Recently, the news broke that Elon Musk (now the world’s richest man) acquired Twitter. Musk claims that he’s a “free speech absolutist” and his takeover of the company was motivated by his passion for open discourse.
Musk called Twitter “the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated”. He feels that free speech is “the bedrock of a functioning democracy” and that’s why he just couldn’t bear to witness the tech platform engage in such brash censorship.
Sounds good, right?
After all, many of us have been voicing our concerns about the Orwellian rise in censorship over the last few years, and here’s a billionaire siding with us (for once). In fact, mere days after Musk’s offer was accepted by Twitter’s board, previously banned accounts began to return to the platform.
It seems almost too good to be true… and maybe it is.
Who Is Elon Musk?
Before hopping aboard the Musk express, we’d do well to remind ourselves exactly who this man is and what he represents.
Patrick Wood of Technocracy.news recently wrote a great article on this very topic in which he identifies Musk as having four distinct identities – “Transhumanist”, “Technocrat”, “Space Pioneer” and “Eccentric Father”.
1. Transhumanist
Make no mistake, Elon Musk is an out-and-out transhumanist. His company “Neuralink” is currently developing the future of brain interfaces. Musk claims that the short-term goal of Neuralink is to help those with clinical problems and that the long term goal of Neuralink is to fulfil the transhumanist dream of human/AI symbiosis.
Indeed, transhumanists extol the “benefits” of techno-life interfaces to “enhance” human life. Such a vision can be traced back to former US National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzeziński, and his 1970 book Between Two Ages, in which he outlines his philosophies regarding the technocratic control of society.
Human conduct, some argue, can be predetermined and subjected to deliberate control. Man is increasingly acquiring the capacity to determine the sex of his children, to affect through drugs the extent of their intelligence, and to modify and control their personalities. Speaking of a future at most only decades away, an experimenter in intelligence control asserted, “I foresee the time when we shall have the means and therefore, inevitably, the temptation to manipulate the behaviour and intellectual functioning of all the people through environmental and biochemical manipulation of the brain.”
Is Musk developing neural lace technology because he wants to cure autism, or is he simply bringing the transhumanist dream to fruition?
2. Technocrat
Musk’s grandfather, Joshua Haldeman, D.C. was the Research Director for Technocracy, Inc in Canada during the 1930s and 40s. Musk himself is continuing his grandfather’s work by building out the technocratic control grid with his Starlink network, driverless car technology and, of course, his pioneering work in artificial intelligence.
In 2014, Musk attended the DARPA Robotic Challenge and has spoken numerous times about how robots will take over jobs leading to the institution of a Universal Basic Income.
3. Space Pioneer
Musk is the founder of rocket company, SpaceX and one of his ultimate goals is to colonize Mars. In 2020, SpaceX signed a $102 million contract with the US Department of Defense to “provide point-to-point transit for cargo via space”.
According to some researchers, the “Great Reset” agenda goes hand in hand with an effort to move all technology used for financial clearing, as well as societal control, into space. And it seems the Globalists have chosen Musk for the job.
SpaceX has applied to launch some 40,000 satellites into low-earth orbit (12,000 of which have already been approved) in a plan to provide 5G internet access worldwide. But the utility of such a network goes far beyond consumer 5G. The possible uses include tracking, tracing, financial clearing, and “defense“.
In other words, not only does Musk collaborate with the US military, his satellites may very well form the basis for the space-based, technocratic control grid.
4. Eccentric Billionaire
Describing Musk as “eccentric” may be a bit of an understatement. Musk is the father to 8 children in total, his last two with his most recent girlfriend “Grimes”, a self-described pagan witch who claims to be able to astral travel to different dimensions. Musk’s first male child with Grimes was originally named “X Æ A-12”. This was later changed to “X Æ A-Xii” (and then shortened to just “X”), an odd name to say the least.
According to Grimes, the “X” stands for “the unknown variable”, the “Æ” is her “elven” spelling of Ai which stands for “Artificial Intelligence”, and the original “A-12” was a nod to the CIA’s Lockheed A-12 reconnaissance plane (stationed at Area 51). She also told a user on Instagram that the name is pronounced “X” (like the letter) and then “A.I”.
Early this year, news broke that Musk had fathered a second child with Grimes, named “Exa Dark Sideræl”. According to Grimes, “Exa” stands for “exaFLOPS”, a supercomputing term (so another nod to artificial intelligence), “dark” refers to “dark matter” and Sideræl is a kind of astrology, which, according to Grimes, represents the “true time of the universe”.
The names of Musk’s last two children perfectly reflect his relationship with Grimes in that they represent the coming together of a technocrat and an occultist; the synthesis of technology and esotericism. This same blending of old and new, of Magick and Material, should be a familiar concept to anyone who has studied transhumanism.
What’s Really Behind Musk’s Twitter Acquisition?
So that brings us to the all-important question – what’s the true reason for Musk’s acquisition of Twitter?
When Musk gave his initial statement regarding his plans for the social media platform, there was one phrase that stood out as being particularly odd.
I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans.
While I have doubts as to whether Musk will follow through with any of these promises (especially the one about making Twitter’s algorithms open source), the part that struck me the most was his comment about “authenticating all humans”.
Maybe I’m way off base here, but for me, the only way to “authenticate” people on the platform is to integrate it with some kind of digital ID or biometric identifier. And that sounds eerily similar to the WEF’s vision of making it necessary to have a “digital identity” in order to access online services. Hell, maybe Musk has been tasked with instituting that as well. Who knows.
Good Cop, Bad Cop
It’s quite clear that Musk is on board with the whole technocratic/transhumanist agenda, so why is he all of a sudden being cast as a champion of democracy and free speech? Simple. The globalists are playing “good cop, bad cop”. Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, etc are the “bad guys” and Musk is the “good guy” who has come along to offer humanity a better way forward.
There’s only one problem. Schwab’s vision for the future and Musk’s vision for the future are exactly the same. The paths to getting there may be different but the destination hasn’t changed.
So why choose Musk to play the role of the “good cop”? First of all, he’s got the right personality, he’s eccentric and he’s already worshipped as a genius of our time. Secondly, he’s not associated with either the political right or left and thus he appeals equally to people on both ends of the spectrum.
While it’s a good thing that banned accounts have returned to Twitter and that freedom of speech on the platform has (supposedly) been restored, it’s important to stay cautious before bowing down to Musk as some sort of saviour.
In fact, I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t trust Elon Musk to tell me the time in a room full of clocks.
“Covid ‘vaccines’ caused 20 times as many serious side effects and 23 times as many deaths as all other vaccines in the past 20 years combined.”
This week MEP Christine Anderson (AfD) gave her first speech before the European Union’s new “COVID-19 inquiry committee”. The German MEP condemned the EU’s Covid policies and demanded an investigation into the clear human rights violations under the pretext of combatting a virus.
Anderson railed against the “false claims regarding the safety of the vaccines, their alleged definitive approval, and so-called effectiveness.” The MEP pointed out that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) database shows that in seven months, the Covid “vaccines” caused 20 times as many serious side effects and 23 times as many deaths as all other vaccines in the past 20 years combined.
“Why isn’t that being investigated,” questioned the MEP. She explained that the government’s Covid policies had nothing to do with public health. Instead, it seems it has been “a money-making exercise for the pharmaceutical industry.”
Why were alternative methods to fight Covid not investigated or given to the public, questioned Anderson? Instead, she exclaimed, everything in your whole Covid policy “boiled down solely to: “vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate.”
Issues Committee Must Address
Anderson pointed out other issues that the committee must investigate. She first zeroed in on the “implementation of vaccine contracts.” Little information is available on vaccine makers’ contracts due to the committee withholding the information. She questioned how she could “properly do her job as an elected MEP” and educate her constituents without the data.
The massive “restrictions of fundamental rights that are unworthy of a democracy” must also be investigated, exclaimed the MEP. “From job losses, discrimination and marginalization, we have experienced a redefinition of fundamental rights.” According to the new definition, our rights are now privileges to which the government picks and chooses who to grant them.
The MEP demanded answers as to why the committee is not investigating the “marginalization and criminalization of critics” who condemned their “anti-democratic measures.”
She went on to say that it is unacceptable for the World Health Organization (WHO) to sign new contracts with EU member states. As Anderson has previously explained, the WHO is fighting for de facto governing power over EU member states in the event of a pandemic:
It asks the question: what species should we make extinct today?
Why are Bill Gates and the US military involved in forwarding that technology?
A gene-drive scientist might say, “I have a plan. By manipulating genes, we can make invasive rodents extinct, on an island where humans are living.”
In the next fraction of a second, a flurry of questions pops up.
The overarching question is: Does this mean genetic manipulation can make ANY species extinct?
Here is a passage from Gene Drive Files, a site with a referenced information on the subject:
“Gene drives are a gene-editing application that allows genetic engineers to drive a single artificial trait through an entire population by ensuring that all of an organism’s offspring carry that trait. For example, recent experiments are fitting mice with ‘daughterless’ gene drives that will cascade through mouse populations so that only male pups are born, ensuring that the population becomes extinct after a few generations.”
“Proponents have framed gene drives as a breakthrough tool for eradicating pests or invasive species. However, the Gene Drive Files reveal that these ‘conservation’ efforts are primarily supported by military funds.”
Gene drive technology could be deployed to wipe out troublesome plant-parasites, weeds, crops, animal pests, animals, and…what about humans? Mull that over with your morning coffee.
Several years ago, UN member nations were considering a recommendation to call a moratorium on the use of gene drives. However, Bill Gates showed up to try to squash the moratorium.
The Gene Drive Files reports: “Documents received under Freedom of Information requests reveal that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation paid a private agriculture and biotechnology PR firm $1.6 million for activities on Gene Drives. This included running a covert ‘advocacy coalition’ which appears to have intended to skew the only UN expert process addressing gene drives…”
“Following global calls in December 2016 from Southern countries and over 170 organizations for a UN moratorium on gene drives, emails to gene drive advocates received under a Freedom of Information request by Prickly Research reveal that a private public affairs firm ‘Emerging Ag’ received funds from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to co-ordinate the ‘fight back against gene drive moratorium proponents’.”
There’s more from the Gene Drive Files. It involves the military:
“A trove of emails (The Gene Drive Files) from leading U.S. gene drive researchers reveals that the U.S. Military is taking the lead in driving forward gene drive development.”
“Emails obtained through a freedom of Information request by U.S.–based Prickly Research reveal that the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has given approximately $100 million for gene drive research, $35 million more than previously reported, making them likely the largest single funder of gene drive research on the planet. The emails also reveal that DARPA either funds or co-ordinates with almost all major players working on gene drive development as well as the key holders of patents on CRISPR gene editing technology.”
“These funds go beyond the US; DARPA is now also directly funding gene drive researchers in Australia (including monies given to an Australian government agency, CSIRO) and researchers in the UK. The files also reveal an extremely high level of interest and activity by other sections of the U.S. military and Intelligence community.”
For the moment, put aside the notion of intentional extinction of species. Consider unintended consequences.
As I’ve shown in past articles, the latest and greatest gene-editing tools (e.g., CRISPR), which are used for gene drives, are far from slam-dunk precise, despite official assurances.
For example, this study: Genome Biology, July14, 2017, titled, “CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing induces exon skipping by alternative splicing or exon deletion.” An exon is “a segment of a DNA or RNA molecule containing information coding for a protein or peptide sequence.” So you can see that exon skipping or deletion is a very bad outcome.
ANY gene editing done on ANY species opens the door wide to all sorts of errors and unforeseen consequences.
As for intentional destruction, we have this: MIT Technology Review, 2/8/16: “We have the technology to destroy all Zika mosquitoes.”
“A controversial genetic technology able to wipe out the mosquito carrying the Zika virus will be available within months, scientists say.”
“The technology, called a ‘gene drive,’ was demonstrated only last year in yeast cells, fruit flies, and a species of mosquito that transmits malaria. It uses the gene-snipping technology CRISPR to force a genetic change to spread through a population as it reproduces.”
“Three U.S. labs that handle mosquitoes, two in California and one in Virginia, say they are already working toward a gene drive for Aedes aegypti, the type of mosquito blamed for spreading Zika. If deployed, the technology could theoretically drive the species to extinction.”
“…a gene drive [gene editing] can…make mosquito populations disappear. The simplest way to do that is to spread a genetic payload that leads to only male offspring. As the ‘male-only’ instructions spread with each new generation, eventually there would be no females left, says Adelman. His lab discovered the Aedes aegypti gene that determines sex only last spring. The next step will be to link it to a gene drive.”
Bill Gates favors this technology. So shouldn’t we? After all, Bill is the number one humanitarian on the planet, right?
Dr. Joseph Yi (StreetMD) with Drs. Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman & Mark Bailey: A Response to Claims by Drs. Robert Malone, Peter McCullough & Ryan Cole That SARS-CoV-2 Has Been Isolated & Is a Disease-Causing Virus
Dr Joseph Yi, AKA “StreetMD” asked Drs Bailey, Cowan and Kaufman to respond to Drs Malone, McCullough and Cole’s claims that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and shown to exist. Boom!
Dr. Sam Bailey with Eric Coppolino — On the Monumental Task of Documenting & Examining the Covid-19 Chronology: “Knowledge Coming to Light Changes Things”
“Knowledge coming to light changes things.” ~ Eric Coppolino
Recently, I have been fortunate to have connected with the inspiring Eric Coppolino, who is based in New York State.
Eric has an incredible history of exposing scientific fraud and environmental pollution cover-ups. He was one of the first to start investigating the COVID-19 scam and is putting something big together to help all of us who are questioning the narrative.
GREENWICH, CT — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has acknowledged the controversy within his own community over whether SARS-CoV-2 physically exists, and whether any viruses exist, or make people sick. He made the comments at a fundraising event here Sunday, April 24, 2022.
Kennedy said that the issue erupts regularly on the email discussion list of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), the vaccine safety and education organization that he founded in 2016.
“On our list, there’s a number of people who make those kinds of arguments” about how viruses allegedly don’t exist, Kennedy said in his remarks. “And other people on the list server, and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence.”
He made the remarks in reply to a question about why no government can produce evidence of having a sample of SARS-CoV-2 taken from a patient, rather than artificially created using a computer model.
Kennedy, the son of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of Pres. John F. Kennedy, is considered one of the leading voices in the international movement against covid-related mandates, lockdowns and safety issues over covid injections. It is the first time he has publicly commented on the virus-existence issue.
Scientists on all sides of the issue agree that viral particles have not been physically
isolated (with purified samples) and then sequenced.
What is Being Used to Prime the Covid Test?
The matter of whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus physically exists has dual significance. The obvious issue is that if there is not a virus, what then is making people sick? And what are they being vaccinated against?
Second, and less obvious: If the government cannot prove that it has a sample of natural SARS-CoV-2, then what is being used to prime the PCR test that is supposed to match and find the genetic code of an actual virus in a patient?
Scientists on all sides of the issue agree that viral particles have not been physically isolated (with purified samples) and then sequenced. Rather, hypothetical viruses are assembled from mixed biological samples, and these “in silico genomes” are then assumed to not only exist in nature but come from inside a pathogenic particle. They have many names: “mimicked human specimens” and “contrived viruses” (in the words of the CDC); or “synthetic nucleotide technology” (in the words words of the authors of the WHO test for covid).
One virologist told me in July 2020 that SARS-C0V- 2 was being assembled “like pages from a book,” necessary because no natural virus particle was available to sequence. The problem is that nobody has demonstrated these pages actually belong to the proposed book.
Covid tests look for sequences attributed to the “virus” merely via computer models —
but these “found” sequences almost always originate from somewhere else (including
the testing process itself).
CDC document pertaining to detection limits in the CDC “covid” test, admitting that
purified isolates of SARS-CoV-2 are not available. Yet this long, technical paragraph
admits something else: how they go about making their contrived virus (mimicked human
specimen), rather than sequencing actual virus. Were viruses available to anyone, it would
be the federal government of the United States. What they are admitting is that the virus
has not been isolated or purified; the writer admits outright that they are using made-up
samples that mimic clinical specimens. The technical notes describe the manufacturing
process for in silico sequences that are used in the “covid” test. The notes make reference
to MN908947, a synthetic, claimed, partial metagenomic transcript (not actual sequencing)
of the “N-gene” — which was later abandoned in its entirety in the Corman-Drosten assay.
Metagenomics: The Creation of Hypothetical Sequences
These hypothetical sequences are developed using technology called metageonomics — without any reference to actual purified suspected viruses. This artificial-intelligence process assembles a hypothetical “virus” from information gathered either from a crude human body fluid sample, or by making a “cell culture” experiment by mixing the fluid with monkey cells, cervical cancer cells, fetal calf serum, antibiotics and other poisons. In all cases where covid is concerned, scientists have used the latter. Because there is no actual virus available as a reference, there is no way to verify if the proposed sequences are valid. They are all theoretical, and no two are alike.
Said another way, in the absence of a real virus specimen, covid tests look for sequences attributed to the “virus” merely via computer models — but these “found” sequences almost always originate from somewhere else. And “positive” results can emerge from nearly anywhere, including the testing process itself). Yet if someone “tests positive” for one of these claimed viral sequences, they are said to be “infected” with SARS-CoV-2.
Previously, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has admitted that the polymerase chain reaction has had a 100% false positive rate and has caused several widely-documented “false epidemics.”
The claimed existence, transmissibility and pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 were used to declare a global pandemic that by March 31, 2020 had 4.5 billion people around the world living under a stay-at-home order or house arrest.
“On our list, there’s a number of people who make those kinds of arguments. And
other people on the list server, and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them
and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence.” — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Seeking Documents from Governments, Agencies and Institutions
At a Q-and-A session at a fundraising event here Sunday, April 24, I asked Kennedy about the work of Christine Massey in the Toronto area, a statistician who is coordinating the worldwide effort to officially query governments, agencies and institutions about whether they have a sample of the claimed virus taken from a human.
“Christine Massey in Toronto has amassed 182 responses under various Freedom of Information Law requests from institutions, provincial state, and federal, national governments, which all say that no one has a sample of SARS CoV-2 taken from a human. Would you please comment on that?”
Kennedy replied: “On our list, there’s a number of people who make those kinds of arguments. And other people on the list server, and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence. I actually saw an exchange yesterday, where somebody made that exact statement and then 10 people jumped on him on with examples, of where that’s not true.”
The issue over the nature and existence of viruses represents the single biggest split in the covid-truth and anti-mandates movements. I first documented this divide in May of 2020.
“RFK Jr. now relies on popular opinion and ridicule to evaluate science?
When did he declare incompetence with simple logic?” — Christine Massey, statistician and coordinator of the virus FOIA project
‘I Am Amused Reading These Exchanges’
He added: “I am kind of amused reading the exchanges, and my inclination is that the viruses do exist and they do make people sick. I could be wrong. It could all be a big hoax, but to me, it all seems like viruses are real.”
But Kennedy answered a different question than the one I asked. I did not present him with an argument, or ask him whether he thought viruses were real. He admits that he uses a kind of mob rule to make up his mind over critical scientific issues when he says, “And other people on the list server, and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence.”
Reading Kennedy’s response, Christine Massey said, “RFK Jr. now relies on popular opinion and ridicule to evaluate science? When did he declare incompetence with simple logic? And why is a man dedicated to protecting children from medical harm uninterested in one of the greatest medical frauds of all time?”
She also demanded the data from the 10 people on Kennedy’s list who claimed to prove that the virus had been isolated.
So far, no governments have produced a scientific paper saying that they or anyone
have such a sample, despite the claim that a contagious virus has killed more than
5 million people worldwide.
Asked About a Legal Issue — Not Scientific
Kennedy said he believed viruses exist, but I did not ask him about that. Rather, I presented him with a legal issue, asking him to comment about how someone well-known and established in covid truth circles over the past two years has collected 182 responses from top-level government agencies and institutions, all saying they do not have a sample of SARS-CoV-2 extracted from a human host.
So far, no governments have produced a scientific paper saying that they or anyone have such a sample, despite the claim that a contagious virus has killed more than 5 million people worldwide.
I followed up and said to him, “The governments have said they don’t have a sample.”
Kennedy, an attorney, responded: “Freedom Information Laws do not require the government agency to do science, or to answer specific questions. What they do is, the Freedom of Information Laws make it obligatory for the government to give you existing documents. So if you are telling the government, ‘I want you to verify these, there are documents’, they say, listen there’s nothing to verify it. It doesn’t mean it’s not true. It means they’ve got nothing.”
So far all have said no such records exist. This includes the U.S. CDC and the FDA, as
well as Health Canada and the National Health Service (NHS) of the UK. None of the
182 agencies and governments queried have replied in the affirmative.
‘Kennedy hasn’t read any of my records requests’
Massey replied to this in an email: “It appears that Kennedy hasn’t read any of my records requests. I didn’t ask governments to ‘do science’ or answer ‘specific questions’. All of my requests have been for studies/reports in the possession, custody or control of an institution.”
I asked Massey how she words her letters seeking documentation of a sample of the claimed virus from a human host.
She provided this example of what she is seeking, and what so far all governments she has queried deny having:
“All studies and/or reports in the possession, custody or control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and/or the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) describing the purification of any “COVID-19 virus” (aka “SARS-COV-2”, including any alleged “variants” i.e. “B.1.1.7”, “B.1.351”, “P.1”) (for example: via filtration, ultracentrifugation and chromatography), directly from a sample taken from a diseased human where the patient sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material (i.e. monkey kidney cells aka Vero cells; fetal bovine serum).”
And so far all have said no such records exist. This includes the U.S. CDC and the FDA, as well as Health Canada and the National Health Service (NHS) of the UK. None of the 182 agencies and governments queried have replied in the affirmative.
“It erodes popular faith in democracy when public officials insist that their arbitrary
policies are ‘science based’ and yet cannot produce a single study to support sweeping
mandates.” — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
‘No Records Exist’ is an Important Response
Getting a “no records exist” reply is common, and seeking such a reply is a common strategy for establishing that there has not actually been a regulatory process for a policy issue. It is one of the most important uses of open records laws.
In late 2020, the New York State Department of Health (NYS-DOH) responded to an open records request saying it had no studies to prove that masks are safe or effective at preventing the spread of viruses or other diseases. For that same kind of “sorry no documents” FOIL reply, Kennedy was much more outspoken.
At the time, he wrote to his Instagram followers, “It erodes popular faith in democracy when public officials insist that their arbitrary policies are ‘science based’ and yet cannot produce a single study to support sweeping mandates. This letter illustrates the hazard of abandoning due process.”
Previously, he had remained agnostic on the issue of masks and whether masks work. He finally took a position in response
New York State saying it had absolutely no data about whether masks are safe or effective.
“It’s a needlessly divisive issue, with people screaming, on both sides, as if it were
the key to this whole thing — which it isn’t.” — Prof. Mark Crispin Miller
“They did not isolate a virus,” Wallach said. “The reason it’s so confusing for people is that they claim to have done so in the titles of the key scientific papers, but if you read the methodology sections, it’s blatantly clear: they never isolated a virus. They never found anything. The evidence is overwhelming.”
He added: “I respect the importance of political leaders like RFK Jr. keeping an open tent, they have to. But at the same time, this is an issue that should be front and center for the world public, and nobody should be repeating this dogma about the existence of viruses.”
Mark Crispin Miller, professor of communication at New York University, said, “It’s a needlessly divisive issue, with people screaming, on both sides, as if it were the key to this whole thing — which it isn’t. What will make the whole narrative collapse is not the argument that there are no viruses, but the recognition that the authorities we’ve all been listening to — the medical establishment, Big Pharma, Academia, the media et al. — are malign, and intent on killing us.
“That’s it. Everything else is a distraction. Whether the ravages of COVID-19 have been exaggerated, or whether there’s no virus there at all, is ultimately beside the point. And since Bobby’s role is in large part political, as he attempts to keep this movement in one piece, his disinclination to take sides here ought to be respected.”
“Are all based on in-silico modeled synthetic phenomena, which has never been
scientifically proven as coming from an actual virus.” — Dr. Kevin Corbett, expert in diagnostic testing
‘This was what happened with HIV’
Dr. Kevin Corbett did his doctoral work on diagnostic testing associated with HIV and AIDS, including research into the PCR. He said this week that the existence of SARS-CoV-2 and associated tests, “Are all based on in-silico modeled synthetic phenomena, which has never been scientifically proven as coming from an actual virus.
“This was what happened with ‘HIV’, which The Perth Group of scientists [in the 1990s] first proved was never isolated or purified. Those powerful voices like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who sadly ignore this issue, are badly misguided, because they fail to address this fundamental caveat in ‘covid science’.”
Corbett cautioned, “Their efforts will only act to further socially embed the popular hysteria of there being a contagion, and therefore will enable further public health mandates forcing masks, social distancing and the latest covid killshot.”
‘World Localization Day’ will be celebrated on 20 June. Organised by the non-profit Local Futures, this annual coming together of people from across the world began in 2020 and focuses on the need to localise supply-chains and recover our connection with nature and community. The stated aim is to “galvanize the worldwide localization movement into a force for systemic change”.
Local Futures, founded by Helena Norberg-Hodge, urges us to imagine a very different world, one in which most of our food comes from nearby farmers who ensure food security year round and where the money we spend on everyday goods continues to recirculate in the local economy.
We are asked to imagine local businesses providing ample, meaningful employment opportunities, instead of our hard-earned cash being immediately siphoned off to some distant corporate headquarters.
Small farms would be key in this respect. They are integral to local markets and networks, short supply chains, food sovereignty, more diverse cropping systems and healthier diets. And they tend to serve the food requirements of communities rather than the interests of big business, institutional investors and shareholders half a world away.
If the COVID lockdowns and war in Ukraine tell us anything about our food system, it is that decentralised, regional and local community-owned food systems based on short(er) supply chains that can cope with future shocks are now needed more than ever.
Localization involves strengthening and rebuilding local economies and communities and restoring cultural and biological diversity. The ‘economics of happiness’ is central to this vision, rather than an endless quest for GDP growth and the alienation, conflict and misery this brings.
It is something we need to work towards because multi-billionaire globalists have a dystopian future mapped out for humanity which they want to impose on us all – and it is diametrically opposed to what is stated above.
The much-publicised ‘great reset’ is integral to this dystopia. It marks a shift away from ‘liberal democracy’ towards authoritarianism. At the same time, there is the relentless drive towards a distorted notion of a ‘green economy’, underpinned by the rhetoric of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘climate emergency’.
The great reset is really about capitalism’s end-game. Those promoting it realise the economic and social system must undergo a reset to a ‘new normal’, something that might no longer resemble ‘capitalism’.
End-game capitalism
Capital can no longer maintain its profitability by exploiting labour alone. This much has been clear for some time. There is only so much surplus value to be extracted before the surplus is insufficient.
Historian Luciana Bohne notes that the shutting down of parts of the economy was already happening pre-COVID as there was insufficient growth, well below the minimum tolerable 3% level to maintain the viability of capitalism. This, despite a decades-long attack on workers and corporate tax cuts.
The system had been on life support for some time. Credit markets had been expanded and personal debt facilitated to maintain consumer demand as workers’ wages were squeezed. Financial products (derivatives, equities, debt, etc) and speculative capitalism were boosted, affording the rich a place to park their profits and make money off money. We have also seen the growth of unproductive rentier capitalism and stock buy backs and massive bail outs courtesy of taxpayers.
Moreover, in capitalism, there is also a tendency for the general rate of profit to fall over time. And this has certainly been the case according to writer Ted Reese, who notes it has trended downwards from an estimated 43% in the 1870s to 17% in the 2000s.
The 2008 financial crash was huge. But by late 2019, an even bigger meltdown was imminent. Many companies could not generate enough profit and falling turnover, squeezed margins, limited cashflows and highly leveraged balance sheets were prevalent. In effect, economic growth was already grinding to a halt prior to the massive stock market crash in February 2020.
Fabio Vighi, professor of critical theory, describes how, in late 2019, the Swiss Bank of International Settlements, BlackRock (the world’s most powerful investment fund), G7 central bankers, leading politicians and others worked behind closed doors to avert a massive impending financial meltdown.
The Fed soon began an emergency monetary programme, pumping hundreds of billions of dollars per week into financial markets. Not long after, COVID hit and lockdowns were imposed. The stock market did not collapse because lockdowns occurred. Vighi argues lockdowns were rolled out because financial markets were collapsing.
Closing down the global economy under the guise of fighting a pathogen that mainly posed a risk to the over 80s and the chronically ill seemed illogical to many, but lockdowns allowed the Fed to flood financial markets (COVID relief) with freshly printed money without causing hyperinflation. Vighi says that lockdowns curtailed economic activity, thereby removing demand for the newly printed money (credit) in the physical economy and preventing ‘contagion’.
Using lockdowns and restrictions, smaller enterprises were driven out of business and large sections of the pre-COVID economy were shut down. This amounted to a controlled demolition of parts of the economy while the likes of Amazon, Microsoft, Meta (Facebook) and the online payment sector – platforms which are dictating what the ‘new normal’ will look like – were clear winners in all of this.
The rising inflation that we currently witness is being blamed on the wholly avoidable conflict in Ukraine. Although this tells only part of the story, the conflict and sanctions seem to be hitting Europe severely: if you wanted to demolish your own economy or impoverish large sections of the population, this might be a good way to go about it.
However, the massive ‘going direct’ helicopter money given to the financial sector and global conglomerates under the guise of COVID relief was always going to have an impact once the global economy reopened.
Similar extraordinary monetary policy (lockdowns) cannot be ruled out in the future: perhaps on the pretext of another ‘virus’ but possibly based on the notion of curtailing human activity due to ‘climate emergency’. This is because raising interests rates to manage inflation could rapidly disrupt the debt-bloated financial system (an inflated Ponzi scheme) and implode the entire economy.
Permanent austerity
But lockdowns, restrictions or creating mass unemployment and placing people on programmable digital currencies to micromanage spending and decrease inflationary pressures could help to manage the crisis. ‘Programmable’ means the government determining how much you can spend and what you can spend on.
How could governments legitimise such levels of control? By preaching about reduced consumption according to the creed of ‘sustainability’. This is how you would ‘own nothing and be happy’ if we are to believe this well-publicised slogan of the World Economic Forum (WEF).
But like neoliberal globalization in the 1980s – the great reset is being given a positive spin, something which supposedly symbolises a brave new techno-utopian future.
In the 1980s, to help legitimise the deregulated neoliberal globalisation agenda, government and media instigated an ideological onslaught, driving home the primacy of ‘free enterprise’, individual rights and responsibility and emphasising a shift away from the role of state, trade unions and the collective in society.
Today, we are seeing another ideological shift: individual rights (freedom to choose what is injected into your own body, for instance) are said to undermine the wider needs of society and – in a stark turnaround – individual freedom is now said to pose a threat to ‘national security’, ‘public health’ or ‘safety’.
A near-permanent state of ‘emergency’ due to public health threats, climate catastrophe or conflict (as with the situation in Ukraine) would conveniently place populations on an ongoing ‘war footing’. Notions of individual liberty and democratic principles would be usurped by placing the emphasis on the ‘public interest’ and protecting the population from ‘harm’. This would facilitate the march towards authoritarianism.
As in the 1980s, this messaging is being driven by economic impulses. Neoliberalism privatised, deregulated, exploited workers and optimised debt to the point whereby markets are now kept afloat by endless financial injections.
The WEF says the public will ‘rent’ everything they require: stripping the right of personal ownership under the guise of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘saving the planet’. Where the WEF is concerned, this is little more than code for permanent austerity to be imposed on the mass of the population.
Metaverse future
At the start of this article, readers were asked to imagine a future based on a certain set of principles associated with localization. For one moment, imagine another. The one being promoted by the WEF, the high-level talking shop and lobby group for elite interests headed by that avowed globalist and transhumanist Klaus Schwab.
As you sit all day unemployed in your high-rise, your ‘food’ will be delivered via an online platform bought courtesy of your programmable universal basic income digital money. Food courtesy of Gates-promoted farms manned by driverless machines, monitored by drones and doused with chemicals to produce crops from patented GM seeds for industrial ‘biomatter’ to be engineered, processed and constituted into something resembling food.
Enjoy and be happy eating your fake food, stripped of satisfying productive endeavour and genuine self-fulfilment. But really, it will not be a problem. You can sit all day and exist virtually in Zuckerberg’s fantasy metaverse. Property-less and happy in your open prison of mass unemployment, state dependency, track and chip health passports and financial exclusion via programmable currency.
A world also in which bodily integrity no longer exists courtesy of a mandatory vaccination agenda linked to emerging digital-biopharmaceutical technologies. The proposed World Health Organization pandemic treaty marks a worrying step in this direction.
This ‘new normal’ would be tyrannical, but the ‘old normal’ – which still thrives – was not something to be celebrated. Global inequality is severe and environmental devastation and human dislocation has been increasing. Dependency and dispossession remain at the core of the system, both on an individual level and at local, regional and national levels. New normal or old normal, these problems will persist and become worse.
Green imperialism
The ‘green economy’ being heavily promoted is based on the commodification of nature, through privatization, marketization and monetary valuation. Banks and corporations will set the agenda – dressed in the garb of ‘stakeholder capitalism’, a euphemism for governments facilitating the needs of powerful global interests. The fear is that the proposed system will weaken environmental protection laws and regulations to facilitate private capital.
The banking sector will engage in ‘green profiling’ and issue ‘green bonds’ and global corporations will be able to ‘offset’ (greenwash) their environment-degrading activities by, for example, protecting or planting a forest elsewhere (on indigenous people’s land) or perhaps even investing in (imposing) industrial agriculture which grows herbicide-resistant GMO commodity crop monocultures that are misleadingly portrayed as ‘climate friendly’. Imperialism wrapped in green.
Relying on the same thinking and the same interests that led the world to where it is now does not seem like a great idea. This type of ‘green’ is first and foremost a multi-trillion market opportunity for lining pockets and part of a strategy that may well be used to secure compliance required for the ‘new normal’.
The future needs to be rooted in the principles of localization. For this, we need look no further than the economics and the social relations that underpin tribal societies (for example, India’s indigenous peoples). The knowledge and value systems of indigenous peoples promote long-term genuine sustainability by living within the boundaries of nature and emphasise equality, communality and sharing rather than separation, domination and competition.
Self-sufficiency, solidarity, localization and cooperation is the antidote to globalism and the top-down tyranny of programmable digital currencies and unaccountable, monopolistic AI-driven platforms which aim to monitor and dictate every aspect of life.
*
Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) in Montreal.
The author receives no payment from any media outlet or organization for his work. If you appreciated this article, consider sending a few coins his way: colintodhunter@outlook.com
On April 25th, a federal judge stuck down the mask mandate for mass transit.Part of the reasoning was based on fact that the CDC skipped the otherwise-mandatory public notice and comment period as required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). However, the main reasoning was to show that government officials do not recognize the limits of their power. Apparently, neither do the masses.
The ruling sent COVID doomsdayers into panic mode. Federal agencies are creatures of statute and are bound by law to operate within the law imposed by Congress. Agencies are not separate entities that may act as they wish.
Their authority is limited to what Congress grants them. So the CDC is governed by Congress – not by any President – and certainly not by career bureaucrats like Fauci. – Phillip Holloway, Esq
Up until COVID, it was illegal to wear a mask to conceal the face in public, with few exceptions. Under COVID, “the science” reversed the mask laws overnight, illegally. Few people questioned the authority of politicians practicing medicine without a license. Perhaps COVID is a lesson to understand that when “science” enters the political picture, its time to question authority. In other words, public health orders do not trump legal orders.
Science and Freedom Do Not Mix
Contrary to popular belief, the law is not based on the latest “science” because science and law are separate spheres of knowledge. Science cannot prove that something is true. Science tests theories, and explains what is observed under a specific set of conditions. Science is a tool. Like any tool, it is neither good or bad, but it can be used according to the will of the “scientist” who wields it. Science does not reveal truth.
Science cannot give you truth. All it can determine is internal self-consistency” based on data within the confines of time and distance. Everything else must be rejected. —William A. Tiller
Science does not usurp the law. Neither do mandates usurp the law. Mandates are public health policies, made by government agencies who use science and fear to manipulate behavior. Yet, federal agencies have NO authority under the law to tell people how to live when it comes to making health decisions.
For those who claim that science “raises awareness,” realize that awareness exercises do nothing to ensure freedom. Real freedom is preserved outside of science, lest people become slaves to a system that is set up to manipulate and engineer consent (as with mandates). Without true consent, there is only implied consent, the illusion of choice, based on the limited options you are provided. An illusion of choice brings an illusion of freedom.
The federal judge made clear that CDC and government officials violated the APA in issuing the mandate.
Despite the protestations by Fauci to the contrary, the CDC was created by a law, is governed by a law, and must act within the confines of that law. – Phil Holloway, Esq. Twitter
Live Exercise
The COVID exercise is a test of people’s ability to know truths from falsehoods. Did anyone investigate the legality of a mandate… or how it may differ from a man date? Did anyone question the blank package insert of the experimental injections? Did anyone know to separate the science from the law?
Early on, the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, disclosed, in the media, that COVID is a “live exercise.” Did anyone notice how the media then went back to its regularly scheduled programming; Tel-A-Vision?
Why did it take so long for the courts to intervene, especially when the CDC mask order was set to expire on May 3? Is this court opinion too little, too late? Many would argue the damage has already been done. People’s lives and minds have been altered. Kids breathed their own carbon dioxide to participate in school. Babies did not see the facial expressions of their parents.
What about the Covidians who continue to sport “the mask” in public places? Do they do it “to protect others” as the media tells them to do? Does the media guilt people into “taking responsibility” by wearing a mask? Is health no longer a personal responsibility? Can Fauci run a mile to help you lose weight? Can your doctor wear a life jacket to keep you afloat?
The law is supposed to protect the rights of people to decide for themselves…… but only if people know the laws! Know this: neither Congress, the CDC, nor the media can legislate choice when it comes to your body.
Stay tuned. The Department of Justice has filed a notice of appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. This filing is expected to go nowhere, and do nothing, except to save face, since there was no motion for a stay included in the notice of appeal.
While the mask mandate may have ended, the live exercise continues…
Psychological obedience training is being used to control the global population, from cradle to grave. The technocratic elite are after our children, and they’re using a variety of psychological tools to shape and mold them.
The more we know about their strategies, the better we can protect ourselves and our children from these predators
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (HR 3684) grants control over what and when you drive to the transportation system. It will control the type of vehicle you can use and when you can drive. It will control the vehicle-to-grid 5G technology and its kill switches (which will be built in). The bill also includes an integrated payment system and a per-mile driving fee
The effort to control you starts from birth. Social emotional learning (SEL) is a programming effort that uses the relabeling and changing of words to alter perception of reality and mold children’s beliefs and behaviors Companies are collecting and analyzing your child’s personal data to build their social credit score. In addition to demographics and grades, the data collection also includes behavioral information, such as scientific, financial, cultural and civic literacy, and competencies such as critical thinking skills, problem solving, creativity, communication and collaboration, plus character qualities such as curiosity, initiative, persistence, grit, adaptability, leadership, social and cultural awareness
Unless we refuse to comply or participate, our social credit scores and climate scores will soon dictate everything we can and cannot do in life
In the video below, finance expert Catherine Austin Fitts, Polly Tommey and Carolyn Betts interview investigative journalist Corey Lynn, who runs a blog called “Corey’s Digs.” She’s also the author of “Global Landscape on Vaccine ID Passports,” available from her website.1
In this interview, Lynn discusses how psychological obedience training is being used to control the global population from cradle to grave. She reviews programs that mine your personal data and indoctrinate users to become reliant on digital currency, and offers practical advice for those who recognize the dangers and want to break free.
As noted by Tommey, the technocratic elite are after our children, and they’re using a variety of psychological tools to shape and mold them into obedient and clueless serfs. The more we know about their strategies, the better we can protect our children from these predators.
What the Infrastructure Bill Is Actually Funding
Lynn starts off with a potent example of how the U.S. government is using our own money to build the prison walls around us. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (HR 3684) was passed by Congress and signed by President Biden in November 2021.
This $1.2 trillion spending bill includes a number of questionable and outright nefarious allocations. Importantly, this bill grants control over what and when you drive to the transportation system. It will control the type of vehicle you can use and when you can drive, Lynn explains.
It will control the vehicle-to-grid 5G technology and its kill switches (which will be built in). The bill also includes an integrated payment system and a per-mile driving fee. Twenty-seven pilot programs are also listed that will given them even more control over your transportation in the future.
As noted by Lynn, “Our taxpayer dollars are going to build our control grid.” For more information, see her article, “A Clearer Breakdown of What This Infrastructure Bill Is Really Funding.”2
Social Emotional Learning Is Programming
The effort to control you starts from birth. Lynn reviews the use of social emotional learning (SEL), which uses the relabeling and changing of words to alter our perception of reality and mold children’s beliefs and behaviors.
“The Department of Education was created in 1979, and ever since then, they’ve been building up to Common Core, building in all these Marxist agendas and pulling in critical race theory (CRT),” Lynn says.
“It’s a psychological agenda. It’s not a single curriculum. This is [about] ideologies and behaviors and thought processes, it’s obedience training and conditioning that starts in preschool, and it’s embedded throughout the day. So, it’s a whole mind control system.
They’re creating what the World Economic Forum (WEF) likes to refer to as digital citizens, for the future workforce, and so they’re bringing in all this ed-tech and doing massive data mining. We have statewide longitudinal data systems that are tracking behavior …
In 2016, they started kicking billions of dollars into this … and then they started pulling in legislation. And while COVID is going on, they say, ‘Well, we really need to step this up, we need to pour more money into this because of the mental health and well being of children.’
And so, they are molding the children, they’re building their social scores … and then they’re bringing it into parents. They’re saying we need to teach the parents too, so the parents can help train the kids. And they’re bringing it into businesses … This is a major psychological obedience training to lead to AI.
This is an excerpt from ‘Dreaming the Future of Health for the Next 100 Years,’ a 2013 white paper from the Global Health Summit that was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation:3
‘We will interact more with artificial intelligence. The use of robotics [and] bioengineering to augment human functioning is already well underway and will advance. Reengineering of humans into potentially separate and unequal forms through genetic engineering or mixed human robots raises debates on ethics and equality.
A new demography is projected to emerge after 2030 of technologies, robotics, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, producing robots, engineered organisms, nanobots and artificial intelligence that can self replicate. Debates will grow on the implications of an impending reality of human-designed life.’
So, this, this is where this is all heading … It’s in 110 countries, it’s all over the US. It’s in most schools, and they’re starting in preschool. This is what you’re dealing with. So, when you’re considering homeschooling, I just want people to understand what they’re up against, and what they need to weed out. It’s more than just the school board. There are a lot of parts going on here.”
Already, there are several companies that collect and analyze your child’s personal data to build their social credit score. In the beginning, the data collection was fairly generic, such as age, demographics and grades, but now they’ve started to collect behavioral information as well, such as scientific literacy, ICT literacy, financial literacy, cultural and civic literacy.
They also collect data on competencies such as critical thinking skills, problem solving, creativity, communication and collaboration, plus character qualities such as curiosity, initiative, persistence, grit, adaptability, leadership, social and cultural awareness. You can learn more about all of this in Lynn’s nine-part series, the “2030 Psychological Agenda.”4
They’re Teaching Children To Be Nice but Stupid
Another important point made by Austin Fitts is that many of the “improvements” in education have been designed to make children less knowledgeable. For example, Common Core “is designed to make you phenomenally ignorant of math, and very obedient and easy to control,” she says, adding:
“I used to have a dental surgeon who, all he wanted to talk about was how furious he was at the schools. He said his kids had been taught that if they were going to get together and design a bridge, it was more important that they get along than they use the right number for Pi. As long as they got along, it was okay if the bridge fell down.”
Financial apps aimed at children are another form of programming. For example, the FinTech app “Greenlight,” advertised as a debit card for kids and teens, is financed by players such as Wells Fargo, JP Morgan, Chase and Amazon. Lynn explains:
“On the surface, this may look great. Parents can help their children understand investing, how to save money and whatnot. But when you start looking at the investors … and where this is really going, what they’re doing is programming. They say this is created by families, for families, even though there are 29 big investors in this …
They’re saying this is to help for parents to raise financially smart kids. So, what they do is, the [parents] pay them their allowance, or they pay them for chores. It goes through a little MasterCard Greenlight card that then goes into the bank … and then they can control their spending. So, it’s teaching them about getting involved in the banking system digitally.”
Of course, we now know that the globalist elite are planning to roll out a programmable central bank digital currency (CBDC), with which they’ll be able to control how, where and when you spend your own money. So, “Greenlight” is basically teaching children to see this system as completely normal. As noted by Austin Fitts, “They’re getting groomed to plug into a system which will be centrally controlled.”
How to Break the Indoctrination Schedule
Parents who are waking up to the nightmare planned for their children by the WEF and its allies are now starting to fight back. Here are a few key things parents need to do to protect their young children from the indoctrination currently trying to swallow their children:
Homeschool your children. Some parents are starting their own schools, educating five or six children
Get your children out in nature as much as possible
Eliminate mindless TV watching and cell phone use
Be a role model for your children. That means modeling appropriate use of television and technologies such as computers, cell phones and social media
Minimizing your cell phone use, to whatever extent possible, is one thing everyone can do. Lynn says:
“I truly believe that if we ditch [our cell phones], if 50% of the population ditched them, that would put a major crushing to their agenda, on most of what they’re rolling out. There’s geofencing on phones. Everywhere you go, you’re being tracked … You don’t even have to be on the phone. It could just be in your pocket, it can be in your car.
They’re constantly aggregating data from us so they can then use it against us, and … they have the ability to target us on an individual basis. They track everything we do on the internet as well. When I go on walks with my dog, I don’t bring my phone with me … Anywhere I go, I leave the phone at home, or I leave it in the car.”
If we do nothing to change our technology-addicted lifestyles, what will happen to us in 10 years’ time? Where will we be? Austin Fitts is convinced we’ll all be slaves — literally enslaved by the technology that is tracking and analyzing us every moment. Decisions will be made for us by AI, based on our social credit scores.
Children may even be taken from their families at a young age and brought up in facilities where their upbringing and behavior can be controlled. “Parents will have no authority over their children and the children … their bodies and their minds, will be used to prototype all sorts of transhumanism,” Austin Fitts says.
Understand the End Game and Do Not Comply
There’s really only one way to prevent the transhumanist, centrally controlled authoritarian regime from getting a foothold: Do not comply. We have to say no to all of their schemes. If you do comply, understand that you are erecting your own prison walls, and that of your children, with every data point you let them have.
“It’s all under the guise of convenience,” Lynn says. “Going back to cell phones, and technology in general … People need to start seeing these things for what they are. And instead of looking at it and immediately going, ‘Oh, this is great, oh, this is so convenient, oh, this is going to save me time,’ they need to stop and take a look at who the company is.
Who’s behind it? Dig around in their website, see who the leadership is, see who the investors are … and just understand their ultimate end game. So when they’re throwing these things out there, with all their fluff and pizzazz, you don’t take the bait. They’re trapping you into more and more control over you.”
The Planned Takeover of Your Bank Account
Also, consider using cash as much as possible, and move your money out of the big banks, as they too are part of the control system. Lynn explains:
“I got out of mine about a year ago, and I wasn’t even in one of the biggest, worst ones. But I started noticing that they were categorizing my spending. I’m like, ‘What is this?’ All of a sudden, it’s showing my grocery shopping and restaurant and health care?
I tell people go into your bank right now, look at the categorizing that’s happening. They’re already getting the infrastructure set up to control spending by categorizing it all. It’s not for your convenience, so you can better budget and see how you’re spending your money.”
For more information about this, see Lynn’s article, “Financial Takeover and Your Bank Account — BlackRock, Envestnet/Yodlee, and The Federal Reserve.”5,6 The short video above also summarizes the most important points of that article.
One important point highlighted by Austin Fitts is that banks can store their data on the bank server or the provider server. Austin Fitts says, “You want to call them and make sure the bank is keeping the data on their server, because you did not give permission for all of that data to be shared with the provider.” Having the data stored on the bank server helps protect against this malicious data harvesting.
In closing, I urge you to listen to the featured interview, as I’ve only summarized some of the key points here. In it, they review and discuss several signs, things that are happening now, that clearly illustrate where we’re headed.
Produced by Athletes for Health Freedom in partnership with Children’s Health Defense. Athletes for Health Freedom (AHF) is led by NFL Superbowl Champion and Green Bay Packers Hall of Famer, Ken Ruettgers, and John Stockton, a ten-time NBA All-Star and a two-time Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame inductee.
College term paper referenced by Dr. Cowan was actually a published paper by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, et al. (Dr. Cowan made this correction at the start of a video on the snake venom controversy, streamed on 4/22/2022.)
The vast majority of the world’s assets are owned by just two investment firms — BlackRock and the Vanguard Group. Combined, they have ownership in nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms, and through their investment holdings they secretly wield monopoly control over all industries
By now you may be familiar with the World Economic Forum slogan, “By 2030, you will own nothing.” To that end, BlackRock and other investment firms are buying up every single-family home they can find, making cash offers of 20% to 50% above asking price
Buying a home has been part of the American dream since the founding of this country. It’s been a significant part of financial success, security and freedom. George Washington declared that “Private Property and freedom are inseparable.” Now, lower to middle class Americans are being intentionally positioned to become permanent renters, which means they cannot build equity
This is wealth redistribution from the low- and middle-class to the upper, and it’s in line with plans for societal reorganization described under banners such as The Great Reset, Build Back Better, Agenda 21 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
These agendas all work together toward the same goal, which is a global monopoly on ownership and wealth, with a clear separation of the haves and have nots; the owners and the owned; the rulers and the ruled; the elite and the serfs
The 45-minute video above, “Monopoly — Follow the Money,” provides a comprehensive overview of who really owns the world. As it turns out, the vast majority of the world’s assets are owned by just two investment firms — BlackRock and the Vanguard Group.
Combined, they have ownership in nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms,1 and through their investment holdings they secretly wield monopoly control over all industries. In short, the idea that there is competition in the marketplace is a clever illusion.
BlackRock Is Buying Up Homes
By now you may be familiar with the World Economic Forum slogan, “By 2030, you will own nothing.” To that end, BlackRock and other investment firms are currently buying up every single-family home they can find, making cash offers of 20% to 50% above-asking price.2
Depending on where you live, you may have noticed that homes are selling within hours of being listed, making house hunting nearly impossible. Home buyers in my home state of Florida are certainly experiencing this phenomenon.
Investment firms are also buying up entire neighborhoods. As just one example, a 124-home neighborhood in Conroe, Texas, was bought for $32 million — 20% above listing — by Fundrise LLC, a real estate crowdfunding company, which then turned around and made all the homes into single-family rentals (SFRs).3
According to investment experts, SFRs are “exceptionally attractive investment assets,” and this is one aspect driving the trend. Demographic changes such as millennials starting families and affordability constraints are also said to be driving factors.4 But that really does not fully explain what’s happening.
The War Against Private Property
Buying a home has been part of the American dream since the founding of this country. It’s been a significant part of financial success and security. Now, lower to middle class Americans are being intentionally positioned to become permanent renters, which means they cannot build equity. Their ability to purchase a home, even if they can afford it, is being stripped from them by companies that can outbid them with cash offers.
In a recent episode of “60 Minutes” (above), Lesley Stahl actually did a good job exposing why home prices are going through the roof. It’s not just that these investment companies can snap up homes with the click of a button, but they’re also artificially driving up prices of both homes and rents.
For example, rents in Jacksonville, Florida, rose an average of 31% in 2021, and Austin, Texas, saw rents jump by 40%. The reason appears to be twofold: We’re not building enough housing, and what is being built is being bought by corporate landlords at above-market prices.
Corporate real estate investors don’t even look at the homes they’re bidding on, and typically waive inspections. The home can be in any shape and sell within hours. As Stahl notes, “this puts first-time home buyers at a serious disadvantage,” as they have many hoops to jump through before they can secure a loan and close the deal.
Government estimates we’re currently 4 million homes short, and that shortage continues to grow. One real estate investment firm interviewed by Stahl states that they list, on average, 200 to 300 homes for rent each week, and receive 10,000 leasing inquiries weekly.
Not-So-Hidden Wealth Redistribution
As noted in a tweet by Cultural Husbandry:5
“This is wealth redistribution, and it ain’t rich people’s wealth that is getting redistributed. It’s normal American middle class, salt of the earth wealth heading into the hands of the world’s most powerful entities and individuals. The traditional financial vehicle [is] gone forever.
Home equity is the main financial element that middle class families use to build wealth, and BlackRock, a federal reserve funded financial institution is buying up all the houses to make sure that young families can’t build wealth … This is a fundamental reorganization of society.”
Indeed, and it’s right in line with plans for societal reorganization described under banners such as The Great Reset, Build Back Better, Agenda 21 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (see videos below).6,7
These agendas all work together toward the same goal, which is a global monopoly on ownership and wealth, with a clear separation of the haves and have nots; the owners and the owned; the rulers and the ruled; the elite and the serfs.
‘Sustainable Development’ Agenda Is a Plan to Enslave You
The war against private property goes back decades. In 1976, during the first United Nations’ Conference on Human Settlements, called Habitat 1,8 the U.N. stated, in Item 10:9
“Land … cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Public control of land use Is therefore indispensable.”
The idea, apparently, is that private investment firms like Vanguard and BlackRock can prevent social injustice by buying up all private property and renting it out. This way, no one (except their investors) can build wealth.
This is what “equity” is all about, and it has nothing to do with equality. “Social equity” is incredibly unfair, as it strips those with talent and drive of the ability to make something out of themselves.
Private Property and Freedom Are Inseparable
The UN’s Human Settlements agenda, Agenda 21 and the 2030 Sustainable Development agenda are in direct conflict with the U.S. Bill of Rights and the founding principles of this country. George Washington declared, “Private Property and freedom are inseparable.” Similarly, John Adams stated that “Property must be secure, or liberty cannot exist.”
In 1992 at the Earth Summit, under-secretary-general of the Convention on Climate Change and executive director of the UN Environment Program, Maurice Strong, stated that:10
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning, and suburban housing, are not sustainable.”
If meat consumption, frozen foods, fossil fuel use, home appliances, air conditioning and single-family homes are “unsustainable,” it stands to reason that the goal of any sustainable development scheme is to eliminate all of those things. This is easier done in some countries than in others. As explained by the Cook Country News Herald back in 2012:11
“Because Congress does not agree to all these United Nations schemes to steal our property and destroy our economy, they are passed by fiat, executive orders, proclamations, directives and generous grants given to local communities …”
In short, the technocratic elite are trying to circumvent the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights through various means, such as the effort to make the United Nations and the World Health Organization into global centers of power, with member states being forced to comply with whatever agendas they set, thereby undermining national sovereignty.
As explained in the Agenda 21 video above, Agenda 21 doesn’t stop at restricting private home and land ownership. It also includes:
Seizure of private property
Forbidding human access to land
Relocation of people from rural areas to cities
Additional taxation
Water use restrictions
Restricting the amount of waste you’re allowed to produce
Forced community involvement
Manipulation of transportation patterns and increasing gas prices to restrict travel — all in the name of “saving the earth”
In short, the global elite want you to believe that the only way to save the planet is for you to be their slave. It’s a tragic ultimate outcome for sure. If they are successful, virtually all of your constitutional rights and freedoms will be eliminated.
Who Owns the Farmland and Dictates Food Policy?
Private home ownership isn’t the only thing threatened by the encroaching monopoly of elitists. Bill Gates is now one of the largest private owners of U.S. farmland,12 and he also wields unrivaled power over global food policy,13 as detailed in the AGRA Watch report,14 “The Man Behind the Curtain: The Gates Foundation’s Influence on the UN Food Systems Summit.”
While Gates is just one man, his clout is significantly leveraged and magnified by the fact that he funds such a large number of companies and organizations that they do his bidding on the sly. When you see long lists of groups, you automatically think there are many players in the game when, in fact, Gates is the singular thread running through most or all of them.
In its 2014 report,15 “Three Examples of Problems with Gates Foundation Grants,” AGRA Watch highlights why Gates’ massive investments in global food production have failed to solve any of the very real problems we face. First and foremost, many of the solutions that he backs are “Band-Aid solutions” that in fact worsen the root problems.
Examples include the funding of the development of genetically engineered (GE) foods designed to be higher in certain nutrients. The problem is that these crops then end up replacing local diversity with just a few GE varieties that don’t even take local conditions into account. So, by pushing for “fortified” crop varieties, malnutrition actually deepens, as biodiversity is reduced.
Secondly, “a stubborn focus on yield” is at odds with research showing that low yield or insufficient production is not causing world hunger. “There is ample evidence today that the problem instead is poverty and lack of access, which is deepened by destruction of local food systems and commercialization of food,” AGRA Watch notes, adding:
“Grants by the Gates’ Foundation and AGRA continue to focus on yield, priming Africa for a system suited to the needs of the profit-seeking, yield-oriented commercial farmer rather than the peasant or small farmer producing diverse crops for a local community.”
Additional observations can be found in the AGRA Watch article16 “Philanthrocapitalism: The Gates Foundation’s African Programs Are Not Charity,” published December 2017, in which philanthrocapitalism is described as “an attempt to use market processes to do good,” but which is inherently problematic “as markets are ill-suited to producing socially constructive ends.”
Put another way, Gates’ brand of philanthropy creates several new problems for each one it solves. Gates is also invested in the synthetic beef industry, and not surprisingly, he’s been calling on Western nations to transition to a 100% fake beef diet17 — all in the name of saving the environment. It’s the same argument pushed by Agenda 21 and the rest of the sustainable development schemes.
Media and Medicine Are Completely Controlled
Mainstream media and the pharmaceutical industry are two other important areas that have been taken over by a monopoly-centered “deep state.” Both industries are overwhelmingly owned by BlackRock and Vanguard,18 so to think the mainstream media will report on the truth is foolhardy to say the least, especially as it pertains to health and medicine.19
Allopathic medicine, by the way, has been controlled by those in the grip of greed ever since John D. Rockefeller founded the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in 1901 and campaigned to eliminate naturopathic medicine, which was the norm, in order to replace it with petroleum-based patented drugs.
Anything that couldn’t be patented was abolished and known cures were dismissed as quackery. Rockefeller accomplished this the same way Gates and other technocrats do it today — through control of the media.
WHO Treaty Is COVID Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
The WHO’s pandemic treaty is perhaps the greatest threat we’ve faced so far, and will go a long way toward implementing The Great Reset. As I noted in a March 2022 article,20 the pandemic treaty is a direct threat to a nation’s sovereignty to make decisions for itself and its citizens, and will erode democracy everywhere, if enacted.
May 24, 2021, the European Council announced it supported the establishment of an international Pandemic Treaty, under which the WHO would have the power to replace the constitutions of individual nations with its own constitution under the banner of “pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”21
March 3, 2022, the Council authorized the opening of negotiations for an international agreement. The infographic below, sourced from the European Council’s website,22 summarizes the process.
There’s simply no question that this treaty is part of the globalists’ plan to monopolize health systems worldwide,23 and a way for them to force mandatory vaccinations, vaccine passports and digital identities on the uncooperative masses.
Any pandemic-related decision the WHO makes would supersede national and state laws. Eventually, all health-related decisions could come under the WHO’s jurisdiction, as the stated goals of the treaty include not only future pandemic response but also a stronger framework for health with the WHO as the coordinating authority on global health matters more generally.24
Director-general of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has also gone on record stating that his “central priority” as director-general of the WHO is to push the world toward universal health coverage.25 As noted by Dr. Peter Breggin,26 referring to Ghebreyesus’ address to the WHO Executive Committee on January 24, 2022, in which he spelled out his global health plan, “The spirit of Communism can be felt throughout the document.”
WEF: ‘World Is Best Managed by Self-Selected Coalition’
The WEF’s 2010 “Global Redesign” report27 argues that the world is best managed by a self-selected coalition of “stakeholders” — multinational corporations, governments, international bodies such as the UN and the WHO, and select civil society organizations — that then make decisions on behalf of the global population.
If you look, you’ll find that all the globalist agendas, regardless of what they’re called, have this aim. They’re all working in lockstep to strip power from the people by making elected officials irrelevant. All the power is to be in the hands of a self-selected, self-nominated elite. If you believe they have any intention of doing what’s best for the people, it’s time to wake up, because you’re clearly dreaming.
For well over 100 years, they’ve done what’s best for them, even though their decisions poisoned our food supply, soils, air and water. Even though it destroyed our environment and resulted in unsafe medicines and toxic foods; even though it led to starvation, disease and death.
They’ve lied, cheated and used every underhanded, immoral and unethical trick in the book. They’ve coerced, bribed and manipulated at will. They’ve slowly but surely infiltrated every area of society with the intention of altering it to serve their own ends.
Technology, which is the foundation upon which technocracy rests, has allowed this self-selected group of megalomaniacs to thrive and build their power structure in the shadows. Only now are they starting to really show their true colors, their desire for absolute power and control.
As noted by New American contributor C. Mitchell Shaw,28 “If you are not paying for the product, then you are the product.” YOU and your personal data are the products of Google, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. These platforms are all selling your personal data for profit. That’s the business they’re in.
Your data are also fed to artificial intelligence, and algorithms are created to profile and manipulate you. Everything you say and do is being used against you. The end goal of these megalomaniacs is always the same: to make money off you, even if it harms or kills you, and to manipulate you into accepting their proposition to rule over you. This all ends when enough people wake up to what they’re doing, and refuse to go along with their program.
On Saturday, Apr. 9, 2022, American Airlines (AA) flight 1067 departed Denver International Airport for its 1-hour and 46-minute flight to Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW). The nearly $100 million Airbus A321 aircraft and its 200 passengers were under the care of AA Captain Bob Snow, who has been with the company for over 31 years. Immediately after pulling into Gate 6 at DFW, Captain Snow—who was forced to get the COVID jab on Nov. 7, 2021, or lose his job—suffered a life-threatening cardiac arrest in the cockpit and almost died. If the tragic event had happened six minutes earlier, there could have been a mass casualty in the skies.
Swiftly, Captain Snow, who passed out and had to be shocked three times, was rushed to Baylor, Scott, and White Health Center ten minutes away. Thankfully, he survived. Snow, who spent time in the hospital’s Intensive Care Unit and is now home, is confident his heart attack directly resulted from the COVID-19 experimental “vaccine” he was mandated to receive. Tellingly, no one from AA or the airline union called Snow while he was in the hospital or stopped by to visit him. While in the hospital, he recorded a video, stating:
“My name is Bob Snow. I am an [American Airlines] Captain and have been a Captain for a number of years. My total service with the company is over 31 years. On Nov. 7, I was mandated to receive a vaccine. Quite literally, I was told if I did not receive the vaccination, I would be fired. This [order] was from our director of flight. So, under duress, I received the vaccine.
Now just a few days ago, after landing in Dallas, six minutes after we landed, I passed out. I coded. I required three shocks. I had to be intubated. I’m now in ICU in Dallas. This is what the vaccine has done for me. I will probably never fly again, based upon the criteria the FAA establishes for pilots. I was hoping to teach my daughter to fly; she wants to be a pilot. [Now] that will probably never happen, all courtesy of the vaccine. This is unacceptable, and I’m one of the victims.
You can see that this is an actual result of the vaccine for some of us. Mandatory, no questions asked, get the shot, or you’re fired. This is not the American way.”
American Airlines Told Captain Robert Snow to Get Vaccinated or Be Fired!
Remarkably, Captain Snow’s COVID-19 vaccine-related cardiac arrest and the myriad of pilot and flight attendant lawsuits currently underway against COVID mask and vaccine mandates are not being reported by mainstream media. Still, it is a subject that many concerned Americans, including Steve Kirsch, Executive Director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, are paying attention to.
Pilots Are Speaking Up About Adverse Events From COVID Jab
Kirsch, who believes that “vaccine injury cover-up is in the interest of all affected parties (except the flying public),” recently interviewed Josh Yoder of US Freedom Flyers about AA Captain Bob Snow. Yoder, a pilot himself, has been a staunch advocate against “vaccine” mandates in the airline industries.
In the interview, Yoder shared with Kirsch that his group has received hundreds of reports about pilots flying planes while suffering from adverse side effects from the COVID jabs. He also noted that cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough told him that if the airlines were conducting health screenings, 30 percent of the pilots currently flying would most likely be disqualified due to vaccine-induced heart conditions. Yoder told Kirsch:
“He [McCullough] said that if every vaccinated pilot were to be screened, there would be somewhere around a 30 percent loss in manpower.”
Yoder mentioned that the most prominent health issues reported include chest pains, myocarditis, and pericarditis. He noted that “three vaccinated pilots called him yesterday” and said they’re “currently flying with chest pains.” Another said a cardiologist is treating him. Yoder added that the pilots want to remain anonymous because they don’t want to lose their jobs.
Airline pilot Latane Campbell interview: A pilot’s view of COVID policies
On Dec. 15, 2021, McCullough, joined by other experts, including Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole, and Lt. Col. Teresa Long, M.D., signed a 53-page letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and major airlines, urging them to flag all vaccinated pilots and administer D-dimer tests, troponin tests, cardiac MRIs, and EKGs to assess their health.
The letter—noting that pilots have died post-vaccination—describes the side effects suffered by numerous pilots, many of whom have been afraid to report them for fear of being grounded. Some have had to seek medical attention and report their injuries due to the significance of the COVID-19 “vaccine” related adverse event. A professional agricultural pilot explained his horrible ordeal, stating in part:
“I am a 33-year-old husband and father of two young boys. I have been healthy my whole life, with no underlying conditions. I received my first dose of the Pfizer COVID Vaccine on February 1. Within thirty minutes, I developed a severe stabbing headache, which later became a burning sensation in the back of my neck. Two days after my vaccination, I got in my airplane to do a job that would only take a few hours.
Immediately after taking off, I knew that something was not right with me. I was starting to develop tunnel vision, and my headache was getting worse. Approximately two hours into flying, I pulled my airplane up to turn around and felt an extreme burst of pressure in my ears.
Instantly, I was nearly blacked out, dizzy, disoriented, nauseous and shaking uncontrollably. By the grace of God, I was able to land my plane without incident, although I do not remember doing this.”
Cody Flint: 33 Y/O Airline Pilot Develops Brain Swelling, Can No Longer Fly Following Jab
Yoder argued that the overall behavior of the FAA, the airlines, and the pilots’ unions demonstrate a contempt for the safety of the flying public and the well-being of airline employees. Kirsch agrees, adding that we have seen a general tone of “belligerence” from nearly all hospitals towards patients who seek second opinions on vaccine-related injury issues. Yoder told Kirsch that the airline industry seems unwilling to address the potentially catastrophic incident.
Yoder pointed out that “AA is trying to create as much distance between themselves and this incident as possible,” adding, “so are the unions. We can’t even get a response.” Still, according to Yoder, Snow will be speaking out soon. When he does, Yoder warned:
“You’re going to hear some very interesting details that are going to be very damning for American Airlines, the Allied Pilots Association, the FAA, and everyone else involved.”
Steve Kirsch, Full Interview with Josh Yoder re: American Airlines Captain Bob Snow vax injury
“War is a racket, wrote US Maj. General Smedley Butler in 1935. He explained: “A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”
Gen. Butler’s observation describes the US/NATO response to the Ukraine war perfectly.
The propaganda continues to portray the war in Ukraine as that of an unprovoked Goliath out to decimate an innocent David unless we in the US and NATO contribute massive amounts of military equipment to Ukraine to defeat Russia. As is always the case with propaganda, this version of events is manipulated to bring an emotional response to the benefit of special interests.
One group of special interests profiting massively on the war is the US military-industrial complex. Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes recently told a meeting of shareholders that, “Everything that ‘s being shipped into Ukraine today, of course, is coming out of stockpiles, either at DOD or from our NATO allies, and that’s all great news. Eventually we’ll have to replenish it and we will see a benefit to the business.”
He wasn’t lying. Raytheon, along with Lockheed Martin and countless other weapons manufacturers are enjoying a windfall they have not seen in years. The US has committed more than three billion dollars in military aid to Ukraine. They call it aid, but it is actually corporate welfare: Washington sending billions to arms manufacturers for weapons sent overseas.
By many accounts these shipments of weapons like the Javelin anti-tank missile (jointly manufactured by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin) are getting blown up as soon as they arrive in Ukraine. This doesn’t bother Raytheon at all. The more weapons blown up by Russia in Ukraine, the more new orders come from the Pentagon.
Former Warsaw Pact countries now members of NATO are in on the scam as well. They’ve discovered how to dispose of their 30-year-old Soviet-made weapons and receive modern replacements from the US and other western NATO countries.
While many who sympathize with Ukraine are cheering, this multi-billion dollar weapons package will make little difference. As former US Marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter said on the Ron Paul Liberty Report last week, “I can say with absolute certainty that even if this aid makes it to the battlefield, it will have zero impact on the battle. And Joe Biden knows it.”
What we do see is that Russians are capturing modern US and NATO weapons by the ton and even using them to kill more Ukrainians. What irony. Also, what kinds of opportunities will be provided to terrorists, with thousands of tons of deadly high-tech weapons floating around Europe? Washington has admitted that it has no way of tracking the weapons it is sending to Ukraine and no way to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys.
War is a racket, to be sure. The US has been meddling in Ukraine since the end of the Cold War, going so far as overthrowing the government in 2014 and planting the seeds of the war we are witnessing today. The only way out of a hole is to stop digging. Don’t expect that any time soon. War is too profitable.
In this webinar, my friend and colleague Mike Donio analyzed the main points of Dr. Ardis’ recent snake venom warning. Tune in to find out what we think of these claims.
The Biden administration’s vaccine mandates purporting to force U.S. military members to take the experimental Covid injections are unconstitutional and, because of the potential for genetic changes, may have implications involving patents and intellectual property, super lawyer Todd Callender tells The New American magazine’s Alex Newman in this episode of Conversations That Matter.
To protect the U.S. military, the rights of troops, and the U.S. Constitution, Callender has joined forces with other attorneys such as Tom Renz to sue the Department of Defense. The case is beyond fascinating, and you won’t want to miss this powerful interview.
AttorneyThomas Renz: “They say, ‘Well, we don’t count anyone as vaccinated until 14 days after their full vaccination,’ so that means until 14 days after your second dose, it’s not counted. Well, they did that because they know most reactions occur within 14 days of either your first or second dose… [As of] November/December [2021], there were 52,000ish [people aged 65 and up] who died within 14 days.” Watch:
Transcript of Dr. Sam Bailey’s introduction, provided by TCTL editor:
Last month, we were fortunate to have microbiologist and colloidal chemistry expert Dr. Robin Wakeling present his analysis of Pfizer Comirnaty under the microscope. Since that time Dr. Wakeling has continued to investigate the injections and is also linked up with other New Zealand teams who have shared their findings with him.
In Part 1 of his analysis, Dr. Wakeling presented the appearances of Comirnaty straight from the vial and has some new information regarding how these complexes form.
But perhaps, more importantly, in this video for the first time he is going to analyze the blood of some Pfizer-injected subjects who have suffered adverse reactions.
He’ll explain what he thinks is happening to the red blood cells and some of the most bizarre images he has ever seen in his long career.
In addition to Comirnaty, the teams have also been investigating recent influenza vaccines under the microscope, with some surprising findings that the officially disclosed ingredient don’t appear to explain.
Dr. Wakeling joins my husband, Dr. Mark Bailey, to present round two of Pfizer Under the Microscope.
Terra Madre, Gaia, Pachamama, Vasundhara… The Living Earth is a self-organised, self-regulating living system. She is autopoeitic, writing the poetry of life, creating the symphony of life, through the harmony of every participating living organism, from the microbes to the mammals.
From the molecule, to the cell, to the organism, to ecosystems, and the planet, life is based on non-separation, harmony and quantum coherence. Self-organised resonance with other beings who are self-organised.
“Life, in the ideal, is a domain that captures and stores energy and mobilises its quantum coherently in perfectly coupled cycles that generate no entropy… In a quantum coherent universe, all beings are both localised as particle/solid objects and delocalised as quantum wave functions spread ultimately throughout the universe. Hence all beings are mutually entangled and mutually constitutive. Thus harming others effectively harms ourselves, and the best way to benefit oneself may be to benefit others”. – Mae Wan Ho[1]
The Living Earth has evolved the biodiversity of our living planet, from viruses and biomes, to ecosystems, and species for over 4 billion years. Gaia weaves the web of life, the threads and relationships that connect the biodiversity of her Earth Family– Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam. Through her biodiversity and biosphere the Living Earth has self regulated her climate, cooling temperatures down from the 290 degree hot planet without life, to 13 degrees. Through the processes of life, the Earth reduced the 98% carbon dioxide rich atmosphere with 4000 ppm carbon dioxide, to 0. 03% at 270 ppm.[2]
Mother Earth evolved her sophisticated “carbon capture and sequestration” technology of photosynthesis which allows plants and microbes to capture the sunlight and the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and transform it into oxygen, our breath. Oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere and the earth was transformed from the original heat-trapping CO2 rich atmosphere to the reduced CO2 atmosphere through the oxidising process of plants and living organisms. This allowed temperatures to be regulated at levels that support human and other biological life on earth.
Through her biodiversity and biosphere she creates, maintains and sustains, regenerates and renews her Infrastructure of Life including the Climate System. Mother Earth is inviting us to participate in her biosphere of microbes and plants, animals in co-creating the harmony that is the symphony of life.
We are a strand in the Web of Life.
We are Children of the Earth, Not her Masters and Owners.
We are members of One Earth Family.
200,000 years ago, the living Earth created the conditions for our species to evolve, sustain ourselves and provide for our basic needs of food, clothing and shelter as members of the biosphere.
We are alive because the Earth is Alive. Learning to live as part of the biosphere as indigenous people, women, small peasants have done is our work for the Earth, for the human future.
Mother Earth is Living and Has Rights.
“Mother Earth is an indivisible community of diverse and interdependent beings with whom we share a common destiny and to whom we must relate in ways that benefit Mother Earth”.[3]
Diversity is nature’s organising principle, the basis of emergence, evolution, and resilience. Diversity in forms and expressions, flows and relations are how nature creates value and strength. Nature does not create monocultures and uniformity. Nature does not create fences and walls of division and separation, of ownership and private property.
We are a living, conscious strand in the pulsating web of life. We are all members of One Earth Family, interconnected through life. We are part of the Earth, and not separate from her. We are children of Mother Earth, not her masters and owners. We are among the youngest siblings in the Earth family and have much to learn from our elders, the microbes, and plants.
Nature’s gifts are for the sustenance of all beings in the Earth Family, not just for humans. All beings have a right to the Earth’s Gifts of sustenance. We are not a privileged species who can take others’ share and drive other species to extinction, or deprive our fellow human beings of food and water.
Nature’s Economy and the ecological processes of Regeneration that sustain life, is a Commons of Life.
The Earth’s biodiversity and soil, land, and water are not “human inventions”, they are not the “private property” of a few billionaires and their corporations. They are the commons, the infrastructure of life, not industrial “raw material” to be extracted for profits, or financial assets to be traded.
Every organism, from the smallest microbe to the largest mammal is part of the web of life. All living beings are sentient beings and have intrinsic value and worth. They are not objects to be owned and manipulated. Their value does not come from the market and cannot be reduced to money.
Earth-centred paradigms and worldviews do not put humans at the centre. They do not put the dis-economy of extractivism at the centre. They put life and the living processes that support life at the centre. They put the currencies of life at the centre.
Giving back to the Earth for regeneration, and sharing her gifts among others is at the heart of being members of one Earth family.
Life is a Circular Regenerative Flow. Living is participating in the cycles of life. Caring and Sharing is the Regenerative Economy – Oikonomia, or the Art of Living
Nature’s Economy is the economy of life, nourishing all in permanent renewal and regeneration.
Participating in nature’s Cycles of Renewal and Regeneration based on the living currencies and flows of energy, food, water, air, life is Oikonomia, the Art of Living.
Nature does not work in linear extractive flows of one way taking. Mother Earth works in complex, multiple Living Circular Economies based on ecological cycles of renewal, recycling and the law of return, the law of giving. Living circular economies create economies of permanence through regeneration and renewal. The Earth’s gifts do not get exhausted. Seed becomes plants, plants give seeds. Food is the currency of the nutrition cycle, nourishing all beings in the web of life. Water is the currency in the hydrological cycle, quenching the thirst of the soil, the plants, the animals, the atmosphere.
Nature’s Economy is an autopoietic, negative entropy economy, unlike mechanical, industrial systems which are allopoetic, based on external inputs of energy and resources and create wasted energy as entropy.
Nature’s cycles are zero waste and zero pollution systems, unlike the waste and pollution creating industrial systems driven by external energy.
Care for the Earth and her biodiversity is the Real Economy in which we participate, providing for the needs of others in our Earth Family who provide for us.
Cooperation, Mutuality, Synergy are the principles of Nature’s Economy, not competition and extractivism. Scarcity is a construct that is used to grab people’s lands and resources. The construct of scarcity and greed are the basis of conflicts and wars. Peace flows when all beings cooperate in mutuality and Gift Giving to create abundance and sustenance for all, making conservation and regeneration the basis of living economies and livelihoods.
That is why we pray, “May the peace of the earth, the air, the atmosphere, the waters, the plants, the trees … May that peace be with you”.
Cocreating nonviolently with Mother Earth is weaving peace, and providing for the basic needs of food and water, life and livelihoods of the last person. As Gandhi said: “The Earth has enough for everyone’s needs, not for a few people’s greed.”
We have a duty to protect the Earth‘s living systems and the infrastructure of life that provides us clean air, clean water and clean food. All beings have the right to the gifts of the Earth. All beings have a right to be alive, and to their share of ecological space. No person, no matter how rich they have become through extractivism, has the right to appropriate the share of others in participation in Nature’s Economy, the Economy of Life.
Living is participating in the processes of life.
Living is Commoning. Living is Reclaiming the commons of life and resisting the new enclosures through the financialisation of nature.
“The Currency of Life is Life, not Money”
Mother Earth connects us to her life and the Earth Family through flows of living currencies of energy and breath, water and nourishment.
Currency means flow. It is the flow of life and love through the web of life in nature and society which sustains us as one. As I have often repeated: “The currency of life is life, not money”. Food is the currency of life. Water is the currency of life. Breath is the currency of life. Living energy is the currency of life. Care is the currency of life. The diverse currencies of life grow the infrastructure of life so all lives thrive.
The ecological emergency is a consequence of the economy of Greed, of extractivism to make money, and making money the measure of value, and even the measure of being human. It is the basis of inhumanity, of violence and wars against the Earth and against people, in the name of grabbing resources for the market.
Colonial commerce was based on commodification and commercialisation of nature, leaving nothing for nature and local communities. Colonisers grew richer. Nature and colonised people became poorer.
The disease is now being offered as the cure. Markets and money are being offered as the solution to the ecological catastrophes they have caused. Economic growth, which is merely a measure of how much was extracted from nature and society to convert into money, capital, finances, is being offered as a solution to the ecological crises money-making and extractivism has led to.
The laws of Gaia are the basis of life on earth. They precede production, they precede trade, and they precede the market. The market depends on Gaia. Gaia does not depend on the market. Both the earth and society come first. They are sovereign and autonomous. They cannot be commoditised, and reduced to the market.
In a short 500 years of colonialism, the Robber Barons reduced Terra Madre, Mother Earth to Terra Nullius, dead, Empty Earth, property to be owned, raw material to be exploited. Earth centred communities living in peace with the Earth as part of the Earth were declared “primitive”. Oikonomia, the Art of Living was violently transformed into Chrematistics, the Art of Money Making.
They made the currencies of life disappear and replaced it with money and finance.
In 100 years of the Age of Oil, the Robber Barons displaced the living carbon of biodiversity with the counterfeit energy from fossilised dead carbon, disrupting the self regulation of Earth Systems, giving us pollution, wars and climate catastrophe.
Climate Change, the Extinction Emergency, the economic catastrophes and wars are rooted in greed and wars against the Earth and her Peoples. They are rooted in control of life by controlling the flow of seed going from farmer to farmer, the flow of water in a river, the flow of food to nourish all beings in the food web, the flow of money reflecting embodiment of real goods and resources, the flow of freedom and democracy, of knowledge and information. Controlling the flow is controlling life and freedom. This is how money is made, and power accumulated in the hands of a few.
Now the Robber Barons who gave us oil want to create new markets of carbon, new property in nature’s ecological services, by reducing Biodiversity and Nature into financial assets to be owned and traded[4].
In 2021, Rockefeller and the New York Stock Exchange launched Intrinsic Exchange Group (IEG)[5] whose mission focuses on “pioneering a new asset class based on natural assets and the mechanism to convert them to financial capital”[6]. A new colonialism, a new ownership, a new enclosure of the commons is being worked out by the Robber Barons who do not merely want to own nature, but also her ecological services. The assets include “Biological systems that provide clean air, water, foods, medicines, a stable climate, human health and societal potential”[7].
The Robber Barons of today, the philanthrocapitalists, the Blackrocks and Vanguards, are trying to own and privatise all of nature and our lives. They are mutating into life lords to whom we will have to pay rents to breathe, eat, drink. What nature provides for free as a Gift will now be a commodity we “buy” at high cost and through digital social credits in the new economy which builds on the old colonisation.
The money machine is trying to own the last seed, the last drop of water, the last river, extinguish the last forest and last farm, the last insect and blade of grass. Creating fictitious currencies, and fictitious finance, nature is being reduced to a “financial asset”, to be miraculously multiplied to $4000 trillion.
The 2008 financial crisis was the result of the financial Robber Barons magically expanding the $90 trillion economy of real goods and services like homes and food into a fictitious $512 trillion financial economy. The financial economy grew at the cost of millions who were unhoused and unfed as a result. The more the real world is turned into a financial asset, the more homelessness and hunger grows.
Wall Street and the financial asset companies are now seeing a $4000 trillion fictitious economy of finance by extracting profits from “Nature’s assets”, or the goods and services that the Earth produces. This commodification is an enclosure of the commons of life. It is an attempt to own the last river, the last forest and the last acre of land. It is a recipe to displace and dispossess the real custodians of nature, the indigenous people and small farmers leaving them without access to land, forests and water and their Earth-centred cultures and livelihoods. Hunger, poverty, disposability, and dispossession will grow. This is a violation of Nature’s Economy, Rights of Mother Earth, Rights of all beings and Human Rights.
Creating new algorithms to multiply finances and increase financial resources cannot regenerate the life lost in nature through ecological destruction. You can convert nature into cash through extractivism. But you cannot turn cash into nature.
An African peasant captured the ontological and ecological difference between money and life with a simple metaphor:
“You cannot turn a calf into a cow by plastering it with mud”[8]
Financialisation of Mother Nature, reducing her to an “asset” and commodity for sale continues the ontological blindness to how Mother Earth creates and sustains life through her auto-poetic currencies and life flows.
Money is a mere means of exchange of real goods and services produced through real work. Money mutated into the mysterious construct of “capital”, which could create wealth by denying the creativity of nature, women, farmers, workers, could enclose the commons and own the commons as private property. “Capital” then mutated into “investment”. Investment mutated, through multiple constructions into “returns on investment”, where those who do no real work but control wealth created by exploitation of nature and people accumulate more wealth, and use the wealth to further exploit nature and society. The ecological crisis grows. Poverty, misery, exclusion grows.
Financialisation of Nature is the latest step in the mutation of “invest” from giving care to profits and money making.
The original meaning of “invest” was to make something beautiful, to clothe. A mere ten years after the creation of the East India Company by 1610 the meaning of investment changed from being diverse ways of “clothing “ and “surrounding” to “use money to produce profit” in connection with corporate colonial trade.
It was John Locke who extended it to “circulation of money” to suit the needs of private property, money-centred structures being built by colonial commerce. And the delusion that money is the currency of life has allowed money-making and money-makers to be rewarded and even worshipped, while our sense of interconnectedness is extinguished, and with it our potential for compassion.
For them ‘Invest in the planet” means extract the last drop of life from the Earth Systems, extract the last freedom from humans and other species to be sustained by the earth, her flows, her currencies.
We need to return to the original meaning of “invest”, as clothing, and making beauty. We need to clothe the Earth with biodiversity of trees on our farms and forests, biodiversity of crops in our fields and gardens. We need to intensify biodiversity, to intensify photosynthesis, to intensify nature’s flows of life. We need to plant seeds and care for the living soil so the seed, soil and sun can intensify the flow of their living energies, healing broken cycles. We need to invest Love, Care and Compassion to Regenerate the Earth and stop the wars against the Earth and her peoples.
Peace, sustainability and justice call for an end to wars against the Earth in our minds, our lives.
The Colonial Age has enslaved our minds and broken our relationship with the Earth. The Fossil Fuel Age has fossilised our minds and hearts, making us helpless cogs in the oil machine, the money machine, cogs the machine is ready to substitute with robots and AI.
Mother Earth is waking us up to break free of the anthropocentric arrogance that makes rich and powerful humans blind to nature’s life, creativity, technologies, economy and allows them to deny us our rightful share and place as Earth Beings in Mother Earth’s Economy of Life to ensure life and well being, food and water for all.
As money and finance becomes more removed from nature’s economy and the real economies of sustenance that people create, as finance multiplies mysteriously, gets concentrated in the hands of a few billionaires, their Asset Management Funds, and the corporations they own, it is time to remember the prophecy of the Cree Native Americans.
“When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned, you will realise that you cannot eat money. ”
Seeding Our Common Future with Mother Earth
We are biological beings, ecological beings, earth beings, inter beings, spiritual beings. We are one Earth Family. Seeds are not machines. Plants are not machines. Animals are not machines. We are not machines. Our minds are not machines. We are conscious, intelligent caring beings with a potential to imagine and cultivate a future of peace and non violence, of abundance and well being.
Life is self-organised complexity and intelligence in constant evolution, interaction, change and emergence. From the seed I have learnt the power of autopoiesis, organised from within. Biodiversity of Seeds and Plants have been my teacher of abundance and freedom, of cooperation and mutual giving.
Seed, uncontaminated seed, Bija, Seme, Semilla- is the source of life, of regeneration and abundance. Seed renews and multiples. Seed Regenerates. On its own. Forever and ever and ever… Seed embodies the continuity of evolution.
From the Seed we can learn self-organisation, co-creation, regeneration. We can return to Earth to grow life in diversity and participate in the flow of life to provide for our needs. At a time when the Robber Barons have plans to own all of nature, all of the Earth, and force us to buy our needs, we need to follow the example of my sisters in Chipko who reminded us that the forests were not timber mines, they were sources of soil, water, and oxygen. They declared they would hug the trees to protect them and not let them be cut.
On Mother Earth Day and every day we live and breathe, whoever we are, where we are, let us hug Mother Earth in gratitude for the breath, food, water, life she gives and declare our deep love for life.
Mother Earth is Not for Sale
When I started the movement for Seed Freedom for saving seeds I travelled the country to create awareness about the Intellectual Property laws of Gatt/WTO through which corporations wanted to own seed as property. The tribals of Chattisgarh who evolved 200,000 varieties of rice told me how seed is a commons which has to be regenerated through sharing. Rice is called Akshat, the unbroken, the timeless, the breath of life. They asked me to return and join them for the festival of Akti, Akshaya Tritiya, a festival for celebrating the unbroken cycle of life, not as observers, but as participants in the cycle of regeneration and care. In a prayer that is said at Akshaya Tritiya, Mother Earth gives us instruction that the purpose of our lives is love and compassion for all beings.
“Relating to all living beings through love and compassion is the purpose of life”
सभी जीवों ( विविध जीवों) के प्रति सहृदयता का परिचय देना ही जीवन का लक्षण है।
David Korten awakens us to the potential we have to participate in the, “joyful exhilaration that comes from fulfilling our responsibility to share in the care of life”[9]
References
[1] A late and dear friend and a geneticist who worked on a quantum theory of biology.
Hunt, Tam. (2013). The rainbow and the worm: Establishing a new physics of life. Communicative & integrative biology. 6. e23149. 10.4161/cib.23149.
[2] Prentice, IC, Farquhar, GD, Fasham, MJR, Goulden, ML, Heimann, M, Jaramillo, VJ, Kheshgi, HS, Le Quere, C, Scholes, RJ & Wallace, DWR 2001, The carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon dioxide. in JT Houghton, Y Ding, DJ Griggs, M Noguer, PJ van der Linden, X Dai, K Maskell & CA Johnson (eds), Climate change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
This video looks at the paper cited by Dr Bryan Ardis as the main evidence that snake venom plays a role in the current plandemic. The paper purports to have found a potential association between venom-like peptides found from various animals and Covid-19. Dr. Kaufman gives an overview of the relevant issues related to the snake venom controversy and gives a critical appraisal of the experiment and conclusions.
Thanks to the arrival of the fake pandemic, I have spent the last two years trying to piece together various puzzles and, while some of the smaller pieces sometimes don’t fit correctly, most of the larger pieces fit fairly tightly.
The piecing-together is largely thanks to the hundreds of incredible podcast guests to whom I’ve had the pleasure of speaking. The more great minds to whom I speak, the less I know. It’s indeed humbling, especially because, as a political cartoonist of 17 years, I can confirm that humility is not a characteristic for which a satirist strives. After all, ridicule means positioning myself as excellent against those whom I consider mediocre.
Over the last two years I’ve noticed how, like me, others have gradually begun piecing together the various puzzles. But not many. As Belgian professor Mattias Desmet said, around 30% of all people will, sadly, remain asleep and blissfully continue their daily lives, believing the propaganda they’ve been fed by, what philosopher Curtis Yarvin refers to as, The Cathedral.
“The cathedral” is just a short way to say “journalism plus academia”—in other words, the intellectual institutions at the center of modern society, just as the Church was the intellectual institution at the center of medieval society.
But just as the sun began setting over the fake pandemic, a new sun rose over Ukraine, and the propaganda started from scratch.
We are in an information war, probably the most severe in history.
For example, before 2020, the research around masks was so clear that a discussion wasn’t even warranted. Here are over 150 comparative studies concluding that (different kinds of) masks do not prevent viral transmission. Today, however, that’s all changed. The Cathedral has done a sterling job at sowing confusion through deliberate misinformation; everybody just makes it up as they go along, these days.
The reason is because it’s not about a virus. It was never about virus.
It has always been about compliance and the ushering in of a new world order.
Why are they using the same terminology, and what is the “new world order”?
Firstly, it’s because the global elites – the Davos club – are in the same WhatsApp group. Secondly, it is precisely what the World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab refers to as The Fourth Industrial Revolution, a new paradigm in which the world is centrally governed by a few technocratic elites through the use of science and technology.
The more I try to piece together the puzzle, the more I realise that we’re in an information war.
We are told, daily, that SARS-CoV-2 is a deadly virus, but the all-cause mortality does not show that. Still, that doesn’t stop the propagandised types from punching blind.
Numerous times I’ve been shouted at with something along the lines of
“I have a friend who died from it!”
and when I ask
“how do you know?”
I get neither a coherent nor scientific answer. And that’s likely because he was programmed to believe that SARS-CoV-2 is a deadly virus and, as a result, no critical thought is required.
Same story with Ukraine.
All that matters is that we must believe what The Cathedral feeds us. Something something Putin is an evil dictator something something.
For example, the outrage over the Bucha massacre is unavoidable, and it’s all Russia’s fault.
Let’s not even get started on Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on.
All that matters is that you “stand with Ukraine”.
But the puzzle piece that constantly fascinates me is
“how do you know?”
SARS-CoV-2 is a deadly virus, yes? Vladimir Putin’s troops massacred the people of Bucha, yes? Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, yes? Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, yes? World Trade Centre Building 7 collapsed because of office fires, yes?
OTTAWA: After repeatedly calling on the University of Ottawa (U of O) to end its abusive and discriminatory practices, the Justice Centre is pleased announce that the University has stated it will cancel its mandatory vaccine policy for students as of May 1, 2022.
The Justice Centre represented a pregnant student who was suspended from her university program after deciding against the Covid vaccine. Her doctor advised her that her pregnancy was at high-risk for reasons unrelated to Covid and recommended that she complete her mandatory internship virtually, which was allowed by the curriculum.
However, the University of Ottawa refused to accommodate her, falsely claiming that she was trying to circumvent the vaccination policy and that there were no places available for a virtual internship.
Throughout the process, U of O made little to no effort to find a mutually acceptable solution, the student alleges, and refused to justify its decisions in light of the facts of the case.
“It is clear that the University of Ottawa did not intend to follow the ‘reasonable accommodation’ basic criteria set out by the Supreme Court of Canada more than 15 years ago,” notes Samuel Bachand senior external counsel for the Justice Centre in the province of Québec.
After negotiations and discussions with lawyers from the Justice Centre, the student managed to find a suitable placement for virtual internship on her own, which was finally approved by the University.
“The brazenness and bad faith of the University in this matter are appalling. There are clearly, among the people in authority there, bureaucrats who are willing to sacrifice the mission of their institution to irrational health concerns,” comments Mr. Bachand,
“It is well accepted in the scientific community that the Covid vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of the virus. There was no basis for the vaccine mandate at the University of Ottawa or any other post-secondary institution given that being vaccinated confers no special status or protection,” concludes Mr. Bachand.
“The snake venom theory by Dr. Bryan Ardis is built upon the interpretation of the unpurified fraudulent
“SARS-COV-2” genome which is itself built upon references to other fraudulent genomes of human and
animal “coronaviruses” created in the very same way. Attempting to claim any connections between the
random A,C,T,G’s in a computer database is a useless and pointless exercise as the RNA that was fabricated
into the genome of a “virus” was never purified, isolated, and proven to physically exist in the first place.
Thus any connections between the protein codes said to belong to a “virus” which are then said to be closely
related to supposed snake “coronaviruses” is immediately invalid.
Using this invalid premise to then claim that people have been poisoned by snake venom in the vaccines,
the drugs, and the water supply is nothing but unsubstantiated science fiction that seems designed to have
a few purposes:
To keep people engaged in the lie that a new disease known as “Covid-19” exists and that there is a
singular cause.
To restore faith in monoclonal antibodies and other toxic alternative treatments.
To use the theory to promote and sell anti-venom supplements.
To divide and distract those questioning the official narrative.
To make the “Truther” community look foolish by falling for loosely tied-together circumstantial
evidence that is easily debunked.”
“My story has never been to create fear, panic, and anxiety about water.” He said he told Peters that he believes “there’s actually a snake venom connection to all of COVID-19, and I think that’s the weapon.” – Dr. Bryan Ardis
Summarizing his theory, Dr. Ardis said, “They are using Krait venom and Cobra venom, calling it Covid-19, you’re drinking it, it’s getting into your brainstem and it’s paralyzing your diaphragm’s ability to breathe.”
I really didn’t want to write this article. I was hopeful that people would easily see right through the unsubstantiated claims of Dr. Bryan Ardis that snake venom is the cause of “Covid.” I was hopeful that people would take the time to research the information presented in support of the snake venom theory to see if it held any merit at all. I thought his whirlwind alternative media tour on the who’s who of questionable sources (including the likes of Stew Peters, Mike Adams, and Infowars) would have people questioning why this theory was allowed to be so heavily promoted so quickly. I thought that the fact that the man who created the “Covid” snake venom theory was actually selling his own anti-venom line of supplements would be enough grounds to be skeptical of his motive and his claims.
It seems I was wrong. Just like the baseless vaccine shedding and gain of function/bioweapons narratives, this new snake venom theory has sadly spread through the “Truther” community like wildfire, with many who rightfully challenge the existence of “viruses” clinging to the idea of a new invisible enemy to defeat. They believe that it must be a new toxin. It can’t possibly be the same factors we have seen each and every year leading to disease. This toxin must be hiding in the vaccines, the drugs, and/or even the very water we drink. What these “Truthers” do not realize is that this very line of thinking gives credibility to the idea of a new disease which requires new treatments in order to combat it. This is exactly what the pharmaceutical companies want you to believe.
However, there is NO NEW DISEASE. There is no need for any new or even existing pharmaceutical interventions to treat the same symptoms of detoxification people go through each and every year. In fact, the current treatments can easily be shown to have led to numerous unnecessary deaths. There is no new threat known as “Covid-19” which is being caused by any one factor. The factors leading to the symptoms of disease people are experiencing are multi-causal as they are every year.
Now this is not to say that the vaccines, the drugs, or even the water supply are free of toxins. These are all sources of toxicity and should be investigated as to their composition and effects on our health. However, the theory that there is one factor in all of these sources, i.e. snake venom, and this one factor is leading to the symptoms of disease people are experiencing is, at present time, completely baseless. And it all begins at the very foundation of the fraudulent genome.
The Fradulent Genome
You take that snake or that serpent and you figure out how to isolate genes from that serpent and get those genes of that serpent to insert itself into your God-given created DNA. I think this is the plan all along, was to get the serpents’, the evil one’s DNA, into your God-created DNA.”
He also said genetic sequence testing done on sick patients in Wuhan found their genetic sequence matched two snakes, the Chinese Krait and King Cobra, not bats.”
From Dr. Ardis’ interview with Mike Adams, he supplied the article “Snakes could be the source of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak” from CNN as his starting point for the “Covid”/snake connection. Within the article, you can see that this claim originates from the fraudulent genomes:
“The researchers used an analysis of the protein codes favored by the new coronavirus and compared it to the protein codes from coronaviruses found in different animal hosts, like birds, snakes, marmots, hedgehogs, manis, bats and humans. Surprisingly, they found that the protein codes in the 2019-nCoV are most similar to those used in snakes.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/
To anyone who actually researched the creation of the original “SARS-COV-2” genome, it is readily apparent that it is a fraudulent computer-generated creation stemming from the unpurified lung fluid of a single patient. The sequenced material could have come from multiple sources, including host DNA/RNA, bacteria, and microbes/microorganisms. It could have even come from outside contamination. There is no way to tell what the origin of the RNA is or even if it was a single source as no particles assumed to be “SARS-COV-2” were ever properly purified and isolated directly from the fluids of the sick patient before being sequenced. Thus, any relation this fabricated sequence has to any other sequence is invalid as the source was never identified to exist as a physical entity to begin with. Considering that the bat and snake “coronavirus” sequences for which the “SARS-COV-2” sequence was then compared to also come from unpurified sources, it is easy to see that any claims as to the origins of the sequenced material is a horrible foundation to build upon for an origin theory of a nonexistent “virus” and/or disease.
Even if this snake-venom connection was valid, the enzyme phospholipase A2 group IIA or sPLA2-IIA, which Dr. Ardis bases much of his claims on, only has similarities to rattlesnake venom. These peptides are “almost identical” to the venoms of animals and yet they are regularly found in healthy humans and other mammals. From his own source:
Like Venom Coursing Through the Body: Researchers Identify Mechanism Driving COVID-19 Mortality
“Researchers from the University of Arizona, in collaboration with Stony Brook University and Wake Forest School of Medicine, analyzed blood samples from two COVID-19 patient cohorts and found that circulation of the enzyme – secreted phospholipase A2 group IIA, or sPLA2-IIA, – may be the most important factor in predicting which patients with severe COVID-19 eventually succumb to the virus.
The sPLA2-IIA enzyme, which has similarities to an active enzyme in rattlesnake venom, is found in low concentrations in healthy individuals and has long been known to play a critical role in defense against bacterial infections, destroying microbial cell membranes.”
Thus, the snake enzymes are in fact normal human enzymes that are regularly found in healthy individuals. There is no mystery as to why these would be present in a sample. We should be able to put this “Covid” snake venom nonsense to bed right here. However, let’s press on a see what else we can uncover.
Antivenom = Monoclonal Antibodies
One thing I will give Dr. Ardis credit for is spotlighting the connection between the creation of antivenoms with the creation of monoclonal antibodies. The processes for both are very similar and the desired outcome is the exact same: the creation of theoretical antibodies. In the case of snake antivenom, it is normally created by a series of injections of the venom of a snake into an animal and then collecting the blood after a period of time. This is usually done through horses but other animals can be used as the host as well. Thus, the antivenom used for a snakebite victim is typically an injection of horse blood.
Both of these therapies have their basis in animal blood and the creation of the theoretical antibodies. Both are associated with toxic side effects. Sadly, while he was originally right about the fact that monoclonal antibodies are toxic and should not be used to treat the symptoms now collectively known as “Covid,” Dr. Ardis changed his tune when another doctor texted him asking if he would use antivenom for a snake bite:
“Last December, Dr Bryan Ardis received a text message from an Emergency Room physician friend of his that sent him down an unexpected and bizarre rabbit hole that may explain the adverse events from the vaccines that we’ve been reporting. The text read: “Hey Dr Ardis…If you got bit by a rattlesnake, would you go to a hospital and get anti-venom?”
“He says, “I realized, all of a sudden, monoclonal antibodies ARE anti-venom. The Federal Government doesn’t want us using anti-venom. Why are they fighting anti-venom and why are we finding anti-venom works against COVID? Is it not a virus? Is it a venom? This is what I want to know: Is COVID a venom and is this why they don’t want you using monoclonal antibodies?”
Do you see the trick? They want you to equate monoclonal antibodies with antivenom. This is supposed to be an “aha” moment where you realize that there is no way that you would not inject antivenom (i.e. horse blood) into yourself if bitten by a snake. It’s a no-brainer, right? We have all seen the movies where a person is bitten by a venomous snake and quickly dies if not given the antivenom.
If you are willing to accept the injection of horse blood into your body to survive a snake bite, why wouldn’t you also inject the cancer-cell cultured blood of genetically altered mice in order to combat “Covid?”
As Dr. Ardis points out, monoclonal antibodies are essentially antivenom. However, he wrongly states that monoclonal antibodies are an effective therapy. According to a September 2021 Cochrane review of the available studies, they found insufficient evidence to claim that monoclonal antibodies are an effective treatment for “SARS-COV-2:”
Are laboratory-made, COVID-19-specific monoclonal antibodies an effective treatment for COVID-19?
“The evidence for each comparison is based on single studies. None of these measured quality of life. Our certainty in the evidence for all non-hospitalised individuals is low, and for hospitalised individuals is very low to moderate.We consider the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs.”
In other words, the evidence for the usefulness of monoclonal antibodies is non-existent. Unfortunately, the Cochrane Review failed to point out that there are various risks and adverse reactions associated with their use:
Do mAbs have risks?
“Therapeutic mAbs, typically administered by intravenous (IV) infusion, have been a valuable and generally safe treatment option for a variety of conditions for many years. However, they are also known to cause a range of side effects and reactions, which can be immediate or delayed.Serious adverse events associated with mAbs include infusion reactions, acute anaphylaxis, and serum sickness, as well as longer-term complications such as infections, cancer, autoimmune disease, and cardiotoxicity.”
In January 2022, the FDA restricted the use of some monoclonal therapies (Bamlanivimab and Etesevimab) that are authorized against “Covid-19” as they were shown to be ineffective:
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Limits Use of Certain Monoclonal Antibodies to Treat COVID-19 Due to the Omicron Variant
“In light of the most recent information and data available, today, the FDA revised the authorizations for two monoclonal antibody treatments– bamlanivimab and etesevimab (administered together) and REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab) – to limit their use to only when the patient is likely to have been infected with or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments.
Because data show these treatments are highly unlikely to be active against the omicron variant,which is circulating at a very high frequency throughout the United States, these treatments are not authorized for use in any U.S. states, territories, and jurisdictions at this time. In the future, if patients in certain geographic regions are likely to be infected or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments, then use of these treatments may be authorized in these regions.
Monoclonal antibodies are laboratory-made proteins that mimic the immune system’s ability to fight off harmful pathogens such as viruses, like SARS-CoV-2. And like other infectious organisms, SARS-CoV-2 can mutate over time, resulting in certain treatments not working against certain variants such as omicron. This is the case with these two treatments for which we’re making changes today.”
On April 16th, 2022, the FDA revoked the use of Bamlanivimab alone as it’s benefits were shown not to outweigh its risks. Somehow despite this evidence, the FDA still allows for it to be used in combination with Etesevimab, even though they previously revoked their use together in January 2022:
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Revokes Emergency Use Authorization for Monoclonal Antibody Bamlanivimab
“Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) that allowed for the investigational monoclonal antibody therapy bamlanivimab, when administered alone, to be used for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adults and certain pediatric patients. Based on its ongoing analysis of emerging scientific data, specifically the sustained increase of SARS-CoV-2 viral variants that are resistant to bamlanivimab alone resulting in the increased risk for treatment failure,the FDA has determined that the known and potential benefits of bamlanivimab, when administered alone, no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for its authorized use. Therefore, the agency determined that the criteria for issuance of an authorization are no longer met and has revoked the EUA.
On Nov. 9, 2020, based on the totality of scientific evidence available at the time, the FDA issued an EUA to Eli Lilly and Co. authorizing the emergency use of bamlanivimab alone for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and pediatric patients (12 years of age and older weighing at least 40 kg) with positive results of direct SARS-CoV-2 viral testing, and who are at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization. Importantly, although the FDA is now revoking this EUA, alternative monoclonal antibody therapies remain available under EUA, including REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab, administered together), and bamlanivimab and etesevimab, administered together, for the same uses as previously authorized for bamlanivimab alone. The FDA believes that these alternative monoclonal antibody therapies remain appropriate to treat patients with COVID-19 when used in accordance with the authorized labeling based on information available at this time.”
If the FDA’s confusing revoking of the EUA’s of these monoclonal antibodies has you concerned that you will not be able to use them against an imaginary “virus,” don’t worry. The FDA authorized the use of a new “Omicron-specific” monoclonal antibody called Bebtelovimab on February 11th, 2022. Granted, it still carries the same risks, adverse side effects, and uncertainty over clinical worsening listed for the previously ineffective antibody therapies. From the FDA fact sheet:
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes New Monoclonal Antibody for Treatment of COVID-19 that Retains Activity Against Omicron Variant
“Possible side effects of bebtelovimab include itching, rash, infusion-related reactions, nausea and vomiting. Serious and unexpected adverse events including hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis and infusion-related reactions have been observed with other SARS-CoV2 monoclonal antibodies and could occur with bebtelovimab. In addition, clinical worsening following administration of other SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody treatment has been reported and therefore is possible with bebtelovimab. It is not known if these events were related to SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody use or were due to progression of COVID-19.”
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes New Monoclonal Antibody for Treatment of COVID-19 that Retains Activity Against Omicron Variant
Hypersensitivity Including Anaphylaxis and Infusion-Related Reactions: Serious hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis, have been observed with administration of other SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies and could occur with administration of bebtelovimab. If clinically significant hypersensitivity reactions occur, discontinue and initiate appropriate supportive care. Infusion-related reactions may occur up to 24 hours post injection. These reactions may be severe or life threatening. (5.1)
Clinical Worsening After SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibody Administration: Clinical worsening of COVID-19 after administration of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody treatment has been reported and may include signs or symptoms of fever, hypoxia or increased respiratory difficulty, arrhythmia (e.g., atrial fibrillation, sinus tachycardia, bradycardia), fatigue, and altered mental status. Some of these events required hospitalization. It is not known if these events were related to SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody use or were due to progression of COVID-19. (5.2)
Limitations of Benefit and Potential for Risk in Patients with Severe COVID-19: Treatment with bebtelovimab has not been studied in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. Monoclonal antibodies, such as bebtelovimab, may be associated with worse clinical outcomes when administered to hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring high flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation. (5.3)
It should be fairly clear that, unlike Dr. Ardis’ claims, monoclonal antibodies are not effective, carry numerous risky side effects, and can actually worsen the disease they are supposed to treat. Interestingly, this same risk of dangerous side effects and worsening disease outcomes is associated with snake antivenom as well. From the fact sheet of a commonly used antivenom for rattlesnake bites, we find these admitted side effects:
Rattlesnake Antivenin Side Effects Center
“Rattlesnake Antivenin (antivenin crotalidae polyvalent) is an antivenin product used only to treat envenomation caused by bites of crotalids (pit vipers) including rattlesnakes, copperhead and cottonmouth moccasins, and others. Common side effects of Rattlesnake Antivenin include allergic reactions such as flushing, itching, hives, swelling of the face/tongue/throat, cough, shortness of breath, blue color to the skin, vomiting, and anaphylaxis (severe allergic reaction).”
“Immediate systemic reactions (allergic reactions or anaphylaxis) can occur whenever a horse-serum-containing product is administered. An immediate reaction (e.g. shock, anaphylaxis) usually occurs within 30 minutes. Symptoms and signs may develop before the needle is withdrawn and may include apprehension, flushing, itching, urticaria; edema of the face, tongue, and throat; cough, dyspnea, cyanosis, vomiting, and collapse. There have been isolated reports of cardiac arrest and death associated with Antivenin (Crotalidae) Polyvalent (equine origin) use.”
“Serum sickness usually occurs 5 to 24 days after administration and its frequency may be related to the number of Antivenin vials administered.30 The incubation period may be less than 5 days, especially in those who have received horse-serum-containing preparations in the past. The usual symptoms and signs are malaise, fever, urticaria, lymphadenopathy, edema, arthralgia, nausea, and vomiting. Occasionally, neurological manifestations develop, such as meningismus or peripheral neuritis. Peripheral neuritis usually involves the shoulders and arms. Pain and muscle weakness are frequently present, and permanent atrophy may develop.”
Maybe the use of antivenom to treat a snakebite isn’t the super cure it has been sold to be? Is it possible that, as with many pharmaceutical products and interventions, the antivenom itself is creating the very symptoms it is said to treat? For some further insight, let’s look at a few highlights from an paper from September 2019, right before this “crisis,” which reviewed the use of antivenom and had a few revealing claims about the “anti” toxin. You will see it reiterated that the injection of antivenom created from either horse, sheep, goats, and/or rabbits can cause immediate hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis or a delayed “serum sickness” which can occur weeks after the treatment. It is stated that the antivenom has limited efficacy and can be entirely ineffective based on the geographic location. Improper use of antivenom contributes to increased servere outcomes and the production of antibodies in animals leads to a large number (70%) of immunoglobulins that do not react to snake venom:
Perspective on the Therapeutics of Anti-Snake Venom
3. Current Information in the Design of New Antivenoms
“Currently, the only accepted treatment for snakebite envenomation involves intravenous administration of conventional antivenoms comprising antibodies or antibody fragments derived from the plasma of large mammals (generally horses, but also sheep, goats, or rabbits) that have been previously immunized with non-lethal venomous doses [14,15]. Hyperimmunized animals produce antibodies against the venom proteins and serum is extracted from their blood for the treatment of envenomation [6,16]. Conventional serum therapy aims to bind and neutralize the snake venom proteins [17]. It is a fact that the antivenom allows the body to try to reverse the damage caused by the venom. However, it is known that such therapy can cause problems related to different antivenom characteristics, such as:
Immediate hypersensitivity reaction to the alien immunoglobulins, including anaphylactic and pyrogenic reactions such as chills, rigor, headache, and tachycardia. Delayed antivenom reactions or serum sickness is observed after 8 to 12 days of treatment; these are characterized by cutaneous eruptions, fever, and allergies, among other effects [18];
Limited efficacy of antivenom therapy to protect the affected organ/s against immediate local tissue damage and low stability;
Ineffectiveness of the antivenom due to significant geographic variation in the composition of the venom;
Antigenic reactivity due to the taxonomic diversity of the snakes;
Improper use of the antivenom due to incorrect medical management, which contributes to a high incidence of adverse reactions, a low toxin neutralizing potency, or both.
“Current antibody production faces challenges during the immunization of the animal (equine or ovine), leading to the production of a huge number of antibodies that are not related to the snake venom. Around 70% of the immunoglobulins obtained do not act directly against venom toxins [26]. Despite the abovementioned facts, this is the only FDA approved therapy to treat snake venom.”
A few other studies also point out the severe reactions regularly attributed to the use of antivenom. The first is a study from 2016 which points out that not only are adverse reactions common, they occur at a high rate. It is stated that this is due to poor quality control and manufacturing problems:
Adverse reactions to snake antivenom, and their prevention and treatment
“Antivenom is the mainstay of treatment of snakebite envenoming. However, adverse reactions to snake antivenom that is available are common in many parts of the world where snakebite is prevalent. Both acute (anaphylactic or pyrogenic) and delayed (serum sickness type) reactions occur. Acute reactions are usually mild but severe systemic anaphylaxis may develop, often within an hour or so of exposure to antivenom. Serum sickness after antivenom has a delayed onset between 5 and 14 days after its administration. Ultimately, the prevention reactions will depend mainly on improving the quality of antivenom.”
“The high rate of acute adverse reactions to antivenom is an example of how poor manufacturing and quality control by antivenom producers cause problems for patients and their doctors. This highlights the importance of addressing issues related to poor quality and potentially unsafe antivenom. Ultimately, the prevention of reactions will depend mainly on improving the quality of antivenom. Until these improvements take place, doctors will have to depend on pharmacological prophylaxis as well as careful observation of patients receiving antivenom in preparation for prompt management of acute as well as delayed reactions when they occur.”
This next source is from 2018 and it points out that early antivenoms were unsafe and caused severe life-threatening events. While they now have “acceptable” safety profiles, antivenoms still have varying quality and range from 10% adverse reactions to greater than 50%. This same variation in quality is seen in the production of monoclonal antibodies:
Antivenom therapy: efficacy of premedication for the prevention of adverse reactions
“However, in their initial applications, antivenoms did not exhibit good safety results and could even cause life-threatening side effects [8]. The main reason was that first antivenoms were poorly purified preparations or crude sera. Over the years, for many of the original applications, heterologous serums were replaced by other drugs with better safety profiles, such as antibiotics, vaccines and homologous serums. However, in cases of envenomation by snakes, scorpions or arachnids, antivenoms remain the only effective treatment [4]. Currently, after many improvements, antivenoms exhibit acceptable safety profiles [1, 9, 10]. Nevertheless, antivenom quality still varies widely depending on the producer, while some antivenoms exhibit adverse reaction rates of less than 10%, others have values of greater than 50% [11, 12].”
In is interesting to note that there are many factors that are said to influence the severity of a venomous snakebite including the age, sex, and health of the person bitten as well as the type of snake, the geographical location of the snake, the season the bite occurred in, what the snake ate, and how recently the snake released its venom. Antivenoms themselves have been shown to have varying effects in quality due to the geographical location of the snake which somehow renders the antivenom ineffective and even dangerous in different countries and continents, even against the same type of snake. It is said that this has kept locals from seeking out medical care and sticking to traditional healers:
“Snake venoms are highly complicated. At least 26 separate enzymes have been identified with 10 of these enzymes common to all snake venoms (though in different concentrations). All snake bites are not equal. The quality of venom depends not only on the type of snake but on the season, the geographical region, the age of the snake, and how recently it has released venom previously.”
“A study led by Dr Fry has found that antivenoms produced using snakes from one region may perform poorly or fail completely against the same species of snakes from other regions.
Researchers tested the effectiveness of two African and two Indian saw-scaled viper antivenoms against saw-scaled vipers from 10 regions.
The results showed that the two African antivenoms were only effective against snakes from restricted ranges.
One antivenom performed well against West African saw-scaled vipers and the other performed best against the East African saw-scaled vipers.
The Indian antivenom only worked against saw-scaled vipers from the region where the antidote was produced and failed against toxins from other Indian regions. It failed completely against African saw-scaled vipers.
“These antivenoms are being sold and used interchangeably to treat all saw-scaled viper bites, and in many cases they are not working,” Dr Fry says.
“In Kenya, snakebite deaths have increased dramatically after hospitals switched supplies of a very effective African antivenom with a cheaper Indian variety.”
“This creates a knock-on effect in these communities. It’s hard enough to convince people living in these regions not to go to traditional healers to treat snakebite. And if someone does seek proper medical care but dies because of ineffective antivenom, it will be even harder to convince the next victim to seek out antivenom.”
Viper venom’s lethal evolution
It’s the variety of the saw-scaled viper’s prey, from rodents to insects, that researchers say could be the reason why antivenom from one region might not work in another.
“Antivenom is effective and reliable when venom composition does not vary greatly between individual snakes,” UQ PhD candidate in Toxinology Bianca op den Brouw wrote in an article for The Conversation.
“Unfortunately, the venom composition from saw-scaled vipers varies between populations and is thought to be partly due to an evolutionary adaptation linked to their diet.
“Different saw-scaled viper populations feed on different prey. The physiology of these prey animals differs, and this dictates what makes a toxin effective.
“From a medical perspective, this means that the antibodies in an antivenom may not be able to adequately recognise and fight all the harmful toxins in the venom.”
Maybe the proceeding information on how snakebite antivenoms are created as well as the high rate of adverse events from the antibodies used for antivenom now has you questioning that initial “no-brainer” thought: “Of course I would use antivenom if bit by a snake.” If so, you are on the right track as, based on information from the African Snakebite Institute, in most snake bite cases, antivenom is not used and many snake bites are often unattended and/or unreported. In fact, it is apparently a well-known “myth” (i.e. truth in this case) that the antivenom kills more people than the snake venom itself. Most people (over 80%) never receive antivenom as, like the previous sources stated, it can have disastrous side-effects. Most snake bites do not cause symptoms warranting the use of something so toxic. In fact, snake bite victims are not immediately injected with antivenom and typically are sent home after observation:
“Yet people often have a poor understanding of how it works and there are endless myths about antivenom killing more people than the snake venom itself.”
“Few snakebite victims are treated with antivenom (less than 20 % of those hospitalised after a snakebite) as most victims are not severely envenomated or the bite may be from a snake that is not considered potentially deadly or is not covered by the antivenom (Rhombic Night Adder, Berg Adder and Stiletto Snake). Antivenom is relatively scarce, expensive and can have disastrous side-effects. The biggest danger is an acute allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) or, to a lesser degree, serum sickness that can affect the immune system several days after treatment.”
“Snakebite victims are not automatically injected with antivenom as most of them never experience symptoms severe enough to justify its use. The majority of snakes have control over their venom glands and are quite reluctant to waste their venom on humans. They very often give ‘dry’ bites with no subsequent symptoms of envenomation or the snake might inject a little bit of venom that will cause discomfort or some symptoms but nothing serious. Such patients are usually hospitalised for a day, carefully monitored and then sent home.”
“As already mentioned, some snakebite victims quickly have an allergic reaction to antivenom and this happens in more than 40% of all cases where antivenom is used. Some of those victims go into anaphylactic shock which is a life-threatening medical condition and must be treated with adrenaline. This has to do with the fact that our antivenom is made from horse blood and the allergy is basically an allergy to horse proteins.”
Bill Haast – repeated snake bite victim from the world’s deadliest snakes tragically died at the young age of 100 from natural causes. ?
If snake bites regularly do not cause symptoms and do not require the use of antivenom, are snake bites really as toxic and harmful as we previously thought? Are the dangerous side effects linked to snake bites really just the reactions to having horse blood injected into the body as treatment? Is this another case where the treatment causes the symptoms of disease it was supposed to prevent? If the examples of these next few individuals are taken into consideration, it’s entirely plausible to conclude that we have been misled about the dangers stemming from snakebites in order to cover for the toxic effects of the treatment:
Repeated snake bite for recreation: Mechanisms and implications
“There is a debate in the fatality/immunity due to repeated snake bites in human beings either accidentally or incidentally. Haast and Winer[11] reported complete recovery of a patient without any specific therapy even after bitten by a deadly snake Bangarus Caeruleus[11] and the authors attributed it to cross protection of existing antibody between species of Bangarus and Indian, African and Egyptian cobras, as he had a history of bites from these snakes earlier.”
This snake-man got himself bitten over 200 times to become immune to venom
“Bill Haast, a scientist turned snake-man from America, was bitten at least 173 times by poisonous snakes in his life till mid-2008 of which he was fatally injured about 20 times.”
“In the 1950s, he had few ill-effects and didnt need any anti-venom in spite of the fact that he was bitten by the cobras about 20 times as per the report published in Today I Found Out.“
Man makes deadly snakes bite him 160 times in hunt for human antidote
“An amateur scientist has deliberately endured more than 160 self-inflicted snake bites in a bid to become immune to venom.
Tim Friede is obsessed by finding a human antidote to poisonous snake bites, which kill an estimated 100,000 people every year.
Mr Friede was recently bitten by a taipan and a black mamba, two deadly snakes he keeps at his home in Wisconsin, USA, in addition to his two rattlesnakes and water cobra.
He said he experienced a “real throbbing sensation” but he “felt great” after the bites.
“It really hurts and it swells but that’s it,” he said.”
Poison pass: the man who became immune to snake venom
“A lot has been written about Steve Ludwin, widely known as the man who injects snake venom, and lately his life has turned into a non-stop frenzy of international journalists and film crews revelling in the seeming sheer insanity of it.”
“He’s been shooting, swallowing and scratching venom into his skin from some of the world’s deadliest snakes for 30 years. “Snakes are fucking everywhere. The symbol for medicine is two snakes. They’re ingrained in our brain and DNA,” he tells me, proudly insisting that he hasn’t been ill for decades and has developed “a superhuman immune system”. And it’s tempting to believe him. He does look undeniably fit.”
The Photographer Who Was Bitten by a Black Mamba… and Got the Shot “After several minutes and then hours passed and Laita was still feeling fine — experts recommend heading straight for a hospital, by the way — the crew concluded that Laita didn’t have any venom in his system. The photographer believes that it was either a “dry bite,” when a snake doesn’t release any venom, or that his heavy flow of blood pushed out the venom.”
As can be seen, there are numerous examples of people being deliberately and accidentally bitten by the world’s deadliest snakes who are completely fine and do not require treatment from antivenom whatsoever. Are we to conclude that these people are the lucky few who somehow have amazing super-human “immune” systems that render snake venom ineffective? Or have snake bites and the associated symptoms of venom toxicity been blown out of proportion? Could this be a case where some have had bad reactions to a snake bite just as there are those who have severe allergic reactions to bee stings while the majority of snake bite and bee sting victims come away unscathed? Could this be similar to the supposed rabies cases where the majority of those who were bitten by “rabid” animals actually went on to be just fine without getting the rabies vaccination?
The Treatments Are Worse Than the Disease
It’s very apparent that in the case of monoclonal antibodies and anivenom, the adverse effects of the drugs are actually worse than the supposed diseases they are meant to treat. Could this be due to the fact that, like “viruses,” so-called antibodies have never been properly purified, isolated, and proven to exist? The results of studies using antibodies are regularly unreproducible and irreplicable. It is well-known that antibodies are in fact not as specific as are they are claimed to be and are said to regularly bind to the wrong proteins. Perhaps it is difficult to produce safe and effective products when the entities that are supposed to be produced and supplied in the animal blood are entirely theoretical? Maybe the ridiculous snake venom theory should be viewed in the context that it is a bad idea to be injecting anything, let alone animal blood, into our bodies in an attempt to make ourselves feel better when trusting the body and allowing it to heal is often times the best course of action we can take.
In Summary:
Dr. Bryan Ardis put forth a theory that snake venom is the cause of “Covid-19” primarily based on fraudulent genomic data
The snake connection stems from research linking proteins from the fabricated “SARS-COV-2” genome to bat and snake “coronavirus” proteins
The enzyme phospholipase A2 group IIA or sPLA2-IIA, which Dr. Ardis bases much of his claims on, only has similarities to rattlesnake venom
These peptides are “almost identical” to the venoms of animals and are regularly found in healthy humans and other mammals
Dr. Ardis pointed out that, based on a text, he uncovered the connection between antivenom and monoclonal antibodies and stated that theyare the same thing
He wrongly concluded that monoclonal antibodies are an effective treatment for snake poisons that could be in the vaccines, Remdesivir, and water
According to a Sept 2021 Cochrane Review, their certainty in the evidence for the use of monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of “Covid” for all non-hospitalised individuals was low, and for hospitalised individuals was very low to moderate
They considered the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with “SARS-CoV-2-neutralising” mAbs
Monoclonal antibodies are known to cause a range of side effects and reactions, which can be immediate or delayed
Serious adverse events associated with mAbs include infusion reactions, acute anaphylaxis, and serum sickness, as well as longer-term complications such as infections, cancer, autoimmune disease, and cardiotoxicity
In February 2022, the FDA revised the authorizations for two monoclonal antibody treatments – bamlanivimab and etesevimab (administered together) and REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab) – to limit their use to only when the patient is likely to have been infected with or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments
The data showed these treatments are highly unlikely to be active against the omicron variant which is circulating at a very high frequency throughout the United States
These treatments are not authorized for use in any U.S. states, territories, and jurisdictions at this time
Monoclonal antibodies are laboratory-made proteins that mimic the immune system’s ability to fight off harmful pathogens
In April 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) that allowed for the investigational monoclonal antibody therapy bamlanivimab, when administered alone, to be used for the treatment of mild-to-moderate “COVID-19” in adults and certain pediatric patients
Based on its ongoing analysis of emerging scientific data, specifically the sustained increase of “SARS-CoV-2 viral” variants that are resistant to bamlanivimab alone resulting in the increased risk for treatment failure, the FDA determined that the known and potential benefits of bamlanivimab, when administered alone, no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for its authorized use
Importantly, although the FDA revoked this EUA, alternative monoclonal antibody therapies remain available under EUA, including REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab, administered together), and bamlanivimab and etesevimab, administered together, for the same uses as previously authorized for bamlanivimab alone
In other words, the use of Bamlanivimab and Etesevimab was revoked as well as the use of Bamlanivimab but they can still be used together as an alternative to Bamlanivimab alone…
For the Omicron-specific Bebtelovimab authorized by the FDA in February 2022, possible side effects include
Itching
Rash
Infusion-related reactions
Nausea
Vomiting
Serious and unexpected adverse events including hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis and infusion-related reactions have been observed with other “SARS-CoV2” monoclonal antibodies and could occur with bebtelovimab
In addition, clinical worsening following administration of other “SARS-CoV-2” monoclonal antibody treatment has been reported and therefore is possible with bebtelovimab
The FDA claims that it is not known if these events were related to “SARS-CoV-2” monoclonal antibody use or were due to progression of “COVID-19”
Treatment with Bebtelovimab has not been studied in patients hospitalized due to “COVID-19”
Monoclonal antibodies, such as Bebtelovimab, may be associated with worse clinical outcomes when administered to hospitalized patients with “COVID-19” requiring high flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation
Antivenom carries the same risks of severe side effects and worsening condition as monoclonal antibodies
The listing for common side effects of Rattlesnake Antivenin include allergic reactions such as:
Flushing
Iitching
Hives
Swelling of the face/tongue/throat
Cough
Shortness of breath
Blue color to the skin
Vomiting, and anaphylaxis (severe allergic reaction)
Immediate systemic reactions (allergic reactions or anaphylaxis) can occur whenever a horse-serum-containing product is administered
There have been isolated reports of cardiac arrest and death associated with Antivenin (Crotalidae) Polyvalent (equine origin) use
Serum sickness usually occurs 5 to 24 days after administration and its frequency may be related to the number of Antivenin vials administered
The usual symptoms and signs are:
Malaise
Fever
Urticaria
Lymphadenopathy
Edema
Arthralgia
Nausea
Vomiting
Occasionally, neurological manifestations develop, such as meningismus or peripheral neuritis
Peripheral neuritis usually involves the shoulders and arms and pain and muscle weakness are frequently present, and permanent atrophy may develop
A 2019 review on antivenom stated that currently, the only accepted treatment for snakebite envenomation involves intravenous administration of conventional antivenoms comprising antibodies or antibody fragments derived from the plasma of large mammals (generally horses, but also sheep, goats, or rabbits) that have been previously immunized with non-lethal venomous doses
It is known that such therapy can cause problems related to different antivenom characteristics, such as:
Immediate hypersensitivity reaction to the alien immunoglobulins, including anaphylactic and pyrogenic reactions such as chills, rigor, headache, and tachycardia.
Delayed antivenom reactions or serum sickness is observed after 8 to 12 days of treatment; these are characterized by cutaneous eruptions, fever, and allergies, among other effects
Limited efficacy of antivenom therapy to protect the affected organ/s against immediate local tissue damage and low stability
Ineffectiveness of the antivenom due to significant geographic variation in the composition of the venom;
Antigenic reactivity due to the taxonomic diversity of the snakes
Improper use of the antivenom due to incorrect medical management, which contributes to a high incidence of adverse reactions, a low toxin neutralizing potency, or both
Current antibody production faces challenges during the immunization of the animal (equine or ovine), leading to the production of a huge number of antibodies that are not related to the snake venom
Around 70% of the immunoglobulins obtained do not act directly against venom toxins
According to a 2016 study, adverse reactions to snake antivenom that is available are common in many parts of the world where snakebite is prevalent
The high rate of acute adverse reactions to antivenom is an example of how poor manufacturing and quality control by antivenom producers cause problems for patients and their doctors
The prevention of reactions will depend mainly on improving the quality of antivenom
According to their initial applications, antivenoms did not exhibit good safety results and could even cause life-threatening side effects
Currently, after many improvements, antivenoms exhibit “acceptable” safety profiles yet antivenom quality still varies widely depending on the producer, while some antivenoms exhibit adverse reaction rates of less than 10%, others have values of greater than 50%
All snake bites are not equal and the quality of venom depends not only on the type of snake but on the season, the geographical region, the age of the snake, and how recently it has released venom previously
A study led by Dr. Fry found that antivenoms produced using snakes from one region may perform poorly or fail completely against the same species of snakes from other regions
The results showed that the two African antivenoms were only effective against snakes from restricted ranges
One antivenom performed well against West African saw-scaled vipers and the other performed best against the East African saw-scaled vipers
The Indian antivenom only worked against saw-scaled vipers from the region where the antidote was produced and failed against toxins from other Indian regionand it failed completely against African saw-scaled vipers
“These antivenoms are being sold and used interchangeably to treat all saw-scaled viper bites, and in many cases they are not working,” Dr Fry said
If someone does seek proper medical care but dies because of ineffective antivenom,it will be even harder to convince the next victim to seek out antivenom
Antivenom is effective and reliable when venom composition does not vary greatly between individual snakes
Unfortunately, the venom composition from saw-scaled vipers varies between populations and is thought to be partly due to an evolutionary adaptation linked to their diet
From a medical perspective, this means that the antibodies in an antivenom may not be able to adequately recognise and fight all the harmful toxins in the venom
There are endless myths about antivenom killing more people than the snake venom itself
Few snakebite victims are treated with antivenom (less than 20 % of those hospitalised after a snakebite
Antivenom is relatively scarce, expensive and can have disastrous side-effects
Snakebite victims are not automatically injected with antivenom as most of them never experience symptoms severe enough to justify its use
Snakes very often give ‘dry’ bites with no subsequent symptoms of envenomation or the snake might inject a little bit of venom that will cause discomfort or some symptoms but nothing serious
Such patients are usually hospitalised for a day, carefully monitored and then sent home
Some snakebite victims quickly have an allergic reaction to antivenom and this happens in more than 40% of all cases where antivenom is used
This has to do with the fact that antivenom is made from horse blood and the allergy is basically an allergy to horse proteins
Haast and Winer reported complete recovery of a patient without any specific therapy even after bitten by a deadly snake Bangarus Caeruleus and the authors attributed it to cross protection of existing antibody between species of Bangarus and Indian, African and Egyptian cobras, as he had a history of bites from these snakes earlier
Bill Haast, a scientist turned snake-man from America, was bitten at least 173 times by poisonous snakes in his life till mid-2008 of which he was seriously injured about 20 times
In the 1950s, he had few ill-effects and didnt need any anti-venom in spite of the fact that he was bitten by the cobras about 20 times
An amateur scientist named Tim Friede deliberately endured more than 160 self-inflicted snake bites in a bid to become immune to venom
Mr Friede was recently bitten by a taipan and a black mamba, two deadly snakes he keeps at his home in Wisconsin, USA, in addition to his two rattlesnakes and water cobra
He said he experienced a “real throbbing sensation” but he “felt great” after the bites
Steve Ludwin, widely known as the man who injects snake venom, has been shooting, swallowing and scratching venom into his skin from some of the world’s deadliest snakes for 30 years
He hasn’t been ill for decades and has developed “a superhuman immune system”
A photographer was bit by the deadliest snake, a Black Mamba, and after hours passed, he was still feeling fine and needed no treatment
The snake venom theory by Dr. Bryan Ardis is built upon the interpretation of the unpurified fraudulent “SARS-COV-2” genome which is itself built upon references to other fraudulent genomes of human and animal “coronaviruses” created in the very same way. Attempting to claim any connections between the random A,C,T,G’s in a computer database is a useless and pointless exercise as the RNA that was fabricated into the genome of a “virus” was never purified, isolated, and proven to physically exist in the first place. Thus any connections between the protein codes said to belong to a “virus” which are then said to be closely related to supposed snake “coronaviruses” is immediately invalid.
Using this invalid premise to then claim that people have been poisoned by snake venom in the vaccines, the drugs, and the water supply is nothing but unsubstantiated science fiction that seems designed to have a few purposes:
To keep people engaged in the lie that a new disease known as “Covid-19” exists and that there is a singular cause.
To restore faith in monoclonal antibodies and other toxic alternative treatments.
To use the theory to promote and sell anti-venom supplements.
To divide and distract those questioning the official narrative.
To make the “Truther” community look foolish by falling for loosely tied-together circumstantial evidence that is easily debunked.
If we are to take the claims of Dr. Ardis seriously that the symptoms associated with snake venom is the true cause of a disease known as “Covid-19,” how does his theory explain for the fact that the antivenom and monoclonal antibody treatments cause the exact same symptoms of the disease they are supposed to treat? How would it be determined that the worsening clinical outcomes after injection are from the snake bites/venom rather than the antivenom/monoclonal antibodies given as treatment? How does his theory account for the numerous instances where people have been deliberately bitten by snakes, injected with the venom of snakes, and drank of the venom of the snakes with little to no harmful effects whatsoever? How does his theory account for the fact that the vast majority of “Covid” cases are asymptomatic and the vast majority of snake bite cases need no treatment at all? There are many holes in this theory which will easily be picked apart to make those who follow it look foolish for having done so.
There is no “SARS-COV-2.” There is no “Covid-19.” There is no new disease nor any new symptoms of disease requiring treatment from vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, NAC, nor any other treatment. There is no need for any anti-venom supplements.
Beware those who will sell you the cause of the disease and the solution.
In a stunning move – soon to be filed under the “completely lost touch with America” folder – the Biden administration is reportedly planning to appeal the ruling that lifted the COVID mask mandate on travel, just hours after most major airlines and airports (and ground transportation) has dropped their mask rules.
It was evident this was coming earlier in the day after White House spokesperson Jen Psaki warned and Xavier Becerra, Biden’s health secretary, told reporters in Nevada, that “we are right now in the process of deciding, and we likely will appeal that ruling, but stay tuned.”
Jonathan Turley offered some insight before the actual decision was made to appeal if CDC thinks it necessary:
The Administration is going to have a hard time making this cat walks backwards. The cheering of passengers and pilots seemed as much as a communication to the Administration as it was a celebration. A large number of airlines immediately declared the mandate to be dead and unenforceable. It is like throwing a retirement party for an employee before they have decided to go. It is a tad awkward to express doubts when someone is showing you the door.
That is why those cheering videos could have a greater impact on the White House than any CDC or DOJ recommendation. The Biden Administration could still appeal as it has in past such cases. There will certainly be many DOJ lawyers asserting that they could win on appeal on the basis of agency deference. The question is who would tell the public. They may have to wait for the “ding, dong” parties to end.
But, given all that, they decided it was worth it…
Justice Department Issues Statement on Ruling in Health Freedom Defense Fund Inc, et. al. v. Biden, et. al.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Justice today released the following statement on Health Freedom Defense Fund Inc., et. al. v. Biden, et. al. from spokesman Anthony Colev:
“The Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) disagree with the district court’s decision and will appeal, subject to CDC’s conclusion that the order remains necessary for public health. The Department continues to believe that the order requiring masking in the transportation corridor is a valid exercise of the authority Congress has given CDC to protect the public health. That is an important authority the Department will continue to work to preserve.
“On April 13,2022, before the district court’s decision, CDC explained that the order w’ould remain in effect while it assessed current public health conditions, and that the Transportation Security Administration would extend its directive implementing the order until May 3 to facilitate CDC’s assessment.
“If CDC concludes that a mandatory order remains necessary for the public’s health after that assessment, the Department of Justice wall appeal the district court’s decision.“
So, if the CDC – against all the actual science – concludes that wearing a mask should remain mandatory, instead of leaving it as a personal decision, the Biden DoJ will appeal the ruling that was celebrated by most.
The more we ponder this decision, the more this smells like The DoJ throwing The CDC under the bus. The reason being that The CDC now has to come up with some “science” reason to re-mandate the masks (which we know they can’t) and therefore The DoJ is therefore covered if people try to blame them for not appealing.
And the winner of the most ironic sentence of the day goes to White House spokesperson Jen Psaki, who after relying on court ruling after court ruling to enforce varying levels of health tyranny for the last 15 months, uttered the following in her out-loud voice…
“Public health decisions shouldn’t be made by the courts. They should be made by public health experts.”
Who said the left doesn’t do humor… talking of which…
Babylon Bee has some advice for those still living in fear:
It can be difficult, though, to suddenly see all those triggering human faces after the government coddled you and fed your psychotic delusion and fear for the last two years.
Here are seven ways to cope:
Close your eyes and imagine everyone is wearing a full hazmat suit. – It’s a neat little trick that actually works.
Scream at the sky. – This is a well-known coping mechanism. It works especially well if you record your scream onto your TikTok account.
Play The Sims 4 and manage other people’s lives like you’re an all-powerful god to your heart’s content. – Now you can drown people by surrounding their swimming pools with an impenetrable wall of potted plants. You’re in charge here!
Upgrade to 3 or 4 masks, or just roll around in a giant hamster ball. – Keep upping the number of masks you wear, but if that’s not enough, go the hamster ball route.
Get your pilot’s license and start your own airline. – aIrLiNeS aRe PrIvAtE cOmPaNiEs ThEy CaN dO wHaT tHeY wAnT!
Just remember, we’re all in this together. – It’s just for a little while. It’s a small sacrifice to make. If it saves one toddler from a speech impediment it’s all worth it.
Never go outside again. – Curl up in a ball and live out the rest of your days in the corner of your home, completely safe from COVID.
Bear in mind that nothing is stopping the fearful from ‘masking up’ against the virus…
“you are free to wear masks if you like… if they work, they will protect you, if they don’t why mandate them?”
Presumably there are a number of “political science” reasons for the appeal:
1) “Trump” judge
2) Offering a bone to whatever is left on the ‘Democratic base’ amid the unhinged rantings of the blue-checks on Twitter as the dissonance suddenly strikes that they have been wearing face diapers for 2 years for no reason.
3) Making sure to maintain the role as the “party of science“…
4) …ok we couldn’t think of any more… apart from ‘scream to the sky’
When people think of the causes of the American War for Independence, they think of slogans like “no taxation without representation” or cause célèbre like the Boston Tea Party.
In reality, however, what finally forced the colonials into a shooting war with the British Army in April 1775 was not taxes or even warrant-less searches of homes and their occupation by soldiers, but one of many attempts by the British to disarm Americans as part of an overall gun control program, according to David B. Kopel.
Furthermore, had the American colonies lost their war for independence, the British government intended to strip them of all their guns and place them under the thumb of a permanent standing army.
In his paper titled “How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution,” Kopel claims that various gun control policies by the British following the Boston Tea Party, including a ban on firearm and gunpowder importation, tells us not only the purpose of the Second Amendment, but its relevance within the context of today’s gun control debate.
“The ideology underlying all forms of American resistance to British usurpations and infringements was explicitly premised on the right of self-defense of all inalienable rights,” Kopel writes. “From the self-defense foundation was constructed a political theory in which the people were the masters and government the servant, so that the people have the right to remove a disobedient servant. The philosophy was not novel, but was directly derived from political and legal philosophers such as John Locke, Hugo Grotius, and Edward Coke.”
Kopel writes that two important things underlined the American response to the British policies. One was the practical concept of self-defense, which British disarmament measures was making more difficult. The other, and more relevant concept, was that “Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government.”
Following the Boston Tea Party in December 1773, in which the Sons of Liberty boarded three ships carrying East India Company cargo and dumped forty-six tons of tea ships of tea to prevent its landing, the British government introduced a series of retaliatory measures known as the Intolerable Acts. Among the actions was the closure of Boston’s port, effectively cutting off all trade.
However, Kopel writes, “it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them (the Intolerable Acts) that primed many colonists for armed resistance.”
An example of this is a South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, that urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate (bold emphasis added).
“When an Army is sent to enforce Laws, it is always an Evidence that either the Law makers are conscious that they had no clear and indisputable right to make those Laws, or that they are bad [and] oppressive. Wherever the People themselves have had a hand in making Laws, according to the first principles of our Constitution there is no danger of Nonsubmission, Nor can there be need of an Army to enforce them.”
The British Army had already been occupying American cities like Boston since 1768, where the notorious Boston Massacre took place in 1770. Following the passage of the intolerable Acts, the Massachusetts Government Act dissolved the provincial government in the state, and General Thomas Gage was appointed royal governor, all which inflamed tensions and prompted backlash from Americans who saw it as the Crown attempted to force their colonies into submission.
Tensions were so great, in fact, that the shooting might have started much earlier than Lexington and Concord. In one incident, General Gage sent Redcoats to squash an “illegal” town meeting in Salem, only to retreat when, according to one of Gage’s aides, three thousand armed Americans arrived.
It was clear to the British that gun control measures would be necessary if they were to maintain their rule. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston, while there were thousands of armed men in Boston and more in the surrounding area.
One solution, Kopel writes, was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder. In September 1774, several hundred Redcoats raided a Charlestown powder house – where militias and merchants stored their gunpowder due to its volatile nature – and seized all but the powder belonging to the colonial government.
“Gage was within his legal rights to seize it,” Kopel concludes. “But the seizure still incensed the public.”
Known as the Powder Alarm, this also nearly started the Revolution when rumors spread wildly that the Redcoats had started shooting. In response, 20,000 militiamen were mobilized that same day and marched on Boston – they later turned around once they learned the truth.
The Powder House (“Magazine”) is near the northern edge of this detail from a 1775 map of the Siege of Boston.
Still, Kopel writes, the message was clear:
“If the British used violence to seize arms or powder, the Americans would treat that seizure as an act of war, and the militia would fight,” he writes. “And that is exactly what happened several months later, on April 19, 1775.”
Following the Powder Alarm, the militia of the towns of Worcester County assembled at the Worcester Common, where the Worcester Convention ordered the resignations of all militia officers who had received their commissions from the royal governor. The officers promptly resigned, and then received new commissions from the Worcester Convention, independent of the British administration.
Governor Gage then tried another approach – warrantless searches of people for arms and ammunition without any provocation. The policy drew fierce criticism from the colonists. In fact, the Boston Gazette wrote that of all General Gage‘s offenses, it was this one that outraged people the most.
In October 1774 the Provincial Congress convened, with John Hancock acting as its president. The Congress adopted a resolution that condemned the military occupation of Boston and called on private citizens to arm themselves and engage in military drills. The Provincial Congress also appointed a Committee of Safety, giving it the power to call up the militia. This meant that the militia of Massachusetts “no longer answered to the British government,” Kopel writes. “It was now the instrument of what was becoming an independent government of Massachusetts.”
Not surprisingly, British officials in England were eager to see outright gun confiscation in order to effectively suppress any resistance to their rule. Lord Dartmouth, the royal Secretary of State for America, articulated this sentiment in a letter to Governor Gage.
“Amongst other things which have occurred on the present occasion as likely to prevent the fatal consequence of having recourse to the sword, that of disarming the Inhabitants of the Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut and Rhode Island, has been suggested. Whether such a Measure was ever practicable, or whether it can be attempted in the present state of things you must be the best judge; but it certainly is a Measure of such a nature as ought not to be adopted without almost a certainty of success, and therefore I only throw it out for your consideration.”
Gage warned that the only way to carry it out would be to use violence (bold emphasis added):
“Your Lordship‘s Idea of disarming certain Provinces would doubtless be consistent with Prudence and Safety, but it neither is nor has been practicable without having Recourse to Force, and being Masters of the Country.”
The gun confiscation proposal didn’t remain secret for long, as Gage‘s letter read in the British House of Commons and then publicized in America. Two days after Dartmouth’s letter was sent, King George III ordered the blocked importation of arms and ammunition to America, save those with governments permits. No permit, Kopel writes, was ever granted, and the ban would remain in effect until after the War of Independence ended and the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783.
Having banned the import on all guns and ammunition, the British moved next to seize that which remained in colonial hands. In anticipation of such a seizure at Fort William and Mary in December 1774, four hundred New Hampshire patriots preemptively captured all the material at the fort.
Eventually, Kopel writes “Americans no longer recognized the royal governors as the legitimate commanders-in-chief of the militia. So without formal legal authorization, Americans began to form independent militia, outside the traditional chain of command of the royal governors.”
It was such a militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord against Gage’s Redcoats in April 1775. Following the battle, the colonials lay siege to Boston. The British response in other colonies was a swift move to confiscate or destroy firearms. In Virginia, they seized twenty barrels of gunpowder from the public magazine in Williamsburg and removed the firing mechanisms in the guns, making them impossible to shoot.
Meanwhile, in Boston, General Gage carried out his own gun confiscation policy against the remaining Bostonians, but having learned his lesson from Lexington and Concord, he tried a more furtive approach by offering them the opportunity to leave town if they gave up their arms. Within days, Kopel writes, 2,674 guns were handed over to the British. Gage then promptly turned back on his promise and initially refused to allow anyone to leave. Only food shortages led him to permit more emigration from the city.
Although there is room for speculation as to what would have happened had the American colonies lost the War of Independence, historical documents make some things very clear. When a British victory seemed likely in 1777, Colonial Undersecretary William Knox drafted a plan titled “What Is Fit to Be Done with America?” Intended to prevent any further rebellions in America, the plan called on the establishment of the Church of England in all the colonies, along with a hereditary aristocracy.
But the most ominous measure it would have enacted would have been a permanent standing army, along with the following (emphasis added):
The Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, [and] the Arms of all the People should be taken away . . . nor should any Foundery or manufactuary of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without Licence . . .”
Many gun control policies in America today follow the British blueprint. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, for example, prohibits the import of any firearm which is not deemed suitable for “sporting” purposes by federal regulators. Certain cities openly declare their gun fees are intended not to prevent the wrong people from owning guns, but to discourage all private citizens from owning them.
“To the Americans of the Revolution and the Founding Era,” Kopel writes, “the late twentieth century claim that the Second Amendment is a collective right and not an individual right might have seemed incomprehensible. The Americans owned guns individually, in their homes. They owned guns collectively, in their town armories and powder houses. They would not allow the British to confiscate their individual arms, or their collective arms; and when the British tried to do both, the Revolution began.”
Yet, Kopel believes “the most important lesson for today from the Revolution is about militaristic or violent search and seizure in the name of disarmament,” something that occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Local law enforcement confiscated firearms, many times at gunpoint. A federal district judge properly issued an order finding the gun confiscation to be illegal.
“Gun ownership simpliciter ought never be a pretext for government violence,” Kopel concludes. “The Americans in 1775 fought a war because the king did not agree. Americans of the twenty-first century should not squander the heritage of constitutional liberty bequeathed by the Patriots.”
It is easy to see, then, why modern gun control advocates are the spiritual successors of the British government our forefathers opposed, for while gun grabbers call for restrictions on the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms, they are all but silent on the dangers of having standing army in America or the blatant militarization of police departments.
As you should know by now, the threat facing free humanity is not a secret conspiracy but a perfectly open one. Those seeking to monopolize the resources of the planet and institute a system of perfect technocratic control are, generally speaking, not secretive about their plans. On the contrary. Any number of publicly available records—from books and white papers to blog posts, fora and lectures—give an interested public plenty of lead time to prepare for the next steps in the unfolding globalist agenda.
So, in the grand Corbett Report tradition of Listening to the Enemy, let’s employ one of the simplest methods for understanding what’s coming next in the global plan: let’s consult the would-be world controllers’ own calendar.
JUNE 2022: Stockholm+50
As post-graduate students of The University of Corbett, you will already know about the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm, Sweden in 1972 . . . but in case you need a refresher, you might want to consult How & Why Big Oil Conquered the World, where you can learn all about that Stockholm summit.
In addition to being Maurice Strong’s entrée into the exciting (and lucrative) world of Big Oil environmentalism, the conference also laid the groundwork for the UN-fronted corporate takeover of the world’s resources under the pretense of “saving Mother Earth.” It served a triple function for the globalists: it launched the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), it provided a template for the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, and it hosted the first talking shop for what would become Agenda 21 and, eventually, Agenda 2030.
Well, guess what? It’s baaaaack.
That’s right, our good, planet-loving overlords at the United Nations are back to the scene of the crime to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Stockholm conference with a new summit in the Swedish capital, this one with the characteristically uninspired name “Stockholm+50: a healthy planet for the prosperity of all – our responsibility, our opportunity.”
Lest you think “Stockholm+50” is simply going to be an excuse for the global jet set to pat themselves on the back with a couple of forgettable political speeches or the unveiling of a new plaque, you should know that a great deal of planning has gone into this:
The UN General Assembly has passed not one but two resolutions on the establishment of the conference and its agenda;
A “blog by jurists for diplomats” entitled Pathway to the 2022 Declaration has been launched to influence the conversation surrounding the “Political Declaration” (capital letters and all) that “will be adopted” at the conference (emphasis theirs);
And yet another website has been set up to host the “Declaration for Stockholm+50,” which may or may not be the “Political Declaration” referenced above and which has been endorsed by a gaggle of globalist NGOs.
In addition to all of this, Stockholm will also host “World Environment Day 2022” on June 5th, 2022, the anniversary of the creation of UNEP.
So what is all this hype about, exactly? Oh, just the usual globalist claptrap. By “the usual globalist claptrap” I mean the takeover of the planet and its resources by the predator class, of course. But don’t take my word for that. From the aforementioned Declaration for Stockholm+50:
On October 8, 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) recognized the “right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.” For this right to be implemented, structural changes to the legal, economic, social, political, and technological spheres will be required to restore a stable and well-functioning Earth System. A shared consciousness of our global interdependence must give rise to a new common logic, to define and recognize the global commons that support life on Earth — the planetary system that connects us all and on which we all depend. This is a foundational step toward the establishment of a governance system to effectively manage human interactions with the Earth System.
Yes, exactly as one would expect, the “save the planet” slogan is being used as a rallying cry for . . .
( . . . wait for it . . .)
. . . the strengthening of global government! Wow, who would have seen that one coming?
Specifically, after vague and wooly rhetoric about “implementing the right to a healthy environment” and “establishing a regenerative economy,” the declaration ends by imploring the good folks at the United Nations to give themselves more power! Yaaaay!
The long-term governance of the global commons, the delivery of global public goods, and management of global public risks all require a permanent system of effective governance to reliably manage our interactions with the Earth System as a whole. For example, a proposal to repurpose the inactive United Nations Trusteeship Council has been widely discussed, including most recently in the UN Secretary-General’s Our Common Agenda (OCA) report.
Something tells me that in the history-by-the-winners textbook of the future, June 5th, 2022 will be hailed as the day that the brave and benevolent bureaucrats of the UN saved the planet by bestowing their gracious global government on us. (” . . . and the people of the earth commemorate this momentous event in a prayer of thanks to their UN leaders before the intake of their daily ration of bugs and rainwater.”)
But wait! What does it say on the declaration’s “About” page?
This Conference should be used as an “ideas laboratory” to develop innovative solutions for the commons, economy, and governance, which will become the seeds of action at the 2023 Summit of the Future, as foreseen in the UN Secretary General’s Our Common Agenda report.
A 2023 Summit of the Future? Oh yes. Which brings us to the next date on our globalist calendar . . .
September 2023: Summit of the Future
Last September, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres launched an 85-page report entitled “Our Common Agenda.” According to a write-up from Democracy International, the report offers a “roadmap for upgrading the UN” and “calls for reinvigorated multilateralism, renewed solidarity and stronger consideration of future generations.”
Exactly as you would expect, the report’s Summary begins by reminding us of the (globalist-concocted) “existential crises” that (the globalists constantly warn us) are threatening humanity’s existence, such as COVID-19, geopolitical conflict and (of course) climate change. Naturally, this immediately turns into a demand that the peoples of the world:
“re-embrace global solidarity,” which evidently entails “a global vaccination plan to deliver vaccines against COVID-19 into the arms of the millions of people who are still denied this basic lifesaving measure”;
“renew the social contract between Governments and their people and within societies,” which evidently entails “updated governance arrangements to deliver better public goods and usher in a new era of universal social protection, health coverage, education, skills, decent work and housing, as well as universal access to the Internet by 2030 as a basic human right”;
“end the ‘infodemic’ plaguing our world by defending a common, empirically backed consensus around facts, science and knowledge,” which evidently entails adopting “a global code of conduct that promotes integrity in public information”;
. . . and a host of other globalist imperatives, from the creation of a new UN-led “Emergency Platform” that will be “triggered automatically in crises of sufficient scale and magnitude, regardless of the type or nature of the crisis involved,” to the adoption of a new UN-led “Global Digital Compact” for “promoting a trustworthy Internet by introducing accountability criteria for discrimination and misleading content.”
In other words, the usual globalist claptrap.
But embedded in this pean to global government is another idea: the convening of a “Summit of the Future” in conjunction with the meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York in September 2023. Picking up on the current Klaus Schwabian globalese in vogue among the not-so-Superclass these days, Guterres writes that “it will be important to hold a high-level, multi-stakeholder ‘Summit of the Future’ to advance ideas for governance arrangements in the areas of international concern mentioned in this report, and potentially others, where governance arrangements are nascent or require updating.”
If you’ve been keeping up with the MSM lately, you might have noticed that this “Summit of the Future” idea has gained traction with the globalist supergophers, including recently deceased ex-Secretary of State Madeline “The Price Was Worth It” Albright, who penned an editorial last October calling “Our Common Agenda” a “pathbreaking new report” and calling on UN member states to “endorse a follow-on ‘modalities resolution’ supporting Guterres’s call for a Summit of the Future in September 2023.” In order to put teeth into this globalist chinwag, Albright argued that “preparatory committees (PrepComs) should be convened around the world” prior to the summit “to consider and advance global governance innovations in peace, security and humanitarian action; sustainable development and COVID-19 recovery; human rights, inclusive governance, and the rule of law; and climate governance.”
But it isn’t just the Pax Americana old guard who are excited about the prospects of reshaping the world order. As veteran Corbett Reporteers will know, the Chinese overlords, too, are all in on this agenda and excited for the possibility of consolidating their control over their own population and moving to a more important seat at the globalist technocratic table. Accordingly, ChiCom propaganda organ China Daily released a report in January dutifully parroting Guterres’ assessment of the “five-alarm fire” that the world is facing from COVID-19, inequality, the climate crisis, mistrust of government and online misinformation. This was followed last month by a Xinhua report that hails “the establishment of a high-level advisory board on effective multilateralism” and notes that the Summit of the Future will “advance ideas for governance arrangements in certain areas that could be considered global public goods or global commons, including climate and sustainable development beyond 2030, the international financial architecture, peace, outer space, the digital space, major risks, and the interests of future generations.”
The accolades for Guterres’ brilliant report (which he totally wrote all by himself, guys, honest!) and his brilliant idea for a summit (which he is single-handedly organizing all on his lonesome) continue to pour in. The Qatari and Swedish UN ambassadors co-wrote an op ed in Al Jazeera hailing the idea as a chance to “move toward a UN 2.0,” and the World Future Council (yes, there is such a thing) has generously pledged the support of their “50 international change-makers” to prepare the summit.
As the World Future Council notes: “a Summit for the Future will be essential towards accelerating the implementation of the SDGs and ensuring that the talks and discussions finally turn into actions on the ground to truly leave no one behind.”
But wait: it gets worse! The same UN General Assembly meeting that will host the Summit of the Future will also be hosting a “UN High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development,” which, the SDG Knowledge Hub helpfully informs us, takes place every four years and gives our global overlords yet another opportunity for scheming how best to transform the world into a neofeudal slave plantation!
Consider this upcoming conference a threat, add “Summit of the Future” to whatever rss reader or news alert system you use and circle the date on your calendar. Whatever comes out of this conference, it’s going to be bad news for free humanity.
MAY 2024: WHO Global Pandemic Treaty
Speaking of bad news for free humanity, you’ve probably heard me talking about the upcoming WHO global pandemic treaty by now. But don’t worry if you haven’t heard me talk about it, because you certainly will hear me talk about it more in the future.In case you haven’t heard of it yet, the next big push in global biopolitics is the call for a global pandemic treaty to further abrogate national sovereignty and to hand more power to the WHO to dictate global health policy in the name of stopping the next scamdemic. As I’ve stressed several times now, just as 9/11 was merely the public unveiling of the new “war on terror” governance paradigm, the COVID scamdemic was merely the public unveiling of the new “biosecurity” governance paradigm. It is this proposed global pandemic treaty that will start to hardwire that new governance paradigm into place, much like the PATRIOT Act began to hardwire the terror paradigm in place in the US.
The campaign pushing the formation of this treaty relies on an obvious Problem – Reaction – Solution narrative to nudge the public into accepting the next steps in the biosecurity agenda.
Problem: The WHO “failed” miserably in stopping the COVID “pandemic” from “ravaging the world.”
Reaction: We need a global health organization with teeth!
Solution: A global pandemic treaty must be signed to hand more power to the WHO.
Once you realize that all proposals for giving more power to a small clique of unaccountable bureaucrats is introduced in this way—”you never want a serious crisis go to waste” as Rahm Emmanuel infamously observed—the manipulation becomes obvious. An “independent panel” set up to “review” the “problem” of the WHO’s “failed” response to the scamdemic delivered a report in January that—to the surprise of absolutely no one—concluded that “the WHO’s ability to enforce its advice, or enter countries to investigate the source of disease outbreaks, is severely curtailed” and thus new rules need to be set up at the global level to give the WHO more power to police the world for health threats. They even called it the WHO’s “Chernobyl moment,” implying that it should use this “disaster” as a chance to implement fundamental reforms.
Details of precisely what such a treaty will involve—or even what form it will take—are still maddeningly vague. The proposed new treaty would be, in UN jargon, an “instrument,” of which there are three types: recommendations, conventions and regulations. Regulations (like the International Health Regulations of 2005) are automatically legally binding for all 194 WHO member states unless they explicitly object. Measures that could be ontained in such a treaty may include “the sharing of data and genome sequences of emerging viruses and rules on equitable vaccine distribution” and a “One Health approach” that “connects the health of humans, animals and the planet.”
In other words, the usual globalist claptrap.
One hardly needs to be a conspiracy realist to understand how such mushy-sounding goodness and gumdrops from the WHO could be used to implement a very dark biosecurity agenda. Whatever the specifics, you can bet your bottom dollar that all of the worst aspects of biomedical tyranny—from new regulations to rush experimental medical interventions through human trials in the event of a declared emergency to the standardization of vaccine passports—will be topics of discussion when the negotiations on the treaty begin in earnest.
Don’t worry, though, you can still let your voice be heard! The WHO has even opened up a special page on their website to allow public comment on the potential treaty!
. . . Of course, they’re not interested in hearing whether or not people actually want such a treaty in the first place, only what the hoi polloi feel should be included in such a treaty. Specifically, they’re asking:
“What substantive elements do you think should be included in a new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response?”
And even then, they’re not looking to hear from everyone. In fact, they have an entire page laying out the terms and conditions by which you can submit a comment in the first place, including stipulations that those wishing to comment “Refrain from making any statements unrelated to the topic at hand,” that they present their comments “in a respectful manner, free of any profanity, ad hominem attacks, vulgarity, or other inappropriate language” and that they “declare the entity [they] represent and any other affiliations, engagement, or roles relevant to the public hearings or to WHO, in light of its mandate.” Oh, and please keep in mind “that WHO is not able to ensure that all interested parties will be able to participate in the public hearings, and that thus WHO does not make any commitment or undertaking to allow you to participate in the public hearings.”
But other than that, they totally want to hear from you.
. . . Oh, wait. Scratch that. The deadline for the public to submit their comments has already passed. I guess we’re too late. Hmmm, perhaps we should have consulted the globalist calendar sooner.
This weekly editorial is part of The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter.
To support The Corbett Report and to access the full newsletter, please sign up to become a member of the website.
Following a federal judge vacating the federal mask mandate on transportation, the TSA responded, “TSA (Transportation Security Administration) will not enforce its Security Directives and Emergency Amendment requiring mask use on public transportation and transportation hubs at this time.”
Within hours various airlines began notifying customers the mask mandate is gone:
♦ American Airlines – “In accordance with the Transportation Security Administration no longer enforcing the federal face mask mandate, face masks will no longer be required for our customers and team members at U.S. airports and on domestic flights.” (link)
♦ Southwest Airlines – “As a result of this development, effectively immediately, Southwest Employees and Customers will be able to choose whether they would like to wear a mask, and we encourage individuals to make the best decision to support their personal wellbeing.” (link)
♦ Delta Airlines – “Effective immediately, masks are optional for all airport employees, crew members and customers inside U.S. airports and on board all aircraft domestically, as well as on most international flights.” (link)
♦ Alaska Airlines – “Effective immediately, all Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air guests and employees have the option to wear a mask while traveling in the U.S. and at work. Masks are no longer required for travel and will be optional.” (link)
♦ United Airlines – No press release. “Masks are no longer required on domestic flights, select international flights (dependent upon the arrival country’s requirements) or at U.S. airports. More comfortable keeping yours on? Go right ahead… the choice is yours (you look dino-mite either way)!” ~Twitter
Various videos show airline employees in a state of jubilation cheering the announcements.
The professional political left is very sad, apoplectic and filled with anxiety. However, the overwhelming majority are happy. This example again reflects how small that minority of rabid maskers was. Easily a 4:1 ratio. Additionally, with all the major carriers and the TSA making official statements, it would be almost impossible to reinstate the mask mandate now. It’s over.
Plane applauded as the stewardess announced the end of the mandate. She broke into tears as she got to take off her mask for the first time in 2 years pic.twitter.com/WlCpZk30QM
“Ladies and gentlemen, this is your pilot speaking. This is the most important announcement I’ve ever made. The federal mask mandate is over. Take off your mask if you choose!”
A federal judge in Tampa, Florida has vacated the federal transportation mask mandate for planes, trains, buses and public Transportation. [PDF Ruling Available Here]
In essence, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle found the CDC exceeded its statutory authority with the mask mandate and violated the rules that guide CDC regulations. After Joe Biden arbitrarily announced the federal transportation mandate, the CDC triggered enforcement of the mask mandate without any required time for public feedback on a new regulation.
Within the ruling, one of the commonsense arguments against the federal mandate was noted. Prior to Joe Biden taking office there was no mask mandate. At the time Joe Biden took office and invoked the mask mandate, there was nothing substantively different in/around the spread of COVID-19 and the mitigation efforts underway.
The federal mask mandate was arbitrary and capricious with no justification from the CDC and no required time for the public to provide feedback. The government’s legal argument was that public feedback, comments on rulemaking, was irrelevant because the mandate was going to be enforced regardless of public opinion. That argument was summarily dispatched by the judge saying, just because the government has a pre-determined outcome in mind does not relinquish them from the obligation to follow the rules.
Sensing they were going to lose the case, remarkably the government lawyers argued that only the original plaintiffs in the lawsuit should be granted relief. Meaning, only the two people who filed the lawsuit should be exempt from the federal mask mandate. That didn’t work.
The federal transportation mask mandate is vacated.
Today, the world finds itself moving through a turbulent transformation between two systems. Collapsing at a faster rate every day are the foundations of a failed imperial world order defined by zero-sum thinking, consumerism and materialism which has defined our existence for decades. The question is now: will the new world system take the form of a new era of global empire, unmitigated war between faiths and a prolonged dark age OR might it take the form of the beautiful multi-polar world order defined by win-win cooperation between all of the nations, faiths and cultures of the world?
Throughout his life, Rembrandt van Rijn (1606-1669) continuously returned to the axiom-breaking theme of the famous biblical story of the ‘Supper at Emmaus’ in order to convey the powerful transformative “moment” of discovery in between the two states of mind of 1) the belief in the death of Christ and the end to his life’s mission and 2) the state of renewed faith in the immortal hope represented by the image of the resurrection. While this lesson is taken from the Christian matrix, it’s universal characteristic provides a lesson for people of all cultures who seek to bring a better world into being.
Before jumping to an analysis of some beautiful paintings, it would be necessary to summarize ever so briefly the story of the Dinner at Emmaus.
The Dinner at Emmaus and The Importance of Christianity in World History
Featured in the New Testament Gospels of Luke and Mark, Jesus is invited to eat with two of his disciples (Luke and Cleopas) in the town of Emmaus. This wouldn’t be anything exceptional, except for the fact that Jesus had been violently crucified on the cross and entombed days earlier. Neither Luke nor Cleopas recognize their mentor who has been resurrected after being entombed for three days and it is only upon breaking bread with this stranger that they make their discovery just as Christ vanishes miraculously into light.
Whether you are a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Confucian, Hindu, Buddhist or other, the lesson conveyed by this biblical story and especially Rembrandt’s artistic treatment has a universal value for the simple reason that Christ’s life and mission represented a moral power of change which had the unique capacity to undo the foundations of the Roman Empire. This movement accomplished this miraculous feat not through military force, money or any other Hobbesian notion of power, but merely by tuning the hearts and minds of a suppressed people to the power of forgiveness, loving all including one’s enemies, and adhering to one’s conscience before all “political norms of acceptable behaviour” demanded by the Roman oligarchy.
One can imagine how disheartened Christ’s followers were to see that light of hope snuffed out under the suffocating weight of the world’s largest and most evil of empires whose unchallenged power had extended to Asia, Africa and all Europe. One can easily imagine what an existential crisis overwhelmed the hearts of these early followers of Jesus’ Gospel. Were they just naive fools to believe in a better world and a loving Creator when such evil could dominate the world? How powerful and electrifying was the idea that the sacrificed leader of this movement actually succeeded in defeating the one thing which even the most powerful of emperors and kings could not escape? If this were possible, then perhaps the material power of the Empire could be defeated after all and perhaps the ideals of Christ’s life and mission were worth having faith in too.
Over the coming centuries, the Roman oligarchy slowly learned that regardless of how many Christians it burned alive, or threw into the mouths of wild animals for the entertainment of the mob, the movement only grew in numbers. This continued to the point that the Empire was forced to attempt to co-opt the movement by Romanizing it and infusing imperial, pagan practices into its governing structures slowly suffocating the spirit of Christ’s message in favour of the formal structures of the “word” of the book as interpreted by an approved “priesthood” beholden to an oligarchical class.
Amidst this tendency to corruption and decay, Christ’s spirit was periodically re-awakened from time to time in the form of honest souls who broke from formalization to “walk the walk” and live according to their consciences. These courageous souls who “broke from the mould” include such names as St. Augustine of Hippo, Alcuin, Charlemagne, Dante Alighieri, Nicholas of Cusa, Erasmus, Thomas More, and even Rembrandt van Rijn. Were it not for their efforts to renew the spirit of Christianity by enflaming the kindling for new Renaissances, Europe would likely still be living under the conditions of the medieval dark age, or worse.
One can also argue that were it not for this transformative and miraculous story of reincarnation, then Christianity would have merely been just another one of many Jewish sects that tried nobly to bring substance to the darkness of a war-ridden world… but ultimately failed.
Rembrandt’s Renaissance Challenge
It is no coincidence that Rembrandt’s famous 1648 rendition of the theme of the ‘Dinner at Emmaus’ was painted during the year that the great Peace of Westphalia was finalised in Europe. This Treaty not only ended the 30 Years War that destroyed generations of Europeans in an endless revengist bloodbath of Protestantism vs Catholicism, but also created a new basis of international law by establishing the system of modern nation states premised around the principles of forgiveness, and the agapic principle of the “Benefit of the Other”. In the modern age, a correlate to this principle is found beautifully in the policy of “win-win cooperation” expressed in China’s New Silk Road which itself emanates from Confucian principles of “Tianxia”.
1648 rendition of Rembrandt’s ‘Supper at Emmaus;
Rembrandt’s 1628 rendition of ‘Supper at Emmaus’ is featured below with an incredible use of chiaroscuro to convey the divinity of Christ and also the motion from the darkness of ignorance to the light of knowledge. Rembrandt’s choice to place the central focus on the un-named disciple rather than on Christ whom he places in a foreground silhouette is not an accident and neither is the choice to place the maid working in the kitchen covered in shadow and oblivious to the miracle behind her. This central focus on the discovery process occurring in the mind of the disciple creates an opportunity for a cathartic experience with the viewer who is invited to share in the co-discovery occurring before their eyes.
The ethereal divine light emanating from Christ’s figure just before he disappears casts a divine glow upon his surprised associate which is very different from the candle casting artificial light upon the maid in the kitchen. This metaphorical use of light is another device used by all great Platonic humanists to convey the image of different grades of knowledge as outlined in the famous Allegory of the Cave in Plato’s Republic.
Rembrandt’s 1628 rendition of “Supper at Emmaus”
Another rendition of Rembrandt’s ‘Supper at Emmaus’ was painted in 1648 featuring the artist’s struggle to convey the transformative change. In the version below, Rembrandt placed the light source not in Christ but rather hidden from view covered by one of his disciples. In this rendition, Rembrandt chose to place the event on a theatrical stage (a device he used in several biblical themes). The great master understood painting as a performative principle akin to acting and not as some mere presentation of pretty objects on canvas and as such he wished the audience to imagine reliving the experience fully as good actors should rather than merely admire a show as voyeurs.
Looking through his surviving thumbnail sketches, we see that Rembrandt considered rendering the scene in a very different manner wherein Christ would be depicted a split second later as pure light. It is worth taking the opportunity to think to yourself: Why did the painter decide not to take this route? Why was the path he chose deemed wiser to the master? What idea is missing from the sketch?
Velasquez Tackles the Paradox of Spirit and Matter
A contemporary painter and kindred spirit to Rembrandt was the Spanish painter Diego Velasquez (1599-1660) who also took on the challenge of capturing the important “in between” moment conveyed in the biblical story. Many contemporary art critics who lack the sensitivity to art’s higher power to convey transformative discoveries often miss the principled intention of both Rembrandt and Velasquez’s moral choice to convey this subject matter (and all their works) as they do. Below we can see Velasquez’s 1623 rendition of the “eureka moment” forever unfolding before the eyes of all future generations.
The hand of one disciple strikes back towards the viewer which also has the brilliant technical effect of immersing the audience into the living experience of discovery and further abolishing the false “wall” separating the “subjective” viewer from the “objective” art being viewed.
A few years before this painting, Velasquez tackled the same theme from the unique standpoint of the servant girl fixing a meal in the kitchen and placing the divine transformative scene in the background… not to downplay the importance of the event but to give the viewer a chance to breath, and ponder the co-existence of the divine and the ordinary world in which we all exist which are too often fragmented and divided by an unbridgeable gulf between “abstract” spiritual concepts and “real” material facts.
We hope that during this Easter Sunday and all of the days to follow, you dear reader, take the time to seek the power of creative love and faith in a better world within yourself while sharing the fruits of that search with others. Perhaps, in so doing the lives of such great souls as Velasquez, Rembrandt, Confucius, Socrates, and Christ may come alive once more.
Dr. Tom Cowan on “the Snake Venom Stuff”: Covid Caused by a Specific Snake Venom Is Looking Like Pure Fantasy & Remdesivir Is Definitely Not Snake Venom
Right I can imagine there still may be a lot of questions about the snake venom stuff. And we are still looking into that, so I don’t want to say too much.
For those of you who want something to look at right away, I would say I would check out Amandha Vollmer’s — she did a webinar or talk or something. And if somebody has that they could put that in the chat. So that would be a good place to start.
There’s been a lot of other people who’ve weighed in on that. And all I can say for sure that we found out right now is that remdesivir is definitely not snake venom. And that putting any kind of snake venom in the water and have it orally ingested would probably do nothing. In fact it would do nothing.
And the idea that there’s a covid specific disease caused by a specific poisoning with a specific snake venom is looking like pure fantasy.
But hopefully we’ll have more information about that. In the meantime, there’s some places to check out that really go through this in some detail.
For those interested in the difference between being bitten (or injected) with snake venom and drinking venom (note that this is pure venom, not diluted in a vast water supply), we share this video:
Over the past week or so many people have sent us links to the documentary Watch the Water, a 50 minute interview with retired chiropractor Dr Bryan Ardis, who details his theory that “Covid” is caused by chemicals extracted from snake venom being added to the water supply.
Further, Dr Ardis claims that the same venom-based chemicals are in the vaccines and the drug remisdevir, and that researching the venom connection has already got one scientist killed.
Some notable names in the alternate media are giving it some air time, even Dr Reiner Fuellmich has said he will look into it.
He shouldn’t. It is pure nonsense.
A ridiculous theory that flies in the face of observed reality, supported only by anecdotal evidence, biblical metaphors and clips from an episode of The Blacklist.
But good news, if there IS snake venom in the water Dr Ardis can cure you – just spend 120 bucks on his antidote through his website. That’ll drive the venom right out of you.
They are literally selling snake oil.
The blurb alone tells you this is manipulation:
The plandemic continues, but its origins are still a nefarious mystery. How did the world get sick, how did Covid really spread, and did the Satanic elite tell the world about this bioweapon ahead of time?
Reality check – “The world” DIDN’T “get sick”. “Covid” was NOT a “bioweapon”. It DIDN’T “spread”.
The Powers That Be (PTB) just want you to think all this is true, and these guys are, knowingly or not, helping that along.
The whole thing looks very much like the latest attempt at introducing mainstream COVID fear porn through an “alternative” back door.
The superficial narrative in these cases may vary, but the underlying message is always the same – “Be afraid of COVID, because it is a real thing”
The PTB don’t really care if you’re afraid of a virus, a MANMADE virus, 5G…or snake venom in the water. Just so long as you believe COVID is real, new and deadly
The only really inadmissible thing has always been the truth – COVID is a scam. A pea-and-thimble game on a massive scale. Because you can’t govern through fear if no one is afraid.
Is someone dumping “snake venom” in the water?
Maybe. Who knows. The world is insane.
But it has ZERO to do with the “COVID pandemic” because the covid pandemic was made up.
“Darkness has the ability to cover up; light has the ability to uncover! Darkness is the enemy of truth; light is the friend of truth!
~ Mehet Murat ildan
Sometimes acceptance of obvious truth is so stark and thought to be fraught with treachery, that it is literally ignored by the many; making it more comfortable to remain hidden in madness amidst the shadows of deception and lies. While taking responsibility is the only way forward, fear of the truth often wins out, as reliance on collective ignorance gives the false illusion of safety. This behavior is always severely destructive over time, and any psychological relief always temporary, but much more often than not, it is the easy way out for the non-thinking and frightened societal herd. This natural flaw in the makeup of man is well known by the ruling class, and therefore taken advantage of in order to quell dissent and rebellion while gaining further control.
Considering our recent and current history, this was the tactic used for the entirety of the ‘covid’ scam. So long as voluntary acceptance of state propaganda by the masses prevails, this strategy will continually be used going forward in order to perpetuate the advancement of the takeover of humanity in the name of the “Great Reset.” That brings us to the latest threat by the purveyors of evil who have been allowed to rule without resistance. They claim, as voiced by former Trump appointed director of the CDC, Robert Redfield, that the next wave of monumental death worldwide will be due to a non-existent mystery bird flu. This approach by government to manufactured threats, has been around for a very long time, and in the past has been used to frighten the weak, but it is simply a lie.
Threats of avian bird flu, swine flu, including SARS, among many others, have been weapons of the state meant to accelerate panic where none is warranted for very many years. It is imperative to understand that these toxic concoctions are all manmade in labs using gain of function to create bio-weapons. They are not natural, or some lethal strain that just so-happened to affect birds or other animals by accident, and magically jumped to humans. Even the idea of this is ludicrous. If in fact, any such sickness or disease of these types were actually causing mass death, it would only be due to a purposeful release of a bio-weapon by the state, not any innate strain of a normal malady. Knowing this, how could entire populations continue to be so fooled by propaganda?
In 1997, the CDC said that “avian influenza A(H5N1) viruses first spread from poultry to infect humans in Hong Kong resulting in the deaths of 6 of 18 infected persons.” Because of this, the evil WHO and the U.S. sought to increase pandemic preparedness, obviously knowing that this would be useful indoctrination in order to create panic due to future plans to gain power over society. All of this was aligned with the WHO’s “global framework.”
In 2002, SARS was said to be the new disease to fear, and SARS-CoV was to be the “model for future pandemics.” In March of 2003, the ‘novel’ coronavirus, SARS-CoV, was said to be isolated, a lie, and identified and sequenced by nothing other than PCR, an impossibility. There was even the spectre of a future “catastrophic pandemic,” and investigations of live animal markets, as the supposed first case was found in Hong Kong, and said to be able to spread by infected persons traveling by airplane. Does this sound familiar or suspicious to any thinking individual? Is this not the same exact fraud that took place beginning in 2020, two decades later?
In March of 2006, Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security, an obvious expert on bird flu, was worried about a bird flu strike any day. “I can’t predict, but I certainly have to say that we should be prepared for the possibility that at some point in the next few months, a wild fowl will come over the migratory pathway and will be infected with H5N1.”
As far back as 1976, the H1N1 Swine Flu hoax took center stage, as the government and its controlled media propaganda campaign went into high gear in order to create a pandemic fraud so as to mass-vaccinate the U.S. population against a non-existent ‘swine flu.’ This conspiracy was also used as a way to get all ‘vaccinations’ available into every person possible. This led directly to 45 million people getting unnecessary injections. At the time, the CDC stated that 80% of the population needed to be ‘vaccinated,’ just as was sought in the ‘covid’ scam.
Again in 2009, the H1N1 fraud was revived, and another government call for mass ‘vaccination’ was issued. As always, the collusion between national and global ‘health organizations, government and government officials, pharmaceutical companies, and corporate insiders was evident. Nothing today has changed, it has only gotten worse, and in fact, the risk now due to the world takeover plot is much more sinister, and globally structured.
In the distant past, while control was a key factor, money from mass ‘vaccination’ was the primary goal. Today, money is a factor, but control of the minds and bodies of the proletariat herds is the result most desired by the ruling ‘elites.’ In addition, depopulation and eugenic transformation of the rest of society, all by way of controlling and lethal injection of a bio-weapon, is what is needed in order to finish the global takeover agenda.
This is a long-term plot to fool the public into believing and expecting that a future pandemic of epoch proportions is imminent. The very idea that ‘natural’ pandemics are inevitable has long been planned and embedded in the minds of the people. This is a multi-decade brainwashing of the common people in order to prepare them for not only mass sickness and death, but also for acceptance of a global governing body with unlimited power.
The most sought-after goal at this time is mass ‘vaccination,’ but this time is different in that the preferred injections are much more dangerous, much more able to physically and psychologically control large numbers of those who have taken the jab, and cause mass death beyond anything seen before. In order to accomplish such a deadly and evil agenda, the people will need to be fooled once again. They will have to believe the lies, and accept that all the impending deaths due to the weaponized ‘covid’ injections, are in fact due to a fraudulent and purposely crafted plot to place blame on a non-existent ‘virus’ that is being called an “avian bird flu.”
The ‘warning’, or more accurately, the foretelling of mass death by the ruling class, as outlined by the ex-CDC commandant Robert Redfield, is that 800 million to 4 billion of us will die due to some mystery bird flu. When the mass deaths occur, it will not be due to any flu or ‘virus,’ it will be due only to the toxic poison that has been previously injected into billions of unsuspecting, order-following slaves to the state.
“But it is important to remember that conspiracies cannot succeed if people are wise to what is happening.
By researching and exposing wrong-doing, we can shake off our status as helpless and passive spectators of history in order to become active and engaged participants, part of the resistance.
Charles and his ruling-class collaborators have to dress up their insidious agenda as “doing good”, as “philanthropy” or “conservation”, because they know that otherwise the rest of us would not go along with it.
Once this illusion has been destroyed and the horrible reality exposed, then decent people everywhere will turn their backs definitively on these vile parasites and their evil empire of exploitation.”
When the Great Reset was officially launched in 2O2O, it was not done so by Klaus Schwab or Bill Gates, but by Charles, Prince of Wales, heir apparent to the British throne.
Born in Buckingham Place in 1948, Charles is best known worldwide for his failed marriage to Lady Diana Spencer, who died in a road crash in Paris in 1997, a year after their divorce.
His official website announced on June 3 2020: “Today, through HRH’s Sustainable Markets Initiative and the World Economic Forum, The Prince of Wales launched a new global initiative, The Great Reset”.
A royal tweet declared: “#TheGreatReset initiative is designed to ensure businesses and communities ‘build back better’ by putting sustainable business practices at the heart of their operations as they begin to recover from the coronavirus pandemic”.
This may come as a bit of a surprise to those who see Charles as a bumbling but affable figure, who talks to his plants, loves traditional architecture, protects nature and tries to help young people get along in life.
But the reality, as we will show here, is that he is the head (or the very willing figurehead) of a vast empire of nefarious financial interests hiding hypocritically behind a facade of charitable philanthropy.
2. Global goals
Charles has been very busy over the last 50 years or so, establishing an alliance of organisations called The Prince’s Charities, which describes itself as “the largest multi-cause charitable enterprise in the United Kingdom”.
These have also spread overseas to create a bewildering global web of trusts, foundations and funds.
To make things simpler, we will focus here on just a few of the better-known organisations, starting in the the UK with Business in the Community.
This body describes itself as “the largest and longest established business-led membership organisation dedicated to responsible business”, having been initially established in 1982 as The Prince’s Responsible Business Network.
Its agenda is very much in line with all the key elements of the Great Reset.
It declares, for instance: “Business in the Community (BITC) is working with business to accelerate the pace and scale of action to deliver against the United Nations Global Goals, also known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)”.
The great news for Charles’s money-loving entourage is that “running their businesses responsibly” in line with the UNSDGs “also opens business market opportunities”.
Business in the Community boasts its own WEF-style “Future Leaders Board” and in 2017 was already insisting, like Klaus Schwab, that “business must ensure an inclusive digital revolution”.
Its report called “A Brave New World?” features all the familiar Great Reset “priorities”, such as inclusivity (“Build digital access, capability and confidence to allow all to benefit from the digital economy”) and lifelong learning (“Prepare employees. Provide digital skills and lifelong learning to create an adaptable workforce”).
It looks ahead to a Fourth Industrial Revolution (“Anticipate automation. Create new roles, where technology complements humans, and support communities to manage the transition”) with bigger profit margins naturally being its aim (“Transition to new business models that cut waste and increase asset productivity”).
There is an early mention of the “track and trace” phrase which became so familiar during the lockdowns (“Track, trace and resolve”) with a plug for Blockverify, “a London-based start-up that uses technology to track, record, and verify products in a way that is permanently logged in the blockchain… Blockverify has been piloting solutions with pharmaceutical and beauty companies”.
The report promotes smart agriculture in the form of Unilever’s Marcatus Mobile Education Platform, “a collaboration between Unilever, Oxfam and Ford Foundation to train smallholder farmers in rural areas” which aims for “additional farm revenues of £1.5 trillion by 2030”.
It concludes by giving “thanks to our corporate partners, Barclays and Fujitsu, for supporting our programme of work to create an inclusive digital revolution”.
The Prince’s Trust Group expands this same agenda across the Commonwealth, the vast sphere of influence formerly known as the British Empire.
It describes itself as “a global network of charities” delivering “education, employment, enterprise and environmental projects that enable young people and communities to thrive”.
It is all about “transforming lives and building sustainable communities”, it seems.
One of its reports tells us: “During 2020/21, together with our partners we supported 60,146 young people in 16 countries across the Commonwealth and beyond: Australia, Barbados, Canada, Ghana, Greece, India, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Malta, New Zealand, Pakistan, Rwanda, Trinidad & Tobago and the United Kingdom. We also began our work in St Lucia and the USA”.
The Prince’s Trust is joined in this task by another important node of Charles’ network, the British Asian Trust, as we will shortly see.
3. Impact imperialism
The impact industry is a sinister entity which, over the last few years of research, we have found lurking under every dubious stone we have turned.
Impact profiteering is very much tied in with the Great Reset and its Fourth Industrial Revolution, which aims to set up the infrastructure through which this new form of digital serfdom can be imposed.
Inevitably, then, the impact agenda is very present throughout Charles’ empire, even if somewhat hidden from casual view.
Sometimes it is just the word itself that gives the game away.
Business in the Community, for instance, says on its site that it works with its members “to continually improve their responsible business practice, leveraging the collective impact for the benefit of communities”.
“Impact” crops up three times on the introductory page.
It appears again on the page consecreated to BITC’s entirely predictable commitment to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, those cornerstones of impact capitalism. The term “positive impact” is here linked to another related buzzword, “purpose”.
The impact theme is also very much embraced by The Prince’s Trust, which is very keen on “digital and blended programmes” and “online business simulation games”.
In line with the Great Reset promoted by its founder, it used Covid to advance a hyper-industrial agenda, describing in one post how it had been measuring its “digital impact”.
It was pleaed to report that 61% of its respondents said “online learning had supported them to make changes in their life, with the majority developing new skills and making plans for the future”.
One of the tools which the Trust uses for what it worryingly terms “digital programming” is something called Vibe Check.
This bespoke programme, aimed at young people, is a “free (fancy that!) interactive personal development tool delivered via WhatsApp, that creates a safe and supportive online space for them to develop key life skills”.
“The programme has piloted in Barbados and Ghana during 2020 and early 2021, using innovative automation technology to tailor each young person’s experience with the service.
“Designed for the needs of young people in each country it rolls out in, Vibe Check focuses on confidence, communication and managing feelings in Barbados, and self-employment and entrepreneurship in Ghana”.
This obsession with developing “new digital processes for gathering data”, hidden behind a do-good facade, is classic impact-think.
Indeed, the Prince’s Trust International boasts its very own Head of Impact, Diletta Morinello, a professional “impact measurer”.
In January 2020, just before the Covid moment, Morinello was recruiting a data analyst “as we start our exciting new 5-year strategy” and “significantly upscale our operations”.
The role was “to ensure our data is robust and supports our ability to accurately and effectively monitor our impact on young peoples’ [sic] experiences of education and employment as well as our financial performance and fundraising.
“Impact will need to be measured across a range of programmes or interventions, with a range of stakeholders across the world”.
Impact, data, stakeholders… three terms from the same familiar crib sheet.
It is, however, with his British Asian Trust that Charles exposes most fully his involvement with the insidious world of impact imperialism.
He founded this organisation in 2007 with a group of well-connected British Asian businesspeople.
Although the British Asian Trust prefers the term “social finance”, it does little else to hide its impact agenda.
Its website even proudly displays a recommendation from the “father” of impact investment Ronald Cohen, who declares: “What the British Asian Trust is doing in social finance is truly groundbreaking: it is capable of delivering vital social improvement at scale”.
Indeed, as we have previously reported, Cohen gives an approving mention to Charles and the British Asian Trust in his 2020 book Impact: Reshaping Capitalism to Drive Real Change.
The Trust, of course, claims to be “improving” the lives of children and young people in Asia “in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4 on quality education”.
It says: “The Quality Education India Development Impact Bond (QEI DIB) is an innovative results-based funding mechanism that aims to improve learning outcomes for more than 200,000 primary school children”.
And then it adds: “As the QEI DIB progresses, we aim to create an education rate card, setting out the costs of delivering specific outcomes at scale. Such a card can be used by government and funders to make informed policy and spending decisions and improve education across the whole country”.
This is what impact is all about. The “cost” of meeting UNSDGs is calculated and “stakeholders” take on this cost from public purse. If the “outcomes” tick all the right boxes they will be reimbursed, plus a little extra to make their “investment” worthwhile.
In the meantime, the lives of these children, bundled together “at scale”, are turned into financial commodities – like the bundles of sub-prime mortgage debts that prompted the 2008 crash – which can be tracked, traced and traded in real time via 5G/6G and the “inclusive” global digital panopticon.
Speculators can bet on the “success” of these children’s lives or against it – little matter, as long as they are available as products for this vast new profitable market.
As we have previously warned, “social finance” or impact investing reduces human beings to the status of potential investments, sources of profit for wealthy ruling vampires.
It is a digital slave trade.
4. Powerful players
So what kind of people and organisations are involved in Charles’ global network?
Let’s start with Business in the Community. This label is probably intended to conjure up fond images of tiny cornershops in English market towns (like Grantham?) or of organic Buddhist basket-weaving start-ups in Charles’ pseudo-traditional Poundbury development.
But no. As we would expect from the launcher of the Great Reset, theproject is a typical corporatist mixture of public and private sector, uniting loyal servants of the British empire with their extremely well-heeled friends in the world of big business and high finance.
BITC’s dauntingly long list of members includes the likes of Accenture and Unilever (both hailed by Cohen for their participation in his nefarious impact scam) and Big Pharma businesses AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer.
While the BBC, Sky, Facebook and Google presumably constitute the propaganda and censorship wing, British Airways, easyJet, Heathrow Airport Limited, Shell UK and BP were no doubt all included for their special contribution to environmental sustainability.
Charles’ passion for the health of his family’s grateful subjects is reflected in the inclusion, alongside Knorr’s Quick Soups manufacturers Unilever, of Greggs and PepsiCo UK.
We also find the likes of the Bank of America, McKinsey (the US consultancy firm controversially employed by Emmanuel Macron in France) and Morgan Stanley (the WEF partner and impact investor remembered for its financing of both Hitler and Mussolini).
Other Business in the Community members are arms dealers Rolls Royce and Thales Group, superb examples of what Charles has in mind with “responsible” business activity.
The organisation is governed by a Board of Trustee Directors. This is chaired by Gavin Patterson, president and chief revenue officer of Salesforce, the cloud computing business headed by billionaire Marc Benioff, owner of Time magazine and inaugural chair of the WEF’s Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution in San Francisco.
Another director is Dame Vivian Hunt, senior partner, UK and Ireland, of the aforementioned McKinsey. A member of the secretive Trilateral Commission, she is the former chair of British American Business, an exclusive transatlantic business networking group.
Mark Weinberg
One of the vice-presidents is Sir Mark Weinberg, “a South African-born British financier who co-founded J. Rothschild Assurance, which later became St James’s Place Wealth Management, and is chairman of blockchain company Atlas City Global“.
The advisory board features Sir Ian Michael Cheshire, formerly chairman of Barclays UK and currently chairman of Menhaden plcwith its “long only, multi-asset investment strategy which seeks to provide the best balance between risk & reward across equity, credit & private universes” offering “asymmetric risk-reward pay-offs”.
Alongside this banker sits none other than Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the UK’s Trades Union Congress (TUC). As befits a representative of the British working class, O’Grady is also a non-executive director at the Bank of England.
Owen Marks
Finally, on the BITC’s Community Leadership Board we find none other than Owen Marks of everybody’s favourite vaccine manufacturer, Pfizer.
There he incarnates the striking overlap between the world of Big Pharma and the world of “woke” impact-intersectionality, co-chairing the Pfizer UK Inclusive Diversity Group with its focus on “OPEN (LGBTQ), Ethnicity, Gender, DisAbility and Cross Generational and Social Mobility”.
Let’s next turn to The Prince’s Trust Group, the global network of charities founded by Charles in 1976.
The UK entity involves very much same kind of people as Business in the Community.
Its council is chaired by John Booth, an “entrepreneur and philanthropist” who boasts “a range of venture capital interests in e-commerce, media and telecommunications”.
It features two former partners at Goldman Sachs: Michelle Pinggera and Ian Mukherjee, who went on to found Amiya Capital, a “global emerging markets fund”.
There is also Suzy Neubert, former global head of distribution at JO Hambro Capital Management, and Mark Dearnley, previously a “digital transformation” advisor with global management consulting firm, Bain & Company.
The council’s vice-president is Michael Marks, former chairman of Merrill Lynch Investment Managers and founding partner of MZ Capital and NewSmith Capital Partners LLP.
It is informative to note the people and businesses with which the Prince’s Trust group is enmeshed worldwide.
In New Zealand, chairman of the Prince’s Trust board is Andrew Williams, co-chairman of Alvarium – “With $15 billion in assets under management globally, Alvarium is a collaboration between wealthy families, entrepreneurs and institutions in Asia, the Gulf and Americas”.
The Australian entity’s corporate sponsors include Macquarie, Australia’s largest investment bank, while in Canada, the Prince’s Trust is supported by Finistra (working hard “to accelerate digital banking”) and by Bank of America.
Its supporters also include Scotiabank, KPMG and arms dealer Lockheed Martin.
Over at the British Asian Trust, one member of the Board of Trustees is Farzana Baduel, former vice-chair of business relations for the Conservative Party and founder/CEO of Curzon PR.
She appeared in The Times in May 2021 to explain how much she loved “remote working”, that mainstay of the “New Normal” promoted under the Great Reset.
Another is Varun Chandra, managing partner of “London-based corporate intelligence specialist” Hakluyt, whose astonishing recent £12.8 million rise in profits was “helped by the reduction in staff travel thanks to the pandemic”, according toThe Times.
In the words of one media report, “Hakluyt is an ultra secretive firm whose client list reads like a who’s who of the business world with corporations retaining their services for strategic intelligence and advice as they look to expand operations”.
The British Asian Trust site says of Chandra: “Trained at Lehman Brothers, he went on to help build a regulated advisory firm for former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair“.
Also on the board are Dr Shenila Rawal (who previously worked for the World Bank) and Ganesh Ramani, former partner at Goldman Sachs.
Ramani in fact has a family connection to the Trust’s Big Chief, having married Ruth Powys, widow of Mark Shand, brother of Charles’s wife Camilla.
Vice-chairs are Asif Rangoonwala (once described by The Independent as “powerboat playboy, bakery baron, property plutocrat”) and Shalni Arora, who has a background in Big Pharma with AstraZeneca and DxS Ltd and is the wife of retail magnate Simon Arora of B&M Bargains.
Jitesh Gadhia
Chair of the Board of Trustees is investment banker Lord Jitesh Gadhia, who has worked for Barclays Capital, ABN AMRO and Baring Brothers.
He was previously senior managing director at global investment business Blackstone in London. On being appointed there in 2010, he enthused: “Blackstone’s powerful network of relationships, access to capital and expanding geographic reach, across developed and emerging markets, offers a unique proposition for clients”.
Gadhia was also – surprise, surprise! – a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader.
5. Banksters, cheats and spooks
From any genuinely ethical vantage point, the business activities of those involved with Charles’ empire are, in themselves, cause for concern.
But the problem goes further than that. The amount of controversy and scandal surrounding numerous participants in his various projects makes one wonder how someone who likes to be referred to as “His Royal Highness” can associate with so many examples of what most of us would regard as low life.
Here are some illustrations:
HSBC is the Prince’s Trust’s Global Founding Corporate Partner and is praised in its Impact Report for its “transformational investment in young people”, being identified as “one of our most committed and loyal supporters”. Never mind that the British-based bankers have a long history of vast tax avoidance schemes and criminal activity such as money laundering. Dubbed “gangster bankers” involved in “stupefying abuses”, Charles’ loyal supporters even “hooked up with drug traffickers and terrorists”, explains this 2013 article.
KPMG (Business in the Community and Prince’s Trust, Canada) has faced “multiple accusations of negligence, fraud, and conflicts of interest stretching back years” and was recently involved in a giant “cheating scandal“.
NatWest (Business in the Community) was fined £264.8 million in December 2021 for failing to comply with money-laundering regulations.
Bank of America (Prince’s Trust) faced boycott calls after spying on its customers’ activities for the FBI with regard to the January 6 2021 protests in Washington, DC.
Goldman Sachs International (Business in the Community, Ganesh Ramani of British Asian Trust) is afflicted by so many “controversies” that even Wikipedia devotes a whole page to them!
Lockheed Martin (Prince’s Trust, Canada). The arms dealer is notorious for its many bribery scandals.
Macquarie. (Prince’s Trust, Australia). Australia’s largest investment bank was involved in a recent $80 billion controversy labelled the “biggest bank scandal in history“.
Scotiabank (Prince’s Trust, Canada) had to pay out more than US$120 million dollars in 2020 because of its price-manipulation activities.
Jitesh Gadhia (British Asian Trust), a Conservative Party donor in the UK, was involved in David Cameron’s “cash for access” scandal in 2014 and in 2018 he was accused of a conflict of interest because he had become a director of fracking business Third Energy, while also being a non-executive director at UK Government Investments.
Shalni Arora (British Asian Trust). Her husband Simon hit the headlines in 2021 for handing himself a massive payout of £30 million. His firm, B&M bargains, had enjoyed a surge in sales because of its “essential” status during Covid lockdowns.
Varun Chandra (British Asian Trust). His firm, Hakluyt, saysThe Times, advises FTSE 100 companies and “was founded 27 years ago by former MI6 intelligence officers”. An article in The Evening Standard describes the business as “very secretive Mayfair company full of spooks” and “a convenient rest home for MI6 men”. “The company attracted unwelcome publicity in 2001 when it emerged it had used an undercover agent known as Manfred to penetrate environmental groups targeting Shell and BP”. And Hakluyt was again forced into the media limelight in 2012 due to “the mysterious death of one of its occasional investigators in a Chinese hotel room”.
Finally, Charles himself has been caught up in various controversies over the years, not least regarding his role in helping arms dealer BAE Systems sell fighter jets to Saudi Arabia.
Reported Scotland’s The National: “MP Margaret Ferrier said Princess Diana would have campaigned against its bombing raids on Yemen, which allegedly involve the use of banned cluster munitions, and claimed Charles was part of a ‘great effort’ to maintain the market”.
And then, of course there there was that unfortunate incident in the Paris tunnel back in 1997…
Aga Khan
6. The bringer of light?
One particularly intriguing figure in Charles’ global network is another man who likes to be known as “His Highness”, namely The Aga Khan.
Khan is none other than the Global Founding Patron of the Prince’s Trust and, its site tells us, “supports the delivery of The Trust’s work in the UK and Canada and through local partners in India, Jordan, Kenya, Pakistan, Rwanda and the Caribbean (Barbados, Trinidad & Tobago and Jamaica)”.
The business magnate has British, Swiss, French and Portuguese citizenship and his fingers in many a global pie.
One 2016 profile explains: “As founder and Chairman of the Geneva-based Aga Khan Development Network, he spearheads an organisation that employs 80,000 people in 30 countries, and spans non-profit work in poverty-stricken and war-torn areas of the globe, along with a huge portfolio of very-much-for-profit businesses in sectors ranging from aviation and energy to telecommunications, pharmaceuticals and luxury hotels”.
Khan’s net worth has been estimated at $13.3 billion and he is described as one of the world’s fifteen richest “royals”, although he does not actually rule over any particular geographic territory.
Instead he is the spiritual leader of some 20 million Ismaili Muslims, who donate significant sums to him and worship him as the “bringer of light”.
Khan is a personal friend of Charles and his mum, Queen Elizabeth II, as well as of the Spanish king Juan Carlos.
He is also said to have long connections to British intelligence services and other deep state networks.
Khan has been involved in a number of international scandals.
In 2012 it emerged that, although resident in France, he had been “exonerated” from paying any tax by the country’s former president Nicolas Sarkozy.
This, explained The Daily Mail, meant that he could protect his vast fortune across the Channel “despite being worth as much as £6 billion and owning mansions, yachts, private jets, some 800 race horses and even a private island in the Bahamas”.
Then, in 2017, controversy broke out in Canada when it was discovered that prime minister Justin Trudeau had spent a holiday on a private Caribbean island owned by Khan.
While he was there, he also took a ride in the bringer of light’s private helicopter.
Since the Khan’s foundation “receives millions from the Canadian government”, questions were asked about a certain conflict of interest!
Trudeau reassured the public that there was nothing to worry about because “the Aga Khan has been a longtime family friend”.
But he nevertheless became the first Canadian prime minister to be found in violation of ethics law and was forced to publicly apologize.
Khan is also close friends with the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds.
In a speech at New York’s Plaza Hotel in October 1996, David Rockefeller said: “His Highness The Aga Khan is a man of vision, intellect, and passion. I’ve had the pleasure of knowing him for almost forty years, ever since he was an undergraduate at Harvard and a roommate of my nephew Jay Rockefeller”.
For his part, Khan expressed “warm thanks” to Rockefeller, adding: “He, his family, and his philanthropic organisations have been close to my family, our work, and me, for many years. I admire them for their consistent and exemplary commitment to world issues”.
A message from their mutual pal Lord Rothschild praised Khan for his “promotion of private sector enterprise and rural development”.
7. Neo-colonial land-grabbing
Khan, Rockefeller and Rothschild are also united by their common membership of the 1001 Club of the WWF.
According to researchers, this little-known group was set up in the 1970s by individuals including Charles’s dad, the late Prince Philip, and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.
As we noted in this report, Bernhard used to be in the Nazi SS, before founding the WWF.
He also chaired the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group, of which WEF boss Klaus Schwab was a fellow member.
Bernhard was also honorary sponsor of Schwab’s third European Management Symposium at Davos in 1973, when the body which was to become the World Economic Forum first adopted a more overtly political stance, by agreeing a document which became known as “the Davos manifesto”.
The WWF is notorious for throwing indigenous people off their land on behalf of its big business friends under the false green flag of “conservation” and is today very prominent in the industrial-financial lobby calling for a New Deal for Nature.
Here, we will simply note that Charles is very much on board this agenda, endorsing the idea of “natural capital” and indeed launching a new “natural capital alliance”.
But then that is to be expected, because he is president of WWF-UK and “proud” to be so.
He declare on the WWF site: “I have long admired its efforts to tackle the many threats to the world’s wildlife, rivers, forests and seas. And I have come to see how effectively it uses its expertise and international reach to challenge the causes of degradation, such as climate change and the unsustainable use of natural resources”.
Yet again, the worthy-sounding language masks a very different reality: in this instance a newly accelerated wave of the global land-grabbing which has been a feature of the profit-driven British empire for centuries.
8. Shaping history
If Charles ever emerges from his 70-year stint in the Windsors’ waiting room, he will become King Charles III and thus historically linked with his two predecessors of the same name.
Charles I, who became king in 1625, was the last of the ancien régime, a defender of the feudal order. Having been found guilty of tyranny and treason, he was beheaded in front of the London crowds in 1649 (see above).
This was the apex of an English Revolution which, like so many others, was quickly shunted in a direction contrary to the interests of the mass of people who had fought and died for it.
When Oliver Cromwell crushed the radical elements in his New Model Army, at Burford, he was thanked with a celebratory banquet by the financiers of the City of London.
From that moment onwards, the focus of the country was on commerce, expansion and exploitation, including, of course, the slave trade.
Starting with Cromwell’s bloody re-occupation of Ireland, the 11-year period of republican rule, known as the Commonwealth, saw Britain’s empire begin to take shape, with the grabbing of Jamaica, Surinam, St Helena, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
When the executed king’s son, Charles II, took the throne with the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 it was as a “constitutional” king, beholden to parliament and happy to act as a figurehead for the military-mercantile entity known as the British Empire.
The future Charles III seems to be on course to combine the worst elements of both predecessors, fusing old-style feudalism with modern corporate control to forge a “sustainable” global empire built on digital serfdom and impact vampirism.
But it is important to remember that conspiracies cannot succeed if people are wise to what is happening.
By researching and exposing wrong-doing, we can shake off our status as helpless and passive spectators of history in order to become active and engaged participants, part of the resistance.
Charles and his ruling-class collaborators have to dress up their insidious agenda as “doing good”, as “philanthropy” or “conservation”, because they know that otherwise the rest of us would not go along with it.
Once this illusion has been destroyed and the horrible reality exposed, then decent people everywhere will turn their backs definitively on these vile parasites and their evil empire of exploitation.
Elon Musk holds out the promise of restoring “free speech” to Twitter. Yesterday the Tesla CEO offered $43 billion dollars to buy the social media platform outright. Conservatives are intoxicated by the idea. If by some miracle the shareholders take the offer, Musk promises to relax speech-policing and make the algorithms open source.
If we take Musk at his word, his intention is to open real debate and save our democracy. Then again, he’s also told us “China rocks,” robot slaves will replace every worker, universal basic income will soon be necessary, all vehicles will be autonomous, AI will achieve a god-like status, brain implants will connect us to that god, and ultimately, there’s a billion-to-one chance our universe is just a computer simulation.
A cynical listener might suspect this cyborg car-dealer is taking the public for a ride.
Even so, in the case of Twitter, the excitement is understandable. Starting with the Great Meme War that led up to Trump’s 2016 election, the platform laid waste to the funniest dudes on Frog Twitter—from Ricky Vaughn to Kantbot2000—and eventually, the cyber-Stasi banned the sitting President of the United States.
Throughout the pandemic, Twitter squashed valid medical information, promoted lockdown and vaxx propaganda, suppressed Hunter Biden’s laptop from hell, and scrubbed any evidence of election fraud, all while allowing tranny activists to groom children. Their worst offense, though—starting with the first tweet ever sent—was to reduce public discourse to byte-sized quips and goofy memes. (By the way, you can follow me @JOEBOTxyz.)
There was a time, not long ago, when intelligent people understood that social media as a “de facto town square” was a symptom of serious cultural and intellectual decay. Today, they’d do anything for more likes and retweets, even if getting an algo boost means endorsing the world’s wealthiest transhumanist.
So yeah, fuck Twitter—and their little bird, too. They deserve to get crushed. But only a fool would trust Musk, even if he manages to crush the censors.
Yesterday, at the TED 2022 Conference in Vancouver, the interviewer asked Musk why he launched this hostile takeover. Musk told the soy latte elite he’s saving Twitter because:
It’s important to the function of democracy. It’s important to the function of the United States as a free country, and many other countries. And to actually help freedom in the world, more broadly to the US.
Now, we’re heading towards a situation where China is going to be probably having an economy two to three times the size of the United States. And so that’s just a different world. … Other countries are not really a threat to you if you’re by far the biggest kid on the block.
Imagine what Chinese dominance means for “freedom in the world.”
Aside from a quick disclaimer that he doesn’t “endorse everything China does”—or, equivocally, “everything the US does”—Musk has less to say about China’s totalitarian lockdowns and re-education camps than an NBA star in a fresh pair of Nikes. If Musk has anything like a moral compass, an attentive listener would be hard-pressed to say which way the needle’s pointing.
At the TED conference yesterday, Musk laughed that it’s “probably inevitable” his Optimus “buddy robot” will be used as a quasi-sentient sex slave. When confronted with the possibility these lanky droids will rapidly replace human labor, he reassured the working class:
I wouldn’t worry about the, sort of, “putting people out of a job” thing. … This really will be a world of abundance. Any goods and services will be available to anyone who wants them. It’ll be so cheap to have goods and services, it’ll be ridiculous.
Indeed, nothing could be more ridiculous. Back in August of 2019, Musk warned the World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai that automation would wipe human labor out of existence:
AI will make jobs kind of pointless. Probably the last jobs that will remain will be writing AI software. Then eventually the AI will just write its own software.
Last summer, at Tesla’s “AI Day” in Texas—where the Optimus design was first unveiled—Musk proposed a socialist solution to his cheering employees:
Essentially, in the future, physical work will be a choice. … This, I think, will be quite profound because if you say, “What is the economy?” It is, at the foundation it’s labor. So—what happens when there is no shortage of labor?
That’s why I think, long-term, there will need to be universal basic income.
From: “Human Augmentation: The Dawn of a New Paradigm” | UK Ministry of Defense (2021)
Yesterday, when the TED interviewer asked Musk if he really believes in his “heart of hearts” that he’s creating an exciting future for children, Musk switched from robot mode to earnest humanoid mode:
I try my hardest to do so. … I love humanity and I think that we should fight for a good future for humanity and I think we should be optimistic about the future and fight to make that optimistic future happen.
The TED crowd spit out their lattes and erupted in cheers. Either they’re optimistic about a Chinese-led globalist future—which sounds about right—or, like all Musk fanboys, they suffer from selective amnesia.
Musk talks a good game about freedom, and in theory, he may be sincere. But he also signals loyalty to his biggest customer. This time last year, he told the communists at the China Development Forum:
I’m very confident about Tesla’s future in China. The Chinese economy’s going to do extremely well over the next decade and will become the biggest economy in the world. … China, I think long-term, will be our biggest market, but both where we make the most number of vehicles, and where we have the most number of customers.
How does this double-talkin’ jive fly under the radar?
Even our beloved Tucker Carlson—who alone has been rock solid in his opposition to China, Covid hysteria, and the predations of Conservative, Inc—is getting so drunk on liberal tears, he’s staggering a bit. Tucker will sober up, surely, but what about his corporate counterparts?
At least Conservative, Inc is consistent. They’ve overseen the normalization of mass immigration, the sexual revolution, on-demand abortion, gay marriage, trans teens, and now, transhumanism.
They lay spread-eagle athwart history, yelling, “Don’t. Stop!”
From: “AI and Human Enhancement: Americans’ Openness Is Tempered by a Range of Concerns” | Pew Research (March 2022)
Of all the pliable R-droids throwing palm fronds in Musk’s path—and the list is so long now, it’s hard to think of an exception—the most ridiculous is Glenn Beck. One minute, Beck is raising the alarm on evil Great Reset-brand transhumanism. The next, he’s tweeting out, “Elon Musk is the anti-ESG Tony Stark America needs.”
Who the hell is this Tony Stark guy, anyway? Some cartoon character?
You probably wonder what universe these people are living in. Well, according to their cyborg savior, it’s one of a billion computer simulations, most likely programmed by ancient aliens writing code in an extradimensional celestial sphere.
As Musk explained to the Arab royalty at the 2017 World Government Summit in Dubai, chances are life is but a dream:
Now, you can see a video game that’s photo-realistic, and millions of people playing simultaneously. And you see where things are going with virtual reality and augmented reality. And if you extrapolate that out into the future, with any rate of progress at all, then eventually those games will be indistinguishable from reality.
They’ll be so realistic, you will not be able to tell the difference between that game and the reality as we know it.
Well, how do we know that didn’t happen in the past, and that we’re not in one of those games ourselves?
Dunno, bro, but I’ll tell ya what I do know. Simulation theory is a great metaphor for the memetic mind-warp that is social media. If the world’s wealthiest transhumanist succeeds in capturing Twitter, he’ll have a billion minds to play with in his very own simulated reality—not to mention an ocean of data to train his artificial intelligence.
Look, I don’t wanna get too judgy here. My own cosmology is at least as weird as Musk’s.
And I don’t mean to be a buzzkill, either. The prospect of Twitter getting bought out and gutted is hilarious. The rainbow cohort is freaking out, and that should bring joy to every man, woman, and child.
In fact, let’s pause a moment to lap up a few Twitter twink tears.
You taste that? Ahh…
Refreshing.
From: “AI and Human Enhancement: Americans’ Openness Is Tempered by a Range of Concerns” | Pew Research (March 2022)
Now, let me slip this scrawled note into the Conservative, Inc suggestion box. Maybe, just maybe, stubborn reactionaries still have the power and influence to conserve our most precious asset—our humanity.
Let’s say you really do take Musk seriously.
If you’re open to the possibility that tech corporations are creating AI Computer Gods, and that Musk’s brain chips will keep us competitive with these digital deities, and robots are gonna take over every job on Earth, and chipped humans will live on UBI, and we’ll just kick back and spend our brief lives exploring vapid virtual realities, or maybe Mars—and anyway, we all live in a computer simulation, so it hardly matters either way—then for the love of God, come clean with the public about our dire situation so we may proceed accordingly.
Or, if you think Musk is delusional about everything except the things that benefit you, ask yourself why.
Or, if you actually think Musk is just a con artist spinning yarns to play the crowd and pump stocks, then stand up and call him out.
The madness, we can handle. The selective sanctimony? Not so much.
Let’s get something straight. There is no pure form of socialism, where “the government owns the means of production.”
The means of production own the government, and vice versa. It’s always collusion. Elite power players stitch themselves together like a walking Frankenstein corpse.
Socialism can be done with a smile or with guns and jails. Styles vary.
For example, the Council on Foreign Relations [CFR] believes an international “joining of hands across the water” would be just dandy.
You could call the CFR’s agenda socialism or Globalism or fascism or dictatorship or the corporate state—it doesn’t matter. For the sake of brevity, call it socialism.
At street level (not within the CFR), every proponent of the socialist “solution” either has no idea who installs it and runs it, or astonishingly believes “the government” can be transformed into a beneficent enterprise and shed its core corruption, as it takes the reins of absolute power.
Meanwhile, the ultra-wealthy elites who use socialism as a weapon, while propagandizing it as our humanitarian future, know full well THEY will run it, and they have no qualms about placing severe limits on the freedom of populations. They want to impose those limits.
Hope and Change, the slogan of the former US president Barack Obama, was perfect for street-level socialists. It was vague enough to be injected with their own vague dreams and fantasies.
Colleges—or as I call them, Academies of Great Generalities—have been turning out these fantasists by the ton. “If I feel it, it must be true and good.”
One such idealist, back in the 1960s, was a young man named James Kunen. But smarter by far than most of his comrades, he wrote a book called The Strawberry Statement: Notes on a College Revolutionary. A member of the Left group, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Kunen recalled a curious event at the 1968 SDS Convention:
“…at the convention, men from Business International Roundtables—the meetings sponsored by Business International for their client groups and heads of government—tried to buy up a few [Leftist] radicals. These men are the world’s leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go. These are the boys who wrote the Alliance for Progress. They’re the left wing of the ruling class.”
“…They offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago. We were also offered Esso (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the center as they move to the left.”
Rockefeller elites moving to the political Left? What?
Look at it this way. If you’re a Rockefeller man, what brand of rhetoric are you going to use to sell your con? The “Utopian-better-world-for-the-people (Leftist)”, or the “we-want-mega-corporations-to-cheat-and-lie-and-steal-the-people-blind-and-co-opt-the-government (Rightist)”?
Since any brand of rhetoric is designed to end up in the same place—global control—you’re going to pick the more attractive-sounding version.
It’s simply a matter of workability and expedience.
That’s why the lingo of Leftist socialism has come to the fore.
That’s the only reason.
If a Rockefeller operative could use, to good effect, tales of enemies invading Earth from a parallel universe, he would.
In 1928, the historian Oswald Spengler wrote: “There is no proletarian, not even a Communist movement, that has not operated in the interests of money, and for the time being permitted by money—and that [operation has continued] without the idealists among its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact.”
Is there a college anywhere in the world that acknowledges and teaches this? The insight is not permitted. It would torpedo too many platitudes and reveal too many false trails laid down by elite deceivers.
David Rockefeller, writing his 2003 Memoirs, baldly asserted: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Of course, Rockefeller stopped short of saying he and his colleagues, in the core of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission, were using socialism and high-flying utopian rhetoric merely to enlist the Left in his “one-world” cause. He never admitted the notions of “social justice” and “equality” were being peddled to the gullible masses for the same reason.
If he had come clean, victims (both real and self-imagined) would understand they were fighting against the very oppressors who were backing, funding, encouraging, and controlling them.
The sought-after global triumph of socialism is a cover for elite global management and tyranny.
“Thanks for your help. Now that we’ve won, you’re under the gun. Our gun.”
Flashing forward to today, one can see this sales job operating in boardrooms of the tech giants (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) The corporate leaders (the new Rockefellers and Carnegies) claim they’re proponents of “digital socialism,” which they ludicrously define as open access to the wonders of the Internet for all people everywhere, including the poor and bereft. But the last time I looked, those people can’t eat a YouTube video for a breakfast they can’t afford.
This nonsensical fluff hides the same core buried in old-time socialism: the leaders at the top, who have made their mega-fortunes, want to turn around and eliminate competition. Share and care doesn’t apply to the marketplace. The tech CEOs want to collude with government to gain special favors and benefits their lesser rivals can’t obtain.
“We love everyone and care about everyone, but don’t challenge us. We’re the bosses. We own the game.”
The tech giants want much more. They intend to lead the way, with their government partners, into an even tighter control of information (censorship) and a more vast Surveillance State.
They intend to build a technocratic planet, in which planned societies are the foundation. Citizens are “data-points” to be inserted into slots, from cradle to grave, as a worldwide system is constructed.
Notions of fairness, equality, and other terms of socialism are deployed as a front for this massive operation.
Some might say this version of Brave New World/1984 bears no resemblance to socialism.
But they would be wrong. This version is perfect socialism, once you realize the whole socialist “political philosophy” was never anything more than paper-thin propaganda.
It was a nothing made into something.
It falls apart and blows away, and the rictus-grin of control comes into view. The same grin existed in the medieval Roman Church, in the ancient Roman emperorship, in the Egypt of the Pharaohs, in Babylonia, in Sumer, in Mayan and Aztec civilizations, in tribes and clans long buried and forgotten.
Only the language of the sellers to the buyers has changed.
Mao Zedong (aka Mao Tse-tung), founding father and ruler of Communist China, openly declared: “Socialism…must have a dictatorship, it will not work without it.” Mao didn’t beat around the bush. In maintaining his dictatorship, he discovered he might have a problem with between 40 and 70 million of his own people. So, just to make sure, he killed them.
But don’t worry, be happy. Less violent socialisms exist in the world—as long as citizens willingly give up their independence.
For example, you could opt for Tony Blair’s vision. Tony is an accused war criminal (Iraq/2003, between 100,000 and million dead), but on the bright side, he didn’t massacre huge numbers of his own people. In 1983, Tony stated:
“I am a Socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that, at its best, Socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral. It stands for co-operation, not confrontation; for fellowship, not fear. It stands for equality, not because it wants people to be the same but because only through equality in our economic circumstances can our individuality develop properly.”
I’ll let you try to translate that generalized gibberish. Take the words “rational,” “moral,” “co-operation,” “fellowship,” “equality in our economic circumstances,” and run them to ground. Attempt to apply them to actual life. Determine what actual policies and regulations would flow from them.
Tony is one of the deans of the Academy of Great Generalities. He knows how to shovel it on wide and deep. His one skill is appearing earnest and sincere.
He shares that attribute with many of his socialist colleagues. They’ve learned their tricks at the feet of mentors, and you can trace the line all the way back to Plato.
“We’re not Stalin, we’re not Mao. Honest. We want to do good. Help us help you. We’re all in this together. There’s a bright day ahead. Just let us do our work.”
Or as Bill Clinton famously put it, “I feel your pain.”
No one heard him say, under his breath, “Of course, I pay no attention to feelings.”
What type of contamination might be found in a spiked COVID vaccine?
“A foreign body.”
The lot is being recalled due to a foreign body being found in one vial in the lot manufactured at the company’s contract manufacturing site, ROVI – Moderna and ROVI Pharma Industrial Services
Moderna Pharmaceutical, formerly named ModeRNA Therapeutics, became a public company in 2018, specializing in infectious diseases. Prior to the IPO, AstraZeneca was its third-largest investor.
Moderna’s coronavirus shot, known as “SPIKEVAX,” was said to have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for adults 18 and older on Jan. 31, 2022. But according the the FDA Factsheet, the shot is still only Emergency Use Authorized or EUA. Not approved!
Since November 2020, two of the 4 Biotech companies working to manufacture mRNA “therapies,” — Johnson & Johnson and AstraZenica — had to halt trials over safety concerns. And now the spotlight shines on Moderna’s mRNA vaccine deployment in Europe.
The contaminated lot in question was manufactured at the ROVI site in Spain, and distributed in Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden from 13-14 January 2022. Reports tie the recalled batches to the Spanish company, ROVI.
Criminal Acts
Will Moderna be investigated for fraud, product safety, death by vaccine?
In February 2021, US officials investigated and acknowledged a “likely association” between Moderna and Pfizer vaccines and myocarditis in adolescents and young people. Of course, the PREP Act and CARES Act both limit liability for death or serious physical injury resulting from these products. See also Moderna’s disclosure in the SPIKEVAX package insert, referencing Myocarditis and Pericarditis, Section 5.2.
All Phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trails are ongoing and not due to conclude until late 2022/early 2023. The treatments are currently experimental with only 1 year of short-term data and no long term safety data available.
In November 2020 Dr Andreas Noack, a German chemist and one of the EU’s top graphene experts, released a video explaining that he had discovered graphene hydroxide contained in the COVID-19 experimental treatments. He described how the graphene hydroxide nano structures injected into the human body act as ‘razor blades’ inside the veins of recipients and how they would not show up on an autopsy or normal toxicology tests given their atomic size. On 26th November 2021, just hours after publishing his latest video about graphene hydroxide, he died in suspicious circumstances. [See Summary].
Professor Dr Pablo Campra, University of Almeria, Spain also examined Covid-19 experimental treatments in November 2021 using Micro-Raman Spectroscopy, the study of frequencies. He also confirmed the presence of graphene oxide.
Today’s high drug prices show little has changed since 1963, when The Federal Trade Commission ruled that six of the nation’s largest drug companies were conspiring to fix prices on tetracycline, the most widely used antibiotic. The Kefauver drug hearings confirmed the existence of a national crime syndicate and revealed lax enforcement that continues to this day. Note, one of the “big six” criminals, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, was absorbed by Pfizer.
Gene Therapy or Gene Reset?
Experts contend that the technology in the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna shots are not “gene therapy.” But that is not how the experimental products had first been marketed.
According to a November 2021 article at LifeSiteNews, during the 2021 Global Health Summit in Berlin, Bayer executive, Stefan Oelrich, told fellow “experts” that the mRNA COVID “vaccines” are actually “cell and gene therapy” that would have otherwise been rejected by the public if not for a “pandemic” and favorable marketing.
Oelrich also highlighted the term, “Bio Revolution” as:
a confluence of advances in biological science and accelerating development of computing, automation, and artificial intelligence [that] is fueling a new wave of innovation.
As part of his company’s role for “sustainability” Bayer also pledged to push contraception on 100 million women across the world. This rhetoric fits hand-in-glove with Klaus Schwab’s Socialist plan for the “Great Reset.”
Damage from the mRNA injectables are surfacing. According to an October 2021 study in the American Journal of Cardiology:
Sixty percent of the myocarditis related COVID-19 vaccine cases were associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 33% were associated with the Moderna vaccine, and 7% were associated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
According to a November 2021 abstract published in the Journal Circulation titled, “Observational Findings of PULS Cardiac Test Findings for Inflammatory Markers in Patients Receiving mRNA Vaccines:”
…the mRNA vacs numerically increase all markers previously described by others for denoting inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle…
Ignorance Is No Excuse
Ignorance is no excuse in the Age of Information. As more information surfaces, do not expect drug companies to change their criminal ways.
The information is available and viewable for anyone who can do a Google search. Drug companies have subtly disclosed the information if you can read about it here.
If any change will come of these revelations, that change rests with each of us. There are no “good” or “bad” experiences. There is only “experience” from which we all choose to learn more.
Children today are being systematically and deliberately destroyed – both mentally and physically.
We are horrified at the way children were pushed up chimneys in the 19th century. Making children work long, arduous hours was considered normal at the time but the children abused in this way were scarred physically and mentally for life.
Today, we like to think that that sort of cruelty is today confined to those parts of the world where children are employed as slave labour in order to dig out the rare minerals needed to make batteries for electric cars.
And, of course, to the factories where slave labourers make overpriced plimsolls or manufacture mobile phones – all at such a low prices that billionaires can progress up the ladder and become even richer.
We like to think that most countries in the so-called developed world have moved on. We close our eyes to the billionaires growing ever richer on the backs of slave labour children.
Those pulling down statues of 19th century slave traders still buy the electric cars, the mobile phones and the absurd shoes and ignore the uncomfortable truths about how they were made.
In the 19th century, child labour was seen as normal and acceptable. In both physical and psychological terms what we are doing now is even worse.
For no sensible, medical reason our world has been turned upside down and millions of children will never recover. (In Africa, of course, millions of children will die as a result of the lockdowns and deliberately staged global panic.)
There is evidence that as a result of the covid hysteria many children have become withdrawn and frightened of approaching strangers – especially if they are not wearing masks.
A children’s charity has seen a massive rise in the incidence of mental and emotional problems in children under 11 years of age. Children are worried about dying, about their friends and family dying, about their future, about missing school, about loneliness, about future epidemics. The AIDS hysteria of the 20th century has become the covid hysteria of the 21st century.
As a result many are either not eating, or eating too much, and they are not sleeping. Panic attacks are becoming commonplace. A study of 10,000 parents showed that 30% of children were worried about catching the virus and 30% were worried about missing their education. Even more worrying 16% were afraid to leave their homes. More than half of the parents were worried about their children.
And yet deaths among healthy children are so rare that it has been suggested that lightning is a bigger threat to children and that it would make more sense to tell children to wear helmets to protect them against meteors than to recommend that they wore masks or practised social distancing.
Nevertheless, schools introduced masks and social distancing, and many teachers and parents want the restrictions to continue indefinitely – until the very last virus on earth has disappeared.
In Ohio, electronic beams were introduced to track school pupils and to enforce social distancing.
In China, robots have been installed to ensure that children wash their hands properly.
Some schools have installed thermal imaging cameras to see if children have a temperature. (This is entirely pointless).
One educational establishment in the US made a viral tracking app mandatory and students were constantly tracked. Students who turned off the app or tried to leave the campus without permission were expelled.
Under normal circumstances, young children touch and hug one another and derive great comfort from this.
Forcing children to remain isolated has created huge psychological problems. Children from poorer families or where there is an unhappy home life have suffered most. Also, the lack of exercise will result in health problems and obesity.
The problems have been exacerbated by threats that children who do not obey the rules `may kill granny’. (The irony is that their government wants to kill granny with blanket DNR notices in hospitals and care homes and by denying medical treatment to older citizens.) Children have seen adults frightened and as a result child terror has been exacerbated.
Many children have become socio-phobic and are developing OCD.
Figures for suicide are nigh on impossible to obtain but suicide is widely recognised to be a leading cause of death in the 5-19 age group, and one survey showed a 50% increase in suicides in 2020 compared to 2019. I suspect the figure will grow.
In an attempt to escape from reality, children are spending vast amounts of time on the internet. Gaming addiction is becoming an increasing problem with cyberbullying adding to anxiety and depression. Sports and out of school activities have been abandoned or disrupted leading to increased boredom, loneliness and depression.
Equally worrying is the fact that altered behaviour in children will frequently be diagnosed as ADHD and drugs such as Ritalin will be prescribed as a long-term remedy.
All this for an infection which children hardly ever catch and hardly ever transmit.
It’s all madness.
The whole fraud was deliberately designed by billionaires and their evil supporters.
And although politicians, their advisors and the medical establishment are guilty of mass genocide for the part they have played, parents and school teachers must also be held responsible.
If parents and teachers had done a little research, they would have known (and would know) that the covid-19 scare is fraudulent.
Their children’s lives have been sacrificed for nothing.
Last week we reported over 4000 police officers are slated to have their religious exemptions to vaccination denied and they will eventually be fired. Yesterday NYPD sources told us nearly 180 police officers had their exemptions officially denied and will be fired within 7 days if they don’t get vaccinated or voluntarily retire. If an officer is fired they give up all rights to their pension and are left with nothing.
These denials were announced the same day 18 people were shot by a gunman in NYC subways and there was not a single transit officer to be found on the scene.
The number of 4,000 we reported last week was incorrect. It is actually 4,875 cops and 1,112 civilians at NYPD that are currently unvaccinated, according to reliable sources in the NYPD. These officers and employees are currently working everyday with a weekly testing option in effect. All of these numbers are coming from NYPD Officers I am in direct contact with who are following the situation extremely closely because their careers are on the line.
Mayor Eric Adams has effectively admitted all of these NYPD officers and employees are slated to be fired. In an interview on CBS News with Marcia Kramer the following exchange occurred discussing the recent firings of NYC workers for declining covid vacciantion:
MarciaKramer: So, if the money permits, would you ever consider rehiring some of the 1,400 people who’ve lost their jobs because they refuse to get the COVID vaccine. Because it looks to me like given the fact that there’s about 5,000 others who have asked for exemptions and didn’t get them and now are appealing, that you could lose a lot more people including a large number of police, fire, and emergency service workers...
Mayor Adams: Well, people should really understand the numbers, the overwhelming number of civil service and city workers. They complied. Under the second wave that we just saw, we did not lose any police officers-
Kramer: You’re about to.
Mayor Adams: I’m sorry?
Kramer: I think you’re about to, because their appeals are now being denied.
Mayor Adams: No, I am hoping that they are smart enough to know that it is imperative to take the vaccine for themselves and their families …
Kramer: So you’re asking them to change their mind?
Mayor Adams: Yes, I am.
[emphasis added]
***
NYPD employees have no first amendment rights of free speech when it comes to their job. If they speak, they get fired. As police officers are now finally directly facing the loss of their jobs, leaks are starting to come forward:
Look at this reply to Mayor Eric Adams regarding the coming firing of nearly 200 Police Oficers due to religious exemption denials:
We need the mainstream media to hold Mayor Eric Adams accountable. The NYPD has massive staffing shortages already! The city cannot afford losing thousands of police officers.
Last November, 2021, news reports threatened that if people who die of COVID were not vaccinated, their families may not get death benefits they would otherwise have received.
If the only guarantee in life is death, then at least there is life insurance, right?
Wrong! Fast forward to the Post-COVID Era, and the fallout from Emergency Use Authorized (EUA) vaccines. According to Forbes Magazine, if today you choose to receive a COVID-19 injection, it could prevent you from receiving a death benefit from your life insurance.
Say what?
No More Death Benefit
According to an article by Brain Peckford, a recent post-Covid vaccine death in France was ruled to be “a suicide” by a judge, due to the experimental nature of the “vaccine.” The insurance company refused to pay. No death benefit. The article reads:
A wealthy elderly man with a high value Life Insurance policy to the amount of millions of euros… dies from the covid jab. His death as a consequence of being jabbed is not disputed by the doctors, nor his life insurers. The Insurance company refused to pay the policy, citing that the taking of experimental drugs, treatments, etc., is excluded from the policy. The family takes the insurance company to court and they have just lost the case.
The judge stated, “the experimental vaccine side effects are publicised and the deceased could not claim not to have known about them when he voluntarily took the jab. There is no law or mandate in France which forced him to be jabbed. Therefore, his death is essentially suicide”.
Suicide is explicitly excluded from this particular policy and in fact from all life insurance policies in general.
This has been the finding of a major western world court system and there is zero doubt that insurance companies world wide will cite this case as legal fact.
Therefore, if anyone ever challenges you on whether these jabs are experimental or not, and that neither the pharma companies, nor govts, nor anyone else but YOU are responsible for accepting them and if you die, legally you have committed suicide.
No insurance, no payouts, no refunds. You are on your own!
Listen to Dr. Pierre describe the same story and explain the view of the American Council of Life Insurers; that insurance companies may deny payment of death benefit if death results from the experimental COVID injection.
How could this possibly be? One moment the experimental vaccine and the boosters protect you against COVID, but the next moment they do not? One moment you are insured with the injection, but the next moment, you are not? As the French say, “C’est la vie. C’est la guerre!” Meaning? Such is life! That’s war. It can’t be helped!
Changing Narratives
Changing narratives happen by design. Those who own the narrative control the outcome. Moreover, in America, under the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, the media is free to legally propagandize Americans. The EUA vaccines, once advertised to “save lives by preventing deaths” from COVID-19 coronavirus infections, are now “suicidal.”
In May 2021 it was a different story. According to the American Council of Life Insurers, life insurers could not deny a death benefit because the deceased was vaccinated against COVID-19:
A social media post appears to be behind the spread of entirely false information, suggesting a COVID-19 vaccine could be a factor a life insurer considers in the claims-paying process. The fact is that life insurers do not consider whether or not a policyholder has received a COVID vaccine when deciding whether to pay a claim. Life insurance policy contracts are very clear on how policies work, and what cause, if any, might lead to the denial of a benefit. A vaccine for COVID-19 is not one of them. Policyholders should rest assured that nothing has changed in the claims-paying process as a result of COVID-19 vaccinations.
But good propaganda shifts with the winds. Today’s America is not yesterday’s America. America has been hijacked, morally corrupted, debauched, and sold to the highest bidder.
In fact, if you received the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines, you received a vaccine deemed “emergency use authorization” (EUA) from the FDA. No EUA injections are FDA-approved vaccines. Further, the first injections deployed were labelled “experimental.” Thus, participants who consented, without proper Informed Consent, became subjects in an ongoing clinical study. Note: Life insurance companies do not cover experiments.
In other news, if you are unvaccinated and hospitalized, insurance may not pay either. A news release from the University of Michigan states:
“Many insurers claim that it is justified to charge patients for COVID-19 hospitalizations now that COVID-19 vaccines are widely available,” said lead author Kao-Ping Chua, M.D., Ph.D., a health policy researcher and pediatrician at Michigan Medicine and the Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation Research Center. “However, some people hospitalized for COVID-19 aren’t eligible for vaccines, such as young children, while others are vaccinated patients who experienced a severe breakthrough infection. Our study suggests these patients could substantial bills.”
To recap: if you are 1) Unvaccinated and hospitalized, or 2) vaccinated pre-death, then life Insurance does not pay what you might expect, if at all.
The Double-edged Sword
Read the article Dissolving a Pandemic of Fear, to understand that this trend first began in distant lands during the summer of 2021 with unusual side effects to the globally-deployed experimental vaccines:
Because of the uncertainties from unauthorized tests and experimental vaccines, insurance companies in India and Korea are limiting what they will cover if someone becomes sick from the COVID injections:
Contrary to popular perception, existing health insurance policies are unlikely to cover the cost of vaccination and adverse reactions, if any. Only policies designed purely for the COVID vaccination process — there is none at the moment — will cover the costs.
If you consented to an EUA injection, your life insurance policy has changed. You can’t win for losing, and you can’t claim your life insurance for dying. Something that cuts both ways is known as a double-edged sword.
Justice Through the Courts?
The federal PREP Act and CARES Act prevent practically all civil litigation, ranging from COVID “vaccines” to “tests,” to doctors/pharmacists/nurses. All have blanket civil (but not criminal) protections. All prosecutions are 100.0% discretionary, meaning that even if one admits to a criminal (COVID) act, no private citizen has the power to prosecute any alleged criminal act. That power rests solely with the district attorney and attorney generals — not citizens.
What does this mean? ALL prosecutions are political. In other words, The ONLY way to legally challenge all the “COVID” treason is confined to CRIMINAL prosecutions. Evidence proving criminal fraud has been submitted to the appropriate authorities, and yet there have been no criminal prosecutions through the Department of Justice. Why not? Good question.
What about life insurance fraud? Can insurers be prosecuted in the courts if the Life Insurance Council COVID policy is against the policy holder?
In response to a FOIA request, a federal district judge recently ordered Pfizer Inc. to release 55,000 pages of documents each month, after Pfizer claimed it would not disclose any data for 75 years. That means all the Pfizer vaccine data should be made public by the end of September 2022, rather than the year 2097.
Yet, who is in charge of sifting through the flood of information? What are the consequences of learning the truth that was meant to be hidden? No one knows. What about the fact that government appears to be practicing medicine without a license? How could this possibly be?
Because the narrative is always written by those who control the pen, you must do your own research and captain your own ship. Call your insurance company directly. Ask an “expert” if getting the vaccine will affect your life insurance coverage in any way. Ask if future EUA jabs will affect your premiums or payouts.
Then ask yourself if paying those high insurance premiums is worth the outcome in The COVIDIAN Age, or if it is better to put your money elsewhere.
We have a stunning February 2020 report, “Exploring Biodigital Convergence,” released by “Policy Horizons Canada… a strategic foresight organization within the Government of Canada…”
The report lays out a pattern of joining biology and digital technology to create new humans.
This IS the planned future.
It doesn’t take a genius to see that this is the far shore of a global control grid.
I’ll start with a sprinkling of quotes from the report; they give you a general notion of what this “revolution” is about:
“Biological and digital systems are converging, and could change the way we work, live, and even evolve as a species.”
“More than a technological change, this biodigital convergence may transform the way we understand ourselves and cause us to redefine what we consider human or natural.”
“Digital technologies and biological systems are beginning to combine and merge in ways that could be profoundly disruptive to our assumptions about society, the economy, and our bodies. We call this the biodigital convergence.”
“Full physical integration of biological and digital identities.”
“Biodigital convergence is opening up striking new ways to: Change human beings – our bodies, minds, and behaviours…Change or create other organisms …”
Now here is a passage that should pull you up short:
“Digital technology can be embedded in organisms, and biological components can exist as parts of digital technologies. The physical meshing, manipulating, and merging of the biological and digital are creating new hybrid forms of life and technology, each functioning in the tangible world, often with heightened capabilities.”
“Robots with biological brains and biological bodies with digital brains already exist, as do human-computer and brain-machine interfaces. The medical use of digital devices in humans, as well as digitally manipulated insects such as drone dragonflies and surveillance locusts, are examples of digital technology being combined with biological entities. By tapping into the nervous system and manipulating neurons, tech can be added to an organism to alter its function and purpose. New human bodies and new senses of identity could arise as the convergence continues.”
That last paragraph has citations referring to published studies. I plowed my way through one, which detailed experiments with rats. The researchers found new ways of embedding many, many “threads” in the rats’ brains. These threads can presumably deliver information/commands to the brain. That would be the goal.
So this report on biodigital convergence is more than theory. It’s more than speculation. It’s extrapolation from current research. And it’s “forward looking.” At times, it barely contains its enthusiasm for a future in which humans aren’t humans anymore. Humans are “more.”
Here are several other quotes from the report:
“…biology is subject to influence and manipulation that was not possible a few years ago.”
“For example, gene sequencing [enabled by digital technology] combined with artificial intelligence (AI) leads to understanding genetic expression, which is then used to alter existing organisms to create organic compounds in new ways or even entirely synthetic organisms.”
“Neural nets – computer systems that are designed based on biological brains – are an example of how biological understanding is shaping digital technology.”
One hand washes the other. The biological and the digital hands collaborate.
But surely, people still understand that biology is fundamentally different from digital technology. Right? Read the next quote from the report:
“As we continue to better understand and control the mechanisms that underlie biology, we could see a shift away from vitalism – the idea that living and nonliving organisms are fundamentally different because they are thought to be governed by different principles. Instead, the idea of biology as having predictable and digitally manageable characteristics may become increasingly common as a result of living in a biodigital age. Any student of biology today will have grown up in a digital world and may consciously or subconsciously apply that [new] frame of reference to bioinformatics and biology generally.”
The report is talking about a cultural shift.
People immersed in “the digital world” will no longer view biology as VITAL AND ALIVE and the digital as MECHANICAL AND DEAD.
Instead, living biology will just be one more territory to be manipulated; like a machine that can be improved.
Therefore, the whole concept that LIFE IS VIOLATED by manipulating it and altering it radically…will fade out and go away.
The idea that biology is one thing and the digital is another will vanish.
Continuing to quote from the report:
“As digital technology became more complex and connected, the system began to mimic the characteristics of the biological world, leading to the notion of technological ecosystems. Biological models are also being used to develop digital tools, such as AI based on neural nets.”
Did you catch that phrase, “technological ecosystems?” Suddenly, the non-living—machines and data—is thought of as living. And many tech oriented people would say, “Well, of course. The systems ARE living. And if you don’t agree, you’re hopelessly old-fashioned and holding on to an irrelevant paradigm.”
The report: “Biodigital convergence is…moving away from the centralized models of pharmaceutical and industrial biotech toward widespread commercial and consumer use. These range from bioprinters that create organic tissue, to synthetic biology machines that can be programmed to create entirely new organisms. For example, Printeria is an all-in-one bioengineering device that automates the process of printing genetic circuits in bacteria. It is intended to be as easy to use as a domestic desktop printer and is projected to cost $1,500.”
Anyone can EXPERIENCE the blending of digital and biological by carrying out experiments at home.
And speaking of home, here from the report is a “possible scenario” occurring in the new biodigital world; up close and personal.
Note: Given what you’ve already read so far, this scenario is a decidedly Lite and cheery version of what it would be like to live in the new world. Further, there are all sorts of pseudoscientific assumptions about medical/health solutions and climate change EMBEDDED PERMANENTLY in the AI programs that govern daily life:
From the report: “I wake up to the sunlight and salty coastal air of the Adriatic sea. I don’t live anywhere near the Mediterranean, but my AI, which is also my health advisor, has prescribed a specific air quality, scent, and solar intensity to manage my energy levels in the morning, and has programmed my bedroom to mimic this climate.”
“I send a brain message [a thought] to open the app that controls my insulin levels and make sure my pancreas is optimally supported.”
“I check my brain’s digital interface to read the dream data that was recorded and processed in real time last night. My therapy app analyzes the emotional responses I expressed while I slept. It suggests I take time to be in nature this week to reflect on my recurring trapped-in-a-box dream and enhance helpful subconscious neural activity. My AI recommends a ‘forest day’. I think ‘okay’, and my AI and neural implant do the rest.”
The neural implant, triggered by a mere thought from the compliant citizen, creates the virtual “forest day.”
“The summary of my bugbot surveillance footage shows that my apartment was safe from intruders (including other bugbots) last night, but it does notify me that my herd of little cyber-dragonflies are hungry. They’ve been working hard collecting data and monitoring the outside environment all night, but the number of mosquitoes and lyme-carrying ticks they normally hunt to replenish their energy was smaller than expected. With a thought, I order some nutrient support for them.”
“Building codes and home energy infrastructure are synchronized, and require all homes be autoregulated for efficiency. Because houses and buildings are biomimetic and incorporate living systems for climate control wherever possible, they are continuously filtering the air and capturing carbon. I check my carbon offset measure to see how much credit I will receive for my home’s contribution to the government’s climate change mitigation program.”
“I replace the smart sticker that monitors my blood chemistry, lymphatic system, and organ function in real time. It’s hard to imagine the costs and suffering that people must have endured before personalized preventative medicine became common.”
“Today’s microbiome breakdown is displayed on the front of my fridge as I enter the kitchen. It’s tracking a steady shift as I approach middle age: today it suggests miso soup as part of my breakfast, because my biome needs more diversity as a result of recent stress and not eating well last night.”
“I take my smart supplement, which just popped out of my bioprinter. The supplement adjusts the additional nutrients and microbes I need, and sends data about my body back to my bioprinter to adjust tomorrow’s supplement. The feedback loop between me and my bioprinter also cloud-stores daily data for future preventive health metrics. The real-time monitoring of my triglycerides is important, given my genetic markers.”
“As my coffee pours, I check my daughter’s latest school project, which has been growing on the counter for the past week. She’s growing a liver for a local puppy in need as part of her empathy initiative at school. More stem cells are on the way to start a kidney too, because she wants to help more animals. I grab my coffee, brewed with a new certified carbon-negative bean variety, and sit on the couch for a minute.”
Many people reading this scenario would jump at the chance to live in that world—blithely assuming all would be well.
They would never guess their neural implants OVERRIDE decisions they themselves make that run counter to government “recommended behavior.”
Nor would they imagine the varieties of strange hybrid creatures that abound in this Brave New World. Animal-human-machine creatures, whose functions are assigned by technocratic rulers.
And the last thing they’d realize is that they could very well BE those animal-human-machine creatures.
Finally, for now; there is one element which keeps people from admitting that “science fiction” can actually come to pass. They believe people living in a dystopian science fiction world would KNOW it was horrible and life-destroying—and would rebel.
But the Canadian report points out that our culture is burying that knowledge. People of the near-future could hold beliefs which affirm the biodigital convergence as a major ADVANCE. As PROGRESS. As an Evolved Reality. As Truth.
With the memory of the past…gone.
CODA: Under several headings, the report lists biodigital strategies. They’re chilling. You can easily discern the implications.
HEADING: “What new capabilities arise from biodigital convergence?”
“Altering the human genome – our core biological attributes and characteristics.”
“Monitoring, altering and manipulating human thoughts and behaviours.”
“Neurotechnologies read brain signals to monitor attention and manage fatigue.”
“New ways to monitor, manage, and influence bodily functions, as well as predict, diagnose, and treat disease.”
“Digital devices can be worn or embedded in the body to treat and monitor functionality.”
“Biohacking with implanted digital devices to enhance bodily functions.”
“Nanobots and nanomaterials can operate and precisely deliver drugs within living creatures.”
HEADING: “New ways to change or create other organisms”
“Changing the type or amount of inputs that organisms need to grow.”
“Synthetic biology draws inspiration from biology, engineering, computer science, and physics for the design and construction of new biological entities.”
HEADING: “new ways to alter ecosystems”
“Changing and eradicating entire species.”
“Altering the natural environment at scale.”
HEADING: “New ways to sense, store, process, and transmit information”
“Turning organisms into biocomputers.”
In the ENDNOTES section of the report, you can find links to published research on biodigital experiments.
Example: “Brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) hold promise for the restoration of sensory and motor function and the treatment of neurological disorders, but clinical BMIs have not yet been widely adopted, in part because modest channel counts have limited their potential. In this white paper, we describe Neuralink’s first steps toward a scalable high-bandwidth BMI system. We have built arrays of small and flexible electrode “threads”, with as many as 3,072 electrodes per array distributed across 96 threads. We have also built a neurosurgical robot capable of inserting six threads (192 electrodes) per minute. Each thread can be individually inserted into the brain with micron precision for avoidance of surface vasculature and targeting specific brain regions.”
Example: “A project called DragonflEye, conducted by the research and development organization Draper in conjunction with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, is turning the insects into hybrid drones. Live dragonflies are equipped with backpacks containing navigation systems, which tap directly into their nervous systems. The dragonflies can then be ‘steered’ to fly in certain directions. The whole thing is powered by miniature solar panels in the backpacks.”
Example: “Scientists have created the world’s first living organism that has a fully synthetic and radically altered DNA code. The lab-made microbe, a strain of bacteria that is normally found in soil and the human gut, is similar to its natural cousins but survives on a smaller set of genetic instructions.”
Example: “…we built a dual-core CPU combining two orthogonal core processors in a single cell. In principle, human cells integrating multiple orthogonal CRISPR/Cas9-based core processors could offer enormous computational capacity.”
Example: “The daring Chinese biophysicist who created the world’s first gene-edited children has been set free after three years in a Chinese prison. He Jiankui created shock waves in 2018 with the stunning claim that he’d altered the genetic makeup of IVF embryos and implanted them into a woman’s uterus, leading to the birth of twin girls. A third child was born the following year.”
As the World Council for Health (WCH), our partners and allies have already sought to draw attention to, the World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed a global pandemic agreement that will give it undemocratic rights over sovereign people. See the WCH Open Letter in response to this attempted power grab here.
WHO has quietly opened the floor for comments on the agreement but has provided little time to do so ahead of the first round of hearings scheduled for April 12 and 13.
We encourage everyone to share their thoughts with World Health Organization before the deadline.
1. Go to the World Health Organization website to submit a written submission now
Written submissions are short and can be up to 250 words/1250 characters. The deadline for written submissions is 3 pm UTC on Wednesday, April 13.
Submissions must be in response to the provided guiding question: What substantive elements do you think should be included in a new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response?
The prompt provided by the WHO does not ask the people of the world whether or not they believe a global agreement is necessary. Instead, the organization has decided for itself that this measure is warranted and is asking for input on what people believe should be included in it.
Refrain from making any statements unrelated to the topic at hand; and
Be presented in a respectful manner, free of any profanity, ad hominem attacks, vulgarity, or other inappropriate language.
If participation, spoken or written, does not conform with these requirements, as determined solely by WHO, the participation will not be receivable. This means that WHO may call speakers to order, and/or discontinue speakers’ connections, and elect to not post written statements.
Why do I need to frame my submission using WHO’s provided context?
Because the WHO reserves the right to judge the relevancy of submissions, it is important to respond to the prompt in an appropriate yet constructive manner. As such, the World Council for Health suggests the following elements be addressed:
National and local leadership retain full autonomy, reserving the right to make decisions based on what is best for their own people.
The ability of nations and local municipalities to opt out of any and all portions of the agreement as they see fit, without consequence.
An open and transparent process with the ability for all people of the world to vote on including failsafe measures that will prevent the application of the global agreement in places where a majority of the people do not want it.
Measures that do not allow for influence in the process by any and all pharmaceutical companies or other global health profiteers.
The hearing will be livestreamed here on Tuesday, April 12.
cover image based on creative commons work of Caniceus
Dr. Naomi Wolf at Defeat the Mandates Rally: “You Hurt Our Kids & Watch Out. Because You Have Never Faced the Rage of Thousands of Mothers & Stepmothers”
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Jeffrey Beauchine said his mother, Carol, knew her Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease was related to the Moderna shot. Watching her death was like “something you see out of a movie,” he said.
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Carol’s son, Jeffrey Beauchine, said it was excruciating to watch his 70-year-old mother — who was healthy until she got the vaccine — die from a disease he believes the vaccine caused.
“I’ve seen a lot in my 20 years as a police officer,” Beauchine said. “I’ve seen hundreds of people shot and this affected me more than anything.”
Beauchine said Carol received her first dose of Moderna on Feb. 16, 2021, and didn’t report any complaints. After getting the second dose on March 17, Carol immediately said she “felt different.”
Beauchine said:
“On March 17, she got her second dose and immediately started having reactions to the second dose. She just had this malaise. She just didn’t feel right and said she just felt ‘off.’ She had what she described as pain and burning at the injection site — like someone was tying a hot rope around her arm. Then she explained it as this numbness setting in around the injection site.”
Beauchine said he and his family members didn’t think it was a usual side effect, but they also didn’t think it was unusual.
“We just thought it was a result of the jab working through the system,” Beauchine said. “Then the numbness spread up through her neck and down her left arm.”
The numbness altered Carol’s hearing and spread “down through her hands” until the left hand lost sensation and mobility.
Beauchine said:
“At this point, it was her entire left arm. She started to develop insomnia. She would go a couple of days at a time without sleep and then she was fatigued. This numbness continued to spread. It went down to her hip and moved to her knees, then the entire left side. You could almost bisect her body and the left side was numb and the right side was normal.”
Beauchine said Carol went to the doctors — who initially thought she had suffered a stroke — but her MRI scans were completely normal.
“Nobody could find anything wrong with her so they sent her home,” Beauchine said. “It was almost like reassurance, while at the same time I wondered why they couldn’t.”
Carol then developed tremors in her left arm.
“It was almost like her arm would start jerking involuntarily,” Beauchine said. “Then the tremors moved on to the left leg.”
Beauchine added:
“My mother began to complain that something was wrong with her brain. She said she couldn’t put thoughts together or make sense of things but she could still communicate. Over the phone, you wouldn’t see the altered version of my mom I knew for 44 years.”
Then Carol developed double vision that ultimately led to blindness, and she began to hallucinate.
“She would see herself falling out of the chair and she would physically see herself on the ground,” Beauchine said. “It was weird to understand. She developed a fear of water and would become scared she was near a body of water.”
Doctors believed Carol was suffering from anxiety because of the shot and started treating her for anxiety. Meanwhile, Carol lost the ability to walk.
Beauchine said:
“She was still at home at this time because the hospital couldn’t find anything wrong with her. She was pretty much in a wheelchair. She went from the one who takes care of everybody to my 70-year-old father taking care of her. Then it got too hard for him and during one doctor’s visit they admitted her to see if they could dive into it further.
Beauchine said doctors ran every test “under the sun,” including an MRI, but couldn’t find anything. The only things doctors noticed were the obvious mobility problems on the left side of her body and balance problems.
The doctors also said there was “something off with her cerebellum but they didn’t know what it was,” he added. Carol tried to explain to the doctors that there was something “internally” wrong with her.
“She was then released to a nursing home,” Beauchine said. “It was the first time I saw my mom really sick.”
He said:
“She was in a nursing home where all this COVID was going on and we had to stand outside the window and yell through the air conditioner hole to talk to my mom. She felt defeated and scared, and my father cared for her 18 hours a day — spoon-feeding her — until the end. It just happened so fast.”
Eventually, Carol was able to get into a skilled nursing home, but she deteriorated rapidly.
“She lost the ability to feed herself because she couldn’t get the food on her fork to put it in her mouth,” Beauchine said. “It crushed me because I could see in her eyes without us having any convo, the fear and like she was defeated.”
Beauchine said there were no more good days and his mother lost the ability to communicate.
“By mid-end of July my mom was just a complete rigid person,” he said. “Lips stopped moving. She could only get a couple of syllables out. She would almost be falling out of a wheelchair in a forward position. She couldn’t tell if she was sitting up.”
Beauchine said his mother knew from the very beginning her condition was related to the shot.
“We all knew from the very beginning it was related to the shot, but we didn’t know the future significance of how bad this would get,” Beauchine said. “People have bad reactions all the time but you get over them. She didn’t get over them.”
Beauchine said the doctors didn’t know what to do because “it was just so new.”
“I’m more content with a doctor telling me they don’t know if it’s the shot because there’s no research than the doctors who say it’s definitely not the shot,” he said. “I got more ‘I don’t knows’ than denials.”
By the end of July, Carol’s husband couldn’t wake her up at the nursing home and the family had a meeting and decided their mother needed to go back to the hospital.
Beauchine said:
“When I rounded the corner, I saw my mom and it was like she was like yelling or howling. Her eyes were completely fixed in the open position. Her mouth was stuck in the open position and she had violent tremors that wouldn’t stop. She didn’t understand what was going on. The only way I can put it is a bomb went off inside of her head.
“It was excruciating for all of us. My dad was like a deer in the headlights — a blank look I had never seen before. And I’ve seen a lot of stuff in my life with my job but this was like … a bomb went off in my mom’s head and all of her limbs were convulsing and tremoring.
“It’s like something you see out of a movie. They say with this disease you come to the cliff and it’s just a drop-off and once you drop off you’re able to physically see that dropping point — and you could see it that night.”
Doctors sent Carol to Strong Memorial in Rochester, New York, and within weeks they confirmed she had CJD.
“We didn’t know what CJD was, but we were told it was like mad cow disease but like a different variant or different mode of getting it,” Beauchine said. “Same disease but a different way of getting it.”
Carol’s prognosis was fatal and the family was told she had only days left. Beauchine said a panel consisting of doctors and students who were overseeing Carol’s case were open to the fact they did not know what caused her CJD.
“People were learning and they said ‘we don’t know if this is related to the vaccine or not. We don’t know because the vaccine is new and there weren’t a lot of studies on the vaccine. We won’t know until the long-term.’”
Carol passed away on Aug. 2, 202, from CJD — a condition she did not have prior to receiving her second dose of Moderna a few months earlier. Her doctors filed a report with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS I.D. 2180699).
VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting vaccine adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. According to the CDC’s website, “CDC and [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] clinicians review reports of death to VAERS including death certificates, autopsy and medical records.”
Beauchine confirmed the family has never received any contact from the CDC regarding his mother’s death, and to his knowledge, her doctors haven’t either.
Beauchine said Carol was a relatively healthy person with no previous history of COVID. Her only underlying condition was arthritis.
“She was always taking care of other people and when the whole COVID thing broke out in the media, she wanted to stay protected so she could see her kids and grandkids,” Beauchine said. “She didn’t want to be hindered by the virus, so when the opportunity arose for her age group, she got the first dose with no complaints.”
Beauchine said he also received the COVID vaccine because it was required for his job.
“At the time, there was a little smidgeon of excitement because they had you so feared over COVID-19 and finally there was a little light at the end of the tunnel,” he said. “And it was going to be okay.”
He added:
“I got the vax. My wife got the vax. My father got the vax. My children will never get the vax. I’m not against a COVID-19 vaccine but it takes years and years and years of clinical trials and studies to deem something safe to put in the human body, and that wasn’t done. We all turned a blind eye to it at the time in moments of hope.
“I didn’t know any of this stuff that we know now, and then you come to find out that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have been used off label for years, but to get the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), you have to show there’s no treatment available to be able to give that authorization, so they killed the treatments, gave the EUA, but there’s no liability on their end.
“It’s just scary nobody knew that at the time. If somebody wants to make an informed decision, let them know what they’re up against.”
Beauchine said when he talks to people, or his mother comes up in conversation, everyone seems to know someone who had a very serious reaction to a COVID vaccine.
“I am not an anti-vaxxer. I’m not crazy or anything like that,” Beauchine said. “But if I or my family can do anything to help somebody or inform somebody or even be a statistic that could come to some sort of positive resolution in all of this, so be it.”
He added:
“Watching someone slowly walk this path and their health degrading right before your eyes from day to day over a few months is terrible. It’s awful. No one should have to go through this. We all just felt for my mom the whole time. It affected us all.”
The Defender has received numerous reports of people who died from sporadic CJD after receiving a COVID vaccine — all women who were between the ages of 60 and 70. This includes Cheryl Cohen and Jennifer Deason Sprague.
According to the latest data from VAERS, between December 14, 2020, and April 1, 2022, there were 19 reported deaths due to CJD attributed to COVID vaccines. The majority of cases occurred in the 65 to 75 age range and involved a sudden onset of symptoms.
That should be everyone’s starting point – with everything, really – assume the media is lying and wait for them to prove they’re not.
Always doubt the press.
Always.
Especially when the fates seem to converge and every single item in the “news” herds public opinion in the same direction and serves the same agenda
…which bird flu definitely does.
Food shortages. Soaring poverty. Rationing. The cost of living crisis. They’re all part of the Great Reset agenda.
In pursuit of that agenda, over the last two years, they destroyed small businesses and wrecked the economy, they have driven truckers out of work and broken supply lines, they have started a war between two of the biggest exporters of wheat in the world and driven up the price of petrol and natural gas.
Bird flu fits this pattern perfectly. The price of poultry and eggs is set to skyrocket…and just days before Easter.
We know they just faked a pandemic in humans. You think they can’t – or won’t – do the same for chickens?
Now, maybe some of you still have faith in the headlines, maybe you haven’t developed that spidey sense that lets you just know when something is total bollocks. And maybe we should make an argument, lest we fall victim to the “fact-checkers”.
So, let’s talk evidence for a quick minute.
*
First, let’s talk about how the US government “detects” bird flu outbreaks.
To detect [avian influenza], the US Department of Agriculture oversees routine testing of flocks done by farmers and carries out federal inspection programs to ensure that eggs and birds are safe and free of virus […] using molecular diagnostics such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests – the same method labs use to detect COVID-19 infections.
The USDA does routine testing of poultry farms using PCR tests.
Remind you of anything?
Second, let’s talk about how world governments are handling the “crisis”.
The mainstream media are reporting a “deadly” bird flu outbreak, The Guardian claims [emphasis added]:
US officials believe nearly 24m poultry birds, mostly chickens and turkeys, have died of flu since virus strain identified in February
All mainstream outlets are taking the same line – reporting million of birds dying of flu.
However, The Conversation article quoted above says [emphasis added]:
As of early April, the outbreak had CAUSED THE CULLING of some 23 million birds from Maine to Wyoming”
And this article in The Scientist claims [again, emphasis added]…
So far this season, tens of millions of birds have died of disease OR BEEN CULLED
So, there is some inconsistency here. Essentially, we don’t know how many died of “bird flu”, or how many were culled with “bird flu”.
Sound familiar?
Now, let’s do some simple math to try and clear up the confusion.
We know the press are reporting roughly 24 million poultry deaths in the US.
Well, that’s already 16 million out of our 24 million. Or 67% of the alleged total “killed by the flu” in the US.
So, at least two thirds of the dead birds – and potentially all of them – were killed in culls, and NOT by the flu at all.
And that’s just the US numbers. Other countries are culling too.
France has had two huge culls of poultry, totalling over 11 million birds.
The UK has culled at least 2 million since October, despite detecting just 108 cases by late March.
Governments are killing millions of birds, and these deaths are being blamed on the flu.
*
To sum up, the backbone of this “bird flu” outbreak is:
Routine testing done using unreliable PCR tests, which can be manipulated to create false-positive results.
Linguistic ambiguity over causes of death, and unreliable reporting of casualty numbers.
Governmental over-reactions which “accidentally” make the problem worse.
…seriously, any of this ringing a bell yet?
Bird flu is just like Covid. The same people, telling the same lies, for the same reasons.
We all know where it goes from here.
Just as with everything else, this will lead to more talk of a food crisis. France is already warning of poultry shortages, and since the US is the worlds biggest exporter of eggs and chicken any disruption there has huge knock effects. The price of eggs and chicken is already going up.
Just as with lockdowns, the bird flu “crisis” will hit small local businesses harder and faster than Big Farma giants (we’re already seeing reports of family farms being destroyed).
They are reporting that free-range birds are more at risk from bird flu (what with being allowed to go outside and live like normal birds), so organic sustainable and ethical farming practices will be hit with new rules that don’t apply to corporate meat factories who treat animals as inanimate objects.
Meanwhile, this will be used to further advance the war on meat, boosting both veganism and backers of lab-grown “meat”.
Inevitably they are already talking about a new bird flu vaccine for people and/or birds. In fact, a UK firm announced a new bird flu vaccine for chicks just three days ago. That’s some well-timed research, great work.
Good luck being an “anti-vaxxer” when they make it law to literally inject all your food with spike proteins or experimental mRNA modifiers or who knows what else.
And, of course, if they ever need it to, the “bird flu” can jump from chickens to humans, and we can have a brand new pandemic, just as the former head of the CDC predicted the other day.
Like I said at the beginning, there is no “bird flu” outbreak, it’s just Covid for chickens. Just more building back better. Just more new normal.
It’s all the Great Reset. That’s all there is these days.
Are you a parent who wants to sacrifice your young child? Sign up today in the culture war. Kneel down before predators and act like the coward you are.
The campaign to turn young children into “gender fluid” creatures isn’t just the goal of groups of schoolteacher-groomers. No. It’s embedded in the curriculum. It’s official.
Read this gobbledygook. Read it like your child’s life is hanging in the balance:
Daily Mail: “First-graders in New Jersey will be learning about gender identity with new sex education curriculum which includes a lesson that teaches children they can have ‘boy parts’ but ‘feel like’ a girl.”
“The new lessons, which are part of a broader, K-12 health and sex education curriculum adopted by the New Jersey Board of Education, are alarming some parents, Asbury Park Press first reported.”
“One of the 30-minute lesson plans, called ‘Pink, Blue and Purple,’ teaches the students to define ‘gender, gender identity and gender role stereotypes”.”
“Another lesson plan, this one for second-graders called ‘Understanding Our Bodies,’ tells teachers to instruct students that ‘being a boy or a girl doesn’t have to mean you have those parts, there are some body parts that mostly just girls have and some parts that mostly just boys have’.”
“‘Most people have a vulva and a vagina or a penis and testicles, but some people’s bodies can be different,’ the plan states. ‘Your body is exactly what is right for you’.”
“The new state sex education guidelines, which go into effect in September, were handed out to parents at the Westfield Board of Education meeting in February, and included instructions for teachers to tell students that their gender identity is up to them.”
“‘You might feel like you’re a boy even if you have body parts that some people might tell you are “girl” parts,’ the lesson plan states.”
“‘You might feel like you’re a girl even if you have body parts that some people might tell you are “boy” parts. And you might not feel like you’re a boy or a girl, but you’re a little bit of both. No matter how you feel, you’re perfectly normal!’”
ALL THIS FOR FIRST AND SECOND GRADERS.
So if you’re a parent, you can bow down and have your little child exposed to this. It’s free. You don’t have to pay for it—unless you’re bright enough to realize your taxes are payments.
Be a coward. Let lunatics teach your children. Be tolerant of all points of view. This is the definition of culture, right?
Face it. YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT TO TEACH YOUR KIDS. You abdicated that responsibility years ago. So let the schools take over for you. It’s easy. You don’t have to speak up. You can stay silent.
If you need to, you can find a study somewhere that concludes children are “already sexual.” This will give you comfort. It’ll prove that…well, who knows what it proves? It doesn’t really prove anything. But it’s a study. So that’s good.
Here’s a question: With the government in charge of education, what did you think schools would eventually turn into?
Factories for destroying minds and bodies. There is a number…nobody knows what it is precisely, but it represents the size of government. When that number is exceeded—and we exceeded it long ago—the government turns on the people and treats them as mortal enemies. It doesn’t matter what kind of government it is. From that point on, the people must be crushed.
But don’t worry, be happy, parent. You can be happy if you back up far enough from your children and let them absorb the brunt of the attack. You can have a proxy victim stand in for you. You can delude yourself into thinking that it’s only your child who’ll pay the price.
I assure you, they’re coming after you, too. You just don’t see it yet. You should see it, because when the government destroys your child, you’re supposed to see it.
You could see it by recognizing that when the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Attorney General start making noises about parents who stand up for their children at school boards—calling the parents domestic terrorists—THAT’S A CLUE.
By my calculation, parents who let their children face destruction should be in prison. The problem is, the government runs the prisons, and the government wants you to give up your children to the State.
Maybe we could open citizen-run prisons for parents who surrender their children to the State. There’s a new idea. A private prison. For cowards.
When I was a kid, if the school system had been teaching gender anything, a whole army of parents would have marched into the principal’s office and read him the riot act. He would have folded and crumbled in a minute. He would have gotten down on his knees and wept and apologized and scrapped that curriculum the same day.
That was the 1940s. It tells you something about what has happened in America since then. Fathers’ balls have turned into jelly.
They’ve become traitors to their own families.
They’re hiding behind a wall of delusions.
They think their primary duty is BEING NICE.
Cowards. Moral cowards.
In any community worth its salt, they would be shunned. Never spoken to. Exiled.
You should pray that if your children make it to adulthood, you won’t be around. Because if you are around, those children are going to look at you with an accusation that sets you on fire and burns you down to the ground.
When they were five and six years old, you let them into a cage with wild animals. And you turned around with a smile on your face and walked away.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have funded the development and distribution of polio vaccines in developing regions like Asia and Africa (Image Source: GRAIN)
Current NHS information describes it as a ‘serious viral infection’ but adds that most people won’t even know they are infected. While some will experience ‘flu-like’ symptoms, others may become temporarily or permanently paralysed.
The term ‘polio’ is a description of spinal pathology: an inflammation of the grey marrow (polio muelos) of the brain stem and spinal cord. Symptoms vary wildly from none to fever, vomiting, bowel irritation, back pain, neck stiffness, problems with swallowing and breathing, paralysis, and death.
Poliovirus is an enterovirus that is activated in the human gut. The corporate science machine maintains that it is a dangerous pathogen spread by infected faecal matter but Dr Suzanne Humphries explains in her book, Dissolving Illusions, that it is a naturally occurring common bowel irritant that existed for millennia before it began crippling people — which poses the question: what changed?
One factor is pesticide usage, which is implicated in other neurological conditions such as Parkinson’s disease. Polio incidence and pesticide usage closely correlate; if you plot them on a graph, they follow the same lines.
What came to be known as polio was once called ‘summer diarrhoea’ because local outbreaks occurred after crop spraying had taken place in the spring. Children played in contaminated soils and ate unwashed fruit; their parents reported finding them paralysed in apple orchards.
High consumption of sugary foods in the summer lowered immunity by suppressing white blood cell activity, creating the perfect environment for toxic pesticides to interact with viruses in the gut and cause illness.
Doctors noted that symptoms of polio resembled food poisoning.
Poor diet increased susceptibility to poliovirus infection – especially a diet full of refined sugar, white flour, and processed foods, which were introduced to the public during the industrial revolution, around the time that polio began to emerge.
British physician Michael Underwood first observed ‘debility of the lower extremities’ in children in 1789. It was the height of the industrial and agricultural revolutions in Europe and pesticide use skyrocketed. Most pesticides contained toxic metals such as lead and arsenic.
Lead and arsenic bind tightly to soil and do not deteriorate; they remain within the first 12-18 inches of topsoil for generations and contaminate waterways. Redevelopment of former rural sites without proper clearance of toxic soil has the potential to poison whole areas of people.
Crops were heavily sprayed with pesticides that were designed to attack the nervous systems of insects — unfortunately they had the same effect on humans. They were inhaled and absorbed through the skin and oral cavity, causing nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, brain dysfunction, and bone malformation – all of which are common symptoms of heavy metal poisoning and polio.
Heavy metals were present in everyday products in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. Arsenic was used in synthetic dyes and syphilis treatments; mercury was used in teething powders, dental fillings, and medical preparations.
Lead, arsenic, and mercury are neurotoxic environmental poisons – all are fat-soluble and therefore can affect fatty areas of the body such as the brain and nerves.
Orthopaedist Jacob von Heine observed ‘infantile spinal paralysis’ in 1840 and speculated that it was a contagious disease. It was named ‘acute anterior poliomyelitis’ by Wilhelm Heinrich Erb in 1875, by which time outbreaks had started to occur.
Regional patterns of disease led physicians to believe that polio was a contagious virus, but it was an unproven assumption. Scientists had no idea what a virus was in the nineteenth century — nobody had seen one because the electron microscope, which enabled observation of viruses, was not invented until 1931.
A study of 2,000 case histories carried out by Harvard Infantile Paralysis Commission concluded that tonsillectomies (introduced in 1909 and carried out routinely as a preventative measure) provoked respiratory paralysis due to bulbar polio. This was known at the time as authorities prohibited removal of tonsils and adenoids during epidemics. Bulbar polio was the type that required use of an iron lung and had the highest death rate.
The case fatality rate in the early 1900s was very high. England and Wales made polio a notifiable disease in 1912, and it was endemic from then on. The New York epidemic of 1916 saw patients experimented on with spinal injections of disinfectant and adrenaline. Roughly half of those treated died and were recorded as polio deaths.
A new pesticide, DDT — labeled ‘the killer of killers’ — was introduced just as WW2 began. People were led to believe it was good for them and even sprayed it on their children’s lunches. It is a cumulative poison and can be absorbed through the skin and mucosa. Governments started to ban DDT in the early 1950s, but the damage was done. The UK outlawed it in 1986, and it was banned worldwide in 2001, though it continues to be used in areas with high malaria incidence.
Epidemics peaked in the 1940s and 50s and physicians began to notice a correlation between certain medical interventions and polio paralysis. Children treated for congenital syphilis with arsenic-based Salvarsan often developed paralysis in their injected limbs.
Cases of polio rose in line with the expansion of vaccination programmes for diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus.
The diphtheria vaccine was introduced in the UK in 1942 and was noted for its adverse effects. The British Medical Association published news on the 10th of April 1950 that the diphtheria vaccine was responsible for childhood paralysis attributed to polio.
A doctor at Guy’s Hospital in London found that 80 children developed paralysis within a month of receiving the shots; a health ministry doctor reported that another 65 children had developed paralysis within a fortnight; the St. Pancras medical officer found 40 more cases. Some children recovered from the paralysis, but others were still paralysed 18 months after onset. Two of the cases followed injection of penicillin.
Anne McLaren, writing for Cambridge University Press in 1957, stated that, “It is now well established that intramuscular inoculation with combined diphtheria-pertussis prophylactics can affect the course of poliomyelitic infection in children. Localisation of paralysis in the limb injected with vaccines was reported by McCloskey, Martin, Geffen, Hill & Knowelden, and Benjamin in 1950.”
In 1951, Dr Ralph Scobey and Dr Mortind Biskind testified in front of the U.S Congress that the paralysis around the country known as ‘polio’ was being caused by industrial poisons, and that a virus theory was purposely fabricated by the chemical industry and the government to deflect litigation away from both parties.
The diagnostic criteria for polio were very loose prior to trials for the vaccine in 1954.Only after the vaccine was introduced was there any effort to distinguish polio from other types of paralytic disease.
The first polio vaccine, created by Jonas Salk in 1955, caused a great deal of controversy. The ‘Cutter Incident’ happened when 120,000 children were injected with a live virus instead of a weakened one: 40,000 developed polio, 200 were paralysed, and ten died. When the immunisation program was eventually rolled out to the public, a different, untested, rapidly approved formula was used.
Salk later admitted that live virus vaccines against influenza or poliomyelitis might produce the diseases they intended to prevent (Science, 4th March 1977).
In 1956, the American Medical Association ordered that doctors could no longer diagnose paralysis as polio – it had to be called ‘acute flaccid paralysis’. This reduced polio statistics dramatically and gave the appearance that the vaccine programme had succeeded, when really the definition of the disease had just changed.
Simple, timely changes to diagnostic criteria meant the number of paralytic cases dropped irrespective of the vaccine programme.
Laboratory testing for polio wasn’t introduced until 1958. Before then, all manner of other diseases could be classed as polio, including other enteroviruses, lead, arsenic, and DDT poisoning, Guillain-Barré syndrome, transverse myelitis, post-polio syndrome, viral or aseptic meningitis, traumatic neuritis, and Reye’s syndrome. How many were misdiagnosed and put on the wrong path of treatment as a result?
It is claimed that the polio vaccine eradicated polio due to overblown, tightly controlled propaganda campaigns, but the truth is that cases plummeted because of changes in pesticide use, elimination of toxic metals in everyday products, improved diets and sanitary behaviour, and redefinition of the disease.
There is no convincing evidence of polio as a contagious viral disease. Naturally occurring polio is all but obsolete in the modern world and the only ‘polio’ we see nowadays is vaccine-induced, courtesy of immunisation programmes run by the World Health Organisation.
There has been a huge rise in vaccine-induced polio paralysis in India. In 2011 there were an extra 47,000 cases, which were directly proportionate to the amount of oral vaccines administered. In 2018 a vaccine tainted with eradicated type-2 polio was given to children in Uttar Pradesh. The country remains vulnerable to polio due to its continued use of DDT, intramuscular injection of antibiotics, and diets high in sugar and low in vitamins.
Research scientist Viera Scheibner says that modern day vaccine advocates have forgotten the ‘polio provocation’ of the past. She believes that vaccines represent a assault on the immune system, which seems to be clearly implicated in the shadowy history of polio.
Vaccines were not needed to combat polio. Dr Fred Klenner published results of a study that used intravenous vitamin C to cure polio and other viral diseases 73 years ago — six years before the vaccine was introduced. With a success rate of 100%, we have to ask why this simple, non-toxic, affordable cure was completely overlooked and ignored by the medical community. Why is it still ignored?
The answer may lie in the criminal deceptions peddled by medical-industrial-pharmaceutical cartels that control the narrative of disease in order to sustain their gravy train of ill-gotten gain. A customer cured is a customer lost and there is no profit to be made from a healthy population.
Over the past year-plus, athletes across the world have been dropping like flies as they compete in games. If they aren’t passed out cold, they are seen gripping their chests in agony, unable to breathe due to sudden cardiac events that hit in the heat of the competition.
This wave of heart issues is unprecedented, to say the least. Never before have we seen young, healthy, world-class athletes experiencing heart issues en masse like this. It has never happened, ever. Furthermore, the timing of this sweeping phenomenon could not be more relevant, coinciding perfectly with the rollout of the experimental Covid-19 vaccines.
In December nearly 300 athletes reportedly collapsed or suffered cardiac arrests after taking the COVID vaccines.
But it gets worse. Thanks to a new explosive report by OAN that pegs the number of affected athletes in the hundreds.
In all, their investigation found a jaw-dropping 769 men and women who collapsed with heart issues during competition over the past year (between March 2021 and March 2022).
Most shockingly, the average age of those who experienced full-blown cardiac arrest was just 23.
Considering the timing of this never-before-seen issue in healthy athletes, and the universal push for Covid jabs, all signs point to one culprit: the experimental vaccine.
After detailing two recent high-profile cases, in which two tennis players were forced to recuse themselves from last month’s Miami Open, OAN’s Pearson Sharp reviewed their shocking investigation and asked a few pressing questions that should be answered if you are still questioning what is driving these heart issues in young individuals:
“These are just two o more than 769 athletes who have collapsed during a game on the field over the last year. From March of 2021 to March of this year. The average age of the players suffering cardiac arrest is just 23-years-old.
How many 23-year-old athletes were collapsing and suffering heart attacks before this year? Do you know any 23-year-old people who had heart attacks before now?
And these are just the ones we know about. How many have gone unreported? Nearly 800 athletes – young, fit people in the prime of life falling down on the field. In fact, 500% more soccer players in the EU are dropping dead from heart attacks than just one year ago.”
Just in case there is any lingering inclination to call this a coincidence, Sharp sets the record straight.
“Coincidence? When the Pfizer vaccine is known to cause heart inflamation? No. In fact, many doctors treating these players list their injuries and deaths as being directly caused by the vaccine…
This is not a coincidence – healthy teenagers dying after getting the Pfizer injection. Doctors warned the FDA before they released the experimental vaccine that it would ‘almost certainly cause terrible organ damage.’”
The only question left is: when do we see some accountability?
This video taken yesterday in Shanghai, China, by the father of a close friend of mine. She verified its authenticity: People screaming out of their windows after a week of total lockdown, no leaving your apartment for any reason.
Videos circulating on social media show an eerie cityscape at night filled with the anguished screams of residents forcibly quarantined in their apartment buildings for over a week.
Haunting video out of Shanghai shows thousands of frustrated residents screaming from apartment buildings after being locked down again following another alleged COVID-19 outbreak.
What the?? This video taken yesterday in Shanghai, China, by the father of a close friend of mine. She verified its authenticity: People screaming out of their windows after a week of total lockdown, no leaving your apartment for any reason. pic.twitter.com/iHGOO8D8Cz
‘It’s Shanghai, everyone is screaming, started with a couple now everyone is screaming, after a week of lockdown, something is going to happen, no one knows when this is going to end.’ He says they can’t even step outside their apartments.”
Another dystopian video shows a drone hovering around the buildings with a prerecorded message discouraging residents from crying for help: “Please comply with COVID restrictions. Control your soul’s desire for freedom. Do not open the window or sing.”
As seen on Weibo: Shanghai residents go to their balconies to sing & protest lack of supplies. A drone appears: “Please comply w covid restrictions. Control your soul’s desire for freedom. Do not open the window or sing.” https://t.co/0ZTc8fznaVpic.twitter.com/pAnEGOlBIh
The Chinese Communist Party extended its citywide “zero tolerance” lockdown for 26 million residents in Shanghai earlier this week after thousands of new COVID cases were detected in the city.
“The city will continue to implement seal and control management and strictly implement ‘staying at home,’ except for medical treatment,” the city wrote in its official WeChat account.
The People’s Liberation Army has deployed 2,000 medical personnel to Shanghai with an additional 38,000 medical workers to carry out a mass mitigation effort to test all 26 million city residents for COVID.
Authorities had initially locked down Shanghai, China’s largest city, on March 28 amid a surge of mostly asymptomatic COVID cases.
The WHO’s pandemic treaty is perhaps the greatest threat we’ve faced so far, and will go a long way toward implementing The Great Reset. As I noted in a March 2022 article,
1. Charles the Great Resetter 
Finally, Charles himself has been caught up in various controversies over the years, not least regarding his role in helping arms dealer BAE Systems sell fighter jets to Saudi Arabia.
Khan’s net worth has been estimated at $13.3 billion and he is 
Khan is also close friends with the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds.
7. Neo-colonial land-grabbing
Bernhard was also honorary sponsor of Schwab’s third 
