Latest News

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. – John 8.44

“I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.” Rev 3.9

“I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.” Rev. 2.9

"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come." Matthew 3:7

“For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.” – Romans 2:28-29

"I and my Father are one,[31] Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. JOHN 10:30-31

For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last. - Thessalonians 2:14-16

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. - Ephesians 6:12

GOD cursed the Satanic Jews out of Jerusalem for life. Jesus arrived and focused on Jerusalem because it was the most unholy, evil, place on earth... still is today.

The Nomadic Turks (ashkeNAZIS) have been behind all the Evil in the world since Cain's children... using their News Networks to create the News, and set the stage, to blame their opponents, for everything evil they do, across the globe.



Jewish Communist Dictum:- "Accuse the enemy of those crimes you are guilty of"

1.PROBLEM 2.REACTION 3.SOLUTION.

The Elite Jews create the illness, then sell the Cure. They create Chaos & Terrorism, then sell the solution... for more control and power.

Islam and Christianity have become servants of the Jews. Acting as physical and spiritual cattle for the Jews to harvest in building their Global Satanic Kingdom.

If I converted to Buddhism, does that make me Chinese? If I converted to Hinduism, does that make me Indian? When Khazarians (Turks) converted to Judaism in 740 BC and stole the true Semite Israelite Greek Aegean identity, did that make the counterfeit Jews Hebrew? Well, the Jew World Order seems to think so. They crucified Jesus Christ for exposing them.

The invention of the Muslim Terrorist by our Jewish Governments... to keep us in fear, and to justify raping the World, and slaughtering billions of innocent families in every country for power and control...for their 2 horned Gods.

Every Religion Church and Mosque has been infiltrated by the Jews. How do you know? ... if your Church has not discussed the below phrases by Christ... then it has been compromised.

Trump says Palestinians won’t be able to return to Gaza under his plan

Donald Trump has vowed that displaced Palestinians will not be allowed to return to Gaza under the U.S. plan for the region. As part of this, he is threatening to cut aid to Jordan and Egypt if they refuse to accept Palestinians. Source

Views: 2

USAID Staff Cry for Their Fiefdom

USAID Staff Cry for Their Fiefdom
by David Bell at Brownstone Institute

The largest foreign aid agency on earth has, courts willing, abruptly closed its doors in the past week and sent most of its staff home. Finding their virtue has no place to strut its worth, the response of many has been indignation and assurances of retaliation. Many of them had been working from home for years, but now must rouse themselves to show such indignation for being sent (i.e. remaining) home on full pay. Like being told to continue as normal, perhaps, but in a way that exposes uncomfortable realities to those in the community who are actually paying them.

Such cynicism is not the greatest of human traits, and when applied to an entire organization it is unfairly generalizing, but it also has its place. The new government elected by the people of the United States was, specifically, elected to dig into the accounts of large government bureaucracies and address a perception of profligate use of taxpayers’ money. Taxpayers who, mostly, get paid far less than the bureaucrats they are funding. Perhaps unusually, the elected government rapidly set about keeping some of its promises, co-opting a prominent private person (as they had also promised) as an agent to help drive the inquiries. Much of the current surprise, perhaps, arises from an elected President keeping some promises. Annoying as this can be, it is also how democracy is supposed to work.

Much is being made of evidence that USAID had been pushing ideology over need, such as stoking coups in democratic nations or supporting children’s programs that encourage ‘non-traditional beliefs on gender in conservative cultures. Concern is also correctly levelled over apparently reckless funding of bio labs in poorly controlled environments. People will argue on whether such cultural colonialism and risk enhancement are in US taxpayers’ interests (it depends on how you perceive humanity). 

However, it is also important to reflect on how USAID addressed its supposed core function of supporting development and healthcare for the benefit of those in less fortunate countries. This can be considered in America’s interests because a more stable and prosperous world is good for trade, and/or because Americans are humans and there is a moral imperative to care for those less fortunate. Though some have contrary or isolationist views on this, Americans as a nation are generous givers, and this is roughly why most thought USAID was supposed to exist.

For the past 5 years, the staff of USAID has, as a team, supported policies that they knew would impoverish over a hundred million people, push up to 10 million more girls into child marriage, and drive up child deaths from malaria and malnutrition

Rather than support education, they largely ignored the removal of formal education from hundreds of millions of children around the world, many for over a year. They knew that this would cement intergenerational poverty and increase mortality globally – undoing everything USAID is supposed to be working for. If they did not know this, then how did they get a job in a development agency?

While we now see USAID employees standing in the street protesting for being told to stay home on full pay, we did not see such protests a few years back when average American workers were told to stay home and lost pay or businesses. There were no protests in DC in support of hundreds of millions of day laborers in poor countries who lost all income and savings for a virus that posed minimal risk to them. For apparently ideological reasons that required considerable callousness or cowardice, many actually promoted this approach to Covid-19 whilst continuing to take their own salaries. 

USAID does a lot of good. Abruptly stopping all disbursement of funds will kill people, particularly children. Because of the nature of diseases, supply lines, and the state of health systems in low-income countries, a sudden interruption to HIV testing and distribution of antiretroviral therapies through PEPFAR, significantly managed by USAID, will result in increased transmission and death from HIV/AIDS. 

Mothballing the Presidents’ Malaria Initiative (PMI) will increase the shortfall in bed nets, diagnostics, and treatment that directly stop children from dying of malaria. Child malaria deaths are quite likely to increase by tens of thousands because PMI plays a crucial role in plugging gaps in the availability of these commodities.  

Cutting funding for tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment will also increase deaths, increase transmission (new infections), and increase the spread of resistant parasites (which will increasingly reach the US). Voluntary donations to charities, despite what many want to believe, do not replace this.

So, the people stopping USAID from working in these areas also need to decide how many dead children will be acceptable. They may decide that it’s not their problem, but that is a philosophical approach that has implications that are not pleasant. It is also one that is probably not shared by most US taxpayers. Put those tens of thousands of dead kids in Texas and it starts to seem more real.

However, the people auditing and trying to understand its USAID disbursements, unravelling the tangle of good and harm, are doing important work. They are responsible to US taxpayers who had assumed their hard-earned funds were well used. Many can barely pay rent or address the needs of their own children, children who now face an unprecedented national debt because so much federal money, wisely or not, has been spent. 

A government has a direct responsibility to avoid wasting its citizens’ money on the pet projects of people on far more comfortable salaries. These taxpayers are the ones with the greater right to show indignation, not those who abrogated their responsibility to the world’s disadvantaged.

Those who took USAID to a place where such radical reform is deemed necessary could devote time to introspection and examine why those funding them are asking where the money went, and why. Their world is recovering from the mess of Covid-19, originating from a virus almost certainly arising from government-funded research, likely including funds dispersed by USAID itself. 

While working from home after the virus’s inevitable escape, they supported a response that ignored risk and good public health practice, wrecking the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions. They stood for corporate profit over the welfare of the many. Virtue signaling now is unlikely to help. The real harms accruing from USAID shutdowns are very much its own doing.

US taxpayers generally care about others, but many are struggling, as are the victims of the callousness of the last few years of global health malpractice. USAID has been an integral part of this problem. We can hope that those tasked with sorting out the mess this institution created have the wisdom and compassion to rapidly sift the wheat from the chaff and minimize further harm.

USAID Staff Cry for Their Fiefdom
by David Bell at Brownstone Institute – Daily Economics, Policy, Public Health, Society

Source

Views: 0

Lying high-ranking cop fined $1,500 over drink-driving crash – identity protected for 40 years

A dishonest high-ranking Sydney cop has escaped with a $1,500 fine for downing 20 drinks, crashing his police-issue vehicle and trying to cover it up.

The senior and experienced officer, 47, who held a prestigious position in the NSW Police Force but cannot be identified due to a 40-year court suppression order, was sentenced on Tuesday after being convicted of mid-range drink-driving over the May 2023 incident.

He was given a $1,500 fine and a two-year community corrections order, suspended from driving for six months, and will be required to have his vehicle fitted with an interlock device for 12 months after that, the Australian Associated Press reported.

The officer was previously charged with high-range drink driving but was given a deal by the courts in November and agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge.

Investigators alleged he had more than 20 drinks over a nine-hour period, but there was no evidence of his intoxication since he left the scene to avoid being breathalysed.

In July last year the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC) found he was treated leniently by his commander and in a police review after the crash.

The LECC report found he consumed a “significant” number of drinks at two pubs before getting behind the wheel of the unmarked police vehicle and hitting a concrete barrier on the NorthConnex motorway.

He then abandoned the car and later lied on an insurance claim form for the car, claiming he had fallen asleep.

In relation to the 40-year name suppression, the LECC noted in its report that it “had access to the confidential material provided to the Court” in relation to the suppression order, and that the order was “understandable”.

The report found that the officer was given special treatment “in his commanding officer’s approach to interim risk management; in the conduct of a Safe Driving Panel; and in the approach taken to the issue of a media release”, as NSW Police Media failed notify the public as required when an employee is charged.

The LECC found that even though the officer was treated as any other officer or member of the public would have been while being investigated and charged, the force had suffered reputational damage and senior officers had lost confidence in the integrity of the organisation.

“From day one [at the Academy] they show you the statement of values… and point one of that statement is to place integrity above all. I’ve always tried to do that from day one of my service in the cops and its just really disappointing that the people who are the decision-makers … say one thing and do another,” a witness told the LECC.

Header image credit: NSW Police

Source

Views: 0

Middle Eastern man, 37, charged with raping girl, 15, at Sydney train station in broad daylight

A Middle Eastern man with a history of violence has been charged with raping and robbing a teenage girl at knifepoint at a train station in Sydney’s west.

Police allege Abdullah Allywa, 37, approached the girl at Lidcombe train station at 10am on Sunday and took her to a carpark nearby where he allegedly took out a knife, stole her phone and sexually assaulted her.

He was arrested at Alice Street, Newtown, on Monday and charged with aggravated sexual assault of a person under 16 and armed robbery with an offensive weapon.

On Tuesday Allywa faced Newtown Local Court where Magistrate Alexander Mijovich refused him bail, saying Allywa “has a history of violence and a custodial sentence is highly likely”, The Sydney Morning Herald reported.

“Protection of the community is paramount, cause has not been shown [for release], and bail is refused,” the magistrate said.

The court heard Allywa had convictions for approaching strangers, including a young girl at a train station armed with scissors, another young girl at a shopping centre, and a young man at a train station who he asked to suck his penis while armed with a knife.

“He seems to have no regard for public safety given his offending occurred in broad daylight in a car park. It’s very brazen offending. The accused is dangerous to have in the community,” the prosecutor said.

The accused’s lawyer had argued for bail, saying her client needed to care for sick family members, and get treatment for schizophrenia and an intellectual disability.

Allywa will face court again on April 9.

Header image: Left, right, Allywa being arrested in Newtown (NSW Police).

Source

Views: 1

Indigo Skyfold: Are Some Chemtrails Part of a Strategic Defense Initiative Missile Shield Project (SDI)?

In Nino Rodriguez’s Feb 2, 2025 interview with Juan O Savin, the latter explained that some Chemtrails are part of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) and are used, in conjunction with the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) to create a missile defense shield over the Constinental US.

I’d seen another video cut to the audio of an interview in 2010 or 2011 by the late Joyce Riley at the Power Hour but I can’t find it on my site and their website is gone. In that interview, the pilot explained that Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) are supposed to “bounce off” of these geoengineered, electromagnetically-charged layers of differing densities.

These are, of course the same technologies being used to create weather warfare around the world. Here, in Asheville, recent lab tests of soil samples along the banks of the French Broad River showed levels of toxic arsenic, barium, chromium and lead, hundreds of times higher than permissable levels, leading us to suspect that these were the fallout from the freak, geoengineered weather warfare event known as “Hurricane Helene”.

When Nino complained to Juan that this spraying causes ugly skies and ill effects, Juan essentially told him, “Stop crying. Heavy metal exposure is preferable to a nuclear strike or an EMP attack and this is the technology we currently have but new technology is coming to replace this.”

When I’ve relayed this bit of information over the past couple of days, people have directed anger toward me, as if I suddenly love Chemtrails and don’t hate heavy metal toxicity as much as the next person! I am simply relaying the information. My car is covered in this stuff and my rear spoiler has suddenly started to corrode from it. I can’t imagine what it’s doing to those of us breathing this dust, every day.

When I first started publishing my blog in 2010 and posting about Chemtrails, I would get threatening emails in ALL CAPS from Air Force officers. I guess this linkage between Chemtrails and SDI has been a big secret.

So, I’ve been hearing this “missile defense shield” story for nearly 15 years but Juan’s statement was the first time I’d heard it linked to SDI. The name for this Chemtrail-missile defense project that I first heard, in early 2015 was “Indigo Skyfold”. I’ve just re-uploaded it to Rumble, to create backup of this rare video.

The message from December 2014 is allegedly from a US Air Force pilot, claiming to fly aerosol tankers, as part of a secret geo-engineering aerosol program called “Indigo Skyfold”. He was told is a missile defense project, similar to what Juan O Savin just told Nino Rodriguez.

However, this alleged Chemtrail pilot said he didn’t believe this was true. He believed it was a genocidal operation to cause droughts and crop failures across America and in other participating countries.

Chemtrails aren’t only one thing. There are many applications for aerosol campaigns. Sofia Smallstorm has been shouting from the rooftops about the “Dark Agenda of Synthetic Biology” for ages, in this presentation of hers that I posted about in 2011, with nano fibers and living, growing nano-bots integrating themselves within biological life. 14 years later, many of us are finally beginning to catch up with Sofia’s ground-breaking work!

(Running Time: 68 mins – Pub. December 28, 2011 on ForbiddenKnowledgeTV.net)

I first remember reading about Smart Dust as a kid in 1980, in either Time or Newsweek and about how it was being sprayed on retail merchandise and used in an FBI project to geolocate shoplifters..

In 2023, Dane Wigington reported that graphene oxide nanoparticles were being found in almost every rain sample his group was testing, along with numerous other highly toxic elements.

(Running Time: 68 mins – Pub. July 14, 2023 on ForbiddenKnowledgeTV.net)

Last year, Greg Reese reported that in 2007, Smart Dust or “body dust” was sprayed over battlefields to spread inside the human body as an active network capable of providing telemetry from inside the body for the use of monitoring humans.

(Running Time: 68 mins – Pub. May 24, 2024 on ForbiddenKnowledgeTV.net)

I’ve heard that the World Economic Forum Globalists seek to tokenize and assign a financial value to everything on the planet – down to the last blade of grass – in their bid to control the world, via a massive Artificial Intelligence simulation of Earth – the Digital Twin. Such nano-sensors could be sprayed everywhere, in an attempt to achieve this diabolical goal.

According to The People’s Voice, Chemtrail pilots told them, the agenda is simply a plot to destroy life on Earth by blocking the Sun and that farms were already experiencing the negative effects of the Elite’s anti-life agenda.

The image below went viral a decade ago. I don’t know if it’s a real patch or not.

“Don’t Just Spray ‘Em…Barium” Air Force Patch? Viral Image from 2015

TRANSCRIPT

Narrator: OK, this information has been given to me by a person I’ve known for six months and he’s proven to be highly credible in the past and he is reporting that he’s got information from an actual Chemtrail geoengineering engineered aerosol pilot, who is inside these programs, So this is new information. You can also find this posted on geoengineeringwatch.org, Dane Wiginton’s site.

The rest of this, I’m just going to read the posts that record his contact with this pilot:

“December 8th 2014: my cousin who was fired by our dictator [Barack Obama], just before making ‘rank withheld’ sent me information given to him by a friend who is still an Air Force pilot.

“This pilot is saying that he flies Chemtrail flights. This pilot told my cousin that this global geoengineering effort goes by the name of quote ‘Indigo Skyfold’ unquote – at least within the circle of pilots and aviation crews that he works with.

“They are told to fly specific routes, in satellite comm-link-controlled aerosol dispersal patterns.

“He says that they only make course corrections from time to time and perform landings and takeoffs.

“Pilot navigation and maintenance crews are rotated constantly and only spend about 18 months at one given base. He states that this is to keep pilots and their families from making too many friends and ending up with “loose lips”, plus, they also rotate between day and night flights: one base for daytime flights and one for night.

“Each base covers a 250-mile zone and each fleet squadron of planes cover three states or an even larger swath of ocean.

“They are told to simply ‘Do their job and shut the F up’. Their superiors will only tell them it’s a matter of ‘National Security’ and quote, ‘Without these flights, our enemies newest technological weapons of war could easily penetrate America’s airspace, at will. We are dedicated and committed to keeping our allies safe from the same skyward threats, so we extend the arm of protection to those countries who support our efforts. Hostile nations are also building atmospheric shields while in the same discourse. Trying to explore weaknesses in our ever-developing air and space-based technologies.’ unquote.

“Sounds more like a PR statement to me. I think this pilot either believes what he is told or He is simply trying to sugarcoat their genocide project.

“December 8th 2014 My firewall detected multiple intrusion attempts when I googled the Indigo Skyfold code, as well. Zero information found on the internet for this operation. That is unique.

“I received a rather lengthy reply from the Chemtrail pilot. Here is that text from his or her email:

‘First of all, I would like to say, I do not agree with my mission assignments but what soldier ever truly does? Several of us have considered bucking the ranks and going AWOL, from time to time. We are kept in the dark, when it comes to getting honest answers about what we are really spraying.

‘Should they discover that we or our families are actively inquiring about your so-called “Chemtrails” term, then automatic and swift disciplinary action will be taken.

‘HAARP and radar are two other non-allowed research subjects, unless our children are learning about these in base schools. We cannot educate ourselves or our children through any public tutoring system.

I would not intentionally spray my children or family with toxic aerosols but, as you must know 80% or better do not have any family or children.

‘Indigo pilots are chosen from the top ranks within the Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard. Most of the pilots are quote “Hardened to humanity” unquote and could care less about killing-off unwanted or leeching aspects of America and the world.

‘I swear to you, the majority of the pilots are like machines. I call them “Tanker Terminators”.

‘I Should not be telling you this but nearly one-third of all flights are being orchestrated from small, unnamed islands, where newly-constructed bases are being built at a rate of eight per year.

‘On these extremely remote islands, there are HAARP arrays of every possible design, with many arrays surrounding these islands within the depths of the ocean, itself.

‘The Navy has developed sophisticated underwater construction technology that allows fully-autonomous robot submersibles to travel great distances and even manufacture parts for these massive underwater arrays, as they progress across the open seafloor.

‘Every time that you see or hear about “military exercises at sea”, they are basically there to give support and resupply their army of underwater robotic minions.

‘There is possibly one aquatic robot per plane and will soon be double that. You will never be able to Google Earth Search any of this, other than an occasional error, in blurring some island bases or smudging images of underwater arrays. It is impossible to locate all these artifacts. They even paint fake clouds over some of our island installations, to keep prying eyes away. I have been shown some of these images by civilian friends. That is the reason I know this.

‘I completely understand your concern for human safety, but here is the kicker: We are shown videos in our training of catastrophic destruction to our Homeland by very sophisticated weapons, then told that these will be the consequences, if we don’t fly.

‘Our efforts, in building a Defensive Atmospheric Weapons Shield are the only missions of its kind in the world. We are paid more than any other pilot for our service, other than Air Force One pilots, who make as much or more and are kept in a dark secret world for their own protection.

‘They tell us that secrecy is our protection and not to listen to any public rhetoric. We all know about cyber program Flashpoint or FP-03, as it is known within the veteran community. This program is a self-destruct sequence that can be remotely activated from any ground, water, underwater-based or other air mobile unit.

‘The signal is encrypted through three satellites and cannot be jammed or blocked. At any given moment you could have only 15 seconds to make your peace with your God.

‘They tell us that FP exists to keep planes from accidentally going down in heavy heavily-populated areas. They can remotely detonate our planes over “Safe Zones”, but in the back of our minds, we are pretty sure this is a fail-safe program to keep pilots from turning over assets to any public, private or civilian authorities.

‘Have you ever seen any member of the crew survive the few crashes that have occurred? Every plane that has gone down was completely destroyed for good reason. I’m sure We risk our lives in more ways than one, every single time we fly, especially night flights.

‘They are ordering us to fly at lower and lower altitudes. We feel like massive Dark Force Empire crop-dusters and know that one night, Bubba or Billy-Joe will fire their long rifles at us when we spray their moonshine-making operation or pass over an illegal Mary Jane crop.

‘I Know, for a fact that some planes have been shot-at and subsequently brought down by mostly Russian, Chinese and Korean weaponry but the media will never cover these events, as they are not allowed to report on our flights, either.

‘That must be true, for I have yet to see a detailed or in-length report of our missions on any public venue, other than conspiracy shows and anti-government websites.

‘I risk everything for disclosing so much information and you will find very few like me. Even my own flight crew would have me arrested and court-martialed, if they knew of this dialogue.

‘That is why I cannot email you directly but from what your cousin tells me, you are also risking everything just to get this information out to your colleagues.

‘I salute you, Sir for standing up to the Establishment and Big Brother. I would love to go home tomorrow and not rack-up one more single minute of flight time except for a sweet little Piper Cub or a Rat Tail Barn Racer. I miss those beautiful blue skies from my youth and I and I am ashamed for hazing over that dream.

‘Maybe more of my fellow pilots will read or hear about this and decide to come forward, as well.

‘I Only know a small fraction of the larger picture, as they compartmentalize everything. Should I become aware of any new significant developments, I will email your cousin.’

And now this is the man, I have contact with. He says he: “Senses a wavering within the ranks and feels that a kind of mutiny is being boiled to the surface of this whole geoengineering global whitewashing, if you catch my drift.

“My cousin still has friends in high places, too. So, he is helping to protect the pilot.

“This came December 11: Last word from the pilot was, quote ‘All pilots on leave are required to report to their CO by December 15th for special training operations to qualify for Indigo Phase 2 Flights, expected to be initiated by January 21.’

“Those were his words, not the actual Air Force message. He wanted me to stress that. He believes that the focus of their flights will be moved to areas east of California and Texas, in order to progress the drought further into the Heartland.

“Plus, he feels that a very new, extremely-toxic Chemtrail mix is going to be sprayed, using new technology that makes these special Chemtrails completely invisible.

“Atmospheric shield of protection: He doesn’t believe that either.”

So, that’s the end of the message from this Chemtrail pilot and I just, from my own experience, I’ve had a lot of contact with this guy for six months via the internet and basically, everything he’s told me has turned out to be true.

So I have no reason to doubt any of this. So, hope you can forward this.

This also points out how difficult it is to fight this program, because the people inside the program are not subject to public opinion or public information sources, so we need to brainstorm and come up with a way to shut down this program, as it is actually heating the planet and killing everything with elevated UV and toxic metals.

Thank you for listening

Contributed by

Contact

Source

Views: 1

Bill Cooper Explains the Film ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’

TRANSCRIPT (STARTING AT 21:52)

Bill Cooper: Take that video out and put in ‘2001’ and we’ll start from the beginning. I’m going to show you how they communicate all the time and it goes right over our heads. We don’t understand it.

We don’t know it. We miss it. How many of you saw the movie ‘2001’? How many of you understood what you saw?

Basically, they talked about the Sun, where it started to rise, and a man, a man just evolved from a cave. He rebirthed into a baby.

But the rebirth was what? As a new race, in the New Age. And the message was, “If you can’t make this quantum leap, you can’t be a part of it.”

That was the symbol of the baby floating in space: The birth of the new Root Race going into the New Age and if you can’t make this quantum leap in understanding, that we’re showing you in this movie, you can’t be a part of it. You will be exterminated, rounded up, put in prison camps, used as slave labor, executed, whatever.

We’ll try to get some use out of you, but you cannot be in the New Age with us. The new dawn, the rebirth of humanity. You starting to get the message? Are you really? Because if you don’t, you have no idea how important this is!

If you don’t, you’re lost. You won’t even understand what happens and why it’s happening to you. Yes, sir?

Audience Member: What do you mean by “Root Race?”

Bill Cooper: Have you studied the writings of Blavatsky or any of the New Age religion, which will be the new religion of the One World Order? You need to.

Everybody says, “I’m not going there, it’s New age Stuff. That’s the work of the Devil. I’m not reading that, because it’s not Christian.”

If you don’t read it, how are you going to understand it? How are you going to know how to fight the Enemy, if you don’t know who the Enemy is or what they believe? You’ve got to!

What do you see? The golden dawn. This is the dawn of the Golden Age. The Dawn of Man.

You’re going to find out today that most of the photographs that NASA has ever shown you are fake.

(Turning off video player) OK, we don’t need to go any farther than this with this. It goes on to show Man in this Journey Through Space.

Is it about space? No. It’s about man.

Who survived? Huh?

Who is worthy of being accepted into the New Age? The man who had the greatest knowledge. The man who could survive against all the odds. Who was Hal? Hal was a computer.

What did Hal represent? The technology of man that he created through his knowledge. It was telling us, “Hey, we’re reaching a point where we have to stop this insane advancement of technology. Because we’ve reached the point, that the public doesn’t even know yet, in secret, we have created things that can destroy us all.

And, on the spaceship, could you believe they built this big computer to run this spaceship and they didn’t have an off switch? There’s no switch to turn this thing off. And this machine interpreted the actions of the astronauts as being against the mission that the machine was assigned to perform, and it began killing off the astronauts. And by the time they realized it, it was too late, there was nothing they could do, and he searched high and low for a switch.

There was no switch to turn this thing off. He had to crawl up in the machine and cut wires and pull out circuit boards and all kinds of stuff, and he luckily made it before the machine got to him. H-A-L.

Advance them one letter of the alphabet. What is it? IBM. Were they talking about the IBM Corporation? No.

But what was the symbol of technology, at that time? IBM. Right?

What happened to him when he reached Jupiter? What did he see floating out in space? The [Black] Stone of Foundation. He went out and looked at it.

He found a way to look inside of it, and what did he see? Another universe. Inside this stone of foundation, there was another universe, a whole other universe.

He began to develop the mental mindset, what they call, what do they call it? A “Paradigm Shift” in his consciousness, representing the Paradigm Shift that is expected of all who are going to progress and go into the New Age together.

All of this stuff about him laying there and then looking up and seeing himself in the doorway and then looking in the mirror and growing older and all of this kind of stuff, that was his confrontation between himself to make this paradigm shift where he was reborn.

See, he represented humanity, he wasn’t a person, at all. He represented humanity.

He was reborn, as the first of the new Root Race, floating as an infant in space.

They communicate in this manner all the time. But it’s all about the creation of their new consciousness, their paradigm shift, the New World Order. The destruction of the old, the disintegration into chaos, out of which will come the new order.

“Ordo ab chao”. That is the motto of the 32nd degree of Freemasonry. They have it written on everything; their buildings, their lodges, their books, their badges, their pens, everything. You think it means nothing? Ordo ab chao. To get the New World that they need, they must destroy the old.

The Phoenix must be Reborn out of the Ashes. What do you think Clinton was talking about when he said, “We will watch the sun set. And we are preparing our children for the New Dawn.”

Do you get it, yet? Does everybody get it? Do you understand it? Is there anybody here who doesn’t? OK you all get the William Cooper School of Symbology Diploma. I’m glad you got it. Because it is so important that you get it and that you understand it and that you know what’s happening.

Because if you don’t, you’re helpless. You’re just another person in the long line of refugees with a dead body beside the road. And you don’t want to be that.

They want to really, literally, return to what they call the “Golden Age”.

But they don’t want to do it with the risk involved. They want to go to a simpler life, where technology and the intellect and learning and knowledge is controlled by them. And the rest of us just sort of live like children in their care.

Socialism, that’s what it is. That’s what socialism is: You give up all your rights. You give up everything.

You agree to accept my rules for you and I’ll take care of you.

In other words, we want the whole human race to stop being adults.

You become children again, we will be your Daddy. We are the only truly mature minds and thus, are the only ones who are rightfully-endowed to rule. You’re just profane cattle.

We’ll allow you to live, if you’ll do it on our terms. And if you won’t, we’re going to get rid of you. You’re going to make that Paradigm Shift or we’re going to kill you, knock you off, use you for slaves until you die, whatever. We’ll get some use out of you, if we can. And if we can’t, we’ll just simply eliminate you.

That’s their plan.

Contributed by

Contact

Source

Views: 1

Episode 70: Foxy Lady

Episode 70: Foxy Lady
February 10 2025

___________________________________
More Vids!
+BN Vids Archive! HERE!
___________________________________
Support The Brother Nathanael Foundation!
Br Nathanael Fnd Is Tax Exempt/EIN 27-2983459

Or Send Your Contribution To:
The Brother Nathanael Foundation, POB 547, Priest River, ID 83856
E-mail: brothernathanaelfoundation([at])yahoo[dot]com
Scroll Down For Comments

Source

Views: 0

Exposing Corrupt Real Estate Agents: Ray White Bankstown

– “Cui bono” (Latin phrase for ‘who benefits’) is a fundamental question when it comes to actions like corruption. 

– Who are the victims of this corruption?

Australia’s Real Estate industry is rife with corruption, where there is little action from the government to kerb this behaviour.

Why?

Because the government benefits from this, where the higher the prices, the more real estate agents can rip off people, the more tax dollar on the bureaucrat coffers.

The government is responsible for the housing crisis and the general population thinks/expects the same people in government that created the problem for the serfs/plebs to fit it for them?

Yeah, nah.

The victims of this fraudulent industry are the good people of Australia, the serfs, plebs those pesky immigrant banks slaves that drive the ‘economy’.

The goverment doesn’t ‘care’ about the gen. pop. pool, never has never will.

Because, after all they’re disposable ‘resources’, period.

The government has installed austerity in the is colony where it’s going to only get worse, where it will be Nirvana for those in control if it can get to a level like in Nth Korea.

So Ray White Bankstown gave the following financial advice to its customers:

“In some cases we ask you do all that you can to borrow the money from other sources (i.e. Your family, friend, employer, bank, credit cards, pawnbroker.) should you not be able to make a payment on time.”

Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) clearly states in its Newsroom article from 2020, that it continues to crackdown on unlicensed operators.

Information obtained from a confidential source indicates that Ray White Bankstown does not hold an AFS licence nor are authorised representatives of an AFS licensee.

Since the above document has been not only posted on ‘social media’, but also mentioned in the mainstream media, will the Directors or the following people within Ray White Bankstown face legal consequences or even action from ASIC?

Tell us what you think in the comments section.

Source

Views: 0

“I Was Given 4 Strains of Coronavirus to Select the Most Infectious”, WIV Researcher, Shan Chao Says

Jennifer Zeng | June 27, 2023 |

Below are the questions and answers between me and the interviewee. I didn’t correct all the grammar or other mistakes the interviewee and I made. The interviewee referred to Shan Chao (单超), which is the Western way of saying a Chinese name, with the given name first and the surname last.)

Q: Tell us about what you know about Shan Chao: Who is he? What did tell you?

A: A Chinese scientist named Chao Shan was staff of Wuhan Institute of Virology. I knew him for a while. He contacted me in 2020, that, specifically, March, about something of the virus that was going on at that time. 

Q: So why did he contact you? And what did he tell you? 

A: Well, he told me that people around him was dying. He was very, he felt very guilty about all the things, according to him. 

I even joking about it. I say you are not even a doctor, what has that to do with you? 

He said he was the one who did some critical test to the virus strain back in 2019, especially, in February.

Q: What kind of test and what kind of virus?

A: According to him, there were four strains of coronavirus, given to him by his superior in Nanjing City.

Q: In Nanjing City? Was he working there in 2019? Or was he still working in Wuhan Institute of Virology?

A: He had a period working in Texas, but I don’t know at that time where he was working. 

He worked in Wuhan Institute of Virology and Texas. But I don’t know where he was working exactly at that time.

Q: So when he studied those virus…Okay so, continue to tell us what he told you.

A: He tested on those four strains, to test affinity of the strains, how well they could infect, or how easy to infect other species including human.

The animals he used, [as] mentioned by him, he used transgenic mice with human, human ACE2 receptor, bats, not bats, ferrets, and monkeys. 

Q: So he tested those viruses on these animals to see what? 

A: To see the transmissibility of the viruses. 

Q: Did he actually try to infect human being after they infected those animals?

A: Not from him, but he mentioned something, one of his research team, several, not one, he said several, several of his research team gone missing during the world military games, in September, September and October. 

Q: Went missing? What do you mean by “went missing”? 

A: They were moving out to participate in something. But he’s not, he’s not authorized to know all the things. He does not know. So, according to him, they were missing for a while.

Q: So what exactly do they do? I heard, last time you told me that they were asked to participate in the inspection of the location, hotel? Whatever condition, 

A: Yes

Q: of the people who come from overseas to participate? Yeah, so tell us about that.

A: Yes, some of information he could give me, he could give me, was, one of the guys told him, they were asked to go to several hotels where the athletes overseas coming will reside in, to do some health inspections, which is very strange. You know, usually [you] do that health inspection with physicians, not virologists. 

Q: So for the nature of the viruses, the four strains of viruses, could you tell us a little bit more? What kind of viruses they were? And what kind of diseases they could cause? 

A: According to him, all four strains are coronavirus. 

Q: Coronavirus?

A: Yes, and they all can cause minor symptoms. But I did not hear anything about the fatality or something.

Q: Do you have any idea what kind of stage was his study? Was he close to, you know, be able to infect a human or it was still in very early stage of experiments?

A: He used the word “complete”. He had four completed virus strains, which means, to my hypothesis, they are all capable of infecting humans, which is, Chao Shan and his team were just expected to find out the one who is sufficient to every single species.

Q: So when you say “completed”, do you mean those viruses were all engineered?

A: Yes, they’re artificial.

Q: So do you have any idea who engineered those viruses?

A: No. 

Q: So, also you didn’t know where he actually worked for or where he worked at that time? 

A: No, I have no idea.

Q: Okay. So, tell us a little bit more about what happened during the world military sports or whatever event in Wuhan. So apart from he felt strange that one of his or several of his team members were asked to participate in inspecting the health conditions of the hotels, what else do you know about that? 

A: That’s what he said. And he get, he had a guess. He was guessing that they are actually trying to spread the virus to the athletes, so the athletes can bring those things back to their countries.  

Q: Did he tell you he suspected that? 

A: Yeah, he did told me that, but I didn’t, I didn’t believe it.

Q: So could you describe [to] us in detail exactly how he word it? How he told you? What kind of language he used, the exact wording of him? Could you try to translate as accurately as you could? 

A: Well, what he said is, exactly what he said is, I believe one of the guys was asked to inoculate people from other countries during the event so that they can be infected and carry the pathogen back to the country they came from with only minor symptoms, which is pretty common in late autumn.

Q: That’s the exact wording he used?

A: Yes.

Q: So, I don’t quite understand. There is a word to carry what? That is a virus name?

A: Pathogen, yeah you can say this is virus.

Q: Okay. So he said one of his members is supposed to spread or put or inject or whatever method they use…

A: Probably, to him, probably doesn’t mean exactly his team member. His team member probably participated in some procedures to infect something or someone for that purpose. But that’s just hypothesis, no one has any solid evidence on that.

Q: But that’s what he told you?

A: Yes. 

Q: What else? Because he wouldn’t just tell you that one sentence? What are they related, or the whole context of the event, of the thing he told you? 

A: He does not know a lot about the event. He just realized that some of his team members have been gone missing during that time, and one of them happened, happened, told him about this. That’s all he could say about this event. 

Q: Okay, so he told you this in March 2020, right? 

A: Em.

Q: That was several months after the event. So during those several months, did he get any information regarding, if his team member was involved in that event, did he give any information about how, if they tried to do something, how successful that something was? Is there any, you know, feedback or consequences or whatever result of what they tried to do?

A: No, he didn’t mention anything about the consequence of the virus before that.

Q: So do you think when he told you, he felt guilty about what he did? Do you think that kind of, what he did, or this event was also included in what he did? Or only that the virus part, not this sports event part?

A: According to him, because at that time [when] he told me, he was very emotional. I can only try to translate what he was saying, and he was saying he saw a lot of people die, and he feel really guilty because those strains came from his hands. He didn’t create them, but he helped, he helped, like he helped the superior,  superior of him to perfection,  to make them perfection, to make it, to make it more likely a good bioweapon. “Bioweapon” was his words.

Q: So he specifically told you he was guilty for this, you know, at that time we already know it was a coronavirus that is killing people in Wuhan and elsewhere.

A: Yes.

Q: So he definitely was very sure that this has something to do with what he did back in 2019?

A: Because, if I didn’t remember that wrong, the sequence, the genomic sequence, and polypeptide sequence of the virus, is already out in early February.

Q: Yes. 

A: So as a professional he must have read the paper, so he must have recognized what that is.

Q: So when you say he was very emotional, could you tell us a little bit more about his emotion and under what kind of circumstances, or why do you think he was emotional and do you think you can trust his words when he was very emotional?

A: Hm, well, not the words alone, but now I read a lot of different information from different aspects, I would say, I trust him.

Q: So do you think why he choose to tell you this? This is, you know, can be evidence that could get him maybe a very, very serious consequence for him, for himself and his family?

A: Yes, he actually told me that, April 2020, at that time he told me, he was on a plane from Wuhan to Xinjiang. What he said, we are using a very specific way to contact each other at that time, so I cannot tell you what that is, but we have to suggest each other using underlying. And what he said, what he said exactly, I was sent to Xinjiang to do some health inspections for the people in the reeducation camps, so that they could go home, don’t have to crowd in the camps to make the disease spread more. That’s what he said.

And he mentioned, I probably went missing after this, and if I went missing, feel not hesitate to tell people what you feel is right.

Q: So that’s why you are telling me this?

A: Yes. I lost contact with him since.

Q: So what do you think has happened to him?

A: I don’t know. Hopefully he’s just silenced,  not in a way of permanent silence, of course.

Q: Okay. So tell us a little bit more about what he said, why he was sent to Xinjiang from Wuhan? 

A: I read some news about Xinjiang. I know that there are education camps there, and I know people who was in jail, basically of the camps, who wanted to fight back to the tyranny of the communist party, and he was sent there, and he suggested he was there doing health inspection and he’s not a doctor, he’s just a virologist.

As a virologist in the education camp, and let them back, and let them go back home after the health inspection.

And I would only guess the worst, he’s probably going to infect them and let them bring the virus back to their families.

Q: So you think the CCP is doing this to the people in Xinjiang? 

A: Yes. 

Q: And did you observe any, you know, more infection after he went there?

A: Yes, exactly, during the pandemic, during outbreak, during the outbreak in Wuhan, it was, end of January, till the beginning of April, there are many places like Wuhan in other provinces across China getting infections, getting infected cases, different patients. Only two provinces have the least infection cases, only like one or two. The first one is in Tibet, the second one is in Xinjiang. They almost had no cases, and we all know that, there’s not very populated areas in Xinjiang and Tibet. That’s probably why.

And after he went there, during the summer time, you know, it’s become hot after May, right? 

So during the summer time, from May to June, there’s suddenly an increasing amount of infected cases in Xinjiang, which I do not think is coincident.

Q: So this is, I think the most astonishing thing I heard, oh wow. So tell us what did you think or feel when he told you this?

A: He should not tell me anything that is, he should not tell me anything without any purpose. What he said he was in Xinjiang, he was sent for health inspecting Xinjiang, he must have, he must have some underlines to want to hit me up with something.

This is what I guess. So once I had that hypothesis in mind, I really feel disgusted. That’s how I feel. And he told me to tell people about him, about the things after we lost contact. It feels like his last words, hope not.

Q: So do you know how old is he?

A: He’s 31 or 32. 

Q: That is quite young.  So how long or when did he work in the Wuhan Institute of Virology? 

A: He worked there after his master, probably 2010 or 11.

Q: So how long did he work there?

A: Maybe three years or four years. 

Q: So did he do his post degree there or he worked there?

A: He worked there, with doing his degree.

Q: Oh so he worked and also doing his degrees. Okay, so do you know his area of study there?

A: I know he’s working on some kind of virus and I’m not professional of.

Q: So you don’t know what kind of virus?

A: No.

Q: So after he worked there where did he go, do you know? 

A: Well, there is already some information of him dug up online.

So from that I could say he went to Texas after that.

Q: Texas? Also to do research or to study? 

A: I guess it’s a post-doc research, post-doctoral research. 

Q: And do you know when did he go back to China from Texas?

A: That part I do not know. 

Q: Okay. So what do you think we should gather from the fact he told you?

A: Well, this is only a small jigsaw of the whole puzzle. So I would like people to gather informations around that institution and around some Chinese scientists who had collaborate, collaborating researches in the United States to try to finish the whole picture, to see what they have done and what they will do with the knowledge and technology they have on the virus.

Q: So from what you told us, I think it’s quite astonishing. At least we learned that number one, the CCP was doing some virus engineering and purposely to try to infect people and to study which virus is best in terms of infection rate.

A: Not infection rate, in terms of best unrestricted bioweapon, that’s what I want to say.

Q: The best unrestricted bioweapon?

A: Yes. 

Q: So you said he used the word “bioweapon”? 

A: Yes, he did.

Q: Okay.

A: The virus itself is weaponized, that’s the purpose of that strain.

Q: Okay. Sorry, give me one moment. It seems my recording was stopped. I need to save this and open another one.

Okay, continue.

So he used the word “bioweapon” when he told you that he was given four strains of coronavirus in March 2020?

A: No, it is, yes, he told me in March 2020. And the strains he got is in February 2019.

Q: So you said, in May or June of 2019, he told you he already got a result of his tests?

A: Yes

Q: Okay, so what was the result he told you?

A: He found out a stain that is very capable for infecting many kind of hosts, which can mask off the intermediate hosts and origination of the virus.

Q: So did he mention which kind of animals?

A: He did those on mice, on monkeys and ferrets.

Q: Okay. So that was number one thing I think is very shocking. And the number two is about the Wuhan military sports event in September.

So if you say he told you that one of his team members who is also a virologist was sent to spread this virus to those people from other countries. Are you saying that?

A: Yes, that’s my hypothesis.

Q: So tell us again what exactly, what kind of exact his words when he told you what he knew about his team members’ involvement.

A: He’s sure that his team member was taken during, before and during the event to the hotel and sometimes to the meeting, to the meeting site, just to do health inspections. That’s what he was told.

But health inspections, as I said, should not be done by a virologist. It’s suspicious. So I would say they must have a reason behind that, and the only reason I can think of is this. And Shan Chao has…probably the same hypothesis like me.

Q: Yes, so what was the exactly words he used when he told you his hypothesis, or his suspicion?

A: The virus is deliberately released. That’s what he says.

Q: Okay, so from what he told you, you believe the virus released in September 2019 was exactly the one they researched in February?

A: Yes, he confirmed that.

Q: Okay.

A: As I said, the sequence and composition of the virus was already exposed during February in 2020, and he’s a professional, he must have read papers and he had tested so many things on that stain. So he knew what he’s talking about.

Q: Okay. So another very shocking thing you told us is he was sent in April 2020 to Xinjiang also to… Do you think he was sent there to spread the virus, or to do more tests on human beings?

A: I don’t know, but I would guess so. I will guess either he’s doing experiments on human, or he tried to infect them, and let them go back to home. Because from what I know, in Xinjiang, the weiwuers (维吾尔 Uighurs) and the Chinese majority race the Han(汉) were living in segregation. They’re not living together, different community even in the same city. So there’s a way to say it is more able to for them to control which one they want to infect, if they’re doing the latter. 

Q: So do you have any theory, or what he really did there or what was the purpose? Do you have any guess?

A: My theory is, most likely to go for the latter, which means they are trying to infect them and send them back to their community, trying to affect them all, trying to, my hypothesis is, they’re probably trying to do health checks, on the name of their benefits, and trying to collect some biology data from such group of people. That’s what I’m thinking, probably not meant to kill them or in some way, because the fatality of this virus is not that high.

Q: Okay. I think all the things you told us today are very, very shocking, you can say allegations. So tell us, this is so huge, tell us what are you thinking about all these things that Shan Chao told you.

A: Since he didn’t contact me from last year, April, I think it’s probably time for me to pull this up to public for people to know that the origin of the virus that shuts down the global economy is made from specific government, and it is responsible for a specific group of people. I want people to realize it.

Q: So if the US government or any government in the world wants to go ahead with further investigation on the origin of this virus, what do you think they should do? And what direction or how they could collect information and confirm what you said?

A: Well, I would say the first thing is to take good look at the sequence, the RNA sequence of the virus, and try to figure out, there are some artificial print, artificial prints of genetic engineering on that thing. It was explained by Dr. Yan [Mengli]’s report.  

So they really should focus on that first and then try to dig up people who have links with Wuhan Institute of Virology and the people around Shan Chao and other infamous people they already dig out, just probably one jigsaw per time and we hopefully we’re going to put the big picture together.

Q: Okay. So you have no idea at all when, where did Shan Chao work when he did those experiments on the four virus strains?

A: For that part was in Wuhan.

Q: Was in Wuhan? 

A: Yes. 

Q: But you don’t know where…

A: I don’t know if he is affiliated, affiliated to that facility or not.

Okay. 

A: But he was in Wuhan at that time testing on the experimental strains.

Q: Okay. Do you think there is a possibility he still worked for Wuhan Institute of Virology?

A: I would say yes, but I cannot confirm.

Q: So he didn’t tell you where he worked when he told you those.

A: No.

Q: Okay. What else do you want to tell us?

A: I think this is probably the most I could give.

Q: Okay. Do you want to talk about this book?

A: The book?

Q: Yeah. 

A: Okay. I read a book, the book is from the Chinese military medical school. It is a virology textbook stating that viral strains that can infect many species, it’s pretty convenient as a weapon, because it can bounce, which means transmission from human to wild lives and wild lives in between, and to human again, to infect people repeatedly, which is what we could see now, the COVID19.  It can infect many intermediate hosts, and then jump back to human, and after several generations probably one or two years you will not be able to tell which strain originally came from where, and help them to hide their guilt.

Q: So do you really believe that the COVID-19 pandemic could be a biological war, you know, started by the Chinese Communist Party?

A: From the result I could see now, I prefer to call that biological terrorism, not war.

Q: But it is definitely a man-made pandemic to…

A: Yes. According to Chao Shan, it is artificial, engineered in lab, sent to him, doing transmissible experiments, and selected one of them for the release.

Q: Do you think they purposely released it in 2019 during the Wuhan sports event? And that’s how it infected all the people in Wuhan? And China also suffered so much, so what did they really achieve, if this is a purpose whatever terrorism or war you referred it to? 

A: So let’s think about terrorism. Terrorism is trying to kill or damage someone, or some organization, or some nation with a price. The price can be money, can be life, like suicide bombers, right? And those people who died in Wuhan is more likely to be considered as those who were the suicide bombers. They were sacrificed for this so-called great purpose.

Q: So what is the great purpose? What is the purpose of the CCP if they are doing this? 

A: Most of the people in Western world have never heard this, but their ultimate goal, their ultimate goal is actually to rule the world with Communism. But what they say Communism, it wasn’t actually Communism, it is just like a kingdom, and an empire that everyone works under the dictator.  That’s all.

Q: So they want to start this and then to rule the world with Communism, always with themselves?

A: Yes. 

Q: Okay, So what else do you want to tell us, or do you miss any important facts you need to add?

A: I guess that’s all.

Q: Okay, that’s all, okay, thank you.

Contributed by

Contact

Source

Views: 1

Palestine and politics of anti-appeal: an interview with Mohammed El-Kurd

Abdaljawad Omar interviews Mohammed El-Kurd about his new book, the struggle of narrating Palestinian resistance without dilution, and the contradictions of writing for an audience one refuses to appease. Source

Views: 0

Individualism: The Basis of Public Health or Its Nemesis?

Individualism: The Basis of Public Health or Its Nemesis?
by REPPARE at Brownstone Institute

The Individual in Modern Medical Ethics

Public health ethics, together with basic human rights law, are based around the primacy of freedom of choice, otherwise considered the necessity of informed consent. While prominent arguments have been raised against bodily autonomy in the past few years, there are very good reasons why power in medicine was held to be with the individual patient rather than the practitioner. 

Firstly, when people are given power over others, they commonly misuse it. This was apparent under European fascism and the eugenics approaches common in the United States and elsewhere in the first half of the 20th century. Secondly, psychological experiments have routinely shown that ordinary people can turn into abusers where a “mob mentality” develops. Third, if all people are considered of equal worth, then it is untenable for one person to have control over the bodies of others and decide on the acceptability of their beliefs and values

Many cultures have been based on inequality, such as caste systems and those condoning slavery. Justifications for colonialism were based on this premise, as have been involuntary sterilization campaigns in many countries. Therefore, we should not view such approaches as far in the past or theoretical – the world has continued to see ethnically-based violence and wars, and division based on characteristics such as race, religion, or skin color. The public health professions have historically been active implementers of such movements. We should expect that such sentiment still exists today.

The opposite of authoritarian or fascist ideologies is individualism, which is a mainstay in the history of political thought, where the sanctity of human beings as being “ends in themselves” requires a profound metaphysical commitment to human dignity, autonomy, freedom, and moral worth. Without valuing individualism, informed choice is meaningless. Under post-World War Two medical ethics, an individual has the right to decide their own treatment, in their own context. 

Exceptions occur in three areas. First, where a person has a severe mental illness or other major incapacity that impairs their decision-making. As above, any decision then made by others can only take their interests into account. Secondly, where a person is intending to commit a crime, such as deliberately injuring another. Thirdly, as the Siracusa protocol states, where certain rights may be limited to deal with a serious threat to a population’s health (Siracusa Principles, Article 25). 

These exceptions obviously raise room for abuse. In the recent Covid pandemic, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) ran an article that would have fitted well with pre-WWII European fascism or North American eugenics. It suggested that doctors who held “false beliefs on the Covid-19 response (e.g. suggesting poor efficacy of masks and safety of vaccination) were exhibiting neurological illness and therefore should be managed as people unable to make informed choices. The Soviet Union put dissidents in psychiatric institutions in the same manner. 

Messaging that “We are all in this together,” “No one is safe until everyone is safe,” and similar rhetoric play on this theme. While the idea of serving a greater good, or doing what is best for the majority, is a widely-held and understandable concept, during the Covid response it allowed major media networks to demonize children for putting adults at risk.

This raises the tension between a proclaimed public good (a person decides others should be restricted to benefit the population) versus individual choice (the right to make one’s own judgment on how one acts), even when (as in most things in life) others are involved. In Western nations since WWII, the emphasis was clearly on individual choice. In Communist and other authoritarian regimes, the emphasis was on a proclaimed collective good. These are fundamentally different drivers for how society should act in a health crisis. 

Recent wording related to the World Health Organization’s pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response (PPPR) agenda suggests a specific drive to downplay individual rights (bodily autonomy or “individualism”). We provide here a series of examples across several new international documents on pandemic preparedness, which correspond to new wording added to the draft Pandemic Agreement intended for a vote at the 78th World Health Assembly in May 2025. The examples seem related, suggesting an intentional introduction of this theme.

We question here whether a sea change is underway in international public health ethics, and whether medical ethics developed to counter the approaches of European fascism and colonialism are deliberately being eroded to promote a new centrist authoritarian agenda.

The Global Pandemic Monitoring Board (GPMB) 2024 Annual Report

The Global Pandemic Monitoring Board (GPMB) produced its annual report in late 2024, advocating strongly for the core areas of WHO PPPR proposals. The GPMB is co-convened by WHO and the World Bank but ostensibly independent, as with other similar panels. Its annual report, promoted specifically by the WHO at the World Health Summit in October 2024, listed major drivers of pandemic risk and recommended actions to address them. For the first time we are aware in a WHO-linked report, ‘Individualism’ is specifically identified as a major driver of pandemic risk.

The inclusion of individualism as a major driver of pandemic risk is backed by just one citation. This is a study by Huang et al. published in the Nature journal Humanities and Social Science Communications in 2022. We discuss this paper in detail below.

Thus, the GPMB, endorsed by the WHO, has raised individualism (presumably bodily autonomy or individual sovereignty) as a driver of harm to the global population, apparently in direct contravention of prior international norms such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Convention and associated rights-based protocols, and the Nuremberg Codes, to name a few. This raises concerns not only from an ethical and political perspective but also through the lack of evidence provided to even back the contention, as we show below in regard to the Huang study.

The Elders 

The Elders, a group with members overlapping the GPMB and long advocating for the WHO’s pandemic agenda, published a position paper on PPPR on 30th January 2025. While it reflects talking points of similar earlier reports (e.g. the Independent Panel report of 2021) and is similarly relaxed regarding the provision of evidence to back its claims of existential threat, it also raises the theme of individualism. This seems unlikely to be coincidental, particularly as authors overlap with the GPMB.

While not actually providing the citation, its claims of the threat of individualism to Covid outcomes look to be from Huang et al. (2022), the same source as the GPMB: “A 2021 study found that the more individualistic a country, the higher its COVID-19 transmission and death toll, and the less likely its people were to adhere to prevention measures.” As noted below, this is a major mischaracterization of the findings, though not the conclusions, of Huang and co-authors, The populations with a communal history, while having better Covid-19 outcomes, also had lower vaccine uptake. 

The Elders then make the seemingly contradictory but fascinating statement in the context of pandemics; “Authoritarian leaders can exploit the culture of individualism to further divide people in the interest of consolidating their power. The imperative for authoritarian leaders [was] to project strength and thereby behave complacently during COVID-19.” This implies that authoritarianism promotes individual autonomy, whereas closures and mandates were a sign of non-authoritarian governance. 

Given its central evidentiary role within both reports, it is necessary to unpack Huang et al.’s study to better understand its claims, robustness, and the epidemic authority it should be awarded.

HUANG et al. 2022; Manufacturing Evidence to Support a Narrative?

A group of four Chinese academics published a research paper in Humanities and Social Science Communications in 2022. Individualism and the fight against COVID-19 became the sole source cited as evidence that individualism is a major driver of pandemic risk in the GPMB report promoted by the WHO, and subsequently that of The Elders. Huang and co-authors conclude:

“Evidence collectively suggests that a greater reluctance among people in more individualistic cultures to heed virus fighting policies impose a negative public health externality in a pandemic.”

By individualism, they mean:

“Individualism captures the extent to which people in a society are mentally and habitually empowered to make their own choices (Hofstede 1980).”

Funded by academic institutions in China, the study compared countries in their Covid-19 outcomes against measures of individualism. This measure included the number of winners of the Nobel Prizes for literature and peace that they had produced; considered by the authors as a marker of a national tendency for individuality.

As they state:

“Using the number of Nobel-Prize (sic) winners to instrument individualism, we show that countries scoring high on individualism generally have a more severe COVID-19 situation.”

From these conceptual foundations, the study then compared West and East German provinces from 2020 to 2021, considering that they had “inherited [individualism-collectivism traits] from their divergent political trajectories prior to the German reunification in 1990. While the eastern provinces had higher Covid-19 mortality rates in 2021, the study noted that the average age was higher and after various adjustments concluded that the eastern provinces suffered relatively lower Covid harm in both years. 

Of particular interest regarding the German arm of the study, the researchers noted that the eastern provinces also had lower Covid vaccination rates associated with their overall improved outcomes. Yet, rather than concluding (as they did with past collectivist history) that this was a driver for lower mortality, they stated that “vaccine scepticism” was being “deliberately instrumentalized by right-wing groups.”

The authors also seem to ignore the possibility that lower Covid vaccination rates in East Germany (and in Central and Eastern Europe in general) may themselves be an effect of a lower trust in institutions inherited from the Communist era. As a result, they imply that a lack of individualism reduced severe Covid, but too much individualism reduced vaccination rates (which were supposed to reduce severe Covid). The internal contradictions here may have escaped the Nature reviewers and the GPMB.

The authors’ explanation of why collectivism is superior to individualism speaks volumes about the concentration on mass compliance within the centralized policies of the Covid-19 response. To quote it in full:

“The author of The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx, in his early writing, criticizes the notion of natural rights found in the “Declaration of the Rights of Man” (1791) from the French Revolution as reflecting only the egoistic part of human nature, without acknowledging the community-oriented part of human nature. As a political system, a communist regime can cause a shift towards more collectivistic cultural values from the top down, such as through value inculcation by workplace organizations, by political education and through the control of media by the authorities (Wallace, 1997)”.

It is concerning from a human rights perspective that this paper by Huang et al., promoting a communist-inspired response to health emergencies, constitutes the only evidence the GPMB thought necessary to back their assertion that individualism is a health threat. Having promoted the GPMB findings, the WHO Secretariat has now added a curious line to the draft Pandemic Agreement, seemingly seeking to codify this concern in future pandemic policy.

The Draft Pandemic Agreement

The draft Pandemic Agreement through which the WHO and certain Member States hope to address increased funding demands and governance of PPPR continues to be negotiated in Geneva. After three years, it is still subject to dispute between countries regarding the areas of ownership of genomic samples, sharing of profits from vaccines and other medical countermeasures, and control over intellectual property. The intent is to put a draft to a vote at the May 2025 World Health Assembly. Whilst a recently released draft concentrated on the remaining points of dispute, it also added an entirely new paragraph on a seemingly unrelated topic, continuing the theme of individualism being a public health threat.

In addition to the agreed text in Article 1 of the draft Pandemic Agreement, “Recognizing that States bear the primary responsibility for the health and well-being of their peoples,” the International Negotiating Body’s latest proposal for the draft Agreement of 15 November 2025 included a subsequent paragraph, stipulating the responsibilities of individuals in the event of a pandemic: 

“[1bis. Recognizing that individuals, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which they belong, and that the relevant stakeholders, are under responsibility to strive for the observance of the objective of the present Agreement,]”

The square brackets indicate that “there were divergent views” with respect to the proposed text. The lack of consensus among WHO Member States speaks to their understandable reluctance to open a can of worms by recognizing a subsidiary individual responsibility for health and well-being, and perhaps doubt that the place for such an assertion should be a legally binding international agreement. The lack of clarity inevitably raises thorny questions around what these individual duties encompass; whether they are envisioned as legally binding or to act as a reminder of our moral and ethical duties towards others, and how they are to be discharged and enforced against citizens (if legally binding) when stipulated by an international agency. 

Pre-Covid-19 WHO recommendations on pandemic influenza promoting a whole-of-society approach to pandemic preparedness detail the “essential roles” of individuals and families during a pandemic. While recognizing the state as “the natural leader for overall [PPPR] coordination and communication,” the WHO views national PPPR as a ‘whole-of-society responsibility.’ Accordingly, the WHO considers that individuals have the following responsibilities to address the spread of infectious diseases: “the adoption of individual and household measures such as covering coughs and sneezes, hand washing, and the voluntary isolation of persons with respiratory illness may prevent additional infections.”

This guidance document also highlights the importance of households and families in ensuring access to “reliable information” (i.e. from the WHO, local and national governments) on par with access to food, water, and medicine. With regards to individual responsibilities towards one’s community for those who have recovered from the virus, the WHO suggests considering options to volunteer with community organizations to assist others.

However, the scope of this personal responsibility has arguably expanded since the Covid-19 pandemic. A 2024 paper by Davies and Savulescu explores this, suggesting that “in the absence of extreme levels of coercion” individuals have a “responsibility for following reasonable and well-communicated guidance” to prevent the spread of the disease. This suggestion is broadly in keeping with pre-existing WHO guidelines but underlines the problem of determining what is “reasonable guidance.” The disparity in individuals’ access to “reliable information” and their ability to discern reasonable from unreasonable advice, applied to their own context, are critical to making an informed choice. 

The authors further stipulate that this personal responsibility entails complying with a range of medical countermeasures and non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), including mask and vaccine mandates, social distancing, self-isolation, and sharing information with public health officials. This raises the problem that many benchmarks changed during Covid-19 without a clear evidence base.

And some changes, such as masking, explicitly go against the Cochrane Collaboration meta-analysis of efficacy as well as several other supporting published studies. In this case, the appeal is to institutional opinion (e.g. WHO) rather than evidence, making assessment of ‘reasonable’ guidance highly problematic.

Regarding the nature of these responsibilities, Davies and Savilescu argue for a moral responsibility but don’t consider that this enables governments to “legally enforce vaccination.” Further, they recognize that financially vulnerable individuals may not be able to afford to self-isolate and miss work, suggesting that there are exceptions to the rule. One might add that others may also recognize that longer-term societal harms such as the increased poverty and interruption to education caused by the Covid response can make compliance with such short-term recommendations inappropriate.

There is also a “knowledge condition” on responsibility, as individuals may have reasonable grounds to refuse an intervention due to uncertainty, exposure to misinformation, and well-founded mistrust in institutions, including assessment of evidence of costs and benefits within their own context. 

It is hard to imagine how consensus can be reached on such complex and ambiguous matters in the context of the Pandemic Agreement negotiations, let alone have them codified into law. These examples provide only a small insight into the array of questions that the inclusion of a paragraph on individual responsibility in the Pandemic Agreement will raise. Such ambiguity opens the prospect for abuse and justification of extraordinary measures that undermine individual rights and freedoms. 

Perhaps the most important concern is whether the Pandemic Agreement could become a license for coercive vaccine mandates, other medical countermeasures, and non-pharmaceutical interventions, or whether it would remain in the realm of moral and ethical responsibilities born by individuals. The latter could be misappropriated to justify some degree of coercion and curtailment of individual rights and freedoms. This mirrors a longstanding debate in political theory, where moral justifications “to force one to be free” to enhance a form of collective “positive freedom” can come with significant cost to an individual’s “negative liberty.”

In practice, getting a correct balance often boils down to mechanisms to restrain power, in which human rights and the individualism they seek to protect play a historic role. However, the former scenario of giving license to coercive measures has a far more destructive potential to legitimate extreme coercion and individual liability for failures to comply with dictates that an individual or person in power decides are one’s ‘duties’ towards others. Ultimately, neither is desirable for the preservation of some degree of individual agency in matters concerning one’s health.

The Logic of Restricting the Many to Benefit the Few

Despite the concentration of mortality in the elderly and those with significant comorbidities, the SARS-CoV-2 virus was met with society-wide restrictive and coercive measures on a scale not previously employed. This Covid-19 response underwrote a massive shift in wealth globally from the many to the few. Healthcare and digital corporations, and individuals invested in them, gained unprecedented increases in wealth through the restrictions on what many had come to accept as immutable human rights – one’s choice as to how one deals with a threat to one’s health.

Whilst there has long been tension between individual sovereignty (bodily autonomy) and the need to act in ways that limit risk to others, the emphasis in Western nations had clearly been on the side of the individual for the 75 years prior to the Covid-19 outbreak. The success of the Covid-19 response in enriching a few, and in promoting the vast pandemic industry based on ever-expanding surveillance and vaccine-related responses, provides a strong driver to many in positions of influence to continue down this road.

The apparent attack on the concept of individualism, characterized on flimsy evidence as being a major driver of pandemic risk, is consistent with this authoritarian drive in public health. Self-interest is a strong driver of policy, and the public health community has an unfortunate history of facilitating and abetting those who would abrogate the rights of others for personal gain. This is an extremely concerning trend, more so when it is provided with a veneer of legitimacy by panels of eminent individuals. Its incorporation now into the latest draft of the WHO’s Pandemic Agreement appears to signal an interest in downgrading the concept of individual rights at the level of international law.

The WHO constitution defines health as physical, mental, and social well-being. It is hard to see how mental and social well-being are best served by forcing individuals to forgo their autonomy and be forced to follow the dictates of others. History tells us that power will be abused, but understanding human capital also tells us that those who lack autonomy tend to have shorter lives. It is telling that the only study quoted in the recommendations detailed here considers the achievement of Nobel Prizes in literature and peace to be signs of a negative social tendency. Others would consider such achievements a sign of human flourishing and advancement.

The attempt now to codify the concept that individualism is a threat to health into international law, through the draft Pandemic Agreement, should alarm us all. The somewhat ludicrous level of evidence provided to support it says much of the risk this approach poses, and the harm we can expect. Modern public health ethics have been based on support for populations through the upholding of individual human rights. Moreover, empirically, there is no crisis demanding an urgent rethink and the abandonment of individual liberties. Those advocating this change should reflect on the definition of health, and why we have designated the individual as the primary unit of moral concern and thus as the chief arbiter of healthcare.

Individualism: The Basis of Public Health or Its Nemesis?
by REPPARE at Brownstone Institute – Daily Economics, Policy, Public Health, Society

Source

Views: 0

Hamas suspends releasing Israeli captives over Israeli breach of ceasefire terms

Hamas says Israel’s delay in allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza is a breach of the ceasefire deal and is “a new war on the Palestinian people.” The group has delayed the release of more Israeli captives “until further notice.” Source

Views: 0

Boko Haram Kills Pastor, Two Other Christians in NE Nigeria

The Rev. Bala Galadima, ECWA pastor killed by Boko Haram in Gombe state, Nigeria on Feb. 9, 2025. (Facebook) ABUJA, Nigeria (Christian Daily International–Morning Star News) – Suspected militants of Islamic extremist group Boko Haram killed a pastor at his home in Gombe state, Nigeria on Sunday (Feb. 9), as violence continued to terrorize the… Source

Views: 2

Israel has displaced 40,000 Palestinians in the West Bank, UNRWA says

Israel’s ongoing military offensive in the West Bank has forcibly displaced 40,000 Palestinians from refugee camps in Jenin, Tulkarem, and Tubas, according to UNRWA. Source

Views: 0

Indian scammer fleeces Sydney woman out of $150,000 in jewellery in fake prayer ritual

A brazen Indian scammer has admitted stealing jewellery worth $150,000 from a woman he met at Sydney’s Darling Harbour by swapping out the valuables with a coconut during a fake prayer ritual.

Gursewak Singh, 25, pleaded guilty to dishonestly obtain property by deception in Blacktown Local Court on Monday where his lawyer said they were planning to file a mental health application.

The court heard that Singh approached his victim at Darling Harbour and introduced himself as a saint from the sacred Indian city of Haridwar on January 9, and the pair had a long conversation, swapped numbers, and met again over the next three weeks, The Daily Telegraph reported.

The pair would undergo a ritual prayer which involved the victim closing her eyes while Singh chanted and blessed her personal items.

Then in early February Singh told the woman she should offer more that the $20,000 in jewellery she wanted blessed, and she brought another $130,000 worth of gold and diamonds.

Singh travelled to her home to perform the hour-long ritual, but while the woman’s eyes were closed Singh swiped the valuables, hiding their missing weight with a coconut he brought with him, 7 News reported.

The woman went to police after discovering the theft, and went with her back to Darling Harbour where she was due to meet Singh again.

Singh told detectives he knew why he was being arrested and directed them to the stolen jewellery, which was stuffed in a shopping bag in his dorm at a city backpackers hostel.

The Indian national was supposed to return to his home country on February 6, but is on bail to face court again on March 10.

Header image: Left, Gureswak Singh (7 News). Right, Singh being arrested (NSW Police).

Source

Views: 0

The Futility of Covid Passports

The Futility of Covid Passports
by Filipe Rafaeli at Brownstone Institute

We are in February 2025. I received a message from someone asking for help. “I’m a nutrition student in my third semester, and my dear college requires all vaccines for me to be allowed to do my internships. I really don’t know what to do.”

Right after that, a doctor shared another report. He explained that Santa Casa de São Paulo is still requiring Covid vaccines from patients to be eligible for surgeries. Don’t want to get vaccinated? No surgery. Die right there.

Many other places are likely still enforcing these mandates at this very moment. This is my motivation for writing this text. I am against pointless oppression. Well, at least pointless from a public health perspective—but very useful for generating demand for the big pharmaceutical corporations that manufacture these vaccines.

The People Reading This Article

When I put in the title that I would explain this in a way even idiots can understand, I was making a provocation. Yes, there are many idiots out there, but I know that not all readers of this article fall into that category. Here, I will encounter three main types of readers:

The first group consists of those who are already against this coercion. They will read to better understand my arguments and see what references I am using, so they can reinforce their own positions against these mandates.

The second group includes people who never really thought about the issue. They simply accepted the mandates without question, believing they were for the greater good. Maybe by now, they have some doubts about the effectiveness of these measures but still see them as a valid attempt during a critical moment of the pandemic, marked by so many deaths.

The third group consists of those who still support this coercion. In general, these are people who consider themselves well-informed, intellectually superior, and believe they are “defending science” against barbaric anti-science denialists. To them, vaccine passports were based on the most rigorous science available. They are the ones who label anyone questioning coercion as “anti-vax.” And these are the people I call idiots.

Do you support this? Then I am talking to you. Yes, you. I know you’re not here to reflect or reconsider your position. You’re reading just to try to find an inconsistency, a logical flaw, so you can claim victory, right?

Well, my personal satisfaction comes from seeing people like you, who think they are extremely intelligent, end up speechless by the end of this text. Because there will be no inconsistencies to point out, no argument to refute.

And I know that even then, you won’t change your mind. Admitting that those you called crazy were actually right? To you, that would be worse than death.

I Know How You Think

Yes, I know. To you, Covid-19 vaccines represented a collective pact. And why do you think that? Because you believe that they reduce virus transmission. So, you think it’s fair to force others to take them, since, in your view, this protects society as a whole. The old idea of “doing your part to protect others.”

But let me tell you something: you were deceived. Covid-19 vaccines do not prevent or reduce virus transmission. In other words, this supposed collective pact never existed. Taking them has always been a purely individual decision. From a public health perspective, it makes no sense to mandate them.

Do you know how they tricked you? When they hammered the idea that getting vaccinated was an act of empathy and social responsibility, they weren’t basing it on scientific evidence. It was just marketing. Before the vaccines were even released in 2020, researchers at Yale studied which messages would be most effective in convincing people.

“It is even more effective to add language framing vaccine uptake as protecting others and as a cooperative action,” the scientists wrote in their study. And that’s exactly what they did, without caring whether it was true or not.

At this point, you might argue that I haven’t yet proven that vaccines don’t prevent transmission—I’ve only shown that there was a marketing strategy before their release. And you would be right.

But here’s another problem. I could present you with dozens of studies showing that vaccines don’t reduce transmission, but I know it wouldn’t matter. You might think that I cherry-picked studies that support my position and ignored others.

You might think this because that’s exactly how people deceive us when they talk about “science.” Who hasn’t seen a conspiracy theorist claiming the moon landing was faked, trying to “prove” it with calculations about the Van Allen radiation belt? In the end, the astronauts went, returned, and lived for decades after that.

Just as I never deeply studied the Van Allen belt, you haven’t deeply studied whether Covid vaccines reduce transmission. That’s because you probably took the vaccines, so the issue stopped mattering to you. We both know the astronauts went to the moon, and you know that vaccine passports were implemented, so your reasoning is basically this: “If they implemented the passports, there must have been a reason.”

But I know how you think. You believe that “science” has a hierarchy and that major institutions gather the best scientists to make the best decisions. You believe that among the pollution of thousands of studies by various scientists, the truth lies within the institutions. After all, those inside have followed everything closely and know all the details.

Well. Here is a document from Emer Cooke, Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), responding to a European Parliament member and making it clear that vaccines were not approved to reduce transmission: “You are indeed correct to point out that COVID-19 vaccines have not been authorised for preventing transmission from one person to another. The indications are for protecting the vaccinated individuals only,” replied her.

“EMA’s assessment reports on the authorisation of the vaccines note the lack of data on transmissibility.”

The EMA is the European equivalent of the FDA in the US. When faced with a direct question, they couldn’t invent a study. The data is lacking.

Even those who ardently defended the vaccine campaign as it was have changed their argument. Now they say: “But they prevent hospitalizations and deaths.”

I Know Your Next Argument

Now you must be thinking: “But it’s still a collective pact! If it reduces hospitalizations and deaths, it saves money in the public healthcare system, which everyone pays for.”

I won’t go into the details here about the actual impact of these vaccines on reducing hospitalizations and deaths, how long this protection lasted, or whether there was an increase in other diseases. That’s not my problem. I chose not to take them.

But for the sake of debate, let’s assume that yes, they do reduce hospitalizations and deaths.

Now you might argue: “If we mandate vaccination, the cost to the healthcare system decreases for everyone.”

Sounds reasonable, right? But follow me here. This opens the door to banning, for example, pork cracklings at the bar. Or fried foods in general—French fries, croquettes, empanadas. Everyone knows that ultra-processed foods increase the risk of heart disease, overburdening the healthcare system.

And alcohol? More than 40% of traffic accidents involve drunk drivers. How much does that cost in rescues, hospitalizations, and surgeries? How about we bring back Prohibition like in the US in the 1920s? That worked out great, didn’t it?

If the criterion is saving money in the healthcare system, how far do we go? You might say the focus should only be on transmissible diseases.

So let’s talk about that. In Brazil, less than 0.5% of the population has HIV. But among gay men, that number jumps to an astonishing 25%. Yes, 1 in 4 gay men in São Paulo has HIV.

Try looking up the monthly cost per AIDS patient in Brazil. No one wants to make that calculation public because it would stigmatize this population. And I absolutely understand that keeping it private is the right approach.

But before we go on, let me make an observation: Of course, stigmatizing unvaccinated people—creating a climate of persecution against those who refuse the Covid shot—is completely acceptable and ethical, isn’t it? “Stupidity is authoritarian. These idiots are the ones who end up in hospitals, infect doctors, overcrowd healthcare units, and it’s society that pays for their stupidity,” said Dr. Drauzio Varella, who thinks he’s a genius.

Now, back to the cost of AIDS treatment. In the US, it’s easier to find the numbers. There, treating each person costs between $1,800 and $4,500 per month, for life. In Brazil, the treatment is fully covered by the public healthcare system.

So, does anything go when it comes to saving money on healthcare? If in your idiotic opinion it does, then we could, for example, criminalize homosexual sex. How about that? Plenty of countries already do it. And I must say, it would be an easy campaign to run. We could use religious rhetoric—wouldn’t that be great?

Imagine a TV commercial. We show a child in an underfunded school. “Because of the sin of gays, there’s no money to provide this child with an education.” Do you approve of this ad? In no time, the population would start doing its part—invading LGBTQ+ hotspots with crucifixes, calling everyone sinners. And for the good of society, mayors would find a way to shut down these “AIDS-spreading” places.

We could keep going with authoritarian examples of cost-saving measures in public health. How about banning rock climbing, hang gliding, paragliding, and all extreme sports? Every now and then, we see people getting injured doing these activities, requiring difficult rescues involving many people and even helicopters. How much does that cost? Cheap? “While there’s no money for your aunt’s surgery,” we could write in an ad.

Didn’t find any inconsistencies to claim victory? No arguments left? I have a quick solution that will bring you comfort. Just say: “anti-vax propaganda,” and go back to watching your soap opera while pretending coercion was never a problem.

The Futility of Covid Passports
by Filipe Rafaeli at Brownstone Institute – Daily Economics, Policy, Public Health, Society

Source

Views: 0

Paedophile hunter convicted of ‘abduction’ for chasing down and detaining alleged predator

A Scottish paedophile hunter has slammed authorities after being dragged through the courts for chasing down and detaining an alleged child sex predator until police arrived.

Alex Cairnie, 47, who runs the Spartan Child Protection Team, said he believed his arrest and sentence of 120 hours’ unpaid work for abduction and robbery over the April 2023 sting was an attempt to stop his volunteer group from exposing child groomers.

“We believe there is an active campaign to stop us hunting down online predators,” Mr Cairnie told The Scottish Sun, and vowed to continue hunting down paedophiles.

“But we exist because of the scale of the problem. It is a true epidemic. The number of people online on a daily basis who are prepared to prey on children is immeasurable.

“I’m good at what we do. I take it very seriously. I know the scale of the problem. I raise awareness and do education for parents that the authorities don’t do. I show them where predators are hiding on their children’s phones. I know how these people think. And I can outsmart and catch them.”

Mr Cairnie was sentenced in Paisley Sheriff Court last week over the live-streamed sting, which involved a car chase that began in Galston, Ayrshire, and ended in Eaglesham, near Glasgow.

The paedophile hunter and his team cornered the suspect after being contacted by concerned parents who feared their child was being preyed upon, but Mr Cairnie was arrested at the scene, along with the alleged sex predator, for standing on the suspect’s wrists and seizing the man’s wallet as he waited for police.

Mr Cairnie pleaded guilty to both charges, but was cleared of a third of charge pursuing a motor vehicle and was sentenced to the community payback order despite Sheriff Brian Mohan noting the case involved a “real child”.

He was cheered by a crowd of supporters after leaving court, and later wrote on the Spartan Child Protection Team Facebook page that he thought he would be jailed due to the judge being “clearly not a fan of our work”.

“A man was stopped from destroying a child’s innocence, anything else is an inconvenience,” he wrote.

After the sentencing the page shared a message from the family of the then-11-year-old girl, who were also in court to support Mr Cairnie.

“As a family we’ll never be able to put into words how grateful we are to Alex and the team, It was an honour to be there yesterday to support him and we were also met with so much support and kindness from a great group of people,” they said in a statement.

“This case should never have made it to a courtroom, but thankfully the outcome for Alex was minimal compared to what it could have been. Our daughter’s case is still waiting to be heard in court, hopefully soon we’ll be able to get her the justice she deserves.”

Header image: Left, Alex Cairnie. Right, Spartan Child Protection Team logo (Facebook).

Source

Views: 0

Fauci Funded $10M+ in Transgender Animal Testing; Authorized $200M More

There is a visceral response to revelations about Taxpayer-subsidized experiments creating transgender animals and the to the testing of drug interactions between “Gender Affirmative” hormones with the bioweapon-vaccines and about the measuring of animal genital sizes before and after these hormone injections – and just overall revulsion towards the sadistic, Fraud, Waste and Abuse that defines the entire industry of animal testing.

People might then ask themselves how the vast, ongoing Taxpayer-subsidized transgender experiment with human children is somehow seen as more acceptable?

If it freaks you out that they’re doing this to Beagles, shouldn’t upset you that they’re doing this to kids, in Public Health and in Public Schools?

How is it still legal to have US Tax Dollars subsidize the chemical and surgical mutilation of children in the name of a flat-out anti-human, genocidal ideology?

Last Thursday, former United States Navy SEAL and serving US Congressman from Arizona Eli Crane posted this video to his Instagram account, with the words:

Thought you knew everything about Anthony Fauci…

He also authorized more than $200 million of YOUR money for transgender animal studies.

From today’s @gopoversight hearing…

TRANSCRIPT

Rep Eli Crane (R-AZ): Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman, for holding this hearing today, thank you guys for showing up. It was just yesterday in an oversight hearing, that I asked Chairman Comer if we could get some therapy dogs, up here because of some of the meltdowns that were going on.

I had no idea, I’d walk into this hearing today and see three beautiful Beagle puppies and I’ve noticed that my mood’s already improved, so thank you guys for bringing them there. I think we should make it mandatory!

We also talked about in the oversight committee hearing yesterday that some of the ridiculous programs and initiatives that need to be cut from our bloated government.

And it seems like a lot of these studies are just another example of our senseless, out-of-control spending by bureaucrats who never really get held accountable.

I want to start with you, Mr Goodman. You said you have estimated over $20 billion in Taxpayer Money, wasted on ineffective animal research, is that correct, Sir?

Justin Goodman: Yes.

Rep Eli Crane (R-AZ): Wow. Mr Goodman, did you also say that it was your estimation that $241 million was spent for transgender animal testing?

Justin Goodman: Yes, and that’s, I would say is the floor, not the ceiling, because the information on federal databases is pretty incomplete.

Rep Eli Crane (R-AZ): So you think we’re going to find out that it was much more money than that, for transgender animal testing?

Justin Goodman: Yes.

Rep Eli Crane (R-AZ): Can you describe what, exactly the American people’s Taxpayer Dollars were spent on, regarding transgender animal testing?

Justin Goodman: Yeah, in a lot of these cases, they involve mice, rats, monkeys, who are being surgically-mutilated and subjected to hormone therapies, to mimic female-to-male or male-to-female gender transitions; gender-affirming hormone therapies.

And then, looking at the biological, psychological, and physiological effects of the gender transitions; looking at the effects of taking vaccines, after you’ve transitioned these animals from male-to-female or female-to-male; looking at the size of their genitals changing, after you’ve put them on estrogen or testosterone therapies, to transition them.

And in the example the Chairwoman gave, there was a $1.1 million grant to give female lab rats testosterone, to mimic transgender male humans and then, overdose them with this party drug [mephedrone], to see if female animals taking testosterone were more likely to overdose on this sex party drug than animals who were not taking testosterone.

Rep Eli Crane (R-AZ): Mr Goodman, are many of these Taxpayer-Funded animal studies shared with the public or is there a significant oversight of this research?

Justin Goodman: You essentially need a degree in Information Technology to navigate the federal spending databases to find any of this stuff.

Rep Eli Crane (R-AZ): So, what you found is, we’re not being very transparent with what we’re spending these funds on?

Justin Goodman: Not at all, and it’s by design.

Rep Eli Crane (R-AZ): Did you say that Dr Fauci, in your estimation, had funded close to 95% of these animal research projects?

Justin Goodman: Yeah. In our analysis, Dr Fauci funded about 95% of the transgender animal experiments.

Rep Eli Crane (R-AZ): OK, I found in some research, that the EPA, under President Trump, is planning to reduce the Agency’s animal testing by 30% by 2025 and completely, by 2035. Mr Goodman, can you explain why that’s a win for the American taxpayer?

Justin Goodman: Absolutely. Animal testing is incredibly time-intensive, inaccurate, and expensive, and it’s not very good at predicting the human health effects or environmental effects of chemicals and pesticides.

And right now, what we are doing to test human effects is poisoning lab animals, forcing them to breathe wildfire smoke, simulated in a laboratory by burning different types of foliage and pumping it into animals’ cages; making them obese, to simulate what it would be like for obese people to be exposed to wildfire smoke; shooting-off handguns and rifles, and forcing animals to breathe the emissions in gun control experiments, and the list goes on and on.

That’s what’s happening currently at the EPA, after the Biden administration overturned the Trump plan to phase-out animal testing.

Rep Eli Crane (R-AZ): Mr Goodman, one more question: You’ve also been outspoken about the COVID-19 outbreak, stemming from Dr. Fauci’s US-funded research at China’s Wuhan lab. What are the public health risks, if we continue some of these outrageous animal studies?

Justin Goodman: We’re flirting with disaster, if we continue to fund dangerous virus research, both abroad, like in Colorado, where Fauci greenlit this bat lab. They’re trying to import hundreds of bats from Asia, to build a new lab in Colorado to do virus experiments with Ebola, Nipah, Lassa, deadly viruses for which there’s no cure.

It’s just a matter of time, before we have another pandemic on our hands if we let mad scientists run amok with our money.

Rep Eli Crane (R-AZ): Thank you. I yield back.

Contributed by

Contact