Each of these supposed (fake) viruses traveled. In each case, they traveled from a foreign country to the US.
Name several viruses that, during the past 65 years, traveled from the US to foreign nations caused epidemics there.
No?
Can’t?
Why not?
Purported viruses can originate anywhere. They can travel anywhere. What’s the problem?
On top of all this, we have the “Hot Zone” theory/prediction of emerging deadly viruses:
They come from jungles and rainforests far away, and because modern travel is so frequent, they come to America, and…
Because our immune systems have no previous history of encountering these viruses, the germs sweep through our population and create pandemics.
Given that description, why haven’t the proponents of the theory cited viruses that originate in the US and travel to jungles and rainforests in other nations and cause deadly epidemics there? The people in those remote places have no experience with OUR viruses.
What’s the problem?
What’s going on is really quite simple. STORIES are being told about supposed viruses. The stories inevitably feature origins in foreign lands, and the germs travel to the US.
By any measure, we should have heard press reports, over the past 65 years, of the Chicago or New York or Miami or San Francisco or Des Moines Flu showing up in Germany, France, Brazil, West Africa, China, India…
But we haven’t.
And the reason is, those aren’t the STORIES. That’s all. This has nothing to do with science.
Nothing at all.
Therefore, all the stories of foreign viruses landing here are on the level of man in the moon and Cinderella and Snow White.
If these US outbreaks of illness in the US were caused by foreign viruses, we would have witnessed similar viral outbreaks in other countries that originated here.
Last night, as an unpaid subscriber, I received an email from Dr. Meryl Nass Substack titled “The “No Viruses exist” cult has been out in force lately.” (link)
After reading it, I am confused about whether to cry with the absurd logic presented or laugh at the arguments (hilarious science). I could not decide, so in my frustration, I am leaving it to you to decide – my thoughts or questions are highlighted in bold.
@ “I told Christine Massey over and over that her FOIAs were answered by all countries in the same manner because a) the countries lie about everything related to COVID, …”
So, why is it difficult to accept that they lied about the virus existence as well?
@ “These people want everything to be isolated the way they decide it should be isolated.”
No, the question is where this (the virus) has been isolated as claimed. The result of an isolation step is an isolated item, in this case, the virus – where is it?
@ “Some things require indirect measurements.”
True, but those things have to exist first. Where is that thing (the virus)? Please provide (scientific) evidence of its existence. Moreover, the measuring instrument must be calibrated/validated independently to show that it can measure lengths or distances. Where is the (“indirect”) test/method independently calibrated/validated to measure the viruses? There is none, and it is a fact.
@ “But here is the kicker. Have none of these pseudo-scientists ever had a cold? Have they never had flu? No cold sores? No genital herpes? No warts? All these are due to viruses.”
That is the question. How have these observations been linked to the viruses? Where are these viruses? Who has them (samples or specimens of the isolated viruses)?
Please bring these questions/thoughts to Dr. Meryl Nass’s attention.
The religious beliefs of Israel were rooted in the shared culture of Canaan. Although it had unique attributes that differed from the Canaanites, it still found expression in shared practices and language.
Some traditional practices couldn’t be merged with Yahwism, but others like sacred poetry, music, and architecture were adopted and became integral to Israelite religion.
The Old Testament’s embrace or rejection of these elements means that Canaanite religious influences still affect us today through biblical narratives. Before the findings at Ugarit-Ras Shamra, our knowledge of Canaanite religion was minimal and largely from indirect sources.
The Old Testament did mention Canaanite deities and rituals, but these were often in a negative light, making interpretations challenging. Mentions of Canaanite gods and rituals were also found in Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Phoenician writings, including the Karatepe inscriptions from 1946. However, these weren’t enough to form a complete understanding.
Greek historians provided accounts of Canaanite beliefs, but it was hard to distinguish authentic traditions from later additions. Excavations at places like Byblos and Megiddo gave us glimpses, but only a fragmentary picture.
Now, thanks to discoveries at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) in North Syria, the Canaanites tell their own story. Hundreds of clay tablets found there, written in a dialect close to Biblical Hebrew, offer rich insights. These tablets feature extensive mythological poems, records related to temple services, lists of deities and sacrifices, and details about temple workers and rituals. Additionally, artifacts linked to gods like Baal and Dagon, including temple remains and stelae, have been uncovered.
It’s crucial to understand that while there was a core Canaanite religious belief, local variations existed. Not every Canaanite city would have worshiped all the gods we know from the texts.
Canaanite religion was more of a public affair than a personal one. Its rituals, mostly centered on ensuring fertility, were community events. Though there were individual acts of devotion, as seen in Phoenician inscriptions, the religion was mainly a communal way to connect with nature’s forces. This involved practices believed to ensure continued creation and rejuvenation.
The prominence of some deities in mythological writings doesn’t always reflect their actual popularity among Canaanite devotees. Conversely, some gods, like Dagon, had a minimal role in myths—merely acknowledged as Baal’s father—but seemed quite revered, as evidenced by a dedicated temple and two stelae in Ugarit.
EL, the hebrew word for GOD, is the Supreme God and creator, and shows up as ALLAH in arabic.
YHWH’s revelation is always at a mountain, whether called Sinai or Horeb, pictures the event is a volcanic eruption. As these texts show, volcanism seems to be an essential attribute typically associated with YHWH, linking him to the Craftsman Metalurgy gods I mentioned before.
The account of the Sinai revelation, with its volcanic imagery, is meant to show that YHWH himself, and not simply a divine emissary, but a Demiurgic Crafstman.
Some believe Mount Sinai might be one of these Arabian volcanoes, which the Israelites approached after departing Egypt.
The Kenites seem to have been skilled metalworkers. Genesis 4 discusses Cain’s descendant, Tubal-Cain, as a craftsman skilled in molding copper and iron. Semitic cognates of Cain hint that metallurgical activities were integral to its meaning. Hence, Cain might originally have represented the pioneering figure in metallurgy, with the Kenites—both metalworkers and smelters—as his successors. Their association with a volcanic deity like YHWH becomes clearer in this context.
00:00:00 – Intro
00:02:21 – Chapter 1: Canaanite Religion
00:05:33 – Chapter 2: the God EL
00:07:14 – Chapter 3: Divine Craftsman
00:10:38 – Chapter 4: PTAH, Demiruge
00:12:48 – Chapter 5: Elephantine Jews
00:17:27 – Chapter 6: Yahweh, Midianite Metallurgy God
00:24:59 – Chapter 7: YHWH vs. Ba’al
00:32:18 – Chapter 8: Dionysian IAO
00:37:54 – Chapter 9: Dionysus of the Desert
00:39:57 – Chapter 10: Yahweh Inscriptions
00:42:50 – Chapter 11: EL, King of the North
00:45:45 – Chapter 12: Saturn, King of ELOHIM
00:53:57 – Chapter 13: Old Gods – BAD
00:58:00 – Chapter 14: Breasts of Gaia (2 Mountains)
01:01:27 – Chapter 15: Jewish Polythesim
01:03:22 – Chapter 16: Rise of Monotheism
01:19:25 – Chapter 17: Demetrius Phalerius
01:26:16 – OUTRO: Plutarch on ‘AMEN’
Forty years have now passed since the year in which George Orwell situated his imaginary dystopian society.
The novel Nineteen Eighty-Four was never meant to be a literal prophecy, of course, but, for the first three-and-a-half decades after its publication in 1949, it held a powerful hold on the public imagination, at least in Britain.
When I was growing up in the 1970s, the four figures “1984” were a terrifying byword for the totalitarian future that we all somehow knew was just round the corner, if we didn’t remain vigilant.
I think that Orwell’s book, along with Aldous Huxley’s 1931 novel Brave New World, helped stave off the advent of the kind of world they were both warning us against, by making it abundantly clear that nobody, regardless of political affiliation, welcomed such a future.
The date lost much of its power, of course, when the year came and went. Suddenly 1984 was just part of everyday life – it was the year that your girlfriend left you, that you passed your driving test or that Everton beat Watford in the FA Cup Final.
And although many of us still remained concerned about the prospect of a Big Brother state strengthening its grip, there was no longer the sense of counting grimly down to that fateful year – instead people started looking forward to the bright new future heralded by The Year Two Thousand.
Now, however, the date 1984 has passed back into a semi-abstract condition, especially for all those born after that date, and the title of the book seems much less important than the content, which is all too relevant today.
Some of the outer form of the story is admittedly now rather dated. Re-reading it for the purposes of this article, I was struck by the way in which Orwell is very much describing a bomb-damaged post-war London that had already disappeared by the time I was born and which he imagines being inhabited by a white working class (the “proles”) that has now been largely displaced.
The idea that “one literally never saw” foreigners walking the streets of London [1] would already have sounded a little strange in real-life 1984, let alone today!
I also noticed a bit of a plausibility flaw in the plot, in that Winston Smith, having taken such painstaking care never to be seen talking to his lover Julia in public, merrily brings her with him to meet O’Brien, whom he merely hopes is on his side.
He then blurts out, within seconds of arriving at the official’s home: “We are enemies of the Party”! [2] and goes on to agree to “corrupt the minds of children”, “disseminate venereal diseases” and “throw sulphuric acid in a child’s face” [3] if asked to do so by the underground resistance known as the Brotherhood.
Would anyone really do that?
But these are small quibbles in comparison with the uncanny way in which Orwell foresaw so much of the psychological control and manipulation we are enduring today.
For instance, we can immediately recognise, in the pages of the novel, those who are currently imposing the Great Reset and its United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
“What kind of people would control this world had been equally obvious. The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organisers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists, and professional politicians.
“These people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle class and the upper grades of the working class, had been shaped and brought together by the barren world of monopoly industry and centralized government”. [4]
Likewise with the extent to which their control is exerted: “Even the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was tolerant by modern standards. Part of the reason for this was that in the past no government had the power to keep its citizens under constant surveillance…
“With the development of television, and the technological advance which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an end.
“Every citizen, or at least every citizen important enough to be worth watching, could be kept for twenty-four hours a day under the eyes of the police and in the sound of official propaganda…
“The possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed for the first time”. [5]
The globalist agenda of the current criminocracy is also clearly depicted: “The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought”. [6]
The three warring zone of Orwell’s multipolar world have ideologies that are only superficially different: “In Oceania, the prevailing philosophy is called Ingsoc, in Eurasia it is called Neo-Bolshevism, and in Eastasia it is called by a Chinese name usually translated as Death-Worship… Actually the three philosophies are barely distinguishable, and the social systems which they support are not distinguishable at all”. [7]
Orwell’s fictional tyrants even indulge in the same long-term date-related planning for their ramping up of control, declaring that by 2050: “The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking – not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness”. [8]
They are out to abolish natural human life – “all children were to be begotten by artificial insemination (artsem, it was called in Newspeak) and brought up in public institutions” [9] – and are proud of the success of their social distancing project – “we have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman”. [10]
Alongside this goes the mobilising of indoctrinated youth to impose the official dogma. “It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children. And with good reason, for hardly a week passed in which The Times did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak – ‘child hero’ was the phrase generally used – had overheard some compromising remark and denounced its parents to the Thought Police”. [11]
The myth of Progress plays an important part in maintaining social licence for this fictional totalitarian regime.
“Day and night the telescreens bruised your ears with statistics proving that people to-day had more food, more clothes, better houses, better recreations – that they lived longer, worked shorter hours, were bigger, healthier, stronger, happier, more intelligent, better educated, than the people of fifty years ago. Not a word of it could ever be proved or disproved”. [12]
Central to Ingsoc’s psychological control over the population is the invention and development of Newspeak, a politically-correct jargon aimed at inserting the Party’s worldview into the very terms needed to think and communicate.
To talk and write using words in their original sense was regarded as Oldspeak [13] and thus doubeplusungood [14] and might even lead to an extended stay in a joycamp. [15]
Newspeak serves an important role in the regime’s criminalisation of freedom.
Alongside the well-known Ingsoc concept of thoughtcrime there is also facecrime – “to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example)”. [16]
Orwell adds: “To do anything that suggested a taste for solitude, even to go for a walk by yourself, was always slightly dangerous. There was a word for it in Newspeak: ownlife, it was called, meaning individualism and eccentricity”. [17]
Alongside the mental techniques of doublethink and crimestop, which I described in a previous article, [18] we find blackwhite – “a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this” and also “the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary”. [19]
Vaccines are safe and effective. Women can have penises. Critical thinking is dangerous.
Even when old words are not actually abolished, they are stripped of their essential meaning.
Orwell explains: “The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’, since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless”. [20]
This manipulation has a real impact in creating a safer and inclusive social space which is free of disinformation, hate speech or any kind of conspiracy theory or denialism: “In Newspeak the expression of unorthodox opinions, above a very low level, was well-nigh impossible”. [21]
One of the most memorable lines from the novel is the Party’s insistence that “who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past”. [22]
Any inappropriate content that has previously been published has to be sent into oblivion down the memory hole.
“It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world”, [23] stresses Inner Party man O’Brien and we learn that no item of news or any expression of opinion which conflicts with the needs of the moment is “ever allowed to remain on record”. [24]
The result is a totally disorientated population. “Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth”. [25]
“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense”. [26]
O’Brien’s words take on a certain postmodernist tinge when he insists: “We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull… Nothing exists except through human consciousness”. [27]
Above all, the ruling mafia want to conceal the unpalatable reality of their control. “All the beliefs, habits, tastes, emotions, mental attitudes that characterize our time are really designed to sustain the mystique of the Party and prevent the true nature of present-day society from being perceived”. [28]
Fake opposition is another tool used by Ingsoc to trick and crush potential dissidents, in particular the cartoonish figure of arch-subversive Emmanuel Goldstein, author of a book called The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, [29] who has a definite whiff of Karl Marx about him.
Rather than being denied the oxygen of publicity by the regime, as one might expect, his face and words are constantly served up on the telescreens as a hated binary opposite of Ingsoc figurehead Big Brother.
“Goldstein was delivering his usual venomous attack upon the doctrines of the Party – an attack so exaggerated and perverse that a child should have been able to see through it, and yet just plausible enough to fill one with an alarmed feeling that other people, less level-headed than oneself, might be taken in by it”, [30] writes Orwell.
Although Goldstein is “advocating freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought”, he does so in “rapid polysyllabic speech which was a sort of parody of the habitual style of the orators of the Party, and even contained Newspeak words: more Newspeak words, indeed, than any Party member would normally use in real life”. [31]
Deliberate and malignant inversion of meaning is as much a part of Orwell’s dystopia as it is of today’s world, most famously with the Party slogan “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength”. [32]
Ingsoc and the other similar global ideologies are said to have grown out of philosophies to which they still pay “lip-service”, while reversing their original ideals in “the conscious aim of perpetuating unfreedom and inequality”. [33]
“The Party rejects and vilifies every principle for which the Socialist movement originally stood, and it chooses to do this in the name of Socialism”. [34]
“Even the names of the four Ministries by which we are governed exhibit a sort of impudence in their deliberate reversal of the facts. The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture, and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation”. [35]
Combined with this demonic inversion of value comes a malevolent obsession with power, all too familiar to us today.
O’Brien declares: “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power… We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power”. [36]
In another of the chilling phrases for which Nineteen Eighty-Four is so renowned, he adds: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever”. [37]
It is important to the regime that its control is so complete that it becomes impossible even to imagine that it could one day come to an end.
O’Brien tells Winston: “If you have ever cherished any dreams of violent insurrection, you must abandon them. There is no way in which the Party can be overthrown. The rule of the Party is for ever. Make that the starting-point of your thoughts”. [38]
The sense of powerlessness imposed by the Party seems to work on Winston, at least with regard to the prospects of his personal micro-rebellion, and he considers it “a law of nature that the individual is always defeated”. [39]
The fact that he ends up betraying his principles under torture in Room 101, denouncing his Julia and conceding that he loves Big Brother, can leave the reader with a heavy and disempowering feeling of defeat and I have long considered this to be a flaw in the book.
But a closer look reveals that there is something else going on there as well, a deep counter-current of hope flowing against the tide of totalitarian repression.
Some of that hope is seen by Winston in the 85% of the population known as the “proles”, even though their gullibility and lack of imagination frustrate him: “They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces to-morrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it? And yet – -!” [40]
He also finds encouragement in the ability of someone such as Julia to see through the lies peddled by the regime, despite the towering wall of deceit it has constructed around its activities.
She startles Winston “by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, ‘just to keep people frightened’.” [41]
The human capacity to see the truth and to remain faithful to it in the most difficult of situations is key to Orwell’s despite-it-all variety of hope.
“Being in a minority, even a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad”. [42]
He also describes an innate feeling of right and wrong which enables us to sense that there is something deeply awry with the society in which we are living.
Winston, reflecting on his own unease, muses: “Was it not a sign that this was not the natural order of things… Why should one feel it to be intolerable unless one had some kind of ancestral memory that things had once been different?” [43]
It is this source of hope beyond the fallible and mortal individual to which Smith tries to cling during his interrogation.
He tells O’Brien: “Somehow you will fail. Something will defeat you. Life will defeat you… I know that you will fail. There is something in the universe – I don’t know, some spirit, some principle – that you will never overcome”. [44]
Orwell, his health fading as he wrote the novel, could project no prospect of immediate change on to his fictional society.
However, he has Winston say to Julia: “I don’t imagine that we can alter anything in our lifetime. But one can imagine little knots of resistance springing up here and there – small groups of people banding themselves together, and gradually growing, and even leaving a few records behind, so that the next generation can carry on where we leave off”. [45]
These are not the words of a man who has surrendered to despair.
But the most important element in this concealed counter-current of Orwellian optimism is something I only noticed in my most recent re-reading.
The appendix, ‘The Principles of Newspeak’, looks back on the Ingsoc period in the past tense, from the vantage point of a more distant future in which the Big Brother nightmare has evidently come to an end and in which some kind of freedom and common sense have been restored.
It remarks, for instance: “Only a person thoroughly grounded in Ingsoc could appreciate the full force of the word bellyfeel, which implied a blind, enthusiastic acceptance difficult to imagine to-day”. [46]
So over the horizon there is a “to-day” in which the “blind, enthusiastic acceptance” of totalitarianism is not only a thing of the past, but even “difficult to imagine”.
Confirming the point, the unknown writer of this pseudo-historical account notes that “the final adoption of Newspeak had been fixed for so late a date as 2050”. [47]
These are the very last words on the last page of the book and Orwell is telling us here, right at the end of his account, that the Ingsoc regime fell before it was able to achieve its long-term agenda of completely erasing human freedom!
The Party could be overturned! The boot didn’t stamp on a human face for ever!
And how was this possible, in the face of the overwhelming full-spectrum control of people’s lives and minds that Orwell describes to such terrifying effect?
It can only have been by people refusing to let go of the truth and having faith in the spirit of the universe that will eventually prevent death from prevailing over life, slavery over freedom, or power over humanity.
Orwell must have written Nineteen Eighty-Four out of desperate, inspired, need to play his part in the struggle against the forces of darkness which lay ahead.
He did what he could and, as I said, for many years his warning helped hold back the advance of tyranny.
Now it’s up to us to take the baton of deep defiance that he is holding out to us, across the decades.
It’s up to us to draw inspiration from our ancestral memory of natural order, to see through the system’s lies, to band together in small groups and form knots of resistance that will keep the tattered flag of freedom flying proudly in the years to come.
We have to do so without any hope that victory will necessarily be achieved in our lifetimes, but must simply aim to do all that is needed in order that, in Orwell’s words, “the next generation can carry on where we leave off”.
On the other hand, who knows?
Maybe the fall of the system is coming sooner than we might think.
Orwell has Winston remark that “the only victory lay in the far future”. [48]
[1] George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1958), p. 96.
All subsequent page references are to this work.
[2] p. 138.
[3] p. 140.
[4] pp. 164-65.
[5] p. 165.
[6] p. 156.
[7] pp. 158-59.
[8] p. 46.
[9] p. 56.
[10] p. 214.
[11] p. 23.
[12] p. 63.
[13] p. 32.
[14] p. 39.
[15] p. 247.
[16] p. 53.
[17] p. 69.
[18] ‘Marxist doublethink and the disabling of resistance’. https://winteroak.org.uk/2023/12/19/marxist-doublethink-and-the-disabling-of-resistance/
[19] pp. 169-70.
[20] pp. 241-42.
[21] p. 249.
[22] p. 199.
[23] p. 205.
[24] p. 35.
[25] p. 63.
[26] pp. 67-68.
[27] pp. 212-13.
[28] p. 168.
[29] p. 150.
[30] pp. 13-14.
[31] p. 14.
[32] p. 25.
[33] p. 163.
[34] p. 172.
[35] p. 172.
[36] pp. 211-12.
[37] p. 215.
[38] p. 210.
[39] p. 111.
[40] p. 59.
[41] p. 125.
[42] p. 173.
[43] p. 51.
[44] pp. 216-17.
[45] p. 127.
[46] p. 245.
[47] p. 251.
[48] p. 111.
Rudolf Steiner, whose teachings led to anthroposophical medicine, biodynamic farming, and the Waldorf school, said that the heart is a seven-sided regular form that sits in an imaginary box in the chest. “Regular” means that all seven sides are identical. Plato described five platonic solids, and Steiner said there was a sixth one. He also said that the heart is not a pump.
This claim was vindicated by Frank Chester, who figured out how to design a seven-sided regular form. This sixth platonic solid is now called the chestahedron, and it fits perfectly inside a cube at an angle of 36 degrees off center to the left, the exact same angle that the heart sits in the chest. When submerged in water and spun, two counter-rotating vortices are formed. Recent scientific studies have shown that these two vortices facilitate the closing of the valves. And when the vortices don’t form properly, blood clots will appear.
The man who unfolded a thousand hearts, Paco Torrent Guasp, discovered that the heart is a single muscular band folded over itself in a spiraling pattern. The heart itself is a vortex of tissue. It is not a pump, it is a vortex machine.
For centuries it was believed that matter can only exist in three states. Such as water, which can exist as liquid, ice, and vapor. Human cells are seventy percent water but most of this water is not in any of these three states. We have recently learned that with water, there is a fourth state. This fourth state is called the plasma state, gel phase, exclusion zone or structured water. And this is what pushes your blood through the entire cardiovascular system.
Fueled by Infrared energy from its environment, the water in our body becomes an electrical propulsion system. A certain percentage of the water in our body becomes structured water, and the rest remains normal liquid water, or bulk water. The structured water becomes negatively charged and forms the gelatinous outer walls of our capillaries, veins, and arteries. These negatively charged outer walls continuously propel the positively charged bulk water within, carrying the blood with it. This propulsion system will run indefinitely so long as it stays charged. And the way you charge it, is with the earth’s electromagnetic field, infrared energy, and positive thought.
The work of Dr. Masaru Emoto has scientifically demonstrated that water exposed to loving human words and thoughts is transformed into its natural hexagonal shape. It becomes structured at a molecular level based on our positive intention. This new model shows that it is the blood that pumps the heart, not the other way around. And in order to keep the flow strong and healthy, our best medicine is to connect to the earth, get sunlight, love ourselves, and love one another with physical touch.
Viktor Schauberger spent his life studying water and found that in the natural world, water will always create vortices along its path. Schauberger learned that this spiral action is what structures the water in nature. And that when subjected to modern man made water treatment, it loses its structure. Schauberger’s work led him to believe that one could generate energy out of a vortex. He described it as an energy implosion as opposed to an energy explosion.
Dr Tom Cowan, who has written about this in, Human Heart Cosmic Heart, has an interesting theory which may explain the saying, “a heart of gold.”
Another recent discovery, is that gold in it’s purest form does not appear to be gold at all. Under the right conditions, normal physical gold can be transformed into a fine white powder known as monoatomic gold. This monoatomic gold has been studied by multiple advanced laboratories and it has very strange properties. It can be made to levitate and disappear. Monoatomic gold is superconductive. And many would argue that this is what the alchemists were after.
One of the ways of turning metallic gold into monoatomic gold is by putting it through a high-speed vortex. When this transformation occurs, there is a flash of light, and a forty-four percent loss in weight. Dr Cowan believes that the trace amounts of gold in our blood is transformed into monoatomic gold as it travels through the double vortices in the heart. Creating the spark of life.
There are hints of a hidden science being studied and suppressed that involves counter-rotational spin. The NAZIs most classified project, Die Glocke, involved the counter-rotational spin of a mysterious fuel mix that included liquid mercury.
This vortex system creates an energetic field around the heart. It creates the heat within our body. And it raises a whole new set of questions about spin.
“Everything a lie… Everything you hear, everything you see… So much to spew out… They just keep coming, one after another… You’re in a box… A moving box… They want you dead, or in their lie” – Terence Malick, The Thin Red Line
The carousel spins round and round, faster and faster, the music speeds up, louder and louder, everything becomes a blur of colour and noise, people laughing, shouting, some screaming. Screaming because they can never get off. And the controller? The controller is merciless: he never lets up, more noise, more speed, more lights.
Most have forgotten their lives before the carousel. They have become the carousel. The carousel doesn’t stop any more. Those of us who stepped off, while you still could, look back in fearful wonder. The carousel now half the size of the planet. Spinning, spinning like a crazed top. Never going anywhere. Our old friends can’t hear us. Nearly everyone is lost. Hypnotised. Hysterical. Hyper-stimulated.
“If the ideal man of ages past was wise, sensitive, brave, and cultured, the ideal man of the modern world is an overworked and overstimulated neurotic” – Nicolas Gomez Davila.
Is it too late? Is all hope lost?
I despair, those of you who saw through lockdowns, through the fraudulent vaccine, stepping back on to the carousel via war in Ukraine or The Middle East. As Malick says, everything is a lie, everything you see, everything you hear they just keep coming. All wars are lies. All carousel. We’ve known this a long time: “In war, truth is the first casualty” – Aeschylus.
All media is the carousel, be it social or mainstream propaganda. All recent output from the entertainment complex is carousel: every plot contrivance, every character, every woke relationship. All modern music is syncopated evil blasting from the carousel’s speakers. Ernst Jünger said, “The fear and enthusiasm we experience at the sight of perfect mechanisms are in exact contrast to the happiness we feel at the sight of a perfect work of art”.
Politics? Left? Right? Bright flashing red and blue lights, all camouflage. It’s all manipulation. Vote for Rishi Starmer, get more of the same with extra trans. Musk, Trump, Kennedy (heartbreakingly), Milel, Meloni? None of these people are coming to save you. All lies. All carousel. Emma Goldman’s classic quote holds true: “If voting changed anything they’d make it illegal”.
Anything with an acronym is carousel: ESG, DEI, CIA, WHO, UN, EU, NATO, WEF, CDC, MRHA, BBC, X, NASA, NSA, etc etc
L.I.E.S. All centralising power to the controller who then spins you round faster and faster, creating crisis after crisis. The only solution is the carousel.
Academia? Make your choice between propaganda or plagiarism. Indoctrination in some bizarre pound shop sub-satanic cult is the most you can hope for. The blank gaze of the carousel.
Weaponised compassion is carousel, see it everywhere: environmentalism, equity, entitlement. Lies, lies, lies. “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor?” That one was Judas, the prototype woke warrior.
Technology is carousel, it is your prison. It holds you tighter than a fat angler with a fish. Chubby fingers pushed into every orifice of your life. Anti-human, anti-humanity. Porn, horror, degradation only a touch away. The convenience lies. All you have to pay for it is your soul. A fat man with breasts takes your payment while his eyes take a walk all over you. Nothing is sacred. Nothing private. Nothing matters. The glass vampire never stops feeding: “A world gained for technology is lost for liberty” – Georges Bernanos
All psychology is marketing for the carousel. The creation of needs that can only be satisfied by the carousel. Freud’s greatest illusion was marketing a confidence trick as a new science. Now his demon seed is in every aspect of our lives via Bernays and subsequent acolytes.
Your consent is engineered. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. You are the product and you are being consumed.
Science is inverted. ‘The Science’ is the carousel’s religion. The ultimate delusion of control. Man replacing God. The ultimate hubris. Everything deterministic. No new, no mystery, no future, no freedom, no free will. Just the ride going round and round. Infinite regression. The past erased.
Who owns the carousel? How can we stop it? Is it too late? The first level of ownership is represented by some fusion of state and multinational business. Classic Mussolini-defined fascism. But there’s more to it than that. The carousel pulses a malevolence that is beyond human. Something that should alarm your very being. Gravitational evil. Once you recognise evil you then must acknowledge its opposite: good.
Make no mistake, this is a battle royal between good and evil. Christmas seems like the right time to find this good within ourselves. I believe that it’s all about letting go of the carousel. Returning to God. Allowing implicate order and beauty into your life. It can be stopped.
There’s a line from Tarkovsky’s The Sacrifice (h/t Celia Farber) which I’ll paraphrase –
“What is evil?”
“Everything that is not necessary”.
It’s not too late to let go.
The stated mission of modern science is to dominate and control nature. It was born of the philosophies of Francis Bacon who suggested we could learn “to command nature in action”, and of René Descartes who wrote that mankind could become “the masters and possessors of nature.” This was science flipped on its head because the previous scientific philosophy saw nature as a perfect creation of god to be observed and understood. Take for instance, water. Without water, we would not exist. And so the true value is in understanding the nature of water so that we can flow with it, not control it.
For over 20 years, Japanese scientist, Dr. Masaru Emoto, studied the groundbreaking science of how the molecular structure in water transforms when exposed to human words, thoughts, and sounds. Dr. Emoto would simply label a sample of water with different written words such as “love and gratitude” or “I hate you.” He would then freeze the water samples and capture them as they crystallized with high-speed microscopic photography. The results were astonishing. The crystals formed from water exposed to the words, “love and gratitude” were clear, attractive, and symmetrical. And the crystals formed from “I hate you” were distorted, asymmetrical, and opaque.
Over and over again, water samples exposed to positive intention formed the hexagonal snowflake-like patterns indicative of structured water found in nature, and samples exposed to negative intention would lose its structure and mutate, which was also found to be true with samples of polluted water.
Decades of repeated experiments have clearly shown that water is transformed when exposed to human word, thought, and sound. Dr. Emoto theorized that this is because water has consciousness. Russian studies have shown that water is imprinted by the energy of its environment, and it retains memory from everything it comes in contact with, even when separated.
During the discovery of the genome, Dr Bruce Lipton was studying cellular behavior at Stanford University and discovered that our genes switch on or off based on their environment. Human beings are made of about 50 trillion cells and each cell is its own little creature that eats, digests, reproduces, and forms communities. Each individual cell is constantly reading the quality of its environment through it’s outer membrane skin. This includes stressful emotions sensed via chemicals in the bloodstream. And when we are stressed, negative, or fearful, then our cells will switch into their own version of fight or flight mode. They will stop the process of self-healing and begin the process of self-defense. And conversely, when we are feeling positive emotions, our cells will be switched into self-healing. And the body will thrive. Dr. Lipton’s discoveries were ignored by modern science, who opted for drugs and surgery over love and happiness.
This began the field of Epigenetics, and answered the question of Nature vs Nurture. Experiments have shown that a living creature will thrive on a genetic level when nurtured. Malignant tumor cells have been reversed and many people claim to have cured themselves of all sorts of disease, including cancer, by shifting and maintaining their mental attitude into a positive one. Official science will predictably call this “spontaneous remission” but it is well documented.
The cell protects itself by its membrane, which has a coating of negatively charged sugar crystals in a suspension of water. Most people think of water as being very special because of its ease of existence in three different states; liquid, ice, and vapor. But the water in our body is not in any of these states. The water that makes up our cells is in the gel state.
Science is now recognizing a fourth state of water. Known as the gel state, EZ water for Exclusion Zone, or Structured water. This fourth state is an electro-polar state wherein some of the water becomes a negatively charged gel and the rest, known as bulk water, maintains a positive charge and remains more like a liquid. This electro-propulsion creates movement and kinetic energy. This is how the blood is moved throughout our body. The latest evidence shows that the blood is pumping the heart, not the other way around. And it’s the gel state water that propels the blood.
To thrive, this natural propulsion system requires a connection to the Earth, sunlight, positive human connection, and peace of mind. Our body is made up of over fifty trillion cells and each one’s health is dependent upon our own. Our happiness, or lack thereof, not only affects our health, it affects the health of everyone who enters our environment. So if you’d like to make the world a better place, then learn how to be happy.
“The colonizing mentality sees nature as dead matter to be exploited and used. Colonizers do not see self-organisation. They do not see creativity. They just see control and profits while bringing disease and ill health, destroying the land, the soil, and the water.
False solutions, such as synthetic foods, involve a further separation from nature. But the separation between us and nature is the root of the problem.
We are now at a watershed between perpetuating the mechanistic model or choosing to live in harmony with nature and its regenerative and creative capacities. We need to bring life back into the soil. In the micro-organisms of the soil we find the life we cannot see, which is the basis of our health and the solution to the climate problem.
The real solution to the ecological and climate crisis does not lie in creating substitutes for food or expanding the industrial paradigm, but in scaling the initiatives all over the world that are already working on healing our connection with the Earth through care.”
The industrial agriculture paradigm, which sees the world as a machine, and not as a self-organized living system, has created devastation on the planet, while contributing significantly to the issue of climate change. Navdanya International’s latest graphic report, ‘Regeneration is Life‘, presented at Cop 28 in Dubai, analyzes the actual causes at the root of climate change and highlights the true regenerative solutions against the false solutions proposed by polluters.
The fertilizer industry is responsible for more than a fifth of total estimated greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture systems worldwide. Factory farms are significant contributors to soil and water pollution. The FAO considers that livestock in CAFOs accounts for 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, while some estimates put the figure above 30%.
Today, the majority of the industrialized and globalized food system is concentrated in the hands of a few companies. Five agrochemical companies hold a 55% monopoly over the $61.5 USD billion world seed market. In 2018, 61% of global seeds and pesticide production was owned by three mega-corporations. Four corporations hold a monopoly over global commodity food trade, and approximately 80% of the US beef market is controlled by only four firms. In 2018, seven firms dominated poultry, pigs, cattle, and aquaculture genetics, and made over $80 billion in sales.
But these very corporations are behind the push for synthetic and lab-made foods, with meat industry giants like Tyson foods, JBS, Cargill, Nestlé, and Maple Leaf Foods have invested up to $2.78 billion, in this new sector. Synthetic and lab-cultured foods are quickly becoming a next means to consolidate even more power and profit into the hands of a few food giants without holding them accountable to the consequences of the system they perpetuate.
The dominant corporate-sponsored narratives are now pushing for the reduction of complex ecological collapse, and climate change, into dualistic narratives around plant versus animal, instead of addressing the larger crisis of how current industrial practices are destroying the Earth’s ecosystems.
Acting as if the world were a machine undermines and ultimately destroys life processes and organic systems. In the European Union, for example, total numbers of all types of farmers fell from 14.4 million to 9.1 million between 2005 to 2020. Meaning that over 5 million small and medium-sized companies have had to shut down. Meanwhile, global biodiversity has decreased by an average of 69% since 1970.
The colonizing mentality sees nature as dead matter to be exploited and used. Colonizers do not see self-organisation. They do not see creativity. They just see control and profits while bringing disease and ill health, destroying the land, the soil, and the water.
False solutions, such as synthetic foods, involve a further separation from nature. But the separation between us and nature is the root of the problem.
We are now at a watershed between perpetuating the mechanistic model or choosing to live in harmony with nature and its regenerative and creative capacities. We need to bring life back into the soil. In the micro-organisms of the soil we find the life we cannot see, which is the basis of our health and the solution to the climate problem.
The real solution to the ecological and climate crisis does not lie in creating substitutes for food or expanding the industrial paradigm, but in scaling the initiatives all over the world that are already working on healing our connection with the Earth through care.
These solutions already exist and are being implemented by local, diverse food communities around the world. Showing us that it is possible to walk a path of living in harmony with nature. We are part of the Earth’s systems, our food is a continuum of health from the ecosystems of the earth. We are deeply and inherently interconnected.
Agroecological systems can improve soil health, reduce erosion and increase resilience against the impacts of climate change through biodiversity conservation.
Agroecology and organic farming also reduce the need for external inputs through integration of agroecosystem, increase crop diversification and soil management. By increasing carbon sequestration, organic agriculture has a lower climate impact than industrial agriculture. Regenerative agroecology, if systemised, has the regenerative potential to reverse the course and serve as an important tool for climate change mitigation.
There are two ways of seeing ourselves and our relationship with the Earth. Either we think of ourselves as separate from Nature or as one with it. It only takes putting a seed in the ground to create this vision. And every additional community that lives ecologically, lives a better life. It is a very exciting time to be alive to regenerate life.
“Oh, you can’t come in here, are you kidding? This is a high-security lab. Only certified professionals can enter. We’re dealing with viruses. Off limits to you and all civilians. WE tell you what we discover. YOU accept our findings. Now shut up and get lost…”
That’s the attitude of elite researchers who claim to be discovering and isolating new viruses…
When, in fact, as many of us have detailed…
They’re doing no such thing.
They’re faking it, in multiple ways.
They’re in charge of faking it.
A reader, in a comment, mentioned that WE should be able to go into those labs WITH VIDEO CAMERAS and record everything going on in there.
BANG.
BOOM.
Exactly.
We should be able to get in there with a pro video crew and cameras that record every single action these bozo researchers perform.
Many cameras catching the action from every possible angle. Up very close, medium range, ceiling angles, angles from the floor.
With sound. And send a few people in there who have previously detailed how the virus fakery is accomplished. They stand close to the researchers and stop them at any moment and ask questions.
“Why did you just do that?” “What’s in that dish?” “You claim you just proved WHAT? Explain how you proved it.” And so on.
Every single step of the so-called isolation of new viruses is questioned and criticized—and recorded on video, with sound—until there are no more secrets, no more proprietary information, no more missing pieces in the process. To OUR satisfaction.
Otherwise, there is no reason under the sun to accept what these weasels are telling us.
“Doctor, you just SAID you separated the virus from the solution in this dish of soup. You SAID it but you didn’t show it. We all know that. When are you going to SHOW the isolation?”
“Why did you just dip that instrument in the soup? What are you doing? You’re measuring something? Prove it. What are you measuring?”
“You SAY you just removed a virus from this soup you created, and you’re purifying it, and then you’re going to put a sample under an electron microscope, and then you’re going to say the particles that show up are viruses. So we’ll have to go over all these steps very carefully and slowly, because we’ll have many questions. Many pointed questions you’ll need to answer.”
All this is happening live, on camera, with sound.
In the moment.
Then we’ll see what these elite researchers know and don’t know.
This is the THIRD Proclamation of Arikinui Ripekatangi of many tribes and subtribes of our Supreme Sovereign Nation of New Zealand, Leader and Prime Minister of the Wakaminenga Maori Government of Aotearoa New Zealand.
Notice to members of the World Health Organisation & United Nations/WEF and their representatives acting as the NZ Crown government
You are directed to cease and desist any and all actions taken to implement measures of depopulation
And those associated with the WHO pandemic prevention treaty against the people of the sovereign independent nation of Aotearoa Nu Tireni New Zealand
Perhaps the most impactful revelation in perception that I have ever had was when I finally understood the scientific way of thinking. Because “scientific” often comes, understandably, with negative connotations, we could also substitute the words “rational” or “logical.” This revelation came fairly recently, even though I can see that I have been circling around it for decades.
This understanding is simple and actually obvious, but in practice, it is often difficult to follow. To be succinct, the message is: We do not have to understand what is true to know something isn’t true. A corollary principle is that when a claim is made, the validity of that claim has to be investigated. Science, logic and rationality are based on the premise that clearing away what is not true does not depend on knowing what is true. You don’t have to know why rain exists to know, through careful investigation, that it doesn’t come from elephants peeing in the sky. This approach of discerning what isn’t true is the path to truth, knowledge and, as I am going to argue, unlocking the power of wonder. In today’s world, this path is also excruciatingly difficult.
We are surrounded by, almost swimming in, a mountain of claims. Viruses are real things and cause disease, the atom is made up of a nucleus and orbiting electrons, nuclear weapons pose a threat to humanity and life on earth, we are the most advanced civilization technologically ever to exist on earth, we are formed through evolution based on mutations in our code known as DNA, ribosomes are the sites of protein synthesis in our cells, and on and on and on.
During the past few years, I have spent the better part of my waking hours, when I’m not gardening, cooking, or taking care of animals, investigating the validity and accuracy of these and many more. In each case, the clear findings are that the claims are not proven by the known evidence and facts. Often, it is easy to demonstrate the evidence. But then comes the key element, the questions that sabotage the power of wonder, often unspoken by the listener: “Well, what does cause Covid then? Why do I look like my father? Why didn’t I learn about the pyramid builders in college?” and on and on. Then comes the disagreement, the accusations, the war-like mentality, and connection and understanding fall apart.
Why does this happen over and over again, particularly with loved ones, as well as members of one’s “tribes” or groups? Although many possible answers to this important question exist, a simple answer is, we men and women haven’t learned how to be in the unknowingness of life. Once we see that many taken-for-granted claims are, by and large, distorted fantasies, particularly regarding what passes for “science,” we are left in the place of not knowing, and for many, for a variety of reasons, we feel profoundly uneasy. We wonder what the consequences of adopting this new understanding will be for us, both inwardly and outwardly. Will we be ostracized from society, kicked out of the clan or tribe, lose all connection with all our loved ones? Will we lose our job or livelihood, will we die — both literally and psychically? These are real questions, and we get scared. We lose our nerve and succumb to fear; we lose the ability to unlock the power of wonder.
To unlock the power of wonder is to see and investigate each claim, to search for the foundational principles or observations that will affirm or refute them. If the claim is that three dots on a page are in a straight line, you don’t need to consult experts, you need a ruler. Once you have verified the falsity of the claim, you allow yourself to stand in the unknowing stage, in the “I wonder, then, what is true?” Here is where the magic and power lie. It is as if the angelic or spiritual world sees your efforts, your courage, and then sends an insight that lights your way. Sometimes, a new understanding presents itself, or a new friend, living situation or job appears.
This path is a true practice in every sense of the word. We are not used to being rigorous in how we see the world, in examining core beliefs. It is painful, and it’s supposed to be. But it also brings a sense of freedom and sovereignty. Once you start on this path, my guess is you will begin to experience the joy and gratitude that is our birthright. We are free men and women. All we need to do is free our minds from delusions, and what opens up for us is profound. Try it, it’s fun.
Last weekend in the “honourable mentions” I included a fascinating article about Bunny, the talking dog. Bunny is a dog that uses a special apparatus that consists of buttons on the floor that she can press with her paws. Pressing a particular button will produce a particular word. The disconcerting thing is that Bunny has a tendency to push buttons that make coherent sentences or questions that she’s never heard before, and that she has done so so many times in contexts that make eminent sense, that it is clear she is trying to communicate. It would appear even that she is asking some pretty “metaphysical” questions, not only about herself, but why she’s “here.” We’ll get back to this whole subject, because it’s the center of today’s high octane speculation.
I suppose that talking about a dog pressing buttons might seem a bit “indulgent”, but in a world where the leadership class of the West appears to have lost all self-awareness and to have become incapable of coherent speech (q.v. Bai Den Dzhao, any recent public statement), a dog apparently forming sentences and asking “Platonic” questions I think is pretty newsworthy, and worth some high octane speculation time. And besides, most regular readers of this website are well aware of my fascination with animals and the apparent intelligence and emotional life in higher beasts: dogs, cats, horses, dolphins, birds (corvids, parrots, &c), and of course, one of my favorites, octopuses. I’ve recounted, for example, the incident with my friend Dr. Scott D. DeHart’s African Gray parrot, Murray. During a period when we were sharing an apartment, I would drive his youngest son to school (Scott left early as he was teaching school). Murray’s cage was right next to the front door, and on the way out, I used to always say, “Ok Murray, I’ll be right back; you be a good bird,” or something similar.
One day, as we were leaving, I turned to Murray as Scott’s son was looking on, but before either of us could say anything, Murray said (I kid you not), “I’ll be a good bird.”
Our jaws were on the floor, and for very good reason. This was a sentence Murray had never heard before. He simply composed it on the spot for the occasion, and used it in the proper context. I tried to put the whole unnerving incident out of my mind, until another incident with Murray brought me up short. Being a smoker, I would also step outside to smoke a cigarette. Shortly after this incident, something began to happen: I’d get outside, light my cigarette, and take that first wonderful drag, and… the phone would ring. Angrily, I’d snuff out the cigarette, run back into the apartment as fast as my overweight frame could waddle, and answer the phone, only to have the line go dead. This went on for a couple of days, and then something else: As soon as I’d enter the bathroom to relieve myself, again, as regular as clockwork, the phone would ring. And it would continue to ring until I came tearing out of the bathroom trying not to severely injure myself as I zipped myself up and waddled to the phone… only to find the line dead once again.
I would probably have gone on like this, until the telltale laughter from Murray after one such incident gave his whole sinister game away:
Parrot: 2 Supposedly Intelligent Human Being: 0
Since then I’ve really had my eyes peeled for similar stories of animal intelligence and, in this case, of an animal playing a game. There are endless videos on YouTube of such things, of crows solving intricate puzzles (using tools no less); of gorillas speaking sign langauge, of octopuses learning by simply watching other octopuses solving problems, and, yes, of African Gray Parrots forming their own sentences and talking.
And now along comes Bunny the dog, who is asking the sorts of metaphysical questions one does not normally associate with canines (or even, as we’ve come to learn to our chagrin in the past couple of centuries, some humans… this article courtesy of MANY of you who read last week’s honourable mentions):
Here is the “problem”, and see if you can spot what caught my eye:
Bunny the Dog is famous on social media because of her ability to talk by using buttons, as reported by Insider. But recently, the talking dog blurted out a surprising question about her existence. Salon reports that Bunny looked into the mirror and asked who herself is.
People were astonished as the Sheepadoodle breed asked about the meaning of life through her augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) device.
Through the development of her communication, Bunny seemed to be interested in her sense of self. Since then, the AAC helped her and other dogs exchange words with humans, but this time, she asked a different one from her usual conversation.
Pressing the AAC button consecutively, Bunny constructed a sentence: “Dog what dog is?” Amazed, Bunny’s human parent Alexis Devine said that the question pushed her to add more buttons for the words “same”, “different”, and “animal.”
…
A combination of over 3,000 dogs and cats are enrolled in this project, including Bunny. Most of the results from the observation suggest that cats and dogs, in fragments, can talk.
OK, I suppose that in itself is not really big news to anyone who has owned a cat or a dog, and seen first hand their ability to understand words. Why should we be surprised that – given appropriate tools – they would use them to communicate to us? But there’s more:
According to Rossano, self-awareness is not the initial target of the study. But considering the development from various subjects, language and self-awareness have added curiosity to research. With that said, Rossano shared that the new concern of the study is whether dogs can recognize a sense of time, such as the past, present, and future.
…
For example, even though dogs have difficulty identifying themselves in the popular mirror test, a recent study published on Scientific Reports entitled “Dogs (Canis familiaris) recognize their own body as a physical obstacle” suggests that dogs have the capability to identify self-awareness through considering their own bodies as an obstacle.
As one might have guessed, it is this which caught my attention, plus the fact that Bunny at least appears to be asking “the Platonic questions”: what am I, why am I here, who am I?” and perhaps the most important question, “What is an ‘I’?” In some past blogs and in some vidchats I’ve remarked often on the need to break out of this post-Cartesian binary world of the equations we’ve all absorbed from the wider (and mostly western) culture of “human=intelligent & self-aware, everything else=not intelligent nor self-aware”. I’ve remarked that St. John of Damascus once used the term “hypostasis” not only to denote individual human persons, but also particular animals (this horse and that horse), and so on. The story of Noah’s ark is not simply the story about the survival of humanity, but of animals.
All this brings me to my two off-the-end-of-the-twig high octane speculations of the day: firstly, what if our tests of “self-awareness” in dogs, cats…whatever… are simply the wrong test? What if our obsession with mirrors and so on is more of a comment on the human predisposition toward narcissism rather than self-recognition and awareness? What if it is a pathology as much as it is an indicator of self-awareness? What if animals do not respond to the “mirror test” because they think it’s rather silly and uninteresting?
Don’t laugh, because in my Shiloh’s case, I noticed exactly this behaviour. The big mirror in my master bathroom is visible from my bed. The first few nights I had her, she would bark at her reflection in the mirror. On one occasion, as she sat on the bed barking at her reflection, something amazing happened: she cocked her head in that wonderful way that dogs do, and then, cocked it in the opposite direction. And immediately the barking at her reflection stopped, and has not resumed. It’s as if, in that moment, she understood that the dog in the mirror was her. At that moment, she lost interest, and has not barked at herself since.
This leads my to my second high octane speculation of the day, one with much more profound implications, one sparked by Bunny’s metaphysical questions, and by all those videos of octopuses watching each other solve problems, of crows solving intricate multple-step puzzles (and using tools to do it), of African Gray Parrots forming sentences and asking questions, of gorillas using sign language, and add to this all those stories of saints with their bears, or befriending lions, or surrounded by wild birds who seem to flock to them: or of those videos of pigeons attacking 5G towers and removing the wires: something is going on in the animal world, but what? And my speculative answer is, what if something is causing them to “wake up” for whatever reason, to take the next big “cosmic leap” in intelligence? What if, in response to humanity’s insanity in trying to develop artificial intelligence, this is nature’s way of balancing things out? What if, indeed, armies are being raised right under our noses, and we’re too stupid to see it?
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappeared on March 8th 2014. On May 19, about nine weeks later, a leaked video was published to YouTube by a third party who claimed to have received it on March 12th. The video shows what appears to be a jet airliner on fire being trailed by three spiraling orbs. Eventually, the three orbs change to a vertical pattern and disappear in a flash with the airliner, leaving a dead-end trail of smoke in the sky. A month later on June 12th, a second video was published to the same channel that showed the exact same event taken from a different viewpoint. These videos have been deleted from YouTube but can still be found on archive-dot-org.
Ashton Forbes and his team have been researching these videos extensively, and have provided exhaustive evidence that these videos are legitimate. Including digital forensics verified by CGI professionals, eyewitnesses, and government data, Forbes and his team have successfully addressed all de-bunker claims and have listed them for all to see on X-dot-com @JustXAshton. So far, nobody has been able to de-bunk this research.
Their research shows that the first leaked video was taken from a pair of American signals intelligence satellites known as USA-229. Twin satellites capable of creating 3D stereoscopic images by capturing two slightly different views. The twin USA-229 satellites are logged at the exact location, time, and apparent angle required to of captured this video. This event occurred at around two-thirty in the morning, it was completely dark, the wavelengths captured by these cameras are for detail, and the stereoscopic effect allows for added depth perception.
The source of the second video has been identified as an MQ-1C Gray Eagle unmanned combat drone with Infrared and thermal technology. This video focuses on the heat signature.
And the man responsible for leaking these videos seems to be Lt. Cmdr. Edward Lin. He was accused of being a spy, but court transcripts prove that this was just spin. The details of his crimes, including the time they happened, are redacted, but it came out in the trial that the classified information in question was published on the internet. And Lt. Cmdr. Edward Lin had full security clearance to the same technology used to capture these videos.
Using Inmarsat satellite ping data and military radar to track its path, and eyewitness testimony to verify it, Forbes put together the final flight path of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370:
On March 7th at 16:42 UTC Flight 370 takes off from Kuala Lumpur International Airport. At 17:21 the plane abruptly turns back towards the nearest airport in Penang. A witness on an oil rig reported that the plane was on fire. Several witnesses along the East Coast reported hearing a loud bang and seeing a glow coming from the plane as it passed overhead. At 17:52 the co-pilot’s mobile phone pings the local tower. At 18:40 an eyewitness on a boat reported that the plane was glowing orange and appeared on fire. The Inmarsat ping data shows the same sharp left turn that we see in the videos, and then abruptly goes to zero as the plane disappears.
The CCP released Chinese satellite images that appear to be three orbs. They first claimed it was debris, and later said that releasing the image was a mistake. According to Chinese media, nineteen families have signed a statement claiming they made calls that connected to missing passengers after the disappearance but without an answer.
Some people are saying this was alien UFOs saving a plane from crashing. But this doesn’t explain the fact that three different advanced US military surveillance cameras captured this one event. Twenty-three of the passengers on board were related to Freescale Semi-Conductors, a field leading the development of super-conductor technology, which is what this appears to be. Some type of superconductor targeting system for teleportation. Which is reminiscent of what the NAZIs were doing with their highly classified Die Glocke project.
Luminous objects like this were first reported in May of 1940 as Germany invaded Belgium. And by 1942 several people reported seeing them in the skies over Germany. American pilots during World War Two called them, Foo Fighters.
And let’s not forget Gary Mckinnon, who in 2002 was accused of perpetrating the “biggest military computer hack of all time”, and who claimed to have seen evidence of an advanced off-world military fleet.
A gratitude-heart
Is to discover on earth
A Heaven-delivered rose.
(2)
Gratitude can transform
Our life
Sooner than anything else.
(3)
When gratitude survives
All disappointments,
Then it is real gratitude.
(4)
Gratitude
Is at once
Beautiful
And
Fruitful.
(5)
Gratitude carries the message of Immortality
And enters into God’s Heart
To see God’s universal Satisfaction-Smile.
(6)
Gratitude grows
By self-giving.
(7)
When gratitude survives
All disappointments,
Then it is real gratitude.
(8)
Gratitude
Thrives
On humility.
(9)
Gratitude expressed,
Joy achieved.
(10)
Gratitude
Is nothing short of
A divine attitude.
(11)
A moment of gratitude
Gladdens
My entire day.
(12)
Never underestimate
The power
Of a gratitude-heart.
[Truth Comes to Light Editor’s note: We originally published this in November 2019. The source link is no longer active. Below you will find a new link to a resource for Sri Chinmoy’s poetry.]
by Robert Augustus Masters via Robert Augustus Masters’ Newsletter originally published March 17, 2020
The practice of gratitude is powerful medicine.
It quickly and effectively realigns us with our essential nature, grounding us in reality-unlocking perspectives, relieving us of our self-centered myopia. Call it a soul-centered homing device — unconditional thanksgiving in the heartfelt raw.
Central to the practice of gratitude is practicing it when we least want to, like when we’re tangled up in disillusionment, depression, disappointment, despair, industrial strength shame.
This doesn’t mean glossing over or bypassing the difficult stuff, but bringing heart and deep-cutting perspective to it, gifting ourselves with an instant, more-than-intellectual reminder of what truly matters.
Here, we stop turning our pain into suffering (the overdramatization of pain), facing it not just with head and guts, but also with heart. We further fuel this by cultivating gratitude for the very capacity to feel and express gratitude in even the most difficult of circumstances.
Imagine if we simply did not have the capacity to recognize and work with our shadow elements. Imagine if we could no more than remain slaves to our conditioning, bound to our programming with no possibility of illuminating, uprooting, and outgrowing it. Imagine if we didn’t have the equipment for practicing gratitude.
Gratitude for being able to evolve, for having the capacity to work through trauma, for being able to move beyond both codependent and co-independent ways of doing relationship.
Gratitude for being able to feel, for having the ability to become more emotionally literate and compassionate. Gratitude for being able to see through what’s before us. Gratitude for the time we have, short as that might be. Gratitude for the arrival of our next breath. Gratitude for simply being.
The practice of gratitude bends us without breaking us, humbling but not humiliating us, leaving us seeking something more real than answers, bowing in ways that deepen our dignity, integrity, and core presence.
Gratitude for simply being alive, now and now and now, for simply being here, for having the capacity to awaken, to heal, to be empathetic, loving, present, vastly alive.
Gratitude for what we ordinarily take for granted.
Gratitude for incarnation, for this body, this mind, this exquisitely refined nervous system, this ability to outgrow our conditioning, bring our shadow out of the dark, and recognize who and what we truly are.
And Hallelujah — Hallelujah! — right to our core, as we once again get back on track, scarred but not ruined, opening to a deeper wholeness, navigating the daily grind with a touch more grace and ease, grateful to still be here, grateful even for death, surrendering what needs to be surrendered as we open, more and more fully, to the essential mystery of our existence.
The practice of gratitude asks only for a few focused minutes of your time here and there. Do it when you don’t want to, and you’ll become more intimate with the you who is lost in entitlement, exaggerated specialness, and walled-in or spiritualized egoity.
Meeting that one up close and with full-blooded compassion is a hugely worthwhile adventure, asking for and bringing forth the very best in us, step by step.
Remember to practice gratitude. Remember to remember. Don’t rush through it. Keep your articulation of it clear and present, not letting the words you use slip into mechanical recitation.
The practice of gratitude is essentially holy remembrance in the flesh, commonsense prayer, guiding us to the heart of whatever we find ourselves in, bit by bit. Trust it, use it, letting it restore you, bringing you into an awakened innocence and wondrously practical, ever-deepening sense of who and what you truly are.
One Saturday after our excursion to Pizza Hut, the mall, and a movie, I drove my ten-year-old goddaughter Samantha to her family’s new residence. As we turned off the highway onto a dirt road that led to her house, my heart dropped to see that she and her parents were living in an old school bus in a field.
As Samantha showed me around her family’s quarters, I began to feel sad that this little girl whom I love so much was growing up in such a shoddy environment. As my eyes painfully fell upon rusted seams on the metal walls, cracked windows, and a leaking roof, I realized that her family had fallen into bare, subsistence living. I wanted to rescue her from such a barren plight.
Looking up at me with her big brown eyes, Samantha asked me, “Would you like to see my room?”
“Okay,” I answered hesitantly.
The child took me by the hand and guided me up a makeshift staircase that led to a small wooden addition that had been superimposed over the roof of the bus. I shuddered to observe that her room was in the same condition as the rest of the place, just barely livable. Looking around, I noticed one fairly attractive element of her abode, a colorful tapestry hanging over the one section of the room that could be called a wall.
“How do you feel about living here?” I asked Samantha, waiting for a glum response.
Instead, to my surprise, her face lit up. “I love my wall!” she giggled.
I was stunned. Samantha was not kidding. She actually enjoyed the place because of this colorful wall. The child found a touch of heaven in the midst of hell, and this is what she chose to focus on. She was happy.
I drove home in a state of awe. This ten-year-old saw her life through the eyes of appreciation, and that made all the difference. I began to consider all the things in my life that I have complained about. I realized that in my preoccupation with what isn’t there, I have been missing what is here. While focusing on rusty metal, I have overlooked some colorful tapestries. I made Samantha’s statement my meditation: “I love my wall!”
Gratitude is not the result of things that happen to us; it is an attitude we cultivate by practice. The more we are thankful for, the more we will find to be thankful for. I heard of a woman named Sarah who lay in a hospital bed after an accident, deeply depressed, unable to move any part of her body except the little finger on one hand. Then Sarah decided she would make use of what she did have rather than bemoan what she was missing. She began to bless the one finger that could move, and she developed a system of “yes” and “no” communication with the little finger. Sarah became grateful that she could communicate, and she felt happier. As she blessed the movement, her flexibility increased. Soon Sarah could move her hand, then her arm, and eventually her whole body. It all started with the critical shift from complaining to blessing.
Harville Hendricks’ book Getting the Love You Want has become a popular manual for relationships. The first step to getting the love you want is to appreciate the love you have. The universe always gives you more of what you are focusing on. Jesus taught, “To him that hath, more shall be given; to him that hath not, more shall be taken away.” Jesus was elucidating a supremely important metaphysical principle, the very key to the manifestation of abundance. Jesus was teaching the importance of concentrating on what we have or want, rather than on what we lack or do not want.
We can look at any experience in two ways: through the eyes of lack, or the eyes of plenty. Fear sees limits, while love sees possibilities. Each attitude will be justified by the belief system you cherish. Change your allegiance from fear to love, and love will sustain you wherever you walk. A Course in Miracles tells us, “Love cannotbe far behind a grateful heart and thankful mind…These are the true conditions for yourhomecoming.”
[Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: We originally posted this article in August of 2014. The source link is no longer active but you can find articles by Alan Cohen at his website.]
Psychiatrists used to not put much effort into diagnosing. Instead, they focused on getting to and working on the issues in their clients’ lives that were upsetting them. But all that changed when the 1980 DSM came out. Since then, diagnosing mental disorders has been one of their main focuses (prescribing medicine being the other). People pay huge sums of money for psychiatrists’ expert opinions, and their diagnostic evaluations carry great weight in court, school, the workplace, and disability determinations. But is this truly warranted? Is a doctor really needed to make a psychiatric diagnosis, or can anyone do it?
Here are three points which support the idea that anyone can make a psychiatric diagnosis:
1. All the diagnostic criteria that psychiatrists learn in their training can be easily found on various websites. Therefore anyone can look up the criteria for diagnosing any mental illness and then conduct a do-it-yourself diagnostic evaluation.
2. It’s true that only trained doctors can perform physical exams and order lab tests, x-rays/scans, biopsies, etc.. And it’s true that only doctors are qualified to interpret their results. But these medical workups are only ever done to verify physical illness diagnoses, like cancer or diabetes. They are never done to diagnose mental illnesses. If a medical workup is ever done during a mental illness evaluation, it’s only to rule out a real (physical) illness.
3. If one examines the criteria for all the mental illness diagnoses, it becomes clear that identifying them doesn’t require any medical background or skill. For example, here are some criteria for diagnosing depression: diminished interest/pleasure in activities, indecisiveness, and feelings of worthlessness. First of all, these are not terms/concepts that only doctors are privy to. Secondly, they’re vague, subjective perceptions rather than objective, scientific facts. They’re in the eye of the beholder. Thus, any human could offer an opinion as to whether or not someone is experiencing them. Who’s to say which is the “right” opinion?
These are all excellent points.
But if a regular human such as you dares to take it upon yourself to perform a psychiatric diagnostic evaluation, you’ll be laughed at for your brazenness. You need a doctor’s official stamp of approval to make the diagnosis appear legitimate and valid. Doctors are greatly revered and trusted. Only if you tell others that a learned doctor diagnosed you with your mental illness, will it be viewed as a proven fact rather than a mere opinion. So even though psychiatrists don’t use any medical knowledge when making diagnoses, they do have MD degrees, and that’s enough.
Furthermore, for centuries psychiatrists have been designated by society to be the supreme authorities over several key areas: They decide who is insane and should be involuntarily committed and forcibly sedated. They also determine who is mentally unfit and should lose their right to manage their own lives. Perhaps these longstanding power roles have culturally imbued psychiatrists with an aura of superhuman capabilities which makes all their opinions far more important than a regular person’s. The common belief that psychiatrists have the intimidating ability to read and manipulate people’s minds may enhance this aura. Without necessarily being consciously aware of the aura, people may sense it, fear it, and be awed by it. They may thus be particularly likely to unquestioningly, submissively accept whatever their omniscient psychiatrist diagnoses and commands.
Psychiatry’s aura of superiority may be what enabled it to convince people that mental illnesses are real physical illnesses, even though they’re opposites: First psychiatry constructed a fantasy about emotional distress being a medically-treatable disease caused by a chemical imbalance or brain anomaly.Then it turned it into a reality just by proclaiming it to be true. It didn’t matter that 50 years of intensive research never found any chemical imbalances or brain anomalies. Nor did it matter that antidepressants were proven to be mere placebos(1). When psychiatry says something is true, that makes it true, no matter how illogical. And this isn’t the first time this was done: The diagnosis of hysteria was taken seriously for many centuries. It was another example of emotional distress being unfoundedly declared to be a medical condition. This time it was said to be caused by a wandering uterus, and the treatment was to coax it back into place(2).
Psychiatry would lose its power over people if its aura was removed, because nothing would be left but smoke and mirrors. People would lose faith in it (just as happened to the Wizard of Oz when his curtain was removed, revealing that he wasn’t a higher being but just a regular human). Psychiatry’s customers would then realize that they’re not defective and helpless as their doctor oppressively insists. They’d see that they’re actually capable of thinking for themselves in order to devise adaptive ways to solve their own problems. (The tin man, scarecrow, and lion made the same realization after their wizard was shown to be a fraud.) If this ever happens, then people will no longer feel compelled to follow the yellow brick road to a doctor’s office to have their painful feelings medicalized.
1. Kirsch, I. “The Emperor’s New Drugs: Exploding The Antidepressant Myth”, Basic Books, New York, 2010.
2. Wellesley, M “A Load Of Ballokis” London Review of Books, 23 April 2018.
Lawrence Kelmenson has practiced psychiatry for 32 years, working with children, adults, and families. He graduated medical school from State University of New York, and completed psychiatric residency training at Cornell. He then became staff psychiatrist, and later medical director, of Craig House Hospital in Beacon, New York until 2000, and has since conducted a psychotherapy-based private practice in Cold Spring, New York.
Songwriter: Bradley James Skistimas
Publisher: Seven Places Music (ASCAP)
Label: Baste Records
Lyrics:
Well there ain’t no rock and roll Ever since they sold out Rolling Stone All the words that were sung in the past Will never feel the same when we’re looking back All the old men sitting in their make up chair With their gold record walls really couldn’t care All the fame feels the same when you’ve had enough So they don’t bother standing up
And there ain’t no peace and love Ever since the sixties kids grew up All the drugs and the girls and the cash After all the songs it was gone in a flash All those bad boy rebels and the attitude What a show, we didn’t know that none of it was true Only self serve anti-establishment We were all so innocent
Because there ain’t no rock and roll
And the blues has lost it’s soul
All the punks gave the man control And every pop star’s bought and sold No, there ain’t no Ain’t no rock and roll
And there ain’t no Joni, no Bob No one stuck around for their protest job All the stars and the big pharma whores Shilling for a check from their corporate chores All the actors say what they’re paid to say While the fans take the blame All the once cool fools that were me and you Well they pushed us all away
Because there ain’t no rock and roll
And the blues has lost it’s soul
All the punks gave the man control And every pop star’s bought and sold No, there ain’t no Ain’t no rock and roll
And there ain’t no Boss, no Queen Never was a rage against the damn machine No there ain’t no fighter in the foo No more rockin’ in those free world shoes All the high strung Neil Young wannabes Yea their silence has been deafening All the suits lick the boots of the government What they sang they never meant
Because there ain’t no rock and roll
And the blues has lost it’s soul
All the punks gave the man control And every pop star’s bought and sold No, there ain’t no Ain’t no rock and roll
The narrative of an Anthrax bioweapons attack is again in the “news cycle” and remains prominent on the CDC website.
A November 15, 2023 CDC news brief updated advice for healthcare providers in preventing and treating anthrax should a “wide-area aerosol release of B. anthracis” occur.
CDC has classified B. anthracis as a “category A” organism of concern because an attack with B. anthracis would happen via aerosolized exposure. How does the CDC know that any attack would be in an aerosolized form? Does the CDC have a crystal ball? The CDC did seem to know the problems of the COVID19 vaccines before they were distributed:
Americans need to be prepared for the possibility that they may feel a little unwell after they get a coronavirus vaccine, if one is authorized. – CDC Prevention Advisory Committee, November 23, 2020.
Appearance of small welts or sores that are itchy.
Confusion or dizziness
Cough
The sore developing into a blister that turns into a skin ulcer.
Nausea and loss of appetite ( if the infection is through ingestion).
Swelling in the neck area.
Headache & fatigue
Sweats
Shortness of breath
Diarrhea accompanied by severe abdominal pain.
If exposed to the CDC anthrax antigen, the CDC recommends Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP), suggesting immediate vaccination and antimicrobial therapy (Ciprofloxacin and Doxycycline are first-line options). The CDC says a new and improved anthrax vaccine became available in 2019. However, on July 20, 2023, the U.S. FDA approved a neweranthrax adjuvanted vaccine, Cyfendus for use in adults 18-65 exposed to anthrax as a countermeasure. Where there is one countermeasure there are always more.
A 2000 report published in Experimental and Molecular Pathology titled, “Antibodies to Squalene in Gulf War Syndrome,” described symptoms including severe headaches, nausea, muscular pain, joint swelling, short term memory loss, night sweats, depression. Autoimmune conditions ranged from fibromyalgia, lymphadenopathy, Lupus, Multiple Sclerosis, autoimmune thyroid disease, chronic fatigue syndrome to malar rashes, chronic headaches, non-healing skin lesions, musculoskeletal disorders (ALS), among others.
US District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that it was illegal for the federal government to mandate anthrax vaccinations. Judge Sullivan banned the Pentagon from forcing military personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, and part of Asia and Africa to get the anthrax shots without their prior consent. The military could not require the vaccine until the FDA approved it for the specific use of inhaled anthrax. – Hill & Ponton Disability Attorneys, Dec. 2020, updated
In general, adjuvants, such as squalene are added to vaccines (flu shots) to hyper-stimulate the immune system. They are designed to stimulate antibody creation and remain in the body for a prolonged reaction. The new class of adjuvants are comprised of phospholipids (surfactants), which also happen to make up the membrane of every human cell. Using recombinant DNA technology, phospholipids are combined with recombinant proteins and engineered in a way to be structurally and functionally identical to their natural counterparts. As such, the body can create antibodies to its own tissues in an attack of the Self.
A Little Anthrax History
B. anthracis (anthrax) was discovered in 1875 by the German physician and one of the founders of microbiology, Robert Koch (1843-1910) who developed Koch’s Postulates. He also discovered the deadly toxins cholera and tuberculosis, then was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1905.
Anthrax had also been produced in a Russian lab since before the 1920s. In May 1926, the first report of a new anthrax strain with enhanced virulence was filed, resulting in a 100% increase in mortality. By 1930, Germany had a bioweapons facility. By 1935, the Russians had developed a human anthrax vaccine.
Today, many countries have developed weaponized anthrax through genetic manipulation using bacteria and insects. According to the NIH, Russia created anthrax by introducing an “alien gene” into the highly toxic Baccillus Anthracis bacteria. The new NIH version of anthrax is resistant to antibiotics.
They used an alien gene and genetically altered bacterial immunological properties to produce a deadly pathogen to Humans. Where did they get an alien gene from? A UFO crash perhaps? Negotiations with other beings? Your guess is as good as mine….I found a patent with a method for removing plasma (DNA) from Bacillus anthracis bacteria using CRISPR/Cas9 system and it’s owned by China. This is how they get Mycoplasmas.
— Ariana Love, ND Nov. 23, 2021
The process that began before 1950 is called Cross-Species-Genomics. Its purpose? “To generate disease models.” In other words, to produce the deadly biowarfare agent for use in vaccines. The science reveals that deadly agents do not cross the species barrier unless genetic modification is used in a lab setting. A 2002 study in the Journal Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology states:
The assessment of species barriers has relied on the development of a clinical disease in inoculated animals. On this basis there is a highly efficient barrier limiting transmission…
After 1979, the Soviet’s preferred a bioweapon of inhaled anthraxdue to undifferentiated symptoms that resemble a cold or flu. This version was genetically attenuated sometime before 2006 by the NIH.
British SIS intelligence reports from 1924 confirmed the use of anthrax shells (with a capacity of 2 liters/shell), bombs, and mortars.
In the April 2021 Journal Nature, the study, “Adjuvantng a subunit COVID-19 vaccine to induce protective immunity,” the reference to Alhydrogel is listed under Adjuvant Formulations and immunization:
Alum (Alhydrogel 2%) was purchased from Croda Healthcare (batch 0001610348)
According to a 2021 study in Molecular Cell, Anthrax is developed to “regulate gene expression by binding to DNA sequences and modulating transcriptional activity through their effector domains.” So Anthrax has more than one function.
The reason to be aware of any possible aerosolized anthrax bacterium spore release is to know the natural remedies that exist so you have a choice between consenting to an experimental vaccines and prescribed pharmaceuticals or natural options.
As a disclaimer, nothing suggested in this article is intended to replace consulting with a medical expert if you have a medical problem. Everyone should take responsibility for his or her own health and do your own research. That said, the following herbs and foods are commonly known remedies to help enhance the immune system, your built-in defense system, and can be incorporated in or with meals.
Garlic displays potent anti- anthracis activity, according to the 2021 Journal of Ethnopharmacology. So start thinking of your favorite garlic dishes to create in the kitchen. Alternatively, you can make a tea. Peel and crush into a fine paste with water. Mix paste in two glasses of warm water. Drink in two doses: morning, before bedtime. Continue for 10 days.
Oil of Oregano
Homeopathic anthracinum – super-diluted and potentized extracts of the anthrax bacteria itself to boost immunity on a nanoscale.
Herbs:
Wintergreen essential oil – for discomfort in bones, muscles and joints. Add a few drops to olive oil and apply to the soles of the feet. You can also add 3-5 drops to a bath.
White Fir – oxygenates with antiseptic properties known for us in disease caused by bacteria. Mix essential oil with olive oil or use essential oil as aromatherapy.
Thyme and Melissa (lemon balm) – Fill a capsule with 12 drops of Thyme and 1 drop of Melissa.
Spruce – essential oil has oxygenating properties with support to the nervous and respiratory systems.
Idaho Tansy – stimulates the immune system. Can be applied topically against infection or on wounds.
Savory and Oregano oil – both herbs are potent anti-microbials.
Astragalus root powder Chaparral power Tea – Mix 2 teaspoons of each herb in 2 glasses of warm water. Strain and add organic honey. Drink twice during the day.
Echinacea – boil 2 tsp. root powder in two glasses of water. Strain. Drink twice daily for a week or more.
Hey, Larken Rose here, and whether you completely despised Donald Trump or totally adored Donald Trump, you’ll probably be offended by this video either way. Because the two sides, the sides that are going, ‘Rah, rah, rah’, put him on the throne. And the side that’s going, ‘anybody but him on the throne’ are falling for the exact same game. And it’s worth explaining the phenomenon and how, oddly enough, both sides are examples of — they’re driven by good intentions but they’re driven into playing an inherently, immoral and destructive game known as politics.
Now the thing that the leftist media just has complete tantrums about is the same thing that makes a lot of people like Donald Trump. It isn’t principle because he doesn’t have any. It isn’t being pro-freedom because he isn’t.
It’s the fact that he doesn’t appear as a normal politician. He speaks with disdain and disrespect towards a bunch of power-happy psychos. And lots of people like that and go ‘Rah, rah, rah’ about that, as well they should.
I think, accidentally, the best thing Trump is doing is tearing down the apparent respectability of the entire system. I don’t at all mind that he talks down to them and constantly insults them. What’s kind of hysterical is that anybody imagines that he’s any different. He isn’t. He’s one more clown in the clown show.
But I wanted to at least give a little sympathy to the people falling for the Trump pitch because most of them are doing a common thing that a lot of people did. I remember doing it myself with Ross Perot. It shows how old I am. Basically imagining into his words things that I wanted him to believe in. Things, agendas that I wanted him to push, whether it matched or not.
So lots of people love Trump because they picture him as an outsider, which he’s not. They picture him as anti-establishment, which he’s not. And they hallucinate that he’s in favor of freedom, which he isn’t.
But the fact that he talks down to them and is insulting, and is sort of funny in the process, and you so rarely see that among politicians, that excites a bunch of people. Like, ‘Yeah, you tell ’em!’. And they’re not — they’re just emotionally riled up because they’re so sick of the lukewarm tomato soup BS crew — that both parties have cranked out as politicians for decades and decades and decades and decades — that by comparison, they think, here’s Trump, he says it like it
Well, no, he doesn’t, but he says it bluntly and insultingly. And that’s refreshing to a lot of people, which is kind of weird and kind of understandable. Because the fake respectability that politics has received for so long, including in the mainstream or formerly mainstream media, is sickening. Like we’re supposed to treat these people like, oh, there are lords and masters and they’re above reproach. And no, there are a bunch of corrupt, lying psychos. And the fact that Trump points that out and says so, gets a lot of people excited. And then they want to believe that he is fundamentally different, even though he’s not and he’s never given any reason to think he’s fundamentally different. Because he isn’t.
He openly adores literal dictators. He single-handedly pushed the worst federal gun control in my lifetime by telling the lawyers, not even going through Congress, something that conservatives would have flipped out if a Democrat president did this. Which is ‘I’m just going to tell the lawyers rewrite the definition of machine gun and make it include bump stocks. So now I’m just making several hundred thousand Americans into felons overnight by changing the wording of a regulation. Because I said so.’ That’s what Trump did. And if Biden had done that, all of the conservatives would have flipped out. But their own favorite clown did it. So they’re like, ‘Well, he was bullied into it or he had to or it’s not that serious. It’s just bump stocks.’ They make excuses for it, which is exactly what the other side does.
So if you’re going ‘Rah, rah, rah’ for Trump, because you think he’s anti-establishment, I commend you for being anti-establishment. I can’t commend you for being very observant because he’s not anti-establishment. He appointed all the same warmongers. He appointed all the same bankers, all the same parasitic control freaks. And he talks a little bit different.
Donald Trump IS professional wrestling. And he’s literally been involved in professional wrestling. He was the thing that they brought in to get attention back on politics because nobody cared. You have a bunch of lukewarm, boring politicians on both sides. Nobody was paying attention. Nobody cared. Voter rolls were going way down. They needed to shake it up by fabricating a fake drama.
So in comes Donald Trump with all his bluster and bravado and arrogance — and just all the qualities — including the ones that were sort of good? — which is that he dared to bash the system. I mean, he did it sort of incoherently and inconsistently. But at least he showed them, he showed them libtards by calling out how horrible they really are. Yeah, good for him.
Here’s the problem. Literally, every single historical tyrant you can think of, rose to power by bashing an injustice that was there before them. And in almost every case, it was a real injustice. You know, Hitler was right to condemn the — like the Treaty of Versailles and the way Germany had been treated after World War I and stuff like that. That was a just complaint. And that’s why people said, ‘Rah, rah, rah, we want him’. They didn’t say ‘Rah, rah, rah, we want him to kill a bunch of people or, like, bring in fascism and violently dominate everyone’. They went ‘Rah, rah, rah’ because they were so sick of what was happening, that if somebody came along who pretended to be something different, they didn’t bother looking closely at what he was actually proposing. Well, as long as he’s against that thing that we all don’t like.
And the same thing with the czars in Russia and the Soviet Union, and Mao and the feudal lords or whatever you want to call them in China, and the injustice there. We’re going to bring in communism to save the day. Every single time tyrants come to power, it’s because they’re bashing, usually rightfully bashing, some past injustice, or present injustice when they’re in the process of bashing it. That’s all Trump did.
And people were so sick of the liberal collectivist establishment that they decided, well, the enemy of my enemy must be my friend. And they didn’t bother. It was so much wishful thinking. They didn’t bother looking closely and realize Trump is literally a New York liberal. And he’s been pretty open about that. He’s literally buddies with the Clintons and that whole crowd. And he knows how to put on a show, à la professional wrestling, literally being involved in professional wrestling.
He knows how to put on a show to get people’s attention by bashing his enemies — the ones he pretends are his enemies and totally aren’t. ‘Lock her up. Lock her up.” Then the moment he’s elected. ‘Well, she’s been through enough.’ He never meant a word of it. He didn’t care. He’s buddies with them. He puts on a show and you fall for it because you’re eager to have somebody in power who’s against the establishment. So eager that you’ll ignore everything he actually says and actually does.
And what he proposed and did was slight tinkerings with the authoritarian game, adding some here, pretending to oppose authoritarianism over here — to the point where people are going, ‘Rah, rah, rah’, he’s putting tariffs on a bunch of things. ‘Yeah, he’s really sticking it to China.’
The US government can’t tax China. Do you understand that? The US government cannot tax China.
If there is trade between people in China and the US, they can tax the transaction going to the American or coming from the American. Tariffs are taxes on Americans. Always. You can’t tax foreign countries. Wnd you can say, ‘Well, it’s an import tax’. Yeah, who’s importing it? The people here! You import something from China when you’re already here. To stick a tax on that or to stick attacks on exports, you’re taxing Americans.
So you had a bunch of people going, ‘Rah, rah, rah, hooray for Trump because he’s taxing us more’. And they didn’t recognize that, because they were so into the mentality of ‘at least he’s anti-establishment and he’s against China and he’s against Russia and he’s against the libtards’. And no, he’s just one more person playing the game. And that’s why Trump is Trump. It’s because he is a very good bullshitter. Well, I can’t even say he’s very good at that. He’s just convincing enough to have gotten his way in a lot of different ways throughout his life, and to dupe a bunch of people into thinking he’s pro-freedom.
What has he said that’s pro-freedom? ‘I believe in taking guns first and going through due process second.’ What would your reaction have been if Biden said, ‘Yeah, we’re going to disarm you first and then maybe we’ll do due process second’? All conservatives would have flipped out. Donald Trump said that, live and in front of a bunch of cameras. What was your excuse? And that was talking about the red flag laws where, ‘Oh, some anonymous somebody said this person might be a danger. Let’s send in armed thugs of the state to violently disarm that person and then later we’ll go through due process and see if it was at all necessary or justified.’ That was the context. That is 100% anti-constitution, anti-second amendment and pro-dictatorship. Where you start by forcibly disarming people. Later we’ll decide whether we should have.
And so many conservatives go, ‘Well, yeah, but the other side is worse’. And that’s the problem. If you’re not thinking in terms of principles, then all they have to do to get you to cheer for a warmongering power-happy psycho is run him against the slightly worse warmongering power-happy psycho. Or what appears to you as slightly worse. And that’s why people fell for it.
And so the good news is that the enthusiasm behind Trump demonstrated sort of an inherent rebelliousness in Americans. They didn’t want the established –the establishment. They didn’t want the status quo. And here was a guy coming out and pretending to bash it. They were, ‘Rah, rah, rah. Yeah, you tell him.’ And there was so much wishful thinking. They didn’t bother to look closely at what he was actually doing, which was just more of the same. It’s more of what the puppets have always done. Authoritarian garbage.
Yeah, he kept the bombing going. He kept the war going. ‘Well, he didn’t start any new wars.’ Like how far are you going to stretch to pretend he’s a good person who believes in good things.
It’s like, oh, well, yeah, that carjacker, he’s still stealing cars, but he’s only stealing cars from the same people he stole from before. So it’s good. He’s awesome. He’s a great improvement. We support that carjacker. That’s the equivalent of what Trump supporters did.
So for Trump supporters, I would say, don’t give up your rebelliousness. Don’t give up your resentment and hatred for the establishment and the status quo because they totally deserve it. Don’t give up your resentment for the socialist BS that they’re trying to impose on you. But instead of just letting your emotions carry you away, look who you’re actually supporting. And ultimately, what that comes down to is, don’t support anybody being on the throne.
If you believe in freedom, bickering over which jackboot’s going to be on your throat or which clown is going to sit on the throne, that’s not freedom. That’s not in the direction of freedom at all. Your brain isn’t even in the direction of freedom. If the entire discussion you can comprehend is which crook should we put on the throne? The only pro-freedom answer is ‘none’. Don’t have there be a throne.
And I know that’s passed what most people want to think about right now. But in the case of Trump, he doesn’t even do a… like Reagan did a really good job in his rhetoric of bashing authoritarianism, and coming right out and saying government is not the solution, government is the problem. And saying all sorts of cool things like that. And then whether he knew it ahead of time or he was sort of cajoled or tricked into it, he supported the insane evil completely unconstitutional war on drugs.
So gee whiz, one of the best spokespeople for limited government ever, to ever make it to the White House, increased authoritarian domination. And so did Trump. And so will everybody who ever gets there. Because you’re not going to get anywhere near there if you actually, in principle, oppose authoritarianism.
And so it’s sad to watch so many people’s hopes and enthusiasm be thrown into the Trump camp as if that is the path to freedom. No, it’s not. Look more carefully. Don’t support what you blindly wish he was. See what he actually is. See what he’s actually done. See what he’s actually said. Watch what he did in his first for years in there. And then recognize that you’re not pro-freedom.
And the fact that you’re zealously against Biden, because he’s a senile old socialist psychopath — good, keep being against that. And be against that in principle, which also means being against Trump, who also push the free handouts that caused the inflation. Yes. And he did it first. And he was smart enough to do it when he knew the inflation would hit after he wasn’t there anymore. Trump did it, then Biden did it, then the inflation hit. Trump was pushing for bigger socialist handouts after that ridiculous debacle. He was also with his, with his lispy… he was pushing the same crap.
It was under his administration that that slimy little troll Fauci was pushing the propaganda. What did he do? Well, you half the time, sort of pretended, to almost be against it. That cannot be. You can’t make it that easy to trick you into cheering for your own subjugation and victimization and then be baffled by why we aren’t free.
We’re not free because you fall for crap like that. You think Trump is pro-freedom when he hasn’t even pretended to be. And Vivek Ramaswamy, however the hell you say his name, he’s the next salesman of pro-freedom authoritarianism. He’s actually way better at it than Trump as far as trying to express actual principles, but he doesn’t have any. He’s absolutely a statist authoritarian. And he’s doing the same thing of ‘I’m going to bash certain forms of authoritarianism that I think you’re against and you’re opposed to’. So you go, ‘Rah, rah, rah. Put him on the throne.’ And then you’re sort of going to downplay or ignore it when he mentions all the authoritarian domination that he’s in favor of. You’re bickering over what style of fascism you want imposed on you, instead of thinking from principle.
So as for your rah, rah, rah, anti-establishment — good, keep doing that. Only actually do it. Actually do it consistently. Not by supporting Trump, another puppet in the clown show, but by actually supporting principles that don’t match what any politician is ever going to tell you.
If you’re still looking for a political solution, you’re doomed.
So having bashed the Trump supporters, let me focus on the political left and Trump derangement syndrome. And that totally is a thing where they completely flip out. And the irony is they’re flipping out at somebody pretending to be anti-establishment who isn’t. So both sides are pretending that, ‘Ah, this is this radical, extreme change.’ No, it isn’t. Not in any way, shape or form was Trump radical on anything ever. He was this lukewarm, you know, finger to the wind, constantly seeing what would get him approval and him praise and him money. That’s all he has ever cared about.
And anyone paying any attention should be able to see that Trump cares about Trump. Nope, that’s the whole list. Just Trump. That’s all he gives a shit about is himself, his glory, his power, his money. He makes that as obvious as anybody could possibly make it. Like, could the narcissism and ego be any more obvious and blatant than the way he openly talks in front of the cameras. And if you’re trying to imagine him to be an advocate for principles instead of just an advocate for Trump, that’s just your imagination. That’s just your wishful thinking.
But let’s get back to the opponents of Trump who completely flip out at things that aren’t even significantly different. And they have to do that. They have to have tantrums at Trump because what are they even going to pretend to be for? Biden? This senile old corrupt racist? By the way, there’s way more of a basis to call Biden a racist than Trump. Like by a lot. If you look at the legislative history of what Biden has actually voted for and pushed, yeah, there’s a whole lot more basis to actually call him racist than, ‘oh, Trump has lots of white supporters. So he must be a white supremacist’ or some stupid logic like that. I have plenty of complaints against Trump, but him being a racist is like the dumbest.
That’s just the accusation they throw at everybody they don’t like. ‘You’re racist and a fascist.’ He is kind of a fascist and he openly adores dictators. So there’s that. But the racist part, you just made up.
Biden, there’s even less of an attempt to pretend he has any principles. He doesn’t believe in anything except the political machine. It’s all he’s ever been. He’s a cog in the wheel, in that giant machine of evil domination and parasitism known as the federal government. That is what Biden is. And they’ve gotten away with it so long that they take corruption… They’re not even trying anymore. Like Hunter and the stuff he’s been doing. Just so blatantly obvious. Like they didn’t even try to hide it because they thought they’d get away with it. And they knew, probabl, that the media was going to cover for them, which they did. The media lied their asses off to try to cover corruption.
And that’s the dead giveaway. Whether you’re talking about the media or just leftists in general supporting Biden, if they can do things that obviously corrupt and evil. and you’re going to look the other way because ‘well that other guy is even worse’, not only are you just as bad as the people who fell for Trump’s BS, you’re the same thing. You’re the exact same thing.
Trump supporters and Biden supporters are mirror images of each other. They’re both supporting old crooked, slimy, corrupt, power-happy, half senile, slime balls. And their excuse is, ‘Well, the other one is even worse’. Well gee, how did we get to a point where, like, two of the worst people in the world are the choices for president of the United States? And before that, it was Hillary versus Trump.
How do you think we get to the point where 300 and some million people are told to choose between the wicked witch of the west in Hillary and this egomaniac, arrogant lying piece of boop, Trump? Why is that what ended up? Because you keep falling for it. You keep voting for corrupt crooks and doing the comparison game and saying, well he’s not as bad as the other guy, so I’m going to vote for him.
Now, what I’m actually scared of is someone coming along who doesn’t suck at propaganda. And Trump is good at propaganda for an unthinking, emotion driven, angry audience that’s just so mad at the left, which I can understand. You should be left. They’re evil in doing evil things. But they’re so emotionally angry that they’re like, ‘Anybody who’s on our side say how bad they are. Good, you have our support’. Okay. Well, who is he? What does he believe? Well, he’s a self-absorbed narcissist who doesn’t believe in anything except himself. Yeah, that’s going to turn out great.
But the liberals who are just constantly having tantrums, and like obsessed with January 6th. It’s one of the funniest and saddest things I’ve ever seen. ‘January 6th, oh we have to have hearings about it.’ It was a tantrum. It was a frat party tantrum. And they’re talking of this, ‘Oh, this was an attempt to overthrow the government’. No, when there’s an attempt to overthrow the government, you’ll know it because they’ll show up with guns. And they won’t stay between the velvet ropes. But they have to blow it ridiculously out of proportion. Because what else do they have? It’s like, well, our guy is, we don’t know what he thinks. You can’t form a complete sentence. So there’s a problem with that. And even before that, there was never a principle. It was just he, he changed his positions on everything. You can go back and see the videos of Biden floundering on literally every single thing — because he’s going to say whatever he thinks will get him votes and get him public support because that’s what politicians do, including Trump.
So the political left, all they have is hatred of Trump. That’s all they have to hang on to. And it’s not like they know that on a conscious level. But, subconsciously, none of them are like Biden, he’s so brave and principled and he really cares. Nobody believes that. Nobody believes that. Biden is never… And same thing with Kamala, that babbling, cackling imbecile. Nobody believes she gives a crap about anybody but herself. Like, they’re not even putting up good actors in this puppet show anymore. And some people are still falling for it. Thankfully a lot of people aren’t.
Now let me try to give a little bit more credit to the political left, which, man, that takes a serious effort sometimes. But they look at Trump and say, ‘Oh, he’s going to start World War III’. It’s like, well, we’re on the way to World War III and who’s is in the White House now? When people are that scared — like when people are told over and over again, he’s a racist and a fascist and all these horrible things and they don’t bother to check — you can see the outcome. There’s tons of conservative pundits who do interviews with angry liberals and go like, ‘Okay, can you give me example of his racism?’. Dead silence. No example. They have no idea. They just heard other people say it about them. And that’s been true of the political left forever. And now they throw the label, racist and fascist at everybody. I mean, look at Trudeau up in Canada, which is just laughably stupid. ‘So, you don’t like us destroying your lives? Well then you’re misogynist and a racist and fascist’ to the truckers. What are you talking about? We just didn’t want you ruining our livelihoods. How did that get — and how did like homophobe get in there? Like, yeah, you must hate gay people because you want to earn a living. Okay. Not sure how many flying leaps of logic it takes to get that from there to there.
But they’ve become so desperate it’s ridiculous. All they have is throwing the labels. The thing is their followers believe it. When they get terrified. And so you get ridiculous spectacles like the Antifa, which is short for anti-fascist, which is kind of ironic because they’re the most fascist movement there is in this country. Literally, ‘we’re going to violently’ — they use the exact tactics of Hitler’s brown shirts. ‘We’re going to violently attack people, try to silence anybody who disagrees with us and label them as horrible evil people’. It’s just ridiculous because they don’t think in principles either.
What I would really ask people to do, and I know it’s a big ask because it requires people turning down their fricking emotions long enough to think, be clear in your own head about what it is that you actually want. What do you actually want? If policy were up to you. You’re the king on the throne now and they decided, yeah, these candidates are all horrible. They’re taking you and you’re putting on the throne. You can do whatever you want. What are you going to do? Is it freedom? Is it using the violence of the state to control people and limit what they can say and do? Is it using the violence of the state to rob everybody to fund a welfare state or to fund a huge military and a police force?
Whatever you want to do to the people, if you had the power, that’s what they’re going to do to you. Because you’re not going to be the one on the throne. It’s going to be somebody else. If you supported having a throne, and the amount of power that you would have used on people, and then it gets used on you and you complain about it, you’re a giant freaking hypocrite. If you’re a Republican, you’re a giant freaking hypocrite. If you’re a Democrat, you’re a giant freaking hypocrite. Because what every single statist does is say, ‘I want government force used to impose my values and my preferences and serve my interests by way of government power’. Then the next day they’re saying, ‘Hey, no fair, they’re using government power to force their interests and their priorities and their values and their preferences on to me’. Well, gee frickin’ whiz, that’s what the game is, the game that you agreed to, the game that you supported.
And this is a point I’ve made before. I’ll end on this. There is no such thing as political corruption, or I should say it’s redundant. Political corruption is redundant. There isn’t any other kind of politics.
The people who use the violence of government and call it politics to get what they want at the expense of other people’s freedom and prosperity, they call it “a representative republic doing the will of the people”. And the people on the losing end who say, ‘Hey, that’s not what I wanted’ and ‘You’re using their violence against my interests and my values. That’s corruption!’. They’re the ones who are right.
The fact that you might be the recipient, the beneficiary, from corruption doesn’t make it not corruption. Corruption is all politics and government will ever be. It’s all it can ever be.
Fricking George Washington said it. Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force.
When you try to vote a person in, it’s because you want them to use force to force your agenda and your preferences onto the rest of the world. And then you act all shocked and offended when they do the same thing to you. And if you win, you go, ‘Yeah, we’ll show them. We’ll forcibly control them’. A few years later, they win and you’re going, ‘Hey, they’re forcibly controlling us’. Shut up. Until you advocate freedom for everybody, just shut the hell up.
If you’re supporting Trump, you’re supporting authoritarian mass extortion and domination. If you’re supporting Biden, you’re supporting mass authoritarian extortion and domination.
If you’re on the losing end of the game, tough crap, you deserve it because you legitimized that game. You said it was okay. You said you wanted that. You just wanted the violence used in a different direction so that you’d win and they would lose, instead of them winning and you losing.
The thing is, there’s only one way for humanity to win, which is stop advocating violent authoritarian domination. And that means do not support Trump. Do not support Biden. Do not support Vivek or DeSantis or any other clown that says, ‘If you give me power, I will do the right thing with it’. No, they won’t ever. Have they ever? No. And you can point to a thing. ‘Well, he did slightly less abuse’. Oh, goody. We got a slave master who only whips us half as much as the slave master before. Is that any closer to freedom? No. On a practical level. Okay, we’re suffering a little bit less. Rah, rah, rah. That doesn’t make you free. Just means your master is a little bit nicer to you.
And this is something that a lot of people, Trump supporters, Biden supporters, everybody else, they need to recognize that their own goodness is being used to trick them into supporting evil with them as the victim of it. You are supporting your own extortion and subjugation every time you vote, every time you rah, rah, rah, for any political candidate. I don’t care what party. And it’s really frustrating to watch.
Once you’re outside of the game and you recognize how it works, it’s frustrating to watch a bunch of well-intentioned people on both sides, screaming at the top of their lungs how much their guy needs to wield basically unlimited power to boss people around and take their stuff. And they don’t get that the politicians are just sitting back, they’re laughing their asses off, probably hanging out and having parties together like Trump and the Clintons used to. They don’t care. They’re both getting your money. They’re both controlling you while you bicker and hate each other.
And if you actually want something different, Trump isn’t it. Biden certainly isn’t it. If you actually want something different, you have to be able to comprehend something different than bickering over which clown is going to be on the throne for the next how many years.
So yeah, if you want freedom, you have to change what’s inside your own head. Because if you’re playing politics, you don’t even want freedom. You’re not even advocating freedom yourself. And if you expect government to advocate freedom when none of the people voting for it, including you, believe in freedom, you’re going to be waiting a while — like forever.
So I guess that’s about it. By the way, if you want sort of a rude slap in the face, fun allegory, fun and disturbing and traumatic allegory of how the political system actually works and what people are falling for, I highly recommend you watch The Jones Plantation at jonesplantationfilm.com.
I’m not saying either of you are bad people. I mean, yeah, there’s some bad people out there. Most Republicans, most Democrats, they mean well. They think they’re doing the right thing and they’re empowering evil in the process without even knowing it.
So my question to you is, do you care enough to pause long enough to reexamine your own assumptions and your own words and your own beliefs and your own actions to see if you might be accidentally empowering evil? Because you are.
The virus never yet’s been found
Yet theories based on naught abound
Handy tool, device of ghouls
Another fearful trick to fool
Big bang too, a deft device
Explaining cause with bad advice
“God” works well too, to ‘splain away
With Myst’ry kept at deft abay
To understand is just control
The ego knot, the little troll
Thrives on knowing this and that
That nuisance gnat, the little brat
Show me where this self resides
Lest this contraction be but pride
Illusion traps are woven spells
Made real by other ‘magined selves
Hard to believe? Of course it is
That selfsame self within you lives
Programmed, reinforced at will
Behold our whirled, and hence the ill
Nature not, it’s doing fine
A mirror of the deft design
But humans? Man, what happened here
We bit the apple – now the fear
We can’t let go and trust what Is
Everything is now our biz
The hyperactive fearful self
Will not let go, and that’s called hell
Zen Gardner is an impactful and controversial author and speaker, whose personal story has caused no small stir amongst the entrenched alternative pundits. His book You Are the Awakening met rave reviews and is available on amazon.com. You Are the Awakening examines the dynamics of the awakening to a more conscious awareness of who we are and why we are here – dynamics which are much different from the programmed approach of this world we were born into. Zen Gardner does not currently offer public contact details.
When I discovered this study several years ago and wrote the following extensive piece on it, the study was a bolt from the blue, a complete devastating shocker.
It still is.
It is more than enough to topple the whole vaccine empire.
Honoring the work of the study co-author, Dr. Antonietta Gatti, Catherine Austin Fitts wrote, “Not long after the publication of this revolutionary study, tax authorities raided and investigated Dr. Gatti’s and [her husband] Dr. Montanari’s laboratory and private home—an all too usual method of intimidation.”
THAT was the “scientific follow-up.”
In a nutshell, Dr. Gatti’s 2017 study showed an incredible amount of contamination, in a whole host of traditional vaccines. The contamination was in the form of tiny nanoparticles, mostly metallic, and obviously highly harmful and dangerous.
Before reading my summary and analysis of that study—here is an updated communication from Dr. Gatti I received a few days ago. It describes, in a stark and disturbing fashion, what has been happening to her, her work, and her laboratory. This is chilling:
“At the end of last year, our laboratory no longer had the financial capacity to continue its research. The proceeds from the few analyzes requested by private individuals yielded enormously less than what the research cost us. Then, there were two possibilities: close everything or set up a foundation by giving away everything that belonged to us, hoping to find some sponsors. After all, all initiatives, even the most bizarre, find someone willing to contribute financially. Why not a foundation that does fundamental research on health? So, we opted for the latter choice, and the Nanodiagnostics Foundation was born.”
“But, after almost a year, not a cent has arrived. In short, no company, no private citizen, no institution is willing to contribute.”
“Many people continue to demand results and ask questions to which they have no answers from the institutions or their doctors, but, if it is a question of parting from some money, the silence is absolute.”
“It is clear that our work is a threat to billion-dollar businesses that are not exactly clear, at least for most people. For this reason, the most absurd and incredible slanders are invented to our detriment.
Not being able to dispute our scientific results, there are those who publish, usually anonymously, that we earn enormous sums of money, even giving the impression that the Foundation belongs to us, when it should be known that foundations do not belong to anyone, and no one can profit from them. And this is when we have donated everything that belonged to us, and we work for free.”
“Another tactic is trying to isolate and discredit us with lies. What the University of Bologna did a few days ago, the university where I graduated, then specialized and taught, is a small example.”
“A few months ago, that university asked us if we were willing to accept [a] student… who would prepare her graduation thesis with us. We agreed and agreed with the student on how to proceed. A few months passed, then, a couple of weeks ago, when the University authorities realized that the student would work with us, they sent us a message of a few lines in which they informed us that what we do (and which I had taught at that university) was of no interest to them (which, in a way, is true, although very far from the mission of the University). Needless to say, my letter to the Rector asking for explanations remained unanswered.”
“And it is also useless to say how difficult it is to publish the results that we continue to obtain, and which are not liked by those who financially maintain the medical journals, on whose scientific nature I prefer not to comment. For twice the Editor after the publication of an article (on vaccines and on SIDS) asked to retreat [sic] them. Only the work of the Robert Kennedy Jr lawyers stopped the request.”
“[Paper:] Novel chemical-physical autopsy investigation in sudden infant death and sudden intrauterine unexplained death syndromes” (click here)
“Just for your information, in spite of all difficulties, we are now dealing with very critical topics: spontaneously aborted babies, analysis of the brains of infants who died in cots (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, aka SIDS), analysis of what falls from the sky (e.g., recently hail never seen before), food, etc. All this can only be fought with personal discredit.”
“We haven’t had any visits from the regime for a long time. For them it is enough to monitor our computers and phones. The rest is done by ‘volunteers’. As for other scientists, no one deals with our topics in full. It must be realized that doing so represents a risk that is obviously preferable not to take.”
“As long as we can manage, we will continue to work. If, however, no sponsor materializes (idle chatter and empty promises are not only useless: they are a waste of time,) we will have no other option than to declare defeat, a defeat that belongs to the whole world and, above all, to the children who do not deserve the fate they are suffering.”
“…I give some details of our Foundation Nanodiagnostics (click here)…”
IF YOU CAN, PLEASE DONATE TO Dr. Gatti’s vital work at the above website.
Here is my original article on Dr. Gatti’s vaccine-contamination study:
Dangerous nano-particles contaminating many vaccines: groundbreaking study
“The Lung,” Second Edition: “Nanoparticles [are] comparable in size to subcellular structures…enabling their ready incorporation into biological systems.”
A 2017 study of 44 types of 15 traditional vaccines, manufactured by leading global companies, has uncovered a very troubling and previously unreported fact:
The vaccines are heavily contaminated with a variety of nanoparticles.
Many of the particles are metals.
We’re talking about traditional vaccines, such as HPV, flu, Swine Flu, Hepatitis B, MMR, DPT, tetanus, etc.
To begin to understand some of the destructive effects of contaminating nanoparticles in vaccines, here is the groundbreaking 2017 study:
International Journal of Vaccines & Vaccination
Volume 4 Issue 1
January 23 2017
New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination
Antonietta M Gatti and Stefano Montanari
(Paper archived here and here)
“The analyses carried out show that in all samples checked vaccines contain non biocompatible and bio-persistent foreign bodies which are not declared by the Producers, against which the body reacts in any case. This new investigation represents a new quality control that can be adopted to assess the safety of a vaccine. Our hypothesis is that this contamination is unintentional, since it is probably due to polluted components or procedures of industrial processes (e.g. filtrations) used to produce vaccines…”
Are the study authors leaving the door open to the possibility that the contamination is intentional?
“The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us. The inorganic particles identified are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable, that means that they are biopersistent and can induce effects that can become evident either immediately close to injection time or after a certain time from administration. It is important to remember that particles (crystals and not molecules) are bodies foreign to the organism and they behave as such. More in particular, their toxicity is in some respects different from that of the chemical elements composing them, adding to that toxicity…they induce an inflammatory reaction.”
“After being injected, those microparticles, nanoparticles and aggregates can stay around the injection site forming swellings and granulomas…But they can also be carried by the blood circulation, escaping any attempt to guess what will be their final destination…As happens with all foreign bodies, particularly that small, they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic because most of those particles cannot be degraded. Furthermore, the protein-corona effect…due to a nano-bio-interaction…can produce organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable way…It is impossible not to add that particles the size often observed in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA…”
“In some cases, e.g. as occurs with Iron and some Iron alloys, they can corrode and the corrosion products exert a toxicity affecting the tissues…”
“Given the contaminations we observed in all samples of human-use vaccines, adverse effects after the injection of those vaccines are possible and credible and have the character of randomness, since they depend on where the contaminants are carried by the blood circulation. It is only obvious that similar quantities of these foreign bodies can have a more serious impact on very small organisms like those of children. Their presence in the muscles…could heavily impair the muscle functionality…”
“We come across particles with chemical compositions, similar to those found in the vaccines we analyzed, when we study cases of environmental contamination caused by different pollution sources. In most circumstances, the combinations detected are very odd as they have no technical use, cannot be found in any material handbook and look like the result of the random formation occurring, for example, when waste is burnt. In any case, whatever their origin, they should not be present in any injectable medicament, let alone in vaccines, more in particular those meant for infants.”
This 2017 study opens up a whole new field: the investigation of nanoparticles in vaccines where none were expected.
Such particles are not medicine in any sense of the word.
Many legal and scientific “experts” assert the State has a right to mandate vaccines and force them on the population. But these contaminating nanoparticles are not vaccines or medicines. Only a lunatic would defend the right of the State to inject them.
Here is another section from the 2017 study. Trade names of vaccines, and compositions of the nanoparticle contaminants are indicated. Take a deep breath and buckle up:
“…further presence of micro-, sub-micro- and nanosized, inorganic, foreign bodies (ranging from 100nm to about ten microns) was identified in all cases [all 44 vaccines], whose presence was not declared in the leaflets delivered in the package of the product…”
“…single particles, cluster of micro- and nanoparticles (less than 100nm) and aggregates…debris of Aluminum, Silicon, Magnesium and Titanium; of Iron, Chromium, Silicon and Calcium particles…arranged in a cluster, and Aluminum-Copper debris…in an aggregate.”
“…the particles are surrounded and embedded in a biological substrate. In all the samples analyzed, we identified particles containing: Lead (Typhym, Cervarix, Agrippal S1, Meningitec, Gardasil) or stainless steel (Mencevax, Infarix Hexa, Cervarix. Anatetall, Focetria, Agrippal S1, Menveo, Prevenar 13, Meningitec, Vaxigrip, Stamaril Pasteur, Repevax and MMRvaxPro).”
“…particles of Tungsten identified in drops of Prevenar and Infarix (Aluminum, Tungsten, Calcium chloride).”
“…singular debris found in Repevax (Silicon, Gold, Silver) and Gardasil (Zirconium).”
“Some metallic particles made of Tungsten or stainless steel were also identified. Other particles containing Zirconium, Hafnium, Strontium and Aluminum (Vivotif, Meningetec); Tungsten, Nickel, Iron (Priorix, Meningetec); Antimony (Menjugate kit); Chromium (Meningetec); Gold or Gold, Zinc (Infarix Hexa, Repevax), or Platinum, Silver, Bismuth, Iron, Chromium (MMRvaxPro) or Lead,Bismuth (Gardasil) or Cerium (Agrippal S1) were also found. The only Tungsten appears in 8/44 vaccines, while Chromium (alone or in alloy with Iron and Nickel) in 25/44. The investigations revealed that some particles are embedded in a biological substrate, probably proteins, endo-toxins and residues of bacteria. As soon as a particle comes in contact with proteic fluids, a nano-bio-interaction…occurs and a ‘protein corona’ is formed…The nano-bio-interaction generates a bigger-sized compound that is not biodegradable and can induce adverse effects, since it is not recognized as self by the body.”
“…examples of these nano-bio-interactions. Aggregates can be seen (stable composite entities) containing particles of Lead in Meningitec… of stainless steel (Iron, Chromium and Nickel…) and of Copper, Zinc and Lead in Cervarix…Similar aggregates, though in different situations (patients suffering from leukemia or cryoglobulinemia), have already been described in literature.”
I’m sure you’ve read official assurances that vaccine-manufacturing problems are “rare.” You can file those pronouncements along with other medical lies.
“I’d like the heavy metal sandwich on rye, please. And instead of serving it on a plate, can you inject it?”
Several vital questions demanding answers spring from the findings of this 2017 study:
Are some of these nanoparticles intentionally placed in vaccines?
Does the standard manufacturing process for traditional vaccines INEVITABLY lead to dangerous and destructive nano-contamination?
New nano-technology is already being employed to create several vaccines—supposedly “improving effectiveness.” In fact, the RNA COVID-19 vaccine are a nano-type. Does this manufacturing process carry with it the unavoidable effect of unleashing a hurricane of nanoparticle contaminants?
How many cases of childhood brain damage and autism can be laid at the door of nanoparticle contamination?
And finally, where are these contaminated vaccines manufactured? The above study did not attempt to discover this. It was outside the scope of the research. It’s common knowledge that, for example, in the case of the US, vaccines or their components, are, in many instances, not produced domestically. Where does this put control of safety? In, say, China, where there have been numerous pharmaceutical scandals connected to contamination of products?
The vaccine establishment does not show the slightest interest in answering any of these questions. They are busy pretending the questions don’t exist.
The way in which divide-and-rule tactics are continually used to create confusion and control has become increasingly evident since 2020.
More people than ever have woken up to the fact that these manufactured horizontal divisions within populations serve primarily to conceal the existence of a split which can be imagined as vertical.
This is the conflict between the ruled and the rulers, between the 99.9% and the 0.1%, between the dispossessed and the dispossessors, between the slaves and their slavemasters, between below and above, between the people and the power that oppresses them.
It can also, I believe, be understood as a conflict between life and death.
Let me explain why I say this.
Human beings are, as readers might have noticed, living entities. We come into being through the processes of nature.
In the same way that a tiny acorn contains the potential to become a mighty oak, we carry the seed of our potential within us: our “growing up”, from the embryo stage through childhood, adolescence and adulthood, is the self-realisation of that potential.
We are not machines. We don’t need to be “programmed” in order to become the human beings we were meant to become, any more than a tree needs to be taught how to sink roots or grow branches.
Ideal circumstances allow us to fulfil our innate potential, to be all that we could have been. In reality, of course, circumstances often thwart that potential: constant interference from external factors, such as society’s attempts to restrict and programme us to suit its requirements, can leave us stunted, lop-sided, frustrated, bitter and unfulfilled.
Because individual humans are living entities, groups of humans can also be living organisms.
The relationship between an individual and an organic community is a symbiotic one: the individual contributes his or her unique potential to the community and the community, in return, provides the structure, solidarity and support through which the invididual can find fulfilment.
Culture, of the authentic kind, is an expression of this natural belonging-together of individuals in a community.
Human beings and our communities form part of the wider living natural world on which we are dependent for our survival and well-being.
The understanding of our belonging to a larger living organism was part of human consciousness for hundreds of thousands of years.
We have also long had the idea of a level of aliveness above that of the physical world, an all-pervading sense of purpose and goodness that we can find impossible to name.
All of this then, is our living, our self-fulfillment, our freedom to flourish as intended by nature and the unnamable force of good.
Against it stands an entity, the entity of death, which has somehow taken over human society and sets out to destroy each and every aspect of our living.
It refuses to allow individuals to develop according to their own nature, either physically or mentally. From the moment we are conceived, it never stops monitoring, scanning and measuring us, pumping our bodies full of its toxic substances, hammering us into shape, crushing our desires, locking us down in its thought-prisons, chaining us to its concrete floor so that we can never soar high above its work-camp reality.
It thinks it owns us. It resents anything we do, say or think that lies outside its control. It doesn’t even like babies being born naturally and now wants to deny our biological reality and extend its cruel monopoly to the process of reproduction.
Its societies are dead things, in which its top-down control stamps out any possibility of choice, self-determination or the expression of a culture which comes from the shared human heart.
For the death-entity, the living world is nothing but a resource for the expansion of its poisonous power.
It parades its contempt for nature with its giant machines that rip into her flesh, with its vast and ugly industrial infrastructures that scar her face, with the defecations of its development that pollute and infect her organs.
And then, with a snigger, it justifies the next wave of its destruction with the lie that it wants to “save the planet”.
It sees no beauty in life, no value in life, no meaning in life.
In its negation of all that is good, it revels in its power to do evil.
It rubs it hands with glee as men, women and children suffer and die in their thousands, nay millions, in its spectacles of horror and then sells us back our sorrow as a ticket to its next infernal show.
That has been the story until now, in any case.
But I suspect that the death entity has now gone too far in its arrogance, surrendering the invisibility that was necessary for its deceit-dependent domination.
We are thus entering a new phase in the conflict, a long-awaited turning of the tide which will eventually see the energy of life and goodness restored to its rightful place at the centre of human existence.
Natural order – fresh, green and vital – will grow up in the ruins of the death-system, leaving humankind free to fulfil its true potential.
“Why is it so difficult for virologists to simply explain basic questions about a ‘virus’ such as whether the ‘virus’ is living or dead? Why must the concept of what a ‘virus’ is change depending upon the researchers and technology of the time? What physical organism changes in concept after over a century of supposed study? The answer to all of these questions is actually fairly easy to grasp. As the researchers have never actually had any physical entities on hand in order to study, the concept of what the assumed invisible entities are was allowed to constantly change in order to suit the needs and evidence of the researchers of the time. There was no solid foundation for virology to stand upon from the very beginning in order to definitively state what the nature of a ‘virus’ truly is.”
For the greater part of the first 50 years of the 20th century, there was no agreed upon definition for what the invisible entities labelled as a “virus” actually were nor how these agents looked, formed and functioned. Some researchers believed that these entities were endogenous processes produced within the host while others envisioned them as exogenous invaders that came from outside and attacked from within. There were arguments over whether “viruses” were corpuscular in nature or whether they were a soluble liquid. Debates centered around whether these agents were alive or if they were simply inanimate and non-living. While there were researchers who believed “viruses” were a ferment or a chemical molecule of some kind, the majority believed that these invisible entities were just smaller unseen bacterium. According to biochemist and historian of science Ton van Helvoort’s 1996 paper When Did Virology Start?, the “virus” concept lacked clarity and certainty over the first half of the 20th century. However, the link between bacteriology and “viruses” was so strong at this time that these unseen entities were not considered conceptually distinct from bacteria:
“I have come to believe that, despite its widespread appearance in textbooks and journals of that era, the early concept of the “filterable virus” lacked clarity and certainty. More importantly, I also believe that during the 1930s and 194Os, the links between the study of filterable viruses and bacteriology were so strong that viruses were still considered merely another form of bacteria-not conceptually distinct, as they now are.”
The reason for these many contradictory ideas about the nature of the “virus” was a direct result of the fact that the researchers never had a physical entity on hand in order to study. The “virus” was nothing more than a fluid concept that was open to the interpretation of those who claimed to be working with them. Most of these researchers came from a bacteriological or chemistry background, and thus, they viewed the “virus” concept through their own lens and paradigms. Regardless, there was no way to actually determine the true nature of something that could not be seen or studied in reality and that only existed within the realm of the imagination.
Thus, it shouldn’t be hard to understand why virologists often have a difficult time answering simple questions such as “What is a virus?” or “Is it alive or dead?” This is exactly the argument made in the appropriately titled 2014 article Inventing Virusesby William Summers, a retired Professor of Therapeutic Radiology, Molecular Biophysics & Biochemistry, and History of Medicine. While being able to define what a “virus” is should be an easy task for any virologist, simple questions about the nature of a “virus” are not ones that are simple for them to answer. In the opening of his paper, Summers asked a more subtle question about the invention of the “virus” category:
“…how generations of microbiologists arrived at the idea that some of the entities they dealt with fell into a category that differed in fundamental ways from others. In other words, how did they invent the category of “virus” as we now know it?”
Summers looked to investigate how the idea that “viruses” are a separate entity that requires its own category away from bacteriology came to be. In doing so, he admitted that our beliefs, understandings, and conceptions of what a “virus” is changes over time. This is because “viruses” are whatever a virologist tells us that they are. The concept and the nature of the “virus” was invented, and continually reinvented, by virologists as part of the normal progress of their (pseudo) science. In other words, the idea of the “virus” is able to change at any time based upon whatever a virologist wants a “virus” to be at any given moment:
“Even so, how did the category “virus” come to be recognized, and what are its essential, defining qualities? Viruses are natural objects, but our beliefs, understanding, and conceptions of them change over time on the basis of new information, new points of view, and new scientific values and standards. In a very real way, a virus is what virologists say it is. It is a product of the way virologists talk about viruses—that is, the way facts about viruses are organized in their discourse. It can be said that virologists invent (and continually reinvent) the concept of a virus as part of the normal progress of their science.”
The deliberate ever-changing concept of the “virus” shifted away from its original invention as an agent of disease transmission to its modern day concept as a genetic assembly that sometimes causes disease when it integrates into its host in order to survive. This reinvention of the concept happened in 1957 when French microbiologist Andre Lwoff took many competing and contradictory ideas and mashed them together into the modern definition of a “virus” based upon work done with bacteriophages. Prior to his reinvention of the concept, in 1953, Lwoff actually questioned whether a bacteriophage was a “virus” and wanted to know exactly what a “virus” was. He even noted that “viruses” are defined to be exogenous (coming from outside of the body) while bacteriophages are “always formed inside its host” and “could therefore be described as endogenous,” i.e. originating from within the host. In fact, Lwoff stated that “if prophage is phylogenetically endogenous, the temperate phage produced by a lysogenic bacterium must be described as endogenous,” meaning that the phage is from within the host, thus negating it as an exogenous entity in line with the definition of a “virus.” Ironically, after redefining the “virus” as a genetic code in 1957, Lwoff would ultimately warn in 1991 that virology was “in danger of losing its soul, since viruses now show a strong tendency to become sequences.” He also argued that the abundance of discoveries was causing “the very concept of virus” to waver “on its foundations,” noting that the “problem today and in future is to keep abreast of its whereabouts.”
Regardless, Summers stated that his paper was not about the “triumphant accumulation of knowledge by the heroic scientists” of the past. Rather, it was an examination of the “continual struggle to understand and organize observations.” This struggle was showcased by Lwoff’s own attempts to rationalize and combine contradictory evidence in order to create the modern genetic concept of the “virus” from an entity that did not meet the necessary requirements:
“Nobelist Andre Lwoff, perhaps in a Gertrude Stein frame of mind, famously answered “viruses are viruses” (9), but the question “What is virus?” has been notoriously fraught since the role of virus in late nineteenth-century germ theories became central to medicine, and later, in the midtwentieth-century, to biology in general. The evolution, or perhaps deliberate and continuous reformulation, of the meaning of “virus” from an agent of disease transmission in the nineteenth century to a molecular assembly with remarkable properties by the end of the twentieth century is the subject of this article. This is not a story of the triumphant accumulation of knowledge by the heroic scientists of the past so much as it is an examination of the continual struggle to understand and organize observations that challenged and made obsolete the comfortable certainties of the often recent past. This examination requires consideration of past science on its own terms, without judgment in light of present-day understanding, and it requires consideration of the context and extent of background knowledge of the particular period considered.”
This struggle to answer the question “What is a virus?” was ongoing, even in the so-called “modern age” of virology. There was no consensus as to the true nature of a “virus.” Summers shared a quote by Joseph Beard that stated that the “virus” was a fabric of concepts that had been “woven of a plethora of woof and a paucity of warp.” In weaving terms, this makes for an unstable foundation upon which to weave. Another example was of plant virologist N.W. Pirie who was considered “agnostic” (impossible to know one way or the other) on whether a “virus” was a molecule or a microbe. However, he seemed to argue that the variability in the chemical composition of the same “virus” went against the modern molecular hypothesis. Thus, we can see that there was no agreement on the nature of the “virus:”
“The construction of the virus as a living molecule in the middle decades of the twentieth century generated wide debate as to the correct answer to the question, “What is a virus?” Having rejected filterability, negative growth properties, and size as defining characteristics, microbiologists searched for new ways to think about viruses. Even at the beginning of what might be called the modern era, there was remarkably little consensus on this subject. Joseph Beard, in 1945, famously remarked, “Viruses are said to be living molecules and autocatalytic enzymes and are likened to genes and mitochondria—in short, a fabric of concepts has been woven of a plethora of woof with a paucity of warp” (quoted in 47, p. 332). N.W. Pirie, one of the pioneers in the study of plant viruses, even in 1949 was agnostic as to whether viruses were microbes or molecules. In a long review of the problem in the British Medical Bulletin (47), he argued that the variation in chemical composition reported for the same virus suggested a level of heterogeneity not compatible with the molecular hypothesis. He noted that “all the viruses purified so far have contained nucleoprotein, but this generalization may lack significance because the viruses that have been studied are a group selected to some extent on a chemical basis.”
Summers ultimately concluded that each generation of virologists will look at “viruses” in their own way and will alter the concept of the “virus” based upon the “science” of the time. Thus, the “virus” is left to be a concept that is allowed to be continually reinvented at the whims of the researchers:
“Although “viruses are viruses,” each generation of scientists looks anew at these fascinating entities in its own way, endowing them with properties, relationships, and capacities that reflect the science of the time. Truly, they are microbes being continually reinvented by their most ardent admirers.”
In his summary, Summers laid out 5 very revealing points to end his paper on. Sharing similar sentiments as van Helvoort, he stated that the “virus” concept is an unstable one that “evolved,” not due to an accumulation of facts, but rather due to an ongoing reformulation of the “virus” concept on the basis of “scientific” focus at a given time. This reinvention was determined by technological advances rather than scientific understanding. Thus, the answer as to what a “virus” is will depend upon the discourse at the time more so than the “known” characteristics of “viruses:”
The concept of a virus has not been stable and has evolved since its introduction in the latter half of the nineteenth century.
This evolution has been not a linear accumulation of facts but rather an ongoing reformulation of the virus concept on the basis of scientific focus at a given time, e.g., growth, metabolism, chemical composition, genetics, or physical structure.
The concept of a virus has particularly been determined by technological advances ratherthan scientific understanding.
The answer to the question “What is a virus?” is one that depends on the particular scientific discourse at a given time.
The discourse with respect to the physical object “virus” is based on the particular concerns and problems of interest at a given time more than on any one set of intrinsic characteristics known about viruses.
Why is it so difficult for virologists to simply explain basic questions about a “virus” such as whether the “virus” is living or dead? Why must the concept of what a “virus” is change depending upon the researchers and technology of the time? What physical organism changes in concept after over a century of supposed study? The answer to all of these questions is actually fairly easy to grasp. As the researchers have never actually had any physical entities on hand in order to study, the concept of what the assumed invisible entities are was allowed to constantly change in order to suit the needs and evidence of the researchers of the time. There was no solid foundation for virology to stand upon from the very beginning in order to definitively state what the nature of a “virus” truly is.
While Summers paper on the invention of the “virus” offers some great modern insight into the problems related to defining the nature of the invisible beast, there is a much earlier paper by prominent virologist Thomas Rivers from 1932 that details the many issues with trying to give life to the imaginary shortly after its conception. You may know Rivers due to his 1937 proclamation that “It is obvious that Koch’s postulates have not been satisfied in viral diseases.” This shockingly honest admittance that the essential logical criteria considered necessary in order to prove a microbe causes disease remains unfulfilled for “viruses” and continues to haunt virology to this day. As it is a rather long 18 pages that I have reproduced here, I will try to keep my commentary throughout brief. However, what Rivers highlighted as key problems in 1932 during the formative years of virology compliments Summers 2014 paper on why virologists needed to invent, and then continually reinvent, the concept of the “virus” that was dreamt up in the late 1800s.
Thomas Rivers immediately began his 1932 paper on the nature of “viruses” by admitting that, up to 1932, “viruses” were defined solely based upon their absence as well as for what they were not. “Viruses” were defined in negative terms as they were:
Invisible to ordinary microscopic methods.
Unable to be obtained via filtration.
Unable to propagate in the absence of susceptible cells.
Interestingly, things did not progress away from defining “viruses” in negative terms even with Andre Lwoff’s 1957 modern reinvention of the concept as noted by Professor Milton W. Taylor, teacher of virology and world-renowned historian from Indiana University. In a 2014 paper examining what a “virus” is, Taylor explained that Lwoff’s reinvention of the “virus” concept was also a “negative definition” that “stresses the non-cellular nature of viruses.” By Lwoff’s own words from his 1971 paper From Protozoa to Bacteria and Viruses. Fifty Years with Microbes, he defined “viruses” by the “inability to grow and to divide, absence of metabolism, absence of the information for the enzymes of energy metabolism…the absence of transfer RNA and of ribosomes and also of the corresponding information.” In other words, even by the modern definition, “viruses” were still defined by what they were not.
While Rivers attempted to define “viruses” in what he felt were positive terms of what was “definitely known” about these invisible agents, he admitted that the biological nature was still a moot question, i.e. one open to debate and challenges with no foreseeable solution or answer. Perhaps this was due to his feelings that, while there was plenty of data concerning the nature of “viruses,” the accumulated data was “distinctly lacking in quality,” and that “enough reliable data have not been acquired to establish the nature of the viruses.”
The Nature of Viruses
Thomas M. Rivers
The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York
Viruses are usually characterized by three negative properties, namely, invisibility by ordinary microscopic methods, failure to be retained by filters impervious to well-known bacteria, and inability to propagate themselves in the absence of susceptible cells. I prefer a positive characterization of the viruses, one emphasizing the intimate relation that exists between them and their host cells. The multiplication of viruses only in the presence of susceptible cells, their regeneration and production of disease in many instances in only one species of host, the marked stimulation and destruction of cells induced by their activity which on the one hand gives rise to tumors, such as Rous’ sarcoma, and on the other to vesicular lesions, as fever blisters, the intracellular pathology frequently evidenced in virus diseases by inclusion bodies, and, finally, the lasting immunity that follows the majority of virus maladies, are essential phenomena that serve to stress the intimate type of parasitism encountered in working with these active agents. Such a characterization of viruses implies much, not only as concerns their biological nature which is still a moot question, but as regards their activities about which something is definitely known.
Data concerning the nature of viruses are sufficiently adequate in quantity but distinctly lacking in quality. According to reports, some of which have come from eminent investigators, most of these active agents have been seen and have been cultivated on lifeless media. If such statements are correct, viruses are autonomous living agents, and further discussion of their biological nature should deal with their place in the scale of living entities and their relation to other forms of life. Reports of work in this field are confusing, however, particularly to the uninitiated, and critical investigators are of the opinion that enough reliable data have not been acquired to establish the nature of the viruses. Inasmuch as this is a subject of fundamental biological importance, I shall review some of the recently accumulated data regarding the size, electrical charge, purification, spontaneous generation, adaptations, elementary bodies, metabolism, immunological phenomena and cultivation of viruses that might be of assistance in the elucidation of the origin and constitution of these peculiar incitants of disease.
One of the only indirect means which early virologists could use to conclude that a “virus” was “present” in a sample was by claiming that the invisible entities passed through filters of a certain size that retained all known bacteria, thus allowing them to guess as to the size of the unseen particles. Rivers noted that a “virus” was generally accepted as “an object less than 0.2 p or 200 ppl in diameter” and that it was not capable of being seen under light microscopy. In other words, “viruses” were too small to be seen and were defined by their absence. He noted that figures regarding the size of “viruses” derived from stained preparations were apt to be inaccurate and misleading. This lines up with his 1927 statement on filtration in his paper Filterable Viruses: A Critical Review, claiming that the methods were “crude and inaccurate.”
Rivers then presented evidence for the size of eight “viruses,” which were contradictory depending upon the researchers cited. He utilized hemoglobin as a comparison and stated that if the figure for hemoglobin is incorrect (which had contradictory estimates as to its size as well), many statements concerning the size of “viruses” were also inaccurate. Rivers was dismayed that certain researchers did not account for the possibility that they might have been estimating the size of particles of degraded cells to which the “viruses” were attached. He noted that other researchers took this into consideration and that they were unable to be assured that they had been successful in obtaining the correct figures for the size of the different “viruses.” Rivers concluded that none of the figures could be accepted without reservations and that the exact size of any “virus” was unknown. The numerous contradictory results stemmed from “inadequate experimentation, careless thinking, prejudice, imperfect experimental methods, and the difficult nature of the problems.”
SIZE. The size of minute particles may be determined in several ways, namely, by direct mensuration provided the objects are capable of resolution under the microscope; by filtration and ultrafiltration if the factors that influence the passage of the particles through pores of graded diameters are known and controlled; by diffusion, and, finally, by centrifugation. All of these methods have been employed in the study of the magnitude of viruses and the results obtained will be discussed.
It is generally accepted that an object less than 0.2 p or 200 ppl in diameter is not capable of resolution under the microscope when ordinary light is used. Furthermore, it is understood that mordants and stains usually increase the magnitude of small particles. Some of the “larger” viruses, e.g., those of fowl-pox (log), smallpox, vaccinia (122, 123), and rabies, are said to be just visible after treatment with certain mordants and dyes. Consequently, one is justified in concluding that most of the viruses have a diameter of less than 200 pp and in an unstained state are not mensurable by means of ordinary light. Moreover, figures regarding their size derived from stained preparations are apt to be inaccurate and misleading. The use of light of short wave lengths makes possible the mensuration of particles smaller than 0.2 p in diameter. So far, however, this method of investigation has yielded no convincing evidence concerning the magnitude of viruses. It appears, therefore, that direct methods of mensuration only indicate that the active agents are considerably smaller than ordinary bacteria.
The sizes of at least eight viruses have been estimated by means of ultrafiltration, diffusion, or centrifugation. The results obtained for these active agents together with figures for the diameter of the hemoglobin molecule for comparison are given below.
Hemoglobin. For a number of years the molecule of hemoglobin was thought to be 30 uu in diameter. Recently, however, figures (34) derived from the results of Svedberg and Nichol’s (33) centrifugation experiments and Northrop and Anson’s (30) diffusion experiments with hemoglobin indicate that its diameter is approximately 5.5 uu. Many estimations regarding the magnitude of viruses have been based on the former figure for the diameter of the hemoglobin molecule, 30 uu. If this figure is incorrect, many statements concerning the size of viruses are also inaccurateMosaic virus. Duggar and Karrer (17) by means of ultrafiltration found the infectious particles of mosaic virus to be of the same order of magnitude as hemoglobin molecules, namely, 30 uu in diameter. Vinson (34), however, says that Duggar’s experiments interpreted in the light of recent work regarding the size of hemoglobin molecules indicates that the diameter of mosaic virus is about 5.5 uu.
Herpetic virus. Zinsser and Tang (38) by means of ultrafiltration estimated the diameter of herpetic virus to be 20-100 uu. Levaditi and Nicolau (27) in the same way found that the virus passed through membranes which retained toxins, hemolysins, complement, and serum globulins. Bedson (13), however, unable to confirm Levaditi and Nicolau’s (27) results, obtained evidence by centrifugation that herpetic virus is probably of sufficient size to be visible.
Foot-and-mouth disease virus. Olitsky and Boez (31), using ultrafiltration, found that the virus of foot-and-mouth disease is 20-100 uu in diameter. Elford by means of his special membranes estimated it to be 8-12 uu.
Poliomyelitic virus. By means of ultrafiltration, Krueger and Schultz (25), in 1929, found that the virus of poliomyelitis possesses a magnitude not greater than 300 uu. In 1931, by the same means, Clifton, Schultz, and Gebhardt (16) obtained results indicating that the diameter of the virus lies below 50 uu.
Fowl plague virus. By means of ultrafiltration Andriewsky (8) secured a figure of 2.5 uu for the diameter of fowl plaguevirus, while Bechhold and Schlesinger (11) by centrifugation found it to be 120-130 uu.
Bacteriophage. According to d’Herelle (22) and Elford (19), both of whom used ultrafiltration, the diameter of the bacteriophage is approximately 30 uu. Kruger and Tamada (26) by means of purified bacteriophage preparations and ultrafiltration found it to be 5 uu, and Hetler and Bronfenbrenner (24) by means of a diffusion method estimated it to be 1.2-22.8 uu.
Rous virus. According to Zinsser and Tang (38), the Rous virus is 20-100 uu; according to Mendelsohn, Clifton and Lewis (29), 50 uu; according to Frankel (20), 10 uu. All these workers obtained their figures by means of ultrafiltration.
Vaccine virus. Levaditi and Nicolau (27) reported that vaccine virus passes through membranes impervious to toxins, hemolysins, complement, and serum globulins. Bland (15), however, from the results of his centrifugation experiments not only concluded that Levaditi and Nicolau’s findings are incorrect but that vaccine virus is probably large enough to be seen. Bechhold and Schlesinger (11) by means of centrifugation estimated that the active agent is 210-230 uu in diameter, while Yaoi and Kasai (37) working with “purified” virus found that it diffused at the rate of fuchsin particles and is, therefore, not capable of being seen.
One cannot consider the results cited above without being amused and dismayed. Many of the workers seemed in no way concerned about the possibility that they might have been estimating not the magnitude of viruses, but the size of particles of degraded cells to which the viruses were attached. Other investigators, cognizant of the difficulties of the problem! attempted to remove the viruses from such carriers. They were unable, however, to be assured that they had been successful and that they had obtained the correct figures for the size of the different viruses.
From the results of indirect methods of mensuration it is safe to conclude that viruses are small and that some of them may be exceedingly minute. If the figure of 210 uu for the diameter of vaccine virus is accurate, there is no reason as far as size is concerned to suppose that the virus is not a living organism. On the other hand, if the figures of 1.2 uu, 5.5 uu, and 8 uu for the bacteriophage, mosaic virus, and foot-and-mouth disease virus, respectively, are correct, it is obvious that these agents cannot be highly organised, because it is impossible that with such a magnitude they can consist of more than one, or at most several, molecules of protein. Unfortunately, none of the figures can be accepted without reservations. At present the exact size of
The numerous discordant results encountered in the literature dealing with the filterability, size, and visibility of viruses are probably due to inadequate experimentation, careless thinking, prejudice, imperfect experimental methods, and the difficult nature of the problems. One of the great needs at present is improvement in methods of microscopy, filtration, and purification of viruses in order that results obtained will approximate the true size of viruses and not the size of particles of other sorts on which the agents are adsorbed. It must be remembered, however, that the determination of the size of one virus will not establish the magnitude of another, because no more uniformity of dimensions should be expected among these agents than is found among bacteria and protozoa. Furthermore, it is not possible to derive proof of the animate or inanimate nature of viruses even from a correct estimation of their diameters, for, within limits as yet undetermined, life and death are not functions of size.
In this next section on electrical charges, take note once again of the range in estimates and contradictory conclusions made by the researchers. Rivers pointed out that “virus” preparations consisted principally of proteins and bits of degraded cells from the host. This meant that the electrical charge results might not be those of the “virus” particles themselves but of the other materials present within the sample. This inability to distinguish the assumed “virus” from the remaining host and foreign constituents present in the sample is the reason why complete purification and isolation of the assumed “viral” particles from the host components, which has never been achieved, is absolutely necessary. Rivers admitted that there were few experiments that were performed with “protein-free” preparations of “viruses,” and that the methods of purification did not convince him that such purified “viruses” had ever been completely separated from their carriers (i.e. host materials). Even with the modern advances in technology, this inability to completely separate “viruses” from host components was noted in a May 2020 article that stated that “to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation does not exist.” Rivers concluded that the lack of purity meant that it was impossible to state definitely what electrical charge is carried by the “viruses.”
ELECTRICAL CHARGE. Most bacteria and proteins under ordinary biological conditions of hydrogen ion concentration carry a negative electrical charge. When the nature of the viruses became a question of interest, attempts were made to ascertain their behavior in an electrical field in order that it might be compared with the action of proteins and bacteria under similar circumstances.
Bacteriophage. Kligler and his co-workers (41) using a so-called “protein-free” bacteriophage found that the active agent was amphoteric in acid and decidedly alkaline solutions and chiefly negatively charged in neutral and mildly alkaline solutions. Krueger and his associates (42) stated that the bacteriophage is negatively charged between the hydrogen ion concentrations of 9.0-3.4, and positively charged at pH 3.35. Todd (48) found that the active agent carried a negative charge between the hydrogen ion concentrations of 3.36-7.6. The results of Natarajan and Hyde’s (43) experiments indicate (1) that bacteriophages for typhoid bacilli and Flexner’s dysentery bacilli are only electronegative between pH 4.9-9.3 and 5.4-9.3 respectively, (2) that small plaque coliphage is electronegative below pH 8.3, but with greater alkalinity moves to both poles, and (3) that large plaque coliphage is electronegative over a range of pH 5.4-6.1, while at a higher alkalinity it wanders to both poles.
Rabic virus. According to Glusman (40) and his associates fixed rabic virus is negatively charged over a range of pH 6.0-9.3.
Vaccine virus. Douglas and Smith (39) found that vaccine virus carried a negative charge between the hydrogen ion concentrations of 5.5-8.4. The experiments of Yaoi and Kasai (49) revealed that between pH 6-7 more virus collected at the positive than at the negative pole, and between pH 8-9 the active agent was demonstrable only at the anode.
Fowl-pox virus. Kligler and his co-workers (41) found fowl-pox virus in “protein-free” preparations to be positively charged on the acid side, amphoteric in neutral solutions, and negatively charged in alkaline solutions. According to Natarajan and Hyde (43), the active agent is amphoteric over a range of pH 6.4-9.3.
Foot-and-mouth disease virus. Olitsky and Bo& (44) believe that the virus of foot-and-mouth disease is positively charged, while Sichert-Modrow (47) is of the opinion that the active agent carries a negative charge over a range of pH 7.0-8.1.
Pcliomyelitic virus. According to Olitsky, Rhoads, and Long (45) poliomyelitic virus wanders to the anode.
Rous virus. Pulcher (46) found that the Rous virus was adsorbed on electropositive and not on electronegative hemoglobins and concluded that the active agent is negatively charged.
Virus of infectious myxomatosis of rabbits. According to Natarajan and Hyde (43), the virus of infectious myxomatosis of rabbits is electronegative over a range of pH 4.9-9.3.
Herpetic virus. Natarajan and Hyde (43) found herpetic virus to be electronegatively charged only between the hydrogen ion concentrations of 7.0-8.9.
From the results of the work cited above it is obvious that most workers have found that under ordinary biological conditions of hydrogen ion concentration certain viruses in an electrical field wander to the anode. Moreover, many investigators have stated that the viruses under these conditions are negatively charged and in this respect are similar to bacteria, cells, and numerous proteins. Others, however, aware of the fact that virus preparations usually consist principally of proteins and bits of degraded cells from the host, realize that the electrical charges determined might not be those of the virus particles themselves but of their carriers, i.e., material on which the virus particles are adsorbed. It is true that a few experiments have been performed with “protein-free” preparations of viruses. But an examination of the methods of purification fails to convince one that such purified viruses had been completely separated from their carriers. Therefore, at present it is impossible to state definitely what electrical charge is carried by the viruses.
This next section is probably my favorite of the entire paper as Rivers sums up the purification problem perfectly. He started off by admitting that “virus-containing” emulsions consisted chiefly of substances unrelated to the “virus.” Thus, he stated that researchers needed to attempt to obtain the “viruses” either in a pure or in a relatively pure state as it was realized that purified “viruses” are essential for the proper study of problems in the field. These problems related to the aforementioned estimation of the size of “viruses” and the determination of the electrical charge, as well as any investigation into the “immunological” responses attributed to “viruses.” He shared a quote by Murphy who, in working to purify the Rous sarcoma “virus” through various manipulative purification processes, stated that it was “hardly conceivable that the active fraction” obtained after these processes could “carry with it through all these manipulations any living organism or virus.” Murphy felt that he was dealing with an enzyme rather than a “virus.” Rivers then backed up his own assertion from five years earlier in 1927 that “No virus had been obtained in an absoutely pure state” by reiterating that it was unlikely that a “virus” had ever been obtained in a state of absolute purity.
PURIFICATION. Inasmuch as virus-containing emulsions consist chiefly of substances unrelated to the active agents themselves, it is natural that workers should attempt to obtain the viruses either in a pure or in a relatively pure state. Moreover, it is being realized that purified viruses are essential for the proper study of problems in this field, such as the estimatlion of the size of viruses, the determination of their electrical charge, and the investigation of immunological responses excited by them. In addition to the fact that purified viruses are of practical value, it is obvious that such preparations will also be of value to investigators interested in the theoretical problem of the nature of viruses. Indeed, Murphy (52, 55) has already concluded from the results of his experiments on the purification of the Rous agent that this disease-incitant is neither a virus nor a living organism. He states, “It is hardly conceivable that the active fraction which I have thus succeeded in obtaining, a substance purified by repeated precipitations, could carry with it through all these manipulations any living organism or virus. To me the enzyme-like nature of the principle seems to have been conclusively established. . . . .” However, most workers do not believe that Murphy is justified in concluding from the results of such experiments that the Rous agent is not a virus, because at least eight other viruses, e.g., the incitants of infectious myxomatosis of rabbits (58), foot-and-mouth disease (64)) bacteriophagy (50, 56, 57), fowl-pox (56), vaccinia (66, 68)) rabies (66), poliomyelitis (65), and mosaic disease (67) have been subjected to manipulations similar to those used by Murphy and have been obtained, still active, in various states of purity.
Most methods of purification of viruses are based on the principles of precipitation by a variety of chemicals and selective adsorption and elution as used extensively in enzyme work. As yet, it is unlikely that a virus has been obtained in a state of absolute purity. Nevertheless, the results already secured are encouraging and should excite further investigations. It may be possible in this way to attain eventually a more accurate concept of the nature of some viruses. For instance, it may be shown that in certain purified virus preparations the number of nitrogen atoms for each infectious unit or particle is insufficient to warrant the supposition that the agents are living, organized structures. Krueger and Tamada (57) have already suggested this viewpoint.
While it is now stated that “viruses” require a host cell and must be cultured in order to be observed and studied, in the past, claims were made that “viruses” could be grown without cells. Rivers stated that these claims of successful cultivation on lifeless media were not uncommon, and he noted a few cases:
Frosch and Dahmen stated that they were able to cultivate the “virus” of foot-and-mouth disease on ordinary media.
Olitsky reported the cultivation of mosaic “virus” in a cell-free medium.
Eagles and McClean reported that vaccine “virus” is capable of regeneration in a cell-free medium.
Rivers ultimately decided that none of these were true examples of “viruses” being grown in cell-free media, and thus, it was chalked up to contradictory evidence that was brushed aside in favor of the prevailing belief that “viruses” are invisible and incapable of regeneration in the absence of living susceptible host cells. Rivers did note that such a state of affairs would prevent a complete definition of the nature of “viruses.” However, he believed that it was not absolutely essential to see and to cultivate the “viruses” on simple media.
CULTIVATING. In the literature of twenty years ago it is not uncommon to encounter reports in which it was claimed that viruses had been successfully cultivated on lifeless media. These reports have not been confirmed and at present such claims are rarely made. A few, however, have been made in recent years. Frosch and Dahmen (78) stated that they were able to cultivate the virus of foot-and-mouth disease on ordinary media. But the German, English, and American Foot-and-Mouth Disease Commissions were unable to confirm their work. Olitsky (91) reported the cultivation of mosaic virus in a cell-free medium. Nevertheless, upon repeating his work he (92) has been forced to conclude that true multiplication of the virus was not obtained. Recently, Eagles and McClean (75, 76) reported that vaccine virus is capable of regeneration in a cell-free medium. A careful examination of their papers, however, leaves one in doubt as to whether some of their media were cell-free, and as to whether multiplication of the virus occurred in the nutrient materials that undoubtedly contained no cells. In my laboratory (86, 90, 93) during the last four years, Haagen, Muckenfuss, Li, and I have made numerous attempts to cultivate vaccine virus in cell-free media, many of which were similar to if not identical with those employed by Eagles and McClean. None of our efforts was successful. On the other hand, the cultivation of vaccine virus in the presence of cells surviving in vitro has been more consistently successful in our hands and in Maitland’s (88) than it has been in Eagles and McClean’s.
Although the cultivation of viruses in lifeless media has not been accomplished, it is generally conceded that these agents are capable of pullulation in the presence of susceptible cells either surviving or growing in vitro. The viruses of Rous sarcoma (72), Virus III infection of rabbits (69), herpes febrilis (70), fowl-pox (77), vaccinia (79, 80, 86, 88)) rabies (94), foot-and-mouth disease (83,84,85? 89), vesicular stomatitis (73), infectious myxomatosis of rabbits (71, Sl), fowl plague (82), and probably the agents causing common colds (74) and poliomyelitis (87), have been cultivated in the presence of tissues surviving in vitro.
Moreover, the characteristic of species specificity possessed by many viruses is frequently reflected in their in vitro cultivation. For instance, fowl-pox virus (77), innocuous for mice and rats, does not regenerate in cultures of their tissues. Foot-and-mouth disease does not attack chickens and the virus (89) does not grow in cultures consisting of minced chick embryo and plasma. In addition to a species specificity, some viruses exhibit in cultivation experiments a predilection for certain kinds of cells. Fowl plague virus (82) multiplies in the presence of chick embryo skin and brain, but does not regenerate in pure cultures of fibroblasts. Foot-and-mouth disease virus (85) increases in amount when the culture medium contains minced guinea-pig embryo, but does not grow when fibroblasts or bits of heart muscle alone are present. Thus it appears that many viruses are capable of multiplication in tissue cultures and frequently retain under such conditions their species and cellular specificity. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to observe the results of further attempts to circumvent this species and cellular specificity of viruses by in vitro methods of cultivation.
A crucial experiment, if there be one, to decide the question of the autonomy of the viruses is their undisputed cultivation on lifeless media. It may be impossible, however, to accomplish such an experiment with all of the viruses, because some of them may be obligate parasites, as is the malarial organism. Thus in the quest for proof of the nature of viruses, we may find that many of them are invisible and incapable of regeneration in the absence of living susceptible host cells. Such a state of affairs will prevent, for a time at least, a complete definition of the nature of these peculiar incitants of disease. Nevertheless, we should obtain all the facts and make the most of them in the study of biological phenomena and in the better understanding and control of disease. For this purpose it is not absolutely essential to see and to cultivate the viruses on simple media any more than it is imperative to see and to know what electricity is in order to study the phenomena produced by it and to control its activity for our daily needs.
Regarding whether “viruses” are alive or not due to having their own metabolism, Rivers stated that the evidence was that they did not have any such metabolic capabilities. However, he felt that conclusions could not be drawn that “viruses” do not have a metabolism and that they are inanimate because the methods used may not have been adequate.
Adaptation of the “virus” to different hosts was used by researchers in order to state whether or not “viruses” were alive. This essentially meant drawing conclusions from using different materials and different methods in different animals while generating different results. One set of researchers viewed the contradicting outcomes as the result of a “living virus” while another set of researchers saw it as a result of the hosts response. Neither seemed to recognize the fact that it was the different experimental procedures generating different responses and results rather than the act of any “virus” adapting.
METABOLISM. Much of the discussion conc.erning the nature of viruses has centered around the question as to whether they are animate or inanimate. In this relation, one would like to know what the evidence is regarding independent metabolic activities of these active agents. Technical difficulties have hindered this type of experimentation with viruses. Nevertheless, a few investigations (95-99) have been made, the result,s of which were negative. One must not conclude from such negative results, however, that viruses do not possess an independent metabolism and are, therefore, inanimate substances, because the methods used for the detection of the metabolic activities may not have been sufficiently delicate.
ADAPTATION. Certain viruses inoculated into new hosts apparently undergo changes in some of theircharacteristics. Smallpox virus (100, 101) passed through monkeys to rabbits and calves and then back to man is no longer smallpox virus but vaccine virus, a.nd the disease, vaccinia, caused by it is not contagious as is smallpox. The incitant of yellow fever (106, 107) passed through a large number of mice by means of intracerebral inoculations loses much of its pathogenicity for monkeys when inoculated intravenously or intraperitoneally, but gains the power of producing a transmissible encephalitis in monkeys receiving the inoculum in the brain. Such phenomena are spoken of as adaptations of viruses to new hosts, and, inasmuch as adaptation is considered a characteristic of living rather than lifeless material, they have been cited by some investigators (103) as proof of the animate nature of the viruses. On the other hand, workers, who believe that viruses are products of cellular perversion, state that the changes observed in the characteristics of the active agents when they are inoculated into alien hosts are to be expected, inasmuch as mouse, rabbit, monkey, and human cells, because of intrinsic differences, may not always manufacture identical substances as the result of similar stimuli. Therefore, they contend that the changes and adaptations are not accomplished by the agents themselves but by their hosts and, consequently, are not admissible as proof of the living nature of the viruses.
As ”viruses” were incapable of being observed and studied directly, various forms of indirect evidence were utilized in order to infer the presence of these entities. One of the earliest ways to do so was by claiming that a phenomenon known as inclusion bodies was a sign that a “virus” was present. These “bodies” are aggregates of proteins seen in various tissues under microscopy that were taken as an indicator by the researchers that they were dealing with a “virus.” However, it is well-known that inclusion bodies are not specific to “viral” cases and can be found in those without a “viral” disease. They are also not found in all cases of a particular disease, can be found in those without the disease, and are even found in uninoculated cell cultures, as seen with RSV. A 1941 paper by Alfred M. Lucas stated that the “existence of an object which appears to be an inclusion body is not proof of the presence of a virus but merely an indication that a virus should be considered if no bacterial agent can be found.” What this means is that inclusion bodies are nothing more than non-specific indirect evidence used to infer an assumed “virus” if other “causes” are ruled out. This means that finding inclusion bodies is essentially meaningless as a specific sign for the presence of any “virus.” Rivers appeared to understand this as well. After presenting various contradictory interpretations and presentations of inclusion bodies by different researchers, he noted that “inclusions may arise in a number of ways and that they may or may not contain virus.” He felt that making conclusions about what these “peculiar structures” represented was “hazardous at present.”
INCLUSIONS. Within the nucleus and cytoplasm of cells injured by viruses, certain peculiar structures, inclusion bodies, are frequently observed. Although many of these bodies are of importance in diagnostic and experimental work, numerous opinions exist concerning their nature. Lipschtitz believes that the inclusions in many diseases (119) consist of compact masses of virus particles, yet he is of the opinion that such structures in measles (120) are nothing more than altered central bodies. Goodpasture (113) thinks that Negri bodies in rabies are composed of degenerated mitochondria and neurofibrils, while Levaditi (118) and Manouelian (121) consider them protozoa and designate them, respectively, Glugea lyssae and Encephalitoxoon rabiei. Goodpasture and his associates (124, 125) have demonstrated that the incitant of fowl-pox is intimately associated with the Bollinger bodies which are made up of a lipoid capsule within which numerous small coccoid bodies are embedded in a protein matrix. On the other hand, Glaser (112) has presented evidence that the polyhedral bodies, the characteristic inclusions in wilt diseases of caterpillars, consist of non-infectious crystalline protein. Thus, it appears that inclusions may arise in a number of ways and that they may or may not contain virus. Consequently, generalizations regarding these peculiar structures are hazardous at present.
The small coccoid bodies found in fowl-pox by Borrel (109) and in vaccinia by Paschen (122,123) appear to be extremely minute organisms. In fact, one is justified in asking why these bodies are not convincing evidence of the organismal nature of certain viruses. The first reason is that one cannot by morphological and tinctorial data alone determine whether autonomous life exists in such small objects. Another reason is the fact that Goodpasture, while holding the belief that the small coccoid bodies in fowl-pox (124, 125) represent the virus, stated that similar structures, seen in rabic brains (113) and considered of etiological importance by Babes (108) and Koch (114-116), are probably degenerated mitochondria. Moreover, Borrel (110) has described similar bodies in other virus diseases the etiological agents of which have been shown by ultrafiltration to be incapable of resolution by microscopic methods. Furthermore, Craciun and Oppenheimer (111)) who cultivated the small bodies of vaccinia and showed that they are closely associated with the virus, made the following statement, “We have from these studies no morphological proof of an increase in the number of granules, since they cannot readily be distinguished from other granules normally seen in tissue cultures.” Finally, mitochondria in some respects resemble bacteria. They may decrease or increase numerically within cells, and their size and shape may be altered by appropriate stimuli. At times, they actually divide. Nevertheless, mitochondria are not considered autonomous living agents. Consequently, so far as I am aware, there is no convincing evidence-the specific agglutination of virus elementary bodies (184) by antiviral sera will be discussed later-to invalidate the conception that cells under the stimulus of viruses may react by the formation of numerous small coccoid bodies uniform in size and intimately associated with the stimulating agents. One would not consider such bodies microorganisms or hold that they consist of virus alone. Therefore, in spite of definite proof that viruses are present in certain types of inclusions, doubt still exists regarding the organismal nature of the small coccoid bodies found within them.
Other features observed in pathological processes induced by viruses, e.g., hyperplasia and necrosis, are fully as important as are the inclusion bodies. The excessive stimulation of cells seen in some virus diseases, e.g., fowl-pox and warts, leads one by analogy to think of mdignant neoplasms. Undoubtedly a number of fowl tumors are caused by agents separable from cells, and, although there is no proof that mammalian tumors arise in this way, the possibility is worthy of consideration and offers an attractive field for work. The fact, however, that some tumors are produced by filterable agents is by no means conclusive evidence that all neoplasms (217) arise through the activity of such incitants.
In this next section, Rivers admitted that there was an increasing chorus of researchers who believed that “viruses” were nothing more than “merely filterable, invisible, and noncultivable elements of ordinary bacteria.” He presented many scenarios, such as:
The bacteriophage is a form in the life cycle of lysogenic bacteria.
The “viruses” of yellow fever and hog cholera are invisible forms of Leptospira icteroides and B. suipestifer respectively.
The etiological agent of scarlet fever is a filterable form of hemolytic streptococci.
The incitants of poliomyelitis, epidemic encephalitis, fox encephalitis, common colds, measles, and influenza represent certain stages in the life cycle of green streptococci.
Apparently, Rivers was unfamiliar with the fact that this bacterial life cycle process, known as pleomorphism, was observed by many researchers such as Antoine Bechamp, Günther Enderlein, Royal Raymond Rife, and later by many others with the use of dark field microscopy. That bacteria are pleomorphic entities, i.e. having the ability to assume different forms, is an established fact.
VIRUSES AS FILTERABLE FORMS OF BACTERIA. For a long time a few investigators have held that certain virus diseases are induced by ordinary bacteria. Now that attention is being focused on filterable forms of bacteria, workers in increasing numbers (128, 131, 132, 134, 135) are adopting the belief that viruses are merely filterable, invisible, and noncultivable elements of ordinary bacteria. It has been claimed, and evidence of a kind has been offered to substantiate the assertions, that the bacteriophage (165, 166) is a form in the life cycle of lysogenic bacteria, that the viruses of yellow fever (131, 134, 135) and hog cholera (134, 135) are invisible forms of Leptospira icteroides and B. suipestifer respectively, that the etiological agent of scarlet fever (134, 135) is a filterable form of hemolytic streptococci, and that the incitants of poliomyelitis, epidemic encephalitis, fox encephalitis, common colds, measles, and influenza represent certain stages in the life cycle of green streptococci (131). Without going into details of the available knowledge of bacterial life cycles and their invisible and noncultivable forms, one can say that proof of many of the claims regarding them is lacking. In fact, if certain reports are correct, some of the filterable forms of bacteria are much smaller than are many of the viruses. Kendall (131) recently stated that “egg white, filtered through Berkefeld W filters (after dilution with sterile physiological saline solution) is rarely sterile.” Such a statement raises embarrassing questions for workers in the virus field because many viruses will not pass through W filters. Since the existence of bacterial life cycles is doubtful, it seems unwarrantable to offer the presumptive filterable forms of them as evidence upon another unsolved problem, the nature of the viruses.
The thing to notice in this next section on physical and chemical agents is, once again, the often contradictory nature of the evidence presented by different researchers. One researcher would find a certain chemical that had an effect on the “virus,” while another researcher would state otherwise. Some viewed that chemical tests proved “viruses” were protozoa. Others felt that their tests proved the “virus” was an enzyme. Sanderson showed that bacteriophages were not killed by successive freezing and thawings and believed that they were unliving. However, Rivers showed that bacteriophages can be killed by repeated freezing and thawing, thus contradicting Sanderson’s interpretation. Ultimately, Rivers concluded that, regardless of the number of tests with chemical and physical agents that had been devised as criteria for the presence of life or to define the nature of “viruses,” not a single one of them was found to be satisfactory.
EFFECT OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL AGENTS ON VIRUSES. Many years ago it was discovered that bile and saponin are injurious to protozoa but with a few exceptions are innocuous for bacteria. Consequently, when the question of the nature of viruses began to attract attention, tests were made to determine what effect bile and saponin have on these incitants of disease. Many viruses, e.g., rabic virus (141, 144), were found to be inactivated and because of this fact certain workers concluded that they are protozoa. Sufficient exceptions, however, have been encountered to invalidate the test as a means either of separating bacteria from protozoa or of defining the nature of viruses. The agent causing Rous’ sarcoma (140) is more resistant to ultraviolet light than are bacteria, and Murphy (220) considers this fact as evidence in favor of his hypothesis of the enzyme-like nature of the virus. On the other hand, bacteriophage (139), the living nature of which many doubt, is just as sensitive to ultraviolet light as are bacteria. Sanderson (153), using a temperature of -78°C., found no diminution in the titer of two strains of bacteriophage subjected to 20 successive freezings and thawings. Since bacteria and cells are killed by repeated freezing and thawing, he concluded that bacteriophage must be something other than a living organism. Rivers (151) showed, however, that colon bacilli, Virus III, vaccine virus, herpetic virus, bacteriophage, complement, and trypsin are all either killed or inactivated by repeated freezing (-185°C.) and thawing and that, as might be expected, some of the agents are more resistant than are others. Hence it is obvious that destruction or inactivation of an active agent by repeated freezing and thawing is not evidence that it possesses life. The observations on heat, desiccation, oxidation, and the effect of dyes have likewise yielded no convincing evidence concerning the nature of viruses. Thus it appears that a number of tests with chemical and physical agents have been devised as criteria for the presence of life or to define the nature of viruses, but no one of them has been found satisfactory.
The spontaneous generation of “viruses” by the host is a concept that defeats the idea that these entities are exogenous outside invaders. If something like a bacteriophage can be produced by a normal bacterium without any external phage present, it shows that these entities arise from a process initiated from within the organism. Rivers noted that Hadley and his co-workers stated that it was possible to obtain bacteriophage from normal bacterial cultures by means of enforced dissociation. Thus, no external source of phage was necessary. Nobel Prize-winning immunologist Jules Bordet was able to do the same, as did other researchers. Rivers presented a few scenarios where “viral” diseases could be induced by injecting toxic substances such as tar and arsenic into chickens, as well as an instance where a tumor-producing extract could be obtained from healthy chickens. While Rivers thought that the interpretation of the evidence was potentially fundamental to biology, he excused it as being due to contamination by the researchers working in labs with similar materials as well as the possibility that “latent viruses” were hiding within the healthy hosts.
SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF VIRUSES. The origin as well as the nature of viruses constitutes a question of interest. The intimate relation between these active agents and their host cells has induced more than one investigator to view the host cell as the source or origin of viruses. Indeed, reports of experimental work have appeared leading to claims that normal cells have been induced to manufacture certain viruses. According to Carrel (156, 157), minced chick embryo mixed with tar, indol, or arsenic and injected into normal chickens in a small percentage of instances gives rise to tumors resembling Rous’ sarcoma no. 1 and transmissible by cell-free filtrates. Fischer (163) by treating cultures of normal cells with arsenic obtained on one occasion a filterable agent capable of causing tumors. Carrel was unable to confirm Fischer’s work. Murphy (52, 167), by means of a method the details of which have not been described, reported that he was able to extract a filterable tumor-producing agent from the gonads of normal-appearing Plymouth Rock roosters.Recently, Hadley and his co-workers (166) stated that it is possible to obtain bacteriophage from normal bacterial cultures by means of enforced dissociation. Although no worker in this field has claimed to have generated living organisms from inanimate matter, it appears that a few believe that they have by certain manipulations induced cells to yield substances which possess some of the attributes of life, notably that of increasing without limit.
The observations described above are suggestive, and, if confirmed and found to warrant the interpretation given them by Carrel, Murphy, Fischer, and Hadley, will prove to be of fundamental biological importance. Unfortunately, however, all of the experiments yielding the observations were actively referred to were conducted in laboratories where workers engaged in the study of agents similar to those supposedly brought into existence. In such laboratories and with such materials it is always difficult for one to rule out the possibility of contaminating normal animals, tissues, bacteria, emulsions, and filtrates. This fact has long been appreciated by workers in vaccine virus laboratories and it delayed the acceptance of the experimental transformation of smallpox virus into vaccine virus. Therefore, experiments of the nature described should never be conducted in rooms used for the study of agents similar to those for which a search is being made. The workers who believe that they have induced viruses to come into existence have not excluded the possibility of the preexistence of latent viruses or of small amounts of virus in the supposedly normal embryos, gonads, chickens, and bacterial cultures utilized in the experiments. This possibility is emphasized by Flexner’s (164) work on poliomyelitis, for he was able to demonstrate the presence of virus in the nasal washings from normal contacts. The possibility outlined is further emphasized by Andrewes and Miller’s (155) experience with Virus III in rabbits, by Cole and Kuttner’s (158) work with the salivary-gland virus in guinea pigs, and by the work upon virus carriers in general among animals, plants (168) and bacteria.
CGI (Computer-Generated Imagery): The only way you will ever see “antibodies” attacking “viruses.”
Rivers next discussed “immunity” in relation to establishing the nature of “viruses.” It is important to note that, regarding antibodies and “immunity,” researchers are utilizing one hypothetical entity in order to define another. While Rivers spoke as if the antibody and antigen concepts are established facts, he remarked that if the concept of the nature of antigens is correct, “viruses” are proteins or are closely linked to proteins. Thus, the interpretation of the nature of the “virus” rests upon the correctness of the nature of the antigen concept. He felt that the rise of these (hypothetical) antibodies that differed between host cell and antigen adduced (led one to believe) the exogenous rather than the endogenous origin of the “viruses.” Regardless, Rivers admitted that the mode of action of neutralizing antibodies was not clearly understood, and when speaking of antibodies causing flocculation (clumping together), he shared that various researchers noted the “immunological” phenomena in “virus” maladies are comparable to those induced by toxins. While Rivers felt that “immunological” observations were important, he admitted that this method of approach had not brought about a definite solution to the problem of the nature of “viruses.”
IMMUNITY. Most virus diseases lead to a marked and lasting immunity in recovered hosts. Not only are the but in their sera antibodies capable of hosts refractory to reinfection neutralizing the viruses are demonstrable. What bearing have these facts upon the nature of viruses? In the first place, it is certain that viruses are highly antigenic. Furthermore, if our concept of the nature of antigens is correct, the viruses are proteins or are closely linked to proteins. Moreover, the agents are not only antigenic, but they give rise to antibodies different from those excited by proteins of the host cells. This is true even of the bacteriophage (188). These facts have been adduced as evidence of the exogenous rather than the endogenous origin of the viruses. Thus, the antigenic nature of viruses appears to be prejudicial to the idea that they are products of cellular activity. The notion, however, that a lifeless agent may be injurious to the cell creating it and that it may induce immunological responses independent of those excited by the cell, loses some of its fantastic qualities when one considers the well-known facts that lens protein is not species specific but organ specific and that sympathetic uveitis in the uninjured eye is caused not by microorganisms but by the reaction of the body to substances derived from injured cells of the other uveal tract.
In addition to the neutralizing antibodies, whose mode of action is not clearly understood, complement-fixing antibodies and antibodies causing flocculation in virus emulsions have been described. Schultz and his associates (191-195) contend that the latter types of antibodies are not excited by viruses and that the immunological phenomena in virus maladies are comparable to those induced by toxins. In spite of their contentions, sufficient evidence has been adduced by different workers to make it more than likely that certain virus diseases lead to the production (176, 177, 180, 199) of the antibodies mentioned. Furthermore, Ledingham (184) has recently demonstrated that Borrel bodies in fowl-pox and Paschen bodies in vaccinia are specifically agglutinated by antifowl-pox and antivaccinal sera respectively. The results of these experiments indicate to Ledingham that the elementary bodies are living organisms and represent the virus. There is no reason to doubt that specific agglutinations of the bodies occurred in the manner described by Ledingham, and one cannot deny that such a phenomenon is presumptive evidence of the organismal nature of the bodies. Yet one dare not say categorically that his experiments are unequivocal evidence that the elementary bodies represent virus alone, because it has been shown by Jones (182, 183) that collodion particles treated with a variety of proteins and then thoroughly washed are specifically agglutinated by the proper antisera. Thus, the Borrel and Paschen bodies without being organisms yet having virus adsorbed on them might nevertheless be specifically agglutinated by appropriate antiviral sera.
Gye (181) states that Rous virus repeatedly injected into alien hosts excites two groups of antibodies, one of which acts on the virus itself, while the other operates on the “specific factor” derived from the host cell. According to him, either set of antibodies inactivates the virus. This fact is offered by him as further evidence of the dual nature of the causative agent of fowl tumors. Murphy (189) and Sittenfield (196-198) have reported the presence in Rous sarcoma of a substance that inhibits the action of the etiological agent, and the first mentioned worker is of the opinion that the “inhibitor” differs from ordinary virus antibodies. The presence of this “inhibitor” together with other phenomena has induced Murphy (220) to believe that immunity to the Rous agent is unlike that observed in virus maladies and lends evidence to his view that the Rous agent is not a virus. Inhibiting substances, however, have been obtained from tissues infected with viruses, for example, a substance restraining the action of rabic virus has been demonstrated by Marie (186) in the brains of rabid animals. Furthermore, Andrewes’ (172, 173) work appears to indicate that the immune responses excited by the filterable agents of fowl tumors may not be unique and may possess much in common with those encountered in other virus diseases.
From what has been said, it is obvious that immunological phenomena are playing an important role in discussions concerning the nature of viruses. As yet this method of approach has not brought us to a definite solution of the problem.
Rivers finished up his review on the nature of “viruses” by presenting the various differing interpretations on the concept of the “virus.” These invisible entities were regarded as either:
Living contagious fluids
Oxidizing enzymes
Protozoan parasites
Inanimate chemical substances
Minute living organisms (related to bacteria)
Rivers noted that depending on the researchers, the rabies “virus” was either an enzyme, a parasite, a protozoon, or an unknown living organism. He stated that researchers were divided over whether bacteriophages were an inanimate agent or a living organism. The fowl-pox “virus” was thought of as either a protozoan parasite, a nucleoprotein poison manufactured by “infected” cells, or a minute coccoid organism capable of regeneration in parasitized cells. The agent associated with Rous sarcoma was either animate, a living organism mixed with an inanimate substance, an enzyme-like substance, or a transmissible mutagen.
Rivers highlighted these numerous competing concepts in order to show how radically different the ideas concerning the nature of “viruses” are from one another. He then proceeded to explain the main conceptions of “viruses,” with the first two scenarios explaining how a stimulus induces a normal cell to create a substance X, which may either remain free or become closely bound to a part of the cell. In Rivers’ third example, which he considered the most popular, X is a minute living organism that enters cells, multiplies, and produces disease. Thus, there is a distinct difference where X is considered an inanimate substance that results from cellular perversion in the first two scenarios, while X is viewed as an autonomous organism in the last scenario. Regardless of the scenarios that Rivers provided attempting to explain “viral” formation, he admitted that there was no unequivocal evidence of the validity of any of these concepts.
CONCEPTS OF THE NATURE OF VIRUSES. A review of the data by means of which one arrives at a concept of the nature of viruses has been presented. Now it will be interesting to see what notions certain workers have concerning some of them.
Beijerinck (202) considers the virus of mosaic disease to be a living contagious fluid; Woods (228), an oxidizing enzyme; Goldstein (212), a protozoan parasite; Vinson (67), an inanimate chemical substance. Most workers, however, believe that it is a minute living organism.
Hijgyes (216) is of the opinion that the incitant of rabies is an enzyme or “alternatively, that the tissues themselves might spontaneously become virulent as the result of changes in their chemical composition.” At one time Remlinger said, “The rabies virus, which is at once filterable, diffusible and capable of reproducing the disease from case to case, appears to occupy a place midway between the microbes and the diastases.” Recently, however, he (221) has published an article on the evolution of the parasite of rabies. Levaditi (118) and others (121, 225) have presented evidence in favor of the idea that the causal agent is a protozoon. The majority of investigators hold the concept that the incitant is a living organism whose nature is not definitely known.
Numerous workers believe that the bacteriophage is an inanimate agent, while others are convinced that it is a living organism. Ideas, however, concerning the nature of the inanimate transmissible substance or the animate organism vary. For details of the different concepts one is referred to papers by Twort (226, 227), d’Herelle (103), Bordet (203), Bronfenbrenner (95), Burnet (206), and Hadley (165, 166).
The incitant of fowl-pox has been described by certain investigators as a protozoan parasite. Sanfelice (222, 223) suggested that it is a nucleoproteid poison manufactured by infected cells. Borrel (log), Goodpasture (124, 125), and Ledingham (184) hold that it is a minute coccoid organism capable of regeneration in parasitized cells.
Rous and others are prepared to entertain the idea that the causal agent of Chicken Tumor No. I is animate. Gye (215) believes that it consists of two factors, one of which is a living exogenous organism, the other an inanimate specific factor derived from infected cells. Murphy (52, 55), at one time, spoke of the Rous agent as an enzyme-like substance. Recently, however, he (220) has compared it to filterable substances capable of transforming melitensis (204,205) into paramelitensis organisms and of converting one type specific pneumococcus (201) into another type specific form. In regard to the matter he says (22O), “Thus we have a group of agents, products of specialized cells capable of conferring the peculiar type quality to undifferentiated cells of the same species which, in turn, may produce the active factor and transmit this to their descendants.” For this type of agent he proposes the name transmissible mutagens.
Sufficient ideas concerning the nature of viruses have been cited to illustrate how radically some differ from others. Many of them, particularly the ones dealing with the origin and reproduction of inanimate substances that behave in a manner similar to that of living organisms, lack precision. In a general way, however, the different concepts can be arranged in groups and it seems advisable to state and to portray diagrammatically several of the popular ones.
According to one conception, certain stimuli produce changes within cells that are inherited by daughter cells. Once the mutations occur, cells of the new type continue to be formed though the stimuli disappear. No agents separable from the cells are demonstrable, and immunological phenomena in this type of disease differ from those observed in virus maladies. Ordinarily this idea of the causation of disease and the concepts concerning the nature of filterable viruses are not grouped together. Yet in some respects they are not dissimilar and many hold the view that malignant neoplasms arise in some such way. See figure 1.
Another notion is that appropriate stimuli induce normal cells to make a substance x which is closely bound to parts y of the cells. Thus an xy complex is formed. This complex, separable from the cells, yet capable of inciting its own production by them, either passes directly into daughter cells, or, having become extracellular, enters another set of normal cells. The xy complex is antigenic, and cells freed from it presumably become normal again. See figure 2.
Still another idea is that certain stimuli incite normal cells to produce a substance x which is not closely bound to parts of the cells, X, separable from cells, yet capable of impelling its formation by them, either passes directly into daughter cells, or, having become extracellular, enters a new group of normal cells. X is antigenic and cells freed from it presumably become normal again. See figure 3.
Finally there is the concept most generally held that x is not a product of the perverted activity of cells but is a minute living organism. X enters cells, multiplies, produces disease, is separable from cells: and is antigenic. Cells freed from it presumably become normal again. At times, x is absorbed by particles y of host cells and evidences of an xy complex are obtained. See figure 4.
For practical purposes it makes little difference which one of the last three concepts is accepted. Theoretically, however, x of the second and third conceptions is quite different from x of the fourth. In the second and third, x, a product of cellular perversion, is an inanimate agent, while in the fourth it is an autonomous organism. No unequivocal evidence of the validity of any of the concepts has been adduced.
Rivers concluded by acknowledging the confused state of the evidence concerning “viruses,” noting that this confusion had made it exceedingly difficult to define their nature. He felt that the easiest way out of their dilemma would be to accept “viruses” as minute organisms. However, Rivers warned of quickly accepting presumptive evidence as “viruses” may be either minute organisms, forms of life unfamiliar to us, inanimate transmissible incitants of disease, or all of the above.
Conclusion
The confused state of our knowledge of the viruses at the present time makes it exceedingly difficult to define the nature of these active agents. The easiest way out of the dilemma, however, would be the acceptance of the presumptive evidence that viruses are minute organisms. Yet the easiest way and the one that best fits the experiences of the day may not be the right one. Furthermore, excessive skepticism and the habit of too readily accepting presumptive evidence are equally productive of sterility. Unless viruses represent a form of life unknown to us, proof of their living nature would not be a striking discovery. If, however, some of them are not animate, absolute proof of such a fact would be of fundamental biological importance. Therefore, care should be exercised that immoderate skepticism on the one hand, and the mental satisfaction secured by accepting presumptive evidence on the other, do not dull our efforts to obtain a better understanding of the viruses, some of which may be minute organisms, while others may represent forms of life unfamiliar to us, while still others may be inanimate transmissible incitants of disease. In any event, we are face to face with the “infinitely small in biology,” and, if there be a sharp demarcation between life and death, then scientists, investigating the nature of viruses, are working near the line that separates infinitely small living organisms from inanimate active agents.
From these two presented articles from two different points in time in the history of virology (Rivers in 1932 and Summers in 2014), it should be clear why it is difficult for virologists to define the nature of the “virus.” Researchers needed to invent, and then continually reinvent, the nature of the “virus” as the foundation that virology is built upon is conceptually weak. It is full of contradictions that have cracked the very infrastructure that was put in place. There were never any submicroscopic entities that were being studied by the various researchers over the last century. As there were no “viruses” to study and characterize, there was no agreement at all amongst the various researchers as to the nature of the invisible concept crafted inside of their minds. They had tricked themselves, through shoddy indirect pseudoscientific evidence, into believing that they were studying something real based upon lab-created effects without an identifiable cause. This is why the “virus” has been continually defined for what it isn’t, rather than for what it supposedly is. The magical “virus” skirts the line between life and death, microbe and molecule, enzyme and ferment. It is unlike anything else seen in nature, and for this very reason, its nature remains mysterious and incomplete. This should be the very first clue that there is nothing scientific about the “virus,” as science only deals with the natural world and its phenomena, not the supernatural. However, within the supernatural realm is where the “virus” concept will remain, ready and waiting to be reinvented upon the arrival of the latest technology for the next best indirect measurement. This will be utilized to continue fooling the researchers, as well as the public that blindly trusts in them to know better, that these fictional entities exist in nature, when, as Thomas Rivers kindly pointed out, “viruses” have never once been observed there. Thus, the nature of the “virus” will continue to remain merely an invention of the imagination of the most ardent admirers of these invisible boogeymen—the virologists.
It’s been a while since we’ve heard of any strange happenings on planet Earth’s strangest place, Antarctica, but just when you think everyone has forgotten about that continent’s strange connections to Herman Goering, Rudolf Hess, Buzz Aldrin, Patriarch of Moscow Kirill III, or Obama Secretary of State (and current Bai Den Dzhao “Climate Change Tsar) John Ketchup Kerry, something comes along that makes one think that, once again, something is “up” down there. Indeed, there is in this article shared by S.D. something that caught my attention, and makes me go “hmmm”; see if you can spot it:
Now granted, China has been in Antarctica for a while, and like everyone else “down there,” it has been conducting all sorts of research. One can only assume that they have an interest in the neutrino detector down there, and a host of other things as well. But I have difficulty imagining that the Chinese Communist Party’s interest is purely scientific, just as I have a tremendous difficulty that Herman Goering’s interest was purely scientific and that he was just sponsoring a glitzy science project. Of course, we had the “commerce and lubricants” explanation for Goering’s interest (and the British raising the subject of Antarctica with Rudolf Hess after the latter had flown to Britain on his infamous and ill-fated peace mission, a topic unfortunately too long and weird to get into here, but if you’re interested, see my book Hess and the Penguins). Then there was Admiral Byrd’s Operation High Jump, which was quite literally a fully-fledged combined arms operation which invaded the continent, but oddly, did so by landings everywhere but where the Nazis had explored.
And now the Chinese are sending a little flotilla of two icebreakers and a cargo ship to build yet another research facility there. So what is it about the place that attracts the attention of fascist Germany, communist China, and capitalist America, and why are the cover stories explaining that interest so laughably transparent? From “we need lubricants and can get it from whaling” (Nazi Germany), to “we need to test our new military equipment and combat capability under Arctic conditions, and we need to do it down there even though our access to the Arctic via Alaska and Canada is so much easier” (the Americans and Operation High Jump), to “we need to monitor neutrinos” (pretty much everyone), to “what I saw down there was pure evil” (allegedly from Buzz Aldrin), to “I need to personally check out climate change” (Ketchup Kerry, when interrupting a diplomatic junket in 2016), and now to Communist China, which, according to the article in search of its own explanation, is offering this one for your consideration:
Work on the first Chinese station in the Pacific sector began in 2018. It will be used to conduct research on the region’s environment, state television reported.
China has four research stations in the Antarctic built from 1985 to 2014. A U.S.-based think tank estimated the fifth could be finished next year.
The facility is expected to include an observatory with a satellite ground station, and should help China “fill in a major gap” in its ability to access the continent, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) said in a report this year.
The station is also well situated to collect signals intelligence over Australia and New Zealand and telemetry data on rockets launched from Australia’s new Arnhem Space Centre, it said.
China rejects suggestions that its stations would be used for espionage.
Oh those clever, nasty, sneaky Chinese! Why, they’re building a fifth station in Antarctica because they need to spy on arch-rivals Australia and New Zealand!
As explanations go, this one is right up there with Reichsmarschall Goering’s “we need lubricants from whales” and Admiral Byrd’s “we need to test equipment in Arctic conditions” explanations for sheer brassy and ultimately nonsensical chutzpah. Now, I have no difficulty imagining that the Chinese would want to spy on Australia and New Zealand. They spy on everyone else, so why should Aussies and Kiwis get an exemption? And I have no doubt that Antarctica would be an ideal place from which to listen in. But my problem is that the Chinese probably already havethat capability to listen in, and that building yet another base in Antarctica seems to be a rather cost-ineffective way to do so: why not just launch another geo-synchronous satellite in orbit over those recalcitrant Aussies and Kiwis, and save some money? So, assuming that the “environment” and “listening in” explanations offered by the article are true, then what about the south pole gives such a unique perspective on the planet’s environment, and more importantly, who is really the target of those eavesdropping efforts? Since the American corporation Raytheon announced its own presence on the continent, that would be a possible target. Or maybe it is “someone else”? Is someone sending messages in the aurora australis?
Who knows? But it is perhaps telling that the Chinese, whatever their motivations, appear to be in a hurry to complete that fifth Chinese Antarctic “research station.”
Of course, there’s a final possibility, namely, that an Antarctic research station, as the article avers, could help monitor Australian space launches… but it could just as easily monitor comings and goings from and to the planet that might be taking place down there….
“…more people look for salvation through relationship than in houses of worship. One may even suggest that romantic love has replaced institutional religion as the greatest motive power and influence in our lives…the search for love has replaced the search for God.”
Half of all first marriages end in divorce; as do two-thirds of second marriages, and nearly three-quarters of third marriages. Most non-marital relationships also end in separation. Of the relationships that do last, many are unhealthy and unhappy. Most relationships, in other words, fail. In some cases it is infidelity, abuse, or a clash in personality, beliefs, values, or life-plans that causes a relationship to fail. Many times, however, it is the result of one, or both partners, burdening the relationship with the fantasy that it will cure all their personal problems. This belief that a romantic relationship will unlock a life of happiness and fulfillment, the psychiatrist M. Scott Peck called the myth of romantic love. And in this video, we explain how belief in this myth destroys one’s capacity to cultivate the healthy and realistic love that sustains fulfilling relationships. For as M. Scott Peck writes:
“The myth of romantic love tells us that when we meet the person for whom we are intended…we will be able to satisfy all of each other’s needs forever and ever, and therefore live happily forever after in perfect union and harmony…While I generally find that great myths are great precisely because they represent and embody great universal truths…the myth of romantic love is a dreadful lie…as a psychiatrist I weep in my heart almost daily for the ghastly confusion and suffering that this myth fosters.”
The myth of romantic love is pervasive in popular culture; countless shows, movies, plays, books, and songs are centered around the theme of a lost and lonely individual who finds the perfect romantic match, and thereafter experiences a life of happiness and fulfillment. The psychologist James Hollis called this perfect romantic match the Magical Other. And he suggested that as traditional sources of meaning such as religion, family, and community have eroded, the pursuit of the Magical Other has intensified – as many people today deify romantic love and view it as the central source of life’s meaning. Or as Hollis wrote in The Eden Project: The Search for the Magical Other:
“One of the false ideas that drives humankind is the fantasy of the Magical Other, the notion that there is one person out there who is right for us…a soul-mate who will repair the ravages of our personal history; one who will be there for us, who will read our minds, know what we want and meet those deepest needs; a good parent who will protect us from suffering and, if we are lucky, spare us the perilous journey of individuation… Virtually all popular culture is fueled by…the search for the Magical Other.”
In addition to popular culture promoting the idea that a Magical Other can save one from suffering and make life meaningful, the search for the “Magical Other” often stems from a childhood lacking in sufficient parental love, affection, and attention. A child who does not receive steady and dependable caregiving tends to develop into an adult afflicted with feelings of insecurity, a fragile identity, and pervasive feelings of emptiness. Such an individual often attempts to fill the emotional void by anchoring their sense of self in a relationship, and by seeking a romantic partner who can assume the role of a maternal or paternal figure, or as Hollis writes:
“The search for reflection from the Magical Other is also the dynamic of narcissism, which manifests in the adult who as a child was insufficiently mirrored by a loving, affirmative parent.”
In the early stages of a relationship, it can appear as if one has found their Magical Other. With dopamine and oxytocin flooding the brain, and with evolved mating instincts playing tricks on the mind so as to increase the probability of reproducing, the experience of falling in love is rife with illusions – the primary of which is the idealization of the significant other. The faults and flaws of the partner are ignored or glossed over as eccentricities which only add to their charm. The novelty of the other, coupled with their perceived perfection, engenders deep feelings of infatuation, happiness, and euphoria, which can breed the illusion that life is now complete. Furthermore, one’s ego boundaries collapse as one psychologically merges with the partner, just as in early infancy one was psychologically merged with the mother. “In some respects the act of falling in love is an act of regression.”, observed James Hollis. Or as the M. Scott Peck wrote regarding this experience:
“The unreality of these feelings when we have fallen in love is essentially the same as the unreality of the two-year-old who feels itself to be king of the family and the world with power unlimited. Just as reality intrudes upon the two-year-old’s fantasy of omnipotence so does reality intrude upon the fantastic unity of the couple who have fallen in love…One by one, gradually or suddenly, the ego boundaries snap back into place; gradually or suddenly, they fall out of love. Once again they are two separate individuals.”
When reality intrudes upon the illusions of falling in love, the romantic partner, rather than being a Magical Other, is revealed as being human, all-too-human. Seen without rose colored glasses, their faults, flaws, rough edges, and bad habits grow apparent. The partner does not always make one happy, meet one’s needs, or fulfill one’s expectations; and so, in place of sustained infatuation and happiness, at times there are feelings of indifference, disappointment, and even disdain. These feelings are a normal component of long-term relationships, for as M. Scott Peck writes: “…real love often occurs in a context in which the feeling of love is lacking, when we act lovingly despite the fact that we don’t feel loving.” (M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled)However, for individuals enthralled to the myth of romantic love, the conclusion of the honeymoon period, and the awareness of the widening gulf between their fantasy of who they want their partner to be, and who they really are, can be a troubling experience. Or as James Hollis writes:
“Why don’t you make me feel good about myself?” we ask, usually unconsciously but sometimes straight out. “Why don’t you meet my needs?”…What a disappointment, how unromantic – the Other was not put on earth to serve or take care of me, protect me from my life!”
“…if I do not see and love my partner as a real person in the real world, if instead I elaborate a fantasy about him or her, using the person merely as a springboard for my imagination and my wishes, then I am doomed sooner or later to resent the actual person for not living up to my fantasies.”
So long as one remains captured by the myth of romantic love, and chained to search for the Magical Other, one dooms their relationships from the start. Holding onto the expectation that a romantic partner should be the primary source of life’s meaning leads to resentment and mounting pressures that either strain or break the relationship. A pathological dynamic can also develop. The individual in search of the Magical Other manipulates and controls their partner in the attempt to mold them into their idealized image; while the other partner, fearful that they will be abandoned, hopelessly strives to live up to this fantasy by submissively devoting almost all their time and energy to satiating the other’s every desire, wish, and need. Or as Hollis writes:
“[The search for the Magical Other] accounts for the fact that so many couples move from naive relatedness to the joustings of power. If you do not act as I wish, I shall bring about your compliance by my actions. I will control you, criticize you, abuse you, withdraw from you, sabotage you…And so, through tactics of dependence or anger or control, mixed with emotional and sexual withdrawal, one [of the partners] tries to force the Other back into one’s original, imaginary mold. Seldom are these attitudes and behaviors conscious.”
To avoid the unnecessary suffering that plagues so many relationships, it is critical that we discard the myth of romantic love, abandon the search for the Magical Other, and rather than seeking salvation in someone else’s affection, concentrate on cultivating self-love. For as the psychologist Nathaniel Branden wrote:
“The first love affair we must consummate successfully is the love affair with ourselves. Only then are we ready for other love relationships.”
“If being loved is your goal, you will fail to achieve it. The only way to be assured of being loved is to be a person worthy of love, and you cannot be a person worthy of love when your primary goal in life is to passively be loved.”
One of the most effective ways to find the motivation to cultivate self-love is to recognize and accept the fact that we are, and always will be, inescapably alone. We are born alone, die alone, and though the boundaries which separate us from others can be bridged, they can never be transcended. “We are each of us, in the last analysis, islands of consciousness—and that is the root of our aloneness.”, observed James Hollis. Relationships come, and either through breakup, divorce, or death, they end, but what always remains is our individual journey – the magnum opus of our life.
“The ultimate goal of life remains the spiritual growth of the individual, the solitary journey to peaks that can be climbed only alone.”
Focusing on expanding our skills, pursuing excellence in a vocation, cultivating enriching hobbies, sculpting our mind and body, creating a network of inspiring friends, seeking adventures, and devoting ourselves to rewarding goals – this is how we make our solitary journey meaningful, and therein cultivate self-love. And with sufficient self-love, we do not need a relationship to thrive, and, paradoxically, this is when we are at our most attractive and capable of cultivating a healthy relationship that is based on the following foundation of realism: A romantic partner can support us and enrich our journey, just as we can support and enrich theirs. However, to use a relationship to flee the burdens of our existence and to look to another person to provide us fulfillment, is to damage the relationship and cripple ourselves with infantile dependencies. The earthly salvation that we seek can only be found by cultivating and affirming our individual journey; it cannot be found in the arms of another.
“Those vested deeply in the idea of romance will no doubt protest, but then they will remain enslaved to the pursuit of the illusory Magical Other.”
“…it is the separateness of the partners that enriches the union. Great marriages cannot be constructed by individuals who are terrified by their basic aloneness, as so commonly is the case, and seek a merging in marriage… Two people love each other only when they are quite capable of living without each other but choose to live with each other…Genuine love not only respects the individuality of the other but actually seeks to cultivate it, even at the risk of separation or loss.
As soon as I began writing about COVID in the spring of 2020, I made the case that SARS-CoV-2 hadn’t been proved to exist.
I then met Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, and Christine Massey. I became aware of the work of Stefan Lanka. They were making a wide challenge about viruses in general:
No actual isolation; no proof of existence; instead, a parade of false claims and obfuscations from official sources.
A few years later…and the number of serious researchers who are coming to the same conclusion has expanded significantly. (You can find links to some of these researchers at Christine Massey’s Substack page )
The new work isn’t just a repetition of the original challenge to official authority. It attacks fake viruses from a number of angles. The shocks keep coming.
This story isn’t going away. It’s building.
It reminds me of the vaccine story. When I first started writing about dangerous and ineffective vaccines, in 1987, there were dozens of writers, present and past, who had covered similar ground—going back many decades. But that was nothing compared with…
The strength of that story now, in 2023, after the catastrophe of the COVID vaccines.
This is what I believe is going to happen to the fake virus story—against even longer odds. I say “longer,” because the proofs that viruses aren’t real by any scientific standard will undermine and detonate the very center of the medical cartel, which is all about germ theory.
Germ theory is marketing. The marketing of (toxic) drugs and vaccines for thousands of so-called distinct diseases, each supposedly caused by a unique germ.
When that fiction falls, the whole house collapses.
Going back as far as the beginning of the 20th century (and farther), another paradigm about disease emerged. It came to be called “holistic.” Probably not the best label. But the idea was: look at the whole body, the whole person. Look at body processes as connected and inter-related. Understand disease and health in those larger terms. Include environmental effects—basic sanitation, pollution, toxic chemicals, nutrition, the rise of the middle class out of poverty.
Something needs to be pointed out here. The holistic paradigm is a very difficult approach, in terms of making it pay off in real cures. It always has been difficult. Thousands of methods have been suggested. Many of these tend to mirror the medical strategy: find magic bullet solutions, take short cuts. Market them. Claim temporary fixes are permanent.
Treating the body and the person as a whole, taking in the mind-body connection—this is by no means a walk in the park.
Therefore, sooner or later, many people, discouraged, fall back on medical answers and germ theory.
The work of the no-virus pioneers provides an absolutely essential antidote to that surrender.
Because what are people surrendering to? The convenient fiction that viruses are everywhere, causing separate diseases. Convenient fiction was how viruses were willed into existence in the first place:
Doctors couldn’t cure their patients. So they looked for “something that was missing.” A hole in their hypotheses. And they claimed they found it.
Tiny particles no one had ever seen. No one had ever isolated. “This is the key. This is the great discovery.” It was a self-serving fairy tale. An excuse for treatment failure.
It kicked off millions of efforts to assure one and all that viruses were real. Marketing, parading as science.
Where were these viruses being discovered? In proprietary labs. No civilians permitted. Doors locked. Only the experts could understand the details of their own isolation of the tiny particles.
The particles which had been fantasized into existence.
We’re actually looking at a magic-myth story. Explorer-knights (doctors, researchers) are searching for an invisible dragon object which is crippling the population. These heroes finally corner it and isolate it and go to work decimating it and all its variants.
But the real ending to that story is now being provided by the multiplying number of independent researchers, who are proving the invisible dragon object was never cornered or identified or isolated.
Instead, the so-called explorer-knights made up, invented, fabricated the idea of the object to begin with.
That’s the magic. Sleight of hand. That’s the myth. Secret lab procedures that, when exposed, turn out to assume what they’re trying to prove. Also known as circular reasoning.
The whole story has come unglued.
For now, I’ll conclude with this analogy. A group of elite researchers claim that, 49 trillion light years from Earth, there is a flaming star the size of the Milky Way. At the center of that star, buried within a supernatural vault, there is a tiny, tiny purple man with green toes and orange hair who is causing all trouble and all destruction circulating throughout the universe. He’s there. He’s been “isolated.”
Given that incredible tale, would you expect, would you really expect there can be ANY sort of test which would prove the existence of that tiny man?
Could ANY test be produced that would be authentic?
So, in the case of the wild virus fairy tale, are we looking at proofs of existence and isolation that need to be improved, in order for us to accept them?
Or are we, instead, looking at the tiny purple man, about whose existence there are no possible proofs at all?
Because the story is so absurdly outrageous.
I’m thinking we’re dealing with the tiny purple man. And this may be the next chapter in the no-virus revelation:
The original concoction of viruses was so crazy, every so-called proof is going to be circular, mindless, and futile.
Yesterday, October 28, 2023, Reiner Fuëllmich’s attorney, Dagmar Schön, joined Elsa Schieder for an update on the situation regarding Reiner’s arrest. (Follow Elsa at her Truth Summit substack for updates.)
Below the video, you will find a summary with excerpts from the interview. This interview was a pre-scheduled group chat that Elsa has set up for those interested in staying updated on Reiner’s situation.
Below the summary. you will also find an email address that can be used to contact Reiner (via Dagmar Schön).
In the interview, Dagmar shares what she actually knows thus far from the facts. Dagmar and Elsa also share perspective on the psychological/consciousness interplay in all of this and the unique characters of those involved.
Dagmar makes it clear that Reiner’s legal team has not made a public statement about the charges in the case because they have just received all the paperwork detailing the charges.
~ Kathleen
Summary with excerpts prepared by TCTL. Timestamps are approximate.
Following a greeting by Elsa, Dagmar shares an update on Reiner’s situation.
00:00:40
Dagmar met with on Reiner on Monday and Tuesday of last week. On Monday, her colleague, Katja Woermer, was also there. Dagmar describes Reiner as being in good spirits and looking well. She explains that she and Reiner have been friends for a very long time and that this is important because he can trust her.
Dagmar moves on to describe the series of events around his arrest, as they unfolded.
Dagmar:
“So Reiner was arrested in Frankfurt on October 12th on a warrant dated March 15th, this year, ’23, which had been an European arrest warrant since May 24th. First it was a normal warrant, and then from end of May it was a European warrant.
“Yes, that was an excellent means of coercion, this arrest warrant. Nevertheless, unfortunately, not enforceable in Mexico since Mexico is not part of the EU.
“And therefore, the enlightened citizen asks himself, how could Reiner Fuëllmich be arrested then? Was he really arrested only in Frankfurt or perhaps already in Tijuana?
“I wish that many first class lawyers, the stars among the international law experts, would engage with this case and send us their analysis. This case must cause concern among all lawyers worldwide.
“Mr. and Mrs. Fuellmich had lost their German passports. They had reported this to the consulate in Tijuana and applied for new passports with a new visa. On October 12th, they were registered at the consulate to pick up their new temporary passports and visas.
“The consul himself wanted to receive them at the airport. However, it was not the consul who was waiting at the airport, but six officials from the Mexican Immigration office who were only looking for Reiner Fuëllmich, and took him in. After that, there was no escape for him anymore.
” He found himself in state custody. The only question is which state? It may be that the obvious answer to this is not the right one at all. This is a question that many experts in international law should look at very closely. Which state was acting here?
“Normally, no one is expelled from Mexico because they no longer have a valid visa, especially if they didn’t have one because their passports had been lost, and they had just applied for and were supposed to get a new one. It was the case with Mrs. Fuëllmich. She got visa and passport without any problems. She could stay in the country and was not taken into custody.
“Reiner Fuëllich was first flown to New Mexico, and from there by Lufthansa to Frankfurt. There, he was met by the German police upon landing. And one day later on October 13th, the grounds for this action, the European arrest warrant, was disclosed to him. His two lawyers, Katja Woermer from Essen and I from Munich, both were present.
Reiner was accompanied on the flight from Mexico to Germany by two Mexicans, one of whom spoke English. Reiner asked him… (He’s a person who talks with everyone you know. You know him.) And asked him, who actually pays for these flights because that was quite a costly action which was taken here. You know, three flights from Mexico to Germany and then two flights back for the two Mexicans. The answer, one could guess, was Germany. Germany has paid for these flights.
“The question for the experts of international law is, therefore, could there be a legal basis for the actions of the German public prosecutor’s office in Göttingen? Is it the determined state for such an action or was it an illegal kidnapping, as some international articles have already suggested.
“The public prosecutors office in Göttingen based his arrest warrant on a criminal complaint filed by three young Berlin lawyers, two of whom were even members of the Corona Committee — had been…”
[…]
“…This criminal complaint is 30 pages long and is indeed a remarkable piece of writing, but not because of its legal brilliance. Prosecutors to whom we gave it to read were surprised that an investigation had been initiated at all on the basis of this document and the accusations formulated in it — other prosecutors told us.
“These facts also fueled a suspicion Reiner Fuëllmich’s arrest may have been motivated by political, rather than legal, considerations.
“We need international support through articles, legal analysis and also financial support. In fact, the money that Reiner Fuëllmich is accused of collecting is not with him but, hard to believe, with the person who filed a criminal complaint — at least with one of them. Because over one million euros were transferred to his account, which actually had to be transferred to an account of Reiner Fuëllmich. There he should have been transferred to, but he somehow managed that it was transferred to his account. It’s a bit [of] a complicated thing. So this is not easy to explain in this situation.
“The criminal complaint is dated on September 2, 2022. September 2, 2022 was exactly the day on which Viviane Fischer, together with Wolfgang Wodarg, announced Reiner’s departure from the Corona Committee, into the camera, allegedly because of financial irregularities.
“So it was 30 pages long, this complaint. That means nobody could write this in one day, so they have probably worked on it for several weeks already. So communicating with Reiner and, behind his back, they were planning his execution. It’s amazing.
“And all people who somehow he still considered as friends. Anyone who has watched the Corona Committee since 2020 could see that Reiner Fuëllmich did 90% of the work here. Because during this time he also created a network of international lawyers and initiated various class actions.
“If he had billed his legal work, which he certainly could have done, he would probably have been entitled to far more than the 700,000 euros that he’s now being accused of being illegally collected by him.
“Everyone who knows Reiner knows that his work is not about money and fame. He received a lot of letters in which people confirmed that he has saved their lives — actually really their lives — with the Corona Committee during the Corona measures. And it’s really what we should keep in mind.
“This one person wrote in a comment, I think it was on the Bittel broadcast. ‘Reiner carried us through dark times. Now we carry Reiner.’
“I hope that many people hear this and follow it.”
00:13:00
Dagmar now takes questions from the participants. The first question was about how Reiner spends his days in jail. There were other follow-up questions in this segment, asking for comparisons with US legal system, Reiner’s access to current global news, etc. Detailed answers to these questions can be found in the video.
Dagmar:
“How he spends his days? I mean, you know we didn’t really talk about this because we had so many other things to talk. But when we came on Monday, he had already written nine pages — handwriting — the whole history of the Corona Committee again. You know, a summary of all the incidents. And I think… you in these jails, you have a strict schedule during the day. And you get — at six o’clock in the morning, your day starts and then breakfast and then, you know, like the days they also go pretty fast.
“And I think Reiner has a lot to think about and to reconsider. And I feel that’s even the very positive thing on this.”
00:18:00
Dagmar was questioned about whether she’ll be making future appearances on Bittel TV (where the first announcement about Reiner’s situation took place). She said she would not be appearing again at Bittel.
A question was asked about whether there is an estimate of timing in terms of future court appearances.
Dagmar:
“No, we have to apply for, to check this situation with a judge. But first we have to look at the files we got. You know, we just got them now. And we have to look in the files. And then we can apply.
“Because we first have to know what is there — what they think that is their proof. And then we can apply and then we will see. I mean, in our view, they would have to let him go very quickly. That’s Katja’s and my opinion because it has no valid…
“It’s a civil conflict between persons who made a private company. So usually this has nothing to do with criminal law. And that’s a big indication that it’s a political case. And we will see how long they will keep him…”
00:27:00
A question was asked about the process that put Reiner in jail before he has been convicted of anything and whether or not he can get out on bail.
Dagmar:
“Of course, you’re innocent until there’s a summons. But if there’s some accusation and there’s a danger that you escape the power of the judiciary, you know, they can put you in jail. And that’s why they — because he was in Mexico they couldn’t get to him. So nowadays they — of course, there’s a danger that he might go back to Mexico. So it’s difficult to get him out.
“But I think they want to show something, you know, and do some some example for other people who try to keep their head out of the window and say something about the truth and what’s going on. But they do all the time already you know, with doctors.
“And so we just have to see that we get him out as quickly as possible. But state power is quite a power, you know. They can basically do what they want…”
00:29:00
Questions were asked about writing letters to Reiner, public support for Reiner and getting more publicity for his situation.
“I mean, you know you can write letters but it will take quite a while until they’ll reach him. Because they told me in the jail last week if you send them to the jail then they first go to the court. And then they are checked. Every letter from outside will be checked and then they go back to jail. Yeah, so it takes probably weeks until he gets it.”
00:30:00
A question was asked about public support for Reiner in Germany.
“I have not seen it yet…
“So I think send him your invisible support, you know, with prayers and I think he really feels that. He at least says so. And I think he’s also in a good shape because so many people are giving him this support. So the most important thing is now that he can soon talk with his wife on the phone. This is most important for him…”
A few articles by Uncut News (one a rebuttal by Viviane Fischer) were mentioned by Marion from Germany.
A question was asked about getting international alternative publishers to share more regarding Reiner’s arrest.
“But first we have to really know what is in the files, you know, because what should they say if we don’t even know what’s in the files?… The only thing that is really factual, clear, is how they how they got him and how they got him out of Mexico…
“We would very appreciate high-ranking. legal expertise on this subject. So try to find your top lawyers in your country, in your city. Talk to them and tell them they have to look in this case because this can hit everybody.”
Heike Funke (member of ICIC team) mentioned that they will be creating a webpage where comments in support of Reiner can be posted.
A question was asked regarding the discord between Reiner & Viviane Fischer.
Dagmar:
“The real mistake of Reiner was that he didn’t confront the problems with her right away when they appeared. If he would have — and that’s a trait in him. He has really difficulties in private relationships to address problems. He does it outside but with private he always tries to smooth them out, not to confront them. To smooth so that the work can go on. But this can be a major mistake, as this case shows now.
“She has not done any work she was obliged to do in the Corona Committee. And so he took all on himself. He did all the work then and his law firm. Instead of confronting her — if he had confronted her she would have been out after three months and the whole problem would have not appeared…”
Elsa added some insight.
Elsa:
“…I know from an interview with me, he knew within the first few minutes that it wasn’t a good match… And yet he always felt, ‘I can make it work’ as opposed to ‘this is the wrong person’. Better to have nobody or better to be without a team than to have the wrong team member…”
00:52:00
Dagmar:
“You know this, Elsa. I did also much work on myself. I know it’s difficult to confront these topics in yourself, but if you don’t, one day they hit you so in the face. And sometimes they even bring you into jail. I mean, what bigger the cost could be, like this now…”
[…]
“…I met him in 2015 and I invited him to this company to set up a legal platform to investigate in the judiciary. That’s where he met Schwab and Wodarg. I had already my experience with Wodarg in this thing, which was not very positive.
“And when I talked to him about my things I had done, you know my spiritual path… I mean… he had no idea about what I was talking. So he was really now in a pressure cooker for all these insights with the Corona Committee. He learned a lot. He opened so much. I mean, things for which I had maybe 10-20 years, he had to open to now in 2-3 years. That’s an immense inner work he has done and has allowed to happen to him — an opening he has allowed to happen to him…
“…I think in some strange way, I think this forced retreat — forced meditation retreat, he has now to endure — will change him a lot more. It will open dimensions probably he’s not aware yet, of insights. Because he was always running. And I know that Inka, his wife, she was always afraid that he’s working too much, that he’s still always confronting a burnout. Because this interview, and that interview, and then Africa. And this and that. So he never could really relax…
“Even after Martin Schwab has shown his his real face and his real attitude, he still was always not really facing what he was doing. He still was always trying to make it look good. But now this is changing. Because they really — Wodarg really damaged…
“And Viviane, I always see her as a desperate five-year-old… I think she had a lost child syndrome, breaking up, when he tried to go to the U.S… Then she got really angry.
“But Wodarg — she would not have done the 2nd of September 22 without Wodarg. She would not have done it. So he was actually the main actor here. And he has no excuse, no excuse at all, because he was a politician for 20 years. He was 15 years in parliament. He has experienced so many times that you can just kill a person like Reiner with one rumor, especially about money…”
[…]
“…And Martin Schwab, I think he just fulfilled the wish of his father who was a very famous professor of law. He still is…
“He just tried to fulfill the wish of his father to become also a professor, and that he became. But in this difficult task, all the other developments of his person somehow didn’t get enough energy…”
[…]
“…It’s true they have been very jealous of him because he has this energy and this power, and this ability to connect with so many people.
“And still to be so precise and clear. And that you can feel his heart. You can feel that he’s a real person…
“…If a real person talks then our hearts open because that’s the heart-to-heart connection that happens then.”
While this case is ongoing you can send a message to Reiner via Dagmar:
rainschoen@kanzlei-schoen.de
“You mentioned “DNA targeting.” yes, indeed, this is possible, but is it happening? I seriously doubt it. If medical/pharmaceutical experts cannot isolate a virus, RNA, or spike protein, they cannot (not capable) of working with DNA targeting, as assumed.”
Viruses/Virology: Promoting With Glorified And Catchy Language
About the view that vaccine(s) may include some type of DNA targeting, I responded as follows:
Being a chemist/scientist all my life, and mainly in the pharmaceutical area, when I read about pharmaceuticals, including viruses and vaccines, it is evident to me that medical experts clearly describe chemistry in a glorified and catchy language. However, most of their claims do not make sense and are often false and fraudulent.
You mentioned “DNA targeting.” yes, indeed, this is possible, but is it happening? I seriously doubt it. If medical/pharmaceutical experts cannot isolate a virus, RNA, or spike protein, they cannot (not capable) of working with DNA targeting, as assumed. So, it is fancy language to impress that something (high-level “science”) is happening.
On the other hand, as I described (here and here), it looks like they are injecting partial or unpurified cell culture (as a “vaccine”), assuming it is mRNA and is causing the problems (adverse effects), including deaths.
The only and easiest/quickest way to find out is to get an audit done by experts with experience in isolation/purification to establish if the mRNA/vaccine is pure as described or junk.
However, in the current (regulatory) system, an audit is done by experts who have no or limited experience in isolation and purification and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, so they will provide fancy stories and seek more funding for “research” to prepare for next “pandemic” and “vaccine.”
Further information on the topic may be found here: Helpful Notes, the Book, and Blog by the author (Dr. Qureshi), who worked at Health Canada as a Research Scientist and had 35+ years of bench science experience in substance isolation, characterization, and analytical testing among other specialties.
It gets harder and harder for the imperial propagandists to frame empire-targeted powers like Hamas as Evil Villains who are simply Evil because they are Evil. As our society gains a better and better collective understanding of psychology and trauma and why individuals do what they do, fewer and fewer people are swallowing such infantile propagandistic frameworks. When something scary and traumatizing happens, more and more people are beginning to ask, “Why? Why did that happen? What were the antecedents which led those people to do what they did?”
When people start asking such questions, answers are revealed which are very inconvenient for the information interests of the western empire. Oh it turns out Israel is an abusive apartheid state and Gaza is a giant concentration camp where Palestinians are deprived of basic human needs. Oh it turns out NATO was amassing war machinery near Russia’s border in ways the United States would never in a million years permit near its own borders. Oh it turns out western powers were funneling weapons to murderous extremist groups in Syria with the goal of ousting Assad and installing a puppet regime in Damascus.
More and more people understand that nobody is just plain evil because they are evil; if they’re doing something violent and scary, it’s a safe bet that something violent and scary was done to them, either immediately before or in their formative years. You see this expanding awareness manifest today in popular movies and shows with the rise of the anti-hero and complex villains with traumatic pasts that you can understand and sympathize with. Modern storytelling has largely abandoned the Virtuous Protagonist vs Villainous Antagonist model, simply because audiences are too conscious to buy it anymore. It loses their interest and attention.
And of course this expanded awareness extends to Israel as well. A people who had just suffered an unfathomable collective trauma were told they have a place that they can call their own in the Holy Land where they can feel safe, and then we saw the kind of violence and abuse we’d expect to see from a highly traumatized population who suddenly had power over the indigenous people who were living there previously. That trauma went into the psyches of the Palestinians, who sometimes do things only highly traumatized people would do.
And round and round it goes.
Really we’re all just lost little kids stumbling around from jump scare to jump scare in a frightening world that we do not understand. Some of us are better at faking self-assuredness than others, but really none of us know what this big mysterious world is all about and we only do what we do because we are whipped around by forces within ourselves we can’t really see, which were put there when we were too young to understand the trauma that was happening to us.
That’s all this really is. It comes out in some ugly, horrifying ways, like what we’re seeing in Gaza right now, but underneath it all it’s ultimately just scared little kids frozen in grown adult bodies trying to feel like they have a little bit of control in this wild chaotic world so they maybe won’t get hurt and scared again.
It comes out in some dark, dark ways and leads our species down some dark, dark paths. It might even get us all killed in a nuclear holocaust one day. But underneath it all we were always just a bunch of scared little primates, getting thrown around by psychological forces we hadn’t made conscious in a world our newly evolved brains aren’t equipped to comprehend.
I don’t know where our strange adventure is taking us or what we’ll endure on the remainder of our winding road together. But there does seem to be a light growing, even amid all the violence and the screams. Maybe we’ll wake up one day and stop acting out these terrible patterns. Maybe we’ll wake up one day and build a healthy world.
There is a complex history behind Israel’s October 2023 plan to “Wipe Gaza off the Map.”
It’s genocide, an absolute slaughter:
“We are going to attack Gaza City very broadly soon,” Israel’s chief military spokesman, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, said in a nationally broadcast address, without giving a timetable for the attack.”
It’s a criminal undertaking based on Israel’s doctrine of “Justified Vengeance” which was first formulated in 2001.
(See below: my January 2009 article published at the very outset of Israel’s 2008-2009 invasion of Gaza under “Operation Cast Led”)
The “Justified Vengeance” doctrine propounds in no uncertain terms that(despite its limited military capabilities) Palestine rather than Israel is “the aggressor” and that Israel has the right to defend itself.
“U.S. intelligence say they weren’t aware of an impending Hamas attack.
Did Netanyahu and his vast military and intelligence apparatus (Mossad et al) have foreknowledge of the Hamas attack which has resulted in countless deaths of Israelis and Palestinians.
Was a carefully formulated Israeli plan to wage an all out war against Palestinians envisaged prior to the launching by Hamas of “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm”?
This was not a failure of Israeli Intelligence, as conveyed by the media. Quite the opposite”
The History of False Flags: “The Green Light to Terror” (1997), The “Bloodshed as a Justification” to Wage War
“…This is the “green light to terror” theme which the Military Intelligence (Ama”n) has been promoting since 1997, when its anti-Oslo line was consolidated. This theme was since repeated again and again by military circles, and eventually became the mantra of Israeli propaganda…
The ‘Foreign Report’ (Jane’s information) of July 12, 2001 disclosed that the Israeli army (under Sharon’s government) has updated its plans for an “all-out assault to smash the Palestinian authority”
The blueprint, titled “The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”, was presented to the Israeli government by chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, on July 8 [2001].
The assault would be launched, at the government’s discretion, after a big suicide bomb attack in Israel, causing widespread deaths and injuries, citing the bloodshed as justification.” (Tanya Reinhart, December 22, 2001)
Ariel Sharon: “A 1948 Style Solution”
According to the Prof. Tanya Reinhart:
“Mass expulsion could occur at some later stage of the ground invasion [2002- ], were the Israelis to open up Gaza’s borders to allow for an exodus of population … Expulsion was referred to by Ariel Sharon as the “a 1948 style solution”. For Sharon “it is only necessary to find another state for the Palestinians”. -‘Jordan is Palestine’ – was the phrase that Sharon coined.” (Tanya Reinhart, op cit)
The “Hamas-Mossad Partnership”
What is now unfolding in Gaza is part of a longstanding intelligence agenda, which has been on the drawing board of successive Israeli governments for more than twenty years. Founded in 1987 with the support of Israel, “The Hamas-Mossad partnership” is confirmed by Netanyahu:
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas. … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” (March 2019 Statement quoted by Haaretz, October 9, 2023, emphasis added)
“Support” and “Money” for Hamas
“Transferring Money to Hamas” on behalf of Netanyahu is confirmed by a Times of Israel October 8, 2023 Report:
“Hamas was treated as a partner to the detriment of the Palestinian Authority to prevent Abbas from moving towards creating a Palestinian State. Hamas was promoted from a terrorist group to an organization with which Israel conducted negotiations through Egypt, and which was allowed to receive suitcases containing millions of dollars from Qatar through the Gaza crossings.” (emphasis added)
Benjamin Netanyahu’s position defined several years prior to the October 7, 2023 “State of Readiness For War” consists in the total appropriation of Palestine Lands as well as the outright exclusion of the Palestinian people from their homeland:
“These are the basic lines of the national government headed by me: The Jewish people have an exclusive and unquestionable right to all areas of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop settlement in all parts of the Land of Israel — in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan, Judea and Samaria.” (January 2023)
The Role of Mossad
The doctrine of “Justified Vengeance” initiated in 2001, is the cornerstone of Israel’s intelligence narrative. It provides a justification to carry out acts of genocide, with the support of the International community, first in Gaza, then in the West Bank.
These official figures are meaningless, intelligence agencies do not reveal the sources of their funding or the size of their staff (which are in excess of the figures quoted above).
Mossad (Foreign Intelligence) together with Shin Bet (Domestic National Security) and Aman (Military Intelligence) is the main actor in the conduct of “false flag operations”. It’s covert capabilities are extensive. It has over the years infiltrated both Hamas and the Palestinian National Authority, It also exerts –in liaison with US intelligence– control over Al Qaeda operatives, ISIS and Daesh throughout the Middle East.
Mossad’s mandate is to create “divisions” within the Palestinian Resistance Movement, while sustaining fear and routine terrorist false flag events against innocent Israeli civilians, which sustains the legitimacy of the “Justified Vengeance” narrative.
Chronology
Let us briefly review the history, the various stages following the:
Failure of Oslo I and II (1993-95) and The Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin (1995)
2001. “Operation Justified Vengeance”
Presented in July 2001 to the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon by IDF chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, under the title:
“The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”.
See the Analysis of Tanya Reinhart and the Jane Report quoted above and in the article below).
“Operation Justified Vengeance” was also referred to as the “Dagan Plan”, named after the late General Meir Dagan, who headed Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence agency from 2002-2011.
The longer term objective of “Operation Justified Vengeance” (2001) was and remains the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland.
2002. Decision to Build the Infamous Apartheid Wall by Sharon Government
2004. The Assassination of Yasser Arafat
It was ordered by the Israeli Cabinet in 2003. It was approved by the US which vetoed a United Nations Security Resolution condemning the 2003 Israeli Cabinet decision. It was undertaken by Mossad. (See details in article below)
2005. The Removal, Under Orders of PM Ariel Sharon of All Jewish Settlements in Gaza.
Proposed in 2003 by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, implemented in August 2005 and completed in September 2005.
A Jewish population of over 7,000 was relocated. This relocation was required to transform the Gaza Strip into “An Open Air Prison”
2006. The Hamas Election Victory in January 2006.
Without Arafat, the Israeli military-intelligence architects knew that Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would loose the elections.
2008-2009. “Operation Cast Lead”
In 2008 the “Bloodshed Justification” was an essential component of the military-intelligence agenda, which was first formulated in the 2001 “Operation Justified Vengeance”:
“The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”
The killing of Palestinian civilians was justified on “humanitarian grounds.” as formulated in the “Operation Justified Vengeance Report”.
—Michel Chossudovsky, May 15, 2021, October 23, 2023
Below is my article published in early January 2009, at the height of the 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead
The Invasion of Gaza: Part of a Broader Israeli Military-Intelligence Agenda
by Michel Chossudovsky, January 2009
“Operation Cast Lead”
The aerial bombings and the ongoing ground invasion of Gaza by Israeli ground forces must be analysed in a historical context. Operation “Cast Lead” [2008] is a carefully planned undertaking, which is part of a broader military-intelligence agenda first formulated by the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001:
“Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago, even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas.”(Barak Ravid, Operation “Cast Lead”: Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)
It was Israel which broke the truce on the day of the US presidential elections, November 4:
“Israel used this distraction to break the ceasefire between itself and Hamas by bombing the Gaza strip. Israel claimed this violation of the ceasefire was to prevent Hamas from digging tunnels into Israeli territory.
The very next day, Israel launched a terrorizing siege of Gaza, cutting off food, fuel, medical supplies and other necessities in an attempt to “subdue” the Palestinians while at the same time engaging in armed incursions.
In response, Hamas and others in Gaza again resorted to firing crude, homemade, and mainly inaccurate rockets into Israel. During the past seven years, these rockets have been responsible for the deaths of 17 Israelis. Over the same time span, Israeli Blitzkrieg assaults have killed thousands of Palestinians, drawing worldwide protest but falling on deaf ears at the UN.” (Shamus Cooke, The Massacre in Palestine and the Threat of a Wider War, Global Research, December 2008)
Planned Humanitarian Disaster
On December 8, [2008] US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte was in Tel Aviv for discussions with his Israeli counterparts including the director of Mossad, Meir Dagan.
“Operation Cast Lead” was initiated two days day after Christmas. It was coupled with a carefully designed international Public Relations campaign under the auspices of Israel’s Foreign Ministry.
Hamas’ military targets are not the main objective. Operation “Cast Lead” is intended, quite deliberately, to trigger civilian casualities.
What we are dealing with is a “planned humanitarian disaster” in Gaza in a densly populated urban area. (See map below)
The longer term objective of this plan, as formulated by Israeli policy makers, is the expulsion of Palestinians from Palestinian lands:
“Terrorize the civilian population, assuring maximal destruction of property and cultural resources… The daily life of the Palestinians must be rendered unbearable: They should be locked up in cities and towns, prevented from exercising normal economic life, cut off from workplaces, schools and hospitals, This will encourage emigration and weaken the resistance to future expulsions” Ur Shlonsky, quoted by Ghali Hassan, Gaza: The World’s Largest Prison, Global Research, 2005)
“Operation Justified Vengeance”
A turning point has been reached. Operation “Cast Lead” is part of the broader military-intelligence operation initiated at the outset of the Ariel Sharon government in 2001. It was under Sharon’s “Operation Justified Vengeance” that F-16 fighter planes were initially used to bomb Palestinian cities.
“Operation Justified Vengeance” was presented in July 2001 to the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon by IDF chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, under the title “The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”.
“A contingency plan, codenamed Operation Justified Vengeance, was drawn up last June [2001] to reoccupy all of the West Bank and possibly the Gaza Strip at a likely cost of “hundreds” of Israeli casualties.” (Washington Times, 19 March 2002).
According to Jane’s ‘Foreign Report’ (July 12, 2001) the Israeli army under Sharon had updated its plans for an “all-out assault to smash the Palestinian authority, force out leader Yasser Arafat and kill or detain its army”.
“Bloodshed Justification”
The “Bloodshed Justification” was an essential component of the military-intelligence agenda. The killing of Palestinian civilians was justified on “humanitarian grounds.” Israeli military operations were carefully timed to coincide with the suicide attacks:
“Operation Justified Vengeance” was also referred to as the “Dagan Plan”, named after General (ret.) Meir Dagan, who currently heads Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency.
Reserve General Meir Dagan was Sharon’s national security adviser during the 2000 election campaign. The plan was apparently drawn up prior to Sharon’s election as Prime Minister in February 2001. “According to Alex Fishman writing in Yediot Aharonot, the Dagan Plan consisted in destroying the Palestinian authority and putting Yasser Arafat ‘out of the game’.” (Ellis Shulman, “Operation Justified Vengeance”: a Secret Plan to Destroy the Palestinian Authority, March 2001):
“As reported in the Foreign Report [Jane] and disclosed locally by Maariv, Israel’s invasion plan — reportedly dubbed Justified Vengeance — would be launched immediately following the next high-casualty suicide bombing, would last about a month and is expected to result in the death of hundreds of Israelis and thousands of Palestinians. (Ibid, emphasis added)
The “Dagan Plan” envisaged the so-called “cantonization” of Palestinian territories whereby the West Bank and Gaza would be totally cut off from one other, with separate “governments” in each of the territories. Under this scenario, already envisaged in 2001, Israel would:
“negotiate separately with Palestinian forces that are dominant in each territory-Palestinian forces responsible for security, intelligence, and even for the Tanzim (Fatah).” The plan thus closely resembles the idea of “cantonization” of Palestinian territories, put forth by a number of ministers.” Sylvain Cypel, The infamous ‘Dagan Plan’ Sharon’s plan for getting rid of Arafat, Le Monde, December 17, 2001)
The Dagan Plan has established continuity in the military-intelligence agenda. In the wake of the 2000 elections, Meir Dagan was assigned a key role. “He became Sharon’s “go-between” in security issues with President’s Bush’s special envoys Zinni and Mitchell.” He was subsequently appointed Director of the Mossad by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in August 2002. In the post-Sharon period, he remained head of Mossad. He was reconfirmed in his position as Director of Israeli Intelligence by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in June 2008.
Meir Dagan, in coordination with his US counterparts, has been in charge of various military-intelligence operations. It is worth noting that Meir Dagan as a young Colonel had worked closely with defense minister Ariel Sharon in the raids on Palestinian settlements in Beirut in 1982. The 2009 ground invasion of Gaza, in many regards, bear a canny resemblance to the 1982 military operation led by Sharon and Dagan.
Continuity: From Sharon to Olmert
It is important to focus on a number of key events which have led up to the killings in Gaza under “Operation Cast Lead”:
1. The assassination in November 2004 of Yasser Arafat.
This assassination had been on the drawing board since 1996 under “Operation Fields of Thorns”.
According to an October 2000 document
“prepared by the security services, at the request of then Prime Minister Ehud Barak, stated that ‘Arafat, the person, is a severe threat to the security of the state [of Israel] and the damage which will result from his disappearance is less than the damage caused by his existence’”. (Tanya Reinhart, Evil Unleashed, Israel’s move to destroy the Palestinian Authority is a calculated plan, long in the making, Global Research, December 2001. Details of the document were published in Ma’ariv, July 6, 2001.).
Arafat’s assassination was ordered in 2003 by the Israeli cabinet. It was approved by the US which vetoed a United Nations Security Resolution condemning the 2003 Israeli Cabinet decision. Reacting to increased Palestinian attacks, in August 2003, Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz declared “all out war” on the militants whom he vowed “marked for death.”
“In mid September, Israel’s government passed a law to get rid of Arafat. Israel’s cabinet for political security affairs declared it “a decision to remove Arafat as an obstacle to peace.” Mofaz threatened; “we will choose the right way and the right time to kill Arafat.” Palestinian Minister Saeb Erekat told CNN he thought Arafat was the next target. CNN asked Sharon spokesman Ra’anan Gissan if the vote meant expulsion of Arafat. Gissan clarified; “It doesn’t mean that. The Cabinet has today resolved to remove this obstacle. The time, the method, the ways by which this will take place will be decided separately, and the security services will monitor the situation and make the recommendation about proper action.” (See Trish Shuh, Road Map for a Decease Plan, www.mehrnews.com November 9 2005)
The assassination of Arafat was part of the 2001 Dagan Plan.
In all likelihood, it was carried out by Israeli Intelligence. It was intended to destroy the Palestinian Authority, foment divisions within Fatah as well as between Fatah and Hamas. Mahmoud Abbas is a Palestinian quisling.
He was installed as leader of Fatah, with the approval of Israel and the US, which finance the Palestinian Authority’s paramilitary and security forces.
2. The Removal, Under the Orders of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2005, of All Jewish Settlements in Gaza.
A Jewish population of over 7,000 was relocated.
“It is my intention [Sharon] to carry out an evacuation – sorry, a relocation – of settlements that cause us problems and of places that we will not hold onto anyway in a final settlement, like the Gaza settlements…. I am working on the assumption that in the future there will be no Jews in Gaza,” Sharon said.” (CBC, March 2004)
The issue of the settlements in Gaza was presented as part of Washington’s “road map to peace”.
Celebrated by the Palestinians as a “victory”, this measure was not directed against the Jewish settlers. Quite the opposite: It was part of the overall covert operation, which consisted in transforming Gaza into a concentration camp. As long as Jewish settlers were living inside Gaza, the objective of sustaining a large barricaded prison territory could not be achieved. The Implementation of “Operation Cast Lead” required “no Jews in Gaza”.
3. The Building of the Infamous Apartheid Wall
This was decided upon at the beginning of the Sharon government in 2002. (See Map below)
4. The Hamas Election Victory in January 2006.
Without Arafat, the Israeli military-intelligence architects knew that Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would loose the elections. This was part of the scenario, which had been envisaged and analyzed well in advance.
With Hamas in charge in Gaza, using the pretext that Hamas is a terrorist organization, Israel would carry out the process of “cantonization” as formulated under the Dagan plan. Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would remain formally in charge of the West Bank. The duly elected Hamas government would be confined to the Gaza strip.
Ground Attack, 2008-2009
On January 3, [2009] Israeli tanks and infantry entered Gaza in an all out ground offensive:
“The ground operation was preceded by several hours of heavy artillery fire after dark, igniting targets in flames that burst into the night sky. Machine gun fire rattled as bright tracer rounds flashed through the darkness and the crash of hundreds of shells sent up streaks of fire. (AP, January 3, 2009)
Israeli sources have pointed to a lengthy drawn out military operation. It “won’t be easy and it won’t be short,” said Defense Minister Ehud Barak in a TV address.
Israel is not seeking to oblige Hamas “to cooperate”. What we are dealing with is the implementation of the “Dagan Plan” as initially formulated in 2001, which called for:
“an invasion of Palestinian-controlled territory by some 30,000 Israeli soldiers, with the clearly defined mission of destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian leadership and collecting weaponry currently possessed by the various Palestinian forces, and expelling or killing its military leadership. (Ellis Shulman, op cit, emphasis added)
Nakba 2.0: Mass Expulsion and a Ground Invasion Contemplated
The broader question is whether Israel in consultation with Washington is intent upon triggering a wider war.
Mass expulsion could occur at some later stage of the ground invasion, were the Israelis to open up Gaza’s borders to allow for an exodus of population.
Expulsion was referred to by Ariel Sharon as the “a 1948 style solution”. For Sharon
“it is only necessary to find another state for the Palestinians. -‘Jordan is Palestine’ – was the phrase that Sharon coined.” (Tanya Reinhart, op cit)
Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.
Yesterday I published an article titled “The Gaza Rebellion” by Richard Hugus. His closing sentence is the simple statement: “Free Palestine!”.
Last night and this morning, I received a number of emails from highly intelligent, aware readers who expressed disappointment that I would publish something where someone had taken a “side” in the Israeli/Palestinian situation.
A few told me they thought the article was hate speech. Others told me I was stuck in duality. Some, standing with Israel, sent Bible quotes and predictions from prophets. Others were dismayed that the article didn’t point out that both sides of the conflict are being played.
As I read their words, I could see why some of them challenged the publishing of this article at Truth Comes to Light. I appreciate and respect that they took the time out to let me know how they perceived the article.
From Richard’s previous writing, it’s clear that he understands the globalist agenda — that the globalist puppetmasters are manipulating the entire situation, not just with Israel and Palestine but throughout the world. As reference, see some of Richard’s work here, here, here, here and here. (I’ve since gone back and added a “see related” section under the “The Gaza Rebellion” article so that readers can easily find his other work.)
For those new to Richard’s work, this awareness admittedly wasn’t shared in that recent article. To get a context for where Richard is coming from, see his other works related to Palestine at his website.
I don’t know Richard personally. My perceptions of his point of view come from his writing. And it’s likely that Richard will disagree with some of the things I will say in this essay.
As I read Richard’s article, I perceived something different than that of some readers. I saw that he was standing for the Palestinian people. And that he was addressing the issue of Zionism.
I did not sense that Richard was defending Hamas. Whatever Hamas is, it is likely the tool of that mess of controllers that includes agents of assorted nation states who are puppets to heaven knows what. No doubt Hamas is also supported by Palestinians who don’t see that they are being manipulated. And if Hamas is controlled by forces that control the U.S. and Israel (which it does appear to be) then the Palestinians are being set up to be wiped off the map.
When I read Richard’s article, I saw that he was taking a stand by defending the Palestinian rebellion. He was defending the right of any people to fight back when outsiders try to push them out of their home. And he was saying that there is no question that the powerful nation state of Israel with its globalist connections easily overpowers Palestine in terms of military might.
I saw that Richard was identifying specific individuals (and their philosophies or chosen ideologies) who have committed great crimes against humanity as well as their own people. This evil must be acknowledged for what it is.
We’ve seen it happen again and again throughout history, as one group overpowers another to claim their land, their natural resources, their money or possessions, or even to claim the conquered as slaves.
On Hate Speech and Israel’s Place in the Matrix
The “hate speech” label surprised me. This site has published many articles challenging the evils of those who claim to represent the people of the United States or other nations. Never once have I had a reader of the site say any of those articles were hate speech. Perhaps because most already see clearly what a monster the governing powers of the United States have become. But with Israel, as the saying goes, that’s apparently a horse of a different color.
The Jewish people and the state of Israel are not one and the same. The people who live on the soil controlled by the U.S. are not the same as the U.S. government. Heaven forbid.
But we mere mortals were born into a very confusing Matrix that is presently held hostage by a collection of nation states whose leadership is all controlled by something outside of themselves. Whoever/whatever that something is, we do know that it has an appetite to control others and has no concern for the suffering it imposes on any living entity.
Israel represents many things to many people. And religious beliefs are a key here. Our beliefs about “God”, God’s will, prophecy, and our personal need to be right about what we believe is tangled into this mess of who we humans are. And then there are the anti-God groups that turn themselves into gods as they influence others to follow their lead.
Within Jewish history is the dark Sabbatean/Frankism/Illuminati/Rothschild “conspiracy” that has influenced so many globally. See here.
From my perception, these are the things Richard was pointing to. And it seems essential that we all look at what is going on here.
The March of the Parasites: When the Whisperers Outside Your Castle Suddenly Storm the Gates
This Israel/ Palestine conflict is deeply part of this same narrative playing out all over the world. It’s entangled in the web of divide and conquer, problem-reaction-solution, false flags to confuse the enemy, etc.
In a sense, this global “totalitarian tiptoe” (a term coined by David Icke) does us a favor. It forces us to step off the hamster wheel. It forces to grow a backbone if we haven’t yet done so. It forces us to drop the need to be obedient, to be chosen, to be perceived by others as “a good one”.
This March of the Parasites forces us to clean up our act. It forces us to stop looking for saviors or leaders to cling to or to tell us what to do. It forces us to know our own strength, to fear not and to say “NO” again and again. It forces us to stand alone and to stop worrying about how we are being judged by the world or by belittling gods.
It forces us to know morality from within our own conscience, our inner guidance system. It forces us to live in as much integrity as we can muster and to know that, should we choose the easy way out and opt to betray ourselves, that we will be facing far worse things than death.
It also forces us to see that the real work is with our self. In fact, stalking oneself and changing oneself is the key. Whatever deceit we see “out there”, we must look within ourselves to see what untruths control us or come out of our own mouths. Whatever manipulation we see out there or experience in our own lives, we must look closely to see how we attempt to manipulate others. And so on.
This force of darkness demands that we choose. Instead of being people of the lie, we must choose to become people of the truth.
Our Collective History: The Trauma of It All (And the Beauty of It All)
In a way, we are all Palestinians and we are all Israelis. Certainly, we are all among the manipulated. We were all born into “citizenship” and are owned in some way. We are all slaves. (To prove this to yourself, just try leaving your country without a passport or stop paying “voluntary” taxes.) And we are all doing our best to unshackle ourselves from lies, as well as heal from individual and ancestral wounds.
We are all tied to unknown generations of humans who influence our experience here. We don’t know the real history of humanity, as even these stories about our past are controlled by the “masters” and littered with lies. And we certainly don’t know how we, as individuals, were born into a certain family, a certain race of people, at a certain time.
In the same way that patriots in the U.S. have been used in such horrific ways (their sense of honor hijacked along with their innate willingness to sacrifice their own safety for the ones they love) so have Israeli patriots and all who blindly follow their statist or religious leaders.
We have all been lied to since birth and have all been turned into liars on some level. Of course, we didn’t necessarily know we were lying — although we probably had our suspicions. Yet that shows us just how deep the spell is.
We’ve been taught to say things, to believe things, that, on a soul level, rub us the wrong way. We’ve been taught that obedience is equal to goodness. And goodness is very important to us because being “good”, or so we’ve been told, is our doorway to love and acceptance.
Collectively, we have obeyed our way into quite a pickle it seems.
What About Duality?
From my limited perspective, it seems we are living in a complex, multi-layered reality. This does not appear to be a “duality” as many say. This is a multi-faceted reality that includes this monster-faced Matrix trap wherein all nation states dwell. This so-called “real world” Matrix is, in reality, a house of cards just asking for us to knock it down.
So, what does that mean to “knock it down”? More wars? Of course not. Yet it will require taking a stand against evil actions. And it might require self-defense and defense of others.
Shifts in consciousness and awareness do change the world. It’s all about thought, vibration, frequency. And, outside of our own awareness, there is more going on than we know. Personally, I always expect miracles.
The Answers Are Out There if We Will Let Them In
(It may seem that I’m taking the long way around the barn here to make a point. And I probably am. So, thank you for bearing with me.)
However we look at things, here we are. Wherever “here” is.
Together we are experiencing “this moment” in “this day” in “this time in history”, all the while knowing that time is an illusion. And as we look about and observe the assorted levels of perception, of consciousness, within the human race, it is truly mind-boggling.
For whatever reason, some are born seeing primarily from the physical senses. When they begin to acknowledge their spiritual sight, it is an awakening for them. They feel a sense of two realities, two worlds. Duality. (Although that term “duality” means many things to many people.)
Some don’t appear to ever sense beyond what their physical senses give them feedback on. My guess would be that they’ve learned to lie to themselves quite convincingly and to shut down other awareness. Shutting down the awareness of children is a time-honored practice of many humans.
Others among us are born vitally aware of their “spiritual” existence. They don’t see the dividing line and, therefore, all is “spiritual” for lack of a better word. Certainly physics bears this out. There is nothing solid or permanent here. In a sense, we have anchored ourselves into a heavy-duty illusion – an illusion that challenges us to our core. Perhaps that challenge is here by design. If not, we might as well make the best of it.
Some see the denser “realm” as an inferior one when, in truth, there is no division between worlds. The challenge it seems is to live fully in all levels of reality.
For some of us, we know that we don’t know much. Yet we are at ease in that non-knowing state. Our awareness leads us to trust life.
When we get caught up in the Matrix, we untangle ourselves. We find the cracks in the Matrix and move with awareness as best we can. However, this doesn’t mean we are above it all. Quite the contrary, we learn from everything as we question everything.
And, of course, our children and grandchildren are here, our loved ones and neighbors are here. The perceptions of others and the actions of others do touch our awareness. And as a matter of care, it’s important to us to help others in whatever way we can, as we learn to help ourselves.
Concluding My Walk Around the Cosmic Barn
Some say we are here for a reason. I imagine that reason is entirely up to us to decide. And what we choose to stand for matters.
Getting back to Richard’s article, it is clear he is taking a stand. And from what I can see, he is taking that stand based on genuine care and awareness. I respect that.
A few things I do know about this life — because I just know. I know that the source of this life (God) is the essence of wonder, creativity and adventure. I know that we were born from real love, care, freedom, truth and all the ideas that lift our hearts and minds. I know that you and I are miracles even though we are mostly blind to the whole picture. And I know that if we ask, we are shown the way.
As insanely imperfect as this life is, it is nonetheless perfectly imperfect. We will be guided. We will be wiser. And, doing our best, we will live on.
Mainstream media aren’t talking about it, but it’s an open secret: some 50 years ago, the US and Israel created Hamas—as an offset and competitor to Yasser Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization.
It was one more brilliant (aka asinine) example of meddling and launching endless enemies, who become our enemies when they turn on us. The CIA has specialized in this, all over the world.
The US and Israeli governments launched CIA and Mossad. These intel giants were tasked with collecting and interpreting information on potential enemies.
Of course, CIA and Mossad expanded their mandates and operations. Immediately. And that’s where the real trouble came.
“Let’s subvert our enemies. Let’s undertake hundreds and thousands of clandestine operations to neutralize and destroy our enemies. In the process, we can invent groups who will serve us and do the destroying for us…”
Yeah. Sure. A perfect formula for suicide.
And it caters to exactly the people you never want to give any power to. The chessboard game-playing crazies. Namely, your own operations case officers and planners.
THESE guys are loved by all sorts of big-time corporate and financial players (in the US and Israel), who are looking for a leg up in their foreign expansions efforts: finding new resources abroad, finding new markets, finding new corrupt allies.
Protecting national interests becomes EMPIRE.
Empire perverts and subverts little items like national Constitutions and the basic rule of law. “The law is for suckers. We’re the intel community. Just let us do our jobs. We know how to capture and win whatever we can get our hands on. Life is nothing more than winners and losers. Face it. And we’re the pros.”
Which takes us much deeper into the rabbit hole. Into places where morality and reality clash. Where sympathy and common sense clash. Where the whole idea of what an independent nation is and should be is challenged and potentially destroyed.
This rabbit hole is where many people don’t want to go. It challenges and nullifies, they believe, every important human impulse.
“He said, ‘If you become steadfast in your abstentions of thoughts of harm directed towards others, all living creatures will cease to feel enmity in your presence.’
[…]
“But at the higher level, when there are no justified resentments, what you are doing is you are at a place where you are sending love in response to hate.”
Wayne Walter Dyer (May 10, 1940 – August 29, 2015) was an American self-help author and a motivational speaker. Dyer completed a Ed.D. in guidance and counseling at Wayne State University in 1970. Early in his career, he worked as a high school guidance counselor, and went on to run a successful private therapy practice.
He became a popular professor of counselor education at St. John’s University, where he was approached by a literary agent to put his ideas into book form. The result was his first book, Your Erroneous Zones (1976), one of the best-selling books of all time, with an estimated 100 million copies sold. This launched Dyer’s career as a motivational speaker and self-help author, during which he published 20 more best-selling books and produced a number of popular specials for PBS. Influenced by thinkers such as Abraham Maslow and Albert Ellis, Dyer’s early work focused on psychological themes such as motivation, self actualization and assertiveness.
I was in a group one time of drug addicts and alcoholics. And I was one of the people that was a sponsor and leading this group. And the sign on the wall said “There are no justified resentments in this group”.
And what I said to that group that night was, “No matter what anybody says to you here, no matter what kind of anger comes directed towards you, no matter how much hate you may encounter showing up in your life, there are no justified resentments.”
Meaning that if you carry around resentment inside of you about anything or about anyone —
And I’m talking about the person that you lent money to and hasn’t paid you back.
I’m talking about the person in your life that you feel was abusive.
I’m talking about the person who walked out on you and left you for somebody else.
I’m talking about all of the things that you have justified in your heart and in your life that you have the right to be resentful about.
And I’m suggesting to you that those resentments will always end up harming you and creating in you a sense of despair.
I’ve often said that no one ever dies from a snake bite. The snake bite will never kill you. You cannot be unbitten. Once you’re bitten, you’re bitten. But it’s the venom that continues to pour through your system after the bite that will end up destroying you.
So now you have to take a look at all of the resentments that you may have in your life. And I’d like to suggest to you that I think there is a wonderful metaphor for this that I have created in my life for how to make this work.
There’s a show called ‘Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?’. And basically this show has two levels that you have to get to.
Now the first level is the thousand dollar level. And at the thousand dollar level you basically have to answer a question like, on your hand you have some digits. Those digits on your hand are called — your feet? — your nose? — your ears? — your fingers?. Uhhh. And everybody who ever goes on the show has this horrible dread that they’re going to go out on one of those questions. Right?
So basically, in order to get to the thousand dollar level all you have to do is answer five pretty simple questions in order to get to the thousand dollar level. Now the thousand dollar level, for you in this metaphor, means that you will leave with something if you get this. At least get this. This is the thousand dollar level.
You must send blame out of your life for any conditions of your life. Blame has to go.
Now blame means if you’re sitting there with a disease you say, without guilt, “It’s mine. I take responsibility for it.”
This means that if you have been through any tough circumstances in your life, this means if you have a minimal amount of financial security in your life.
This means if your children don’t get along with you.
This means that if your neighbors are taking up a petition to get you out of the neighborhood.
Whatever it might be that’s going on in your life, you name it and everybody has a series of these things that you’re willing to say, “I am here because of the choices that I have made. Right now. I’m willing to say that.” Even though it’s difficult, and we know it’s really not your fault. We know really there’s a lot of people out there who are really bad. All right? But you’re willing to say, “No blame.”
That’s the first level. All right? That’s where you understand “No justified resentment”.
And then on the ‘Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?’ show, there is what is called the $32,000 level. And the $32,000 level is not only an opportunity for you to walk away with a sizable amount of goodies, but it also is the door opener to multi-wealth. But you got to get to this in order to have an opportunity to move into these transcendent levels. All right? Millionaire spiritual status. All right? You got to get through these next five questions.
And this $32,000 question, or level rather, comes to this. It came to me from a quotation that I used in the writing of ‘A Spiritual Solution to Every Problem’. I read a book that was written a couple of thousand years ago by Patanjali, ‘The Yoga Sutras’, ‘The Aphorisms of Patanjali’. And one of those sutras, one of those aphorisms, observations that this brilliant man made almost 2,000 years ago was this:
He said, “If you become steadfast in your abstentions of thoughts of harm directed towards others, all living creatures will cease to feel enmity in your presence.”
Now this translates to: Blame, pretty basic. No more blame. I’m just not going to assign responsibility to other people for where I am. Because now I have an opportunity to get rid of it. If I think someone else caused it, then I’ve got to wait for somebody else to change in order for me to get rid of it. And you might wait forever for that. But if I take responsibility for it, I can do something, including move on, which might be the most important thing to do.
But at the higher level, when there are no justified resentments, what you are doing is you are at a place where you are sending love in response to hate. You are literally saying, “No matter what comes my way, I am going to be steadfast in my abstention of thoughts of harm directed toward others. I’m going to work hard at, no matter what comes my way, having it come out of me what I want to come out of me. And that is love. And that is a higher energy.”
And if you can get to that level, Patanjali said, all living creatures will cease to feel enmity in your presence.
I have a little girl, a precious little girl. I have six precious girls and two precious sons, but I have a little girl who is almost 12. And she loves animals like no one I’ve ever met in my life. I mean, her whole life revolves around animals. And when we walk in the woods, butterflies avoid me, fly away from people around, and they come and they land right on her arm, and it happens all the time. All living creatures. She couldn’t have a thought of harm directed towards any living creature.
And Patanjali said to us, all living creatures will cease to feel fear or enmity or anger in the presence of those who can send love in response to hate. That’s what I mean when I say there are no justified resentments.
What I’d like to do, I’d like to share a little story here with you. It’s a very tender story. It was sent to me by someone who sends me beautiful things in the mail. And I call it The Teddy Story. And I’d like to read this to you, if I can do it without tearing up. And this story illustrates this as well as anything I’ve ever seen.
There’s a story many years ago of an elementary school teacher. Her name was Mrs. Thompson. As she stood in front of her fifth grade class on the very first day of school, she told the children a lie. Like most teachers, she looked at her students and said that she loved them all the same. But that was impossible because there in the front row, slumped in his seat, was a little boy named Teddy Stoddard.
Mrs. Thompson had watched Teddy the year before and noticed that he didn’t play well with the other children, that his clothes were messy and that he constantly needed a bath. Teddy could be unpleasant. It got to the point where Mrs. Thompson would actually take delight in marking his papers with a broad red pen and making bold Xs and then putting a big F at the top of his paper.
At the school where Mrs. Thompson taught, she was required to review each child’s past records. And she put Teddy’s off until last. However, when she reviewed his file, she was in for a surprise.
Teddy’s first grade teacher wrote, “Teddy is a bright child with a ready laugh. He does his work neatly and he has good manners. He’s a joy to be around.”
His second grade teacher wrote, “Teddy is an excellent student, well liked by his classmates. But he’s troubled because his mother has a terminal illness and life at home must be a struggle.”
His third grade teacher wrote, “His mother’s death has been hard on him. He tries to do his best, but his father doesn’t show much interest and his home life will soon affect him if steps aren’t taken.”
Teddy’s fourth grade teacher wrote, “Teddy’s withdrawn and doesn’t show much interest in school. He doesn’t have many friends and sometimes he even sleeps in class.”
By now Mrs. Thompson realized the problem and she was ashamed of herself. She felt even worse when her students brought her Christmas presents wrapped in beautiful ribbons and bright paper, except for Teddy’s. His present was clumsily wrapped in heavy brown paper that he got from the grocery bag.
Mrs. Thompson took pains to open it in the middle of the other presents. Some of the children started to laugh when she found a rhinestone bracelet with some of the stones missing and a bottle that was one quarter full of perfume. But she stifled her children’s laughter when she exclaimed how pretty the bracelet was, putting it on and dabbing some of the perfume on her wrist.
Teddy Stoddard stayed after school that day just long enough to say, “Mrs. Thompson, today you smelled just like my mom used to.”
After the children laughed, she cried for at least an hour. On that very day, she quit teaching, reading, writing and arithmetic and instead she began to teach children.
Mrs. Thompson paid particular attention to Teddy. As she worked with him and his mind seemed to come alive, the more she encouraged him the faster he responded. By the end of the year, Teddy had become one of the smartest children in the class and, despite her lie, became one of her teacher’s pets.
A year later, she found a note under the door from Teddy telling her that she was still the best teacher he ever had in his whole life.
Six years went by before she got another note from Teddy. He then wrote that he had finished high school third in his class and she was still the best teacher he ever had in his whole life.
Four years after that, she got another letter saying that while things had been tough at times, he stayed in school and stuck with it. And would soon graduate from college with the highest of honors. He assured Mrs. Thompson that she was still the very best and favorite teacher he ever had in his whole life.
Then four more years passed and yet another letter came. This time he explained that after he got his bachelor’s degree, he decided to go a little further. The letter explained that she was still the best and favorite teacher he ever had but now his name was a little longer. The letter was signed Theodore F. Stoddard, MD.
But the story doesn’t end there. You see, there was yet another letter that spring. Teddy said he’d met this girl and was going to be married. He explained that his father had died a couple of years ago and he was wondering if Mrs. Thompson might agree to sit in the place at the wedding that was usually reserved for the mother of the groom.
Of course Mrs. Thompson did. And guess what? She wore that bracelet, the one with several rhinestones missing. And she made sure she was wearing the perfume that Teddy remembered his mother wearing on their last Christmas together.
They hugged each other and Dr. Stoddard whispered in Mrs. Thompson’s ear, “Thank you so much for making me feel important and showing me that I could make a difference.”
Mrs. Thompson came, with tears in her eyes, and whispered back, “Teddy you have it all wrong. You were the one who taught me that I could make a difference. I didn’t know how to teach until I met you.”
Isn’t that a beautiful story? That symbolizes there are no justified resentments. Work at reaching that $32,000 level. The place where the only thing you have to send is love because that’s what’s inside.
And that’s the message of our greatest spiritual teachers. That’s all they ever had to give away.
The famous lawyer, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, founder of the International Crime Investigative Committee (ICIC), formerly the German Corona Commission, was deported last Thursday, 12 October, from Mexico City to Germany, to be arrested for alleged financial irregularities at arrival in Frankfurt, on Friday, 13 October. He was immediately put in pre-trial detention.
In Mexico, Reiner had to consult with the German embassy for passport issues and, to his shocking surprise, was immediately arrested and flown to Germany – accompanied by two guards, no personal belongings, no clothing, not even a toothbrush. His wife is not accused and was allowed to remain in Mexico.
From Frankfurt, Dr. Fuellmich will eventually be transferred next week to Göttingen, where he will be kept for an undetermined period in pre-trial detention because they unjustly suspect him of attempting to escape.
His confinement was based on a 30-page arrest warrant written already in September 2022.
He is falsely accused for financial fraud, precisely by those people who themselves have questionable criminal records and who supposedly worked with him during the 2+ years Dr. Fuellmich was running the German Corona Commission from Berlin.
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich will be defended by two excellent lawyers, Dr. Dagmar Schön and Dr. Katja Woermer. They filed immediate counter-accusations against the predator-accusers.
Lawyer Dr. Dagmar Schön presented Reiner’s story on Sunday evening, 16 October 2023, on BittelTV, where 33,000 spectators and supporters listened to his case.
Reiner is well known and highly appreciated throughout the world for his fine work, defending victims of government-induced COVID crimes, and other crimes against humanity, perpetrated by governments and government institutions around the world.
The attempt to censure and outright silence him has failed bitterly – and the very German government, which disrespects human rights, freedom of speech and is guilty of lying and distributing false information on the media, has now found no other way than arresting Reiner illegally.
They will not succeed. Justice will eventually prevail. A higher justice, way above the manmade twisted laws – justice that reigns over Mother Earth and the Universe – always rules.
This case will be followed closely and updated periodically.
This following message was sent on October 16 to our substack mailing list subscribers and was posted at our telegram, minds and brighteon social accounts.
As many of you know, Reiner Fuellmich was arrested three days ago in Mexico and was flown to Germany where he is now in prison.
His friend (and now his defense attorney) Dagmar Schoen made an announcement on Bittel.tv (in German). BittelTV telegram channel: https://t.me/s/bitteltv
Elsa Schieder, PhD provided an English transcript of this announcement at her The Truth Summit substack. She provides additional background information, including the involvement of Viviane Fischer (of Corona Investigative Committee) in the charges made against Reiner Fuellmich. She also shares information on ways to offer support for Reiner Fuellmich.
Here is the transcript of the announcement made by Dagmar Schoen:
Reiner and his wife lost their passports and visas quite some time ago, needed to get them replaced. As they have been staying in Mexico, this led to their needing to go to the German embassy in Tijuana, Mexico. The first time they went, on Monday, they needed to come back. Dagmar was already uneasy, but everything seemed all right.
A time was arranged, for Friday, for them to pick up the documents. So the embassy knew exactly when they would be arriving.
When they went back on Friday, Reiner’s wife got her documents and was allowed to go. Reiner was arrested. He had nothing with him, only the clothes he was wearing. No toothbrush, even.
A warrant for his arrest had been issued in March. A second warrant was issued in May. One was from Germany and the other from the EU. Obviously he was not informed.
As Reiner was in Mexico, which is outside the jurisdiction of the EU, the warrants could not be enforced.
So there needed to be a way to get him onto German soil.
Reiner’s needing a new passport and visa gave those who wanted him arrested the perfect opportunity.
When he entered the embassy on Friday, there were 6 men waiting to detain him, take him to the airport, escort him to Germany.
The charges, as Dagmar found out when she had the official papers opened, were 30 pages long – so this was something carefully planned and executed.
They related to allegations of Viviane Fischer, a former team member on the Corona Committee, about financial wrongdoing.
Three people signed the charges against Reiner.
Perhaps the craziest aspect of the charges is that the money Reiner allegedly took is in the bank account (or anyway, was in the bank account) of one of the 3 people.
As additional information becomes available, I will post links at Telegram, Brighteon Social, Minds and Substack Notes, as well as include them in our New Posts newsletter.
Is there an Electric Universe perspective on time? Rather than to convince you that time has dimensions, the goal here is to convince you that our ancestors thought so.
If you believe an ancient Japanese text which says that a new planet, Venus, entered our solar system, perhaps you will believe an Egyptian text that says time has three dimensions just as space does.
We begin with a four-point analysis and exploration of time gleaned from classical physics:
1) The reality of a “present moment” is on shaky ground;
2) The rate at which time flows is unclear;
3) There are lines of time as well as points of time;
4) Multiple versions of systems can simultaneously exist.
It’s also appropriate to acknowledge ancient knowledge that can be derived from the Hermetica—writings from various historical periods, though most ideas have their origins in the very distant past of Egypt tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago.
Michael Clarage, PhD, Astrophysicist and Lead Scientist of SAFIRE, states his arguments, from classical physics and older civilizations, for a modern perspective of time.
It is a common misconception that blood types are genetically determined and unchangeable. In fact, blood types are nothing more than an illusion, influenced by environmental factors, diet and individual life experiences, medications and shocks. The idea of fixed blood types only serves to perpetuate the myths of special “bloodlines” and to boost the blood business.
Virology and Genetics: The Art of Distraction
The introduction of blood groups and the Rhesus factor has contributed more to confusion than enlightenment. Instead of providing clear answers, new subgroups are constantly being introduced to circumvent existing contradictions. This approach is very reminiscent of virology, where new mutations are constantly being postulated to support the basic assumptions. It is obvious that financial interests and not scientific accuracy are the priority here.
Blood Transfusions: A Risky Business
Blood transfusions are often presented as a safe medical practice. But reality looks different. The risks are significant and the mortality rate for patients receiving a transfusion is alarmingly high. The question arises as to whether the quality of the blood reserves is guaranteed at all. Figures suggest the risk of mortality is six times higher in patients who receive a blood transfusion than those who do not.
Interest groups: profit over truth
It is clear that certain interest groups benefit from perpetuating these myths. The virus existence question serves as a catalyst to expose the misinterpretations and unscientific nature of medicine. It is high time we let go of outdated assumptions and accept the real facts.
Genetics and Blood Types: The Fallacious Path of Uncontrolled Interpretation
In genetics we encounter a familiar pattern that is reminiscent of the debate over blood types. Instead of offering clear answers, science tends to arbitrarily interpret and assign genes.
When a genetic theory is questioned, instead of reassessment, even more complex assumptions are added. What was once thought to be a single gene is now presented as a complex combination of multiple genes, splicing and other factors. Such convoluted interpretations often only serve to support old, debunked theories.
To make matters worse, markers in genetics similar to “blood groups” can be defined and even patented without sufficient verification. It is becoming increasingly clear that financial interests overshadow scientific integrity. It is high time that we look critically at these uncontrolled interpretations and turn to sound scientific findings.
Conclusion: The déjà vu of scientific interpretation
Once you understand the mechanism of scientific interpretation, you realize that it is a recurring pattern. This mechanism is based on the practice of supporting unclear or refuted theories with increasingly complex assumptions and interpretations instead of critically reconsidering or correcting them. This often happens without sufficient scientific control and is driven by financial interests. Once this process is recognized, it appears like déjà vu in many areas of science.
The virus existence question serves as an eye-opener and shows how profound and far-reaching such uncontrolled interpretations are anchored in science. It is time we move away from such practices and adopt a truly scientific approach.
Do you really believe that a simple blood test can reveal your genetic history and heritage? Let us show you why common ideas about blood groups and bloodlines are far from scientific reality.
Blood: The Liquid Enigma of Our Existence
Have you ever stopped and thought about the mysterious fluid that runs through our veins? Blood, often seen as a reflection of our ancestry and identity, holds secrets far beyond what we have previously been told.
Dozens of blood groups and subgroup systems
Let’s start with a startling fact: there is not just the ABO and Rhesus blood group system that we are so familiar with. There are DOZENS of blood group systems! Each system with its own binding reactions.
What does that mean? It shows that the idea of a “specific” blood type that makes us unique is actually much more complex and non-specific than we thought.
Change in blood group
Now for an even more amazing fact: our blood type can change throughout our lives.
Yes, you’ve read correctly.
What is often viewed as an immutable marker of our identity can actually change. And not only that, scientists can artificially change blood types in laboratories!
But why is this so important? Because it challenges the common idea that our blood is an immutable witness to our genetic ancestry and history.
Lack of ideas: When blood is mixed wildly
If rabbits and monkeys were involved in the discovery of the Rh factor, how reliable is our understanding of blood groups and their meaning?
Theoretical expansion of the system: If we continue to rely on non-specific experiments, such as the monkey-rabbit experiment, we could theoretically “discover” an infinite number of new blood group systems.
Imagine if we injected monkey blood into frogs and then transferred this antiserum to human blood. This could lead to a hypothetical “Rhesus frog system”. And if we pursue this approach, we could create a new system with each combination of animals.
This shows how easy it is to develop complex and potentially misleading systems on unsound foundations.
The truth is that blood is constantly moving and changing, just like us. It is a living, breathing system that responds to our environment, our choices and our health. The idea that it divides us into simple categories is an illusion.
Own blood vs. foreign blood: Same challenges when it comes to compatibility
It is a common misconception that using your own blood in transfusions is automatically safer than using donor blood. In fact, both variants have similar challenges in terms of tolerability.
Need for compatibility testing
The fact is that blood group determination alone is not sufficient to ensure the tolerability of a blood transfusion. There are many subgroups and other factors such as the unscientific Rhesus factor that are taken into account. Therefore, a compatibility test is carried out before each transfusion to ensure that the donor and recipient are compatible.
What are blood groups?
The claim of blood groups is an attempt to explain the phenomenon of “incompatibility” of blood from different people in terms of Mendelian genetics.
Since the energy content of the cell membranes and the proteins dissolved in the body and blood are constantly changing, the blood groups also change. There are currently 29 “officially” approved, diverse blood group systems.
Drs. Tom Cowan and Mark Bailey challenge an article posted on October 4, 2023 by HART (a group of scientists in the UK) titled “Why HART uses the virus model — Arguments against ‘the virus doesn’t exist’ “.
Tom and Mark go over all key points made in the article.
It’s clear that the HART group has no idea what has been revealed in the research done by those who been exposing the false foundation of virology.
HART has somehow missed a foundational point of the “no virus” research — that no infectious “virus” has ever been isolated in the entire history of virology and that the “no virus” research shines a light on the fraud of all so-called infectious viruses.
Here is how HART group describes themselves at their website:
“HART is a group of highly qualified UK doctors, scientists, economists, psychologists and other academic experts. We came together over shared concerns about policy and guidance recommendations relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.
We continue to be concerned about the lack of open scientific debate in mainstream media and the worrying trend of censorship and harassment of those who question the narrative. Science without question is dogma.”
We are providing a transcript of one of Dr. Tom Cowan’s recent weekly webinars. His research (and that of many others) that shreds the heavy veil of lies about our human biology (and the biology of the animal world) is essential for us all to understand. The mind control involved in modern “medicine” is deeply entrenched.
Just as we as a species have been easy to control via politics, religions, and false narratives about our true nature and our history, “science” has been used in the same way. These deceptive narratives keep us trapped in a world of ever-spawning sub-narratives laced with fear. This latest whirlwind of information related to mRNA vaccines, spike protein, DNA contamination, shedding, etc. pushes us to get a better grip on what is really possible and ultimately what is true.
~ Kathleen
“You see, the tendency here, especially amongst the so-called freedom community, is they like to pick up on these studies to attempt to demonstrate or prove that these vaccines, so-called, are horrible, and they’re causing myocarditis, and they’re doing so through the mechanism of the creation of this so-called spike protein.
“I am not arguing against the fact that the injections are horrible, or that they give people myocarditis or otherwise heart problems. I’m talking about the mechanism. Because the mechanism is everything. It has to do with, eventually, how you think about this whole thing. What is actually happening. And even, eventually, how to treat it.
“Because I have no sympathy for the argument advanced by so many doctors. ‘Tom, what difference does it make whether there’s actually mRNA in the injections or whether there’s spike proteins or whether there’s a virus?’
“It makes all the difference in the world. Because if you can’t understand what’s happening or at least disprove that this particular thing is happening, you will will eventually be led astray.
“You will also eventually scare and frighten people more than you should. And there is no benefit from being ignorant about what happens and using anti-scientific thinking to make claims about what’s happening that are easily disproven.”
[…]
“So there is no such thing as a monoclonal or antibody specificity. So all these papers alleging that they found the spike protein, that the spike protein is a mechanism of damage, need to be tossed out as uncontrolled anti-scientific garbage.”
[…]
“So again, there is no actual clear scientific evidence that this process would result in pure mRNA of a specific type that could be put into these vials, that could produce a spike protein, and that could be the saving grace of the pharmaceutical industry with further mRNA vaccines.
“It’s simply the old culturing non-specific stuff that they’ve been doing all along with viruses and claiming they’re actually doing something a lot more sophisticated then they actually know how to do.”
So today I wanted to talk about the question again, which we’ve dealt with a little bit.
Is there spike proteins being made as a result of COVID shots?
But then taking it back even a step further. So this, we’re told, is a new mRNA technology that has been developed over many years. Robert Malone was one of the people who worked on the development of this technique, we’re told.
And I received an interesting series of short papers by a friend and colleague, Saeed Qureshi.
So many of you know him. I believe he’s a biochemist and works in pharmacy kind of things, who’s been very vocal about the non-existence of the virus, or at least the inability to prove that viruses actually exist.
And he sent me some papers where he goes through the argument of whether there is actually mRNA in the mRNA shots. Imagine that.
And I can imagine that most of you can imagine that because we’ve heard so many things that simply aren’t true.
When people say, ‘but there’s got to be something that is true’… And right now I’d be hard pressed to think of what in modern medicine and biology is, in fact, accurate. I’m sure there’s something. Like we have a head on top of our chest, sort of.
So we’re going to take a look at that. Before we look at that, we need some background, which is again, going over old hat.
Most of things, probably these days have a little bit of old hat in them. And that is, we have to really understand what this question of antibody specificity — and I’ll tell you a little more about what I mean by that.
But I also want to point out that probably the best paper that was written on this was written by our friend Mike Stone at Viroliegy called Antibody Specificity?
So if you’re really interested in this subject you should check out that paper on that website. So this is, again, me lifting things from other people. But as I always say, at least I acknowledge that.
So let’s get into the question first of antibody specificity. And before I do that, I have something I wanted to show you. So share the screen.
I don’t know this guy Daniel Dennett.
“There’s simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion.”
So, I guess you can forget about worrying about that, because if there’s actually no way to do that and “be polite’ or maintain connection, then you don’t have to bother trying to think about what the best way would be, because there’s no way. So you might as well just say it the best way you know how.
So here’s some papers — some quotes from peer reviewed journals. The first three that I’ve probably shown before. (Can make this a little bigger.) This is about antibodies. Again, these were all lifted from peer reviewed journals.
[TCTL editor’s note: Here Tom Cowan shares some images of papers and reads from them.]
“The idea of poison and antidote led to the belief that the antidote would precisely combine with the poison and thus neutralize it. Even if death occurred when treated with the antidotes, which was often the case with mercury and arsenic, the justification was that it would prevent infecting others or that the person would have died more quickly without treatment.
“When Paul Ehrlich, who invented chemotherapy and the immune theory, slowly poisoned horses with toxic plant extracts so that they could survive otherwise lethal concentrations of the poison for a time, he found that there was an increase in protein in the blood. Since that time, these proteins have been referred to as an antidote and, in the modern version, as an anti-body.
“In reality, the body builds new vessels with these proteins, called globulins, seal all other cells and tissues with them, regulates blood clotting and thus wound healing. Paul Ehrlich’s misconception that these antidote proteins fit the toxins exactly like a key in a lock is the basis of all immune theories.”
So this paragraph essentially encapsulates the reason why I keep saying there’s no immune system.
This is the foundation of the immune theory — that we make proteins called antibodies, which are, in fact, globulins — which I would say are non-specific, unlike the specificity which is claimed. And I’ll get into more what I mean by that in a minute. So they’re not specific to anything in any virus or any protein.
They are non-specific proteins that regulate clotting and wound healing. So they cannot be used in any way to identify the protein. That’s what it means by specificity.
And since the time of Ehrlich, there have been probably thousands of papers going into the molecular details of how this specificity comes about. But the fact of the matter is, nobody has been able to prove specificity — meaning one antibody is specific, that binds and only binds to one specific antigen or protein or part of a protein or toxin. That’s what we mean by specific.
The antibody, if it was specific, could be used to identify the protein. If it’s not specific, it can’t be used to identify the protein. That should be obvious.
And so specific means it’s unique to that protein. Non-specific means it’s not unique to that protein.
If it’s specific, it can be used to identify the protein, since that’s the only possible thing it could be reacting to. If it’s non-specific, then it can’t possibly be used to identify the protein.
So next:
“In reality, these globulins, which are presented as antibodies and used in antibody tests, only come in a few size classes and different charge states. Only the size and the state of charge on the one hand and the composition of the liquids on the other hand in which the antibodies are supposed to react with the ‘bodies’ decide whether a reaction will occur or not. Even a slight change in fluid composition, temperature, or pH can cause antibodies to bind to all substances or none.”
And this is the case that the antibodies are not specific, and that they’re reacting to non-specific proteins. And the reaction is more based on the composition of the fluid, such as the temperature or the pH, or maybe the oxidation reduction potential, or maybe some other things, but they are not reacting to a specific antigen protein or toxin at all.
“This is the reason why all antibody tests, e.g. against pathogens, types of cancer etc. can be easily manipulated, are arbitrary and without any meaningfulness. Even the package inserts for these tests state that there is no (calibration) standard. Even if the disease-causing viruses existed, ‘antibody tests’ could not detect them.”
So, that is the basic argument that they’re manipulatable, they’re changed depending on the conditions of the fluid that they’re in.
They can’t possibly identify a protein or a virus or a toxin. They’re just, as they say, non-specific proteins that regulate blood clotting and wound healing. And so this is a very important fact as we go forward in this discussion.
Okay, next.
So I’m going to switch here to a slightly different.
Before I get into the spike protein and the mRNA —
This, unfortunately, title is called “Biden Quotes”. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen this. Apparently Biden said:
“I said I’d cure cancer. They looked at me like, ‘Why cancer’? Because no one thinks we can. That’s why. And we can. We ended cancer as we know it,” Biden said during a speech in the East Room of the White House.
Well, that’s good to know. So one less thing we all have to worry about, according to Joe Biden.
And then just highlight this and then I’m going to bring this up.
Okay. So this is a little bit of a switch of subjects. But I found this interesting and you’ll see how it relates to the topic. This was posted on something called US Mortality by someone who I don’t think I know. I may know them, named Ben. So I don’t really know who Ben is. I’ve seen some of his stuff just recently and it looks great. So I applaud Ben, whoever you are, you’re doing some great stuff. And, in particular, for thinking properly, because that’s what it all is based on.
So we all know that it certainly doesn’t reduce the death rate. That’s easy to show with just epidemiology. But here’s the question — because people, including myself before I really toned or honed my thinking process had questions about this. Because it seems like in previous times, 50-60 years ago, there was more of a disease called measles than there is now. And so, now that I know more about it, I know how difficult it is to make that diagnosis. And how difficult that kind of conclusion is to make on pure epidemiology or pure observation.
So it’s one of those things that — it seems like there’s less measles. But the question here is, has it been actually proven whether or not there’s more or less measles? That the MMR vaccine has been shown to reduce the number of measles cases?
So, again, the thinking process is: this is a claim. You don’t have to know anything else about the situation but the claim is the MMR vaccine has reduced the number of measles cases.
So that claim should be provable or disprovable by doing a proper study with a control — giving one group of people or children who haven’t had measles the MMR and another group of more or less identical children, not giving them the MMR, and then looking at the cases and seeing if you can detect a difference.
Anything else but that, any observation or any other epidemiological information can’t come up with that answer. This is the only way to do it. That should be obvious.
So we’re investigating the claim that the MMR vaccine reduced the cases of measles.
So here’s what the CDC says: that the MMR vaccine protects against measles, mumps and rubella. Two MMR vaccines are available — MMR II and PRIORIX, fully interchangeable. So you can use either one.
And then they go according to the Mayo Clinic — What is Measles? So they give you a bunch of of symptoms. And in particular I want to mention they tell you about Koplik’s spots, the white spots with the bluish white centers on a red background inside the lining of a cheek.
And as I said, this is the so-called pathonomonic feature of a case of measles, except 40% or so of children who are told they have measles don’t have Koplik’s spots. So that’s apparently non-Koplik’s spots measles, which is odd because that’s how you know it’s measles. So how can there be a non-Koplik’s spot measles? But anyways. So these are the symptoms of a child or a person with measles. Occurs in stages over two weeks.
So now that we know what measles looks like, let’s look at the package insert of the two products, he says.
So, these were the clinical trials that demonstrated that these vaccines reduce the case of measles. And as he points out this is the MMR II, quoting here they “demonstrate that the antibody response rates to measles, mumps, and rubella among children who received MMR II manufactured with rHA will be similar to the antibody response rates among children who receive MMR manufactured with” some other antigen and to demonstrate that MMR II will induce acceptable antibody response rates to measles, mumps, and rubella. And it’s well tolerated.
So in other words, the demonstration that the MMR II works to prevent cases of measles has no clinical indications as endpoints, no placebo was used. They only looked at antibodies under the claim that the antibodies tell you specifically that this child had or didn’t have measles. And as we now know that isn’t possible with an antibody test.
So this is an anti-scientific study, which can tell you nothing about whether the MMR II vaccine reduced the actual cases of clinical measles or not.
So let’s look at the other one, the PRIORIX. The second current vaccine was also compared to antibody responses, this time to the antibody responses of MMR II.
In other words, they inject a poison in you. They see that you have a non-specific repair mechanism activated by this injection of the poison. They claim that that means that you have an immunity against measles. And then the second vaccine, they compare it to the first one, which was fraudulently and anti-scientifically done. And then they compare the antibody response relative to MMR II, and they find that it’s basically similar. Therefore, they both protect you against measles.
When in reality that just means they both created approximately the same sort of tissue damage because they’re both poisons. And they, therefore, create the same amount of bodily response, non-specifically to heal the damage.
Now third one, MMR II (HSA), since 1978, they say that the efficacy of measles, mumps, rubella was established in a series of double-blind controlled trials, of which only these two references mentioned measles. So only this one study is — so that’s the only study that actually has anything to do with measles. And so here he has a link to the studies. And according to the study, the vaccines were compared for their clinical reaction and their antibody response.
He says he doesn’t have access to the full text, but according to the abstract the endpoints did not include the case rate of measles or deaths.
And here you can see the clinical reaction rate and antibody, were compared in children given three vaccines — so they’re compared these to the previous two. And they say they did it with the clinical reaction. So finally we get actually a trial that’s looking at whether the children got sick or not. But how did they do it?
So they did it with a clinical trial of 300 children that did not have measles. They split them into three groups. They use two measles vaccines and a placebo. And then they monitored them for three weeks.
So even though they did use a placebo, they gave them these two different measles vaccines. And then they monitor them for a total of three weeks to see whether that protected them against measles.
And what did they actually do? Did they actually look for all the clinical signs of measles? No, they simply did a rectal temperature every day, I guess, for those three weeks. And that was the only clinical sign that they measured. And if they had no more signs of a rectal increase in temperature that, apparently, meant they were protected for life against measles or three weeks.
So this is about as crazy as you can get. It goes back to an experiment in ’69 in Honduras where 300 children were monitored for three weeks. No efficacy for measles cases or deaths was established. All subsequent studies rely on this original study.
This is yet another example of these doctors thinking that somebody must have proved this. Somebody must have shown that the cases go down. When this is the only trial, apparently, that actually did anything clinical at all. And it was — all they did was measure the rectal temperature for three weeks, which has nothing to do with the alleged protection against measles or the reduction of cases or death or anything else that is claimed for this measles vaccine.
So you would have to say that there is no evidence that any MMR shot or any measles vaccine, reduced the cases of measles or the death rate for measles. Full stop.
And if you disagree with that, you’re going to have to send us a study that shows that that’s the case. And my guess is you will not be able to do that.
Okay. So now with that background, we can then go to the first question. Are we, as this paper claims… one of the most important papers on the molecular mechanism of the detection of recombinant spike protein in the blood of individuals vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.
Here is the author [Carlo Brogna], apparently in Italy.
So, of course, we go down to the methods section and ask. So how did he detect this recombinant spike protein in the blood of individuals vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2?
And lo and behold, no surprise, probably. We go down to the experimental procedures… informed consent… 20 human samples were collected from vaccinated subjects with informed consent. The geometric mean of their antibodies′ titer versus spike protein was such and such after 60 days. In addition 20 human biological samples were collected from unvaccinated subjects wtih informed consent.
And so they were different. These ones who had not undergone COVID-19 and didn’t have the vaccine, and presumably had less tissue breakdown, were negative for these antibodies — which according to them, proves that the spike protein is created in the blood through vaccination, and is part of the illness they’re calling COVID-19.
So again, the whole thing rests on the fact that the only thing that they measured here were antibodies. They were claiming that the antibodies were specific for the spike protein. Therefore, if they find the spike protein in the blood of vaccinated or people who allegedly had COVID, that means that they had spike protein disease. Whereas the people who were healthy and then, presumably not breaking down their tissues, didn’t have to make non-specific antibodies. So the antibody tests were negative.
It has nothing to do with spike proteins or viruses at all.
So again, it doesn’t mean that I’m saying — we’re talking the mechanism here, not whether some people who allegedly had some non-specific illness called COVID-19 were sick. Maybe they were and maybe they were breaking down. And I’m not exonerating these injections.
For sure, if you inject somebody, as we’ll see with non-specific cell culture goop, you will make them sick. Their tissues will break down and they will have increased antibodies.
The question we’re dealing with here is not whether things can make people sick, or injections of poisons can make people sick. It’s whether the antibodies prove that this is a spike protein or a spike protein coming from a virus, and the spike protein is made by the alleged mRNA in the injection.
So, let me just go through, well, let me go to the next one here.
You see, the tendency here, especially amongst the so-called freedom community, is they like to pick up on these studies to attempt to demonstrate or prove that these vaccines, so-called, are horrible, and they’re causing myocarditis, and they’re doing so through the mechanism of the creation of this so-called spike protein.
I am not arguing against the fact that the injections are horrible, or that they give people myocarditis or otherwise heart problems. I’m talking about the mechanism because the mechanism is everything. It has to do with, eventually, how you think about this whole thing. What is actually happening. And even, eventually, how to treat it.
Because I have no sympathy for the argument advanced by so many doctors. ‘Tom, what difference does it make whether there’s actually mRNA in the injections or whether there’s spike proteins or whether there’s a virus.’
It makes all the difference in the world. Because if you can’t understand what’s happening or at least disprove that this particular thing is happening, you will will eventually be led astray.
You will also eventually scare and frighten people more than you should. And there is no benefit from being ignorant about what happens and using anti-scientific thinking to make claims about what’s happening that are easily disproven.
So when you say, okay, well, how did this paper that’s so crucial to our understanding that it’s the spike protein that’s causing myocarditis — how did they detect the spike protein?
And no surprise there. If you go to the method section, you see:
“We performed extensive antibody profiling…” and then there’s a whole other bunch of immune profiles, antibodies against the human-relevant virome. These are all downstream antibody testing, all of which are non-specific and can’t possibly tell you that there was a spike protein.
And here again you see this immunophenotyping, and it’s all about detecting antibodies against previous infection, SARS-Cov-2 spike protein specific T-cell responses and other antibodies.
They never actually assay for spike protein directly in the fluids. They sometimes look for pieces which they allege, through other antibody testing previously done, that those come from the spike protein.
It all basically boils down to: Are antibodies specific? And the answer, as I said, is clearly no.
So, this brings up another interesting question.
So somebody could say, ‘Okay, Cowan, how can you actually go about proving whether these antibodies are specific or not? Like what should we do?’
Just like we outlined with how they should go about proving there is a virus or not with our viral challenge, here I will outline how you would go about, if you wanted to do proper, reasonable, logical science, proving that antibodies are specific and not just non-specific reactions to tissue breakdown. So it would go something like this:
You would give a substance, preferably a toxic substance or a substance that causes damage, like a vaccine (so-called), or an injection, or some sort of cell culture goop or nanoparticles. And
then you would get breakdown of the tissue. If you don’t give any toxic substance, you won’t get any tissue breakdown, presumably, and then you won’t get any antibodies produced, and then you don’t have anything to study. So you give the substance, you get the tissue breakdown.
And then you inject the antibody or take a sample and mix it with the antibody that you believe — this is what you’re going to test — is specific for a certain protein.
They say that if this antibody binds, and therefore makes some sort of reaction, that’s proof of specificity. But what they should do is give the same person or animal a different substance that couldn’t possibly have a spike protein in it, but is also toxic to the tissues and causes a similar amount of tissue damage. Then you once you get the tissue damage, you take a sample or inject the antibodies, or mix it with antibodies in the sample, or inject the antibody into the person, and see if it binds the same antibody.
If it binds — and obviously the insult, the toxin, was different — that proves that the antibodies are not binding to a specific toxin, they’re binding to non-specific toxins and, in particular, they’re being produced in reaction to tissue damage.
So that’s the first of two controls that you would do.
The second is you would give this toxic substance — let’s say something you claim is a spike protein or an mRNA — you would see the tissue damage. And then you would inject it with the antibody that you claim is specific, see if it binds. and see if it lights up and you can detect it. And if it does, you claim that that binding proves that it’s protein specific.
But then, give the same substance (your so-called spike protein), you get the tissue breakdown, but this time you inject or mix it with a different antibody, not the antibody that you say is specific to the spike protein, but a totally different antibody. That of course shouldn’t bind. And if it does, it tells you that antibodies are binding non-specifically, and you cannot use it to prove the existence of that antigen or that protein in the first place.
Every single paper that does that, that uses antibodies to make this claim, should obviously include both of those steps. And yet, none of us can find a paper that ever includes both of those steps. Therefore, they’re all anti-scientific. They are not using appropriate controls and not following the scientific method.
And this is why one of the world’s leading authorities on antibodies, and particularly monoclonal antibodies (monoclonal means they’re specific to one antigen) and that’s Clifford Saper, Harvard Medical School Professor. And this is a quote from one of his papers.
“No, there is no such thing as a monoclonal antibody that, because it is monoclonal, recognizes only one protein or only one virus. It will bind to any protein having the same (or a very similar) sequence.”
So there is no such thing as a monoclonal or antibody specificity. So all these papers alleging that they found the spike protein, that the spike protein is a mechanism of damage, need to be tossed out as uncontrolled anti-scientific garbage.
If you want an analogy, I came up with one just before this that may help.
So let’s say you have a balloon and you cut the balloon with a knife or some object. And then you put duct tape on it to fix the balloon. And then you claim that because you were able to fix the balloon with duct tape this proves that the knife was the mechanism that cut the balloon.
That’s essentially what they’re doing. They’re saying essentially that the duct tape is somehow specific to the mechanism of injury, which is a knife.
So the first control experiment you would need to do is take the balloon and cut it with a scissors, and then use your duct tape and see if you could fix the balloon. Because if you could, this would demonstrate that your conclusion originally was wrong, that it is not specific to a knife, because it works just as well with a balloon cut with a scissors.
And then the next control experiment you would do is you would take the balloon and you would cut it with a knife. But this time you would try to fix the balloon with, say, elephant tape. I’m not sure what that is, but I’ve heard that that actually works sort of like duct tape. And if that works to fix the balloon, which it would, that would tell you that the type of tape, i.e. the antibody, is not specific to the mechanism of injury, that is to say a knife — that any similar tape would work.
So again, similarly, many antibodies will bind to that protein, or to that injured tissue, because the antibodies are not specific to the protein. They’re specific to the tissue injury.
So many different mechanisms of injury, and many different antibodies will work. And if you don’t believe me, send me a paper where they did both of those controls, and I and others will admit we’re wrong. Except that won’t happen, because none of the so-called scientists will be able to do that. Because, as far as we can see, it doesn’t exist.
And so, once again, we are putting out very specific guidelines to prove us wrong. And the people who are attempting to do that seemingly never are able to do that, because those papers don’t exist.
And then, finally, we get to the issue of Dr. Qureshi’s paper of ‘Is there actually mRNA in these injections?’.
So here’s the paper. You can see the reference here, and I don’t know exactly how to find it but I think if you put this in somehow you’ll be able to find it. And he talks about how they claim that there is mRNA in these injections. I mean that’s the whole point.
You put the mRNA for the spike protein, then that goes to the imaginary ribosomes and makes the spike proteins, and the spike proteins make non-specific antibodies to a protein that couldn’t possibly have been made — or at least has never been demonstrated to have been made — and pretty soon you realize you’re in La La Land.
So, here he goes through the steps. And I think basically, he talks about the fact that the mRNA… Let’s just read it and so we go there from a pharmaceutical perspective.
[TCTL editor’s note: Here, Tom skips through, reading parts of pages 2 to 4 from Saeed Qureshi’s paper and mixing with his own comments. To identify which words are Saeed’s and which are Tom’s, it might help to read the paper while listening. LINK]
“One must obtain the active ingredient, in this case mRNA”… either have to make it yourself or get it from a third party.
So he talks about this. There’s the active ingredient, which is the mRNA and then there’s all the other stuff that goes into the formulation.
So we’re not interested in the other stuff. We’re only interested in this so-called active ingredient, which is mRNA.
So during the product development, the active ingredient is monitored, tested, to see if it is in the body, is expected in the expected amounts, the efficacy and toxicity relate to the active ingredient levels.
Therefore, a vaccine developer would first need an appropriate mRNA or its source to purchase such an active ingredient… should commonly be available from an independent third party supplier with appropriate certification for identification and purity.
However, the COVID-19 mRNA is proprietary. No information about its nature and purity is available in the public domain. So obviously that makes it difficult to know whether that’s in there.
Therefore, as he says, appropriately, one must rely on general information regarding what is present in the vials, and how they may have been synthesized manufactured and purified.
So now we’re getting to the crux of the matter.
In this regard a fermentation process using culturing microbes, such as bacteria is claimed to produce mRNA, which is then extracted, isolated, from the manufacturing perspective. The following diagram shows the steps. [see the bottom of page 2 for diagram]
You can see that steps — hard to see here. Culture has developed, some chemical reactions are performed. This stops the culturing fermentation, followed by purification. The last step is marked as formulation.
This production process of mRNA is simple, yet very confusing, which may be why people do not correctly understand the manufacturing of the vaccine and its adverse effect.
As explained above, the active ingredient is mRNA.
And this is the key of all this.
But no step describes mRNA production. We go through this in detail.
There is no step proving that this bacteria in this fermentation mat are making a specific mRNA.
The last step in the diagram is formulation or vaccine. Therefore this is vaccine production, not mRNA per se.
He says they use the words mRNA and vaccine interchangeably which is incorrect. Calling the end stages formulation indicates that the mRNA has never been produced, but is assumed to be there. So there is no step in here that proves, or demonstrates the specific production of mRNA.
It’s only assumed to be there.
The last step in the manufacturing should be a pure and isolated mRNA compound. However, it is an “isolate”, culture or gunk, possibly selectively concentrated compared to the one in the productive chamber.
In other words, all they have is the breakdown of the culture or gunk, culture gunk, not specifically isolated purified mRNA, which then they could use as the active ingredient to put into the vials.
And he says they don’t appreciate the difference between culture isolate gunk and pure isolated component which is a critical misunderstanding as the relevant science, the same as the virus issue.
So mRNA has not been produced, but a culture isolate, gunk, is considered and sold as mRNA or vaccine.
And this is another crucial point he makes.
It may be argued that the manufacturing processes or steps shown in the figure above have multiple filtration separation or isolation steps, like gradient ultra centrifugation for virus isolation, ensuring the production of pure mRNA.
And this is the part that I can’t verify myself. But I know Saeed, and I think this is a worthy place to start.
“Considering my extensive expertise and experience 40 plus years in separation science, including exhaustive training and experience in chromatography, I can confidently say that the steps described here would not be able to produce the claimed pure and isolated mRNA until shown otherwise.”
“Another critical point is that it is impossible to monitor mRNA production because no test may be developed without the availability of the pure and isolated reference (mRNA) standard. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that mRNA production is based on assumption, not scientific or valid testing.”
In other words, if they can’t come up with the pure isolated mRNA, there’s no way to validate this procedure. And therefore, there’s no way to claim that this procedure made the mRNA that they’re saying is in there. Therefore, there’s no way to even know that the mRNA is in there.
So what’s in there?
He suspects that the presence of DNA contamination, which is becoming an issue now — they know that the DNA is contaminated — is simply because they’re using culture gunk or chip particles of bacteria, which obviously have their own contaminating DNA. And this contamination would explain the widespread adverse reactions after the injection of these vials.
So we don’t need to propose a mechanism of mRNA or spike protein. Simply injecting bacterial culture junk with all the stuff that’s in there that is not properly purified.
And there’s no way to assess the validity of the claim, because they don’t have a pure mRNA to begin with, makes the whole burden of proof on the manufacturers to prove that there is the mRNA that they say there is in there.
And my guess is that is, again, a challenge that they will never undertake due to claims of proprietary, or this or that, or we don’t want to sell our secrets, or people would do nasty things with it as if (as if they’re not doing enough nasty things with what they’re doing already).
So again, there is no actual clear scientific evidence that this process would result in pure mRNA of a specific type that could be put into these vials, that could produce a spike protein, and that could be the saving grace of the pharmaceutical industry with further mRNA vaccines.
It’s simply the old culturing non-specific stuff that they’ve been doing all along with viruses and claiming they’re actually doing something a lot more sophisticated then they actually know how to do.
So I hope that clarifies things and alleviates people’s worries that they’re being genetically reprogrammed or that there’s some specific genetic modification going on.
I mean, again, it’s not to say that the injections aren’t bad enough. And I’m not exonerating the injections or saying they’re not causing the damage that they do. Far from it.
It’s just not the mechanism that we’ve been told. And anybody who claims that’s the mechanism, the burden of proof is on them to:
Show the pure isolated mRNA that comes from this process.
Show us that mRNA is the same in all the vaccines.
Show us by direct assay that the spike proteins are made as a result of these injections.
Show that the spike protein injections create something called immunity to something called the virus.
And none of those four steps are possible, because the whole thing is a bunch of hooey.
Instead of focusing on the DNA-contaminated mRNA vaccines, the central question should be: Has the basic assumption about “pathogenic particles (viruses)” ever been scientifically proven/confirmed? The answer is NO , and therefore every vaccination is inherently illegal and dangerous.
It is ironic that if the assumptions of genetic theory were correct, critics would be right. This irony shows that pharmaceuticals are paradoxically finding themselves caught in the crossfire due to theses held by both critics and the mainstream.
What does that mean?
The idea that DNA is the unchanging blueprint of life has been promoted for over 40 years. But in 2006, leading researchers confirmed: This idea was naive. DNA is dynamic and constantly changing.
The human genome
Complete decoding of the human genome (in reality just reading rows of letters that are not understood) is impossible. No two people are “genetically” alike, not even one cell is another. When you consider that the individual genomes of less than 0.0003% of the 8 billion people have been sequenced (and incompletely), one thing becomes clear: assignments of genetic letter orders for cancer, eye color, height, etc. are impossible.
An example: the color of the eyes
It was believed that it was simply genetically determined. This idea turned out to be a forced interpretation of the current data, which was refuted by more recent data. So parents with blue eyes can have a child with brown eyes. This makes it clear that the idea of a fixed genetic section has been scientifically refuted.
Plain language: If every genome is unique, we only know a tiny fraction of all genomes (0.0003%) and they are constantly changing themselves, then the attempt to define fixed gene sections for certain characteristics such as eye color or cancer is worth it , like trying to catch a river with a sieve – it’s not only inaccurate, it’s simply unattainable.
The madness of genetics
When even simple examples such as eye color cannot be assigned, it seems bizarre when parties claim that foreign “specific” DNA can precisely change human genetics and cause cancer. Dr. Kary Mullis summed it up well: With PCR you can find everything in every person if you do it right. This means that every DNA or RNA sequence can be found in every person, whether healthy, sick, vaccinated or unvaccinated.
The strategy of fighting like with like may seem promising at first glance. But on closer inspection it turns out to be a theoretical trap. Instead of focusing on the DNA-contaminated mRNA vaccines, the central question should be: Has the basic assumption about “pathogenic particles (viruses)” ever been scientifically proven/confirmed? The answer is NO , and therefore every vaccination is inherently illegal and dangerous.
The current approach offers the pharmaceutical apparatus a back door: they could argue that there are better, uncontaminated vaccines or present other methods that would then have to be accepted within the long-refuted genetics thesis.
The technical implementation of the laboratory in Magdeburg is vulnerable even within the narrative
The detection is based on non-exact methods such as Qubit Flex Fluorometer and qPCR that have been performed. Neither the plasmids were directly isolated and detected nor were they properly sequenced.
First, we lack detailed information about the exact conditions and protocols under which these experiments were conducted.
Secondly, we know nothing about the negative and positive controls carried out.
Third, no sequencing or isolation of the plasmids was performed. This means that we do not know exactly which DNA sequences were present in the samples. Sequencing would have been necessary to determine the “theoretically” accurate nature of the DNA detected and to ensure that it was in fact plasmid DNA and not other forms of DNA.
David Icke with Reiner Fuellmich: On the Step by Step Takeover of Humanity & Our Natural World | The Solution Is in the Power of ‘No’ & Our Refusal to Acquiesce
Below you will find Reiner Fuellmich’s recent interview with David Icke. Some excerpts are provided to give you a sense of the overall tone. This conversation covers a wide number of topics related to our multi-dimensional, multi-frequency reality.
Along with a discussion of the ways humanity has been controlled throughout history and the awakening of so many people because of the global crimes against humanity during ‘the plandemic’ , there are also brief mentions of hidden technology, the secrecy around Antarctica (and Admiral Byrd’s expedition), Hollow Earth, underground bases, non-human manipulation of humanity, Rudolf Steiner’s (1861-1925) prediction of mind-control vaccines, etc.
Reiner Fuellmich:
“I mean, I get bored with that because I don’t want to talk the umpteenth time about how they misused the PCR test in order to create cases that didn’t exist. I don’t want to talk about whether or not this is personality changing. I don’t want to talk about whether this is going to make people infertile. We know that it does.
“We have to step beyond this because we’re wasting our time talking about the same things over and over and over again simply because it’s so fascinating to see how blatantly they manipulated us and made us believe in totally idiotic concepts.
“If we don’t understand the whole picture, if we don’t see that, we’re not going to be able to get out of this self-created illusion.
“So in that sense, I’m extremely glad that you have put the dots together. It makes perfect sense to me and it coincides with everything that I’ve learned over the last three years.”
[…]
“I mean, yes, my friend Dexter Ryneveldt (he’s an attorney from South Africa) and I and all the other international attorneys were working on getting out the whole picture, not just the pieces of the puzzle but the whole story, in a legal proceeding. Because this is what people expect. We’re talking about justice.
“Ultimately, there will be justice. Justice will have to be done.
“But you won’t get justice inside the system, which you have just described because it’s totally, it’s the spider web. It’s totally under their control.
“So we’ll have to step outside the system and probably into a system that not just provides the legal framework as we think it should be as lawyers, but also connects with spirituality or consciousness, whatever you want to call it. Step outside the system so that they will not be able to touch us.
“Dexter’s example was, as an eagle you can’t fight a snake [on the ground] and win against it. You can’t come down and fight it at the ground. You have to pick it up into the air, which is where it can’t survive if you really want to destroy it.
“And ultimately, I think this is what this is about. It’s about either them or us. We have to either destroy them or they will destroy us. And this is what people have to understand.”
[…]
“But, you know, sometimes it helps to have a kind of a symbolism. For me as a lawyer the most important takeaway from what you’re telling us today is that we do have to go after the gophers.
“I know it’s just symbolism but it shows everyone that it’s us who are calling the shots. And if we don’t want to play along, if we want justice, if we want to hold these people responsible, then we will.
“There’s nothing that can stop us. And if we cut off this conveyor belt, so to speak, we’re destroying the spider web. And all of a sudden we will be able to see who we really are. I think this is really what it boils down to.”
David Icke:
“Well, they’ve been taking over our society over a long period of time and going step by step towards their ultimate goal.
“And I have this phrase, ‘know the outcome and you’ll see the journey‘.
“If you don’t know the outcome then everything seems random. When you know what the outcome is planned to be, the random becomes very clear stepping stones to that outcome.
“So the outcome is planned to be, first of all, a different type of human, far more synthetic in nature. This is why synthetic biology is a massively expanding area of science. This is all connected into the jabs as well — as you will have talked to many people about this.
“Up to this point, they have had to control information to manipulate perception because perception is what they’re after. They want a technological way of controlling perception. So they don’t have to do all this manipulation of information.
“So religions served the perceptual indoctrination very well. And now we’ve got science, which is overwhelmingly not science at all in its true sense.
“But what they want — and this is why they’re now coming out with it; they’ve gone from hiding it to sales-pitching it — they want to connect artificial intelligence to the human brain and the human body so that our perceptions will come direct.
“Not manipulated. Direct. You will think what AI thinks.
“And so you have this guy, Ray Kurzweil at Google, a futurist. And people say, he’s got an 80% accuracy in predicting the future.
“Well, if you know what the plan is, there’s a bloody good chance you’re going to be right.
“I mean, people say to me, how did you predict all this? Well, because I uncovered the plan.
“I’m not predicting the future. I’m predicting what the plan wants.
“And if nothing intervenes in the plan it will become the future.”
[…]
“We don’t have to fight the enemy. There’s no need to fight. We have to stop cooperating with it. Because the enemy has no freaking power…
“We are the cause of what’s happening in the world by acquiescing to authority. We take it back, the house of cards is all over the floor.”
[…]
“And you know, again, not only can you not control eight billion people… unless you recruit gophers from the eight billion people to impose your will upon the eight billion people. These are police officers. These are the military.
“And when people like that start to realize (and other people in the system start to realize) what they’re playing the part of without realizing it, who their real masters are, and the fact that their kids and grandkids are going to have to live in the world they’re helping to create — if they would then walk away and stop doing what they’re doing, then the whole thing starts to fall apart.”
[…]
“And so it’s a time of great danger, but it’s also a time of great opportunity — that we can create true freedom as opposed to the illusion of freedom…”
In this first of two parts of ICIC’s interview, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich and co-host attorney Dagmar Schoen talk with British veteran of the alternative media scene David Icke. He is an author, researcher and investigative journalist.
Reiner Fuellmich and Dagmar Schoen question him about his personal awakening process and the beginning of his involvement with the other side of the story, the real side, that initially turned his world upside down. He recounts his startling experiences that, ultimately, broadened his horizon and understanding of reality, as opposed to the mainstream’s narrative. These processes led him to leave his old life behind, defying all reprisals, and to dedicate his life to the uncovering of hidden knowledge and truths, beyond the fabricated “reality” we have been fed.
Icke describes in detail the structure and the far-reaching entanglements of a pyramidal organizational structure designed by a small, but very well-organized conglomerate. This conglomerate was, indeed, able to infiltrate almost all areas of our social structures over many years by installing stooges in politics, business, NGOs, etc.
Those who pull the strings, who act in secret, have positioned themselves like a spider in the center of this network, so that they have everything under surveillance. They must maintain their position of power at all costs in order to survive at the expense of humanity – which is waking up to this reality ever faster.
David Icke addresses issues that at first glance seem to have nothing to do with each other, explaining the entanglements and then connecting the dots so that an overall picture emerges of the great deception to which we have been and are being subjected. None of this is an accident, as the last three and a half years have shown us.
The connections are becoming clearer and clearer, revealing that this inhumane agenda is aimed at total control of humanity, combined with dehumanization through technocracy to replace anything human, indeed, creation as a whole. David Icke’s work reveals the workings of a persistent and perfidious psychological terror that is being deliberately used against us.
If we realize that we as humanity are vastly superior to this inhumane conglomerate, that it is dependent on us and can only survive through our energy and creative power, then this exploitation and deception will cease immediately. For this, the determined refusal to participate on our part is sufficient. We need only communicate this to these creatures by using the powerful word “No!” And we must understand that we are now at a point in time that even our legal systems analyze as a situation of self-defense.
“The takeover framework of these ruling psychopaths is based always on the prototype of problem-reaction-solution, of which all are fake premeditated events and false emergencies; conspiracies in fact, meant to instill fear, hatred, or confusion, so that the State can pretend to come to the rescue of its hapless slave-class.”
[…]
“While the state continues to build its new world order, the general population is consumed by one after another false flag event, claimed ’emergency,’ or new ‘threat,’ as stated by the ruling class bent on taking over the world. While the masses are at each other’s throats, the state continues its drive toward total domination. What this indicates is that the people are complicit in their own slavery due to their inability to see the big picture, while concentrating on every distraction thrown at them by this evil ruling force.”
This Long Plotted World Takeover Scheme Is More Advanced Than Any Normal Human Can Fathom
“The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control. Do I mean a conspiracy? Yes, I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, incredibly evil in intent.”
~ Rep. Larry P. MacDonald [Note: Lawrence McDonald was killed (likely murdered) on Korean Air Lines 007, 1983, a few months after making this statement.]
To begin, I will preface my remarks by saying that this is an attempt to explain in simple terms, very complicated financial and economic crimes being used against Americans, and also against the entire world population, in order to create and sustain total control over humanity. This is meant to manifest itself in the concept of one world governance, the ‘Great Reset,’ or the New World Order.
This may seem a bold statement; it is not, but once you understand that everything that has happened over many decades is linked, especially since the plotted and premeditated false flag event called ‘9/11,’ you should be able to recognize the massive number of obvious connections that are incredibly evil.
It has recently become more prevalent by mostly alternative news sites and bloggers, to put forth the notion that many are waking up, and that the people are winning the battle for freedom. In my opinion, this is just not so, and in fact is misleading, as false hope is the driving force of this thinking.
It is evident that more are claiming to be against government tyranny, but absolutely nothing has been done to reduce or eliminate the power of the State at any level to date. In addition, the nefarious efforts of the State and its controllers continue to expand, and the drive toward more draconian policies is never-ending.
In the current environment, it is not known what the reaction by the masses might be considering the vast and imminent array of so-called ’emergencies’ that are certain to arise as this controlling cabal seeks to advance its agendas, but if the past is any indication, compliance should be expected.
The takeover framework of these ruling psychopaths is based always on the prototype of problem-reaction-solution, of which all are fake premeditated events and false emergencies; conspiracies in fact, meant to instill fear, hatred, or confusion, so that the State can pretend to come to the rescue of its hapless slave-class.
This strategy has worked most every time it has been tried to date, and the herd continues to simply go along, regardless of the erroneous rhetoric being spewed that this populace is winning. It is not, and so long as the State continues and succeeds in its push to remake and transform society, whether psychologically, financially, or economically, the power of the ruling class and its governing system, will advance its wealth transfers, its monetary monopoly, and its depopulation efforts.
Psychological manipulation and control is necessary in order for the State thugs to accomplish their mission of world takeover, but financial and economic control is mandatory.
This brings us to the real question; who owns and controls this world? It is certainly the big banking cartels, including all central banks, the large corporate magnates, the government protected NGO foundations, and of course, the entire global asset industry, which by 2020 controlled well over $100 trillion dollars. But who owns and controls all of these entities? Who has controlling interest in everything on earth? That is Blackrock and The Vanguard Group, and as I explained a year ago:
“There are a few thousand institutional investment firms that own every large bank, every large corporation, every large investment firm, every ‘news’ outlet, every large communication company, every large pharmaceutical company, every large transportation company; in other words, most every large company on earth is owned by these institutional investors. In turn, the small institutional investment firms are owned by larger institutional investment firms, and the larger investment firms, are owned by even larger investment firms. The two institutional investment companies that are the major owners and controllers of all the others in the world are Vanguard Holdings and Blackrock, and Vanguard is the largest shareholder (owner) of Blackrock. What this means is that Vanguard and Blackrock own and control this planet.”
The current CEO of Vanguard is Tim Buckley, and of course, the head and founder of the powerful Blackrock institution is Larry Fink. It should be noted that Fink and Blackrock have attained a position of extreme and almost infinite power over finance and economics, and according to many are now the fourth branch of government.
The connections of Fink are incredibly telling of the power wielded by Blackrock. Blackrock effectively has control of the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury, as well as banks around the world. It should be noted that Fink was appointed to the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Board on August 22, 2019, the onset of the fraudulent ‘covid pandemic,’ which was set up, solidified, and begun, the same month that Fink took his seat on the board of the WEF.
To gain a full picture of Fink and Blackrock’s history through today, watch this superb documentary by James Corbett; “How Blackrock Conquered the World.” In it, Corbett explains with full reference in video and text, how the entire ‘covid’ hoax was staged, and was first and foremost a financial takeover coup led by Blackrock. This connection of dots and people is of vital importance.
As I mentioned earlier, this is a very simplistic view of events, but it is necessary to tie a few things together in order that all can be seen to be completely connected; which would indicate a vast conspiracy that has been propagated over a long period of time.
All so-called ’emergencies’ since the fraudulent 9/11 inside job, have much in common, and why would they not, as the main agenda of world governing domination was always the goal sought.
Consider just three events, but there are many, many more, over that time.
The buildings that came down on 9/11 were turned into powder, an impossibility with fire caused by jet fuel. Consider that cars far away from any fire were burned to nothing, with melted metal, aluminum, windshield glass; all as if by spontaneous combustion.
But the same thing happened in the Paradise, California fires in 2018, with many similarities, including the incredible damage to automobiles not even in the path of fires that had to be well above any heat level of a wildfire.
The same also just occurred this past month in Lahaina, Hawaii.
How could this be? It could not, unless similar or exact methods of destruction were plotted beforehand, and carried out by criminal State (military) means. And this is happening around the world as well, all falsely explained away by the complicit and controlled mainstream media.
One very telling aspect of all these bogus ’emergencies,’ from 9/11 to Maui, is that Wall Street and the financial firms, the institutional asset firms, central banks, defense contractors, and military-controlled tech companies, and of course this includes Blackrock, tended to gain huge profits, capture (steal through land grabs) more property, government contracts, and massive bailout money, while walking away from disaster far richer and more powerful than ever before possible.
This happened with 9/11, the 2008 finance and housing collapse, the fake ‘covid’ plot, and now with the ultimate weapon against humanity, the completely illegitimate ‘climate change’ agenda; and this agenda placed Blackrock at the top of the heap worldwide, of this criminal fraud.
Each and every emergency brings about a bigger and more powerful State, more restrictions, more regulation, more mandates, more lockdowns, less travel, and more surveillance and censorship. This is all by design, and never coincidental or accidental, as all is a deliberate plot against humanity.
Regardless of political considerations or parties, this assault against us all is ongoing, and forever expanding. Every incident, every manipulation, every ’emergency,’ has been planned far in advance, and the world takeover is now closer at hand.
While the state continues to build its new world order, the general population is consumed by one after another false flag event, claimed ’emergency,’ or new ‘threat,’ as stated by the ruling class bent on taking over the world. While the masses are at each other’s throats, the state continues its drive toward total domination. What this indicates is that the people are complicit in their own slavery due to their inability to see the big picture, while concentrating on every distraction thrown at them by this evil ruling force.
What is being ignored is that this world has already been taken over and is being fully controlled by the very few, and the fighting of one against another is continuing to aid in this takeover plot. By concentrating on each and every tyrannical distraction, the people have left themselves open to dictatorial management, and in the process have lost all ability to stop the totalitarian usurpation of their lives and property at the hands of the financial cabal bent on world rule. By treating each indiscretion as independent of the real agenda being sought, nothing is being done to stop the state in its efforts to fully control all people on earth.
By participating in the political and ‘voting’ process; a process designed and implemented for the single purpose of control, by concentrating on the political side shows, by attempting to use corrupt government courts to gain redress from tyrannical maneuvers, by accepting the ruling system as legitimate, by allowing the Federal Reserve and all banks the ability to monitor and control assets through complete digitization, the lowly people are digging their own graves.
It may already be too late to continue this asinine exercise in futility, as the ruling class few are in control of the systems that will allow them to complete their takeover plot.
The only answer to this evil attempt to destroy us in favor of the few most powerful, is to negate all government, to negate and abolish the federal reserve system, to disallow any and all control by the banking cartels, to stop any and all efforts to monopolize the economic and monetary system’s efforts to create and implement any central bank digital currencies, and to not accept any new feigned emergency concerning health, fake ‘climate change,’ war threats, unnatural events, or any other intentional criminal acts meant to cause undue fear among the seemingly helpless proletariat.
The people are not winning; they are losing, but this deadly assault on humanity can still be reversed if even a small majority stand up and take responsibility for their own lives and freedom.
If the current trend continues, if the bulk of this population persists in hiding from the truth, if most expect others to save them, all will be lost, but if any true actionable awakening by large numbers becomes evident, the state will fold. This will never happen with any election, and no politician can change the course we are on, as depending on any master participating in this evil governing system, is the epitome of failure, and can only lead to eternal enslavement.
“The one thing man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by a World Government, a New World Order.”
There is a battle going on for our freedoms this week. And very few Americans are even aware of what is at stake.
New York attorney Bobbie Anne Cox single-handedly goes up against the State of New York this week, after the state appealed a New York State Supreme Court ruling that a so-called “quarantine camp” regulation (“Isolation and Quarantine Procedures”) issued by Governor Kathy Hochul was unconstitutional.
The order concerns quarantine of citizens by the state government. Like other states, New York already has in place laws regarding quarantine of the citizenry – laws duly passed by the elected state representatives. Those laws were crafted by legislators (whose job it is to do this work) and passed by a majority vote of both Assembly and Senate and signed by the governor. That law not only provides for protecting the public by use of quarantine, but also includes protections for individual rights.
There are problems with the governor’s action.
The executive branch does not have the power to make laws under the constitution. That is reserved to the legislature.
With one state executive branch taking power not given to them constitutionally, it creates a precedent that could be used similarly for other issues to violate the rights of citizens on a host of other issues – not only in New York, but in all the other states as well.
So, what is in this regulation, you ask? It has to do with quarantine of the citizenry. There is a history of government-mandated quarantine during times of epidemics in our country. Whether or not the existing laws have been misused against individuals is another debate (see the case of Typhoid Mary, for example, who was imprisoned for more than 23 years under the quarantine law of the time).
This governor’s regulation puts the power at the highest levels of the state government – centrally controlled. The governor’s regulation not only circumvents the legislature’s power and responsibility to enact appropriate laws for the citizenry, but it also takes that power beyond the local level, where it can most appropriately be considered, and completely fails to protect the rights of the individuals against misuse or mis-application by the state officials.
In this regulation, there is no requirement for the state government to prove that the targeted individual is infected, has been exposed to an infectious disease, or poses any actual risk to his/her fellow citizens. The application of the regulation is broad – not just limited to Covid cases. There is no limit regarding the age or medical condition of the individual (it could be imposed on a child or a very elderly person), and there is nothing specified as to the duration of the quarantine, or how that duration would be determined. Most concerning: there is no mechanism provided for the individual to be released.
During the initial court case, it was clearly stated that the only possible mechanism for release was for that individual to sue the state, unless the state officials decided to lift it of their own accord.
Under the provisions of the governor’s regulation, the state government can use law enforcement to forcibly remove citizens from their homes or businesses against their will to place them in unspecified quarantine locations for an indeterminate period with no mechanism for release!
This terrible infringement on citizens’ rights, however, doesn’t stop here. It sets a precedent for more executive branch overreach. If it is not overturned in the appellate court, it will embolden other governors to make more forays into the realm of executive usurpation of the legislative branch of government (see the recent NM Governor’s action to remove 2nd Amendment rights by executive order).
There is no doubt that those who take this type of executive action (Lujan Grisham in New Mexico and Hochul in New York) know that this is outside their scope of power within our governmental system. They also know that, until someone files a lawsuit and prevails against them, they have a period of time when these executive regulations and orders will be in place.
It is essential that the appeals court upholds the ruling in the case of this regulation by Governor Hochul – for the good of all the people of New York, but also for all of us in other states.
This passionate, articulate, brilliant lawyer is fighting for all of us.
And Bobbie Anne Cox has suffered for it. She has set aside her normal legal practice to pursue this effort and has been focusing solely on this case for an extended period. She has sacrificed valuable time with her family, spending countless hours in the maze of motions, filings, dockets, scheduling, and research that are part and parcel of the legal system with all its complexities. The work has been arduous, solitary, and, to some extent, thankless. If she wins the appeal, there is no financial benefit to her or any of the plaintiffs that will be realized.
She has no large staff of paralegals and junior attorneys assisting her to put this case together. She has not had assistance from her other colleagues in New York in fighting this battle.
And, because it has to do with complexities of the legal system, it gets little coverage in the media. Perhaps it is so difficult to imagine just why a state government even wants this type of power over the citizenry, that people find it very hard to grasp that it is really just what Bobbie Anne describes in terms of the potential abuse of individual rights.
No public outcry has occurred. No groundswell of support for her work has happened. And while many are supportive of the great work she has done and were so relieved when she won the case initially, the vast majority of people who stand to benefit from her work will never know they owe her a debt of gratitude.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:00 am EST (at the courthouse in Rochester, NY, located at 50 East Avenue), Bobbie Anne Cox goes forth as a sort of David to meet Goliath, depending on her knowledge of the law rather than a slingshot and stones. She is relying on the New York panel of judges to truly prove that there still exists blind justice in New York.
The merits of her case are clear – even to people not that familiar with the law. Basic Civics shows us the correctness of her contention. This is not a partisan issue. While she is representing Republican plaintiffs, she is not one herself.
If you are able to support her by physically attending the hearing, do so. Perhaps by your presence you can be a silent reminder to the court that New Yorkers are interested in this and are supportive of her efforts.
If you cannot be there in person, consider watching the oral arguments live on the court’s website at: https://ad4.nycourts.gov/go/live/. Please also keep her and the court judges in your thoughts and prayers and share this information with your circle of friends and colleagues.
“Cars were melted where no evidence of a fire was even present, and the scene looked eerily similar, almost exact, as to what happened in New York on September 11, 2001. This is not coincidental, it is apparent, and telling of a pre-planned slaughter and mass destruction.”
“Whoever lays his hand on me to govern me is a usurper and tyrant, and I declare him my enemy.”
~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
We are in the midst of a heinous crime in what is falsely referred to as the ‘American’ State of Hawaii, so vile and evil, that it should sicken all who have any remote possibility of exhibiting mental acquaintance with truth, compassion, or empathy.
The State’s attack on the people of Maui was in my studied opinion, premeditated, brutal, murderous beyond explanation, and targeted to achieve a preconceived agenda which was the total destruction of Lahaina by extreme property devastation and mass death of much of the local population. This was necessary in the mind of the State in order to steal the land and rebuild based on the World Economic Forum and U.N. plan for captured cities, as evidenced by the evil piece of garbage governor, Josh Green, who immediately claimed he wanted to acquire by theft the purposely destroyed land and property for the State, while smoldering embers still burned, and bodies had not been found.
Today, I went to the ten top mainstream news sites searching all news stories, and did not find a single story about the Lahaina fires, except one showing the slimy Biden sleeping while at a meeting with Maui victims; this after offering these victims $700 per family after they had lost everything, including many of their family members.
In other words, this story has been purposely scrubbed from view, not different than what happened after the intentional chemical fire devastated East Palestine, Ohio, and left that town and many others with deadly pollutants.
A tall black fence was actually built around the town of Lahaina, at taxpayer cost of course, and a no fly zone order was given to hide the gruesome murder scene from any view and scrutiny.
What is insanely troubling about the reporting concerning this horrific crime in Maui by all mainstream outlets, and even many alternative sites, is that most continue to call this a ‘wild fire,’ while the evidence of such nonsense does not exist. The anomalies and reactions to this so-called ‘natural’ event, are staggering beyond recognition, and reek of the stench of total corruption at the highest levels.
This was a land grab of epoch proportion, but it was much worse than that, as high death counts were pursued by the State thugs, as they locked the residents of Lahaina inside the rings of deadly fire likely caused by directed energy and microwave attacks; creating fires that were strategically targeted, with heat that was in some cases double that of any wild fire.
This was clearly evident given the melting of aluminum and steel, and also the melting of automobile windshields which requires heat at or above 2,500 degrees. Cars were melted where no evidence of a fire was even present, and the scene looked eerily similar, almost exact, as to what happened in New York on September 11, 2001.
This is not coincidental, it is apparent, and telling of a pre-planned slaughter and mass destruction.
The fires in Maui that were said to have been caused ‘naturally,’ a brazen lie, were almost identical to the fires in Paradise, California as well; fires that were targeted, burning homes to white ash without burning trees or plastic, and in areas desired by the State criminals for rebuilding so-called “smart cities.”
In Lahaina, homes of the very rich were magically spared, as were certain state buildings, grand hotels, and other areas of State favor.
But the homes and families of the local residents were attacked head on, with absolutely no regard for the lives or property of these innocent people.
The ‘crime’ supposedly committed, as seen by the State, was not bowing down, and giving up their homes and lives voluntarily, so a direct false flag action of slaughter and murder was created to complete the State’s agenda of land theft. To hell with the people and their property was the private battle cry of these State politicians and their murderous enforcers called police.
No sirens were turned on even though there were 80 active sirens on Maui.
All water was turned off so fires could not be fought.
Wi-fi was turned off, as was most all electric power.
Roads out were closed, and police roadblocks were manned to forcibly keep all the residents inside the fire perimeter, causing purposeful mass death.
Schools were shut down, so that children were home alone when these intentional fires raged through Lahaina, and many burned to death without help from any State service. The real numbers of deaths are still being hidden as far as I can tell.
In addition, before and after the fire, speculators were attempting to buy these properties, and while bodies were still unfound, the government announced its intentions to buy up this land.
None of these are coincidences, but the State and its complicit media would have you believe that all of these, and many, many, more impossibilities are all coincidental. How could anyone with two brain cells to rub together, buy into the propagandized narratives being presented by the evil State?
I fully realize, especially considering the nearly complete lack of any ability to think critically by the masses, that what I am presenting here will be ignored by a very large swath of the population.
The long-term dumbing down of individuals, and the now digitally-manipulated population, has embraced indifference to such an extent, as to have escaped all reality. In fact, common sense, logic, and reason appear to be nearly non-existent generally speaking. It is much easier for the collective herd to believe the State narratives than to do the work necessary to ferret out fact and truth.
Unfortunately, the ruling class understands this weak and apathetic trait that seems to have captured the very large percentage of dead men walking among us.
How much more obvious corruption, lies, and murder at the hands of the State will have to take place before any majority comes to terms with the reality that this world is ending in favor of mass slavery and depopulation? Will the flock ever fight back?
The forced annexation of Hawaii, the staged Pearl Harbor attack, the world wars, Operation Northwoods, MK Ultra, the Cuban missile crisis, the JFK assassination, Operation Gladio, U.S. aggressive invasion after invasion, Desert Storm, 9/11, the Patriot Act, the War of Terror, the fake ‘covid pandemic,’ bogus ‘climate change, intentional chemical spills, and weather geo-engineering; these just a few of the major false flag events, and government terror operations that have taken place.
Now there are deliberately set fires in Canada, all over the U.S., Hawaii, Australia, Turkey, Greece, China, and many other areas, and the sheep continue to hide their proverbial heads in the sand.
Everything happening is planned, and being done intentionally in order to achieve a particular agenda. This has been outlined, discussed openly, warned about, written about in policy journals at the WEF, WHO, U.N., and most everywhere else I might add. The big picture has been discussed for decades, and the agenda being sought is a one-world governing order, where the ‘elite’ rule all, and the rest of us are slaves of the State.
This agenda is as clear as day, so why cannot the lowly collective herd see that the way to achieve this evil goal is for the State to destroy the current system in favor of a system that will allow the control of everyone?
Each planned event, whether fire, weather, war, geo-engineering, bio-weapon production and use, fake ‘viruses,’ and every so-called emergency, are staged only to create fear and panic through economic devastation, property theft, (land grabs) monetary and transaction digitization, mass surveillance, and total censorship.
Will the blind ever see, will the deaf ever hear, will the dumb ever speak, or will the bulk of this dependent and lazy population, simply sit back locked inside their cell phones and ‘social media’ absurdity, waiting for the end of times?
No one should forget or ignore what happened, and is happening in Maui. Your neighborhood could be next, and what chance will you have given the advanced weapon systems being used against us by the military industrial complex, and its controllers?
The government controls nothing, as all politicians and their enforcers are fully controlled themselves, and act on orders from the real ruling class. Denounce them, abandon them and eliminate them, so that the real rulers will have no cover!
“I have certain rules I live by. My first rule: I don’t believe anything the government tells me. Nothing. Zero.”
“Never, ever, give in to a bully. The second you do, that bully owns you. What the bully wants, more than whatever he is demanding, more than anything else in the world, is your fear. The bully interprets your fear as respect, because the bully doesn’t understand respect. The bully craves your fear, and your obedience, because they reify the bully’s “authority.” They enable the bully to feel powerful and important. The bully needs to feel “powerful” and “important” because the bully feels weak and unimportant, and afraid. All fascists are essentially cowards. They are cowards, and nihilists, who hate themselves, and fear themselves, and hate and fear life, which is why they are so obsessed with controlling everything.”
What happened is, the prosecutor visited my blog and read a column I published in July, The Criminalization of Dissent (Revisited), which included screenshots of the alleged “hate-crime” Tweets that the original criminal investigation is based on, and that resulted in the Order of Punishment that the Berlin District Court handed down two weeks ago. So, the prosecutor opened a new criminal investigation and sent my attorney an official notice explaining the gravity of the additional charges.
The charges are of the utmost gravity. I am officially accused of “relativizing” or “minimizing” the crimes of the Nazis … by republishing the two Tweets that I originally tweeted.
Here, once again, are the Tweets …
Yes, that’s right, I just published them again. I am going to explain why I published them again.
Not that they ever really needed explanation. You would have to be a certified moron to believe they “minimized,” or “relativized,” or in any way made light of the crimes of the Nazis. You and I are not certified morons. Neither is the Berlin State Prosecutor. Neither is the District Court of Berlin. Not to put too fine a point on it, the charges are horseshit, and everyone involved knows it. They are a blatant pretext to crackdown on dissent.
OK, now let me explain why I just published the Tweets again, knowing full well that the Berlin State Prosecutor is probably going to read this column, become extremely agitated, and charge me with additional “hate crimes.”
No, I am not a glutton for punishment. I’m not at all enjoying my introduction to the so-called “German legal system.” It is taking up my time. It is making me angry. It is upsetting my wife, which I do not appreciate. It is costing me a lot of money. It has forced me to ask other people for money, which is something I do not like to do. It’s screwing with my sleep. It is distracting me from my work. And so on. Which is exactly the point.
The goal of horseshit prosecutions like mine (and those of many other dissidents currently) is (a) to punish us for speaking out against “New Normal” totalitarianism by making our lives as miserable as possible, (b) to make examples of us to discourage others from speaking out, and (c) to intimidate us into shutting the fuck up.
Totalitarians, fascists, and other power freaks are essentially just glorified schoolyard bullies. They may cloak themselves in the mantle of the law, but their modus operandi is brute force. Beneath all the bullshit, their message is simple: “either do what we say, or we will hurt you.”
OK, prepare yourself, because I’m going to give you some advice. I do not generally like to do that, but, in this case, I’m going to make an exception.
Never, ever, give in to a bully. The second you do, that bully owns you. What the bully wants, more than whatever he is demanding, more than anything else in the world, is your fear. The bully interprets your fear as respect, because the bully doesn’t understand respect. The bully craves your fear, and your obedience, because they reify the bully’s “authority.” They enable the bully to feel powerful and important. The bully needs to feel “powerful” and “important” because the bully feels weak and unimportant, and afraid. All fascists are essentially cowards. They are cowards, and nihilists, who hate themselves, and fear themselves, and hate and fear life, which is why they are so obsessed with controlling everything.
The point is, never give in to a bully. Never reify a bully’s “authority.” If you do, you will find yourself sucked into the bully’s sadistic, nihilistic “reality.” You will be playing by the bully’s rules. And that is all “reality” actually is, a set of rules we agree to play by, or, in this case, do not agree to play by.
So, getting back to my criminal case, and the Berlin State Prosecutor’s latest attempt to bully me into shutting up and demonstrating my “respect” for the “authority” and “power” of the Berlin State Prosecutor, fuck that. I do not respond well to threats. I do not take orders from totalitarians and fascists, or any other type of authoritarians or bullies. So that is why I have republished those Tweets, and why I will continue to republish those Tweets every time the German authorities threaten me with additional criminal charges for refusing to obey their “authority.”
Again, I am under no illusions. I expect the prosecutor to file new charges and issue further threats, which I will defy, which will lead to additional charges, and so on. I am not looking forward to that, but I don’t have any other choice, not if I want to be able to respect myself.
If you have any doubts about whether that will happen (i.e., an endless cycle of new bullshit criminal charges stemming from my repeated refusal to respond to the German authorities’ bullying), well, let me tell you about another dissident the German authorities are currently persecuting. I’ll do it quickly, and then I’ll let you go.
As many of my readers are aware, I am presently holed up in an undisclosed location in the Italian countryside. Michael Ballweg, the founder and lead organizer of the “Querdenken” movement, was also here for a while. Michael, who is an excellent cook, whipped up some delicious “extremist” dinners, after which we all sat around “denying Covid,” “conspiracy theorizing,” brainwashing each other with “Russian propaganda,” and “delegitimizing the state,” and so on. Late at night, when the other “extremists” were sleeping, Michael and I discussed our criminal cases.
Michael’s case is a bit more serious than mine. Michael just spent nine months in jail. The German authorities have seized his assets, and frozen all his funds, so he is homeless, and bankrupt, and they are prosecuting him for attempted fraud, money laundering, and tax evasion, or, in other words, for launching a protest movement. If you’re not familiar with Michael and Querdenken, you can read the official propaganda disseminated by the usual “mainstream” media or the Intelligence officers who edit Wikipedia, or … here’s a Spiked article to start you off. Then, go ahead, do your own research.
The most absurd aspect of Michael’s case is the German authorities’ “theory of his crimes.” According to this theory, Michael’s devious scheme was to commit serious fraud by … well, basically, launching a nationwide protest movement that was certain to get a ton of media attention and incur the wrath of the German authorities. As any criminal mastermind will confirm, the best way to commit major fraud is to absolutely infuriate the government by organizing a series of massive protests, and generate tons of media attention, because you definitely want as much publicity as possible while you are defrauding your unsuspecting supporters of their voluntary donations to your cause.
Seriously, this is their “theory of the crime,” which would make Michael Ballweg the most idiotic and incompetent fraudster in the history of fraud.
I could go on about his case, and mine, or those of the numerous other dissidents that are currently being made examples of, and about the broader GloboCap crackdown on dissent, which is happening, not just in New Normal Germany, but all throughout the New Normal Reich, but I need to end here and go water some plants. I am serving as “caretaker” of this thoughtcriminal sanctuary, and I take my responsibilities seriously.
I’ll keep you (and the Berlin State Prosecutor) posted on my further “hate crimes.” In the meantime, best wishes from somewhere in Italy!
The suspicious fires that decimated the cities of Maui on August 8, 2023, and Paradise California on November 8, 2018, turned both cities to ash, as homes and cars burned while trees were left standing.
Over the last century, turning cities to ash has been a pattern to “Build Back Better”(BBB) in many cities such as Oregon, Washington, Tennessee, as well as in Greece, Australia, and Canada. Most often, the fires are blamed on faulty electric transmission lines, or on humans. However, evidence points to directed energy laser weaponry that has been publicly used for at least 50 years. A 1966 federal report outlines a national program in weather modification.
It was so hot that even metal contorted. – Gov. Josh Green, August 14, 2023 CBS Morning News with Tony Dokoupil.
While some newspapers speculated on foul play, others blamed a kitchen fire. The Oregon Insurance Rating Bureau report ruled the cause as “inconclusive.”
There is no doubt that a great many bodies were consumed in this way and, therefore, no record of their deaths obtainable. The only official records of death by the quake were based on the number of bodies that passed through the coroner’s hands. – Arthur C. Poore
The Great Medieval London Fire of 1212 occurred in London. No one is ever certain how many people are killed.
In 2019, Rosa Koire stated that the movement of people away from single-family homes, into 15-minute Stack-N-Pack housing in Smart Cities, is part of a United Nations (U.N.) 2030 agenda so people can be better monitored. Planning to create new space began long ago.
Under the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), U.N. “Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements” are established to create “transportation corridors” to relocate people into concentrated city centers. In Hawaii, the BBB created the Build Beyond Barriers Working Group established to streamline housing construction projects, scheduled for a 5-year build-out based on the U.N. Sustainable Cities and human Settlements. No more private property ownership for people.
This is going to be a multi-year recovery. It’s going to take essentially years to rebuild Lahaina which was destroyed. But we will build it back better……We will find a way to make sure there is more housing…” – KTIV interview August 11, 2023, [See 5:11 minute mark]
In my 2019 article Operation Regionalization of America, the regionalization of any area happens under an agenda of: 1) climate control, 2) 5G technology, and 3) the Healthy People 2020 Act. The overall goal is to connect continents for cohesion under global law. Undersea tunnels are the core of the interhemispheric North America – Eurasia railroad project that would connect China and Russia to the US through Alaska and Canada. This global connection is promoted for tourism, but has other obvious goals, not officially disclosed.
Land Grab to SMART™ City
After any declared disaster and under “Emergency rules” the suspension of laws allows for the U.N. and W.E.F. to regionalize nations as part of a massive land grab. People are forced to evacuate and give up their homes to the state via eminent domain. This happened during the Kincaide fire in Sonoma County, California in October 2019 when 200,000 people were forced to leave. Soon after, insurance companies dropped coverage, for 350,000 Californians.
three vice presidents are responsible for deciding whether the power goes out to keep electrical lines from igniting blazes: Michael Lewis, senior vice president of electric operations; Sumeet Singh, vice president of asset and risk management; and Ahmad Ababneh, vice president of electric operations on major projects and programs. Two more vice presidents will join the bunch in 2020.
In Maui, three weeks before the August 8th Maui fires, on July 18 2023, Governor Green issued a controversial Emergency Housing Proclamation titled, “Emergency Proclamation relating to Housing” related to natural disasters, or Covid. The proclamation not only suspended the laws of Hawaii that gave the Governor broad powers over any emergency, but also removed barriers to building new homes. After the August 8, 2023 fires, the governor said:
I’m already thinking about ways for the state to acquire that land so that we can put it into Workforce Housing and to put it back into the families or to make it open spaces in perpetuity as a memorial. – Gov. Josh Green, Maui Hawaii, Source The Healthy American Peggy Hall: Green Wants State to Own Lahaina, August 15, 2023,
Why blame Climate Change only on human behavior with the evidence of climate manipulation? Has government overplayed its hand?
Was government created in 1776 to destroy itself according to the immortal bird, the Phoenix? The Phoenix is a legendary bird that lives 500 years, is ignited by the sun, and rises out of the ashes to begin anew. Why has the story of the Phoenix endured for 7000 years?
Where will the next weaponized fire be ignited?
What will the new restrictions on freedom look like?
How long will the Maui moratorium on property and land last? Has the Governor found a way “to acquire the land” and build back better? What does “better” mean? Is Maui a beta test for the remaining nations?
A new COVID variant called BS.24/7 is sweeping across the Universe as cases and hospitalisations rise. The fast-spreading subvariant, nicknamed Crap, is now the dominant strain circulating in the Universe, health officials say.
Image captured by a Starlink satellite (actual size)
Right now, BS.24/7 accounts for the largest proportion of suspected infections in the Universe, more than any other variant, according to the latest data from the Universal Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.
BS.24/7 is a subvariant of Omicron990027.Z and a descendant of the TOXDCrap sublineage, which means it’s related to the previous dominant strains circulating this past century.
According to the Universal Health Organisation, BS.24/7 made up an estimated 90.6% of new COVID cases during the period ending on Aug. 18. After BS.24/7, the next most common subvariant is another Omicron TOXDCrap descendant, BS.101, which accounted for 73.3% of cases in Galaxy20, and FKT.U (also called Uv-bin-ad), which made up 99.7% of cases on the SMART human farms in the Outer Rim Territories.
(see map)
On Aug. 9, the Universal Health Organisation decided to re-classify BS.24/7 to a variant of imminent death. According to the latest UHO data, BS.24/7 and BS.101 are now the most prevalent COVID strains ever known, together accounting for 91% of computerised (in silico) sequences reported to inter-galactic AI by robots.
“When we look at its sequence, BS.24/7 is really similar to the other TOXD variants that are circulating right now, with a couple of small changes,” reports Dr. Ivor Sorwilli, a renowned virologist at the isolated Johns Hopkins University, Mars Campus.
The UHO added BS.24/7 to its list of potentially deadly variants under monitoring on July 19, 2099, but the variant was first detected in August 2023. “Scientists have known about this variant, and it’s been present in other Galaxies as well, but an inter-galactic electro-magnetic pulse temporarily knocked out our toaster.” says Sorwilli.
So far, BS.24/7 has been reported in 51 other Universes and there has been a steady increase in prevalence among crickets — the majority of the in silico genetic sequences originated in China, Russia and Iran which were immediately depopulated by stealth electro-magnetic radiation as a precaution.
Tourists are advised to avoid visiting the quarantined planet Earth which is known to be completely riddled with BS.24/7. Earthlings are not permitted to breathe, communicate or travel beyond their bathrooms.
Further updates will be posted on IntergalacticXtreme and MetaverseNotUrM8 social authority media sites. If you are still experiencing the impact of the inter-galactic electro-magnetic pulse, tough titties.
About Dr. Sam Bailey: After training and practicing within the medical system for two decades, she commenced a new phase of understanding and promoting health as a wider concept.
In 2019, Sam launched her YouTube channel exposing the hidden scientific truths about health.
A few years later and after taking the red pill, Bailey’s channel has become a runaway hit with 20+ million views and 300,000+ subscribers to help people understand the simple ways they can take control of their health.
She is the co-author of Virus Mania, which examines how the medical industry continually invents epidemics to make billion-dollar profits at our expense.
About Dr. Mark Bailey: Mark is the husband of Dr Sam Bailey and when you see one of them, you are really seeing both of them. They started working together when they first met in 2007 and have been a close team ever since. Mark and Sam are based in New Zealand and have three children together.
Since early 2020 he has been the duo’s chief researcher with a focus on microbiology, the existence of viruses, as well as historical and epistemological issues within medical science.
Is There Anything Floating in the Air – Trying to Infect Us?
International Man: Anarcho-capitalist Javier Milei recently won Argentina’s presidential primary. He is now the undisputed front-runner in the upcoming elections.
The outcome took many by surprise. Milei is an outsider who bested the country’s two entrenched establishment parties.
How did this happen, and why should anyone outside of Argentina care?
Doug Casey: It could be the most dramatic thing that’s happened politically since at least World War II. Anywhere. Why? Because he’s an AnCap libertarian who’d like to abolish the State—or come as close as possible. If he’s elected in October, he’ll make every move possible to eliminate—not just reduce—as many government departments as possible as quickly as possible. And most people seem oblivious to it.
Milei was in first place in the primary. Historically, in Argentina, the person who wins the primary wins the general election. There’s only been one exception to that rule. Even more encouraging is his ratings have gone up from 30% to 40% since the primary. It appears his campaign is not just a flash in the pan but a trend that’s building momentum.
Argentina was one of the most prosperous countries in the world a hundred years ago when it was about as free as any country economically. Before Peron, the Argentine GDP equaled the rest of the continent put together. But since the accession of Juan Peron in 1946, it’s consistently gone downhill every year.
Why might that be?
Peron was an overt fan of Mussolini and fascism. Fascism—a word coined by Mussolini—is defined as the complete subordination of corporations and business to the State. After WW2, the word “fascism” was a no-no, so the system was rechristened “Peronism” in Argentina. It’s not a consistent philosophy; it has many mutations. It’s all about businessmen and politicians using each other, through the State, to get rich. The lower classes are made dependent, and the middle class is impoverished. Fascism has little to do with militarism and jackboots; it’s an economic system. Almost every country in the world is fascist today—including the US, the EU, China, and Russia.
Despite the triumph of Peronism, Argentina still has the most classically liberal traditions in all of Latin America. It’s always been the most outward-looking country in Latin America. I’ve always believed it was the most fertile ground for a pro-individual liberty revolution in Latin America. Now, that may be happening.
If we divide Argentine society into a ruling, a lower, and a middle class, it’s clear that for the last 80 years, the ruling class has used welfare schemes and lies to get the lower classes to vote against their own interests. The middle class has paid for it with immense taxes and regulations. Inflation has basically destroyed the lower and middle classes; high inflation has made it impossible for them to save and build capital.
Milei could totally overturn all of this. The average Argentine is fed up with being ripped off. Milei’s support is greatest among the young and what’s left of the middle class. Estimates are that half the country is hard-pressed to feed themselves. They desperately and enthusiastically want radical change, and only the most stupid can’t see what fascism, socialism, and other varieties of statism have done. The main supporters of the status quo are the unions and welfare mooches. Everyone else hates them.
International Man: Milei has called central banking and fiat currency a historical fraud. He has vowed to “burn down the central bank” and replace the peso with the dollar and whatever commodity the free market would choose as money. He is favorable to precious metals and Bitcoin.
He has called taxation theft and seeks to drastically reduce—and eventually eliminate—many taxes.
Milei also wants to radically cut down the size of the government and eliminate numerous departments.
He also rejects the climate change hoax and was critical of the Covid mass hysteria.
Doug, you are a prominent anarcho-capitalist. What is your take on the soundness of Milei’s platform?
Doug Casey: I am totally in favor of Milei. In fact, he’s more radical (using radical in the proper sense of getting to the root of the problem) than Ron Paul was in his US campaigns. He’s as radical and sincere as my old friend Harry Browne, who ran for the US presidency in 1996 and 2000.
Milei is extremely outspoken and vibrant. He realizes that, since the average person doesn’t understand economics and has no interest in philosophy, politics is 90% entertainment. I urge everybody reading this to go to YouTube and tune into several videos of Milei (here, here, and here).
Milei is totally sound from an economic, political, and a philosophical point of view. But—and this is critically important—he’s sound from a moral point of view.
He deals in basic concepts of good and evil, right and wrong. That’s something that no politician anywhere discusses, certainly not in South America. It’s the equivalent of hitting a donkey between the eyes with a two-by-four to get his attention. Everyone intuitively understands that the political class is essentially criminal—but only Milei is brave enough to say it. The average guy wants to do the right thing, the moral thing. That’s what Milei is pointing out to people and why they like him. He doesn’t use doubletalk, brook compromise, or support half measures.
That’s why, in the US, I actually respect the Democrats more than the Republicans.
How can I say that?
Every idea the Democrats have is wrong and rotten to its core, but at least they’re not hypocrites. They say what they want to do. They actually believe in something, even though it’s stupid and evil.
The Republicans, on the other hand, don’t have any real core beliefs. They don’t disagree with the moral premises of the Democrats. They just say that the Democrats are going too far, too fast.
Milei, on the other hand, wants to overturn the moral structure that politics is built on.
International Man: The global mainstream media has synchronized their talking points on Milei.
It’s almost impossible to find an article about Milei—in any language—that doesn’t preface him with some kind of meaningless pejorative, labeling him a “far-right populist,” an “ultra-rightist,” or something to that effect.
Why is the Davos class so afraid of Milei? Can he overcome their opposition?
Doug Casey: This is further proof of how worthless the mainstream media is. They call Milei a Donald Trump lookalike, or ultra-right wing, in an attempt to scare Boobus argentinus. These people don’t deal in issues and factual programs but fear-mongering. Everywhere in the world, the chattering classes are only malevolent mouthpieces of the ruling class.
Milei is not “ultra-right.” He’s a libertarian who believes in free minds and free markets. In fact, he’s more than a libertarian; he’s an AnCap—an anarcho-capitalist. He doesn’t believe the State serves a useful purpose. He believes that society, certainly in an advanced industrial country, can live without a government. I’ve discussed this philosophy here and here.
His plan is to reduce the size of the government by 50% this year, 50% the next year, and so on, until it’s as near zero as possible. The horrible people in Davos hate him because he’s attacking their very essence. He doesn’t intend just to make a few changes around the edges but to transform Argentina into the freest and most prosperous country on the planet.
In some ways, he’s symptomatic of what’s going on in the world at large today. The United States itself, in my opinion, is on the ragged edge of a civil war. Freedom and personal liberty have been retreating at an accelerating rate for years. People in the US are just as fed up as the Argentines; we just don’t have a proper firebrand. Trump is as close as we get, but he’s just a traditionalist, not a libertarian.
Milei is cause for optimism in the world at large.
International Man: President Nayib Bukele dramatically transformed El Salvador at lightning speed—drastically reducing crime, making Bitcoin legal money, and initiating reforms to bring business and productive people to the country.
Although Argentina is much bigger than El Salvador, does Bukele’s example suggest that enormous positive change is possible in Argentina?
Doug Casey: Bukele is another symptom of a possible major turnaround in the world.
The statists and collectivists may finally have overplayed their hand. They’re just clever criminals with large followings, like Hitler in Germany and Mao in China. Only the brain-dead buy their themes. “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.” The world is ending because of climate change. Vaccinate or die. 15-minute cities. Restricted travel. No eating meat. ESG. DEI. No fossil fuels. It’s a long litany. They can destroy civilization itself.
People with a brain are looking for a lightning rod to catalyze change.
In El Salvador that may be Bukele. He definitely has libertarian instincts, indicated by the fact his main economic advisor is Safedean Ammous, an AnCap. He’s one of the most important economists in the world today, along with Walter Block and Hans-Hermann Hoppe. I urge you to listen to the interview he did with me last month on AnCap principles (link).
El Salvador is the last country in the hemisphere—with the exception of Haiti—I would have picked to turn around. It’s the most overpopulated country in the hemisphere. It’s crime-ridden, which is why he’s locked up 65,000 gang members. It had a nasty civil war from 1979-1982. It has no exports except for coffee, bananas, and poor people. Who could have guessed?
Bukele already made Bitcoin legal tender. It’s possible that he’ll reform El Salvador in the same way as Milei will try to reform Argentina.
International Man: What are the investment or speculative implications of Milei’s rise for Argentine assets?
What are the lifestyle and other international diversification implications?
Doug Casey: Right now, Argentina is the cheapest, nice country in the world. Certainly the cheapest country in the Western world.
That’s especially amazing in view of the immense tax burden that the Argentine economy has to bear, paying huge numbers of useless mouths who detract from prosperity.
If Milei is elected, he’ll radically reduce taxes, which means that costs of production will drop radically. As the country dollarizes, the currency will stabilize, and gold could come next. Real prices could drop further, but not because of a collapsing currency. The economy should boom economically as investment pours in. People will go back to work, start saving, and rebuild domestic capital. Argentina could quickly become, again, one of the world’s richest countries.
What could go wrong with the scenario? The parasites now living off the State don’t want their rice bowls broken. Even though Milei has huge support from people across the social spectrum—including the lower classes who are fed up with being kept like pets by the people in the Deep State. The Deep State will undoubtedly fight Milei’s reforms viciously. I hope he has plenty of competent bodyguards around him because these people are genuinely evil, just like the Deep State in the US.
If he’s elected, both the lifestyle and investment implications could be huge.
Argentina has always been one of my favorite countries in the world, bar none. But if they go to sound banking, a sound currency, and disregard the rules laid down by the US, the IMF, the World Bank, and the World Economic Forum—it could really be one of the best places in the world to live.
You ought to keep in mind that citizenship is available with only two years of residency. And even during those two years of residency, it’s only necessary to spend half of the year in the country. Culturally, Argentina is more European than some countries in Europe.
If Milei manages to wash away the socialist immorality and criminality that has corrupted Argentina for so many years, I won’t just live down there half of the year, but all of the year.
Etienne de la Boetie2 (with a squared sign and, no, it isn’t his real name) has written extensively on why all governments are illegitimate authorities.
His alias is a play on the real Etienne de La Boétie, who was a French writer and philosopher who lived during the 16th century, best known for his essay titled Discourse On Voluntary Servitude in which he questioned why people willingly submit to oppressive rulers and argued that it is through voluntary obedience that tyrants are able to maintain their power.
Etienne (with a squared sign) makes the chaos for anarchism, which is a philosophy that advocates for a society without hierarchical authority or rulers.
It does not mean chaos because it emphasises voluntary cooperation, mutual aid, and decentralised decision-making.
Anarchy, meanwhile, refers to an absence of government control.
While the words “anarchism” and “anarchy” are related and often used interchangeably, they are technically different.
Anarchism is often associated with chaos due to a misunderstanding of its principles.
Anarchists believe that individuals are capable of organising themselves and making collective decisions without the need for a central authority. They argue that (government) hierarchy and coercion are the sources of many social problems and that people can freely cooperate and resolve conflicts through voluntary means.
Mikhail Bakunin, a Russian thinker during the 1800s, is generally considered one of the fathers of anarchism. He advocated for a society based on federalism, in which free associations of workers and communities would govern themselves without a centralised state.
Another thinker is Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a French philosopher who coined the term “anarchism” and argued for a system based on mutualism and workers’ self-management.
Although not an example of anarchism, the Hanseatic League and anarchism emphasise decentralised decision-making and cooperation. The League was a confederation of merchant guilds in Northern Europe during the medieval period, in which participating cities maintained a level of autonomy while engaging in voluntary associations for trade and defence. Similarly, anarchism promotes self-governance through voluntary associations and rejects the need for centralised authority.
Anarchist societies have existed throughout history.
The Spanish Revolution (1936 – 1939) is one such example. Parts of Spain experienced a social revolution in which anarchists, alongside other groups, established self-governing communities, collectivised industries, and implemented direct democracy (which is when individuals participate directly in decision-making processes, rather than delegating authority to representatives).
Basically, the government is the subjection of the noninvasive individual to an external will.
the case that “Government”, of every flavor, has been a scam of inter-generational organized crime since the beginning… and they have been getting away with it… until now… because they have been controlling the media and academia.
Think of it more simply.
If an armed gang knocked on your door and demanded that you pay them a percentage of your income, no matter what their reasons might be, then any rational individual will agree that such behaviour is criminal.
One of the worst mistakes you can make when formulating your understanding of the world is to begin with the assumption that the truest and most accurate position must lie somewhere near the center of the two major political perspectives you see laid out all around you.
It’s a mistake not only because assuming that the center position must be the best one is a type of fallacious reasoning known as the middle ground fallacy (the correct position between “Drink a gallon of bleach daily for good health” and “Drink zero bleach daily for good health” is not “Drink half a gallon of bleach daily for good health”); it’s also a mistake because the entire framing arises from a situation that has been artificially engineered by the powerful.
It’s a well-documented fact that the rich and powerful pour vast fortunes into manipulating the political and media landscape in ways that serve their interests. Their control over the news media and Silicon Valley tech platforms is used to set the agenda and influence public perception by determining what issues will receive attention and which won’t in ways that preserve the political status quo they’ve built their empire upon, thereby shrinking the Overton window of acceptable debate down to a very narrow spectrum whose outcomes can’t threaten their interests in any way.
We just discussed this dynamic with regard to US aggressions against Russia and China; the Overton window is being narrowed to a debate between which US enemy should be the target of the most imperial aggressions, with voices who advocate detente with both countries finding no platform in mainstream politics or media. This is what Noam Chomsky was talking about when he said “the smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”
People assume there must be truth in the mainstream worldview because so many others are invested in the mainstream worldview, when really the only reason that worldview is mainstream in the first place is because so much wealth and influence has gone into making it mainstream. In reality the assumption that the truth exists anywhere in either of the two mainstream political viewpoints promoted by the managers of the western empire is an example of the bandwagon effect, which describes the cognitive bias in which humans tend to take on beliefs, behaviors, styles and attitudes solely because that’s what the people around them are doing.
This bias would have had evolutionary advantages early on in our development as a species. Back when our evolutionary ancestors were prey for prehistoric carnivores, it was a survival advantage to start running for your life if you saw other members of your tribe running, even if you personally didn’t see what they were running from. As primates whose survival depended on social cohesion, being rejected by the tribe would mean almost certain death by predation or starvation, so it was necessary to conform in whatever ways prevented that rejection from happening.
But we don’t live in prehistoric times anymore. We live in a civilization with a highly complex information environment that is being continually manipulated away from truth and accuracy and toward the advantage of powerful people who rule over us. If you go along with the herd, you’ll be deceived.
In truth the so-called “centrists” or “moderates” of our world are really violent extremists, because they support the most murderous and tyrannical power structure on our planet, and are only regarded as moderate because they sit in the mid-range of a completely artificially created spectrum. A perspective that is actually sane will be about as far away from their perspective as you can get.
Because the majority of people have been duped by propaganda into espousing mainstream political perspectives, those with an accurate read on things will necessarily be a small fringe minority until that dynamic changes. As long as your entire civilization is structured around deceit-based perspectives which serve the powerful, going along with the crowd will prevent you from forming a truth-based perspective that serves human interests.
So you’ll have to get comfortable rejecting mainstream orthodoxies, dismissing mainstream media, and shunning mainstream politics, because those things are all inseparably interwoven with the matrix of deceit by which our rulers have pulled the blindfold over this civilization. This won’t be a sign that you’re out of touch or a kooky crackpot or some snobby hipster who rejects all things mainstream out of a pathological need to be different, it will be a sign that you are seeing things clearly.
This can set you apart from your tribe at times; as Terence McKenna said, “The cost of sanity in this society is a certain level of alienation.” But we can still find each other online, so we’re never really alone, and the cost is definitely worth it. The sincere pursuit of a truth-based perspective is ultimately the surest path not only toward a healthy society, but toward lasting happiness as an individual as well.
Forty years have now passed since the year in which George Orwell situated his imaginary dystopian society.
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
