Email to Parliament
To:Desmond Swayne,Adam AFRIYIE,Office of Graham Brady,Aaron BELL,Apsana BEGUM,Caroline ANSELL,Steve BAKER,Jon ASHWORTH,Lee B. ANDERSON,Mike AMESBURY,Rosena ALLIN-KHAN,Sarah ATHERTON,Stuart ANDERSON,Stuart ANDREW,Tonia ANTONIAZZI,annie.winsbury@parliament.uk,edward.argar.mp@parliament.uk,lucy.allan.mp@parliament.uk,tahir.ali.mp@parliament.uk,Bim AFOLAMI,Debbie ABRAHAMS,Nigel ADAMS,Peter ALDOUS,Imran AHMAD-KHAN,diane.abbott.office@parliament.uk,rushanara.ali.mp@parliament.uk,Bob BLACKMAN,Hannah BARDELL,Harriett BALDWINHideMon, 1 Nov at 13:53
Dear All,
International Relations – Securitisation. You didn’t vote on Covid regulations recently and you’ve been sidelined altogether due to the securitisation of it (and climate change). Some of you will know exactly what I’m talking about and some won’t but most of you, either through ineptness or plain apathy or pressure, are saying nothing and voting (when you can) with the government.
It is laughable in the sense that you are turkeys voting for Christmas because, in the long term, this agenda is going to affect you and your families and friends too. You may view yourself as ‘above any impact’ due to your present positions but you couldn’t be more wrong. Anyhow, that will be for you to find out in time.
Also,
4.3, 4.4 and 4.5:
Now, why would this be the guidance during the “Emergency period” I wonder? Would it be, perhaps, to boost the numbers of “Covid 19 deaths” promoted by the media securitisation actors?
We’re not all stupid guys. You may be, however.
Kindest Regards,
The video: https://odysee.com/@Earthling:5/ClimateSecuritisation:f?r=Ca93BhvPPjvSC6LxPus5591n3dKrfYAf
THE QUEEN ‘I talk but don’t do!”: COP THIS!
The British public and the World public need to wake up! And fast!
Queen “irritated” by lack of action on climate change ahead of COP26
“At an engagement in Wales, the Queen was heard expressing irritation by the lack of progress on climate change as she criticises those who “talk but don’t do” ahead of COP26″.
So the old, hypocritical fraud – soon to leave this world like her “virus” husband – has the sheer audacity to complain that COP participants “talk but don’t do” while she and her inbred, paedophile-loving family, both, do not “DO”, PLUS they stand to benefit in the $billions from the $90 trillion which Charles is desperate to be released.
Read on and you will understand the above statement and its veracity:
Of course, perhaps Nicola Sturgeon “failed” to disclose Her Putrid one’s lobbying because Her Putrid one owns all the Sturgeons in the UK:
So, again, the old bitch propagandises for the Climate Change Agenda – even to the point of attending Glasgow in November for COP 26 where she is bound to make some speech dramatising the urgent need for action, yet any and all policy and legislation which is passed to deal with this fake threat of Climate Change, will not only NOT impact on her, her family or their land and interests in any way, but you can be damned sure it will also take into consideration her and her family’s commercial and financial interests.
Do you know why? Because “SUSTAINABILITY” is not about them or the billionaires who push it. It will never affect them. The laws are written to reflect the wishes of this level of society. There IS no “Climate Change”. “Climate Change” is all about just a few things:
- Levelling up the economics (for the billionaire class) across the planet. Matching the fundamental costs associated with business interests in the “Global North” and the “Global South”. These people want the entire planet as their playground. They don’t want the hassle of having to deal with various currencies and taxes and other costs as they have their interests across the globe.
- China is ignored for the pollution it causes because “climate change” is not an issue in reality and China’s (and Asia’s) need to (slightly) improve their overall wealth needs them to be able to leverage greenhouse gases and fossil fuels etc to benefit from their own, rapid, ‘industrial revolution’ to get closer to (but not at) present western levels. I say ‘not at’ because the idea is not to have Asia and the ‘global south’ reach the consumption levels the west has had but for the west to drop its consumption levels and the global south to increase theirs and the “twain shall meet” somewhere in the middle. That middle point will be a significant drop for the west (‘global north’), however.
- Depopulation. If you have an equation which states X=AxBxCxD and the value of A has the most significant impact because it affects, directly, B, C and D, then, to get X as low as practically possible, it is entirely logical that you concentrate on reducing the most significant term’s (A) value. You can chip away at B,C, and D but you’re ignoring the “elephant in the room”. So, when Bill Gates talks his equation:
P x S x E x C = CO2 (carbon dioxide output).
You can bet that ‘P’ (equivalent to ‘A’ in this case) is the real target (and it is).
It’s a neat little formula because it drives home the point: that for all the Paris climate talks and more affordable Teslas, environmental incrementalism is somewhat pointless. In the equation, P = population; S = services used by people; E= the energy needed to power those services; and C equals the carbon dioxide created by that energy. Population is of course trending ever-higher, as are the services people demand, especially in the developing world which has barely scratched the surface in terms of cars and air conditioning and other modern basics. Those two factors swamp progress in energy efficiency. Gates points out that scientists are calling for an 80 percent drop in carbon emissions by 2050 (and a total end by 2100) to stave off the most dramatic effects of climate change, yet even with more efficiency, the growth in population and services means that emissions will instead jump by 50%.
But back to Her Putridness for a moment:
You remember a few short months ago during this “pandemic” that the G7 had their little get together in Cornwall where Her Putridness attended along with the other jokers called “Leaders”? Did they wear masks? Yes, for the cameras and ‘social distanced’ when they thought the cameras were on them.
But when they weren’t…..
So, the entire legislation and “rules” just didn’t apply to them.
But then we now have this, where the rules don’t apply either:
So while we have vaccine passports being introduced for football games, live events with 500 (indoors) 4000 (outdoors), nightclubs (where, after 12 midnight, the unvaxxed need to leave the premises, like Cinderella, because the ‘virus’ knows what time it is) – see here: https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-certification-update-23-september-2021/#Late%20night%20venues
Late night venues with music, alcohol and dancing
By “late night venues with music and dancing” we mean any setting which meets ALL of the following criteria:
- is open at any time between midnight and 0500
- serves alcohol after midnight
- has a dance floor or other designated space for dancing; and
- provides live or recorded music, for dancing
If a venue ceased meeting any of those criteria, it would no longer require to operate with vaccine certification.
A pub or restaurant that usually stays open past midnight, with music, alcohol and dancing, will be able to choose whether to continue to operate in a similar way to a nightclub, with certification. Alternatively, they can choose to stop the music or close the dancefloor after midnight, and operate without certification.
Scotland can host 30,000 people from countries all over the world, in a single venue in Glasgow, requiring NO vaccine passport (therefore requiring no vaccination in effect) AND Glasgow locals are being urged to offer the homes open for these unvaccinated (because they all will be because the rules do NOT apply to them) individuals to stay. This is all clear indication that these people know what the game is and the game is “there is no pandemic, virus or climate change”.
But it gets even worse. Have you seen this?
What does it take before the penny drops?
THE RULES DO NOT APPLY BECAUSE THERE IS NO THREAT! NEITHER FROM COVID 19 NOR FROM CLIMATE CHANGE!
During the Black Lives Matter protests and during the ‘protests’ (riots in fact) for the fentanyl loaded criminal and porn’star’ ‘hero’ – George Floyd – there was no enforcement of masks. Why? Because those ‘protests’ were in line with the wishes of the United Nations Sustainability Goals. They were supporting the propaganda which the UN, WEF, Royals and billionaires want to push as part of Sustainability:
Let me explain to those who may read this and not understand the game:
https://theelders.org/news/why-climate-movement-must-unite-behind-black-lives-matter-movement
Who are “The Elders”?
Of Zion, perhaps? Tongue in cheek for those with no humour.
And there’s more:
Peter Bloody “Biko” Gabriel! What exactly does he “advise” about? I loved Genesis (up to “Abacab”) and Peter’s first 5 albums but these ‘do gooders’ are either ignorant pricks or they know what they are supporting. The IRONY of reading Gabriel’s lyrics from “Get ’em out by Friday” should be lost on no-one:
Get ’em out by Friday
You don’t get paid ’til the last one’s well on his way
Get ’em out by Friday
It’s important that we keep to schedule, there must be no delayI represent a firm of gentlemen who recently purchased this
House and all the others in the road
In the interest of humanity we’ve found a better place for you
To go, go-woh, go-wohOh no, this I can’t believe
Oh Mary, they’re asking us to leaveGet ’em out by Friday
I’ve told you before, ‘s good many gone if we let them stay
And if it isn’t easy
You can squeeze a little grease and our troubles will soon run awayAfter all this time, they ask us to leave
And I told them we could pay double the rent
I don’t know why it seemed so funny
Seeing as how they’d take more money
The Winkler called again, he came here this morning
With four hundred pounds and a photograph of the place he has found
A block of flats with central heating
I think we’re going to find it hardNow we’ve got them
I’ve always said that cash cash cash can do anything well
Work can be rewarding
When a flash of intuition is a gift that helps you excel-sell-sell-sellHere we are in Harlow New Town
Did you recognize your block across the square, over there
Sadly since last time we spoke
We’ve found we’ve had to raise the rent again
Just a bitOh no, this I can’t believe
Oh Mary, and we agreed to leaveThis is an announcement from Genetic Control
It is my sad duty to inform you of a four foot restriction on
Humanoid heightI hear the directors of Genetic Control have been buying all the
Properties that have recently been sold, taking risks oh so bold
It’s said now that people will be shorter in height
They can fit twice as many in the same building site
They say it’s alright
Beginning with the tenants of the town of Harlow
In the interest of humanity, they’ve been told they must go
Told they must go-go-go-goI think I’ve fixed a new deal
A dozen properties, we’ll buy at five and sell at thirty four
Some are still inhabited
It’s time to send the Winkler to see them
He’ll have to work some moreWith land in your hand, you’ll be happy on earth
Then invest in the Church for your heaven
You total wanker, Gabriel!
Now, who is Sandrine Dixson-Decleve?
Sandrine Dixson-Declève, co-president of the Club of Rome, says the EU climate strategy is a “systems approach” which attempts to encompass almost all sectors of the economy. “The US has always been driven by the market — and not just the Biden administration. They are missing a trick by not focusing on shifting the economy beyond using technological levers.” she says.
But why is Decleve standing posing with Prince Charles?
Because, as you can see, she was, from 2009 to 2016, the Director of his Corporate Leaders Group.
Prince Philip and Prince Charles have been joined at the hip with the Club or Rome since the Club of Rome began in 1968. Its first formation meeting taking place in the villa near Rome belonging to none other than David Rockefeller.
Now, listen closely to Sandrine before reading and recognising the next element of all of this:
Sandrine Dixson-Decleve – Extinction Rebellion –
https://odysee.com/@Earthling:5/Sandrine:b?r=Ca93BhvPPjvSC6LxPus5591n3dKrfYAf
Why Extinction Rebellion get away with their ‘tantrums’ is because Extinction Rebellion are the “militant” arm of Charles, the Club of Rome, the UN and the billionaire set who desperately need you to believe that ordinary people are concerned about climate change. Yes, some are because here is and example of how the conversation goes:
“Are you concerned about animals and biodiversity loss that you keep hearing pumped into you by your media? And did you see the awful weather that’s been happening around the world (forever – way before you were even born and way before the industrial. age but let’s forget about that)”
“Yes”
“Would you like to be an eco warrior who will help this all to stop?”
“Oh yes!’
And that is how easy it is!
What a useful little twat you are Greta! But then, what a surprise:
Thunberg was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in March. But if she wins the prize, she won’t be the first one in her family to do so; she’s distantly related to Svante Arrhenius, a winner of the famous international prize, according to a profile of the young woman in Union of Concerned Scientists.
Specifically, Thunberg’s father, Svante, was named after his distant relative, per the publication. However, the exact connection between Thunberg and Arrhenius is unclear. But thanks to his official Nobel Prize bio, much of the late scientist’s life is known.
Arrhenius was born in 1859 and died in 1927. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1903, for his work in the field. Ironically, Arrhenius’ body of work represented the first calculations that explained how carbon dioxide emissions might lead to what is now the greenhouse effect.
Meanwhile – to go back to the exemptions for vaccine passports during COP 26. It isn’t just the delegates who get an exemption. Just like the BLM exemptions, we have Climate protestors getting exemptions so that the delegates can point to the people out in the streets (who WILL be ushered into Glasgow around the event expressly for this purpose) who are “demanding action from governments!” just like the little autistic robot, Greta Thunberg who’s wheeled into the UN every now and then to “bla bla bla”.
See how easy it is for them to dupe the populations in their “democracies”? “Democracies that they wish to change by the way!
Gabriel wrote another song which is, perhaps, far more apt…
He wrote great songs but, like Bono, became a voice of the pricks oppressing us. What a cunt! I ain’t no monkey you schmuck!
WE WERE TOLD COVID WAS COMING LONG BEFORE IT CAME WHILE HERE, IN JANUARY 2020, THEY TOLD US WHY IT WAS NEEDED!
The above site appears to have blocked this article (on my computer anyhow). I have been linking it everywhere for over a year now:
CHARLES’ DESPERATION TO RELEASE THE $TRILLIONS
But, putting aside the depopulation agenda of Agenda 21 and these criminals for a moment; Here is what is behind Charles and his mother’s seeming hypocrisy (I say “seeming” because it can’t be hypocrisy when they know, only too well, that Climate Change isn’t real):
See and hear Charles desperately trying to lobby for his pet project which will earn him $billions:
His Royal Putridness – Our saviour!
https://odysee.com/@Earthling:5/Charlie:2?r=Ca93BhvPPjvSC6LxPus5591n3dKrfYAf
Do you know what “Net Zero” truly means? The balance of world economy such that there is a net zero differential in cost no matter where in the world business operates. Yes, it also means a “cleaner” planet but what does a “cleaner planet” mean? They want. to go back to pre industrial levels of CO2, right? Think back in history: Who owned cars and who owned land and property prior to the industrial revolution? These people will own while you will “own nothing and be happy”. Owning nothing cannot apply to everyone because, for such to be enforced, there must be owners. If you own your home right now, outright, who can take it away from you such that you only rent it? Nobody. YOU are the owner! You decide if you wish to rent it out or not (AirBnb for example). Now, come a time that anyone else can demand what you do with your own property, it simply means they have the power and ownership of it, not you. That said, they will, I guess, not make the changes as abundantly obvious as that.
And remember the 17 Global Sustainability goals from above? Where do the vaccines come in?
HERE:
Who’s “Security” do you think they’re actually protecting? Yours? Don’t be so bloody naive!
Health and military professionals call for urgent action on climate change
A statement calling for urgent action on climate change has been issued by doctors, health professionals and military personnel participating in a London conference on the health and security implications of climate change convened by the British Medical Journal.
The conference – The Health and Security Perspectives of Climate Change – How to secure our future wellbeing – was held at BMA (British Medical Association) House on Monday October 17th. In an unlikely alliance military and health officials came together to discuss the health and security implications of climate change. The health implications of climate change have been discussed for some time. Less well known is that climate change has been taken seriously by military personnel – those working to prevent and manage conflicts around the world: that climate change is also the greatest future threat to security.
The conference was born out of frustration at the slow progress in tackling the causes of climate change at national and international levels. It arose from discussions and an an editorial in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on climate change, ill health and conflict written by senior physicians and by military personnel at the UK Ministry of Defence. From these beginnings, a loose partnership of concerned organisations emerged, with a common aim of highlighting the urgent need for action.
https://takvera.blogspot.com/2011/10/health-and-military-professionals-call.html
What do you think “Flatten the curve” meant? The increasing cases of a virus? Don’t be so bloody naive!
Hospitals, health services and medical supply chains across the world’s major economies currently generate around 4% of global CO2 emissions. They are also a significant emitter of short-lived yet potent climate pollutants such as black carbon, methane, hydrofluorocarbons and anaesthetic gases. For an industry based on the principle of “first do no harm,” it’s therefore imperative the healthcare industry acts quickly, collectively and globally to mitigate its own climate impact.
We cannot wait for national policies, which will inevitably develop at different rates with different agendas, to set the pace of change. We need to globally unite, quickly, and lead by example, developing best-practice international guidelines and standards for sustainable, climate-resilient healthcare development in the same way our healthcare professionals develop best-practice guidelines for treating patients. It’s going to require technology innovation, outside-the-box thinking and multi-disciplinary multi-sector collaboration, the like of which has not been seen before in the industry.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/09/health-climate-change-sustainability/
WHY DO YOU THINK YOU”RE GETTING NO, OR SIGNIFICANTLY RESTRICTED ACCESS TO GPs AND HOSPITAL BEDS AND GETTING YOUR TREATMENT YOU NEED?
Because of HER:
Sustainable Hospital beds –
https://odysee.com/@Earthling:5/hospitalbeds:d?r=Ca93BhvPPjvSC6LxPus5591n3dKrfYAf
IT IS IN YOUR FACE! NOW WAKE UP!!
British Government “Call for evidence” skewed in favour of introducing vaccine passports
The following demonstrates, very well, the complete and utter distortion of democracy.
A known, identifiable, dictator is vulnerable to being toppled simply because the man behind the policies and corruption is identifiable. The thing is, some “dictators” have been no more brutal than so called “democracies”. These so called democracies number many but include the USA and the UK.
Ladies and Gentlemen, you have a choice: Party A or Party B.
“Hello, can you please answer some questions for me as we are doing a poll? You disagree with both choices? Then we’ll leave that blank or “Don’t Know””
“Is Climate Change something which concerns you? Yes or no?”….. “But I don’t believe in climate change. It doesn’t exist!”…. “Ah! We’ll say ‘No’ to that then shall we?”….. “No you won’t because, if you do, it suggests it just doesn’t concern me while assuming it’s real”.
So, here we have a “Call for Evidence” regarding mandatory Covid certification. Let’s work through it together and see how they bias the questions (and answers) so that, if you participate, you are, essentially, accepting the entire premise on which those questions are asked.
So, with the above, we already see that there is no choice of whether a “Plan B” should be actioned but only, when actioned, how it is ‘administered’. Rather like “We won’t make vaccines mandatory but, if you don’t have the vaccine, you can no longer travel abroad, attend certain events, you may be sacked from your job and unable to make an income which may leave your family destitute (but we care for your health) etc.
But, in addition, the government only really wish to hear from business and stakeholder groups (such as?). Imagine Bill Gates being a stakeholder. Or the NHS or Wellcome Trust or Boris Johnson and his father?
Now, for some reason, while the saved file captured entries I wrote, it didn’t capture the tick boxes. In the above case, I gave no name since it was optional. I then ticked No and No.
It suggests I selected not to provide my email address but, in fact, I selected yes and provided it.
Above, I clicked “Member of the public”.
Above, I clicked “50 and over” and then, in the next two, “Prefer not to say” simply because I know all these boxes are simply used to categorise you as a person. In law, all persons (should be) equal before it. Of course, they aren’t but I refuse to participate in their shit.
Area of the UK, I clicked “Scotland”.
I’m neither disabled or have a long term condition so clicked “No” on both counts.
Above, I clicked “the list captures too many settings” since there should be no settings with any mandatory requirement.
That was simple enough: “All”.
Now, the above is where it starts to get problematic although I click “I feel. strongly that they should not be vaccinated” and “Strongly disagree”.
For the above: “Strongly disagree”, “Unsupervised” (but this is beginning to distort the issue subtly because it doesn’t give the option of “Neither”) and I didn’t click the last one for obvious reasons – they do not give one the choice of saying “Neither” once again.
For exemptions, I actually ticked “No” because nobody need be exempt from something which should never be imposed. Again, however, the problem is, they give you two choices which skews the result. If you were to leave blank, all they do is treat it as ‘no opinion’ or ‘I don’t know’. This all leads to biased, distorted, inaccurate and misleading data (but in their favour).
Unfortunately, in the above sections, the boxes would not expand to show the entire comment plus they give a maximum word count. The middle one is just as you can read but here is the full comment for the top and bottom ones:
“Reframing climate change as a public health issue: an exploratory study of public reactions (2010)Cognitive research over the past several decades has shown that how people “frame” an issue – i.e., how they mentally organize and discuss with others the issue’s central ideas – greatly influences how they understand the nature of the problem, who or what they see as being responsible for the problem, and what they feel should be done to address the problem. The polling data cited above suggests that the dominant mental frame used by most members of the public to organize their conceptions about climate change is that of “climate change as an environmental problem.” However, when climate change is framed as an environmental problem, this interpretation likely distances many people from the issue and contributes to a lack of serious and sustained public engagement necessary to develop solutions.’
and,
The oversecuritization of global health: changing the terms of debate (Sept 2019)This process follows the securitizing logic of the Copenhagen School, according to which any issue can be perceived as a security threat ‘not necessarily because a real existential threat exists but because the issue is presented as a threat’ to a receptive audience. Thus, the key to this understanding of health securitization is not the actual ‘threat’ of a pathogen but a successful speech act or narrative ‘through which an intersubjective understanding is constructed within a political community to treat something as an existential threat to a referent object by a securitising actor, [generating] endorsement of emergency measures beyond the rules that would otherwise bind’, or a suspension of so-called ‘normal politics’.
Who knows? Someone might read them! I won’t hold my breath, however.
Above, I ticked “Disappointed” and “Social media”.
So, the only reason for posting this is to show you, quite plainly, how – when you hear about any and all polls on any topics of political (and ‘scientific’ – such as Covid and Climate) importance which shall drive and influence the population in a so called democracy, to take a view/opinion on something; They are all entirely skewed and your entire democratic system is built upon deliberate inaccuracies which “inform” your government in a way it wishes to be informed so that it can, justifiably, take action which is no-one’s best interests.
Your dictatorship is just extremely well blanketed by bullshit.
February 2020. A “secret visit” to MI5 by her putridness. Good timing “ma’am”.
Johnson & Johnson ‘executives’: It’s about control
But we knew that! I know!
Covid vaccine: “Hit them in their pocket” “Make them 2nd class citizens” – Johnson & Johnson Yahoo/Sent
To: Desmond Swayne
Cc:esther.mcvey.mp@parliament.uk,Adam AFRIYIE,Steve BAKER,Bob BLACKMAN,Office of Graham Brady,David DAVIS,Chris GREEN,Mark HARPER,Philip HOLLOBONE,Charles WALKER,Boris JOHNSONHideTue, 28 Sept at 15:30
Dear Desmond,
https://odysee.com/@Jadu200:7/Johnson-%2B-Johnson–%27Kids-Shouldn%E2%80%99t-Get-A-F_cking–COVID–Vaccine:2?r=Ca93BhvPPjvSC6LxPus5591n3dKrfYAf
These guys careers have ended! The truth needs to come out, however, and no prisoners taken.
But I’ll tell you the truth: There was/is no virus; No “delta strain” etc. So why the jab? Give it time.
And for all those who got vaccinated because it impacts your lifestyle and job, listen closely!
Coerced into being “1st class citizens” (compliant and ignorant) and forcing the rest of us into 2nd class because we’re not.But we “2nd class citizens” get to have no job (sounds very much like inability to buy or sell if you ask me) and no access to more and more events.Meanwhile, you tories, ‘opposed’ to the measures, are inept, impotent and incompetent. Why? Because you will still play the game.
I’d call you all “Nazis” but, in all honesty, you couldn’t lick Hitler’s boot!
You pout and preen your ‘politics’ and your stances.
Let me just say this: No matter what pressure you bring to bear on me and many like me, we’ll never bend. We may be second class citizens but we’re not first class twats!
You sickening bunch of supercilious, mealy-mouthed excuses for men!
Let’s see what ‘tomorrow’ brings, shall we?
Earthling
Email to Desmond Swayne
To:Desmond Swayne
Cc:Adam AFRIYIE,Steve BAKER,Bob BLACKMAN,Office of Graham Brady,David DAVIS,Chris GREEN,Mark HARPER,Philip HOLLOBONE, esther.mcvey.mp@parliament.uk, Charles WALKER,Boris JOHNSON
Dear Desmond,
As you get up, shower, brush your teeth then get in the car to go to that Parliamentary or Corporate nightmare you hate (or if you log in to ‘zoom’ for your morning meeting), you’re now creating your own obsolescence. You don’t recognise it, but you are. The never-ending progress of AI which will appropriate the role you play today and the jobs, that those who promote their “trickle down economics” no longer wish to provide, which will disappear because they don’t want an expanding middle class which consumes, will all make you obsolete.
You identify yourself with that MP role, VP role or that Engineering role etc. That is “who you are” since the first question of you is always “What do you do for a living?”. Once it disappears, who, then, are you? A “Sir”?
OBSOLETE.
And while you still hang on to the job, for now, the irony is you are creating your own obsolescence in working for the structure, the corporation, now entirely in league with government (fascism) and you smile as you think you’ve missed the bullet. However the next round of bullets are just being loaded. Will you miss the next one and the next…?
The State and the Corporations are obsolete. They exist as a signed piece of paper (a legal fiction) but you are what powers them, yet it is the State and Corporations which are removing every freedom you ever had. Pieces of paper you give life to are destroying yours. How bittersweet is that? 🙂
The immigration we are seeing is to cope with a demographic deficit. You’re not even having enough kids to achieve replacement levels so the ageing population coupled with lower fertility is placing a strain on western societies and economies. We need to import working age Human Resources to balance it out and we get them from nations with demographic dividends. That’s what’s behind the US border issue and the flood coming into the UK. So why the lower fertility in the west? Because that’s how it was planned to reduce population and it is why they introduced and promoted women in the workplace. They don’t “care” about women. Women in jobs mean less babies. They haven’t achieved that in the global south yet but they’re working on it and, while they do, they take working age people from those “dividend” nations to prop up the western economies.
You are just a useful pleb for now. When you’re of no further use, you’ll be obsolete and when you stop adding value to the economy, you will have to justify your existence. It’s been on the cards for decades. The “New Normal” and the 4th Industrial revolution you’re so excited about, will oppress you like you wouldn’t believe.
Adolf was an amateur in comparison. But then, in reality, Adolf was only the projection of these people – the REAL “Nazis”.
Understand this Desmond, the further irony of that Twilight Zone segment is that all of those you see in it, will (and do) also become obsolete while they support the very structure which will make them so. Isn’t that hilarious?
Now look in the mirror.
What do you see? An obsolete man staring back at you!
Just listen to old George the Playwright… (and eugenicist)
Ah Desmond, if only you understood.
From the Club of Rome’s book: “The First Global Revolution”
“Ah love! Could thou and I with fate conspire, to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire, would not we shatter it to bits and then, remold it nearer to the heart’s desire?”
Edward Fitzgerald
The Rutalyat of Omar Khayyam
“The Common Enemy of Humanity Is Man In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
You’re a man aren’t you, Desmond? But perhaps a “Sir” thinks he can dodge the bullets?
But again, even those who support the structure eventually will be considered obsolete. Or it might just miss you but be one, or more, of your 3 children or one, or more, of your grandchildren.
Eventually, the bullets hit the target.
Best Regards,
Earthling
PS: Once more, I’d suggest you listen to and read the following. You’re a politician for god’s sakes! You’re trained to read between the lines (not that you need to here)…
And as for you Boris:
Kiss my ass! 7th sprog on the way and yet “reproduction is the issue”. Trying to pump out a football team in case you have a few duds like yourself?
You and your father are so full of shit. The people using you and your old man will hand you your ass at some stage!
Is the old man pissed up in Greece again “Covid securing” his little hideaway as he writes his bestselling follow up to “The Virus”?
Could Desmond Dodge the bullet?
Well, he did this one!
Science and the unethical science of Bill Gates
“Listen to the science”
Ok. Which ‘science’ do you want us to listen to? The IPCC ‘science’ of Climate change or the science which hundreds, if not thousands of scientists around the world (many of whom have worked with the IPCC and left due to unethical science and the fact they have stated ‘climate change’ is nothing but fraudulent?
However, here, specifically, we look at Infertility vaccines. Yes, they do exist and have done since, at least, 1972 and the British government/establishment and royalty have had an eager fascination with them. As has Bill Gates.
The prestigious journal Nature Medicine, in its February 2018 issue reported that the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) is to do a clinical trial of a tetanus toxoid vaccine (TT) laced with a pregnancy hormone, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). It is to be studied on 120 women in India.
This “vaccine” against pregnancy was developed by Dr G.P. Talwar in 1972. The idea is to produce antibodies to the pregnancy hormone, such that the women would not be able to carry a normal pregnancy. Women who were pregnant would abort and those not pregnant would be rendered infertile. The report is indeed disturbing. A few months earlier an article entitled “HCG Found in WHO Tetanus Vaccine in Kenya Raises Concern in the Developing World” was published by Oller and colleagues in the Open Access Library Journal.
The Oller report described young women in Kenya who were vaccinated with this “Talwar vaccine” on the pretext of preventing maternal and neonatal (baby) tetanus. Many of the samples of the tetanus vaccine that tested positive for hCG was sourced from the Serum Institute of India.
The vaccine programme was promoted by the WHO and the Kenyan government, funded by the Gates Foundation. Mothers-to-be were encouraged to take the vaccine to prevent tetanus in their unborn babies, without being told that the vaccine would prevent the baby from ever being born. The Oller report highlights some interesting aspects of the campaign. The vaccines used in the campaign were not stored locally, but were distributed directly from Nairobi and the vaccines were guarded by the police. Every used vaccine vial was returned under police escort to Nairobi at considerable expense. It was advised that the vaccine is taken five times at six monthly intervals. This is unlike the tetanus toxoid schedule anywhere in the world and is exactly the schedule recommended for the “Talwar vaccine”. WHO publications apparently describe a long-range purpose to reduce population growth in unstable “less developed countries” and they are working on a more potent anti-fertility vaccine, using recombinant DNA.
Now, what frequency of booster shot is being suggested today for the Covid 19 vaccine?
Just a coincidence though, I’m sure.
In the context of these reports of the unethical use of the “Talwar vaccine” in Kenya, manufactured by Serum Institute of India, news of the ICMR study is alarming. It is claimed that the effect of the vaccine is not permanent, but there is no clear evidence that women will be able to conceive at will, after being immunised with this vaccine.
The credibility of the WHO and the Gates Foundation has been irreparably dented by this unethical sterilisation of women in Kenya. It is important that the ICMR, which has already been castigated by the 72nd Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare for its part in the HPV trial, seriously reconsider the need for this new clinical trial. Parliament and the public must seek to know who or what prompted the ICMR to study this vaccine developed and abandoned in India, 45 years ago.
This “vaccine” developed in 1972 was discussed as being something the British Parliament would wish to invest in and have further development of within the industrial nations, entirely for the sake of dealing with “global overpopulation”.
POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT COLOMBO CONFERENCE
HL Deb 21 February 1979 vol 398 cc1839-70
The Earl of Listowel:
What we, therefore, have to consider is what we can do as parliamentarians in this country to influence policies for accelerated economic development, accompanied by family limitation.
To take, first, the question of family limitation, a rapid decline in the birthrate in developing countries from 40 or more per 1,000, as it is at the moment, to 20 per 1,000 or less is possible only if people really want to reduce the size of their families, and if their efforts are supported and encouraged by Government policies. A remarkable change from the pattern of the 1960s, both in Government policies and in human attitudes towards family size, will be necessary if we are to make a substantial reduction in world population increase in the next 20 years. Only about half the Governments in Latin America and Asia support family planning, and less than half of the African Governments South of the Sahara. But even in these countries there is an increasing awareness of the urgent need for population control.
But there is also need for birth control devices that are both more efficient, and more likely to be psychologically acceptable. One of the main obstacles to the spread of contraception has been the difficulty of finding a method that is both generally acceptable and effective. The All India Institute of Medical Research, which I visited when I was in New Delhi, has recently discovered a contraceptive vaccine for mass use, which is certainly a step forward. But the resources of the industrial countries for medical research are so much greater than those of the developing countries, that this is surely a field in which we, and other industrial countries, ought to help.
WHAT PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN HOMOSEXUALITY CAN WE ACHIEVE? THAT WOULD HELP WITH POPULATION!
One may be further interested to read the following, taken from this same parliamentary debate:
Viscount Ingelby:
My Lords, I, too, must join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, for introducing the debate on this important subject of population control. I should like also to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, that it is not that the world is short of resources: it is that we have somehow or other failed to get those resources to the right place at the right time. However, I must disagree with some of the ideas which have been proposed to help this situation. The International Planned Parenthood Federation, which no doubt will be closely involved in the Colombo Conference, has interests far beyond the provision of family planning services to overburdened families in the underdeveloped countries. It has a strategy of legal reforms on matters such as the family, divorce, sterilisation, abortion, sex education and so on. This strategy it seeks to implement through family planning associations in various countries and it has a Government grant of £3 million.
As examples of some of the ideas that have been put forward, I should like to quote from a chart prepared by Frederick S. Jaffe, vice-president of Planned Parenthood World Population, a member-body of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Table 1 is headed: Example of proposed measures to reduce US fertility by universality or selectivity of impact”.
I apologise for the rather long words involved there. Under the heading of “Universal impact” Mr. Jaffe lists as “social constraints” the following: Restructure family (a) postpone or avoid marriage; (b) alter image of ideal family”.
Next comes a heading referring to the compulsory education of children, followed by: Percentage increased homosexuality, educate for family limitation, healthy control agents in water supply”.
Then there is a heading referring to economic deterrents which include the following: Require women to work and provide few child-care facilities”.
Under the heading of “Social controls”, Mr. Jaffe puts forward these suggestions: Compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies; compulsory sterilisation of all who have two children except for a few who would be allowed three; confine childbearing to only a limited number of adults; stock certificate-type permits for children”.
The source is given as: Frederick S. Jaffe Activities Relevant to the Study of Population Policy /or the US: Memorandum to Bernard Berelson, March 11, 1969″.
I am not suggesting that all or any of these suggestions form part of the present policy of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, although some of them may well do so, but I would ask the Government, when the question of the grant to the IPPF comes up, to look closely at their strategy for legal reforms.
Let’s just take one element of that: Planned Parenthood not only wishes to reduce fertility in some ‘normal’ fashion but also, as one way of achieving it, planned to, somehow, increase homosexuality and keep measure of the increased percentage achieved!
Now, who’s father was Head of Planned Parenthood for a time and had a significant impact on their child’s worldview?
Now, you may wish to read the following which considers all the aspects of the ‘unethical science’ associated with the production and use of an anti fertility vaccine – the same one originally developed in India in 1972 and now, decades later, adopted by Bill Gates and which the British government have a keen interest in. Don’t you consider it strange just how much the British government (nevermind an individual billionaire software ‘tycoon’) dabble in the idea of limiting – if not dramatically reducing – the earth’s population?
How to securitise it all. How to make sure the veracity of the narrative cannot be debated. How to “sell” Covid 19 when such a threat doesn’t exist.
What do you do when you wish to achieve global behaviour change to catalyse climate action and allow non democratic, authoritative, totalitarian “emergency measures” to be applied while suppressing all questioning of the veracity of the narrative and protest against the measures?
YOU USE THE COPENHAGEN SCHOOL’S VERSION OF SECURITISATION!!
“This process follows the securitizing logic of the Copenhagen School, according to which any issue can be perceived as a security threat ‘not necessarily because a real existential threat exists but because the issue is presented as a threat’ to a receptive audience. Thus, the key to this understanding of health securitization is not the actual ‘threat’ of a pathogen but a successful speech act or narrative ‘through which an intersubjective understanding is constructed within a political community to treat something as an existential threat to a referent object by a securitising actor, [generating] endorsement of emergency measures beyond the rules that would otherwise bind’, or a suspension of so-called ‘normal politics’. A narrow understanding of the global health security narrative suggests that pathogens can be considered threats when characterized by fast-moving transmission, little scientific knowledge of the disease, no known treatment or cure, or high mortality or morbidity, or when they are associated with a particular visceral fear of pain or suffering. When a pathogen of this kind emerges, the legal and normative workings of the global health security regime (re)produce a particular policy response which is focused on preparedness for, detection of and response to acute infectious diseases.”
Again: ‘not necessarily because a real existential threat exists but because the issue is presented as a threat’. And that is PRECISELY the case with Covid 19! SARS COV 2: Non existent as a virus but highly likely to exist within the vaccines.
Now, you either get savvy about all of this or god help your future!
“But I’m alright Jack!”
Don’t be so bloody sure! There’s a LONG way to go in this. First segment is 10 years to 2030. Next segment up to 2050. You might be “alright” now as you’ve accepted the jab and you can travel and you don’t give a shit about anyone else’s freedoms to travel or have a job etc, but give it time. Do you feel lucky?
Electric cars and zoom conferences. 5G and tech while you’re coerced to vaccinate again and again so you can travel while your jab protects you from nothing and you can’t figure out “the science” from one day to the next or the logic. There’s a reason for all of that. Meanwhile, thousands are dying from adverse reactions but it’s not you is it “Jack”?
https://academic.oup.com/ia/article/95/5/1093/5556752
World Population Problems
Volume 279: debated on Thursday 9 February 1967
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON
If a nation has half its population under 15 years of age—and this is by no means the exception in many of the underdeveloped countries—then the number of people who are dependent on the wage-earner to support them becomes quite unmanageable. For example, I am told that the people of Costa Rica have to support nearly twice as many children per head of the adult population as, say, Sweden. I will quote again President Johnson’s remark:
“Less than five dollars invested in birth control is worth 100 dollars invested in economic development”.
There’s your answer. When you don’t want further economic development which improves peoples living standards such that you expand the global middle class, who will consume more, you simply invest $5 into birth control methods (like experimental vaccines perhaps) rather than invest $100 into something you don’t even want.
When the West has a demographic deficit and you don’t want the aged “sucking off pensions” (they rightly deserve) because they are no longer contributing economically and are a net “loss”. Plus you want that reduction in carbon emissions and to get “Climate change” under control, you want drastic reductions in that “loss” and you don’t want to spend $100 to develop economically because that expands the middle class and you feel there is a surplus of population anyhow! Malthusian thinking.
So accept the increasing securitisation of all things which they want to deal with. Accept that such securitisation will totally suppress your freedoms and accept that, if you’re lucky, you’ll just be that ‘human resource’ they need to keep their “lights on”.
You’re not sucking off a pension yet but you’re still a sucker! Once it comes to pension age though, you’re also surplus!
If you think this is anything but sheer coercion and think these people are looking after your best interests, you have a bloody screw loose! Actually, to be frank, you’re retarded.
These BASTARDS are trying to kill you!
When you watch and listen to this video, you must consider every word carefully. What I mean by this is, by example, the following:
When you hear Charles say “The experts do suggest the earth could support 9 billion people but not (Charles says) if a vast proportion are consuming the earth’s natural resources at present western levels”, you must understand what he is actually saying. It appears quite clear on the face of it, but it isn’t. He is obfuscating, purposefully.
“Present western levels”: Yes, there is significantly greater wealth in the western nations, per capita, than anywhere else BUT that wealth and resource use is NOT evenly distributed. There are many in the west who are clinging on to a living by the skin of their teeth. What Charles is really saying/meaning is that there is a class (of which, he is one) that wishes to maintain their wealth and use of resources and, in fact, wish to grow their capability to use even more while owning more and more land (what do you think Bill Gates is doing, for example? Largest private landowner, now, in the USA). What do you think the UN Agenda 21 land grab is about and who it is for in the long run? What is “Eminent Domain” all about?
Eminent domain, land acquisition, compulsory purchase/acquisition, resumption, resumption/compulsory acquisition, or expropriation is the power of a state, provincial, or national government to take private property for public use.
But what happens to public roads, bridges, etc in the end? They get re-privatised but to those who have the wealth to buy up huge swathes of public land. It, then, is charged for if it is provided for use by the public at all. It is theft.
Anyhow, I digress.
Charles also speaks of the 100M new jobs which need to be created in the arab world, alone, over the next 10-15 years. You must take pause and ask yourself: Why does Charles have anything to say about the arab world and their ability to provide jobs (or not) for their people? The answer is this: Charles, the UN and the World Economic Forum have their acolytes in every country in the world. They are, in all seriousness, both a cult and a dangerous global mafia. Charles and crew aren’t just interested in the west maintaining itself as opposed to the East or global south, however. Don’t make the mistake of believing this is “White Supremacy” at work trying to protect the white race. It has nothing to do with that. It has nothing to do with race. It is CLASS. It is BLOOD. You must remember the British Royal family is all about lineage and blood. They care as much about a white british person as they do for a Chinese or a Nigerian or Arab.
The bottom line is: IF they allow any decent level of wealth and affluence to come to you and I, every person/family which achieves what they consider to be ‘Middle Class’ is a danger to their aspirations to remain top of the heap; achieve their goals to have a world which they own and which allows them to enjoy a planet unencumbered by the burden of having lower classes who are of no use or interest to them “plaguing” their beautiful earth.
They see themselves as ‘The Meek’.
“Blessed Are the Meek, for They Will Inherit the Earth” (Matthew 5:5)The third beatitude puzzles many people in the workplace, in part because they don’t understand what it means to be meek. Many assume the term means weak, tame, or deficient in courage. But the biblical understanding of meekness is power under control. In the Old Testament, Moses was described as the meekest man on earth (Numbers 12:3, KJV). Jesus described himself as “meek and lowly” (Matt. 11:28-29, KJV), which was consistent with his vigorous action in cleansing the temple (Matt. 21:12-13).Meekness is not weakness; it is power under control. As the writer of Proverbs says, “He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit, than he who captures a city” (Proverbs 16:32).
You must understand that they truly believe they are ‘the meek’ and do not get the wrong impression of what ‘meek’ means!
See video here: https://odysee.com/@Earthling:5/BackgroundtoCovid:8?r=EM87ieGHUZGAPTtofAcYrfH4xxhtHDLs There will be a Part 2 of this blogpost because, if I included everything I need to bring to your attention in one post, it would be enormous and I know people are put off from reading blogs which are too long.
“Covid 19” has done its job. That job was multifold:
- Attack the world’s growing middle class
- Dramatically reduce Carbon emissions in line with the agreed upon actions from COP21 “The Paris Agreement” in 2015.
- To achieve ‘2’, destroy many aspects of industry and life including Petrol/Diesel vehicle manufacturing; Air travel; Agriculture; consumption in every aspect of life.
- Remove a significant number of human beings who, within a greying demography as we have in the west, add nothing to economic growth while using resources and money (pensions for example) that the elite do not want to pay out.
- Reduce population overall which the “crisis” has achieved in multiple ways and which “Covid” and other, ostensibly related to “climate change” effects, will continue to do.
Do not make the mistake of overlooking this: Boris Johnson and other ‘leaders’ have referred to “Covid” with wartime rhetoric and they are right: It is a war. It replaces what we consider wars to be but it is a war. It is a war on you, I and our children and their existing (or future) offspring, whether you live in the UK, USA, China, Indonesia, Ghana, Argentina, Germany, Sudan, Australia or the rest of the world’s nations. This war. achieves the same ends/goals for these people without the bombs. All that was necessary was a “shock”!
And that “shock” is going to ramp up come November 2021 at COP26 in Glasgow. You ain’t seen nothing yet!
So, whether you are black, brown, white, arab, european, latin or inuit, do NOT make the mistake of thinking someone of the other group is your enemy. Every one of you have members of this ‘cult’ within your own borders acting against you.
This is not a race war. It is a CLASS WAR! They have no interest in “White Supremacy” or “BLM” or any other organisation or “ism” you may believe in. They USE it all against you/us. These labels are TOOLS of their ‘trade’ and for every one of you who swallows the propaganda, you’re also a useful tool to them. A tool against humanity and against yourself.
The Brave New World of “Covid”
As the SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to kill thousands of Americans each week, bioethicist Parker Crutchfield has suggested a controversial approach to battling the pandemic — namely a “morality pill.” Specifically, he suggests that widespread administration of psychoactive drugs could provide “moral enhancement” that would make people more likely to adhere to social norms such as wearing masks and adhering to social distancing guidelines.
Crutchfield — an Associate Professor of Medical Ethics, Humanities and Law at Western Michigan University — acknowledges that the idea is “far out” and controversial. But he does note that well-known chemicals, such as oxytocin and psilocybin (the active ingredient in “magic mushrooms”) can lower aggression and increase empathy towards others, and thus potentially “boost” our “cooperative, pro-social behavior.”
Crutchfield is not the first ethicist or scientist to explore the concept of a “morality pill.” Peter Singer and Agata Sagan discussed this idea in the New York Times in 2012. Neurobiologist Molly Crockett has also written about this concept in The Guardian.
Although this idea may seem tempting to frustrated policymakers, there are a few important caveats to consider:
1) The science is still quite dubious.
As Crockett pointed out (and as Crutchfield acknowledges), the various drugs can have a variety of complex effects on behavior, “some good, some bad (and of course what counts as good or bad depends on whom you ask).” Furthermore, the effects can be quite subtle. These drugs may not induce strong effects in either personality or behavior.
2) The concept of a “morality pill” is pretty controversial amongst ethicists.
As Vanessa Rampton noted in Slate, ethicists of various camps don’t necessarily agree on what the right course of action is during difficult dilemmas. Furthermore, studies have shown that various proposed moral enhancement drugs can shift normal volunteers’ choices in hypothetical ethical “trolley problems” in either direction. What counts as the “right” direction depends on one’s school of ethics. What one ethicist might consider a morality “enhancer” another might deem a morality destroyer.
Rampton also notes: “Implicit in the idea is that some elite group — whether neuroscientists, corporate executives, or policymakers — would claim to know some moral truth and then issue rules for the unenlightened to follow.”
I dare say many Americans would be extremely hesitant to outsource their moral decision-making to scientists or politicians. (As an aside, this is one of the sub-themes of the science fiction movie, Serenity.)
3) Even if a “morality pill” were fully safe and effective, the ethics of any mandatory “morality pill” basically reduces to the already existing ethics over mandating people wear masks.
Crutchfield recognizes this issue, noting that those “who need moral enhancement are also the least likely to sign up for it.” He therefore explores involuntary methods, such as legally requiring people take the morality pill or administering the drug secretly via the water supply.
In other words, mandating people take a “morality pill” doesn’t alter the fundamental moral calculus of any proposed policy. It merely makes enforcing good (or bad) laws easier for the authorities.
For now, the concept of a “morality pill” remains firmly within the realm of science fiction, not science fact. Those who support wearing masks and social distancing to reduce the spread of Covid-19 will need to stick to old fashioned methods of discussion, debate, and rational persuasion to obtain the necessary “buy in” from the American public. These methods will take more work than slipping a chemical secretly into our water supply. And I’m totally ok with that.
Of course, being the consummate “Conspiracy Theorist” that I am, I made the entirety, of the foregoing, up. It was just a creation of my vivid imagination.
Or was it?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2020/08/30/could-a-morality-pill-help-stop-the-covid-19-pandemic/?sh=31e41bcb5b84
Matt Hancock and AMR
Ok, so we now have an article re Hancock and AMR in the Daily Mail from April this year.
However, being the ‘mad conspiracy theorist’ I am, I am proposing that this “AMR” is a created con every bit as much as ‘Covid 19’. I would go further to suggest that ‘Covid 19’ (at least, the vaccines being pushed, ostensibly to ‘fight it’) is for the purposes of sterilisation while also having the effect of killing people whose genome is already compromised with some non communicable disease (see the Lancet article in one of my previous blogposts over this week). In addition, however, I am of the belief there could be a link between the action of the vaccine and the compromising of the body’s immune system to everyday bugs. This, in turn, could allow the governments and their ‘esteemed scientists’ to suggest that people are dying of ailments, we used to be able to treat, because of “AMR”.
Is it really that difficult for so many people to see all of this Covid, Climate Change and, now, ‘AMR’ all coming together like a proverbial tsunami and not put 2 + 2 together and realise it is all planned? The planning is all there to be seen and read if they were to just apply themselves.
All the same people and organisations (Hancock, Gates, Prince Charles, the UN, the WHO. etc etc etc) are ALL making their statements and ‘moves’ to create. the same – what will become – hysteria surrounding the subject of AMR as they have done with Covid.
The journals and articles have been out there in circulation for years just as there were the same for “a new pandemic” and infectious disease and the securitisation moves to ensure emergency measures could be taken and anyone thinking of questioning the reality could be shut down. It’s all there. All the same Modus Operandi.
Now, with “Covid 19” there were articles and events and statements etc beforehand but nobody had guessed, beforehand, that they were going to introduce a pandemic in 2020. Yes the signs were there but not in the public domain and not referencing, precisely, something called “Covid 19”. So the coverage of “Covid 19” now is all hindsight while we try to uncover the deception of it. The deception is very clear as to what it is all about but, still, the vast majority of people simply don’t buy it.
My intention in bringing the AMR issue to your attention is that we may then get it out BEFORE it becomes fully public (yes it’s ‘public’ by way of this Daily Mail article but has the full gravity of it been taken in? I’d say no).
Again, this AMR narrative has been worked on over the past decade alongside the infectious disease/pandemic narrative and I want people to recognise this before they are. faced with the ‘big announcement’ of it sometime down the line. It will, of course, be connected to Climate Change as has Covid but the idea of it is very simple:
“Due to Climate change (a con), we’ve had a pandemic and every step we have taken in battling this pandemic just so happens to have been focused on steps we have wished to take toward eradicating ‘climate change’. The increase in global average temperatures is causing an increase in disease and creating superbugs with our inability to fight them because of AMR. This means many people are going to die of disease we used to be able to deal with. It just so happens that ‘climate change’ is due to increasing consumption of the world’s resources and that increased consumption is due to ever increasing population (which we don’t like) but we wish to save the lives of those who are going to die of pandemics and AMR (even though it adds to the population numbers which we don’t want). So, while we want population reduction, we want to stop people from dying due to the effect they are creating which is caused by the increased population but please don’t listen to those ‘conspiracy theorists’ who point to this dichotomy and ask you whether you believe us when we say we are trying to save you.”
“MODERN MEDICINE MAY CEASE TO EXIST” except for those who can afford it while we get rid of those of you who are excess to requirements.
People had better wake up to this and quick otherwise there is going to be one hell of a reduction in the world’s population over the course of the next 30 years itself, nevermind 50 to 100 years! You MUST ask yourself this question: HOW DOES PRINCE CHARLES COME UP WITH A FORECAST OF JUST 2 BILLION PEOPLE ON THE PLANET WITHIN THE NEXT CENTURY?
“It’s an existential threat as great as climate change”. Here is the FACT: “Climate Change” is NOT and never was an “existential threat” but was created as such through “Speech Acts” (see Copenhagen School Securitization) to further bolster the argument that there are too many people on the planet which, itself, is a lie but “Population” was also securitized. The entire reason for all of this being that “The meek shall inherit the earth” and these people see themselves as ‘the meek’.
Until the world’s population understand this (or at least a good fraction of it), they win. If you refuse to understand or believe it, you are sending your genetics (i.e. your offspring will die out) to an early grave sooner or later. Then again, this may not concern you. However, even if it doesn’t, your own life is still going to be a bloody misery because this agenda is going to oppress your freedoms so badly.
Oh the words. are so positive aren’t they? But then they always are on every subject known to man when uttered by a politician wishing to ‘sell’ you something.
Beware. Be very aware. You are being deceived.
Prince Charles: Setting the scene on Antimicrobial resistance in 2016
Trust me. This IS part of the big agenda of depopulation. This IS “Covid” Phase 2.
It’s not the ONLY pointer BUT, when Charles speaks on a subject, you can be pretty damned certain it’s part of the agenda.
COVID-19—a crisis of power
Who wrote this?….
COVID-19 is about the politics of the body. In a series of lectures and essays in the 1970s and early 1980s, Michel Foucault (who died in 1984) argued that the discipline of public health emerged with the birth of capitalism in the 18th century. The body came to be understood as an instrument of economic production, of labour power, and so became a subject of significant political interest. Medicine and public health were endorsed as tools to enhance these productive forces, to ensure that people were fit for work. The priority given to the body as an important determinant of mercantilist prosperity ran parallel with a further historical turn—the meaning of government. The idea of government began with the narrow objective of retaining jurisdiction over a defined territory. But in the 18th century, European governments incorporated the idea of economy into their practice. Economy then referred to the family. Advances in statistical measurement brought attention to an entirely new concept for governments to consider—that of population. Governments switched their focus from families to populations as the units on which their political economies depended. Population became, according to Foucault, “the ultimate end of government”.
Foucault introduced the notion of “governmentality” to make sense of this crucial shift in concern. By governmentality—and the governmentalisation of the state—he meant the exercise of power over populations. We continue to live in this era of governmentality, where individual actions are shaped by power that claims its legitimacy in scientific truth. Public health developed amid these social and political currents. Governments saw the health of populations as the foundation for protecting and augmenting the productive economic forces of the state. Health became a political problem demanding political control, since “the problem of sickness among the poor is identified in its economic specificity”. Governments now claimed an interest in controlling and constraining the bodies that made up a population. In Foucault’s words: “Different power apparatuses are called upon to take charge of ‘bodies’, not simply so as to exact blood service from them or levy dues but to help and if necessary constrain them to ensure their own good health.” Why? Because the “biological traits of a population become relevant factors for economic management”. “The imperative for health”, Foucault wrote, “—at once the duty of each and the objective of all”. “The body is a biopolitical reality; medicine is a biopolitical strategy.” Public health—observation and measurement of sickness, standardisation of knowledge and practice, and the creation of an administrative structure to manage health—became a type of pastoral power with the aim of social and economic development. The growing importance of health to industrial societies led to the valorisation of doctors and the growth of medical science. An alliance formed between medicine and the state—“a politico–medical hold on a population”.
Why is Foucault important for understanding COVID-19? The reasons lie in the sinister way in which approaches to this syndemic are evolving. It is seen as acceptable to argue that older citizens at risk of COVID-19 are somehow less valuable to society than younger people. It is suggested that young people should be allowed to risk their health in order to protect economies. And governments have enacted extraordinary measures to control and constrain the behaviours of their populations. COVID-19 has evolved to become a debate about the distribution of power in society—central government versus local government, young versus old, rich versus poor, white versus black, health versus the economy. Those most at risk of COVID-19 are some of the least powerful in our society. Those working in public health do not see themselves as instruments of capitalist states. On the contrary, they view health to be of such intrinsic value that it must be fought for and defended. But we need to be clear-sighted about our alliance with government to address this syndemic. Medicine and public health are being co-opted into a political programme of population control to protect the power of the modern neoliberal state. The struggle for health is a struggle for human dignity, liberty, and equity. But we must also meet our obligation to question power and its effects on truth, and truth and its effects on power. One important strand of public health is the struggle against subjection.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32262-5/fulltext
Who wrote it? Richard Horton, Chief Editor of the Lancet.
Now, there’s an issue with the Lancet and Horton because, he/they write many papers (I used one in my second previous blog for instance which said “Covid 19 is not a pandemic”) but it is only those papers which are entirely supporting the agenda of Climate Change (which Richard and the Lancet do subscribe to 100% – the stupidity is palpable) which will be used by the elite and their helpful retards in the media (which is owned by that same group of elite). Your media will never point you in the direction of the articles and papers I pick up on from that same Lancet.
I add that the stupidity of Horton is palpable because he really does demonstrate some significant form of cognitive dissonance in that he can say things like “a vaccine won’t help with Covid because Covid 19 is a syndemic of various non communicable diseases” (I’m paraphrasing) while, then, not making the link (purposefully?) with the Climate Change agenda and Agenda 21 which he supports.
He writes the above regarding the control exerted by governments on their populations through “public health”. He states things like “Medicine and public health are being co-opted into a political programme of population control to protect the power of the modern neoliberal state.” and “Health became a political problem demanding political control.” Yes, he attributes such thinking to Foucault but it is clear that he then entirely subscribes to it.
The man, obviously, has a screw loose.
His contradictory stances/beliefs remind me of this:
“The pandemic is fake. There is no emergency BUT here are alternative treatments for this fake pandemic”!
Richard and this person appear to be two sides of the same coin.
I hold out no hope today because 18 months ago, when I saw this “Covid 19 pandemic” being pushed; The first thing that came to my head was “There is no way they can take this step and people will not see through it”.
Boy! Was I wrong!
I then look around me at the logic (or lack thereof) of people everywhere, on both sides and I just want to put my head in my hands and pray to be beamed up to an ‘Earth’ in a different, more sane, dimension.
I’m black pilled and have been for a long time. As George Carlin once said “Sit back and watch the show”.
I’m then faced with people who have just recently awakened, see it for what it is and are ‘excited’ about the marches they see or, perhaps, are a part of. They also trawl the internet and watch videos (perhaps some of which were mine before I was banned by youtube) and articles and they think there is hope. They see the marches of hundreds of thousands of people – perhaps a few million overall, across several nations. But, compare those individual marches with this crowd and you can clearly see the issue:
Now, get a “Live Aid” for freedom and you could be on to something because these youngsters, and children you wish to protect, will only listen when there’s a celebrity (Pied Piper) telling them what’s real. Granted, a lot at Glastonbury aren’t youngsters but they may as bloody well be.
Where’s Bob Geldof and friends when you need them? Nowhere because they dance to the establishment tune. Always did. If they stepped out of line, the most they’d be able to muster are a few street buskers.
Even then, finally consider a few million versus the global population of 7.5 billion!
As I said: Sit back and watch the show because we’re screwed anyhow!
Antimicrobial resistance: The next “pandemic” (Part 2)
The narrative has already been created. They have a perfectly justified reason for allowing (or creating) more deaths.
If you are considered invalid (i.e. not valid), they have created a perfect excuse.
Personally, I question the reality of this ‘threat’ and the ‘superbugs’ they are saying can evade the drugs.
Here’s a scenario: For a number of different ailments, they can simply say “the drugs no longer work due to AMR”. The drugs are then taken off the market and there is no access to life saving treatments. Except, pharma then introduce new drugs that do work but at a much higher price and the reality is that they are, essentially, the same drugs. But, if you’re poor (or have an ‘inappropriate’ genome). you don’t get the drug. The wealthy do who can afford to pay for it. This further reduces the earth’s population and eradicates the ‘useless eaters’.
It is Eugenics on steroids.
URGENT: “COVID” STAGE 2
All I ask is that you share and distribute this one blogpost, far and wide – globally.
The next stage is “AMR”: Antimicrobial Resistance
At the onset of Covid 19, I was researching all the elements of it. I knew it was a reframing of Climate Change from the beginning.
Without going into all the detail of what I read on the subject – much of it was posted to my “Earthling” youtube channel which was removed by Youtube approx 1 month ago – I picked up on Matt Hancock’s diary of meetings during 2019 to 2020. In amongst the diary were the following meetings, all regarding something called “Antimicrobial resistance” which I had never heard of. While it piqued my interest, I put it aside because, at the time, I was looking for items/meetings related to ‘virus’, ‘Covid 19’, ‘SARS-COV-2’ etc.
We now know where we stand with this con and it has been covered by every channel/blog you can think of over the last year and a half. What has NOT been mentioned, however, is AMR.
As ‘Covid 19’ tails off (it’s, effectively, done its job and will continue to as a ‘seasonal flu’ – because. that is all it is), they still need to maintain the fear, the increased threat to health, infectious disease and the need to lockdown to “flatten the curve” (that ‘curve’ being two things: Carbon emissions and population). How do they do it?
TAKE NOTE: This is something I’ve been picking up on for a while now. The next “pandemic” they may introduce is AMR. i.e. They will blame millions of deaths, over the course of the next 30 years to a “crisis” related to AMR. It will be another fake crisis however, which will allow them to let people die while blaming it on “superbugs” which have become resistant to drugs, plus it will allow them to attack the animal-based agricultural sector to the point of non existence.
Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)Antimicrobials are drugs – such as antibiotics – that kill or control disease-causing microbes. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) occurs when microbes mutate or adapt in ways that enable them to withstand antimicrobials, rendering treatments ineffective. AMR is dramatically accelerated by the over-use and misuse of antimicrobials, including antibiotics, in people and animals. Each year, 700,000 people die of AMR. Without action, the death toll could rise even higher, to as many as 10 million deaths annually by 2050 and cause a 3.8 percent reduction in annual gross domestic product (GDP), as identified in a 2017 report entitled ‘Drug-Resistant Infections: A Threat to Our Economic Future’.
I’ll repeat it: Somewhere at some point down this road, they are going to introduce ANTI-MICROBIAL RESISTANCE as a GLOBAL SECURITY THREAT, thereby strangling us even more by showing millions more ‘dying’ of it. OR, I just thought: The vaccine today for Covid, has a protein in it which is ALREADY introducing AMR to our systems? Perhaps someone in. the medical community could throw some light on this? Is it possible for the spike protein in the vaccine to attack the human genome such that it creates at. least some partial AMR within the body, thereby making it easier for disease to attack us?
Therefore, our entire genome becomes resistant to many of the drugs on the market which fight various disease.
THEY ARE, PRESENTLY, BUILDING UP THE SECURITISATION OF AMR!!! (What is “Securitisation”? My video on Odysee explains. Either watch the entire thing or start from 2.32). Important to understand before reading on.
Now, who has a significant shareholding in “Genomics, England”?
Matt Hancock.
“Concurrent with these events has been a trend to view some health issues as security “threats”. This “securitization” of selective health issues has, however, been met with resistance from a number of quarters, most notably by a few prominent governments including Brazil, Thailand and Indonesia, as well as sections of the academic community (4). The central criticisms that have been raised of securitizing health issues extend from such matters as language translation (i.e., the word “security” has an explicit military connotation in some languages and cultures) through to claims that framing health issues as security threats distorts global public health priorities and expenditure (5), infringes human rights and civil liberties (6), and prioritizes issues of concern to high-income countries while sidelining those of the rest (majority) of the world (7). Notwithstanding these legitimate criticisms, several prominent public health leaders, such as Dame Sally Davies, the United Kingdom’s chief medical officer (
, as well as institutions like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have chosen to explicitly describe antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as a global health security threat (9, 10). Furthermore, some national governments, such as the United Kingdom, have even gone as far as to elevate AMR to the top of their national risk registers, substantiating AMR as a risk to national security.
Conclusion
AMR is a complex problem that requires concerted, multisectoral global effort to address. It also necessitates that we, as an international community, act in unison if we ever hope to successfully mitigate the worst excesses of this phenomenon. As with other complex challenges (e.g., climate change), recent history suggests that we still have much to learn in how to achieve consensus on the nature of the problem, let alone implementing mitigation strategies in a timely manner to avert catastrophe. In this regard, securitization is not, and should never be, viewed as the panacea for AMR. It is, however, we argue an important tool that can potentially be utilized to great effect. Not only to elevate and focus attention on the problem, but also to convince our leaders of the need to dedicate the necessary resources to develop effective mitigation strategies, pharmaceuticals and diagnostic tools. Arguably, for the battle ahead with AMR, we will need all the tools we can muster.
On the value of viewing Antimicrobial Resistance as a threat to international security
So what does this mean?” Well, while you are debating the vaccine and virus (and yes, there are mounting deaths from the vaccine itself) there is something being worked on in the background which nobody is even aware of: AMR.
They have securitised 3 things over the course of the last 50 years – all of which are related because the actual plan is to flatten the curve of the initial securitised element: Population. The follow up securitisations of ‘Climate Change’ and ‘Infectious disease’ has been to support the idea that increasing consumption causes ‘climate change’ and increased consumption comes from increased population. However, ‘Climate Change’ as a threat, was not working. Hence we had this on 13 January 2020 from Deutsche Bank (which very few people have seen):
Now WHAT THE HELL do you think that “Shock” was? I’m not even giving you 3 guesses!!
“Such sacrifices may shock citizens and be difficult to administer in democracies”.
The REFRAMING of Climate Change to present it as a health threat immediately, rather than a threat in the distant future was necessary because the goal had already been set to start significant emissions reductions in 2020 and to continue through to 2030 to reach a 50% reduction of global GHGs (Greenhouse Gases). Then the next 50% by 2050. THAT is what “flattening the curve” has always meant. Why they associated it with the NHS in the UK is because the NHS contributes 4% of total UK carbon emissions – in line with an entire year of activity at Heathrow Airport!
So, with the foregoing in mind, I decided to do some more searching on AMR and what came up? This did…
“So what?” Well the “So what?” is the fact they are taking the same steps with AMR, from a political, medical and security perspective, as they had with the run up to “Covid 19”. It’s exactly the same ‘MO’.
They build up the story that there is burgeoning health threat arising from “Climate Change” while even connecting it to Covid by suggesting Covid has exacerbated the situation. Will this be a REAL threat or, again, will it be a fake, statistical threat, like Covid? I don’t know. I am not medically trained. I am approaching this from a position of having researched these people over a decade and a half (in fine detail across multiple aspects) and I see, clearly, all the same moves – politically and medically – and it is culminating in one huge “RED ALERT” sign.
Long before “Covid” hit any shore, there were the journals – lots of them which no-one read except those within the medical profession and the people in the know. When did you last hear of there being both, a medical and military collaboration on an issue? Not too often, if at all. HOWEVER, when something like “infectious disease” has been securitised, you can see the link, right? Well, here we have 2011 (just one example):
Remember the Deutsche Bank statement above regarding the fact that the “Climate Change” threat had failed. They had recognised that failure 10 or 15 years ago. Probably why it failed is because all the doomsday scenarios they had fed us, never transpired (and never would). You “create” a “threat” in the future because you know it is never going to materialise. However, like population (because that is what it is all about), you securitise the “threat” so it cannot be debated under normal democratic conditions. Yes, you can allow various details to be debated but NOT the reality of the “threat” itself. That is why they allow debate re lockdown value, masks, social distancing etc. They can allow debate on these points until the cows come home because it does not threaten the fundamental they need you to believe: i.e. that there is a real virus threat.
So, because they recognised the failure, they started work on another way of FRAMING the issue. What is “FRAMING”? Simple! You know the idea behind it through those – either in real life situations or in fiction – who have been ‘framed’ for a murder they didn’t commit. A narrative is created to point the finger at someone who is innocent. Well, “FRAMING” the Climate narrative as a health issue, reoriented the ‘threat’ to something which was immediate; On our doorstep and which needed emergency, non democratic action to fight it. Elevating the threat to security status allowed for the non democratic action and it was important that the ‘Securitisation Actors’, via their Securitisation ‘SPEECH ACT’ convinced the ‘audience’ (i.e. the world’s population) that there was, in fact a real threat. As my video above explains: This is a strategy/tactic within the realm of International Relations and was first discussed/analysed by what is known as the “Copenhagen School”.
I cannot stress enough how many journals I have read, published long prior to the advent of “Covid 19” which, clearly, point to their having planned the introduction of it (because they had to take emergency action) by 2020 to achieve the agreement milestones raised in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. Here are just a few spelling out their need to reframe Climate Change as a health threat:
So, back to AMR and Genomics….
Now, just imagine when Genomics England (owned by the UK Dept of Health) has the legal right (because of “security”) to sequence the genome of everyone in the country. What could possibly come of that? What IF the NHS is privatised (or even if not) and there is a tier system related to ability to pay? What if your tier disallows, or unknowing to you, suggests that certain medicines or operations are off limits to you because your genome data indicates you ‘will not benefit’ from it. What if AMR is suggested to you as the reason for you (specifically you) being unable to get a treatment (which would, actually benefit you) and, due to that, you are on palliative care and allowed to die?
What if AMR is real? Can they use it against whoever they wish to? Yes.
What if it isn’t real? Can they still use. it against whoever they wish to? Yes. Just as they have done with the non existent Covid 19.
AMR endangers effective treatment for the following:
- Pneumonia
- E. coli
- Gonorrhea
- Staph infections
- Tuberculosis
- Malaria
- HIV
- Influenza
- Meningitis
- Fungal infections
- Parasites
And more.
COP 26 is in Glasgow in November. Prepare for a tsunami of propaganda and immense changes and further totalitarian moves.
Then, sometime later (months? years?) keep an eye out for the ‘rise of Antimicrobial resistance’ as a threat even greater than Covid 19 and why hundreds of thousands, or millions, are dying from diseases “we used to be able to treat”.
AND KNOW THIS: IT’S ALL BEEN PLANNED.
The bottom line:
Covid 19 is the flu/pneumonia and NCDs, rebranded: See The Lancet –
“Addressing COVID-19 means addressing hypertension, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases, and cancer.”
“no matter how effective a treatment or protective a vaccine, the pursuit of a purely biomedical solution to COVID-19 will fail.”
“The economic crisis that is advancing towards us will not be solved by a drug or a vaccine. Nothing less than national revival is needed. Approaching COVID-19 as a syndemic will invite a larger vision, one encompassing education, employment, housing, food, and environment. Viewing COVID-19 only as a pandemic excludes such a broader but necessary prospectus.”
Covid 19 is not a pandemic: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32000-6/fulltext
Altogether, the above is rebranded “Climate Change”.
“Climate Change” was introduced as a threat to support the idea that too much consumption is caused by overpopulation.
AMR is going to be introduced as. a way of saying “We cannot help you due to 1. Increased drug resistance and 2. Your specific Genomics.”
Earthling 
32262-5&id=fx1.jpg){kind=link}
32262-5&id=fx2.jpg){kind=link}
4 comments