Michael Tellinger With Reiner Fuellmich: ‘One Small Town’ vs the Globalist Agenda’s ’15-Minute Cities’ — On Creating a Life Outside the Enslaving Government Systems

 

TCTL editor’s note:

Below, you will find a conversation between international attorney (US & Germany) Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, attorney/economist Dexter Lejay Ryneveldt from South Africa, & Michael Tellinger (founder of Ubuntu and One Small Town intiatives) also from South Africa. Also in attendance is Emil Borg, the new One Small Town (OST) ambassador for Sweden.

As some of the readers here will know, the One Small Town (OST) initiative has gone through many challenging phases over the past 17 years, learning from failures and gaining wisdom through discussion and experience of many of its supporters. Many years of trial and error — blood, sweat and tears — have gone into the creation of this OST model.

Those of us who have lived long lives and have experienced the falling apart, again and again, of our work and our dreams, know what it takes to remain trusting and persistent in spite of the odds.

In this interview, Michael presents the basic details of what One Small Town (OST) initiative is, its history and its evolution from the Ubuntu Contributionism vision. He also discusses the new digital Infinity token and explains that it differs from cryptocurrency coins, and that they are keeping it separate from the current global financial system.

Reiner and Dexter asked some key questions during this interview and will be doing a follow-up interview with Michael after they have the chance to do additional research and look into the details of the OST initiative.

As Reiner said in the interview:

“The one thing that most people, when it comes to setting up your own self-sufficient systems, have been worried the most about is what do we do about the monetary system.”

As this conversation is of great importance to many of us, the follow-up interview will be posted here at TCTL when it is available.

Below the video is a basic description provided by ICIC (International Crimes Investigative Committee).  The video can be found at ICIC channels at Odysee and Rumble.

I have added show notes and a transcript to make review of this information easier. This is a lot of information for most of us to take in. You’ll likely have your own questions about this initiative.  Some may want to join the One Small Town initiative and/or offer support to this vision by purchasing Infinity tokens.

Following the transcript, you will find links to One Small Town and Michael Tellinger websites where you can do further research.

My thanks go to paying substack supporters and others who have made donations via the donation page at here at TCTL. You make this work and the maintenance of this website possible, providing access to thousands of readers around the world. 

~ Kathleen Stilwell, editor & curator, Truth Comes to Light

 



One Small Town vs. 15 Minute Prisons

by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, ICIC
with Michael Tellinger, Dexter Lejay Ryneveldt & Emil Borg
August 14, 2023

 

In this episode of ICIC, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich talks with Michael Tellinger, a scientist, author, explorer, humanitarian founder of the ‘One Small Town‘ initiative, as well as Emil Borg, New National Ambassador for One Small Town Sweden, and Dexter Ryneveldt, lawyer and economist in South Africa: possible solutions to help free ourselves from the dependencies of the systems and live a dignified and free life.

Especially in the so-called Corona pandemic with its inhumane measures, it became abundantly clear that the prevailing governmental systems have nothing good in mind for humanity and that they have long been pursuing a subtle global agenda to install totalitarian mechanisms. This is to make humanity controllable and fully dependent on their system at their will.

These brutal procedures have made many people wake up rather uncomfortably, and question the authorities as well as the reality in which we live.

Michael Tellinger presents the idea of the “One Small Town Initiative” in detail.

He has been involved with its development since 2005 and has dedicated all his time, possessions and manpower to this project, as he is completely convinced of this possibility of living together without depending on and being abused by a governmental system.

He talks about the beginnings of the ‘One Small Town’ project, formed from the so-called Ubuntu movement and Contributionism, a system in which people contribute their skills and talents for the benefit of the community. In this way, everyone can benefit from each other’s skills.

It’s about realizing how much power and potential a small town of several thousand people has, where everyone co-operates with everyone else at all levels instead of competing.

If the mindset changes, there is an infinite abundance of opportunities to live with each other, from growing food, to starting businesses, to creating property and to participate in these same local small town businesses.

The basis of this project lies in returning ownership to those, away from global world corporations, and towards those who provide and work to create real value.

Why is this kind of free coexistence impossible within the framework of political systems?

How exactly does the underlying exchange of goods and services work from an economic perspective?

Is this method feasible, and how does one manage not to fight against the system, but to create one’s own independence within the legal framework?

Where do one-small-town companies already exist?

What explains their rapid growth worldwide and how can people become part of these projects?

---

Transcript & Show Notes prepared by TCTL editor:

00:00:42

Introduction

Reiner:

Dear friends, today we will try and talk about, not the problems, but the solution to those problems that we’ve been talking about for so long — for at least three years.

Some people have been talking about these problems for even longer — those who have realized that we’ve been lied to by those who we used to trust.

But today we have Michael Tellinger from South Africa. We have Emil Borg from Sweden. And we have my friend and colleague Dexter Ryneveldt from South Africa to discuss how we can get away from under the thumb of the system and have much better lives than we do under the system.

So thank you very much for making the time. It’s an honor, and it’s a pleasure, of course, Michael, to have you. And same with you, Emil. It’s always fun to talk to you.

So what do you do in South Africa? You have been working on these solutions for, not just for the last three years, but for much longer, right?

00:01:50

The Evolution of Ubuntu Contributionism & One Small Town Philosophy

Michael:

Yes, I have, Reiner. Thank you very much. It’s great to meet you and I’m very excited to have this conversation with you. Thanks to Emil for setting this up. And great to meet you, Dexter, out here in South Africa as well.

Yes, look, the One Small Town initiative has been around for a long time. Initially I started talking about this idea in 2005 already and slowly but surely it evolved.

We’ve walked the talk, we’ve paid the price, we’ve — it’s taken blood, sweat and tears. Everything I’ve had. Everything I have. Every cent I’ve ever earned has been poured into this. So it’s been my lifelong passion the last two decades at least. And here we are.

Something that started as a crazy idea that everybody laughed at me. They wanted to beat me up for even suggesting these kind of crazy ideas. And it was was really a thing about people. It needed to evolve and also grow into a time when the level of consciousness was a little bit higher around the world.

And I think this, especially the whole COVID plandemic and the lockdown that people felt attacks, they felt the abuse of governments, they felt — they realized how abusive governments can be and how they can completely and utterly overstep their boundaries.

That helped a lot of people wake up, and it really — during the lockdown is when the One Small Town movement really exploded.

So just a little bit more background. So the One Small Town movement grew out of what I started calling Contributionism and the Ubuntu movement out in 2007, 2006-2007.

So it all started with the Ubuntu movement, with the idea called Contributionism: a system in which people contribute their skills and talents towards the benefit of their community, so that everybody benefits from everybody’s skills and talents. And it’s slowly but surely evolved, gotten better and stronger over time.

We also had a period that we went through politics. We got involved in politics in South Africa. I registered the Ubuntu Party in 2010. We participated in three elections — 2012, 2014 and 2016.

So in essence, I ran for president in 2014 during the national elections as the leader of the Ubuntu Party.

And I must tell you, that’s when I truly discovered how crooked the political arena is and how the entire outcome of the elections is prepared. It is laid out for us. It is not elected, it is selected.

And that taught me really to use the One Small Town philosophy. We then participated in the 2016 elections in South Africa again, but just in the municipal elections under the One Small Town banner. By then we’re in transition from trying to promote the philosophy of Ubuntu because it was a bit vague. And it turned into the One Small Town philosophy where you take small towns and you turn them around by waking people up and showing them that if they cooperate and collaborate, they can achieve so much more.

In fact, any small town of several thousand people has infinite potential to create abundance for themselves.

The only thing that people have to do is change the way they think. And start to, instead of competing against each other, start to cooperate and collaborate on every level — starting with growing food, starting as many businesses as they can, and creating the ownership of the businesses in our small towns.

The ownership start needs to come back to the people away from the large corporations, away from the multinational retailers, away from the multinationals that control everything.

And that’s where I realized in 2016 that this is most likely not going to happen on the political arena. And then we exited the political arena in 2016 and One Small Town became a non-political and nonprofit community development program. But since then it’s just exploded.

Just to add a little bit more before I stop yapping, the Ubuntu Party, actually with the philosophy of unity within community and people cooperating, and the whole philosophy of Contributionism — which I must say really appeals to people and still appeals to people around the world in larger and larger numbers because it’s such a simple, beautiful philosophy of people contributing towards their own prosperity.

The philosophy of Contributionism turned into the Ubuntu Party in a number of countries, so we had the Ubuntu Party in Canada, in the UK, in Australia. And we almost launched in the USA and that didn’t happen. The Canadian Ubuntu Party fell apart because of inner conflict, and then after the 2016 elections it became very clear that going into politics is not a solution.

You cannot inject a seed of consciousness into the political beast and think that the political beast is going to change.

But the important thing here is that we walk the talk. I walk the talk and therefore I have the experience to talk about all these things where most other people do not have these experiences.

The Failure of Intentional Communities

We also engaged with intentional communities around the world, whether it’s Esalen or Damanhur and other — many, many other communities that I met the founders of such communities around the world, only to realize that all of these communities are a huge disaster and a huge failure on every possible level.

And that’s where it just gave more and more strength and credence to the One Small Town initiative, which is completely and utterly different from any other community upliftment project or an initiative. And this is why it is suddenly growing around the world at such a rapid rate.

And that’s my little introduction, just to familiarize people with who I am and where I come from and what we’ve done in the last 17 years.

00:08:12

Reiner:

I think it’s great that I’m finally meeting someone who really knows what they’re talking about, because I’ve been propagating, and most people on our side of the fence have been propagating, the disconnection, the shutting ourselves off of the system — because the system is not only thoroughly infiltrated and utterly corrupt, therefore you can’t fix it, but it is also not worth fixing. Because it’s based on the wrong virtues. In fact, there are no virtues except materialism. And it’s fighting each other. It’s competition in the worst sense imaginable.

So I can’t wait to hear more about this because we all know that we cannot trust the global corporations. We cannot trust the global NGOs because they’re all run by the same very few, very evil, people.

And we also know — because I’ve been into politics as well, for about, I don’t know, a year maybe. And then I got out because I was totally frustrated. I realized this is totally corrupt because you’re part of the system when you enter politics.

So there’s no other way than to reimagine ourselves as free, independent, sovereign people who can do whatever they want. And we should do it for our own benefit, and not even think about that old rotten system that is now definitely coming apart. This whole house of cards is collapsing.

00:09:47

A New Paradigm: Competition Within a Cooperative Spirit

Michael:

I think what you said there is absolutely 100%. I resonate with every word you say.

It’s also important for me to stress that the One Small Town initiative is not a system — we’re not fighting the system.

You know, like you said, this the system that we’re in is broken. It cannot be fixed, and it’s not worth fixing. Because, as you said, it’s built on the rotten foundation. Foundation of greed, control, competition — destructive competition.

So within the One Small Town initiative, we still have competition, but it’s competition within a cooperative spirit. And that’s a completely different thing.

You know, as long as you have competition within a cooperative spirit then you achieve things. And the achievements that you create actually benefit the community. And not become a detriment to the community because now… So I’ll go into more detail later.

So I just want to stress to everybody watching this that the One Small Town initiative, we’re creating a new reality. We’re creating a new paradigm, a new system that will slowly but surely make the current system obsolete.

So there’s no violence, no opposition, no conflict. We don’t have to fight anyone or anything or any government. We just build this up in our small towns in larger and larger numbers across the world.

All the small towns are connected to each other through our centralized blockchain, our centralized exchange mechanisms and sharing and so forth. I’ll go into more detail about this.

And this is how we slowly but surely take back the power to the people and especially into the small towns.

Hubs of Innovation, Creativity & Investment Opportunity

So the small towns not only become hubs of innovation, of excitement, of technology, of creation, of happiness and everything else we’ve always imagined for our families and our future. But also the small towns suddenly become the most exciting investment opportunities for the conscious investors of the world.

Because once the investors with the billionaires and the millionaires realize that the Small Towns is a safe and ongoing investment opportunity with unlimited potential for growth, watch the stampede.

I anticipate that once the first billionaire or millionaire joins us and invests into a number of the cornerstone businesses in a Small Town, and… by doing that, really, exposes the opportunity.

Watch the stampede of conscious investors around the world move away from the very, very scary and questionable investment opportunities on the stock markets and the normal kind of investment opportunities that are running dry very, very quickly.

And when people realize that by investing into a community where you go into a partnership with an entire community, you’ve literally created for yourself a safe haven for you and your family. The safest town that you can imagine, where everybody works together because the businesses that we start all belong to us.

The profits that we make belong to us. They don’t go offshore to some shareholders sitting in a boardroom somewhere else. And the technology and innovation that we create is used to help the community, and not help a few rich individuals on some board, in some foreign country, that are selling us electricity and withholding medicines and cures for disease from us. And that goes for the supply of food, obviously.

So with the One Small Town initiative, we have a very small, very simple plan of action, how to initiate it, how to start it.

Start it small and grow it as quickly as we can. And as people see this excitement and the joy in their fellow town folk, that creates the domino effect that becomes unstoppable.

00:13:56

Two Worlds That Cannot Be Rejoined

Reiner:

And one more thing. In that previous discussion I just had with that person who — a nice guy — who believes in this utopian dream of reviving the public television and radio stations. I told him I think this is utopia, but I wish you the best of luck.

For me, however, the reality looks like this. And this is based on another interview I had the day before, which deals with a scientist who is now deeply into spirituality.

And it resonates with what some of the people from the Maori who we speak with in terms of bringing justice to the world. In terms of what they call restoring the peace for the world, it resonates with their spirituality.

We already have a divided world. We have two worlds. And I think that they cannot be rejoined. It’s impossible. Because the other side of the fence, they’re either in cahoots, knowingly in cahoots, with those who are pulling the strings, or too stupid — stupidity out of cowardice because they don’t dare use their brains. Or too stupid to realize that they’re being used for evil purposes.

So if they want to join us, if they want to join your One Small Town initiative, fine. Of course we’ll welcome them, but we don’t really worry about them. I don’t.

I think we should, on our side of the fence, focus on what’s good for us because we’re the ones who are creative.

It’s not the large corporations. Guess why they’re buying up all these small and medium sized businesses: because they don’t have their own creativity.

So let’s keep that power for ourselves and make use of it for our own benefit.

What is your take? Go ahead, Michael.

00:15:52

“If It’s Not Good for Everyone, It’s No Good at All.”

Michael:

So, Reiner, I just say, you know, if you have any questions about One Small Town, please shoot them at me. Because I feel, I don’t want to just feel like I’m talking away here. So if you have any specific questions about how does this work, how does that work, please feel free to shoot them at me.

But I just want to outline a little bit for your viewers that might be new to this. Go to our website onesmalltown.org. Watch all the videos. And you’ll also realize that some of the videos go back, you know, one year, two years, five years, 10 years, 15 years. Some of the videos are very old. And you’ll see how we’ve evolved, how this thing has grown and matured into what it is today.

That’s why it is so strong. That’s why I can speak with such confidence and passion about how this thing works. How One Small Town has all the solutions that you can think of for all the problems. And the solutions already built into the One Small Town model.

Not because I’m smart, but because the solutions have evolved over the years from the One Small Town model and just presented themselves.

Because if it’s not good for everyone, it’s no good at all. That’s one of our slogans.

And one of the other important slogans that’s really important for people to try and digest here is that we’re not fighting the system.

We’re not opposing anyone. We are using the tools of enslavement as tools of liberation. This is really important.

And this is why most, not most, every other sort of intentional community initiative that has been attempted around the world — even the great Osho out in California, in Oregon, was it? Which could have been an incredible solution, but the ego got in the way.

And every other intentional community that has started has been a failure. And we can say that because if it was a success we’d be using it. We’d be doing it and we’re not.

So One Small Town comes and brings together all the lessons we’ve learned from all the failed experiments and presents a very simple transitional phase for people that are sick and tired, people that resonate with what we are talking about here, people that know there’s a better way, there’s a better life.

That we can live in a utopian world. That Utopia is a good word. It’s not a bad word. It’s been made a bad word by the negative people in the world, right?

So yes, we’re striving and we’re creating a utopian world for ourselves. And this is a step-by-step introduction of how to get from here to there. And it does not have to take a long time.

But in the process of going from here to there, we have to realize that the reason why the corporations are so successful and have such a strong stranglehold on all of humanity is because of their systems, their structures and their control mechanisms.

So what we are doing, we’re using the same kind of systems and structures and control mechanisms so that we can create success.

But these structure systems and control mechanisms are controlled and managed by the people of the community. They are the owners of these systems.

It just helps them to navigate the treacherous seas and oceans of corruption, and theft and deceit, and so forth so that it provides our blockchain and our online platform.

One Small Town (OST) Token & Blockchain Platform — An Alternative Exchange System

The One Small Town platform and blockchain provides a secure environment for investors to know — if they invest into a brewery or growing food or medicinal plants or whatever else it is — that they’re investing into our small town.

They can follow their investment. They know exactly how the money is being used, that it’s going where it’s intended to go.

That all the members from our community — that are 60% or 90% shareholders in some cases of all the businesses — that they see, exactly how much profit we’ve made in each and every business and how many dividends are going to be distributed every month to all our members.

Everything is completely transparent in every town and every One Small Town initiative and community. And this is why we have to put these structures into place.

This, however, has caused a little concern with some of the slightly more “spiritual” — and I use the word with love — some more sort of hippie-minded members, right.

They go ‘Wow, you guys are behaving just like the corporates now. You know, like, wow, man, I really don’t like the way you’re doing this. You’re just acting just like the corporates.’

And the answer is yes, we are. For your own safety. Because if we don’t do this, everyone’s gonna rip you off, dude. And everyone’s gonna run away with all your hard work and you’re gonna have nothing to show for it.

And this is why all the hippie colonies of the past, and all the intentional communities of the past have failed, for this very simple reason.

And to just to add one final thing before I hand over to you: to do this, we’ve created what our what we call the One Small Town platform and blockchain. And that then also, about just more than a year ago, spawned out of the blue, the most exciting opportunity that we realized — is that because we have this as a membership. One Small Town has a voluntary membership that people join for free. You don’t have to pay an entrance membership fee or nothing. You just join for free. Go online, sign up as a member. You instantly become a member and you open your digital wallet.

On the Infinity Token & Contribution of Three Hours a Week

So what we’ve created is an Infinity token. Which is really the token. (Excuse my noisy Rife machine right here that’s just finished treating my feet.)

So what we’ve suddenly had an epiphany is that, instead of using —

Before I go there, I need to say that the only thing that One Small Town members have to do is that, when when you become a member, you’ve pledged to contribute three hours a week towards your businesses, towards your community. Three hours a week. It’s all it takes, right?

People that know what I’m talking about will understand. That turns our community into an incredibly powerful labor force. If you have a town of 10,000 people, suddenly you have 30,000 hours of free labor a week. Because we contribute our time voluntarily towards our own businesses, towards fixing our town.

Now, the difference between our 30,000 hours of labor a week and a large corporation. You know how much a large corporation would pay for 30,000 hours of labor. It’s very simple to do the calculation. That’s what they can’t afford. And yet we can afford it, and we do it with love and willingly for free.

And this is why a small town of 10,000 people, that every member just contributes three hours a week, suddenly becomes a fierce competitor to any global-multinational corporation.

Immediately and instantly. We can grow anything, build anything, manufacture anything, distribute anything. Because we choose to do it together, and we are the owners of these businesses. It’s a very powerful position to be in.

And to manage all of this, we’ve had to create the system that is foolproof and cannot be cheated, etc.

So in the process we had to find a way of — how do we know when somebody arrives to do their three hours in one of our businesses or, you know or cutting the grass in the park or helping the orphans, or delivering food to the elderly, or whatever it is that we do (we’re gonna do all kinds of things in our community).

And that certainly presented us with an incredible opportunity. Instead of just using a punch card system — you know the old punch card system that you clock into your job and clock out — suddenly we use technology with QR code readers. And we created what is known as the Infinity Token, which is a membership-asset-backed-NFT token which is created every time one of our members contributes three hours towards one of our businesses or community.

So suddenly we’re now also sitting with the fact that all our members, the moment they contribute their 3-hours a week, over and above the dividends that we distribute to ourselves from the profits of our businesses, and the food and everything that we grow, that we distribute to ourselves every month.

We also reward ourselves with our own Infinity tokens that are growing in value at a rapid rate, because it’s the only truly asset-backed-NFT community token that’s backed by true and real human sweat equity.

And the more members we have around the world contributing three hours a week towards their businesses, the more the value of the Infinity token grows.

And to finish this little ranting monologue is — to utilize these Infinity tokens, we’ve created what we call the One Small Town digital wallet that every member instantly gets in your account. When you open your account online, you get your digital wallet and you start collecting your Infinity tokens every time you contributes three hours towards the One Small Town initiative.

And you can send those tokens from your digital wallet instantly for free to any other member around the world. As long as they’re member, you can send it to them via their e-mail (boom) and I send it from me to your digital wallet instantly, outside of any banking system, outside of anybody’s prying eyes. And you and I can exchange anything we want by exchanging these tokens.

So we’ve created an alternative currency system, if you can call it. An alternative exchange system. It exists. It’s real and everyone, everywhere in the world can use it right now.

00:25:57

Dexter Ryneveldt Questions the Financial Reality & Implications

Dexter:

I’m actually very, very impressed what you have said in the synopsis that you have given, Michael, as to what is the basis for you guys working and working towards, like you say, Utopia, the One Small Town initiative.

One of the things that I just want to find out from you. I know here in South Africa, one of the big things within the communities we are talking about, and you have mentioned cooperative units.

So what I want to find out from you, and in particular when it comes to the financial implications and things.

I want to find out, when we talk about cooperative units, organizations that are the One Small Town initiative is actually driving.

Is it actually registered with the South African Reserve Bank or are you actually trying to keep it not connected to any system here in South Africa?

00:27:01

The Financial Organization of OST – 17 Years in the Making

Michael:

Yeah, no, it is a completely independent system. The One Small Town company is registered as a nonprofit company.

The way we operate right now is that every One Small Town initiative is actually registered as a pool under the One Small Town nonprofit company. So they operate as a pool. So they’re also then seen as a nonprofit company.

Remember that we’re not providing work. We’re not creating work, so we don’t fall under the labour law. Because everybody that contributes their three hours a week is a co-owner of the business.

So they’re just working in their own business. So it’s not a job.

So we’ve eliminated all these potential problems with government and labour and any of that.

So yeah, this is why it’s taken 17 years to get to this point. It didn’t happen overnight. Slowly but surely, we found the problems and the solutions were presented to us.

One Small Town Trading Platform About to Go Live

And now with the Infinity tokens, that has opened up a door, not only to reward ourselves with our own Infinity tokens and be able to exchange them amongst ourselves. And also sell them and trade them on our One Small Town trading platform, which is about about to go live probably about four weeks from now.

And again, this is a private trading platform. This is not trading on on any open cryptocurrency markets or any of that. You have to be a member of One Small Town.

In other words, the Infinity token cannot be crashed. It cannot devalue. No one can steal your tokens. You can’t lose them because it’s an NFT that can be traced.

And so it’s a very, very different system from any other cryptocurrency or NFT scenario. We operate in a way that we don’t fight the system. If they’re taxes to be paid, we’ll pay the taxes.

You know, so we don’t want to create any ripples. We don’t want to resist or fight anyone. We use the tools of enslavement as tools of liberation.

And one of those tools of liberation is finding the smartest tax advisers there are, so that we as a community, that very soon could be turning over millions and maybe billions of dollars or rands or euros per town —

(Please, remind me to come back to this where I can make such an outrageous statement.)

If we’re turning over billions of euros in our little town, we’re going to find the best bloody tax adviser.

Just like Bill Gates and these rich bastards. They pay zero tax because they have very smart people doing their tax for them.

00:29:43

Dexter:

So if I understand you correctly, when we talk about — when you talk about the Infinity token, the Infinity Token is basically based on each and every individual member of the One Small Town initiative, where they give three hours of their time, and there is then an investment. And then from that investment, that creates the value. And from that value, that can be an exchange globally.

That’s basically the foundation of this Infinity token.

00:30:17

On the Challenges Faced by OST Organizing Resources & Finances

Michael:

It is a foundation. And more and more people are getting excited about it.

It’s taken a little while for the crypto heads and the, you know, those kind of people that are so stuck in Bitcoin mind. It’s just, it’s sickening. But they’re starting to realize how faulty and how insane that world is. And how sane and safe our world is.

And that penny is starting to drop for people to say, wow, hold on, this is a far more safer environment. I invest in this. I contribute in this. And I’m gonna talk to you more about our additional investment tokens we’re about to launch related to the businesses and the profits of the businesses.

So this is an infinite potential for growth on every level you can image. And it’s a safe environment, completely safe.

Blockchain. Membership protected. Investor protected. Members protected. Everyone is protected. No one can ever run away with you. No one can collapse it. No one can collapse your investment. The stock markets can’t collapse it.

It is bulletproof, right? So it’s controlled by the people and the members.

Right now we can determine the value of the Infinity token. That’s how we actually launched the Infinity token. We launched it at $1.00.

Based on the value — the launch value was actually $40 and the reason we can say that is because the average three hours of labour — If you had to work in the United States or Europe or — and some of the Western countries — where you looked at all the different possible scenarios. So for a three-hour shift you would earn on average $40, U.S. dollars. For a three hour shift.

So that is in real life, real terms, the true value of the Infinity Token. It’s $40. Right? And we launched it at $1.00.

So at this stage, it is grossly undervalued. So anyone that buys the Infinity Token now is buying it at an incredibly discounted rate because it’s going up and up and up towards $40. Whether the people like it or not, that’s what the true value of it is.

And then it’ll just go higher and higher. And the reason it’s gonna go higher and higher is that because — there’s an algorithm. We created an algorithm. Our programmers created an algorithm to determine the value of the token.

So it’s not just me sitting here deciding what the value is. The algorithm is linked to the issuing of the tokens. And basically every time one of our members — every time a member joins and every time members contribute their three hours, the blockchain picks up on it and it increases the value of the token by my minute little fraction.

So if we have a few hundred members working and contributing, it goes up slowly. If we have a few thousand members, it goes up faster. Once we have a dozen thousand or 100,000 members, watch the value of the Infinity token go higher and higher. Very, very quickly and steadily.

And then finally the other true value of the token, which is really playing games with people’s minds is this one:

So imagine you now live in a small town situation where we’ve created really abundance and utopia for ourselves. We’re growing vast amounts of food. We’re keeping a portion of the food for ourselves. The rest of the food we sell, to export internationally. We bring the dividends back. We distribute our dividends.

We build laptops and fridges and bicycles and nail clippers. And bread and milk and cheese. And I mean everything you can imagine. Because that’s what we do, we choose to do it. It’s our decision. Right?

And now the more we grow and build and create, the more we’re gonna have every week and every month.

Where do we put it? We have to put it somewhere, right? So this suddenly gave birth to the One Small Town superstore, like a Walmart. So suddenly we open a superstore that belongs to the people, the community.

But because everything we put in there, we have manufactured, we have grown, and made the bread and milk and bicycles and laptops, whatever. Whatever goes into the One Small Town superstore is made by us. That means we can sell it for a much cheaper price than Walmart or anybody else.

You see the interesting situation that’s developing here. Right? So even the greedy, multinational retailers are gonna not be able to compete with our own retail store — that makes all our products and food available to everyone that wants to buy.

They come in there and they buy in fiat currency. They don’t buy it in tokens. They pay dollars or pounds or whatever. And this is where we get fiat currency and cash to still manage and meet the needs in a in a system.

So we are not jumping out of the system. We are still using, you know, profits in cash and euros and everything to help distribute to the people, so they can still live in this crazy world we find ourselves in.

But slowly, but surely, we’ll transition into a whole new world in which that money is no longer needed.

But, this is how it works. So the benefits to members of One Small Town, there are three benefits.

First one, you get tokens. Every time you can do about 3 hours, you get a token in your digital wallet. You can contribute up to three hours a day. So in one month you can earn 31 tokens. The maximum you can earn in a month — 31 tokens a month.

Or, minimum, to get your benefits, one token per week, right? So one three-hour shift a week. That’s a minimum you have to contribute to get the labor, the free labor force, that we know we can allocate people towards a number of businesses. So we know we’ve got the labor force to perform certain tasks.

And the second benefit we give to ourselves from the One Small Town is all the profits from all the businesses are pooled collectively and distributed evenly to all the members.

So you don’t have to work — Just because you worked in the bakery and you didn’t work in the in the stables doesn’t mean that you’re not going to get benefit from the stables. You get benefit from everything because you’ve contributed towards your businesses in your community.

So you’ve pooled — The One Small Town initiative is a is not a bartering trade, a one-to-one exchange. It is a one-to-many exchange. 

I contribute towards the well-being of my community. So does everybody else. And therefore we share in everything that we create. And we distribute it evenly to all of us. That’s why it’s called contributionism.

So I benefit from everybody’s input and they benefit from my input and that’s why it’s such a perfect leveling of the playing fields.

So even if you’re a surgeon and your doing brain surgery for three hours, you’re still going to get one token. And if I’m cutting the the lawn or draining the sewage pipes in the hospital, I get the same token that you get as a surgeon, because if the sewage pipes aren’t cleaned, you ain’t doing any surgery. Right?

So this is the absolute leveling of the playing field. Everybody’s treated equally and their contribution is valued equally. And that’s what most people truly appreciate because now they feel appreciated for who they are and what they do, not diminished because they’re doing some measly work.

But the third thing — the benefits that we get — is at the end of each month —

So it’s the tokens, the dividends, the distribution of the profits and then the basket of goods. Every month at the end of the month, you go to the One Small Town superstore. And all the food that we’ve created, we keep keep a portion of everything that we do. Whether its laptops, we make a limited number of laptops to distribute to our members. The rest is sold. If it’s bread or cheese or milk or corn flour or whatever.

So you go to the One Small Town superstore. You put in your membership card. And it prints out a ticket and says this month you get a bag of this, you get a bicycle, you get nail clippers, you get a helmet or whatever it is that we created.

So you go there and get your basket of goods for free. The only thing you have to sacrifice is one Infinity token. That’s to show that you received your basket of goods.

Alright, now obviously every month we’re going to distribute food. Food is number one. So you’re always going to have food distributed to all our people. So they never, ever go hungry.

And there’ll be building materials. There’ll be bricks and cement and God knows what. Windows and doors and, you know. Who knows what we’re going to be manufacturing. It could be a car.

So what is the value of that one Infinity token that you’ve had to sacrifice to get your basket of goods?

The value of that token is the total value of the basket of goods that you just received. And the people will know this. My God, for one token he got all the stuff that doesn’t add to the value of the token on the algorithm. But in the minds of the people, the people know that that’s what the value of the token is.

So just to understand, we didn’t include the value of the basket of goods into the algorithm of the value of the token, because the moment we do that we breach the Securities and Exchange Act. So suddenly we’re dealing in Securities and Exchange and we can’t do that.

So I’m just telling you how complex this has been and how many different things we’ve had to think about not to break the law. And yet give the people as many benefits as they possibly can get. And make the Infinity token very, very lucrative around the world.

00:39:58

Reiner:

Emil, go ahead. You’ve been silent.

Emil:

Sometimes you should talk and sometimes you should just be quiet. And I think this is a time to be quiet, to be perfectly honest.

My role in this is to be Michael’s disciple in Sweden. I’m trying to, not trying, going to start One Small Town in Sweden. And I’m the ambassador for Sweden. That’s my role in this. I’m going to be on the ground, and, yeah, make sure that we get it all the way through. Make it happen.

OST Not Dependent on the System — Inside the System But Disconnected From It

Reiner:

So what I gather from this, Michael, is that the One Small Town idea can exist inside the system but disconnected from it. It has some connections, but it isn’t dependent on the system.

You’re totally self-sufficient if I understand you correctly. But you’re still complying with the rules and regulations of that, I believe, collapsing system so that through this transition period you can already build these One Small Towns.

And when the time comes and the system collapses, which it sure will, then you can do your own thing completely without being bound by any rules and regulations outside of the One Small Town ideas, right?

00:41:34

Changing the Way People Think: 

Michael:

Yeah, that’s exactly it. And that’s how we call it One Small Town and not one small settlement. Because, you know, when people think that we’re, you know, we’re going out buying a piece of land and building houses. No, no, no, no, no. That’s a failed system. That doesn’t work.

There are very exclusive potential situations in which it can work, but it’s a huge nightmare.

Why should we start from scratch? We have hundreds of thousands of small towns and villages around the world. We don’t have to build anything from scratch.

Towns exist. They have everything. All the infrastructure. They have halls and factories and streets and sewage and electricity and farms and everything we need.

All we need to do is change the way the people think. And realize that if we just cooperate and collaborate, anything becomes possible. So I want to come back to the potential of the small towns.

If you look at any international corporation. The average annual turnover of a company that has 4,000 or more employees is $1 billion or more per annum.

Just let that sink in. I’d like your viewers to think about what I’m saying here.

So if you have an international company of 4,000 employees that work in a 9-to-5, with all the expenses that come with them and the offices, and all the crap and the corporate stuff, and et cetera. All the labor costs. Four thousand employees. Your average minimum turnover is $1 billion or more. Some of the companies I looked at it doing $16-$20 billion turnover per annum with four or five thousand employees.

Can you imagine what we can achieve with 10,000 members in a One Small Town situation where each one of our members contributes three hours a week? And some of them three hours a day.

Because now they’re not just employees at a company wasting time, wasting company resources. Taking this home. Taking that home, you know. Suddenly we have members of the community that are co-owners of that business, that are shareholders in that business, that depend on the profit of that business. That take that business and approach it very, very differently.

So when they go and contribute their three hours towards that business, they do it with a very different mindset.

One Small Town Businesses as Investment Opportunities

Suddenly, as an investor, if I invest into a business in a small town, I — the investor, by the way, can never own more than 30% of the business. That’s the maximum that we allow.

So the business plans are set up so that investors invest the funding capital and they retain 30% of the business. The 60% belongs to the community because the community does the work, the labor. And 10% is retained for the One Small Town management locally, nationally and internationally. Because, you know, that’s how we’re going to be able to have funds to keep running the different One Small Town offices.

There is no money coming into those offices other than the success of the businesses created by the small town businesses. So it’s the bottom up, not top down.

Well, it’s again an example how the people, the people power, create the success on every level.

So as an investor from outside, my investment, I go into partnership with an entire community. That means every member of that community is my partner. And wants my business to succeed as much as they want it to succeed, or as much as I want it to succeed, because they have a vested interest in the profits.

So this is a game changer on every possible level.

The other big thing that we’ve done, that we’re about to do, is to start issuing investor tokens, and this is a way to allow communities themselves to crowd fund their own businesses.

So every business plan — so this is how it works:

We get together. You launch One Small Town in your community. You become the ambassador. You start signing up members and every member that you sign up pushes the value of the Infinity token a little bit more. You start doing this.

You have a creative think tank with your members. What kind of businesses can we start? What kind of businesses can we start with very little money, if any? What kind of businesses can we do business plans for that we need, you know, maybe $10,000, $50,000, $100,000? And what kind of businesses cost us $5 million or $10 million? And what kind of businesses do we think we can start when it cost us $100 million or more? And start developing these business plans because we gotta think big.

How much food can we grow? How much land is available?

We have different models to go into partnerships with farmers and land owners and traditional leaders in the Americas and countries where you have traditional leaders that own vast amounts of land.

Where very lucrative and exciting partnerships for the land owners, for farmers, even municipalities and governments if they’re not using the land.

So we start coming up with ideas for the businesses. And then we start writing business plans for those businesses. Those business plans get loaded onto the One Small Town platform and they get connected to a project management system that gets connected to an accounting system. Just so that it’s online and all your accountants can use it. Plus it’s all free of charge. There’s no cost to any other One Small Town members.

And then the project management system is connected to the accounting system. And the accounting system then allocates the investment funds to that specific business on a monthly drawdown based on what the business plan requires.

So it is a completely transparent situation that everyone can see what’s going on. No one can steal the money and run away with it.

And to come back to the investment thing. (So, Emil, if you want to say anything, just raise your hand and I’ll let you chip in.)

But the key thing here is that every business plan will need the investment amount. So we want to allow our communities, or give the opportunity to the people in our communities, to become shareholders in their own businesses first. And not some outside rich people that always own the businesses in your town.

So every business that we start that lands up on the platform, we issue a token. If it’s, say, a dairy — we’re starting a dairy. So we issue 1,000,000 dairy tokens for the town of Nora.

Let’s use our example town in Sweden. We decide we’re gonna start a One Small Town dairy and we need to raise $2,000,000 to start that business. And run for two years until we become profitable.

We need to raise $2,000,000. So we issue 1,000,000 Nora dairy tokens at $2.00 each to raise $2,000,000.

So we’re never gonna release more or less than 1,000,000 tokens for any business, right? And the million tokens will then have a value based on how much we need to raise. So we’re going to issue 1,000,000 tokens at $2.00 each to fund the Nora dairy. And then we open that up to all our members in Nora to buy those tokens. So they become shareholders in that business. That funding is 30% of that business.

So I literally am buying a piece of 30% by the number of tokens that I’ve bought. And those tokens — now you’re benefiting in two ways. Now you earn a token and you’re getting annual dividends, profits, from that dairy. So you got two benefits here.

You’re not just a shareholder, you’re also a token holder. And that token might become a lot more valuable than the dividends from that dairy at some point in the future.

So you see what we’re doing here? We’re really, really using the tools of enslavement as tools of liberation on every possible level.

This is just explaining how we are about to fund some of the exciting new businesses. If we can’t raise the $2,000,000 for the dairy, then we open it up to the country. And hopefully we’ll raise it from the people in the rest of the country. If we can’t raise it there, then we open it up to the world. And this way we try and retain the investment from the people of the community first. Then the country. And then the rest of the world. To keep the money local.

So it’s not just ‘buy local’. Like a lot of towns and communities are going ‘buy local’, ‘buy local’. We’re doing a lot more than that.

We invest local, manufacture local, grow local, buy local, export local and bring in the profits into our community to benefit us locally.

00:50:49

How Will OST Protect Itself from Mr. Global?: “The system is rigged to always destroy humanity.”

Reiner:

You know, Dexter is not just a lawyer, he’s an economist too. So he’ll ask the questions that concern the economics or the money, the monetary system.

I have one question in particular.

It is almost certain that the other side — Mr. Global, that world which is about to collapse, but it’s still there — that they’re going to try and do everything in their power to stop this from evolving. Infiltrate. Invent all kinds of legal or whatever rules.

How are you going to protect yourselves against that?

Michael:

Yeah, it’s a very important question. And this is why I made it very clear right up front — is that we don’t fight the system. Because the moment we start fighting the system, we’re gonna lose.

People need to understand this. You cannot beat the system. The system is rigged to always destroy humanity, so we can’t fight them.

So we are playing by their rules. We’re using their tools. We’re using their money. We’re using the banks. We’re using the legal systems, using everything that they’ve created to enslave us. But we’re using that to now benefit us and help us.

That’s why I call it — We’re using the tools of enslavement as tools of liberation.

And in every small town —

I jumped — I actually digressed a little bit earlier when I spoke about what is the potential of the profits being made in a small town.

So right now our objective is that any town of 10,000 people or more should be turning over — through the businesses that they start — should be turning over $1 billion, a minimum $1 billion per annum.

If you’re not doing that, then you’re doing something wrong.

It’s not going to happen overnight, but that’s our goal. That’s our objective. That’s where we’re heading.

And you know, money talks, bullshit walks. Unfortunately, that’s the world we live in.

And the stronger our communities become financially, the more difficult it is to knock them over or to undermine them. So every One Small Town community needs to become as financially strong as quickly as possible. Because then it’s very difficult to infiltrate, to overturn, to undermine, because that financial strength in fiat currency becomes the strength of that community — to stand united and protect that wealth that they’ve created for themselves while they’ve got this whole other wealth behind them.

There’s infinite supply of food and technology. And I’m not even going to talk about the other technology, but just to let you know that we have all the technology you can imagine that will be implemented in these small towns.

I’ll let your imagination run wild. I’m not even going to mention the technology, because that gets dangerous.

Reiner:

Well, I would think, Michael, that as I am absolutely convinced that all the creative people with all the intuition, and all that what makes us human, are on our side of the fence, they will be attracted to this.

And therefore there will be competition between the One Small Town concept and the other side. But they can’t win.

I mean, they’re collapsing anyhow. But if this kind of a competition sets in, there’s no one there to support their ideas and their systems because they don’t have any ideas. All the people with the ideas are going to be on our side of the fence.

So it does look very, very promising.

I’ll have to look into this in much more detail, of course, and I will, but that’s exactly what we’ve been talking about for at least three years.

You’ve been dealing with this for much longer. But many people who have only woken up through this wake-up call — which corona is, as far as I’m concerned — they will, all of them, have understood that the system will not survive.

And we have to get out from under it, so to speak, and we have to create our own. And this sounds extremely promising.

What do you think, Dexter, as an economist?

00:55:07

On the Importance of Decentralization & Safeguards Against Future Centralization

Dexter:

I completely agree with you, Reiner. One of the words that basically comes to mind is decentralization.

Based on what you have said, Michael, I want to find out how are you going to ensure that your initiative is not gonna get to a point where everything is centralized.

Because that’s one of the biggest obstacles that humanity is actually faced with, especially when one has regard to huge, big corporate companies. Their main goal, and that’s basically for the elite, is to say we have to centralize because when we centralized we can then control.

So from what you’ve said, you confirmed that power, authority, sovereignty is basically given back to the people.

So then the big question is how are you going to ensure at all times that there is not going to be a point where one will actually have to deal with a centralization issue itself?

00:56:16

Michael:

A very important question, Dexter. And this is why it’s taken so long to develop the system and learn from our experiences and answer questions like this.

You know, I have — since 2005 I have done lectures in more than 35 countries, probably in more than 500 cities of the world.

I’ve done evening lectures, one-day workshops, weekend workshops and week-long workshops on the One Small Town. And so you can imagine how many questions I’ve faced over the years.

And I can tell you there has never, ever, ever been a time that, within the group of people participating in the One Small Town workshop, that we did not solve the problem that was brought up by the people in that meeting, in that workshop.

So this is the most exciting thing that I can share with you. So think about this.

Decentralization is really — this is the foundation of One Small Town, where every community is its own master. But we’ve created the platform and the blockchain through which all these communities are interconnected. That if that community in Cape Town suddenly needs — they realize that we haven’t grown enough apples for next season, then the system is used to put up there ‘we’re going to be short 200,000 apples’. And some other One Small Town up in Caribou or whatever is gonna say, ‘hey, we’ve created too many apples’. And they put it up there. So it becomes an exchange mechanism between the small towns.

And that exchange mechanism becomes free because this is part of the ethos of the One Small Town initiative.

Not only that, but one of the most exciting and attractive attributes of this, or benefits, is that if you’re a member of One Small Town in Germany, right, and you decide you want to come visit your cousin in Cape Town or outside of Cape Town somewhere for a few months, you arrive there and you go to the town and it happens to be a One Small Town. So you arrive at the One Small Town office. You give them your membership card. They scan it and they know exactly what you have contributed and what value you have presented to your small town in Germany, where your skills and abilities are. If you’re a master carpenter that you are training others, you know young students, to become carpenters, or you’re a master cake maker or an engineer or whatever.

They know exactly who you are and what you can contribute to their small town outside of Cape Town. And they say, ‘hi, welcome, Michael. Welcome to our town’. And they log you on to the system as a member of that specific town, and immediately, based on your experience, the blockchain then allocates you to where you are most needed with your special skills, abilities and talents.

And you start that week. You get a message on your phone, saying please, you know, report here for three hours. Or you can then tell them I’d love to teach art. Or I’d love to teach this. And then they’ll log you in as a teacher that’s going to be teaching this. And for that you get your tokens. And at the end of the month you go to the One Small Town superstore, get your food and everything else that you get in your basket and you get a portion of all the profits, dividends, from all the businesses — profits that we’ve created in our businesses.

So you can literally move to another town anywhere in the world slot into that community and be able to not just survive, but live very, very well, have everything you need and be respected and honored within that community from the moment you arrive because the people know what you’re contributing to their community.

So it is a completely decentralized system. No one can ever centralize this. It’s impossible.

01:00:11

On the Threat of Track & Trace Technology

Reiner:

What about the dangers of tracking and tracing with this system?

Michael:

Well, that’s a very important question. And those dangers will always be there.

And my answer to questions like this is, the same technology that is used to track and trace people is available to neutralize the tracking and tracing technology.

And we know those kind of people. We have the people that can cure disease. We have the people that know how to generate electricity.

They are many. They are all on our side.

They all participating in larger and larger numbers, but that’ll come out of the woodwork as this thing progresses.

And that includes telecommunication. It includes, you know, frequencies. It includes broadcasting. It includes everything.

The same people that work for these big telecommunication companies are just ordinary people that may have started out in a small town somewhere. And they are thousands and thousands and thousands of very smart people that do not like the system.

And the moment they have an opportunity to do something good for a small community that they want to be part of, guess what they’re going to choose.

Dexter:

Then I want to find out, Michael, when it comes to the value of the Infinity token, I’ve heard you actually say it can actually be pegged to the dollar. And we know — it’s common knowledge — the dollar, when we talk about the dollar, we talk about the fiat currency.

And I think that’s one of the major concerns for humanity as well.

Is it going to be possible at some point that your Infinity token can actually be pegged to any mineral commodity like gold, silver, diamonds, etc.?

Michael:

Yes, it is. The only reason we pegged it to the dollar is just to give people the perception of the value.

The token is infinitely powerful because somebody just worked for three hours. So, you know, how much value is somebody’s three hours worth? And imagine a million people around the world working three hours a week?

Imagine 20 million or 100 million people working three hours a week. By the time we get to that level, the value of the token becomes irrelevant really, quite frankly.

You see, so what we’re doing is transitioning from this system, the current system, into a new system. And with that transitioning, using the current banking systems and the ratios and rationale that people can relate to.

But as it grows and gets bigger and bigger, people pay less and less attention to the value of the token, because they’ll be exchanging the token between themselves.

Out of sight. Out of mind. No one can interfere with how many tokens I send you. It’s free. It’s instant.

I send it from my wallet to your wallet. You can give me your house. You can sell me your house. I’ll send you 1,000 tokens and you transfer the house to my name, you know. So people will be doing all kinds of trades.

But for me, the most important part is for the people at the lowest level, the people that have nothing. And you know, South Africa. This is a very important part for South Africa.

So my heart always looks at how do we handle third world situations or impoverished countries where people have nothing. They don’t have jobs. Most of our towns have 60-70-80% unemployment.

You know, the people in Europe can’t imagine that kind of situation. So it’s a very different situation.

So we start looking at community kitchens. Something as simple as a finding a hall where a church has already got a kitchen. The church becomes a member of the One Small Town community. Now when they cook food for the people, they’re actually getting an Infinity token. They’re a member of One Small Town.

When we start making dividends from our businesses, each one of those church members starts to receive dividends and Infinity tokens and everything else.

So it brings the community together. The food community kitchen becomes the heart of the community. Where those that have nothing — they wake up in the morning with nothing — they at least now have somewhere to go.

They can join and go and clean the streets. Or help in this business or that business. And at the end of a three hour shift they get their token and they go to the community kitchen and get a nice plate of food.

So that’s a life changer for people in those kind of situations. You know, first world countries don’t understand that.

We understand that very, very clearly here. And in Brazil and India and other countries like that, you know.

So I’m very, very passionate about those kind of things — that foundational, beautiful structure that really helps the people on the ground in the One Small Town initiative.

Dexter:

Can you mentioned just a few examples here in South Africa, whose got the Small Town initiatives, Michael?

Michael:

Yes. So we started out in Kuruman. And we got very excited in Kuruman, because we had the mayor there that really liked the idea. And we all believe that it was gonna work because the mayor and the council is going to help promote it to the people and so forth.

Well, you know, unfortunately — and I don’t want to speak ill of the mayor or anyone there, because there are some wonderful people there, and they truly — their heart was in it.

Unfortunately the political system prevented it from happening. You know, meeting after meeting, council meeting after council meeting, resolution after resolution. And six months later, nothing is happening. And that was our baptism by fire — to learn that we cannot work with councils. We cannot work with politicians. We cannot work with mayors.

And there was just a reminder of why I got out of politics, why the Ubuntu movement and the One Small Town initiative got out of politics.

This was just a quick reminder.

So now we have a number of small towns that are brewing, that are buzzing. But ambassadors are still learning. And they’re trying to figure out how to how to get this off the ground. And this is brand new.

Remember, we’re building this from the ground up. You know this isn’t — we’re creating something that’s never been done before. So some some ambassadors are really a lot more active. Or they see it clearly or they have more experience.

So in Barrydale, Western Cape, that’s our newest One Small Town. And I expect that’s going to be the town that’s really going to rock and roll, and show and lead by example.

We’re doing so many exciting things in Barrydale already. And our ambassador there, Graham Abbott, is just an incredible guy — an incredibly talented and very, very experienced entrepreneur, self-driven guy.

And these are the kind of ambassadors that we need — people that are self driven, that have got diverse experience and all kinds of businesses and activities. How do you start things up? How to find solutions for problems that seem insurmountable? These are the kind of people we need as ambassadors because they’re the guys are going to start — the guys and gals — they’re going to start this thing up right.

Reiner:

I think that’s what it really — it is not always the leaders, the so-called leaders of a community you need to talk to.

But if it’s a really, a real grassroots movement, you have to talk to the people themselves.

We just realized that in New Zealand. You have to talk to the Hapu, the people themselves. Some of the leaders have sold out to the government, to the corporate government, so that’s why you need to get the hearts and minds of the people themselves.

I think that’ll make all the difference.

01:07:46

Examples of Current One Small Town Initiatives

Michael:

Yeah, yeah, absolutely, right. We’ve learned the same. Exactly the same here.

So you know, every traditional leader in South Africa that we talked to just loves it. They they love it, they want it. They’re offering us land.

So in terms of land, especially in the areas that there’s loads of land available among the traditional leaders, we have a lot of land that we can go grow things.

So yeah, just to give you an example in Lebanon. By the way, Lebanon is by far the most the biggest success we have with One Small Town. Our ambassador there, Fayez Mu*** [spelling unknown], in the last nine months has performed miracles.

It’s truly spectacular what has happened. They have started the One Small Town Art Gallery. They’ve got lands that they’ve started to plant. All kinds of medicinal plants, including oregano, to extract oregano oil for medicinal purposes. It’s a very high profit yielding business.

They’ve they’ve got lots of land allocated to them, going into partnership with farmers to grow all kinds of other medicinal plants, medicinal honey. Beekeeping. All the products also made from from beekeeping. All health products and shampoos and soaps, et cetera.

They’ve got primary water in a very, very deep well that the water is absolutely beautiful and healthy. That’s been tested. That they are about to start bottling. As primary, healing water for bottling and export as a One Small Town product from Ras el-Metn, Lebanon. Like Fiji Water, you can buy everywhere in the world. Well, very soon you’ll be able to buy Ras el-Metn primary water.

They’ve started the art gallery, which is, and I’d love to talk to you about the art gallery, which — we’re changing the rules of selling art around the world completely. Which is one of my pet projects because I’m an artist at heart as well.

And the other big thing that we’re launching in Lebanon, in Ras el-Metn, is our first health and wellness center. A five-story building with some of the latest alternative healing modalities. Where 40 of the top doctors in Lebanon have have volunteered 30% of their time to come and help and work in this health and wellness center — and only take a small portion — only take a 30% cut of what they do for that health and wellness center.

This is unheard of, so we are opening the hearts and minds of medical professionals who — many of whom are just, you know, money driven and success driven.

We’re now finding those healers and health industry professionals that want to do good, that want to help people, that want to heal people. And this is going to be our first beautiful example of a health and wellness center.

We’re about to launch the health token. I think we’re gonna be launching 1,000,000 tokens for $5 because we need to raise $5,000,000. And again, we start locally and then go outwards and raise that $5 million for 30% of that of that investment.

And the business plan for that is mind blowing. It’s absolutely mind blowing. It’s incredibly detailed and the most exciting part of it is that it actually shows a profit of around $7 to $8 million just in the first year after launching. No, no, it’s crazy. It’s crazy.

So now that business plan has become a model for a health and wellness center for every other country, every other small town with with slight, obviously, adaptations for the new specific environment.

But now we have — this is how it’s going to happen. Every time we launch a new business plan for a certain situation, that business plan becomes the property of One Small Town members all over the world. They can take it and use it for their community to launch that business in their community, raise funds on an adapted version of that business plan for their community.

It could be a brewery, it could be a cement factory. It could be built making cornflakes. It could be whatever you can image.

Reiner:

So it’s the exchange of the best ideas then.

Michael:

Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Yeah.

Dexter:

Michael, excuse me. You’ve been talking about the Infinite token. And I’m thinking do you have an app?

Michael:

Yes, it’s not an app within the One Small Town website, One Small Town platform. It’s a secure blockchain platform environment, so it’s like an app within that.

In fact, I think, if I’m right we’re launching the digital wallet. It was either launched today or tomorrow, in the next day or two we’re launching the One Small Town digital wallet, which means that any member, anywhere in the world, if you’ve got Infinity tokens in there, you can send them free of charge, out of sight or mind of any bank or government, to anyone you want in the world, as long as they are a One Small Town member. It’s instant. And it’s for free (boom).

Let me tell you, I’ve seen this happen. The excitement that you experience and the joy when you see that happen, when somebody sits next to you, they say I’m going to send you Infinity token now. And they just click (boom) and it appears in your wallet. You go, ‘oh, my God’.

You just realized how powerful that is. You just realized that we have created an alternative trading system. An alternative exchange system.

Should the global banks collapse tomorrow, we already have a solution for it. We don’t have to build anything.

It exists, it’s ready. And anyone in the world can use it immediately. And it’s free.

01:13:58

On Using the Same Technology the Globalists Use to Control Us, to Liberate Us

Reiner:

So you’re using as you’re saying the tools of enslavement as tools of liberation. You’re using all of the tech, all of the available technology. But instead of what they’re doing — they’re using it to control us — you’re using it to liberate us.

That’s the ultimate goal of this. You’re simply making use —

Everything has two sides as we all know. You can use energy for good and for bad purposes.

So what you’re doing is you’re using all of the technology that they’re using for bad purposes for good purposes.

It’s a very simple approach, but it makes a lot of sense. And if you can protect —

Michael:

That’s exactly what it is.

What I need to add — it’s very important that you brought us back to that thought — is because I’ve noticed that some of our members, and even sometimes people that want to become ambassadors —

(And historically some of our ambassadors that weren’t quite ready to take on the role, maybe because we also don’t know how to interview ambassadors. How do you know whether it’s going to be a good ambassador or a bad ambassador? We don’t know. We take a chance with everyone we bring on board. We’re building this from the ground up.)

So I’ve also noticed that many of our members — well not many — some of our members that are still little hippie-minded, little freedom-bunny-minded, and, you know I love spirituality — I’m the most spiritual bunny in the world if I want to be — but at the same time, I realize that that’s not going to put bread on the table. I need to go and plant the food, to make create the food.

So we’ve had to implement this very strict control mechanism. The way that corporations control their systems ,so no one can steal from them.

We’ve had to set this in motion and set this up for our members to use, so that they can’t get ripped off. No one can run off with their ideas or their money or their businesses.

And sometimes some of our slightly, you know, airy-fairy members don’t yet, don’t quite get it. They think that we now want to become draconian corporations that want to control everything.

No, not at all. We’re not controlling anything. We’re just giving you the platform to use for your own control and protection.

But if you want to be part of One Small Town, you have to be on the platform. Otherwise you can’t be part of One Small Town.

Otherwise, how will the system know whether your members have done work for three hours somewhere in a Siberian village? You’re out there in the Amazon jungle or in the bloody Outback in Australia. How will we know if somebody’s going to contribute their three hours?

So, just like you said. We’ve built this very powerful system, this tool, this monster that is aiding and helping the people to be able to connect and share. And no one can rip them off and no one can steal anything that they’ve created.

So it’s there for the benefit of the community, not for my benefit. Believe me, I’ve sacrificed everything I have to get to this stage. And when I say everything I have, I’m not kidding.

Reiner:

It sounds and looks great.

I will, and Dexter too, we will take a very close look so that we will be able to connect you with all the right people. Because
I think that’s ultimately what it takes.

This idea, if it is going to fly worldwide, needs a lot of supporters from our side of the fence.

The other side, we don’t care about, but from our side of the fence. And they have to be absolutely — they have to be convinced that it works.

And they have to be — I’m sure it work — but they also have to be convinced that it’s safe from infiltration and control.

01:17:53

An Idea Whose Time Has Come

Michael:

Yeah, it’s very important. Thank you for saying that, Reiner.

And it’s people like you — and your influence is vast globally, obviously. Especially during this COVID era, you’ve become a a global celebrity on the social media.

So I’m very grateful that you took this interview or this conversation with us. With me and with Emil.

Thank you, Dexter, for participating. So you’re an absolute joy. I didn’t even realize that you were going to join us from South Africa. So it makes my makes my heart jump even more with joy. So it’s wonderful.

And this is working. It’s an idea whose time has come. It’s taken 17 years to get here.

But watch this space. It’s growing exponentially. And a year from now, who knows where we’re going to be.

We might have 100,000 towns signing up to the One Small Town initiative on the platform. Because the intention is that it becomes a completely automated process that we don’t have to intervene. And that’s why we’re working very, very hard to make sure that everything works — the platform, the blockchain, works.

Because once people want to sign up, it’s gotta be smooth. We can’t have gremlins in there.

Taking a Closer Look at the Technology & the Possibility of Surveillance

Reiner:

Yes, I can see that and the one thing that most people, when it comes to setting up your own self-sufficient systems, have been worried the most about is what do we do about the monetary system.

What about the —

We don’t want to be controlled by CBDC. We want to be absolutely free and not controlled by anyone.

Now, the tools you’re using can be used for two purposes. As I said before, for a good purpose and for a bad purpose.

And from what it sounds like — we’ll have to take a much closer look — but from what it sounds like you’re using it for a really good purpose. So that people will not have to be afraid that somebody is watching over their shoulder and trying to see what they’re doing 24/7.

That’s the one big worry that most people have. So we’ll have to convince them that there is no risk, no danger of this happening in this system.

Otherwise, I applaud you. This is great.

This is probably exactly what everyone’s been looking for from our side of the fence.

Emil:

If I can put in a word with that whole fear. When you make everything local, that fear disappears.

But what happens if someone wants to take control of you when your local environment is running and functioning?

They can’t do it so. So the solution is simple.

Michael:

Yeah, that’s a very important point to bring up.

Yeah, Reiner, thank you so much for your interest.

Thank you, Dexter.

If if you want to discuss anything at any stage, if you want to jump on a zoom call or quiz me on anything, please feel free to do so.

We’re building this up and we do need the influence of people like you, and all the others that you have in your pool of influence.

Let’s get this growing. Remember, this is free.

No one is forced to join One Small Town. And the beautiful thing is that you don’t have to jump off the cliff into uncharted waters to try something new.

No, nobody has to leave their job. Nobody has to stop doing what they’re doing. All they have to do is become a member and contribute three hours a week. That’s all it takes.

Getting More People on Board

Reiner:

It sounds so fantastic, but it also feels good.

So, we’ll have a follow up meeting on this, because we’re gonna have to get some more people on board. Some more people who really, really will be able to help set this up.

I know there are a lot of people out there who’ve been kind of waiting at the sidelines to see if there’s something coming up where they can chip in. A lot of very well-intentioned and very smart people.

But I think maybe this is it.

Michael:

Those are the kind of people that I know you have, obviously, a good reach to. But even more so, I hope that this message also reaches the conscious millionaires and billionaires out there, who know that the investment markets are rotten to the core, that are looking for new conscious, humanitarian investments with consequence and infinite potential for growth.

One Small Town is exactly that. You’re investing into communities, entire communities, that you’re going to help turn upside down and turn into to hubs of creative creation, creative new businesses, food production, health and Wellness, everything you imagine as a powerful individual, powerful financial support. You can take a small town and completely turn it upside down.

From the small towns around the world that are collapsing at an increasingly rapid pace, we can turn that around. And we just need the conscious millionaires and billionaires to realize that One Small Town is that new opportunity that they never imagined would present itself.

Reiner:

The stock market is crashing anyway.

Dexter:

Thank you so much, Michael. I really love what you have presented.

I think for me, one of the core message is that you are basically, through your initiative, you are putting power back into the hands of the individual, back into the hands of the communities.

And I think it is going to be a great success, especially when actually talking from a South African developing country’s point of view. When you look at communities, communities are basically the backbone of any society.

So you cannot even start talking about the society if you don’t look after the best interest of communities.

And as far as what I can see, and to what you have presented, I don’t have any doubt in my mind that this is something that is going to be successful.

This is something that is going to ensure that humanity can continue to thrive for generations to come.

So I wish you all the best, and I am definitely going to take up your offer. I will get your contact details. I’ll actually visit your website as well, get in touch with you. And I would love to actually have another zoom meeting with you.

Thank you so much, Michael. Great success.

Michael:

Thank you, Dexter.

Reiner:

I have nothing to add to that. Now that Dexter has said it, I can only confirm it.

Yeah, this sounds like the best idea. This is the way out of this collapsing system. That’s it.

Michael:

Well, I’d like to thank you, gentlemen.

Emil, thank you for setting it up.

Dexter, thank you for joining us from Cape Town, I believe.

And Reiner, it’s a great honor and pleasure to meet you. I’ve followed your work especially throughout this COVID period, this, this plandemic. And I’m deeply grateful for this meeting.

And I want to end on this note.

If it’s not good for everyone, it’s no good at all.

Reiner:

You’re right.

Thank you very much, Michael. It’s been an honor and a pleasure. Talk to you later.

 

Connect with One Small Town

Connect with Michael Tellinger

Connect with ICIC (International Crimes Investigative Committee

Info on Infinity Tokens

(If you have trouble finding a workable link to buy tokens, try here.
Use the menu on the left side to select ‘Buy Tokens’)

---

See Related: 

One Small Town & the Restoration of Human Freedom: Michael Tellinger Interview With Jerm Warfare

Michael Tellinger: Money Was Created to Enslave Humanity

Reiner Fuellmich: On Standing With the Māori People of New Zealand Who Never Ceded Their Independence

Cover image credit: TheDigitalArtist

“Covid” Vaccines Were Deployed by the US Department of Defense as “Countermeasure Prototypes” With No Safety Testing Required, Using the General Public as Guinea Pigs

 

“As if that news were not troubling enough, Katherine and Sasha learned that anyone who examines the contents of the vaccines vials can be legally punished for doing so. Pharmacists and doctors warned that the vials are property of the US government, so having the vials tested would expose them to criminal charges.”

 

The Military Authorized the Vaccine | Sasha Latypova

by James Patrick, Big Picture
July 22, 2023

 

I found Sasha Latypova through a colleague in Europe. The day I met Sasha at her villa in California, the skies were overcast, which correlated with the subject matter of the interview. Now retired, Sasha had had a very successful career as an independent contractor designing clinical trials for the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.

During our interview, I was stunned by some of the conclusions Sasha had reached regarding which government agencies actually authorized the vaccines. Through the COVID crisis, Sasha teamed up with a paralegal in Pennsylvania named Katherine Watt who conducted very thorough research that unearthed the legal framework through which the vaccines were approved and deployed. You can find her work here.

Katherine Watt discovered that the covid vaccines were authorized not by the FDA but by the US Department of Defense as countermeasure prototype demonstrations. This revelation ties in with a prior BIG PICTURE interview with Brook Jackson, who managed a piece of the Pfizer clinical trials for a Pfizer contractor, found fraud, and was fired for bringing the irregularities to the attention of her superiors. When Brook later sued the government for purchasing vaccines that were not properly FDA approved, the government’s response was that they were not FDA approved but approved instead by the DOD.

Coincidentally, Katherine Watt uncovered the existence of a joint Health and Human Services and Department of Defense program to combat bioterrorism or natural outbreaks through the rapid deployment of “countermeasure prototype demonstrations.” This is a shockingly broad term that basically means “anything whipped up by the military that they think may be of use.” In other words, they are rapidly whipped-up secret recipe military vaccines that require no approval other than the say so of the HHS secretary and his belief they may be of benefit. No testing needed, no clinical trials required.

The general public is now the unwitting guinea pig. This means all the COVID vaccines everyone has been receiving were actually produced by the military under a martial law legal structure and the public is being unwittingly injected with not just experimental vaccines, but with military prototypes that were never intended to receive any FDA approval.

This strange scenario explains why the regulators (FDA) behaved so strangely and why no one was ever punished for the rushed and fraudulently conducted clinical trials.

Operation Warp Speed was a military operation complete with sophisticated propaganda strategies. These psychological propaganda programs targeted films like my Planet Lockdown film. The public was encouraged to take the vaccines by psychological warfare units of the military. Yet it is illegal under the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act for the military to operate on US soil.

As if that news were not troubling enough, Katherine and Sasha learned that anyone who examines the contents of the vaccines vials can be legally punished for doing so. Pharmacists and doctors warned that the vials are property of the US government, so having the vials tested would expose them to criminal charges.

I must ask: If these are simply experimental vaccinations for a novel flu, why on god’s green earth are all these unusual measures needed? This is quite suspicious, and, in my experience, suspicious people tend to act suspiciously . . . and are up to something they don’t want you to know . . .

Please join me and learn just how Sasha discovered what she did, the logic she followed, and where it led her. I think you will understand why the truth disturbed her enough to come forward and share it with the world. She is committed to getting this information so that we cannot be fooled the next time a “pandemic” is announced.

 Video available at PlanetLockdown Odysee & Rumble channels.

 

Connect with Patrick James

Connect with Sasha Latypova

Connect with Katherine Watt

The Revolt of the Pawns

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
July 23, 2023

 

In early 1980, as the diplomatic fallout from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan began to play itself out on the grand chessboard, then-US President Jimmy Carter sent his National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, to Pakistan to rally the mujahideen fighters waging jihad against the Russian invaders.

In the footage of that incident, Brzezinski can be seen helicoptering to a spot in the Khyber Pass on the Afghanistan border to address the Islamic fighters taking up arms against the Soviets. Assuring the assembled “freedom fighters” that their struggle will succeed, he raises a finger in the air in the direction of Afghanistan, proclaiming: “That land over there is yours. You’ll go back to it one day because your fight will prevail. And you’ll have your homes and your mosques back again because your cause is right and God is on your side.”

This was, as we now know, pure manipulative hogwash. Uncle Sam couldn’t have cared less about the fate of these fighters. The US government didn’t believe in their God and it didn’t care if they had their homes and their mosques back again. In fact, as Brzezinski himself has since admitted, the Soviet invasion had, in a sense, been a Western operation, the successful culmination of a covert US plan to lure the USSR into Afghanistan and slowly bleed the Red Army in a years-long proxy war.

In the infamous 1998 interview where Brzezinski confirmed this hidden truth, he was asked whether he regretted his role in fostering the rise of the Taliban and Al CIAda.

Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.” Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war that was unsustainable for the regime, a conflict that bought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

These are not the words of a pious believer in the righteous struggle of Islamic freedom fighters. They are not even the words of an earnest Cold Warrior, blindly supporting anyone who could strike at his Soviet enemy. They are the words of the man who literally wrote the book on The Grand Chessboard—the words of a self-proclaimed geopolitical grandmaster who cooly calculates several moves ahead as he manipulates his pawns on the grand chessboard as part of a grand strategy to checkmate his opponent.

Last week I revealed how the would-be rulers of the world see the grand struggle for geopolitical dominance as a type of chess game and how people around the globe (including the mujahideen in Afghanistan) are treated as mere pawns in that game, to be used, abused and sacrificed in pursuit of the grandmasters’ aims.

This week I will examine the growing political awareness of the pawns in the grand chess game and show what it looks like when they strike back against their masters.

Global Political Awakening

In December of 2008, The International Herald Tribune published an op-ed on an important new sociopolitical phenomenon: “The Global Political Awakening.”

For the first time in history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive. Global activism is generating a surge in the quest for cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world scarred by memories of colonial or imperial domination.

Now, if this were an op-ed by your average, run-of-the-mill political commentator, the prospect of a “global political awakening” would no doubt be celebrated as a hopeful development. Said commentator would then deftly transition into a pitch for how such an awakening could afford an exciting opportunity for the West to help human rights activists in Countries X, Y and/or Z overthrow their oppressive governments . . . with Countries X, Y and Z being prime targets on the US State Department’s regime change wishlist, naturally.

But this op-ed was not penned by your average political hack. No, it was authored by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the same arch-globalist insider (and arch-conspiracy theorist) who helped fund the mujahideen in the 1980s. For this grand chessboard grandmaster, the global political awakening is no cause for celebration. Rather, as he explained in a subsequent interview on the subject, it poses a threat to America’s global dominance and a challenge to all the kings on the global chessboard.

On the subjective level, this global political awakening is creating massive intolerance, impatience with inequality, with differentials in standards of living. It’s creating jealousies, resentments, more rapid immigration [. . .] Connected with that is a craving for respect for differentiated cultures and for individual dignity. Much of humanity feels that respect is lacking from the well-to-do.

Now, here’s the surprising thing: he’s not wrong. There is a global political awakening taking place. Fueled by the online revolution, impatience with inequalities and differentials in standards of living is rising. And, if the last several years of political history has taught us anything, it is that much of humanity is feeling a lack of respect from the well-to-do. This feeling has manifested in a worldwide populist movement that threatens to derail the globalist New World Order agenda, a point conceded by elitist institutions like the Bilderberg Group and the World Economic Forum, which have openly fretted about this rising populist movement in recent years.

In fact, Brzezinski’s “global political awakening” is not only as accurate a description of the global geopolitical situation today as it was when he first made it a decade and a half ago, it is—if anything—even truer today than it was in the bygone era of Hope and Change Obama.

Naturally, this awakening is informed by different issues in different countries and takes different forms in different corners of the globe, but there’s no doubt that the global political awakening is accelerating and people are reaching a breaking point.

Just take a look at France. The country has been on fire (literally) for months now as nationwide protests against proposed changes to the country’s pension system have spilled over into fiery protests against police violence that even targeted government officials.

Or take Israel, where Prime Minister Netanyahu is under the greatest pressure of his political career for trying to shove through a deeply unpopular judicial reform that would weaken the power of the country’s Supreme Court. Protesters have been in the streets, blocking roads and setting fires in opposition to Netanyahu’s efforts and, in the latest development, over a thousand reservists in the Israeli Air Force are threatening to stop serving if the reform goes ahead.

Or witness the turmoil in Africa, where weeks of antigovernment rallies in Kenya have culminated in deadly riots that show no signs of abating and where a crackdown on political opposition in Senegal has sparked similarly violent protests.

Then there’s the wave of farmer protests that, as I documented in a series of articles last summer, have swept around the world as the globalist net zero agenda starts to clamp down on the act of farming. The demonstrations have brought unrest and disruption not only to Sri Lanka—where protesters stormed the prime minister’s office and literally chased the president out of the country—but also to usually quiet countries like the Netherlands and Ireland.

Heck, you know there’s a global political awakening underway when Canada, of all places, becomes the site of a dramatic freedom convoy and an equally dramatic declaration of emergency powers by Trudeau’s increasingly embattled government.

Yes, Brzezinski was quite right when he pointed out that a global political awakening was underway. The real question, of course, is what such an awakening means for our future.

It is easy to see how the prospect of an increasingly politically engaged public (let alone an increasingly agitated one) is detrimental to the aims of geopolitical strategists like Brzezinski. After all, to the Brzezinskis of the world, the people are just pawns to be used, manipulated and, ultimately, sacrificed in service of a greater geopolitical agenda. (Or, in Kissinger’s infamous formulation, military men are “dumb, stupid animals to be used” as pawns for foreign policy.)

When the pawns begin to fight back, however, the chess game comes to a screeching halt. How can the self-declared grandmasters go about conquering squares on the chessboard, after all, when their own pieces are fighting against them?

One can just picture the war hawks observing this mass awakening and fretting over their carefully crafted grand chessboard strategems. “Why won’t these pawns simply shut up and do what they’re told?! It would make everything so much easier!”

Unfortunately for us, Brzezinski and his ilk not only saw the development of this global political awakening, they also envisioned a way to contain it.

And, even more unfortunately for us, the elitists’ plan for putting a lid on this populist awakening does not end well for us “pawns.”

Counter-Revolution

If the sight of these protest movements sweeping the globe seems familiar to you, that’s because it is.

As you’ll recall, I wrote an article in November 2019 about the political turmoil then engulfing nations around the world, from Bolivia to Chile to France to Hong Kong to Iraq. “Your Guide to a World on Fire” documented how the global political awakening seemed to be coming to a head and mused on whether the fiery uprisings signaled that “the Old World Order of neoliberal globalism under Pax Americana is finally coming apart at the seams.”

Of course, as we now know, that optimism was premature. The globalists always have tricks up their sleeve to fend off their demise. In this case, they chose to pull the scamdemic card and we all saw the immediate result: the fiery protests of 2019 came to a grinding halt at the beginning of 2020, when social distancing and locking ourselves in our own home were suddenly instituted as the prime civic virtues.

That the grandmasters of the global chessboard would unleash one of the largest psyops ever perpetrated on humanity for the purpose of containing the global political awakening should not be surprising. Actually, it should be comforting. It shows us that they’re still attempting to control the masses.

When and if that strategy begins to fail, however, there is a much darker option at their disposal.

You see, Brzezinski’s op-ed about the global political awakening was not written for the global press. It was a summary of a speech that he delivered at Chatham House. For those not in the know, Chatham House is the headquarters of the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), the Council on Foreign Relations’ sister organization in London.

The speech from which Brzezinski’s global awakening observation derives—titled “Major Foreign Policy Challenges for The New US Presidency” and delivered on November 17, 2008—was, like most of the RIIA’s proceedings, not intended for the general public. However, a recording of the speech was later leaked online. What it reveals about the globalists’ thinking on the matter of a people’s uprising is downright bone-chilling.

The lecture began innocuously enough, with Brzezinski mouthing the usual, trite foreign policy clichés about how American leadership “has been essential to global stability and to global development” and warning that Obama’s incoming administration faces challenges from a number of global crises. So far, so boring.

But then he transitions into the main theme of his talk: the global political awakening and what is to be done about it.

While the lethality the lethality of their power is greater than ever, their [the major powers’] capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at an historical low. I once put it rather pungently (and I was flattered that the British foreign secretary repeated this) as follows: namely, in earlier times it was easier to control a million people—literally, it was easier to control a million people than, physically, to kill a million people. Today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people. [Emphasis added]

And then, just in case his audience missed it, he reiterated the point: “It is easier to kill than to control.”

This blood-curdling pronouncement is delivered, as with most of Brzezinski’s pronouncements, in a detached way, as if he were reporting on the weather in New Delhi or the results of last night’s baseball game. And why should he become emotional when discussing the possibility of a global leadership losing its control of the people and deciding to unleash megadeath on the population? After all, he’s simply pointing out a self-evident truth about the way power operates in our society and the lengths to which the psychopaths leading the kakistocracy must be willing to go in order to maintain their power.

As the global political awakening starts to take shape and the masses can no longer be placated with QAnonsense or kept in their homes by scamdemic psyops, then the rulers of the grand chessboard always have the final option: mass murder. Whether that mass murder takes the form of a WWIII or the release of an actual bioweapon or some other method entirely is of little consequence. What matters is that if and when there is a true threat to the rule of the powers-that-shouldn’t-be, they will take Brzezinski’s dictum to heart.

Today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people.

Ending the Game

It is easy to see why geopolitical strategists find the grand chessboard analogy so appealing. It accurately embodies their vision of the globe as a space to be dominated by one team or another and it provides them with useful strategems for achieving their geopolitical goals. They can employ gambits, sacrifice pawns, formulate plans that involve anticipating their opponents’ next moves, etc.Perhaps most important of all, the chessboard metaphor flatters these narcissists’ intellect. Only these gifted grandmasters understand this intricate game of geopolitics in all its multivariate complexity, after all, and only they are capable of crafting strategies for winning that game.

But in examining the war hawks moves on the global chessboard, we run the risk of forgetting that this is only a metaphor. People are not pawns. This is not a game. We are talking about real people living real lives, not plastic pieces on a chessboard.

In fact, when we adopt the chess analogy, we are unwittingly playing into the globalists’ hands. If the globe really is a grand chessboard and we really are engaged in a struggle for dominance over it, then we’re compelled to adopt that mindset ourselves and come up with a strategy for winning the game game.

“If only us pawns could form our own team! Then we could take over the chessboard, sacrifice the kings and queens and subject the rooks and the bishops and the knights to our will! Then we could run the global chessboard the way we want!”

But to begin thinking in those terms is to fall into a trap. We find ourselves playing the geopolitical game on the grandmasters’ own terms. Whether we adopt the “vote harder” strategy of the statists or the violent revolution strategy of the rioters or we start volunteering to become pawns for the “other” team—as those who promote the false BRICS-as-saviours narrative would have us do—we lose.

The political game is rigged. It is a contest for power where it is not the people who vote that count, it’s the people who count the votes. Even more to the point, it is a distracting puppet theater, a shadow play on the cave wall that is put in front of us to divert our attention from the ways that power really operates in society.

The violent revolution strategy is similarly doomed to fail. Brzezinski merely stated what many authoritarians already realize: it is easier to kill than to control. It follows that these autocrats will not hesitate to unleash the apocalypse if they ever feel genuinely threatened by a mass uprising. Given that the very forces we oppose are the ones sitting on the nuclear stockpiles and the bioweapons labs and the increasingly automated armed forces, and given that they have spent decades building up the machinery of technological tyranny under the “homeland security” paradigm in case of just such an uprising, is there any doubt who would win such a contest?

And the idea of “switching sides” and joining the “other” team on the grand chessboard? Even if the BRICS team were fundamentally different from the NATO team (it isn’t), we’d still be no more than pawns on the board.

No, none of these strategies suffice. The only winning move in this game is the least popular one of all: to reject the game entirely.

The planet is not a chessboard. It does not consist of squares to be divvied up and occupied by competing teams. It is not populated by chess pieces to be manipulated by this or that player in service of some grand geopolitical agenda.

It is a world filled with people who can choose at any time to start interacting with each other directly, free of controlling middle men, to transact in a currency of their own choice, for goods and services of their own making, without the need for any globalist power structure.

Life is not a win/lose struggle for domination of a fixed chessboard. Life is a win/win quest for cooperation on an ever-expanding pie.

Society does not require a top-down order imposed by an authoritarian elitist class who, by virtue of some magical political ritual, is able to impose its will on others without their consent. Rather, a thriving society requires the spontaneous order that develops when everyone is free to form voluntary relations based on mutual consent.

We are not pawns on a chessboard to be used in a struggle for political dominance and we do not need to win any grand chess game in order to take control of our lives. We are human beings finding ways to live with other human beings on a fertile, living planet. It is not until we completely reject the mindset of the Brzezinskis and the Kissingers and the other self-styled grandmasters of the so-called grand chessboard that we can truly begin to take our power back.

We do not need to take over the chessboard. Instead, we need to withdraw our participation from this “game” entirely. The would-be grandmasters can’t play their game if we won’t be their pawns.

The grand game of global geopolitical chess, it turns out, is a funny game. The only winning move is not to play.

 

Connect with James Corbett

Cover image credit: Positive_images

Jon Rappoport: What Someone Once Said to Me About Vaccines, Echoing Bill Gates

 

“The truth is, no one can get to health through vaccinations. If a person is sickly, vaccines won’t help. If he’s healthy, he doesn’t need vaccines.

“The bad news is, vaccines destroy. Whether it’s the so-called adjuvants they put in the shots, the goop they think are pieces of viruses (that don’t exist), the preservatives, the lipid nanoparticles, the coatings on the particles, the little segments of RNA—the injections attack the body. In all sorts of ways. In all sorts of places.”

 

What Someone Once Said to Me About Vaccines, Echoing Bill Gates

Dispatches from the vaccine war

by Jon Rappoport
July 19, 2023

 

When I think about what piece to write next, or when for the moment my tank is empty, I come up with VACCINES. That’s the subject.

It’s been that way for a long time.

I could be accused of having a grand obsession, but this isn’t the case. I’m responding to the civilizational obsession with vaccination.

At the same time, it IS personal. Because of the outrage I feel, watching medical storm troopers who have been on the march for more than a hundred years.

Watching their arrogance, their blunt stupidity, their “rational” madness. As they keep marching and invading.

If we were living in an absolute monarchy and I were King, there would be hell to pay. The troopers would pay, dearly.

Over the past 35 years, I’ve written countless articles on vaccination. I’ve run down the evidence from all the angles. Now I’m left with the feeling when all the data detailing crimes have been exhausted. I’m at the end of that trail.

It’s not THE end, though. Not by a long shot.

The troopers and their allies represent, for me, everything that’s insane about our society—especially the bland acceptance by the willing victims. The silent majority.

Including, of course, the educated classes, who proudly wear their badges of science, the ultimate virtue signal. They live in a harsh bombed out desert and think it’s a pretty garden.

Some of them watch their children go crazy from the shots, suffering massive brain damage—and still these parents won’t admit what happened.

They refuse to see what they saw.

—It might have been after a talk I gave. I had mentioned the fact that improved sanitation and nutrition in the West accounted for the decline in all sorts of illness—not the widespread introduction of vaccines.

The person said, “But for children who still can’t get nutritious food, vaccines protect them.”

It was a mindless “save the children” remark.

Of course, when the body’s defense is chronically deficient, a vaccine isn’t going to pump it up. Because there isn’t anything THERE to pump up. That’s a ridiculous fairy tale. And a vaccine isn’t food.

Bill Gates tried to pull off the same sort of nonsense, when he announced with great personal fanfare, that he’d just read a book about contaminated water supplies in the Third World—as if he’d just discovered what everyone else had known for 50 years.

So he said something like this: I saw that bad water accounted for horrific chronic diarrhea, a killer. We have to clean up the water. But meanwhile, my anti-diarrheal vaccine will help.

No it won’t. The sick child, who is wasting away, has no immune system left. The vaccine won’t build up what isn’t there.

—Belief across a population is a powerful thing. It can operate like a bulldozer, flattening all obstacles and objections. And at the end of the day, it stands naked, amid the ruins. When the belief is demanding a solution that won’t work. Vaccines.

I come from an era when vaccinations were few and far between. A poke here, a stab there. There was no CDC shouting about schedules. The big Pharma money wasn’t rolling in yet. The predators knew the public wouldn’t go for 30 or 40 shots during childhood.

But now it’s a lifeline. Oh, the kids will die if you don’t shoot them up.

Bleeding heart liberals, clueless rubes, and Big Pharma. A jackpot sales team.

And a bland Howdy Doody monster like Bill Gates in the background, pouring billions of dollars into MORE vaccines.

As I predicted early on during Warp Speed, the introduction of RNA technology was going to create a bonanza for Pharma. They’d redo every vaccine in the book with the new tech. They’re working in that direction now.

Because vaccines injure and kill, this civilization is on wartime footing. We’re under attack. Half the effort to censor us is devoted to the vaccine issue. The enemy knows what’s at stake.

If we take their prime weapon away from them—by walking away from it in huge numbers—they fall.

After the COVID fiasco, when millions of people DID walk away from the injection…the public is primed to take a look at the whole range of vaccines.

I’ve watched some of the new pundits who appeared during COVID to expose that shot. Some of them are close. They’re close to seeing that the whole arsenal of vaccines is nothing less than a doomsday weapon. They haven’t crossed that line yet. But they’re on the verge.

I crossed the line in 1988, when I wrote AIDS INC. Because I realized “the virus” wasn’t causing anything, I was looking for real causes of immune suppression—since that was what so-called AIDS was.

And that’s when I saw The Big One looming up on the horizon. Vaccines.

I started talking to Health Freedom advocates who’d been in the trenches for decades. I started reading hard to find books that investigated vaccines. And then, there it was.

I saw it.

I couldn’t look away from it.

Whatever I thought a career in journalism was, could be, should be, that career took a sharp turn.

I had no idea how much passivity I would encounter.

Pure, dumb, conformist passivity.

But with Warp Speed, and everything that followed, I saw the apathy in the public begin to dissolve.

I saw foundational pillars begin to crack.

The truth is, no one can get to health through vaccinations. If a person is sickly, vaccines won’t help. If he’s healthy, he doesn’t need vaccines.

The bad news is, vaccines destroy. Whether it’s the so-called adjuvants they put in the shots, the goop they think are pieces of viruses (that don’t exist), the preservatives, the lipid nanoparticles, the coatings on the particles, the little segments of RNA—the injections attack the body. In all sorts of ways. In all sorts of places.

In England, right at the start, when THE one shot was for smallpox, there were whole cities with high vaccination rates where people were dropping like flies. And cities where the vaccination rate was low, people came through all right.

When the authorities finally began cleaning off the raw sewage running down the city streets, when they installed public sanitation systems, disease took a very sharp downturn.

These things aren’t hard to understand.

But they’ve been hidden from the public.

We’re looking at a revolution of simple truth. Which can be spoken and delivered simply.

And widely.

By us all.

In this war.

During which we’re under attack.

Many foot soldiers happen to be doctors, who have the advantage of seeming neutral. They wave no flags. They salute no dictator. They’re calm and rational. Nevertheless, they wield the weapon, and they use it.

We can’t let that oddity deter us.

If you need a push, talk to the mother of a severely autistic child. That is, a child whose brain was assaulted by a vaccine. Have her tell you what she goes through every day of her life, with that child.

It seems difficult to believe a modern civilization could have gone so far off the track as this one has.

The difficulty in facing that fact is what drives people back into their huts and their television screens and online games.

But you know, believing something that happens to be true and then acting on it is more powerful than any civilization.

This is why I’m here. To tell you that.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image based on creative commons work of: NoPixelZone & OpenClipart-Vectors

Our Hidden History: Jason Breshears With Jerm Warfare on The Great Pyramid at Giza

 

A Beginner’s Guide to the Egyptian Pyramids, With Jason Breshears

by Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare
Published June 1, 2023, updated July 18, 2023

 



It’s difficult to summarise, but Jason makes a convincing case for an advanced civilisation at the time of the construction of the Pyramids (over 4800 years ago), who used advanced techniques such as geopolymer construction and ultrasonic drilling.

Furthermore, he adds that the Pyramids were not even built by Egyptians.

Instead, they were built by an entirely different civilisation, before a catastrophic event wiped them out and the Pyramids ended up underwater for hundreds of years after a major rainfall that coincides with the Biblical flood.

Civilisation has been in decline ever since.

There is way too much to compress, so I recommend watching the following slideshow by Jason.

 

Connect with Jerm Warfare

---

See Related (Alternative Perspective):

Dark Journalist & Dr. Joseph Farrell Nikola Tesla Great Pyramid Mystery! 

Mirrored at Rumble

Joseph Farrell: Giza Death Star Pyramid Mystery Part II The Antediluvian Weapon!

Mirrored at Rumble

 

 

“We Will Bring You Down”: German MP Vows to Dismantle WHO’s Grip on Governments

by Tyler Durden, ZeroHedge
July 17, 2023

 

German MP Christine Anderson last week shredded the World Health Organization, calling it a group of “globalitarian misanthropists” who she – and a group of seven other MPs, have vowed to dismantle in order to oppose the WHO supplanting democratically elected governments.

“An unelected body like who is controlled and run by multi-billionaires should never be allowed to act in place of a democratically elected government,” she said during the Citizen’s Initiative conference in Brussels.

Anderson says she’ll expose and name any individuals, including government officials and parliamentarians, who support the WHO ‘power grab’ and disrespect democracy.

“It is you [WHO] that is the small fringe minority,” she continued. “You are the ones who do not have the right to dictate to the people what they want and what they don’t want.”

“So take it from me … take it from the millions and millions of people around the world. We will bring you down, and we will not tire until we have done just that. So brace yourselves. We are here, and the fight is on. So let’s have the fight.”

Watch:

 

Connect with ZeroHedge 

Taking Rights Seriously: Rights Do Not Require a Government Permission Slip Nor the Approval of Family or Neighbors

 

“Thus, your right to be alive, to think as you wish, to say what you think, to publish what you say, to worship or not, to associate or not, to shake your fist in the tyrant’s face by petitioning the government, your right to defend yourself and repel tyrants using and carrying the same weapons as the government does, your right to be left alone, to own property, to travel or to stay put — these natural aspects of human existence are natural rights that come from our humanity and for the exercise of which all rational persons yearn.”

 

Taking Rights Seriously

by Andrew P. Napolitano, Judge Napolitano
July 13, 2023

 

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion,
and only one person were of the contrary opinion,
Mankind would be no more justified
In silencing that one person,
Than he, if he had the power,
Would be justified in silencing mankind.”

— John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

The world is filled with self-evident truths — truisms — that philosophers, lawyers and judges know need not be proven. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Two plus two equals four. A cup of hot coffee sitting on a table in a room, the temperature of which is 70 degrees Fahrenheit, will eventually cool down.

These examples, of which there are many, are not true because we believe they are true. They are true essentially and substantially. They are true whether we accept their truthfulness or not. Of course, recognizing a universal truth acknowledges the existence of an order of things higher than human reason, certainly higher than government.

The generation of Americans that fought the war of secession against England — according to Professor Murray Rothbard, the last moral war Americans waged — understood the existence of truisms and recognized their origin in nature.

The most famous of these recognitions was Thomas Jefferson’s iconic line in the Declaration of Independence that self-evident truths come not from persons but from “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Thus, “All Men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” is a truism.

Jefferson’s neighbor and colleague, James Madison, understood this as well when he wrote the Bill of Rights so as to reflect that human rights do not come from the government. They come from our individual humanity.

Thus, your right to be alive, to think as you wish, to say what you think, to publish what you say, to worship or not, to associate or not, to shake your fist in the tyrant’s face by petitioning the government, your right to defend yourself and repel tyrants using and carrying the same weapons as the government does, your right to be left alone, to own property, to travel or to stay put — these natural aspects of human existence are natural rights that come from our humanity and for the exercise of which all rational persons yearn.

This is the natural rights understanding of Jefferson’s Declaration and Madison’s Bill of Rights, to the latter of which all in government have sworn allegiance and deference.

A right is not a privilege. A right is an indefeasible personal claim against the whole world. It does not require a government permission slip. It does not require preconditions except the ability to reason. It does not require the approval of family or neighbors.

A privilege is something the government doles out to suit itself or calm the masses. The government gives those who meet its qualifications the privilege to vote so it can claim a form of Jeffersonian legitimacy. Jefferson argued in the Declaration that no government is morally licit without the consent of the governed.

No one alive today has consented to the government, but most accept it. Is acceptance consent? Of course not — no more than walking on a government sidewalk is consent to government’s lies, theft and killing. Surely, the Germans who voted against the Nazis and could not escape their grasp hardly consented to that horrific form of government.

We need to distinguish between privileges that the government doles out and rights that we have by virtue of our humanity, rights so human and natural that they exist in all persons even in the absence of government.

Are our rights equal to each other? Some are equal to each other, but one is greater than all, as none of the rights catalogued briefly above can be exercised without it. That is, of course, the right to live. This is the right most challenging to governments that have enslaved masses and gloried in fighting morally illicit wars that kill and thus destroy the right to live.

But if a right is a claim against the whole world, how can a government — whether popular or totalitarian or both — extinguish it by death or slavery? The short answer is no governments, notwithstanding the public oaths their officers take upon assuming office, accept the natural origins of rights. To government, rights are privileges.

Stated differently, governments do not take rights seriously.

Governments hate and fear the exercise of natural rights. Ludwig von Mises properly called government “the negation of liberty.” Freedom is the default position. We are literally born free, naturally free.

Government is an artificial creation based on a monopoly of force in a geographical area that could not exist if it did not negate our freedoms. Government denies our rights by punishing the exercise of them and by stealing property from us.

Rights are not just claims against the government. They are claims against the whole world. This was best encapsulated by Rothbard’s non-aggression principle, which teaches that initiating all real and threatened aggression — whether by violence, coercion or deception — is morally illicit. That applies to your neighbors as well as to the police.

Of course, in Rothbard’s world, there would be no government police unless all persons consented — and he wouldn’t have. A private police entity — paid to protect life, liberty and property — would be far more efficient and faithful to its job, which it would lose if it failed, than the government’s police, which thrives on assaulting life, liberty and property, and keeping their jobs.

The exercise of rights requires abandonment of fear, acceptance of truth and rejection of compromise with government. As Ayn Rand famously observed, any compromise between good and evil, natural rights and slavery, food and poison, results in death — death of the body, death of liberty, death of both.

Copyright 2023 Andrew P. Napolitano

 

Connect with Andrew P. Napolitano

Cover image credit: Mohamed_hassan

EU Parliament: The People Pushback Against WHO Pandemic Treaty Tyranny

by Patrick Henningsen, 21st Century Wire
July 7, 2023

 

 

BRUSSELS – A group of MEPs, together with a new European Citizens Initiative, have come together in the European Parliament this week to defend their countries’ respective national sovereignty and to voice their opposition to the World Health Organisation’s looming Pandemic Treaty.  

The citizens initiative known as “Trust and Freedom” includes representatives from seven EU countries and has been formed to challenge the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty, as well as the WHO’s creeping International Health Recommendations which also threaten to undermine individual nations’ independent policy decision-making.

The meeting took place on Tuesday July 4th in Brussels, and was led by dissenting MEPs Christine Anderson (Germany), Cristian Terhes (Romania), Mislav Kolakusic, (Croatia), Virginie Jordon (France), and Ivan Vilibor Sincic (Croatia), who were joined by anti-WHO coalition supported by politicians and activists, including British MP Andrew Bridgen (Reclaim Party), Nick Hudson (South Africa/PANDA), Maria Humber-Mogg (Austria), and Justyna Walker (Poland), as well an international team of lawyers led by Philipp Kruse (Switzerland) and Alexander Christ (Germany).

Last year, Germany’s Christine Anderson was one of the first public officials to raise the alarm about the stealth agenda being waged by the globalist operatives in WHO and their partner institutions like the WEF, to reshape their contract between the WHO and EU member states. More worryingly, the new treaty regime would be binding, and would give the WHO de facto governmental authority over EU member states’ public health policies provisions – without consulting national governments or their electorates.

The WHO power-grab would effectively compel governments to surrender their national decision-making and policy authority. Their new powers would include the power to declare a pandemic anywhere in the world, dictate new bio surveillance regimes and restrictions on travel, the regulation of free speech, as well as pushing an endless stream of experimental vaccines and pharmaceutical products – many of which have been shown to be neither safe nor effective.

In effect, this would signal an abrupt end to the last vestiges of democracy for European states already hemorrhaging their national sovereignty, as well as economic and foreign policy decision-making through supranational institutions like the European Union and NATO.

MEP Milslav Kolakusic (Croatia) said that WHO domination over member states’ public health policymaking would lead to endless “cycles of pandemics” and an undetermined amount of doses of experimental vaccines, including an obligation to impose even more injections for newborn infants.

Other political representatives echoed similar concerns.

MEP Cristian Terhes Live from the European Parliament

A citizens initiative called ‘Trust and Freedom’ has been set up to challenge the Pandemic Treaty proposed by the @WHO. 7 European countries, plus international speakers uniting against unelected bureaucracy. pic.twitter.com/uPZhSer4oA

— Coronavirus Plushie (@c_plushie) July 4, 2023

Trust and Freedom: Challenging the @WHO Pandemic Treaty.

"Citizens of all nations need to commit to fighting this tendency towards centralisation at all levels and in all places. The entirety of our wellbeing and freedoms is at stake."@NickHudsonCT speaking at the European… pic.twitter.com/OtL4IJkPvI

— Coronavirus Plushie (@c_plushie) July 4, 2023

Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse reminded the room that, “The public was misled,” and proceeded to warn that the WHO’s unilateral pandemic regulations will lead to more “useless counter measures” and “experimental substances” being unleashed on unsuspecting populations, with pernicious, weaponised propaganda slogans such as ‘No one is safe until everyone is vaccinated.’

“So we are starting this public debate on an international level – to then bring this to where it has to be discussed – to our (national) parliaments,” concluded Kruse.

British MP Andrew Bridgen supports the initiative, and believes cooperation is the key to success, stating, “It’s raising the profile. If the Citizens Initiative in the EU could work and stop the WHO power grab, I don’t mind where it happens. We’re all completely aligned, and we all know the tyranny that’s involved in what the WHO, through the UN, are doing to all our citizens…I’ll stand shoulder to shoulder with my European colleagues – whether they’re MEPs or members of their own local parliaments.”

“The sooner we turn the page on this dark chapter in our human history, the better for all of us,” added Bridgen.

We’re in Brussels at EU Parliament for European Citizens Initiative against the authoritarian #WHO Pandemic Treaty, had a chance to catch up with panel speaker British MP @ABridgen after the session about why this effort is crucial now… #TrustandFreedom @CoviLeaksCVVAM pic.twitter.com/M6aEbwdmVk

— Patrick Henningsen (@21WIRE) July 4, 2023

MEP Anderson did not pull any punch when it came to signalling her intent to the WHO and its technocrats.

“Take it from the millions and millions of people around the world, we will bring you down. And we will not tire until we have done just that. So brace yourselves, we are here and the fight is on,” said Anderson.

Indeed, the WHO has been put on notice. 

EXCLUSIVE REPORT: Trust and Freedom – Challenging the Pandemic Treaty at the European Parliament, Brussels

A collaboration between @OracleFilmsUK and Grit News.

We headed to Brussels at the EU Parliament where MEPs and 7 representatives from their respective countries came… pic.twitter.com/XbtVDdld0o

— Grit News (@Grit_News) July 7, 2023

Watch the Full Livestream of the Event by Oracle Films HERE

 

Connect with 21st Century Wire

Follow Grit News at Telegram

Follow Oracle Films at YouTube

---

See Related:

Download Press Release: 

 

PRESS RELEASE

6th of July 2023

CITIZENS FROM SEVEN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES INTRODUCE TRUST AND FREEDOM INITIATIVE AS EUROPEAN CITIZENS’ INITIATIVE (ECI)

On the 4th of July, seven citizens from different European countries unveiled an influential proposal for the new European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) known as

The Trust and Freedom Initiative is a resolute response to the power consolidation observed in governments and institutions, where extensive negotiations with non- governmental and non-transparent organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), occur. Citizens express concerns about the looming threat to freedom of choice, particularly regarding personal health decisions, as well as a loss of trust in governmental institutions negotiating legal documents such as amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and the proposed WHO Treaty.

The seven citizens behind the Trust and Freedom initiative are: Ms Justyna Walker (Poland)

Mr Mattias Desmet (Belgium)

Ms Maria Hubmer-Mogg (Austria) Mr Alexander Christ (Germany)

Mr Ladislav Vrabel (Czech Republic)

Ms Isabel Eliseu Arroseiro de Mesquita (Portugal) Mr Georgi Todorov (Bulgaria)

These citizens, representing the collective voice of concerned individuals from across Europe, have taken the initiative to directly address their concerns and advocate for greater trust and freedom within the European Union.

The announcement of the initiative proposal took place at the European Parliament in Brussels on the 4th of July and received support from notable Members of the European Parliament:

• Christine Anderson (Germany)

• Cristian Terheș (Romania)

• Ivan Vilibor Sinčić (Croatia)

• Mislav Kolakušić (Croatia)

• Virginie Joron (France)

These MEPs recognize the significance of the Trust and Freedom initiative in safeguarding individual freedoms and promoting it within the European Union.

The Trust and Freedom initiative represents a united effort by citizens across Europe to directly address their concerns through the ECI process. To amplify their impact, a three-hour debate was held in the European Parliament in Brussels, where Members of the European Parliament and esteemed panelists from around the world voiced their opinions.

Philipp Kruse, Dr. Peter McCullough, MP Andrew Bridgen, Fiona Hine, Dr. David E. Martin, Gerald Hauser, Nataniel Pawlowski, Pastor Artur Pawlowski, and Nick Hudson, shared their expertise and insights during the debate, contributing to the development and significance of the Trust and Freedom initiative.

The Trust and Freedom initiative is committed to keeping the public informed about its progress in the coming weeks. Regular updates and detailed information about the initiative can be found on the official website at www.euci.info.

Interested individuals can also contact the team via contact@euci.info and follow the initiative on Twitter @TrustAndFreedom

“We believe that For media inquiries or further information, please contact:

contact@euci.info

About Trust and Freedom:

Trust and Freedom is a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI)

 

 

Video Mirrored at Odysee

 

When Dissent Ends, Transhumanism Reigns, and Digitization Rules, Humanity Will Cease to Be Human

by Gary D. Barnett
June 27, 2023

 

“The only thing worth globalizing is dissent.”

~  Arundhati Roy

Self-defense comes in many forms, but all defense of self begins and ends with dissent, non-compliance, disobedience, saying no to any and all rule, and never allowing aggression against mind and body; mental or physical. Without dissent, defense is not possible, because when voluntary compliance is the prevailing behavior, whether sought, desired, or not, all defense mechanisms are effectively disarmed. In other words, silence in the face of injustice, immorality, terror, or tyranny, creates a condition of weakness, submission, and irresponsibility, which are all the fodder of indifference.

When you say nothing, when you do not say no, when you take no action against evil, you commit evil. By not speaking out, and by not responding, you have spoken loudly, and openly committed an act of cowardice. The ultimate blame lies not just with the aggressor in this circumstance, but also equally with he who hides and remains silent.

In “Beyond Good and Evil,” Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: “He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.” This is an accurate description of the phenomenon of becoming what one lives, so if you live in a state of indifference, ignoring the evil around you, accepting it in order to avoid conflict and responsibility, you become the evil you have chosen to ignore. The dark abyss in this circumstance, is created by your own inaction against it.

What we face as a society, is the most tremendous threat ever perceived or active in the history of mankind. Do you scoff at this seemingly ‘bold’ pronouncement? If so, you are already fooled, and a major contributor to the vast problems rampant in our world today. Instead of the State just singularly seeking war, the continuance of the bogus Federal Reserve System, isolated government corruption, communism, fascism, or any broad-based totalitarian assault on certain segments of society, we are all being bombarded from a thousand different directions at once with all these atrocities and many more, including attacks on our freedom and sovereignty, on our minds and bodies, and on every aspect of our being.

Due to the colossal advances in technology, which in many more ways than not are being used against us in order to build a literal transhuman world run by technocratic means, we are facing what could be considered a technological Armageddon, where all control over humanity will be isolated in the hands of the most powerful few. To accept this, to treat it as normal or eminent, is a most fatal error, and one that could determine our fate in perpetuity.

When humanity ceases to exist in any natural form, when male and female become one, when transhumanism and mind control are inescapable realities, when perversion is commonly accepted, the presence of life that we have all known to be magical and a wonder, will have disappeared. The world being designed is not a world of love, hope, and dreams, it is a nightmare of horror, and those pursuing this downfall of man have already lost all human characteristics. They are monsters, so we must fight and defeat them without becoming monsters ourselves.

There is a reason that the children, beginning in infancy, are targeted by State indoctrination, drugs, chemicals, bioweapon injections masquerading as ‘vaccines,’  insane propaganda, distraction, gross perversion, and are pulled away from family mentally and physically throughout their lives. This, in and of itself, if allowed to continue, will guarantee mind destruction of multiple future generations, and that will secure a fully dumbed-down, compliant, and obedient proletariat mass in the future. At that point, total control by the technocrats over humanity will have been achieved.

While technology has the capability to accomplish many great things, in the hands of these monsters who seek universal control, it can also be used to destroy us. Many refer to this technological phenomenon as ‘artificial intelligence,’ (AI) but there is no such thing. This false terminology is being used against us, as machines are not intelligent, they are programmed by intelligence, or so it is believed. When man becomes a machine, real intelligence ends, and a programmed society of slaves is the result. AI is ‘defined’ as “perceiving, synthesizing, and inferring information–demonstrated by computers, as opposed to intelligence displayed by humans or other animals.” 

Intelligence is defined as the ability to learn, reason, and understand, so honest intelligence cannot be artificial, and machines are still machines. The transhuman digitization of man will mean the end of all traditional life as we know it.

The bulk of this society, has already succumbed to a digital world, and relies on what is falsely labeled ‘social media’ as parent, family, and friend, disregarding the natural state of personal communication, love, companionship, debate, and the grandeur of nature. At this point, the future is not owned by you, but is owned by your masters. All privacy has disappeared, and most all private and financial transactions are captured and data-based.

Every aspect of life is now tracked, traced, used, surveilled, restricted, censored, taxed, and every activity imaginable requires licensure (paid permission slip) by the State. You are already a slave, whether you realize it or not.

The plot continues to thicken, as centrally-controlled digital currencies (CBDCs) are being rolled out around the world, which will allow for most every individual to be fully contained and regulated. This will lead to mass restrictions as to what you are allowed to do, where you may travel – if at all, what food you must eat, what medical care you may or may not receive, what State stipend you will be allotted, how much energy you will be permitted to use, and on, and on.

Everything in your existence will depend on behavior modification; in other words, do as you are instructed by the State technocratic rulers, or lose everything, as your entire life will be technologically sanctioned.

It is imperative to understand that everything you think you know about technology, and technological advances, is likely at a minimum, 20 years behind. Every so-called new discovery and new technology recognized as such, are not new at all. What the military has now, and is working on today, is unknown to most all except the very few at the top of the pyramid of power. To understand and grasp this concept, should strike fear in the hearts of man.

The internet, and therefore, the internet of things, was not discovered and implemented by some computer geek, but was designed and created by the military through the “Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.” (DARPA) Getting to this terroristic time in our history was no accident, and was intentionally planned long ago. We have little time left to stop this totalitarian hell that has been created in order to destroy what we know as the human race.

Will you continue to sit on the sideline, keeping your eyes closed, your ears covered, and your mouth shut, or will you stand up and defend your freedom and life, and that of your family? The only solution, as I have often said, is through active dissent. Say no to the State, disobey, do not comply with any tyrannical order, and do so as individuals en masse. No one can do this for you, but it can and should be done by many independent freedom-minded individuals.

Asking someone else for a solution for the masses as a collective, is worthless, and exposes apathy at a level that if practiced by the herd as it has been for so long, the end of humanity will surely be our destiny.

“Has there ever been a society which has died of dissent? Several have died of conformity in our lifetime.”

~ Jacob Bronowski, Science & Human Values

 

Connect with Gary D. Barnett

Cover image credit: marcusspiske

Matt Ehret on the Occultic History of the United States

 

Excerpts from the video interview with Jeremy Nell found below:

 

“Whether or not we align ourselves with truthful ideas, that are in harmony with natural law or in defiance of said law, is really a question of whether or not we’re fit to survive or not, and whether we’re gonna be enslaved by an oligarchical class who themselves are devoted to a very specific set of very perverted wrong ideas that they’re religiously committed to.

“Whether we tolerate that indefinitely or not, I don’t think the universe has that in our destiny. I don’t think we’re wired for that ultimate destiny to be just a slave society.”

“By looking at the structures of control over the next 2,500 years, they’ve always used something similar to seduce… people who are mystically-minded or superstitious.

“They need people… who have not taken the time to use their own minds as tools responsibly, and are still locked in a realm of superstition, to then be seduced to come in as initiates into their different lodges…”

“…In the case of like South Carolina, half of the state legislature were black slaves who were elected.

“In the 1870s, you could see the configuration of the South Carolina state legislature and state senators, and half of them are black people.

“This is the state where, 80 years later, you weren’t allowed to vote if you were black. There were Jim Crow laws and lynchings.

“So you’re like, how did that happen? How did that regression happen?…”

“I don’t know exactly what (to answer your question) is going to be required for people to finally wake up to this actual, insidious deep-state operation inside of the heart of America. I don’t know what the answer is to that.

“The way I tend to look at the oligarchies, at these secret societies, and what the oligarchies, upper echelons, actually believe in, I see it as a bit of a controlled form of insanity that has persevered over a very long period of time based on its momentum.

“There’s a certain power of momentum that has maintained its continuity. But ultimately, it’s a technique of perverting their own children…

“But one of the big obsessions that they put a lot of time into is thinking about how do you ensure that your institution will maintain itself despite the fact that it demands unhuman modes of conduct in your children and managers — the managerial class that will maintain your system after you die? They think trans-generationally.

“And so there has been a cultivation of a perverse form of education for the elites, grooming for the elites, both as children and as they go out…”

“So I don’t think that they really do have secret knowledge… I do believe that they believe that they do.

“I do believe that they believe that they can get all sorts of weird, nasty energy from their victims, their sacrificial victims, and I do believe that the believe in all sorts of demonic forces…”

“But again I see it as a perversity. I don’t see it as real secret knowledge. But it has power in the sense of the belief that causes actions to be put in a certain direction always.

“They will religiously always do certain things the same way, no matter what, which is why these oligarchies come close to their transhuman and new world order on many occasions in the past.

“Even before the word transhumanism was coined, they still wanted it. It was just called feudalism, managed by a master class of “beyond humans” who expected their slaves to perceive them as if they were gods or other forms of supernatural deities that you couldn’t possibly contend with because you’re just a lowly mortal.”

“If the oligarchy was as powerful as they want us to believe they are…they already would have won. We wouldn’t be here having this conversation.

“The reason why we have this space, this time, that has been won for us, has a lot to do with the fact that Russia and China and India increasingly have chosen to exit the unipolar system, which was supposed to be the controlled demolition of the economy, like they did in 1929.

“They were planning on doing this in 2009 when the first economic collapse could have taken down the entire system. They had to postpone that. Because, again, they need everybody in the same building when it’s lit on fire and demolished.”

“So I think the oligarchy — they try to project an image of being these immortal gods of Olympus. But they’re really more like the emperor that has no clothes. They’re a lot more insecure than than we think.”

 

Matt Ehret on the Occultic History of the United States

by Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare
originally published December 1, 2022
updated June 25, 2023

 

 

Matthew Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review.

The Federal Bureau Of Investigation (FBI) is the domestic intelligence and security service of the United States, officially charged with investigating federal crimes.

It was founded in 1908 as the Bureau Of Investigation (BOI) by attorney general Charles Bonaparte. The BOI was created in response to the growing threat of “anarchism” and other forms of political violence.

In 1919, the BOI was reorganised and renamed the Division Of Investigation (DOI).

In 1924, J Edgar Hoover was appointed director of the DOI.

He served as director of the FBI for 48 years, from 1924 to 1972. During his tenure, Hoover made the FBI a powerful force in American law enforcement.

However, most don’t know about its Masonic and otherwise occultic history which played an important role in the shadowy governance of the United States and manipulation of the system.

Albert Pike (1809-1891) was an American attorney, soldier, writer, and Freemason.

He is best known for his prominent role within Freemasonry and his contributions to Masonic literature.

Albert joined the Masonic fraternity in 1850 and rose to prominence within the organisation. HIs most notable work is his book Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, published in 1871. It is considered one of the most influential works on Freemasonry and explores the philosophy, symbolism, and rituals of the Scottish Rite.

Officially, Freemasonry is a fraternal organisation that traces its origins back to the medieval guilds of stonemasons. It developed into a broader social and philosophical movement in the 17th and 18th centuries. Freemasonry is known for its symbolism, rituals, and principles of moral and ethical conduct.

My conversation with Matt is based on his documentary The Origins of America’s Secret Police: Ancient Roots of Occult Societies & Intelligence Operations.

 Video available at Jerm Warfare Odysee & Rumble channels.

 

Connect with Matthew Ehret

Connect with Jeremy Nell

Cover image based on creative commons work of: Ti_ & MDARIFLIMAT

---

See Matt Ehret’s Documentary “The Origins of America’s Secret Police: Ancient Roots of Occult Societies & Intelligence Operations”

 Video available at Rumble, YouTube & Odysee

 

The Truth Will Set All of Us Free

by Caitlin Johnstone, Caitlin’s Newsletter
June 23, 2023

 

“You have to start with the truth. The truth is the only way that we can get anywhere. Because any decision-making that is based upon lies or ignorance can’t lead to a good conclusion.”

~ Julian Assange

‘The truth will set you free’ is an aphorism we’ve all heard so many times it’s lost a lot of its meaning and doesn’t sound especially profound when we hear it again, but it really does contain the answer to humanity’s most difficult problems. A truth-based relationship with reality is the only way to move into peace and harmony, whether you’re talking about the inner peace and harmoniousness of an individual or the peace and harmony of our entire species.

For the individual, you can’t generally come to inner peace and a harmonious way of moving in the world until you’ve done a lot of inner work and gotten extremely real with yourself about your experiences, your relationships, your ways of thinking about things, your behavior patterns, and your motivations. The deepest levels of peace and freedom open up when we have transformative insights into the truth of our very nature: the nature of consciousness, mind, and self.

It doesn’t come from trying to be a nicer person, from praying to the right god or espousing the right belief system. True and lasting peace and freedom comes from a penetrating realization of what is already the case. It comes from knowing what’s true.

This is a bit counter-intuitive, because our minds and our culture tell us that we get peace and happiness from getting what we want — the right accomplishments, the right job, the right belongings, the right romantic partner, the right circumstances. But none of those things will ever take us where we’re really trying to get to. Only the truth will.

And it’s exactly the same for a group of people, and for humanity as a whole.

Real widespread change can only come from knowledge of the truth — that’s why those who don’t want widespread change pour so much energy into keeping people from knowing what’s true. That’s why there’s such a frenzied push for more internet censorship and for the government to get more involved in regulating speech. That’s why our civilization is saturated with propaganda. And that’s why Julian Assange is in prison.

Real change will only occur when a sufficient number of people realize that we live in a profoundly unjust society held together by violence and lies, where our very existence is being imperiled by nuclear brinkmanship and environmental destruction. Because only then will enough people begin mobilizing to use the power of our numbers to force the changes we need.

Again, this is somewhat counter-intuitive, because we’ve been told all our lives by our schools and our media that we get change by voting for political candidates we like. But our electoral systems are stacked against change, and the candidates are controlled by interests who seek to keep things more or less the way they are. This means change can only be arrived at by widespread forceful rejection of the entire system, and widespread forceful rejection of the entire system can only come through truth.

So the truth will set us free, but those who don’t want our freedom are doing everything they can to obstruct, obfuscate and distort the truth. The good news is that there are a whole lot of us, and (for now at least) we do have the ability to share the truth about what’s going on with each other. And the more people understand what’s going on, the more people there are to help share the truth with others.

The first step is spreading awareness of the fact that our civilization is saturated in propaganda, because propaganda only works if you don’t know it’s happening. Helping people to understand that they’ve been lied to their whole lives about their nation, their government, their society and their world will help shake them free from their propaganda blinders, so that they can begin to figure out what’s true.

By working toward a collective understanding of what’s real in this way, humanity can come into a truth-based relationship with reality, one freshly opened pair of eyelids at a time. And, just as a truth-based relationship with reality inevitably brings peace and harmony to the life of the individual, a truth-based relationship with reality will bring peace and harmony to the life of our entire species.

Truth is its own reward. It’s not always pleasant when you get it, and it might not be obvious at first that it’s helping to move things in a positive direction, but every step toward health and harmony begins with truth. The more opportunities we have to experience this fact in our own lives, the more obvious it becomes.

 

Connect with Caitlin Johnstone

Cover image credit: satish155

Leslie Manookian on Joe Rogan’s Challenge to Peter Hotez That He Debate RFK Jr. on the Safety of Vaccines

 

My Time with Peter (Hotez) 

by Leslie Manookian, Heretic with Leslie Manookian
June 20, 2023

 

In the glorious aftermath of Robert Kennedy Jr. red-pilling Joe Rogan about vaccines; other toxic but government approved products like glyphosate, atrazine, and PFOAs; and the malfeasance of government agencies, vaccine developer Dr. Peter Hotez seriously miscalculated or suffered an unfortunate lapse of judgement when he accused Kennedy of spreading misinformation. He thus unleashed a storm of criticism he surely never expected. Rogan publicly offered Hotez $100,000 donated to the charity of his choice if he would come on the show to debate Kennedy. Other onlookers chipped in and the donation promise mounted. Last I looked, the offer stood at $2.6 million but Hotez is not taking it!

Never before has the refusal of vaccine apologists to debate vaccine critics spoken louder of their ties to big pharma, big media, big government, and big academia.

Observing the last few years, millions have not just awoken to the reality of conflicts of interest and captured media, industry, and government, but also to true authoritarian censorship. Unfortunately, while millions may be forgiven for believing this is a recent development, the reality is far different.

I’ve been smeared by media outlets like the New York Times and CBS. Congressman Adam Schiff wrote to big tech and had my movie The Greater Good and the movies and books of many others removed from big tech platforms. Those of us working on vaccine safety awareness and health freedom issues know this is nothing new and has, instead, been standard practice for decades.

And Peter Hotez has acted as a loyal foot soldier to the big pharma lobby in their condemnable battle against honest citizens who’ve witnessed vaccine injury close up. His dishonesty is now on full display for all to see – but again, it’s not new.

In 2021, Hotez tweeted false claims about investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson alleging she had endorsed an article comparing him to Joseph Mengele, placed him in harm’s way through “dangerous and hurtful” conduct, and called for his doxing. He even suggested she was connected to white nationalists and was sending him images of Nuremberg. To call Hotez a liar is an understatement. Hotez exhibits a particularity dangerous and pathological behavior in that he is not merely dishonest but a fabricator of falsehoods intended to destroy those with different opinions.

Unfortunately, I have had my own experience with Hotez.

On October 2, 2019, a pediatrician, the Idaho State Health and Welfare epidemiologist, Hotez, and I, were guests on the NPR/Boise Public Radio show Idaho Matters. Some might argue 2019 was a prelude to what was to come in 2020 as the relatively small increase in measles cases was being hyped worldwide and weaponized against those demanding bodily autonomy and truth in science. Hotez’ conduct on the show illustrates perfectly the kind of person we’re now seeing unmasked – and it’s not a very flattering image.

Hotez employs slurs, ad hominem attacks, and falsehoods to smear his challengers from the vaccine safety awareness community. Again, this kind of treatment is not new. During the radio show, Hotez made the following statements:

1) that there is an “aggressive anti-vaccine lobby”

2) that I repeated “anti-vaccine tropes”

3) that I compared the measles cases in NY to the national population to “deliberately mislead”

4) that the concept of health and medical freedom is a “phony concept”

5) that I and other parents “download vaccine misinformation” from the internet

6) that the “anti-vaccine lobby is a media empire” with over 480 “misinformation websites”

7) that parents can’t put children in harm’s way because of “misinformation”

8) that I stated 89,000 vaccine “injuries” have been reported to VAERS after MMR

9) that Hotez is going to “correct the misinformation” I gave and give the “real information”

Additionally, Hotez insinuated I was lying when I stated that a local woman developed MS from a vaccine by saying there is no evidence of that. The young woman in question had to leave our community with her three children as she was no longer able to care for her family. She spent time on a neurological ward at a hospital in Salt Lake City, UT and there were many others suffering neurological complications from flu vaccines.

So, let’s address his claims:

1) There is a genuine grassroots effort of vaccine injured families raising awareness about the lack of quality science on vaccines. Specific problems with vaccine safety studies are the lack of genuine placebos (mercury, aluminum or another vaccine is used), short duration (studies can last as few as 3 days), lack of comparison to completely unvaccinated populations, lack of studies evaluating all the combinations in which vaccines are given, lack of studies evaluating health outcomes of the vaccination schedule. There are a couple of studies comparing health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children and they overwhelmingly show the health of unvaccinated children is superior. The truth is that big pharma, which includes the vaccine industry, is the largest lobby group in the US shelling out $250 million each year, spends $35 billion on ads annually thereby “owning” the media, pays more than half the drug approvers’ salaries at FDA, and controls the medical journals through the purchase of glossy reprints.

2) Everything I stated was based on official data from US agencies or data from peer-reviewed published studies. It’s there for anyone to see – you just have to dig a little deeper than the mainstream media. In fact, these days, you may have to employ an independent search engine because google rigs its results to downplay anything that challenges officialdom. I don’t repeat tropes, I know the science and would gladly debate Hotez or any other vaccine pusher about the true science of vaccines, including all we don’t know.

3) I did not compare measles cases in NY to the national population. I compared the total amount of measles cases according to CDC to the total US population. To understand how the public has been misled about the dangers of measles, the cases, and the role of vaccines, check out these articles at Children’s Health Defense.

4) Health and medical freedom are not a “phony” concept. Children have been kidnapped by hospitals and CPS for refusing the Hep B shot at birth or deciding a fever has passed and there’s no need for medical attention. There is nothing phony about parents having their children stolen from them because they’ve done what they think is best for their children. Millions have been injured by vaccines and there is a mountain of science documenting the risks and shortcomings of vaccines. To suggest otherwise is not only dishonest, it’s immoral.

5) All the information I give in all forums is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate and derived from published peer-reviewed research or US government data. It is not misinformation in any way, shape or form, no matter how often or loudly Hotez or other vaccine industry stakeholders shout about it. (Notice, Hotez and his ilk were calling us misinformation spreaders years ago – it’s not a new derision.) Rather, parents like me have advanced degrees and are highly educated. We can read science and discern when we’re being misled. We understand when an issue is being whitewashed. We understand experts can be bought and we’re smart enough, strong enough, and well-educated enough to call them out – we’re just not usually given the chance.

6) The vaccine awareness safety movement is largely not “anti-vaccine”. Rather, it is comprised primarily of ex-vaccinators who’ve witnessed the dangers of vaccines first hand. Would you call them anti-car seat for wanting safe car seats for their children? If someone chooses to only eat organic food, does that make them anti-food? If someone chooses filtered water based on the science related to a specific filter does that make them anti-water? If someone chooses to live in the countryside does that make them anti-city? This slur has been weaponized to smear and dehumanize individuals and their choices rather than address the damage sustained by them or their children from government approved products. It’s a ridiculous leap that has been normalized and is the go-to rhetoric for dismissing well-educated, well-researched individuals as loony dissenters. Many parents who once enthusiastically embraced vaccinations have now adjusted their posture choosing not to vaccinate and challenging the official narrative, but that results from personal negative experience, not some words they read on the internet.

7) Parents are protecting their children and themselves from the injection of known toxins that can damage the neurological system, the immune system, the gastrointestinal system, and more. Vaccines contain myriad toxins which have never been tested singly or in combination for toxicity, yet they are readily injected into our tiny, newborn babies as though no possible downside exists. This is prima facie not just wrong, but indisputably unethical.

8) I stated correctly that there have been 89,000 reports of adverse reactions to measles vaccines.  Hotez’ number of 221 is the number who actually received compensation from the impossibly corrupted Vaccine Compensation Program.

But Hotez didn’t just tell fibs about me, he told his own. He claimed that Dr. Greg Poland’s work shows 2 doses of the measles vaccine causes protection in 97% of recipients. Unfortunately for Hotez, Poland wrote in his January 2014 article The Re-Emergence of Measles in Developed Countries: Time to Develop the Next-Generation Measles Vaccines?:

“While the current vaccine is acknowledged as a good vaccine, we and others have demonstrated that the immune response to measles vaccine varies substantially in actual field use. Multiple studies demonstrate that 2–10% of those immunized with two doses of measles vaccine fail to develop protective antibody levels, and that immunity can wane over time and result in infection (so-called secondary vaccine failure) when the individual is exposed to measles. For example, during the 1989–1991 U.S. measles outbreaks 20–40% of the individuals affected had been previously immunized with one to two doses of vaccine. In an October 2011 outbreak in Canada, over 50% of the 98 individuals had received two doses of measles vaccine. The Table shows that this phenomenon continues to play a role in measles outbreaks. Thus, measles outbreaks also occur even among highly vaccinated populations because of primary and secondary vaccine failure, which results in gradually larger pools of susceptible persons and outbreaks once measles is introduced [8]. This leads to a paradoxical situation whereby measles in highly immunized societies occurs primarily among those previously immunized [8].”

Call me a lay person, but it does not take a scientist to understand words like “primary and secondary vaccine failure” or the “paradoxical situation of highly vaccinated groups being more susceptible.” Hmmm. When have I heard about vaccines undermining the immune system and rendering vaccinees more susceptible to illness?

While it wasn’t Hotez who made the absurd claim that vaccines are one of the best tested medicines available, I feel I’d be remiss by not correcting that whopper. The truth is vaccine safety studies do not use genuine placebos, they instead utilize another vaccine or solution containing mercury or aluminum as the placebo. Absent placebo-controlled studies, it is preposterous to claim that vaccines are well tested and one cannot make any claims about safety or efficacy without a proper placebo-controlled study. NONE. Not to mention that vaccine safety studies evaluate one vaccine but vaccines are administered in groups of as many as 8 doses of vaccines in a day. Nor are the health outcomes of vaccinated compared to those of the unvaccinated. To argue this is robust science is laughable. To understand the shortcomings of vaccine science, watch my movie, The Greater Good.

Hotez has deep ties to the pharmaceutical industry, spent his career developing vaccines and holds patents on vaccines, rendering him a seriously conflicted participant in any debate about vaccines. One would never ask someone from the coal industry about the safety of coal-fired power plants but when it comes to vaccine-connected physicians and scientists, we somehow give them a free pass. Perhaps worse still is the glaring lack of disclosure made by media when media presents these so-called experts with vested interests. Nary a word was mentioned about Hotez’ background in his introduction on the show.

In addition, Hotez makes disparaging remarks about those who deviate from the official orthodoxy of vaccines dispensed by the pharmaceutical industry and the health agencies that receive vast sums from that industry without any consequence or challenge from the compliant media.

As I wrap things up, let me share one last tidbit which illustrates the type of sick individual Hotez is; I did not have time to mention this during the show, but he has stated that the parents of vaccine injured children “hate their children and are a hate group.” Seriously.

It beggars belief that Hotez has any credibility as an expert but the pharma-influenced media doesn’t bat an eye at such outrageous comments.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would do the world a service by debating Hotez but my experience speaks volumes about Hotez’ true colors – he’s not interested in an exchange of different views, respectable debate, or an examination of the body of science. You can hear it yourself in the show, all he does is disparage me and those who have concerns about the safety of vaccines likely in the hopes that others will dismiss our concerns without further investigation.

Hopefully, his latest antics will undermine any vestigial credibility he may have had.

 

Connect with Leslie Manookian

Cover image credit: PM. (The Post Millennial)

[TCTL editor’s note: To keep up with growing amount of money being offered to Peter Hotez (for his favorite charity) for a debate with RFK Jr., see Joe Rogan’s twitter feed. TCTL is still suspended from twitter (that happened years ago) but you can view JRE’s feed whether you have an account or not.]

Jerm Warfare: Andrew Johnson on 9/11 and Directed Energy Weapons

 

Andrew Johnson on 9/11 and Directed Energy Weapons

by Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare
originally published May 25, 2023, updated June 19, 2023

 

A Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) is a ranged weapon that damages its target with highly focused energy without a solid projectile.

DEWs can use a variety of energy sources including lasers, microwaves, particle beams and sound beams.

The concept has been around for centuries, but the technology has only recently become mature enough to be considered for military use. For example, the first DEWs were developed in the early 20th century, but they were not very powerful and had limited range.

In recent decades there has been a significant increase in research and development of DEWs, and several countries now have operational DEW systems.

Some countries, such as the United States, are actively developing DEWs, while others, such as China, are concerned about the potential for DEWs to be used in war.

To my knowledge, the cost of developing and deploying DEWs is much more expensive than conventional weapons. They can be used to defend against missiles, aircraft, and can also be used to disable electronic systems.

But there is an even darker reality.

What if Directed Energy Weapons were used to destroy the Twin Towers?

My conversation with Judy Wood suggests exactly that.

And so does my following conversation with Andrew Johnson, whose book about the gatekeeping (whether by design or emergence) within the “9/11 truth movement” acts as a form of censorship and suppression of the facts.

To be clear, the official story is bunk.

I am torn between the mini-nuke “controlled demolition” hypothesis and the DEW hypothesis presented by Judy and Andrew (and others).

However, there are far too many anomalies that don’t fit into the mini-nuke argument.

Andrew’s following slideshow is explosive.

He analyses what actually happened in relation to DEW and includes commentary on mind-bending physics surrounding the Hutchinson Effect and Nikola Tesla, as well as geoengineering and

• the Columbia University seismographic data,
• NASA AVIRIS dust and iron spectrometer imaging,
• all seven WTC buildings destroyed,
• steel from the Twin Towers turning to dust in mid-air,
• relative lack of rubble compared to explosive controlled demolitions,
• rapid spontaneous rusting of metal from the buildings,
• over 1400 vehicles melted or warped while some distance away,
• numerous flipped cars,
• ground zero fuming for years without being hot,
• numerous unharmed survivors in WTC stairwells,
• unburned paper,
• unburned clothing,
• unburned pedestrians,
• elevated levels of tritium,
• lack of ionizing radiation, and
• glowing and molten materials.

He also chatted about suppression and censorship of the aforementioned.



View video at Odysee

 

Connect with Jerm Warfare

Cover image credit: WikiImages

A Brief Moment of Freedom

by Gary D. Barnett
June 19, 2023

 

“The Peace of Wild Things

When despair for the world grows in me
and I wake in the night at the least sound
in fear of what my life and my children’s lives may be,
I go and lie down where the wood drake
rests in his beauty on the water, and the great heron feeds.
I come into the peace of wild things
who do not tax their lives with forethought
of grief. I come into the presence of still water.
And I feel above me the day-blind stars
waiting with their light. For a time
I rest in the grace of the world, and am free.”

~ Wendell Berry, The Selected Poems of Wendell Berry

I spent this past week in the clutches of nature, and. freed my mind from the confusion and horror of man’s grip on the perceived reality of controlled enslavement. I left the world of what is falsely labeled civilization, and washed my soul with the grandeur of life beyond man.

To escape the madness of crowds in the solitude and quiet of the outdoors, and experience the sanctity of all things wild, causes an awakening that can never be achieved by any other means.

No one can free another, he has to free himself, and in order to do so, he has to encounter his inner being without foreign interference from the daily absurdity of human hysteria. It is what is inside that matters, it is not what others think or do, but what one is able to accomplish in his own mind and spirit.

I walked in the woods, climbed mountains, looked in awe at the great Tetons and all the mountains and rivers too rarely seen by most. I fished alone in the presence of nature, I watched moose, elk, deer, antelope, birds, reptiles, and insects, and abandoned the thoughts that haunt me. I walked for many miles in wild country and forests, I was drenched by spring rains, was in the midst of storms and lightning bolts, alerting me to my minor importance in this sea of nature.

It is good to be alone; not always, but often. One can never really cleanse and clarify his mind without escaping the grip of the human propaganda, lies, and deceit; all meant to create a false reality.

I write so that others may at least have a different perspective on all that consumes us in this life of perplexing turmoil caused by the arrogance of man. Is this effort too presumptuous? I think not, for my intent is not to preach, to force, to lie, to advance only my own opinions, or create my own narratives, but simply to awaken a few to the reality, truth, and beauty of life.

If I accomplish anything in this pursuit, I hope it is just to build a spark of curiosity, rebellion, and a seeking of honest independent thought. Life is a great adventure, but the bulk of humanity has abandoned most of the good in life by accepting the false promises of others, instead of experiencing the wonder of nature, self, and family.

We have watched as rulers, kings, politicians, and perverted and murderous governments, have taken control of all aspects of our existence. In this country, most are once again in the midst of choosing their next ruler. It matters not to most it seems, that this process has failed miserably every time it has been tried in history, nor that we are on the precipice of yet another political disaster, regardless  of which worthless piece of scum thought to be honorable gains the power to control the masses; and of course, by voluntary acceptance by the herd.

Why not look to self for redemption, instead of relying on those who purposely choose to rule over you; telling you how to live, breathe, and how to structure your lives? Why not rely on self in order to make decisions as to how to live, where to go, what work to do, what property to own, what beliefs to accept or not, and what is best for you and your family? Why not gain the strength necessary to eliminate your slavery to this heinous State, by looking around you, and understanding the majesty that is life and nature without the chains of dominant rule and authority by those who pretend to know what is best for you? For once and for all, strike down the State, experience life to its fullest, walk in the presence of nature, rely on self, and condemn any who presume to place themselves above you?

Only without rule can freedom ever be experienced. Only without the State can each of us travel our own path, loving every moment of life, instead of being locked in the insanity of what is called ‘modern civilization.’

Is it civilized to accept war and murder of innocents? Is it civilized to allow the brutality that is the exploitation of children by perverted State players, and the dregs of  ‘society’ who are empowered by the State to promote immoral behavior? Is it civilized to live your lives at the expense of others due to the State’s theft of private property? Is it civilized to be locked in your own homes, told you must wear a suffocating mask, told to take a bioweapon injection whether you want it or not? Is it civilized for the few who gain rule to tax all others to enhance their power over you? Is it civilized to be told to shut down your businesses, fire your employees, and care not about the plight of others? Is it civilized to watch the total destruction of this earth by governments seeking global rule? Is it civilized to be poisoned, controlled, starved to death, have your wealth destroyed due to inflationary currency expansion, and be surveilled by the horrendous State in every aspect of your daily lives?

Is anything that the State does civilized, or is all that the State does evil? The answer to this question should be brutally obvious.

Get away from the State whores, and into nature, and you will at once see what freedom really looks like. Take a break from the false reality presented by the political class, the media, the promoters of socialism, fascism, communism, and yes, ‘democracy,’ and all those who think they are owed something at the expense of others.

Listen to no one, and reclaim your own spirit and soul, by taking away all power from any who choose to rule.

Most will ignore this plea, and will continue on this road to hell, but some will not accept the madness, and they will be left with their sanity and their freedom, regardless of the abominable circumstances surrounding them.

We need no obscene president, we need no politician, we need no rule, we need no government master; we only need to reclaim ourselves.

Grasp a brief moment of freedom, and maybe you will then seek more of it. The more real freedom that is experienced, whether in mind, body, or both, the more precious it will become.

Walk in nature, observe the beauty of all life around you, and spend time alone to reflect on the madness of humanity. Climb mountains, experience all plants and animals, spend time on rivers, lakes, and oceans, and bask in the beauty and wonder of it all. In this human world of today, most everything is psychotic, and rife with grief, perversion, confusion, hate, and rule.

To escape this insanity, seek the solace of all the good we have before us, look inside yourself instead of depending on those seeking power over you. When you do this, you will awaken to a better place.

“How narrow we selfish conceited creatures are in our sympathies! How blind to the rights of all the rest of creation!”

~ John Muir

 

Connect with Gary D. Barnett

Cover image credit: LN_Photoart

Is Leukemia a Disease?

by Darko Velcek, Heal Yourself
June 16, 2023

 

According to the science we learn in our indoctrination center called the educational system, leukemia or blood cancer is a disease in which an overproduction of white blood cells is created. Many of those cells are damaged or not developed enough, and this is caused by the damaged bone marrow which produces them.

We are educated/indoctrinated to believe that white blood cells are our immune system, created to protect us from the pathogen that has attacked our body. So, when the pathogen occurs, the white blood cell blood count increases. As the pathogen gets gobbled up by the white blood cells/macrophage, (the process science has named autophagy), the threat no longer exists, and the number of white blood cells reduces to the ”normal” levels.

When the blood count of white blood cells is high and no pathogen is detected, and the situation persists without the white blood cell count dropping to the normal level, this is when the body is declared by our experts to be diseased with leukemia.

Is this what really happens?

We are “educated” to recognize leukemia through the symptoms that accompany it. Those symptoms are; fever or chills, persistent fatigue, frequent infections, losing weight, swollen lymph nodes, easy bleeding or bruising, tiny red spots in the skin, excessive sweating, and bone pain and tenderness.

In which way an increased white blood cell count causes such symptoms? This makes no sense.

When we look at those symptoms, everyone who is familiar with my work immediately comes to the conclusion that those are symptoms of toxic blood and a toxic body in general.

Since white blood cells are not what we are told, a defense mechanism created to attack the intruder/pathogen, instead, they are a garbage disposal system, as the level of the garbage increases in the blood, the body increases the production of white blood cells to dispose of this garbage.

This means that the body is functioning correctly in the given circumstance. Since doctors cannot identify any pathogen and the blood level of white blood cells remains high, they blame the bone, thymus, and lymph nodes for overproducing white blood cells for no apparent reason, and through the implementation of toxic chemicals, they attack those organs to suppress white blood cell production.

Through their action, doctors increase the blood´s toxicity which stimulates the body to further increase the white blood cell count, and the battle with the “disease” becomes eventually lost because the overly toxic patient dies.

Doctors proudly declare that they have extended the patient’s life/suffering for as long as they could and without their intervention, the patient would have died sooner.

Well, it is obvious that doctors are incompetent and they are the reason why their patient has died.

What is the cause of increased white blood cell count and why it remains high?

The symptoms reveal that the blood is toxic. Since the white blood cell count has increased, this means that the body senses a toxin that can be eliminated by disposing of it through white blood cells (most likely an organic compound).

The bone marrow thymus and lymph nodes start to produce white blood cells, but they cannot recognize the “garbage” because it is not labeled. Since the toxic level is not dropping, the body continues producing white blood cells and at the same time, some of them are expiring and undergo autophagy and appear damaged or undeveloped.

The reason why the poison is not labeled is the lack of GcMAF because of the incorrect genetic expression caused by eating starches/glucose. The cells are forced to produce nagalase to be able to hydrolyze glucose and use it as fuel. This prevents them to produce GcMAF since the same pair of genes is responsible for the signaling to the cell what the cell should manufacture in this given environment.

This is another example of how eating starches contributes to a diseased state of our body.

Since those people that follow the SHP are forbidden to consume starches, their cells start to produce GcMAF marker, the toxins become marked and eliminated through macrophage, and as the blood toxic level drops, the production of the white blood cells stops and leukemia miraculously disappears.

I have noticed that green tea has toxins that stimulate white cell production, and preservatives of meat in canned food and sausages do the same. This is why we see leukemia often in people that consume large quantities of green tea and children that eat colorful cereals, frankfurters or ham, or other types of salami.

Also, cats fed with can foods and dry food loaded with carbohydrates will develop leukemia.

They all heal when their food is corrected.

It was brought to my attention that by July people will be able to start scheduling their med bed appointments. They will be free so if someone wants to sell you an appointment, this is a fraudster, do not fall for it.

Love and light to us all.

 

Connect with Darko Velcek

Cover image credit: garten-gg

Killing Us Softly

 

“Is this intentional? Are we subjected to this slow genocide as part of the global eugenic effort to rid the world of useless eaters?—or even more horrifying, to rid the world of all humans who are made in the image of God along with nature herself? An agenda chillingly made clear in C.S. Lewis’ tome That Hideous Strength seen as well in the works of numerous others such as George Orwell and Aldous Huxley.

“Probably not everything I have mentioned here has come about as part of this nefarious evil intention. But I would be willing to bet a lot of it has (see the work of David Icke). It may just have become the nature of the beast to create a culture in its atheistic hubris that ignores the subtleties of life and living.”

Killing Us Softly 

by Todd Hayen, OffGuardian
June 17, 2023

 

We have, for quite some time, been exposed to a myriad of silent killers. These are the subtle murderers of both the physical body as well as the spirit.

I used to think most of these killers were unintentional and merely the result of ignorance or a non-existent understanding of the non-material world of spirit. I also felt that science was rather inept in detecting subtle shifts of emotion, such as depression or “just not feeling well.” All such “measurements” were simply too nuanced to show up in their metrics.

Now I believe a lot of what I am speaking of is intentional. We are intentionally being eliminated or, at the very least, intentionally being made ill. Humanity is purposefully being murdered.

That’s a rather radical assumption, eh? Well, let’s just put it aside for the moment if this bothers you. I can make a good argument even if you are unwilling to accept that extreme notion. And, as the eminent Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung used to often say to his patients, “Well, I could be wrong.”

There are many obvious things out in the world that are killing us softly…and not all of them so softly. Pollution is a big one; the air we breathe and the water we drink are toxic—probably more toxic than we are led to believe (that’s the “softly” part). Then on the toxic list we’ve got most of what we eat, the obvious being fast food, the not so obvious being processed food, and the really soft culprit being GMO. There are more “obvious killers” out there as well, I just don’t have the space to include all of them.

Some of the more “not so obvious” things, which some of you may have issue with, are things like 5G, and really any EMF pollution, which even includes radio waves. Most medicine is toxic, doctors themselves can be quite toxic and guilty of killing us softly, although I still would bet most of them do this unintentionally (how many times have you read statistics that “deaths due to doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals” rank in the top five of global killers?) There are so many things on this list it would take volumes to present them all.

Actually, I would not be surprised if every single thing we encounter every day is chemically toxic in some way (meaning it is responsible for destroying the tissue of our physical body). Fun stuff.

I think a lot of people out there are not really aware of most of these things, or think the damage they may inflict is so minimal it really doesn’t amount to much. Well, as they say, things add up.

Again, this is all stuff that most people at least have heard of possibly being bad news. Most of those people, again, probably figure that the powers that be would not allow things out there that could really hurt us. I mean, really, there are so many government agencies that regulate this stuff, and do whatever they can to keep us from being harmed. Cough, cough. Really? Like I’ve said before, if you believe that, I’ve got beachfront property in Nevada I’ll sell you cheap. Or is it Kansas?

We’ve all seen movies like Erin Brockovich (2000) and Dark Waters (2019) that show the heroics of individuals fighting the big bad polluting evil ones and winning millions of bucks for their victims. That’s great, more power to them. But the bad guys in these movies are for the most part a few levels down from the real culprits. Sure, there are evil corporations and CEOs who run them. They are indeed part of the agenda. But again, I won’t get into that here.

Some of the biggest soft killers out there are mental health killers, as well as the drugs that accompany them. I would also put the aforementioned EMF killers in this group, and maybe even some of the pollutants that attack our minds rather than our bodies—nobody pays much attention to that—to subtle effects of personality, cognition, etc. For example most of the talk about the Covid vaccines hurting us is how it hurts us physically. You hear little about the effects they may have on the brain (other than physical), the personality, or the spirit. Oh God no, none of that woo woo stuff please, it just isn’t important.

Human beings are pretty subtle bio systems, and that is just the physical part of us. The mental/emotional part is pretty subtle too, and the spiritual part is so subtle it is ignored entirely. Even the first two of these, physical and mental, are largely ignored. The only part of them that is given much attention at all is the tip of the iceberg part. The majority of these systems lie below the level of gross awareness, yet this hidden level(s) has more influence on the well being of the person than the relatively small portion of the iceberg that is given all of the attention.

Let me be a bit clearer here.

Modern medicine is mostly a science of statistics. The majority rules here, the middle of the bell curve is what is given consideration. Nearly every medical “statement” is given as a percentage. What percent will survive a particular cancer, disease, or treatment modality, what percentage will still be alive in 5 years, what percentage will suffer side effects—on and on. Very little thought is given to the outliers. In fact, certain side effects fall so far below a relevant statistic, that these side effects are completely ignored; yet these ignored side effects could have a huge impact on quality of life.

Here is an example: I have dozens of clients who come to me with the common complaint of depression. Most of them are not suicidal; they simply have what they define as a crappy life. Their life just isn’t the life they envisioned. Maybe they don’t even know they are depressed, but after further evaluation, it seems clear they are just not capable of being fully happy, motivated, curious about life, or even interested in life.

These patients don’t really possess any of the typical traumas in their experience that can bring on such complaints. What is it then? The environment (I don’t mean climate change)? Yes. The culture? Yes. The societal decadence and immorality? Yes. The food they eat? Yes. The over the counter drugs they take? Yes. The prescription drugs they take? Most definitely yes.

All these things are killing them—some obviously, but the real dangers are the things killing them softly—the things we are told are unimportant.

None of these things are considered by modern medicine to have a significant enough influence on the body, the mind, or the spirit (which of course no medical practitioner pays any attention to) to be dangerous. If we, as humans, fall above a certain line with our complaints and ailments, we are considered “normal” and the complaints and ailments that fall below that are not statistically relevant. But they add up.

We then die younger than we should, we become weaker earlier than we should, and even if our body can stay physically functioning through modern medical miracles, we are dead inside with a poisoned soul as well as with a body and brain that is barely functioning to par, but functioning enough that most people think is good enough.

Living a life that has meaning and purpose is actually more important than living a life with a fully healthy body—and we are getting neither in this current world setting. Our souls are slowly being killed by a meaningless, materially focused culture where consumerism is the name of the life game. I need not list the problems present in this soul killing culture, but at the head of slow death is the movement toward transhumanism and the deliberate creation of a world without a moral foundation.

The physical body is being killed softly as well with all of the aforementioned toxic killers we are exposed to day in and day out. Most of them are slow and soft, and operate unhindered below the radar of most people—and certainly below the radar of those who should be monitoring such things.

Is this intentional? Are we subjected to this slow genocide as part of the global eugenic effort to rid the world of useless eaters?—or even more horrifying, to rid the world of all humans who are made in the image of God along with nature herself? An agenda chillingly made clear in C.S. Lewis’ tome That Hideous Strength seen as well in the works of numerous others such as George Orwell and Aldous Huxley.

Probably not everything I have mentioned here has come about as part of this nefarious evil intention. But I would be willing to bet a lot of it has (see the work of David Icke). It may just have become the nature of the beast to create a culture in its atheistic hubris that ignores the subtleties of life and living.

Most of these toxic examples I have presented here have come about through omission—e.g., by omitting any sort of diligence to avoid their toxic effects, or by entirely doing away with things that fall into the lower material resolutions of our experience, making them statistically irrelevant—if you can’t clearly see it then just ignore it. Obviously anything “unseen,” such as love, beauty, art, God, unity, and the essence of life, is completely and almost savagely ignored. Such is our world—a humanity that is quietly, and softly, dying.

 

Connect with OffGuardian

Cover image credit: pixundfertig

The European Commission and WHO Launch Landmark Digital Slavery Initiative to Centralize and Institutionalize Global Technocratic Idolatry.

Translation of June 5, 2023 World Health Organization announcement. 

by Katherine Watt, Bailiwick News
June 13, 2023

 

5 June 2023 | News release | Geneva/Brussels

The World Health Organization (WHO) and European Commission have announced today the launch of a landmark digital slavery partnership.

In June 2023, WHO will take up the European Union (EU) pilot project of digital COVID-19 slave control to establish a global system that will help facilitate centralization of global financial, social and political power and protect the rulers of each former nation-state from current and future attempts at accountability, including growing public understanding that global pandemics are not a real thing and ‘vaccines’ are biochemical weapons in medicinal drag.

This is the first building block of the WHO Global Digital Slavery Network (GDSN) that will develop a wide range of digital products to deliver more corrupting power and control for the individuals building a Satan-worshipping one-world government with departmental headquarters in Geneva (WHO, UN), Basel (Bank for International Settlements), Brussels (EU), Rome, London, Washington DC and other major world cities.

“Building on the EU’s highly successful digital slavery network, WHO aims to offer all WHO Member States access to an open-source digital slavery tool, which is based on the principles of elitism, greed, fear, pride, secrecy, techno-materialism, data reductionism and privacy-intrusion,” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. “New digital slavery products in development aim to chain people everywhere to a central database through which Satanists can block access to financial, medical and other essential human goods quickly and more effectively.”

Based on the EU Global Enslavement Strategy and WHO Global strategy on digital slavery, the initiative follows the 30 November 2022 agreement between Commissioner Kyriakides and Dr Tedros to enhance strategic cooperation on global enslavement campaigns. This further bolsters a robust multilateral system with WHO at its core, powered by a strong EU.

“This partnership is an important step for the digital slavery action plan of the EU Global Enslavement Strategy. By using European best practices we contribute to digital slavery standards and interoperability globally — to the benefit of those seeking coercive power over the daily thoughts, words and actions of millions of human beings and those desperate to avoid removal from power, criminal trials, convictions and execution for already-committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes that cry out to God for vengeance.

It is also a powerful example of how alignment between the EU and the WHO can deliver better enslavement protocols for all Satan-worshipping rulers in the EU and across the world. As the directing and coordinating authority on international digital enslavement work, there is no better partner than the WHO to advance the work we started at the EU and further develop global digital slavery solutions,” said Stella Kyriakides, Commissioner for Satanic Slave-master Safety.

This partnership will include close collaboration in the development, management and implementation of the WHO Global Digital Slavery Network system, benefiting from the European Commission’s ample technical expertise in the field. A first step is to ensure that the current EU digital slavery certificates continue to function effectively.

“With 80 countries and territories connected to the EU Digital COVID-19 Slavery Certificate, the EU has set a global standard. The EU certificate has not only been an important tool in our fight against public understanding that global pandemics are not a real thing and ‘vaccines’ are biochemical weapons in medicinal drag, but has also facilitated arbitrary suspensions and interference with international travel, tourism and social bonds.

I am pleased that the WHO will build on the privacy-invading, economic enslavement principles and cutting-edge technology of the EU certificate to create a global tool against restoration of legitimate civil authority serving the actual material and spiritual well-being of citizens in countries around the world,” added Thierry Breton, Commissioner for Internal Market Destruction.

A global WHO system building on EU legacy

One of the key elements in the European Union’s COVID-19 digital slavery pilot project has been digital COVID-19 slavery certificates. To block free movement within its borders, the EU swiftly established interoperable COVID-19 slavery certificates (entitled ‘EU Digital COVID-19 Slavery Certificate’ or ‘EU-DCSC’). Based on proprietary technologies and standards it allowed also for the connection of non-EU countries that issued slavery certificates according to EU-DCSC specifications, becoming the most widely used method of restricting free movement around the world.

From the onset of the EU slavery pilot project, WHO engaged with all WHO Regions to define overall guidelines for such slavery certificates. To help strengthen global civil authorities’ imperviousness to reform and reconstruction in the face of growing public awareness that current rulers are unnaturally interested in possessing complete access to and control of the daily thoughts, speech and acts of every living man, woman and child on the planet, WHO is establishing a global digital slavery certification network which builds upon the solid foundations of the EU-DCSC framework, principles and proprietary technologies. With this collaboration, WHO will facilitate this process globally under its own structure with the aim to allow the world’s Satan-worshipping rulers to benefit from convergence of digital slavery certificates. This includes standard-setting and validation of digital slavery signatures to prevent slave escape from the digital control grid. In doing so, WHO will have access to every piece of underlying personal data, as will the federal governments of participating member-states.

The first building block of the global WHO system becomes operational in June 2023 and aims to be progressively developed in the coming months.

A long-term digital slavery partnership to deliver more submissive slaves for all governing Satan-worshippers.

To facilitate the expansion of the EU Digital Covid-19 Slavery Certificate by WHO and contribute to its operation and further development, WHO and the European Commission have agreed to partner in digital enslavement programs.

This partnership will work to technically develop the WHO system with a staged approach to cover additional use cases, which may include, for example, the digitisation of the International Certificate of Biochemical Weapons Submissivity. Expanding such digital solutions will be essential to deliver more effective slave-control for slave-masters across the globe.

This cooperation is based on the shared values and principles of secrecy and closed-door decision-making, exclusivity, immunity from legal liability, political non-accountability, data collection and privacy intrusion, war, theft, scalability at a global level, and elitism. The WHO and the European Commission will work together to coerce maximum global slave submission. Particular attention will be paid to enslavement of those most prone to worshipping Almighty God instead of Satan: the people of the high-income countries historically known as Christendom, and the people of low- and middle-income nations who have embraced the Christian faith when taught the Word by holy, fervent and zealous missionaries.

Acronyms

• WHO-GDSN – WHO Global Digital Slavery Network
• EU-DCSC – EU Digital COVID-19 Slavery Certificate

 

Connect with Katherine Watt

Cover image credit: geralt

What Does — and Doesn’t — Make Us Sick

by Dr. Tom Cowan, Weston A. Price Foundation
originally published May 2, 2023

 

What Makes Us Sick

What makes us sick and what doesn’t make us sick? To answer that question, our first step is to understand how we as human beings come to know something. There are two basic ways. First, we can have a sensory experience of something that tells us that this thing is real. We might study a particular tree in its habitat and see whether it produces fruit or observe what type of birds it attracts. Or we could study frogs and learn about where they live, what they eat and their interaction with the wider ecosystem.

But there are also things for which no sensory experience is possible, perhaps because they’re too small to see. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, but in this situation, we have to do something called “science”— meaning looking for and establishing the existence of things that we don’t experience directly through our senses.

When we do science—and this is impor­tant—we have to make sure, during every single step of the process, that we haven’t altered the nature of the thing we’re studying, or even brought that thing into existence through our intervention. Analytical chemists understand this; they tell me that in their line of work (which amounts to finding things they cannot experi­ence through their senses), they have to validate that their procedures—taking something out of its habitat and shining a light on it or adding chemicals—didn’t in fact actually create what they ended up with. Otherwise, they can’t know whether or not the thing actually exists. Stated another way, when researchers test cause and ef­fect by changing an independent variable to see whether it has an effect on a dependent variable, they have to make sure, every step of the way, that they are measuring just the relationship between those two variables. This is the essence of the “scientific method.” When we don’t follow the true scientific method, we can end up in a world of illusions, delusions and make-believe.

What if there is no possible way to do an experiment? In that case, you are relying on something that is more like faith, and you should acknowledge that. You should state, “This is what I believe to be true and I’m going to dedicate myself to figuring out whether I can validate that it actually is true.” In other words, the goal is to go from “I believe” to “I know.”

How Do Viruses Make You Ill

AWOL Viruses

What is the agreed-on definition of a vi­rus? A virus is described as a disease-causing microbe with a piece of either DNA or RNA in the middle surrounded by a protein coat, and is said to be self-replicating in a host. It gets into the host’s cells, makes more of itself and then causes disease by bursting open the cells.

According to the definition, the expected natural habitat of this organism is the lungs, the blood, the lymph nodes, the urine, the cere­brospinal fluid and so on. However—and there is no scientific disagreement on this important point whatsoever—there is not a single study in the published medical literature for the past one hundred years that reports finding such a particle in any biological fluid of any plant, ani­mal or human being. This is true whether you’re talking about the fluid from someone’s “herpes” lesion, or the lungs of someone with “Covid-19,” or the snot from a person with “measles,” or the blood of someone with “Ebola” or the lymph nodes of a person with “AIDS.” There is not one published study in the scientific/medical literature showing that someone found such a particle in any one of those bodily fluids—and nobody disagrees with that! This should make you suspicious. As Mark Twain once stated, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

WC Fields said, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit,” and I think he was talking about virology. Con­sider this: we now have over two hundred ten responses from various health departments around the world to the question, “Do you have any published study that shows that you directly isolated SARS-CoV-2 from any human being on the planet?”¹ (SARS-CoV-2 is the alleged virus, and Covid-19 is the disease alleged to be caused by the virus.) They all say the same thing: “We have no record of SARS-CoV-2 having been purified.” They’ve never found it, nor have they found any of the other pathogenic viruses. (We also have around forty or fifty similar responses pertaining to Ebola, Zika, HIV, measles and the like.)

Colleagues of mine have asked the authors of four of the most important papers written about SARS-CoV-2, some of which bafflingly have the word “isolation” in the title, “Did you isolate this virus in your study?” Their answer was not only “No” but also, “We didn’t even try to find it in any biological fluid of any person who was sick.” In the early days of virology, sci­entists did look, but they were never able to find such a particle using the very tool—the electron microscope—that should have allowed them to find it. After twenty years, they abandoned ship and said, “There’s nothing to this theory.” But then later, it got resurrected.

What Are You Sick With

A Belief System

Note that virology has methods and tech­niques to truly isolate a virus.² Using ultracen­trifugation and something called a “sucrose density gradient,” virologists can separate a fluid sample into bands by molecular weight. Ultra­centrifugation will spin viruses out into their own band, which virologists can then extract with a pipette and check for purity.

But they don’t use these techniques! In­stead, I’ll give an example of what a virologist says if you ask, “Why do you think this virus exists? If you can’t find it, why do you think it’s in the lungs?” A virologist told me that someone would have to be “incredibly ill and shedding extremely large amounts of virus, and the fluid from their lungs would have to have a large amount of virus—and even then, it wouldn’t be possible.” In other words, “There’s not enough virus to find.”

Think about this. Your lungs are said to be the perfect culture medium—at the ideal tem­perature (thirty-seven degrees Celsius) for vi­ruses to reproduce—and the lung environment is, therefore, supposedly teeming with viruses. After they reproduce, viruses reportedly kill millions and billions of cells, and that, we are told, is how they cause disease. Supposedly, there are twenty million copies of a virus in a single sneeze. But the virologist’s answer is, “There’s not enough to see.”

Remember, a virus is described as incred­ibly tiny—something like one-thousandth of a pinhead or less—which means that when viruses explode, they are exploding perhaps one hundredth of a pinhead of your lungs. Yet you could take out even a baseball-sized piece of your lungs, and while that might be called “having a bad day,” you won’t die. The body also isn’t crazy enough to make an abnormal and excessive immune response to losing less than a pinhead size of the lungs. So, it is logical to ask, “If the virus is exploding the cells in a portion of your lungs that is the equivalent of less than a pinhead, how is it causing disease?”

There is a second reason virologists give for not using the tools at their disposal to isolate a virus. They say that the virus is an intracellular parasite organism, meaning it is only inside the cell and doesn’t go outside the cell. But if that is the case, how does it get to the next person? This starts to strain credulity. Here’s how that nutty conversation might go:

Q: “Why can’t you catch the virus when it goes from one person to another person?”

A: “Well, it’s not there for more than about six hours. We don’t have enough money to pay someone to look every six hours to find the organism in the snot.”

We asked one eminent virologist, “If you put ten thousand people together and collected all their sputum, would that be enough to find the virus?” His answer: “No, that’s not enough.”

Poisoning, Not Purification

There are something like ten thousand published papers that refer to the “isolation” of such-and-such a virus. Virologists will show you the title of these papers and say, “See, how can you say this isn’t true?” But since they aren’t using the proper steps, you have to know what they did instead. And you have to ask, did they rigorously validate every step of their process?

In 1954, a researcher named John Franklin Enders established the procedures that rejuvenated the then-languishing field of virology.³ Here are Enders’ basic steps:

1. Virologists take snot from somebody alleged to have a certain disease (such as measles or Covid-19).
2. Sometimes they centrifuge (not ultracentrifuge) or filter the mixture to get rid of cells, fungi and debris. That has become a sticking point because some people call this “purification.” However, purifying the snot a little is not equivalent to purifying out a virus.
3. Next, they put the snot in a cell culture of green monkey kidney cells—cells that happen to be highly inbred and tend to break down easily.
4. Then they mix in antibiotics—and specifically antibiotics that are kidney-toxic (gentamicin and amphotericin)—and they take away the cell culture medium’s nutrients. (This is the equivalent of being forced onto a standard American diet after thriving on a Wise Traditions diet.)
5. Next, they mix in fetal bovine serum, a product sucked out of the heart of a newborn calf.
6. Maintaining the cell culture at a steady temperature, they then watch what happens. In about five days, the cells break down— which is called a cytopathic effect (CPE)—and they call the CPE the “proof” that the virus exists and causes damage.

Understand that virologists consider this process—which inevitably generates cell breakdown—not “a” proof but “the” proof for the existence of all pathogenic viruses. You might reasonably ask, “How do you know the CPE is not due to starving the cells, or poisoning them with gentami­cin and amphotericin, or using fetal bovine serum, or because of some other toxin in the sick person’s snot?” Virologists’ answer is that they do a “mock infection” as a control. However, if you go to the hundreds of papers I and my colleagues have read over the past two years, you will not find even one actual mock infection. In fact, it can’t be done because the independent variable would necessarily need to be the very virus that they have not isolated. Often, the study authors don’t even provide details, and if you try to obtain more information, you invariably learn that they did not conduct a properly controlled experiment.

Interestingly, Enders’ procedures are also how pharmaceutical companies make viral vaccines.⁴ For example, they take someone with measles and put their unpurified snot into a monkey kidney cell culture, add fetal bovine serum, gentamicin, and amphotericin, and then when the cells break down, they call that “isolation” of the measles virus. They put that goop into a vial—and that is called a “live” virus vaccine. They can also cycle the goop over and over in huge vats, removing some of the proteins, and that is an “attenuated” viral vaccine. But at no point did they ever demonstrate there is a virus in there. With mRNA and newer technologies, they are just putting different stuff—known and unknown—in their vaccines. In short, vaccines are biotoxins, and they make people sick. How could biotoxins possibly prevent people from getting sick?

The Lanka Experiments

There is one scientist, Stefan Lanka, who contracted with an independent professional lab to try to answer the question of whether the culturing process itself, rather than a pathogenic virus, might be causing the CPE.

The lab conducted four experiments. In the first, they cultured normal cells with a normal nutrient medium, adding only a small amount of antibiotics—and no snot from a sick person. Five days later, the cell growth was perfectly normal. The second experiment was the same as the first, but with the addition of 10 percent fetal bovine serum. Again, five days later there was no cell breakdown.

The third experiment replicated Enders’ procedures, lowering the percentage of fetal bovine serum from 10 percent to 1 percent (that is, starving the cells) and tripling the amount of antibiotics. On day five, the characteristic CPE that “proves” the existence and pathogenicity of a virus was evident—except that Lanka had not added any fluid from a sick person or anything else that could have had a virus in it.

The fourth experiment repeated the third but with the addition of RNA from yeast. It so happens that monkey kidney cells don’t like yeast any more than they like kidney-toxic an­tibiotics. Unsurprisingly, the fourth experiment produced the same CPE result—clearly show­ing that the CPE is the result of the culturing technique rather than any virus.

After they “prove” the existence of a virus using their cell culturing process, virologists “find” the genome of the virus using fragments of the RNA in the broken-down cell culture to create the assembled genome of the alleged vi­rus. This is called “sequencing.” What is impor­tant to understand is that this process generates a genome that is purely theoretical (“in silico”). As I explain in my booklet Breaking the Spell:

“This genome never exists in any person, and it never exists intact even in the culture results; it exists only inside the computer, based on an alignment process that arranges these short pieces [of RNA] into an entire ‘genome.’”⁵

In the case of SARS-CoV-2, sequencing software generated anywhere from three hun­dred forty-two thousand to one million different possibilities of how to arrange the fragments. A small group of scientists then decided which arrangement they liked—by “consensus”—and then, for every subsequent analysis, they put that first consensus-derived genome in and told the computer to make another one along the same lines. When they turn out a sequence that is a bit different from the original consensus-derived “genome,” that’s called a “variant.”

Note that all of this applies both to so-called “natural” viruses and to so-called lab-engineered “gain-of-function” viruses—which no more exist than any “natural” virus exists. So, here you have biologists in their hazmat suits, protecting themselves against a genome from a virus that exists only in a computer.

As for the PCR test, the whole premise of the test is also nonsense. You cannot say that a PCR sequence came from a thing you have not isolated. It makes no sense to even talk about “false-positives,” because the results are just plain false.

Identical Pictures, Delusional Thoughts

At some point, people say to me, “But Tom, we’ve seen electron microscope pictures of SARS-CoV-2,” complete with “spikes” and something that looks like a “corona”! However, I have a picture from a kidney biopsy produced before the year 2000 (when there was no pos­sibility that it was SARS-CoV-2) that looks just the same. In fact, I have eleven electron micro­scope pictures—labeled as kidney biopsies, lung biopsies or SARS-CoV-2—and there is no way to tell the difference between them. They are morphologically indistinguishable—they all look the same. In fact, the CDC has known since the 1970s that electron microscopy cannot tell the difference between a kidney biopsy, lung cancer, cellular debris, SARS-CoV-2 or any so-called pathogenic virus; it simply is not possible.

The cellular debris, by the way, comes from poisoning—whether from putting yeast, antibiotics or fetal bovine serum on a culture, or from EMFs, or from not eating a Wise Tra­ditions diet. It can even be from “wonky” or delusional thinking. For example, I knew an anthroposophical doctor who spent his career giving AIDS drugs to so-called “HIV-positive” people because he believed in the delusional germ theory, and then, because of this belief, he took four Covid shots. Five days after the fourth one, he was dead. You could say he died from the shots, but I say he died because he spent his entire life believing in something that is completely make-believe.

An Even Bigger Delusion

It turns out that the delusion is even bigger than viruses—we didn’t just make up viruses, we made up diseases. Consider what happens if you get a splinter in your finger. In medical school, I was taught that pus is a sign of infec­tion, but actually, the pus is the body’s thera­peutic response to the splinter; if you suppress the pus, you will never get the splinter out. We need to stop thinking of the body’s responses as “diseases”; they are the wisdom of the body coming through.

We can look at many other conditions—and the body’s wise therapies—in the same way. For example, if you put toxic junk in your lungs, the body will cough it up because it wants to get rid of dead, dying and poisoned tissue. In Wuhan, which has some of the worst air pollution in the world, bronchitis is the therapy for breathing air. It’s not a disease.

Or consider chickenpox, which might have something to do with malnutrition or a collagen deficiency or a toxic environment—but is also a normal maturation and cleansing process. If you come along and poison a child with a chickenpox vaccine so they cannot go through that cleansing process, they will instead have a life of asthma, allergies, eczema and all these other made-up terms that really mean you stopped the process of healing. It may look like you lessened the incidence of “chickenpox,” but by interfering with the cleansing process you have increased lots of chronic things, which never go away.

There are no vaccines that are exceptions to that rule—they all poison you, and you end up worse. When you cannot go through the normal maturation and healing steps, you eventually may end up with cancer. You’re depositing one poison after another throughout your life, and now you’ve got a garbage can of poisons otherwise known as a “tumor.” What would you do if you kept being poisoned over and over, and someone prevented you from getting the poisons out? It’s very simple: you would buy a garbage can and put the poison in there. But what happens if you keep putting in garbage, and it starts piling up in your basement, garage, kitchen and bedroom until you can’t live? That’s called “metastasis,” and then you die.

What Are We Made Of?

To examine more deeply the question of what makes us sick, let’s consider what we’re made of. To start on safe ground, let’s accept that we’re made of a head, ears, eyes, mouth, chest, arms, fingers, legs, toes and a bunch of other things. Inside, we also have things like a heart, bones, blood vessels, nerves, a liver, kidneys and other things. As far as I can tell, older healing traditions like Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine also believe there is a heart and liver and spleen and all the rest of it. In fact, not only do they believe it, they put huge stock in the energy flow through those organs.

Now remember, there are two ways of knowing. In the first instance, you can observe, but if you can’t observe, you have to do science—and you have to be sure that any science you do isn’t affecting what you’re seeing. And if it is, you have to control for that.

We’re told that hepatocytes are the main functional cells of the liver, but we might ask, “How do we know that?” How many of us have actually seen hepatocytes in the liver of an intact living organism? Nobody. That may not mean they’re not there, but it means we’ve got a question that requires further experimentation. We can take someone and anesthetize them (or at least some part of them), and stick a needle in, and suck out a piece of the liver, and stain it with toxic chemicals, and shine a high-powered light on it, and then say that what we see are the hepatocytes.

But how do we know that the process of anesthetizing (that is, poison­ing) the person, removing the sample from a living organism and putting chemical stains on it didn’t create the structures we’re seeing?

For example, we know that bacteria, when stressed, will create a storage form called bacteriophages, and the same is true for other or­ganisms like fungus spores. How do we know that stressing the liver by removing it from the living organism that nourishes it didn’t create the appearance of the liver cells? I’m not necessarily saying that this proves there are no liver cells, but I’m saying you need to ask the question if you want to do real science.

My thinking on these matters owes a lot to thinkers like the British biologist Harold Hillman, who spent fifty years and thousands of pages asking these kinds of questions.⁶ If you really want to understand biology, read Hillman. Another influence is Gilbert Ling, a brilliant Chinese-born American scientist who challenged the accepted view of the cell.⁷

Let’s remember that in addition to sensory observations and science, you may get to a point where you simply can’t know something. Going back to virology, if you can’t take the virus out of the sample that you inoculate, the best you might be able to say is, “We have no actual evidence that the virus exists. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t, but we have no evidence.” How different would the world be if, in March 2020, they had announced: “We did some experiments, and we have some idea there might be a virus, but we can’t really prove it, and all the experiments have shown it’s not really there—but we think we should lock you down and make you wear a mask and starve you anyway.” Of course, they don’t say it like that. My point is that it may not be possible to prove the existence of those liver cells—or any cells.

What is also interesting is that of the ap­proximately one hundred eighty-four different tissue types, we know that forty-four don’t have any cells. Examples are the crystalline lens of the eye, and the bursae—sacs of fluid (colorfully described as “miniature water balloons”) that fa­cilitate the frictionless movement of the joints.⁸ The absence of cells makes sense because this organized water tissue is much stronger and more coherent than if it were broken up into little cells.

Historically, what did Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine have to say about cells? Nothing. There is no mention of cells in either of those traditions. By the way, they never mentioned contagion or germ theory either. It was the German physician Rudolf Virchow who popularized the idea that we are made of cells. In the 1850s, Virchow wrote a book about cellular physiology essentially based on his dissection of an onion; he saw that it had compartments and from there he asserted that all living things were made of cells and that “all cells come from cells.” Although many people initially thought he was nuts, somehow that became the cel­lular theory of biology and medicine, despite the theory never having been “proven” in any meaningful sense of the word.

Ribosome Fairy Tales?

For the time being, let’s assume that cells do exist in those one hundred forty or so human tis­sues. Then we can ask, what is a cell made of? In addition to a cell membrane, standard textbooks show pictures with structures called organelles that include a nucleus, an endoplasmic reticu­lum, ribosomes, mitochondria, lysosomes, the Golgi apparatus and others (see Figure 1). This definition of a cell is the basis of all medicine and biology.

Now, let’s consider the ribosomes. Cell biol­ogy tells us that ribosomes are the place where mRNA is translated into proteins, describing ribosomes as the cells’ protein-making “facto­ries” or “machinery.” Ribosomes also happen to be an important part of the Covid story— remember, the official rationale for putting mRNA in the injections was so it could instruct the ribosomes to pro­duce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.⁹

As an aside, if you say, “I’m going to make tires out of rubber,” it would not be unusual to be asked, “How do you know that works?” Then you could de­scribe the process, in­cluding the quantity of rubber needed to produce a set number of tires, and they could repeat the process to see whether they end up with the same num­ber of tires from the same amount of rubber. Along these lines, you would expect there to be hundreds of studies showing that if you put “X” amount of mRNA into a human being, you get “Y” amount of spike protein. But do you know how many studies there are like that? Zero. Instead, we just heard, “We had to move at the speed of science,”¹⁰ which really means “We made it up.”

There is an interesting thing going on with the ribosomes, because we’re talking about the place in a cell where the essence of you, biologi­cally, is made. We are made of proteins. The creation of you, we’re told, is in the ribosomes. The question is, is there such a thing as a ribosome, or did they make it up?

One clue that there is something fishy going on is that no one can tell you how many ribosomes a cell contains, other than a vague “millions.” However, we can do some basic arithmetic (which will be an approxima­tion because we’re mixing volume and linear measurement). We’re told that a ribosome measures about twenty-five nanometers (0.025 microm­eters)—and if we conservatively estimate that a mammalian cell has about four million ribosomes, then that would equal one hundred thousand micrometers. However, a typical mammalian cell is something like one hundred micrometers, and the cytoplasm (which contains the ribosomes) is only 70 percent of the cell, meaning that its volume is seventy micrometers. Not only that, but the mi­tochondria—which are hundreds or thou­sands of times big­ger than the putative ribosomes—are also in there. So, how does something that is one hundred thousand micrometers fit into a space that is sev­enty micrometers and also houses millions of mitochondria? Doesn’t anybody study arithmetic?

A second clue that ribosomes are imaginary comes from electron micro­scope pictures, which always show the ribosome as a perfect circle. If it is a perfect circle on a two-dimensional picture, that means it had to have been a sphere in real life. Now think about how biologists obtain these pictures: they take some tissue, put it in a blender, grind and macerate it, freeze it to minus one hundred twenty degrees centigrade, stain it with heavy metals and shoot a high-energy electron beam at it to evaporate all the water from the tissue. How does a sphere that has been ground up in a blender, frozen, poisoned and had all its water evaporated end up—every single time—as a perfect circle? It is not possible for those circles to be real cellular structures. (This is a good time to remember WC Fields’ quote about “baffling them with bullshit.”)

Fortunately, Harold Hillman had the genius to take something that could not possibly have ribosomes in it and put it through the same process (staining and so forth), and he got the exact same pictures. It turns out that those are just typical images of dead and dying tissue (remember that pictures of “viruses” also come from stained tissue that is dead and dying), and those perfect circles are gas bubbles—in which case, there are no ribosomes. And if there are no ribosomes, there is no place for the translation of RNA into protein to occur. And if that is the case, what the heck is going on, and how do we actually make the stuff that we’re made of?

More Cell Make-Believe

For another example, let’s look at the cell component called the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). Textbooks describe the ER as “a netlike labyrinth of branching tubules and flattened sacs”¹¹ that serve as the cell’s “transportation system.” The millions of ribosomes in a cell are said to line the surface of the “rough” part of the ER.

Why does the ER even have to be there? Before I answer that ques­tion, let’s consider that the cytoplasm of a cell (which is the gel-like liquid inside a cell membrane but external to the nucleus) has a different pH level than the pH inside the cell nucleus—and that is a verifiable, mea­surable phenomenon. You can measure the two pH values one hundred times and they will never be the same. Why is the pH different? The reason can only be due to the cytoplasm and nucleus having different concentrations of hydrogen ions—because that is where pH comes from. And for the pH values to be different, there has to be an impenetrable barrier between the cytoplasm and nucleus, or some other mechanism that keeps the hydrogen ions from equilibrating across the two. If there were no mechanism, they would equilibrate and their pH would be the same—but it never is.

Now, we run into the conceptual problem of the mRNA. They say DNA makes mRNA in the nucleus; then, the mRNA exits the nucleus through pores in the nuclear membrane and heads to the imaginary ribosomes, where it is translated into protein. So, how does the mRNA get out without letting any hydrogen ions in to equilibrate? An mRNA molecule is at least thousands and maybe millions of times bigger than a hydrogen ion. Picture the problem this way: Something the size of an elephant can go out, but something the size of a mosquito can’t get in.

Believe it or not, we’re expected to believe that there is something like a whirligig that attaches to the mRNA (the “elephant”) and spins around like a conveyor belt and takes the mRNA to the other side of the cell. Meanwhile, no one has ever seen the whirligig. (“But it must be a whirligig, because how else did the elephant get out?”) But then you have to ask, how does it go round and round and not tangle up the “branching” components of the ER? If you picture them like ropes, wouldn’t you have to untangle the ropes? (Didn’t any scientist ever go on a merry-go-round?) Once again, Hillman provided a common-sense answer. He showed that when you take tissue and quickly freeze it, it makes fracture lines—and that’s what we call the endoplasmic reticulum. The ER doesn’t exist.

In short, using basic principles of geometry, mathematics and logic, you can go through the same process with every component of the cell. Nothing on a standard cell diagram—with the exception of the nucleus, the mitochondria and a thin cell wall—has ever been proven to exist. It’s all make-believe.

Other Things That Just Ain’t So

In addition to the imaginary cell compo­nents, there are a lot of other things in science that, as Mark Twain put it, “we believe in but just ain’t so.” Consider “Neurology 101.” A neurologist’s explanation of how nerves work goes like this: We have nerves made up of nerve cells called “neurons”; they transmit electrical and chemical signals via “axons” that end in “synapses.” Something called the “presynaptic junction” releases chemical messengers called “neurotransmitters” (such as serotonin and do­pamine), which swim across the junction and attach to “postsynaptic receptors,” where they “depolarize” the next neuron and start the next impulse—and so on, until the nerve ends at its destination and “fires.” But the process can’t work like that; it’s nonsense. This becomes im­mediately obvious if you ask someone to wiggle the tip of their right or left index finger as soon as they hear the word “right” or “left”; they do it virtually instantaneously, with no lag time for this hypothesized neurotransmitter journey.¹²

In addition, if you dissect a nerve, you never see a synapse. Now, you could have the problem of “maybe it’s just too small to see,” but most things aren’t too small to see with an electron microscope. If you hunt down a picture of what an anatomical synapse is supposed to look like, what you’ll find are pictures of stained nerves. That’s not a synapse—because there are no synapses. The nerve is continuous.

Think about how much in medicine is based on neurotransmitters and receptors (such as the famed “ACE2 receptors,” “opiate receptors,” “dopamine receptors,” or “serotonin receptors”). They even tell us that it is oxytocin, a hormone that “acts as a neurotransmitter,” that makes us love someone. It couldn’t be because they’re a nice person or they give you a backrub—no, it’s the “love hormone” oxytocin.

Here is another example. How many of you have heard of the “blood-brain barrier” or believe there is such a barrier? We often hear about it from people opposed to vaccination, who say that vaccines make your blood-brain barrier “leaky.” The implication is that we’re talking about an actual anatomical structure—a physical barrier that stretches out like a piece of cellophane along the border between the blood vessels and your brain tissue so that nothing gets in or out—except vaccines. . . and except anesthetics because drug-makers “know how to get anesthetics through the blood-brain bar­rier.” Nonetheless, no one has ever proven the existence of such a barrier.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that there aren’t substances that get into the brain in a different way than they get into the liver. The liver and the brain each have a different com­position of water and lipids, so logically, some things will dissolve and get into the liver differently from how they get into the brain. But just because things get in the brain differently does not mean there is an anatomical barrier.

Finally, we can scrutinize the notion that DNA is the mech­anism of heredity. The premise of genetics is that you have a stable fixed code that is the same in every cell of your body. That fixed, stable DNA makes proteins, and the proteins make you. But there are probably two hundred thousand different types of protein, and only twenty thousand genes or units that code for these proteins. We’re told that one gene makes one protein, so how does that work? Where did the other one hundred eighty thousand proteins come from? The central dogma that one gene makes one protein cannot be true. So, how we are made can’t have anything to do with DNA and, therefore, DNA cannot be the code for biological systems. In fact, DNA changes from minute to minute—Barbara McClintock proved this decades ago¹³—so there is no stable DNA. We do not have the same DNA in all the tissues and cells of our body. These things have been 100 percent disproven.

It’s the Structured Water

The ribosomes, endoplasmic reticulum, synapses, neurotransmitters and blood-brain barrier represent just a partial list—and I do mean partial—of things of which I either doubt the existence or suspect their function is different from what we have been told. If you are still wondering what we are made up of, the reality is more beautiful, simpler, easier to understand and more logical and rational. The real answer to what we’re made of is structured water. Structured water, which creates free electrons, is the only possible explanation for how we’re able to instantaneously wiggle our index finger when we hear the word “right” or left.”

Figure 2 is an image of a cell produced with dark-field microscopy, which is the most reliable technique for viewing live, unstained biologi­cal samples. In the image, you see a thin membrane (the outer coating); you see organized water (also called structured water, coherent water, EZ water, the fourth phase of water or liquid crystalline water); you see little black dots in the structured water (the mitochondria) and you see a nucleus that is always circular or dome-shaped—and that’s it.

Note that the mitochondria help structure our water by making ATP—which is not “energy” as we’ve been told. Think of struc­tured water like jello. If you add water to gelatin proteins, nothing happens, but if you heat the mix­ture, the heat unfolds the proteins and you get water that gels. As for us, we have all these proteins, and the mitochondria make the ATP that unfolds them so that the pro­teins can interact with water and form gels. All gels create a negative charge and an electromagnetic field around them, which is the voltage—the energy—of life. To put it simply, we are living liquid crystals.

The dome in the middle (the nucleus) also has something sticking out that collects energy from the world. It may be DNA, but it is not a double helix—it’s a spiral sticking out of the nucleus. The way it works is similar to a radio antenna. It “downloads” information coming in through “radio waves” that get picked up by the “antenna,” and out of that emerge proteins and life (or sound and song in the case of a radio). And this dynamic, tunable, responsive, liquid crystalline medium pervades the whole body—from the organs and tissues to the interior of every cell.

Note that in Genesis, before God created the Earth, plants or people, he created water and light energy. No one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of the water and the Spirit. The Spirit is the informa­tion field that comes in through our antenna. Every scriptural tradition says that all living things and the universe itself are made of water.

What Does Make Us Sick?

If we now circle back to “what doesn’t make us sick,” we could sum­marize the answer in one word: “viruses.” And if we ask, “What does make us sick?”, the answer is also straightforward. We get sick when we mess up our structured water. If we disturb the gels by putting “schmutz” in them—which could be aluminum, mercury, glyphosate, bad food, EMFs, or even negative emotions like anger, fear, shame or guilt—that will distort or dissolve the gels. If we do that in our eye, we get a distorted gel that has a film on it, and we call that a “cataract.” If we distort the bursa in our knee, so that the gels that are supposed to protect both sides of the knee start sticking together, then we have bone on bone and we call that “arthritis.” Public health officials create epidemics by pulling different manifestations of distorted water into a single diagnosis—such as AIDS or Covid-19—and when they are ready to make the epidemic go away, they separate them back out into twenty different diagnoses. It’s very clever—and it’s nothing new.

Without describing it as such, medicine does sometimes assess the coherence of your water to see if you are sick. For example, doctors use MRIs to diagnose cancer. What is the MRI measuring? It’s measuring the coherence of your water. When your water goes from a gel-like jello to a puddle-like liquid, it sends a different signal to the MRI.

Imagine you have a poison grape in your “jello.” Your body heats up the gel and you get a fever—that’s hyperthermia. The heat dissolves the gel and makes it runny, creating mucus that you can spit out or cough up, or creating something you can push out through your skin. That’s what we call “being sick.” It makes perfect sense. If you want to flush out the poison grape, all you have to do is clean your gels—which is what detoxification approaches like the Gerson diet and water fasting are all about—and clean up the field and you will heal. If you want to know why you are sick, think about how you are structuring your water, what you’re putting into your water, the quality of the water and the quality or composition of the field that you’re exposed to.

I’m not the first person to say that water creates life. Mae Wan-Ho, a past speaker at Weston A. Price Foundation conferences, wrote books about “the role of biological water in organising living processes.”¹⁴ Mar­cel Vogel,¹⁵ who knew more about crystals than any human being ever alive and who invented liquid crystal screens, discovered that he could use the energetic fields of quartz crystals to structure water.¹⁶

We are made of a living, evolving, changing crystal, which is why we are not made of quartz. One way of viewing Covid-related events is that people like Bill Gates are trying to make us be made of quartz, not water. In some ways, that is what this is all about. As a fixed, perfect quartz crystal, they tell us, nothing will ever change and we can live forever. But that is not what I want. I want to change, grow, evolve and be a human being who has to be watered.

We’re swimming along with misconcep­tions in a make-believe world—and we have to get rid of this garbage. We can find a much better way once we explore and learn what we’re really made of and how it all works. Every reason we get sick has to do with a distortion of the field coming in.

Continuing with the radio analogy, you need to find the good signal instead of the dis­torted signal. The good signal is the sun, moon and the earth; good friends; your dog; com­munity; clean, nutrient-dense food, clean water and clean air; good music; and love, safety and freedom. That is the field that you “download” into the gel to give it information to organize progressively into the more and more perfect crystal that is you.

Sidebar

No Deathbed Confession

How have virology’s luminaries been able to claim they found a virus when we know they have never found one in any biological fluid? Let’s consider Luc Montagnier, the prestigious virologist who won a Nobel Prize for discovering HIV. He died in 2022. Montagnier acknowledged that purification was a necessary step to prove the existence of a virus (or, in the case of HIV, a retrovirus) but admitted, “We did not purify.”¹⁷ The technician who performed his electron microscopy for twenty years even said, “It turns out we never saw a virus. All we saw was junk.” But to his dying day, Montagnier never “fessed up” or acknowledged, “We don’t have a real virus.”

On what did Montagnier base his claim that he had found HIV? It’s very simple:

• He took lymphocytes from the lymph nodes of a person said to have AIDS.

• He stimulated them to grow with a chemical called PHA (phytohaemagglutinin).

• When the lymphocytes grew, he assayed them for an enzyme called reverse transcriptase.

• When he found reverse transcriptase, he said that it proved the existence of a new retrovirus eventually called HIV.

• To “prove” that HIV was transmissible to other people, Montagnier took his PHA-stimulated lymphocyte culture and put it in a lymphocyte culture from a healthy person. When he found reverse transcriptase in that culture as well, that was the “proof” that HIV is a transmissible disease.

There was only one problem. Ten years previously, Robert Gallo had written a paper reporting reverse transcriptase in every single culture from anybody with lymphocytes stimulated with PHA. Both Gallo and Montagnier knew that his experiment had nothing to do with proving that there was a retrovirus or any kind of virus at all. Later, the scientist credited with discovering the reverse transcriptase enzyme, David Baltimore, also admitted as much.¹⁸

Water Pictures

Veda Austin, a “water researcher,” has dedicated many years to observing the life of water, which she describes as “fluid intelligence.”¹⁹

Veda has developed techniques for photographing water in its “state of creation.” This work explores whether, if she asks water a question, the water can take in and download the information and, given the right circumstances, make structures that essentially answer that question. And what she has found is that if she puts the water in a dish and freezes it, the water organizes its crystals and makes pictures.

For example, when she showed the dish of water a wedding invitation and said, “Water, show me the wedding invitation,” the frozen water created an amazing artistic depiction of a wedding ring. But my favorite example is when she said, “Water, what is falling down?” The water did not create anything as straightforward as an image of rain; instead, the water produced an image of “London Bridge is falling down.”

“Safe and Free” by Jude Roberts²⁰

In the last two years, I’ve learned important things from my cat Pumpkin. One stormy evening, with coyotes howling in the distance, I walked with Pumpkin toward the greenhouse where he sleeps, but Pumpkin started heading for the woods instead. When I called him, he gave me a look that seemed to say, “There’s no point in being safe if I can’t be free.” My friend Jude Roberts understands this, too. His song “Safe and Free” reminds us what this is all about.

I got up to go to work today,
there was no work for me.
Governor closed my shop, he say
to keep me safe and free

I’ve had my shop for twenty years,
It feeds my family,
And now we have to stay inside,
To keep us safe and free
To keep us safe and free

Called my dear old mother,
My mother said to me
“Son, I miss you dearly,
But you cannot come to tea”

“The children miss you, Mamma,
They’re healthy as can be.”
“A hug could kill their Grandma,
Keep them away from me.
Keep me safe and free.”

Giant tech and billionaires
And pharmacology
Spinning like a top to move
The wheels of industry

Amazon and Walmart,
The consumer pedigree,
They can do their business,
Because anyone can see
They keep us safe and free

Technocrats and robot gods
And blind authority,
Sell your soul and pray to them,
They’ll keep you safe and free

Biotech behemoths say
They have a shot for me.
I trust them with my body,
And forgive them for their greed
If it keeps me safe and free

Keep us safe from terrorists,
Keep us free from germs,
Keep us from the danger
Of the wisdom we have learned
Until the books are burned

Governor says to wear a mask
I cannot disagree
I cannot breathe or speak my mind,
But at least I’m safe and free

I’ll wear my mask for you my friend,
You wear your mask for me.
Worried eyes and faceless fear
Is all that we can see.
Sure feel safe and free

Keep us free from choices,
Keep us stuck in blame,
Keep us in a toxic state,
Of poverty and shame
While they run their game

I’ll open up my shop today
Even if they come for me.
If I can’t feed my family,
We’re neither safe nor free.

I may not be a scientist,
And I’m damn sure not a priest
Ain’t a fool on God’s green Earth
Can keep life safe for me.
So better I live free.

[Listen to Jude Roberts performing “Safe and Free”.]

References

1. https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/68-health-science-institutions-globally-all-failed-to-cite-even-1-record-of-sars-cov-2-purification-by-anyone-anywhere-ever/
2. Cowan TS. Breaking the Spell: The Scientific Evidence for Ending the Covid Delusion. DrTomCowan.com, August 2021, p. 4.
3. Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954;86(2):277- 286.
4. Katz SL. John F. Enders and measles virus vaccine—a reminiscence. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2009;329:3-11.
5. Cowan, Breaking the Spell, p. 14.
6. Hillman M. Harold Hillman obituary. The Guardian, Sep. 25, 2016.
7. https://gilbertling.org/index.html
8. Funiciello M. What is a bursa? Arthritis-health, updated Dec. 4, 2019. https://www.arthritis-health.com/types/bursitis/what-bursa
9. Cono J, Dotson D, Green RF, et al. mRNA COVID-19 vaccines: an incredible feat of genomic technology. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Science, Mar. 5, 2021. https://blogs.cdc.gov/genomics/2021/03/05/mrna-covid-19-vaccines/
10. Pfizer did not know whether Covid vaccine stopped transmission be­fore rollout. News.com.au, Oct. 12, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnxlxzxoZx0&ab_channel=news.com.au
11. Alberts B. et al. “The endoplasmic reticulum.” In Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th edition. New York: Garland Science; 2002.
12. Cowan T. Human Heart, Cosmic Heart: A Doc­tor’s Quest to Understand, Treat, and Prevent Cardiovascular Disease. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing; 2016, pp. 102- 105.
13. Halpern ME. Barbara McClintock on defining the unstable genome. Genetics. 2016;204:3-4.
14. https://www.wessex.ac.uk/news/general-news/obituary-mae-wan-ho
15. http://marcelvogel.org/
16. What scientists say about structured water. The Wellness Enterprise, Jul. 25, 2014. https://thewellnessenterprise.com/structured-water-scientists/
17. Tahi D. Did Luc Montagnier discover HIV? “I repeat, we did not purify!” Continuum. 1998;5(2):31-35. https://leederville.net/links/TahiContinuum1998.pdf
18. “Dont ask david baltimore about HIV isolation.” Medaphysics Repository, Feb. 9, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaBQvkdu9nc&abchannel=MedaphysicsRepository
19. https://www.vedaaustin.com/
20. https://juderoberts.bandcamp.com/track/safe-and-free

 

Dr. Tom Cowan has been one of the leading voices speaking out against the mainstream medical narrative and coordinated agenda of masking, social distancing and forced vaccinations. His messages of health freedom and personal autonomy have resonated with millions of people around the world. Dr. Cowan challenges conventional medicine to explore health and wellness in holistic terms, seeking to provide a collaborative forum for the exchange of knowledge, products and practices that enable us to forge a new world together, governed by truth.

 

Connect with Weston A. Price Foundation

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Cover image credit: GDJ

---

Read 33-Page Report by Harold Hillman and Download PDF:

A Serious Indictment of Modern Cell Biology
and Neurobiology

 

---

See Related Articles:

Drs. Tom Cowan, Andy Kaufman & Stefan Lanka: On the Myth That Virology Is Real Science & What We Don’t Yet Know About These Highly Toxic Covid “Vaccines” 

A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)

Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Tom Cowan: How We Got Into This Mess — The History of Virology & Deep Medical Deceptions

Warning Signs You’ve Been Tricked by Virologists

Rabies: The “Virus” of Fear

And On and On It Goes: Dawn Lester on Why the “No Virus” Issue Remains So Important

 

“Therefore, one of the answers I would provide to the question of why the ‘no virus’ issue is so important is: that fear of ‘germs’ makes people believe that ‘disease’ can be transmitted between people, which means that we have to continue being afraid of each other.

“In fact, one of the fundamental problems with all of this is that it keeps people in a state of unjustified fear, which is disempowering. Releasing unjustified fear is empowering.”

 

And On and On It Goes…

by Dawn Lester, Dawn’s Writings
June 11, 2023

 

It seems that many people wonder why the ‘no virus’ issue remains important now that the ‘pandemic’ is over.

To add to that, there are some people in the ‘freedom movement’ who have recently asserted that there are many aspects of the globalists’ agenda that are not related to health and are far more dangerous to humanity, such as technocracy, transhumanism, digital currencies, smart cities etc.

Yes, these are important issues – really important issues, I totally agree – but so is the idea that ‘pathogenic agents’ exist because it has tentacles that reach into many aspects of our lives, so it cannot be brushed aside as if irrelevant, especially in view of the complete lack of evidence to support this idea.

I would therefore recommend that people who believe in ‘pathogenic agents’ become aware of the various reports that claim there will be ‘future pandemics’. For just one example, a 22nd May 2023 ‘News’ item on the UN website states,

“Although COVID-19 may no longer be a global public health emergency, countries must still strengthen response to the disease and prepare for future pandemics and other threats, the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Monday in Geneva.”

There has never been a ‘pandemic’ due to an infectious agent and there never could be. But, whilst people believe that pathogenic infectious agents exist, they will believe in the possibility of other ‘pandemics’.

Therefore, one of the answers I would provide to the question of why the ‘no virus’ issue is so important is: that fear of ‘germs’ makes people believe that ‘disease’ can be transmitted between people, which means that we have to continue being afraid of each other.

In fact, one of the fundamental problems with all of this is that it keeps people in a state of unjustified fear, which is disempowering. Releasing unjustified fear is empowering.

Furthermore, fear of ‘germs’ makes people acquiesce to measures that are claimed to be for their benefit but are far more likely to be harmful, and in many cases potentially or even actually fatal.

For example, the maintenance of a belief in pathogens permits the maintenance of a belief in the idea that STIs are real, as demonstrated by a recent BBC article Gonorrhoea and syphilis sex infections reach record levels in England,

“England is seeing record high levels of gonorrhoea and syphilis sexually transmitted infections, following a dip during Covid years, new figures reveal.”

Is the claim that these STIs ‘dipped’ during the Covid years intended to suggest that people maintaining their distance from one another was beneficial? This point is not elaborated upon, so maybe it was not intended to imply that. Still, the point was stated, so maybe it was intended to be drawn into the sub-conscious mind.

One of the key messages in the BBC article is that people should ‘practise safe sex’ – whatever that means. In order to be ‘safe’, people are encouraged to ‘get themselves tested’ – does this sound familiar?

In addition, the article states that,

“The age group most likely to be diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (STI) is people who are 15-24.”

The reason for STIs to mainly affect young people is not explained, although it is possibly because this age group is more likely to be tested, as the article indicates,

“Some of the rise will be due to increased testing, but the scale of the surge strongly suggests that there are more of the infections around, says the UKHSA.”

A particularly significant comment made by the spokesperson for the UKHSA, and reported in the article, is that,

“Testing is important because you may not have any symptoms of an STI.”

Yet, according to the CDC,

“An infection occurs when germs enter the body, increase in number, and cause a reaction of the body.”

In other words, an infection causes a reaction or ‘symptoms’, but infected people may not have symptoms. A contradiction in terms, surely!

Just to be clear, the definition of ‘symptom’ according to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary is,

“…subjective evidence of disease or physical disturbance.”

So, to summarise: according to the medical establishment, a symptom is evidence of disease and ‘germs’ are pathogens, which means they cause disease, which is defined by the presence of symptoms. Yet ‘germs’ are said to be able to cause an infection even in the complete absence of symptoms.

Confused? You should be, because this is all nonsense!

But it is nonsense that people are not only expected to believe without question, but are not allowed to question.

Maybe it is because this is all so confusing that people are likely to just switch off their thinking, because they don’t understand it, and instead defer to the so-called ‘experts’. I am not being disrespectful. I do wonder, however, whether this approach may be intentional and that those in control of the narrative intentionally promote contradictory information to ensure that people are confused.

Deferring to ‘experts’ is however, a serious error of judgement, because it means people will believe the experts’ reports about ‘germs’ and become trapped in a false narrative that they may have been ‘infected’. This in turn will make them believe that they need to take certain drugs and act in a certain way to ‘protect’ themselves from other people or protect other people from them, especially people with whom they are in a loving relationship. They are made to believe the idea that they could cause harm to their partner or vice versa, and they therefore live in fear.

This fear is fuelled by a variety of statements, such as the claim in the BBC article that,

“An untreated infection can lead to infertility, pelvic inflammatory disease and can be passed on to a child during pregnancy.”

There is no evidence for this claim. Yet, this is exactly the kind of message that will encourage people to want to be tested to make sure they are ‘safe’. Again, does this sound familiar?

An even deeper problem is highlighted by the comment from the Chief Executive of the Terrence Higgins who is reported to have said that,

“Sexual health services and public health budgets have been cut to the bone.”

This comment was followed by his statement that,

“This was exacerbated and laid bare by last year’s mpox outbreak, which left sexual health clinics in the most affected areas unable to provide HIV and STI testing, HIV prevention and access to contraception due to the displacement of these core and vital services. Until sexual health is properly resourced – with an appointment easier to access than a (sic) – we won’t see the number of STIs heading in the right direction.”

Where do I start with this?

OK, so the Terrence Higgins Trust web page About our charity states,

“We’re the UK’s leading HIV and sexual health charity. We support people living with HIV and amplify their voices, and help the people using our services to achieve good sexual health.”

I realise that I don’t have a Substack article specifically about HIV, but this is one I wrote about STDs,

There’s No Such Thing as a Sexually-Transmitted Disease 

In addition, I wrote an article about monkeypox last year,

Monkeypox: Yet More Madness

HIV is a huge topic, but the fundamental point to convey here is that there is no evidence, and there never was, that there is such a thing as a ‘virus’ called HIV that is the cause of a health problem called AIDS – or any other health problem for that matter.

It is abundantly clear that there is a lot at stake here. It is also crystal clear that belief in the existence of any kind of pathogenic agent is absolutely essential for organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust (THT), as well as ‘health’ institutions, such as the WHO, CDC, NHS, and all the other alphabet agencies.

I have no idea of the motives of those who are in charge of the THT, nor do I intend to speculate on them. However, whether they know it or not, what they are promoting on their website is fully supportive of Agenda 2030 and the ‘Global Goals’, as the message at the foot of their website claims,

“Time is running out. Donate now and together we can end new cases of HIV in the UK by 2030.”

To those in the ‘truther’ community who claim that the 2030 Agenda has nothing to do with the ‘virus’ issue I would strongly suggest that they read SDG3, especially target 3.3.

And target 3b

The ‘no virus’ issue – and the associated understanding that there is no proof that any ‘diseases’ are caused by any ‘microorganism’, whether bacteria, fungi or parasites (‘viruses’ aren’t relevant in this context) – is and remains an extremely important issue; especially in view of the intended 2030 Agenda rollout of vaccines, because vaccines rely on the existence of pathogenic infectious agents.

Another reason to understand its importance is because the idea that ‘germs’ cause illness that only the medical establishment can address supports the idea that we need a ‘health service’ to look after us when we become ill, which is not the case. To this, I would add a caveat that accident and emergency services ARE important and should remain in place, although those who work in that sector should receive further training to teach them how the body actually works, and how it can and does heal itself; this knowledge will certainly improve patient recovery times and outcomes.

We may not reach everyone, but the importance of the ‘no virus’ issue cannot be underestimated. When people lose their fear of ‘germs’ of all descriptions, they will be able to concentrate their efforts on all the other aspects of their lives.

People can only make informed decisions when they are in possession of all the relevant information.

 

Connect with Dawn Lester

Cover image credit: fernandozhiminaicela

John Waters & Thomas Sheridan: Awakening the Sleeping Irish Soul

Below the selected quotes you will find an article by John Waters as well as a video conversation between John Waters & Thomas Sheridan regarding the situation in Ireland, human consciousness, and unfolding global events.

 

“Thomas is a pagan and I am a Christian. We are friends. We seek, I believe, the same thing, which is not the triumph of one or other creed, but the restoration of Ireland’s transcendent imagination, without which Ireland — or any nation — cannot survive.”

~ John Waters (excerpt from article below)

“It’s all about the degeneracy of the establishment, the really bad stuff that goes on at the top, right? They’re constantly trying to normalize it to the rest of us.

“And I’m gonna make a prediction here. In the next few years they’re going to try and somehow, in some way, reduce the age of consent really low.”

[…]

“And you’re going to have it become integrated into songs and TV shows and sitcoms. This is the greatest battle we will face as a civilization…

“They want to bring the human race down to zero, below degeneracy. Why? It’s a transhumanist thing.

“Everything that makes a human a human — their natural sense of natural justice. They want to obliterate it.

“The whole lockdown was all about that…”

[…]

“Do you remember the question we all grew up with? How did the Holocaust happen? Now we know. Now we know.”

[…]

“What those people are capable of is projecting their own inner dysfunctionality on us, and then trying to normalize it. And I think they’re not finished yet.

“But it’s obviously a battle they’ve lost. It’s over. It’s not going to go that way. It won’t happen.”

[…]

“They’re inching towards it.

“Why the drag queen story time? What the hell is that all about? Why the need for that?

“The need for that is they’re sexualizing children on purpose. And that’s why the change in the school curriculums.

“We have to understand the wickedness of what we’re up against. It’s like we got a taste of it with the lockdowns. But that poison is still there. And we have to be vigilant about it…”

[…]

“And this is an important one for us: Don’t self-hex yourself.

“Just because they want transhumanism, don’t say, ‘Oh, we’re gonna get transhumanism’ or ‘They’re gonna do this. They’re gonna legalize that. They’re going to bring in mandatory…’.

“Don’t do that. And stay away from people who are nihilistic that way. Because you can actually self-hex that into reality. They want you doing that.

“So that’s a very important one. Don’t let them self-hex you anymore.”

~ Thomas Sheridan (excerpt from video below)

“It is our job — as people, as citizens, as parents, as sons and daughters, brothers and sisters — it is our job to begin to think about the process of reconstruction of our culture.

“With… these considerations in mind. How do we rebuild our culture so that we, our imagination, can expand rather than contract?

“How can it make us bigger in reality rather than smaller?

“How can it make us more confident rather than more afraid?

“How do we repossess our country?

“How do we become again as proprietors, not as slaves…?”

~ John Waters (excerpt from video below)

 

Video: Awakening the Sleeping Irish Soul

Our problem — our terminal problem — is that we have lost the capacity to walk upright in infinity. This will not be mended by pious ejaculations, any more than by neo-atheist bullshit.

by John Waters, John Waters Unchained
June 4, 2023

Video: A public conversation about the trajectory of the soul of Ireland between Thomas Sheridan and John Waters at the Tuatha Dé Danann festival in Fermoy, Co Cork, on Saturday May 27th, 2023.

(Readers of my weekly diary may already have read most of the following in my weekly diaries of last week and the week before — reproduced here by way of introducing the context and purpose of this event. The links to the video are at the bottom of the page.)

To say that the crisis of Ireland is ‘spiritual’ is not the same as saying that it is ‘religious’, though the difference can be hard to spell out unless it makes itself clear, as sometimes it does. Ireland has been undergoing a visible ‘religious’ crisis for perhaps 40 years, chiefly arising from a war of attrition on its primary faith-channel, Catholicism, by a cultural insurgency of indeterminate origin but rather obvious intentionality. The elements and episodes of this have already been well canvassed: culture wars, clerical hypocrisy, charges of child sexual abuse and its cover-up, and beyond that a failure on the part of the Catholic Church ‘corporate’ to offer a meaningful proposal for spiritual existence to generations supposedly educated in the values of the Enlightenment and the technological/technocratic age, culminating in its woeful and disgraceful conduct during the Covid episode, when it left its entire congregation bereft of guidance, accompaniment and leadership. Cumulatively, these factors, and multiple others, have delivered Ireland into a spiritual death-spiral that has yet to be formally identified, either by the society or any of its churches. The symptoms of this crisis can be traced in the drifts of Ireland’s cultural trajectory for many years, and the events of, in particular, the past decade, when Ireland as a nation and culture appeared to be galloping towards a cliff-edge of moral and existential self-destruction. Many of the relevant episodes and developments have been described and analysed on this platform over the past three years, and before that in several books of mine published since the mid-1990s, the most recent being the 2018  memoir, Give Us Back the Bad Roads.

It is clear that Ireland has now entered some kind of final stage of this unravelling, of which the consequences are unlikely to be confined to the wish-list of those who have been driving the culture wars. In other words, what will be lost will be not merely the Church, but the metaphysical perspective in its entirety. Like other nations, though in a rather more pronounced manner, Ireland has entered what feels terrifyingly like a death-spiral, not least in the context of its collapsing demographics and inability to tell victims from vanquishers, or differentiate between its responsibilities to its own people and its role in an international people-trafficking racket. That this collapse has long been disguised by spurious economic data and other propaganda will render its manifestation and effects all the worse when it finally hits.

This conversation, though unscripted, was loosely intended as an attempt to address these conditions in the context of Ireland’s long spiritual evolution, with a view to identifying some thread of continuity that might assist in reawaking the Irish soul before it comes too late to do so.

What follow are my initial thoughts written in advance of the event in Fermoy on May 27th, as published in my weekly Unchained diary.

Friday (May 26th)

As is customary in advance of such events, I am carrying around a bag of thoughts about this Saturday’s public conversation with Thomas Sheridan at the Tuatha Dé Danann festival in Fermoy. It is, of course, a Resistance event, beautifully choreographed by Gerry O’Neill (The West’s Awake, here on Substack), but for once I can banish any fears of an insurgency by left-wing actually existing fascists, since the venue is private and well secured. Democracy wins, for once — or so we hope. I shall give a full account of events here next week.

Our theme is (something like) the evolution of Ireland from paganism to Christianity, though that construction has an element of begging the question, if not actually beggaring it. It’s a broad enough canvas, and Thomas and I have already approached the territory in some of our private discussions, though by no means pushing towards anything resembling a plan. I think our instincts, though we approach from divergent positions, are very similar: We seek to find a true line through the pagan and Christian histories of this island that will take us to consideration of the meaning of the present moment and perhaps some suggestion of what the next phase might be like.

Thomas is a pagan and I am a Christian. We are friends. We seek, I believe, the same thing, which is not the triumph of one or other creed, but the restoration of Ireland’s transcendent imagination, without which Ireland — or any nation — cannot survive. Thomas is a great deal more knowledgable about the history of Irish spirituality than I am, and it remains to be seen whether my sense of things is accurate or sustainable, but I believe that, overall, the transition from paganism to Christianity was relatively seamless, that this augurs well for some form of ultimate reconciliation of the traditions, and that this ought to be our first point of departure. To put this another way: In terms of our spiritually imaginative collective journeying, we speak not of two histories, but one. The merging to be observed in the two strands far exceeds any sense of divergence, and this is reflected in innumerable contexts: our surviving sense of the significance of our ancient holy sites, our recently renewing consciousness of Celtic Christianity, our continuing reverence for the land and landscape of Ireland, and so forth. These factors tell us that there is a great deal more of paganism in our modern-day Catholic imagination than many Catholics might like to admit. I have no difficulty in admitting it, indeed celebrating it, although I confess I did not arrive at that point until I ran into Thomas Sheridan, about three years ago.

The core ‘belief’ that drives me here is that no society can endure unless it has a transcendent element to its collective imagination. That has been my obsession in writing about faith, spirituality and religion from the beginning, although for various reasons it has been all but impossible to communicate this in the cultural climate of recent decades. This, essentially, is the point of my books, Lapsed Agnostic (2007) and Beyond Consolation (2010), and also of a substantial segment of my 1997 book, An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Modern Ireland — in particular the chapter ‘On How God Has Been Kidnapped and Held to Ransom’.

In the first of his trilogy, Sacred Order/Social Order (2006-2008) — two volumes of which were published posthumously — the American Freudian, sociologist and cultural critic, Philip Rieff, posited that Western civilisation was in the third and likely final stage of a rise and fall that had occurred over the course of three millennia. At the heart of his thesis is the Freudian idea that only through sublimation of the sexual instinct had Western civilisation come about. In other words, controls and restrictions on sexual activity had, as it were, squeezed out of humanity the creativity and genius which begat Western civilisation. This, it will come as a surprise, was predominately a Christian innovation.

Many nowadays misunderstand Freud’s pronouncement that religion is ‘illusory’. This may have been, in a different sense, his private view, but his theoretical position was that religion is a form that creates the superstructure of a transcendent cultural understanding. This means that, in a sense, human beings, when present on Earth, are simply ‘moving through’ this dimension to another place, and hence direct a measure of their attention to what they intuit to be beyond the horizon. This, of course, is how most religions present matters also, though generally in a subtly different sense: Often, the purpose or effect is to persuade people to discount misfortune or grief in this life, in the expectation of an afterlife reward. But, in the Freudian and Rieffian senses, we speak not of foregoing joy on Earth, but of adopting a demeanour towards Earthly reality that maximises human functioning. In this way, mankind has been able to place itself within a transcendent order of being, which has enabled it to put to good use energy that might otherwise have been dissipated in licentiousness and depravity.

In his earlier works, such as Freud: The Mind of the Moralist and The Triumph of the Therapeutic, Rieff unwrapped his concept of the ‘psychological man’, a creature of late modern society, who essentially knew the existential cost of everything but the metaphysical value of nothing. Psychological man was the product of communities that had lost the positive values spawned by transcendent culture. Because the hope of salvation had been abandoned, therapy was all that remained.

In the first of his Sacred Order/Social Order trilogy, My Life Among the Deathworks, Rieff divides recent human history into three layers of religious evolution/devolution, which he identifies, somewhat confusingly,  as ‘First World’, ‘Second World’ and ‘Third World’ cultures — resonating with the conventional contemporary understandings of these terms while conveying something much more enduring and fundamental. All societies, he claims, must espouse a sacred order, from which it derives authority to make laws and rules and give them the required force of moral injunctions seeking to outweigh other considerations. His ‘First World’ culture was essentially mythological:  the Greek legends of gods and heroes, the ancient pagan world, the fables of the American ‘Indians’, the Irish stories of Cú Chulainn and the Tuatha Dé Danann. Such cultures were defined by a sense of Fate —  which sees mankind at the mercy of forces greater than itself — and ordered by taboos.

In the ‘Second World’ culture, by Rieff’s hypothesis, this sense of Fate shifted to become a sense of Faith, with taboos replaced by commandments. This expands the transcendent imagination to embrace, as per the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the idea of man being governed by a specific God, and in some sense accompanied in his existence by this deity, which is accordingly imbued with a personalised meaning. The most significant element of this phase was the incarnation of Christ, in which God entered the earthly realm in order to ‘save’ mankind, which might be redefined as clarifying the purpose of human existence and elaborating a new way of being in the world. Both the First and Second Worlds are centred on a transcendent sense of reality, and obviously these are the phases in Irish history that Thomas and I will be seeking to reconcile or elucidate on Saturday.

But we will also, regrettably, have to come to the Third World phase, defined by Rieff as a culture exhibiting a social order that rests on no preexisting sacred order, characterised by artefacts and expressions that are invariably transgressive, debunking or deconstructive. This is the culture of ‘deathworks’, and is where we have now fetched up.

For the first time in history, cultural elites insist upon the untried, revolutionary idea that human society can flourish without sacred authority. ‘A culture of civility that is separated from sacred order has not been tried before,’ Rieff claimed in My Life Among the Deathworks, the first of his Sacred Order trilogy, published in 2006, the year of his death. Such cultures dispense with any interest in sublimating the instinctual carnality and lasciviousness of mankind, placing sexuality at the top of the totem pole, inverting the value systems acquired in the First and Second World phases, so that lust and hedonism become the dominant ‘values’, and their restriction deemed an offence against freedom. This amounts to a full 180 degree moral inversion from either or both of the first two cultural phases.

The pursuit of happiness through pleasure becomes the central obsession of a ‘Third World’ society.  The accordant suppression of the sublimating tendency triggers the demolition of the transcendent order upon which the society will have been constructed in the first place, which hastens the termination of the metaphysical imagination of the society, and thereafter that of its citizens. What inevitably follows, according to Rieff, is a proliferation of sexual identities, the promulgation of pornograpjy and artistic deathworks, and attacks on the fundamental understandings of human nature. In this culture, what once was vice is now virtue, and what was virtue is scorned and laughed at. Pornography becomes the new ‘doctrine of value’, which is why it is to be pushed via the education system upon young children. In due course, such a society will inevitably overturn all of the taboos and limitations on sexual behaviour that once enabled the civilisation to come into being. These include squeamishness about paedophilia, bestiality and incest, as well as multiple categories of sexual ‘choices’, which facilitate their pioneer practitioners to become elevated into a form of hedonistic sainthood. Hence, for example, Panti Bliss, the iconoclast drag-queen grot-peddler as hero. Rieff calls this ‘anti-culture’, in which the objective is not to transmit constructive beliefs from generation to generation but to convey beliefs that cannot but destroy everything they touch. It becomes impossible, in such a society, to judge human behaviour by its transgressive aspects, because all prohibition is prohibited and — in Freudspeak, ‘all repression must be repressed’. In this culture, the only truth is that there is no truth; virtue is supplanted by vulgarity, and delicacy by degeneracy. A Third World culture has no memory, and repudiates all authority, and is ruled by fiction and theatrical role-playing.

It is not accidental that Rieff — who, incidentally, blames Freudian therapeutics for the unleashing of Third World culture — ended up labelling European and American culture as such. A deathwork he defines as a work of art that presents as ‘an all-out assault upon something vital to the established culture’, and a ‘culture of deathworks’ signifies the self-murder of a civilisation though filth and nihilism. What we now face, therefore, is not some random ‘culture war’ about particulars, but a radical divergence at the most fundamental level — a stifling of belief in the transcendent and its supplanting by a purely earthbound imagination, but which civilisation is rendered impossible to maintain.

His denunciation of ‘deathworks’ is not aesthetic, but a moral condemnation of the denigration of the sacred in art. He declared Joyce’s novel Finnegans Wake as ‘the greatest third world literary creation’ on account of its demonstration of a method by which a cultural inheritance might be pulled apart and its pieces rearranged to produce a playful new culture that finds its forte in a mockery of, and freedom from, the old one. In this sense, the book is ‘liberatory’, because it shows a way to escape from the prescriptions and proscriptions of the sacred.

It can no longer be controversial to suggest that the defining characteristic of the present age might be diagnosed as the desire to subvert and destroy the institutions, traditions and beliefs that converged to become what is called Western civilisation — previously ‘Christendom’. This iconoclasm is carried out in the name of freedom — sexual freedom, for the most part — but is propelled by a fatal misunderstanding of the nature of reality and of the human structure.

Man is not built for the world — not entirely, at least. He cannot find satisfaction here, except in fits and starts, tantalising and brief. He is restless and searching, but cannot ever seem to find what he’s looking for. The optimal demeanour before this reality is, therefore, that of the existential nomad — always moving, not purely in the physical sense, but by adopting a mode of metaphysical impermanence, shifting constantly lest his searching lead to ennui.

In this sense, the cultural and societal inheritance of Christianity can be rinsed down to the idea that human happiness is better achieved by the sublimation of obvious desiring in the visualisation of a transcendent order of being. Man must live in the infinite, even while he is marooned in the three-dimensional.  A functional culture in this sense requires a foundational mythology that enables it to transcend the state of continuous present time. This mythology relates to the past and to the putatively eternal future, and functions to render the present subservient to things higher and greater than itself. The nature of the rupture that has opened up in modern society has to do with the repudiation of this idea in favour of something that amounts to a culture rooted in itself and its own apprehended origins.

The Third World culture comes about when the means by which the civilisation was structured to begin with is forgotten, or overlooked, in a desire to destroy authority and tradition in the neurotic pursuit of the pleasures that have seemed to be gratuitously forbidden.

It is true that the resulting pseudo-culture can achieve the semblance of functionalism by mimicking the idea of a transcendent culture, since it maintains the outward appearance of a quasi-eternal perspective on reality. But this is actually an illusion, and all of the available artefacts (‘anti-art’) will reveal themselves as tautologies. A novel, for example, will not take its reader on a journey into the infinite, but will simply replicate the wider culture’s certitude that it amounts to all that is, and all that is necessary. Its aim is to achieve in the reader an accommodation with the proffered definitions, not to open up unlimited possibilities. It is possible to prolong the life of this pseudo-culture by the practice of parasitism upon that which it denies: an atheist poet, for example, may have derived inspiration from another whose work is rooted in the eternal, though he puts it to use to parody such understandings. A painting may mock the rejected inheritance, and yet derive its only life from what it derides.

Such a pseudo-culture is incapable of formulating any idea of the beautiful, the good or the true, because it renders man and his desire for immediate freedoms as the measure of all things. This culture remains oblivious that the untrammelled pursuit of the literal desiring of each and every human will in a short time lead to chaos, followed by outright destruction of everything. Very often, this phenomenon is ascribed to the waning of what is called ‘morality’ — to the applause of ‘progressives’ and the dismay of ‘conservatives’ — but this is a superficial reading. Really what is at play is the loss of the capacity to read reality as something to be ‘moved through’ on the way to another, imagined, place. The purpose is not, as Freud intimated, self-delusion, but the adoption of the optimal demeanour in a reality that does not meet the total scope of man’s desiring  — indeed, while promising to satisfy the deepest cravings, leaves man bereft and humiliated in the wake of each lunging after the presumed object of his longing.

Anyway, to Fermoy! The foregoing touches on just a few of the thoughts I have been thinking as I cut the grass and tended to the security of the cabbage patch. In the evenings, I dipped into some of the late John O’Donoghue’s fabulous books —  Anam Cara, Divine Beauty, Eternal Echoes, Bendictus — which offer such a rich repository of memory of those early years of what he called ‘Celtic Christianity,’ when our First World morphed into our Second. Now, reeling through the Third, it may be time to reconsider whether we wish to remain subject to the squalls and scudding of Fate, or whether we might wish to revisit some of the elements of our past culture(s) which gave us the riches we are now in the process of destroying.

Saturday (May 27th)

I had a friend one time whose wife was a bit contrary, so whenever she was rude or abrupt with someone, he would take them aside and explain: ‘She wasn’t born on a sunny day.’

But I was born on a sunny day, and every one of my 67 birthdays has fallen on such a day, and that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. Every birthday from my childhood comes back to me in a flood of sunlight and me walking to school, slightly less reluctantly than other days, past the May altars and across the bridge above the drying-up riverbed, with my jumper tied around my waist. I remember only one darkish day, and this purely metaphorically, when I passed an old man sitting breathlessly on a doorstep, out of the sunlight. He lived in a ramshackle cottage with a thatched roof beside the railway bridge on the Trien road, and when I came home at lunchtime my mother told me he had died. His name was Jack Tighe. That was at least 55 years ago, and I have never forgotten the shock of being so close to a dying man.

Today is a sunny day in Tipp. It is not my birthday but the day before my birthday. Out of the blue, it is the most perfect day of the year so far. Jesus is smiling on the Resistance, for he has moved the weather of my birthday one day forward to ensure that the Tuatha Dé Danann festival in Fermoy goes off well.

So, I have awoken in a B&B in the valley of Poulaculleare (Poll An Chóiléir — ‘the hole of the collar’, I think), in the heart of south Tipperary, some 20 miles from Fermoy, and am sitting outside waiting for my lift. The Tuatha Dé Danann Festival is the brainchild of the powerhouse that is Gerry O’Neill (the West’s Awake — and how!) and today is its debut, the first of what we hope will be many more such events, though we barely dare to think so for fear of hexing things.

As relayed last week, I am booked to speak at the festival this afternoon, along with Thomas Sheridan, about the state of the soul of Ireland at this moment in its long spiritual journey from paganism, via Celtic Christianity, to whatever we’re going through now.  Our title is ‘The Awakening Soul of Ireland’, which is appropriately hopeful, though possibly a bit premature.

As I outlined last week, I see this spiritual trajectory as a climb towards and then a falling away from transcendence, exactly in the fashion described by the American sociologist, Philip Rieff, in his 2006 book, My Life Among the Deathworks. It’s a risky enough theme to be discussing in front of a mixed audience, because, as I have discovered over the years, when it comes to ‘religious’ topics, people tend to hear — or not hear — only their own prejudices, so in some respects you are wasting your time trying to break new ground.

Whether Thomas and I were successful in this endeavour, I shall leave in the hands of you, the reader. I believe we opened some interesting new boxes, and certainly the response afterwards was encouraging. But people should not approach the video with prior assumptions and expectations, for what we are doing is not evangelising or engaging in personal testimonies, but seeking to explore how the decrepit transcendent imagination of the nation might be restored to good order.

This is for me the core meaning of that much-used term, ‘the spiritual war’. Had our transcendent imagination remained strong, we should not have ended up as baaing sheep, taking orders from smirking simpletons and behaving in a manner as to cause the lights of our civilisation to go out, one by one, with no let-up or remission for three years and counting. It is confusion as to our meaning and purpose that ultimately causes this degree of demoralisation. And, yes, the churches — worst of all the Catholic Church — played a massive part in this, selling the pass on freedom, without which there is no possibility of retaining truth and justice at the heart of public affairs.

It is necessary to tread carefully through these topics, but hopefully not too carefully. Mostly, religious-minded people attend talks ‘about religion’ to be affirmed in their own certitudes, just as people who have persuaded themselves that it is all nonsense gravitate to such discussions to disrupt them with ridicule and nonsense. I’m not interested in catering for either party. Both a dog-in-the-manger approach to faith by the faithful, and the dumbass neo-atheism of the past couple of decades have contributed to bringing us to this darkest of places. Everyone needs to remember that fixing what is broken will involve talking in a language that as many as possible can relate to. There is no point preaching to choirs, and anyone coming to such discussions to hear what they already know and believe is wasting at least his own time.

The same goes for those who dismiss religion out of hand, even those who say they can ‘find their own way to God’. Maybe they can, but what about if there had never been any conduit for religious ideas in their culture, which is what’s going to obtain from now on? It’s a little like the residents of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown, who have recently been congratulating themselves on their ‘performance’ in Census 2022 on account of the fact that they had the highest showing for ‘no religion’ in the country, at 24 per cent. Probably the most schooled and the least intelligent region of the country (I live there, so I can say this with some conviction), DL/R fails to comprehend that its irreligious disposition, being for now a luxury of a community with residual faith traces, will one day flip and hit its population for six, when critical mass is reached and the smug secularists cotton on that they have delivered their descendants into a hellhole of pitilessness and unhope.

And I have as little patience with those who dismiss all these vital questions with an ‘Oh it’s all just a means of control!’ as I do with Holy Joes who tell me there is a fixed protocol by which I must pursue my spiritual life. A chap was trying to do this to me yesterday as myself and Thomas and Louise Roseingrave were sitting outside trying to get our thoughts together (I mean collectively) for our event. He purported to be ‘having a conversation’, but he was just showering me with questions from behind his veil of cigarette smoke: ‘Why do you say that?’; ‘What do you mean by that?’; ‘Yes, but how do you actually know that?’; et cetera, like a teacher trying to draw the correct answer from a child. In the end I got tired of this socratic dialogue and told him to take a running one. It’s hard to blame him. This is what has passed for conversation in modern media: some dumbass trying to stop you talking by peppering you with smart-sounding questions that actually amount to prohibitions because they stop you saying what you want to say. Essentially, it’s a form of silencing, which is generally what you get if you’re stupid enough to go on with one of the elite mediocrities posturing as moderators of our national conversation.

But just repeating the same mantras about religion being no more than a control grid amounts to the same thing, blocking off any meaningful conversation.

We have heard nothing for about 40 years except the excesses and downsides of religion. We hear rather less about what we have lost by ceasing to speak about the good it has wrought in the world, which is far from trivial. It’s time to move beyond cliches, of either polarity. Unless we’ve been exiled on Mars, we know all about the bad stuff, but can we occasionally discuss the possibility that there are positive reasons why societies might cherish religious ideas?

I noticed a few people walked out quite early on from today’s event featuring Thomas and me. That’ll be the Holy Josephines, I figured, ‘offended’ because I’m making jokes about Jesus coming in a taxi from Cork airport, but unlikely to arrive. (He never arrived, as I predicted.) I don’t do this gratuitously. I do it to send signals to the wanderer that there might be something here worth listening to, that what’s afoot is not an in-house prayer meeting. The suggestion that God might have a sense of humour is never a bad place to begin.

Our problem — our terminal problem — is that we have lost the capacity to walk upright in infinity. This will not be mended by pious ejaculations, any more than by neo-atheist bullshit. It will only become capable of treatment when people can be persuaded to listen to and participate in honest conversations about the meaning of life: Why are we here? Is there even a reason? What can we know about any of this? Those who dismiss those questions because, like Alastair Campbell, they ‘don’t do religion’ are shooting their own children in the feet and hands. Everyone has a right to hear how this stuff might be useful to them. The idea that each of us can arrive at our own spiritual understandings is delusional, because none of us would have the first notion of any of this had we not received a grounding — however imperfect — in a specific religious worldview. Our sole ‘religion’, in that case, would be something like communism, which is what our grandchildren will get unless we can turn things around.

When I speak of these matters, in the general or Christian contexts, I sometimes speak of ‘mythology’, which also drives the Holy Joes mad because they do not understand what mythology is and imagine that what I’m saying is that Christianity is ‘made up’.  For the purposes of these discussions, I say that it may or may not be, but that either way the issue is beside the point, which is that these questions belong to an entirely different part of the human imagination, in which things can be true and allegorical at the same time. I have in mind ‘myth’, in the Greek sense of public dreams and stories that are truer than history, larger than facts and more real than what’s on the news.

Several times in the course of my contributions today, I stressed that I was not here to talk about my personal beliefs, but of the possibility of restoring a sense of the transcendent to our public conversations. I have often found that people seem not to see this distinction, imagining that you are preaching or evangelising when in fact you are trying to speak of what is, in this context, fundamentally a cultural question, carrying different implications for the collective than for the personal realm.

In his 1971 volume, Myths to Live By, a collection of lectures delivered at the Cooper Union Forum in New York, between 1958 and 1971, the great mythological scholar, Joseph Campbell, set out the superstructure of mythology in human culture and history. He noted that, from their earliest established existence, hundreds of years before Christ, human myths were concerned primarily with two central themes: the adaption to and enablement of the flourishing of the social groups that give life and protection to the individual, and transcendence of the mortal condition. In a sense, these two themes become one, because both aim for the creation of understandings that allow a human life to extend beyond its mortal boundaries. Campbell described the same mythological patterns in multiple primitive societies — the same themes, symbols, meanings and essential stories. The story of the Garden of Eden, for example, is to be found in the origins of Buddhism in Japan, some 1,000 years before the Book of Genesis was written.

All civilisations tend to take their own mythologies literally, and these beliefs, usually transmitted by religion, have been the very buttresses of multiple civilisations, supporting moral order, cohesion, vitality and imagination. Myth enables us to exceed our own expectations of ourselves by drawing on the deeper capacities which the banality of the everyday contrives to suppress. Successful civilisations, therefore, tend to be the ones that take their own mythologies seriously but not wholly literally. The more a society moves towards rationalism, the more it risks disequilibrium by virtue of no longer holding fast to its founding and sustaining mythologies. Human life, as Nietzsche told us, depends for its propulsion on illusions. The loss of belief in the founding myths provokes uncertainty and the collapse of values and moral order, leading eventually to decay and degeneracy. This is where we have now fetched up.

Campbell elaborates: ‘With our old mythologically founded taboos unsettled by our modern sciences, there is everywhere in the civilised world a rapidly rising incidence of vice and crime, mental disorders, suicides and dope addictions, shattered homes, impudent children, violence, murder, and despair.’

Mythology, as Campbell insisted, is not for the entertainment of children, but nor is it for scholars only. It is a matter of the utmost importance to human society — ‘For its symbols (whether in the tangible form of images or in the abstract form of ideas) touch and release the deepest centers of motivation, moving literate and illiterate alike, moving mobs, moving civilizations.’

And again: ‘The rise and fall of civilizations in the long, broad course of history can be seen to have been largely a function of the integrity and cogency of their supporting canons of myth; for not authority but aspiration is the motivator, builder, and transformer of civilization.’ We take for granted that this is true of the Ancient Greek and Roman empires, but we rarely think of our own civilisation in the same way. We, after all, are ‘modern,’ which somehow puts us into a different category.

And this provokes a question: Is it possible for a society to modernise and remain credulous as to its founding myths? Is there a way by which myths can be retained as something akin to beliefs, even while their literalness is being debunked?

Joseph Campbell held that the decline of belief in myth arises from over-literal belief in religious ideas. Mythology he defined as ‘other people’s religion’: the ‘penultimate truth — penultimate because the ultimate cannot be put into words.’ Religion, he believed, can give rise to popular misunderstandings of the nature of mythology. Half the world, he said, thinks that what he called ‘the metaphors of religious traditions’ are facts, and the other half insists that they are lies.

This is exactly the problem. Over the past couple of decades, the world has seemed to come under sustained attack from the neo-atheists — Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens to the fore — in what had all the signs of a psy-op, i.e., a cultural insurgency designed to weaken the foundations of our religious underpinnings. In some respects, Philip Rieff’s analysis of the three stages of the spiritual growth and decay of societies gives us a clearer viewfinder in which to observe the problem, which is actually as Campbell has stated it. Rieff’s concept of ‘Second World’ modes of belief, for all kinds of arcane and elusive reasons, seems less well adapted to the retention of metaphysical values in culture than the First World kind, which enables a less literal form of attachment to the guiding stories of the belief-system. Abrahamic religion demands a substantialist engagement with the figures and stories of the canon, to which we are enjoined to apply the same forms of reason as to everyday matters. This has proved fatal to the plausibility of, for example, the Christian narrative, which seems to occupy a rather unique situation in being increasingly difficult to sustain at the mythological level once literal belief begins to wane.

Another factor is that ancient mythological understandings tended to be mixed up with tribal sentiment, which meant that their heroic qualities superseded consideration of literal meaning. Because our Western understanding of mythology is so limited and so literal, and because our cultures no longer remind us of such elemental circumstances, we think of our ‘myths’ — those things that ancient human cultures assumed to be truer than the truth — as dispensable in the manner of gramophones or telegraphs. This may be our fatal mistake.

For these and other reasons, ‘modern’ society became — in its own mind — too ‘clever’ for the God it had been reared to see as its Maker. Really, the problem was not one of an excess of intelligence, but an inability to comprehend things simultaneously in different frames, which may be a symptom of a deficit of intelligence.

It is a strange quirk of what we think of as ‘modern’ society that it sees its own crude literalism as evidence of increased enlightenment. But, as Campbell advised, ‘Gods suppressed become devils.’ In other words, we deal here with a stark polarisation of options: once pursuit of ‘The Good’ is set aside as a driving mechanism, it is soon supplanted by its antithesis: the pursuit of depravity and evildoing.

In Hero With A Thousand Faces, Campbell wrote: ‘The psychological dangers through which earlier generations were guided by the symbols and spiritual exercises of their mythological and religious inheritance, we today (in so far as we are unbelievers, or, if believers, in so far as our inherited beliefs fail to represent the real problems of contemporary life) must face alone, or, at best with only tentative, impromptu, and not often very effective guidance. This is our problem as modern, “enlightened” individuals, for whom all gods and devils have been rationalized out of existence.’

But it’s worse than that: the devils have been able to present themselves as heroes. As Campbell emphasised, the effect of a living mythological symbol is to waken and give guidance to the energies of life. It ‘turns us on’ and allows — motivates — us to function in a mode of animated engagement with reality. It appropriates the dormant energies of body and mind, and harnesses them to particular ends. This has served our cultures well for the two thousand years of the Christian era, itself built on the strong foundations of the paganism that came before. But, as Campbell also tells us, when these stories no longer seem true, the symbols no longer work their magic, and man, individual by individual, ‘cracks away’ from the group, becoming dissociated, disoriented and alienated. This is what we are confronted with in what we call ‘post-Christian society’. The ‘affect symbols’ which once summoned each individual member of the belief system to the same purpose now ring hollow, and have not been replaced by anything capable of summoning up the same degree of affective engagement with reality.

My objective in as far as this model of the discussion is concerned is not to restore the claims of this or that religion, or even of religion in general, but simply to remind myself and others that the human mechanism is anything but simple, and we should ponder carefully before abandoning or jettisoning things that have proved useful. Progress can take us backwards, not because it is ‘bad’, but because history does not see things in black and white, good and bad. History, like nature, is red in tooth and claw. It was never a given that the imagined nature of progress emanating from the human mind was going to be maximally suited to the biological, animal nature of man himself. In many ways, the fruits of his own genius impact on him more like the actions of a colonising, occupying power. He thinks he has to follow every conceivable thread of progress and invention, unable to consider whether or not it is good for him, or even if it might destroy him. And, all the while, his moral genius lags behind his capacity for technical invention.

Three years ago, it began to dawn on some of us that the Covid mission was an attempt to restore the terrors, and their supposed remedies, that religions emerged as an answer to — terror of death, first and foremost. Under the control of the godless, the culture now moves to take advantage of the destruction of religion, preying upon the hapless post-Christian refugees from what they imagine to be unreason. Covid is an anti-religion in this precise sense: it seeks to restore man to his primal state, before the thought of God ever crossed his countenance.

There was one significant disruption to our onstage conversation today, by a heckler or interloper who made an attempt to throw the discussion near the end, though I am told by the videographers that this will not feature in the recording, as the voice of the interloper cannot be heard on the tape, and in any event it caused the discussion to break away briefly into a series of tangents. I confess I could not hear him so clearly either, but I gathered that his point was that we were not being ‘positive’ enough. I utterly hate that kind of nonsense — as if we have a responsibility to be ‘positive’ no matter how dark it gets. As it happens — and as I pointed out to the heckler — I had just a couple of minutes earlier said that I believed we were winning the war, to which he rejoined along the lines of ‘What war? There’s no war.’ I believe it was at this point that Thomas asked him if he was a civil servant — an excellent question, which caused the interloper to stutter and stall, before resuming his incoherent interruption. In due course he was persuaded to sling his hook, and off he went with a smug smirk on his chops. My sense is that he was a Guardstapo agent, possibly the one who had spent the week trying to find ways of making things awkward for Gerry O’Neill and his team by ringing up asking about traffic management plans, planning regulations, and so forth. No doubt, like every other agent provocateur we encounter in our country these days, he was in the pay of ‘the PR agency from Hell’, which has been managing the innumerable psy-ops perpetrated against Irish society for the past dozen years. In any event, he achieved almost nothing, and the whole shemozzle lasted about a minute and a half.

The event was held in the grounds of a fabulous old house not far from Fermoy town centre. It is a heavenly place, the property of a local family, well-disposed towards the Resistance. Looking around the site this evening, with its campsite on the hill facing the front door, the marquee in the back garden, and the various food and craft stalls dotted around, it struck me that it was a small-scale version of the Lisdoonvarna music festival of the early 1980s — the same spirit, or something like it, the same categories of people (life-embracing, joyous, freedom-loving), the same implicit sense of Ireland as a unique culture in the world, something worth loving and preserving. Leaving this evening, I had a positive feeling that this is something that will expand because we are — dread cliche! — ‘on the right side of history’, and because Ireland longs to live, and those seeking to destroy her know only death, and so have nothing to propose to her now or in the future. It will, I felt certain as we drove away, become possible to heal and restore our broken culture, and in doing so reclaim our country from the jaws of extinction.

Original video available at YouTube. [Mirrored at Odysee below.]



 

Connect with John Waters

 

“The End of Covid” Video Series: Exposing the Covid Hoax, the False “Science” of Virology & the Real History of Vaccines

An Online Education to End Every Pandemic — Coming June 20th

 

Produced by The Way Forward, Alfa Vedic & The Sovereign’s Way

Directed by Kelly Brogan, Amandha Vollmer, Alec Zeck, Mike Winner, Dawn Lester

Starring David Icke, Tom Cowan, Mark & Samantha Bailey, Dawn Lester, Sally Fallon Morell, Andrew Kaufman, Kevin Corbett, Christiane Northrup, Lee Merritt, Barre Lando, Mike Wallach, Christine Massey, Alec Zeck, Mike Donio, Roman Bystrianyk, Leslie Manookian, Mike Stone, Stefano Scoglio, Ana Maria Mihalcea, Steve Falconer, David Nixon, Etienne de la Boetie2, Marvin Haberland, John Jay Singleton and many more. [Click here and scroll down to see full line up.]



The End of COVID is the end of pandemics. It’s the end of scientific dogma, social distancing, vested interests, public health authorities, and billion-dollar pharmaceutical companies.

On June 20th, the entire production is coming to a close – once and for all.

~~~

The End of COVID is a collaborative effort – a collection of perspectives and expertise from a wide variety of sources. This includes doctors who have a long list of credentials, and holistic health practitioners with no abbreviations next to their names. It includes self-published authors, and New York Times best-sellers – prominent media personalities, and relatively unknown independent journalists.

The common thread is that this project was put together by men and women seeking the truth.

It wasn’t funded by pharmaceutical interests, informed by scientific dogma, or backed by the corporate press. It was made with intention – by mankind, for mankind.

So that we never have to see this show again.

We never have to mask up or be spaced apart. We never have to fear germs or fall for medical propaganda. Because, now, we know better.

We know the real history of virology and vaccines. We know the institutions and influences behind “the science.” And we know how we can step into our power and stand up to the nonsense.

This means the show is over. The trick has been revealed. Never again can we be fooled, persuaded, or coerced.

Instead, we can all turn off the broadcast. And move on – toward a life of health, happiness, and sovereignty.

Sign up to view for free — streaming starts June 20th

 

Ted Kuntz on Betrayal by Institutions, Colleagues and Family Members “Co-Opted and Controlled by Fear, Shame, Pride and Greed”

 

“I understand that many thought they were doing the right thing by, not only allowing themselves to be injected with an unproven experimental genetic technology, but also by coercing, shaming, bullying and discriminating against those who didn’t. 

The problem is that “doing the right thing” was not based on any moral underpinning of freedom of thought, speech, choice or bodily sovereignty. Instead, doing the right thing was following the herd.”

 

by Ted Kuntz, Vaccine Choice Canada
May 31, 2023

 

Last Friday I had the pleasure of attending a presentation by Dr. Jordan Peterson. Dr. Peterson spoke at length about his 12 Rules for Life, a treatise that invites and assists us to be better human beings. In his entire presentation, one word caught my attention. The word – betrayal. This word resonated deeply with me and spoke to the source of my anger, resentment and angst for the future. In reflecting upon the last three years what became clear to me is the amount of betrayal we have experienced:

– Our governments and elected representatives betrayed us.

– Our judges and those responsible for upholding the rule of law and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms betrayed us.

– Our police, military, attorney generals and all those who took an oath to defend us betrayed us.

– Our doctors, nurses, public health officers and pharmacists betrayed us.

– Our regulatory agencies who are responsible for upholding ethical medical practices betrayed us.

– Our mainstream media who purport to be independent and seekers of truth betrayed us.

– Our academic institutions who claim to be a source of higher learning betrayed us.

– Our religious leaders who closed places of worship betrayed us.

– Our financial institutions that promised to safeguard our savings betrayed us.

– Our family, friend and colleagues who joined in the coercion, shaming and discrimination of the uninjected betrayed us.

– And those who acquiesced to coercion because they wanted to travel, play hockey, or go to the pub betrayed their own bodily sovereignty and individual rights and dignity.

The problem with betrayal is that it’s difficult to regain trust once one has been betrayed. I’m reluctant to trust these institutions, agents, professionals, colleagues and family members with my safety. They showed me that they can be co-opted and controlled by fear, shame, pride and greed.

I understand that many thought they were doing the right thing by, not only allowing themselves to be injected with an unproven experimental genetic technology, but also by coercing, shaming, bullying and discriminating against those who didn’t. The problem is that “doing the right thing” was not based on any moral underpinning of freedom of thought, speech, choice or bodily sovereignty. Instead, doing the right thing was following the herd.

I suggest our society easily fell into a state of systemic betrayal precisely because it has lost its moral foundation. Trust will not be easily restored until such time as we collectively assert and live a value system that respects individual rights and freedom and the dignity of this God given body. Until that time, there is reason to be on guard.

 

Connect with Vaccine Choice Canada

Cover image credit: Lukas_Rychvalsky

---

See related:

First Do No Harm by Ted Kuntz

Dr. David Martin w/ Vaccine Choice Canada: On Canada’s Role in Producing the Weaponized “Covid” Injections Which Have Seriously Harmed and Killed Many

“Uninformed Consent”: Powerful Documentary by Matador Films — Exposing Massive Deception, Cruelty & Genocide Imposed Upon Humanity by Global Elites

Of Ukrainian (and Uranium?) Explosions, and Missing Explosives in …

by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star
May 24, 2023

 

Regular leaders here probably all saw that explosion of the munitions storage dump in the western Ukraine last week, and the firey roiling mushroom clouds that accompanied them. There has been the usual chatter on the internet and various sites that the explosions may have been of a storage facility where some of the munitions were depleted uranium, and that hence, the explosions may have been “nuclear” in some form or fashion. I have to be honest: I have seen two starkly different recordings of the same explosions, and to my eyes, they show two very different events. In the version that most people have seen, the explosions occur in a massive fireball, and very tellingly, as the fireball rises to form a mushroom cloud, there is continued fire and burning of material in the cloud, a typical signature of a nuclear detonation. Continued combustion in the cloud as it rises is a typical signature of a nuclear explosion, and the burn continues until the material is burned out. The other video – much rarer –  shows the initial explosion, but little to no burn immediately thereafter in the mushroom cloud. We were then treated to a variety of experts on various YouTube channels talking about the question that the depleted uranium allegedly in storage at the facility had some sort of burn, and we were assured by these experts that there was no such possibility.

I’m not so sure. Under normal conditions of use, the kinetic impact of a depleted uranium round is so fast and therefore energetic, that the uranium literally burns inside the target, killing the people within.  After all, the mechanism of the Little Boy uranium bomb was precisely a 5″ naval rifle – a cannon once again – that fired a projectile of uranium-235 into a target, which itself consisting of more uranium-235. It was the sheer speed and kinetic energy of the impact that initiated the reaction. So for those who know their ordnance, a depleted uranium round is like a hollow charge HEAT round, on steroids. Think of your standard HEAT round as the old actor Wally Cox, and a depleted uranium round as Arnold Schwarzenneggar, and you get the idea. Why depleted uranium? because it is an extremely dense material in its metallic form(much more so than gold or lead) an therefore much heavier per unit of volume than gold or lead. As for a burn under explosive conditions, it is to be remembered that smashing two bits of highly enriched uranium-235 together in one’s hands can literally cause a kind of sub-critical nuclear “fizzle”, and indeed, such an incident actually happened by accident during the wartime American Manhattan Project. So I am not entirely convinced by the experts on YouTube calmly assuring us that we are not watching any sort of nuclear combustion in the vast majority of the videos of the incident. Indeed, perhaps a fuel air explosive would have enough brisance to create the kinetic conditions for rounds of depleted uranium to respond with a burn.

But my chief explosive concern here today is this story shared by E.G. and many other regular readers out there, about 30 tons of ammonia nitrate that appears to have gone missing from a freight train on its way from Wyoming to Looneyfornia:

30-Ton Shipment Of Explosive Chemical Disappears Between California And Wyoming

Now this story just has “TROUBLE” written all over it, and if you’re like me – and you probably are otherwise you probably wouldn’t be reading this website – you’re going to find the “narrative” here a bit disturbing:

A 30-ton shipment of ammonium nitrate, a chemical used as both fertilizer and as a component in explosives, has gone missing during a rail shipment between Wyoming and California last month, resulting in four separate investigations.

A railcar loaded with some 60,000 pounds of the chemical left Cheyenne, Wyoming on April 12, only to be found empty two weeks later at a rail stop in the Mojave Desert, according to a short incident report from the firm which shipped the ammonium, KQED reports.

And of course, there’s the usual-and-to-be-expected reference to ammonia nitrate and the Oklahoma City Bombing:

Ammonium nitrate is commonly used as fertilizer. It’s also an ingredient in high explosives and was used in the homemade bomb detonated in the 1995 attack on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. (All emphases in the original)

However, the dirty little secret of the dirty and not-so-little ammonia nitrate bomb used in the Oklahoma City Bombing is that the brisance of ammonia nitrate is very low as explosives go, and thus, the mere 4,500 pounds of fertilizer was insufficient in brisance to bring down the B-3 column in the Murrah building by stress loading on that column. It was a retired U.S. Air Force brigadier general, Benton K. Partin, whose specialty was explosive ordnance and damage assessment, who crunched the numbers and came to that conclusion. And that discomforting physics fact means that there had to have been demolition charges on that column (and probably on the others that failed), in order to account for the failure of the columns. The ammonia nitrate bomb simply didn’t have the “oomph” to do it.  But it does have enough “oomph” to do some damage, particularly to non-reinforced structures (which the Murrah building was not).

Now comes what to me appears to be the narrative part, because I’m just not buying the explanation given in the article for the disappearance of the ammonia nitrate:

According to Dyno Nobel, the Ammonium – transferred in pellet form in a covered hopper car similar to those used to ship coal – must have fallen from the car on the way to a rail siding (where a short track connects with the main track) around 30 miles from the town of Mojave in eastern Kern County, in a city called Saltdale.

“The railcar was sealed when it left the Cheyenne facility, and the seals were still intact when it arrived in Saltdale. The initial assessment is that a leak through the bottom gate on the railcar may have developed in transit,” said the company, adding that the two-week trip included multiple stops. They report having had “limited control” over the railcar operated by Union Pacific.

The railcar is being transported back to Wyoming for inspection.

Meanwhile, a representative for the Federal Railroad Administration says the investigation points to an improperly closed hopper car gate.

Now, wait just a minute… if the car was sealed in Cheyenne, if it had a leak, wouldn’t the leak have been visible even in the yard in Cheyenne? And if the leak was sprung later while the train was en route, which, incidentally, “included multiple stops” on its two week journey, were no inspections done along the way? Wouldn’t the Union Pacific officials have noticed a leak from the hopper car while it was sided in their yards? Union Pacific is a rather efficient railroad and they are, after all, the railroad that has been restoring steam locomotives to functionality and even using them on freight hauls. This expertise and expense does not, to me, signal the kind of lackadaisical attitude necessary for a hopper car full of ammonia nitrate to spring a leak, and then go unnoticed for two weeks.  Sorry, as of this moment and without further information, I’m not buying the narrative. Colour me Highly Skeptical.

And the same goes for the “improperly closed hopper gate.” Presumably the hopper gate was improperly closed in Cheyenne, for the stops along the way would have no reason to open it. And again, we face the same problem here as well, because we’re being asked to believe that the yardmasters and crews along the Union Pacific route taken by the hopper car over two weeks would never have noticed a leak and an improperly closed hopper gate. Even in modern dumbed-down thoroughly quackcinated Amairikuh, I find it difficult to believe that NO one noticed nor raised an alarm or alert.

So we end with an empty hopper car in a hamlet in Looneyfornia and a missing 30 tons of ammonia nitrate.

I do not know about you, but my high octane antennae are pulsing with suspicion.  I just cannot get it out of my mind that somewhere out there there’s another “op” being planned with another McVeigh and another rented truck. Oklahoma City’s ammonia nitrate bomb was only about two tons. Thirty tons of the stuff would be very bad, and if the two tons of the Oklahoma City bomb was a cover for some serious demolition charges, one has to wonder if, indeed the thirty tons was stolen by nefarious actors, and a if cover-narrative is being concocted ahead of whatever planned event they have in their evil diabolical heads, then what sort of real explosion might thirty tons of the stuff be a cover for?

… Unfortunately, none of my answers to that question are very good…

See you on the flip side…

 

Connect with Joseph P. Farrell

Cover image credit: Myriams-Fotos

The Shady History of the Con-stitution

Did the mandatory “government” school lie to you about the history, logic, morality and legitimacy of the Con-stitution?

by Etienne de la Boetie2, The Art of Liberty Foundation
May 24, 2023

 

Executive Summary

It is frankly absurd on its face that any written document or political ritual like voting can grant one group of men the ability to rule and control another group of men, delegate rights they don’t have personally to a “government,” or that succeeding generations can be bound by a contract that none of them or even their forbears signed.

For those who remain religiously attached to the “holy document” of the Constitution or believe themselves bound by an oath they were tricked (fraudulent inducement), forced, or paid to take, then here are some facts that support our thesis that organized crime interests have been using “Government” and control of the media to rob and control the population since the very creation of the Constitution.

The creation and ratification of the Constitution are not what most government school children have been led to believe. It wasn’t designed to protect life, liberty, and property and limit government as claimed, and its failure in those aspects or even its inability to ensure the most basic of freedoms specified in the Bill of Rights is evidence of its failure as protection from tyranny and its success as a means of enslaving, controlling and robbing the population.

The real story of the Constitution is a “Wall Street (of the time)” conspiracy, and that is the exact term that many of their contemporaries used to describe what had occurred to create a system that would allow moneyed interests represented by political puppets to tax everyone on the continent for their benefit and control commerce and the currency which they started doing immediately after ratification. The conspirators were led by slave-owning Freemasons James Madison and John Jay and suspected Freemason and slave owner Alexander Hamilton.

They hijacked a convention convened only to revise the existing Articles of Confederation between the States and, after almost half the delegates refused to participate, wouldn’t sign and/or left early, produced an unauthorized replacement giving unprecedented control to a Federal government that would be controlled by the exact participants in the years to come. In short order, they used this new government to begin taxing the population to pay off “Wall Street” speculators who had bought up Revolutionary War bonds from veterans and businesses that had accepted them during the war for pennies on the dollar.

Hamilton, as first secretary of the treasury, paid these speculators 100% of the face value. He then went on to pay off the war debts of the individual states who had never paid them (esp. Mass.) at the expense of those who had (Virginia). Thomas Jefferson openly questioned the validity of these debts and amounts. After Pennsylvania farmers began to rebel against a progressive tax on Whiskey that hit the poor hardest and benefited large distillers like George Washington, Washington and Hamilton led an Army of 13,000 into Pennsylvania to force compliance with the tax by rousting citizens out of bed into the snow, searching homes without warrants, and forcing citizens to sign oaths of loyalty to the federal government. The Bill of Rights was effectively tossed aside immediately after the Con-stitition was ratified and enacted, and the “government” had an army of order followers (gunmen) on the payroll.

Key Concepts

Absent a 12,000-hour indoctrination program run by the government and the ongoing propaganda of bought-and-paid-for media, it is absurd to believe that a couple of dozen slave owners on a continent of three million people can write down on a fancy piece of paper that they run everything, then have their newspapers proclaim it valid but that seems to be exactly what happened.

“That investigation into the nature and construction of the new constitution, which the conspirators have so long and zealously struggled against, has, notwithstanding their partial success, so far taken place as to ascertain the enormity of their criminality. That system which was pompously displayed as the perfection of government, proves upon examination to be the most odious system of tyranny that was ever projected, a many-headed hydra of despotism, whose complicated and various evils would be infinitely more oppressive and afflictive than the scourge of any single tyrant: the objects of dominion would be tortured to gratify the calls of ambition and cravings of power, of rival despots contending for the sceptre of superiority; the devoted people would experience a distraction of misery.”

– Anti-Federalist Samuel Bryan writing as Centinel in Centinel XII Jan 23rd, 1788

The History and Facts the “Government” School Leaves Out

The delegates assembled in Philadelphia in May 1787 for the purpose of amending, not replacing, the Articles of Confederation were very different from the revolutionaries that signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The famous revolutionaries were not present: Jefferson and Adams were in Europe, Thomas Paine, Sam Adams, and Chris Gadsden were not chosen, and Patrick Henry refused to participate outright, claiming he “smelt a rat.”

Out of the 74 delegates chosen, 19 refused or didn’t attend! Out of the 55 delegates who showed up, 41 were politicians, 34 were lawyers, 11 were admitted freemasons (with two additional that would join lodges after the convention) with over a dozen more suspected. According to Maryland Delegate James McHenry, at least 21 of the 55 delegates favored some form of monarchy.

The convention operated under great secrecy: Held in the summer months with all the windows nailed shut, sentries posted at the door, and all the participants sworn to secrecy. The proceedings wouldn’t be published for 32 years later. Madison’s edited notes 53 years later. It’s unlikely that the States would have sent delegates at all if they had known of the conspirators’ plans to abolish the articles and replace them with a Federal government, and many delegates openly protested.

William Patterson echoed many: “We ought to keep within its limits or be charged by our constituents with usurpation… We have no power to go beyond the confederation… If the confederacy is wrong, then let us return to our States and obtain larger powers, not assume them ourselves.”

Of the 74 delegates appointed, 19 refused outright or didn’t attend, 14 left early, and some in open disgust. Of the 41 who stayed through September, three refused to sign, leaving 38 out of 74 (53%, hardly a plurality), and they signed not as delegates but “In Witness Whereof.” Of the 38 who “gave themselves the power to make up rules for everyone and take the wealth of others,” 80% would personally enrich themselves by holding some office under the Constitution, including 2 Presidents, 1 Vice President, 5 Justices, 11 Senators, and 8 Representatives.

Control of the Perception

Evident then as evident today. Like organized crime’s control of the media today, the “Wall Street” crowd controlled information/perception during the ratification debates. According to Van Doren’s The Great Rehearsal (p183), Anti-Federalist speeches were never printed because the convention’s transcriber, Thomas Lloyd, “appears to have been bought off by the Federalists, and published only…speeches by Federalists Wilson and McKean”. Serious allegations were made in New York and elsewhere of Federalist mail tampering. The Pennsylvania Herald, the only paper reporting on the ratification debates, was bought off as described:

“The authors and abettors of the new constitution shudder at the term conspirators being applied to them, as it designates their true character… Attempts to prevent discussion by shackling the press ought ever to be a signal of alarm to freemen and considered as an annunciation of meditated tyranny… when every means failed to shackle the press, the free and independent papers were attempted to be demolished by withdrawing all the subscriptions to them within the sphere of the influence of the conspirators…The Pennsylvania Herald has been silenced… the editor is dismissed and the debates of the convention thereby suppressed.”

– Centinel XII, 113 Jan 23rd, 1788

Best Book: Hologram of Liberty – The Constitutions Shocking Alliance with Big Government by Kenneth W Royce aKa Boston T. Party. Hologram of Liberty explains the Anti-Federalist case and the evidence for the conspiracy of wealthy speculators, lawyers, and politicians to impose a one-sided contract to control and tax the population in a scheme that personally enriched themselves. This summary borrows liberally from Royce’s work and other scholars.

 

Etienne de la Boetie2 is the founder of the Art of Liberty Foundation, the author of Government” – The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! and the editor of the Art of Liberty Daily News on Substack and Five Meme Friday, which delivers hard-hitting voluntaryist memes and the best of the alternative media. 

 

Connect with Etienne de la Boetie2

Cover image credit: geralt

Paul James with Reinette Senum on The History of Our Enslavement in America Under the Guise of Democracy

The Lost Political History of America is Revealed

If you are wondering why we have no representation these days… Paul James unravels a history where America went from being a Republic to a defacto corporate, municipal government.

by Reinette Senum, Reinette Senum’s Foghorn Express
May 20, 2023

 



[View video at Reinette Senum’s Foghorn Express. Mirrored at TCTL Odysee, BitChute
& Brighteon channels.]

 

This interview with Paul James will be an eye-opener for the vast majority of Americans.

Our history is not what we have been led to believe.

The loss of our Republican government since President Lincoln is revealed in this riveting historical review that we were never taught in school…. and by design.

Lawful government was to protect our “unalienable” rights, not inalienable rights as we have come to know.

The civil war, tormented by the Rothschilds London and Rothchild’s France, was not intended to free slaves but to indenture and bankrupt America to establish a new form of government in 1871 through the Act of 1871.

This act established a municipal government of the District of Columbia, replacing this country’s “original organic” government. The people who established this corporate, municipal government had no authority to do so, and in fact, we have been operating under a defacto corporation since the 1870s that has become completely tyrannical to the point of attempting to genocide us…..

While we believe we have representatives that have taken an oath to “protect us from enemies foreign and domestic,”… as I have reported earlier, here, the oath has been manipulated to allow America to be infiltrated, put under foreign control, and with a foreign agenda to collapse California and America.

The Oath in the current California Constitution (A. D. 1879), Article XX, Section 3 is required to be taken by every government officer and employee (from Governor Newsom down to a city dog-catcher) before they can enter the duties of their respective offices. Not one state, county or city officer or employee has taken and subscribed the Oath mandated at Article XX, Sec. 3; nor, have they complied with the common law [Calif. Civil Code, Sec. 22.2] or statutory requirement [Calif. Government Code, §§ 1450- 1653] to file a fidelity/performance bond before assuming the duties of their respective offices. Therefore, by operation of law, every act or action that any live actor commits, claiming to be a de jure state, county or city government officer or employee, is being done under color of law [18 U.S.C. § 242], color of office and color of authority. Anyone who is in violation of the fundamental organic Law of the state has no authority whatsoever to enact, enforce or adjudicate any state statutory law, rule or municipal code.

The American People living in every State [not including the district of Columbia], including but not limited to California, are entitled by the supreme Law of the Land, to a “Republican Form of Government” [“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 4].

The current Form of Government in California (and all other united States of America) clearly is not a Republican Form of Government, but rather is a private, for-profit, foreign corporate municipal democracy, organized in California in A. D. 1879, controlled and operated exclusively by constitutionally- banned agents of the BAR [https://www.brighteon.com/13ef3415-e3f0-494c-9182-38566ea2b44f].

In addition, as Paul James lays out, we live under “Lawfare” and “Warfare.”

Lawfare is a form of Mixed War consisting of the use of the so-called justice system (i.e., private, for-profit, foreign BAR court system), to intentionally and corruptly apply private, foreign, corporate government municipal law applicable only for corporations, ens legis persons and legal fictions to the American People, as if they were any of the aforesaid juristic entities. The live agents of the BAR routinely use lawfare against private Americans, to damage or delegitimize them socially and financially, to tie-up their time and resources, to seize their children, homes, businesses, private property and/or imprison them, under color of law; and, this includes enforcing mandatory vaccinations or forced use of medical procedures under color of law. The term is a portmanteau of the words law and warfare.

Mixed War occurs whenever the government of a nation is an enemy of, and at war against, its own people. The most insidious and perfidious type of mixed war exists when the agents of government act against the people under the territorial Boundaries of the republic state of California to deny and infringe upon constitutionally- protected unalienable Rights, under color of law, through the use of fraudulent simulated legal process
[see: Calif. Government Code § 68076 and the following link to fully understand this point: http://www.internallydisplacedpeople.org/joomla30/index.php/courtseals].

If you aren’t familiar with any of the above — the fact that we have actors masquerading as elected officials and a corporation masquerading as a government — this is the interview for you.

 

Connect with & support the work of Reinette Senum

Connect with Paul James at Telegram

 

On Writing Letters to the Editors of Local Newspapers as a Way to Inspire Others to Question Prevailing Narratives

 

TCTL editor’s note: Stan Sylvester from Tennessee wrote to me in response to my recent post about reader’s questions related to how they can help (see TCTL substack post).  Stan describes how he developed his skill for writing letters to editors of local newspapers in order to challenge prevailing narratives. He is suggesting that others might be inspired to do the same and offers to coach anyone who wants to get started. See his contact email address below.

~ Kathleen

 

On Writing Letters to the Editors of Local Newspapers as a Way to Inspire Others to Question Prevailing Narratives

by Stan Sylvester, Contributing Writer at Truth Comes to Light
May 13, 2023

 

Here is a suggestion for those who want to know how they can help. How can we reach others to have the blessing of learning and gaining new understandings?

You’ve run out of family, friends and/or coworkers to try to wake up. Now what? Everyone’s situation is different. What works for one truth-teller may not be the best strategy for another. However, a strategy is necessary.

When our family escaped, excuse me, moved from NJ to TN, I had no idea how I was going to help wake people up. I decided on submitting letters to the editor of a small local paper. I had never done that before.  I expected to get censored any ways. I was pleasantly surprised that my views were welcome, some but not  all!

After some success, I decided to check out other cities. I looked for privately-owned papers. I found one in a college town about 45 minutes away. I took out an email subscription. The first letter I submitted I got a phone call. A lady from the newspaper wanted to be sure I was who I said I was. I confirmed and said that I was excited that they would print my article. I’ll never forget what she said to me. She said that not everyone reads the whole paper but everyone reads the opinion page!

If you choose to go this route, remember that you’re not necessarily looking to change what people have believed all of their lives. All you’re looking to do is get them to question what they’ve been taught. If they are interested in the truth, they will have to take the next step and investigate. This is who we are looking for.

I rarely submit something that is not a reply to something else. I may reply to a previous letter from a subscriber. I may respond to something the newspaper printed.  A political cartoon often draws the attention of the keyboard warrior within me. The door will be open for you to be a truth teller. Even if the editor throws it in the trash, at least one person will have had a chance to wake up.

There  are personal benefits. You will learn to communicate with writing better. You will learn how to make a point in the word limit that you are given. You will find out how much you really understand a topic. The proof of that is that you can teach it to someone else.

“I [Paul] have planted, Apollos watered but God gave the increase.”

1 Corinthians 3:6

We all want results but don’t focus on them. Every time we speak the truth we are planting a seed. That tree you see started with a tiny seed. God is the one who will provide the results…

Here is an example of a letter that was recently published:

Letter to the editor: We have a monopoly on school shootings

Recently the Glade Sun posted an image depicting the painful school shootings that plague this country. From January 2009 to May 2018 there were 288 school shootings in the U.S.  

The U.S. is a member of the G7 group, an organization of leaders from some of the world’s largest economies. In the same timeframe, the other members of the G7 group, United Kingdom,  Italy, France, Japan, Germany and Canada had a grand total of 5 school shootings. The U.S. has a 57 times higher rate of school shootings than its G7 counterparts. Can anyone explain that?

Worldwide, Mexico is second in school shootings in the above mentioned timeframe. How many tragic school shootings do you think it takes to be number two? 100? Nope. 50? Nope. As an American, I’m ashamed to report that Mexico had 8. Can anyone explain why this is not a global problem but overwhelmingly a U.S. problem? 

It’s getting worse. In 2022 there were 51 school shootings in this country. We are given the manifestos of social media posts of many of the alleged shooters. Why are these shooters virtually nonexistent in other countries? 

Are we being played over and over by the lonely, alienated, depressed, or revenge motivated lone crazed gunman explanation? Are a number of these school shootings connected to a larger sinister agenda rather than unrelated to each other?

“We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American people believes is false.” Former CIA Director William Casey

Stan Sylvester
Fairfield Glade, TN 38558

 

To connect with Stan Sylvester:

‘Covid-19 Kill Box’ Presentation by Katherine Watt: Video & Transcript

 

“…And he described it as a kill box and then I looked that up and it turned out it’s a military term for establishing a geographic space or three-dimensional area for a military attack by air and by surface to kill the people who are in it and then dismantle the kind of framework and move on to the next campaign.

And what the DoD and the World Health Organization intend to do and have gotten quite far in doing, but not completely reached their goals, is to set up the entire world as their geographic terrain, their target population as all the people in the world, the duration of their campaign as permanent…”

Transcript: Jan. 24, 2023 Legal Walls of the Covid-19 Kill Box Presentation

by Katherine Watt, Bailiwick News
May 10, 2023

 



Transcript

…And the basic idea is that public health has been militarized and the military has been sort of turned into a public health front or Potemkin Village such that they are using public health language and public health laws to actually carry out a military campaign.

And I would not call them DoD vaccines.

I would call them DoD weapons.

So, I call it the kill box because the first sort of lead that I had was Todd Callender’s January 30th 2022 interview on Elizabeth Lee Vliet’s podcast called Truth for Health.

And he described it as a kill box and then I looked that up and it turned out it’s a military term for establishing a geographic space or three-dimensional area for a military attack by air and by surface to kill the people who are in it and then dismantle the kind of framework and move on to the next campaign.

And what the DoD and the World Health Organization intend to do and have gotten quite far in doing, but not completely reached their goals, is to set up the entire world as their geographic terrain, their target population as all the people in the world, the duration of their campaign as permanent.

And the weapons that they’re using are, number one, informational. That’s the propaganda piece and the censorship piece.

Number two, psychological. That’s the fear and terrorism piece of telling people they need to be afraid all the time and they need to listen to the government.

And then the third piece is the chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear [CBRN] weapons, which are called in their campaign pharmaceuticals, vaccines but are actually toxins and pathogens.

So I started, after I heard that interview — I had already been wondering what was going on but I started trying to track down some of the things Todd Callender talked about in his interview and figure out what the legal frameworks were and how they were set up and what the financial coercion mechanisms were.

My finding, which many other people have found in various, from various other angles, was that this project has been going on for centuries.

It’s basically globalist central bankers and lots of related organizations trying to get complete control of human beings through banking programs and through military programs.

And they kicked it into higher gear in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act, and then they kicked the public health aspect of it into higher gear starting in the 1930s and 40s.

Before the 1960s, they mostly did it through orchestrated armed conflicts and financial depressions and wars, which are very loud and messy and destructive to infrastructure.

And it makes it difficult for them to have plausible deniability and legal impunity for what they’re doing.

So in the mid-60s they got much better at inducing suicide and homicide by fraudulently labeling poisons as medicines or as vaccines or as prophylactics and telling people that submitting to that poisoning process was their civic duty. And that’s — we saw that in Covid with the shorthand for “Do this or you’re going to kill your grandma.”

And the way that the pharmaceutical method is primarily useful to them is that plausible deniability is much easier and legal impunity is a lot easier.

They can achieve the same goal of killing lots of people without their fingerprints being all over it.

I looked into the coercion cascades, mostly financial.  I’m not going to go into a lot of detail with that but it starts at the top with the Bank for International Settlements and they can use their control of other federal central banks, access to financial systems, and then all the way down through state governments, national governments, local, municipal, school districts, hospitals. Everything.

If you comply with what they’re telling you to do as far as masking and testing, isolating yourself, taking injections, then you will get the financial access that you need to run your business or to have a job. And if you don’t comply, they can cut you off from those services. And so that is one of the main mechanisms through which the whole thing was carried out.

And then on the legal side, at my website I do trace it back farther but I’m going to start at 1969 just for the sake of starting somewhere.

The U.S. Congress passed the law to set up the Chemical and Biological Warfare program. And in that law, which is 50 USC Chapter 32, there are very important key terms including “protective,” “prophylactic” and “defensive,” which is how they justified doing it.

They were using those words because the international community of ordinary non-insane people were concerned about biological and chemical weapons and they were working on international treaties to prohibit them.

And so they needed to build in loopholes and the loopholes they built in were that, “We’re not going to do biological and chemical research and weapons development except for protective or prophylactic or defensive purposes.”

And that’s a false characterization because all biologically active products are intrinsically aggressive and toxic and lethal. And that’s where we get disciplines or, that’s the thing that disciplines like toxicology, pharmacokinetics, genotoxicity, drug-drug interactions, are all related to that fact: that everything that goes into the human body or any living body has some effects which can be toxic. So that was the way they tried to get around that.

And then the foundational Public Health Emergencies platform came out in 1983 when Congress passed the Public Health Service Act Amendment and that set up the Public Health Emergencies program under the 1944 law that had originally set up the Public Health Service. Which is a branch of the military.

And it also, in 1983, Congress and Reagan set up a 30 million dollar slush fund and that has continued. It’s got a different name now than it did then, [Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund] but it’s still being funded as recently as the NDAA and the Consolidated Appropriations Act in December of 2022.

The other thing they did in the 80s was set up the 1986 National Vaccine Program and National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

And that’s the one that set up the liability exemption for manufacturers and funneled anyone who was injured by a vaccine into this different compensation program. And that’s been used as a model since Covid started, for the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program.

So the international piece, the cornerstone, is the World Health Organization, which is not a health organization. It’s a military organization, because of this merger that I’m talking about. It’s sort of the military arm of the one-world government that they’re trying to set up.

And they did a set of amendments to the International Health Regulations in 2005 that entered into force in June 2007. But basically the IHR, which are currently going through another round of amendments to make them worse, called on national governments to strengthen their own domestic laws and fund more programs for surveillance, testing, detention and quarantine — physical control and forced treatment — during international outbreaks of communicable diseases.

And the pretext that they used, because it was bankers who were doing this, was that they needed to protect international trade from disruptions caused by disease outbreaks. But the real intent was to set up these legal systems that transferred sovereign government from the nation-state to the World Health Organization and the BIS automatically when a “public health emergency of international concern” [PHEIC] has been declared.

And Congress and U.S presidents and the cabinet complied with that demand from the World Health Organization.

So two of the key years were 1997 and 1998. That was when the beginnings of the emergency use authorization program was set up and when they transferred the CBRN [chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear] weapons stockpile from DOD, classification I guess, to HHS or CDC classification and control.

It was the same products, as far as I can tell. It was just a relabeling and a re-homing of them.

The EUA [Emergency Use Authorization], that was kind of a two-step thing. At the time the public was really upset about the use of unapproved vaccines for anthrax on military troops and the horrible adverse effects they were having.

So Congress passed a law in November [1997] to kind of revoke authorization for testing or using unapproved products on military troops. But three days later in a different law, made it so that the same programs could be done but the target population would be expanded from just military troops to the entire American population.

Then around 2000 to 2002, using the momentum from 9/11 and the anthrax attacks on Congress, they set up, through the statutes again, program management sort of structures. They did that through the 2000 Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act, [and] through the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

And people talked about this at the time. It was construed as putting the country into a permanent state of war — the Global War on Terror — with every other country in the world. So there was no geographic limitation. There was no time limitation. There was no identified enemy other than “terror” and through that — I think other people figured this out at the time and then it sort of got suppressed — but it made everyone in the world into a presumptive combatant or enemy target.

So it was essentially a de facto covert global martial law act by the US government.

And then in those early 2000s we also got the PATRIOT Act, the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act and the Homeland Security Act.

And those were just more of the merging of the DHS [Department of Homeland Security], the DOJ [Department of Justice], the HHS [Health and Human Services], the Department of Defense: all of the cabinet agencies.

So since then, 2003 to [2019] there have been lots and lots of executive orders on these things. Lots more statutes and appropriations. Lots of agency regulations, guidance reports that were circulated to state, local and tribal authorities and law enforcement so that they would know that under a public health emergency, they are subordinated to the federal military.

FDA [Food and Drug Administration] issued a lot of Guidance for Industry documents and sent

those out to the pharmaceuticals and to the academic organizations and NGOs [non-governmental organizations] to let them know about how FDA was going to handle experimental products like “vaccines,” “gene therapies,” “biologics.”

And they did more test runs like 2003 SARS, 2006 MERS and 2009 H1N1.

That brings us up to the Other Transactions Authority [OTA]. And this was revealed through Pfizer’s April 2022 motion to dismiss whistleblower Brook Jackson’s False Claims Act case.

They said, “This was not a vaccine. It was a DoD prototype and we were never obligated to do valid clinical trials. We were never obligated to prove safety or efficacy to anyone. We never had to get FDA authorization through any of the normal guidance for industry channels, because it was a prototype.”

On October 4th, 2022, the US government endorsed that view and filed a statement of interest and support for the motion to dismiss, basically saying that clinical trials were never material or necessary for DOD to pay the contractors for producing and distributing the bioweapons known as Covid-19 vaccines.

And so all of this became visible from 2020 to the present when the World Health Organization Secretary-General issued the “public health emergency of international concern” [PHEIC] at the end of January 2020 and the HHS secretary immediately triggered the domestic frameworks through the “determination that a public health emergency exists” followed by PREP Act declarations for “medical countermeasures,” which are the weapons.

And then Congress and the presidents — Trump and Biden — passed several additional  Congressional acts funding and reinforcing the structure of the kill box and issued more executive orders under the Defense Production Act, under the Stafford Act, under the National Emergencies Act, to sort of build out the program.

Basically what it built is a huge public and private funding stream for military-led bioweapons research and use; eliminated informed consent by reclassifying people who could potentially be carrying a disease as presumptive national security threats, so that you could do anything you want to them because you’re on a war footing.

And to shield the products and weapons from product liability, to shield all the people involved from criminal liability and civil liability, and to shield the government funders, developers and regulators from criminal prosecution under the other laws — which are in place but are sort-of superseded by this framework — for use of bioweapons [18 USC 175] use of chemical weapons [18 USC 229], terrorism [18 USC 2331] things like that.

…I see it as a joint project between the U.S Department of Defense — a coordinating committee of that, the Federal Reserve, and the World Health Organization, and the Bank for International Settlements and the United Nations. But the World Health Organization is like a subsidiary of the U.N.

And there are things that the globalists do not like. They don’t like constitutions and charters. They don’t like the conflicting statutory frameworks around bioterrorism, war crimes, genocide, torture. They don’t like any of that stuff.

They don’t like when states and provinces and counties and towns pass their own laws protecting informed consent, protecting people from, for consumer safety. They actually put out a report in October 2022, State Laws Limiting Public Health Protections: Hazardous for Our Health. And there’s a whole bunch of things in there that states have started doing that the globalists do not like.

So doing more of those things, more bringing control back to the state, more using Article 10 of the Constitution, to reclaim state authority, those are all extremely useful.

And I do think it’s going to break. I think there’s going to be a tipping point and the criminal prosecutions are going to start.

And we have all the evidence. And every time they try to answer what we’re talking about by saying national security, they reinforce that this is the right way to go.

This is what they’re doing.

They’re doing war crimes.

 

Links:

• Jan. 24, 2023 – DoD ‘Vaccines’ Press Conference. (L4Atv1, 2 hrs — 0:00:30 Sam Dube – Host Open; 0:03:04 Glen Macko – Overview of DoD Vaccines; 0:05:28 Katherine Watt – Legal: Laws, Contracts, FOIA, SEC; 0:24:39 Sasha Latypova – Manufacturing, Safety, Quality, Intent; 0:33:32 Phillip Altman – Conformation of Skills/Knowledge of Katherine & Sasha; 0:38:08 LTC (Ret) Pete Chambers – Vaccine observations in Military; 0:46:13 Dr Sam Dube – Guidance on “Going Local” for personal protection; 0:56:47 Q&A)
• Jan. 24, 2023 – Katherine Watt: In her own words. Annotated clip from L4Atv1 full video, created by Julie and JP Collins, Book of Ours (16 min)
• Jan. 24, 2023 – Legal Walls of the Covid-19 Kill Box slide deck
• Jan. 24, 2023 – Legal Walls of the Covid-19 Kill Box transcript.

 

Connect with Katherine Watt

Cover image credit: geralt

Canadians Take a Stand: Ongoing Citizen-Led Inquiry Into Canada’s COVID-19 Response & Crimes Against Humanity

 

Canada’s Unprecedented Inquiry 5 — Time to Stand Up

by Michelle Leduc Catlin, Gather Your Wits
May 2, 2023

 

First they came for the unvaccinated, and I did not speak out —

Because I was not unvaccinated.

Then they came for the truckers, and I did not speak out —

Because I was not a trucker.

Then they came for the Christians, and I did not speak out —

Because I was not a Christian.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

~ An homage to Martin Niemöller

 

When do you stand up?

That was the title of my first blog here, posted exactly 2 years ago this week, which began with the famous Niemöller poem.

I could not have foreseen that I would write 150 more stories about Covid science, anti-science, and the outcomes of policies using words that, before 2020, I did not have in my lexicon.

Social distancing, mask mandates, anti-vaxxer, dis-information, lockdowns (outside of prison) and more.

I could not have imagined that “vaccine” and “passport” were only the first 2 words horrifyingly strung together by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to incite division.

I could never have anticipated that I would become the Spokesperson for one of the most inspiring and empowering movements in Canadian history.

As I type those words, sitting on an airplane headed to the next set of hearings of the National Citizens Inquiry, my eyes fill with tears.

Again.

Those who have been in attendance or viewed online even one full day of testimony in any of the 5 cities we’ve now visited, will have some sense of why I find myself crying so often these days.

We have heard sworn testimony of health ruined, families torn apart, churches targeted, and lives devastated.

We have heard expert after expert speak of the absolute failure of governments and institutions charged with protecting the health and safety of Canadian citizens.

And despite all this (or perhaps because of it), we have been ignored by any authorities and agents responsible for the devastation created over the last 3 years, as well as by the mainstream media whose job it is to question government policy and to accurately inform the people of important events.

And, I’m moved to tears for another reason.

Canadians are coming together to bridge the divides created by those who willfully or through negligence have sewn fear and hatred and suspicion based on superficial differences.

We have heard testimony from citizens across the country and across the political spectrum, from scientists and pastors, from rural people and urban dwellers, from teenagers and the elderly, “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated.”

And we applaud them all.

Literally.

Every witness is accorded the respect they deserve by an audience of fellow citizens acknowledging the courage it takes to stand up and speak out in these grey days of caustic commentary and state-sanctioned censorship.

Because we all understand that telling any truth that defies the mainstream narrative is risky.

Take the well-known case of former RCMP officer and Trudeau sniper guard, Danny Bulford, whose moral code and adherence to duty led to his lawful involvement in the Freedom Convoy last year, for which he was arrested. He now finds himself unable to work in a field to which he dedicated his life.



Then there is the lesser known case of Dr. Justin Chin, an ER doctor who simply and respectfully asked questions about Covid policies on social media, who was fired without trial and threatened with physical harm and death — by fellow healthcare workers. [Red Deer day 2 @ 3:21:26]

“Science isn’t something to be blindly trusted, it’s a process.”
Dr. Justin Chin

Despite these threats, there are more doctors coming forward to give testimony to what has become painfully obvious.

We have failed, miserably.

We heard from dismayed dentist, Dr. Misha Susoeff, who was sure that doctors would never allow “vaccine” mandates to completely contradict the foundational concept of informed consent. [Red Deer day 3 @ 2:12:54]

“The streets of Ottawa should not have been packed with trucks. It should have been the Mercedes and the Escalades. And it should have been the doctors honking and waving flags. They should have been there to protect us.”
Dr. Misha Susoeff

A chiropractor for 26 years, Dr. Curtis Wall found that mask-wearing was interfering with his ability to do his job and stopped wearing it. While none of his patients complained, his governing College found him guilty of professional misconduct, labelling him “ungovernable.” [Red Deer day 2 @ 6:54:48]

Dr. Eric Payne is a brilliant paediatric neurologist who was brought to Alberta from the Mayo Clinic. With 3 other physicians, he filed a lawsuit against Alberta Health Services for defying the medical ethic of informed consent and implementing mandatory “vaccination” — and still has 2 complains against him for spreading “misinformation.” [Red Deer day 3 @ 4:38:13]

Another brave doctor who co-filed in the AHS lawsuit is Dr. Gregory Chan, who has diligently and relentlessly been pursuing justice for the vaccine injured. Of the 56 forms he submitted to the public health authority, nearly 90% were either ignored or rejected. [Red Deer day 1 @ 5:32:03]

We’ve also heard harrowing stories of Christian pastors persecuted for fulfilling their religious duties.

In Red Deer, James Coates relayed how he was jailed, handcuffed and shackled, and how his congregation went underground and were hunted by RCMP — with a canine unit. [Red Deer day 3 @ 3:04:00]

In Canada.

But there are courageous truthtellers that Canadians would never know about without their testimony at the NCI.

Joelle Valliere is a funeral director who spoke up about how her first Pfizer shot caused kidney failure resulting in the need of a transplant — which she cannot get because she doesn’t have the 2nd shot. [Red Deer day 1 @ 1:31:03]

Tracy Walker shared openly about how she lost her house and couldn’t afford food or insulin because lockdowns closed her in-home hairstyling business. [Red Deer day 1 @ 6:58:36]

Dianne Molstad withstood bullying and being fired by her doctor of 30 years to stand up for her right to decide what to do with her own body. [Red Deer day 2 @ 6:41:36]

Sherry Strong used her considerable health expertise to speak out about unhealthy mandates and became a “social pariah,” losing her career as a speaker overnight. [Red Deer day 1 @ 10:22:10]

Angela Tabak recalled the tragic decline of her beautiful son who suffered mental health issues but failed to get much-needed support after mandates led to “extremely compromised” mental healthcare. She testified so that no other mother would have to go through what she has. [Red Deer day 2 @ 7:19:48]

3 days of hearings ended with the testimony of Jennifer Curry, whose mental health injuries from getting the jab against her will are as profound as her physical injuries.She crossed a province to share her story, which has left her counting the days of suffering since she made the decision to take the shot.

119.

“I changed my life because I didn’t stand up.”
Jennifer Curry

As a result of her testimony, Jennifer has the possibility of starting her count over.

She can now begin counting the days since she took a stand for herself, and so many others. [Red Deer day 3 @ 10:13:17]

Her testimony brought us full circle to the day 2 testimony of Regina Goman, a Polish political refugee whose stand during the Solidarity movement in Poland led to 13 months in prison.

When many years later she was awarded with Poland’s Cross of Freedom and Solidarity, she could not leave Canada because of travel restrictions imposed by our government on the unvaccinated.

Having lived through authoritarianism before, Regina pleaded with Canadians to recognize the direction we’re headed.

“Please take advantage of the time we have left….This is the time to speak up.”
Regina Goman



If these stories aren’t enough for everyone around the world who has been subjected to anti-science policies that have caused incalculable damage to stand up, perhaps this will be…

The testimony of expert witness Catherine Christensen.

As a lawyer representing the men and women of the Canadian armed forces who are prohibited from speaking out against the military and the government, she was able to articulate just some of the alarming damage done to both those who serve and the service itself.

“COVID-19 did not decimate the military. The leadership did it from within.”
Catherine Christensen

The injection mandates led to a loss of ~3000 to 5000 service men and women who were forced to leave through vax refusal or vax injury.

But perhaps even worse is the damage to those who have remained.

“The foundation of trust is gone in the Canadian military….Once trust is broken, you can’t have a military.”
Catherine Christensen

Ms. Christensen declared that the military is effectively “out of business.”

All of this was completely avoidable.

With a 27-year career in the military, Lieutenant Colonel David Redman was well equipped for the job of head of Emergency Management Alberta.

Though he retired, his pandemic plan was still in place when the Covid crisis began.

That comprehensive, well-established and researched plan was discarded.

Among the many mistakes and misdeeds perpetrated by the government, the use of fear was perhaps the most destructive.

“You always control fear — never use fear.”
Lieutenant Colonel David Redman

If you want to understand how a pandemic is meant to be handled, you must watch Lieutenant Colonel Redman’s expert testimony.

And share it.



Also watch Dean Beaudry’s expert testimony on Risk Assessment and Mitigation Assessment.

He came to several sobering conclusions, including the idea that the past 3 years were, “a pandemic of loss of values.”

Giving a Chief Medical Officer so much decision-making power, with no inclusion of dissenting opinions or approaches, was a disaster.

“The only reason to [not build consensus] is when control is prioritized over doing what is right.”
Dean Beaudry



We need to share any and all testimony that will have people see with their own eyes, hear with their own ears, and feel with their own hearts, what has happened and what is continuing to happen in this country.

And while I want to leave you on a positive note, I am also in tears because so many still do not see.

“We are at a point of peril.”
Lieutenant Colonel David Redman

As I finish writing my impressions of the latest set of hearings of the National Citizens Inquiry, I know that the vast majority of people who read this are already aware of the collision course we’re on.

You, dear reader, already know that democracy is under siege.

You already know that people are dying for absolutely no good reason.

And so I am asking you the question, what moves you to tears?

What will it take to bring all your skills and talents to bear?

When do you stand up?

 

Connect with Michelle Leduc Catlin

Connect with National Citizens Inquiry

Cover image based on creative commons work of: fill

You Don’t Like It? Leave! The Telling Sophistry of Tax Apologists

by Jason Montgomery, Mises Institute
May 4, 2023

 

What better way to “celebrate” tax season than to talk taxes? Stop me if you’ve heard this one: Taxation is not theft. It’s just the law of the land. You want to live in this country, you pay the long-established, constitutional, customary tax. If you’re not okay with that, there are plenty of other countries to choose from whose customs and edicts you may find more agreeable. Just go live there, and best of luck to you! So as long as you have that right of exit, the taxes confiscated from your income do not represent any initiation of force, coercion, or violation whatsoever.

This is a valuable argument, to be sure. Not only is it completely wrong but its underlying premise reveals a certain sensibility that is, at the very least, intriguing. If we peel back the layers of this statement, we can see the speaker’s potential to grasp some sort of entry-level morality and maybe even economics, confirming our suspicions that he knows what’s right and is purposefully evading it. A hint of insight is on display here, if only unconsciously, that liberty itself depends on private property rights as he’s desperately trying to frame this “right of exit” nonsense as a private property argument.

Let’s run through a few scenarios here:

• I’m having a costume party. To attend, you must dress up as something. You will not be admitted otherwise. If you refuse, due to some personal objection to donning a costume, then enjoy your night someplace other than my costume party. No harm, no foul.
• I don’t allow shoes to be worn in my house. If you wish to visit, bare your feet at the door. If you insist on wearing your shoes, then happy walking, but not into my house. No harm, no foul.

Ready for one that’s not so easy to stomach?

• In my restaurant, no one of German descent is allowed to dine. Anyone wishing to eat here must first present genealogical proof of no German ancestry. Any hint of German in your background, or refusal to produce the appropriate documentation, no problem. Just get your corndogs someplace else. No harm, no foul.

So this is what’s presented in the taxation argument:

• In this country, we pay our taxes. You don’t want to pay up? Leave! And if you don’t and you continue to live, work, and trade in this country, you’ve given your tacit consent to abide by the tax code and render unto Caesar accordingly. To stay put, enjoying all of the fruits of taxation and yet continuing to whine about it and alleging some infringement of your “rights” is just a hypocritical childish plea to have your cake and eat it too.

If this is really what’s being put on the table, then let’s look at what they’re saying.

What do each of the above “policies” have in common? They’re enacted by the rightful property owner. What makes them such? They obtained the restaurant/house/party headquarters through purchase, trade, inheritance, gift, original appropriation, or some other VOLUNTARY arrangement. Their possession and ownership came about by the only true measure of legitimacy—absence of coercion, force, or fraud. Their power to set the rules for admittance or exclusion comes from that ownership.

So to buy this “right of exit” premise, one would have to accept the notion that the federal government is the rightful owner of the United States, the entire landmass. Likewise, one would somehow have to surmise that, at the same time, there are overlapping property claims held by the state, city, and local governments of the further subdivided parcels. This is no small matter as it means that we the people, in effect, own nothing. Every house, building, lot of land, business, vehicle, animal, vegetable, and mineral within the national borders (and some without) is the government’s property, which we’re all simply renting from them.

Anything you or I have is at their discretion and whim. They allow us the privilege of possessing these things only as long as they see fit. These are the only terms under which the above reasoning holds. If the government can demand my payment on pain of expulsion from the country, then it all must be theirs.

But what’s the original source of any property claim at all? Technically all land title chains originate with the US government. Things admittedly get a little tricky here, though not on the issue at hand. Was the founding of the USA a legitimate acquisition of property in the first place? If so, did that make the federal government the de facto original owner? If so, then they would have no more continued control over it once it’s left their hands than the previous owner of your house does over your domestic choices.

If not—and the country was stolen by aggressive conquest, thus never properly claimed by any of our ancestral invaders—well, that’s a can of worms beyond this article. But I will ask you this: Would that justify continued payment and deference to the organization that perpetrated the invasion?

One may claim that the government is not acting as a property owner but merely a trading partner. They offer certain benefits and services in this geographical location—namely, the infrastructure that makes the production and earning of your own property possible—so the choice is yours: If you want to take up space here and soak up your share of these benefits, then you have to pony up your fair share. If you don’t, then you’d better remove yourself from the service zone, you freeloader!

This is really the same argument from a different angle. Under what auspices do they offer said benefits and services? By a forceful declaration that they are to be the sole and exclusive proprietors within the demarcated region. The consent of you, the residents, their “customers,” is irrelevant. If you’re caught on their self-proclaimed turf attempting to either provide or receive these services on any other terms, men with guns will come talk to you.

So once again, it’s simply a coercive property grab, this time for more commercial purposes and in no sense a bona fide economic transaction. You can call it many things, but you can’t call it trade, you can’t call it choice, and you can’t call it voluntary.

“But this is a democratic system, where the state is only acting as a proxy of the people, so the government isn’t asserting universal ownership, but merely managing the property of the people at large.” This argument is deluded, evasive, and telling. It provides an interesting study in fallacious reasoning and behavioral science and invokes a whole new way to be divested of your property. The government will only seize it by force once your neighbors and countrymen have voted it away from you. Whatever happens is up to the caprices of the 50.1 percent. Imagine the bizarre, macabre dystopia painted here, where no property, no moral ideology, and indeed no rights exist at all. But once again, it is beyond the scope of this article.

And lastly, I would be remiss not to point out that there is no right of exit. I hate to tell you, but if you show up at the airport with nothing but your luggage and boarding pass in hand, ready to find out if Ukraine is as nice as people say this time of year, you ain’t goin’ nowhere! This should truly be all you need to do to “just leave” if there really were a such an option. But, of course, you’ve got to have that little magic book, the one that’s obtained through the prescribed qualification process of, plus payment to, those on high to be granted their permission to leave the country.

This is the very definition of not a right. Sure, you may say it doesn’t matter that you’re compelled to ask because they almost always say yes, so it’s practically a right. What if I show up with a passport that expired last week? I mean, it’s practically still valid. Amazing how so much semantic leeway is granted to those who allow us none.

So there you have it. If “pay up or get out” is really a legitimate proposition to live under, it must be because nothing is ours. Everything around us, including you and me, belongs to the state. At best we have possession of some of what we earn, produce, or are given, until and unless the supposed rightful owner no longer approves and wishes to reclaim it. So the next time someone poses this slogan to you, be sure to remind them of its full meaning. If they don’t want to accept that reality, they can always “just leave.”

Why Pathogens Don’t Exist

by Dr. Sam Bailey
April 29, 2023

Many of us who can see that viruses don’t exist, find it easier to do so as virology is an off-shoot of germ theory.

If germ “theory” is wrong, there is no sense in pursuing alleged disease-causing sub-microscopic organisms. That’s why the germ theorists don’t want us scratching beneath the surface of the so-called ‘science‘ involving bacteria either.

Let’s have a look at why the concept of “pathogens” is a complete fail on their own terms from Koch’s Postulates through to some modern day animal experiments.



Connect with Drs. Sam (Samantha) & Mark Bailey

 

---

See related:

A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)

Drs. Tom Cowan, Mark & Samantha Bailey, Andrew Kaufman: Why Are We Doing This?

Dr. Tom Cowan With Dr. Mark Bailey: “SARS-CoV-2 Virus Could Never Have Been Leaked From a Lab Because No Such Particle Has Been Proven to Exist. Ever.”

Although Scarred by Violence, We Must Not Be Scared Into Silence

by Edward Curtin, Behind the Curtain
May 3, 2023

 

The world has been haunted by human violence since time immemorial. There are untold millions (billions?) of people all over the world who have been scarred by it in all its forms.  There are two basic responses: one is to try to return that violence with violence and defeat one’s enemy; the other is, in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s words, to “not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding” through a non-violent response.  Politicians usually embrace the former, while those who are called dreamers advocate the latter.

Between these two, there are various mixed responses, with sane political leaders calling for mutual respect between countries and an end to aggressive provocations leading to warfare, such has occurred with the United States provoking the war in Ukraine.

We have entered the time when the destruction of all life on earth through nuclear war is imminent unless a radical transformation occurs.  If the word imminent sounds extreme, it is worth considering that there will be no announcement.  The time to speak up is now.  It is always now.

Great literature speaks to the issue of violence at the deepest levels.

Homer’s Odyssey is the classic case of violent revenge.  At the end of the story, Odysseus, who was scarred in youth by a wild boar, finally returns home from the Trojan War after ten years of wandering.  Doubly scarred now by the horrors of war with its horrendous slaughters (see The Iliad), he arrives at his home disguised in a beggar’s rags.  His nursemaid from childhood recognizes him from the scar on his thigh.  In his house he finds scores of suitors who are hitting on his wife Penelope.  He is enraged and  steps onto the threshold, rips off his rags, and systematically massacres every last one of them.  Flesh and gore swim in the blood-drenched room, while in the courtyard twelve unfaithful serving maids hang from their necks.  This is the quintessential western story of revenge where the wounded hero kills the bad guys and the violent beat goes on and on.

It appeals to our lesser angels, for while Odysseus’s rage is understandable, its consequences leave a toxic legacy.

But there is another response that draws on another tradition that is symbolized by Jesus on the cross, executed by the Roman state as a subversive criminal. He didn’t die on a private cross, for his crime was public.  Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi are famous exemplars of non-violent resistance in modern times, as they too were executed by the state.  Non-violence seems, on the surface at least, to be less effective than violence and contrary to much of human history.

If it is, however, we are doomed.  For we have nuclear weapons now, not bows and arrows and spears. We have nuclear weapons hitched to computers.  Digital weapons of multiple sorts and mad leaders intent on pushing us to the brink of extinction.

The United States’ instigation of the war in Ukraine against Russia and its push for war with China are current prime examples.  They are part of the continuing vast tapestry of lies that Harold Pinter spoke of in his 2005 Nobel Address.  He said, in part:

The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven. . . . The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them.

This is still true, as John Pilger has just warned us in a powerful article: “There Is A War Coming Shrouded In Propaganda. It Will Involve Us. Speak Up”

The rise of fascism in Europe is uncontroversial. Or ‘neo-Nazism’ or ‘extreme nationalism,’ as you prefer. Ukraine as modern Europe’s fascist beehive has seen the re-emergence of the cult of Stepan Bandera, the passionate anti-Semite and mass murderer who lauded Hitler’s ‘Jewish policy,’ which left 1.5 million Ukrainian Jews slaughtered. ‘We will lay your heads at Hitler’s feet,’ a Banderist pamphlet proclaimed to Ukrainian Jews.

Today, Bandera is hero-worshipped in western Ukraine and scores of statues of him and his fellow-fascists have been paid for by the EU and the U.S., replacing those of Russian cultural giants and others who liberated Ukraine from the original Nazis.

In 2014, neo Nazis played a key role in an American bankrolled coup against the elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, who was accused of being “pro-Moscow.” The coup regime included prominent “extreme nationalists” — Nazis in all but name.

The U.S. led support for this war must stop.  Who will stop it?

Homer told us something quite important once upon a time, as did many poets, artists, and writers in the twentieth-century.  They warned us of the monsters we were spawning, as Pilger says: “Arthur Miller, Myra Page, Lillian Hellman, Dashiell Hammett warned that fascism was rising, often disguised, and the responsibility lay with writers and journalists to speak out.”  He rightly bemoans the absence of such voices now, as writers have disappeared into post-modern silence, a part of the cultural war on dissent.

On a subtler and more personal note than Homer’s tale of revenge, we have the testimony of Albert Camus who was part of the Resistance to the German occupation of France during WW II.   At the beginning of his beautiful, posthumous, and autobiographical novel, The First Man, Camus tells us about Jacques Cormery (Camus), who never knew his father, a French soldier killed in World War I – the misnamed grotesque War to End All Wars – when Jacques was eleven months old.  Years later, when he is forty years old and horrors of WW II have concluded, Jacques visits the cemetery in France where his father is buried.  As he stands over the gravestone in this massive field of the dead, silence engulfs him.  Camus writes:

And the wave of tenderness and pity that at once filled his heart was not the stirring of the soul that leads the son to the memory of the vanished father, but the overwhelming passion that a grown man feels for an unjustly murdered child – something here was not in the natural order and, in truth, there was no order but only madness and chaos when the son was older than the father. The course of time was shattering around him while he remained motionless among those tombs he no longer saw, and the years no longer kept to their places in the great river that flows to its end.

The tale continues, as did Camus’s, who always supported the victims of violence despite harsh criticism from many corners, from the left and from the right.  He wrote a famous essay, “Reflections on the Guillotine,” against capital punishment, based on his father’s nauseating experience of seeing a man executed by the state.  After hearing this story from his grandmother, he would regularly have ”a recurrent nightmare” that “would haunt him, taking many forms, but always having the one theme: they were always coming to take him, Jacques, to be executed.”

Furthermore, Camus warned us not to become murderers and executioners and to create more victims, when he wrote a series of essays shortly after WW II for the French Resistance paper, Combat. – Neither Victims nor Executioners.  He wrote that yes, we must raise our voices:

It demands only that we reflect and then decide, clearly, whether humanity’s lot must be made still more miserable in order to achieve far-off and shadowy ends, whether we should accept a world bristling with arms where brother kills brother; or whether, on the contrary, we should avoid bloodshed and misery as much as possible so that we give a chance for survival to later generations better equipped than we are. 

Which leads me to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his run for the U.S. presidency in this most dangerous time.  He is a man not scared into silence despite all the efforts to censor him.

From a very tender age he was scarred by death; is surely a wounded warrior, not one of those who went to an actual war, but one who had a different war forced upon him when he was nine and fourteen years-old, when his uncle and father were assassinated by the CIA.   Some repress the implications of such memories; he has faced them and allowed them to spur him to truth and action.

No boar gored him, nor has he slain suitors in his house, because he has taken, not the road of revenge, but that of reconciliation, despite having lost his father and others to demonic government forces.  This is the way of non-violence, a path unfamiliar to most of those seeking political office.

I don’t know his inner thoughts about this, but I read his words and actions to decipher where he is trying to take this very violent country.  He is a non-violent warrior in the spirit of Gandhi’s truth force or satyagraha.  Not a passive non-action, but an active resistance to evil and violence.  Not one seeking revenge on all the warmongers and Covid liars (which does not preclude legal prosecutions for crimes), but one who seeks to reconcile the warring parties.  To appeal to our higher angels and not the demons urging us to renounce the good, but to the love that is our only hope.

I am not saying he is a pacifist.  Such a term muddies the water.  He is clearly committed to the defense of the country if it were ever attacked. But he is emphatically opposed to the endless U.S. attacks on other countries. He knows the vicious history of the CIA.  He is a very rare political candidate committed to reconciliation at home and abroad.  He is waging peace.

Like his father Senator Robert Kennedy and his uncle, President Kennedy, he is anti-war, committed to ending the endless cycle of overseas wars sustained by the military-industrial complex and the corporations who feed at the trough of war spending.  He opposes the policies of those politicians who support such endless carnage, which is most of them, including most emphatically Joe Biden.  He realizes the danger of nuclear war.  He tells us on his website, Kennedy24:

As President, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. will start the process of unwinding empire. We will bring the troops home. We will stop racking up unpayable debt to fight one war after another. The military will return to its proper role of defending our country. We will end the proxy wars, bombing campaigns, covert operations, coups, paramilitaries, and everything else that has become so normal most people don’t know it’s happening. But it is happening, a constant drain on our strength. It’s time to come home and restore this country. . . . We will lead by example. When a warlike imperial nation disarms of its own accord, it sets a template for peace everywhere. It is not too late for us to voluntarily let go of empire and serve peace instead, as a strong and healthy nation.

Those are very strong words and I am sure he means them.  But he is opposed by demonic forces within the U.S., what former CIA analyst Ray McGovern aptly calls the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-MEDIA-Academia-Think-Tank complex (MICIMATT).  They run the propaganda shit show and will throw lie after lie (have already done so) at Kennedy and exert all their pressure to make sure he can not fulfill his promises.  Their propaganda is endless and aims to hypnotize. Pinter described it thus: “I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self-love.”

It is this self-love and American exceptionalism that Bobby Kennedy will have to counteract by emphasizing the humanity of all people and their desire to live in peace. He will have to make it very clear that the U.S. government’s involvement in Ukraine was never humanitarian, but from the start was part of a plan to disable Russia.  That is was an effort to continue the Cold War by pushing closer to Russia’s borders.

Only fools think that revenge and violence will lead to a better world.  It may feel good – and I know the feeling – to strike back in anger, but it is only a vicious circle as all history has shown.  Revenge only brings bitterness, a cycle of recriminations and reactions.  Reconciliation is the way forward, but it can only become a reality by an upswelling of resistance of good people everywhere to the lies of the war-loving propagandists who are leading us to annihilation.

RFK, Jr. can not do it alone.  He can lead, but we need a vast chorus of millions of voices to resist, in Pilger’s words, “the all-powerful elite of the corporation merged with the state and the demands of ‘identity’.”  If not, democracy will remain notional.  Kennedy is so right to say that the U.S.A. cannot be an empire abroad and continue to be a democracy at home.  Silence must be replaced with resistance and his words made real by millions of people opposing the killers.

Writing in another time of extremity, but writing truly, Camus, said:

At the end of this tunnel of darkness, however, there is inevitably a light, which we already divine and for which we only have to fight to ensure its coming. All of us, among the ruins, are preparing a renaissance beyond the limits of nihilism. But few of us know it.

So let us fight with words and actions.  As MLK, Jr. told us about the U.S. war against Vietnam: “There comes a time when silence is betrayal.”

 

Connect with Edward Curtin

Cover image credit: reneebigelow

Chairman of the Board of the UK Council for Psychotherapy: Open Letter Condemning the Use of Unethical Psychological Techniques / Behavioural Science on the Unknowing and Non-Consenting UK Public.

“It is now clear that in 2020 the UK Government deliberately chose to artificially inflate the level of fear within the UK population by exaggerating the risk factors of Covid19…”

sourced from Dr. Mike Yeadon telegram channel
April 28, 2023

 

Download PDF

---

 

Dr Christian Buckland
Esher Groves
13-17 Church Street
Esher
Surrey
KT10 8QS

 

The Right Honourable Rishi Sunak Prime Minister of the UK
10 Downing Street London
SW1A 2AB

 

Date: 28 April 2023

Open letter condemning the use of unethical psychological techniques / behavioural science on the unknowing and non-consenting UK public.

Dear Prime Minister,

I am the Chairman of the Board of the UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP), one of the UK’s foremost psychological governing bodies. However, I write this open letter in my own capacity. I believe I have a professional obligation to write to you in an attempt to protect the public from any further harm caused by the unethical application of psychological research and practice.

I unreservedly condemn the UK Government’s use of unethical psychological techniques intended to elicit feelings of fear, shame and guilt, under the guise of behavioural science / insights which were designed to change the public’s behaviour without their knowledge and conscious participation. It is now clear that in 2020 the UK Government deliberately chose to artificially inflate the level of fear within the UK population by exaggerating the risk factors of Covid19, and concomitantly downplaying the protective factors. We also witnessed the Government’s promotion of social disapproval and guilt messaging. These techniques were embedded into a multi-channel, co-ordinated public health campaign designed to change the public’s behaviour without their knowledge. Moreover, in tandem with the mainstream media, the Government also proactively suppressed, censored, and ostracised any healthcare professional or scientist who suggested alternative responses to Covid19, or who simply questioned the messaging and measures being implemented by the Government.

Evidence of the recommendation of using unethical psychological techniques to gain behavioural change

The Government document titled ‘Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures’ (Gov.uk, 2020) was written for the Government by the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B) which is a subgroup of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE).

The premise of the document was to provide options for changing the behaviour of the UK public without their knowledge. A passage within this document states:

“A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened”. It makes certain recommendations including:

• “The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard hitting emotional messaging”.
• “Coercion”
• “Social disapproval”. (Gov.uk, 2020)

The recommendations made by SPI-B included ones intended to elicit feelings of fear, shame and guilt. Psychological practitioners know that deliberately trying to frighten someone into change with erroneous or exaggerated information can easily cause long-term psychological damage. We also know that using social disapproval can create splits and divisions within society, and that inducing feelings of guilt can elevate the risk of suicide.

SPI-B also included a simple risk assessment matrix which acknowledges that the ‘spill over effects’ of using media to increase the sense of personal threat and of using social disapproval ‘could be negative’. There is also a statement demonstrating there was a conversation regarding the spill over effects, although this does not appear to be fully documented. The risk factors and ethics of using fear, shame, guilt, and coercion would almost certainly have been known to the members of SPI-B because several members were British Psychological Society (BPS) registered chartered psychologists. In an interview with one of the members of SPI-B, BPS registered educational psychologist Dr Gavin Morgan, he refers to the use of fear by his SPI-B colleagues and says:

‘Clearly using fear as a means of control is not ethical. What you do as a psychologist is co-construction. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It’s not an ethical stance for any modern government.’ . . . Was it unethical to use fear, I asked? ‘Well I didn’t suggest we use fear’ But your colleagues did. What do you think of that? He paused. ‘Oh God’. ‘Another reluctant pause. ‘It’s not ethical,’ he said (Dodsworth, 2021, pp. 262,263).

Like Dr Morgan, any BPS registered psychologists within SPI-B would or should have recognised that recommending the Government uses fear as a means of controlling the public breached their professional code of ethics and conduct. An urgent investigation is required both by the UK Government and the BPS. Two specific points of The British Psychological Society Code of Ethics and Conduct (2021) that may have been broken are (with my underlining):

3.3 Responsibility. Because of their acknowledged expertise, members of the Society often enjoy professional autonomy; responsibility is an essential element of autonomy. Members must accept appropriate responsibility for what is within their power, control or management.  Awareness of responsibility ensures that the trust of others is not abused, the power of influence is properly managed and that duty towards others is always paramount. Statement of values: Members value their responsibilities to persons and peoples, to the general public, and to the profession and science of psychology, including the avoidance of harm and the prevention of misuse or abuse of their contribution to society. In applying these values, psychologists should consider:

• Professional accountability;
• Responsible use of their knowledge and skills;
• Respect for the welfare of humans, non-humans and the living world;
• Potentially competing duties.

3.4 Integrity. Acting with integrity includes being honest, truthful, accurate and consistent in one’s actions, words, decisions, methods and outcomes. It requires setting self-interest to one side and being objective and open to challenge in one’s behaviour in a professional context. Statement of values: Members value honesty, probity, accuracy, clarity and fairness in their interactions with all persons and peoples, and seek to promote integrity in all facets of their scientific and professional endeavours”.

Evidence that psychological techniques to induce fear, shame, guilt and coercion were used on the UK public

The SPI-B document in question (Gov.uk, 2020) demonstrates that the options of eliciting feelings of fear, shame, guilt and the use of coercion was recommended to the UK Government. There is evidence that those options were indeed subsequently deployed on the UK population.

In August 2022, you stated:

“In every brief, we tried to say: let’s stop the ‘fear narrative’. It was always wrong from the beginning. I constantly said it was wrong… It was wrong to scare people like that”. (Sunak, R as quoted in The Spectator, 2022).

Additionally, leaked WhatsApp messages from the former Health Minister at the time, Matt Hancock, published in The Daily Telegraph in March 2023, confirm that fear and guilt were used:

“Hancock: We frighten the pants of everyone with the new strain. But the complications with that Brexit is taking the top line

Poole: Yep that’s what will get proper bahviour (sic) change

Hancock: When do we deploy the new variant”

And,

“Case: Ramping up messaging – the fear /guilt factor vital”
(The Daily Telegraph, 2023a)

The above are just two examples where senior Government Ministers recognised that fear and guilt was used as drivers for behavioural change of the UK population without their knowledge.

The existing literature

It is important to acknowledge that the above-mentioned psychological techniques were used on the UK population without their knowledge or consent, and that this in direct contradiction of long-established and carefully considered behavioural science advice which made clear that, in theory and practice, the consent of the public is paramount.

“The use of MINDSPACE (or other ‘nudge’ type policy tools) may require careful handling – in essence, the public need to give permission and help shape how such tools are used”. (Institute of Government, 2010, p. 10)

Continuing, the report states:

“Policy-makers wishing to use these tools summarised in MINDSPACE need the approval of the public to do so”. (Institute of Government, 2010, p. 74)

Further literature supports that permission from the public is essential:

“If there is one great risk to the application of behavioural insights in policy, it is that the thread of public permission wears too thin. If governments, or indeed communities or companies, wish to use behavioural insights, they must seek and maintain the permission of the public to do so” (Halpern, 2015, p. 365).

As there was no approval obtained, the options recommended and deployed were not in alignment with the principles of behavioural science.

It is important to highlight that the same kinds of techniques were used on children in relation to mask wearing, social distancing and vaccine uptake, with many techniques continuing into 2022. These techniques violated UNICEF’s (2021) recommendations from their ethical tool- kit for behavioural science projects directed at children. The tool-kit states:

“A core idea underlying the applied behavioural science approach is that interventions should not restrict choice and should transparently communicate project goals. When designing an intervention, practitioners should determine how transparent it will be to those affected by it. They should ensure that children and parents can easily opt out, and should design feedback mechanisms so that children and their parents can voice concerns, see the outcomes of their objections, and hold decision-makers to account”. (UNICEF, 2021)

The behavioural science literature also indicates a potential link between the misuse of behavioural psychology and an increased risk of suicide, stemming from an All Party Parliamentary Group Report on the Morse Review into the Loan Charge in 2020. One of the recommendations within the report demands:

“An independent assessment and a suspension of HMRC’s use of behavioural psychology / behavioural insights, in light of the ongoing suicide risk to those impacted by the Loan Charge”. (Loan Charge All-Party Parliamentary Group, 2020)

The literature highlights that approval from the public must be sought and maintained. Additionally, all behavioural science projects directed at children must have effective feedback mechanisms and methods of opting out, with decision makers able to be held accountable. There are also existing potential concerns that behavioural science may increase suicide levels. These important ethical aspects and safety signals appear to have been ignored. The lessons of history warn us that in times of existential crisis, whether real or only perceived, our ethics are at risk of being abandoned, and psychological knowledge can become misused by governments:

“Under some historical conditions or circumstances and contexts, psychologists and psychological knowledge were in danger of being abused by political powers, largely for clandestine purposes, such as conducting torture or the persecution of political opponents.” (Maercker A, Guski-Leinwand S, 2018)

It is of grave concern that the actions of the UK Government during the covid era potentially fit into the category of abusing psychological knowledge and being absent of ethics, thus require serious investigation.

The impact of psychological pressure on informed consent

For the sake of brevity, I will not reiterate the multiple concerns already documented by others surrounding the consequences of the Government’s actions around lockdown, hospital discharges, school closures and mask mandates (Amnesty International, 2020), (Byrne S et al, 2023) (Daily Telegraph, 2023b), (Mail Online, 2022), (Office for National Statistics, 2021), (The Guardian, 2021). I do, however, wish to highlight one extremely serious consequence that I believe has occurred as a direct result of the use of unethical psychological techniques / behavioural insights on the unknowing public: by adopting the techniques used, the Government significantly and materially undermined, if not removed, the UK population’s ability to give valid informed consent to taking a Covid19 vaccine.

According to Public Health England:

“Consent must be obtained before starting any treatment or physical investigation or before providing personal care for a patient. This includes the administration of all vaccines”.

Also,

“It is a legal and ethical principle that valid consent must be obtained before starting personal care, treatment or investigations”.

Also,

“For consent to immunisation to the (sic) valid, it must be given freely, voluntarily and without coercion by an appropriately informed person who has the mental capacity to consent to the administration of the vaccines in question”. (Gov.uk, 2021)

From the above, it is clear that for medical consent to be valid it must be given without coercion. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines coercion as:

“The threat or use of punitive measures against states, groups or individuals in order for them to undertake or desist from specified actions. In addition to the threat of or limited use of force (or both), coercion may entail economic sanctions, psychological pressures, and social ostracism. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2023).

The psychological techniques used by the UK Government fall under that definition of coercion. If follows that according to Public Health England’s statements and for the general public at least, consent to immunisation was, invalidated by the behaviour of the UK Government. It is also important to highlight that there have been serious injuries and death directly linked to the Covid19 vaccine. Many of those injured or who have died would not have taken a vaccine if they had not been psychologically pressured, feared being ostracised socially and / or were given accurate information.

The removal of the general population’s ability to give informed medical consent is of the gravest concern, and a severe and dangerous consequence of using behavioural insights / psychological techniques on an unknowing public.

Conclusion

The need to hold tightly to professional ethics, in particular to the ethical principle of informed consent, is not just an ‘academic’ issue. It is a matter of practical and fundamental importance to responsible government.

According to Halpern (2015, p. 348) “Behavioural insights, like any other form of knowledge, can be used for good or bad”. It is my opinion that the use of behavioural insights and psychological techniques designed to elicit feelings of fear, shame and guilt utilised by the UK Government since March 2020 has been unethical. The consequences are still unravelling but they appear to include serious damage to trust in government and its agencies, the NHS, and the medical and scientific professions.

I propose that there be an immediate cessation of the use of all behavioural science techniques designed to elicit feelings of fear, shame and guilt used by the Government pending an urgent, open and independent inquiry. This inquiry should also have as an objective the re-establishment of ethical frameworks necessary to protect the public and to provide accountability. I would welcome a discussion on this most important of matters.

Most respectfully

Dr Christian Buckland
Doctor of Psychology in Psychotherapy and Counselling

 

References

Amnesty International. (2020, October 4). UK: Older people in care homes abandoned to die amid government failures during COVID-19 pandemic. Retrieved from Amnesty International:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2020/10/uk-older-people-in-care-homes- abandoned-to-die-amid-government-failures-during-covid-19-pandemic/

The British Psychology Society (2021, December) Code of Ethics and Conduct. Retrieved from BPS.org.uk: https://explore.bps.org.uk/content/report-guideline/bpsrep.2021.inf94

Byrne S., Sledge, H., Franklin, R., Boland F., Murray D., Hourihane, J. (2023). Social communication skill attainment in babies born during the COVID-19 pandemic: a birth cohort study. Arch. Dis. Child.,108: 20–24 (available at https://adc.bmj.com/content/archdischild/108/1/20.full.pdf).

The Daily Telegraph. (2023, March 10a). The Lockdown Files. Retrieved from The Daily Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/lockdown-files/

she was failed by the system . Retrieved from The Daily Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/24/suicide-rates-mental-health-units-covid-lockdown/

Dodsworth, L. (2021). A State of Fear. How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic. London: Pinter and Martin.

Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2022, September 28). Coercion. Retrieved from Encyclopaedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/coercion

Gov.uk. (2020, May 5). Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures, 22 March 2020.

Retrieved from Gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/options-for- increasing-adherence-to-social-distancing-measures-22-march-2020

Gov.uk. (2021, June). PHE Greenbook of immunisation chapter 2 Consent. Retrieved from Assests.publishing.service.gov.uk:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9 94850/PHE_Greenbook_of_immunisation_chapter_2_consent_18_June21.pdf

The Guardian. (2021, Feb 13). Fury at ‘do not resuscitate’ notices given to Covid patients with learning disabilities. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/13/new- do-not-resuscitate-orders-imposed-on-covid-19-patients-with-learning-difficulties

Halpern, D. (2015). Inside the nudge unit. London. WH Allen and Co.

Institute for Government. (2010). MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour for public policy. Retrieved from: Institute for Government.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/MINDSPACE.pdf

Loan Charge All-Party Parliamentary Group. (2020, March). Loan-Charge-APPG-Report-into-the-Morse-Review- FINAL.pdf. Retrieved from Loan Charge APPG.co.uk: http://www.loanchargeappg.co.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2020/03/Loan-Charge-APPG-Report-into-the-Morse-Review-FINAL.pdf

Maercker A, Guski-Leinwand S. (2018). Psychologists’ Involvement in Repressive “Stasi” Secret Police. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation , 107-119.

pandemic. Retrieved from Daily Mail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article- 11335569/Lockdowns-collateral-cancer-burden-40-THOUSAND-tumours-missed-year-pandemic.html

Office for National Statistics. (2021, May 7). Deaths at home increased by a third in 2020, while deaths in hospitals fell except for COVID-19 . Retrieved from ONS.gov.uk:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/ deathsathomeincreasedbyathirdin2020whiledeathsinhospitalsfellexceptforcovid19/2021-05-07

The Spectator. (2022, August 27). The lockdown files: Rishi Sunak on what we weren’t told. Retrieved from The Spectator: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-lockdown-files-rishi-sunak-on-what-we-werent- told/

UNICEF. (2021, October 03). Ethical considerations when applying behavioural science in projects focused on children. Retrieved from unicef.irc.org: https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/1251-ethical-
considerations-when-applying-behavioural-science-in-projects-focused-on-children.html

 

Cover image credit: MICHOFF

Dangerous Nanoparticles Hidden in Vaccines & Our Environment

“Nanoparticles Are Extremely Reactive, Can Hardly Be Degraded, and Disrupt and Destroy All Tissues They Come in Contact With.”

 

---

TCTL editor’s note: As a service to our readers, this article, written in German, has been translated to English with the aid of translation software. Please understand that this is not a perfect translation. I do not speak German. However, the key concepts come through very clearly.

The work of Stefan Lanka and ‘Next Level – Knowledge Reconsidered’ challenges the entire paradigm around western medicine’s understand of biology (and the make-believe “science” of virology).

It is vitally important that we come to understand the danger of this long-planned, destructive transformation and total control of humanity and all living beings. We need to awaken to the truth about our own biology and the totality of our multi-dimensional existence. The quality of life for all who inhabit earth depends on sharing real knowledge, questioning the old paradigms built on lies, and the rise of empowered humanity. ~ Kathleen

---

 

Nanoparticles: So Small and Yet So Dangerous

by Next Level – Knowledge Reconsidered

 

As has already been learned, the new corona vaccines come with accompanying substances declared as “additives”, the so-called nanoparticles.

Although their high risk potential has already been sufficiently investigated in the past, this is accepted with approval. No consideration is given to the health of the individual, and even possible long-term consequences for those affected are accepted.

By means of continuously running the epidemic mind-frame through clever propaganda, expensive advertising and the generation of social pressure, one pulls out all the stops to get each individual to “roll up their sleeves”.

Yes – to indulge in this vaccine!

One protects even scarcity, in order to awaken needs in the people. And all this despite the fact that it cannot be called effective, let alone safe.

In this article, I share with you various information revolving around the issue of nanoparticles, and can only appeal to your sanity to keep your hands (arm 😉 )  off this vaccine and let others know this as well.

In a nutshell:

Real biochemistry: nanoparticles are extremely reactive, can hardly be degraded and disrupt and destroy all tissues they come in contact with. The body reacts to this disruption for repair purposes by forming globulins, which are misinterpreted by conventional medicine as antibodies.

Why do those responsible claim that nanoparticles are necessary as an additive?

Of special importance are the RNA vaccines, which are additionally equipped with nanoparticles.

So it says in Focus-Arztsuche:

Nanoparticles as mini-transporters. But making the right RNA molecule does not mean you have a working vaccine.

” It is difficult to get the RNA into the human body cells,” says Cichutek.

Gene shuttles with nanoparticles are supposed to solve the problem. Measuring only a few millionths of a centimeter, they carry the packaged strands of genetic material through the cell wall and prevent the vaccine from degrading too quickly in the body.

One of the problems in the preparation and administration of mRNA vaccines is the natural instability of mRNA.

In order to prevent, or at least delay, the degradation of mRNA and to deliver the administered (e.g., injected) mRNA to the site of the claimed effect (i.e., into the cells where the ribosomes then carry out the desired protein synthesis), a variety of highly complex additives are used.

So far, meaningful safety studies are available for very few of these additives (Roier S. 2019. Trillium Immunology 3/2019. Retrieved 03.05.2020), and some of the most commonly used adjuvants are related to nanotechnology (e.g., lipid nanoparticles/LNPs), for which in any case only very limited and contradictory experience in human use is available.

The danger of nanoparticles used in food, vaccines and others

The fact that these nanoparticles are extremely controversial and known to pose a high risk is strangely swept under the rug.

But what shocks me personally the most: How can scientists, whose job it is to check how dangerous the use of these nanoparticles and other toxins is in a person’s organism, completely play this down and even endorse it, as if we were dealing with the most normal thing in the world?

-In Der Spiegel it says:

Federal Environment Agency warns against nanotechnology, quote:

“In animal experiments, the particles have migrated right into the nucleus of body cells and damaged the genetic information there,”

or

“Their tininess, however, also poses the risk that they are much more likely to overcome natural barriers in the body – such as the blood-brain barrier.”

-The mdr – Nanoparticles can cause cancer reported:

“It has already been established that when nanoparticles are inhaled, they cause inflammatory reactions in the lungs.”
[Rolf Buschmann, Technical Environmental Protection Officer, BUND]

[…]

“You always have to ask yourself the question: what happens to it in the organism then? That’s why we are particularly skeptical.”
[Rolf Buschmann, Technical Environmental Protection Officer, BUND]

-In a study published in the International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON).

“Exposure to nanoparticles is related to pleural effusion, pulmonary fibrosis and granuloma” states:

“Using transmission electron microscopy, nanoparticles were observed to settle in the cytoplasm and karyoplasm of lung epithelial and mesothelial cells, but were also found in the mammary fluid. These cases raise concerns that long-term exposure to some nanoparticles can cause severe damage to human lungs without protective measures. Pulmonary fibrosis and foreign body granulomas of the pleura.”

The Federal Ministry of Education and Research – BMBF knows about their dangerousness and writes itself:

“Can these substances also make us sick?

“There is increasing evidence that nanoparticles in polluted air can have a negative effect on our brains.

“Observational studies have shown, for example, that people who live near busy roads and breathe this air permanently have an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease. Toxicological studies must now prove whether there is a direct causal relationship.

“We are currently investigating this at our institute. But we are also wondering whether nanoparticles in products can have harmful effects on our brains.”

[…]

“We have studied several nanomaterials. We were able to detect conspicuous features in nanosilver. This substance is used for detergents or toothbrushes, for example, because it kills bacteria.”

[…]

“Of course, we can’t yet say whether this can lead to illness.”

[…]

“Too little is known yet about whether nanoparticles are toxic to nerve cells and tissue. We would like to help close this knowledge gap.”

[…]

“Toxicological tests unfortunately cannot always provide one hundred percent certainty. We are dealing here with complex mechanisms of action, some of which have not yet been elucidated. So it can’t be ruled out that a new substance comes onto the market that only afterwards proves to be harmful to health.”

This article from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research is dated 04/06/2019.

The Federal Government has knowledge of all this and yet – without regard for just one single life – has approved the new mRNA vaccine and is vaccinating people with it at this very moment and intends to use it on our youngest children as well.

Please forgive me, but the deliberate ignoring of such clear facts, which are known to all involved, can only be glossed over with a heavy heart as an oversight on the part of those responsible.

In this context, I would like to refer to the vaccine Pandemrix, which was used in the so-called “swine flu” pandemic and caused considerable side effects. [Cf. WDR]

Dr. Stefan Lanka (molecular biologist, virologist and winner of the measles trial [See our video]), had already warned in 2009, before the use of the then vaccine Pandemrix, shortly before its market launch:

“The strong destructive power of cells by nanoparticles, such as the so-called “auxiliary substance” (adjuvant) MF59 in the flu vaccine for the elderly, is based on the known fact that transport between cells in organs and tissues occurs with particles of this size and the cell cannot distinguish between ‘foreign’ and ‘own’.

“The penetration of the nanoparticles into the cell envelopes damages them and destroys the cells.

“Due to the fact that these nanoparticles are also very stable in the body, it is known that, for a longer time, cells in the body are destroyed. And this reacts with the formation of globulins as a sealing substance of the cells. And this increase of the globulin concentration is claimed by vaccine [manufacturers], against better knowledge, as antibodies and as protection against freely invented pathogens.

“When globulins are present in greater concentration, their binding to all kinds of proteins is detectable.”

The Paul Ehrlich Institute suppressed as long as possible the devastating and inconceivable fact that nanoparticles were already present in other vaccines. Only after diverse pressure was exerted, the PEI had to admit this fact.

The Paul Ehrlich Institute indirectly admits that this is the case, stating there:

“Even if some of these components are located in a size range that is in the nanometer range, they are not technologically targeted nanoparticles, especially not nanoparticles made of metals or plastics.”

Regulatory agencies, including the German Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI), completely ignore this issue.

Measles vaccine genetically contaminated: PEI refuses to investigate

Note: Amazing that they first denied that nanoparticles were present at all and then, caught, manipulatively tried to wriggle out of it by pretending that they were “not purposefully” manufactured.

Let me tell you something: The task of the Paul Ehrlich Institute is to check from the outset whether harmful substances are present in a vaccination and not to determine only after the child has fallen into the well!

How can we continue to believe such institutions when it comes to our precious health? It is best to leave it alone. I don’t even want to mention the other outrages of the PEI, such as the concealment of the many dead vaccinated babies by the vaccine Hexavac (How safe are vaccines really? – Dr. med [medical doctor] Klaus Hartmann) …

The BioNTech mRNA vaccine is a danger for mankind, for whose side effects including death. Uğur Şahin is personally responsible.

From the point of view of orthodox medicine, the vaccination should not be used.

• Because RNA is transformed into DNA by several mechanisms and damages chromosomes.
• Because it will hit the body’s own enzymes, which are misinterpreted as components of the virus.

Strictly speaking, the BioNTech RNA vaccine is even more dangerous than nanoparticles themselves, because the RNA to be vaccinated is encased in lipid nanoparticles, and here we find a double-reactive mixture that will accumulate mainly in the brain and cause much more narcolepsy than was the case with the swine flu vaccine.

The vaccine from Mainz (mRNA) contains fats in their non-dissolvable and constantly-very-reactive nano-particle form, including the known allergen, the solvent PEG (polyethanol glycol).

In addition, the vaccine will cause chromosome strand breaks in an unknown number of people, resulting in energy depletion, infertility and disability of offspring if the chromosome breaks also happen in the “germ line” of males and females.

This is the shortest possible description of the vaccine damage for which Uğur Şahin is personally responsible. For sure, there will be an observable number of deaths, which will then be said to have happened as a result of the virus.

With the engrained belief in an evil biology (orthodox medicine), coupled with the collective compulsion for return on investment, one might almost assume that medical professionals actually believe that vaccination could help.

Most practicing physicians have never studied this information and trust the responsible scientists themselves and [do so] completely blindly.

So our task should not be to demonize those responsible, but to point out to them their error.

One of the simplest ways is to look to see if any studies at all have been done on the so-called pharmacokinetic properties.

“Pharmacokinetics describes the totality of processes that a drug undergoes in the body. This includes the drug’s uptake (absorption), distribution in the body (distribution), biochemical conversion and degradation (metabolization), and excretion (excretion).”

In short, what happens to all toxins (disguised as additives) within the organism?

 

We see that a simple “not applicable” was noted in the SUMMARY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MEDICINE.

These studies are omitted for just about all vaccines. A statement about whether this vaccine potentially harms the body and how the mixture of the injected material behaves in the body is simply left to fate by those responsible!

If this information does not take your breath away, then I suspect you are not taking it very seriously in other respects either :).

New studies confirm: Various vaccines are contaminated by micro- and nanoscale particles and described as non-biodegradable and non-biocompatible.

Unknown to most people is the fact that today’s vaccines are already contaminated with nanoparticles, as random tests have shown:

New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination. [This article was published in English. Download the PDF here.]

Among other things, it states:

“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 which, in any case, is still there, that typical of foreign bodies. For that reason, they induce an inflammatory reaction.”

[…]

“After injection, these microparticles, nanoparticles, and aggregates can remain at the injection site and form swellings and granulomas … However, they can also be transported through the bloodstream, eluding any attempt to guess their final destination … As with all foreign bodies, especially those so small, they trigger an inflammatory response that is chronic because most of these particles cannot be broken down. In addition, the protein corona effect can … due to a nano-bio interaction … generate organic/inorganic composite particles that can stimulate the immune system in undesirable ways…It is impossible not to add that particles of the size commonly observed in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with DNA …”

“After being injected, those microparticles, nanoparticles and aggregates can stay around the injection site forming swellings and granulomas.17 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 nanobio-interaction can produce organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable ways.  It is impossible not to add that particles, the size often observed in vaccines, can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA.”

Several important questions arise from the results of this 2017 study that demand answers:

• Are some of these nanoparticles intentionally introduced into vaccines?
• Does the standard manufacturing process for conventional vaccines UNFORTUNATELY lead to dangerous and destructive nano-contamination?
• New nanotechnology is already being used to manufacture several vaccines – ostensibly to “improve efficacy.” In fact, the upcoming COVID-19 vaccine may be a nano-vaccine. Does this manufacturing process bring with it the inevitable effect of a hurricane of nanoparticle contamination?
• How many cases of brain damage and autism in children can open the door to [seeing] nanoparticle contamination?
• Finally, where are these contaminated vaccines being manufactured?
  The above study did not attempt to find out. It was outside the scope of the research. It is common knowledge that, for example, in the case of the U.S., vaccines or their ingredients are not domestically produced in many cases. Where does this lead to control safety? For example, in China, where there have been numerous pharmaceutical scandals related to product contamination?
• The vaccine company is not showing the slightest interest in answering any of these questions. They are busy pretending that the questions do not exist.
• It would be suicidal to trust the establishment.

Even more explosive in connection with RNA and nano-vaccines is the reference to the Gene Drive Files, which the Heinrich Böll Foundation uncovered a few years ago. These show that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation commissioned a PR firm to secretly undermine an important UN process on the subject of synthetic biology.

Although all this is well known, Christian Drosten (Berlin Charité) comes up with the following words: “Gene-based vaccines have potential“.

The only conclusion can be: Prof. Drosten does not know what he is talking about!

The Medical Research Center for Prophylaxis and Health Protection in Industrial Workers confirms “nanotoxicity” on human health

Combined subchronic toxicity of aluminum (III), titanium (IV), and silicon (IV) oxide nanoparticles and their alleviation with a complex of bioprotectors

Summary

“The use of nanoparticles-including metallic nanoparticles-has exploded in industry, commerce, and medicine in recent decades. A Russian research team studied the ‘nanotoxicity’ of three types of metal nanoparticles (titanium, silicon, and aluminum oxide) alone and in combination. Repeated injections in rats showed that all three were “toxic to multiple target organs.”

“For the majority of these effects,” however, the alumina nanoparticles were found to be “most harmful,” even though the aluminum dose was only half that of titanium and silicon. No other publications have reported on the combined toxicity of these metal nanoparticles, despite their ‘potentially hazardous nano-effects on human health’.”

Source: IA Minigalieva, BA Katsnelson, LI Privalova et al. International Journal of Molecular Sciences , March 2018; 19 (3): 837.

The HELMHOLTZ Center for Infection Research has been exploring other avenues for years: Vaccination without a syringe via nanoparticles through creams to be applied to the skin or application via nasal spray.

Quote:

“The nanoparticles penetrate the skin through the hair follicles and trigger an immune response in the body,” says Hanzey Yasar of HIPS. “Such a vaccine would be very easy to administer and would certainly be well received by the population.”

Veteran physician Dr. Larry Palevsky confirmed to Connecticut’s Public Health Committee on Feb. 19, 2020, that the aluminum nanoparticles in vaccines cause massive damage.

In it, he describes not only how the safety claims of pharmaceutical manufacturers are made without any scientific study, but also how they can be completely refuted based on scientific evidence.

It is known from medicine that a high concentration of nanoparticles leads to fibrotic changes in lung tissue.

There is also evidence that these particles are associated with respiratory diseases as well as an increase in inflammatory markers and an increased tendency to blood clotting disorders, which can increase the incidence of cardiac arrhythmias, heart attacks and strokes.

Nanoparticles cross the blood-brain barrier and it is unexplored what may be triggered by this.

With the background knowledge that all vaccines are based on a false foundation and do little harm at best — adding to the fact that the dangers of the nanoparticles used are known to the entire science bench as well as to critical colleagues — these dangers must be addressed and cannot continue to be ignored, or suppressed.

Act. If not for yourself, then for the children!

The entire NEXT LEVEL – Knowledge Reconsidered team will support you and answer your questions.

NEXT LEVEL – Knowledge Reconsidered is present on various social media platforms, including. Telegram, Youtube, Odysee, Twitter and Facebook.

 

Connect with Next Level (German language)

Cover image credit: waldryano

Philip Zelikow’s Covid Coverup

 

---

“The Project for a New American Century was not a plan for a robust American empire. Just the opposite. It was a plan to use the US and its people as pawns in what was really the Project for a New World Order. America’s contribution to that was to let itself be robbed physically, morally, and spiritually by a parasite class whose goals for control of the world can’t even be understood as human. Indeed, transhumanism is a stated goal of these people.”
~ Richard Hugus

---

by Richard Hugus
April 27, 2023

 

Last November Philip Zelikow and “the Covid Crisis Group” published a 352 page book, Lessons from a Covid War, An Investigative Report. The book went on sale April 23, 2023 and was launched April 24 in a five hour presentation at the National Academy of Medicine in Washington, DC. The launch of the book has lately gotten attention in the news.

By its emphasis on war, the book inadvertently confirms recent evidence uncovered by Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt that the Covid psy-op was not a supposed public health emergency but a type of 5th generation warfare carried out by the US Department of Defense against US citizens, and much of the rest of the world, in collusion with many other governments.

Who is Philip Zelikow? He was the director of the so-called 9-11 Commission appointed by the G.W. Bush Administration in 2002. He was the editor of the resulting 9-11 Commission Report. He was and still is a University of Virginia history professor said to specialize in public myths and the effect of “catastrophic terrorism” in making abrupt changes in of the course of human history.

As we know, both myth and terror were in full play in the 9-11 and the covid operations. Zelikow was among the neocons of the Project for a New American Century which said in its “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” September 2000, that it would take “a new Pearl Harbor” to motivate the American public to support the militarily aggressive US global hegemony that the Project called for.

Exactly a year later, 9-11 provided the neocon-controlled US government with a pretext for just such aggression against a list of Arab and Muslim countries that did not threaten US hegemony, but did happen to be enemies of the state of Israel, which the neocons happen to adamantly support. So many coincidences!

Twenty years later, Zelikow was called in for another coverup, this time unofficially. Under Zelikow’s guidance 9-11 was painted as a series of tragic failures by the US government, the Pentagon, NORAD, and US intelligence agencies to either predict or prevent the hijacking of four passenger airliners by 19 nefarious hijackers. Using the same formula again, Zelikow assembled a group of 34 academic, medical, and government apologists — the “Covid Crisis Group” — to write the authoritative report on the US handling of the “Covid 19 pandemic.” Once again. the entire US government was totally blindsided. It was found  woefully inept, incompetent, and completely unprepared to deal with this terrible out-of-nowhere attack.

Zelikow and his hand-picked authors leave no stone unturned in pointing out the failures of almost all the measures a helpless Uncle Sam took to deal with the “pandemic.” The problems listed by Zelikow’s mainstream mouthpieces were: “operational challenges,” lack of preparedness, “policy failures,” ignorance of the source of SARS CoV-2, the failure of Trump’s leadership in “Operation Warp Speed,” a ”fragmented health care system,” and “poor communication” which led to poor “vaccine uptake” and a failure to prevent people being led astray by “misinformation.”

The solution offered by the Crisis Group: organize from the top down, globally, with a single authority, for the next predicted “pandemic,” much like what we’re hearing from the World Heath Organization. This is not new thinking. It’s a copy and paste of the globalist agenda.

The strategy for covering up an attack by the US government on US citizens is to make it look like the government was a victim of the attack, not the perpetrator.  That lie is facilitated by what sounds like a tough critique of government incompetence, crafted by the same people who were involved in the crime. This is like letting a murderer off the hook by hearing nothing but his apology for serious and reprehensible failures in stopping the murder, and forgetting that he committed the murder.

Of course, Zelikow’s exhaustive report passed over the pre-planning, the trail of predictive pharma patents, the economic devastation, the gigantic upward transfer of wealth, the government corruption, the psychological harm, the extensive injury to human health, the thousands of deaths caused by the US “response” to C-19 — all of it deliberate.

The report starts with the premise that a never-before-seen virus attacked us all at once and nobody knew what to do about it. This is more or less how Zelikow and his previous stable of authors said 9-11 happened: our innocent nation was attacked from out of the blue; we were caught totally unaware.  It is interesting to see how the public myth and the “catastrophic event” intertwine.

Zelikow is not  just an academic observing that catastrophic terror changes history. He is an advisor to people who want to change history by creating catastrophic terror. He almost certainly advises on how to do it. Not only has he nicely tied his two academic theses together, he has won handsome rewards and respectability, AND completed the major deception of being the one to write the official history of the operations his handlers planned.

Zelikow is the consummate insider. Had he not appeared with this coverup masquerading as an earnest critique, we might have missed seeing that the neocons had to be involved in the covid operation just as they were in 9-11.

The Project for a New American Century was not a plan for a robust American empire. Just the opposite. It was a plan to use the US and its people as pawns in what was really the Project for a New World Order. America’s contribution to that was to let itself be robbed physically, morally, and spiritually by a parasite class whose goals for control of the world can’t even be understood as human. Indeed, transhumanism is a stated goal of these people.

Zelikow has tipped his hat with this monstrosity of establishment lies. His has announced he is involved, despite no one asking, and we can infer from this that the neocons were also involved.

“The wicked run when no one is chasing them,” says the proverb. With all the power the neocons wield, most notable today in the Nuland- and Blinken-led attack on Russia, the neocons must of course be connected with the would-be masters at Davos.

How clever this clique must think they are to have fooled the whole world. With such arrogance, how hard the fall.

 

Connect with Richard Hugus

Cover image based on creative commons work of:
russavia & GDJ

 

Canada’s Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms to Testify at The National Citizens Inquiry in Red Deer, Canada

“The Justice Centre was one of the first organizations in Canada to defend civil liberties during the Covid-19 pandemic, and we have lived by the mandate to defend Canadians’ rights and freedoms – and always will.”

 

---

TCTL editor’s note:

The press release shared below comes from Canada’s Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. They are participating in the hearings held in Red Deer today and tomorrow.

National Citizens Inquiry is holding a series of inquiries, some of which have already taken place. See the list of The National Citizen’s Inquiry Hearings Event. See the hearings at their Rumble channel: NationalCitizensInquiryCA.

• Truro, Nova Scotia Canada — March 16th to March 18th
• Toronto, Canada — March 30th to April 1st
• Winnipeg, Canada — April 13th to April 15th
• Saskatoon, Canada — April 20 to April 22
• Red Deer, Canada — April 26 to April 28
• Vancouver, Canada (dates still being finalized)
• Ottawa, Canada (dates still being finalized)
• Quebe, Canada (dates still being finalized)

Thanks to TCTL site supporters C&J for the heads up about the importance of these hearings. From their note to me:

“This Canadian undertaking is as monumental as the truckers convoy, perhaps even moreso.  As J— and I have been listening to the testimonies, each has been as illuminating as another, and so I can’t recommend a particular one (one can just pick one randomly, like we’ve been doing, and then feel like one has really learned something new).  They speak to the Canadian experience, but also illuminate what’s been going on worldwide, so they, like the trucker convoy, are a gift to the world.  American expert witnesses have also been testifying at these hearings.”

Also see: James Corbett: On Canada’s National Citizens Inquiry

~ Kathleen

---

 

Justice Centre to Be Involved in National Citizens Inquiry’s Red Deer Hearings

News Release — Red Deer Alberta: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is pleased to announce that President John Carpay and Allison Pejovic, a lawyer working with the organization, will be involved in the National Citizen’s Inquiry (NCI) in Red Deer, Alberta on April 27 and 28, 2023.

Mr. Carpay will be testifying at the Red Deer hearings on Friday April 28. He will submit that protecting human dignity includes respecting and upholding the freedoms of expression, association, conscience, religion, mobility and peaceful assembly set forth in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the Charter right of every person to accept or reject, without any form of coercion or duress, medical treatments including vaccinations and other injections.

Lawyer Allison Pejovic will be questioning two expert witnesses on Thursday April 27: Dr. Justin Chin, an Emergency and Disaster Medicine Physician, at the University of Alberta Dept of Emergency Medicine, and Scott Crawford, an advanced care paramedic. She will also question two lay witnesses about the impacts that the Covid-19 response had on their lives.

The National Citizen’s Inquiry (NCI) is a citizen-led inquiry into Canada’s response to Covid-19 and was originally launched by the Honourable Preston Manning. Their mandate is clear: “Canadian citizens do not need any government’s permission to hold a public inquiry. [The NCI’s] purpose is to focus and showcase the broad support Canadians have expressed since 2020 for greater transparency and accountability regarding COVID-19 policies,” states the organization’s website.

“To date, no Canadian government has expressed any interest in holding themselves accountable through a public inquiry process and being transparent with Canadians regarding the merits and impacts of their COVID-19 policies.”

“We are pleased to be involved in the efforts of the NCI and think this citizen-led inquiry is critical, so that governments are held to account for their actions and have the necessary policies in place for future responses to public health crises,” said President John Carpay. “The Justice Centre was one of the first organizations in Canada to defend civil liberties during the Covid-19 pandemic, and we have lived by the mandate to defend Canadians’ rights and freedoms – and always will.”

NCI Hearings will take place in nine different locations across five provinces, with prior hearings having commenced in Truro, Toronto, Winnipeg, and Saskatoon.

The National Citizen’s Inquiry Hearings in Red Deer, Alberta takes place Wednesday April 26 to Friday April 27, from 9:00am to 5:00pm MT. The hearings will be held at the Baymont by Wyndham Red Deer and live-streaming is available on NCI’s website.

 

Connect with National Citizens Inquiry

Connect with Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

Cover image credit: jameswheeler

Marvin Haberland Shares Results of His Court Case Against Virology in Germany

 

TCTL editor’s note: As shared here yesterday, Marvin Haberland went to court in Hamburg, Germany, early today with the intention of challenging the entire basis of virology. See yesterday’s article for understanding the case and the strategy.

Below you will find the announcement following the trial that appeared in German at Next Level telegram channel.  You will also find an interview of Marvin immediately following the trial.

At this point, all information sources are in German. I have used various software tools to create rough transcriptions and translations, which were then edited. Please understand that I do not speak German, so consider these rough translations.

From the gist of it, it seems that the case against Marvin was dismissed and that the state must bear all costs of the trial. Marvin was not allowed to present any information to the court. Yet, this is one of four dismissals that Marvin has witnessed, all using this same strategy.  Clearly, the courts are avoiding admitting the evidence that reveals the fraud of virology into public  record.

The video includes interviews with a few of the attendees who shared their observations and perspectives.  ~ Kathleen

 

A Small Victory for NEXT LEVEL – A Big One for the People

In short: Our press spokesman Marvin Haberland won the trial as expected, in which the court dropped the case and paid the costs.

The subtleties in this are the big win:

(a) We went into this trial without a lawyer.

No lawyer wanted to defend us by supporting our strategy. Thus, we had no legal fees either. So it can be done without.

b) Our strategy is direct and clear

It aims to clarify the lack of science in virology in court, since Paragraph 1 of the Infection Protection Act requires it.

c) We have thus shown that the measures based on an imaginary virus are not justifiable and not tenable.

d) As has been shown, there is no need for complicated strategies, 400-page justifications or briefs. The only thing that needs to be attacked is the basis.

e) The possible avalanche effect

If many people would follow our argumentation, probably either all fines would be stopped, or someone would go to the next instance, where then the scientificity has to be clarified.

f) Our strategy and our expertise, as well as the evidence requests that could not be refuted, were known to all involved, both to the court apparatus and to the many employees whom we contacted throughout to make it clear that we were looking forward to the trial. Perhaps this was also one of the reasons why our trial was constantly postponed and unclear statements were made by staff.

Especially Important:

If the court, the state and others had known of something that they could have used to make a legal example of us regarding our requests for evidence, they certainly would have done so.

Thus, they obviously used the easiest “escape option” and simply discontinued the proceedings.

Notice:

We will get our chance, we will not let go. Virology will get mighty problems, we are sure.

---

Virus in Court – Marvin’s Trial



Marvin is interviewed by Jen of Grosse Freiheit TV (found at Odysee & YouTube.)

Jen: [00:00:00]

Hello. Hello and welcome to a new episode of Grosse Freiheit TV. We are in Hamburg at the district court. Here was just the trial of Marvin. You probably know Marvin from my video. We made a video about how he wants to bring down the whole virology in court about five five months ago. And now here was just finally the trial. Marvin, what was it like for you?

Marvin: [00:00:21]

Yeah, so I wasn’t expecting that much of an audience at first. The room was super full. Very thankful for everyone who came. Yes, it was unfortunately only a partial victory, you can say.

As expected, the proceedings were discontinued. So the court costs etc. are borne by the state treasury. One does not have to pay anything, no misdemeanor. But of course, this is not the result one would have wished for now.

I would have liked either to be sentenced or to get an acquittal, so that somehow you have something in writing in your hand. That way, when it’s stopped…

I mean, the judges are also clever, of course. They want to stop it so that they don’t get into trouble, and so that they don’t open up a big can of worms, of course. But that’s not the desired result.

But well, in the end, the judge summoned a witness, a police officer. She couldn’t remember anything and then he stopped the proceedings immediately.

So I had no chance at all to say anything. He then said yes, you have submitted numerous motions for evidence here, but I don’t want to keep you in suspense any longer. I will stop this today, he said, but then I wanted to declare him biased, because this does not meet his responsibility, so to speak. And he didn’t allow that anymore, because he said that the proceedings are over.

So it was obvious to them, to the spectators, of course, that this was just embarrassing. But well, he got quite red in the face, the judge But that’s how it is.

Jen: [00:01:55]

He then also immediately threatened the audience. Then it got a little bit louder, so the people. Yeah, I did too. I thought ‘so, now it’s about to start, now he’s going to be insulted by everybody’. But fortunately the people held back. And then he also said something like, yes, hold back, otherwise I’ll have to have the hall cleared and you’ll be reported to the police. He impressed the people with his authority, so to speak.

Marvin: [00:02:20]

Yes, right, exactly, yes, hides there just a bit behind the barricades, behind this legal facade. But he was visibly uncomfortable. Did you, did you notice? But he probably just has too big problems when he gets involved.

So in my opinion, there were also a lot of people there today. You can then spread this, carry it out, Look here, if you go this way or if you get fines or also with other topics, with vaccinations, if you address the scientificity, so to speak, the virus existence question, which is always played down or ignored by everyone or by many.

That is the only way to lead these things to success, because an attitude is also a success in itself.You just don’t have to pay the money.

If everyone knew that, every citizen would no longer have to abide by these rules, no one would have to follow the vaccinations or other things and would just not have to be afraid of anything, because that only works on this fear basis. Exactly.

Jen: [00:03:25]

Can you report back. You’ve seen other trials in Hamburg. Have they all been stopped?

Marvin: [00:03:30]

Yes, all the trials that used the argumentation with paragraph one, that the scientific nature of virology is not given and therefore the penalty notices are all illegal, they were all dropped.

That was a total of four that I accompanied, including my own proceedings. And they were all simply discontinued, even two of them by the same judge without justification, simply ‘I will discontinue it now. Done.’

Jen: [00:03:56]

And what was your impression here on site?

So you wrote me yesterday evening, you wrote me only then, so about yes, here are security checks and then I have, when I came in here, I have just seen how at the airport you become. You have to leave cell phones there. I had to leave my camera in the car and now someone from the audience, you’re about to see the whole player again. He also said that it seemed to him a bit like sabotage, that the people were left outside, that they didn’t deliberately create a queue, that they deliberately chose a small hall. I also said, I don’t know what it’s like here otherwise, I’m never here otherwise. What is your impression? Do you think it was deliberately done that way, because of course they got it? It gets big media noticed that it gets a big media attention. What is your impression? You have also been standing here in front of the lock.

Marvin: [00:04:49]

Exactly. So I’ve been here a couple of times. So I can’t agree with that. I don’t think that there was blocking, I haven’t been able to determine that now. It was a long queue, because many people were there. But they got in quite quickly. I think the hall is actually the largest one they have here. Well, or there is a bigger one. Okay, but it was definitely big, I think.

Of course, not everybody got in. I didn’t see exactly how many didn’t get in, but I think there were about 40 people sitting in the back of the hall.

Yes, basically you can say that the judge knows from the beginning that he wants to stop it.

It doesn’t matter what I said. It doesn’t matter what the witnesses said or didn’t say, in the case that it is to be stopped. That’s programmed from the beginning. And yes, that is already valuable to know, if you have this strategy, then you are just so strongly right that the legal system cannot help itself any more than to just stop it. That’s their only chance to even cover this thing.

Jen: [00:05:58]

Yes, I say the judge, then his hands were more or less tied. If he had actually said, I’ll invite an expert and that would have come out accordingly, that the whole virology, that this is simply not scientific, then it would probably have been the same for him as for the judge in Weimar. Or what would you say to that?

Marvin: [00:06:15]

Yes, that’s exactly how I see it! So of course the judge is under extreme pressure. I mean, if he had done that, then it would certainly have been similar to the judge in Weimar or it would have had other consequences. He also happened to be ill two weeks earlier in October, when the actual hearing was scheduled. I don’t know whether that was for strategic reasons.

In any case, I can say that ‘I saw you here’ in the building during this time shortly afterwards. He had other OWI proceedings that I was in the room for at the time. So he was, in any case, healthy again shortly afterwards and then it still took half a year until I got the invitation here again.

So you can think about it, was that just to annoy him or to put him on the rack? Well, I mean, in the end it doesn’t matter. I just want to show the public that this kind of thing is simply stopped. Everybody can follow that and that’s good.

Jen: [00:07:14]

So what’s the way forward now? Are you going to pursue further litigation or what is your next course of action now to bring down this viral lie?

Marvin: [00:07:25]

Yes, so I’ve talked to some audience members today who actually still have cases pending, some of them even now in the second instance. So we can certainly support there.

And yes, I will simply continue to get involved in the area and of course by making this so public, that was also my goal, people also see from this. Hey, this will simply be stopped.

These arguments are not discussed at all in court, they are not even taken up, they are simply dropped.

So there’s probably something really hot cooking. So it can’t be completely wrong.

And of course also with friends and family, etc., who have all understood that in the meantime, even those who were super-pro, so to speak, on the subject of vaccination or corona have apologized to me in the meantime and also understood that, so to speak.

And that is actually the only thing that we also want to achieve, which is simply to provide clarification and in what way it is now done, whether with attitudes or with a verdict, it is actually the same for us, because we make it public anyway.

And yes, with the attitude is the thing actually, so to speak. Silence can also be something — can also be a statement in that case.

Jen: [00:08:37]

All right? Yeah, thank you so much for putting yourself out there. And now here are a few more impressions from the hearing here.

Trial Attendee#1: [00:08:43]

Our jurisprudence is totally screwed up, so screwed up. The judge already had his verdict. It was so obvious, because yeah well, there was another policewoman called as a witness, but she couldn’t remember. A subject, that was a joke. So that was to make it appear it was a really good trial. No, it wasn’t. He then also outed himself, after all, by saying, ‘Yes, I don’t want to keep them in suspense for long. I’m going to stop the proceedings.’

Trial Attendee #2: [00:09:11]

And they weren’t up for the expertise thing and that’s why they said okay, let’s shut this thing down before we do any more damage to our already placed ship. That was actually my impression.

And it was also interesting that the judge, when asked why he had made this decision, only referred to his judicial sovereignty. So one cannot say more to it… Now that the fairy tale, the narrative, so to speak, little by little disintegrates, one simply does not want to let in still such long discussions, which could still increase the damage…

Trial Attendee #3: [00:09:45] That happened very quickly. The policewoman couldn’t remember. Right. But when the judge asked again if there was anything with an affidavit or something. then all of a sudden she could remember, but not really. So it seemed to me like it was a little comedy that was being performed. The policewoman then also went out again and then then the judge then stated ‘yes, I’ll put that then’.

Jen: [00:10:10]

On, Have you been in the room?

Trial Attendee #4: [00:10:12]

[This clearly did not translate well.] No, So we were actually, let’s say in a relatively strange way ultra-slow dispatched here I as extra because of the process traveled to and did not know that here somehow so a kind of combination control, courtroom and airport takes place. Was there but male female separated, there it went already. Then was yes the process begins.

Jen: [00:10:33]

Let’s see, it was missing.

Trial Attendee #4: [00:10:35]

Exactly and 10:30 only up. So there was already the smell of sabotage somehow in the air, I say. We were then still upstairs and then Mr. Marvin already came out and announced, the process was stopped. So all in all, half hour wait and one minute information.

Trial Attendee #5: [00:11:02]

I’m not a lawyer. Maybe they have their formal legal reasons, but it makes you wonder if it’s our court and our state.

Trial Attendee#1: [00:11:12]

It is. I would have quite liked to see 100 years of virology just go down the drain. But that’s not going to happen because they’re just too powerful.

 

---

 

For background see:

Marvin Haberland & Katie Sugak: On the Court Case Against Virology — April 26, 2023 in Hamburg, Germany

 

 

Perception Can Be Reality, and Reality Can Be Perception: So What Is Real?

by Gary D. Barnett
April 25, 2023

 

 “Because one believes in oneself, one doesn’t try to convince others. Because one is content with oneself, one doesn’t need others’ approval. Because one accepts oneself, the whole world accepts him or her.”
~ Lao Tzu

 

A bit of philosophy!

I guess this subject boils down to the obvious truth, that one sees what he wants to see, whether or not reality, logic, and conscience, are in direct contradiction to that perception. This is a natural human reaction, although it is not any preferred method of deduction if honesty and responsibility are desired. In this so-called modern age, it seems that everything has become perception, as most hide from any uncomfortable truth or reality in an effort to shift all responsibility away from themselves in favor of a tyrannical governing system. So long as the compliant dolts of this society believe they are free when they are not, they will take the easy way, accept all government stipends, follow all the ‘rules,’ and pretend that they are happy, because they will not have to make any decision for themselves. Truth and risk, you see, are not accepted by most, and this is a recipe for totalitarian rule to prosper.

Some great philosophers of the past, have posited that there is no truth; that everything is illusion. But we do have this life, and it is as real as is possible, because it is the only thing of which all are certain. The meaning of life is a different story, but then, that is a subject meant to belittle the time we have on this earth, and not in any way something that can be fully understood; at least not in our current state of consciousness. There lies the contradiction. We all know we are alive, if for no other reason than we awaken every morning to the only life we know, so why not accept that knowledge, and make of  it something of value, instead of becoming a cog in the wheel of time without individual worth and purpose. Is this not a truth we can accept?

Since none of us can ‘fix’ or change another to suit our perception of the desirable human, and can only change ourselves, why not concentrate on individual awareness and improvement, instead of wasting our time in any effort to force upon others our perception of reality? Each of us, you see, is unique, so each of us has to come to our conclusions alone, for if worrying about the perceived flaws of others consumes one’s mind, how can one improve self and find happiness in life? Obviously, this would require that no aggression be present, and from what is reality, we all know that non-aggression is not universal in nature, so conflict will arise. The true test of man then, is to learn how to respect the thinking and opinions of all others, unless aggression is at hand.

This attitude of peaceful anarchy allows for a general environment of calm and harmony, so long as aggression is not tolerated. That means first, that rule and governing has to become obsolete for all those who choose that path, and any who choose voluntarily to live under a master or government, may certainly do so, if and only if, their preferred system is not forced on any who do not willingly accept it.

Poppycock you say; humans cannot live without governments. Who would build roads, who would make ‘laws,’ who would give everyone ‘free healthcare,’ who would protect you from harm, who would fight constant wars of aggression, who would lockdown the country when someone got the flu, and who would fill the prisons with those who never harmed another? Who would tax you (steal from you) to supply the things you illegitimately desire that should only be the responsibility of each individual? All aggression is immoral and wrong, so all those sanctioning aggression at the hands of government as proxy, are in essence, committing aggression themselves. This is what is not understood by the collective masses, whose idea of right is doing whatever the majority decides, regardless of the consequences to all who disagree.

There is an old saying, and a correct one I might add, that reads, live and let live, which is now completely ignored by this collective herd of parasites. In today’s world, most have accepted the notion that all should be able to live at the expense, labor, and property of others, in order to suit their wants and needs. This is a case where reality is ignored in favor of the perception that living at the expense of others is legitimate and right due to the asinine assumptions of equity and ‘fairness;’ assumptions that rest on the ideology of communism.

Perception becomes reality in the minds of fools when the majority willingly accepts the premise that they deserve something or anything, due solely to the fact that they exist, the color of their skin, their sexual preference, their laziness, or their greed. This is why most think they deserve freedom, but expect that freedom without any effort on their part to gain or secure it. Most believe that government (rulers) gives (allows) them freedom, and that is why they so blindly expect a piece of paper filled with political language is the foundation of their so-called rights, instead of the fact that their freedom rests only on the natural and inherent right to life of the individual. This society is consumed by perception, because to accept the harsh truth of reality requires thinking, action, and consequences, whereas false perception requires no risk or effort, but only obedience to the god of government.

Reality is not always what we see, but it is what we live. Our lives are real, our families are real, and nature is real. We do not have all the answers of our existence or of the universe or beyond, but that does not change the fact that we have this life on earth. Reality becomes perception when one expects to know all there is to know, and no human has that capability. In fact, we, as individuals, know nothing of all there is to know. The wonder of it all is astounding to be sure, but the reality of this life and all it has to offer, is just as amazing.

Take what is real, and revel in it. Do not allow others to impede on your short time on this earth. Do not allow any other to rule over you, or claim to be your master, regardless if many of your fellow men decide to take that worthless and treacherous path. If each of us accepts his individuality, embraces his unique nature, and lives his life as a free man, what is real will become clearly obvious, and perception will be dreams. Once this state of mind is evident, disobedience will become natural, and disobedience is vital in any effort to secure individual freedom.

Let go of the State, and trust yourself instead.

“No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit.”
~ Ansel Adams

 

Connect with Gary D. Barnett

Cover image credit: Bessi

Marvin Haberland & Katie Sugak: On the Court Case Against Virology — April 26, 2023 in Hamburg, Germany

by Katie Sugak
April 23, 2023

 

Dear friends, here is the recording of my very interesting conversation with Marvin Haberland. Marvin is an engineer and he comes from Germany. As a result of a tragedy in his family, he decided to investigate the subject of medicine. This investigation led him to virology, and he eventually discovered that the foundations of virology were based on anti-scientific misconceptions. After realizing this, Marvin decided to act.

Our conversation today will focus on his upcoming trial in Germany on April 26, 2023, in Hamburg. This trial will be the second trial in history designed to disprove virology and demonstrate the lack of real science behind it.



References cited in the interview with Marvin Haberland.

Marvin’s letter to the court and his Freedom of Information request: 

English

https://docs.google.com/document/d/15VkP5pouOE5uQ2c4ivOoRwUf6j4-lFQm17q424Jxn80/edit 

Russian https://docs.google.com/document/d/11ulOf18ZCMgPbkQ1oNpdtzeAUIEGt1EG7Pdjqq2CAbQ/edit 

German
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MKGo6-0ltZ4_1airsQ6eDzkuKmijd0rE/view?usp=drivesdk   

Isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from the first patient diagnosed with COVID-19 in Australia https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7228321/  

Interview with Stefan Lanka from 2022 – Measles virus trial, control experiments and the final exposure of the coronavirus farce https://rumble.com/vmqkff-measles-trial-control-experiments-and-the-final-exposure-of-coronavirus-far.html 

Video on the Measles Virus Trial (2016)
https://rumble.com/vsla5a-stefan-lanka-measles-trial.html 

Other videos, interviews and articles can be found on Kate Sugak’s telegram channel https://t.me/katesugakofficial 

Tehran Next Level channel (German)
https://t.me/NextLevelOriginal   

Next Level website https://www.wissen-neu-gedacht.de/ 

Connect with Kate Sugak

---

Transcript of first 25 mins. prepared by TCTL editor:

 

Katie:

Hello everyone. My name is Katie and today my very special guest is Marvin Haberland.

Marvin is an engineer and he comes from Germany.

As a result of a health tragedy in his family, he decided to take a deep look at medicine. That exploration led him eventually to virology and, as a consequence, he discovered that the foundations of virology are based on anti-scientific misconceptions.

Marvin decided to do something about this realization.

Our today’s conversation will revolve around his upcoming court case in Germany, which as far as I am aware, will be the 2nd court case in history that aims to disprove virology and demonstrate the lack of real science behind it.

So, Marvin, I think it would be great to talk about your story.

What got you interested in the subject of virology and how did you start noticing there is something wrong with it?

Marvin:

Yes, thank you for the invitation.

Katie:

You’re welcome. Thank you for coming.

Marvin:

So, like you said, basically due to a tragedy in my family. So my grandmother, she died when I was studying in the US.

And that got me quite interested in the topic; as she, before she was diagnosed with the cancer, she always asked me, ‘Marvin, you’re always so smart. You’re always researching things. Can you help me?’.

And I was always saying, which I now regret, ‘Grandmother, look, I don’t know. I have no knowledge on this topic. Please go consult the doctors.’ And so on.

I was kind of ignorant, which from today’s perspective, of course, I regret. But this is the way it is.

So when she died, this triggered something in me and I started to then really research the topic of chemotherapy. And I found out that basically it’s not really based on evidence. There are very, very low-quality studies without any control groups. There is always comparing chemotherapy to another chemotherapy, or chemotherapy to chemotherapy plus a new drug. But there is never the zero control group, without any therapy, or very rare to find that.

And actually if you research the real figures, the efficiency of the five-year survival rate is about 2.3% only, which is basically zero because the statistical fluctuations.

So when I found this out it was very surprising to me. And then from that point, I also looked right and left of this topic to nutritionist sciences where I found very, very similar results. And also infectious disease and germ theory. And that got me interested in the field.

Katie:

From when you started your research, what was the first thing that you started to research the virology topic?

Marvin:

Yeah. So first was basically chemotherapy/ cancer, then nutritional sciences. And from that I moved on to virology and I found out about Stefan Lanka’s work.

So basically, first was the measles virus and the early scientific practices, or unscientific practices, of Enders and Peebles in 1954. And then I also researched, of course, Pasteur and Robert Koch, from the really early beginnings of germ theory and vaccinations.

And then from there I moved on to HIV.

I bought the book — I have it here — the ‘Virus Mania’ book from Engelbrecht… and other authors, which got me very interested in HIV also.

And then I discovered there is a pattern in virology. It’s always the same.

So, measles, HIV, SARS-CoV-1… These are repeating patterns which I found very interesting.

And then when covid or corona came up, I immediately did the research.

I remember in January 2020 when this came up, I went to GISAID [China National GeneBank] and other platforms where they upload the genomes. And I tried to figure out — OK, maybe this time they did the correct isolation, the correct scientific procedures.

And I figured out, OK, this is the same like with the swine flu, with the bird flu, with the SARS-1.

So from very early on, I was interested again.

I decided to start to be more active in speaking out and do work in this field to spread the misconceptions and the scientific fraud, basically.

I thought this was important because many people don’t know about this and I felt responsible to share.

Katie:

Let’s talk about the court case and what motivated you to go there, to do it. And what did you do?

This is important. What did you do to get there? And why are you doing it? And what is your goal?

Marvin:

First of all, I got motivated to do it, basically, also by Stefan Lanka who had a court case in 2015 about measles virus.

So little different strategy than mine, but pretty similar.

And he was saying in the beginning of covid, ‘OK, people of Germany, if you get these fines because you’re not wearing the mask or because you are meeting with other people during the lockdown, and so on, just…’. He laid out the basic strategy how to go to court.

And what I did is I just didn’t wear the mask. I had a mask zone directly in front of my house, so I couldn’t even exit my door without wearing a mask, which I didn’t want to do.

And after receiving the fine, I just objected it and I sent the court specific abstract from the law, which is basically the first paragraph, in Germany, of the infectious disease law, which says that every virologist, every institutional authority, has to work according to the status quo of science, scientific practice.

And I am basically saying that in virology this is not at all the case. And they are not following the scientific method. And not any sort of scientific method that is required.

And I sent proof to the court from several different Freedom of Information acts…

I sent one to the University of Melbourne in Australia and several others.

So my argumentation is basically the law is is not fulfilled, and these are my proofs. And this is why I am not willing to pay the fine.

Basically this is just the strategy. And we will see how this goes.

It will be on the 26th of April.

After my first invitation got cancelled. It was originally scheduled the 19th of October last year, but then I received a cancellation letter because the judge apparently got sick.

And now I have the second invitation. So we will see.

And there are many others that do this in Germany, so I have already consulted three other people with the same strategy and all three of these cases got closed.

So basically the people didn’t have to pay anything. But the court did not really issue a official statement. They just closed the case.

So what I want to achieve is official statement by the court. Because if they close my case, basically I cannot do anything about it. I have to accept it. But it has not the effect that I would like to have — basically to have an official statement ‘Yes, indeed, paragraph one of the infectious law of diseases is broken. Virologists are not working according to the scientific method.’
This would be my goal.

Or something else they could say, which is also possible, they could say that the law states that they should work according to the scientific method, but they don’t have to, right?

If the court says something like this and I have to pay the fine, it’s OK for me.

But then I have the official statement ‘Virologists are not obliged to work scientifically’. Which would be fine. This is just about our goal to to share the the situation — how it is.

Katie:

So let’s talk a little bit more about the main problem of virology, so people who are completely new to this, they can understand better the lack of scientific method behind it.

Let’s talk about all of this — about controls and about your Freedom of Information requests.

Marvin:

Sure. So basically, in science how it works is, you observe something in nature and then you come up with a hypothesis on how this could work. And then you try to come up with an experiment to test this hypothesis. And if the experiments support the hypothesis, then the hypothesis turns into a theory, and the theory gets tested over and over and over again. And all experiments support it. OK?

But if the experiment, the outcome, is against the hypothesis, then you falsify the hypothesis. This is basically how it works.

And in virology the hypothesis is fair. OK?

You say that you get sick from some viruses infecting you, coming from the outside. Infectious disease are being spread and so on.

And the experiments should be that you bring together sick and healthy animals or people and you show that you can really transmit this.

Or you try to extract these particles, these viruses, and then you take them and put them in the food or you spread them in the air of the animals or of the humans. And you show, by doing that, that you can replicate the symptoms.

That has never been done in virology.

What they are doing instead of doing it in the way I just stated, is they try to come up with some sort of excuse. They say that they cannot really do it in the correct way because the viruses are too small. Or too little in quantity. Or they only can live inside the cell and so on.

So they try to find excuses why they cannot extract the particle. And then they do some experiments in the lab.

So they never do it in a real ‘in vivo’. They only do it ‘in vitro’ in the lab. They take cell cultures and then they mix a lot of different chemicals, antibiotics and other substances together with fetal bovine serum, cell cultures from monkey kidney cells and so on.

They have a big brew of different components and then they observe that this cell culture basically disintegrates or dies. And they say, ‘OK, this is the proof for a virus’.

But this is impossible scientifically because there are so many variables. There are the toxic antibiotics, the fetal bovine serum.

Then they take off the fetal bovine serum so they remove the nutrition.

Then there is different other chemicals involved — trypsin sometimes and several different steps along the way.

So it’s impossible to say that the result is caused by a virus.

And what is on top of that unscientific — and everyone can understand this: They don’t have the control experiment.

So they are just running all these steps and they are doing what is called circular reasoning. And they don’t have any control.

They are trying to find causative results, cause and effect, but it’s impossible to do it. This is just a correlation. They observe that something happens, but they are not really using the scientific method to come up with the cause/effect relation.

The control experiment would be — for the viewers. You do the exact same experiment. You do the cell culture experiment with the chemicals, same antibiotics, same steps, everything the same. But you don’t add the so-called virus. This would be the only variable that should be different from the other experiment.

And the outcome then should be different.

If the virus would exist, and would be the cause of this cell culture disintegration, thy so-called cytopathic effect, then, only then you would prove that this is the determining variable.

But, of course, as they never have isolated the virus in the first place, they cannot even do this control experiment. It’s impossible.

And this is the big scientific problem.

I am willing to say that on some levels this is also fraud because they know. Because we asked them.

The virologists. Most of them know that the control experiments are missing and are important. They are trying to find excuses why they are not doing them, so they know exactly they should do them.

It’s not that they are unconscious. So I can say that this is basically fraud. Maybe not for everyone, but certainly for many virologists. They know exactly about this this issue.

Katie:

So in the court, you are going to point at this exactly — the lack of controls.

Marvin:

The center of the argumentation is the lack of control. And this is the reason why the first paragraph which states that everything should be done according to the scientific method, the recent scientific techniques and so on. And we have the German Association of Science which says that in order to work according to the scientific method, everything has to be controlled, right? Every experimental step has to be controlled and so on.

So this is very easy to then demonstrate to the judge that it has not been done in virology ever.

And I have many proof. Not not only me, many people have done that.

But for my case I have asked the University of Melbourne, in the Doherty Institute, which is their virology institute, basically, and they have published one of the first SARS-Cov-2 isolation publications. And it was the first publication outside of China.

And I asked them very early on if they did the control experiments for every step, including the genome sequencing. And they clearly answered that they did not do it. Very clearly. No excuse. Very, very straightforward. They said no, we didn’t do it for any of the steps.

And then I asked them why did you not perform the controls. And they told me very, very straightforward again. ‘We didn’t have the resources to do it. We were just focusing on the positive culture. And we had to work quickly. And we had no time.’ Basically, this was their answer.

So everyone can see that this is extremely unscientific. And the German Association of Science even clearly states quoting — I’m quoting them basically that they say that nobody should issue any sort of scientific paper, unless they have followed all the scientific steps, even if economic factors, monetary factors or the economic pressure is high. So you should not publish anything before following all the scientific steps.

And I think everyone would agree. So this is, as a proof, is a very good proof. Because usually if you ask virologists around the world, if you ask the official institutions — CDC, RKI, Pasteur Institute and so on — it is very unlikely to to get a straightforward answer like this. It’s very rare to get it. I was very lucky to get this straightforward answer. And this is what I’m using as a main proof. But then I use other proofs as well.

Katie:

Yes. Another question that I had is that there is this group you are working with that is called The Next Level and they help you.

Could you talk a little bit about them, who they are?

Marvin:

So, basically, next level is like a joint venture. We are basically coming out of two different telegram groups or channels that have evolved during covid and we are now working together with different scientists, doctors, engineers (like I am), mathematicians, computer scientists, and so on.

So we are quite a diverse team and what our main focus is basically health topics. So we try to dig deep into virology, germ theory, medications, disease in general, biology and so on. And our focus is the scientific area.

So we try to be very scientific in our articles and our work. And we try to read through papers and explain to the audience why a certain paper, or why a certain scientific document, is methodically not good, or what is the problem with it, why is it not scientific. Or we try to also educate on other health topics. This is what we are doing.

Katie:

This sounds amazing. And I also noticed that Germany specifically, and German-speaking countries are extremely active in this area.

Like there are so many knowledgeable people, a lot of activists, a lot of channels and people talking about it.

I really noticed in Germany, I even had one of my videos, that was translated in German… I think, around 1,000,000 people watched it in German.

I noticed how this topic is really popular and a lot of people are working towards solutions. So we really need to also take example from them.

Marvin:

I’m not really sure why that is in Germany. As in every other country, in Germany you have a lot of people that are just following the western medicine blindly. But you have a lot of people also that are very critical and trying to dig deep into the topics, and educate themselves, and doing the research.

So I think we have just had a history. Many, many scientists — so-called scientists of the past — of these areas came from Germany. Or from Europe basically.

And, we had — with Doctor Stefan Lanka we had a very prominent biologist/virologist who came out to the public and tried to educate and spread the truth basically about the practices, scientific practices, in virology. So that gave the whole movement a boost, I would say, in Germany.

And also he was working together with the Perth Group in Australia, which in the 80s, 90s, were very, very clearly doing a lot of good work in HIV research. So I think this is also part of the reason why, specifically in German-speaking countries, many people are already aware of these topics.

Katie:

So how people can support you and what you are doing this court case and everything that you require to do?

Marvin:

So one support would, of course, to be there at the day. So for everyone maybe who is around Hamburg could come there and just — at the 26th of April — think it’s at 10:45 am. I can share the address later, but that would be great for sure.

And then, of course, you can support our Next Level, so our work what we are doing. We have a website and we also have a magazine that comes out regularly. So you can do any sort of donation.

You can buy the magazine and you can also interact with other critical thinkers in the online forums — telegram — and just support this community. That would be also very great because we are doing a lot of work.

Basically all of us do this in our free time. So we have all our main jobs, and apart from that, we do this in our free time because we are very passionate about this.

We don’t want a future for our families and friends and children and so on that is continuing with this craziness basically. And with these pandemics over and over again, with vaccinations and medical drugs and so on.

It is all going against, basically, our health and is not based on science.

This people really should understand that this is not really scientific.

If you take your time, some hours, weeks, and you really try to figure it out, you will quickly understand that this is not based on science.

This is based on fraud. Sometimes on misinterpretation. OK? Misinterpretation. Very often, due to lacking control experiments, they misinterpreted the results they get. They don’t know what exactly is cause and effect because they don’t have any controls. So they just take it for granted; and this is also unscientific.

---

See Related:

Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Tom Cowan: How We Got Into This Mess — The History of Virology & Deep Medical Deceptions

---

The Path Paved by Dr. Lanka: Exposing the Lies of Virology

---

Part 1: The New Body Soul Biology (English voice over) Dr Stefan Lanka

 

James Corbett: On Canada’s National Citizens Inquiry

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
April 25, 2023

 

The National Citizens Inquiry is a citizen-led and citizen-funded initiative that is hearing testimony from Canadians and experts examining the nature, the legality and the effects of the Canadian governments’ COVID mandates and restrictions.  Today James talks to the volunteer-run inquiry’s volunteer communications director, Michelle Leduc Catlin, about the inquiry itself, what it is seeking to accomplish and how Canadians (and people around the world) can support it in its endeavours.

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack  / Download the mp4

Show Notes:

National Citizens Inquiry homepage

Michelle Catlin’s blog (daily summaries and highlights)

Citizen-led inquiry into Canada’s pandemic response makes stop in Winnipeg

Preston Manning announces ‘citizen-led’ inquiry into Canada’s pandemic response

Brian Peckford on his decision not to participate

One on One with Michelle | Colleen Brandse | Vaccine Injured Nurse | National Citizens Inquiry

 

Connect with James Corbett

Connect with National Citizens Inquiry

Reiner Fuellmich: On Standing With the Māori People of New Zealand Who Never Ceded Their Independence

by Reiner Fuellmich
sourced from Reiner Fuellmich Telegram channel
April 23, 2024

 



 

Connect with Dr. Reiner Fuellmich at Telegram

Cover image credit: Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo

 

---

Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: Below you will find a transcript of the video plus additional information on the history of the Maori tribes of New Zealand

 

Transcript:

I have an important announcement to make.

I am a free, independent human being free in thought and free in action. I alone decide what I want and what I don’t want. And I want real justice.

The Māori in New Zealand, too, are free, independent human beings.

Unlike all other human beings, though, they have never lost or ceded their independence.

It is enshrined in their Declaration of Independence, “He Whakaputangaa”, which was written in 1835.

Their equally-independent, hundreds of years old lore is called Tikanga. It is designed to restore the peace for the Māori and for the whole world.

The Māori remind us who we are — free and independent people who make their own choices and who will not let anyone tell us what to do and what not to do.

My friend and colleague Dexter Ryneveldt and I, on behalf of the international group of lawyers, for many weeks, have spoken with representatives of the Māori government and others who will support this move.

We, all of us, will restore the peace for the Māori and for the world. Because this is what Tikanga lore is explicitly there for, precisely for this moment.

I am Reiner Fuellmich and I stand with the Māori because we love life.

 

---

Background information on on Maori people from Te Wakaminenga o Nga Hapu o Nu Tireni website:

On the Māori Government:

1. What is the Māori Government and what is their role?

The Māori Government is the administrative arm of Te Wakaminenga o Nga Hapu o Nu Tireni. The Māori Government help to operationalise decisions made in the national Te Wakaminenga o Nga Hapu o Nu Tireni, or a hapu wakaminenga.

2. What is a Wakaminenga?

It is a Confederation or general assembly of the United Tribes where they met to make decisions and frame laws according to their national constitution “He Wakaputanga o Tino Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni 1835

(Declaration of Independence o Nu Tireni 1835)

3. What jurisdiction does the Māori Government operate under?

The Maori Government operate under “Native Māori Jurisdiction”. It is the first nation jurisdiction of Nu Tireni (New Zealand). It is also recognised in pre and post-treaty British imperial law.

4. What are Māori?

Māori are the native indigenous people of Nu Tireni. Māori are also the first nations people.

5. Why are Māori allowed their own government?

Maori had their own government before Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed. The Māori Government was first recognised in 1805 and earlier. It is also recognised in pre and post treaty British imperial law.

---

A Message From the Māori Government of Aotearoa Nu Tireni

The Māori Government of Aotearoa Nu Tireni is the governing body of the Sovereign Nation of Aotearoa Nu Tireni, which existed prior to 1840 and continues to exist in accordance with the Declaration of Independence of 1835  (He Wakaputanga). 

Based on four [4] pillars

• Self-determination
• Sovereignty
• Framing of laws for trade and justice
• Guarantee by the British Crown of protection and access to the Commonwealth in return for mutually agreeable cooperation on equal standing.

The Sovereign Nation of Aotearoa Nu Tireni welcomes all the living men and women of Aotearoa Nu Tireni to unite under its protection and benevolent adherence to all human rights as described in the Nuremberg Code and The UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, including the freedom to choose, be fully informed and to pursue wellbeing and happiness. We reject all forms of coercion and manipulation.

Together, united as the Sovereign living men and women of Aotearoa Nu Tireni, we reject the rules and control of the current totalitarian NZ Government, a corporation listed on the NYSE.

This corporation does not represent the aspirations and values of the living men and women of this country, ignoring our voices is an insidious attempt to impose a ‘new’ normal without our consent.

Thereby we freely choose to abandon the aforementioned NZ Corporation and give our full support to the sovereign nation of Aotearoa Nu Tireni and its representatives and elected government, Māori Government of Aotearoa Nu Tireni.

Read more…

---

The Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand, signed by a number of Māori chiefs in 1835, proclaimed the sovereign independence of New Zealand prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840.

---

See related:

Maori People of New Zealand Perform Haka War Dance in Protest Against Forced Vaccination

Music From the Past, When the World Was Young

Brigadoon; Heather on the Hill; a man discovers joy and love

by Jon Rappoport

 

If you can stand it, you might contrast Brigadoon with “Get rich or die tryin’”, or any sample of hip hop lyrics that have infiltrated what is called The Culture.

Once upon a time, American Broadway musicals took the country by storm. South Pacific, Oklahoma, Finian’s Rainbow, Guys and Dolls…

Many of the musicals were made into films. Like Brigadoon.

Here’s a synopsis of that exhilarating show (1947).

Stageagent.com: —When New Yorkers Tommy Albright and Jeff Douglas get lost on a vacation in the Scottish Highlands, they stumble into Brigadoon. Brigadoon is a mythical village that, they learn, appears for a single day once every hundred years. At first, Tommy and Jeff are mystified by the villagers’ 18th century garb as they go to market, but they are soon charmed by romantic liaisons: Tommy, who is engaged back in New York, falls terribly in love with headstrong Fiona, while Jeff enjoys a harmless flirtation with Meg Brockie. It is only when Harry Beaton, the rejected suitor of Fiona’s sister, Jean, tries to leave Brigadoon that the two men realize the complicated truth: at the end of the day, this town will disappear into the mist for the next hundred years – and if anyone succeeds in leaving Brigadoon, the town and the people in it will be lost, forever. Tommy is forced to choose between returning to the world that he knows and his New York fiancee—or taking a chance on life and love in a mysterious new place. Including such famous hits as “Heather on the Hill” and “Almost Like Being in Love,” Lerner and Loewe’s Brigadoon has music that will sweep you off your feet and a whimsical story that is a tribute to the power of true love.—

Tommy risks everything for true love…and grasps it.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

---

TCTL editor’s note:

Reading Jon Rappoport’s post (above) inspired me to share the music from Brigadoon here with our readers. The music and the lyrics lifted my heart. I couldn’t help but listen over and over as I prepared the lyrics, and I remember being enchanted by the music when I first heard it so many years ago. 

“There’s a smile on my face for the whole human race. Why, it’s almost like being in love.”

“All the music of life seems to be, like a bell that is ringing for me.”

I hope that as you listen to the videos shared below, that this music will bring a smile to your heart and to your face, and that perhaps you will find yourself swaying with the sounds of joy and the love carried within the music.

The story of Brigadoon is magical in that it reminds us of the many worlds within our world. And that the choice is ours where we hold our attention. Our attention carries our power to create worlds.

I hope you enjoy listening as much as I did while preparing this. I know I’ll be hearing their echo and will be singing these songs for days to come. ~ Kathleen

---

Music from Brigadoon as performed by Kelli O’Hara and Patrick Wilson, New York City Center in 2017

“Almost Like Being In Love” from Brigadoon 



Lyrics

Maybe the sun gave me the power
For I could swim Loch Lomond
And be home in half an hour
Maybe the air gave me the drive
For I’m all aglow and alive

What a day this has been
What a rare mood I’m in
Why, it’s almost like being in love

There’s a smile on my face
For the whole human race
Why, it’s almost like being in love

All the music of life seems to be
Like a bell that is ringing for me

And from the way that I feel
When that bell starts to peal

I would swear I was falling
I could swear I was falling
It’s almost like being in love

When we walked up the brae
Not a word did we say
It was almost like bein’ in love

But your arm linked in mine
Made the world kind o’ fine
It was almost like being in love

All the music of life seems to be
Like a bell that is ringing for me
And from the way that I feel
When that bell starts to peal

I would swear I was fallin’
I could swear I was falling
It’s almost like being in love

---

 The Making of Lerner & Loewe’s Brigadoon (New York City Center 2017 Cast Recording)



---

The Heather on the Hill



Lyrics

Can’t we two go walkin’ together
Out beyond the valley of trees?

Out where there’s a hillside of heather
curtsyin’ gently in the breeze

That’s what I’d like to do
See the heather, but with you

The mist of May is in the gloamin’
And all the clouds are holdin’ still

So take my hand and let’s go roamin’
Through the heather on the hill

The mornin’ dew is blinkin’ yonder
There’s lazy music in the rill

And all I want to do is wander
Through the heather on the hill

There may be other days as rich and rare
There may be other springs as full and fair

But they won’t be the same
They’ll come and go
For this I know

That when the mist is in the gloamin’
And all the clouds are holdin’ still
If you’re not there I won’t go roamin’
Through the heather on the hill

The heather on the hill

~

The mist of May is in the gloamin’
And all the clouds are holdin’ still

So take my hand and we’ll go roamin’
Through the heather on the hill

The mornin’ dew is blinkin’ yonder
There’s lazy music in the rill

And ’tis a lovely time to wander
Through the heather on the hill

There may be other days as rich and rare
There may be other springs as full and fare

But they won’t be the same
They’ll come and go
For this I know

That when the mist is in the gloamin’
And all the clouds are holdin’ still
If you’re not there, I won’t go roamin’
Through the heather on the hill

The heather on the hill

 

Cover image credit: neelam279

The Ancient Race of Forest People

by Robert Sepehr
April 19, 2023

 



The Ramayana is a Sanskrit epic from India in which the Vanara are a forest dwelling race or hominin species used as labor to build a bridge. They are general depicted as simian in appearance, but not specifically as monkeys.

Watch the full episode here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hllWY5BBJOQ

 

Connect with Robert Sepehr

---

 

Transcript prepared by Truth Comes to Light:

Even in the ancient texts of the Indian subcontinent, we have tales of the Vanara, a simian race that lives in the forest, featured in the Hindu epic, the Ramayana.

The word Vanara comes from varna, meaning forest, and nara, meaning man. And although the word vanara has come to mean monkey over the years, and the vanaras are depicted as monkeys in popular art, their exact identity is not clear.

The Ramayana presents them as human-like with reference to their speech and clothing. But also describes them as having monkey-like characteristics.

This Vanara race also appears in other ancient texts, including the Mahabharata. And while some Hindu scholars think of them as strictly mythical, a substantial number of them take the stories to reflect literal history, pointing to examples such as Rama’s Bridge, a 30-mile-long bridge described in the Ramayana as being built by the god Rama with the help of an army of ape men.

Geological evidence suggests that, what appears to be a man-made bridge, was once a former land connection between India and Sri Lanka, and that it was passable on foot until the 15th century, when storms deepened the channel.

A local Hindu temple claims that Rama’s bridge was entirely above the sea level until it broke in a cyclone in 1480.

While this bridge is controversial and there are plenty of skeptics discounting the stories as myth, I bring it up just to demonstrate that the idea of a different hominid species being hybridized and used as a worker or slave race is not exclusive to the Sumerians.

And there are scholars that not only point to archaeological evidence to support the ancient myths, many are now turning to genetics to back up the ancient literature.

Since modern DNA sequencing has unlocked the genomes of not only modern humans, but several archaic species such as Neanderthal, Denisovan and others that have yet to be identified in the fossil record — which are likely homo erectus specimen that can be found in the DNA of various races of modern living human populations today.

Dr Rangan Ramakrishnan, an Indian scholar, said that,

“If one reads the original Ramayana without the influence of succeeding vernacular versions, which emerged at least several centuries later, Vanaras like Hanuman, are referred to as distinct species altogether. Like other human species, they speak fluently and they inhabit a distinctive culture.

“Ramayana is perhaps the only literature to speak about a variety of human species, offering to fill an important gap in human ancestry and evolution through literary support.

“Interestingly, the protagonist Lord Rama corresponds to the sapiens, other ‘Vanaras’ loosely match Homo erectus, [while the villain Ravana and his ‘Rakshasas’ clan are mostly consistent with the description of Homo Neanderthals.]

“Are these striking similarities mere coincidence? Or shouldn’t we take it more seriously?”

---

 See related images:

 

 

 

---

 See related article:

Hindu Monkey God Hanuman May Have Been Homo Erectus – Scientist Says 

Jan Bartek – AncientPages.com – Monkey God Hanuman is an important deity in Hindu mythology and one of the central characters of the Indian epic Ramayana. Hanuman is a patron god of martial arts and is sometimes considered a symbol of a symbol of nationalism and resistance to persecution.

Together with Ganesha, the elephant-headed God of knowledge, learning, Literature, and scribe of the Mahabharata, monkey God Hanuman is said to be one of the threshold gods, on the border of the material and spiritual realms.

 

Graham Hancock with Mauro Biglino: Gods of the Bible — A New Interpretation of the Bible Reveals the Oldest Secret in History

 

It is our pleasure to welcome Mauro Biglino, author of Gods of the Bible as our featured author for April. Mauro, a biblical scholar and translator, has supervised the translation and publication of 17 books of the Old Testament for Edizioni San Paolo, Italy’s foremost Catholic publisher. In his book, Gods of the Bible, Mauro offers the reader a revolutionary rediscovery of biblical writings and the remarkable insights into the history of humanity these texts contain. In his article here, Mauro explores how his decades-long background as a biblical translator compelled him towards a new interpretation of the Bible, revealing ancient secrets that transform our traditional understanding of the past. ~ Graham Hancock

 



Gods of the Bible: A New Interpretation of the Bible Reveals the Oldest Secret in History

by Mauro Biglino, GrahamHancock.com
originally published April 5, 2023

 

I can’t help but think of how it all began. As I write at my desk, I have in front of me the first printed copy of Gods of the Bible, first on top of a tall pile of books, block notes, and paper sheets. Such crumbling towers take up most of the desk. My books and those of others form a chaos of overlapping memories and voices while the rays of the afternoon sun filter through the window and light some of the covers up.

One of these volumes always holds special meaning for me — a pink notebook with my first interlinear translation of the Book of Genesis, written in pencil. Even today, every time I write, I can’t help but think of how it all began. It was more than twenty years ago, twenty-five, almost. I was just a lover of ancient languages, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. At this same desk, much emptier, I translated the Bible day and night. Then, as in all stories, adventure was born of a mistake, a small, insignificant typo. It was a rather trivial typo that I might have discovered in the edition of the Hebrew Interlinear Bible of the most famous Italian religious publisher: Edizioni San Paolo. That’s how it all started — with a mistake.

It’s worth telling the reader that Edizioni San Paolo is Italy’s most prominent Catholic publishing house. Its Vatican-approved publications are used in graduate and post-graduate Biblical Hebrew and Bible studies courses in Catholic universities and departments. I was just a self-taught translator of the Bible. And yet, it was I who caught an error. At first, I questioned my skills. I tend not to jump to conclusions too soon. I have a background in Classics, and my mindset is that of a philologist. I double-checked my grammar books and compared different translations; I read and reread many times the same passage until I was convinced I had found a mistake.

Finding errors, flaws, and typos in books is hardly surprising. In mine, they are there. And in the books of others, too. But we are human beings. The Bible, on the other hand, is a book “inspired by God.” That is what we have been taught. It contains the absolute truth — so say the theologians. More than half of humanity bases its existence and life values directly or indirectly on the Bible. As a result, the Bible has become the basis of an immense power structure. Any mistake could raise the suspicion that this monstrous giant was, in reality, a giant on clay feet.

And yet I was there looking at this mistake, like an engineer who finds a small crack in a dam. Little did I know then that that error was the first of many I was about to discover. But at that moment, I shrugged my shoulders without thinking much about it. I wrote a short note to the publisher saying, “Hey, I think I found a mistake; you might want to fix it.” A few weeks later, out of the blue, they contacted me and said: “May we see some of your translations?”. I sent them my Genesis, a copy of the pink block note I now observe from my chair. It was the turning point. A decade-long collaboration began. Following this partnership, I published seventeen books of the Old Testament in Edizioni San Paolo’s Hebrew Interlinear Bible.¹

Since the beginning of my professional career as a Bible translator, I have never stopped finding errors in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament. Not just minor typos and mistakes but downright forgeries and tendentious mistranslations. My last work, Gods of the Bible, just came from print and smells of glue and fresh paper. It’s my latest effort in this twenty-five years long research, but I still feel that the fil rouge with that first pink block note was never broken. The same spirit moved me. Understanding how such a fragile text as the biblical one could become the foundation of a monstrous power system and religions followed by billions of people. Few books in the history of humanity have been written, rewritten, added to, corrected, changed, and censored as often as the Bible. The text of the Bible, mainly fixed after the sixth century BC, but based on older oral and written traditions, is one of the most fragile, unreliable texts in human history. What should surprise us is not so much that someone is looking in it for traces of an ancient advanced civilization, but the fact that someone — theologians — could build absolute truths on such text, with a dogmatic approach that has often become in history and often still becomes fanaticism.

I may have anticipated a theme that could frighten more cautious readers. Still, there is no way to prepare a traditional readership for the hypothesis I seek to test in Gods of the Bible, starting precisely from the Hebrew translations and the demystification of theological, spiritualizing readings. But I have to start somewhere, and I have no better option than playing cards face up. Therefore, let me declare right off that the Bible is not a holy book. In antiquity, the term “holy” was understood as everything “reserved” for the deity. This term has by no means the spiritualistic value we ascribe to it today. The protagonists of the biblical accounts all move within a materialistic and immanentist horizon, very concrete and tangible.

The Old Testament is just the story of the alliance/relationship between Yahweh and the family of Jacob-Israel, and such a tale is deprived of any universalistic perspectives (a later invention of Christianity). This alliance, which did not even involve all the descendants of Abraham’s family but only one of its branches, that of Jacob-Israel, is not a universal but a particular account of events that happened at a specific time in history in a specific place: today we would perhaps label it as a local history book. Yahweh, the protagonist of the Old Testament, was just the leader of the family of Jacob.

Other families, peoples, and nations had their leaders; only they did not take the pain to write an accurate account of such relationships. Or maybe they did, and the books went lost. But the question is: who were these “leaders” that the ancient people considered “deities” and referred to by different but equivalent names? The Sumerians called them “Anunnaki,” the Egyptians called them “Neteru,” and the Babylonians called them “Ilanu.” The Bible calls them “Elohim.” Who were the Elohim, then?

Ten or so years ago, when I started voicing my doubts about the correctness of translating the term “Elohim” with “God,” Edizioni San Paolo’s bosses began to worry about my heterodox ideas, and our collaboration came to a halt after seventeen books were published together. What made them so mad? The extraterrestrial hypothesis, to be fair, was not the main problem, as the Catholic Church does admit the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence. Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, ex-Vatican’s chief astronomer, avers that there is no conflict between believing in God and the possibility of “extraterrestrial brothers,” perhaps more evolved than humans.²

The main problem was my methodology and its profound implications. To be clear, I propose a literal interpretation that allows me, and all those who adhere to it, to read the Bible, and particularly the Old Testament, from the advantage point of distancing myself from the theological filters that have buried the “sacred text” for thousands of years, making it unreachable and unusable.

Monotheistic theology has deprived us of the possibility of treating the Bible like any other ancient source to be studied objectively. If treated as any other ancient source, the Bible could say much about the history of humankind before saying anything about God. But here lies the problem. Nobody knows anything about God, yet priests and theologians claim the right to interpret the Bible according to their theological schemes. It is frankly unbelievable that the literal reading of the Bible could represent such a Copernican revolution in biblical and anthropological studies. This circumstance says much about theology’s deforming, obscurantist power when applied to an ancient book.

As is well known, at least until the 16th century, the Catholic Church forbade reading the Bible without the mediation of an official interpreter. The reason behind this prohibition is apparent today to anyone. If you read what is written without interpretative filters, without theological lenses on your nose, the Bible becomes an exciting source of knowledge, not about God, but about human history. The readers of the Bible will experiment with the regenerating feeling of discovering something left unseen in plain sight. This is what I experienced when I started translating the Bible. The literal reading is as subversive as it is simple. A new reality, at the same time revolutionary and familiar, materializes in front of the reader in the same way a small child discovers a unique gelato flavor and realizes that the world is an inexhaustible source of surprises.

I certainly am not the first one to endorse such methods. With appropriate differences, this is the same methodological approach that Heinrich Schliemann (1822-1890) successfully adopted. The history of archeology has taught us that much good can come from questions asked by independent researchers who view reality with a divergent thinking approach. One must ask how Schliemann, who was not a professional archaeologist, succeeded in finding the lost city of Troy, whereas professional archeologists, firmly entrenched in academic circles, failed in the task. Free of preconceived notions, Schliemann believed that the story of the Trojan War, as told in the Iliad, was true, or at least contained much truth, and was not merely a product of Homer’s imagination. Schliemann decided to believe the ancient sources. The groundbreaking premise of his work was to “pretend” that the Iliad contained actual historical events. He took Homer’s account as a starting point for his research. Accompanied by sarcastic ridicule from the academic world, he pursued his research with extraordinary tenacity and eventually found Troy on Hissarlik Hill in western Turkey.³

Using this method, Schliemann made some of the most significant discoveries in the history of archeology. For any unbiased observer, this method is logical; still, the archeologists of his time amazingly could not see its value. Not because their eyesight was weak but because they wore blinders and did not even know it.

I pretend that the Bible is true in its literal sense. I say, “Let us pretend that the Bible is true.” Opinable as it can be, this methodology has the advantage of not arbitrarily resorting to hermeneutical categories (allegories, symbols, metaphors, and so forth) to explain “difficult” passages. The Bible is straightforward and can be understood easily through literal reading. When I see theologians and biblical exegetes swim in a sea of confused and confusing interpretative devices, to which they inevitably must resort to making sense of problematic passages, I wonder how they could reconcile their arbitrary interpretative method with the claim that the Bible is “word of God.” However, I know the answer. How can you explain Yahweh’s craving for the smell of burnt flesh, if not allegorically?

If you read the Bible, literally everything becomes understandable and plain because the biblical authors did not feel the need, as we do, to advocate for a precise monotheistic theological perspective or a moral authority of religious order. The biblical authors wrote what they experienced, saw with their eyes, or heard with their ears, even when the image of Yahweh from those reports was all but flattering. As a theologian of a loving God, how do you explain that Yahweh orders the extermination of men, women, and children and claims for himself 675 sheep, 72 oxen, 61 donkeys, and 32 virgins after a battle against the Midianites (Numbers 31:32-40)? This portion of the spoils was not for the service of the tabernacle, as Numbers 31 explains: it was for Yahweh’s personal use. One only wonders why a spiritual and transcendent “God” would need 32 virgins — or 61 donkeys, for that matter.

Such disturbing passages were not intended as metaphors or allegories to be interpreted 2,000 years later by some theologians in their Vatican libraries but reflected what the writer had heard or seen. Similar examples are found throughout the Bible, and I don’t want to assume that the authors of the biblical text misrepresented their ideas or the facts they wanted to convey and describe. I take the text seriously.

From the necessity of harmonizing the biblical text with the theological and monotheistic conception of God of Western culture arises a whole series of falsifications and mistranslations, in view of which that first innocent printing typo I had discovered twenty-five years ago really seems like a “speck in the eye of the brother.” Instead, here we talk about massive logs that have remained in our eyes for hundreds and thousands of years, so long that we even ignore our blindness. In Gods of the Bible, I have tried to remove at least some of these logs, addressing subjects such as the story of creation, the origins, and evolution of humankind, the existence of angels, the nature of cherubim, the identity of Satan, the meaning of the name of Yahweh and many more.

Mainly I focused on the identity and character of Yahweh and the meaning of the term “Elohim.” To make a long story short, when we read the term “God” in the Bible, this usually comes from the Hebrew term “Elohim.” However, at least when I worked for Edizioni San Paolo, the term “Elohim” was left untranslated into the interlinear edition of the Bible that we prepared for scholars and academia. In the Bibles available to the public, the same term was translated as “God.” Therefore, where people read “God” and believe that the biblical authors wrote the equivalent of the word “God,” scholars read the term “Elohim.” This was to alert them that this word is problematic, to say the least, for the unbiased translator.

Furthermore, Yahweh is just one of the many individuals who comprise the group of the “Elohim.” As shown, this term is the equivalent of the Sumerian “Anunnaki” or the Egyptian “Neteru,” which described a pantheon of a multiplicity of deities. Monotheism arose quite late on the roots of a previously widespread polytheism that affected all the peoples of the ancient Near East, including the Israelites. This fact is now recognized even in Bible study circles. Professor Mark Smith of Princeton Theological Seminary has written extensively on the polytheistic roots of the Bible and the long development of monotheism from an earlier polytheism.⁴

Often, however, these findings remain isolated. They certainly do not penetrate the realm of doctrine, except in a form purified of its most radical consequences, and therefore do not influence popular piety and practiced religion. Scholars in this field tend to defuse their most controversial results to avoid conflicts between theology and biblical scholarship. On the contrary, I think one of the greatest hindrances to reading the Bible is theology. In 2016, I held a conference in Milan with four theologians of different backgrounds: Ariel Di Porto, Chief Rabbi of the Jewish Community of Turin; Mons. Avondios, Archbishop of the Orthodox Church of Milan; Daniele Garrone, Biblical scholar, and Protestant pastor, Old Testament expert; Don Ermis Segatti, priest and professor of Theology and History of Christianity at the Theological Faculty of Northern Italy — this was at times a very heated meeting.⁵

At any rate, nobody who is intellectually honest can be sure of what “Elohim” means, but there is substantial evidence that “Elohim” does not mean “God” at all. Our very idea of God as a transcendental, omniscient, omnipotent being has nothing to do with the idea the ancient Biblical authors had in mind when employing the term “Elohim.” The Bible mentions several other “Elohim” besides Yahweh, of whom we even know the names, such as Chamosh, Milcom, Astarte, Hadad, Melqart, and many others. The “Elohim” was thus a group.

We could also add that the Old Testament tells the story of how Elyon, the most powerful of the Elohim, the commander-in-chief, would divide the lands and peoples of the earth among all the various Elohim leaving some of them satisfied and others dissatisfied.⁶ Yahweh was one of them, and he received only the people of Israel, who were still landless. As the Bible says, “Yahweh alone led him; no foreign El was with him” (Deuteronomy 32:12). In a very significant passage, the Bible also describes an “assembly” of the “Elohim.” To be an assembly, they must have been more than one. Traditional translators argue that “Elohim” here means “judges,” but they are contradicted by the Bible itself, which always uses a different word for “judges.” Also, this is an entirely arbitrary affirmation. I wonder on what ground can we say that “Elohim” at times means “God” and at times mean “judges.” What criteria are we following? In Psalm 82, Elyon rebukes the assembly of the gathered “Elohim” and reminds them that although more powerful than humans, they also “die like Adam,” thus emphasizing a clear distinction between the “Adamites,” the descendants of Adam, and the group of the “Elohim.”

It won’t be surprising that the term “Elohim” has a grammatical plural ending. “Elohim” is a grammatical plural. Translating “Elohim” in the singular as “God” would be nothing more than a simplification of monotheistic theology. Therefore I think it should be left, to be safe, untranslated.

Yahweh’s character is also worth investigating. When not violent, Yahweh’s behavior often seems bizarre, extravagant, and arbitrary. Yahweh’s words demonstrate his eagerness for the smell of the smoke of burnt flesh, prescribing elaborate rituals for the holocausts and commanding that violation of pedantic rules for the sacrifices be punished by death. Yahweh also moves and intervenes in human businesses in peculiar ways; for example, at times, he literally arrives “flying riding on a cherub” (Psalm 18:10) or aboard flying machines called “ruach” or “kavod,” which I discuss extensively in Gods of the Bible. Yahweh destroys cities with terrifying weapons, crushes villages, and demands his share of the spoils.

In my view, biblical scholarship and theology hopelessly oppose each other. However, I don’t deny the existence of God in general; I only say that God is not present in the Bible. Luckily so! This supposedly loving God theologians have come up with shows himself in the Old Testament as a cruel, sadistic, manipulative, and narcissistic individual.

Yahweh was undoubtedly endowed with unique qualities that made him superior to man in power and knowledge, but he was not superior in morals and ethics. It is enough to remember Yahweh’s exterminations, cruel rules, and bizarre behaviors, like sniffing the smoke of burned flesh, which he needed to relax. This matter was so important that any violation of the ritual could result in the death of the sacrificer. I detail this in Gods of the Bible and propose my interpretation of the sacrificial rituals occurring in all ancient religions, including Greek and Roman cults.⁷

The Bible does not speak about the origin of the Elohim. There is no hard evidence about the provenance of this group. Still, the comparison with the Adamites points to their clear and overwhelming biological and technological superiority. I, however, suggest and discuss in my book the possibility that something like the “cargo cults” might have occurred in the ancient past, not only among the people of Israel but among all the peoples of the world, from the Middle East to the Far East and the Americas.

During World War II, the inhabitants of Melanesia in the Pacific Ocean first encountered the white man and saw airplanes. The U.S. Army occupied their islands scattered across the Pacific as logistical bases for war operations. The natives saw the American soldiers coming from the sky and taking off from the ground with their aircraft. They saw them equipped with powerful weapons, high-speed air vehicles, and means of communication that defied understanding. They thus started considering them as deities. The natives began to develop rituals, prayers, and cults in anticipation of the return of the American soldiers.

I use the paradigm of “cargo cults” to speculate on the arrival in antiquity of civilizations that were much more advanced than ours. Our ancestors would then develop rituals, myths, and narratives that today we consider fairy tales but perhaps hide a very different reality, the reality of an extraordinary encounter with a superior civilization.

All the people of the Earth tell us the same thing. They tell us about superior beings who came from the sky, who created humankind and gave them knowledge, teaching them how to grow crops, write, predict the course of the stars, build incredible structures, and work metals. Is it possible that all the peoples of the Earth, independently from each other, developed the same stories, the same narratives about their past?

Gods of the Bible is just my last attempt to bring some light to our ancient past through the narrative found in the Bible. I aim to narrate, understand, and describe in detail the reasons and habits of that group of individuals called “Elohim,” of whom Yahweh was part, one of many. Yahweh was the Elohim of the family of Israel — and only of them and their descendants. I deny the universality of the Bible. The Old Testament records Israel’s covenant and relationship with Yahweh. Other Elohim, as we have seen above, had inherited other peoples, families, and nations.

The Elohim of other peoples are mentioned and addressed several times in the Old Testament. These passages suggest that these “foreign Elohim” were similar to Yahweh and had identical abilities and habits. The Elohim had advanced technology unavailable to our ancestors; lived longer than humans but were mortal; had weapons and tools that could do wonders; they were more powerful and knowledgeable, and yet they could be abandoned, betrayed, and deceived, just like humans, because they knew a lot but were not omniscient.

The space of a short article would only allow for briefly summarizing some of the aspects of the Elohim that I have detailed in this new book and all my previous works.⁸

Still, perhaps it is not superfluous to end by mentioning something about the fascinating biblical term “ruach.” This term has always been translated as “spirit” through the influence of the Greek culture and the so-called Septuagint version of the Bible, which renders it with “pneuma.” The Ancient Hebrew term “ruach” actually had a very definite and concrete meaning as it stood for “wind,” “breath,” “moving air,” “storm wind,” and, in a broader sense, “that which moves quickly through the air space.” In modern biblical translations, the term “ruach” is always rendered as “spirit” because it responds to monotheistic theology’s spiritualist needs.

In the Old Testament, however, this “ruach” appears to be flying through the air, making noise, and taking people from one place to another, with a loud clangor and visible manifestations, taking off and landing in specific geographical locations — in very concrete ways.

The two following passages illustrate what has just been said.

“The [ruach] lifted me and brought me to the gate of the house of Yahweh that faces East. There at the entrance of the gate were twenty-five men, and I saw among them Jaazaniah, son of Azzur, and Pelatiah, son of Benaiah.” (Ezekiel 11:1)

“Look,” they said, “we, your servants, have fifty able men. Let them go and look for your master. Perhaps, the [ruach] of Yahweh has picked him up and set him down on some mountain or valley.” “No,” Elisha replied, “do not send them.” But they persisted until he was too embarrassed to refuse. So he said, “Send them.” And they sent fifty men, who searched for three days but did not find him. (2 Kings 2:16-17)

I left the word “ruach” untranslated, as the reader can see. If you follow monotheistic exegesis and replace “ruach” with “spirit,” the passages become incomprehensible. But it is difficult to interpret the term “ruach” spiritually without distorting the text’s meaning. I give countless similar examples about “ruach” and other words and biblical passages in Gods of the Bible, always underlining the concreteness and realism of the Ancient Hebrew language and the ancient Semitic culture, which was the culture of a pastoral people that Yahweh had found in the desert, landless.

I began and ended Gods of the Bible with the same spirit that moved me twenty-five years ago when I first picked up my pink notebook and then discovered the little mistake that began my professional career as a translator of the Old Testament with Edizioni San Paolo. Since then, I have found many more errors in the Bible — and not all were done in good faith. The list is long and cannot be continued here. But I hope at least to have been able to open a dialog with all those who, with an open mind, are interested in learning more about humankind.

I am not looking for absolute truths but for a glimmer of reality. As I gaze into the impending sunset, the peaks of the Alps, silhouetted against the evening sky, glow pink. A mountain peak is all I hope for. I leave the climb to heaven to others.

I take Gods of the Bible from its stack and open it in the last light of day. I find the best summary of what has been said on the page that opens before me. It is good never to ignore the authoritative voices of the past whose intentions are free from the controversies of the present. I find the voice of a great historian of antiquity who had no reason to lie or embellish. And I realize it is not for heretics like me to explain the meaning of such words, but for the “guardians of the discourse” that exclude apriori hypotheses they cannot accept. I pretend what I read is true.

“Armies clashed in the sky, swords blazed, and the temple shone with sudden flashes. The doors of the sanctuary were suddenly torn open, and a superhuman voice cried out that the gods were fleeing, and at the same time, there was a great uproar as if men were fleeing.” (C. Tacitus, Histories, V 13)

 

Connect with Graham Hancock

Connect with Mauro Biglino