Hi Guys

Here's a story I posted earlier:

https://greatawakening.win/p/16b5zct3UT/man-arrested-outside-buckingham-/c/

and another source:

https://www.newser.com/story/334754/man-throwing-shotgun-shells-arrested-at-buckingham-palace.html

It's widely accepted here at GAW that some events in the news are either setup, staged or even made up altogether just as a means of getting information from one party to another ie. Comms.

There are code words and concepts in comms such as water being information for example.

Here is an attempt to treat the news of the attack on Buckingham palace as a comms piece, no matter what actually occured in real life:

The guy threw shotgun shells, not bullets, per se. The police later did a controlled explosion of the man's bag as a precaution.

Explosion = "bomb" + shotgun "shells" = bombshell / bombshells.

Bombshells signify very significant scandal material, something which would bring a person down from their position.

The man had a suspicious bag that they blew up = someone did a controlled detonation on the bag to prevent the proverbial cat from getting out of the bag?

Could this be about controlling the release of bombshell information?

It happened on Tuesday. Tue (French) = "kill" Tuer (v.) = To kill

Could this be instructions to the press to kill the story.

Does someone have some bombshell allegations regarding King Charles??

"...and police are treating the matter "an isolated mental health incident" instead of terrorism."

Mental health incident = MK-Ultra victim going rogue?

Does this mean that someone has broken their programming and may go public?

Please add your thoughts.

I have a concept which I want to share for discussion

I'll call it the Pareto rule of repression, the idea that a certain threshold percentage of opinion must be in place before a repressive policy can be carried out and if that threshold is not met, the policy will be a failure.

For the purposes of explanation. I'll use 90% as an example of this threshold and demnstrate why the MSM and the narrative is so important

I'll also use vaxxed versus unvaxxed, although other differences could be used such as race, religion, or politics, support for foreign intervention etc.

The cabal as hoping to use the vax in order to lockdown society, remove dissenters and institute their "new normal" and they damn near succeeded, but they didn't..

Why?

In my opinion, they had camps built for vax refusers and they would have murdered us in the camps and blamed covid which would further that narrative.

I think the cabal did not reach the threshold of support they required, let's call it 90% where they could retain a functioning society while removing the unvaxxed. There were just too many of us and society would have collapsed without us, both politically and technologically. They need the higher fraction of society to carry out the repression on the lower fraction and if the ratio isn't high enough, the higher fraction do not do it.

The story Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift has a non emotive example of a societal rift where people are divided over which way up to eat their boiled eggs and they will go to war over it. My contention is that the Lilliput MSM and shadow government would need a threshold of let's say 90% of broad end egg eaters in a mixed society before they would repress the pointy enders and 75% just wouldn't cut it, the minions would not comply.

I think that we escaped vax tyranny and genocide because the unvaxxed had a high enough percentage that the cabal plan was just not possible and that white hat, anons and generally awake people tipped the balance.

It's all about the percentage, the MSM, manufacturing consent and narrative.

An awake population cannot be oppressed and would not oppress.

There are several posts here today with frens asking quite reasonably why Trunp still defends the vax even though his "warp speed" project has done its work of rushing and spoiling the lockdowns and perpetual vaxes plan - the new normal.

I just saw it, it's a repeat of the pattern he uses. Let me call it the rope-a-dope.

Remember that he kept his tax returns to himself until the press screamed and eventually got their way? - precedent set - we'll get to see the swamp creatures' tax returns

Remember when he allowed a raid in MAL and "classified" docs were found and the swamp thought they had him ? - Precedent set - Biden's classified docs are the real story and everyone has been primed.

Remember when he said that there were possible other treatments for the 'rona like HCQ? Press screamed - precedent set, he can always say that he was right and told people about the treatments when big-pharma was sabotaging them.

Right now, the cabal is very desperate to stop Trump and he is giving them a way. He is leading them to blaming the vax on him, he won't decry it now, he wants to be the target. When they scream and shout that the vax is poisonous and it's all Trumps fault, then he really has them because they have shifted the goal posts, they have made it an issue and the injured public will be out for blood.

Then the white hats can reveal the clues to who was really behind this bioweapon. The press, thinking they have Trump will have fully committed to that fact that someone is to blame.

Yesterday u/TSearch made a post about how the McCarthy speaker of the house vote might interact with the Brunson case. ie. if the SoH was not yet elected when the congress defendants are possibly removed if the Brunson Brothers win their SC case that the congress defendants broke their oath by not investigating possible election fraud in 2020.

TSearch made the case that the voting for SoH would be diffferent with so many fewer congress members. That hasn't panned out but along the way, TSearch noticed that Kevin McCarthy is not among the congress members mentioned in the case when he would be an eligible defendant.

I guess this is because the white hats have other plans for McCarthy, they need him as SoH now that he has had to make the big concessions to get support.

If you need more proof that this was the plan all along, then here it is, McCarthy is missing from the defendants list.

From u/TSearch 's post:

Here is every House of Representatives defendant with a name ending in M. Copied directly from the filing. I’ve looked multiple times and don’t see his name.

NANCY MACE; TOM MALINOWSKI; CAROLYN B. MALONEY; SEAN PATRICK MALONEY; KATHY E. MANNING; THOMAS MASSIE; DORIS 0. MATSUI; LUCY MCBATH; MICHAEL T. MCCAUL; TOM MCCLINTOCK; BETTY MCCOLLUM; A. ADONALD MCEACHIN; JAMES P. MCGOVERN; PATRICK T. MCHENRY; DAVID B. MCKINLEY; JERRY MCNERNEY; GREGORY W. MEEKS; PETER MEIJER; GRACE MENG; KWEISI MFUME; MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS; JOHN R. MOOLENAAR; BLAKE D. MOORE; GWEN MOORE; JOSEPH D. MORELLE; SETH MOULTON; FRANK J. MRVAN; STEPHANIE N. MURPHY;

Do we still need to use Nitter instead of directly posting Twitter links?

Maybe Twitter might be allowed our support now.

I'm in my late forties and my eyesight has been deteriorating for close work and reading to the point where I needed glasses to read GAW on my 24 inch screen and I was holding my flip phone at nearly arm's length to read texts. I do have glasses of about 2.5 diopters but I find that my depth of field is gone so that I have to keep taking them off to attend to my son who needs constant supervision. I also have a bit of astigmatism so when out of focus, text is doubled and offset diagonally in both eyes.

I was researching LASIK eye surgery to try to fix the problem, at least the astigmatism part, but I can't afford to be out of action. Anyway, the problem is the flexibility of the lens reducing with age so corneal surgery doesn't really help with the loss of focal accomodation. Surgical replacement eye lenses, usually a cataract treatrment, might do the trick, but I feel too young for that and again, I can't be out of action due to my caring responsibilities.

After a little background reading, I found that presbyopia is caused by age related stiffening of the lens caused by chemical crosslinking between the long chain molecules in the lens. The crosslinking is -S-S- bonds, which are sulphur linkages, but may be thought of as oxidative damage for the purposes of treatment.

My medical experiment No.1 which I posted on on GAW was taking nattokinase, a clotbuster and fibrinolytic drug, which helps the body break down clots and scar tissue. I take nattokinase so that I can, in good conscience, mention it to vaxxed people at risk of blood clots. *Please note, there are contraindications to taking the supplement nattokinase such as interactions with other drugs and supplements and increased risk of uncontrolled bleeding. This paragraph does not constitute medical advice and is for curiosity value only.

Here's the post: https://greatawakening.win/p/142AwMNxDv/im-taking-the-clotbuster-supplem/

I reasoned that it might help with stiffening of the lens as it does with other tissues, but it doesn't seem to do this so I searched for an oral supplement which might reverse the stiffening and I found that there had been medical trials of eye drops to reverse the stiffening and the trials had gone well with no ill effects. The eye drops contained unspecified amounts of lipoic acid, an antioxidant which is the main active ingredient and choline, the purpose of which in the drops isn't known to me,

Here's an example:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33514891/

Anyway, you can get lipoic acid (600mg of nature identical alpha lipoic acid in oral capsules) as an antioxidant and health and beauty supplement.

I ordered some and dissolved a tiny bit of the white powder in the capsules in hot water and applied it as warm solution in a tissue to my left eye, letting the eyelid open a bit. It was not uncomfortable and did not seem to have an immediate effect of any kind. I continued this for a few days and imagined that I might be seeing a bit better with that eye. Rather ruining a controlled experiment, I started applying more and more powder as stronger solution to both eyes. When you dissolve half a capsule in a little cold water, it makes a strong milky liquid and at his concentration it stings a little and if you apply it at night, your eye is a bit gummed up in the morning due to the minor irritation.

I have a fine print copy of "How the mind works" by Steven Pinker and I absolutely couldn't read it in any way without glasses before I started my eye treatment. Now I can read it unaided in good light, and I hardly wear my glasses, I'm not wearing them now. The improvement could be coincidental for some reason, or it could be some kind of mind-over-body placebo effect, but the improvement is there.

I'm very happy with my experiment so far. Is this interesting? Any questions?

Important edit after something that came up inthe comments:

I don't think this will work for myopia, although maybe I'm wrong. The myopic lens is too rounded already and the muscles squish the lens to focus I think. This treatment might make myopia worse by making the lens more pliable and rounder due to the resting muscle tension.

I expect this treatment is irreversible so please don't try it for myopia.