Posted originally on the CTH on June 18, 2023 | Sundance
GBNews has made some changes to their content distribution; changes that appear specifically intended to diminish the voice of GBNews pundit Neil Oliver. The network still puts Oliver on their YouTube Channel, but for the past month+ they have removed his content from their website page. As a result, the transcripts are now very difficult to locate – if at all.
Neil Oliver does a great monologue this week, generally following the arc of our current situation as constructed by a network of political elites. Oliver takes the continuum to its logical conclusion and then asks, what then? The political people and corporate institutions, those protecting themselves inside compounds and behind walls, cannot self-sustain. What happens when they need the proles they have diminished? WATCH:
Posted originally on the CTH on May 6, 2023 | Sundance
[Transcript] – Today we were invited to witness something of profound importance.
A promise made … an oath taken.
For those who care about the truth, an oath is no small thing.
An oath is a solemn appeal to God… asking him to bear witness to a promise.
But more revealing by far is how a person making a promise or taking an oath actually behaves… what they do.
A person might promise in a court of law to tell the truth … on a battlefield to be steadfast to comrades until death.
But the proof of the pudding lies in how the taker of the oath lives their life.
It would have been easy to be distracted today by pageantry and pomp… all the music and marching… that’s the name of the game on a day like today… razzle dazzle ‘em.
But the heart of the matter of the coronation of King Charles III… like the grain of sand at the heart of a pearl, was a promise.
The King’s promise to us … the people.
Charles promised and swore to govern the people of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland according to our laws and customs.
The laws and customs in question are not the endless pages of legislation drafted and enacted by here today and gone tomorrow politicians in parliament… but ‘The Law’.
The law that is old beyond the reach of memory, which is to say the immutable law of the land, which is the common law that by centuries, if not by millennia, predates any legislation drafted and enacted by any parliament in Westminster.
The law of this land of ours is that we are free people.
We don’t stand in line to receive our freedom bit by bit like breadcrumbs dropped from on high.
On the contrary we are born free, and woe should betide any that seeks to compromise that freedom.
The intention of the common law is that we govern ourselves with minimal interference from the state knowing as we do right from wrong.
In an ideal world we tell the state what to do, enabling them as so many administrators.
We appoint as our most esteemed servants those we trust to preserve our freedom.
Implicit in our employment of them as servants is the understanding that if they fail … we reserve the right to be done with them and find others better suited.
If you doubt me, see, for example, the Declaration of Abroath, of 1320, that most defiant assertion of freedom … the spirit of which went around the world and back again.
Here in Britain, we are invited to trust that we live in what is called a constitutional monarchy.
In our constitutional monarchy the monarch is our most senior public servant.
Each of us is a sovereign individual. Our monarch is also sovereign, the first sovereign among equals. And he is our servant.
In 1688, on the accession of King William of Orange, the parliament of the day had the treasonous temerity to claim that it, the parliament, was sovereign.
Ever since then, some parliamentarians have repeated the lie.
That parliament is sovereign.
In fact, our constitution makes plain only the people are sovereign.
The constitution, and the natural law that long predates the constitution puts sovereignty utterly beyond the reach of parliament … for all time. Parliament can no more attain sovereignty than touch the face of God.
Before and after 1688, and then the Bill of Rights of 1689, one parliament after another sought to claim sovereignty over the people. All have lied by so doing.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again … without fear of contradiction and because it must be repeated until enough people realise the significance … it is only and always the people that are sovereign.
Today we watched and listened as King Charles III promised to govern according to the law, which is to say our ancient common law.
He thereby promised to defend our sovereignty as individuals and the sovereignty of this Britain.
Implicit in his promise before God is that he understands and believes that Britain is sovereign and that he, as monarch, will keep it so.
Untroubled by the interference of outsiders great and small.
Not to put too fine a point on it, by outsiders great and small I mean the usual suspects … the WEF, the UN, the WHO and the rest of the international acronym gangs.
Those are unelected, unaccountable bodies, all seeking a hand in ruling over this country and all countries.
Under the terms of an amended pandemic preparedness treaty, the WHO would award itself jaw-dropping powers.
It proposes to empower itself to declare pandemics or states of climate emergency – and then to lock us down and impose whatever other restrictions on our freedom that they see fit.
This is what I mean about profound importance.
By his coronation oath King Charles swore to maintain the integrity of Britain and to protect that integrity against any external entity. He promised that we would remain free.
So far so sovereign … but all of this begs a question:
Are we a sovereign people or not?
Are we still an independent entity with meaningful borders and supported by the commitment of our government to maintain the independence and sovereignty that our monarch swore to defend this afternoon?
I ask this question because, considering what has been going on in recent years, a person would be forgiven for doubting that nation states, in the West at least, are still a thing.
Today of all days … coronation day … it seems appropriate to think about all this.
If we are free people, of the sort King Charles just swore to defend, according to our law, if there are any nation states in the West, why did we so recently listen to that Charles, then Prince of Wales and heir to the throne, talk about how we should build back better?
In the same days and weeks that the Prince of Wales talked about the need to build back better.
So did one western leader after another.
If this is a world of independent sovereign states … how on earth did it come to pass that they all, apparently, had the same thought, called for the same things, at exactly the same time, as though they were in lockstep and reading from the same script?
And if there was a script for the leaders of the West … who wrote it?
Build back better … a narrow window of opportunity … the great reset … how come so many leaders of allegedly sovereign nations spoke the same words at the same time?
King Charles, when he was Prince of Wales, stood shoulder to shoulder with those calling for the Great Reset … Build Back Better. He has undoubtedly been an outspoken globalist committed to the notion of centralised control and decision making.
Today he swore an oath to govern according to the law of this land of Britain, this sovereign nation of Britain.
Promises matter.
As I have already said, what matters most is not what a person says. What matters more is what a person does.
Net Zero… Digital ID… CBDCs… social credit scores… surveillance societies… 15-minute cities… the policies pursued by all those unelected, unaccountable bodies… all of those are erosions of our freedom.
It turns out building back better isn’t better at all – not for the likes of you and me.
I have no time at all for republicanism, by the way.
Elected heads of state … which almost inevitably means ex-politicians. That way lies President Blair … President Johnson … President Starmer.
The fundamental problem … and threat … of politicians as heads of state is that they are creatures of the politics from which they spring … like gargoyles on the walls of a cathedral.
In an imperfect world populated by imperfect people, I would make the Hobson’s Choice of a constitutional monarchy every time.
The point of a monarchy … of hereditary peers as well … is that they are … theoretically at least … invested in the long term. Governments come and go … with their egos, petty point scoring and manifestos … focused always on political expediency … the hope of winning the next election.
But for good or ill the upper house and the monarch are supposed to consider the impact fifty years from now, a hundred years from now.
Theoretically they see to the planting of the trees that will provide the necessary shade for our great grandchildren.
Any government will, given the freedom to do so, draft legislation that will enable it to do whatever it wants. Any government will put itself in a position from which it cannot be challenged or removed.
There’s another question worth considering: should a government have the power to do what it wants … or not?
If you think not … then it’s worth looking again at what was attempted by that parliament of 1688 … when the most ambitious clique in the land seized the opportunity to put itself above the monarch … and therefore above all of us.
Long ago, long before Magna Carta or any other written document, our ancestors understood that individual freedoms were paramount.
The constitution that evolved here in Britain, making us a nation of sovereign individuals, reflected that ancient wisdom.Governments can seek to paper over it all they want … to tell us this or that part of the constitution has been superseded by an Act of Parliament. They can even pretend the constitution is not there. They can distract us with marching bands, bunting and flags.
But the fact remains … and today of all days it is worth remembering … if not shouting from the rooftops … we are free people. That much is inalienable and undeniable. If a coronation like today’s is to mean anything at all, then it reaffirms that freedom … and promises it will last forever.
So I ask again: are we a constitutional monarchy – in a way that means anything – or are we not?
Are we a democracy – and having the vote every few years is not democracy in any meaningful sense – or are we not?
People will tell you we don’t have a constitution here in Britain. In the US, people hold up their constitution like Captain America’s shield. In the end, you might even say no constitution is required. In the end, it’s about right and wrong. Truth and lies. And we all know the difference.
But our constitution does exist and it carefully puts ultimate power beyond the reach of government or any other usurper. Our constitution enshrines ultimate power where it belongs … with the people.
To anyone who says our constitution was superseded by the act of any government, I ask:
Do you accept a government can gather unto itself the power to do whatever it likes?
If the answer is yes, then I say that you accept despotism and tyranny.
Here’s the thing: I want someone somewhere to respect us enough to tell us the truth about Britain today. Then we’ll know where we stand.
Do the powers that be truly regard us as free people, living in a sovereign nation, or do they not?
Posted originally on the CTH on April 29, 2023 | Sundance
In the big picture you might boil down this week’s Neil Oliver monologue to say there’s good and bad, and people need to pick a side. However, the reality of the details he uses to frame the battle against the “baddies” is a series of current event datapoints the powers that be are likely not going to appreciate.
In his monologue Neil hits on the power behind the Potemkin Village, the multinational corporations behind the scenes, the groups who control the public impressions of politics while orchestrating their next exfiltration of wealth. Incredibly, Oliver goes into the background of Sudan and Ukraine to outline how the corporations that control government need assistance from the military those government officials control.
Think about the dynamic behind that truth: the corporations that control government need assistance from the military the government controls, because that’s the reality of the thing we are not supposed to talk about. What that truth outlines is what’s known on these pages as ‘the exfiltration dynamic‘.
Talking about the secret thing is not permitted; yet talk about it he does, in detail, in sunlight. Oliver is going full Tucker. WATCH:
Posted originally on the CTH on April 26, 2023 | Sundance
For his daily podcast and discussion segment, UK pundit Neil Oliver puts the firing of Tucker Carlson into a unique context of human behavior. Tucker is taken down like a trophy in the psychology of those who weaponize power. Additionally, Oliver hits on a few points that are very accurate – albeit with some who would disagree – about the need for control being a reaction to fear.
The decisionmakers in the Carlson issue removed his voice from a position of weakness, not strength. The decisionmakers, namely the Ruper Murdoch team, fear Carlson. Lastly, as Oliver accurately notes, history is a wheel – and during travel there are times in the orbit of the wheel when the component part is traveling backwards. WATCH:
.
As you listen to the outline, remember the position of Barack Obama’s former campaign manager, David Plouffe, “it is not enough to simply beat Trump. He must be destroyed thoroughly. His kind must not rise again.”… There is a ring of historical human brutality to it.
Posted originally on the CTH on April 22, 2023 | Sundance
Neil Oliver returns from a few weeks of holiday to hit this monologue out of the park. It’s almost as if Neil and I had sat down and shared a cup of tea.
Comrades, in this wake-up monologue Oliver hits on the key dynamic we have discussed, we are in an abusive relationship with government. We are being oppressed and held captive by our inability to come to terms with the nature of this relationship. We are suffering through battered citizen syndrome, thinking that if we just bear through the next round of beatings the abuser will change.
Neil Oliver hits another key point, something you also might find familiar. The gaslighting around us that feeds and maintains the nature of the abusive relationship is based on the entire community around us “pretending” we are not being abused. Oliver then folds in the bigger picture and agenda behind, Build Back Better. WATCH:
It’s desperately necessary for our survival that we become disillusioned–and quickly.
Think about that word: Dis-illusioned. Having illusions exposed and removing them from the decision-making process.
Getting disillusioned quicky is important, because when illusions are defended, protected and argued for, instead of being exposed, they will always take us to default decisions that are inherently based on non-reality. This is where the pretending comes from.
Isaac Newton said that passivity in objects was predictable. Perhaps passivity in troubled humans is predictable as well.
Newton said it this way with regard to objects: “An object that is at rest will stay at rest unless an unbalanced force act upon it.” So, it appears we need an unbalanced force to act upon these passively willing objects that are content to remain at rest. That unbalanced force is Donald J Trump.
Posted originally on the CTH on April 5, 2023 | Sundance
I’ve never reached out to anyone in the orbit of Donald Trump, and I do not consider myself of any importance to do so. However, if I could send one message it would be this….
We need a big picture focus right now. Do not be distracted by the smallness of men and their constructs.
The landscape of our national challenge is in a much bigger focus. Connect to the sense surrounding the instability that everyone, even globally, feels amid their lives.
Give direction, context and understanding to that sense, then connect directly to it.
Expand and elevate beyond the schemes, frauds and manipulations.
Lead that level of victory. The rest will follow.
Which brings me to another point….
The number one question people ask is a variation on ‘what can we do?’
It is a natural and logical question, from an audience that: (1) understands the scope of the challenge at hand; and (2) wants to engage in tangible action to solve the problem.
However, keep in mind YOU are in the rare space of an intellectual discernment in the top tier knowledge base.
Having spent several weeks in prayer over this very specific question, let me reframe the dynamic in a way I feel compelled -by outcome of that prayer- to answer.
Put your thoughts into the form of a vessel, willing to deliver in just about any way possible. What do you want me to do?
Now, let me outline context for this question.
Beyond the keystrokes, I have traveled in this journey. I have been into the heart of the beast several times. I have researched, investigated, discussed, questioned, dug into and reviewed just about every possible angle of our current state of government at issue. I have written about those discoveries, some open – some oblique, in a myriad of articles explaining the dynamic as it presents; not as we wish it exists, but in the raw reality of the issue as it manifests & sits afore us.
As an outcome of this journey, I have been investigated, threatened, questioned, subpoenaed and brought before tribunals for inquisition as to the substantive claims of my affirmations.
What I have learned is a simple but powerful truism; the truth of the thing is a defense to every attack against the messenger of the thing.
Those who retain lies and deceptions as a matter of policy, institutional structure or motive, want nothing to do with these simple calloused hands with genuine questions and a research library filled with citations, evidence and supportive documentation, dragged out from within the silos they attempt to hide.
Believe me, there are very few good people in/around our body politic that want anything to do with the truth and evidence of the corruption within it.
In my experience, when you lay naked evidence of the wretchedness and corruption, even the honorable people amid the various institutions recoil in fear of it. How does that recoil manifest? They quit. Straight up true. They quit.
I have witnessed multiple people in tenured positions of power and influence just up and quit their position once they realize the sunlight is visible not only to me, but to everyone else who might choose to do the investigative legwork.
Simultaneous to this aversion, media constructs -and I do mean all of them- who operate a business model dependent on discussing the corruption, have no interest in actually outlining the scale and apolitical nature of the corruption, let alone participate in the solving of it.
If media were to get to the root of the issue, then outline it and pour sunlight upon it, they would have exhausted their stash upon which they build the very foundation of their business model.
Considering the aforementioned experiences, when Mike Lindell smiles and says, “I wish they would sue me or indict me”, I totally relate to why he feels that way.
The opposition is weak, filled with fraud and their constructs are easily dismissed; better yet, when attacked they collapse. That’s why you never see the professional republicans attacking those constructs.
As long as the corrupt pretenses are retained, there is always something to rail against. This is the business model of DC’s congressional representation.
Two wings of the same vulture. The RNC wants money. The DNC wants power. The RNC uses power to get money. The DNC uses money to get power. The donor activity of the RNC drives their ideology. The ideology of the DNC drives their donor activity. This is the essential difference in the business models of both wings.
Our national politics is only one aspect to the dynamic of the systems that seem to surround us. Those pretenses are in place, specifically to give us a place to focus our attention as the puppets dance. Take away the money and the music stops. The money behind the Potemkin stage is what drives the script of the pantomime we watch.
So here’s the question in context. Given the nature of the increased attack against the one entity who I feel well inclined to believe is the only non-participating entity in this performance, namely Donald J. Trump, I have situated myself to do just about anything in support of removing or exposing the fraud. What would you have me do?
I offer myself to you as a vessel, ready willing and able to do just about anything that would ultimately change the dynamic of the issues that surround us. I can travel, meet, discuss, deliver, challenge, confront and present just about anything to anyone. Their sh!t doesn’t scare me.
Additionally, I have just enough contacts, albeit with some effort and markers called, to reach into just about any system or institution and get positioned at the heart of the matter. And I stand ready willing and able to take you with me and outline the journey in almost real time as it takes place, with good, bad or indifferent results presented with brutal honesty.
From your perspective, what, where, when, and to whom would this effort be best deployed?
Let me know your suggestions and advice. Upvote each idea in the comments section as you find merit to the proposition.
We all know the goals; perhaps I know the enemy encampments better than most, and perhaps I carry a totally different arsenal.
You are in the top intellectual class of everyone. You operate cognitively in the rarefied air of wisdom, intellect, discernment and logic that few can fathom. You are smart, brilliant, loyal, insightful, patriotic and you love this country. We are the furnace; they are the gnats. It is important for you to feel that power in your bones. Weaponize me…
I will review every response and ultimately, I will quite literally take the action anticipated to deliver the best possible outcome.
Posted originally on the CTH on April 4, 2023 | Sundance
Nothing, not one single thing, is going to break the resolve of the MAGA movement to support the one and only option to the UniParty apparatus in Washington DC.
We are wide-eyed and awake to the constructs that surround us. We are steadfast, resolute and resolved to the task at hand. As Winston Churchill said, “If you’re going through hell, keep going,”… as long as we don’t stop, we succeed. Never relent. Never give in. Never give up. {Direct Rumble Link} WATCH:
Posted originally on the CTH on April 2, 2023 | Sundance
For his monologue this week British Pundit Neil Oliver takes a walk around the globe to highlight how an increasingly awake global citizenry are revolting against the professional political class.
From France to the United States and Canada and all the way to Africa and throughout Europe, people are looking at the professional political class and rebelling against the desperate schemes of those barely clinging to power. Many tremors and trembles are visible amid the action of the people and the responses from the elites that believe they rule them. WATCH:
Take a moment to share your successes, small or large. Have you lost a few pounds, managed to find a few moments of time for relaxation and stress relief, or found that you really enjoy those walks you started taking?
We all wish we’d make the big, life altering changes every day, but the facts line up in support of the little things done consistently. Over time they become the habits that we build upon to change our lives.
Among the little things that help, motivation is important. Seeing other people’s successes, sharing our own. And we can always get some good tips and ideas from what works for others as well.
For his weekly monologue, Neil Oliver ponders the collapse of checks and balances. The framework of new democratic norms where the government ruling elite police themselves and their conscripts for violations created by their own conduct.
Encapsulated within the question, “Who guards the guards,” Oliver outlines the answer is not within the question. It is not a matter of watching the guards, it is now time for people throughout the west to change the guards and throw out the self-policing bums. WATCH:
[Transcript] – Who watches the watchers? Who guards the guards?
The question was posed by the Roman satirist Juvenal 2,000 years ago, but it has never been more relevant. It’s applied now to remind us of the need to keep a watchful eye on those in power.
This should be our paramount concern now, when lies and liars are everywhere.
This week, former PM Boris Johnson told the House of Commons privileges committee he had not lied when he told the House that his own Covid guidance was being followed in No.10.
Note the word guidance – made especially interesting by the fact ordinary members of the public were, as I seem to recall, arrested, charged and fined for sitting together on park benches or on the beach. I’m not sure that’s how guidance normally works.
In any event, I honestly don’t care whether he lied or not to parliament. I don’t care if they were having cake or coke. This is a red herring, a sleight of hand, a tactic to distract the gullible. The point that must neither be overlooked nor forgotten is that neither Johnson nor anyone else at those gatherings was demonstrably afraid of Covid.
We know that because we have seen the photos of them standing together without masks. Standing apart and wearing masks was for the little people. We might also assume that we were being laughed at by those who knew there was nothing to fear and therefore no reason not to party.
Keir Starmer’s Labour party was the same – we saw those pictures too. He and they called for earlier, longer, harder lockdowns and all the rest, and then met for curry and beer and cosy chats.
Fear was for the little people and so Left and Right, Blue and Red and all positions and team colours in between laughed up their sleeves as the nudge units and the paid propagandists told us anyone breaching the regulations – sorry, I mean guidance – was a granny killing Covidiot and Pandemic Denier.
Look me in the eye and tell me it wasn’t so.
So, who guards the guards, who watches the watchers?
Let’s notice, among much else, that this is the Commons sitting in judgment on the Commons, which is to say politicians sitting in judgement on politicians. This is the guards, judging the guards. This is the same Commons whose inhabitants worked together in unquestioning lockstep to impose policies that ruined lives, wrecked livelihoods and upended the economy. This is the same Commons that, far from accepting responsibility for the carnage, is actively seeking to have us look the other way while they get about the business of doing nothing more than playing politics, all they’re fit for, fiddling while Rome burns. The is the same Commons that empties when one of their own stands to speak up on behalf of people killed or harmed by medical products pushed as vaccines. And trust me, I’ll get back to that safe and effective nonsense they pushed in a moment.
We never quite got to mandated jabs for all, but people all over the world were sacked for opting to live by the ideal of my body my choice, the notion enshrined in the Nuremberg Code that states that a person should at all times: “Have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching or other forms of constraint or coercion …”
We didn’t quite get to mandates for the jabs for the general population, but I say it was a damned close-run thing. I say they were itching to mandate the vaccines. I say mandates weren’t pushed across the line in the end because enough of us made plain it would mean civil disobedience if not full-on civil war. I maintain that while they’ve gone quiet about lockdowns and face-masks, it can only be a matter of time before that playbook is brought out for the next crisis they can cook up. More and more are queuing up to distance themselves from the harms done during the last three years, while still priapic on account of all that unbridled power over the everyday lives of the tax-paying public.
Who watches the watchers, who guards the guards?
There are calls for a war crimes trial for Putin. What about a war crimes trial for Tony Blair while we’re at it? We hit the 20th anniversary of his unlawful war in Iraq last week – that unlawful war that led to over a million deaths, that destabilised the entire region to this day and gave birth to Isis. Wouldn’t the moral way to mark that birthday be a war crimes trial for all the people who took us there? And while we’re considering war crimes trials, shouldn’t we look again at precisely what successive United States administrations did in Korea, in Vietnam, and more recently in Libya, and in Syria and in Afghanistan and other sovereign nation-states too numerous to mention? Shouldn’t we look at what was done, and by whom?
US libertarian think tank the Cato Institute recently looked again at the behaviour of successive US presidents in relation to the Saudi Arabian horror show in Yemen. They reported, and suggested the appropriateness of war crimes trials for Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden:
“Whose administrations serviced the US-provided warplanes, supplied munitions used to bomb weddings, funerals, schools.
“Whose administrations serviced the US-provided warplanes, supplied munitions used to bomb weddings, funerals, school buses and other civilian targets, gave intelligence used for targeting and for a time refuelled Saudi and Emirati aircraft.”
“US officials could not claim to be surprised at their culpability,” they added. “The state department warned that they could be held responsible for war crimes.”
“George W Bush is another good candidate for a trial on his aggressive unjustified attack on Iraq based on manipulated and fabricated intelligence. His war ended up killing hundreds of thousands of civilians as well as triggering years more of conflict. Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair today spending his golden years profiting after acting as Bush’s poodle would be an appropriate co-conspirator.”
Who watches the watchers, who guards the guards?
We are trained to fear Global warming … the warming of the planet … while that world burns still on account of the fire Tony Blair helped light in the Middle East with UK taxpayer-funded missiles and bombs.
Who watches the watchers, who guards the guards?
Let’s look again at the banks and the simmering chaos there … in that world in which banks are secretive, privately owned businesses, in which central banks have the power to create money out of thin air and lend the same sums over and over and over again while growing fatter and fatter on more and more interest and debt. Another former PM, Gordon Brown traded on and perpetuated a myth of being a safe pair of hands when it came to money matters. This is the same Gordon Brown who sold off half of the UK’s gold reserves at a knockdown price so low it was remembered ever after as the Brown Bottom and one of the worst deals in recorded history.
In 2008 Brown bailed out the banks with billions and billions of pounds worth of our money and those banks duly stayed open, the bankers kept getting their bonuses and nothing changed when it came to stopping their reckless games with fantasy money. We were sold down the river and now the banks are shaking on their fantasy foundations once again and for more of the same reasons.
Who watches the watchers, who guards the guards?
The MHRA – the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is supposed to monitor the information we get about health and the safety and effectiveness of the drugs we are offered. But the MHRA gets 86 percent of its funding from the pharmaceuticals industry. Is that the recipe for unbiased behaviour always and only in the interests of the people? I’m only asking.
It’s the same the world over: 65 percent of the US Federal Drugs Administration comes from Big Pharma. Between 2006 and 2019, nine out of 10 FDA Commissioners went on to secure jobs with pharmaceutical companies. 89 percent of the European Medicines Agency funding comes from Big Pharma. 96 percent of the funding for the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia comes from Big Pharma. In Japan, the relevant agency gets 85 percent of its funding from Big Pharma.
No lesser publication than the British Medical Journal asked, in a headline over a recent article:
“From FDA to MHRA – are drug regulators for hire?’
Obviously, I couldn’t possibly say one way or the other. A recent report from Australia’s TGA – the Therapeutic Goods Administration – equivalent to our MHRA – a report made available only by a Freedom of Information Request – makes plain that in January 2021 it was known to anyone privy to Pfizer’s own data that the lipid nanoparticle was widely distributed all around the body.
All of this was known before the so-called vaccines were approved for injection into billions of human beings, from babies up. Those entrusted with our health care knew, in advance, that the tiny oily bubbles carrying the making of the toxic spike protein could and would go to brains, hearts, livers, ovaries, testes, everywhere, and they went right ahead and did it anyway.
Safe and effective they said, over and over and over. Misinformation, anyone?
If they were doing their jobs and reading reports like this, then Chris Whitty would have known, Patrick Vallance would have known, Antony Fauci would have known.
This information is out there now, in the public domain, though heavily redacted – and God alone knows what remains redacted – and so why isn’t this front page and main TV news all around the world? Why not?
Who watches the watchers, who guards the guards?
The answer is as stark as it is depressing:
Westminster awards itself the power to make laws, enforce those laws and decree the punishment for any transgressions of those laws. This is a textbook definition of the tyranny that our constitution, enshrined in Magna Carta 1215, was specifically shaped to prevent. And yet here we are – with the watchers watching the watchers, the guards guarding the guards.
It is as obvious as Boris Johnson’s estrangement from the truth that this tyranny should never have been allowed to evolve and that, since it has, we must not tolerate it a moment longer.
Decisions of importance must be made by those with skin in the game, but with no means to profit either directly or indirectly from the decisions they come to.
Who guards the guards is a 2,000-year-old question. Older by 500 years is the Tao Te Ching, The Book of the Way, by Laozi, the Old Master.
Last week a friend reminded me of words that sound as though they might have been written this morning:
“When rich speculators prosper while farmers lose their land. When government officials spend money on weapons instead of cures. When the upper class is extravagant and irresponsible while the poor have nowhere to turn. All this is robbery and chaos.”
Robbery and chaos – that’s what our leaders and their little wizards have inflicted upon us. It was true two and a half thousand years ago and it’s still true now.
That old book also warns us about:
“Those who try to control, who use force to protect their power … They take from those who don’t have enough and give to those who have far too much.”
This is how we will beat them, how we will win – by remembering what our ancestors learned long ago and finally, finally doing something about it.
Here’s the thing: it’s long past time to watch the guards. What we need, all over the West and once and for all, is a changing of the guards.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 