15

An interesting topic of conversation came up over Thanksgiving. My sister is pretty savvy on what's going down. She's aware of the Cabal. She's hip on Q (or at least mostly aware of the Q story). I don't think she is fully aware of everything, but far more than most.

But she also is not a fan of Trump. She recognizes that most of what is said about him is a lie, but she just doesn't like him. She thinks he's a blowhard and overly divisive. I agree with her, but I've explained to her (albeit briefly) why I think both of those qualities are intentional. However, she doesn't care. She does however love RFK, Jr. She said she would vote for him in a heartbeat no matter what party flag he waves.

I thought about it, and I think RFK, Jr. could very likely be a unifying force, not to mention that there is both a sense of justice and closure to the effort of Q if he became President.

What do you think? What if RFK is the democrat nominee, or even an independent. Would you vote for him over Trump? Even if not, even if you think such a statement is sacrilegious, do you think he would be good for the country? Do you think he would be a unifying force? Do you think him as President would bring honest debate to the table on the "hot topics?" Do you think he would be able to put an end to the propaganda driven division (not by himself of course, but rather, as part of the Q plan)?

Of course, I don't know what The Plan is, and I don't think anything can change the course, but there are layers upon layers to The Plan, and there is nothing better than a surprise ending, especially one that feels like Justice. Who knows. Maybe RFK, Jr. IS The Plan.

What do you think of him as President for 2024?

235

I hate to date fag (I don’t actually hate it, I’m just not very good at it), but after the events of last night, and especially after Trump's return to Twitter, I started looking at some Q posts. On Nov 2, 2017 Q posted the famous post we are all anticipating:

Q post 55:

u/#q55

On the same day, Q posted this:

Q post 44:

u/#q44

55-44 = 11

Tonight is Friday. Last night (Aug 24) , arguably the "first arrest" and Trumps first tweet in ages is on a direct line on the Q clock from Nov 2 on the 5 o’clock line (the [:25][:55] line), 11 spaces down.

5 x 11 = 5:5?

Tomorrow is the 5 year delta for this:

Q post 1933:

u/#q1933

On the [:28] line is 10/31. On Oct 31, 2017 is Q post 16:

u/#q16

Big night tonight?

Big week ahead?

The month of AUGUST is traditionally very HOT.

We’ve got heat waves, Maui fires, threats of a second Covid lockdown, the first arrest of a President ever... how hot will August get?

I know it’s not much, but my implied prediction of “The Tweet” being tonight will prove itself right or wrong in a matter of hours, so I thought I’d throw it out there, just in case.

136

Q post 142

u/#q142

This post contains so many clues to the history of 20th century. This must have been analyzed a great deal when it first came out and since then, but finding those digs is proving problematic. I am requesting information on any digs into the clues laid out in q post 142.

Specifically, I want to know who family 'y' is (House of Windsor?). I want to know how Soros connects to it. What is his history with regard to WWII? How do Hitler and Merkel connect?

I know there are is a lot of speculation about some of these things (Merkel daughter of Hitler, Hitler grandchild of Rothschild, etc.), but I want to see the actual digs (evidence). If anyone knows where the investigations might be, please point me in that direction.

Thanks in advance.

19

For whatever reason this video was recommended to me on Youtube. I've never seen this guy before, and for my tastes, he's a little too exuberant in his bias, but his sourcing is impeccable, and he gives details on those sources within his narrative.

According to his evidence, Abraham Lincoln, and the entire American Civil War had nothing to do with freeing black people, and everything to do with creating a totalitarian Federal Government (AKA Globalism).

People think the Greenback is proof of Lincolns "side" ("against" the bankers). I have not found that to be corroborated in my investigation. In fact, I think that pushed us more in debt to the Rothschilds, though I have yet to nail down a direct connection between that act and the Rothschilds, so it's more of a supposition at this point.

Regardless, my investigation into Lincoln outside of the Greenback produced a very different story than official history suggests. This is especially true within the scope of the Civil War, which put us forever in debt (we are STILL in debt from the Civil War to the European Central Bank (AKA Rothschild)), and put us all (every single citizen of the United States of America) in perpetual debt slavery, from which we can never legally escape.

I think Lincoln was an agent of the Cabal, pushing us towards a One World Government. This video exposes a great deal of evidence that supports that assertion, and imo, is a must see for the citations alone.

If you find the narrator off-putting, please try to get past his obvious bias. There is really a lot of good evidence in there.

237

I am reposting a response I made in another thread and expanding it. People don't appreciate what it would mean to "go to a gold standard" per H.R.2435. The idea is that it doesn't matter how much money there is, they can set the ratio of gold to dollar at whatever they want. "However much there is in present day dollars. It doesn't matter."

That's the first problem, so let's look at that:


How Much Is Gold Worth

According to the official narrative, there are about 8,133 metric tons of gold in U.S. reserves. I doubt that is true, I think it has been mostly moved into private bankers hands, but we'll go with it. There are 32,150 troy oz. per metric ton. That means there are, in reserve:

8133 metric tons times 32150 troy oz/metric ton ~ 261 million troy oz.

As for the total money that exists, the official number (not that I trust it, but we'll go with it) is between 40 trillion (narrow money), 90 trillion (broad money) or 1.3 quadrillion (derivatives, investments, etc.). With the amount of naked short selling, I wouldn't be surprised if you could double or triple that, so upwards of 4 quadrillion.

Putting this into perspective, we get one U.S. gold backed dollar is equal to:

  • narrow money: 6.5e-6 oz
  • broad money: 2.91e-6 oz
  • derivatives: 2.01e-7 oz
  • short sales: 6.5e-8 oz

These numbers don't mean much, so let me try to put it into something that makes a little more sense. Here is a picture of 1g of gold. It's not the best picture since it doesn't show the whole hand, but it shows that it isn't very much. Carrying that around, it would be pretty darn easy to lose it. But let me give you an idea of what one U.S. gold backed dollar would look like:

  • narrow money: 1/5000 of a gram
  • broad money: 1/11,000 of a gram
  • derivatives: 1/160,000 of a gram
  • short sales: 1/500,000 of a gram

Even with narrow money, think about dividing that gram picture into 5000 parts, then try to find it in your pocket. With short sales, divide it into half a million parts. It's almost easier to start measuring dollars in atoms of gold.

That 1g sells for about $130. This suggests it should be worth between $5000 and $500,000 if we were to move to a "gold standard" as things stand today.

For reference, that translates to between $150,000 and $15,000,000 per troy oz in today's money.


Now on to the next problem. The dollars that exist aren't money, they are debt. If we go to a "gold standard" there will still be all the debt, and the interest on that debt, that belongs to Megabank. If we move to a "gold standard," all that debt either needs to be paid off, or needs to be wiped out. But where does all the money reside?


Where's The Money

If we just look at narrow money (bank accounts, bank notes, etc.) that's the stuff that people have "on hand" (not really, because it's mostly in the fractional reserve shenanigans, but close enough). But who has the most money in bank accounts? According to this, the median bank account in America (in 2019) was about $5000, and the average was $42,000. That is a HUGE discrepancy, which means that the people with all the money have far more than the average person. The people with all the money are, in general, the Aristocracy AKA the Cabal. If we use the median this amounts to about $1.7 trillion (5000 times 330M people in America). Most of the rest of that $40T of narrow money lies in the hands of the very rich.

However, if we look at derivatives (not to mention naked short selling money) ALL of that money is in the hands of Megacorp.

So no matter how you divide it, as things stand today, the gold goes into the hands of the same people that rule the world right now.


Paying Off The Debt

If we don't wipe out all debt, then all those debts need to be paid off. But money is debt. Money comes to be when a debt is created. That's what "printing" money means. A loan is taken out, in one column a credit is given. This is money. In the other column a debt is created.

Money = Debt

BUT, that's not what really happens. A debt is paid back at interest.

Money + Interest = Debt

So all the DEBT in the world is equal to all the money PLUS all of the interest it has accrued, i.e. there is more debt than there is money. The debt can't be paid off. So all of that gold will eventually end up in the hands of the PTB, PLUS we will remain debt slaves forever.

With the current financial system, no matter how you slice it, all the power remains exactly where it is if we move into a "gold standard."

The system must fail. There is no other choice.

38
33

I've been having an idea for a while. I hate to prognosticate (because I'm really bad at it), but this is a hypothesis that will be proven true or false in very short order. Because there isn't too much time left for me to look like an idiot with bad predictions, I will put it out there now.

Everyone thinks there will be a "Red Wave" in the next couple weeks. I've been thinking it can't be. I think it might go Red majority in the house and senate (or maybe just one of them), but I don't think it's going to be overwhelming. I think it's going to be very close no matter what happens.

Let me elaborate.

If we get an overwhelming Red Wave it won't expose the election fraud. People need to see the fuckery without the incredibly polarizing person that is Trump. Also, if there is an overwhelming Red Wave, all actions taken by that super Red legislature will not wake people up, but rather will be seen as partisan and deepen the division.

I think a Purple Wave will happen for the same reason that Biden had to win. This isn't over yet.

I think that:

"This is not simply another four-year election. This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not we, the people, reclaim control over our government."

meant Biden's tenure, just as much as it meant Trump's.

Think multiple meanings.

Look at all the huge victories we've had since Biden "took over" that are seen as under the Blue flag. For example, imagine if the Roe v. Wade reversal happened under Trump. In a non-Patriot controlled Show, the world would probably be at full out WWIII right now and the R v. W decision would have gone right back after Biden, or perhaps more likely, made into Federal law.

We have a long ways to go yet I think. If it is truly a Red Wave, things won't play out in the "Wake Up" way I think they need to.

Having said that, this isn't my Show, and I know exactly dick, so who knows.

We shall see soon enough.

Buckle Up. I think it's going to be a very interesting couple of weeks. The wave may or may not be Red, but the sky is red as fuck. The Storm is coming.

It may be "upon us" very soon.

373

I have begun release of Part 2 of my report: Welcome To The Machine.

The first part of that release is found on Superstonk. If you could go upvote it just so it gets to more people I would really appreciate it.

However, the real post is on the website I made for it.

Welcome To The Machine.

Part 1 is a revised version of a report I made last year that shows all companies are one company.

Part 2 is going to do that and more. It is a normie Red-Pill though, and designed to make it past Superstonk censors (I hope) so it takes a direct approach to the problem through the corporate world. I show how the world was created. I show how The Matrix was created.

What I have up so far (sections 4 and 5) does not do that quite yet. That is about the first 1/3 of my report. Hopefully section 6 will be done in a couple weeks. Each section increases the scope of the problem, allowing people to see the evidence without rejecting it due to cognitive dissonance. At least that is how it is supposed to work. We shall see.

If you are interested, it shows a whole lot that not many people know. It represents a few thousand hours of research over the past year and a half or so. I believe the details of the nature of our world are important, and it gets into the details.

If you are interested in Economics (almost all of life's decisions are economic), or the way the world we live in was constructed, what that means, and what the solution to the conundrum is, I humbly suggest my report will be covering that. What I have up so far doesn't quite get there yet, but it makes a proper start.

Thanks for reading.

25

Building off this post by u/JSSS I did a few minutes of digging into the possibility of the same crisis actor being killed twice. I looked into seeing if perhaps Eva Mirales, a teacher "killed" in Uvalde was the same person as Rachel D'Avino, a teacher "killed" in Sandy Hook.

Here is a pic of "Rachel D'Avino". I put that in quotes because Rachel might be Sarah. With more to that story here.

Compare that to this pic of Eva Mirales a decade later.

I think this pic is the same Eva Mirales as the one that was "killed" in Uvalde, but she appears quite a bit heavier. Here is her website that tells all about how great she is at teaching.

Here is a pic of Rachel D'Avino that is also very overweight (taken from the "Sarah" link above). Compare that to the Eva Mirales overweight pic above.

I think it is very possible that once again, Finkle is Einhorn.

36

The damned time line is completely fubar now.

In the report I am writing, I used the line "Drive by fruiting" from Ms. Doubtfire. I went to go find a clip of it so I could include it, but apparently it's now "Run by fruiting."

This time shift had better be worth it.

24

There isn't a lot of primary source and red-pill friendly documents on the money hospitals make from COVID that is subsidized by the Federal government through the CARES Act. This is intended to be an exposure to that for the purpose of showing to skeptics.

This article published on the Kaiser website states:

The three COVID-19 stimulus bills that Congress has passed provide additional funding for hospitals and for free coronavirus testing for the uninsured through Medicaid. While Congress did not allocate any money specifically for COVID-19 treatment or coverage for the uninsured, President Trump has stated his intention to reimburse hospitals for treating the uninsured by tapping a new $100 billion in funding for hospitals and other health care entities...

...administration officials have said that hospitals would get reimbursed at Medicare rates, which are substantially lower than prices paid by private insurers. The administration has not provided any cost estimates for this new policy, other than to say that the funding will come from the $100 billion in the CARES Act.

They estimate how much an uninsured person diagnosed with COVID will cost the taxpayer. The official Medicaid government site estimates the number of people on Medicaid (which is what covers these “uninsured”) is 71.4M in 2019. This Kaiser article also estimates how much the hospital will get for anyone on Medicare, which is exclusively for people over 65. This Medicare receiving population is a large percentage of the people admitted to the hospital for COVID, and a large percentage of the people put on ventilators. This site (stated to be on contract with cms.gov) estimates the number of people on Medicare is 64.4M in 2019.

The difference between Medicare and Medicaid is that Medicare is supposedly paid for by a Trust that people put in to, however, Medicare is highly subsidized by the Federal and State governments. In response to the “COVID crisis” these subsidies were increased by the CARES act. Medicaid on the other hand is paid effectively 100% by government subsidies.

In either case the CARES act puts all of those people in one COVID crisis bucket, and pays for all the COVID stuff. The total number of Americans (or illegal aliens in America) that are paid for by these government subsidies is around 136M + some number of illegal aliens.

This Kaiser article also says something else very interesting. The hospitals get more from everyone else; i.e. those with their own health insurance. It states:

Medicare payments are about half of what private insurers pay on average for the same diagnoses.

You might say, well that’s Health Insurance; the Health Insurance Companies bear that burden. But the money doesn’t come “from” the health insurers, it comes out of the paychecks of people who work. It is just another payroll tax, generally compulsory. The point being, the hospitals receive even more for everyone else than what is stated in this Kaiser article.

They go through some justifications for their final estimate before stating it:

To project how much hospitals would get paid by the federal government for treating uninsured patients, we look at payments for admissions for similar conditions. For less severe hospitalizations, we use the average Medicare payment for respiratory infections and inflammations with major comorbidities or complications in 2017, which was $13,297. For more severe hospitalizations, we use the average Medicare payment for a respiratory system diagnosis with ventilator support for greater than 96 hours, which was $40,218. Each of these average payments was then increased by 20% to account for the add-on to Medicare inpatient reimbursement for patients with COVID-19 that was included in the CARES Act.

That’s $13,297 (in 2017 dollars) on average for anyone admitted to a hospital for such a disease, and $40,218 (in 2017 dollars) on average for anyone put on a respirator. You then take that amount and multiply it by 20% (per the CARES Act), and then adjust for inflation (a whopping 13.7%) for totals of $18.1k and $54.9k. This doesn’t take into account the bonuses for Remdesivir, or the other incentives.

These bonuses can be found in this document from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The details begin on page 53.

It should be noted that this bonus 20% is if someone is diagnosed with COVID. It should also be noted a person can be diagnosed with COVID even if they haven't tested for it, or even if they test for it and the test is negative, if the doctor determines that they likely have COVID.

From the CDC COVID diagnosis guidance (page 2, left side bottom):

In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate as “probable” or “presumed.” In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgement in determining if a COVID–19 infection was likely

This article from the American College of Cardiology says this about false negatives for the RT-PCR test in May 2020 (one of the peaks of the COVID crisis):

Over the 4 days of infection before the typical time of symptom onset (day 5), the probability of a false-negative result in an infected person decreased from 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 100%-100%) on day 1 to 67% (CI, 27%-94%) on day 4. On the day of symptom onset, the median false-negative rate was 38% (CI, 18%-65%). This decreased to 20% (CI, 12%-30%) on day 8 (3 days after symptom onset) then began to increase again, from 21% (CI, 13%-31%) on day 9 to 66% (CI, 54%-77%) on day 21. The false-negative rate was minimized 8 days after exposure—that is, 3 days after the onset of symptoms on average.

So at best (only on day 8 after infection) the false negative rate is 20%, coming down from 38% on day 4, and rising up to 66% on day 9 according to this article. I don't know if that's accurate. I did not do an analysis on their methods. But it is what they say, and if it is what they say, it is likely what doctors believe.

If doctors believe that there are a ton of false negatives, and there is a real scare in the community that an absolutely devastating virus is about to consume the world, might they err on the side of caution?

This doesn't even touch the financial incentives. This is just accidental, fear based misdiagnoses. Misdiagnoses happen all the time for other things. This article suggests a 9.7% average misdiagnoses across the board in Medicine. Now we have new tests, that are shown to err all the time (I haven't even touched false positives here). We have fears that missing a COVID diagnosis could result in other deaths because we are told that constantly by the media. We have massive financial incentives to diagnose COVID. I’m not saying that it is happening, but it is ridiculous to think its impossible given the absolute Billions involved. Corporations have done a lot worse than encourage a misdiagnosis for money. It would be completely unreasonable to assume that misdiagnoses aren't happening here.

Could that be why the flu has been cured? Might they not be misdiagnosing the flu for COVID just in case? How about pneumonia? That also looks like COVID no matter the cause. How about remdesivir treatments which can cause kidney disorders. Kidney disorders of this type can cause the lungs to fill with fluid because your body is unable to take the fluid out (the job of the kidneys). Both of these symptoms from remdesivir are also reported symptoms of COVID. Are there possible complications from this symptomatic crossover, including perhaps ventilation, which has a 50-90% mortality rate depending on your age group?

All that aside, the Kaiser article then puts the greed icing on the corruption cake:

Based on the above, we estimate total payments to hospitals for treating uninsured patients under the Trump administration policy would range from $13.9 billion to $41.8 billion. At the top end of the range, payments on behalf of the uninsured would consume more than 40% of the $100 billion fund Congress created to help hospitals and others respond to the COVID-19 epidemic. Given the uncertainty of our estimates of the total funding that will be needed to reimburse hospitals, and the fact that infections may come in several waves over the next year,2 it is unclear whether the new fund will be able to cover the costs of the uninsured in addition to other needs...

“Thanks for the extra 100 Billion dollars, but it’s probably not going to be enough.”

To which I say, “Good thing you get double that from the compulsory tax provided by the money laundering fund called Health Insurance, which you also own.”

39

It's been a year since that amazing and infamous day when "The Plan" seemed like it was falling apart (or at least the common understanding of it). We were supposed to be saved by the military, and all the evil bastards arrested, bringing in a new golden age.

That didn't happen. Instead we learned that We The People are The Plan. We are our saviors. We will bring in a new Golden Age. We have learned to be critical of everything, even our own beliefs. From this enlightened position we can build, and are building a... dare I say it...

A New World Order.

LOL

Whatever you want to call it. It falls to us to build it, and building it we are.

I see all the signs of a guiding hand, leading us towards both our own empowerment, but also a precipice. At this precipice we, an awakened We The People will become en masse fully cognizant of The Matrix that has guided our actions and beliefs, and restricted our potential for millennia (especially the past century). At this precipice point I believe we won't need guns or bombs or F15s or nukes to end the madness of the Age Of Demons. We will simply Stop Playing The Game.

The point of this post wasn't to make a grand statement of our future, but to comment on this year. For the past couple decades of my life, working in corporations, academia, etc. every year has felt like a week. On every important day I think to myself, "Has it been a year already???" The time in between the moments of that life I remember were as nothing. They were wasted moments spent doing meaningless things for evil people who were using me to create their Machine.

Now, I can't believe it's only been one year. It feels like I've lived those lost two decades in a year.

Time flies when you're having fun, or doing completely meaningless shit for all the wrong reasons. But apparently when you're trying to save the world time stands still.

I have lived more in the past year than in all the years before. I understand that my life is precious now, and they can't have another second of it. I will work towards bringing their evil to an end, not because of them, but because it is rewarding work (even though the pay is shite, but money is a farce anyways, so who gives a shit).

I am doing what I'm doing not for me. I'm already free. I am doing this because everyone deserves to understand that their life is precious, and that they can choose to throw off their chains of slavery.

Everyone deserves to have their years be full of life instead of a forgotten moment of "waiting to die."

A wrinkle in a shirt can be thought of as two parts. It can be thought of as two otherwise separate parts of cloth touching each other. But it's also a larger part sticking out, the "in between" those two touching parts. Similarly, A Wrinkle In Time is two parts. It is a decades long life that feels like a forgotten snippet (the beginning and the end of a time period touching each other, where you just skip over the middle). But it's also the in between; a day that lasts a year; a year that feels like a century, a moment that lasts forever.

I have spent a century of being truly free in this past year. No matter what comes next, ThanQ for showing me the value of my life.

182

This is part of my report on our education system. I am not providing evidence for it right now (it's long and in my report), but our entire education system (as well as all books, movies, research journals, and all other sources of media) come from a single source, and they have for over 100 years (multiple generations). I like to call that source The Trust, but you can call them the Rockefellers. It's not entirely accurate, but for now it's close enough.

I am making this post because people often don't understand what "trust" is. Nor do they understand what "critical thinking" is. The reason they don't understand these things is because they have been taught that they are something different than what they actually are. These confusions give the PTB control over our beliefs and our actions. They are fundamental control mechanisms for The Matrix. Here I will discuss these concepts a little bit.

This is part of a longer report, so forgive the flow, as it may relate to other content, and forgive some of the normie centric stuff. The report is intended for an audience that still thinks vaccines are God's gift to mankind.


What is critical thinking?

Looking up the definitions I am very unsatisfied with what I find. In addition to a lack of agreement, the definitions seem nebulous, even circular. You would think something so fundamental would not be that difficult to explain. Stanford’s philosophical encyclopedia says this about it:

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus.

So its an “educational goal” that has apparently completely failed since it can’t even be defined in a satisfactory manner. What else?

John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it as:

active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends.

Mmkay… I find when something seems difficult to define, its best to look at the roots. The etymological dictionary is quite nice for this, though we have to… think critically about what it says to piece it all together:

critical: critic + -al "involving judgment as to the truth or merit of something"

-al: relating to

critic: from Greek kritikos "able to make judgments," from krinein "to separate, decide" (from PIE root *krei-"to sieve," thus "discriminate, distinguish"

So to be critical means to judge the truth or merit of something. An important implied statement is that if you are being critical, it is you being critical, i.e. you are the “critic” in “critical thinking”. It is you applying judgment as to the truth or merit of something. It is you that is being discriminating (discerning). It is you that is deciding for yourself after consideration.

think: "imagine, conceive in the mind; consider, meditate, remember; intend, wish, desire"

To think means (according to this) to conceive in the mind. It’s perhaps a bit narrow of a definition, but for this purpose I think (conceive in my mind) that it will suffice. This suggests it is possible to “think” without being critical, but it is not possible to be critical without thinking. Thus, using the etymological dictionary, my conclusion is:

critical thinking: to be discerning and think for yourself, applying your own judgment, after consideration, as to the truth or merit of something.

(Emphasis because these ideas are so often skipped in our teaching.)

That wasn’t so hard. I like mine a lot better than any of the other “competing definitions” I’ve seen, though I had to use some critical thinking to get to it.

What would be the opposite of critical thinking? It could be “any thinking that is not applying your own judgment as to the truth or merit of something” (not being critical). It could also be “not thinking at all” (not thinking).

On an unrelated note (but totally not unrelated at all), what does it mean to trust?

trust: reliance on the veracity, integrity, or other virtues of someone or something

belief that someone or something is reliable, good, honest, effective

To “trust” means to rely on someone else (e.g. to make judgments, or decide what is truth) for us. To be “critical” means to rely on yourself to make judgments, or decide what is truth. To trust means to assign your critical thinking over to someone else. Trust, in this context, is the opposite of critical thinking since you are giving up the “you” part of the critic and giving it to someone (or something) else.

Why would we trust? Sometimes there just isn’t enough time to do a whole lot of critical thinking or to be skeptical. Imagine couples figure skating without trust. It isn’t that I think there is never an appropriate time for trust. What I mean to say is, most of the time we are trusting, we aren’t realizing we are doing so. We are instead doing what we were trained to do (trust) instead of critical thinking, which is what we should be doing.

For example; we are told:

  • Listen to your mother (but we really mean trust).
  • Listen to your teacher (but we really mean trust).
  • Trust your doctor.
  • Respect your elders (but we really mean trust).
  • Trust the experts.
  • Trust the science (which is the opposite of what scientists are taught about science).
  • Trust what you see on the news, they can’t lie because you are being shown the truth.

Other than what we are told, we trust certain institutions as well. For example:

  • We trust government institutions, even though almost no one trusts any politicians.
  • We trust large corporate institutions even though they are basically conflict of interest machines.
  • We trust books if they are old.
  • We trust what someone says, if someone we trust also trusts them. Trust is like a virus, it spreads unabated within whatever echo chambers we belong.
  • We trust leaders, because they are more important than us, and there must be a reason they are more important than us.

In other words, we give up our own critical thinking in all of these circumstances.

All our lives, from cradle to grave, this is what we are taught; to trust these sources. I do not mean to suggest we should not be listening to our mothers, or teachers, or doctors, or experts, etc. On the contrary, I think that listening is an excellent path to understanding Reality. What I am trying to say is, listening to someone's argument and then thinking critically on it, and trusting someone are not the same thing. In fact they are, at least sometimes, at odds.

21

We've likely all see the recent press release from the whitehouse about how all the vaccine free people are doomed this winter from Omicron (a Decepticon).

What's really interesting is that the day before Joe said it too.

They probably had to repeat the message by someone who could read as he kinda flubbed the seriousness of the Dark Winter message in his brain cell dying (and killing) manner of speech.

For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm.

mmhmm. Ok Joe, one more time. This time use proper sentence structure.

Fifty-seven -– excuse me –- five hundred and seventy –- excuse me –- I don’t want to read -– I’m not sure I got the right number. The — the total number of boosters is what?

Thank you for clearing that up. I am properly afraid now.

Enjoy the show. Q

26

The articles of incorporation for the central bank companies (The BIS, The Fed, IMF, etc.) make the explicit statement that all agents are immune to all laws except their own, i.e. they state explicitly that they are the highest sovereign in the world. These are self-proclamations. No state or other entity gives the banks the authority they have. Just like the Natural Person signers of similar documents for the United States, the signers for the BIS's articles of incorporation, as sovereign entities themselves, create from out of the aether, the BIS corporation (AKA a legal entity, in this case, the legal sovereign of sovereigns).

The definition of a corporation is a "legal entity." A legal entity is distinct from a Natural Person (you, your neighbor, etc.). A legal entity (corporation) is a shield, created by an authority (a State, or even a group of sovereign people, such as with the United States government) that acts as a barrier in case of lawsuit. It protects those who created the entity (or otherwise run it and/or are shareholders) from incurring a social debt if the corporation gets in trouble. That doesn't mean a CEO can't get in trouble, but that requires a separate suit with evidence for specific illegal actions done by the Natural Person, not "the corporation" as a whole.

This corporation (The BIS) achieves legal sovereign of sovereign status because all the other sovereign government corporations (AKA legal entities) agree that they have it. They grant, by their own laws, that The BIS has all the rights stated within their articles of incorporation. This includes not only the rights of controlling the entire economy (and all the other levels of control implicit with that power), but also extends all legal exemptions from a countries own laws. "The King can do no wrong."

For example, from the BIS

Article 55 

(1) The Bank shall enjoy immunity from jurisdiction, save:

  (a) to the extent that such immunity is formally waived in individual cases by the Chairman of the Board, the General Manager, the Deputy General Manager, or their duly authorised representatives; or 
  
  (b) in civil or commercial suits, arising from banking or financial transactions, initiated by contractual counterparties of the Bank, except in those cases in which provision for arbitration has been or shall have been made. 

(2) Property and assets of the Bank shall, wherever located and by whomsoever held, be immune from any measure of execution (including seizure, attachment, freeze or any other measure of execution, enforcement or sequestration), except if that measure of execution is sought pursuant to a final judgment rendered against the Bank by any court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to sub-paragraph 1(a) or (b) above.

(3) All deposits entrusted to the Bank, all claims against the Bank and the shares issued by the Bank shall, without the express prior agreement of the Bank, wherever located and by whomsoever held, be immune from any measure of execution (including seizure, attachment, freeze or any other measure of execution, enforcement or sequestration).

The only ones that are allowed to bring suits are those who have contracts with the BIS. Who are those? Other member banks. Anyone else? I don’t know, maybe. But the only suit they can bring is a bank related civil or commercial suit. No other suit. No other law binds their actions. None. Blow up the world? No one can sue them.

That's the law.

All countries (that I have looked at so far) have written into law that they agree; all agents of the BIS are immune to all laws, in every country, on the planet.

Example:

Switzerland

Article 3
Inviolability

1. The buildings or parts of buildings and surrounding land
which, whoever may be the owner thereof, are used for the
purposes of the Bank shall be inviolable. No agent of the Swiss
public authorities may enter therein without the express consent of the Bank. Only the President,3 the General Manager of the
Bank, or their duly authorised representative shall be competent
to waive such inviolability.

2. The archives of the Bank and, in general, all documents
and any data media belonging to the Bank or in its possession,
shall be inviolable at all times and in all places.

3. The Bank shall exercise supervision of and police power
over its premises

Article 4

Immunity from jurisdiction and execution

1. The Bank shall enjoy immunity from jurisdiction, save:

  (a) to the extent that such immunity is formally waived in
individual cases by the President,3 the General Manager
of the Bank, or their duly authorised representatives;

  (b) in civil or commercial suits, arising from banking or
financial transactions, initiated by contractual
counterparties of the Bank, except in those cases in
which provision for arbitration has been or shall have
been made;

  (c) in the case of any civil action against the Bank for
damage caused by any vehicle belonging to or operated
on behalf of the Bank.

...

3. The Bank shall enjoy, in respect of its property and
assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, immunity
from any measure of execution (including seizure, attachment,
freeze or any other measure of execution, enforcement or
sequestration, and in particular of attachment within the
meaning of Swiss law), except:

  (a) in cases where execution is claimed on the basis of a final
judgment rendered by a court which has jurisdiction over
the Bank in accordance with paragraph 1(a), (b) or (c)
above;

...

The only court with "jurisdiction" over the Bank is the Bank itself, or someone else that they allow to have jurisdiction.


Other examples:

Britain

With amendments

United States

With explicit statements of immunity for all international banks.

Here's a statement that a bunch of countries are assigning greater sovereignty to the BIS.

The BIS (and all central banks as their agents) are our sovereign by law.

Of course the fact that such a decree is unlawful according to Natural Law (and Constitutional Law) is not relevant to the PTB, nor is it relevant to us.

Until we make it relevant.

15
posted ago by Slyver ago by Slyver
126

On June 04, 1963, JFK signed EO 11110. Five months later, on Nov. 22, 1963 he was assassinated.

The Constitution Article 1, Section 8 clause five, speaking on the exclusive powers of congress says:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

The coinage act of 1792 says:

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That there shall be from time to time struck and coined at the said mint, coins of gold, silver, and copper, of the following denominations, values and descriptions, ... Dollars or the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver

The U.S. dollar was defined to be 371.25 grains of silver.

Is the U.S. dollar still defined that way? I'm not sure. Its a little confusing.

in 1900 the Gold Standard Act defined gold as 23.22 grains of gold, taking us off a bimetal standard (which can never work because of conflicting supply/demand curves).

In 2019 bill H.R. 2558 attempts to reintroduce a Gold Standard (it has not been voted on). It says:

To define the dollar as a fixed weight of gold.

This is confusing because I think the dollar is still defined as gold (or maybe silver or maybe both). Would that make this bill automatically fail? I'm not sure. It could redefine its value, but it doesn't say that. I think the problem with this bill is, it misses the fact that we haven't used a U.S. dollar as legal tender in circulation for a very long time. We have instead used Federal Reserve notes (FRN). The U.S. Dollar has never been redefined as an FRN but remains either gold, silver, or both.


Legal Tender is defined by the Coinage Act of 1965 Section 31 U.S.C. 5103 as:

"United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

It goes on to say:

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.

This means that no one has to accept the debt IOUs we mistakenly call the U.S. Dollar (when what we really mean is FRN) as payment. BUT, you can use it for debts, public charges, taxes, and dues and it must be accepted as legal tender (tender meaning "an offer", legal meaning "by declaration of law").

I am not sure how the FRN bypasses Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5. It may be that FRNs are not "money" by definition, but legal tender. It may be that because the money is technically printed by the US Department of the Treasury its still "under control" of the Congress. Whatever the loophole is, FRN's are not necessarily lawful tender (as defined by the constitution) but are legal tender (as defined by subsequent laws on the books that may not be constitutional).

So FRN's aren't mandatory for the four things listed above, but since there is no other real option (unless you want to bring in all the pennies you have saved up in your lifetime) you pretty much have to use FRN's for several of the things we are most used to paying, notably loan debt and taxes, both of which are strictly banking endeavors (taxes go to the Fed, not the Treasury).

Of course if there were a legitimate option besides FRNs to pay taxes and debts (bank loans), this would bypass the Federal Reserves economic monopoly. Anything but an FRN would be really bad for the Fed if used widespread as they would lose their legal monopoly and thus would lose all their power unless they could compete with the new currency (which would really fuck them up).


Enter JFK and EO 11110.

EO 11110 modified EO 10289 (Truman 1951) which said (in Paragraph 1)

  1. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby designated and empowered to perform the following-described functions of the President without the approval, ratification, or other action of the President:

This power of the SoT was added to by EO 11110 as follows.

(a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j): "(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption,"

So the SoT was given power to issue silver certificates (print money) separate from the power of the President (and more importantly, from the power of the Fed). And fractional reserve lending by the Treasury was also not allowed:

to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates

Fractional Reserve Banking was not allowed because it is literally the root of all of the worlds current evils.

From EO 10289 Paragraph 2 reads:

  1. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby designated and empowered to perform without the approval, ratification, or other action of the President the following functions which have heretofore, under the respective provisions of law cited, required the approval of the President in connection with their performance by the Secretary of the Treasury:

So the SoT had the following powers:

(b) The authority vested in the Secretary of the Treasury by section 9 of the act of June 19, 1934, c. 674, 48 Stat. 1181 (31 U.S.C. 448a), to issue rules and regulations necessary or proper to carry out the purposes of the said act or of any order issued thereunder.

(c) The authority vested in the Secretary of the Treasury by section 1805 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.D. 1805) to issue rules and regulations (with respect to silver bullion) necessary or proper to carry out the purposes of the said section.

EO 11110 revoked these powers:

(b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.

This took away the ability of the SoT to overwrite the Presidents EO to give the power to print money to the SoT.

The 1951 Truman EO basically gave all rights to the SoT to do whatever the fuck they wanted without any oversight. Which was great, because the SoT's primary job was as a globalist, being the U.S. Governor of the IMF, which is to say, they were working for the Fed.

This is why almost every SoT has been a banker.

The JFK EO gave the power back to the Treasury to print real money, and took away from the Treasury the power to not have that power.

It basically opened the door to destroy the Fed. JFK was killed not long after, and that door was quickly closed.

The C_A may have pulled the trigger, but the Fed killed JFK. Not that I think many here are surprised by that, but I thought it should be made clear where that idea stems from.

17

In this thread I said:

Even the Constitution and DoI were inherently flawed. They have loopholes put in, I think by Banker influences (Hamilton e.g.), that allowed for future fuckery. We need a new country, or perhaps I should say, a new Government (which means a new Constitution). There is no other way.

Someone asked me:

What is wrong with the constitution.

Here is my response.

The DoI says this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The original John Locke documents which are the philosophical basis for our government said:

Life, Liberty and Property

What the fuck is "Pursuit of Happiness" anyways? I mean, its flowery language. it has NO PURPOSE in a legal document. Saying "Property" on the other hand is very specific. Only a sovereign can own property (hint, you don't own your property, the bank does, even if your mortgage is paid off). By not including that word, it allowed for us to not be seen as sovereign, even though it was intended that we were proclaiming exactly that.

The constitution amendment 5 from the bill of rights says:

nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So here we go back to Life, liberty and property, but it adds in the most important addendum from that time, from which all future fuckery stems.

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This addition says, exactly and precisely this: "The government is a higher sovereign than any person."

The government was supposed to be an equal sovereign. There is no such things as a "Hierarchy of Sovereigns". Either a group of sovereigns are equal, i.e. they are all kings and queens, or they are not all sovereign.

In this case the design was all people are kings and queens of their own life, liberty, and property (and all other rights given to sovereigns or inalienable). All equal, and all equal to the government. Not subordinate. A system where one sovereign is above the others is the same exact thing as saying there is only one sovereign, and everyone else is a vassel.

There can be no eminent domain laws in a group of equals. One sovereign can not legally go to another and demand their property. That is an act of war when it is among sovereigns, but is an act of sovereign right, when proclaimed on a vassal.

The constitution allowed for this sovereign right in only one direction. We are vassals to the government. That is the root of all removal of rights that has occurred since (and there have been many).

62

I was looking at the live election map for the CA recall. According to the data, which comes from the Associated Press, Gruesome is winning with a total vote count of:

Question 1

no: 5,887,471 | 63.83%

yes: 3,335,779 | 36.17%

with currently 74% reporting.

I decided to look at question 2 on the ballot which was if you want to recall Gruesome, who do you want to replace him.

Looking at CA, adding up all the numbers I get a total of:

Question 2

5,086,288

Edit: 3,474,464 Republican Candidate (4% more than "yes")

That's 1.75 Million more people than voted "yes".

I am sure its possible that there were some people who didn't understand the point of how the ballots worked, but not more than 50% of the total population that voted "yes." People are stupid. That many people aren't that stupid.

Edit: On the ballot apparently people were told to vote for a candidate even if they vote "no" (hedge their bets) (I did not notice that on my ballot). This makes the above statement totally wrong. However, the data on this shows something interesting. In this case only 55% of people voted on both "yes" or "no" and voted for a candidate. That means 45% voted for just a "yes" or a "no" and left the candidate blank. That is a HUGE amount. I am not sure what that means, it could imply several things, but it smells like massive scale fuckery. As can be seen in the edits I included in each section, there are more votes for a Republican Candidate in every case than there are "yes" votes. This makes zero sense. I think this is a potentially useful place for more analysis.

I then decided to look at some counties.

San Francisco

Question 1

no: 232,877 | 86.69%

yes: 35,742 | 13.31%

with 80.5% reporting

Question 2:

96,060

Almost 3 times the total voting "yes".

Edit: 41,512 Republican Candidate (16% more than "yes")

Los Angeles County

Question 1

no: 1,598,140 | 70.85%

yes: 657,584 | 29.15%

with also 80.5% reporting

Question 2:

1,129,813

Almost double the number voting "yes".

Edit: 700,622 Republican Candidate (7% more than "yes")

San Diego

Question 1

no: 512975 | 58.60%

yes: 362449 | 41.40%

Question 2

554,844

65% more than voted "yes"

Edit: 396,864 Republican Candidate (9.5% more than "yes")

I decided to look at one of the larger "yes" dominants to see how accurate it was. I chose Fresno county.

Fresno

Question 1

yes: 90,181 | 50.19%

no: 89,502 | 49.81%

with 83.5% reporting

Question 2

117,224

31% more than apparently voted "yes".

Edit: 92,433 Republican Candidate (2.5% more than "yes")

I decided to look at a couple counties with mostly college town populations, otherwise thought to be Bastions of Blueness.

San Luis Obispo

Question 1

no: 37,977 | 59.17%

yes: 26,207 | 40.83%

53.8% reporting

Question 2

38,490

47% more than the "yes" vote.

Edit: 27,766 Republican Candidate (6% more than "yes")

Yolo

Question 1

no: 37,591 | 71.41%

yes: 15,052 | 28.59%

65.6% reporting

Question 2

27,366

Edit: 16,606 Republican Candidate (10% more than "yes")

Almost double the "yes" vote.


WE MUST BEGIN AUDIT PROCEDURES NOW!!!

Edit 2: I added in all the Republican Candidate totals according to this data. In each case the total that voted for Rep. was higher than the total 'yes" vote count. Even assuming not a single Democrat voted "yes" (which I know first hand is not true) the numbers most certainly do not add up.

Edit: It was pointed out to me that some Democrats might have "hedged their bets" by voting both "no" and voting for another candidate.

According to this data, there were 3,474,464 people who voted for a Republican Candidate (of the 3,335,779 that voted "yes"). If we assume every single Democrat voted "no" and did not hedge their bet with a Republican candidate, choosing instead one of the Dem, Ind, or Green candidates, then only 1,611,824 of the 5,887,471 "no"s (27%) hedged their bets in this way. Plausible I suppose, but unlikely on all counts. I know many otherwise democrats who wanted Gruesome out.

Still, it is a valid argument against my analysis to some extent.

115
231
49

MOARP = Mother of all red pills.

In addition to being an educational piece for everyone here, this is intended to wake up a broader audience. This is only Part 1 of at least 3 parts. I'd appreciate at least an upvote for visibility, but a read and discussion would be even better.

Thank you for any criticism, positive or negative as long as its in earnest.

MOARP Part 1: Finkle Is Einhorn.

Because of the 20 image limit on reddit, I had to break it up into 2 parts (even though its both Part 1!!!). If you could just give the second one an uptick as well to increase visibility that would be helpful also.

MOARP Part 1: Finkle Is Einhorn (cont.).

Thank you for your support.

51

I've been working on this report for a few months now. This is just part 1 of at least 3 parts. Part 2 is done(ish), I will be releasing it next week. Part 3 is more than half done and is going to blow up the world (or at least a small part of it).

If you are part of the GME train, you will likely appreciate all of the jargon, if not I hope it is still accessible. I will be writing a more normie friendly intro and extro at some point soon. But before I release this report on reddit, I'm hoping for some feedback and I have limited sources of honest opnions.

Without further ado, here is part 1 of my report.

Here is an alternate link due to potential problems with the above host.

132

It has come to my attention that this is not widely known information, so I present evidence for an illegal vaccine EUA.

The law shows the vaccine is not allowed to be used for emergency use if there is a viable treatment available.

"(c)Criteria for issuance of authorization

...

(3)that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition;"

These studies show that there are numerous treatments available for Covid-19. These are metadata analyses which include, in total, links to hundreds of studies and journal papers that have looked into the efficacy of Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Vitamin D and many other treatments (tabs at the top of page for meta analysis on each treatment type, each one containing links to many independent published studies). By all available data these treatments have higher efficacy than the vaccines. All of these have evidence that far exceeds the levels any of the vaccines have attained in all categories of numbers, tests, efficacy and safety.

Back in 2020 HCQ was being reported as the worst thing ever. This was fundamental in getting the vaccine an EUA. However in 2005 they knew it was a viable treatment for SARS, but in 2020 they said it would kill people. Here is a report with links to a paper that shows that a study done in March 2020 was using a potentially dangerous dosage of HCQ which will have almost certainly skewed the results of the tests.

From the paper:

"A loading dose is important because of the large volume of distribution. The loading dose will be 800 mg, administered 6-hourly,until 2 doses have been administered. Subsequently, starting 12 hours after the first loading dose, the dose will be 400 mg administered 12-hourly for 12 doses"

That is 2400 mg in 24 hours.

This shows the recommended dosages for HCQ. The maximum dose for a single day is half that, most are 1/6th. At the very least these extreme dosages skewed the results on this "failure" of HCQ testing in the beginning of the Pandemic, which drove the negative press narrative. At worst such high dosages caused overdose related death or injury in the sick people it was used in.

Since there are viable and proven treatments available, the EUA is illegal. They are not "approved" treatments, but they have far exceeded the standard of proof of approval by any standard, and far, far above the vaccines in use. They all have decades of efficacy and safety usage and are approved for numerous other infection type diseases, and are considered among the safest (and best) medications known to man.

72

Q taught us to think for ourselves; to not follow authorities blindly. The overarching theme of Q was critical thinking and earnest debate among independent investigators. Independent thinking is not a rejection of the words of those more experienced on some topic, but a recognition that we must not ever automatically accept them. If their argument does not stand up to further debate and scrutiny then it must be rejected. We have also learned that appeals to authority are a tool by which we have been controlled and are never arguments that support the truth; rather they are arguments designed to obfuscate it.

We have learned that all evidences should be debated by skeptical but inquisitive minds, no matter how crazy a piece of evidence, or the presenter of it, may sound at the onset. This brings the debate to the merits of the argument, and not on any a priori perceived quality of the speaker. No matter how experienced someone is, everyone makes mistakes and/or brings their own dogma into their argument. The argument of evidence must survive on its merits, or it must be rejected (for now). We must also be ever vigilant and keep an eye out for new evidences that support a previously rejected view, and listen to them in earnest, regardless of a previous decision.

So why would all our “authorities” be pushing the vaccine now?

q#4535

Do people [human psyche] tend to follow the ‘majority/mainstream viewpoint’ in fear of being isolated and/or shunned? ‘Mainstream’ is used for a reason [dominate trend in opinion]. [If majority of people believe ‘x’ then ‘x’ must be validated / true] Why do ‘mainstream’ media heads, within different orgs, always use the same keywords and/or catch phrases? Coordinated? By who? Outside entity providing instructions? Do they count on the fact that people [human psyche] are more prone to believe something if heard over-and-over again by different ‘trusted’ sources? Do ‘echo chamber’ tactics provide validation / credibility to the topic/point being discussed? Threat to intellectual freedom?

Is a barrage of “get the vaxx” statements from all those left that we listen to not exactly this type of keyword, coordinated, repetitive mind control? How is what they are doing any different than the attacks by the MSM for all our lives (especially the past decade).

We have had the time to do our due diligence on the vaccines. We have seen the official data. We have seen numerous anecdotes. We have seen expert debate. We have debated the topics ourselves. While we still do not agree on some of the details, we understand that there are numerous lies within the data on both COVID-19 and the vaccines. Mountains of evidences suggest that the Cabal is pushing the vaccines to “teach” us to give up our inalienable rights for their security against the invisible enemy, and possibly for even more nefarious purposes.

But still, why would those we still had some faith in betray us like this? Is there a hidden truth they are trying to tell us, or is it a more direct statement? Is it a test of what we have learned? Is this the final exam?

q#4545

Only when we stand together, only when we are united, can we defeat this highly entrenched dark enemy. Their power and control relies heavily on an uneducated population. A population that trusts without individual thought. A population that obeys without challenge. A population that remains outside of free thought, and instead, remains isolated living in fear inside of the closed-loop echo chamber of the controlled mainstream media. This is not about politics. This is about preserving our way of life and protecting the generations that follow. We are living in Biblical times. Children of light vs children of darkness. United against the Invisible Enemy of all humanity.

The invisible enemy (applies to both virus and vaccine) is what we must be united against. Everyone here knows it. Hell, half the world knows it. We mustn’t trust any authority (really a servant of We The People), especially if it goes against our individual thought. We must not obey without challenge. This is not about politics or politicians or authorities. This is about choosing to tell them that neither they, nor anyone else can have our inalienable rights. This is about protecting ourselves, and by extension all future generations.

It is not up to Trump, or Paul, or Grassley, or DeSantis, or,anyone else to save us. We must do this. Us. All of US. All of the World.

Mandatory vaccines are the precipice (or at least a precipice). If we willingly give up our inalienable rights to their tyranny there is no turning back. That is the fall off the cliff.

q#3906

'>Decide for yourself (be free from outside opinion). >Decide for yourself (be objective in your conclusions). >Decide for yourself (be true in your own beliefs). >Decide for yourself (be open to following the facts). >Decide for yourself (be strong in defending your beliefs). >Decide for yourself (be resistant to blindly accepting fact-less statements).

Could the message be more clear? Decide for yourself.

The Great Awakening ('Freedom of Thought’), was designed and created not only as a backchannel to the public (away from the longstanding ‘mind’ control of the corrupt & heavily biased media) to endure future events through transparency and regeneration of individual thought (breaking the chains of ‘group-think’), but, more importantly, aid in the construction of a vehicle (a ‘ship’) that provides the scattered (‘free thinkers’) with a ‘starter’ new social-networking platform which allows for freedom of thought, expression, and patriotism or national pride (the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to a homeland and alliance with other citizens who share the same sentiment). When ‘non-dogmatic’ information becomes FREE & TRANSPARENT it becomes a threat to those who attempt to control the narrative and/or the stable.

We are being threatened by all those authorities left. There is no one left now to save us. That realization IS The Great Awakening.

When you are awake, you stand on the outside of the stable (‘group-think’ collective), and have ‘free thought’. "Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma. When you are awake, you are able to clearly see. The choice is yours, and yours alone. Trust and put faith in yourself. You are not alone and you are not in the minority. Difficult truths will soon see the light of day. WWG1WGA!!!

The choice is ours. Do we save ourselves from the precipice? We are not alone, and we are not in the minority! We can force the difficult truths to the light of day. The information is there, the data is there, lets bring it to the light.

q#2700

How do you deter & prevent this from happening again? Simply by terminating employment of those responsible? Simply by conducting a few 'non-threatening' investigations? Or by: Prosecuting those responsible to the fullest extent of the law? Setting up new checks & balances and oversight designed to increase transparency? … ... This will never happen again. TRUTH WORKS. FACTS MATTER.

If we do this now, this will never happen again.

We are being pressured on all sides to do something we know is wrong because this is our precipice. This had to happen exactly this way. All vestiges of any authority saving us must be removed so that we do it ourselves. When standing at the edge, do we choose to step off, or turn around and say "FUCK YOU". The choice is ours to make.

view more: Next ›