Tuesday, 6 April 2021

RECOGNISE INSANITY

 .


RECOGNISE INSANITY


It would be wise to think of our rulers and their minions, enforcing the ongoing genocidal operation, as insane rather than "evil".

 As normal human beings trying to cope with a separated, divided world, the intention of most of us is to internalise and externalise UNITY because unity is wholeness and harmony and happiness and good health. 


The enemy desires SEPARATION of itself from humanity and separation of its own spirit from the DIVINE that IS UNITY ITSELF.


It builds its empire out of LIES (i.e. that which IS NOT). 

These people are addicted to their own illusions and are truly insane.

However, everything we call "evil" is part of the process of creating good. 

It is the NECESSARY background against which we recognise ourselves and against which must polarise.

Our natural response (self-justified by our strong, DIVIDED, self-identification with the good) is that we should attack and destroy evil. A mistake that will add to all woes. By this reaction we make ourselves the thing we claim to abhor.

The destroyer of darkness is light. the destroyer of hatred and fear is LOVE. 

This is what Christ demands of us, that we "Love our enemies".

To do this we must transcend our own divided selves. 

Not an easy task.

Nor even a task we can achieve for ourselves. This is work God does in us. But our co-operation is required.


Let us not HATE the INSANE. They intend to:
a) Defeat God. 
c) Lead us into the hell of separation they already inhabit.

These people and anyone who chooses to SERVE or OBEY them is EXHIBITING SYMPTOMS OF INSANITY.

We've all done it.

Let's get past it and try to help these poor souls.

The well-intentioned will listen.

The committed enemy will not.

Watch them RUN.




THE VACCINE IS ABOUT OWNING YOUR BODY AND SOUL

.


The Vaccine is not about protecting our good Health. It is about owning our bodies and souls.


The viral vector/mRNA new (non)-vaccines are designed to edit our genes in some of the same ways GM corn and soya have been genetically modified

Viral vectors can enter our cells and, via its constituent RNA, replace a snippet of the DNA in our own genome.

It can be no accident that one of the strands of RNA "identified" as a constituent part of Sars-Cov-2 is an exact replica of part of Chromosome 8, something that exists in its DIVINE form in EVERY HUMAN BEING.

Chromosome 8 is associated with brain function and many associated disorders (this list is horrifying), also with infertility and cancers.

As with GM foods, a human being that has been genetically adapted by a Corporation can (theoretically at least) be claimed to be OWNED by that Corporation ...

...though if the brain changes are successfully transcribed within human cells, one wonders what kind of Corporation would be interested in owning the probable Zombies they have created.

This is all beyond insanity. 

We can expect that the entering of the gene-editing RNA (now in the bodies of millions of people and lying dormant within cells protected by a lipid coating) into the nucleus of the cells of the vaccinated will be triggered at some date in the near future by a blast of 5G that will release the RNA from its lipid coating and cause many (but probably not all of the vaccinated) the intended harm.

Maybe large numbers will die. 

The rage such events are likely to produce will probably be the greatest threat to life on earth since the flood.

Loyalists to the State will be encouraged to blame the unvaccinated. 

We need to find every possible means to expose the insanity of our rulers and those who choose to serve them.


.

Friday, 19 March 2021

SATURDAY 20th MARCH 2021. A DANGEROUS DAY

.


"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience."    

(Albert Camus)


Worldwide anti-government protests are organised for tomorrow, Saturday 20th March. 

Protesters should take note that the UK government is in the process of pushing the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill through parliament at the moment. 

See notes on the Bill here (or read under this post). 

It smells like fascism on steroids to me.

Most of us understand that the State is a psychopathic entity, controlled by forces beyond parliament ...

... and that their (not our) Intelligence Services are capable of committing every possible crime against the people they are pretending to protect in service of whatever political goal is defined for them by their masters.

Right now these forces will be very keen on gaining maximum sympathy for beleaguered UK Police and this totalitarian Bill. 

As with all wars and other attacks against humanity, it is best for tyranny and those that represent it to present their motive as "the protection of the people" or "the good of all".

The Sarah Everard demonstrations did not go well from a PR perspective. 

Support is needed, or at least most welcome, for measures intended to make public protest near impossible after this Bill is passed.

Expect agents provocateurs to be hard at work tomorrow in Central London. Do not be surprised if great harm is inflicted against a few officers by lunatic protesters. Do not be surprised if some provocation causes an extremely violent police "response".

To the remote authority directing operations, almost everyone is expendable ....

.... as millions of us, thank God, have come to understand.



Outline of the Bill presented by Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick on gov.uk

1. What are we going to do?

The measures in the Bill will allow the police to take a more proactive approach in managing highly disruptive protests causing serious disruption to the public.

2. How are we going to do it?

Provisions in the Bill will:

  • Widen the range of conditions that the police can impose on static protests, to match existing police powers to impose conditions on marches

This measure will enable the police to impose conditions such as start and finish times and maximum noise levels on static protests. The police already have the power to impose such conditions on marches.

  • Broaden the range of circumstances in which police may impose conditions on a protest

This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”. These regulation-making powers will clarify ambiguous cases where, if they arise, it would not be clear whether the threshold for the use of such powers have been reached. This will enable the police to make use of their powers with the confidence that they are doing so legally.

  • Amend the offence relating to the breaching of conditions

This measure will close a loophole which some protesters exploit. Some will cover their ears and tear up written conditions handed to them by the police so that they are likely to evade conviction for breaching conditions on a protest as the prosecution have to prove that the person “knowingly fails to comply with a condition imposed”. The Bill will change the threshold for the offence so that it is committed where a person “knows or ought to have known” that the condition has been imposed.

  • Restate the common law offence of public nuisance in statute

The Bill will implement a recommendation by the Law Commission to introduce a statutory offence of public nuisance, and repeal the existing common law offence. This will provide clarity to the police and potential offenders, giving clear notice of what conduct is forbidden.

  • Ensure vehicular entrances to the Parliament Estate remain unobstructed

This measure will enable the police to direct an individual to cease obstructing vehicular entrances to Parliament and make it an offence not to comply with such a direction. This will protect the right of access to the Parliamentary Estate for MPs, Peers and others with business there as recommended in the Joint Committee on Human Rights in their 2020 report on Democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of association: Threats to MPs.

3. Background

Freedom of assembly and freedom of expression are vital rights that the United Kingdom fully supports. The rights of an individual to express their opinion and protest are a cornerstone our democratic society.

There is, and will remain, a balance to be struck between the rights of the protestor and the rights of individuals to go about their daily business. However, there are instances where individuals at a protest behave in a way that causes unjustifiable disruption or distress to others.

In recent years we have seen a significant change in protest tactics which have led to disproportionate amounts of disruption. The current legislation the police use to manage protests (the Public Order Act 1986) was enacted over thirty years ago. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service has called on the Government to update this ageing legislation to allow the police to safely and effectively manage the highly disruptive protests we see today. The Home Office has therefore engaged with Police Chiefs and commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services to conduct an inspection into the policing of protests to understand what needs to be to ensure that the police can safely manage highly disruptive protests whilst preserving citizens’ freedoms of expression and assembly.

The Government is proposing several changes in the law which will improve the police’s ability to proactively manage the most disruptive protests, and provide punitive outcomes that reflect the seriousness of offences committed by protesters.

4. Frequently asked questions

4.1 Will these measures undermine freedom of expression?

No, freedom of expression is a cornerstone of British democracy. The majority of protests in the England and Wales are lawful and will be unaffected by these changes.

These measures will balance the rights of protesters with the rights of others to go about their business unhindered. They will achieve this by enabling the police to better manage highly disruptive protests.

4.2 Why are these measures needed?

Existing public order legislation was passed in 1986 and is no longer fit for managing the types of protests we experience today.

The highly disruptive tactics used by some protesters cause a disproportionate impact on the surrounding communities and are a drain on public funds. For example, the Metropolitan Police Service’s cost for policing Extinction Rebellion’s 2019 “April Uprising” in London was over £16 million.

These measures will improve the police’s ability to manage such protests, enabling them to dedicate their resources to keeping the public safe.

4.3 How will protesters’ rights be protected?

When using these, or existing public order powers, the police must act within the law and be able to demonstrate that their use of powers are necessary and proportionate. They must act compatibly with human rights, principally Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of association).

4.4 What conduct will the new public nuisance offence capture?

The new statutory offence of public nuisance will cover the same conduct as the existing common law offence of public nuisance.

The offence captures conduct which endangers the life, health, property or comfort of the public, or to obstruct the public in the exercise or enjoyment of rights common to the public.

Conduct captured will include nuisances such as producing excessive noise or smells, or offensive or dangerous behaviour in public, such as hanging from bridges.


.

  



Thursday, 4 March 2021

PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND ADMITS IT CANNOT SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE THAT COVID19 IS CONTAGIOUS

.



At the start of this 'pandemic' I read about four separate experiments/investigations carried out by the US Military during the Spanish Flu, all of which demonstrated that the Spanish Flu could not be passed from very sick to healthy persons, even by getting the healthy to drink the warm sputum of the sick. 

I wondered why no similar investigation was being conducted into the transmission of COVID19. Such experiments would not have to be so 'gross'. 

Furthermore. It's not like this is an issue of no importance.

I sent FOI requests to the Department of Health and Social Care who, in a first reply (to the question of isolation of the virus), admitted that they held "no information relating to the isolation of Sars-Cov-2", a pretty astonishing statement the elevates Sars-Cov-2 to the same mythical status as that of the unicorn, an extraordinary thing that no one has ever seen. 

The main difference between a unicorn and Sars-Cov-2 is that no one has yet invented a "scientific" test of supposed constituent parts that "proves" the existence of a unicorn, which is a great shame as it would be quite something to observe how many people would be convinced if a 'unicorn test' ever returned a 'positive'. 

The DHSC also held no information about transmissibility/contagion but suggested I sent my request to Public Health England. 

PHE has replied (at last).

Here are the relevant lines:

Please could you forward any information you have relating to experimental 
evidence demonstrating that COVID-19 is person-to-person transmissible. 
 
PHE can confirm it does not hold information in the way specified by your request.

What this means is that no specific investigation has been carried out into the most central  assumption (and that's all it is) that has driven the global "response" to this supposed pandemic!

It would quite obviously be a straightforward issue to prove or disprove contagion (i.e. contagion-via-transmitted-droplet) experimentally. There is NO EXCUSE for not investigating this directly. Science could easily resolve contradicting beliefs about this, one way or the other.

In my opinion, it already has done. That's why the failure to investigate is, in itself, evidence of bad faith and the enforcement of a diabolical lie.

Scientific papers that demonstrate the uselessness of lockdowns and mask-wearing in protecting people against COVID 'infection' offer further indirect evidence that flu-like illnesses are NOT person-to-person transmissible. This is simply not how such illnesses work. Other factors, external and internal, define who becomes ill and when. 


Here was my second FOI request:

If no such experimental evidence exists for COVID-19 please could you forward any available evidence collected, targeting this particular issue over the past 150 years, that demonstrates person-to-person transmissibility for any other influenza type illness?” 

Reply:

PHE can confirm it does hold this information. However, the information is exempt 
under section 21 of the FOI Act because it is reasonably accessible by other means, 
and the terms of the exemption mean that we do not have to consider whether or not 
it would be in the public interest for you to have the information. However, for your 
convenience we have included a link to the report ‘Impact of mass gatherings on 
Influenza’ 

The first (italicised above) part of the response indicates, in my opinion, that PHE are admitting that they hold or are aware of the scientific evidence collected during the Spanish Flu (that used to be online in 'The US Surgeon General's Report 1919 [which disappeared from the document last October]).


By referring to not having to consider "whether or not it is in the public interest" that they release this information they are covertly admitting that they know the investigation demonstrated non-contagion and that it might be "in the public interest" that we be told this.


In fact, under our new global 'Communitarian' system (yes, we're already in it folks) what is defined as "the public interest" is decided by rulers .... as anyone with a brain should realise by now. 


Truth, or even what we understand as the public interest (i.e. the common good) has nothing to do with anything any more ... as American voters recently found out the hard way. 


The linked report, in my opinion, has little to do with my FOI request. The weak 'conclusion' of "The impact of mass gatherings on Influenza" suggests correlation without demonstrating proof of anything at all. The probabilities suggested in the Conclusion are, yet again, based on assumptions that the author does not even care to define. 

Correlation between future infection and mass gatherings without investigation of other factors inherent to mass gatherings (e.g. everyone being in approximately the same place and therefore subject to multiple identical environmental influences at the same time) surely means nothing scientifically. The report admits there is no proof of causation but suggests it is "prudent" to discourage them. 

Why, one wonders, does it not suggest it would be prudent to investigate the scientific community's own primary assumption, that these illnesses are in any way contagious at all?

See this link to the full document.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/316200/Mass_Gatherings_evidence_Review.pdf

Here is its 'conclusion'.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion there is limited data indicating that mass gatherings are associated with influenza transmission and this theme is continued with the inclusion of new evidence for the update. Certain unique events such as the Hajj, specialised settings including civilian and military ships- a new theme for this update, indoor venues and crowded outdoor venues provide the primary evidence base to suggest mass gatherings can be associated with Influenza outbreaks. Some evidence suggests that restricting mass gatherings together with other social distancing measures may help to reduce transmission. However, the evidence is still not strong enough to warrant advocating legislated restrictions. Therefore, in a pandemic situation a cautious policy of voluntary avoidance of mass gatherings would is still the most prudent message. Operational considerations including practical implications of policy directed at restricting mass gathering events should be carefully considered. 

 After reading the entirety of the FOI response, here is my own conclusion:

PHE admits that government's assumption of human-to-human transmissibility of COVID-19  is based on ...

NO SCIENCE AT ALL!

NONE!

ZERO!

ZILCH!


.

Thursday, 28 January 2021

COVID DEATHS ... A DIABOLICAL FRAUD

.



This morning I received a WhatsApp message from a friend. Here it is:

My mate got a cab in ******* today. The cabbie was a Muslim. His Son died that morning in hospital. He spoke to the hospital on speaker phone in the cab. They said it would take 7 weeks to release the body. However if he agreed to put Covid on the Death Certificate, he could have the body immediately. 

As a Muslim**,  he chose...
This thing is a scam. My mate could not believe what he heard, although I had been telling him for months.
His Son had a congenital heart condition.
This is legit, I would trust this person with my life.

** N.B. (from Google) Islamic Funeral FAQ
Burial should take place as soon as possible. It's typical to bury someone of the Islamic faith within three days, although most strive for within 24 hours

I'm not saying that I wouldn't have been strongly inclined to do the same thing, placed in the position of the hospital representative. I mean ... how would any human being ... in practice ... weigh the consequences of a single false statistic against the torment visited on an already traumatised family by preventing them burying their beloved son in a way befitting their religious traditions? It's almost a no-brainer and I think I would have tried to help out the family myself.

However, the ground was carefully prepared for this kind of circumstance in the Coronavirus Act 2020. My short commentary on this from a previous blogpost is below***.(extracts taken from pg 129 of the Act)
The Coronavirus Bill states AS LAW that when a death is a COVID death NO AUTOPSY IS REQUIRED. In all other cases 'cause of death' must be established. In the case of a child the Coroner would usually require a post-mortem to be carried out, hence the delay in releasing the body.
COVID assignation is heartless manipulation of grieving people when they are at their most vulnerable. The calculation was made in the drawing-up of the Bill (i.e. before anyone in the UK had died) that it was AN ABSOLUTE PRIORITY TO MAXIMISE THE NUMBER OF COVID DEATHS. 

NOT TO SAVE THE LIVES OF THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE BUT TO REGISTER THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DEATHS SO THAT THE OPERATION COULD CONVERT SOMETHING THAT WAS (in the words of their own scientists) "NOT A HIGH-CONSEQUENCE INFECTIOUS DISEASE" INTO A CREDIBLE 'PANDEMIC'.

Anyone who thinks the people running this operation cares about our good health is absolutely deluded. The purpose of the 'pandemic' is not to ensure our ongoing good health. It is primarily the destruction of our economies as a precursor and a pretext for the coming digital transaction/control system that our rulers want to impose on us. It's secondary purpose is to habituate us to the obedience and virtual imprisonment that those of us who survive the coming onslaught will be expected to regard as normal.

When the real pandemic hits (i.e. when we start dying in huge numbers .. listen to Bill and the lovely Belinda warn us about this below) ... perhaps people will begin to realise that our rulers don't really want us healthy at all, they want us dead. They have let us know in so many ways.




However, those friendly, smiling, ever-so-civilised faces fronting this operation in parliament, on the BBC etc really do close the public mind to such an appalling possibility. Isn't it absolutely amazing what a fat salary can do to the human mind?

Upton Sinclair — 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

***
Pg 129 (Signing of certificates of cause of death):

 23 (1) This paragraph applies if— 
(a) a person dies as a result of any natural illness, 
(b) the person was treated by a registered medical practitioner (“A”) within 28 days prior to the date of the person’s death, 
(c) the time when (apart from this paragraph) A would be required to sign the certificate of cause of death under Article 25(2) falls within any period for which this paragraph has effect, 
(d) at that time, A is unable to sign the certificate or it is impracticable for A to do so, and 
(e) another registered medical practitioner (“B”) can state to the best of B’s knowledge and belief the cause of death. (2) B may sign the certificate of cause of death under Article 25(2). (3) B is subject to the other duties applicable to a person who has signed such a certificate. (4) A is not subject to any duties in relation to such a certificate. 24 (1) This paragraph applies if— 
(a) a person dies as a result of any natural illness,
(b) the person was not treated by a registered medical practitioner within 28 days prior to the date of the person’s death, and 
(c) a registered medical practitioner (“C”) can state to the best of C’s knowledge and belief the cause of death. (2) C may sign the certificate of cause of death under Article 25(2). (3) C is subject to the other duties applicable to a person who has signed such a certificate. 25 Where B or C proposes to sign a certificate under Article 25(2) in reliance on paragraph 23 or 24, Form 12 has effect as if— (a) the two lines beginning with “Date on which was last seen alive and treated by me” were omitted,

Notice how responsibility for reporting accurately on a cause of death has slipped from 'person A' (a doctor who attended the patient prior to that patient's death) to persons "B" and even "C". This is a mechanism that allows doctors to shrug their shoulders and evade taking responsibility for statements about the deaths of patients they have treated and for the manipulation of statistical attributions appointed to those deaths. These pages are a liar's charter.

CBP-8860.pdf:

It is clear from this government document (search using above link) that no second opinion (or even first opinion [given by person "A" above]) is required when attributing cause during this COVID-19 crisis. No autopsy required to establish cause of death. No. Nothing. 



.

Saturday, 19 December 2020

IT'S A SCRIPT

.


The Liberal Party of Canada whistleblower released a document about two months ago. It was a timeline for the COVID-19 roll-out describing in broad steps how the COVID-19 crisis would lead us into 'The Great Reset'.

A full copy of the document is printed below*. Please copy and check where we are on the timeline during the coming months.

For now, take a look at number 6 on the list: 

6)         – Projected COVID-19 mutation and/or co-infection with

            secondary virus (referred to as COVID-21) leading to a third

            wave with much higher mortality rate and higher rate of

            infection. Expected by February 2021.


The "projected mutation" has been announced very recently in the UK. A new, faster-moving, more dangerous strain of Sars-Cov-2 is on the loose. It appears to have deformed itself into something quicker, more vicious and more dangerous within the large and beautiful county of Kent (probably to irritate its citizens, who have been unimpressed by COVID-19 and were complaining loudly about the 'Tier 3' restrictions about to be imposed on them). 

Well, now they're in (the newly invented, stricter) Tier 4. That'll teach 'em.

We are told this new mutation has been identified, but we can't yet be shown the 'details'. Tricky science, you see.

How, one wonders, can anybody identify a mutation of a virus when no one has yet identified the original virus (Sars-Cov-2) from which it mutated? 

Responses to FOI requests are very clear about this:

The DHSC holds NO INFORMATION relating to the isolation of the Sars-Cov-2 virus".

In layman's language this means that no one has ever been able to find it.

So,

there we are .... the script moves on inexorably. Read it. Read it carefully. 

At what point on the timeline do you think it likely that large numbers of us will get seriously engaged with the issue? 

Let it be known to everyone around you. Information cannot be unlearned, only willfully ignored:

People who can plot out such a detailed timeline for medical disaster and profound political upheaval leading the whole world, just by chance, to the extreme end they openly desire ... these people are CAUSING our medical disasters while pretending to protect us from them.

THIS IS OBVIOUS.

THEY ARE LIARS.

They LIE to us EVERY DAY.

They can use the phony PCR tests to manufacture whatever lockdown narrative they wish to impose on us.

After severe lockdowns we can be told "the R-number has fallen". If conditions are relaxed, then we will be told that rates have risen. A meaningless test, privately and anonymously managed, can easily be made to do this. One Corporate manager in the lab is all it takes.

They can make a portion of us very sick any time they like, simply by broadcasting a new 5G frequency into our living spaces. [If you doubt this read "The Invisible Rainbow" by Arthur Firstenberg]


The political and media class are in their pockets repeating whatever lies the criminals that own them choose to tell us. The Corporate social media only allows a single narrative on their platforms.

And yet they will lose.

I believe that the Luciferians at the top know this. Their purpose in this exercise is the destruction of souls. Those who have not tried to take full responsibility for their situation, if they wake up to reality late, will find themselves in a condition of extreme anger and, being unprepared, will struggle to manage and cast aside the demonic attachments, from which they came to earth to rid themselves.

That is the tragedy of these months, weeks, days and hours for those of good intention, that constitute the greater number on all sides of public opinion, even perhaps of the liars in the public square who deceive us. 

(one can look into the eyes of those highly educated but terminally dopey newsreaders and wonder if they know what they are doing. I doubt it.)



*THE STATEMENT RELEASED BY THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA WHISTLE-BLOWER


I want to provide you some very important information. I’m a committee member within the Liberal Party of Canada. I sit within several committee groups but the information I am providing is originating from the Strategic Planning committee (which is steered by the PMO).

I need to start off by saying that I’m not happy doing this but I have to. As a Canadian and more importantly as a parent who wants a better future not only for my children but for other children as well. The other reason I am doing this is because roughly 30% of the committee members are not pleased with the direction this will take Canada, but our opinions have been ignored and they plan on moving forward toward their goals. They have also made it very clear that nothing will stop the planned outcomes.

The road map and aim was set out by the PMO and is as follows:

1)  – Phase in secondary lock down restrictions on a rolling basis,

  starting with major metropolitan areas first and expanding

  outward. Expected by November 2020.


    2) – Rush the acquisition of (or construction of) isolation facilities

           across every province and territory. Expected by December

           2020.


    3)– Daily new cases of COVID-19 will surge beyond capacity of

          testing, including increases in COVID related deaths following

          the same growth curves. Expected by end of November

          2020.

  

    4) – Complete and total secondary lock down (much stricter than

           the first and second rolling phase restrictions). Expected by

           end of December 2020 – early January 2021


   5) – Reform and expansion of the unemployment program to be

          transitioned into the universal basic income program.

            Expected by Q1 2021.


     6) – Projected COVID-19 mutation and/or co-infection with

            secondary virus (referred to as COVID-21) leading to a third

            wave with much higher mortality rate and higher rate of

            infection. Expected by February 2021.


     7) – Daily new cases of COVID-21 hospitalizations and COVID-

            19 and COVID-21 related deaths will exceed medical care

            facilities capacity. Expected Q1 – Q2 2021.


      8) – Enhanced lock down restrictions (referred to as Third Lock

             Down) will be implemented. Full travel restrictions will be

             imposed (including inter-province and inter-city). Expected

             Q2 2021.


      9) – Transitioning of individuals into the universal basic income

             program. Expected mid Q2 2021.


    10) – Projected supply chain break downs, inventory shortages,

             large economic instability. Expected late Q2 2021.


    11) – Deployment of military personnel into major metropolitan

             areas as well as all major roadways to establish travel

            checkpoints. Restrict travel and movement. Provide

            logistical support to the area. Expected by Q3 2021.

 

Along with that provided road map the Strategic Planning committee was asked to design an effective way of transitioning Canadians to meet a unprecedented economic endeavour. One that would change the face of Canada and forever alter the lives of Canadians. What we were told was that in order to offset what was essentially an economic collapse on a international scale, that the federal government was going to offer Canadians a total debt relief.

12) --This is how it works: the federal government will offer to eliminate all personal debts (mortgages, loans, credit cards, etc) which all funding will be provided to Canada by the IMF under what will become known as the World Debt Reset program. In exchange for acceptance of this total debt forgiveness the individual would forfeit ownership of any and all property and assets forever. The individual would also have to agree to partake in the COVID-19 and COVID-21 vaccination schedule, which would provide the individual with unrestricted travel and unrestricted living even under a full lock down (through the use of photo identification referred to as Canada’s HealthPass) .

Committee members asked who would become the owner of the forfeited property and assets in that scenario and what would happen to lenders or financial institutions, we were simply told “the World Debt Reset program will handle all of the details”. Several committee members also questioned what would happen to individuals if they refused to participate in the World Debt Reset program, or the HealthPass, or the vaccination schedule, and the answer we got was very troubling. Essentially we were told it was our duty to make sure we came up with a plan to ensure that would never happen. We were told it was in the individuals best interest to participate. When several committee members pushed relentlessly to get an answer we were told that those who refused would first live under the lock down restrictions indefinitely. And that over a short period of time as more Canadians transitioned into the debt forgiveness program, the ones who refused to participate would be deemed a public safety risk and would be relocated into isolation facilities. Once in those facilities they would be given two options, participate in the debt forgiveness program and be released, or stay indefinitely in the isolation facility under the classification of a serious public health risk and have all their assets seized.

So as you can imagine after hearing all of this it turned into quite the heated discussion and escalated beyond anything I’ve ever witnessed before. In the end it was implied by the PMO that the whole agenda will move forward no matter who agrees with it or not. That it wont just be Canada but in fact all nations will have similar roadmaps and agendas. That we need to take advantage of the situations before us to promote change on a grander scale for the betterment of everyone. The members who were opposed and ones who brought up key issues that would arise from such a thing were completely ignored. Our opinions and concerns were ignored. We were simply told to just do it.

All I know is that I don’t like it and I think its going to place Canadians into a dark future.

Vancouver, Canada·Posted Today, October 14