.
RECOGNISE INSANITY
.
RECOGNISE INSANITY
.
The Vaccine is not about protecting our good Health. It is about owning our bodies and souls.
.
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
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.
Provisions in the Bill will:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
.
.
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!
.
.
This morning I received a WhatsApp message from a friend. Here it is:
.
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