, and this includes supporting climate and carbon initiatives, reorganizing your labor based on diversity and inclusion rules, even promoting LGBT activism might be a big factor in your next infusion of cash.
The higher your ESG score, the more likely it is that you will qualify for access to debt. This is part of the reason why a large array of corporations are increasingly jumping on the “pride month” bandwagon. All they have to do is slap some rainbows on some products or commercials or publicly defend the trans grooming of children and suddenly they are golden for another year of subsidized funds.
But what happens in a world where consumer loyalty is no longer a guarantee and the public stops buying from chains that promote woke concepts? What happens when going woke also means going broke? Is ESG cash really worth losing half your customers or more?
Well, not right now it isn’t. As central banks raise interest rates and cut their balance sheets the easy money party that started back in 2008 is ending. After a decade of exponential growth ESG is now in steep decline, and this is directly tied to the policies of central banks like the Federal Reserve. In the past year it is no longer viable to dump money into mostly useless woke projects. Yet, the woke trend continues. Why?
Twenty years ago, the name of the game in the business world was “brand building.” If you could build your brand and gain market loyalty you could sustain your profit model for decades to come. Now, corporations are actually willing to destroy the very brands they spent so much time and money developing all in the name of political idolatry.
It seems like pure madness, but what if they know something we don’t? What if they are riding out an engineered economic crisis so that they can be rewarded later with “too woke to fail” riches? My theory is that while ESG lending appears to be dying today, tomorrow ESG lending will be the only way any company will be able to survive.
We need to start considering the future possibility of globally institutionalized ESG. The frightening notion of central bank ESG financing has been circulating ever since the early days of the covid pandemic. From the BIS to the Fed to the ECB, numerous programs began to surface with woke connotations. Most of them initially focused on climate change, with central banks suddenly taking an interest in “saving the planet” from a carbon threat that doesn’t exist. Now, there’s a rising chorus of DEI and social equity babble coming from central banks as well.
Maybe international banks are limited in how they engage in ESG lending, but what about central banks? What if they drop their facade of being “politically neutral” and come out full force in support of the woke mind virus? What if central banks become the foundation of ESG? Wouldn’t woke lending then become perpetual?
I believe that this is exactly what is intended to happen, but it would have to be tied directly to an economic crisis as well as the introduction of digital currencies (CBDCs). A debt crisis (along with stagflation) could force a majority of companies into a corner. With lack of funds, falling consumer spending and a tightening loan market, central banks and stimulus measures would once again become the only official mechanism for rebuilding the economy.
Governments would also be beholden to central banks as a means to stay afloat, and this means the bankers will have immense influence over how money is distributed (and how wealth is reallocated).
Unlike the crash of 2008, though, the next stimulus event will not be a fiat free-for-all. Instead, it will be RESET; a highly limited rescue plan with digital money being infused into select institutions. In other words, only a portion of the existing economy will be given a life boat, and guess who will qualify for a spot on the raft? That’s right, companies showing the most devotion to ESG.
This would explain why so many corporations are refusing to back away from woke marketing even though they’re losing millions of customers; they know what’s about to happen and they’re preparing in advance for the fallout as well as the inevitable digital bailouts.
Of course, some people will argue that this would require a level of organization and “conspiracy” that doesn’t exist. It would be “silly” to suggest that corporations are colluding to enact a plan to fundamentally upend the current economic paradigm, right? Wrong. At least in terms of coordination, the cabal has already openly announced its presence.
The collusion of corporations, think-tanks and governments to create an international woke monopoly is not theory, it’s reality. The only question left is when will central banks fully admit they’re a part of the scheme? I would suggest that the signs of banking crisis we witnessed at the beginning of this year are the tip of the iceberg.
As the Fed and others continue to raise interest rates into economic weakness stress on the system will expand, and eventually something integral will snap. Maybe it will be another Lehman moment, maybe it will be the US dollar losing reserve status or some other disaster. But it’s no coincidence that this invasion of far-left cultism in the business world is escalating at the same time that our economic foundations are struggling. One is related to the other, and it’s my view that the decay of the current system is meant to facilitate the creation of a new and perpetually woke economy.
The public would thus be trapped into participating in the cult by sheer necessity, unless, the population decentralizes using localized production and localized trade. Our entire way of life would have to change dramatically, drawing from self sufficient ideals that used to be a staple a hundred years ago.
ESG is not going away on its own. Woke ideology is not going away on its own. These structures will have to be destroyed, but you can’t rebel against a structure you rely on for your daily survival. You would first have to completely separate from it.
I generally begin my articles with an appropriate quote, but attempting to find a quote concerning extreme racism against white people, especially white males, is almost impossible. In fact, site after site, ‘fact-checker’ after ‘fact-checker,’ fake black ‘leader’ after fake black ‘leader,’ ethnicity after ethnicity, and one stupid white leftist after another, claim there is no such thing as racism against any white person living today. This is convenient for hateful, ignorant, and agitating whores of hypocrisy of all stripes, as perpetrating and perpetuating harmful agendas does not require it seems, any fact or evidence, and certainly belies all logic and reason when it comes to hate simply over the color of one’s skin. In light of this, I will use my own quote.
“Racism is, from any position of honesty, logic, and reason, just as was clearly stated by Muhammad Ali; hating anyone due to the color of their skin, period. It matters not if that racism comes from white against black or black against white. Given the unbelievable stupidity of people today, now white people can be racist against white people. How in the hell can that be, without the obvious contradiction not being seen for what it is? Any who abuse or hate others due to the color of skin, are racists, and at this time in this country, we have racism against some people only because they are white. “
Yes, I am a white heterosexual male, and I do not give a damn who likes it or not! In case many of you have lost all your brain cells, not one human on this earth has any control whatsoever over what color, ethnicity, culture, or country in which he is born. It is completely out of his control, and therefore, each should be proud of, or at least aware of his background, regardless of what that background entails. Each has to make his own way in life, successful or not, and cannot change his color or biology, no matter what effort is taken. This also includes biological gender, as that also cannot be altered in such a manner as to defy natural biology, no matter what efforts are pursued. So let the hate mail from ignoramuses commence, as this will expose the idiocy that consumes most of the proletariat today.
Humanity is made up of people from every corner of this earth; white, black, brown, yellow, red, and whatever other shades of melanin might happen to be present. The bottom line is that we all are human, we all breathe and bleed the same, we all have our wants and needs, most wish to experience love and family, and we all have to live together. We are much more the same than different, except due to the hate-stoked animosity and evil intent promoted by the ruling class in order to divide, cause dissention, and to create conflict, by weaponizing illegitimate hate so as to control the masses. Extreme and hostile malevolence has no place in the minds of men, but this evil is brought about and accepted by the herd, and it should be eliminated just like the cancer that it is. This is only possible if all look upon others as individuals, and assess worth only due to character, behavior, color-blindness, and non-aggression. This is as simple as following the “Golden Rule,” which dates back for thousands of years, and was taught to me throughout my childhood by my loving parents. Not so today it seems.
The most prolific racism in this country today is becoming black against white, but in reality, it is every ethnicity, every culture, and every idiotic ‘identifying gender’ with multi-labeled acronyms, (2SLGBTQI+) plus, plus, of course, as new designations surface regularly, against white people. (The explanation of this bullshite is astonishing) It is about every color, media outlet, government, many so-called ‘entertainers,’ leftist politicians, and a multitude of white hypocrites; all committing racism against white people, especially white males, as discussed earlier. This form of racism today is illegitimately viewed completely in reverse. But fear not, with this level of racism against white people, they (everyone else) may yet get the hate they tend to crave so much. Why would that ever be desired?
In this current environment, ‘reverse’ racism has come out on top, and is now actually in vogue, which is atrocious, as all real racism certainly is immoral. The race card has been played over and over again for decades, even after most of those long-held beliefs of past centuries have gone the way of the dinosaurs. There will always be some people who dislike others for the wrong reasons, there will always be racists and bigots, there will always be bad people, there will always be those who achieve more and are richer than others, and there will never be complete ‘equality’ unless all are equally enslaved. This is the way of the world, but that does not have to be a bad thing. No one can be equal based on outcome, as that means the destruction of freedom, and therefore, the destruction of mankind.
The only true slavery that exists in this country today is the slavery of the masses by the State. There are no black slaves, white slaves, brown slaves, or any other in any real sense of the term, as actual slavery ended in this country well over 150 years ago, which means that no one living is or has ever been a slave. The past is gone, and while it should be remembered and studied in order to learn from those mistakes, it should not be used to punish the innocent for crimes committed by people now dead. That kind of blame is flawed and deadly, and is only a heinous political tool, never used for good or meant to cure ills, but only to enhance one group at the expense of another, or to purposely cause division where none should thrive; which of course is very wrong. Committing multiple wrongs does not make a right as the old saying goes, but it does keep evil alive.
As an aside, for all white people who claim that white people should die due to the color of their skin, if you have not yet committed suicide, you have perpetrated hypocrisy at the highest level possible, and are not worth the effort to acknowledge. You know who you are, and everyone else does as well.
Let us end this conversation with a hope that many more might in the future attempt to get along together, to only see each individual for his real worth and not his color, eliminate the State’s planned division that has been foisted on us, and voluntarily accepted by most, and understand the wickedness of the plot to breed hate in order to control.
Make love not war was the protest mantra of the 60s, and was loved by the young and anti-war crowd, and shunned by the promoters of war and conflict. It is just as appropriate today concerning the mass divide that exists among the people at large, and would it not be so much better if more understood that we are still at war; only this time, it is the State that is warring against all of us, and so long as we continue to hate each other, the State will win, and all of us will lose everything.
“None of us is responsible for the complexion of his skin. This fact of nature offers no clue to the character or quality of the person underneath.”
Among the proposals are a new “apex body” in charge of the entire financial system that will “enhance its coherence and align its priorities with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” This could, according to Secretary-General António Guterres, be done through a “Biennial Summit between the Group of 20, Economic and Social Council, the Secretary-General, and heads of international financial institutions.”
This will further integrate the G20 with the United Nations into a body that can be described as an economic Security Council. It also seems like a perfect nest for the “apex predators” that runs the international banking system.
A vital part of the agenda is also digital connectivity and the establishment of a Global Digital Compact. This can be described as a cybernetic organ, consisting of a digitally connected network of people, entities, devices, and things, that easily can be directed by those who run the system. In the Policy Brief it is for example explained how digitisation will help to achieve the global goals. The suggestions happens to be very similar to what World Economic Forum and PwC prescribed in their report Unlocking Technologies for the Global Goals in 2020. A Digital ID is a cornerstone in this work and is among other things seen as a way to reduce poverty.
This may, however, come at a cost. In the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperations report Age of Digital Interdependence from 2019, it is stated that:
A digital ID can help unlock new opportunities but can also introduce new risks and challenges. They can be used to undermine human rights – for example, by enabling civil society to be targeted, or selected groups to be excluded from social benefits.
Will you get your social protection coverage if you don’t comply with vaccinations or other measures introduced to achieve the SDGs? Probably not. This can later be fused with a social credit system and Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) – which is now being introduced and tested in many countries across the world. To receive your daily bread you have to obey and accept the instructions from the Masters that run the show. If the UN declares a “Planetary Emergency” this will have severe consequences for our freedoms (as we experienced during the pandemic).
In the Policy Brief – A Global Digital Compact the authors truthfully are mentioning the rising inequality after the pandemic.
Digital technologies are accelerating the concentration of economic power in an ever smaller group of elites and companies: the combined wealth of technology billionaires, $2.1 trillion in 2022, is greater than the annual gross domestic product of more than half of the Group of 20 economies.
But it seems that United Nations has a somewhat peculiar way of solving this problem. Not only do they strive towards digitising everything – they have also partnered with Big Tech in order to achieve this.
The UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation was led by Melinda Gates from Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (according to the bio, Melinda “helped develop many of the company’s multimedia products” during her time at Microsoft) and tech billionaire Jack Ma from the Chinese Ali Baba Group.
This comes with assistance from Young Global Leaders like Mohammed Al Gergawi (chairman of the high-tech Mecca gathering – World Government Summit in Dubai), and Marina Kolesnik (Russia/Ukraine) as well as a “generous” contribution from the World Economic Forums Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Ali Baba developed Chinas Social Credit System through their subsidiary Ant Group whereas Microsoft promotes Digital ID in the ID2020 Alliance together with GAVI – The Vacccine Alliance and the ever so present Rockefeller Foundation.
United Nations seems to have hired a gang of robbers to manage the bank. These are the “trustees of the material universe for future generations” as stated in the global business elites’ Davos Manifesto from 1973.
Why on Earth would these “enlightened custodians” reverse a development that has put more power and wealth into their hands?
And now our “generous” tech billionaires are heading for Outer Space. The last Policy Brief (The Future of Outer Space Governance) formulates the grand vision to reestablish a presence on the moon with a way station (Lunar Gateway) and the development of a base at the south pole of the Moon as well as conducting a manned mission to the red planet (Elon Musk’s SpaceX).
These are old fantasies from the late 1940s that never seem to materialise. But their “space-based opportunities” also highlight the “important link between outer space and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” with the importance of satellite surveillance to “track deforestation, monitor protected areas for illegal poaching and fishing and assess biodiversity changes” as well as track our every move through the global navigation satellite systems.
As WEF-trustee and Climate Prophet/Profiteer Al Gore proclaimed with a giggle in the commercial for his satellite surveillance project Climate Trace: “And most importantly… NO MORE HIDING”.
Are these people insane? How can the construction of a digital world brain really contribute to a greener and healthier planet?
Wouldn’t it be a more efficient measure to secure peace and the environment on this planet if this megalomaniac elite were sent on a one way mission to Mars?
On Monday, the World Health Organization and European Union announced the launch of their new “partnership”, building on the EU’s “highly successful” digital certification network, which was introduced during the “pandemic”.
From the WHO’s website [emphasis added]:
WHO will take up the European Union (EU) system of digital COVID-19 certification to establish a global system that will help facilitate global mobility…
This would be those digital health passports that “conspiracy theorists” warned about, but which we were all told weren’t ever going to be a thing.
This isn’t about “Covid” anymore, WHO Chairman Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said as much in his statement on the launch, and it’s again made clear on the website, which repeatedly underlines the supposed purpose of the initiative:
[To] protect citizens across the world from on-going and future health threats, including pandemics
[To] enhance strategic cooperation on global health issues
[To] help strengthen global health preparedness in the face of growing health threats
[To] to deliver better health for citizens across the globe
What are these “health threats”? Well, they quite intentionally don’t say, but we can all make pretty good guesses. Climate change, obviously. Obesity seems pretty likely, poverty, overpopulation …and as many more as they choose.
– That’s the whole point of the open-ended wording, you can adapt it as you go.
Anyway, it won’t just be about about Covid passports, again as the conspiracy theorists predicted. But, more than that, it won’t even just be passports…
This is the first building block of the WHO Global Digital Health Certification Network (GDHCN) that will develop a wide range of digital products to deliver better health for all.
They are delightfully vague about what exactly these other “digital products” might be, how much they are going to cost global taxpayers, and just how many of our rights we’ll be required to forfeit in the name of a “healthy” planet (although ou can read the WHO’s “Global Strategy on Digital Health” to get some rough ideas).
However, while the details are brushed over, the overall aim is pretty openly stated:
enhance strategic cooperation on global health issues […] bolster a robust multilateral system with WHO at its core, powered by a strong EU.
It’s globalism – sorry, “multilateralism”.
Globalism has been the end game since the pandemic started. Hence the Pandemic Treaty, the new IHR regulations all that fun stuff. One world government (or maybe two world governments, if the New Cold War plays out as expected), installed in the name of public health.
Note that this launch lines up with a lot of “coincidental” domestic political movements from around the world.
For example, in the US they are set to vote on the “Improving Digital Identity Act”, which would require digital ID to do…pretty much everything.
In the UK Sir Keir Starmer has promised a “totally digital NHS” under the next Labour government.
In essence, each country – for notionally different reasons, and supposedly independently of their own free will – are all going to develop a digital ID/health passport system at exactly the same time, and while working with the WHO to ensure “interoperability”.
Therein lies the plausible deniability. See, it won’t be one global health and surveillance system! No, it will be 100+ different “interoperable” systems…that just happened by chance to all be conceived and built at the same time along the same guidelines.
A distinction good enough to fuel the inevitable defenses from corporate fact-checkers even if it can’t fool anyone else.
However, all that aside, the most interesting part of this story is where you read about it.
Viz – the back pages.
At the height of the pandemic, this would be big news, maybe breaking news in big red letters. There’d be op-eds in all the major outlets celebrating the move, accompanied by “fact checks” with headlines like “No, global digital passports doesn’t mean one world government”.
Now, if you’re not following certain social media accounts or regularly checking the news cycles for quite specific terms, you’d never have heard about this. It’s not even mentioned in any mainstream news site I’ve read.
Resistance has pushed the New Normal narrative out of the limelight, to be replaced by war porn, Trump, illegal immigrants or Harry and Meghan.
You’re all being encouraged to think the Great Reset was a flash in the pan, the New Normal just an old joke. 2020 was just a bad dream & now everything is back to normal & Left versus Right, East versus West…
But no. This is the last reel of the scary movie. The demon seems to be exorcised, the danger looks like it’s over and the heroine has gone to take a bath, unaware of what’s creeping slowly toward her from the shadows.
The Great Reset is still very much alive, but your resistance temporarily shut it down, so it’s changed its tactic. It was overt. Now it’s covert. Now it’s hoping to sneak in while you’re not looking and snatch you up and swallow you down before you even know what’s happening.
It’s incredibly important you don’t let that happen.
So – wake up, and wake other people up. Shake them. Yell at them. Get them to look over their shoulder at the big rough beast slouching toward Bethlehem – so we can try to stop it being born.
Racehorses are among the most finely tuned, exquisitely sensitive creatures on earth. So what happens when you give them all cell phones to wear during a race? They start dropping like… well, horses.
That is exactly what started happening this spring at Churchill Downs in Louisville, home of the world-famous Kentucky Derby. Churchill Downs hosts three “meets” every year during which there are horse races four to five days a week — a spring meet lasting all of May and June; a September meet; and a fall meet throughout November. The spring meet this year at the Downs began on April 29 and was to continue until July 3. And beginning on April 29, and in every race on every day thereafter, every horse was fitted with a device they had never worn before. It is a wireless device, shaped like an iPhone, that fits into the cloth underneath the saddle on the horse’s back. Horses also began wearing these devices this spring during morning workouts.
This STRIDESafe device monitors the horse’s movements 2,400 times per second throughout the race, sending 2,400 pulses of radio frequency (RF) radiation every second through the body of the horse. It also contains a GPS component that communicates with global positioning satellites. It also communicates with the RFID chip implanted in the left side of every horse’s neck, ensuring that the chip also emits radiation throughout the race. And because every racehorse wears horseshoes made of aluminum, which is one of the best conductors, the frequencies that are conducted from both the STRIDESafe device and the RFID chip throughout the horse’s body are absorbed and reradiated by its four shoes. Each horse, then, carries not one but six continuously radiating antennas throughout each race at Churchill Downs. So with 14 horses normally competing in each race, there are 84 antennas among animals in close proximity to one another running around the track.
And on April 29, 2023, horses racing at Churchill Downs began to die during races or suffer such severe injuries during races that they were euthanized. So many horses have died this spring that on June 2 it was announced that the spring meet at the Downs would be suspended as of June 10. Officials at Churchill Downs are panicked because horses racing there have died in much larger numbers this spring than ever before. In 2022, nationwide, about 1.25 deaths occurred for every 1,000 horses starting at the gate. But since April 29, 2023, 12 deaths have occurred among just 1,600 starts at Churchill Downs, a sudden and unprecedented 8-fold increase in racehorse mortality.
Officials have carefully inspected the track and every part of the racing grounds and have found no change in any part of it from previous meets, and no reason for horses to be more prone to injury or collapse. But they have the same blind spot as the rest of society: they treat wireless devices, and the radiation they emit, as if they do not exist.
The horse named Parents Pride simply collapsed and died for no apparent reason during a race on April 29. No drugs were found in her system, and no poisons. She was running normally before the race. No abnormalities were found in her heart, brain or lungs.
Code of Kings “flipped” and broke his neck in the paddock just prior to a race and was euthanized, also on April 29. The paddock, also called the parade ring, is where horses are paraded before a race so the racegoers can get a good look at them.
Take Charge Briana suffered catastrophic damage to her right foreleg during a race on May 2 and was euthanized.
Chasing Artie completed his race on May 2 and then collapsed and died on his way to the unsaddling area, for no apparent reason.
Chloe’s Dream suffered a “catastrophic injury” to his right knee during a race on Derby Day, May 6, and was euthanized.
Freezing Point fractured his left forelimb during a race on Derby Day, May 6, and was euthanized. His jockey said that he was not bumped during the race and that the track was in good condition.
Bosque Redondo finished his race on May 13 but was taken away in a horse ambulance and was euthanized due to unspecified injuries.
Rio Moon was at the finish line of a race on May 14 when he suffered a “catastrophic injury” to his left foreleg and then was euthanized.
Swanson Lake finished his race on May 20 but was immediately taken to a veterinarian where he was euthanized because of a “significant injury” to his left hind leg.
Lost in Limbo, the horse pictured at the top of this newsletter, was removed from the track near the finish of a race on May 26. He had crashed nose-first on the track and lay heaving in the dirt. He was so jittery even before the race that he threw his jockey before it started and bolted. After the race a veterinarian found a “significant injury” to his left front leg and he was euthanized.
Kimberley Dream ruptured a ligament in her left front leg during a race on May 27 and was euthanized.
And two days before the spring meet began, while training on the racetrack on April 27, Wild on Ice broke his left hind leg and was euthanized.
We have known for decades that horses’ lives are shattered by radio waves. Hearings were held in Christchurch, New Zealand, and racehorse trainer Penny Hargreaves spoke out in an interview published in 1998. An FM radio tower in Ouruhia had had such devastating effects on her 90 horses that she was forced to relocate them to a different part of Canterbury. All her horses were affected, some more than others, and two died.
“They were very nervous and jumpy,” she said. “They all seemed to have sore feet. Horses who had travelled by trailer for years were losing balance while travelling. We have several hot spots around our yard where the horses become very volatile and hurt themselves and us.
“Our very valuable colt had serious health problems and walked as if his feet hurt. He could not bear to be shod. We had many vets look at him to try and solve his problems, but without any satisfactory answers. We finally turned him out in a paddock which has a large hay barn and trees between him and the tower. Within a month he had no problems at all. Back in his old yard, the problem returned.
“The blacksmith gave evidence at our hearing on the effect of the radio waves on our horses’ feet. The aluminum conducts electricity and their feet had changed shape, had huge cracks where the nails went and were very sensitive inside.
“We had weekly problems with infections we have never had before, our vet bills were horrendous.”
Nervous and jumpy racehorses with sore feet and lack of coordination. Exactly what has been happening at Churchill Downs during the spring meet this year.
When I learned what was happening at Churchill Downs this spring I sent an email to Dr. Jennifer Durenberger, suggesting to her that the STRIDESafe devices, which have been deployed at Churchill Downs for the safety of the horses, are instead killing them. She has not responded. Dr. Durenberger, a veterinarian, is the Director of Equine Safety & Welfare at the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA). She has been leading a review of the records of the horses that died.
If you are a veterinarian or have experience with horses and would like to help, please send me an email to arthur@cellphonetaskforce.org. This is an opportunity, if we can get Churchill Downs, HISA, and the owners of the racehorses that run in the Kentucky Derby to acknowledge what is happening and get rid of these new wireless devices — an opportunity to educate the rest of the world as well and catalyze a change of direction for us all.
The evidence is overwhelming. The Kiev regime was behind the plot to blow-up the dam. It’s “a war crime” against the Ukrainian people, instigated by the Zelensky government.
The mainstream media in chorus blames Russia. (See our analysis of the MSM media coverage below).
Ask yourself, why on earth would Russia flood its own positions within the territories under its control?
Our message to MSM journalists: It’s “elementary logic”. Use your common sense. Why would they do it? A “Russian Roulette style ritual Hara-kiri” ordered by the Kremlin?
The impacts on people’s lives are devastating in both Ukraine and Russia.
The blow-up of the dam has had repercussions on the supply of water to Crimea, which visibly is the detriment of Russia. See map below.
Unfortunately Russophobia in combination with maniacal rejection of elementary logic is not curable. These people for years have only one pattern of behavior: #KeepCalmAndBlameRussia no matter what the facts are https://t.co/Eeboe4biNe
🇷🇺envoy to @UN#Nebenzia: In October 2022 Russia drew attention to #Kievregime’s plans to destroy #Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant. 🇷🇺calls were left unheeded. Feeling its total impunity & being encouraged by Western sponsors, 🇺🇦 decided to fulfil the terrorist plot this time. pic.twitter.com/x0jutK450O
— Russian Embassy, UK (@RussianEmbassy) June 7, 2023
Was US-NATO complicit in the conduct of this criminal agenda?
See Moscow’s standpoint in the following text issued by the Russian Embassy in the UK:
“We took note of the fact that the unannounced visit to Kiev by #UK Foreign Secretary @JamesCleverly on 5-6 June occurred at the same time as the sharp increase in military activities by the AFU along with #Kievregime’s attempts to destabilise the situation in bordering Russian regions.
.
These circumstances can hardly be considered a coincidence. A personal visit by a high-ranking British emissary and his encouraging public statements cannot be viewed by the Western-controlled Kiev regime as anything other than an endorsement to engage in further military adventures and acts of sabotage against the peaceful citizens of Russia – for instance, the intentional destruction of facilities of the #Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Station which can lead to dramatic humanitarian consequences for the civilian population of the flooded territory.
.
London’s longstanding deliberate efforts to escalate the anti-Russian proxy conflict in #Ukraine, including by supplying Kiev with more lethal and long-range offensive weapons, leave no doubt that words of peace and value of Ukrainian lives mean nothing to London. In this context Mr Cleverly’s enthusiastic musings about the blooming of flowers and leaves in Kiev sound particularly cynical.”
▪️ We took note of the fact that the unannounced visit to Kiev by #UK Foreign Secretary @JamesCleverly on 5-6 June occurred at the same time as the sharp increase in military activities by the AFU along with #Kievregime’s attempts to destabilise the situation in bordering Russian… pic.twitter.com/5orb404uKj
— Russian Embassy, UK (@RussianEmbassy) June 6, 2023
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, Update, June 7, 2023
Below is the detailed article published by Global Research on June 6, 2023
***
The Western media in chorus is blaming the Russians without acknowledging the fact that the issue of the Hydroelectric Kakhovskaya Dam had been brought to the attention of the United Nations Security Council back on October 21, 2022.
The document was made available to all members of the UN Security Council.
The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres was fully aware of the letter addressed to him by Russia’s UN Permanent Representative regarding Kiev’s plan to blow up the dam.
What did he do? Nothing.The UNSC had the responsibility to open an investigation.
***
Russian MFA Spox Maria #Zakharova: On October 21, 2022, Russia’s Ambassador to the UN sent a letter to the UN Secretary General regarding the Kiev regime’s plans to destroy the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric dam in Kherson province.
💬 Russian MFA Spox Maria #Zakharova: On October 21, 2022, Russia's Ambassador to the UN sent a letter to the UN Secretary General regarding Kiev regime's plans to destroy the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric dam.
Russia had warned of potential catastrophic flooding and loss of life (see October 21, 2022 advisory to UNSC). In recent months, Russia conducted the evacuation of people on the East side of the Dnieper.
And here is the coverage of the mainstream media, casually blaming Russia, without a shred of evidence:
“Everything is going to die here,’ a man named Serhiy living in Kherson said. ‘All the living creatures, and people will be flooded out.
‘People will suffer. There’s already no water coming out of taps – why not, no one knows.’
Other Kherson residents said the water level in some parts of the city had already reached 9ft high and they could see more water headed their way.
Ukrainian authorities have previously warned that the dam’s failure could unleash 18million cubic meters (4.8billion gallons) of water and flood Kherson and dozens of other towns and settlements, home to hundreds of thousands of people.
The cause of the blasts is not yet clear, although Ukraine warned late last year that Russian forces had mined the dam as they retreated from Kherson and Ukraine’s state hydroelectric company said the Kakhova plant was destroyed by an explosion in the engine room – suggesting it was attacked from within rather than by external strikes.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday told a Vatican peace envoy that the destruction of the Kakhovka dam would have ‘dire consequences’ for people and nature.
‘This crime carries enormous threats and will have dire consequences for people’s lives and the environment,’ he told Italian cardinal Matteo Zuppi as the two met in Kyiv, according to a presidency statement.
As tens of thousands of Ukrainians flee their homes…
Ukraine’s state hydroelectric company said the Kakhovka plant was totally destroyed by an engine room blast
Ukrainian prime minister Denys Shmyhal said that up to 80 settlements are at risk of flooding
Kyiv officials alleged that Moscow destroyed the dam in order to slow down its long-awaited counteroffensive
Zelensky said that Russian forces must be ‘expelled from every corner’ of his nation for their ‘terrorist actions’
Moscow has blamed Kyiv’s forces for the strikes on the dam which is in Russian-held territory (Daily Mail, June 6, 2023)
According the NBC (June 6,2023) quoting “authoritative” sources as well as US “intelligence” which need to be “declassified”:
“The United States government has intelligence that is leaning toward Russia as the culprit of the attack on the dam in Ukraine, according to two U.S. officials and one Western official.
President Joe Biden’s administration was working to declassify some of the intelligence and share it as early as Tuesday afternoon.
The motive behind the explosion was still being assessed, but the collapse appears likely to make it more difficult for Ukrainian forces to conduct a river crossing and also presents a difficult humanitarian challenge, the Western official said. (NBC, June 6, 2023, emphasis added)
Why on earth would they blow up the Kakhovka dam, which was in territory under Russian control.
“The Russian Ministry of defense has been warning for over a year now that the Kiev regime is likely to collapse the dam up river from Kherson and cause a catastrophe.
Well, sure enough, today [June 6, 2023] they did just that and the West is stupidly buying into the propaganda that the Russians are to blame.
Of course the Russians wouldn’t destroy their own dam, [In territory they control] but if the combined West admits that the Russians were right all along and that their “Nazi pals” burst the dam, that would be bad publicity for Washington.
In the case of the Nord Stream sabotage, they pretended to start an “investigation” that went nowhere, but this time, the unbiased UN chief just skipped that step and laid it right on Putin, exonerating the Nazis from the outset.”
Informed and officially advised on October 21, 2022 (with distribution to all members of the UNSC) here is UNSG’s Antonio Guterres’ response regarding the destruction of the dam.
BREAKING: UN chief @antonioguterres said the tragic destruction of #Ukraine dam was another devastating consequence of the #Russian invasion, calling for all attacks on civilians & civilian infrastructure to stophttps://t.co/o2L5tU0Cvl
UN Secretary-General António Guterres pleaded ignorance: “he told reporters in New York outside the Security Council that the UN had no access to independent information to verify how the catastrophe had occurred.” That’s an outright lie.
Below the selected quotes you will find an article by John Waters as well as a video conversation between John Waters & Thomas Sheridan regarding the situation in Ireland, human consciousness, and unfolding global events.
“Thomas is a pagan and I am a Christian. We are friends. We seek, I believe, the same thing, which is not the triumph of one or other creed, but the restoration of Ireland’s transcendent imagination, without which Ireland — or any nation — cannot survive.”
~ John Waters (excerpt from article below)
“It’s all about the degeneracy of the establishment, the really bad stuff that goes on at the top, right? They’re constantly trying to normalize it to the rest of us.
“And I’m gonna make a prediction here. In the next few years they’re going to try and somehow, in some way, reduce the age of consent really low.”
[…]
“And you’re going to have it become integrated into songs and TV shows and sitcoms. This is the greatest battle we will face as a civilization…
“They want to bring the human race down to zero, below degeneracy. Why? It’s a transhumanist thing.
“Everything that makes a human a human — their natural sense of natural justice. They want to obliterate it.
“The whole lockdown was all about that…”
[…]
“Do you remember the question we all grew up with? How did the Holocaust happen? Now we know. Now we know.”
[…]
“What those people are capable of is projecting their own inner dysfunctionality on us, and then trying to normalize it. And I think they’re not finished yet.
“But it’s obviously a battle they’ve lost. It’s over. It’s not going to go that way. It won’t happen.”
[…]
“They’re inching towards it.
“Why the drag queen story time? What the hell is that all about? Why the need for that?
“The need for that is they’re sexualizing children on purpose. And that’s why the change in the school curriculums.
“We have to understand the wickedness of what we’re up against. It’s like we got a taste of it with the lockdowns. But that poison is still there. And we have to be vigilant about it…”
[…]
“And this is an important one for us: Don’t self-hex yourself.
“Just because they want transhumanism, don’t say, ‘Oh, we’re gonna get transhumanism’ or ‘They’re gonna do this. They’re gonna legalize that. They’re going to bring in mandatory…’.
“Don’t do that. And stay away from people who are nihilistic that way. Because you can actually self-hex that into reality. They want you doing that.
“So that’s a very important one. Don’t let them self-hex you anymore.”
~ Thomas Sheridan (excerpt from video below)
“It is our job — as people, as citizens, as parents, as sons and daughters, brothers and sisters — it is our job to begin to think about the process of reconstruction of our culture.
“With… these considerations in mind. How do we rebuild our culture so that we, our imagination, can expand rather than contract?
“How can it make us bigger in reality rather than smaller?
“How can it make us more confident rather than more afraid?
“How do we repossess our country?
“How do we become again as proprietors, not as slaves…?”
Our problem — our terminal problem — is that we have lost the capacity to walk upright in infinity. This will not be mended by pious ejaculations, any more than by neo-atheist bullshit.
Video: A public conversation about the trajectory of the soul of Ireland between Thomas Sheridan and John Waters at the Tuatha Dé Danann festival in Fermoy, Co Cork, on Saturday May 27th, 2023.
(Readers of my weekly diary may already have read most of the following in my weekly diaries of last week and the week before — reproduced here by way of introducing the context and purpose of this event. The links to the video are at the bottom of the page.)
To say that the crisis of Ireland is ‘spiritual’ is not the same as saying that it is ‘religious’, though the difference can be hard to spell out unless it makes itself clear, as sometimes it does. Ireland has been undergoing a visible ‘religious’ crisis for perhaps 40 years, chiefly arising from a war of attrition on its primary faith-channel, Catholicism, by a cultural insurgency of indeterminate origin but rather obvious intentionality. The elements and episodes of this have already been well canvassed: culture wars, clerical hypocrisy, charges of child sexual abuse and its cover-up, and beyond that a failure on the part of the Catholic Church ‘corporate’ to offer a meaningful proposal for spiritual existence to generations supposedly educated in the values of the Enlightenment and the technological/technocratic age, culminating in its woeful and disgraceful conduct during the Covid episode, when it left its entire congregation bereft of guidance, accompaniment and leadership. Cumulatively, these factors, and multiple others, have delivered Ireland into a spiritual death-spiral that has yet to be formally identified, either by the society or any of its churches. The symptoms of this crisis can be traced in the drifts of Ireland’s cultural trajectory for many years, and the events of, in particular, the past decade, when Ireland as a nation and culture appeared to be galloping towards a cliff-edge of moral and existential self-destruction. Many of the relevant episodes and developments have been described and analysed on this platform over the past three years, and before that in several books of mine published since the mid-1990s, the most recent being the 2018 memoir, Give Us Back the Bad Roads.
It is clear that Ireland has now entered some kind of final stage of this unravelling, of which the consequences are unlikely to be confined to the wish-list of those who have been driving the culture wars. In other words, what will be lost will be not merely the Church, but the metaphysical perspective in its entirety. Like other nations, though in a rather more pronounced manner, Ireland has entered what feels terrifyingly like a death-spiral, not least in the context of its collapsing demographics and inability to tell victims from vanquishers, or differentiate between its responsibilities to its own people and its role in an international people-trafficking racket. That this collapse has long been disguised by spurious economic data and other propaganda will render its manifestation and effects all the worse when it finally hits.
This conversation, though unscripted, was loosely intended as an attempt to address these conditions in the context of Ireland’s long spiritual evolution, with a view to identifying some thread of continuity that might assist in reawaking the Irish soul before it comes too late to do so.
What follow are my initial thoughts written in advance of the event in Fermoy on May 27th, as published in my weekly Unchained diary.
Friday (May 26th)
As is customary in advance of such events, I am carrying around a bag of thoughts about this Saturday’s public conversation with Thomas Sheridan at the Tuatha Dé Danann festival in Fermoy. It is, of course, a Resistance event, beautifully choreographed by Gerry O’Neill (The West’s Awake, here on Substack), but for once I can banish any fears of an insurgency by left-wing actually existing fascists, since the venue is private and well secured. Democracy wins, for once — or so we hope. I shall give a full account of events here next week.
Our theme is (something like) the evolution of Ireland from paganism to Christianity, though that construction has an element of begging the question, if not actually beggaring it. It’s a broad enough canvas, and Thomas and I have already approached the territory in some of our private discussions, though by no means pushing towards anything resembling a plan. I think our instincts, though we approach from divergent positions, are very similar: We seek to find a true line through the pagan and Christian histories of this island that will take us to consideration of the meaning of the present moment and perhaps some suggestion of what the next phase might be like.
Thomas is a pagan and I am a Christian. We are friends. We seek, I believe, the same thing, which is not the triumph of one or other creed, but the restoration of Ireland’s transcendent imagination, without which Ireland — or any nation — cannot survive. Thomas is a great deal more knowledgable about the history of Irish spirituality than I am, and it remains to be seen whether my sense of things is accurate or sustainable, but I believe that, overall, the transition from paganism to Christianity was relatively seamless, that this augurs well for some form of ultimate reconciliation of the traditions, and that this ought to be our first point of departure. To put this another way: In terms of our spiritually imaginative collective journeying, we speak not of two histories, but one. The merging to be observed in the two strands far exceeds any sense of divergence, and this is reflected in innumerable contexts: our surviving sense of the significance of our ancient holy sites, our recently renewing consciousness of Celtic Christianity, our continuing reverence for the land and landscape of Ireland, and so forth. These factors tell us that there is a great deal more of paganism in our modern-day Catholic imagination than many Catholics might like to admit. I have no difficulty in admitting it, indeed celebrating it, although I confess I did not arrive at that point until I ran into Thomas Sheridan, about three years ago.
The core ‘belief’ that drives me here is that no society can endure unless it has a transcendent element to its collective imagination. That has been my obsession in writing about faith, spirituality and religion from the beginning, although for various reasons it has been all but impossible to communicate this in the cultural climate of recent decades. This, essentially, is the point of my books, Lapsed Agnostic (2007) and Beyond Consolation (2010), and also of a substantial segment of my 1997 book, An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Modern Ireland — in particular the chapter ‘On How God Has Been Kidnapped and Held to Ransom’.
In the first of his trilogy, Sacred Order/Social Order (2006-2008) — two volumes of which were published posthumously — the American Freudian, sociologist and cultural critic, Philip Rieff, posited that Western civilisation was in the third and likely final stage of a rise and fall that had occurred over the course of three millennia. At the heart of his thesis is the Freudian idea that only through sublimation of the sexual instinct had Western civilisation come about. In other words, controls and restrictions on sexual activity had, as it were, squeezed out of humanity the creativity and genius which begat Western civilisation. This, it will come as a surprise, was predominately a Christian innovation.
Many nowadays misunderstand Freud’s pronouncement that religion is ‘illusory’. This may have been, in a different sense, his private view, but his theoretical position was that religion is a form that creates the superstructure of a transcendent cultural understanding. This means that, in a sense, human beings, when present on Earth, are simply ‘moving through’ this dimension to another place, and hence direct a measure of their attention to what they intuit to be beyond the horizon. This, of course, is how most religions present matters also, though generally in a subtly different sense: Often, the purpose or effect is to persuade people to discount misfortune or grief in this life, in the expectation of an afterlife reward. But, in the Freudian and Rieffian senses, we speak not of foregoing joy on Earth, but of adopting a demeanour towards Earthly reality that maximises human functioning. In this way, mankind has been able to place itself within a transcendent order of being, which has enabled it to put to good use energy that might otherwise have been dissipated in licentiousness and depravity.
In his earlier works, such as Freud: The Mind of the Moralist and The Triumph of the Therapeutic, Rieff unwrapped his concept of the ‘psychological man’, a creature of late modern society, who essentially knew the existential cost of everything but the metaphysical value of nothing. Psychological man was the product of communities that had lost the positive values spawned by transcendent culture. Because the hope of salvation had been abandoned, therapy was all that remained.
In the first of his Sacred Order/Social Order trilogy, My Life Among the Deathworks, Rieff divides recent human history into three layers of religious evolution/devolution, which he identifies, somewhat confusingly, as ‘First World’, ‘Second World’ and ‘Third World’ cultures — resonating with the conventional contemporary understandings of these terms while conveying something much more enduring and fundamental. All societies, he claims, must espouse a sacred order, from which it derives authority to make laws and rules and give them the required force of moral injunctions seeking to outweigh other considerations. His ‘First World’ culture was essentially mythological: the Greek legends of gods and heroes, the ancient pagan world, the fables of the American ‘Indians’, the Irish stories of Cú Chulainn and the Tuatha Dé Danann. Such cultures were defined by a sense of Fate — which sees mankind at the mercy of forces greater than itself — and ordered by taboos.
In the ‘Second World’ culture, by Rieff’s hypothesis, this sense of Fate shifted to become a sense of Faith, with taboos replaced by commandments. This expands the transcendent imagination to embrace, as per the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the idea of man being governed by a specific God, and in some sense accompanied in his existence by this deity, which is accordingly imbued with a personalised meaning. The most significant element of this phase was the incarnation of Christ, in which God entered the earthly realm in order to ‘save’ mankind, which might be redefined as clarifying the purpose of human existence and elaborating a new way of being in the world. Both the First and Second Worlds are centred on a transcendent sense of reality, and obviously these are the phases in Irish history that Thomas and I will be seeking to reconcile or elucidate on Saturday.
But we will also, regrettably, have to come to the Third World phase, defined by Rieff as a culture exhibiting a social order that rests on no preexisting sacred order, characterised by artefacts and expressions that are invariably transgressive, debunking or deconstructive. This is the culture of ‘deathworks’, and is where we have now fetched up.
For the first time in history, cultural elites insist upon the untried, revolutionary idea that human society can flourish without sacred authority. ‘A culture of civility that is separated from sacred order has not been tried before,’ Rieff claimed in My Life Among the Deathworks, the first of his Sacred Order trilogy, published in 2006, the year of his death. Such cultures dispense with any interest in sublimating the instinctual carnality and lasciviousness of mankind, placing sexuality at the top of the totem pole, inverting the value systems acquired in the First and Second World phases, so that lust and hedonism become the dominant ‘values’, and their restriction deemed an offence against freedom. This amounts to a full 180 degree moral inversion from either or both of the first two cultural phases.
The pursuit of happiness through pleasure becomes the central obsession of a ‘Third World’ society. The accordant suppression of the sublimating tendency triggers the demolition of the transcendent order upon which the society will have been constructed in the first place, which hastens the termination of the metaphysical imagination of the society, and thereafter that of its citizens. What inevitably follows, according to Rieff, is a proliferation of sexual identities, the promulgation of pornograpjy and artistic deathworks, and attacks on the fundamental understandings of human nature. In this culture, what once was vice is now virtue, and what was virtue is scorned and laughed at. Pornography becomes the new ‘doctrine of value’, which is why it is to be pushed via the education system upon young children. In due course, such a society will inevitably overturn all of the taboos and limitations on sexual behaviour that once enabled the civilisation to come into being. These include squeamishness about paedophilia, bestiality and incest, as well as multiple categories of sexual ‘choices’, which facilitate their pioneer practitioners to become elevated into a form of hedonistic sainthood. Hence, for example, Panti Bliss, the iconoclast drag-queen grot-peddler as hero. Rieff calls this ‘anti-culture’, in which the objective is not to transmit constructive beliefs from generation to generation but to convey beliefs that cannot but destroy everything they touch. It becomes impossible, in such a society, to judge human behaviour by its transgressive aspects, because all prohibition is prohibited and — in Freudspeak, ‘all repression must be repressed’. In this culture, the only truth is that there is no truth; virtue is supplanted by vulgarity, and delicacy by degeneracy. A Third World culture has no memory, and repudiates all authority, and is ruled by fiction and theatrical role-playing.
It is not accidental that Rieff — who, incidentally, blames Freudian therapeutics for the unleashing of Third World culture — ended up labelling European and American culture as such. A deathwork he defines as a work of art that presents as ‘an all-out assault upon something vital to the established culture’, and a ‘culture of deathworks’ signifies the self-murder of a civilisation though filth and nihilism. What we now face, therefore, is not some random ‘culture war’ about particulars, but a radical divergence at the most fundamental level — a stifling of belief in the transcendent and its supplanting by a purely earthbound imagination, but which civilisation is rendered impossible to maintain.
His denunciation of ‘deathworks’ is not aesthetic, but a moral condemnation of the denigration of the sacred in art. He declared Joyce’s novel Finnegans Wake as ‘the greatest third world literary creation’ on account of its demonstration of a method by which a cultural inheritance might be pulled apart and its pieces rearranged to produce a playful new culture that finds its forte in a mockery of, and freedom from, the old one. In this sense, the book is ‘liberatory’, because it shows a way to escape from the prescriptions and proscriptions of the sacred.
It can no longer be controversial to suggest that the defining characteristic of the present age might be diagnosed as the desire to subvert and destroy the institutions, traditions and beliefs that converged to become what is called Western civilisation — previously ‘Christendom’. This iconoclasm is carried out in the name of freedom — sexual freedom, for the most part — but is propelled by a fatal misunderstanding of the nature of reality and of the human structure.
Man is not built for the world — not entirely, at least. He cannot find satisfaction here, except in fits and starts, tantalising and brief. He is restless and searching, but cannot ever seem to find what he’s looking for. The optimal demeanour before this reality is, therefore, that of the existential nomad — always moving, not purely in the physical sense, but by adopting a mode of metaphysical impermanence, shifting constantly lest his searching lead to ennui.
In this sense, the cultural and societal inheritance of Christianity can be rinsed down to the idea that human happiness is better achieved by the sublimation of obvious desiring in the visualisation of a transcendent order of being. Man must live in the infinite, even while he is marooned in the three-dimensional. A functional culture in this sense requires a foundational mythology that enables it to transcend the state of continuous present time. This mythology relates to the past and to the putatively eternal future, and functions to render the present subservient to things higher and greater than itself. The nature of the rupture that has opened up in modern society has to do with the repudiation of this idea in favour of something that amounts to a culture rooted in itself and its own apprehended origins.
The Third World culture comes about when the means by which the civilisation was structured to begin with is forgotten, or overlooked, in a desire to destroy authority and tradition in the neurotic pursuit of the pleasures that have seemed to be gratuitously forbidden.
It is true that the resulting pseudo-culture can achieve the semblance of functionalism by mimicking the idea of a transcendent culture, since it maintains the outward appearance of a quasi-eternal perspective on reality. But this is actually an illusion, and all of the available artefacts (‘anti-art’) will reveal themselves as tautologies. A novel, for example, will not take its reader on a journey into the infinite, but will simply replicate the wider culture’s certitude that it amounts to all that is, and all that is necessary. Its aim is to achieve in the reader an accommodation with the proffered definitions, not to open up unlimited possibilities. It is possible to prolong the life of this pseudo-culture by the practice of parasitism upon that which it denies: an atheist poet, for example, may have derived inspiration from another whose work is rooted in the eternal, though he puts it to use to parody such understandings. A painting may mock the rejected inheritance, and yet derive its only life from what it derides.
Such a pseudo-culture is incapable of formulating any idea of the beautiful, the good or the true, because it renders man and his desire for immediate freedoms as the measure of all things. This culture remains oblivious that the untrammelled pursuit of the literal desiring of each and every human will in a short time lead to chaos, followed by outright destruction of everything. Very often, this phenomenon is ascribed to the waning of what is called ‘morality’ — to the applause of ‘progressives’ and the dismay of ‘conservatives’ — but this is a superficial reading. Really what is at play is the loss of the capacity to read reality as something to be ‘moved through’ on the way to another, imagined, place. The purpose is not, as Freud intimated, self-delusion, but the adoption of the optimal demeanour in a reality that does not meet the total scope of man’s desiring — indeed, while promising to satisfy the deepest cravings, leaves man bereft and humiliated in the wake of each lunging after the presumed object of his longing.
Anyway, to Fermoy! The foregoing touches on just a few of the thoughts I have been thinking as I cut the grass and tended to the security of the cabbage patch. In the evenings, I dipped into some of the late John O’Donoghue’s fabulous books — Anam Cara, Divine Beauty, Eternal Echoes, Bendictus — which offer such a rich repository of memory of those early years of what he called ‘Celtic Christianity,’ when our First World morphed into our Second. Now, reeling through the Third, it may be time to reconsider whether we wish to remain subject to the squalls and scudding of Fate, or whether we might wish to revisit some of the elements of our past culture(s) which gave us the riches we are now in the process of destroying.
Saturday (May 27th)
I had a friend one time whose wife was a bit contrary, so whenever she was rude or abrupt with someone, he would take them aside and explain: ‘She wasn’t born on a sunny day.’
But I was born on a sunny day, and every one of my 67 birthdays has fallen on such a day, and that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. Every birthday from my childhood comes back to me in a flood of sunlight and me walking to school, slightly less reluctantly than other days, past the May altars and across the bridge above the drying-up riverbed, with my jumper tied around my waist. I remember only one darkish day, and this purely metaphorically, when I passed an old man sitting breathlessly on a doorstep, out of the sunlight. He lived in a ramshackle cottage with a thatched roof beside the railway bridge on the Trien road, and when I came home at lunchtime my mother told me he had died. His name was Jack Tighe. That was at least 55 years ago, and I have never forgotten the shock of being so close to a dying man.
Today is a sunny day in Tipp. It is not my birthday but the day before my birthday. Out of the blue, it is the most perfect day of the year so far. Jesus is smiling on the Resistance, for he has moved the weather of my birthday one day forward to ensure that the Tuatha Dé Danann festival in Fermoy goes off well.
So, I have awoken in a B&B in the valley of Poulaculleare (Poll An Chóiléir — ‘the hole of the collar’, I think), in the heart of south Tipperary, some 20 miles from Fermoy, and am sitting outside waiting for my lift. The Tuatha Dé Danann Festival is the brainchild of the powerhouse that is Gerry O’Neill (the West’s Awake — and how!) and today is its debut, the first of what we hope will be many more such events, though we barely dare to think so for fear of hexing things.
As relayed last week, I am booked to speak at the festival this afternoon, along with Thomas Sheridan, about the state of the soul of Ireland at this moment in its long spiritual journey from paganism, via Celtic Christianity, to whatever we’re going through now. Our title is ‘The Awakening Soul of Ireland’, which is appropriately hopeful, though possibly a bit premature.
As I outlined last week, I see this spiritual trajectory as a climb towards and then a falling away from transcendence, exactly in the fashion described by the American sociologist, Philip Rieff, in his 2006 book, My Life Among the Deathworks. It’s a risky enough theme to be discussing in front of a mixed audience, because, as I have discovered over the years, when it comes to ‘religious’ topics, people tend to hear — or not hear — only their own prejudices, so in some respects you are wasting your time trying to break new ground.
Whether Thomas and I were successful in this endeavour, I shall leave in the hands of you, the reader. I believe we opened some interesting new boxes, and certainly the response afterwards was encouraging. But people should not approach the video with prior assumptions and expectations, for what we are doing is not evangelising or engaging in personal testimonies, but seeking to explore how the decrepit transcendent imagination of the nation might be restored to good order.
This is for me the core meaning of that much-used term, ‘the spiritual war’. Had our transcendent imagination remained strong, we should not have ended up as baaing sheep, taking orders from smirking simpletons and behaving in a manner as to cause the lights of our civilisation to go out, one by one, with no let-up or remission for three years and counting. It is confusion as to our meaning and purpose that ultimately causes this degree of demoralisation. And, yes, the churches — worst of all the Catholic Church — played a massive part in this, selling the pass on freedom, without which there is no possibility of retaining truth and justice at the heart of public affairs.
It is necessary to tread carefully through these topics, but hopefully not too carefully. Mostly, religious-minded people attend talks ‘about religion’ to be affirmed in their own certitudes, just as people who have persuaded themselves that it is all nonsense gravitate to such discussions to disrupt them with ridicule and nonsense. I’m not interested in catering for either party. Both a dog-in-the-manger approach to faith by the faithful, and the dumbass neo-atheism of the past couple of decades have contributed to bringing us to this darkest of places. Everyone needs to remember that fixing what is broken will involve talking in a language that as many as possible can relate to. There is no point preaching to choirs, and anyone coming to such discussions to hear what they already know and believe is wasting at least his own time.
The same goes for those who dismiss religion out of hand, even those who say they can ‘find their own way to God’. Maybe they can, but what about if there had never been any conduit for religious ideas in their culture, which is what’s going to obtain from now on? It’s a little like the residents of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown, who have recently been congratulating themselves on their ‘performance’ in Census 2022 on account of the fact that they had the highest showing for ‘no religion’ in the country, at 24 per cent. Probably the most schooled and the least intelligent region of the country (I live there, so I can say this with some conviction), DL/R fails to comprehend that its irreligious disposition, being for now a luxury of a community with residual faith traces, will one day flip and hit its population for six, when critical mass is reached and the smug secularists cotton on that they have delivered their descendants into a hellhole of pitilessness and unhope.
And I have as little patience with those who dismiss all these vital questions with an ‘Oh it’s all just a means of control!’ as I do with Holy Joes who tell me there is a fixed protocol by which I must pursue my spiritual life. A chap was trying to do this to me yesterday as myself and Thomas and Louise Roseingrave were sitting outside trying to get our thoughts together (I mean collectively) for our event. He purported to be ‘having a conversation’, but he was just showering me with questions from behind his veil of cigarette smoke: ‘Why do you say that?’; ‘What do you mean by that?’; ‘Yes, but how do you actually know that?’; et cetera, like a teacher trying to draw the correct answer from a child. In the end I got tired of this socratic dialogue and told him to take a running one. It’s hard to blame him. This is what has passed for conversation in modern media: some dumbass trying to stop you talking by peppering you with smart-sounding questions that actually amount to prohibitions because they stop you saying what you want to say. Essentially, it’s a form of silencing, which is generally what you get if you’re stupid enough to go on with one of the elite mediocrities posturing as moderators of our national conversation.
But just repeating the same mantras about religion being no more than a control grid amounts to the same thing, blocking off any meaningful conversation.
We have heard nothing for about 40 years except the excesses and downsides of religion. We hear rather less about what we have lost by ceasing to speak about the good it has wrought in the world, which is far from trivial. It’s time to move beyond cliches, of either polarity. Unless we’ve been exiled on Mars, we know all about the bad stuff, but can we occasionally discuss the possibility that there are positive reasons why societies might cherish religious ideas?
I noticed a few people walked out quite early on from today’s event featuring Thomas and me. That’ll be the Holy Josephines, I figured, ‘offended’ because I’m making jokes about Jesus coming in a taxi from Cork airport, but unlikely to arrive. (He never arrived, as I predicted.) I don’t do this gratuitously. I do it to send signals to the wanderer that there might be something here worth listening to, that what’s afoot is not an in-house prayer meeting. The suggestion that God might have a sense of humour is never a bad place to begin.
Our problem — our terminal problem — is that we have lost the capacity to walk upright in infinity. This will not be mended by pious ejaculations, any more than by neo-atheist bullshit. It will only become capable of treatment when people can be persuaded to listen to and participate in honest conversations about the meaning of life: Why are we here? Is there even a reason? What can we know about any of this? Those who dismiss those questions because, like Alastair Campbell, they ‘don’t do religion’ are shooting their own children in the feet and hands. Everyone has a right to hear how this stuff might be useful to them. The idea that each of us can arrive at our own spiritual understandings is delusional, because none of us would have the first notion of any of this had we not received a grounding — however imperfect — in a specific religious worldview. Our sole ‘religion’, in that case, would be something like communism, which is what our grandchildren will get unless we can turn things around.
When I speak of these matters, in the general or Christian contexts, I sometimes speak of ‘mythology’, which also drives the Holy Joes mad because they do not understand what mythology is and imagine that what I’m saying is that Christianity is ‘made up’. For the purposes of these discussions, I say that it may or may not be, but that either way the issue is beside the point, which is that these questions belong to an entirely different part of the human imagination, in which things can be true and allegorical at the same time. I have in mind ‘myth’, in the Greek sense of public dreams and stories that are truer than history, larger than facts and more real than what’s on the news.
Several times in the course of my contributions today, I stressed that I was not here to talk about my personal beliefs, but of the possibility of restoring a sense of the transcendent to our public conversations. I have often found that people seem not to see this distinction, imagining that you are preaching or evangelising when in fact you are trying to speak of what is, in this context, fundamentally a cultural question, carrying different implications for the collective than for the personal realm.
In his 1971 volume, Myths to Live By, a collection of lectures delivered at the Cooper Union Forum in New York, between 1958 and 1971, the great mythological scholar, Joseph Campbell, set out the superstructure of mythology in human culture and history. He noted that, from their earliest established existence, hundreds of years before Christ, human myths were concerned primarily with two central themes: the adaption to and enablement of the flourishing of the social groups that give life and protection to the individual, and transcendence of the mortal condition. In a sense, these two themes become one, because both aim for the creation of understandings that allow a human life to extend beyond its mortal boundaries. Campbell described the same mythological patterns in multiple primitive societies — the same themes, symbols, meanings and essential stories. The story of the Garden of Eden, for example, is to be found in the origins of Buddhism in Japan, some 1,000 years before the Book of Genesis was written.
All civilisations tend to take their own mythologies literally, and these beliefs, usually transmitted by religion, have been the very buttresses of multiple civilisations, supporting moral order, cohesion, vitality and imagination. Myth enables us to exceed our own expectations of ourselves by drawing on the deeper capacities which the banality of the everyday contrives to suppress. Successful civilisations, therefore, tend to be the ones that take their own mythologies seriously but not wholly literally. The more a society moves towards rationalism, the more it risks disequilibrium by virtue of no longer holding fast to its founding and sustaining mythologies. Human life, as Nietzsche told us, depends for its propulsion on illusions. The loss of belief in the founding myths provokes uncertainty and the collapse of values and moral order, leading eventually to decay and degeneracy. This is where we have now fetched up.
Campbell elaborates: ‘With our old mythologically founded taboos unsettled by our modern sciences, there is everywhere in the civilised world a rapidly rising incidence of vice and crime, mental disorders, suicides and dope addictions, shattered homes, impudent children, violence, murder, and despair.’
Mythology, as Campbell insisted, is not for the entertainment of children, but nor is it for scholars only. It is a matter of the utmost importance to human society — ‘For its symbols (whether in the tangible form of images or in the abstract form of ideas) touch and release the deepest centers of motivation, moving literate and illiterate alike, moving mobs, moving civilizations.’
And again: ‘The rise and fall of civilizations in the long, broad course of history can be seen to have been largely a function of the integrity and cogency of their supporting canons of myth; for not authority but aspiration is the motivator, builder, and transformer of civilization.’ We take for granted that this is true of the Ancient Greek and Roman empires, but we rarely think of our own civilisation in the same way. We, after all, are ‘modern,’ which somehow puts us into a different category.
And this provokes a question: Is it possible for a society to modernise and remain credulous as to its founding myths? Is there a way by which myths can be retained as something akin to beliefs, even while their literalness is being debunked?
Joseph Campbell held that the decline of belief in myth arises from over-literal belief in religious ideas. Mythology he defined as ‘other people’s religion’: the ‘penultimate truth — penultimate because the ultimate cannot be put into words.’ Religion, he believed, can give rise to popular misunderstandings of the nature of mythology. Half the world, he said, thinks that what he called ‘the metaphors of religious traditions’ are facts, and the other half insists that they are lies.
This is exactly the problem. Over the past couple of decades, the world has seemed to come under sustained attack from the neo-atheists — Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens to the fore — in what had all the signs of a psy-op, i.e., a cultural insurgency designed to weaken the foundations of our religious underpinnings. In some respects, Philip Rieff’s analysis of the three stages of the spiritual growth and decay of societies gives us a clearer viewfinder in which to observe the problem, which is actually as Campbell has stated it. Rieff’s concept of ‘Second World’ modes of belief, for all kinds of arcane and elusive reasons, seems less well adapted to the retention of metaphysical values in culture than the First World kind, which enables a less literal form of attachment to the guiding stories of the belief-system. Abrahamic religion demands a substantialist engagement with the figures and stories of the canon, to which we are enjoined to apply the same forms of reason as to everyday matters. This has proved fatal to the plausibility of, for example, the Christian narrative, which seems to occupy a rather unique situation in being increasingly difficult to sustain at the mythological level once literal belief begins to wane.
Another factor is that ancient mythological understandings tended to be mixed up with tribal sentiment, which meant that their heroic qualities superseded consideration of literal meaning. Because our Western understanding of mythology is so limited and so literal, and because our cultures no longer remind us of such elemental circumstances, we think of our ‘myths’ — those things that ancient human cultures assumed to be truer than the truth — as dispensable in the manner of gramophones or telegraphs. This may be our fatal mistake.
For these and other reasons, ‘modern’ society became — in its own mind — too ‘clever’ for the God it had been reared to see as its Maker. Really, the problem was not one of an excess of intelligence, but an inability to comprehend things simultaneously in different frames, which may be a symptom of a deficit of intelligence.
It is a strange quirk of what we think of as ‘modern’ society that it sees its own crude literalism as evidence of increased enlightenment. But, as Campbell advised, ‘Gods suppressed become devils.’ In other words, we deal here with a stark polarisation of options: once pursuit of ‘The Good’ is set aside as a driving mechanism, it is soon supplanted by its antithesis: the pursuit of depravity and evildoing.
In Hero With A Thousand Faces, Campbell wrote: ‘The psychological dangers through which earlier generations were guided by the symbols and spiritual exercises of their mythological and religious inheritance, we today (in so far as we are unbelievers, or, if believers, in so far as our inherited beliefs fail to represent the real problems of contemporary life) must face alone, or, at best with only tentative, impromptu, and not often very effective guidance. This is our problem as modern, “enlightened” individuals, for whom all gods and devils have been rationalized out of existence.’
But it’s worse than that: the devils have been able to present themselves as heroes. As Campbell emphasised, the effect of a living mythological symbol is to waken and give guidance to the energies of life. It ‘turns us on’ and allows — motivates — us to function in a mode of animated engagement with reality. It appropriates the dormant energies of body and mind, and harnesses them to particular ends. This has served our cultures well for the two thousand years of the Christian era, itself built on the strong foundations of the paganism that came before. But, as Campbell also tells us, when these stories no longer seem true, the symbols no longer work their magic, and man, individual by individual, ‘cracks away’ from the group, becoming dissociated, disoriented and alienated. This is what we are confronted with in what we call ‘post-Christian society’. The ‘affect symbols’ which once summoned each individual member of the belief system to the same purpose now ring hollow, and have not been replaced by anything capable of summoning up the same degree of affective engagement with reality.
My objective in as far as this model of the discussion is concerned is not to restore the claims of this or that religion, or even of religion in general, but simply to remind myself and others that the human mechanism is anything but simple, and we should ponder carefully before abandoning or jettisoning things that have proved useful. Progress can take us backwards, not because it is ‘bad’, but because history does not see things in black and white, good and bad. History, like nature, is red in tooth and claw. It was never a given that the imagined nature of progress emanating from the human mind was going to be maximally suited to the biological, animal nature of man himself. In many ways, the fruits of his own genius impact on him more like the actions of a colonising, occupying power. He thinks he has to follow every conceivable thread of progress and invention, unable to consider whether or not it is good for him, or even if it might destroy him. And, all the while, his moral genius lags behind his capacity for technical invention.
Three years ago, it began to dawn on some of us that the Covid mission was an attempt to restore the terrors, and their supposed remedies, that religions emerged as an answer to — terror of death, first and foremost. Under the control of the godless, the culture now moves to take advantage of the destruction of religion, preying upon the hapless post-Christian refugees from what they imagine to be unreason. Covid is an anti-religion in this precise sense: it seeks to restore man to his primal state, before the thought of God ever crossed his countenance.
There was one significant disruption to our onstage conversation today, by a heckler or interloper who made an attempt to throw the discussion near the end, though I am told by the videographers that this will not feature in the recording, as the voice of the interloper cannot be heard on the tape, and in any event it caused the discussion to break away briefly into a series of tangents. I confess I could not hear him so clearly either, but I gathered that his point was that we were not being ‘positive’ enough. I utterly hate that kind of nonsense — as if we have a responsibility to be ‘positive’ no matter how dark it gets. As it happens — and as I pointed out to the heckler — I had just a couple of minutes earlier said that I believed we were winning the war, to which he rejoined along the lines of ‘What war? There’s no war.’ I believe it was at this point that Thomas asked him if he was a civil servant — an excellent question, which caused the interloper to stutter and stall, before resuming his incoherent interruption. In due course he was persuaded to sling his hook, and off he went with a smug smirk on his chops. My sense is that he was a Guardstapo agent, possibly the one who had spent the week trying to find ways of making things awkward for Gerry O’Neill and his team by ringing up asking about traffic management plans, planning regulations, and so forth. No doubt, like every other agent provocateur we encounter in our country these days, he was in the pay of ‘the PR agency from Hell’, which has been managing the innumerable psy-ops perpetrated against Irish society for the past dozen years. In any event, he achieved almost nothing, and the whole shemozzle lasted about a minute and a half.
The event was held in the grounds of a fabulous old house not far from Fermoy town centre. It is a heavenly place, the property of a local family, well-disposed towards the Resistance. Looking around the site this evening, with its campsite on the hill facing the front door, the marquee in the back garden, and the various food and craft stalls dotted around, it struck me that it was a small-scale version of the Lisdoonvarna music festival of the early 1980s — the same spirit, or something like it, the same categories of people (life-embracing, joyous, freedom-loving), the same implicit sense of Ireland as a unique culture in the world, something worth loving and preserving. Leaving this evening, I had a positive feeling that this is something that will expand because we are — dread cliche! — ‘on the right side of history’, and because Ireland longs to live, and those seeking to destroy her know only death, and so have nothing to propose to her now or in the future. It will, I felt certain as we drove away, become possible to heal and restore our broken culture, and in doing so reclaim our country from the jaws of extinction.
Original video available at YouTube. [Mirrored at Odysee below.]
Technology expert Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., told The Defender that, under the guise of preserving freedom, a digital passport system “means restraints on movement and living for the unvaccinated and forced vaccination to participate in life.”
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Commission — the executive branch of the European Union (EU) — on Monday launched a “landmark digital health partnership” marking the beginning of the WHO Global Digital Health Certification Network (GDHCN) to promote a global interoperable digital vaccine passport.
Beginning this month, the WHO will adopt the EU’s system of digital COVID-19 certification “to establish a global system that will help facilitate global mobility and protect citizens across the world from on-going and future health threats, including pandemics,” according to Monday’s announcements by the WHO and the European Commission.
WHO & @EU_Commission launch landmark digital health initiative to help protect people across the world from on-going & future health threats
This is the first building block of the WHO Global Digital Health Certification Network that will develop a wide range of digital products… pic.twitter.com/IPlxn8wAXv
— World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) June 5, 2023
The WHO and European Commission claim the GDHCN initiative, which has been in the works since 2021, “will develop a wide range of digital products to deliver better health for all.”
The organizations said the WHO will not collect individuals’ personal data via these digital passports — stating that such data collection “would continue to be the exclusive domain of governments.”
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus lauded the new agreement:
“Building on the EU’s highly successful digital certification network, WHO aims to offer all WHO Member States access to an open-source digital health tool, which is based on the principles of equity, innovation, transparency and data protection and privacy.
“New digital health products in development aim to help people everywhere receive quality health services quickly and more effectively.”
However, experts who spoke with The Defender said the ramifications of such a system for human liberty and freedom of movement raised concerns.
Independent journalist James Roguski told The Defender the WHO is not waiting for a successful conclusion of these negotiations in order to implement initiatives such as a global digital vaccine passport. He said:
“The announcement by the WHO and the European Commission regarding the launch of their digital health partnership was hardly a surprise. Over a month ago, the WHO quietly published that they were working on ‘operationalizing’ the very things that were being ‘negotiated.’
“This is just one example that clearly shows that the super-secret ‘negotiations’ regarding the International Health Regulations (IHR) are a charade.”
Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., author of “Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom,” told The Defender that, under the guise of preserving freedom, a digital passport system “means restraints on movement and living for the unvaccinated and forced vaccination to participate in life.”
The announcement of the WHO-European Commission collaboration came just days after the conclusion of the WHO’s annual World Health Assembly (WHA).
While the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments were not finalized at this year’s meeting, high-level WHO officials warned of the risk of a future pandemic and spread of a deadly “Disease X,” and expressed the need to “restrict personal liberties” during a future health emergency.
The EU has been a strong proponent of digital vaccine passports, first launched for its member states in late 2020 — concurrent with the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines — under the name “Green Pass.” The EU’s experience with the digital passes is noted in Monday’s announcement, which states:
“One of the key elements in the European Union’s work against the COVID-19 pandemic has been digital COVID-19 certificates. To facilitate free movement within its borders, the EU swiftly established interoperable COVID-19 certificates.
“Based on open-source technologies and standards it allowed also for the connection of non-EU countries that issue certificates … becoming the most widely used solution around the world.”
Roguski told The Defender the EU also was among the strongest proponents of vaccine passports during ongoing negotiations for the WHO’s “pandemic treaty” and amendments to the IHR.
“They really want the global digital health certificate,” Roguski told The Defender in March. “Primarily, that’s coming from the European Union.”
‘Pandemic passports a death sentence for millions’
According to Roguski, the EU, during negotiations for the IHR amendments, put forth proposals that seek to “‘normalize’ the implementation of a global digital health certificate.”
The Czech Republic called for Passenger Locator Forms “containing information concerning traveller’s destination,” preferably in digital form, for the purpose of contact tracing.
They also proposed that the WHO’s Health Assembly “may adopt, in cooperation with the International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO] … and other relevant organisations, the requirements that documents in digital or paper form shall fulfill with regard to interoperability of information technology platforms, technical requirements of health documents, as well as safeguards to reduce the risk of abuse and falsification.”
The Czech Republic and the EU proposed documentation not just for vaccination, but “test certificates and recovery certificates” in cases “where a vaccine or prophylaxis has not yet been made available for a disease in respect of which a public health emergency of international concern has been declared.”
Plans for the WHO’s GDHCN have been in the works since at least August 2021, when the WHO released a document titled “Digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates: vaccination status: technical specifications and implementation guidance, 27 August 2021.”
“The Secretariat has developed SMART (Standards-based, Machine-readable, Adaptive, Requirements-based, and Testable) Guidelines on the digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates, comprising recommendations on the data, digital functionality, ethics, and trust architecture needed to ensure the interoperability of immunization and health records globally.”
The WHO also announced the successful completion of a “technical feasibility study for establishing a federated global trust network, which tested the ability to interoperate the health content and trust networks across existing regional efforts.”
EU officials have frequently praised themselves over the launch of the bloc’s “Green Pass,” touting how individuals’ privacy would be protected on the app. The introduction of the “Green Pass” was accompanied by statements by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen calling for a “discussion” on mandatory vaccinations in the EU.
One of the EU’s stated priorities as part of its 2019-2024 five-year plan is to create a “Digital Identity for all Europeans.” Namely, each EU citizen and resident would have access to a “personal digital wallet,” which would include national ID cards, birth and medical certificates, and drivers’ licenses.
These proposals and initiatives appear to be closely aligned with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and in particular, Target 16.9, which calls for the provision of a digital legal identity for all, including newborns, by 2030.
Tedros said the SDGs are “our north star,” while addressing this year’s WHA.
Rectenwald called “pandemic passports” a “death sentence for millions.” He told The Defender:
“Despite the studies demonstrating that vaccines to curb pandemics have been deadly and useless, the WHO is doubling down on vaccine mandates.
“Pandemic passports equal a death sentence for millions and the abrogation of rights for the non-compliant. The WHO should be stopped before it completes the construction of a global totalitarian system.”
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
In this episode of The Multipolar Reality on Rogue News, I take a deep dive into the truth of Tiananmen Square and prove that everything you’ve been taught about this Massacre on June 4, 1989 is a lie covering up a CIA-driven attempt at color revolution more akin to Ukraine’s Maidan in 2014.
This presentation will also introduce the origins of the National Endowment for Democracy from the bowels of the Trilateral Commission, Open Society Foundations, the Malthusian takeover of the trans-Atlantic, the Club of Rome and the hive of transhumanists who were more successful with their program to destroy Russia during the 1980s-1990s than they were to achieve their takeover of China.
The deep state of China is here mapped out taking us into the network around disgraced Communist Party chairman Zhao Ziyang and his nest of technocratic fifth columnists who tried to turn China into a slave colony under the thumb of the Trilateral Commission social engineers. And yes, Miles Guo, Jimmy Lai and Falun Gong play a role in this sordid tale.
Something will happen in New Zealand, that could impact the world…
An international team of attorneys and scientists joined with the indigenous Māori people of New Zealand. They will start legal proceedings to bring those who are responsible for the covid plandemic to justice.
The justice system of the independent Māori people from New Zealand is ideal to start these lawsuits, because they are beyond the control of the western financial establishment.
These western elitists have corrupted most of the worldwide judicial system to ensure they would never be held liable for their crimes against humanity.
The upcoming legal proceedings will set a judicial precedent for the rest of the world as the evidence that will come to light can be used in any other court.
Attorney Dr. Reiner Fuellmich explains more in this interview with Stop World Control.
…This is David Sorenson from stopworldcontrol.com. I have Reiner Fuellmich here with me, who has some very inspiring news and very encouraging news for all of us, which also includes a message for all of humanity.
And it comes from a corner of the earth that most of us would never expect it.
So Reiner, can you tell me a little bit about what you’re involved with?
Reiner Fuellmich:
Yeah, it’s not just myself. It’s the group of international attorneys who have already done something to show the world that we know how to deal with the people who are behind this plandemic. And that was the model grand jury.
But it was myself and Dexter [Dexter Ryneveldt]. Dexter was actually approached. Dexter is a very good friend and attorney from South Africa.
He was approached by someone from New Zealand to get in touch with the Māori because they have something totally unique. They have an independent government. And they also have an independent judiciary.
I’m saying it’s unique because there’s other indigenous people who claim the same thing. But if you take a closer look, you will immediately see there’s a big difference. Because all of the others have either — their sovereignty was taken away at some point by colonialists, for example, or by conquistadors. And then they later were granted their sovereignty back, but only within the framework of the new system. Or maybe they even ceded their sovereignty, and then entered into contracts.
But this is different with the Māori. They have a totally independent government and judiciary.
In 1835 they signed their Declaration of Independence. THEY did this.
This is not a treaty; it’s a Declaration of Independence. And they asserted their sovereignty.
This was with respect to all the settlers who were coming into the country. At that time, I think it was 80,000 Māori and, I don’t know, 3,000 or so settlers. And they said ‘Oh, that’s fine. You can stay here. You can settle here. We’re going to protect you. But we’re the bosses.’ Meaning the tribal leaders. The tribal chiefs are the bosses.
And that is what makes this so unique. On top of this — this is another piece of information that is important — at the beginning of the pandemic or plandemic, as we must now call it, because we know there was never a novel, a dangerous novel coronavirus. It was just a fake. They misused the. PCR test, but we’re not going to go into that.
But at the beginning of this plandemic, the Māori had their own way of looking at things. And that’s when the government — the other, the puppet government (we’ll get into that in a minute) — when they decided to take away the Māori governments’ and the Māori judiciaries’ independence, their sovereignty.
Now, what does that tell you? It tells you that, of course, the puppet government realizes that someone else is in charge, or else they wouldn’t want to take someone else’s sovereignty away, right?
So this is what they did. And in the meantime, this is what I gather (Dexter and I gather) from the talks that we have had for months now with representatives of the Māori government. They had six judges that were supposed to do the job. And none of them was able to do it because they all had to concede ultimately, ‘yes, you’re independent’. Because that’s what the Declaration of Independence says.
Well, there’s two versions of this Declaration of Independence. One is in the Māori language. That is, of course, the one that counts and rules. And then there’s an English translation. The one that the Māori wrote in their language makes it absolutely clear, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that they are the ones who have the sovereignty and who rule the country. Their tribal leaders, rule the country.
David Sorenson:
And, just to be clear, the Māori Indians are people from New Zealand.
Reiner Fuellmich:
Yeah, I should have added that. They’re from New Zealand.
But, as I told you before we started the recording here, they’re not alone.
The other day, I was in another zoom conference with a group of American and Canadian Indians and representatives of South American Indians. And I think they don’t even they didn’t even know that the Māori were a couple of steps ahead of them, but they said ‘We’re going to do the same thing. We’re in the process of doing the same thing. We’re using our own indigenous judiciaries in order to institute proceedings.’
And plus, they said, ‘We’re in talks with 108 Pacific Rim nations. So this. Is bigger than just the Māori. But the Māori are special.
David Sorenson:
What I find very interesting about this, Reiner, is that both New Zealand and Canada, which apparently are nations where a big consciousness of sovereignty is present, that is being activated. But both those nations are part of the British Empire. They are under the rule of the Crown. You know, United Kingdom, Australia. And that’s why the tyranny has been worse in those nations than anywhere else in the world. Because they are the British elites from the City of London.
They have a lot of influence in other nations, but they have completely seized control over Australia, New Zealand and Canada. And it’s so interesting to see that in those nations that resistance is happening.
Reiner Fuellmich:
Yes, you’re absolutely right. They’re all part of the Commonwealth, and that’s why there’s so much power of the original British Empire over them.
You could also, if you look at it from the perspective of the intelligence services, the Five Eyes countries, that would include the United States. The United States are a little bit different though, because in the US they have a lot of people in the population who are armed and have experience with guns. The Second Amendment. So they play a different role.
But as far as the judiciary is concerned, I think the most important one to turn to is the Māori government and its judiciary.
The Māori governments’ Declaration of Independence of 1835 is called He Whakaputangaa and their law or lore is called Tikanga law. And the interesting thing about them is, on the one hand they’re pretty powerful.
If you look at their haka dances, you will see they have nothing to do with genderism and all that stuff. They know what a real man and what a real woman is. And their law, or lore is designed to not just restore the peace among the Māori.
So, for example, if someone is accused of having stolen something from someone else — this is an example they gave me — then, if their Tikanga law, when they apply it, comes to the conclusion, and the judges come to the conclusion ‘yes, he did it’ then the sentence or the decision may be ‘yes, you victim, can go over and take three times as much from the person who stole from you as he took.’
What does that allude to? In my view, this sounds like punitive damages. And since their law is not only designed to restore the peace among the Māori, but it also explicitly says, if that’s necessary, it will be used to restore the peace among the world.
You can see what this may lead to. But these are only the first steps that have now been taken.
And of course, we’re going to be attacked, we’re going to be infiltrated, just like always when something big is happening on the horizon. And we’re going to be framed: ‘They have nothing to do with us. They are idiots. They’re right wing Nazis.’ The usual, you know.
But I think the momentum that we already have now is so strong that they may be able to slow us down, but they’re not going to be able to stop us.
And that when I say us, I mean the Māori because they are at center stage here. Plus the help of the international lawyers. But I think a lot of other people will join this.
We did an interview with Vera Sharav today. And she says this is perfect. This is perfect. The indigenous people are so much closer to nature and spirituality. We should have listened to them a long time ago. And why not have them lead the way this time?
Mike Yeadon and many others will be there as expert witnesses so that the whole truth — the whole truth and not just procedural issues — will come to light.
David Sorenson:
So the plan is to start tribunals with lawyers and experts all over the world on behalf of the Māori people, against the elites essentially, who are behind the whole plandemic.
Reiner Fuellmich:
That is correct. And it’s basically two steps. Two steps.
Step number one is going to be them asserting their authority as the true government of the country. That means that they will have to go after those who are pretending to be the government, the puppet government, as you might call them.
A hundred and something members of Parliament who voted for vaccines, et cetera, et cetera. They’re going to challenge their… not challenge their authority. They’re going to assert their own authority and explain to the world and to the New Zealanders as a whole, ‘We are the ones who rule this country. Our tribal chiefs, we’ve been ruling this country since (I don’t know) the 1400s or so, and nothing has changed because we never gave up our sovereignty as stated in, enshrined in, the Declaration of Independence.’
So that’s step number one. Assert the authority.
And step number two: Go after those who are responsible in New Zealand at first.
And the very unique thing about that is that, for the very first time, we will be able to not just look at procedural aspects or technical aspects. For example, by stating… they did not have the authority.
Because this is what happened a number of times before. There was this great decision written by a woman. A federal judge in Florida last year came down on April the 14th or 18th I believe, and it said the government, the CDC in that case, does not have the authority to issue mask mandates for planes and airports, trains and train stations. That was a brilliantly written decision, but it it did not go into the merits of the case. It did only deal with: does the government have the authority or not?
This time we’re gonna go one or two or three steps further because we’re gonna look at what happened behind the scenes. We’re gonna look at the merits of the case.
And the merits of the case are: There was never a dangerous novel a coronavirus. They invented cases by misusing the PCR test and they wanted these cases in order to declare a public health emergency of international concern, which is an invention by the WHO, which doesn’t have anything to do with the people. They have no authority. There’s no democratic foundation for any of this.
But they use this declaration of this public health emergency of international concern in order to justify using untested new drugs on people.
They misused the PCR test, lied about asymptomatic infections in order to create cases that didn’t exist, in order to be able to declare a public health emergency of international concern, ultimately, in order to be able to use untested new drugs on people. And as we now know from whistleblowers, from Brooke Jackson, for example, from scientists like Sasha Latypova and lawyers like Katherine Watt.
But there’s an interview, a very famous recent interview that Robert F Kennedy Jr. did with Sasha Latypova. They never, ever conducted any trials. They just pretended that they conducted trials. They did something that Robert F Kennedy Jr. called Kabuki Theater in order to make the people believe that real trials had actually happened under the control of the FDA or CDC, when in reality, they didn’t conduct any trials. And the people who were in charge was the military, was the Department of Defense.
And we just we just spoke about this because most Americans know, of course, that propaganda exists. Just like Germans, and others know that propaganda exists. Except they always thought that propaganda, meaning lies, are being used against the enemy.
Since 2014 — and this is something most Americans don’t know, and the rest of the world doesn’t either — since 2014, under the Obama administration, it was made legal to use propaganda against your own people. Well, the famous or infamous Smith-Mundt Act was changed a little bit and since then it is absolutely legal — this happened behind the backs of the people; they don’t know about — it is absolutely legal to use propaganda against your own people.
And something similar, something very similar, if you look at what happened with the so-called vaccinations happened with healthcare, which we know isn’t really healthcare.
You know about the interview we did with Călin Georgescu and when he said everything is the opposite of what they telling us. When the UN talks about peace, they mean war, because people who run the UN are the oligarchs who make money financing wars. When they talk about transparency, they mean lies.
In this case, when they’re talking about healthcare and vaccinations, they’re talking really about using — because this is what it ultimately is (The Department of Defense was in charge. These drugs were not tested.) — using bio weapons, not against the enemy, but against your own people. Because that is what happened. That is what this boils down to.
And those are the facts. Those are the merits of the case that we need to look into. We need to expose this in a court of law by way of getting this, the experts testify, before these courts, this court of law, using Tikanga law…
“I understand that many thought they were doing the right thing by, not only allowing themselves to be injected with an unproven experimental genetic technology, but also by coercing, shaming, bullying and discriminating against those who didn’t.
The problem is that “doing the right thing” was not based on any moral underpinning of freedom of thought, speech, choice or bodily sovereignty. Instead, doing the right thing was following the herd.”
Last Friday I had the pleasure of attending a presentation by Dr. Jordan Peterson. Dr. Peterson spoke at length about his 12 Rules for Life, a treatise that invites and assists us to be better human beings. In his entire presentation, one word caught my attention. The word – betrayal. This word resonated deeply with me and spoke to the source of my anger, resentment and angst for the future. In reflecting upon the last three years what became clear to me is the amount of betrayal we have experienced:
– Our governments and elected representatives betrayed us.
– Our judges and those responsible for upholding the rule of law and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms betrayed us.
– Our police, military, attorney generals and all those who took an oath to defend us betrayed us.
– Our doctors, nurses, public health officers and pharmacists betrayed us.
– Our regulatory agencies who are responsible for upholding ethical medical practices betrayed us.
– Our mainstream media who purport to be independent and seekers of truth betrayed us.
– Our academic institutions who claim to be a source of higher learning betrayed us.
– Our religious leaders who closed places of worship betrayed us.
– Our financial institutions that promised to safeguard our savings betrayed us.
– Our family, friend and colleagues who joined in the coercion, shaming and discrimination of the uninjected betrayed us.
– And those who acquiesced to coercion because they wanted to travel, play hockey, or go to the pub betrayed their own bodily sovereignty and individual rights and dignity.
The problem with betrayal is that it’s difficult to regain trust once one has been betrayed. I’m reluctant to trust these institutions, agents, professionals, colleagues and family members with my safety. They showed me that they can be co-opted and controlled by fear, shame, pride and greed.
I understand that many thought they were doing the right thing by, not only allowing themselves to be injected with an unproven experimental genetic technology, but also by coercing, shaming, bullying and discriminating against those who didn’t. The problem is that “doing the right thing” was not based on any moral underpinning of freedom of thought, speech, choice or bodily sovereignty. Instead, doing the right thing was following the herd.
I suggest our society easily fell into a state of systemic betrayal precisely because it has lost its moral foundation. Trust will not be easily restored until such time as we collectively assert and live a value system that respects individual rights and freedom and the dignity of this God given body. Until that time, there is reason to be on guard.
The author’s book Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project provides compelling evidence indicating that the chemtrails so often seen in today’s skies most commonly consist of coal fly ash. For many reasons, the injection of fluoride into local drinking water supplies is a similar phenomenon. Although there are prima facie similarities, we find deeper and darker connections, once again going back to the original WWII Manhattan Project.
The injection of fluoride into our drinking water is analogous to the injection of coal fly ash into our atmosphere in that both of these substances are toxic waste byproducts of heavy industry. These wastes would be expensive to dispose of properly, but global corporations can apparently sell both of these wastes for use in water fluoridation as well as for the spraying of chemtrails. That’s their idea of turning lemons into lemonade. It all mass murders populations and devastates our environment, but it’s apparently good for big business.
The other piece of prima facie evidence linking chemtrails to fluoride is Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) whistleblower Craig Davis noting that fluoride in our drinking water works synergistically with other environmental toxins to become much more deadly inside our bodies. Christopher Bryson, the author of The Fluoride Deception (the book upon which most of this article is based) also notes this effect. But Davis has gone further and noted that fluoridated water in combination with chemtrails produces this synergistic effect.
All this begs the question: How did water fluoridation come about? And: Are there any more connections between chemtrails and fluoride? The answers to these questions are found, once again, in the original Manhattan Project.
Fluoride and the original Manhattan Project
The production of the world’s first atomic bombs (the Manhattan Project) required massive amounts of fluorine. Do you see where this is going? One of the methods of refining the necessary uranium was known as the “gaseous diffusion” method. Using this method, hundreds of tons of fluorine were required for the production of one atomic bomb. Bryson writes:
“Manhattan Project scientists were planning to use a ‘gaseous diffusion’ technology to refine uranium. In that process uranium is mixed with elemental fluorine, forming a volatile gas called uranium hexafluoride, which is then ‘enriched’ by diffusing that gas through a fine barrier, or membrane. The lighter molecules containing fissionable uranium needed for a nuclear explosion pass through the membrane more quickly and are captured on the other side. But because only a handful of the lighter molecules make it through the membrane each time, many hundreds of tons of fluorine, and thousands of stages of progressive enrichment, would be needed to produce enough uranium for a single atomic bomb.”
Fluoride was a toxic waste byproduct of this process. But the question about what to do with all this toxic waste was not the only issue.
The workers at the atomic bomb plants where the gaseous diffusion method was practiced were falling ill and dying due to fluoride poisoning. There were some legal challenges during the war relating to workers’ exposure to fluoride, but a temporary fix for this potentially massive legal liability was found in 1946 when testing responsibilities were transferred from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the Army’s Chemical Warfare Service. Once that transfer occurred, the problem seemed to magically disappear, but not really.
Compounding the issue, atomic bomb plant workers were not the only ones being harmed by fluoride exposure. Not only were workers inside the factories becoming sick and dying, but people living in communities near the factories were being poisoned too. This highlighted an even bigger problem: environmental fluoride pollution.
Fluoride is a toxic waste byproduct of not only the production of atomic bombs. Fluoride gasses are produced during the production of: petroleum, bricks, leather, steel, glass, and plastics. And being that fluoride is a constituent of coal fly ash, American citizens have historically inhaled fluoride from the emissions of nearby steel and aluminum plants as well as those from coal-fired power plants. The workers inside these factories have been most severely affected.
After the war, the Manhattan Project morphed into the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the AEC went about greatly expanding America’s atomic bomb production programs. This was the Cold War, after all. This expansion produced exponentially more fluoride toxic waste from the production of atomic bombs. And let’s not forget the fissile material needed for the nascent nuclear power industry. All this added up to fluoride pollution becoming, as Bryson writes, “The biggest single legal worry facing the atomic bomb program following WWII.”
In consideration of all the resultant lawsuits, Bryson writes, “Fluoride has been the nation’s most damaging air pollutant, and almost certainly its most expensive.” But don’t expect the feds to help. In 1957, after a court ruled in favor of people harmed by fluoride emissions, the federal government abruptly stopped monitoring ambient fluoride.
Enter water fluoridation
Funded by the large corporations that stood the most to gain, it was the Mellon Institute that, in the mid to late 1930s, began the promotion of fluoridated drinking water. Corporations like Monsanto, U.S. Steel, Alcoa and DuPont funded scientific studies at the Mellon Institute that served to legitimize and promote the idea. The Mellon Institute and their funders continued their promotions of water fluoridation up to and all throughout WWII. In his book and in published articles, your author has already established some interesting connections between Monsanto and DuPont and the spraying of chemtrails.
As America emerged from WWII, advocates for water fluoridation gained a leader in the person of Dr. Harold Hodge (1904-1990). Dr. Hodge was a professor at the University of Rochester, NY and the former chief toxicologist of the original Manhattan Project. Concurrently, the University of Rochester became the hub for drinking water fluoridation in America and the world. Hodge went on to train a generation of dental school deans in the 1950s and 1960s who unanimously advocated for the practice.
Dr. Hodge was well aware of the extreme toxicity of fluoride. During the war, Hodge had investigated the fluoride poisoning of atomic bomb factory workers as well as the poisoning of people living nearby. But did Hodge inform people about such things? No he didn’t. To the contrary, he hid this information from his colleagues. So much for the scientific method.
Hodge and the University of Rochester were backed by many of the same corporations behind the pioneering work on water fluoridation done earlier at the Mellon Institute. Before the war, Hodge was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Evidence in the author’s book strongly correlates the Rockefeller Foundation with the spraying of chemtrails.
Consistent with his work in fluoride, there are other examples of Hodge exhibiting extremely low ethical standards. Hodge helped choreograph wartime experiments in which hospital patients were injected with plutonium and uranium without their knowledge or consent. Hodge also participated in a series of post-war experiments involving the injection of uranium and plutonium into unsuspecting and uninformed patients. In 1969 Hodge became professor emeritus at the UCSF Medical School.
Hodge and Rochester’s work served to inoculate their funders from legal liabilities. As Hodge, Rochester and the corporations that funded them caused water fluoridation to become an accepted practice, this served to provide legal cover against lawsuits claiming that people had been poisoned by fluoride. How could it be bad for you (the reasoning goes) if the government is putting it in the water? The support of state and local governments for water fluoridation conveniently lessened any and all legal liabilities for the big fluoride producers. Now we know the real story of how fluoride came to be in our drinking water.
Bryson writes,
“Medical professionals critical of fluoride were regularly mauled in the press, while doctors and dentists were expelled from their professional organizations for antifluoride heresy.” The ‘Father of Public Relations’ Edward Bernays (1891-1995) promoted water fluoridation. Bryson continues, “While millions of … taxpayer dollars were spent promoting fluoridation, little money was given to study the potentially harmful effects from fluoride.”
Conclusions
So now we are aware of two examples of big industry deceitfully sluffing their toxic waste off onto the general population and apparently getting paid to do so. Big Science (which began with the original Manhattan Project) is behind both of them. Beyond these connections between chemtrails and fluoride, we are seeing a larger pattern of behavior. We see large corporations, with the help of Big Science (mad science) and government, acting in a highly irresponsible and, in fact, psychopathic manner. This unholy trinity is wrecking us and our world. If it is allowed to continue, the future will be very dark indeed.
References
Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project a book by Peter A. Kirby, self-published 2020
The Fluoride Deception a book by Christopher Bryson, published by Seven Stories Press 2004
The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics that Keep It There a book by Paul Connett, James Beck and H.S. Micklem, published by Chelsea Green Publishing 2010
“But we must realize that even this tendency to restrict the exploitation of class privileges is a fairly common ingredient of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is not simply amoral. It is the morality of the closed society—of the group, or of the tribe; it is not individual selfishness, but it is collective selfishness.”
The might of the State relies exclusively on the destruction of the individual, and participation, acceptance, allowance, and support of State as god, by the collective members of ‘society,’ who have succumbed to the State’s efforts to divide them into a multitude of groups at odds with every other group. The focus of this purposeful mass antagonism is to build differing aggressive personalities in order to set the stage for unrestrained division and chaos. This intentional distractive methodology pits one against another, in the age old strategy of divide and conquer. It has worked against the people and their freedom for most all of history, but has taken on new meaning in this immoral, consumption-based, irresponsible, apathetic, and postmodern culture, now consumed by a cold technological existence.
Without this gross division of society, the individual and individuals en masse, would reign supreme, and the ruling class and government would become politically impotent considering its endless drive toward power and control over large numbers of non-thinking collectives. This revelation is evident, so the solution necessary to lessen or destroy those who seek and practice authoritarian dominance, seems obvious and also simple, but due to the weaknesses and flaws of man, it is not as simple it appears.
The history of all politics, government, and rule, is one of unbridled authority, theft, perversion, organized crime, power, control, and mass murder. It is not, and never has been, any endeavor to ‘serve’ the people, but only to serve the State or personal and business desires. Those who choose politics, have voluntarily chosen the path of rule over others, which in effect, is an admission of power seeking, oppression, and dominance. To adhere with the political belief system, to accept voluntarily a ruling master class due to the fraud of voting; is little more than intentionally giving up your freedom in favor of tyrannical rule and serfdom.
Consider the deranged divisive nature of this population today. It is one of black against white, men against women, democrat against republican, the religious against the secular, confused and unhinged ‘transgenders’ against everybody, the reality of biology against stupidity, neo-Marxists against children and all white males, tradition against postmodernism, and race against race. It is actually even much worse than this idiocy; it is all against all in this environment of hate, with the State (governments and rulers) waging war on all of humanity.
This is not the natural progression of all mankind as I see it, even though the human species is flawed almost beyond comprehension. I think this because humanity has not always been consumed by this gross indifference, apathy, ignorance, and herd mentality. The idea of right over wrong, (good over evil) considering most general populations, was much more evident in past times, and that attitude was held in higher regard overall. But in modern times, the long-term conditioning of people by means of propaganda, all meant to indoctrinate minds in order to create a condition of hiding from the truth and turning away from compassion, has reached a critical mass.
So-called ‘civilizations’ have waged brutal war against each other since the very beginning, seeking more power and control at every turn, but the scope of that aggression is now universal throughout most States and their subjects. This is now evident worldwide. Was this due only to government’s and ruling classes’ efforts to control all, or are the people themselves at fault? Did the State initiate this plot, and did the people eventually cave to power, and accept it is normal? Obviously, the fault lies with both. The slaughter of innocents during most of our existence could be viewed as the founding element of our downfall, creating a lack of empathy for others, but what caused such aggression and murder amongst a single species if it is not the natural state of man? In my view, and as always, it comes down to evil against good, but is that determination based on the age old belief of ‘God’ against ‘Satan,’ or has this conclusion been accepted due to a purposely-structured narrative by those who seek to control the collective masses? If so, would that explain the progression of the non-caring blindness that is seemingly universal today?
We will not be able to answer such a contentious and philosophically complicated question in full here of course, but one has to wonder why so many have turned away from logic, reason, compassion, cooperation, and common sense, in favor of the false belief that everything under the sun has to be accepted as normal. The only way for this utter madness to have become normalized, is for people to have abandoned the idea of the individual and individual sovereignty, and accepted societal collectivism, which can only bring about mass ignorance and division. Collectivism is a cancer of the mind, and can only result in a meaningless existence.
One extreme example of absurd collective mentality, is the recent bogus’ phenomenon’ called ‘transgenderism. Depending on which particular survey is accepted, and accepting any is questionable, it is stated that approximately 1 million to 1.5 million people supposedly ‘identify’ as ‘transgender’ in the U.S. Considering that this population is 335 million people, that means that about .4% have ‘identified’ themselves as ‘transgenders. Worldwide numbers would indicate between .1% and .6% identify as transgender.’ That is of course a vast minority, even if these figures are not grossly exaggerated. But if an alien space traveler from another planet was to suddenly land in the U.S., he would think immediately that most every human was transgender, and was biologically ignorant. The airwaves, all major media, the entirety of government, large and even smaller corporations, most all institutions, especially government schools, and nearly every commercial ad, sporting event, television program, and movie, among almost all other venues, are inundated with ‘transgender’ characters and ‘transgenderism’ in general. This is of course ludicrous.
Children are being bombarded with lies, and are being targeted by government and private institutions, in order to force the heinous notion that they should all respect ‘transgender’ identities, and should accept that they may all be confused about their own gender. Depraved ‘trans’ programs meant to confuse and indoctrinate children are rampant, and completely immoral, and the obvious rub here, and the most telling element of this horrible deception, is that most all who ‘identify’ as ‘transgender,’ are young children to young adults. Those over 50 who are confused, make up only about 0.3% of the total. This should be no surprise at all, as children are targeted in this evil campaign only because they are innocent and vulnerable to lies, propaganda, and indoctrination.
This is a mass effort by the State to corrupt and destroy this and future generations of children, so that future adults will be unable to function as normal human beings. This will lead to depopulation of course, a desired goal of the globalist rulers, but will also lead to a completely dumbed down and manipulated future adult population, making them susceptible to total control. Using and abusing children in order to gain power over future generations is deplorable and beyond any evil, but is now being accepted as normal by many in this country. How can such an atrocity as this be allowed to happen in any country made up of decent and moral people? The answer to this question, is that it cannot be allowed by any moral society, so what does that say about the sorry state of morality in what is referred to as ‘America?’
Societal collectivism in the midst of this divisive atmosphere, whether fomented by the State or not, and accepted by the illiterate herd; is the epitome of unintelligible stupidity, and can only lead to self-destruction. The only viable solution to change this course that has consumed this country, is to resurrect the importance of the individual in society, re-establish freedom by eliminating all power of the State, and abandon any idea that a collective mass of followers who expect someone else to solve all their problems for them, can be successful in any way.
This requires personal responsibility, and that cannot be achieved by any group, nor can any simple solution crafted by another, release you from your own slavery. Each individual is responsible for his own lot in life, so either stand up and negate all tyranny, or understand that you have no right to freedom.
“The socialist submerging of the individual under the collective’s prerogative is a perverse and putrid vision for humanity.”
~ A.E. Samaan
Reference Link:
Transgender numbers (Note that the information on this subject is conjectural at best, and likely much overstated, and exhibit extreme bias in favor of the State narrative. Regardless, the numbers and ages are telling of the plot to destroy children.)
In a time where technology continues to shape our lives, the emergence of Amazon Sidewalk has ignited a fervent debate about the balance between convenience and privacy. As an independent investigator, I feel compelled to understand the deep complexities and potential dangers of this pervasive network. This investigative report aims to shed light on the surveillance capabilities, coverage area, and the undisclosed collaborations surrounding Amazon Sidewalk.
Amazon Sidewalk, is a shared network launched by Amazon, promising to enhance the functionality of devices like Amazon Echo devices, Ring Security Cams, outdoor lights, motion sensors, and Tile trackers. It extends their working range and helps them perform better both at home and beyond the front door. However, the very features that make it appealing also raise serious concerns about privacy and surveillance.
One-sided PR Video: About Amazon Sidewalk and how Semtech’s LoRa® technology plays a critical role (Published: March of 2023).
This report is a culmination of research, analysis, and critical thinking, and it is my hope that it serves as a catalyst for informed conversations and collective action.
Unveiling the Dangers of Amazon Sidewalk’s Surveillance Capabilities
In this digital age, where connectivity and smart devices have become ubiquitous, a new level of surveillance has emerged, blurring the boundaries between public and private spaces. Amazon Sidewalk stands at the forefront of these intrusive surveillance networks. In this report, we dive into the alarming dangers posed by these surveillance capabilities and the implications for personal privacy and autonomy.
Audio and Video Intrusion:
One of the most concerning aspects of Amazon Sidewalk is its ability to intrude into our private spaces without our explicit consent or knowledge. By silently capturing seamless audio and video data through devices like Ring cameras, Amazon Echo and other compatible smart home technologies. Sidewalk has the potential to turn every room of our homes into a watchful eye, constantly recording and analyzing our activities. This level of surveillance undermines the sanctity of our personal lives and raises questions about the boundaries of consent and individual autonomy.
Integration with Facial Recognition:
One of the most controversial aspects of Amazon Sidewalk’s privacy invasion potential is its integration with facial recognition technology. By combining video surveillance with facial recognition algorithms, Sidewalk will have the capacity to identify individuals and track their movements with alarming accuracy. Individuals can be identified and monitored, alerting officials when a person designated as “suspicious” is caught on camera.
Behavior Profiling:
By collecting a vast amount of data about our daily routines, habits, and preferences, Amazon Sidewalk has the potential to construct detailed profiles of individuals. Through sophisticated algorithms and data analysis, Sidewalk can track our movements, monitor our online activities, and even make inferences about our behaviors and interests. This level of profiling creates a comprehensive digital portrait, encroaching upon our autonomy and raising concerns about potential manipulation or discrimination.
Room Mapping and Blueprinting:
Amazon’s acquisition of iRobot, the maker of Roomba raises concerns about data sharing and collaboration with Amazon Sidewalk. The Roomba’s advanced features, including its mapping and blueprinting capabilities, introduce interesting privacy implications. With data collection and the ability to gather detailed information about our home layouts and furnishings. The Roomba can also silently record audio and video, analyzing our activities, intruding into our most private spaces.
Overlap of Coverage Reach:
Amazon Sidewalk’s extensive network coverage raises concerns about the widespread surveillance it enables. With a vast number of interconnected devices, this creates an overlapping network of surveillance that spans entire neighborhoods and public spaces. This level of coverage infringes upon our very sense of privacy, as our movements and activities can be captured and monitored from various angles and locations privately and publicly. Amazon Sidewalk’s ambition is to establish a nationwide network, the company currently claims it now provides coverage to over 90% of the U.S. population, including those who live in moderately rural areas.
Unregulated Data Collection:
The vast amount of data collected by Amazon Sidewalk raises significant concerns about its storage, usage, and potential for misuse. With access to intimate details of our lives, including our daily routines, social interactions, and even sensitive information, the potential for abuse or unauthorized access to this data is alarming. The lack of clear regulations and safeguards heightens the risks associated with such uncontrolled data collection.
The Partnership Between Amazon, Law Enforcement and Federal Agencies:
Amazon Ring’s partnership with local law enforcement agencies has raised significant privacy concerns. The doorbell-camera company has established video-sharing partnerships with more than 400 police forces across the United States, potentially granting them access to homeowners’ camera footage. This partnership allows police to request video recorded by homeowners’ cameras within a specific time and area, aiding officers in viewing footage from the company’s millions of Internet-connected cameras installed nationwide.
While homeowners can decline these requests, the number of police deals is likely to fuel broader questions about privacy, surveillance, and the expanding reach of tech giants and local police. Legal experts and privacy advocates have voiced alarm about the company’s ambitions and its increasingly close relationship with police, arguing that the program could threaten civil liberties, turn residents into informants, and subject innocent people, including those who Ring users have flagged as “suspicious,” to greater surveillance and potential risk.
Currently, law enforcement can request footage from Ring cameras through the Neighbors app, but homeowners have the right to refuse. If the footage is deemed critical, officers can seek a search warrant or court order to force Ring to release the footage, regardless of the homeowner’s objections. There have however been cases where Ring did not require the use of a warrant or court order to release the footage to law enforcement. This effectively transforms private security systems into tools for law enforcement. Ring’s collaboration with law enforcement has been criticized for potentially fostering racial profiling and eroding community trust.
The high-resolution cameras can capture detailed images not only of the owner’s doorstep but also of neighboring houses down the street. Some officers have confessed to looking for Ring doorbells while investigating crimes or canvassing neighborhoods, in case they need to resort to legal maneuvers to obtain the video without the homeowner’s consent.
As concerns regarding the privacy and security implications of Amazon Sidewalk continue to grow, it becomes imperative to examine the collaborations and deals with federal agencies.
Reports have surfaced indicating that Amazon has entered into collaborations with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The exact nature and scope of this collaboration remain undisclosed, but it has raised concerns about the potential access and sharing of data between Amazon Sidewalk and the FBI. The implications of such a partnership on surveillance capabilities and the handling of user data warrant further investigation and scrutiny.
While the specifics are shrouded in secrecy, there have been many reports talking about the working relationship between Amazon and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). In fact, a $600 million computing cloud was developed by Amazon Web Services for the CIA. This cloud is intended to service all the agencies that make up the intelligence community, ushering in a new era of cooperation and coordination. The cloud allows agencies within the intelligence community to order a variety of on-demand computing and analytic services from the CIA and National Security Agency.
Final thoughts from the author:
For all intents and purposes, the “Total Information Network” is here. Amazon Sidewalk fits the description of a comprehensive surveillance system that extensively monitors, tracks, and collects all data on a large scale. This network leverages advanced technologies, such as surveillance cameras, facial recognition software, data analytics algorithms, and interconnected databases, to gather and analyze vast amounts of information about individuals. Consequently, it creates a surveillance state that encroaches upon the existence of personal privacy, granting authorities and centralized entities unparalleled access to individuals’ activities, behaviors, and personal data. In many ways, it resembles a magnified version of the dystopian surveillance depicted in George Orwell’s “1984.” This is now reality.
This type of information network should raise major concerns. It is very similar to the ideals and unethical principles of past oppressive regimes, who created extensive lists of individuals for surveillance and control. The collection of personal information within such a network creates a potential for retrospective use against people in the future.
Just as the Stasi meticulously documented citizens’ activities and associations, and the Nazis compiled lists to target specific groups, this comprehensive surveillance system enables authorities to retrospectively identify and target individuals based on their past actions, beliefs, or affiliations. This poses a grave risk to personal freedom, as historical data can be weaponized to persecute, discriminate against, marginalize, and even murder individuals through the acts of democide and genocide.
The lessons from history remind us of the importance of guarding against the misuse of personal information and protecting individual rights, even as technology advances and surveillance capabilities expand.
It is my hope that this report sparks meaningful conversations and prompts individuals, communities, and policymakers to question the balance between connectivity and privacy. The path forward requires a collaborative effort, with individuals, advocacy groups, and policymakers working together to shape regulations and guidelines that prioritize privacy, autonomy, and consent. It is only through vigilant and educated learning that we can navigate the complexities of the digital age and ensure the protection of our fundamental rights and freedoms.
Neil Radimaker is a Reporter, Journalist, filmmaker and cinematographer, as well as the co-founder and co-creator of The Conscious Resistance Network, which is a decentralized media network focused on promoting individual freedom, peaceful resistance, and alternative solutions to mainstream problems.
Video available at La Quinta Columna Odysee & Rumble channels. Follow at La Quinta Columna telegram channel: https://t.me/laquintacolumnainternational
They are introducing nanotechnology into all sorts of injectable products, especially in what they call vaccines for Covid.
Self-assembled nanotechnologies, based on graphene, are advanced non-human technologies, but implemented by humans.
The parasitization of our species ordered by “them” will lead to the extinction of human beings as we know them, who will become transhuman, monitored, with non-human thoughts that can in turn be read remotely via electromagnetic waves. Managed by AI, we will become what they call enhanced humans. Augmented humans.
Helpful list from FDA, found while doing research and organizing my files on:
Public Health Emergency (PHE), Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and PREP Act notices, declarations, determinations and authorizations issued by HHS Secretaries and their delegees from Jan. 2020 to the present;
Legal advisory opinions about PREP Act liability immunity, issued by the HHS Office of General Counsel from Jan. 2020 to the present; and
Guidance to pharmacists about PREP Act liability immunity, issued by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health, from Jan. 2020 to the present; and
May biochemical weapon uptake rates approach zero in coming months and years, as rational popular response to the truth rendered much more visible since January 2020, and in firm opposition to all “recommendations” of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
Biochemical weapons deployed by injection have been intrinsically injurious from the start of government campaigns promoting their use more than a century ago.
The “Covid-19” weapons have been the most deadly to date, with some lots deadlier than others, and contents of many lots still unidentified.
Regular leaders here probably all saw that explosion of the munitions storage dump in the western Ukraine last week, and the firey roiling mushroom clouds that accompanied them. There has been the usual chatter on the internet and various sites that the explosions may have been of a storage facility where some of the munitions were depleted uranium, and that hence, the explosions may have been “nuclear” in some form or fashion. I have to be honest: I have seen two starkly different recordings of the same explosions, and to my eyes, they show two very different events. In the version that most people have seen, the explosions occur in a massive fireball, and very tellingly, as the fireball rises to form a mushroom cloud, there is continued fire and burning of material in the cloud, a typical signature of a nuclear detonation. Continued combustion in the cloud as it rises is a typical signature of a nuclear explosion, and the burn continues until the material is burned out. The other video – much rarer – shows the initial explosion, but little to no burn immediately thereafter in the mushroom cloud. We were then treated to a variety of experts on various YouTube channels talking about the question that the depleted uranium allegedly in storage at the facility had some sort of burn, and we were assured by these experts that there was no such possibility.
I’m not so sure. Under normal conditions of use, the kinetic impact of a depleted uranium round is so fast and therefore energetic, that the uranium literally burns inside the target, killing the people within. After all, the mechanism of the Little Boy uranium bomb was precisely a 5″ naval rifle – a cannon once again – that fired a projectile of uranium-235 into a target, which itself consisting of more uranium-235. It was the sheer speed and kinetic energy of the impact that initiated the reaction. So for those who know their ordnance, a depleted uranium round is like a hollow charge HEAT round, on steroids. Think of your standard HEAT round as the old actor Wally Cox, and a depleted uranium round as Arnold Schwarzenneggar, and you get the idea. Why depleted uranium? because it is an extremely dense material in its metallic form(much more so than gold or lead) an therefore much heavier per unit of volume than gold or lead. As for a burn under explosive conditions, it is to be remembered that smashing two bits of highly enriched uranium-235 together in one’s hands can literally cause a kind of sub-critical nuclear “fizzle”, and indeed, such an incident actually happened by accident during the wartime American Manhattan Project. So I am not entirely convinced by the experts on YouTube calmly assuring us that we are not watching any sort of nuclear combustion in the vast majority of the videos of the incident. Indeed, perhaps a fuel air explosive would have enough brisance to create the kinetic conditions for rounds of depleted uranium to respond with a burn.
But my chief explosive concern here today is this story shared by E.G. and many other regular readers out there, about 30 tons of ammonia nitrate that appears to have gone missing from a freight train on its way from Wyoming to Looneyfornia:
Now this story just has “TROUBLE” written all over it, and if you’re like me – and you probably are otherwise you probably wouldn’t be reading this website – you’re going to find the “narrative” here a bit disturbing:
A 30-ton shipment of ammonium nitrate, a chemical used as both fertilizer and as a component in explosives, has gone missing during a rail shipment between Wyoming and California last month, resulting in four separate investigations.
A railcar loaded with some 60,000 pounds of the chemical left Cheyenne, Wyoming on April 12, only to be found empty two weeks later at a rail stop in the Mojave Desert, according to a short incident report from the firm which shipped the ammonium, KQED reports.
And of course, there’s the usual-and-to-be-expected reference to ammonia nitrate and the Oklahoma City Bombing:
Ammonium nitrate is commonly used as fertilizer. It’s also an ingredient in high explosives and was used in the homemade bomb detonated in the 1995 attack on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. (All emphases in the original)
However, the dirty little secret of the dirty and not-so-little ammonia nitrate bomb used in the Oklahoma City Bombing is that the brisance of ammonia nitrate is very low as explosives go, and thus, the mere 4,500 pounds of fertilizer was insufficient in brisance to bring down the B-3 column in the Murrah building by stress loading on that column. It was a retired U.S. Air Force brigadier general, Benton K. Partin, whose specialty was explosive ordnance and damage assessment, who crunched the numbers and came to that conclusion. And that discomforting physics fact means that there had to have been demolition charges on that column (and probably on the others that failed), in order to account for the failure of the columns. The ammonia nitrate bomb simply didn’t have the “oomph” to do it. But it does have enough “oomph” to do some damage, particularly to non-reinforced structures (which the Murrah building was not).
Now comes what to me appears to be the narrative part, because I’m just not buying the explanation given in the article for the disappearance of the ammonia nitrate:
According to Dyno Nobel, the Ammonium – transferred in pellet form in a covered hopper car similar to those used to ship coal – must have fallen from the car on the way to a rail siding (where a short track connects with the main track) around 30 miles from the town of Mojave in eastern Kern County, in a city called Saltdale.
“The railcar was sealed when it left the Cheyenne facility, and the seals were still intact when it arrived in Saltdale. The initial assessment is that a leak through the bottom gate on the railcar may have developed in transit,” said the company, adding that the two-week trip included multiple stops. They report having had “limited control” over the railcar operated by Union Pacific.
The railcar is being transported back to Wyoming for inspection.
Meanwhile, a representative for the Federal Railroad Administration says the investigation points to an improperly closed hopper car gate.
Now, wait just a minute… if the car was sealed in Cheyenne, if it had a leak, wouldn’t the leak have been visible even in the yard in Cheyenne? And if the leak was sprung later while the train was en route, which, incidentally, “included multiple stops” on its two week journey, were no inspections done along the way? Wouldn’t the Union Pacific officials have noticed a leak from the hopper car while it was sided in their yards? Union Pacific is a rather efficient railroad and they are, after all, the railroad that has been restoring steam locomotives to functionality and even using them on freight hauls. This expertise and expense does not, to me, signal the kind of lackadaisical attitude necessary for a hopper car full of ammonia nitrate to spring a leak, and then go unnoticed for two weeks. Sorry, as of this moment and without further information, I’m not buying the narrative. Colour me Highly Skeptical.
And the same goes for the “improperly closed hopper gate.” Presumably the hopper gate was improperly closed in Cheyenne, for the stops along the way would have no reason to open it. And again, we face the same problem here as well, because we’re being asked to believe that the yardmasters and crews along the Union Pacific route taken by the hopper car over two weeks would never have noticed a leak and an improperly closed hopper gate. Even in modern dumbed-down thoroughly quackcinated Amairikuh, I find it difficult to believe that NO one noticed nor raised an alarm or alert.
So we end with an empty hopper car in a hamlet in Looneyfornia and a missing 30 tons of ammonia nitrate.
I do not know about you, but my high octane antennae are pulsing with suspicion. I just cannot get it out of my mind that somewhere out there there’s another “op” being planned with another McVeigh and another rented truck. Oklahoma City’s ammonia nitrate bomb was only about two tons. Thirty tons of the stuff would be very bad, and if the two tons of the Oklahoma City bomb was a cover for some serious demolition charges, one has to wonder if, indeed the thirty tons was stolen by nefarious actors, and a if cover-narrative is being concocted ahead of whatever planned event they have in their evil diabolical heads, then what sort of real explosion might thirty tons of the stuff be a cover for?
… Unfortunately, none of my answers to that question are very good…
It is frankly absurd on its face that any written document or political ritual like voting can grant one group of men the ability to rule and control another group of men, delegate rights they don’t have personally to a “government,” or that succeeding generations can be bound by a contract that none of them or even their forbears signed.
For those who remain religiously attached to the “holy document” of the Constitution or believe themselves bound by an oath they were tricked (fraudulent inducement), forced, or paid to take, then here are some facts that support our thesis that organized crime interests have been using “Government” and control of the media to rob and control the population since the very creation of the Constitution.
The creation and ratification of the Constitution are not what most government school children have been led to believe. It wasn’t designed to protect life, liberty, and property and limit government as claimed, and its failure in those aspects or even its inability to ensure the most basic of freedoms specified in the Bill of Rights is evidence of its failure as protection from tyranny and its success as a means of enslaving, controlling and robbing the population.
The real story of the Constitution is a “Wall Street (of the time)” conspiracy, and that is the exact term that many of their contemporaries used to describe what had occurred to create a system that would allow moneyed interests represented by political puppets to tax everyone on the continent for their benefit and control commerce and the currency which they started doing immediately after ratification. The conspirators were led by slave-owning Freemasons James Madison and John Jay and suspected Freemason and slave owner Alexander Hamilton.
They hijacked a convention convened only to revise the existing Articles of Confederation between the States and, after almost half the delegates refused to participate, wouldn’t sign and/or left early, produced an unauthorized replacement giving unprecedented control to a Federal government that would be controlled by the exact participants in the years to come. In short order, they used this new government to begin taxing the population to pay off “Wall Street” speculators who had bought up Revolutionary War bonds from veterans and businesses that had accepted them during the war for pennies on the dollar.
Absent a 12,000-hour indoctrination program run by the government and the ongoing propaganda of bought-and-paid-for media, it is absurd to believe that a couple of dozen slave owners on a continent of three million people can write down on a fancy piece of paper that they run everything, then have their newspapers proclaim it valid but that seems to be exactly what happened.
“That investigation into the nature and construction of the new constitution, which the conspirators have so long and zealously struggled against, has, notwithstanding their partial success, so far taken place as to ascertain the enormity of their criminality. That system which was pompously displayed as the perfection of government, proves upon examination to be the most odious system of tyranny that was ever projected, a many-headed hydra of despotism, whose complicated and various evils would be infinitely more oppressive and afflictive than the scourge of any single tyrant: the objects of dominion would be tortured to gratify the calls of ambition and cravings of power, of rival despots contending for the sceptre of superiority; the devoted people would experience a distraction of misery.”
The History and Facts the “Government” School Leaves Out
The delegates assembled in Philadelphia in May 1787 for the purpose of amending, not replacing, the Articles of Confederation were very different from the revolutionaries that signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The famous revolutionaries were not present: Jefferson and Adams were in Europe, Thomas Paine, Sam Adams, and Chris Gadsden were not chosen, and Patrick Henry refused to participate outright, claiming he “smelt a rat.”
Out of the 74 delegates chosen, 19 refused or didn’t attend! Out of the 55 delegates who showed up, 41 were politicians, 34 were lawyers, 11 were admitted freemasons (with two additional that would join lodges after the convention) with over a dozen more suspected. According to Maryland Delegate James McHenry, at least 21 of the 55 delegates favored some form of monarchy.
The convention operated under great secrecy: Held in the summer months with all the windows nailed shut, sentries posted at the door, and all the participants sworn to secrecy. The proceedings wouldn’t be published for 32 years later. Madison’s edited notes 53 years later. It’s unlikely that the States would have sent delegates at all if they had known of the conspirators’ plans to abolish the articles and replace them with a Federal government, and many delegates openly protested.
William Patterson echoed many: “We ought to keep within its limits or be charged by our constituents with usurpation… We have no power to go beyond the confederation… If the confederacy is wrong, then let us return to our States and obtain larger powers, not assume them ourselves.”
Of the 74 delegates appointed, 19 refused outright or didn’t attend, 14 left early, and some in open disgust. Of the 41 who stayed through September, three refused to sign, leaving 38 out of 74 (53%, hardly a plurality), and they signed not as delegates but “In Witness Whereof.” Of the 38 who “gave themselves the power to make up rules for everyone and take the wealth of others,” 80% would personally enrich themselves by holding some office under the Constitution, including 2 Presidents, 1 Vice President, 5 Justices, 11 Senators, and 8 Representatives.
Control of the Perception
Evident then as evident today. Like organized crime’s control of the media today, the “Wall Street” crowd controlled information/perception during the ratification debates. According to Van Doren’s The Great Rehearsal (p183), Anti-Federalist speeches were never printed because the convention’s transcriber, Thomas Lloyd, “appears to have been bought off by the Federalists, and published only…speeches by Federalists Wilson and McKean”. Serious allegations were made in New York and elsewhere of Federalist mail tampering. The Pennsylvania Herald, the only paper reporting on the ratification debates, was bought off as described:
“The authors and abettors of the new constitution shudder at the term conspirators being applied to them, as it designates their true character… Attempts to prevent discussion by shackling the press ought ever to be a signal of alarm to freemen and considered as an annunciation of meditated tyranny… when every means failed to shackle the press, the free and independent papers were attempted to be demolished by withdrawing all the subscriptions to them within the sphere of the influence of the conspirators…The Pennsylvania Herald has been silenced… the editor is dismissed and the debates of the convention thereby suppressed.”
Best Book: Hologram of Liberty – The Constitutions Shocking Alliance with Big Government by Kenneth W Royce aKa Boston T. Party. Hologram of Liberty explains the Anti-Federalist case and the evidence for the conspiracy of wealthy speculators, lawyers, and politicians to impose a one-sided contract to control and tax the population in a scheme that personally enriched themselves. This summary borrows liberally from Royce’s work and other scholars.
Paradigm shifts have become a big thing thanks to the Covid™ narrative. The events of 2020 were so obviously abnormal that questioning everything immediately became a staple of my new normal.
We all know about Nashville school shooting incident that happened recently.
The following is what CNN reported.
Audrey Hale, a 28-year-old former Covenant School student who killed six people at the school Monday, carefully planned the attack, according to officials.
While the shooter’s gender identity is unclear, police told CNN that Hale was assigned female at birth and used “male pronouns” on social media.
I laughed at the bit about “assigned female at birth”. (Mark McDonald has more on that.)
Does that shooter look like a female?
The following conversation with James is mostly a slideshow in which he breaks apart the entire story, concluding that this was yet another staged mass shooting.
Self Assembly Hydrogel Polymers, Historical Research Context of Hydrogel Smart Materials and Nano Worms That Rapidly Grow From Nanometers to Visible Size
Scientists from NTU and CMU created a leaf-like hydrogel structure through a process similar to how real leaf tissues grow. Credit: CMU and NTU
In this article, I wanted to explain more about Hydrogel. There have been scientists and doctors saying that you cannot see nanotechnology grow from nanoscale to microscopic scale and that we cannot possibly see what we claim to see in the blood.
Our latest research findings show however that we are seeing what we claim:
Image: Four vaccinated Blood Samples left to sit for 4 hours I have posted the work of Clifford Carnicom and myself showing that Near Infrared Spectroscopy performed on C19 vaccinated and unvaccinated blood repetitively identified the spectral signature of functional chemical groups indicating polymer hydrogels.
There are people who do live blood analysis who call the hydrogel containing filaments parasites, biofilm, other lifeforms explicable via terrain theory. They dismiss the filaments because they were seen before historically, so they cannot have anything to do with the C19 injections. These are incorrect claims and I wish to explain the scientific background here.
We have discussed extensively that the Transhumanist assault of synthetic biology has been going on for decades and that historically the same filaments have been found in people’s blood before the C19 injections – they were then called Morgellons or Cross Doman Bacteria (CDB) and sprayed via geoengineering and bioengineering for people to inhale and get sick. The symptom complex experienced by CDB/ Morgellons has enormous overlap to “long Covid” poisoning – including chronic fatigue, brain fog, multi organ dysfunction, accelerated aging, mood disorders and more.
In the image above, you can see hydrogel used to grow like a leaf. In the article below, it is discussed that hydrogels can grow like biological tissues and that oxygen tension can control the growth. The more oxygen there is the faster they grow. Normal blood is carrying oxygen. There are many more ways to control the growth, this is just one example:
The team’s findings, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences today, suggest new applications in areas such as tissue engineering and soft robotics where hydrogel is commonly used. The team has also filed a patent at CMU and NTU. In nature, plant or animal tissues are formed as new biomass is added to existing structures. Their shape is the result of different parts of those tissues growing at different rates.
Mimicking this behaviour of biological tissues in nature, the research team comprising CMU scientists Changjin Huang, David Quinn, K. Jimmy Hsia and NTU President-designate Prof Subra Suresh, showed that through manipulation of oxygen concentration, one can pattern and control the growth rate of hydrogels to create the desired complex 3-D shapes. The team found that higher oxygen concentrations slow down the cross-linking of chemicals in the hydrogel, inhibiting growth in that specific area.
Hydrogel research has gone on for many decades. Here is an article from 1977 discussing the interactions of hydrogel and blood:
Here is an article explaining how fast the hydrogel can change its volume or size. What we have been seeing in human blood and in the analysis of C19 vials nanotechnology is entirely consistent with the literature.
Abstract
Smart hydrogels, or stimuli-responsive hydrogels, are three-dimensional networks composed of crosslinked hydrophilic polymer chains that are able to dramatically change their volume and other properties in response to environmental stimuli such as temperature, pH and certain chemicals. Rapid and significant response to environmental stimuli and high elasticity are critical for the versatility of such smart hydrogels. Here we report the synthesis of smart hydrogels which are rapidly responsive, highly swellable and stretchable, by constructing a nano-structured architecture with activated nanogels as nano-crosslinkers.
You can control the growth of hydrogels by many different chemical means. Here is an article from 2001 – just to show how long the scientific community has worked on perfecting this technology:
Environmentally sensitive hydrogels have enormous potential in various applications. Some environmental variables, such as low pH and elevated temperatures, are found in the body. For this reason, either pH-sensitive and/or temperature-sensitive hydrogels can be used for site-specific controlled drug delivery. Hydrogels that are responsive to specific molecules, such as glucose or antigens, can be used as biosensors as well as drug delivery systems. Light-sensitive, pressure-responsive and electro-sensitive hydrogels also have the potential to be used in drug delivery and bio separation. Hydrogels containing such ‘sensor’ properties can undergo reversible volume phase transitions or gel–sol phase transitions upon only minute changes in the environmental condition. The types of environment-sensitive hydrogels are also called ‘Intelligent’ or ‘smart’ hydrogels. Many physical and chemical stimuli have been applied to induce various responses of the smart hydrogel systems. The physical stimuli include temperature, electric fields, solvent composition, light, pressure, sound and magnetic fields, while the chemical or biochemical stimuli include pH, ions and specific molecular recognition events. Smart hydrogels have been used in diverse applications, such as in making artificial muscles, chemical valves, immobilization of enzymes and cells , and concentrating dilute solutions in bioseparation.
The worm like appearance we are seeing in the blood is not a parasite but a self assembly polymer nano worm which has been developed by science for over 2 decades (thanks to Shimon Yanowitz for sending this to me):
Filomicelles and nanoworms are an emerging subclass of nanomaterials with a special elongated shape. The physical properties of a filomicelle are distinct from a traditional spherical micelle, and as such have attracted tremendous interest in a variety of research areas. In this review, we highlight the substantial progress in the synthesis and application of polymeric nanoworms over the past two decades. Synthetic techniques summarized in this review are particle replication in nonwetting templates (PRINT), film stretching, self-assembly (SA), crystallization-driven self-assembly (CDSA), polymerization-induced selfassembly (PISA), and temperature-induced morphological transformation (TIMT). The applications of filomicelles as (i) templates for inorganic nanoparticles, (ii) building blocks for superstructures, (iii) synthetic dendritic cells for immunotherapy, (iv) constituents of thermoresponsive gels for biomedical applications, and (v) nanocarriers for cancer drug delivery are subsequently discussed. In the conclusion, we describe the current trajectory of research in the field and identify areas where further developments are of urgent need.
Note how the researchers consider self assembly as a “living” process.
Please note that these can grow from nanometer to macroscopic size, visible with the naked eye:
If you are wondering why we have no representation these days… Paul James unravels a history where America went from being a Republic to a defacto corporate, municipal government.
This interview with Paul James will be an eye-opener for the vast majority of Americans.
Our history is not what we have been led to believe.
The loss of our Republican government since President Lincoln is revealed in this riveting historical review that we were never taught in school…. and by design.
Lawful government was to protect our “unalienable” rights, not inalienable rights as we have come to know.
The civil war, tormented by the Rothschilds London and Rothchild’s France, was not intended to free slaves but to indenture and bankrupt America to establish a new form of government in 1871 through the Act of 1871.
This act established a municipal government of the District of Columbia, replacing this country’s “original organic” government. The people who established this corporate, municipal government had no authority to do so, and in fact, we have been operating under a defacto corporation since the 1870s that has become completely tyrannical to the point of attempting to genocide us…..
While we believe we have representatives that have taken an oath to “protect us from enemies foreign and domestic,”… as I have reported earlier, here, the oath has been manipulated to allow America to be infiltrated, put under foreign control, and with a foreign agenda to collapse California and America.
The Oath in the current California Constitution (A. D. 1879), Article XX, Section 3 is required to be taken by every government officer and employee (from Governor Newsom down to a city dog-catcher) before they can enter the duties of their respective offices. Not one state, county or city officer or employee has taken and subscribed the Oath mandated at Article XX, Sec. 3; nor, have they complied with the common law [Calif. Civil Code, Sec. 22.2] or statutory requirement [Calif. Government Code, §§ 1450- 1653] to file a fidelity/performance bond before assuming the duties of their respective offices. Therefore, by operation of law, every act or action that any live actor commits, claiming to be a de jure state, county or city government officer or employee, is being done under color of law [18 U.S.C. § 242], color of office and color of authority. Anyone who is in violation of the fundamental organic Law of the state has no authority whatsoever to enact, enforce or adjudicate any state statutory law, rule or municipal code.
The American People living in every State [not including the district of Columbia], including but not limited to California, are entitled by the supreme Law of the Land, to a “Republican Form of Government” [“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 4].
The current Form of Government in California (and all other united States of America) clearly is not a Republican Form of Government, but rather is a private, for-profit, foreign corporate municipal democracy, organized in California in A. D. 1879, controlled and operated exclusively by constitutionally- banned agents of the BAR [https://www.brighteon.com/13ef3415-e3f0-494c-9182-38566ea2b44f].
In addition, as Paul James lays out, we live under “Lawfare” and “Warfare.”
Lawfare is a form of Mixed War consisting of the use of the so-called justice system (i.e., private, for-profit, foreign BAR court system), to intentionally and corruptly apply private, foreign, corporate government municipal law applicable only for corporations, ens legis persons and legal fictions to the American People, as if they were any of the aforesaid juristic entities. The live agents of the BAR routinely use lawfare against private Americans, to damage or delegitimize them socially and financially, to tie-up their time and resources, to seize their children, homes, businesses, private property and/or imprison them, under color of law; and, this includes enforcing mandatory vaccinations or forced use of medical procedures under color of law. The term is a portmanteau of the words law and warfare.
Mixed War occurs whenever the government of a nation is an enemy of, and at war against, its own people. The most insidious and perfidious type of mixed war exists when the agents of government act against the people under the territorial Boundaries of the republic state of California to deny and infringe upon constitutionally- protected unalienable Rights, under color of law, through the use of fraudulent simulated legal process
[see: Calif. Government Code § 68076 and the following link to fully understand this point: http://www.internallydisplacedpeople.org/joomla30/index.php/courtseals].
If you aren’t familiar with any of the above — the fact that we have actors masquerading as elected officials and a corporation masquerading as a government — this is the interview for you.
In this episode, a successful career government pharmaceuticals and vaccines testing expert with Health Canada explains why COVID-19 is not proven to exist in applied science. As such, no vaccine will treat a nonexistent pathogen.
Dr. Qureshi has a Ph.D. in fundamental science (chemistry) specializing in analytical chemistry, which covers the science of substances, isolation, identification, characterization, purification, tests developments, validation, and their uses.
For over three years Dr Qureshi has collaborated with other independent scientists and researchers at Principia Scientific International to provide objective, independent analysis to expose the most significant medical fraud in history.
Working with Dr Judy Wilyman – Australia’s most prominent qualified expert in vaccine injury – co-authors, Qureshi, Beatty, and O’Sullivan have compiled an important new book that among other things shows how corrupt policymakers, a controlled media and government ‘experts’ combined to scare us onto surrendering our freedoms – all premised on junk science.
Slaying the Virus and Vaccine Dragon reveals how a coordinated international medical hoax – just like the climate scare – is a dystopian population control strategy implemented by a psychopathic billionaire cult pursuing UN Agenda 21(Agenda 2030) to depopulate the planet.
About Dr. Saeed Qureshi
As a senior research scientist for 30 years with Health Canada, Dr. Qureshi conducted experimental studies relating to drug applications for product marketing—undertaking hands-on experimental (scientific) studies for both in vitro and in vivo (animal/human) evaluations.
He has extensively published in peer-reviewed journals and made numerous invited national and international presentations on these topics.
For his scientific accomplishments he has received several high-profile awards including the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Indus Foundation, India); from the Deputy Minister’s Award of Excellence in Science at Health Canada) plus the Excellence in Science Award also at Health Canada
Slaying the Virus and Vaccine Dragon identifies that modern democracies commonly suffer from a fatal weakness, in that they rely on politicians and government scientists to maintain high ethical standards, indefinitely.
The federal government recently revealed that at least 50 U.S. government personnel working in 10 foreign countries have had their mobile devices hacked by unknown persons who employed software known as “zero-click.” The zero-click product, called Pegasus, is manufactured by an Israeli high-tech company, called NSO Group.
Pegasus enables the user to download the contents of the target’s mobile device or desktop without having to trick the target into clicking onto a link. It also enables the user to follow the person in possession of the device, capturing all texts and emails, as well as listening to conversations on the device or that take place in near proximity to it.
Pegasus is so sophisticated that its victims are largely unaware of the digital attack on their devices. The feds learned that they have been victimized by this software when Apple informed them. Apple told the feds to expect much more of this. The feds are deeply troubled by this warning, as they don’t know who the victims are. The president himself was recently in Ireland, where his personal phone may have been targeted.
But don’t feel sorry for the feds. They have been using this software and similar products on unsuspecting Americans since the Trump administration.
Here is the backstory.
In reply to a routine Freedom of Information Act request made in 2020, the FBI acknowledged spending $5 million to license Pegasus from NSO Group. When FBI director Christopher Wray was asked about this, he reluctantly told Congress that his agents bought zero-click, but he denied its use in law enforcement. What does that mean? Isn’t the essence of the FBI’s work law enforcement?
Wray claimed that the FBI only purchased zero-click in order to reverse engineer it — basically to see how it worked. But that’s not truly why the FBI wanted Pegasus. It hoped to use the software to spy on Americans without first obtaining search warrants.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, written in the aftermath of British searches of colonial homes not based on evidence of crimes, requires judicially issued search warrants based on probable cause of crime for all searches and seizures.
Thus, the owners and users of mobile devices and desktops — that’s nearly every American — have a privacy right in the use of their devices and in the data they have stored in them. Even a narrow interpretation of the amendment that guarantees privacy in “persons, houses, papers, and effects” must acknowledge that a computer chip — the heart of every computer — is an “effect,” and thus its owner or user enjoys privacy protection.
Protection from whom? Let’s see.
When President Joe Biden learned of the FBI’s use of Pegasus — the FBI secretly bought it during the Trump years — and the FBI’s shady explanation for its use of it, the White House announced an executive order that it claimed would prevent future use of zero-click. The Biden executive order stops the sales of Pegasus to Americans and to the government, but it does not stop the sales of all zero-clicks.
Rather than simply banning zero-click, rather than banning all warrantless searches, Biden banned only the use of one brand of zero-click software and only when it has also been used by foreign governments to target the U.S. government, when it is under the control of a foreign government, when it has been used to target the freedom of expression of foreign human rights activists or when it has been used by foreign authoritarians.
What about stopping the use of zero-click by federal authoritarians? Biden banned it because of how others use it, not because, in its essence, it violates the Fourth Amendment. Quick to pick up on this, the feds quickly purchased Predator — a twin of Pegasus, made by another foreign high-tech firm, with a more benign track record of sales and use.
What good does Biden’s executive order do? Whom does it protect? The Biden executive order is Joe Biden at his worst. Claiming to deny commercial benefit to a foreign company because it also sells to bad guys but permitting another foreign company to sell functionally the same product to the feds protects no one’s Fourth Amendment rights.
When Thomas Jefferson predicted shortly before he died in 1826 that, in the long run, personal liberty would shrink and government power would grow, he could not have imagined any of this. It seems that, no matter who is in the White House and which political party controls either house of Congress, the tentacles of government reach deeper into our lives with every tick of the clock.
Is there any area of private or harmless behavior that the government leaves alone?
The government that Jefferson left us has been inverted. That government needed the permission of the voters to do nearly anything. Today, we need the permission of the government to do nearly everything. And folks under observation change on account of the observation.
Two of my closest friends — husband and wife — told me they were discussing diamond earrings on their cellphones with each other last week. Soon, ads for diamond earrings began popping up on their desktops.
This was obviously not the government, yet, government sets the tone and the standard. Federal agents use zero-click to hack into our computers because that’s a lot easier than developing probable cause of crime and presenting it to a judge. Big tech uses hacking because that’s more effective than advertising.
Now big tech targeting consumers can mimic the feds — and, like the feds, get away with it because when the government breaks its own laws, it sets a precedent for others to follow. Is this the government the Framers left us? Is it the government we voted for? What awaits us on the other side of this Orwellian landscape?
The next time you find yourself at airport security, prepare to look directly into a camera. The Transportation Security Administration is quietly testing controversial facial recognition technology at airports nationwide.
AP News said 16 airports, including Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall and Reagan National near Washington, as well as ones in Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Orlando, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Jose, and Gulfport-Biloxi and Jackson in Mississippi, have installed kiosks with cameras (at some TSA checkpoints) that allow passengers to insert their government-issued ID and look into a camera as facial recognition technology asses if the ID and person match.
Here’s what to expect at airports utilizing this new technology:
Travelers put their driver’s license into a slot that reads the card or place their passport photo against a card reader. Then they look at a camera on a screen about the size of an iPad, which captures their image and compares it to their ID. The technology is both checking to make sure the people at the airport match the ID they present and that the identification is in fact real. A TSA officer is still there and signs off on the screening. -AP
“What we are trying to do with this is aid the officers to actually determine that you are who you say who you are,” said Jason Lim, identity management capabilities manager, during a recent demonstration of the technology to reporters at BWI.
TSA said the pilot test is voluntary, and passengers can opt out. The facial recognition technology has raised concerns among critics, like five senators (four Democrats and an Independent) who sent a letter in February to the TSA requesting the pilot test be halted immediately.
“Increasing biometric surveillance of Americans by the government represents a risk to civil liberties and privacy rights,” the senators said.
The letter continued:
“We are concerned about the safety and security of Americans’ biometric data in the hands of authorized private corporations or unauthorized bad actors.
“As government agencies grow their database of identifying images, increasingly large databases will prove more and more enticing targets for hackers and cybercriminals.”
Meg Foster, a justice fellow at Georgetown University’s Center on Privacy and Technology, is concerned that even though the TSA says it’s not storing biometric data, it collects, “What if that changes in the future?”
Jeramie Scott, with the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said that even though the TSA facial recognition kiosks are being tested, it could be only a matter of time before it becomes a more permanent fixture at checkpoints.
This article comes from one of our regular article-sifters-and-sharers, and it’s more grist for the mill as you consider what is behind the moves of so many states to pass various currency laws. Last week, for example, I offered a cautionary caveat on Texas’s recent bills regarding the “backing” of digital “currencies” with gold or silver, and their apparent “convertibility.” My caveat remains what it was: if you’re going to have truly convertible digital currency with silver and gold backing, then certificates of deposit that one can carry in one’s wallet – we know them as gold and silver certificates – must be issued and useable as currency. Otherwise, I smell a plot simply to hook people on digital and cashlessness via the hook of “bullion backed.” Colour me a curmudgeon, because I’m not buying.
But this article about the Hoosier state’s banning of Central Bank Digital Currencies has me wondering if this push back of the states against fiat money, the fed, and fedgov overreach, has real traction:
Consider what this article says very carefully:
Last week, Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb signed a bill into law to remove a central bank digital currency (CBDC) from the definition of money in the state.
Sen. Chris Garten and a bipartisan coalition of 11 cosponsors introduced Senate Bill 468 (SB468) in January. The law makes a number of changes to Indiana’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) including explicitly excluding a CBDC from the definition of money in Indiana, effectively banning its use as such in the state.
The law amends the definition of money to specify, “The term does not include a central bank digital currency that is currently adopted, or that may be adopted, by the United States government, a foreign government, a foreign reserve, or a foreign sanctioned central bank.”
…
Digital currencies exist as virtual banknotes or coins held in a digital wallet on your computer or smartphone. The difference between a central bank (government) digital currency and peer-to-peer electronic cash such as bitcoin is that the value of the digital currency is backed and controlled by the government, just like traditional fiat currency.
Government-issued digital currencies are sold on the promise of providing a safe, convenient, and more secure alternative to physical cash. We’re also told it will help stop dangerous criminals who like the intractability of cash. But there is a darker side – the promise of control.
At the root of the move toward government digital currency is “the war on cash.” The elimination of cash creates the potential for the government to track and even control consumer spending.
Imagine if there was no cash. It would be impossible to hide even the smallest transaction from the government’s eyes. Something as simple as your morning trip to Starbucks wouldn’t be a secret from government officials. As Bloomberg put it in an article published when China launched a digital yuan pilot program in 2020, digital currency “offers China’s authorities a degree of control never possible with physical money.”
The government could even “turn off” an individual’s ability to make purchases. Bloomberg described just how much control a digital currency could give Chinese officials. (Emphasis added)
Now, I applaud Indiana’s step here, and I think, were my paternal grandparents still alive in their little house in Lafayette, they would be applauding too. But the problem I still have with the Texas bill is that convertibility issue because this article highlights it: the absence of the mediating step of certificates of deposit. While the Texas bill does recognize gold and silver specie as legal tender, imagine trying to buy a car with it… and waiting while the sales force counted out your bags of silver coins. Unless Texas is planning to issue gold or silver coins in denominations of hundreds and even thousands of dollars (in terms of current bullion prices), that scene is unlikely. If in gold at current prices, then an ounce of gold – not a very big physical lump at all – will be worth about two thousand dollars, give or take a couple of hundred. That’s not a heavy amount of gold to lug around, but trying to use gold for an actual specie dollar would be microscopic in size, a mere flake or speck. Two thousand dollars of silver would have you lugging around about 80 ounces of silver coin if face and intrinsic value were more or less the same and at today’s price of about $25.00 per ounce, or about five pounds of coins.
Thus the difficulty is that the Texas bill does not specify the valuation: given current prices-per-ounce of gold, a gold coin whose intrinsic value content is equal to the stamped value of one dollar would be either a very miniscule and probably undetectably small coin, or the gold content in, say, a physical quarter would be so diluted that the process of trying to recover it would be prohibitively expensive and not worth the effort of actually minting such a coin, or one has to arbitrarily redefine the dollar as such and such a weight of gold or silver, and so on. My point is, for those who know this history of money (and as cursory and amusing as my little example may be), this isn’t a small issue, as face (declared or stamped value) and actual intrinsic value, as everyone knows, are two different things, and this difference between the tell and the count can lead to some interesting “bookkeeping” practices if one isn’t careful. A teller, incidentally, began as someone who was more like an assayer, determining the purity of a metal and its intrinsic worth. Notably, they have become mere counters of coins, bills, notes, or certificates, which are not the same things as each other, nor are their face values similar to intrinsic value.
My point is that thus far, in blogging about these types of news articles and the attempts of several states to address the issue of specie as money, and the prohibition of central bank digital currencies, one notices a distinct lack of mention of these issues (face or stamped value versus intrinsic value), and through such omissions, whole truckloads of mischief – Globaloney central bannkster mischief – can be driven. An illustration might help, if the reader is still having difficulty with this difference between stamped, or face, value, and intrinsic value.
Imagine you own a proof condition Morgan silver dollar minted in 1880. That dollar, being in proof (virtually unused) condition would weigh in at almost exactly one ounce of pure silver. You get hungry for a taco, and realize you’re just one dollar short of enough money in the drive through to get your taco (which costs five dollars and you only have four and some loose change), and your new debit card has not arrived yet from the bank, and you’ve really got to have that taco. Then you remember your Morgan silver dollar, and use that along with the federal reserve notes to buy your taco. The cashier takes your silver dollar because it is still legal tender and currency, but accepts it at its stamped value: one dollar. Except that when it was minted, that dollar went a lot father than it does now, and moreover, the silver content of that Morgan silver dollar is now worth about $2o-25 of your newer federal reserve notes. In other words, you just spent about $29 tell dollars for a $5 count dollars taco. Tha cashier, meanwhile, recognized the value of that strange coin, and immediately exchanged it for the federal reserve note in her purse, and later sold the silver dollar to a coin collector for $25 count dollars. She could (here it comes) tell the difference.
So I’m left applauding these state efforts, but also issuing my caveats and warnings that a lot more thought that needs to be given to these specie money bills and to the twin issues of legal valuation and convertibility. Otherwise, when we try to convert our Texdigicoins to real gold bullion, we might have to wait a while for the clerk to find the microtweezers to give us our small microdot of gold worth one dollar, at current market prices of gold. It’s this issue that has me concerned that Texas – and some other states – and playing Mr. Globaloney’s and Mr. Central Bankster’s game.
Of course, there’s another monkey wrench here… and that is that there is historical precedent in our republic for the stated and legal definition of the value of a dollar in terms of bullion and more particularly, specie … but that story goes way back there, and neither the digital currency advocates nor the central banksters will like it. But that’s another story for another time perhaps.
One thing I think we can perhaps all agree on, though, and that is using cash is a way to fight serfdom.
We all know about the danger of a future society where we’re all tracked everywhere we go every single day in real time by our phones or devices . . . but actually, it’s worse than that!
You’re already being tracked everywhere you go, every day, and it doesn’t matter whether you leave your phone at home just as long as you bring your face.
Today on #SolutionsWatch, James explores some of the options that are on the table for heading off the facial recognition dystopia.
“…This is a pseudoscientific concept that is also an oxymoron as two entirely contradictory terms were put together in order to create this illogical state. Asymptomatic is characterized by a lack of signs and symptoms of illness, whereas disease is characterized by signs and symptoms of illness…
Asymptomatic carriers are nothing but healthy people who have been labelled with disease minus signs of any disease who are then told that they can infect others. They are treated as a sick individual based upon results generated using fraudulent tests.
[…]
The “viral” theory is a load of BS, and there is no such thing as a healthy sick person capable of transmitting disease. We have no reason to fear the walking healthy.”
“In areas where there are limited number of new cases, State or local public health officials may request to test a small number of asymptomatic ‘healthy people,’ particularly from vulnerable populations”
In the not so distant past, when we walked around feeling healthy without any symptoms of disease, most of us would consider that we were, in fact, free of any disease. There would be no thoughts about going to the doctor for a PCR test in order to determine whether or not we were unknowingly a walking talking “virus” spewing host harboring billions of “infectious” particles capable of transmitting disease to our loved ones. We would not subject ourselves to quarantines and daily testing due to the remote possibility of being around someone who tested positive with symptoms, let alone for anyone testing positive without any signs of disease. We did not go around covering our faces with masks out of fear that those around us may be silent spreaders. We didn’t bust out our rulers in order to measure 6 feet of distance between us and another living soul. None of these irrational actions were ever even a glimmer of a thought until the well-orchestrated fear propaganda campaign promoted the pseudoscientific concept of the asymptomatic carrier of disease and catapulted it into the public consciousness.
Even though this idea has been effectively weaponized against us over the last few years, it is not a new one. In fact, as will be shown later, the notion of the asymptomatic carrier began at the same time germ theory was born. The idea is that one can be silently harboring and able to transmit a pathogen without displaying any symptoms of disease whatsoever. This has resulted in the highly illogical creation of asymptomatic disease:
What Does it Mean to Have an Asymptomatic Disease?
“Asymptomatic disease is where a person is infected with a disease (or develops a disease; diagnosed) but fails to display any noticeable symptoms.”
Asymptomatic until symptomatic – silent diseases
“Many diseases and infections can be asymptomatic, including those that may be potentially fatal in some people. These include (but are not limited to): tuberculosis, breast cancer, endometriosis, HIV/AIDS, herpes, hepatitis, chlamydia, hypertension, common colds/flu, and type-2 diabetes mellitus. Many of these conditions remain largely asymptomatic until very advanced disease stages when they suddenly become symptomatic. Others can remain more or less asymptomatic throughout their disease course.”
“Infectious diseases can also be completely asymptomatic (with no symptoms ever manifesting), particularly in younger and healthier individuals. For example, hepatitis (hepatitis C) infections can take up to 6 months to develop, and even then, approximately 80% of infected individuals may not experience any symptoms. Other examples include cholera, herpes, measles, and rubella which can be completely asymptomatic.”
“In summary, asymptomatic disease refers to diseases and infections which do not lead to any symptoms in patients (subclinical) for the whole disease course or until they develop symptoms in which the asymptomatic phase is referred to as pre-symptomatic.
In many respiratory infections including COVID-19, asymptomatic disease is common and may be a source of transmission within the community, though more research is needed to establish the exact contribution asymptomatic transmission has on the community rates of infection.”
As can be seen, many so-called “infectious diseases” are said to be asymptomatic. If one is labelled as asymptomatic, one never develops the disease at any point in time even though they are diagnosed with asymptomatic disease. This is a pseudoscientific concept that is also an oxymoron as two entirely contradictory terms were put together in order to create this illogical state. Asymptomatic is characterized by a lack of signs and symptoms of illness, whereas disease is characterized by signs and symptoms of illness. One can not have disease if one is not displaying signs of disease:
Asymptomatic carriers are nothing but healthy people who have been labelled with disease minus signs of any disease who are then told that they can infect others. They are treated as a sick individual based upon results generated using fraudulent tests. In the past, most would have scoffed at this idea and never willingly subjected themselves to quarantines and further testing. In fact, they would have never tested to begin with. However, in the face of a “pandemic” with a “novel virus,” many lined up for the mass testing agenda in order to ensure that they were amongst the “uninfected.” This willingness to subject to testing despite a clear lack of symptoms was primarily driven by fear. This old concept was thrust onto a frightened population and then ramped up in a way that had never been done so before.
In order to understand why there was never any reason to ever participate in this irrational belief of such a ridiculous concept, let’s examine how the asymptomatic carrier first came about at the dawn of germ theory. We will then examine how this idea was weaponized against the public during the “pandemic” despite a complete lack of any scientific evidence in support of the asymptomatic disease carrier.
When German bacteriologist Robert Koch was looking for the causative agents of certain diseases in the late 1800’s, he formulated a series of four logical requirements that needed to be met in order for anyone to claim that a certain microbe caused a specific disease. These were as follows:
The microorganism must be found in abundance in all hosts suffering from the disease but should not be found in healthy hosts.
The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased host and grown in pure culture.
The cultured microorganism should cause the same symptoms of disease when introduced into a healthy host.
The microorganism must be re-isolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and shown to be identical to the original causative agent.
While these logic-based postulates were accepted by and large within the scientific community, Koch quickly discovered a problem with his very first criterion. Whether it was tuberculosis, typhoid, malaria, or cholera, the microbe that he was claiming as causative agents were regularly found in healthy individuals. Thus, Koch was unable to satisfy his very own first Postulate. However, rather than realize that his criteria had worked as he had envisioned and had actually ruled out bacteria and other microbes as a causative agent of disease, Koch allowed for himself and others to bend not only his first postulate, but the others as well. Allowing for the bacteria and other microbes claimed to be causative agents of disease to be found in those without disease lead to the creation of the illogical concept that became known as the asymptomatic carrier of disease. Koch’s entire claim to fame rested entirely on the perception that he was a microbe-hunter. Bending his own rules saved Koch from giving up his prestige, kept his findings intact, and helped to establish the germ theory on unfalsifiable pseudoscientific grounds.
Koch’s idea of asymptomatic “infection” received a big push shortly afterwards when the media released propaganda promoting the idea of an asymptomatic carrier in 1907 by targeting an Irish immigrant by the name of Mary Mollen. Mary was a cook for wealthy families and ended up employed by banker Charles Henry Warren when he rented a summer home for himself and his family. When 6 of the 11 family members came down with the symptoms of typhoid fever over the last week of August, the property owners feared that no one would rent the house again if they believed that the property was the source of the outbreak. A man named George Roper was hired to investigate the situation and he came to the conclusion that it was Mary who had passed on the bacteria to the family through her cooking. This led to a modern day witch-hunt for Mary who refused to believe that she was the source of illness. Sadly, Mary was eventually involuntarily quarantined for the majority of the rest of her life. This ordeal led to Mary being notoriously and unfairly known by the moniker Typhoid Mary, even though many of her stool samples came back negative for the bacterium:
Typhoid Mary: the Tragedy of Mary Mallon
“On 11 November 1938, a 69 year old Irishwoman died on North Brother Island, New York. She had been held in isolation for 23 years, yet she had not been charged or convicted with any criminal offence.
Mary Mallon was born in Cookstown, Ireland in 1869. She immigrated to America when she was a teenager and found employment in domestic service. She developed an aptitude for cooking, and as this paid more than basic service, Mary accepted several jobs as a cook for the wealthy. In 1906, Charles Henry Warren, a New York banker, rented a summer home for himself and his family on Long Island. Mary Mallon was engaged as a cook for the duration of their stay. From the end of August, one by one people began to fall ill with typhoid fever, in all, six of the eleven occupants of the house developed typhoid fever.
The owners of the property feared that they would be unable to secure further tenants if the public believed that the source of the outbreak was their property and so hired Dr George Soper to investigate the cause. Soper came to the conclusion that Mary Mallon was to blame for the spread of disease. Hindering his efforts, Mary had left their employment three weeks after the outbreak. Soper started to investigate the previous situations held by Mary Mallon. From 1900 to 1907 there had been seven jobs where, it was reported, somewhere between twenty-three and thirty-eight people became ill and one person, a child, died. Soper believed that Mary was the source of typhoid fever that had followed her employment history, but he needed biological samples to affirm his hypothesis.”
“The Greater New York Charter allowed for ‘all reasonable means for ascertaining the existence and cause of disease’. It essentially gave health officials the authority to remove Mary Mallon and quarantine her against her will. After two years of isolation, with only a dog for company, Mary sued the health department. They had tested her stools approximately weekly and 120 out of 163 samples proved positive. Yet Mary countered with her own private analysis, sampled over the preceding year, all coming back negative. Mary’s laboratory results proved for her, her healthy status and she failed to understand that she was diagnosed a healthy typhoid carrier. She was arguably the first person identified as such, and having not been charged with a criminal offence she felt it was barbaric to be treated like a criminal (and a ‘leper’) when she was innocent of any crime.”
Mary was falsely quarantined against her will due to one man’s suspicion and hypothesis that rested solely on correlation equaling causation. No scientific experiments were ever carried out proving that Mary was spreading disease to her patrons. As with all claims of asymptomatic transmission, it was a circumstantial case built upon faulty epidemiological data. George Roper is the man who ultimately condemned Mary by labeling her as the cause without any scientific evidence proving his hypothesis. Based upon his own words presented below, he assumed certain premises, such as the bacterium should be in the urine (which it was not) and in the feces. He claimed that stool examinations only failed twice over the course of two weeks to find the bacterium. However, he later recounted several instances of failure to detect the bacterium over the course of several months. In the summer months, few bacterial colonies were found and in the month of July, there were five consecutive negative tests. During the month of August, no typhoid was ever found in Mary’s stools. In September, they began to appear again. However, from September 11 to October 14, 1907, the stools failed to yield any typhoid bacilli. From October 16, 1907, to February 5, 1908, weekly examinations of the stools showed anywhere from 25 to 50 percent “typhoid-like” colonies on the culture plates. There were two instances within that period where no bacilli were found. Taking into account that Mary’s own independent lab results showed that no bacilli were found within her stools, Soper’s consistently contradictory evidence should have been questioned.
After recounting these failures, Soper shared his thoughts on how Mary transmitted the bacterium through having not washed her hands properly while preparing the food. He based his conclusion upon his interviews where he stated that no housekeeper ever told him that Mary was a clean cook. He did not say whether he asked them or not or rather just assumed that their lack of addressing it was proof that Mary was unsanitary. Soper then stated that, in the most thorough “investigation,” he believed that the bacterium was carried from Mary’s hands to the people who ate ice cream containing cut-up peaches that she had prepared. Again, no evidence was provided beyond his belief. Soper was amazed that no one had ever discovered an asymptomatic carrier in America before him. Interestingly, Soper revealed that he was long interested in the transmission of typhoid fever and knew of Robert Koch’s work. He stated that his interest in this area was longstanding and that Koch’s work was the basis for his own investigation. He admitted that he had read several papers on the probable role of healthy carriers in producing typhoid. Soper was made aware by Dr. Simon Flexner, of the infamous Flexner report, to some of these references after he had concluded his work on the Mary Mallon case. It is very clear that Soper went looking for evidence to fit his preconceived conclusions as to what the cause was. He was also potentially guided along the way:
The Military Surgeon Vol. XLV July, 1919 Number 1 Original Articles Typhoid Mary
By Major GEORGE A. SOPER
“It was expected by me that the germs might be found in the urine, but more probably in the stools. None was found in the urine. The stools contained the germs in great numbers. Daily examinations made for over two weeks failed only twice to reveal the presence of the Bacillus typhoid and on these occasions the sample taken was perhaps too small to reveal them. The blood gave a positive Widal reaction. The cook appeared to be in perfect health.
The feces were examined on an average of three times a week from March 20 to November 16, 1907, and in only a comparatively few instances did the investigators fail to find the bacilli. During the summer months the culture plates contained only a few typhoid-like colonies. In July there were five consecutive negative tests followed by a positive one.
During August the stool showed no typhoid; in September they began to appear again; from September 11 to October 14, 1907, the feces failed to yield typhoid bacilli. During this time the patient’s diet was carefully regulated and she was receiving mild laxatives. On October 16, 1907, a very thorough test showed that the germs were again present. From October 16, 1907, to February 5, 1908, weekly examinations of the stools gave, with only two exceptions, from 25 to 50 per cent typhoid-like colonies on the culture plates. These exceptions were on November 13 and December 4, when no typhoid was found. The implication was plain. The cook was virtually a living culture tube in which the germs of typhoid multiplied and from which they escaped in the movements from her bowels. When at toilet her hands became soiled, perhaps unconsciously and invisibly so. When she pre-pared a meal, the germs were washed and rubbed from her fingers into the food. No housekeeper ever gave me to understand that Mary was a particularly clean cook. In the Oyster Bay outbreak, which was studied with more particularity than the others, the infectious matter is believed to have been carried from the cook’s hands to the people who were later taken sick by means of ice cream containing cut-up peaches. Mary prepared this herself. In this instance no heat sterilized the washings from her hands. Mary Mallon was kept virtually a prisoner by the Department of Health for three years. At first she was held at the hospital for contagious diseases at the foot of East 16th Street, Manhattan; later she was removed to Riverside Hospital on North Brother’s Island in the East River, between Hell Gate and Long Island Sound.”
“The case is least remarkable for the reason that it was the first of its kind to be worked out in America. It is surprising that nobody bad discovered a carrier before. They are now known to be rather common.
Somewhat similar investigations bad been made in Germany) and I make no claim of originality or for any other credit in her discovery. My interest and experience in the epidemiology of typhoid had been of long standing. I had read the address which Koch had delivered before the Kaiser Wilhelm’s Akademie, November 28, 1902, and his investigation into the prevalence of typhoid at Trier 3 and thought it was one of the most illuminating of documents.In fact it had been the basis of much of tile epidemic work with which I had been connected.
Koch’s address was not the only one printed about this time to show that healthy carriers might exist and give rise to typhoid. Conradi and Drigalski4 had anticipated Koch and it was probably on the suggestion contained in their paper to the effect that with their new culture medium they had found typhoid bacilli in the stools of several well persons that Koch’s flying laboratory was sent to Trier and the ground prepared for his Kaiser Wilhelm’s Akademic address.
In the Festschrift Zum SeclizigstenGeburstag von Robert Koch, which appeared in 1903, there are several papers on the probable role of healthy carriers in producing typhoid. About this time Kayser, Klinger and others were publishing in Arbeiten aus dem Kaiserlichen Gesundheit-smate reports of cases which they found to be due to persons whose condition was much like Typhoid Mary’s. Dr. Simon Flexner kindly called my attention to some of these references after I had concluded my work on the Mary Mallon case.”
After the highly publicized Typhoid Mary case, this idea of asymptomatic carriers simmered in the background over the next century. While there were claims of such a state in certain diseases, this has never been scientifically proven. However, that did not stop Koch’s escape clause from taking a prominent role in the “Covid crisis,” primarily due to a mass testing campaign that was bound to identify positive cases in healthy people using fraudulent tests never calibrated and validated to purified and isolated “virus.” Although all PCR results are false-positives, we can see that even the CDC noted that testing people without symptoms generates false-positive cases. They stated as much under their PCR guidelines for pertussis when recommending not to test those without symptoms:
Diagnosis PCR Best Practices
“However, only patients with signs and symptoms consistent with pertussis should be tested by PCR to confirm the diagnosis. Testing asymptomatic persons should be avoided as it increases the likelihood of obtaining falsely-positive results. Asymptomatic close contacts of confirmed cases should not be tested and testing of contacts should not be used for post-exposure prophylaxis decisions.”
Thus, we can see that the CDC were well aware that testing people without symptoms will lead to an influx of cases labelled as asymptomatic “infections” when they are, in fact, not “infected” or diseased at all. This massive amount of asymptomatic cases of “SARS-COV-2” based upon fraudulent test results has cemented the illogical concept of the asymptomatic carrier into the minds of the populace. A timely December 2020 review, while reiterating the history of the asymptomatic carrier described above, pointed out the fact that even though asymptomatic infection and transmission has always been a concept waiting it the wings, it has only recently been thrust into the limelight with this “pandemic:”
Invisible epidemics: ethics and asymptomatic infection
History
“Dr Robert Koch was one of the founders of modern microbiology, and his work is particularly well known for a set of postulates (first published in 1890) linking microbes with the causation of infectious disease (Gradmann 2010). Though variously expressed, one of Koch’s initial postulates was that the microbe putatively responsible for a disease should be found in all people suffering from the disease, but not in healthy individuals (Gradmann 2010). Koch soon realised that this did not hold true in all cases, since many potentially pathogenic organisms are frequently found in healthy people. For example, Koch observed that asymptomatic carriers of cholera, typhoid, and malaria could spread these diseases to others, and he is credited for inventing the concept of the carrier state (i.e., in which healthy people asymptomatically carry an infection) (Gradmann 2010).
Public awareness of asymptomatic carriage of infection increased, especially in English-speaking countries, with media reporting of the case of Mary Mallon (known as “Typhoid Mary”) beginning in 1907. Mallon was a cook working in New York who, although showing no signs of typhoid disease herself, spread typhoid bacteria to many other people, resulting in several deaths (Brooks 1996; Soper 1939). For the general population, this revealed an important truth: that “persons, rather than things” (Soper 1939) were the source of many infectious diseases. Despite this Copernican revolution in public health (an epidemiological parallel of the microbiological revolution of germ theory), Mary Mallon and many others found it difficult to believe that healthy people could spread disease. Mallon repeatedly resisted public health restrictions and refused to believe she was infected or posed risks to others. She spent the latter years of her life living in public health confinement on North Brother Island, working as an assistant in the local infectious disease laboratory (Soper 1939).”
Implications for outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics
“Asymptomatic infection was recognised to be a significant factor in the 2015–2016 Zika virus epidemic, particularly because many of those who were infected—including some women who acquired infection during pregnancy and gave birth to children severely affected by congenital Zika syndrome—showed few or no symptoms (Jamrozik and Selgelid 2018). Although less well recognised, transmission of asymptomatic Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus infection (perhaps both camel-human and human–human transmission) may play an important role in the epidemiology of MERS—which is all the more remarkable because people who develop symptomatic MERS infection have a high fatality risk of around 35% (Grant et al. 2019). Asymptomatic infection has also been reported for viruses closely related to the coronavirus that caused the earlier severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic. In one study from 2003, around 40% of Chinese wild animal traders had serological evidence of having been exposed to coronaviruses that closely resembled SARS-coronavirus, raising questions about whether people in high risk occupations should be screened for asymptomatic infection to detect potential “spillover” events of pathogens with epidemic potential (Guan et al. 2003). We initiated the November 2018 Brocher Foundation workshop upon which this Special Issue is based partly in light of the growing awareness of such cases of asymptomatic infection—and their ethical implications for policy and practice.
Since that time general awareness of asymptomatic infection has skyrocketed in light of its role in the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid19) pandemic, in virtue of which the term ‘asymptomatic infection’ has become highly familiar to ordinary members of the general public. Early data, which were later widely confirmed, suggested that asymptomatic transmission of Covid19 occurs both in cases where the individual transmitting the virus goes on to develop symptoms later (i.e., they were “pre-symptomatic” at the time of transmission) and in cases where they never develop symptoms (Hu et al. 2020). Asymptomatic individuals can, under certain conditions, transmit to large numbers of other people (e.g., one person was shown to infect 71 others) (Liu et al. 2020). The overall degree to which asymptomatic transmission contributes to local Covid19 epidemics likely varies in different contexts and has not always been well-characterised (in part because of the difficulties of identifying all asymptomatic infections during an epidemic). In any case, asymptomatic transmission of Covid19 raises a number of ethical issues similar to those discussed above, including those related to the justification of public health interventions such as screening and isolation for asymptomatic cases.”
While the asymptomatic carrier was made a star of the “Covid” show in order to generate fear and drive compliance towards quarantines, lockdowns, social-distancing, and masking, the message has been entirely inconsistent throughout, and the lack of any valid scientific evidence proving such a carrier state was on full display from the very beginning. At a White House press briefing on January 28th 2020, the idea of asymptomatically transmitting the “novel coronavirus” was floated out there as a possibility. The CDC claimed to have heard reports about asymptomatic cases but had not seen any of the data. At the time, poster boy Anthony Fauci stated that, based upon past evidence from respiratory “viruses” of any type, asymptomatic transmission was never a driver behind any outbreaks or spread of disease:
Asymptomatic transmission
“There’s a difference between someone who has the virus and is about to show symptoms and someone who gets it and never has any noticeable sign. The second type is purely asymptomatic and there was a lot of uncertainty on this point at a Jan. 28 White House briefing. The CDC said there were reports of it, but they hadn’t seen the data.
Fauci put the question into the context of past coronaviruses.
“We would really like to see the data because, if there is asymptomatic transmission, it impacts certain policies that you do regarding screening, etc. But the one thing historically people need to realize is that, even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of respiratory-born viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there’s a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.”
However, a few days later on February 3rd, 2020, Anthony Fauci had changed his tune and stated that, based upon a single paper, he had no doubt that asymptomatic transmission was occurring and that the study he had read had laid the case to rest. Unfortunately for Fauci, the conclusive evidence that asymptomatic transmission occurred was based upon false information. The study in question claimed that a woman, who had been in a meeting in Germany with four people who later became ill, was an asymptomatic carrier as she had no symptoms at the time of the meeting and became ill upon her flight home to China. For some reason, the authors of the paper failed to actually speak to the woman and wrote the paper solely based upon what the four patients told them. Ironically, the Robert Koch Institute actually spoke to the woman and confirmed that she was symptomatic at the time of the meeting, thus giving Fauci a nice serving of egg on his face:
“Chinese researchers had previously suggested asymptomatic people might transmit the virus but had not presented clear-cut evidence. “There’s no doubt after reading [the NEJM] paper that asymptomatic transmission is occurring,” Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told journalists. “This study lays the question to rest.”
But now, it turns out that information was wrong.
The letter in NEJM described a cluster of infections that began after a businesswoman from Shanghai visited a company near Munich on 20 and 21 January, where she had a meeting with the first of four people who later fell ill. Crucially, she wasn’t sick at the time: “During her stay, she had been well with no sign or symptoms of infection but had become ill on her flight back to China,” the authors wrote. “The fact that asymptomatic persons are potential sources of 2019-nCoV infection may warrant a reassessment of transmission dynamics of the current outbreak.
But the researchers didn’t actually speak to the woman before they published the paper. The last author, Michael Hoelscher of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich Medical Center, says the paper relied on information from the four other patients: “They told us that the patient from China did not appear to have any symptoms.” Afterward, however, officials at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Germany’s federal public health agency, and the Health and Food Safety Authority of the state of Bavaria did talk to the Shanghai patient on the phone, and it turned out she did have symptoms while in Germany. According to people familiar with the call, she felt tired, suffered from muscle pain, and took paracetamol, a fever-lowering medication. (An RKI spokesperson would only confirm to Science that the woman had symptoms.)”
In March 2020, a top Chinese health official completely contradicted Fauci by stating that there was no evidence that asymptomatic carriers could spread illness to others:
‘No evidence’ asymptomatic carriers spread coronavirus, Chinese health official claims
“A top Chinese health official sought to allay growing fears over asymptomatic coronavirus carriers on Monday, saying there was “no evidence” they could spread the illness but medical workers should remain alert to the risk.”
Not one to be made the fool, in April 2020, Fauci suggested that there were millions of silent spreaders in the US. In fact, he claimed that asymptomatic infections made up anywhere from 25 to 50% of the infections. He backed his figures up by confidently stating that they were just guessing as they had no scientific data to support these guesstimates. Fauci stated that he wouldn’t have any “scientific” data until mass antibody testing was carried out. He said that it was impossible to know who is infected without symptoms until you test everyone who has no symptoms. This lends credence to the fact that testing people without symptoms will, as the CDC stated with pertussis, create nothing but false-positives:
Fauci once dismissed concerns about ‘silent carriers’ of coronavirus. Not anymore.
At Sunday’s White House briefing, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, suggested that hundreds of thousands — or even millions — of “silent carriers” may be unwittingly spreading the coronavirus across the United States because they don’t realize they’re infected.
The idea that at least some coronavirus carriers don’t feel sick isn’t new. But the scale of Fauci’s estimate was.”
“It’s somewhere between 25 and 50 percent” of the total, Fauci said. But “right now,” he went on, “we’re just guessing.”
“The first thing to note is that Fauci himself expressed a high degree of uncertainty about his own numbers. “I don’t have any scientific data to say that,” he admitted Sunday. “You know when we’ll get the scientific data? When we get those antibody tests out there and we really know what the penetrance is. Then we can answer the questions in a scientifically sound way.”
“Fauci was right to be cautious. As he noted, it’s impossible to say how many carriers never showed symptoms until you’ve tested a bunch of people who never showed symptoms — something that will only happen after the worst of the pandemic is over and scientists start trying to determine, en masse, who does and doesn’t have immunity. (More on that later.)”
“Last week Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield told NPR that “one of the [pieces of] information that we have pretty much confirmed now is that a significant number of individuals that are infected actually remain a asymptomatic.”
In June 2020, the WHO’s Maria Van Kerkhove disagreed with Fauci’s assessment of asymptomatic transmission by claiming that it appears to be rare based upon the data that was seen. In fact, she claimed that investigators were not finding any cases of secondary transmission from an asymptomatic carrier to anyone else:
Coronavirus spread by asymptomatic people ‘appears to be rare,’ WHO official says
“From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” Van Kerkhove said on Monday.
“We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing. They’re following asymptomatic cases, they’re following contacts and they’re not finding secondary transmission onward. It is very rare — and much of that is not published in the literature,” she said. “We are constantly looking at this data and we’re trying to get more information from countries to truly answer this question. It still appears to be rare that an asymptomatic individual actually transmits onward.”
However, by November 2020, Fauci was defiant against the WHO’s admittance that no secondary transmissions were occurring and stated that he was certain that 40-45% of the transmission was due to asymptomatic carriers. Fauci hammered home the point as to why masks, which he had claimed offered no protection in March 2020, were now essential in November 2020:
Anthony Fauci’s Thoughts on Covid-19 Transmission, Treatments, and Vaccines
“Speaking of asymptomatic spread, Fauci says that 40–45% of transmission is due to asymptomatic people unwittingly infecting others. This is why masks are so essential — by wearing one, you protect other people even if you don’t know that you’re infected.”
In December 2021, Fauci was defeated yet again when the “discoverer” of Omicron, Dr. Angelique Coetzee, questioned whether such a thing as an asymptomatic carrier even existed at all. She stated that they had seen no asymptomatic cases of Omicron and then recommended that those without symptoms need not test:
‘There’s no reason to test if you have no symptoms,’ and 2 other findings from the woman instrumental in first identifying omicron
“Notably, Coetzee suggested that asymptomatic cases of the omicron variant are rare, if such a condition exists at all.
Asked during a Christmas Eve interview on MSNBC if “there was not such a thing as an asymptomatic case of omicron,” Coetzee responded: “We haven’t seen it.”
Secondly, the chairwoman of the South African Medical Association also told MSNBC on Friday that she doesn’t recommend testing by individuals until, and if, symptoms arise from the variant. “There’s no reason to test if you don’t have symptoms,” she said.”
In another blow to the ego of “Science,” an April 2021 study published by the CDC saw Fauci’s statements contradicted yet again when the researchers found no asymptomatic transmission. In fact, they stated that their findings were in line with other studies and that asymptomatic transmission was unlikely to contribute to the spread of “Covid,” which torpedoed Fauci’s claims of 40-45% of transmission being due to those without symptoms:
Analysis of Asymptomatic and Presymptomatic Transmission in SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak, Germany, 2020
“We determined secondary attack rates (SAR) among close contacts of 59 asymptomatic and symptomatic coronavirus disease case-patients by presymptomatic and symptomatic exposure. We observed no transmission from asymptomatic case-patients and highest SAR through presymptomatic exposure. Rapid quarantine of close contacts with or without symptoms is needed to prevent presymptomatic transmission.”
Conclusions
“In this cluster of COVID-19 cases, little to no transmission occurred from asymptomatic case-patients. Presymptomatic transmission was more frequent than symptomatic transmission. The serial interval was short; very short intervals occurred.
The fact that we did not detect any laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 transmission from asymptomatic case-patients is in line with multiple studies (9–11).”
“In conclusion, our study suggests that asymptomatic cases are unlikely to contribute substantially to the spread of SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 cases should be detected and managed early to quarantine close contacts immediately and prevent presymptomatic transmissions.”
While Fauci’s claims of asymptomatic transmission were obviously unfounded, there were many asymptomatic cases being generated due to the fraudulent testing, as predicted by the CDC with pertussis. Thus, the perception that asymptomatic people were spreading a “virus” was easily conveyed to the public based upon unscientific data. We can see evidence of the massive amounts of healthy people testing positive for a “virus” by way of the mandatory mass testing data that came out of China throughout the “pandemic.” For instance, in March of 2022, Shanghai reported that over 70% of their cases were asymptomatic.
Why is Shanghai seeing so many asymptomatic Covid-19 infections?
“China is in the grip of an Omicron wave, but about 70 percent of cases reported in March have not had any symptoms.”
“Of the 103,965 locally acquired cases reported in March, only 3,046 had symptoms, according to National Health Commission data. And most of the asymptomatic infections were reported in Shanghai.”
By November of 2022, China was seeing upwards of 90% of their reported cases described as asymptomatic.
China Reports Third Consecutive Daily Record for New COVID Cases
“China reported 35,183 new COVID-19 infections on Friday, of which 3,474 were symptomatic and 31,709 were asymptomatic, the National Health Commission said on Saturday, setting a new high for the third consecutive day.
That compared with 32,943 new cases a day earlier — 3,103 symptomatic and 29,840 asymptomatic infections, which China counts separately.
Excluding imported cases, China reported 34,909 new local cases on Friday, of which 3,405 were symptomatic and 31,504 were asymptomatic, up from 32,695 a day earlier.”
By December 2022, China had given up on reporting their overwhelming amount of asymptomatic cases in their daily Covid counts:
China stops publishing asymptomatic COVID cases, reports no deaths
“China’s National Health Commission (NHC) will as of Wednesday stop reporting new asymptomatic COVID-19 infections, as many people without symptoms no longer participate in testing, making it hard to accurately tally the total count, it said.”
There were many reasons provided for why China had so many asymptomatic cases but it easily boiled down to their untargeted mass surveillance testing of the entire population. It is clear that if one goes looking for cases, one will find them whether symptomatic or not. In China, it was very much the latter as they were seeing over 98% asymptomatic rates in Shanghai based upon their testing data. This goes against the idea that mass testing would find more symptomatic cases. As more healthy people were subjected to a fraudulent test, the more “healthy sick” people that could be added to the overall totals:
Explainer-Why are Shanghai’s COVID infections nearly all asymptomatic?
“The number of new confirmed community transmitted cases in the major financial hub of Shanghai reached 4,477 on Tuesday, a record high, but only 2.1% showed symptoms. The share of symptomatic cases over the previous seven days was around 1.6%.”
“Following are some explanations for why the rate of asymptomatic cases is so high.
Surveillance Testing
China is also the only major country to do mass, untargeted surveillance testing, which is bound to uncover more asymptomatic cases, although it could also be expected to reveal more symptomatic cases.
“Surely, high levels of testing will pick up more rather than less asymptomatic cases,” said Adrian Esterman, an expert in biostatistics at the University of South Australia.”
Mass testing with fraudulent tests led to a surge in healthy people being fraudulently labelled as asymptomatic carriers. It doesn’t matter that this very act of mass testing, as the CDC stated, increases the likelihood of false-positives (even though they are all false-positives). This perception of a massive number of “infections” of a “virus” regardless of any disease being present only helped to further solidify this illogical concept into the minds of a fearful public as if it were a scientifically proven fact when it is anything but. Ironically, despite their “test, test, test” mantra, the WHO actually claimed that its guidelines never recommended mass testing of asymptomatic people as was being done in China due to high costs involved and the lack of data of its effectiveness:
Analysis: Test, test, test? Scientists question costly mass COVID checks
“WHO guidelines have never recommended mass screening of asymptomatic individuals – as is currently happening in China – because of the costs involved and the lack of data on its effectiveness.”
Thus, we can see that there truly is nothing behind the claim of an asymptomatic carrier of disease other than the fraudulent label provided by technology never meant for diagnostic use, especially on such a massive scale as we witnessed during this “pandemic.” PCR can find anything in anyone and the result is utterly meaningless, as stated by inventor Kary Mullis:
“Anyone can test positive for practically anything with a PCR test, if you run it long enough with PCR if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody.”
“[PCR is] just a process that’s used to make a whole lot of something out of something. That’s what it is. It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick, it doesn’t tell you that the thing you’ve ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that.”
The asymptomatic excuse was created in face of conflicting evidence by a man who wanted nothing more than to protect his prestige and his findings. Robert Koch was under pressure from a growing field of researchers who were either contradicting his own findings or making new discoveries of their own. Koch needed a way to ensure that his own research would stand up to scrutiny. Bending his own logical postulates in order to allow for the asymptomatic carrier to exist allowed for his contradictory findings, as well as those put forward by later researchers, to persevere in the face of any further challenges by opponents:
“Whatever I undertake these days, there will be a bunch of the envious and jealous at hand. They will try to challenge me and if they don’t succeed, try to make me turn away from my work in disgust.”
“Those happy days are gone when the number of bacteriologists was small and each of them could research wide areas in an undisturbed manner…So now in making the most modest and most careful delineation of a research area you will step on the first colleagues’ toes or bump into a second one unintentionally, or come too close to the third’s field of work. Before you even realise it, you are surrounded by opponents.”
It is clear to anyone looking at the idea of an asymptomatic carrier of disease logically that this very notion does not stand up under scrutiny. This nonsense was summed up brilliantly by the late great Canadian researcher David Crowe:
“Someone who believes in the virus can explain this conundrum to me.
“It has been strongly stated that asymptomatic people can be infectious for quite a long time (I can provide references if you don’t believe me, but this has been widely stated). This means that for quite a long time their body has a large quantity of virus particles, otherwise infection wouldn’t be possible. But their body doesn’t react to these particles, an immune reaction would at least result in a fever. But without an immune reaction they can never get rid of the virus particles. And how is it that virus particles running around the body of some people don’t do anything, whereas other people get seriously ill and die? How do all the virus particles in one person know that they shouldn’t mess with the cells to cause symptoms, whereas in another person they all go crazy and cause devastation?
“So we can conclude that (1) Asymptomatic people never get rid of the virus and therefore must be quarantined forever; (2) It’s the virus that’s deficient, not the person, which must mean there are multiple dramatically different strains; or (3) the viral theory is a load of BS.
“Please help me.”
-David Crowe March 31st, 2020
It is obviously number 3. The “viral” theory is a load of BS, and there is no such thing as a healthy sick person capable of transmitting disease. We have no reason to fear the walking healthy.
Rather than squabbling about controlled opposition, we would be better served by spending our time productively engaged in research, verifying and triangulating information to discern what is true and what is false
“Divide and conquer” is the primary way the control network maintains control, and all that’s needed to divide a previously unified front is insinuation and the seeding of doubt
As AI-equipped chatbots are getting more sophisticated and start to monopolize online searches and virtual assistants, state-endorsed propaganda may become the only information available
Narrative is the ultimate weapon; with a convincing-enough narrative, you can motivate entire populations to go to war or anything else that you want them to do
One of the most important strategies you can implement to prepare yourself for the likelihood of what they plan on throwing at us next lies with community, meeting like-minded people that share your views and complement your skills. It will also be wise to relocate from high density urban areas
In this video, I interview investigative journalist James Corbett about false narratives, the global takeover by technocracy, controlled opposition and the dangers of artificial intelligence, as well as the solutions to these and other challenges.
Corbett’s journalism career began in the aftermath of 9/11, when he became “overwhelmed to discover that we are constantly lied to through the mainstream media.” 9/11 was his “red pill” moment, and he hasn’t stopped digging for the truth since.
“The discrepancy between the things that I was finding online versus what was being reported on the evening news just started getting wider and wider,” he says, “to the point where I felt that … I had to insert myself in that conversation. So that’s the reason we’re talking today.”
In 2007, Corbett launched his website, CorbettReport.com. One of his hallmarks, both in his documentaries and regular reports, is impeccable citations of sources.
“I always put up the transcript with the hyperlinks to the source documents for every single quotation, every video clip, everything that I’m playing,” he says. “I want to direct people back to the source material so that they can research it for themselves.
I know, as a researcher myself who does this for a living, that’s incredibly valuable. I very much appreciate it when other people do it, so I’m trying to set that example in the alternative media.”
Can the Global Takeover Be Derailed?
Corbett is also featured on “Good Morning CHD” with Dr. Meryl Nass once a month, an online news show by Children’s Health Defense.
“It’s a valuable way, for both of us, to continue keeping our eye on the ball of the World Health Organization and its latest machinations … of the global pandemic treaty and the international health regulations (IHR) amendments that they’re working on right now, which really could be the hardwiring of the biosurveillance infrastructure,” Corbett says.
When asked whether he believes the pandemic treaty and/or the IHR amendments can be stopped, Corbett replies:
“Well, they are planning on unleashing the global pandemic treaty on the world at the World Health Assembly (WHA) next year, May of 2024. And preparatory to that, they’re going to be holding a World Health Assembly this month, at which they’ll be talking about the draft of the treaty and the draft of the IHR amendments and other such developments.
So, we’re looking at about a one-year timeline before whatever it is they’re cooking up will be foisted upon the world, unless there is some dramatic movement to stop that.
In the short run, it seems unlikely that the incredible institutional momentum is going to be derailed, but having said that, we could look at things that have happened in the past that have completely derailed agendas that seemed inevitable, including the 2009 edition of the UNFCCC, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
In 2009, the UNFCCC was being promoted and hyped — even by the then-president of the EU — as the potential for world government through a new climate accord that would completely rewrite the international rule books.
That was completely derailed by a couple of interesting incidents, one of which was Climategate … Squabbles between some of the developing nations versus the developed world … [also] helped to derail that 2009 conference.
There’s potentially a similar thing happening [now] with the WHO trying to foist regulations and restrictions on developing countries that can’t afford them. As we saw over the course of the past few years, it was the African countries that held out against the biosecurity state agenda, to a large degree.
And I think people who are interested in invoking a global biosecurity surveillance net probably are most concerned about how developing countries will or will not participate in this. So, there may be a similar sort of geo-economic squabbling or something else that might derail this, so I don’t think we should simply consign ourselves to the inevitability of it before it happens.”
Is Elon Musk Controlled Opposition?
Determining the trustworthiness of people within the alternative news space is a challenge everyone is faced with these days. Accusations of people being controlled opposition are common. The same goes for high-profile individuals in general. For example, some people, including Corbett and investigative journalist Whitney Webb, believe Elon Musk is likely controlled opposition. What led them to that conclusion?
“It’s a question that a lot of people have, so let’s dig into it,” Corbett says. On the one side you have people who believe Musk is exposing and undermining the military industrial intelligence complex. On the other are those who think he’s just playing a “good guy” role while surreptitiously furthering Deep State goals. As noted by Corbett, it’s hard to overlook the massive support Musk has received from the military industrial intelligence complex over the course of his career.
“We don’t have to speculate about that,” Corbett says. “That is a matter of public record. We can point to the half a billion dollars or so that the Department of Defense has awarded SpaceX in a series of contracts over the past few years to send satellites up into orbit of classified nature on unregistered, unreported missions that presumably have something to do with the DOD’s declared intention to make space into a war-fighting domain.
There’s the $3 billion in NASA contracts that SpaceX was awarded in 2021 to develop the human lander for the Artemis Mission, and the never-going-to-happen constantly delayed moon trip that the public is being promised. There’s the $750 million that was awarded to Solar City in 2016 by the state of New York to build a solar cell production facility.
This, again, is another aspect of the business opportunities that Musk is involved in that I think shrieks of grift — a boondoggle at the very least, constantly promising a technology that not only doesn’t deliver but actually is actively harmful to the environment. I think that’s something that needs to be stressed.
Then, there’s the $1.3 billion that Tesla got from the State of Nevada in 2014 to build the Gigafactory, etc., etc., etc. We could go through the list of such help, but perhaps more to the point was the fact that before Elon Musk got to launch SpaceX, he was part of a trip to Russia … to purchase old Soviet ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles]. That trip ultimately resulted in the starting of SpaceX.
Who was accompanying Elon Musk on that trip? Someone named Mike Griffin, who just happened to be the chief operating officer of In-Q-Tel, which is the CIA’s investment capital arm …
Griffin went on to become the administrator of NASA, who then chose SpaceX as the one company out of the 20 that was applying for it at the time, for this $400 million contract to start development of the new ISS resupply rocket in 2005, which basically launched SpaceX … and again awarded SpaceX $3.5 Billion in 2008 with a contract that Musk himself credits with saving the company.
So, there you go, the literal deep state connections couldn’t get much clearer. At every stage of Musk’s business career, he has been saved as need be with the deus ex machina of deep state agents like Mike Griffin swooping in with billions of dollars of contracts at just the right time.”
That’s why Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover and the release of the Twitter Files may seem to be a move against the military-industrial complex, but given Musk’s documentable ties to that very same military-industrial complex, we must be wary of placing faith in these developments.
After all, Twitter is a centralized platform that lends itself to censorship, algorithmic manipulation and information suppression, and Musk has openly stated that he wants to create a “WeChat”-like app capable of handling every aspect of its users’ digital life.
Why Did Musk Release the Twitter Files?
Corbett suggests that the best way to evaluate Musk’s ideas and contributions is to assess their outcomes.
“Is what Elon Musk advocating good or bad? Do we agree with it or do we disagree with it? Is it right or wrong? And why do we think so? That has to be the heart that we keep coming back to. So, we have to evaluate Musk’s ideas on that basis,” he says.
“For example, there are ideas that Musk promotes that I am 100% onboard with. He has talked about the overpopulation myth and the under-population crisis that humanity is facing. I very much agree with him on that assessment. When he talks about the ill effects of lockdowns … absolutely, I think he’s right about that.
However, when he talks about the imposition of a carbon tax in line with Bill Gates and Mark Carney and the like, I think he’s pushing a bad idea that is part of a plan for centralization of control in globalist hands.
When he gets on the stage of the World Government Summit and argues for universal basic income, again in line with any number of globalist operatives, I think he is promoting an idea that will be used for centralization of economic control in fewer hands.
When he talks about the … Neuralink brain chip … [he’s] exactly in line with what [World Economic Forum founder] Klaus Schwab has been arguing … I think that is a bad idea that is going to be used for control of the masses by a technocratic elite.”
As for Musk’s acquisition of Twitter and subsequent release of the Twitter Files, Corbett doesn’t think it’s a great surprise to find that the military industrial intelligence complex has been using it to monitor and manipulate people. He believes Musk’s job may well be to make the platform trustworthy again so that government agencies can continue using it for surveillance and control.
There’s other evidence pointing in this direction as well. Musk has said he wants Twitter to become the WeChat app of America. And what is WeChat? It’s a Chinese government-controlled app that monitors every aspect citizens’ lives, including their financial transactions, social transactions, communications, whereabouts and more.
It’s basically the foundation for the communist social credit system. So, while Musk claims to be a defender of free speech, he’s also talking about turning Twitter into THE central hub for the technocratic surveillance and control network.
Stop Looking for a Savior
As noted by Corbett, what we need to do is “take responsibility for our own lives rather than looking for saviors like Elon Musk to swoop in and save the day.” We can’t lay that burden on any given individual or group of individuals. We must all do our part.
“I think the conversation can get stuck on stupid because even though I tend to believe that Musk is some form of collaborator with the deep state that he pretends to oppose, I don’t have proof of that and I do not know that for a fact, in the same way that his defenders do not know for a fact that he is not part of that controlled opposition,” Corbett says.
“We can spend all our time and energy talking about this person and what we think their part is in all of this, or we could spend that time productively engaged in research, actually verifying, triangulating information, discerning what is true and what is not true.
When we take information down to that level, then it does not matter who is the person out there conveying that information to us. The important part is the information.”
It’s also important to understand that “divide and conquer” is the primary way the control network maintains control, and all that’s needed to divide a previously unified front is insinuation and the seeding of doubt. In the short-term, the globalist takeover seems to have an unstoppable momentum behind it, but seemingly inevitable moves toward tyranny have been derailed at the last minute in the past and we must not give up hope or stop resisting. As explained by Corbett:
“The term cognitive infiltration goes back to Cass Sunstein, the person who became Obama’s information czar … He co-wrote a paper about cognitive infiltration in which he openly stated:
‘The government maybe should send people into conspiracy spaces, conspiracy groups, with cognitive infiltrators who will go in there and conceal their identity as being affiliated with the government, but will try to insert facts that will break the narrative of the conspiracy theorists.’
And what was the result of that paper? Rather than anyone having been exposed as being that cognitive infiltrator on the payroll of the U.S. government, what it effectively did was give people ammunition to speculate endlessly.
‘This person is a cognitive infiltrator, that person is a cognitive infiltrator,’ to the point where, ultimately, I think Sunstein wins without even necessarily having to implement that system at all, because … the group fractures once the idea of pointing fingers at everyone becomes the norm …
That is, in fact, precisely how the FBI’s COINTELPRO program worked back in the 1950s and ’60s … One of the tactics they used was to put people into meetings in various spaces, the Black Panthers and others, in order to start spreading rumors and calling other people government agents.
The government agents were generally the ones that we’re calling other people government agents in order to disrupt the groups, so I think we have to keep that in mind and keep our eye on the real prize here, which is discerning fact from fiction, truth from falsity, productive ways forward from unproductive ways forward.”
ChatGPT and the Future of Propaganda
I’ve often marveled at the effectiveness of modern propaganda. Part of what makes it so effective is the availability of technology, from social media and search engines to large language model artificial intelligence. OpenAI’s ChatGPT has taken the world by storm and companies across a range of industries are already talking about replacing large numbers of white collar workers with AI.
This, even though there are serious problems with this technology. For example, we’re finding chatbots have a tendency to lie and fantasize. Researchers are calling these instances “hallucinations.” Basically, the AI is concocting a fantasy based on the information available and reciting it as fact. And that’s in addition to the bias that can be built in by programmers. So, while it’s an incredibly exciting technology, we cannot be naïve about its risks.
One obvious risk is that state-endorsed propaganda can become the only information available to people, as this technology starts monopolizing online searches and virtual assistants.
There won’t be a multitude of answers anymore. There will only be one, and he who controls the AI will have the power to control the beliefs of the entire world. Of course, yet another risk is that no one will be able to control it and the AI will control itself. I don’t know which might be worse. Corbett comments:
“You introduced this topic with the concept of propaganda and potential uses of large language models for propagandistic purposes. We should go back to the man who wrote the book on propaganda called ‘Propaganda,’ Edward Bernays, who [said]:
‘The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power of our country.’
That was Edward Bernays in 1928. His words are as true today as they were then, perhaps even more so. And the true ruling power of the country, of the world at this point perhaps, are those who can most effectively, consciously and intelligently manipulate the organized habits and opinions of the masses.
And I don’t think enough people have really stopped to cogitate on the fact that these large language models already starting to produce material that really cannot be distinguished from human-written material …
You don’t have to be a crystal ball prognosticator to see how this will extend out in the foreseeable future … [to] the point where you can have entire conversations, entire fields of interest and study that will be completely populated by artificial-created conversation …
A large language model that is able to accurately and without much prompting be able to populate botnets to flood social media and other places will essentially be able to dominate that conversation, [and] will consciously and intelligently manipulate the habits and opinions of the masses. At that point, you are talking about the ultimate weapon.
The ultimate weapon is narrative, because with a convincing-enough narrative, you can get entire populations motivated to war or to anything else that you seek to get them to do, like say lock down the entire productive global economy on the back of a scare that was absolutely not warranted.
So, I think once we start getting these completely synthetically-generated narratives, that will start creating these entire events that are not happening in the real world. [These events] will be deep-faked through video and audio and everything else, to convince you of an entire reality that doesn’t exist.
We are really moving into some truly world historical changing times and I don’t know if enough people are really cognizant of … how this technology could be used for good or for ill …
I think there is a real threat, and it is probably underappreciated by a large section of the public that are not keeping abreast of the daily torrent of information on this subject … Some of the testing notes for ChatGPT-4 that were released showed there was a team that was tasking the chatbot with a certain task that would require it to do things that it was not programmed to do, or even authorized to do, including solving a CAPTCHA …
[The chatbot] actually went on Fiverr or one of those types of platforms and recruited a human being to do it for it, to the point where the human said, ‘Why are you recruiting me to do a CAPTCHA? How do I know you’re not a bot? Ha-ha-ha.’ To which it responded, ‘I’m blind, I’m visually impaired, I can’t do it myself.’ Ultimately, it ended up getting that CAPTCHA solved.
It does not take a great degree of imagination to see where that can go. I don’t know what kind of safeguards you can program into a technology like that, other than to completely keep it firewalled off from the internet and from any other computer system that it may be able to commandeer.”
Solutions Watch
On his website, Corbett has a section called The Solutions Watch, where he proposes action steps that you can take to address a given problem, both big and small. For example, on the smaller scale, he’s discussed the importance of filtering your water, and testing your water to ensure it’s being filtered properly.
“One thing that I think is sort of the foundation upon which we will have to build any thoroughgoing answer to the problems we’re facing is creating conscious community with others,” Corbett says.
“Of course, that can take the form of online and virtual community. I’m not going to pooh-pooh or disdain that. I think it is important to know like-minded people online. But increasingly, how can we trust what we are reading, seeing or interacting with online?
I think the real point is to try to build real community with real people in the real world. That could take the form of intentional communities that are created from the ground up as a physical location that people will relocate to … but I think it is extremely difficult to do that.
But at the very least, people can and should be finding like-minded people within their geographical proximity that they can meet up with, who will be there in emergencies, hopefully. But also that they can start forming small groups, that they can start teaching each other about various things that they may know and bringing solutions to the table.
I think that can be the core basis upon which we start erecting other things, because one thing that I’ve looked at over the years are some of these big, huge issues that seem utterly overwhelming and completely impenetrable to the average person, like the fundamental fraud that underlies the economy itself is the monetary system, which for people who haven’t looked into it, the money supply itself is very much controlled, and the creation of money is a tool that is used for enslavement.
It could be used for human flourishing, but is not in our current economy. How do we possibly combat a problem as thoroughgoing as that? [Many people] I encounter online have ideas about the perfect alternative currency … but [they] haven’t convinced anyone to use it. To me, that speaks to the fundamental problem.”
Build Community and Get Out of Metropolitan Areas
At the top of Corbett’s solutions list is building parallel communities. That’s really a foundational strategy because without it, many other solutions can’t work. To that, I would add the recommendation to move out of crime-ridden urban and metropolitan areas and into areas where this kind of community-building is more likely to succeed. As noted by Corbett:
“Until you have a community of people who are going to be working together on projects like an alternative or supplemental currency system, how are you going to launch something like that in a thoroughgoing manner?
I think the core of the solutions that we’re looking for lies with community, meeting like-minded people … I’m not into this Pollyanna thinking that it’s all going to be easy. It’s an incredibly, incredibly difficult task to start creating an alternate currency, an alternate power grid and the alternate society that we need to protect ourselves, to buffer ourselves from this encroaching biosecurity, technocratic enslavement grid.
That’s a pretty tall order, and I can’t offer any assurances that it’s going to turn out all right. But I do know that if we just lay down and continue on the course that we’re on, we are hurtling towards a brick wall of extinction, essentially. I really see this as a fundamental existential question that we are facing not just on the artificial intelligence front, but also on the genomic manipulation front, on the manipulation of the food supply.
If you are what you eat, then what does it mean that they’re going to start feeding us insects and other such unpalatable items?
It is absolutely a war that is taking place on every front, all at once, and we’re not going to get through this by ourselves. Unless you are the type of person that can go out in the woods and live by yourself for decades … I don’t think you’re going to escape this all by yourself, so I think creating community is sort of the core of all solutions.”
More Information
Corbett’s reports, Solution Watch and documentaries can all be found on his website, CorbettReport.com. He also does a weekly news update series with James Evan Pilato of mediamonarchy.com, in which they examine three news stories that are either trending or have slipped beneath the radar. “We try to draw attention to them and put them in the right context,” Corbett says.
Geoengineering/5G/pollinator expert Nikki Florio jumped on a quick interview with me yesterday to give an overview of California’s recent unnatural state of earthquakes. The shakers were similar to the manmade earthquakes that devastated Turkey and Syria last February.
If you are not familiar with what I am speaking about, I highly encourage you to check out my recent posts here:
Unequivocal Evidence of Our Ability to Weaponize Earthquakes In the wake of Turkey’s horrendous earthquakes, Americans should consider lobbying their legislators to resurrect old legislation that would protect the world from such modern-day wrath.
And here:
Romanian Bad-Ass Calls Out the Evil-Doers Romanian Senator Diana Șoșoacă calls out US/NATO’s retribution against Turkey’s President for giving Klaus Schwab and his evil-doers the middle finger.
For those who want to undertake their own research and observation, check out:
As Nikki states, an earthquake that has a minus such as -1.4km means the “focus” was 1.4km above ground; or where the earthquake was generated. This obviously can only be manmade and mostly HAARP generated.
It’s best we become familiar with the 5th Generation Warfare that is upon us. Be aware of the “fingerprints,” as pointed out in these most recent California earthquakes.
Are you prepared for an earthquake? I’m not…. but I am motivated now, however.
TCTL editor’s note: Stan Sylvester from Tennessee wrote to me in response to my recent post about reader’s questions related to how they can help (see TCTL substack post). Stan describes how he developed his skill for writing letters to editors of local newspapers in order to challenge prevailing narratives. He is suggesting that others might be inspired to do the same and offers to coach anyone who wants to get started. See his contact email address below.
~ Kathleen
On Writing Letters to the Editors of Local Newspapers as a Way to Inspire Others to Question Prevailing Narratives
Here is a suggestion for those who want to know how they can help. How can we reach others to have the blessing of learning and gaining new understandings?
You’ve run out of family, friends and/or coworkers to try to wake up. Now what? Everyone’s situation is different. What works for one truth-teller may not be the best strategy for another. However, a strategy is necessary.
When our family escaped, excuse me, moved from NJ to TN, I had no idea how I was going to help wake people up. I decided on submitting letters to the editor of a small local paper. I had never done that before. I expected to get censored any ways. I was pleasantly surprised that my views were welcome, some but not all!
After some success, I decided to check out other cities. I looked for privately-owned papers. I found one in a college town about 45 minutes away. I took out an email subscription. The first letter I submitted I got a phone call. A lady from the newspaper wanted to be sure I was who I said I was. I confirmed and said that I was excited that they would print my article. I’ll never forget what she said to me. She said that not everyone reads the whole paper but everyone reads the opinion page!
If you choose to go this route, remember that you’re not necessarily looking to change what people have believed all of their lives. All you’re looking to do is get them to question what they’ve been taught. If they are interested in the truth, they will have to take the next step and investigate. This is who we are looking for.
I rarely submit something that is not a reply to something else. I may reply to a previous letter from a subscriber. I may respond to something the newspaper printed. A political cartoon often draws the attention of the keyboard warrior within me. The door will be open for you to be a truth teller. Even if the editor throws it in the trash, at least one person will have had a chance to wake up.
There are personal benefits. You will learn to communicate with writing better. You will learn how to make a point in the word limit that you are given. You will find out how much you really understand a topic. The proof of that is that you can teach it to someone else.
“I [Paul] have planted, Apollos watered but God gave the increase.”
1 Corinthians 3:6
We all want results but don’t focus on them. Every time we speak the truth we are planting a seed. That tree you see started with a tiny seed. God is the one who will provide the results…
Here is an example of a letter that was recently published:
Letter to the editor: We have a monopoly on school shootings
Recently the Glade Sun posted an image depicting the painful school shootings that plague this country. From January 2009 to May 2018 there were 288 school shootings in the U.S.
The U.S. is a member of the G7 group, an organization of leaders from some of the world’s largest economies. In the same timeframe, the other members of the G7 group, United Kingdom, Italy, France, Japan, Germany and Canada had a grand total of 5 school shootings. The U.S. has a 57 times higher rate of school shootings than its G7 counterparts. Can anyone explain that?
Worldwide, Mexico is second in school shootings in the above mentioned timeframe. How many tragic school shootings do you think it takes to be number two? 100? Nope. 50? Nope. As an American, I’m ashamed to report that Mexico had 8. Can anyone explain why this is not a global problem but overwhelmingly a U.S. problem?
It’s getting worse. In 2022 there were 51 school shootings in this country. We are given the manifestos of social media posts of many of the alleged shooters. Why are these shooters virtually nonexistent in other countries?
Are we being played over and over by the lonely, alienated, depressed, or revenge motivated lone crazed gunman explanation? Are a number of these school shootings connected to a larger sinister agenda rather than unrelated to each other?
“We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American people believes is false.” Former CIA Director William Casey
“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”
Properly summing up government and rule of any kind, is to accept that all government, all State force, and all authority of one over another, is an atrocious abomination against humanity. Government is the scourge of mankind, it can only exist due to force, and if any government or any rule is administered by any politician or ruler, or any of their ilk, freedom has already vanished. As Orson Scott Card so clearly explained what he had learned: “My father always said that government is like watching another man piss in your boot. Someone feels better but it certainly isn’t you.” This image is accurate, but if the free man sticks his boot up the arse of the government, he will not only feel better, he will be free.
The bottom line as I see it, is that there is no such thing as good government, benevolent government, necessary government, or protective government; there is only evil government. This is easy to understand when one simply discovers what governments cause, what they do, what they steal, who they murder, and how they hold power over all. Considering America, without government and rule, there would have been few if any wars, no government taxation, (theft) no confiscation of much of the land in this country by rule of ‘law’ and force, few if any monopolies, no mass regulation of any kind, no government prisons filled with those incarcerated for victimless crimes, no drug laws, no gun laws, and no murderous federal or state police and military. There would be no politicians, no elections, no voting for masters, no congress, no president, (king) no massive bureaucracies, no government indoctrination systems, (‘public’ schools) no republicans, no democrats, and therefore a great reduction of lies.
Without a government, the false flag inside job of September 11, 2001, would never have happened. There would never have been any Patriot Act, no war of terror by the United States, no torture program, and probably no recessions or depressions, unless they were isolated, natural, localized, and very short-lived. The housing and economic crisis beginning in 2008 would not have occurred. Stock and bond manipulation would be nearly impossible, and mass spending, currency expansion, and monetary inflation would be unheard of in an environment devoid of government.
There would be no national emergencies declared by government, so the fake ‘covid’ pandemic would never have taken place. There would never have been business closings ordered, no mask mandates, no forced home imprisonment, no curfews, no lockdowns, no ‘social distancing,’ no testing, and absolutely no required deadly poisonous bio-weapon injections purposely and unjustly called ‘vaccines.’.
There would never have been any travel restrictions, no bailouts, no mass welfare scams called ‘stimulus checks, no hyper-inflation, no poisoning of food sources, no destruction of farms and ranches, no slaughter of animals, no toxic chemical poison spraying of the atmosphere, no geo-engineering of weather and unnatural disasters, and no Trump or Biden.
There would be no debt ceiling, because there would likely be no federal or state debt. There would be no national deficit, and no unfunded liabilities. There would be little if any division among the people because most all division is caused and stoked by government. There would be no immigration problem, no fences at the borders, no ‘war on drugs,’ no drug cartels supported fully by the U.S. government and the CIA and other ‘intelligence’ services. There would be no antagonistic foreign policy, and therefore, no real risk of nuclear war with China or Russia, and no food and energy shortages caused by state thugs.
No one has any legitimate right to give authority, or assign any power of one over another, by calling it government. The very idea that one can vote to allow by proxy, the rule of the many by the few; those chosen liars and cheats called politicians, is in and of itself absurd. How can any illegitimately selected political class, the most immoral group of criminals on earth, legislate morality to others? All that government consists of, are those dregs of society seeking rule, who are given power to do things that no normal citizen has a right to do. Any who are allowed to make ‘laws’ controlling others, are automatically assuming a position above their own heinous ‘laws.’ They are only able to do this by using the resources they steal from all, to buy violent enforcers called police and military, to punish, harm, or murder, any who question or refuse their false ‘authority.’
As I have said in the past: “All those who continue to support the notion that government is necessary, all those who continue to advocate government as the only answer to societal cohesion, all those who demand that others accept government for the benefit of all, and all those dependent on rule who expect government to be their master and protector, are in essence the destroyers of liberty, and therefore they are advocates for mass slavery. There is no legitimate reasoning for such asinine behavior.”
Government can only exist when people accept that they are slaves, and allow a master to rule over them. Without this voluntary acceptance of rule, no government could ever stand. No individual or group of individuals, has any right whatsoever to rule another, and this has only been possible due to the insane mindset that is collectivism of the masses. This so-called ‘philosophy’ that is ‘collectivism,’ sets the stage for where we are today; living as slaves in a society of fools, dependent on a master’s permission to live and breathe. No freedom will ever be present, so long as any government (State) exists. This is a reality that cannot be questioned.
“Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves.”
New research from the UC Berkeley School of Public Health in the U.S. shows that childhood exposure to the world’s most widely used weed killer, glyphosate, is linked to liver inflammation and metabolic disorder in early adulthood, which could lead to liver cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease later in life.
The study of 480 mother-child duos from the Salinas Valley, California—a rich agricultural region that locals call “The World’s Salad bowl”—was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
The researchers, led by Brenda Eskenazi, director of the UC Berkeley School of Public Health’s Center for Environmental Research and Community Health (CERCH), examined the agricultural use of glyphosate near the homes of the mothers during pregnancy and in the children up to age 5 years; and also measured glyphosate and AMPA, a degradation product of glyphosate and amino-polyphosphonates, in their urine (collected from mothers during pregnancy and from children at ages 5, 14, and 18 years). They assessed liver and metabolic health in the children when they were 18 years old.
The authors reported that higher levels of glyphosate residue and AMPA in urine in childhood and adolescence were associated with higher risk of liver inflammation and metabolic disorders in young adulthood. In addition, the investigators found that agricultural glyphosate use near participants’ homes from birth and up through age five was associated with metabolic disorders at age 18. They reported that diet was likely a major source of glyphosate and AMPA exposure among study participants, as indicated by higher urinary glyphosate or AMPA concentrations among those adolescents who ate more cereal, fruits, vegetables, bread, and in general, carbohydrates.
Glyphosate Box
Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here
Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here
Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure
Glyphosate is used routinely on genetically modified crops such as corn, soybeans and wheat, as well as oats, legumes and other produce. It is also present in many lawn care products for home and commercial use.
The debate over the impact of glyphosate and AMPA on human health has been contentious. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports no evidence of human health risk. However, most previous glyphosate research has focused on glyphosate’s potential carcinogenicity. This is the first time that researchers have examined the potential connection between early life exposure to glyphosate—whose use has markedly increased over the past two decades—and metabolic and liver disease, both of which are increasing among children and young adults.
The impetus for this study came from Salinas physician Charles Limbach, who was alarmed by the growing number of local youths with liver and metabolic diseases. Dr. Limbach wondered if the increasing public exposure to glyphosate might be a factor. He teamed up with Paul J. Mills, a UC San Diego professor and author of a previous study showing an association between higher levels of glyphosate residue and AMPA in adults and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. The two men then approached Professor Eskenazi, who is also the founder of the Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS), the longest running longitudinal birth cohort investigation on the health effects of pesticides and other environmental exposures among children in a farmworker community. The CHAMACOS researchers reached back into their “library” of frozen biological samples from mother and child dyads, along with more than 20 years of exposure data and health records.
“The study’s implications are troubling,” said Dr. Ana Maria Mora, a CERCH investigator and coauthor, “as the levels of the chemicals found in our study participants are within the range reported for the general U.S. population.”
Professor Eskenazi recommends that the use of glyphosate should be limited to essential use while further studies are conducted. “There’s no reason why anyone should be using glyphosate on their lawn,” she said. “It shouldn’t be sold over the counter in a nursery.”
The study published in Environmental Health Perspectives was funded by NIH, NIEHS, NIDA, and the EPA. Additional support came from The Solomon Dutka Fund in the New York Community Trust and The Westreich Foundation.
“But even as of December 2022, only 17 percent of IDs in Kentucky were REAL ID compliant. The fact that the department has extended the deadline for another two years indicates a high level of non-compliance. The federal government does not want the political fallout it would face by effectively banning millions of people from domestic air travel…
The federal government’s struggle to implement REAL ID for what will be at least 17 years reveals a dirty little secret – the feds can’t do much of anything when states refuse to cooperate. This was the blueprint James Madison gave in Federalist #46 to resist “unwarrantable” or even unpopular federal acts. He said that a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the union” would create impediments and obstructions that would stymie federal actions…”
On this date in 2008, the REAL ID Act was supposed to go into effect.
It didn’t.
And it still isn’t in full effect to this day.
Last December, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) extended the enforcement deadline yet again for two more years, announcing it would not begin enforcing REAL ID requirements until May 2025.
In fact, the DHS has delayed the full implementation of REAL ID multiple times since Congress passed the act in 2005 with an original implementation date of May 11, 2008. Even with the federal government badgering states and using the threat of turning them into virtual no-fly zones to compel the adoption of REAL ID, the feds have found it incredibly difficult to coerce states into compliance.
The bottom line is due to intense opposition and foot-dragging by the states, REAL ID won’t be in full effect until at least 17 years after the initial implementation date – and that’s assuming the DHS doesn’t extend the deadline again.
This proves that “the Father of the Constitution” was right. Nullification works.
James Madison told us that a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” would create “very serious impediments” for federal enforcement – in just a single state. If a number of states did the same, he said it “would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”
This is exactly what has happened with REAL ID.
Background
President George W. Bush signed the REAL ID Act into law in 2005, essentially mandating a national ID system and putting the onus of implementation on each state.
But things didn’t go smoothly from the beginning, and by any conceivable measure, the implementation of REAL ID has been an abject failure because of widespread state resistance and refusal to cooperate with the scheme.
Most states simply ignored the law, and many rebelled outright for several reasons, including privacy concerns, along with the fact that Congress didn’t provide any funding for the mandates it expects states to implement. A large number of states simply chose not to act. New Hampshire, Missouri, Maine, Oklahoma and others took things a step further, passing laws expressly prohibiting compliance with the national ID standards.
Instead of forcing the issue, the feds issued waiver after waiver.
The DHS started extending deadlines almost immediately. On January 29, 2008, the agency issued REAL ID regulations that created a gradual implementation schedule. States would have until the mandated implementation date of May 11, 2008, to become “materially” compliant with the act but could ask for an extension valid until the end of 2009. It also set a date of May 10, 2011, for full compliance.
In December 2009, the DHS extended the date for “material compliance” because “a large majority of states and territories—46 of 56—have informed DHS that they will not be able to meet the Dec. 31 REAL ID material compliance deadline.” At the time, it left the full compliance date in place.
That date came and went. In December 2012, the DHS announced that only 13 states had met the law’s requirements and that beginning the following month, all the other states would get a deferment.
“Beginning January 15, 2013, those states not found to meet the standards will receive a temporary deferment that will allow Federal agencies to continue to accept their licenses and identification cards for boarding commercial aircraft and other official purposes.”
On and on it went, with new extensions and deferments year after year.
Ten years after its passage, more than half the states in the Union still had not complied with REAL ID. Of the 28 not in compliance, 21 had “extension waivers” until October 2016.
“There is an impasse,” Edward Hasbrouck a privacy advocate with the Identity Project told the New York Times in December 2015. “There has been a standoff for more than a decade now. The feds have limited powers to coerce the states in this case.”
In 2016, the feds ratcheted up their bullying tactics, specifically threatening to stop accepting noncompliant licenses at TSA security checkpoints. This would effectively ground travelers from states that refuse to comply with the unconstitutional national ID scheme. On Oct. 13, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sent letters to five states denying their request for time extensions to bring their driver’s licenses in compliance with REAL ID. At the time, the DHS set a 2018 deadline but still allowed for individual state extensions.
Instead of standing their ground, politicians began to cave. Idaho reversed its ban on Real ID implementation in 2016. Oklahoma followed suit the next year. At least six other states reversed course during this time period. Missouri lifted its ban on Real ID in 2018.
With states clamoring to get compliant, the enforcement deadline was ultimately extended to October 2020 and then again to October 2021.
After almost yearly implementation delays since 2008, it appeared DHS was seriously going to start enforcing the act in 2021. But in yet another about-face in April of that year, the Department extended the October 2021 deadline to May 2023. At the time, DHS said only 43 percent of American driver’s licenses were REAL ID compliant. That percentage has likely increased in the last two years, but the DHS did not provide any compliance data in its latest extension notice.
But even as of December 2022, only 17 percent of IDs in Kentucky were REAL ID compliant. The fact that the department has extended the deadline for another two years indicates a high level of non-compliance. The federal government does not want the political fallout it would face by effectively banning millions of people from domestic air travel.
And now the deadline stands May 2025.
We’ll see how that works out.
The federal government’s struggle to implement REAL ID for what will be at least 17 years reveals a dirty little secret – the feds can’t do much of anything when states refuse to cooperate. This was the blueprint James Madison gave in Federalist #46 to resist “unwarrantable” or even unpopular federal acts. He said that a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the union” would create impediments and obstructions that would stymie federal actions.
This has certainly proved true when it comes to REAL ID.
But we also see another less pleasant reality in this saga. We can’t trust politicians to hold the line. State legislators and governors held the feds at bay for over a decade. It wasn’t until they started to cave that REAL ID gained any momentum toward implementation. And even then, the federal government has still faced a rocky road.
Ultimately, it takes public action to stop government overreach. We can’t just turn our heads and hope elected officials will do their job. That only happens when we keep the pressure on.
…When the monolithic narrative that is all they have been taught lies in ruins, they will replace it not with a rational, informed alternative – for they will know of none – but with whatever satisfies the rage of a population that realizes, too late, that it has been hoodwinked.
Woe to the freedom-haters when the lion they think they have tamed turns its fury on the liberal society that soothsayers like Zelikow and Lipstadt still imagine they are defending!”
Suppose I tell you in advance that the essay you are reading is meant to startle you. And suppose I suggest, by way of demonstration, that two people as loosely connected as the leader of the “COVID Crisis Group” and Joe Biden’s “Special Envoy To Monitor and Combat Antisemitism” – both of whom have recently offered recommendations for improving political life in the United States – are in fact determined to unravel American freedoms.
Would you be surprised?
Well, if so, that is exactly the startling fact I am trying to bring to your attention. True, you may not have heard that the 34 COVID-19 “experts” headed by one Philip Zelikow (last seen justifying the concealment of information about the 9/11 attacks) and anti-Semitism “ambassador” Deborah Lipstadt – perhaps best known for slandering scads of Jewish survivors of the Nazis as “soft-core” Holocaust deniers because they objected to the massacre of 1,462 of Gaza’s civilians nine years ago – are both out to dismantle the Bill of Rights. But if you haven’t, it isn’t because they’ve been coy about their objectives.
Take the Zelikow panel. Its new book on “the lessons learned from COVID-19” openly conflates the federal government’s management of a respiratory virus with “wartime” – thus rationalizing the executive branch’s preemption of democratic government. Not only that, Zelikow and his band of “experts” explicitly call for the consolidation of power in the hands of an unelected “health security enterprise” that would control, among other things, a “systematic biomedical surveillance network.” And in case you can’t guess who is likely to benefit from the snooping, the panel goes on to praise the coercive experimental drug program that gave us the COVID-19 “vaccines” – “a bargain at $30 billion,” according to the editors of the Washington Post – signaling at one stroke the experts’ contempt for the Nuremberg Code and their subservience to Big Pharma.
As for Lipstadt, she has launched her attack on the First Amendment by redefining “anti-Semitism” so as to include an extraordinary range of political speech. Her first step in that transformation is the familiar trick of confusing criticism of the Israeli government with anti-Jewish bigotry. But her second step is newer and, arguably, even more disturbing: she tars all denigration of Jews with the hot-button label “conspiracy theory.”
Let’s be clear: however noble the pretext of opposing Jew-hatred, it should be obvious that once you characterize anti-Semitism as a “conspiracy theory” you have made a case for censorship. As Lipstadt herself explained to Jane Eisner of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism (in an interview printed in the latest AARP Magazine but not available online): “[I]t’s a conspiracy theory that Jews control the media, the banks, the election process, etc. If you believe that there is a group controlling these things, then essentially you’re saying that you don’t believe in democracy.”
And there’s the trouble. After all, an overt attack on democracy isn’t a viewpoint; it isn’t even an expression of run-of-the-mill bigotry. It’s a threat to the state. And it follows, if you accept Lipstadt’s formulation, that anyone the government can label an “anti-Semite” may now be punished in the same way the Biden administration is already punishing people who protested the presidential election results of November 2020. Note, too, the selective parameters of the offense: blaming Donald Trump’s election on the Russians is presumably “legitimate” speech; but accusing a “group” of controlling “the election process” can land you in jail – that is, when the “group” is not an official enemy but a favored minority, and when that “process” has reached results endorsed by those in power.
So the Zelikow panel and Ambassador Lipstadt can’t be accused of hiding their illiberal goals. Like the Democratic lynch mob that denounced Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger on the floor of Congress last March for revealing the extent of government censorship of Twitter, these propagandists quite openly assert that surveillance is good for us, while free speech is entirely too dangerous to be entrusted to mere citizens.
“Ordinary folks and national security agencies responsible for our security,” Congressman Colin Allred lectured Taibbi, “are trying their best to find a way to make sure that our online discourse doesn’t get people hurt, or see our democracy undermined.” It’s pretty breathtaking to watch an African-American liberal solemnly declare that the CIA and the FBI are the true guardians of democracy – not to mention his defense of the security state’s behind-the-scenes censorship of political speech. But what’s even more ominous is that not a single prominent Democratic politician nor a single pundit in mainstream liberal media has repudiated anything the congressman said.
Is it any wonder, then, that no one in mainstream media has mentioned the totalitarian tendencies implicit in the COVID Crisis Group’s recommendations for “pandemic” regulation via dismantling democracy, or in Ambassador Lipstadt’s appeals to the public to “discredit” anti-Semitism by recasting it as a criminal conspiracy?
Of course it isn’t. And that is my point. That is my motive in writing in tandem about these two apparently disparate subjects, connected only by the facts that both of them involve recent public declarations and that both of them represent attacks on fundamental liberties.
Because the truth is that condemning freedom is now so entirely respectable that it’s happening practically everywhere – under every possible pretext, almost any day, from just about any left-liberal institution that claims to care about the public good. Close your eyes, and you can hardly tell whether what you’re hearing is coming from a Democratic Party stalwart or from an old-line Soviet apologist explaining why Andrei Sakharov or Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn or Yuri Orlov is really, notwithstanding the accuracy of what he’s been saying, a threat to the state who deserves to be muzzled or jailed.
And the media’s silence about it all is as ominous as the Orwellian nattering of the freedom-haters themselves.
Take another look at the Zelikow panel’s assessment of the US government’s performance during the “COVID crisis.” Writing about what the “experts” praise or blame in their report, the Washington Post never once mentions the crippling of the US working-class economy due to arbitrary confinements and business shutdowns, the educational damage done to a whole generation of children through needless school closures, the reckless suspension of representative democracy in four-fifths of our states, the medically unjustifiable trauma caused by “mask mandates,” or the undermining of the national healthcare system through an obsessive focus on one respiratory virus while more serious issues were sidelined for over a year. As far as the Post is concerned, the real outrages of the COVID coup never happened at all.
Even when the experts and the editors do manage to notice something sinister, they go out of their way to miss the point. The Zelikow panel specifically notes the “four pandemic planning exercises” staged by the US government barely a year before the announcement of the COVID-19 outbreak. And it offers a few technical criticisms of the proceedings.
But neither the panel nor the Post editors’ congratulatory summary of its conclusions addresses the fact that the exercises – which omitted any suggestion for using repurposed drugs as early treatment for a novel virus, as in all previous influenza-like outbreaks – made a point of discussing the importance of thought-policing social media. That prescription for censorship became a grim reality after March 2020. But you’d never know it from reading the Zelikow panel’s assessment of the government’s mistakes in addressing the “pandemic.”
And Lipstadt? She claims to be a passionate defender of free speech. But that didn’t stop her from smearing Senator Ron Johnson as a “white nationalist sympathizer” because of his politically incorrect comments about Black Lives Matter. And when that issue made it to the op-ed page of the New York Times, it was only to further demonize Johnson; Lipstadt’s slander got a pass.
Why do I worry so much about this? Well, first of all because an attack on freedom is an attack on all of us.
But I think there is a special reason for alarm. It’s not just that our ruling elites believe that we, the people, need to be stripped of our right to free expression. I’m afraid that the freedom-haters clustered around our figurehead President are not even aware just how thin the ice is onto which they’re propelling us. Their position (taking the most charitable possible view of it) runs something like this: if the public isn’t exposed to views of which the censors disapprove, hoi polloi will meekly accept whatever policies are imposed on them (for their own good, of course).
But the censors are wrong. The fabric of American political life has been strained to such tautness that a single acute crisis might rupture it altogether. And if that happens, people who have been deprived of reasonable dissent will not shrink from violent opposition; on the contrary, they will embrace it. When the monolithic narrative that is all they have been taught lies in ruins, they will replace it not with a rational, informed alternative – for they will know of none – but with whatever satisfies the rage of a population that realizes, too late, that it has been hoodwinked.
Woe to the freedom-haters when the lion they think they have tamed turns its fury on the liberal society that soothsayers like Zelikow and Lipstadt still imagine they are defending!
Michael Lesher is an author, poet and lawyer whose legal work is mostly dedicated to issues connected with domestic abuse and child sexual abuse. A memoir of his discovery of Orthodox Judaism as an adult – Turning Back: The Personal Journey of a “Born-Again” Jew – was published in September 2020 by Lincoln Square Books. He has also published op-ed pieces in such varied venues as Forward, ZNet, the New York Post and Off-Guardian.
The current monetary system is based on fiat money, which is money that has no intrinsic value and is created by central banks and commercial banks. This system has enabled rapid economic growth and financial innovation, but it also has very serious flaws and limitations. Some of the main challenges facing the current monetary system are:
Inflation and deflation. Inflation is a general rise in the prices of goods and services over time, while deflation is a general fall in the prices of goods and services over time. Both inflation and deflation can have negative effects on the economy, such as eroding purchasing power, discouraging investment, creating uncertainty, and distorting relative prices. A system based on fiat money where the money supply can be artificially inflated and contracted is much more prone to inflation and deflation. We have, of course, recently experienced some of the worst inflation in decades, which has eroded savings as well as employees’ compensation.
Debt and leverage. Debt is the amount of money that is owed by one party to another, while leverage is the use of borrowed money to increase returns on an investment. Debt and leverage can be useful tools for financing economic activity, but they can also create excessive risk and vulnerability. High levels of public and private debt can constrain growth, limit fiscal space, and increase the likelihood of defaults and crises. Countries that control fiat currency that function as reserve currencies have a tendency to borrow much more than they are able to repay because of their ability to ‘print’ more money to ‘pay’ their debts. At the moment, the US is running a national debt of over $31 trillion which amounts to 130% of GDP, which has reached levels that may never be paid back.
High and persistent current account imbalances. Some countries, such as China and Germany, tend to run large and persistent trade surpluses, while others, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, tend to run large and persistent trade deficits. These imbalances create global financial instability and distort exchange rates, interest rates, and capital flows. Generally, fiat currencies make these imbalances more pronounced as countries can manipulate their exchange rates in order to run higher current account surpluses, as has been the case with China. China’s current account surplus with the US has been running at around $300 billion annually.
Texas has proposed a bill that would require the state comptroller to establish and provide for the issuance of gold and silver specie and also establish digital currencies that are 100% backed by gold and silver, and 100% redeemable in cash, gold, or silver. The bill would authorize the Texas Bullion Depository as the issuer of the specie and digital currencies and ensure that holders can use them as legal tender to pay debt and transfer them electronically to other people. The bill would also require the trustee to maintain enough gold and silver specie or bullion to provide for the redemption of all units of the digital currency issued but not redeemed. In practice, individuals would be able to purchase transactional currency representing the smallest fractions of physical gold or silver and redeem them for dollars, gold, or silver on demand. The bill has passed the House State Affairs Committee by a 7-6 vote and has received strong grassroots support in Texas.
Benefits of Texas Gold and Silver-Backed Currency:
Increased stability. Precious metals have a track record of retaining value over time, which makes them attractive to investors and individuals seeking a reliable form of currency. The reason such currencies tend to be good stores of value is that they are scarce, durable, divisible, portable, and fungible.
Protection against inflation. Gold and silver have historically served as hedges against inflation, as their prices tend to rise when the value of fiat money falls. This would have been a great alternative over the past two years of extremely high inflation.
Potential diversification benefits. Gold and silver tend to have low or negative correlations with other assets, such as stocks and bonds, which means they can reduce portfolio risk and enhance returns.
Avoidance of bank runs. There have been a number of recent bank runs and collapses including Silicon Valley Bank, Silvergate Bank, First Republic Bank, Signature Bank, and Credit Suisse First Boston. If a person holds their assets directly in gold or silver-backed currency which is not fractionated through fractional reserve banking, the assets should be secure and not exposed to bank runs.
Reaction to the Texas Proposal has been mixed:
Supporters of the proposal argue that it would provide an alternative to fiat money, enhance confidence and stability, and protect against inflation. They also claim that it would create a “reverse Gresham’s Law” effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) would drive out bad money (Federal Reserve notes). This might be a very interesting effect and could further demonstrate that the US Dollar is a declining currency for a number of external factors including high rates of US debt, significant expansion of the money supply, splintering of the world order, and political gridlock.
Opponents of the proposal criticize it as impractical, unnecessary, and risky. They contend that it would create logistical challenges, limit monetary policy options, and expose the state to market fluctuations. My guess is that the real opposition will come from the Central Banks themselves, if and when the currency gets traction as it is a further threat to the declining US dollar dominance.
A Store of Value or a Transactional Currency?
Good currency is both a reasonable store of value (maintains value over time) and a liquid medium of transactions. Bad currency goes from value to the transactional but then deteriorates further, and during periods of hyperinflation cannot even maintain the value while the transaction is being cleared by the banks. We are fast approaching this point with the US dollar.
While the bill in TX proposes the current as a transaction currency that has strong store of value attributes, it is much easier to achieve the store of value aspect than the translational aspect. By tying the currency to gold and silver, the store of value attributes should be automatically fulfilled.
However, for a currency to be a strong transactional currency, it needs to have the following attributes.
Liquidity. This means that the currency can be readily converted into other currencies or assets without losing much value. A liquid currency facilitates trade and reduces transaction costs.
Convenience. This means that the currency can be easily accessed, stored, transferred, and verified. A convenient currency reduces the hassle and time involved in transactions.
Low transaction costs. This means that the currency does not incur high fees, taxes, or commissions when used for transactions. A low-cost currency increases the net benefit of trade and encourages more transactions.
Low volatility. This means that the currency does not fluctuate significantly in value over time or across markets. A stable currency preserves the purchasing power and reduces the uncertainty and risk of transactions.
Wide acceptance. This means that the currency is recognized and accepted by a large number of people and entities as a medium of exchange. A widely accepted currency increases the marketability and demand of goods and services.
Legal tender status. This means that the currency is legally recognized and enforced as a valid means of payment for debts and obligations. A legal tender currency ensures the enforceability and security of transactions.
As envisioned in the proposal, the currency would be legal tender, which is a major step toward a transactional currency. This should enable liquidity for the currency, especially as it is directly tradable into gold and silver, both of which have continuously quoted prices and extensive liquid markets. Convenience will be there if the currency is indeed tied to electronic payments either through incorporation into existing applications such as PayPal, Venmo, and directly into the US banking system. Ultimately, wide acceptance is a function of the popularity of the offering, which I think may be high in these uncertain times. In my opinion, anything that offers a better store of value attributes than the US dollar will be good for the country.
“…And he described it as a kill box and then I looked that up and it turned out it’s a military term for establishing a geographic space or three-dimensional area for a military attack by air and by surface to kill the people who are in it and then dismantle the kind of framework and move on to the next campaign.
And what the DoD and the World Health Organization intend to do and have gotten quite far in doing, but not completely reached their goals, is to set up the entire world as their geographic terrain, their target population as all the people in the world, the duration of their campaign as permanent…”
Transcript: Jan. 24, 2023 Legal Walls of the Covid-19 Kill Box Presentation
…And the basic idea is that public health has been militarized and the military has been sort of turned into a public health front or Potemkin Village such that they are using public health language and public health laws to actually carry out a military campaign.
And I would not call them DoD vaccines.
I would call them DoD weapons.
So, I call it the kill box because the first sort of lead that I had was Todd Callender’s January 30th 2022 interview on Elizabeth Lee Vliet’s podcast called Truth for Health.
And he described it as a kill box and then I looked that up and it turned out it’s a military term for establishing a geographic space or three-dimensional area for a military attack by air and by surface to kill the people who are in it and then dismantle the kind of framework and move on to the next campaign.
And what the DoD and the World Health Organization intend to do and have gotten quite far in doing, but not completely reached their goals, is to set up the entire world as their geographic terrain, their target population as all the people in the world, the duration of their campaign as permanent.
And the weapons that they’re using are, number one, informational. That’s the propaganda piece and the censorship piece.
Number two, psychological. That’s the fear and terrorism piece of telling people they need to be afraid all the time and they need to listen to the government.
And then the third piece is the chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear [CBRN] weapons, which are called in their campaign pharmaceuticals, vaccines but are actually toxins and pathogens.
So I started, after I heard that interview — I had already been wondering what was going on but I started trying to track down some of the things Todd Callender talked about in his interview and figure out what the legal frameworks were and how they were set up and what the financial coercion mechanisms were.
My finding, which many other people have found in various, from various other angles, was that this project has been going on for centuries.
It’s basically globalist central bankers and lots of related organizations trying to get complete control of human beings through banking programs and through military programs.
And they kicked it into higher gear in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act, and then they kicked the public health aspect of it into higher gear starting in the 1930s and 40s.
Before the 1960s, they mostly did it through orchestrated armed conflicts and financial depressions and wars, which are very loud and messy and destructive to infrastructure.
And it makes it difficult for them to have plausible deniability and legal impunity for what they’re doing.
So in the mid-60s they got much better at inducing suicide and homicide by fraudulently labeling poisons as medicines or as vaccines or as prophylactics and telling people that submitting to that poisoning process was their civic duty. And that’s — we saw that in Covid with the shorthand for “Do this or you’re going to kill your grandma.”
And the way that the pharmaceutical method is primarily useful to them is that plausible deniability is much easier and legal impunity is a lot easier.
They can achieve the same goal of killing lots of people without their fingerprints being all over it.
I looked into the coercion cascades, mostly financial. I’m not going to go into a lot of detail with that but it starts at the top with the Bank for International Settlements and they can use their control of other federal central banks, access to financial systems, and then all the way down through state governments, national governments, local, municipal, school districts, hospitals. Everything.
If you comply with what they’re telling you to do as far as masking and testing, isolating yourself, taking injections, then you will get the financial access that you need to run your business or to have a job. And if you don’t comply, they can cut you off from those services. And so that is one of the main mechanisms through which the whole thing was carried out.
The U.S. Congress passed the law to set up the Chemical and Biological Warfare program. And in that law, which is 50 USC Chapter 32, there are very important key terms including “protective,” “prophylactic” and “defensive,” which is how they justified doing it.
They were using those words because the international community of ordinary non-insane people were concerned about biological and chemical weapons and they were working on international treaties to prohibit them.
And so they needed to build in loopholes and the loopholes they built in were that, “We’re not going to do biological and chemical research and weapons development except for protective or prophylactic or defensive purposes.”
And that’s a false characterization because all biologically active products are intrinsically aggressive and toxic and lethal. And that’s where we get disciplines or, that’s the thing that disciplines like toxicology, pharmacokinetics, genotoxicity, drug-drug interactions, are all related to that fact: that everything that goes into the human body or any living body has some effects which can be toxic. So that was the way they tried to get around that.
And then the foundational Public Health Emergencies platform came out in 1983 when Congress passed the Public Health Service Act Amendment and that set up the Public Health Emergencies program under the 1944 law that had originally set up the Public Health Service. Which is a branch of the military.
And it also, in 1983, Congress and Reagan set up a 30 million dollar slush fund and that has continued. It’s got a different name now than it did then, [Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund] but it’s still being funded as recently as the NDAA and the Consolidated Appropriations Act in December of 2022.
The other thing they did in the 80s was set up the 1986 National Vaccine Program and National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
And that’s the one that set up the liability exemption for manufacturers and funneled anyone who was injured by a vaccine into this different compensation program. And that’s been used as a model since Covid started, for the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program.
So the international piece, the cornerstone, is the World Health Organization, which is not a health organization. It’s a military organization, because of this merger that I’m talking about. It’s sort of the military arm of the one-world government that they’re trying to set up.
And they did a set of amendments to the International Health Regulations in 2005 that entered into force in June 2007. But basically the IHR, which are currently going through another round of amendments to make them worse, called on national governments to strengthen their own domestic laws and fund more programs for surveillance, testing, detention and quarantine — physical control and forced treatment — during international outbreaks of communicable diseases.
And the pretext that they used, because it was bankers who were doing this, was that they needed to protect international trade from disruptions caused by disease outbreaks. But the real intent was to set up these legal systems that transferred sovereign government from the nation-state to the World Health Organization and the BIS automatically when a “public health emergency of international concern” [PHEIC] has been declared.
And Congress and U.S presidents and the cabinet complied with that demand from the World Health Organization.
So two of the key years were 1997 and 1998. That was when the beginnings of the emergency use authorization program was set up and when they transferred the CBRN [chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear] weapons stockpile from DOD, classification I guess, to HHS or CDC classification and control.
It was the same products, as far as I can tell. It was just a relabeling and a re-homing of them.
The EUA [Emergency Use Authorization], that was kind of a two-step thing. At the time the public was really upset about the use of unapproved vaccines for anthrax on military troops and the horrible adverse effects they were having.
So Congress passed a law in November [1997] to kind of revoke authorization for testing or using unapproved products on military troops. But three days later in a different law, made it so that the same programs could be done but the target population would be expanded from just military troops to the entire American population.
Then around 2000 to 2002, using the momentum from 9/11 and the anthrax attacks on Congress, they set up, through the statutes again, program management sort of structures. They did that through the 2000 Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act, [and] through the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
And people talked about this at the time. It was construed as putting the country into a permanent state of war — the Global War on Terror — with every other country in the world. So there was no geographic limitation. There was no time limitation. There was no identified enemy other than “terror” and through that — I think other people figured this out at the time and then it sort of got suppressed — but it made everyone in the world into a presumptive combatant or enemy target.
So it was essentially a de facto covert global martial law act by the US government.
And then in those early 2000s we also got the PATRIOT Act, the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act and the Homeland Security Act.
And those were just more of the merging of the DHS [Department of Homeland Security], the DOJ [Department of Justice], the HHS [Health and Human Services], the Department of Defense: all of the cabinet agencies.
So since then, 2003 to [2019] there have been lots and lots of executive orders on these things. Lots more statutes and appropriations. Lots of agency regulations, guidance reports that were circulated to state, local and tribal authorities and law enforcement so that they would know that under a public health emergency, they are subordinated to the federal military.
FDA [Food and Drug Administration] issued a lot of Guidance for Industry documents and sent
those out to the pharmaceuticals and to the academic organizations and NGOs [non-governmental organizations] to let them know about how FDA was going to handle experimental products like “vaccines,” “gene therapies,” “biologics.”
And they did more test runs like 2003 SARS, 2006 MERS and 2009 H1N1.
That brings us up to the Other Transactions Authority [OTA]. And this was revealed through Pfizer’s April 2022 motion to dismiss whistleblower Brook Jackson’s False Claims Act case.
They said, “This was not a vaccine. It was a DoD prototype and we were never obligated to do valid clinical trials. We were never obligated to prove safety or efficacy to anyone. We never had to get FDA authorization through any of the normal guidance for industry channels, because it was a prototype.”
On October 4th, 2022, the US government endorsed that view and filed a statement of interest and support for the motion to dismiss, basically saying that clinical trials were never material or necessary for DOD to pay the contractors for producing and distributing the bioweapons known as Covid-19 vaccines.
And so all of this became visible from 2020 to the present when the World Health Organization Secretary-General issued the “public health emergency of international concern” [PHEIC] at the end of January 2020 and the HHS secretary immediately triggered the domestic frameworks through the “determination that a public health emergency exists” followed by PREP Act declarations for “medical countermeasures,” which are the weapons.
And then Congress and the presidents — Trump and Biden — passed several additional Congressional acts funding and reinforcing the structure of the kill box and issued more executive orders under the Defense Production Act, under the Stafford Act, under the National Emergencies Act, to sort of build out the program.
Basically what it built is a huge public and private funding stream for military-led bioweapons research and use; eliminated informed consent by reclassifying people who could potentially be carrying a disease as presumptive national security threats, so that you could do anything you want to them because you’re on a war footing.
And to shield the products and weapons from product liability, to shield all the people involved from criminal liability and civil liability, and to shield the government funders, developers and regulators from criminal prosecution under the other laws — which are in place but are sort-of superseded by this framework — for use of bioweapons [18 USC 175] use of chemical weapons [18 USC 229], terrorism [18 USC 2331] things like that.
…I see it as a joint project between the U.S Department of Defense — a coordinating committee of that, the Federal Reserve, and the World Health Organization, and the Bank for International Settlements and the United Nations. But the World Health Organization is like a subsidiary of the U.N.
And there are things that the globalists do not like. They don’t like constitutions and charters. They don’t like the conflicting statutory frameworks around bioterrorism, war crimes, genocide, torture. They don’t like any of that stuff.
They don’t like when states and provinces and counties and towns pass their own laws protecting informed consent, protecting people from, for consumer safety. They actually put out a report in October 2022, State Laws Limiting Public Health Protections: Hazardous for Our Health. And there’s a whole bunch of things in there that states have started doing that the globalists do not like.
So doing more of those things, more bringing control back to the state, more using Article 10 of the Constitution, to reclaim state authority, those are all extremely useful.
And I do think it’s going to break. I think there’s going to be a tipping point and the criminal prosecutions are going to start.
And we have all the evidence. And every time they try to answer what we’re talking about by saying national security, they reinforce that this is the right way to go.
This is what they’re doing.
They’re doing war crimes.
Links:
Jan. 24, 2023 – DoD ‘Vaccines’ Press Conference. (L4Atv1, 2 hrs — 0:00:30 Sam Dube – Host Open; 0:03:04 Glen Macko – Overview of DoD Vaccines; 0:05:28 Katherine Watt – Legal: Laws, Contracts, FOIA, SEC; 0:24:39 Sasha Latypova – Manufacturing, Safety, Quality, Intent; 0:33:32 Phillip Altman – Conformation of Skills/Knowledge of Katherine & Sasha; 0:38:08 LTC (Ret) Pete Chambers – Vaccine observations in Military; 0:46:13 Dr Sam Dube – Guidance on “Going Local” for personal protection; 0:56:47 Q&A)
Apeel is a plant-based protective coating that “helps the produce you love stay fresh for longer.” It retains moisture within the produce and keeps oxygen out, thereby slowing the spoilage rate
Apeel Sciences was founded with a $100,000 grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Other investors include the Rockefeller Foundation; the World Bank Group; Anne Wojcicki, co-founder and CEO of the personal genomics company 23andMe; and Susan Wojcicki, former CEO of YouTube
Apeel Science’s founder, James Rogers, Ph.D., is an agenda contributor to the World Economic Forum (WEF). He’s hailed COVID lockdowns as a model for future action on climate change. In other words, climate lockdowns. Rogers is also a WEF Young Global Leader
Avocados, cucumbers, lemons and limes, mandarins, oranges, organic apples, grapefruit and mangos are listed as produce that are currently being treated with this coating. Apeel-treated produce can be identified by looking for the “Apeel Protected” produce sticker
The coating, which cannot be washed off, likely contains toxic contaminants, including heavy metals and carcinogens, as well as trans fats and, potentially, harmful linoleic acid
Do you know what Apeel is? In an April 24, 2023, Twitter thread,1 Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director at the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), lists the many patents associated with this mysterious synthetic fruit coating, which is even approved for use on produce certified as USDA Organic.
According to Apeel Sciences’ website,2 Apeel is a plant-based protective coating that “helps the produce you love stay fresh for longer.” It retains moisture within the produce and keeps oxygen out, thereby slowing the spoilage rate.
Avocados, cucumbers, lemons and limes, mandarins, oranges, organic apples, grapefruit and mangos are listed as produce that are currently being treated with this coating.
Apeel-treated produce can be found in several large grocery chains in the U.S., including Walmart, Costco, Kroger, Trader Joe’s, Harps Food and many others,3,4 as well as stores in Germany, Denmark, Switzerland5 and Canada.6 As of October 2020, the company had also received regulatory approval in Kenya, Uganda, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Ecuador.7 Apeel-treated produce can be identified by looking for the following produce stickers.
Red Flags
One of the warning flags that makes me question the safety of this product is the fact that Apeel Sciences (a DBA or “doing business as” of aPEEL Technology Inc.) was founded with a $100,000 grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.8 That’s never a good sign. I can’t think of a single harmless product Gates has ever willingly poured his money into.
Other investors include the Rockefeller Foundation;9 the World Bank Group; Anne Wojcicki, co-founder and CEO of the personal genomics company 23andMe; and Susan Wojcicki, former CEO of YouTube10 (she stepped down in mid-February 202311). By May 2021, Apeel Sciences was valued at $1.1 billion.12
Apeel Science’s founder, James Rogers, Ph.D., is an agenda contributor to the World Economic Forum (WEF). He’s also a WEF Young Global Leader. In 2018, Rogers stated his company would transition to using synthetic biology rather than extracting its ingredients from real food.
What’s more, Apeel Science’s founder, James Rogers, Ph.D., is an agenda contributor to the World Economic Forum13 (WEF). Among the articles he has written for the WEF is one in which he hailed COVID lockdowns as a model for future action on climate change.14 In other words, climate lockdowns.
Rogers is also a WEF Young Global Leader15 — yet another red flag. And I’m not the only one questioning the motives behind this product. “Is [Apeel] another Gates/WEF plot to destroy our health? Or a distraction from worse plots?” Baden-Mayer asks.16
Is Apeel Part of President Biden’s GMO Agenda?
One of the first things that came to mind when I heard of Apeel is that it fits right into President Biden’s recently launched agenda to turn the U.S. food supply over to the biotechnology industry. I reviewed this agenda in “Executive Order Lays Foundation for Lab-Created Foods.”
In summary, Biden’s September 2022 “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy”17 makes biotechnology a national priority across agencies and branches of government, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
In late March 2023, Biden expanded on this premise in a “Bold Goals for U.S. Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing” report.18 One of the specific goals listed in this report is “Reducing food waste by 50% by 2030.” Reducing food waste to combat climate change19 is also the premise upon which Apeel Sciences was founded, according to its website.20
Further evidence that Apeel Sciences fits into Biden’s biotech-driven food agenda is its acquisition of ImpactVision, “a software company that uses AI and machine learning to track the chemical composition of food throughout its shelf life.”21 The company has also promised to “double down on technology” through other tech acquisitions.
While reducing food waste and making fresh produce last longer are certainly sane and worthy goals, the question is, how is this being done? Seeing how Apeel’s emergence broadly coincides with Biden’s official transition into biotech-led foods, can we trust that it’s a food-based product? Or is it biotech in disguise?
What Does Apeel’s GRAS Notice Tell Us?
According to Apeel Sciences:
“Apeel adds a little extra peel on produce to slow the rate of water loss and oxidation … That extra peel is completely edible, tasteless and safe to eat. A variety of plant feedstocks can be used to create our formulations, and luckily these ingredients exist in the peels, seeds and pulp of all fruits an vegetables …
We think of these materials as building blocks, restructuring them in a way that allows us to iterate on what nature created, making our solution into a coating that can be applied to produce. So while nature is our foundation and inspiration, innovation and technology are how we apply these ingredients …”
Apeel Sciences’ Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) notice22 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, submitted in October 2019, gives us a little more. The primary component of the coating is said to be a mixture of monoacylglycerides derived from grapeseed.
An earlier GRAS Notice,23 filed in April 2016, further specifies that the two primary components of Apeel is 2,3-dihydroxypropyl palmitate and 1,3-dihydroxypropan-2-yl palmitate. (In this notice, the product is called “Edipeel,” but the website now refers to it as “Apeel,” like the company name.) According to the 2016 GRAS Notice No. 648:
“Monoacylglycerol derivatives are components of dietary fats commonly found in food and are also endogenously formed in the human body … It is well established and recognized that monoacylglycerides, the subject of the present GRAS assessment, are formed in the gastrointestinal tract from the generally accepted metabolic pathway for the breakdown of triglycerides (i.e., lipolysis).
The hydrolysis of triglycerides by lipases proceeds through the formation of monoacylglycerides (i.e., monoglycerides). The free fatty acids released can be further used for triglyceride synthesis.
Given the metabolic sequel described above, and by applying scientific procedures, it can be concluded that a mixture of monoacylglycerides would not pose any health hazards different from commonly consumed dietary oils derived from plants or animals.”
Toxic Residues
However, just because something is made from all-natural ingredients doesn’t mean the final product is perfectly safe. It depends on what you’ve done to those ingredients.
In this case, in Part 3 of the 2019 GRAS notice,24 under Maximum Limit of Residues, we find that the grape seed oil that makes up the basis of this product contains residues of ethyl acetate, heptane and palladium, which are processing aids, as well as the heavy metals arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury.
According to Apeel, the levels of these toxic residues are either below levels deemed safe by the FDA, the EU and/or the Joint FAO/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). The following table lists the maximum daily exposure limits based on a maximum daily (90th percentile) intake of 218 milligrams per person per day.
While the levels indeed appear to be very low, I would argue that any exposure to toxic chemicals and metals is an unnecessary risk. To me, intentionally coating fresh, unadulterated foods with something that contains toxins, even if in minute amounts, only adds to the toxic burden. We’re already dealing with pesticide residues on conventional fruits and vegetables. This coating will simply lock those toxins in and add additional ones on top.
One of the biggest question marks is whether this coating can penetrate the peel, as the coating cannot be washed off. Can toxic risks be eliminated by peeling the produce, or is the flesh of the fruit or vegetable also contaminated with residues? We do not have the answer to that question, even though it’s one of the most important ones.
According to Apeel Sciences, the coating is “not expected” to penetrate beyond the peel into the fruit.25 Not expected? That means they have no idea. They’re simply guessing.
More Open Questions
In Apeel Sciences’ 2019 GRAS notice, they referenced a 2017 EFSA review26 of E471 (mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids) but didn’t mention that this review warned about the possible presence of epichlorohydrin,27 a carcinogen, in E471 manufactured using glycerol or glycidol as a starting material. Apeel uses monoglycerides of glycerol.
According to this review, “The panel considered that the presence of epichlorohydrin and/or glycidol in mono- and di-glycerides of fatty acids (E 471) would need further assessment as their presence could raise a safety concern.” Palladium, cadmium and arsenic are also carcinogenic, so there are at least four different carcinogenic contaminants in this coating.
What’s more, a 2021 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) re-review28 of monoacylglycerides found that “the potential exposure to toxic elements resulting from the consumption of E 471 could be substantial.” As a result, the review panel suggests it may be necessary to lower existing limits for arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury.
Apeel Plans to Switch to Synthetic Biology
Baden-Mayer also wonders whether Apeel’s coating is made with synthetic biology. Why else is Apeel Sciences listed as one of the best-funded synbio companies?29 Don’t you have to produce synthetic biology products to be considered a synbio company?
In 2018, the Apeel founder himself also told Food Navigator that his company would soon transition to using synthetic biology rather than extracting its ingredients from real food.30 So, even if they haven’t made that transition yet, this certainly suggests they intend to, eventually.
Apeel’s GRAS notice also leaves this door open, stating that “monoacylglycerides can be created by breaking down a triglyceride by removing two of its fatty acids or they can be manufactured synthetically.”
Finally, Apeel Sciences’ board of directors includes Vijay Pande,31,32 an adjunct professor of bioengineering at Stanford, who also serves on the board of Scribe Therapeutics, a company specializing in CRISPR technology and protein engineering. Pande is also the founder of Globavir Biosciences, an infectious disease start-up.
So, it certainly appears as though Apeel Sciences is geared up to move into genetically engineered synthetic biology, if they haven’t made that leap already. The company is even directly connected to a company specializing in infectious disease therapeutics, and we now know there are efforts underway to turn foods into vaccine vectors.
Invisipeel — Another Type of Coating
As mentioned earlier, aPEEL Technology Inc. is producing the Apeel coating for fresh produce under the business name Apeel Sciences. But that’s not aPEEL’s only product.
In August 2015 — three years after the Gates Foundation launched Apeel Sciences with a $100,000 grant — the Gates Foundation committed nearly 10 times that amount, $985,161, to aPEEL Technology Inc., not Apeel Sciences, to develop a crop coating:33
“… to extend the shelf-life of crops without refrigeration and protect them from being eaten by pests by developing a molecular camouflage that uses cutin from plant extracts to create an edible, ultrathin barrier on the crop surfaces.”
Cutin is a waxy polymer and a primary component of the plant cuticle. It covers all aerial surfaces of all plants. It’s insoluble and therefore has a waterproof quality. The Apeel product described in the GRAS applications filed by Apeel Sciences do not mention anything about cutin, so this is a different product.
According to Weston A. Price,34 this product is called Invisipeel, and is applied by growers while the crop is still in the field. Apeel is applied after harvest once the produce is ripe. In short, we may be eating food that has been coated not just once but twice.
Is Apeel Just Another Trans Fat Alternative?
Aside from potentially toxic contaminants, others who have investigated Apeel have highlighted other problems and warn that monoglycerides and diglycerides are a “go-to replacement for deadly trans fats.”35
In 2016, the FDA withdrew the GRAS status of trans fat as it was strongly linked to fatal heart attacks. Yet here we are again. Out with one toxic fat and in with another. The FDA ban doesn’t apply to mono- and diglycerides, even though they contain trans fat, because they’re classified as emulsifiers rather than lipids.
Mono- and diglycerides are byproducts from the processing of oil. In the case of Apeel, the monoacylglycerides are derived from grapeseed oil, which is loaded with polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs), including the highly problematic linoleic acid, which I’m convinced is one of the primary drivers of chronic disease. You can learn more about this in “How Linoleic Acid Wrecks Your Health.”
So, basically, what we’re looking at here is a way to turn fruits and vegetables, known for their beneficial impacts on heart health, into a source of harmful emulsifiers that increase your risk of heart disease, heart attack and stroke. This starts to feel even more diabolical when you consider that the Great Resetters of the world are pushing to replace meat and animal products with plant foods, which they are simultaneously making more toxic and less healthy.
Commonsense Ways to Make Produce Last Longer
As noted by Moms Across America, there are far safer, natural ways to extend the shelf life of your fruits and vegetables. Below are a few of their tips.36 Additional suggestions can be found in Almanac.com’s fruit and vegetable storage guide.37
“Take avocados for example … Once you bring them home and they get to their ‘sweet spot,’ you can store them in the refrigerator for up to two weeks. You can also freeze them whole, sliced, in chunks, or mashed. They will keep for three to six months.
Heavenly, succulent strawberries can be briefly soaked in a vinegar and water solution to be cleaned thoroughly. Let them dry completely, and store in a mason jar (with a paper towel at the bottom) in the refrigerator for three weeks or more. Sweet, colorful apples can be stored in a cool, humid place such as a basement, garage, or refrigerator for up to five months.”
I have also found that if you purchase avocados on sale you can select rock hard fruits and store them in the fridge for around one month. You only need to take them out of the fridge for around three days before they ripen.
It’s worth mentioning, in closing, that the best way to gauge the freshness of a fruit or vegetable is to inspect it visually. If it’s been sealed shut with a coating that delays the decay process, you can’t tell how long that produce has been sitting around.
What’s more, if the produce is coated before it’s ripe, will it ever fully ripen? Many fruits and vegetables are picked and shipped before they’re fully ripened. They ripen en route. This is one of the reasons why so many fruits are tasteless and don’t have the right texture. Will Apeel make this situation better or worse? Personally, I won’t be buying Apeel-treated produce, and if enough of us refuse to buy it, they’ll stop using it.
Modern industrial farming has created a food production model that is not only unhealthy, but unsustainable as well. The reliance on GMO-derived products and the toxic chemicals used alongside them are destroying the environment and the public’s health.
To combat the encroaching influence of big GMO companies, I encourage you to support farmers and businesses that practice organic, biodynamic and regenerative farming. This food production model benefits both humans and the environment because it:
Rebuilds topsoil by sequestering atmospheric carbon above ground and below ground
Protects water sources, runoff, and reduces water demand by increasing moisture in the soil
Promotes nutrition and health through nutrient-dense, organic food
Minimizes the risk of foodborne illnesses and drug-resistant disease by avoiding the use of industrial chemicals
Restores damaged ecosystems through regenerative methods
Helps local farmers by giving them larger profits compared to industrial counterparts
How can you play your part? The solution is actually quite simple — buy healthy, organic food. One of the best things you can do is to purchase your food from small-business farmers. To help you in your search, I recommend visiting these websites that point you to non-GMO food producers in your area:
I also urge you to support and donate to organizations like the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), as they are leading the way to promoting regenerative agriculture and sustainable farming practices. By advocating the innovative campaigns of these organizations, you are contributing to the future of regenerative agriculture.
Permaculture is an ecological design system focused on creating sustainable human habitats while promoting the preservation of natural resources.
It’s a philosophy.
The term “permaculture” was coined in the 1970s.
Permaculture has a few design principles that aim to create self-sustaining ecosystems that require minimal human intervention.
Diversity and abundance are key, as Jim Gale often explains.
You don’t have a snail infestation; you have a duck deficiency.
Jim Gale
The system involves creating a network of interconnected components such as plants, animals and structures that work together to produce food.
It’s about mimicking natural ecosystems.
Monoculture reminds me of a barren desert.
Not only is it pretty, but it is also pretty anti-establishment because it can have a significant impact on mega-farming which relies on large-scale monoculture practices that deplete soil nutrients and harm local ecosystems.
By using permaculture principles, farmers can create diverse ecosystems that produce food while preserving natural resources.
Permaculture can also lead to more resilient farming practices that can withstand droughts, floods, and other extreme weather conditions.
Jim has been on my show before, but this time he gave me a type of beginner’s guide.
Laura Bartlett and Greta Crawford have founded an organization to address the forced treatments patients receive when they’re hospitalized for COVID-19, but the same strategy can be used to protect yourself against other medical hazards as well
The Caregivers and Consent document they created is an “advance decision” document. So, the moment you enter the hospital, the hospital staff know what they can and cannot do to you; they are legally required to respect your current care decisions. And unlike an Advance Directive (which only kicks in when you are incapacitated) the Caregivers and Consent document goes into effect immediately
It’s important to complete and notarize your Caregivers and Consent document BEFORE you ever need to go to the hospital
Make sure you send the completed, signed and notarized document to the CEO of the hospital in two ways: (1) via a professional courier (one that specializes in delivering legal documents); and (2) via the Postal system with certified mail, return receipt requested. The CEO is responsible for all legal business relating to the hospital, including the medical records, so the CEO, not your attending physician, is the one whose responsibility it is to get your consent document entered into your electronic medical record
Make at least 10 copies of the signed, notarized document and keep one copy on your person, in case you ever have an accident or acute illness requiring hospitalization. Also provide copies to the attending physician and nurse once hospitalized
Also, should you become hospitalized (and therefore unable to personally send the document to the CEO), designate a family member or friend to send your Caregivers and Consent document on your behalf. Additional recommendations to ensure your safety are included
In this interview, Laura Bartlett and Greta Crawford detail how you can protect yourself from one of the top contributors to premature death, namely conventional hospital care. The key here is to understand what the dangers are and take proactive measures to guard yourself and your family from them.
Nearly 10 years ago, I interviewed Dr. Andrew Saul, author of “Hospitals and Health: Your Orthomolecular Guide to a Shorter, Safer Hospital Stay,” in which he details how to minimize your risk of being a victim of a medical error.
First and foremost, Saul recommended making sure you have a patient advocate, someone who can speak on your behalf if you’re incapacitated and make sure you’re receiving the correct medication and treatment. During COVID, however, family or friends were not allowed into the hospital, and patients were routinely bullied into treatments they did not want or consent to.
The good news is, Bartlett and Crawford have developed a legal document that, when served to the hospital in the proper way, can ensure that your medical wishes are honored. By eliminating any confusion about your consent (or denial of consent), this document can literally save your life.
Why ProtocolKills.com Was Created
Bartlett and Crawford have founded an organization to address the lethal and, in many cases, forced treatments patients receive when they’re hospitalized for COVID-19, but the same strategy can be used to protect yourself against other medical hazards as well. Crawford explains:
“I created a website called ProtocolKills.com. This came after I was in the hospital with COVID. In the process of going to the hospital, I was denied informed consent and was completely unaware of some of the things they were doing to me. I was given five rounds of remdesivir, which nearly took my life, and I did not even know that I was being poisoned at the time …
During that time in the hospital, I went from thinking I was going to go home after I got oxygen to actually feeling like that I was going to die. I was almost certain I was going to die after being given just the first dose of remdesivir …
[And then there was] the constant push for the vaccine in the hospital, the harassment for not getting vaxxed, and the fact that I was given medication without my knowledge at all, which led me to start the website to not only inform people about what was going on, but [as] a platform to allow other victims who were not as fortunate as me.
Many of them, the majority of them, did not make it out alive. So, it’s a platform for them to share their story. We have over 250 stories on there about what they faced in the hospital. We really wanted to get this information out there to the public, but we also wanted to give a solution, not just to scare people. And that’s where I ended up meeting Laura.”
National Hospital Hostage Hotline to the Rescue
Bartlett continues:
“Before I met Greta at the beginning of COVID, in early 2020, I started helping my brother, Dr. Richard Bartlett, who had a protocol utilizing inhaled budesonide steroid as part of his protocol to treat COVID early. We also found it very effective once people were in the hospital to help reverse [the infectious process] and also the scarring and the inflammation of the lungs.
There are instances where it even helped people who were on ventilators as long as 30 days come off the ventilator and go home. So, I was helping him get that message out in early 2020. I’m not a doctor. I’m not a nurse. I’m just somebody who could help get that known around the world. My background is in media PR …
In the process, people who knew my brother, knew me, started reaching out to both of us with stories that they were in the hospital and they were having a hard time getting the doctor to respect their right to informed consent. It was an overwhelming number of instances where people just felt like they were being bullied or coerced, that their right to try budesonide, for instance, was just dismissed.
And it was almost as if informed consent didn’t exist. But in fact, it never went away. Even during the COVID shielding for hospitals, informed consent between the doctor and the patient never went away. You always had the right to informed consent.
So that’s where my work started. In the process, since there were so many people reaching out for help, I thought, ‘Well, why doesn’t somebody come up with a way for people to quickly access some information of what their rights are and their patient rights?’
So, I started a nationwide hotline, called the Hospital Hostage Hotline [call or text 888-c19-emergency, or 888-219-3637]. It’s still in effect. I still get calls from all over the country. And I’ve been able to help people who went in even for non-COVID reasons like a urinary tract infection that was [also] diagnosed as COVID, and they were being pushed towards a protocol and told they couldn’t leave the hospital.
They needed to know they could, that they always had the right to leave AMA — Against Medical Advice — if that’s what they chose. They also have the right to either consent or not consent to things and it should be respected. I realized that one of the biggest tools for getting that informed consent notice to the doctor was not to just verbally say it, but to have it in writing. These aren’t my original ideas.
I actually had a hospital insider reach out … somebody who had been in the system and knew how to navigate the system at a high level in administration, give me some tips and tools on how to navigate the hospital system to make sure that informed consent was not only documented and delivered effectively to get into the electronic medical record, but also, what their basic patient rights were and how to advocate for them.”
You Have the Right to Leave
One drawback of signing an AMA is that insurance won’t pay for your treatment. That threat will often keep patients in the hospital because they’ll have to pay out of pocket. So, it can be used against you.
“Profit has been a big factor in a lot of suffering,” Bartlett says. “Patients were afraid to leave because they were told, like in the instance of a gentleman that I was helping in New Jersey who went in for a urinary tract infection.
He was an elderly man. This was early 2020. They quickly tested him for COVID and started him on that road towards a ventilator. And they told him flat out, ‘If you leave, none of this will be covered by insurance.’ So that was a big factor.”
Hospitals may also misinform you about your AMA rights, as we’ve seen repeatedly during COVID. More often than not, the hospital’s reluctance to release a patient has to do with protecting its revenues. Bartlett offers the following story to illustrate:
“Somebody that I was helping advocate for said the doctor actually said to them, ‘You cannot leave.’ This person was 15 or 16 days into their COVID diagnosis and they were feeling better. They were likely not COVID positive …
That’s where the name of the hotline came from. They actually felt like hostages. That’s what they were reporting to me. ‘I feel like I’m held prisoner.’ But in fact, they always had the right to leave a hospital whenever they chose to. It’s not up to the doctor when they can leave. They have to make that medical choice for themselves, whether or not they feel like they can leave.”
A Novel Consent Document That Can Save Your Life
Patients clearly need a way to put themselves back in the driver’s seat, and the novel medical consent document Bartlett and Crawford created, available on OurPatientRights.com, is the most powerful way I’ve seen so far to do that. As explained by Bartlett:
“What we learned from this whole ordeal over the last couple of years is that there was a need for a novel document that did not exist, to our knowledge, that covers your written consent. A document that documents your current consent, not an advance directive that kicks in after you’re incapacitated.
Before you go into the hospital, write down your consent wishes so that everybody involved in your care within the hospital will have eyes on it because it’s put into your electronic medical record. It’s notarized. It’s signed before you go in. That’s the key. So do it while you have full capacity.
It’s a novel strategy. I’m so grateful to the hospital insider who saw the problem and helped us navigate the system, so that we have an insider’s perspective on how to do this to keep people safe.”
As noted by Crawford, while COVID-19 may seem like a distant memory, people are still being hospitalized and diagnosed with COVID, and are being held hostage by a hostile medical system seemingly intent on milking them for all their worth, until death, if need be.
This is where filing a written medical consent form can help save your life. No doctor can override your written decision (consent) declining certain medications or treatments. Verbal communication is not enough. It must be in writing, notarized and delivered in a manner that formally serves the hospital and puts their physicians on notice.
General Consent Vs. Specific Consent
As explained by Bartlett, when you enter a hospital, you must sign a general consent authorization form. This is basically a contract between you and the hospital. Since you have bodily autonomy, they need your consent before they can do anything to you.
Typically, the general consent form authorizes hospital staff to test, treat and care for you in whatever way they see fit — and when a patient signs the general consent authorization, physicians feel justified that they can implement a hospital protocol without further explaining the risks, benefits or alternatives of that protocol to the patient.
Now, if you’re well enough to read the entire document, and see something in there that you don’t agree with, you can strike the sentence or paragraph and initial it, to indicate that you do not consent to that specific detail. However, that still doesn’t offer you much protection.
What you need is a much more specific document where you detail the types of treatments you consent to and the ones you don’t. You need to carve out a niche from the general consent form that specifies exactly what you do (and do not) consent to. And you need to be clear. Fortunately, the Caregivers and Consent document carves out that niche to communicate clearly to all physicians your exact consent wishes.
“You need a written consent document that, in addition to just the general consent, is a contract between you and the doctor, so he knows, he’s put on notice, what it is that you absolutely do not consent to. For instance, a COVID injection, if that’s your wishes,” Bartlett explains.
“They have a code of ethics, the American Medical Association guidance to physicians, per the ethics opinion 2.1.1, that when the patient surrogate has provided specific written consent, the consent form should be included in the record. This is key. Write it down. You don’t need an attorney. You don’t need any fancy training. You don’t need to be a doctor, don’t need to be a nurse.
You can write it down, and then, when you deliver it in our specific way — and it’s very important how you deliver it — it gets put into the electronic medical record for everybody to see. Now you’ve got receipts, that if you do something against consent, it’s intentional. OK?
So, here’s the website you can find a template for that.
What you’ll see there are two PDF documents. [On one of the PDFs there are two pages.] One is the actual template, the other one is instructions on how to deliver it. And you can edit the document by the way. You can write your own. It’s just a template. But there’s also very specific instructions on how you are going to deliver this so it’s not disregarded.
Here’s what you’re going to see in the document. ‘I [your name] advise all physicians, nurses, and other caregivers that this Caregivers and Consent document reflects my current wishes for my care and are carefully planned and intentional wishes.’ That’s very important because it’s current. It’s not going to kick in when I’m incapacitated.”
Your Written Consent Must Be Respected
Advance medical directives don’t kick in until or unless you’re incapacitated, so that’s another completely different kind of document reflecting current consent wishes. What Bartlett and Crawford have created is an “advance decision” document. So, the moment you enter the hospital, they know what they can and cannot do to you. And, they are legally required to respect your written directives. The following section of the document reads:
“Receipt of this Caregivers and Consent document by the hospital serves as notice that I will report to the Medical Board any physician who violates my carefully planned and intentional wishes that are based upon my deeply held religious and spiritual beliefs and are delineated within this Caregivers and Consent document.”
This puts the doctor on notice. This isn’t a threat. It’s merely a factual statement that if anyone goes against your wishes, they’re intentionally disregarding your consent. Once it’s in your electronic medical record, they can’t say they didn’t know that you did not consent to a specific test, drug, vaccine or procedure. So, ignoring your written consent is then actually a criminal offense akin to assault and battery. It’s also medical malpractice.
“Let me tell you, there are good physicians and they are clamoring for something like this,” Bartlett says. “They are thankful there is something they can use to push back against administration and say, ‘I’m not going to violate this person’s written consent. I’m not going to do this to this person …’
With these documents, if you are blatantly refusing to honor a patient’s wishes and religious beliefs, and you’re doing it against these documented legal forms, then you risk losing your license altogether as a physician and never working in medicine again …
But you need it in writing … and it needs to be served in a very specific way. You need to do this before you ever go to the hospital. Have it handy in case you get yourself into a predicament, like a multi-car pileup on the highway and an ambulance transports you to the hospital. The time to have this done is before there’s a problem.”
The document also specifies that “All items in this Caregivers and Consent document shall remain in effect unless I choose to revoke in writing; no one else may alter or amend this Caregivers and Consent document.” So there can be no misunderstanding. Your doctor or nurse cannot claim you gave implied consent because you mumbled something incoherent in your sleep. In other words, if you didn’t change your consent wishes in writing, you didn’t change your consent wishes. Period.
What’s in the Caregivers and Consent Document Template
As mentioned, you can customize your Caregivers and Consent document any way you like. But to give people a starting point, the template, available on OurPatientRights.com, includes things like:
“I do not consent to the use of medications without my being informed of each medication’s risks, benefits and alternatives before they are ordered. Only after that information is communicated shall I choose to either grant consent or to not grant consent for each and every medication that is ordered.”
“I do not consent to receiving any vaccine or booster for COVID-19 or COVID-19 variant.”
“I do not consent to receiving the seasonal flu vaccine.”
“I request and consent to the use of 1 mg of budesonide via nebulizer every 4 to 6 hours for COVID-19 or COVID-19 variant diagnosis with respiratory issues.”
If you want to, you could change the verbiage to state that you do not consent to ANY vaccine. If you have allergies, add that to the list. Personally, I would recommend adding the following dietary notice:
“I do not consent to receiving ANY processed food, such as high-fructose corn syrup or seed oils. The only acceptable oil for me is butter, ghee, beef tallow or coconut oil. Acceptable forms of protein would be eggs, lamb, bison, beef or non-farmed seafood; but they must not be prepared with seed oils. If the hospital is unable to provide this food for me, my family or friends will bring it for me.
Additionally, I do not consent to not being able to take my normal supplements while in the hospital.”
I would strongly recommend that you integrate this additional clause because it’s a stealth form of abuse. These kinds of foods can only impair your effort to get well, no matter what your problem is. You may also want to add a notice saying you do not consent to receive blood donations from COVID-19 vaccinated donors, and that all blood donations must be from donors confirmed to have not received any COVID-19 vaccines.
Important: Follow Proper Procedure!
As mentioned multiple times in this interview, it’s crucial to follow the proper procedure. Here’s a summary of the necessary steps:
1.Complete your customized and personalized Caregivers and Consent form BEFORE you ever need to go to the hospital.
2.Get the form notarized. Make sure you sign the form in front of the notary.
3.Send the completed, signed, notarized form to the CEO of the hospital in two ways: (1) via a professional courier (one that specializes in delivering legal documents); and (2) via the Postal system with certified mail, return receipt requested.
The CEO is responsible for all legal business relating to the hospital, including the medical records, so the CEO, not your attending physician, is the one whose responsibility it is to get your consent forms entered into your electronic medical record.
4.Make at least 10 copies of the signed, notarized form and keep one copy on your person or in your wallet or purse, and another in the glove compartment of your car, in case you ever have an accident. Also provide copies to family or friends. If you happen to be hospitalized before you’ve had the chance to send the documents, have one of them follow the delivery procedure outlined on the General Instructions form.
5.Once you’re hospitalized, you or one of your contacts will give one copy to your attending physician and another to your nurse, and inform them that this document is already in your electronic medical record, or that the hospital will be served the documents shortly. Distribute additional copies to other care providers as needed.
6.Also, upon hospitalization, request to see your electronic medical record to make sure your Caregivers and Consent form has been entered. It is your right to see your electronic medical record, and it’s available through an online portal, so don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Also routinely check your medical record (or have your patient advocate do it for you) to make sure your wishes are being followed and that you’re not being given something you’ve denied consent for.
Crawford notes:
“What we’ve experienced using these documents is a complete change in the attending physician, from being aggressive and maybe trying to push you, to being very helpful and efficient. Once they receive these documents, they just do a 180. As a matter of fact, one patient’s brother told me he’s getting treated better than he’s ever been treated at a hospital before.”
Again, having this document in your medical record virtually guarantees that they cannot harm you by doing something you don’t agree with. Of course, some psychopath might ignore your directives, but they’ll have to pay a hefty price, as they’re guaranteed to lose a malpractice suit and be stripped of their medical license. The legal consequences are so severe that the person doing it would have to be beyond irrational.
Keep in mind that while you can request and consent to certain treatments, such as ivermectin, for example, this document CANNOT force your doctor or hospital to use that treatment. They can still refuse to administer something you’ve consented to.
They cannot, however, administer something that you’ve declined consent for. The ace up your sleeve at that point is that you can still sign out AMA (against medical advice), get out alive, and seek desired treatment elsewhere. Getting out alive is the key goal.
More Information
Again, here are the three resources created by Bartlett and Crawford:
ProtocolKills.com — Here you can find a hospital protocol for COVID, information about remdesivir, patient rights information, alternative health care options and patient testimonies
OurPatientRights.com — Here you can download the template for the Caregivers and Consent document and general instructions
In closing, please share this information with everyone you know. Bring it to your church, synagogue and local community groups. Everyone needs to know they can secure their patient right to informed consent and how to do it so that their wishes cannot be ignored. This is the most effective way to empower yourself when it comes to your medical care. So please, help spread the word.
It’s worth asking why now, because by any objective measure, there has been no virus activity worthy of the words ‘pandemic’ or ‘emergency’ for a very long time. The answer seems to be the failure of Corona to return in the winter, as long-absent influenza succeeded in suppressing Corona infections (in accordance with my prediction), and the increasing disinterest of the public in obtaining official test results has put all virus statistics in the toilet. They’re ending it now, in other words, not because anything on the ground has changed, but because they no longer have any hope of the scary headlines necessary to keep the machine up and running.
As in the beginning, so in the end: The pandemicists will give you always and forever the maximum virus suppression and the maximum vaccination that is politically possible. Not what is prudent, or what has any hope of achieving anything, or what has evidence in its favour, but simply the maximum that they can give you, for as long as they can give it to you. That is a reason in itself, never to let the pandemicists anywhere near the levers of power ever again.
With the Covid vaccination campaigns concluded, the European Union is sitting on an enormous vaccine surplus – and hundreds of millions more doses are expected to arrive this year and next… Because they are not needed, EU member states have been trying for months to retroactively adjust the contracts, without much success.
One country has now lost patience in the face of the tough negotiations, and is venting its anger. The Polish Health Minister Adam Niedzielski on Tuesday sent a letter to the “shareholders of Pfizer” [which] says that the delivery of hundreds of millions of doses planned by Pfizer despite a “stable epidemic situation” is “completely pointless.”
The excess doses can no longer even be given away; there is no government “interested” in Covid vaccines, said the minister …
Niedzielski also breaks prior agreements on the confidentiality of talks between governments, pharmaceutical companies and the mediating EU Commission … [and] reveals what Pfizer is offering the states: They’ll reduce the total quantity of the outstanding orders, in exchange for half the price of each dose that is not produced: “That’s a charge for literally non-existent doses that were never produced and will never be produced and that don’t cost Pfizer a penny.”
No wonder there has been such urgency to keep these negotiations secret.
Niedzielski writes that he is “extremely” sorry, but he is forced to conclude that the company is not prepared to show “a satisfactory level of flexibility and make any realistic proposals.” … The health minister called on Pfizer to “live up to its responsibility towards EU citizens and member states and work in good faith towards a solution that is fair for everyone.” Poland wants to continue to believe that the pharmaceutical industry is not only about money.
As the coronation of Charlie-boy approaches, the Royal household thought it would be nice to offer the British public the opportunity to swear their allegiance to King Charles III and declare themselves his slave. This “homage of the people” has been very popular amongst some. Presumably, they’re dead keen to live a life of slavery.
Apparently, Shabana Mahmood, the Labour Party’s national campaign coordinator, thinks slavery is a “lovely idea” and that involving the people in the coronation, by offering them to opportunity to become slaves, was a “lovely touch.” The UK transport secretary, Mark Harper, thinks that elective slavery represents a “fantastic opportunity.” Although, he didn’t specify for whom.
Harper went on to suggest that enslaving millions of people will provide a “great showcase for Britain around the world.” This doesn’t appear to be necessary. Given its colonial past and current foreign policy, it seems likely that most people are already familiar with the way the British state rolls.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the “homage of the people” has not been pitched by the Establishment as the “homage of the slaves”. It’s an invitation, not a command, and everyone knows that merely attempting to enslave people is a kind of altruism.
Like Shabana and Mark, Vince, the Archbishop of Westminster, described this invitation as “remarkable” and “lovely,” with Sky News reporting:
For the first time in history the public will be given an active role in the coronation, having been invited to say the oath to the King out loud.
Of course, the whole point of his oath is that he, as the head of state, swears his allegiance to us. But let’s not allow our codified constitution to get in the way of a good old, statist hallucination. We haven’t for more than 800 years, so why start now?
That being said, it is not without good reason that an apparent majority of people have decided that they do not want to pay “homage” to an inept toff. This seems reasonable, because it avoids making the bat-shit crazy decision to pledge your “obligation of fidelity and obedience” to some bloke wearing a load of moody gold.
For those who fancy the idea of enslaving themselves to a clueless aristocrat, before you guffaw in scornful rejection of any suggestion that you are, in fact, choosing to be a slave, it is perhaps worth noting what an oath of allegiance actually means:
[. . .] the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives
Your “allegiance” means you pledge your “obedience” in return for protection. This is commonly known as a “protection racket.”
It get’s worse:
The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign.
You may have noticed your somewhat limited choices if you are ever dumb enough to swear an oath of allegiance to the parasite class. You can’t really get out of it unless you subsequently swear your “absolute and permanent” “fidelity and obedience” to the next parasitic scumbag that elbows their way in to your life.
Still, each to their own. Who am I to put anyone off opting to be a slave?
Nonetheless, before you do, perhaps spare a moment to consider your choices. There are better slave masters laying about, should you want one.
Perhaps you could choose to be Elon Musk’s slave instead? As these things go, choosing Charles as your personal oppressor might be a bit iffy.
[then] Prince Charles and Uncle Dickie Mountbatten
Charles was mentored by his father’s uncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten (Prince Louis of Battenberg), who he affectionately called “Uncle Dickie.” A frequent visitor to his “honorary grandpapa’s” Broadlands estate, the young Charles often holidayed with the Mountbattens.
As an adult, Charles was encouraged by “Uncle Dickie” to use Broadlands for any sexual rendezvous that Charles would rather keep quiet. The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) described Mountbatten as a paedophile “with a perversion for young boys.”
Child rapist Savile and King Charles – an interesting power dynamic.
When the Bishop and notorious paedophile, Peter Ball, first accepted a caution—prior to his subsequent conviction in 2015—Charles felt that a “monstrous wrong” had been inflicted upon the pederast. Knowing the nature of the allegations, and Ball’s admission of guilt, Charles purchased a property for Ball and his twin brother.
King Charles subsequently denied all knowledge of Ball’s vile crimes in the letter he submitted to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. The explanation he offered was idiotic:
I was certainly not aware at the time of the significance or impact of the caution that Peter Ball has accepted, or indeed sure if I was even told about it. Whilst I note that Peter Ball mentioned the word in a letter to me in October 2009, I was not aware until recently that a caution in fact carries an acceptance of guilt.
This is in keeping with the story we are given about Charles which suggests he is a gullible pillock. Presumably, this naive stupidity extends to the enormous advisory team that surrounds Charles and the Royals.
It seems, no one advised Charles to stop hanging around with nonces. Although, admittedly, in his family, it is hard to avoid them.
Not a single one of his vast array of advisers took the time to explain to Charles what the legal implications of a caution were. Furthermore, all of them were completely unaware that their future, simple-minded King was “accidentally” maintaining a series of close friendships and “special” relationships with child rapists.
Despite all of this, some people really love waving their little flags and remain eager to declare their oath of obedience to this man. Perhaps because they have have no idea what it means or perhaps because they are as thick as he is.
It is good to know that becoming Charles’ slave is not a direct command. Many people would prefer to completely ignore the World Economic Forum (WEF) spokesman and hypocrite, King Charles III. We certainly wouldn’t want to spoil his day by telling him to shove his “invitation” where the sun doesn’t shine.
First they came for the unvaccinated, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not unvaccinated.
Then they came for the truckers, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a trucker.
Then they came for the Christians, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Christian.
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.
~ An homage to Martin Niemöller
When do you stand up?
That was the title of my first blog here, posted exactly 2 years ago this week, which began with the famous Niemöller poem.
I could not have foreseen that I would write 150 more stories about Covid science, anti-science, and the outcomes of policies using words that, before 2020, I did not have in my lexicon.
Social distancing, mask mandates, anti-vaxxer, dis-information, lockdowns (outside of prison) and more.
I could not have imagined that “vaccine” and “passport” were only the first 2 words horrifyingly strung together by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to incite division.
I could never have anticipated that I would become the Spokesperson for one of the most inspiring and empowering movements in Canadian history.
As I type those words, sitting on an airplane headed to the next set of hearings of the National Citizens Inquiry, my eyes fill with tears.
Again.
Those who have been in attendance or viewed online even one full day of testimony in any of the 5 cities we’ve now visited, will have some sense of why I find myself crying so often these days.
We have heard sworn testimony of health ruined, families torn apart, churches targeted, and lives devastated.
We have heard expert after expert speak of the absolute failure of governments and institutions charged with protecting the health and safety of Canadian citizens.
And despite all this (or perhaps because of it), we have been ignored by any authorities and agents responsible for the devastation created over the last 3 years, as well as by the mainstream media whose job it is to question government policy and to accurately inform the people of important events.
And, I’m moved to tears for another reason.
Canadians are coming together to bridge the divides created by those who willfully or through negligence have sewn fear and hatred and suspicion based on superficial differences.
We have heard testimony from citizens across the country and across the political spectrum, from scientists and pastors, from rural people and urban dwellers, from teenagers and the elderly, “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated.”
And we applaud them all.
Literally.
Every witness is accorded the respect they deserve by an audience of fellow citizens acknowledging the courage it takes to stand up and speak out in these grey days of caustic commentary and state-sanctioned censorship.
Because we all understand that telling any truth that defies the mainstream narrative is risky.
Take the well-known case of former RCMP officer and Trudeau sniper guard, Danny Bulford, whose moral code and adherence to duty led to his lawful involvement in the Freedom Convoy last year, for which he was arrested. He now finds himself unable to work in a field to which he dedicated his life.
Then there is the lesser known case of Dr. Justin Chin, an ER doctor who simply and respectfully asked questions about Covid policies on social media, who was fired without trial and threatened with physical harm and death — by fellow healthcare workers. [Red Deer day 2 @ 3:21:26]
“Science isn’t something to be blindly trusted, it’s a process.” Dr. Justin Chin
Despite these threats, there are more doctors coming forward to give testimony to what has become painfully obvious.
We have failed, miserably.
We heard from dismayed dentist, Dr. Misha Susoeff, who was sure that doctors would never allow “vaccine” mandates to completely contradict the foundational concept of informed consent. [Red Deer day 3 @ 2:12:54]
“The streets of Ottawa should not have been packed with trucks. It should have been the Mercedes and the Escalades. And it should have been the doctors honking and waving flags. They should have been there to protect us.” Dr. Misha Susoeff
A chiropractor for 26 years, Dr. Curtis Wall found that mask-wearing was interfering with his ability to do his job and stopped wearing it. While none of his patients complained, his governing College found him guilty of professional misconduct, labelling him “ungovernable.” [Red Deer day 2 @ 6:54:48]
Dr. Eric Payne is a brilliant paediatric neurologist who was brought to Alberta from the Mayo Clinic. With 3 other physicians, he filed a lawsuit against Alberta Health Services for defying the medical ethic of informed consent and implementing mandatory “vaccination” — and still has 2 complains against him for spreading “misinformation.” [Red Deer day 3 @ 4:38:13]
Another brave doctor who co-filed in the AHS lawsuit is Dr. Gregory Chan, who has diligently and relentlessly been pursuing justice for the vaccine injured. Of the 56 forms he submitted to the public health authority, nearly 90% were either ignored or rejected. [Red Deer day 1 @ 5:32:03]
We’ve also heard harrowing stories of Christian pastors persecuted for fulfilling their religious duties.
In Red Deer, James Coates relayed how he was jailed, handcuffed and shackled, and how his congregation went underground and were hunted by RCMP — with a canine unit. [Red Deer day 3 @ 3:04:00]
In Canada.
But there are courageous truthtellers that Canadians would never know about without their testimony at the NCI.
Joelle Valliere is a funeral director who spoke up about how her first Pfizer shot caused kidney failure resulting in the need of a transplant — which she cannot get because she doesn’t have the 2nd shot. [Red Deer day 1 @ 1:31:03]
Tracy Walker shared openly about how she lost her house and couldn’t afford food or insulin because lockdowns closed her in-home hairstyling business. [Red Deer day 1 @ 6:58:36]
Dianne Molstad withstood bullying and being fired by her doctor of 30 years to stand up for her right to decide what to do with her own body. [Red Deer day 2 @ 6:41:36]
Sherry Strong used her considerable health expertise to speak out about unhealthy mandates and became a “social pariah,” losing her career as a speaker overnight. [Red Deer day 1 @ 10:22:10]
Angela Tabak recalled the tragic decline of her beautiful son who suffered mental health issues but failed to get much-needed support after mandates led to “extremely compromised” mental healthcare. She testified so that no other mother would have to go through what she has. [Red Deer day 2 @ 7:19:48]
3 days of hearings ended with the testimony of Jennifer Curry, whose mental health injuries from getting the jab against her will are as profound as her physical injuries.She crossed a province to share her story, which has left her counting the days of suffering since she made the decision to take the shot.
119.
“I changed my life because I didn’t stand up.” Jennifer Curry
As a result of her testimony, Jennifer has the possibility of starting her count over.
She can now begin counting the days since she took a stand for herself, and so many others. [Red Deer day 3 @ 10:13:17]
Her testimony brought us full circle to the day 2 testimony of Regina Goman, a Polish political refugee whose stand during the Solidarity movement in Poland led to 13 months in prison.
When many years later she was awarded with Poland’s Cross of Freedom and Solidarity, she could not leave Canada because of travel restrictions imposed by our government on the unvaccinated.
Having lived through authoritarianism before, Regina pleaded with Canadians to recognize the direction we’re headed.
“Please take advantage of the time we have left….This is the time to speak up.” Regina Goman
If these stories aren’t enough for everyone around the world who has been subjected to anti-science policies that have caused incalculable damage to stand up, perhaps this will be…
The testimony of expert witness Catherine Christensen.
As a lawyer representing the men and women of the Canadian armed forces who are prohibited from speaking out against the military and the government, she was able to articulate just some of the alarming damage done to both those who serve and the service itself.
“COVID-19 did not decimate the military. The leadership did it from within.” Catherine Christensen
The injection mandates led to a loss of ~3000 to 5000 service men and women who were forced to leave through vax refusal or vax injury.
But perhaps even worse is the damage to those who have remained.
“The foundation of trust is gone in the Canadian military….Once trust is broken, you can’t have a military.” Catherine Christensen
Ms. Christensen declared that the military is effectively “out of business.”
All of this was completely avoidable.
With a 27-year career in the military, Lieutenant Colonel David Redman was well equipped for the job of head of Emergency Management Alberta.
Though he retired, his pandemic plan was still in place when the Covid crisis began.
That comprehensive, well-established and researched plan was discarded.
Among the many mistakes and misdeeds perpetrated by the government, the use of fear was perhaps the most destructive.
“You always control fear — never use fear.” Lieutenant Colonel David Redman
If you want to understand how a pandemic is meant to be handled, you must watch Lieutenant Colonel Redman’s expert testimony.
And share it.
Also watch Dean Beaudry’s expert testimony on Risk Assessment and Mitigation Assessment.
He came to several sobering conclusions, including the idea that the past 3 years were, “a pandemic of loss of values.”
Giving a Chief Medical Officer so much decision-making power, with no inclusion of dissenting opinions or approaches, was a disaster.
“The only reason to [not build consensus] is when control is prioritized over doing what is right.” Dean Beaudry
We need to share any and all testimony that will have people see with their own eyes, hear with their own ears, and feel with their own hearts, what has happened and what is continuing to happen in this country.
And while I want to leave you on a positive note, I am also in tears because so many still do not see.
“We are at a point of peril.” Lieutenant Colonel David Redman
As I finish writing my impressions of the latest set of hearings of the National Citizens Inquiry, I know that the vast majority of people who read this are already aware of the collision course we’re on.
You, dear reader, already know that democracy is under siege.
You already know that people are dying for absolutely no good reason.
And so I am asking you the question, what moves you to tears?
What will it take to bring all your skills and talents to bear?
What better way to “celebrate” tax season than to talk taxes? Stop me if you’ve heard this one: Taxation is not theft. It’s just the law of the land. You want to live in this country, you pay the long-established, constitutional, customary tax. If you’re not okay with that, there are plenty of other countries to choose from whose customs and edicts you may find more agreeable. Just go live there, and best of luck to you! So as long as you have that right of exit, the taxes confiscated from your income do not represent any initiation of force, coercion, or violation whatsoever.
This is a valuable argument, to be sure. Not only is it completely wrong but its underlying premise reveals a certain sensibility that is, at the very least, intriguing. If we peel back the layers of this statement, we can see the speaker’s potential to grasp some sort of entry-level morality and maybe even economics, confirming our suspicions that he knows what’s right and is purposefully evading it. A hint of insight is on display here, if only unconsciously, that liberty itself depends on private property rights as he’s desperately trying to frame this “right of exit” nonsense as a private property argument.
Let’s run through a few scenarios here:
I’m having a costume party. To attend, you must dress up as something. You will not be admitted otherwise. If you refuse, due to some personal objection to donning a costume, then enjoy your night someplace other than my costume party. No harm, no foul.
I don’t allow shoes to be worn in my house. If you wish to visit, bare your feet at the door. If you insist on wearing your shoes, then happy walking, but not into my house. No harm, no foul.
Ready for one that’s not so easy to stomach?
In my restaurant, no one of German descent is allowed to dine. Anyone wishing to eat here must first present genealogical proof of no German ancestry. Any hint of German in your background, or refusal to produce the appropriate documentation, no problem. Just get your corndogs someplace else. No harm, no foul.
So this is what’s presented in the taxation argument:
In this country, we pay our taxes. You don’t want to pay up? Leave! And if you don’t and you continue to live, work, and trade in this country, you’ve given your tacit consent to abide by the tax code and render unto Caesar accordingly. To stay put, enjoying all of the fruits of taxation and yet continuing to whine about it and alleging some infringement of your “rights” is just a hypocritical childish plea to have your cake and eat it too.
If this is really what’s being put on the table, then let’s look at what they’re saying.
What do each of the above “policies” have in common? They’re enacted by the rightful property owner. What makes them such? They obtained the restaurant/house/party headquarters through purchase, trade, inheritance, gift, original appropriation, or some other VOLUNTARY arrangement. Their possession and ownership came about by the only true measure of legitimacy—absence of coercion, force, or fraud. Their power to set the rules for admittance or exclusion comes from that ownership.
So to buy this “right of exit” premise, one would have to accept the notion that the federal government is the rightful owner of the United States, the entire landmass. Likewise, one would somehow have to surmise that, at the same time, there are overlapping property claims held by the state, city, and local governments of the further subdivided parcels. This is no small matter as it means that we the people, in effect, own nothing. Every house, building, lot of land, business, vehicle, animal, vegetable, and mineral within the national borders (and some without) is the government’s property, which we’re all simply renting from them.
Anything you or I have is at their discretion and whim. They allow us the privilege of possessing these things only as long as they see fit. These are the only terms under which the above reasoning holds. If the government can demand my payment on pain of expulsion from the country, then it all must be theirs.
But what’s the original source of any property claim at all? Technically all land title chains originate with the US government. Things admittedly get a little tricky here, though not on the issue at hand. Was the founding of the USA a legitimate acquisition of property in the first place? If so, did that make the federal government the de facto original owner? If so, then they would have no more continued control over it once it’s left their hands than the previous owner of your house does over your domestic choices.
If not—and the country was stolen by aggressive conquest, thus never properly claimed by any of our ancestral invaders—well, that’s a can of worms beyond this article. But I will ask you this: Would that justify continued payment and deference to the organization that perpetrated the invasion?
One may claim that the government is not acting as a property owner but merely a trading partner. They offer certain benefits and services in this geographical location—namely, the infrastructure that makes the production and earning of your own property possible—so the choice is yours: If you want to take up space here and soak up your share of these benefits, then you have to pony up your fair share. If you don’t, then you’d better remove yourself from the service zone, you freeloader!
This is really the same argument from a different angle. Under what auspices do they offer said benefits and services? By a forceful declaration that they are to be the sole and exclusive proprietors within the demarcated region. The consent of you, the residents, their “customers,” is irrelevant. If you’re caught on their self-proclaimed turf attempting to either provide or receive these services on any other terms, men with guns will come talk to you.
So once again, it’s simply a coercive property grab, this time for more commercial purposes and in no sense a bona fide economic transaction. You can call it many things, but you can’t call it trade, you can’t call it choice, and you can’t call it voluntary.
“But this is a democratic system, where the state is only acting as a proxy of the people, so the government isn’t asserting universal ownership, but merely managing the property of the people at large.” This argument is deluded, evasive, and telling. It provides an interesting study in fallacious reasoning and behavioral science and invokes a whole new way to be divested of your property. The government will only seize it by force once your neighbors and countrymen have voted it away from you. Whatever happens is up to the caprices of the 50.1 percent. Imagine the bizarre, macabre dystopia painted here, where no property, no moral ideology, and indeed no rights exist at all. But once again, it is beyond the scope of this article.
And lastly, I would be remiss not to point out that there is no right of exit. I hate to tell you, but if you show up at the airport with nothing but your luggage and boarding pass in hand, ready to find out if Ukraine is as nice as people say this time of year, you ain’t goin’ nowhere! This should truly be all you need to do to “just leave” if there really were a such an option. But, of course, you’ve got to have that little magic book, the one that’s obtained through the prescribed qualification process of, plus payment to, those on high to be granted their permission to leave the country.
This is the very definition of not a right. Sure, you may say it doesn’t matter that you’re compelled to ask because they almost always say yes, so it’s practically a right. What if I show up with a passport that expired last week? I mean, it’s practically still valid. Amazing how so much semantic leeway is granted to those who allow us none.
So there you have it. If “pay up or get out” is really a legitimate proposition to live under, it must be because nothing is ours. Everything around us, including you and me, belongs to the state. At best we have possession of some of what we earn, produce, or are given, until and unless the supposed rightful owner no longer approves and wishes to reclaim it. So the next time someone poses this slogan to you, be sure to remind them of its full meaning. If they don’t want to accept that reality, they can always “just leave.”
Jason Montgomery resides in Seoul, South Korea where he teaches English writing, speaking, and listening at a law firm and an English academy. He is also an independent filmmaker and freelance writer.
While most of the the public’s attention is falling on the obvious issues—the monarchy’s increasing irrelevance to the 21st century, the colossal waste of taxpayer resources that go towards the upkeep of the world’s richest family and their multiple palaces, the dark history of slavery and other colonial abuses for which royals of the far-distant past are responsible—few are aware of just how dark the history of the royal family is, or just how twisted Charles’ vision for the future of the United Kingdom—and, indeed the world—really is.
GARTER KING OF ARMS DAVID VINES WHITE: Whereas it has pleased almighty God to call to his mercy our late Sovereign lady Queen Elizabeth II of blessed and glorious memory, by whose decease the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is solely and rightfully come to the Prince Charles Philip Arthur George.
We, therefore, the lords spiritual and temporal of this realm, and members of the House of Commons, together with other members of Her late Majesty’s Privy Council, and representatives of the realms and territories, aldermen, and citizens of London and others, do now hereby, with one voice and consent of tongue and heart, publish and proclaim that the Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, is now, by the death of our late Sovereign of happy memory, become our only lawful and rightful liege lord, Charles III.
It’s hard to be a human being living on planet Earth in May of 2023 and not be hearing about, reading about or listening to discussions about the pending coronation of King Charles.
Yes, Charles’ big day is dominating news headlines at the moment, and it seems that the glitz and glamour of the upcoming coronation are infecting people around the globe with a case of royal fever.
. . . Well, maybe not everyone.
TC NEWMAN: Republic states on their website: “As we approach Charles’ coronation the country needs an honest, grown-up debate about the monarchy. We need to stop and ask ourselves: Can’t we just choose our next head of state?”
No, not everyone is happy about King Charles stepping into his mother’s shoes . . . or diamond-encrusted loafers, or gold-plated clodhoppers, or whatever it is that monarchs wear to prevent their poor, delicate royal feet from touching the earth.
But while most of the public’s attention is falling on the obvious issues—the monarchy’s increasing irrelevance to the 21st century, the colossal waste of taxpayer resources that go towards the upkeep of the world’s richest family and their multiple palaces, the dark history of slavery and other colonial abuses for which royals of the far-distant past are responsible—few are aware of just how dark the history of the royal family is, or just how twisted Charles’ vision for the future of the United Kingdom—and, indeed the world—really is.
I’m James Corbett of The Corbett Report, and today we’re going to look beyond the headlines and talking points so that we can Meet King Charles, The Great Resetter.
Chapter 1 — King Charles
For those who do not consider themselves “royal watchers” and only know the new King of England as that buffoon who spent his entire life waiting for his mother to die, the first sign of what Charles is really like came in a viral video moment captured during the typically pompous ceremony in which he was proclaimed king.
There, in the manic, sausage-fingered, tooth-gritted flailing of the new king, is the perfect encapsulation of Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor, aka “Charles III.”
His life has been an endless series of carefully arranged photo opportunities and ribbon-cutting ceremonies that serve no actual function other than to punctuate the dreary luxury of his royal existence. But it is in moments such as these where we see through the veil of PR and propaganda to the real Charles: a man who treats his retinue of servants like mere objects, only good for slaking his royal desires and fulfilling his regal demands.
And demands there are.
His royal highness’s daily demands begin with the pressing of his royal shoelaces and the requirement that his royal bath plug be placed in precisely the right position and the royal bathtub be exactly half full of precisely tepid water. Charles’ valet must then squeeze precisely one inch of toothpaste onto his royal toothbrush while the royal chefs prepare a series of boiled eggs, which are numbered according to how long they were boiled so that: “If the prince felt that number five was too runny, he could knock the top off number six or seven.”
In fact, wherever Charles travels, he not only takes along a large contingent of his 124 member staff—including his butler, two valets, a private secretary, a typist, a chef, and a handful of bodyguards—he also makes sure to take his own personal food supply, consisting solely of fresh, organic ingredients grown on his own organic farm.
Yes, King Charles is more than happy to put his John Hancock on The Genetic Technology Precision Breeding Act 2023, which (as its supporters will be happy to explain) “remov[es] barriers to research into new gene editing technology” by (as its supporters will never explain) “remov[ing] regulatory safeguards from whole subclasses of genetically modified organisms” at the behest of (surprise, surprise!) the GMO industry.
But don’t expect him to put those gene-edited frankenfoods anywhere near his lips! They are not fit for the royal gullet, don’t you know!
Chapter 2 — The Royal Sickness
In a sense, the royals aren’t wrong when they assert that the blood that flows through their veins is different from the blood that flows through us commoners’ veins. As many know, the royal families of Europe do indeed suffer from a genetic blood disorder, hemophilia, one of the many defects that has resulted from centuries of inbreeding.
But, strangely, they do not see their so-called “blue blood” as a problem. Instead, they hue to a twisted belief system; one that holds that as a result of their special blood, the royals actually deserve to rule over their subjects.
In order to understand this royal worldview, we have to go back to the beginning. No, not the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign in 1952. Not to the beginning of the English branch of the House of “Windsor” to which she belonged. Not even to the beginning of the monarchical system in England.
No, we have to go back to the beginning of monarchy itself.
You see, the ancient Egyptians worshipped the Pharaohs as progeny of the sun god, Ra. The Japanese were told that their Imperial family descended from the sun goddess, Amaterasu, and the sea god, Ryuujin. In Europe, monarchs claimed that God Himself had directly granted them a “Divine Right” to rule over their subjects. In China, they called it the “Mandate of Heaven.”
Yes, the ancients were taught to believe that their emperors were literal gods. The European dynasties, meanwhile, flourished for centuries under the mass delusion that these families were specifically selected by God to rule over their people. Should it come as any surprise that at some point the royals started to believe their own propaganda?
But, as these proto-eugenicists soon figured out, if their blood was too precious to mingle with the commoners’, then that blood must be kept in the family. And so began centuries of royal inbreeding that resulted in the deformities, abnormalities and genetic weirdness that today pervade the royal bloodlines (congenital haemophilia being just one of the most well-known examples). Perhaps the most notable example of intra-family marriage leading to genetic ruin is that of the Spanish Hapsburgs, who, after 500 years of ruling over vast swaths of Europe, managed to inbreed themselves out of existence.
With this understanding of the proto-eugenical philosophy as our background, we can begin to make sense of the millennium-long story of the British monarchy. Alfred the Great yadda yadda yadda Henry beheading wives and starting a church blah blah blah the madness of King George etc. etc. etc. Mrs. John Brown and so on and so forth all the way up to Eddie (VII, for those keeping track at home) and the intrigues that kicked off WWI and birthed the modern world. You know, that story.
To finish making sense of that history, we just need to add one other element to the story: as it turns out, the “British” royal family isn’t very British at all. The House of “Windsor” only became the House of “Windsor” in 1917, after all. Before that, it was Saxe Coburg-Gotha. But the British public were a bit fired up about the Huns because of that whole, you know, WWI thing, so “Windsor” it became.
Noting the true origins of the House of “Windsor” is not just some cheap anti-Germanic slur, of course. It points to something even more fundamental. These royals—connected, as we remember, through inbreeding—had much more in common with their European brothers and sisters, cousins and uncles (but I repeat myself), than they did with the populations they were supposedly ruling over.
With that historical background in place, we can understand, for example, the Windsors’ well-documented fondness for the eugenics-promoting Nazis. Where do you think the Nazis got their eugenical beliefs from, after all? Given the royal pedigree of the eugenic worldview, it is perhaps unsurprising to learn that the pseudoscience of eugenics was pioneered by Royal Medal recipient Francis Galton, himself hailing from the celebrated (and thoroughly inbred) Darwin-Galton line, which boasted many esteemed Fellows of the Royal Society.
The overt ties between the Edwardian (VIII, for those keeping track at home) court and Hitler’s eugenics-obsessed regime are well-documented. The covert ties are even more intriguing. (Hmmm, that gives me an idea for a documentary . . . .) But it isn’t just the home movies showing the future queen giving the Nazi salute or Edward VIII’s hobnobbing with Hitler or King Charles’ lifelong friendship with unreformed SS officer (and Bilderberg co-founder) Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands or Prince Harry’s predilection for Nazi cosplaying. More to the heart of the matter is Prince Philip’s infamous desire to be reincarnated as “a particularly deadly virus” in order to contribute to the depopulation of the planet (a remark that has been fact-checked by Snopes, so you know it’s true!).
FIONA BRUCE: What do you see as the biggest challenges in conservation?
PRINCE PHILIP: The growing human population. From where we are there’s nothing else.
You see, the royals’ blue blood pomposity wouldn’t be so bad if they simply felt themselves superior to the commoners in a “What, you groom your own stool?!” kind of way. Sadly, it is not mere snobbery that motivates them, and their great desire is not simply to be kept apart from the commoners. As it turns out, the royal family doesn’t just feel superior to their subjects, they actively dislike them and constantly scheme to subjugate them, rob them, impoverish them and mislead them.
Chapter 3 — Royal False Flags
There’s something quaint about Redditors seemingly discovering for the first time that, far from some nice old man who waves to the crowds and enjoys tea and crumpets in pretty English gardens, King Charles is actually the heir to a fortune amassed via the violent subjugation of much of the world’s populace and the plundering of their wealth and resources. The fact that anyone could be shocked by this historical reality speaks to the naïveté of the masses, who cannot imagine that ruthless psychopaths conspire to amass more wealth by inflicting suffering on the world.
But for a prime example of the perfidy with which the British monarchy has ruled for centuries (and which gave rise to the “Perfidious Albion” moniker), one need only look at the history of their speciality: false flag operations.
Befitting the governing monarchy of a nation that has been known for its treachery for centuries, the British royals’ use of false flag events to gin up public support for the persecution of their enemies likewise goes back centuries. For one prime example of that, we will have to “Remember, remember the fifth of November.”
Outside of Britain, the “gunpowder plot” is known only tangentially through cultural artifacts, like the references to the plot contained in V for Vendetta and the subsequent adoption of the Guy Fawkes mask as the symbol of Anonymous. Even in England, most will only know the official version of the story—the one compiled in the so-called “King’s Book” written by King James I himself.
According to that official account: on the evening of November 4, 1605, Guy Fawkes was discovered with 36 barrels of gunpowder and a pile of wood and coal in the undercroft beneath the House of Lords in Parliament, presumably preparing to blow up the building. After his apprehension, Fawkes was brought before the king and, cracking under the interrogation, eventually led the king’s agents to the other conspirators in the plot.
As it turned out, the whole harebrained scheme to blow up Parliament as it convened on the 5th of November had been hatched by the Jesuits and carried out by a ragtag group of crazed provincial English Catholics! King James then took the sensible precaution of cracking down on Catholics in England, thus ensuring that Catholic treachery would never again threaten the kingdom.
Of course, this story—like so much of the history written by the winners—is total hogwash. Entire books could be written about the plot, what we really know about it, and how the official version was conjured into existence . . . and at least one book has! It’s called The Gunpowder Plot and it was written by Hugh Ross Williamson and published in 1952.
Those who are interested in the full story are highly encouraged to read Williamson’s account. Although the full truth of the plot will likely never be known—buried as it is in a sea of forged documents, tampered evidence and official secrecy—we can say with certainty that the official story was constructed from torture testimony and forged confessions, that the king’s spies were likely involved at every level of the plot, that the band of patsies who were ultimately blamed for the whole affair could not possibly have perpetrated it by themselves and, most importantly, that it provided King James with the perfect excuse to crack down on Catholics in the exact manner he had desired.
In other words, Guy Fawkes was likely neither the radical Catholic terrorist mastermind that the court of King James made him out to be nor the crusading anti-authoritarian hero that V for Vendetta and Anonymous pretend him to be, but, rather, a patsy, a dupe or a mole who was used by the monarchy as a convenient excuse to enact draconian new laws clamping down on the king’s opponents.
Go figure.
But the British monarchy’s false flag hits don’t stop there!
Viewers of my WWI Conspiracy documentary will already know the central role played by King Edward VII and his German-hating wife in forging the so-called “Triple Entente” between Britain, France and Russia that paved the way for the “Great” War against the Huns. You will likely also remember WWI conspirator Edward Mandell House’s own account of his rather remarkable conversation with Edward VII’s successor, King George V, on the morning of May 7, 1915. As House recounts in his Intimate Papers, the two “fell to talking, strangely enough, of the probability of Germany sinking a trans-Atlantic liner.” Even more “coincidentally,” House relates that George specifically inquired what would happen if the Huns “should sink the Lusitania with American passengers on board.” Later that very day, the Lusitania was sunk, and public opinion in America turned decidedly against Germany, preparing the way for US entry into the war on Britain’s side.
Coincidence, surely.
“But that’s ancient history!” some would argue. “I mean, yes, the British were responsible for backing, supporting and enabling the Saudi royal family to begin their brutal rule of the Arabian peninsula and” (as I documented in False Flags: The Secret History of Al Qaeda), “British support and collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood and with Wahabbi radicals gave birth to the modern era of false flag terrorism . . . but what does that have to do with King Charles?”
Or maybe they could ask about Princess Diana’s remarkable clairvoyance in warning of her own death at the hands of . . . [name redacted]
NARRATOR: In October 1996, in a letter to her butler, Princess Diana expressed the fear that she would die in a car crash and it wouldn’t be an accident.
ACTOR (AS PRINCESS DIANA): I am sitting here at my desk today in October, longing for someone to hug me and encourage me to keep strong and hold my head up high. This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous. X is planning an accident in my car. Brake failure and serious head injury [. . .].
Given the royal family’s participation in false flag events in the past, perhaps it is no surprise that World Economic Forum chairman Klaus Schwab invited His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to inaugurate The Great Reset, the grand global attempt to use the generated crisis of the scamdemic to completely transform the world and institute new paradigms of governance and social control.
CHARLES: We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis. Its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change. Our global crises like pandemics and climate change know no borders and highlight just how interdependent we are as one people sharing one planet.
[. . .]
And as we move from rescue to recovery, therefore we have a unique but rapidly shrinking window of opportunity to learn lessons and reset ourselves on a more sustainable path. It is an opportunity we have never had before and may never have again, so we must use all the levers we have at our disposal, knowing that each and every one of us has a vital role to play.”
Yes, it is no surprise to find this royal mouthpiece popping up in the defining false flag event of our times, advocating a complete re-envisioning of our economy, our way of life and even the social contract between people and their government on the back of a synthetic and constructed “crisis.”
But if only his involvement in false flag events were the greatest of King Charles’ worries. . .
Chapter 4 — The Windsors’ Pedophile Problem
Oh, if only the new king’s greatest fault were to have been born into a eugenics-obsessed family.
If only he were the guiltless benefactor of the cheating, swindling, extortion, theft and plunder of his forebears.
If only he were a regular, run-of-the-mill tyrant, a psychopath who got off on torturing and killing others.
Unfortunately for all of us, it’s much worse than that.
ANCHOR: Reports of Savile’s unusual behavior in royal circles came about as details emerged of a surprise role for him as a counselor for Prince Charles and Princess Diana during their marital difficulties and a request from Prince Charles to help with the image of Sarah Ferguson.
The public got a hint of what really goes on behind the royal family’s closed castle gates when the Jimmy Savile scandal first came to light a decade ago. If you are able to cast your mind back to the innocent days of 2012, you might recall that, at the time, the existence of high-level pedophile rings (let alone high-level necrophilic pedophile rings) was considered the stuff of total conspiracy lunacy.
You might also recall that the royal family’s relationship to Savile was certainly “problematic” (to use the kids’ lingo). But, given what the public then knew, not necessarily more problematic than the involvement of any of the other people who had cozied up to the monstrous pedophile during the course of his career.
Sure, the Queen had knighted Savile back in 1990, and any number of photographs could tell you that he was awfully chummy with Charles. Yet perhaps knighthood was to be expected, considering that he had seemingly dedicated much of his life to charity and had made many high-profile friends along the way.
In fact, the first hard questions about who knew what when about Savile were asked of the BBC, which certainly did know about the allegations many decades before the disgusting abuser finally died.
JON SNOW: One of the things that’s really interested me there was your view about Jimmy Savile and your knowledge at the time that it was going on.
JOHN LYDON: Yeah. Unfortunately, I think all of us—what we call “the peoples”—knew what was going on with the BBC.
But over the years the “who could have known?” routine used by the Windsors’ defenders has become increasingly insupportable. First, there was the revelation that Savile was so close to the royal family that he was almost made Prince Harry’s godfather. Then came the increasingly damning reports on Savile’s close personal friendship with Charles, culminating in the release earlier this year of letters proving that the now-King of England regularly sought Savile’s advice on sensitive political matters
ALISON BELLAMY: It’s not just a couple—you know it’s not just three or four. There’s absolutely loads—there’s files of it!
ALISON BELLAMY [READING LETTER FROM PRINCE CHARLES TO JIMMY SAVILE]: December 22, 1989. I wonder if you would ever be prepared to meet my sister-in-law, the Duchess of York? I can’t help feeling that it would be extremely helpful to her if you could. I feel she could do with some of your straightforward common sense.
NEWS ANCHOR: 54 minutes after they’d taken off without warning or distress signal, the airliner started to disintegrate over Lockerbie.
ALISON BELLAMY: January 27, 1989. A month after the Lockerbie disaster. This is Jimmy giving PR advice to the royal family about how to react publicly when there’s a major incident in Britain.
PRINCE ANDREW: I suppose that, statistically, something like this has got to happen at some stage on a time. But of course, it only affects the community in a very small way.
ALISON BELLAMY [READING LETTER]: Jimmy advises the queen should be informed in advance of any proposed action by family members. Jimmy suggests they should have a coordinator who’s a special person with considerable experience in such matters. There must be an incident room with several independent phone lines, Teletex, etc.
ALISON BELLAMY: I mean, Jimmy is advising them how to do it. What they should do. How they should act. What they should say. Should they say anything.
So Charles says to Jimmy: “I attach a copy of my memo on disasters, which incorporates your points, and I showed it to my father and he showed it to her majesty.”
Jimmy had sent back to Charles a five-part manual titled “Guidelines for members of the Royal Family and their staffs.” Jimmy seems to be a kind of unofficial chief advisor to the Prince of Wales.
And on top of all that, there was Savile’s own uncomfortable admission that the knighthood had “let him off the hook” for his past sins.
Unsurprisingly, the royal family has never had to respond in any way to public outrage about these reports. No presstitute who wants to keep his job is ever going to dare press Charles on the issue and, since Savile’s crimes were only brought to light after his death, the royals could always hide behind the “plausible deniability” that they didn’t know what Sir Jimmy was up to. They didn’t even need to launch a formal process to strip Savile of his knighthood because, as it turns out, the honour “automatically expire[s] when a person dies.”
But, as I say, the Savile scandal blew up back in the bygone era of a decade ago, when the concept of political pedophile rings was still in the realm of crazed conspiracy podcasts. That all changed, of course, when the Epstein story finally broke into the public consciousness in 2019.
And who just happened to be in the middle of that scandal?
That’s right, Prince Andrew. The brother of the current king and the eighth in line to the British throne. A man so transparently lecherous that for decades the UK tabloids have mockingly referred to him as “Randy Andy.” A man who literally had to invent a scientifically unknown condition of being “unable to sweat” to try to “prove” that the allegations made against him by Jeffrey Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre were false.
I mean, yes, there’s the photo of him with his arm around an underage Giuffre (with intelligence handler and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell hovering in the background), but he doesn’t sweat so . . . it’s all a lie?
No one buys anything that comes out of the mouth of His Royal Lowness, Prince Andrew, Duke of Dork. After all, you know someone must be a public relations mess when even the royal family is compelled to revoke his titles and royal patronages to keep him out of the spotlight of public scrutiny. As we’ve seen, the royals didn’t even dole out that form of retroactive punishment to Sir Jimmy.
As we all know, the public is no longer as naïve as they were in 2012, and, sadly, the nightmarish reality of protected political pedophile rings is so accepted as documented fact that it is no longer mocked as conspiracy yarn. And, to the surprise of no one who is familiar with the ignoble history of the royal family, the House of Windsor has been implicated in two of the highest profile pedophile scandals in recent memory. . . . Oh wait, make that three.
So here’s a rhetorical question for you: who in the controlled mainstream media do you think will ever dare bring up this topic up again now that Prince Charles is officially King Charles?
Conclusion
Making this video feels like I’m telling a child, all in one sitting, that Santa Claus isn’t real, the Easter Bunny is a hoax and the tooth fairy is just your mom.
But, in reality, it’s worse than that. It’s telling fully grown adults that Santa Claus isn’t real, the Easter Bunny is a hoax and the tooth fairy is just their mom and being ridiculed as a fringe loony for doing so.
This isn’t my first attempt at opening eyes on this subject, either. Back in 2015, I made note of the absolute madness that took hold of the global media surrounding the announcement of the birth of Princess Charlotte, writing:
So who is going so crazy for this royal baby? Surely no one who is familiar with the real history of the reign of the “Windsors,” a reign marked by the tens of millions of lives lost in the First and Second World Wars (in which the royal family had a great degree of culpability), close collaboration with the banksters that have brought us to the edge of the next great depression, the formation of the Anglo-American “special relationship” in common cause with like-minded eugenicists in America like Teddy Roosevelt, the cultivation and protection of pedophiles (of whom Jimmy Savile was just the most noticeable tip of a very large iceberg), the slaying of Diana, and any number of other atrocities that should make this family one of the most reviled in the “commonwealth” they claim to rule over. And yet the media still lauds their every action, sings their praises as a venerable institution at the core of British society, dutifully acts as the royal PR mouthpiece in reporting on their charity work, and marginalizes any talk of doing away with the royal family altogether as “republican rabble-rousing.”
Plus ça change . . .
And now once again we have one of these royal events come along to remind us just how many people are still firmly ensconced in normieland. After all the royals have put us through, it’s flabbergasting that they’re still held in such high regard.
It’s incomprehensible that this royal eugenicist is trotted out to be the face of The Great Reset and to lecture the peasants about how they’ll have to become serfs on the neofeudal plantation for the sake of Mother Earth, but even more disheartening is the fact that there are still vast swaths of people who believe that this family has been chosen by God Himself to rule over an entire nation (or even a “commonwealth”).
Here’s to the day when this type of video is completely unnecessary and the placing of a fancy hat on some pompous British octogenarian’s head was of no significance to anyone whatsoever. One can always dream. . . .
This piece first appeared in The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter in September 2022. To keep up to date with the newsletter, and to support The Corbett Report, please subscribe today.
Is there more in the rain than just rain? Check this 4 minute video.
GeoengineeringWatch.org sincerely thanks Joseph and Patrick for sharing their film footage observations regarding magnetic testing of precipitation particle fallout. Geoengineering Watch also wishes to express our deepest gratitude to each and every activist and individual that is doing their best to expose and halt the ongoing climate intervention operations in our skies.
All are needed in the critical battle to wake populations to what is occurring, we must make every day count.
If germ “theory” is wrong, there is no sense in pursuing alleged disease-causing sub-microscopic organisms. That’s why the germ theorists don’t want us scratching beneath the surface of the so-called ‘science‘ involving bacteria either.
Let’s have a look at why the concept of “pathogens” is a complete fail on their own terms from Koch’s Postulates through to some modern day animal experiments.
The world has been haunted by human violence since time immemorial. There are untold millions (billions?) of people all over the world who have been scarred by it in all its forms. There are two basic responses: one is to try to return that violence with violence and defeat one’s enemy; the other is, in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s words, to “not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding” through a non-violent response. Politicians usually embrace the former, while those who are called dreamers advocate the latter.
Between these two, there are various mixed responses, with sane political leaders calling for mutual respect between countries and an end to aggressive provocations leading to warfare, such has occurred with the United States provoking the war in Ukraine.
We have entered the time when the destruction of all life on earth through nuclear war is imminent unless a radical transformation occurs. If the word imminent sounds extreme, it is worth considering that there will be no announcement. The time to speak up is now. It is always now.
Great literature speaks to the issue of violence at the deepest levels.
Homer’s Odyssey is the classic case of violent revenge. At the end of the story, Odysseus, who was scarred in youth by a wild boar, finally returns home from the Trojan War after ten years of wandering. Doubly scarred now by the horrors of war with its horrendous slaughters (see The Iliad), he arrives at his home disguised in a beggar’s rags. His nursemaid from childhood recognizes him from the scar on his thigh. In his house he finds scores of suitors who are hitting on his wife Penelope. He is enraged and steps onto the threshold, rips off his rags, and systematically massacres every last one of them. Flesh and gore swim in the blood-drenched room, while in the courtyard twelve unfaithful serving maids hang from their necks. This is the quintessential western story of revenge where the wounded hero kills the bad guys and the violent beat goes on and on.
It appeals to our lesser angels, for while Odysseus’s rage is understandable, its consequences leave a toxic legacy.
But there is another response that draws on another tradition that is symbolized by Jesus on the cross, executed by the Roman state as a subversive criminal. He didn’t die on a private cross, for his crime was public. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi are famous exemplars of non-violent resistance in modern times, as they too were executed by the state. Non-violence seems, on the surface at least, to be less effective than violence and contrary to much of human history.
If it is, however, we are doomed. For we have nuclear weapons now, not bows and arrows and spears. We have nuclear weapons hitched to computers. Digital weapons of multiple sorts and mad leaders intent on pushing us to the brink of extinction.
The United States’ instigation of the war in Ukraine against Russia and its push for war with China are current prime examples. They are part of the continuing vast tapestry of lies that Harold Pinter spoke of in his 2005 Nobel Address. He said, in part:
The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven. . . . The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them.
The rise of fascism in Europe is uncontroversial. Or ‘neo-Nazism’ or ‘extreme nationalism,’ as you prefer. Ukraine as modern Europe’s fascist beehive has seen the re-emergence of the cult of Stepan Bandera, the passionate anti-Semite and mass murderer who lauded Hitler’s ‘Jewish policy,’ which left 1.5 million Ukrainian Jews slaughtered. ‘We will lay your heads at Hitler’s feet,’ a Banderist pamphlet proclaimed to Ukrainian Jews.
Today, Bandera is hero-worshipped in western Ukraine and scores of statues of him and his fellow-fascists have been paid for by the EU and the U.S., replacing those of Russian cultural giants and others who liberated Ukraine from the original Nazis.
In 2014, neo Nazis played a key role in an American bankrolled coup against the elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, who was accused of being “pro-Moscow.” The coup regime included prominent “extreme nationalists” — Nazis in all but name.
The U.S. led support for this war must stop. Who will stop it?
Homer told us something quite important once upon a time, as did many poets, artists, and writers in the twentieth-century. They warned us of the monsters we were spawning, as Pilger says: “Arthur Miller, Myra Page, Lillian Hellman, Dashiell Hammett warned that fascism was rising, often disguised, and the responsibility lay with writers and journalists to speak out.” He rightly bemoans the absence of such voices now, as writers have disappeared into post-modern silence, a part of the cultural war on dissent.
On a subtler and more personal note than Homer’s tale of revenge, we have the testimony of Albert Camus who was part of the Resistance to the German occupation of France during WW II. At the beginning of his beautiful, posthumous, and autobiographical novel, The First Man, Camus tells us about Jacques Cormery (Camus), who never knew his father, a French soldier killed in World War I – the misnamed grotesque War to End All Wars – when Jacques was eleven months old. Years later, when he is forty years old and horrors of WW II have concluded, Jacques visits the cemetery in France where his father is buried. As he stands over the gravestone in this massive field of the dead, silence engulfs him. Camus writes:
And the wave of tenderness and pity that at once filled his heart was not the stirring of the soul that leads the son to the memory of the vanished father, but the overwhelming passion that a grown man feels for an unjustly murdered child – something here was not in the natural order and, in truth, there was no order but only madness and chaos when the son was older than the father. The course of time was shattering around him while he remained motionless among those tombs he no longer saw, and the years no longer kept to their places in the great river that flows to its end.
The tale continues, as did Camus’s, who always supported the victims of violence despite harsh criticism from many corners, from the left and from the right. He wrote a famous essay, “Reflections on the Guillotine,” against capital punishment, based on his father’s nauseating experience of seeing a man executed by the state. After hearing this story from his grandmother, he would regularly have ”a recurrent nightmare” that “would haunt him, taking many forms, but always having the one theme: they were always coming to take him, Jacques, to be executed.”
Furthermore, Camus warned us not to become murderers and executioners and to create more victims, when he wrote a series of essays shortly after WW II for the French Resistance paper, Combat. – Neither Victims nor Executioners. He wrote that yes, we must raise our voices:
It demands only that we reflect and then decide, clearly, whether humanity’s lot must be made still more miserable in order to achieve far-off and shadowy ends, whether we should accept a world bristling with arms where brother kills brother; or whether, on the contrary, we should avoid bloodshed and misery as much as possible so that we give a chance for survival to later generations better equipped than we are.
Which leads me to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his run for the U.S. presidency in this most dangerous time. He is a man not scared into silence despite all the efforts to censor him.
From a very tender age he was scarred by death; is surely a wounded warrior, not one of those who went to an actual war, but one who had a different war forced upon him when he was nine and fourteen years-old, when his uncle and father were assassinated by the CIA. Some repress the implications of such memories; he has faced them and allowed them to spur him to truth and action.
No boar gored him, nor has he slain suitors in his house, because he has taken, not the road of revenge, but that of reconciliation, despite having lost his father and others to demonic government forces. This is the way of non-violence, a path unfamiliar to most of those seeking political office.
I don’t know his inner thoughts about this, but I read his words and actions to decipher where he is trying to take this very violent country. He is a non-violent warrior in the spirit of Gandhi’s truth force or satyagraha. Not a passive non-action, but an active resistance to evil and violence. Not one seeking revenge on all the warmongers and Covid liars (which does not preclude legal prosecutions for crimes), but one who seeks to reconcile the warring parties. To appeal to our higher angels and not the demons urging us to renounce the good, but to the love that is our only hope.
I am not saying he is a pacifist. Such a term muddies the water. He is clearly committed to the defense of the country if it were ever attacked. But he is emphatically opposed to the endless U.S. attacks on other countries. He knows the vicious history of the CIA. He is a very rare political candidate committed to reconciliation at home and abroad. He is waging peace.
Like his father Senator Robert Kennedy and his uncle, President Kennedy, he is anti-war, committed to ending the endless cycle of overseas wars sustained by the military-industrial complex and the corporations who feed at the trough of war spending. He opposes the policies of those politicians who support such endless carnage, which is most of them, including most emphatically Joe Biden. He realizes the danger of nuclear war. He tells us on his website, Kennedy24:
As President, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. will start the process of unwinding empire. We will bring the troops home. We will stop racking up unpayable debt to fight one war after another. The military will return to its proper role of defending our country. We will end the proxy wars, bombing campaigns, covert operations, coups, paramilitaries, and everything else that has become so normal most people don’t know it’s happening. But it is happening, a constant drain on our strength. It’s time to come home and restore this country. . . . We will lead by example. When a warlike imperial nation disarms of its own accord, it sets a template for peace everywhere. It is not too late for us to voluntarily let go of empire and serve peace instead, as a strong and healthy nation.
Those are very strong words and I am sure he means them. But he is opposed by demonic forces within the U.S., what former CIA analyst Ray McGovern aptly calls the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-MEDIA-Academia-Think-Tank complex (MICIMATT). They run the propaganda shit show and will throw lie after lie (have already done so) at Kennedy and exert all their pressure to make sure he can not fulfill his promises. Their propaganda is endless and aims to hypnotize. Pinter described it thus: “I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self-love.”
It is this self-love and American exceptionalism that Bobby Kennedy will have to counteract by emphasizing the humanity of all people and their desire to live in peace. He will have to make it very clear that the U.S. government’s involvement in Ukraine was never humanitarian, but from the start was part of a plan to disable Russia. That is was an effort to continue the Cold War by pushing closer to Russia’s borders.
Only fools think that revenge and violence will lead to a better world. It may feel good – and I know the feeling – to strike back in anger, but it is only a vicious circle as all history has shown. Revenge only brings bitterness, a cycle of recriminations and reactions. Reconciliation is the way forward, but it can only become a reality by an upswelling of resistance of good people everywhere to the lies of the war-loving propagandists who are leading us to annihilation.
RFK, Jr. can not do it alone. He can lead, but we need a vast chorus of millions of voices to resist, in Pilger’s words, “the all-powerful elite of the corporation merged with the state and the demands of ‘identity’.” If not, democracy will remain notional. Kennedy is so right to say that the U.S.A. cannot be an empire abroad and continue to be a democracy at home. Silence must be replaced with resistance and his words made real by millions of people opposing the killers.
Writing in another time of extremity, but writing truly, Camus, said:
At the end of this tunnel of darkness, however, there is inevitably a light, which we already divine and for which we only have to fight to ensure its coming. All of us, among the ruins, are preparing a renaissance beyond the limits of nihilism. But few of us know it.
So let us fight with words and actions. As MLK, Jr. told us about the U.S. war against Vietnam: “There comes a time when silence is betrayal.”
“When people look up into the sky and see white trails paralleling and crisscrossing high in the sky, little do they know that they are not seeing ‘condensation’, but instead are witnessing a man-made ‘climate engineering CRISIS’ facing all air-breathing humans and animals on planet earth. These white aircraft spray-trails are the result of scientifically verifiable spraying of aluminum particles and other toxic heavy metals, polymers and chemicals. These toxic atmospheric aerosols are used to alter the weather patterns creating droughts in some regions, and deluges and floods in other locations. Even extreme cold can be created by climate engineering under other conditions. Unfortunately, these unfolding catastrophes are not capturing the attention of America’s citizen nor politicians. Weather warfare has already almost reached beyond possibility of devastation of all mankind and animals. It is that serious, and it is time-limiting.”
Signed: General Charles Jones, Brigadier General, U.S. Air Force.
The term Chemtrails, while accurate, is a common term that has been widely mis-used by the general population and media, certainly by design, in order to discredit all efforts against weather and climate geoengineering, cloud-seeding, and the manufacturing and spraying of chemically-based artificial clouds meant to reflect sunlight, by spraying the atmosphere with chemicals, deadly metals, and toxins. This is, and has been done, for a long time in the false name of ‘protecting us’ from the farcical and fraudulent ‘threat’ of manmade ‘climate change.’ Those who expose this fraud are of course, generally called “conspiracy theorists.” This is most always an unwarranted and rhetorical ad hominem attack on character instead of examining substance; all in order to avoid any discussion of what is a valid subject matter concerning the top-down manipulation of weather, and the poisoning of all living things. There is actually manmade weather engineering, and toxic spraying of metals and chemicals, but that has not occurred due to one driving a car, or taking a trip on a plane, but has been affected by government and military operations. In other words, global warming, global cooling, or the benign term, ‘climate change,’ are intentional acts, and not due simply to human existence and the basic daily functions of life.
I will preface the rest of my comments with an anecdotal experience that I personally witnessed over the past two days in the Rocky Mountains here in Montana. What I saw, is almost a daily occurrence here, and most everywhere else as well, but I spent the entirety of both days watching the unfolding of fake chemical cloud seeding, and the resulting atmospheric changes. We had a rare period of total blue skies, although not as blue as in the past. On both days I watched from 9AM until late evening, as jet after jet continued to spray metals and chemicals across the horizon. The patterns were crossing, and at different altitudes, moving from section to section of sky, likely dependent on wind currents. Both days were forecast to be clear, but by afternoon on both days, the unnatural cloud cover was enough to block the sun entirely; at least from partial to heavy.
What began as completely clear skies, changed to a manmade and broad-based cloud cover that hung in the air until I could no longer see the skies. This was obviously the purposeful spraying of toxins in order to block vital sunlight, but much more is going on than just simply blocking the sun, as all these metals and chemicals eventually disperse and fall to earth, harming every single living thing. This very adversely affects all plants and animals, including humans. Given what has been proven to be in these payloads, the risk of agriculture devastation, changing weather patterns, killing bug life and pollinators, weather manipulation, geoengineered weather systems, and cancer-causing toxins made up of nano-particle metals and chemicals, are all threats to all of nature, including to water, soil, insects, animals, birds, fish, and humans.
This has been going on for decades, but at this point in time, it is inundating airspace everywhere in this country and the world. Some of this is being done by commercial aircraft, but most it seems is being done by the military, mainly the Air Force, by and with approval of this government, by NASA, and by others. This is a deliberate and planned attack against mankind and the earth. This is a weaponized form of war against all life domestically and globally. These tactics can be used as war weaponry, for food and agricultural destruction, and for depopulation through bodily system devastation.
Weather phenomena recently have been extreme. While proving without question that these are not normal, but designed events, is certainly difficult, but these anomalies are happening so often and are so far beyond reason, that one cannot ignore that these events are likely engineered. Well above average temperatures in mid-spring have been changing to very cold and heavy snow, and then back to high temperatures in many areas across the country. Even in my area in just the past two weeks, I saw record temperatures, then very cold and record snow, two feet or more, and now temperatures of close to 80 degrees. This is happening everywhere, and is not due to what is called ‘climate change,’ but in my opinion, it is due to manmade manufactured systems. There are masses of tornadoes, 90 degrees and then snow, unreal flooding, as happened in Florida recently, and many weather events that belie imagination, in that a vast reversal of normalcy is present in most every area at once.
But this is not the only threat concerning the toxic chemical and metals spraying that is continuous across the country and the world. We are literally being poisoned, sickness is expanding greatly, and cancer is advancing in numbers and severity. This is certainly due to this heinous spraying, but it is also evident due to deadly ‘covid’ bioweapon injections, poisoning of food, including plants and animals, destruction of farming and ranching, and land and water poisoning due to very toxic chemicals and metals. This population and others are being attacked from every angle in what appears to be a mass depopulation effort by the State, its controllers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, the CIA and military, NASA, HAARP, the so-called scientific community, and the technological giants. This war against humanity is now seemingly never ending.
Geoengineering, weather engineering, and bogus ‘climate change’ policies, are not meant to help humanity or the earth, they are purposely being used only to harm and control. In addition to what I have mentioned here, there have been an inordinate number of chemical spills, massive explosions and fires of not only toxic materials, but in food production facilities nationwide. At this point, no mass food distribution can be trusted, as it is impossible to know what is being put into our food supply.
Solar geoengineering, high-energy waves, and toxic poisoning of the skies and earth, are causing increased storm activity, droughts, floods, tornados, fires, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and extreme volcanic activity. In addition, the health of humanity is being systematically destroyed. As I noted last year: “The most major tenet of this grand assault on humanity at the hands of the manipulative state, is advancing the ‘climate change’ agenda, so that total control over all of humanity and all property, can be solidified with very little resistance. It is all based on false fear, as always, but the state players in their haste to complete this takeover coup, have actually through climate and weather manipulation, also placed themselves in harm’s way. The plot was allowed to continue because multiple state agendas were being sought, and it is still in place today, even with the risks to all due to this horrendous plan. Oh, what a tangled web they weave.”
“What’s coming will make post-apocalyptic movies look like a Disney world vacation.”
More photos taken by Sharon James, contributing writer at Truth Comes to Light. All photos were taken during October of 2022 as she drove through American midwest farm land where she lives and farms.
Two Massachusetts Towns Call a Halt to 5G Towers Until FCC Complies With Court Order to Review Science
The residents of two Massachusetts towns on Monday voted to put a hold on 5G cell tower projects until the Federal Communications Commission completes a court-ordered review of the latest science related to the effect of radiofrequency radiation emissions on human health and the environment.
The residents of two Massachusetts towns on Monday voted to put a hold on 5G cell tower projects until the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) completes a court-ordered review of the latest science related to the effect of radiofrequency (RF) radiation emissions on human health and the environment.
The residents in Sheffield and Great Barrington said they will consider all applications from telecommunications companies seeking to build wireless infrastructure in their town as “incomplete” until the FCC reviews “studies from scientists independent from industry” who have “fully investigated” the “safety” of 5G small cell technology and until the agency has updated” its RF radiation regulations based on the review’s findings.
The citizens passed this warrant — listed as article 32 in Sheffield and article 38 in Great Barrington — at their annual town hall meeting.
In the warrant, the residents cited two separate rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that mandated the FCC conduct such a review and noted that the FCC has failed to comply with the court orders.
The District of Columbia Circuit in a 2019 ruling told the FCC it had to follow National Environmental Policy Act guidelines by conducting an environmental impact review for 5G small cell infrastructure projects.
The same court ruled in 2021 that the FCC had not adequately reviewed the scientific evidence regarding the safety of RF radiation and 5G for humans and the environment — and that it must do so.
By failing to comply with the two court orders, the FCC has failed to adequately show that 5G radiation is safe for the environment or humans, according to Cecelia Doucette, a technology safety educator and the director of Massachusetts for Safe Technology.
The agency needs to thoroughly examine the scientific evidence of harm and update its RF exposure guidelines, Doucette told The Defender.
“The harm from wireless radiation is happening right now,” she said. “It’s up to us as citizens to create the change and we are so inspired by the hard work the voters in Sheffield and Great Barrington have put in.”
She added:
“Every citizen should feel empowered to look at the science, work with their neighbors and towns, and put protections in place. It’s just common sense once you know the facts.
“Don’t wait for someone else to fix this for you, electropollution is too dangerous for us, our children and our pollinators.”
Nina Anderson, president of the Scientific Alliance for Education (S.A.F.E.) — a non-profit focused on “educating the public on health issues that may or may not be public knowledge” — called the vote “the first step in trying to protect our towns from intrusion by industry who has not complied with the court order and not proven this technology is safe.”
The court in its 2021 ruling said, “The FCC completely failed to acknowledge, let alone respond to, comments concerning the impact of RF radiation on the environment … The record contains substantive evidence of potential environmental harms.”
“When citizens begin to look more deeply at the issues regarding wireless safety, including the conclusions that the Circuit Court reached in its 2021 ruling against the FCC, they realize that there is a problem.”
Burke said she was “so grateful to the sincere individuals who have been working behind the scenes in these towns and in others to facilitate conversations supporting necessary policy changes.”
Vote coincides with 1,000 days of Pittsfield residents’ battle with Verizon
The citizens of Sheffield and Great Barrington — both of which are agricultural communities — wanted “to be convinced that their crops will not suffer if the myriad of 5G transmitters negatively affect the bees,” according to a S.A.F.E press release.
The release stated:
“Their [the citizens’ warrant asks for input from scientists who are independent from the telecom industry who can give an unbiased report.
“The petitioners related telecom’s rollout of 5G without sufficient research as similar to big tobacco’s promotion of cigarettes. It was years later and many cancer deaths before regulations were enacted limiting smoking in public places and adding warning labels to packaging.”
Voters “spoke out” saying they wanted to know that a similar fate would not come to pass for those suffering from electro-hypersensitivity syndrome “with no recourse to remove the transmitters causing the problem,” the release added.
Monday’s vote coincided with residents of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, marking 1,000 days of being driven from their homes by a Verizon cell tower they allege made them sick.
The residents — who live in the “Shacktown” section of Pittsfield and are represented in court by lawyers supported by CHD — want Verizon to remove or relocate the tower and currently await a judge’s ruling on whether to allow their lawsuit to go forward or grant Verizon’s motion to dismiss the suit.
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (May 2, 2023) – Today, the Florida House overwhelmingly gave final approval to a bill that would ban the use of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) as money in the state.
Senate Bill 7054 (S7054) was approved for introduction in the Banking and Insurance Committee on April 11. The bill would explicitly exclude a CBDC from the definition of money in Florida, effectively banning its use as such in the state.
The bill defines central bank digital currency as a “digital medium of exchange, or digital monetary unit of account issued by the United States Federal Reserve System, a federal agency, a foreign government, a foreign central bank, or a foreign reserve system that is made directly available to a consumer by such entities” and that is “processed or validated directly by such entities.”
Under the Florida Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), “money” means a medium of exchange that is currently authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government. The term includes a monetary unit of account established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more countries.”
S7054 would add “the term does not include a central bank digital currency” to that definition.
The UCC is a set of uniformly adopted state laws governing commercial transactions in the U.S. According to the Uniform Law Commission, “Because the UCC has been universally adopted, businesses can enter into contracts with confidence that the terms will be enforced in the same way by the courts of every American jurisdiction. The resulting certainty of business relationships allows businesses to grow and the American economy to thrive. For this reason, the UCC has been called ‘the backbone of American commerce.’”
If Florida enacts S7054, the UCC will no longer be uniform.
Today, the House passed S7054 by a vote of 116-1. The bill previously passed the Senate by a 34-5 vote. The legislation now goes to Gov. Ron DeSantis’s desk for his consideration. He is expected to quickly sign the bill into law.
The legislation is a companion to House Bill 7049 (H7049), sponsored by Rep. Wyman Duggan, who introduced the bill after Gov. DeSantis called for a ban on CBDC as money in the state.
“Today’s announcement will protect Florida consumers and businesses from the reckless adoption of a ‘centralized digital dollar’ which will stifle innovation and promote government-sanctioned surveillance. Florida will not side with economic central planners; we will not adopt policies that threaten personal economic freedom and security,” DeSantis said in an official statement.
Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC)
Digital currencies exist as virtual banknotes or coins held in a digital wallet on your computer or smartphone. The difference between a central bank (government) digital currency and peer-to-peer electronic cash such as bitcoin is that the value of the digital currency is backed and controlled by the government, just like traditional fiat currency.
Government-issued digital currencies are sold on the promise of providing a safe, convenient, and more secure alternative to physical cash. We’re also told it will help stop dangerous criminals who like the intractability of cash. But there is a darker side – the promise of control.
At the root of the move toward government digital currency is “the war on cash.” The elimination of cash creates the potential for the government to track and even control consumer spending.
Imagine if there was no cash. It would be impossible to hide even the smallest transaction from the government’s eyes. Something as simple as your morning trip to Starbucks wouldn’t be a secret from government officials. As Bloomberg put it in an article published when China launched a digital yuan pilot program in 2020, digital currency “offers China’s authorities a degree of control never possible with physical money.”
The government could even “turn off” an individual’s ability to make purchases. Bloomberg described just how much control a digital currency could give Chinese officials.
The PBOC has also indicated that it could put limits on the sizes of some transactions, or even require an appointment to make large ones. Some observers wonder whether payments could be linked to the emerging social-credit system, wherein citizens with exemplary behavior are ‘whitelisted’ for privileges, while those with criminal and other infractions find themselves left out. ‘China’s goal is not to make payments more convenient but to replace cash, so it can keep closer tabs on people than it already does,’ argues Aaron Brown, a crypto investor who writes for Bloomberg Opinion.”
Economist Thorsten Polleit outlined the potential for Big Brother-like government control with the advent of a digital euro in an article published by the Mises Wire. As he put it, “the path to becoming a surveillance state regime will accelerate considerably” if and when a digital currency is issued.
In 2022, the Federal Reserve released a “discussion paper” examining the pros and cons of a potential US central bank digital dollar. According to the central bank’s website, there has been no decision on implementing a digital currency, but this pilot program reveals the idea is further along than most people realized.
What’s Next
Gov. DeSantis will have 15 days from the date S7054 is sent to his desk to sign or veto the bill.
This STRIDESafe device monitors the horse’s movements 2,400 times per second throughout the race, sending 2,400 pulses of radio frequency (RF) radiation every second through the body of the horse. It also contains a GPS component that communicates with global positioning satellites. It also communicates with the RFID chip implanted in the left side of every horse’s neck, ensuring that the chip also emits radiation throughout the race. And because every racehorse wears horseshoes made of aluminum, which is one of the best conductors, the frequencies that are conducted from both the STRIDESafe device and the RFID chip throughout the horse’s body are absorbed and reradiated by its four shoes. Each horse, then, carries not one but six continuously radiating antennas throughout each race at Churchill Downs. So with 14 horses normally competing in each race, there are 84 antennas among animals in close proximity to one another running around the track.
