2021-10-07
We live in interesting, unprecedented times.
Not everybody realises the enormous import of the pandemic and its role in exposing the true nature of the corrupt GNGCC (Government-NGO-Giant-Corporate-Complex).
We have been conditioned for many decades through film, TV, newspapers/magazines, education, and more recently the social media giants, to believe that we live in democracies, that the government that we elect works for us, that monopolies and cartels operating against the public interest are kept in check by regulation and competition, and that the BBC, established media giants and academic institutions faithfully report and promulgate the unbiased truth.
People who previously believed that what we were told was true are now reaching the stage where we believe that almost everything we have been and are being told may well be the opposite of the truth.
Some people reached this conclusion before others (eg: George Orwell, Aldous Huxley)
Many shy away from acknowledging this transition because it creates unfamiliar and daunting problems which we are not immediately prepared to face:
- How can we tell what is true and what is false any more?
- How can we tell whom we should trust and whom we should distrust?
- How can we deal with those whom we trust no longer?
Happily the miscreants tend to expose themselves to us by refusing to engage with sensible argument, ridiculing, censoring and shutting down those who disagree with them or otherwise step out of line. A horrifying number of institutions, national and global, qualify.
They also have a tendency to be inconsistent and to change their narrative over time as it suits their purpose, even to absurdity ("no face mask required" - March 2020 at the height of the pandemic - "wear a face mask" - July 2020 after the event - Boris Johnson).
So it was that when the W.H.O. and governments world-wide in early 2020, in apparent inexplicable synchronicity, threw all previously accepted pandemic planning and statistical good practice out of the window, many began to smell a rat.
When the same governments then began ignoring, even denying the reported benefits of early use of inexpensive prophylactics, and insisting on the need for disastrous interventions (ventilating) and hugely expensive (and at the time unavailable) vaccines that could not possibly be properly developed and tested in a reasonable time-frame, many had their suspicions confirmed.
Governments of the world were now seen to be conspiring with pharmaceutical companies (or their owners) to transfer vast quantities of cash from the tax-payer to the said companies, for hugely expensive untested products, using new and untried technology that might never be effective - and indeed might very well be dangerous.
This was either criminally deliberate or criminally reckless behaviour.
Indeed as time has passed and these unapproved products have been rolled out under emergency authorisations, in utter disregard of the obvious risks, it has become possible, even necessary, to entertain a reasonable suspicion that there is an undeclared agenda to reduce the elderly infirm and immuno-compromised population
(a) by prioritising these groups for inoculation
(b) by failing to monitor and publish the true extent of the "adverse effects"
Indeed, by further mandating these experimental inoculations on the healthy in ever younger age groups, even pregnant mothers-to-be and those who, according to the official statistics, are at no appreciable risk from the disease, this undeclared agenda may include effecting a reduction in the healthy population as well.
All in total disregard of the long-established and hitherto universally accepted Nuremberg Code.
Indeed, internationally many lawsuits are either in progress or pending.
Consider also how this sits alongside the parallel pre-existing campaigns to remove restrictions on abortion, to encourage "home abortions", to promote LGBTQ ideology, and to habilitate public acceptance of the notion of gender dysphoria leading to gender reassignment in ever younger and more impressionable age-groups.
Come to think of it, why do the approved protocols for treating cancer all suppress our immune system in one way or another? Should a cure not bolster and support our immune system?
Why, despite many years of expensive research by highly qualified experts, is cancer (arthritis, asthma, MS, dementia etc) still such an intractable disease?
And actually, when did anyone last fall sick for want of a patented pharmaceutical remedy?
So why do people fall sick? And are we looking to the wrong people for remedies?
Is it not time to start questioning our underlying belief in and reliance on the Big-Philanthropist-Big-Pharma-NHS-MHRA-JCVI-SAGE-Government complex?
