How A Future Without Money Would Work

“For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. By craving it, some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows.”–1 Timothy 6:10

While it is still not commonly held in mainstream discourse that humanity could survive and even thrive without some form of monetary exchange, more and more people that are starting to trace their general discontent about contemporary society to its source are finding money and profit motive at the root of it.

Perhaps the first of the knee-jerk reactions some people might have to the idea of shifting into a money-free system is the sinking feeling of watching their hard-earned wealth evaporate into nothingness, which they might equate with abject poverty. We are so programmed to equate money with abundance that we don’t understand what abundance truly is.

At the heart of it our ‘net’ abundance is shared, and is grounded in the resources available in nature on the planet. The aggregate of these natural resources not only represents our potential abundance but our very survival. A money system grants ownership to many of these resources, and makes it exponentially easier for those with abundance to get more abundance at the expense of the vast majority of people. A money system is, in some ways, antithetical to the proper management and distribution of these resources. Without money, each individual would naturally be entitled to their share of all the resources in the world, and that would never change. But how would such a system work?

Resource-Based Economy

Jacque Fresco, founder of the Venus Project, believes that the world has reached a level of technology that will allow us to build fully self-sustaining communities all over the world which, when optimally designed, will provide not only an unimaginably high level of abundance for all its residents, but a far greater sense of shared purpose within a community. This vision is grounded in the principles of a Resource-Based Economy:

In a Resource Based Economy all goods and services are available to all people without the need for means of exchange such as money, credits, barter or any other means. For this to be achieved all resources must be declared as the common heritage of all Earth’s inhabitants. Equipped with the latest scientific and technological marvels mankind could reach extremely high productivity levels and create abundance of resources.–Venus Project website

Without profit motive, individuals within the community will naturally turn their energy towards the efficient maintenance of the infrastructure and problem-solving and innovation for the collective, as the happiness and well-being of the community is naturally equated with one’s own happiness and well-being.

In the video below is a brief introduction to Fresco’s inspiring vision of our potential future. More information. including where the Venus Project is at on their timeline, is available on their website.

No Need For Trade

Since money is nothing more than a medium of exchange, it is only in removing the convention of exchange or ‘trade’ itself that then renders money obsolete. That’s why a Resource-Based Economy proposes that ‘all resources must be declared as the common heritage of all Earth’s inhabitants.’

In his TedX talk, Colin Turner really questions the idea that ‘trade’ is the only organizational model for life on the planet, and in fact outlines the ways in which trade is actually antithetical to human abundance and well-being:

We all more or less accept trade as being the de facto way of operating our society, so much so that we even see it as some kind of universal law. But it might surprise you to know actually that trade has only existed in relatively recent years, that in 90% of our modern human history we didn’t actually trade at all, there still are no archaeological traces of trade. In these early tribal, agrarian communities what actually happened was there was an implied understanding that everyone in the tribe looked after each other. And this was how the tribes operated for perhaps the vast majority of our early human history.

So we see trade now as a very important way of doing business, and you have to say that trade works, I get what I want and you get what you want and we all go home happy. But when you actually scratch the surface a little bit more about how trade actually pans out in the real world, it’s not such a nice story. It seems to be a better theory than actually works out in practice.

For example, the most obvious case is, about 3 billion people in the world today live on $2.50 or less a day–many of them much, much less than that. Obviously they are wracked with starvation or dying of curable diseases, so, I mean, you have to ask yourself, is trade really working for them, for those people? Clearly, it isn’t.

Colin Turner is the founder of The Free World Charter, which currently has 58,611 signatories among people from 215 different countries (and would welcome yours, if you are so inclined). The charter constitutes a set of principles that really formalizes the notion that all human individuals are entitled to maintain an equal share of the Earth’s resources, but it also outlines the natural responsibilities and practices that each individual would assume in order to live optimally and harmoniously together in a money-free community and world. Here are the ten principles:

  1. The highest concern of humanity is the combined common good of all living species and biosphere.
  2. Life is precious in all its forms, and free to flourish in the combined common good.
  3. Earth’s natural resources are the birthright of all its inhabitants, and free to share in the combined common good.
  4. Every human being is an equal part of a worldwide community of humans, and a free citizen of Earth.
  5. Our community is founded on the spirit of cooperation and an understanding of nature, provided through basic education.
  6. Our community provides for all its members the necessities of a healthy, fulfilling and sustainable life, freely and without obligation.
  7. Our community respects the limits of nature and its resources, ensuring minimal consumption and waste.
  8. Our community derives its solutions and advances progress primarily through the application of logic and best available knowledge.
  9. Our community acknowledges its duty of care and compassion for members who are unable to contribute.
  10. Our community acknowledges its responsibility to maintain a diverse and sustainable biosphere for all future life to enjoy

These are certainly not the final words on which principles should truly define a future society and world free of money, but in reading them one can clearly grasp the overall essence of the kind of mindset we will need to develop and implement in our lives if we are to shift into this new paradigm.

Walking Away From A Money Economy

The shift we are looking for here is grounded in a conscious move by the individuals of this planet away from a model of competition and towards a model of cooperation. We are all quite familiar with both, as we surely have an ample amount of experience in both ways of relating to the people around us. If you could choose right now, which kind of model would you want as the basis for the entire planet?

Some might argue that the competitive/trade/money paradigm has been instrumental in getting us to make progress, especially technologically, which we may not have achieved by remaining with the cooperative tribal model. There may be some truth in this. But does it not seem that, at this time in history, most of us have had it with the debt, scarcity, and inequality that is a hallmark of the money model? Are we not hungering for more love, cooperation and shared abundance imbued in the very organizational structures we create for ourselves to live?

Understand that making this change is not as simple as going to the United Nations or other authoritative world body, as Jacque Fresco has already done. Presenting a compelling vision of a future without money to the benefit of all of humanity does not automatically mean that the world authority will implement it right away. The powers behind world authority like the UN are actually made up of those who have the most money. What we see going on in the public arena are essentially the machinations of the puppets they control.

This is nothing new. An overall system that maintains power by the few has been in place ever since money and exchange were introduced. While in the past this wealth was protected over generations and generations by certain families who were the visible ‘royalty,’ ‘noblemen’ and ‘aristocracy’ of the day, today’s world only differs in the sense that these powers are more hidden from sight, while countries maintain the illusion of having some form of ‘democracy.’

The point is that we will never be able to elicit the help of our authority if we want to abandon our current money economy. Those in authority, who at the very top own a vast percentage of the world’s resources, certainly believe they would have the most to lose if we moved to a model founded on equally-shared abundance. What we actually need to do is elicit the help of each other, energizing important movements and fostering an awakening as to how powerful we actually are as a collective. When a critical mass of us begin marching in step to a new way of life, the current authority will have no power to stop us.

The Takeaway

A money-free society and world can certainly work from the standpoint of creating abundance for everyone on the planet. What is needed is a new awareness founded on some of the natural principles discussed here. The more that individuals of the planet slowly move away from competitive money-centered practices and spend their time and energy cultivating cooperation, the more quickly we will be able to collectively walk away from a system that no longer serves us.

Why ‘Obamagate’ Could Become The Biggest Political Scandal In History, Part 2

This is the second part of an article published recently entitled ‘Why ‘Obamagate’ Could Become The Biggest Political Scandal In History.’ I would highly recommend reading that article first if you haven’t already since it provides essential context for the following discussion.

In the previous article, I put out the notion that much of the unending criticism and disparagement towards Donald Trump in the mainstream media and relentless effort to have him removed from power by the Democratic party is best explained, in my mind, as being driven by a powerful centralized force known as the Deep State who are under threat of having their serious crimes of the past uncovered.

As we examine the evidence, it is important to understand Deep State compartmentalization and the nature of its influence in the various institutions it has sought to control, which include the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, the military, the intelligence agencies and others, with particular emphasis on mainstream media and more recently social media. The installation of individuals who have been born into this criminal ‘family,’ let’s call it, are totally devoted to the cause of world domination through their brand of globalism. But these installations are only the base of Deep State operations. The majority of individuals whose actions support the Deep State agenda do not see the big picture or their role in it. They are those whose influence has been bought, or is being controlled as a result of blackmailing, or have simply been convinced by their higher-ups that they are doing the right thing.

A company like CNN, for example, might have ‘family’ members in key positions (i.e. Ted Turner, Jeff Zucker and some others in top management) who are currently pushing an anti-Trump agenda, and many of the rest of the company are chosen based on roughly being aligned with a liberal agenda (after all, birds of a feather do stick together). The use of various overt and covert methods allows the entire organization to present somewhat of a unified front in step with the Deep State agenda. For some, the threat of losing their job is enough to keep them in line, even though privately they might not fully believe in what they are doing. Others who show some talent and a strong desire for power and influence may be brought deeper into the inner circle based on money or getting ‘honey-trapped’ into compromising positions through which they can be controlled.

My article ‘CNN’s Political Bias Exposed By Whistleblower’s Hidden Camera Footage‘ and the hidden camera footage of former CNN employee Cary Poarch is an important lens into how the anti-Trump bias was carried out and maintained throughout the organization. We see that privately amongst employees, even though few were fans of Trump, that there is a lot of pushback and incredulity at Jeff Zucker’s insistence that the Trump impeachment was the only newsworthy event over the course of several months, and should be front and center daily for reporters and broadcasters. But by and large, because of the hierarchical structure that is so essential for control, people have little choice but to go along with the agenda, not realizing that they are actually the footsoldiers of a much larger and more comprehensive plan than they could ever imagine.

To say that this power structure has been slowly and carefully built up over time within all influential institutions would be an understatement; and attention has been paid to ensure that those at lower levels have no access at all to higher and more incriminating information. Although the top brass of the Deep State pyramid do have an extremely high level of occult knowledge regarding how to control and rule, they do not have a ‘lock’ on everything and everybody in the world. Their goal has always been total domination but they’ve never quite achieved it, and furthermore that goal is fading quickly, as elaborated upon in articles more esoteric in nature here and here. Because the Deep State agenda fundamentally based in deception they have to be constantly working to suppress the truth, which has an annoying habit of shining through illusory constructions.

The Michael Flynn Case

It is with this understanding that we need to look at the evidence being declassified in the Michael Flynn case, where we see the involvement of a host of players, including FBI director James Comey, Assistant Director Andrew McCabe, agents Peter Strzok, Bill Priestap, Lisa Page, and other top players from the Department of Justice, the other intelligence agencies, and Barack Obama himself. These players don’t get together regularly in a ‘Deep State’ meeting to discuss a ‘Deep State’ agenda. Rather, these players go about their jobs, for the most part legally, until such time as they are needed to do something. The instructions from their superior, for the most part, have at least an appearance of being legitimate. Orders given to subordinates are couched in an established narrative that suggests the legality or at least the ‘necessity for the greater good’ of following the orders.

Since the Deep State knows that their actions should generally have a believable supporting narrative and an arguably ‘legal’ predicate, you can understand how uncovering the criminality is somewhat of a painstaking, detailed process. One piece of evidence may be ambivalent, which is why it is important to piece together all the small signs of impropriety in order to establish a pattern of intentional deception. In my opinion, the indiscretions that were committed in the Michael Flynn case indicate to me that there was quite a bit of desperation to derail Michael Flynn’s role in the Trump administration, and a lot of people had a hand in trying to make this happen.

Fact: A clear predicate to investigate Flynn was never established

The FBI opened a counterintelligence probe of Flynn in August 2016, supposedly on the grounds that he might be a clandestine Russian agent. That is what they have said, but they have never cited any evidence that would materially substantiate their alleged suspicions. Flynn is a retired three-star Army general and decorated combat commander, who had by then written a book that identified Russia as a committed global adversary of the United States. Pure suspicion, the product of one’s mind, is not a sufficient predicate to open an investigation on any U.S. citizen, let alone an Army general that has served the country for over 30 years.

Now remember that Flynn was unceremoniously dumped by Barack Obama two years earlier as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. It seems more reasonable to me that they were investigating Flynn on this pretext in order to keep a close eye on him, trying to find something on him that they could use on him later in case they needed to. So little incriminating evidence was found that could be used against Flynn that the FBI’s then-director, James Comey, authorized closing the investigation dubbed “Crossfire Razor” in December 2016, and the paperwork to do so was completed on Jan. 4, 2017.

Fact: FBI Agent Peter Strzok overruled and kept the Flynn Investigation open

Court documents released on April 30th, 2020 revealed that FBI agent Peter Strzok sent the following text message to the investigating agent on that same day, Jan. 4, 2017:

“Hey if you haven’t closed RAZOR, don’t do so yet. Pls keep it open for now.”

The internal FBI documents detailed a pattern showing multiple efforts to uncover criminal activity by Flynn, as outlined in this Washington Times article:

FBI officials reached out to another agency, likely the CIA, to conduct a similar search of its records for possible ties between Flynn and Russia. Just like the FBI, that agency found “no derogatory information” on Flynn.

The FBI also used at least one confidential human source to monitor Flynn during the investigation. But leads offered by the informant also failed to turn up criminal activity, the memo said.

Based on the lack of evidence, the FBI closed the investigation but noted it would consider reopening it if new information was uncovered.

Yet, Mr. Strzok, the case supervisor, pushed to keep it open, according to the memo. In another text to an unknown person, he noted that the FBI’s leadership was involved and they still “need to decide what to do with him [with respect to] the [Redacted].”

In my opinion, this alone should demonstrate that there was a rather urgent ulterior motive to find something incriminating on Flynn, even if they had to invent it.

When Strzok kept Crossfire Razor open on January 4th, 2017, Flynn was an official in the Trump transition who was designated to become the president’s national security adviser. Strzok also knew that Flynn had had communications in December with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, which has been cited as a reason to be suspicious of Flynn. However the government was already monitoring Kislyak, so they knew what had been said in those conversations and recordings showed that Flynn did nothing inappropriate. There was no grounds to reopen or continue the counterintelligence investigation or to begin a criminal investigation.

This other notion that the DOJ was looking to charge Flynn criminally with violating the Logan Act, a moribund, unconstitutional prohibition against freelance diplomacy, seems rather absurd. In the DOJ’s 150-year history, the Logan Act has never been charged. No one has ever been convicted for violating it; there has been no case since 1852.

Fact: James Comey Knowingly Broke Protocols To Interview Flynn

So we know that by early January of 2016 Comey had already considered the Flynn matter closed. What could have transpired between January 4th, the day Strzok lobbied to keep the Flynn case open, and January 24th, when James Comey deciding to bypass all proper protocols and send FBI agents into the White House to interview Michael Flynn? And not just any FBI agents, by the way. The lead interviewer was none other than Peter Strzok.

If you’re like me, you look at this and think that it was Peter Strzok who asked James Comey to send him in to interview General Flynn. Or, to take it a step further, some higher authority told James Comey that Strzok was going in to interview General Flynn, and furthermore got Comey to agree to bypass the normal channels, avoid telling Flynn that he was the subject of an investigation, and make Flynn feel that he didn’t need his lawyer present.

If we watch the following clip of James Comey from a December 2018 interview talking about the way he sent the agents to the White House, a few things about it make more sense under the circumstances suggested here.

Now let’s first acknowledge that Comey is pretty good at calmly and coolly creating a narrative that holds together pretty well. Yet, no amount of coolness or swagger can help answer the question: why indeed would he risk his reputation and knowingly breach protocol which would undoubtedly bring the righteous scorn of the incoming administration? Under the circumstances, there was no apparent urgency to be interviewing Flynn, especially since Comey himself had previously considered the matter closed, and no new and compelling evidence had arisen since then.

The only thing that makes sense is that Comey was told to do this post-haste from a higher authority, and Comey’s role would be to put out whatever fires needed to be put out as a consequence. Under these conditions, the interesting freudian slip  that Comey makes in the interview about sending the agents into the White House the way he did becomes very telling:

“Something we, I probably wouldn’t have done or gotten away with in a more organized investigation, (pause) a more organized administration.”

In fact, the way things are done here indeed suggest that the investigation was disorganized and, frankly, desperate. It almost seems as though Peter Strzok took things into his own hands and forced this interview before he felt it was too late.

But how could Strzok, Comey’s subordinate, have the power to do this?

This is where it gets interesting. There is compelling evidence here that Peter Strzok has secretly been working for the CIA, and may continue to be in their employ to this day:

Peter Strzok worked 24 years for the CIA. His job title was Chief of their Counterespionage Group. The FBI never had such a unit. A joint CIA/FBI position was created by Congress in 1996. Strzok was “a senior FBI official” by being the CIA’s Chief of Counterespionage.

Those who have researched into the Deep State generally agree that, unlike the other institutions it has sought to influence, the Deep State is essentially run through the CIA. That gives the sequence of events here has a logical through-line. You can read more about the CIA’s role in the Deep State here.

Now if Peter Strzok is getting his marching orders from the CIA, it would be likely that then-CIA Director John Brennan ordered Strzok to get something on Flynn, as a matter of great urgency. Brennan would know full well what Michael Flynn would find out and the information that he would have access to if he became the National Security advisor. We will go more deeply into this later.

Fact: The FBI then sought to trap Flynn in a lie

The recent release on April 29th, 2020 of a handwritten note likely written by former FBI head of counterintelligence Bill Priestap goes a long way to revealing why Strzok kept the case open. It has Priestap asking whether the goal of interviewing Flynn was “truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

Preventing him, with prejudice, from becoming the National Security advisor, and keeping him tied up endlessly in defending himself in court, if not getting jail time, appears to have been the focused goal. By and large, they succeeded in their mission. Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI. He resigned from his position at the White House on February 17th.

Then he was forced to cooperate with the Mueller investigation, where he had to meet with the DOJ lawyers of the Mueller team a total of 19 times. 19 times! For what? That seems a little excessive, doesn’t it? Especially if we examine the actual content of the ‘lies,’ according to the charging documents:

  • “On or about Dec. 29, 2016, FLYNN did not ask the Government of Russia’s Ambassador to the United States…to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day; and FLYNN did not recall the Russian Ambassador subsequently telling him that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of his request.”
  • “On or about Dec. 22, 2016, FLYNN did not ask the Russian Ambassador to delay the vote on or defeat a pending United Nations Security Council resolution; and that the Russia Ambassador subsequently never described to FLYNN Russia’s response to his request.”

What have these ‘lies’ got to do with Flynn being suspected of being an agent of Russia? What do they have to do with Russian collusion in the 2016 election? Absolutely nothing. Why would the Mueller investigation have to interview Flynn 19 times? Think logically.

Furthermore, an examination of the interview with Peter Strzok shows that Flynn’s statements were equivocal. That creates significant questions about whether inaccuracies in his description of the Kislyak discussions were honest failures of recollection, not lies. The interview happened about a month after the Kislyak communications. In the interim, Flynn had hundreds of conversations with foreign counterparts. It would have been a challenge for anyone to remember the words of a conversation under those circumstances; and, in their legerdemain, the FBI strategically refused to refresh Flynn’s recollection by playing recordings or showing a transcript.

Strzok went out of his way to deceive Flynn about the purpose of the interview, at which he hoped to trip him up. It is rote for FBI “302” reports — used to summarize witness interviews — to start by recounting that interviewing agents advised the subject of the nature of the interview. But they did not do that with Flynn. He was discouraged from consulting counsel and from reporting the FBI’s request to speak with him to his White House chain-of-command. He was not given the customary advice of rights — the FBI, after officials acknowledged among themselves that they owed it to Flynn to advise him that a false statement could be grounds for prosecution, willfully withheld this admonition from him.

Speaking of the “302” report, written by the agent accompanying Peter Strzok: the “302” used in the prosecution of Michael Flynn was not the original, but rather was edited–by Peter Strzok himself. Text messages between Strzok and his lover/accomplice FBI lawyer Lisa Page from February 2017 reveal this.

“Lisa, you didn’t see it before my edits that went into what I sent to you. I was trying to completely re-write the thing so as to save [redacted] voice and 2) get it out to you for general review and comment in anticipation of needing it soon… [I’m] trying not to completely re-write [it].”

Only after Michael Flynn fired his legal team on June 6, 2019 and hired attorney Sidney Powell a week later did it eventually come to light that the original “302” was never made available to the defense. Through Powell’s work, there are a lot of signs that shows that Flynn’s previous lawyers did not do their job properly. Powell has consistently requested the original 302, only to finally hear from the DOJ that the FBI ‘lost and destroyed’ the original 302!

Would the original “302” makes it abundantly clear that Michael Flynn actually did nothing wrong, and the edits done by Peter Strzok were clear attempts to fuel the incrimination of an innocent man? All roads point to that, Let’s be clear. An organization like the FBI cannot and would never ‘accidentally’ lose and destroy valuable information. Every time we hear that an organization like the FBI has ‘lost,’ ‘misplaced,’ or ‘accidentally destroyed’ important self-incriminating evidence, it doesn’t take a genius to see ‘coverup’ written all over it. The main problem is, most people don’t have the time or patience to look deeply enough into the evidence to draw the obvious conclusions they provide. And coverups will continued to work up until there is a sufficient desire on the part of the general public to investigate the facts in detail and piece together the evidence in a way to build their own narrative about what is going on behind the scenes.

The Evidence Is Overwhelming

For those who maintain the validity of the mainstream narrative that the Obama Administration did not commit any crimes before, during or after the transition of the Trump administration into the White House, I would ask you this simple question: does the mainstream media ever say ‘you don’t have to trust us, look at the evidence yourself and draw your own conclusions’? The answer is no. They do not. By and large they try to assure you that THEY can be trusted, and you shouldn’t bother to do all that investigative work yourself. After all, their information comes from trusted ‘sources’ and well-connected ‘officials.’ You may have noticed that more and more you are not told who these people actually are.

Up until the rise of the internet and social media, this has been an easy game for them to play. The mainstream media has long had domain over ‘normal’ perception, and have made the general public comfortable with that perception, because it is the same perception they have had since their childhood. This always gave them some kind of tacit authority to ridicule as ‘conspiracy theory’ (a CIA term designed to dissuade people from looking deeper) all attempts to investigate what is going on behind the scenes. The mainstream media is the greatest tool the Deep State has used in the coverup of high-level crimes. Note that CIA involvement in mainstream media is now well documented and incontestable, as discussed here and here

With the rise of the internet, it is a lot easier to proliferate facts and important details. This is helping us realize that, by and large, the mainstream media do not provide all the important details in making their case. With respect to Michael Flynn, they keep pounding away at the fact that he admitted to lying. And then they ridiculed the idea that he was withdrawing his guilty plea as though it was some sort of legal ploy. But note–they never provide the real reasons that Flynn has withdrawn his guilty plea. They don’t talk about the serious failings of his original legal defense team, the withholding of exculpatory information by the original DOJ prosecutors and the FBI, the serious overreach of Judge Emmet Sullivan that continues to this day. Each one of these aspects of the Michael Flynn case is rife with evidence of malfeasance worthy of its own deep investigative article.

And that’s just the Michael Flynn case. The same can be said about the cases of Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, and Paul Manafort. All three of them were surveilled as a consequence of FISA warrants that are being shown to have been obtained illegally and without a reasonable predicate.

And then illegal FISA warrants are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the use of Russia as the tried-and-true ‘Boogey Man’ to get a majority of the public against Donald Trump and his administration, as a means to find a way to get him out of office. This is not at all to say that Russia is truly a harmless ally. Not at all. But that is the subject of a far different discussion. What is being said here is that the proposition that “Donald Trump was colluding with Russia” was a completely fabricated premise that the Deep State have been trying to substantiate since before the 2016 election. And again, logic would dictate that the only reason they would ever devote so much time, money and human resources to this deception is because they saw it as the only way they would be able to continue to hide their serious criminal activities.

The Oval Office Meeting

As a for-instance, there was an extraordinary meeting in the Oval Office on January 5th, just one day after Peter Strzok made the move to keep the Flynn investigation open, possibly on orders from CIA Director John Brennan as we discussed above. The ‘official’ story Comey told the House Intelligence Committee was that he alerted CIA Director John Brennan as soon as he learned about the Flynn calls. Regardless, what is said to have happened in this meeting is that President Obama was briefed by Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper about Michael Flynn. The story is that they were concerned about Flynn’s phone calls, though that seems to be a smoke screen now as we know the intel agencies had recordings of those phone calls all along and there was nothing incriminating within them. What makes more sense is that Brennan and Clapper were trying to impress upon Obama the urgency of preventing Michael Flynn from becoming Trump’s National Security Advisor.

At the end of the meeting, the president asked FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates to stay behind. Joining them were Vice President Joe Biden and National Security Adviser Susan Rice. Yates recounted during a 2017 interview with special counsel Robert Mueller’s team that Obama began by saying “he had learned of the information about Flynn” and his conversations with Kislyak regarding the sanctions on Russia.

This was very surprising to Yates, who as the Justice Department’s No. 2 official oversaw the FBI but had not been told about it. She was obviously on a ‘need-to-know’ basis about this matter from some higher authority. One can only speculate what exactly was said during this meeting, but here is where James Comey may have been told that the Flynn investigation needed to remain open and Comey had to redouble his agency’s efforts to find something on Flynn.

Surely if these sorts of maneuvers were being discussed they would have to all agree on a ‘cover’ story to explain what this meeting was all about, convened as it was only 15 days before president-elect Donald Trump was to take office. Just the fact that the outgoing administration is focused on this matter rather than tending to the transition in a way that would most benefit the American people would raise eyebrows. It seems almost the result of paranoia that Susan Rice would send an email to herself only a few hours after Donald trump’s inauguration iterating the story that was made for public consumption, if in fact news about this meeting ever came out.

Rice insists in an email to herself that things are being done ‘by the book.’ She repeats that phrase 3 times in this short email. As they say in Shakespeare’s Macbeth, “Methinks the lady doth protest too much.”

If we refer back to the gold mine of hidden information that keeps on giving, the text messages between Peter Strzok and his accomplice/lover Lisa Page, we find out that the official story that Barack Obama ‘is not asking about, initiating, or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective’ as a matter of course is severely put into question. In a Sept. 2, 2016 text exchange, Page writes that she was preparing talking points because “potus wants to know everything we’re doing.” For those who don’t know, ‘POTUS’ is an acronym for ‘President of the United States’.

What They Might Be Trying To Hide

Again, I would love to dive more deeply into the nature of the crimes that will hopefully get revealed as “Obamagate” unfolds through the current Senate Judiciary Committee hearings and the investigative work being done by prosecutor John Durham and others, but I’m unfortunately past my time limit and length limit for one article. As I’ve said before, this is the nature of searching for the truth behind a well-constructed wall of deception. It is a slow and difficult process, and there is little money available to pay journalists whose sole objective is to find the truth, while there is a virtually unlimited supply of money for those willing to participate in the skillful suppression and obfuscation of the truth.

Let me just say for now that the ultimate goal of the Deep State is the creation of a global authority, in which those at the top of the Deep State pyramid simply continue to appoint themselves as the rulers of the planet, very much aligned with the doctrine of the “divine right of kings.” What is different in this day and age is that information, and not brute force, is the true measure of power. In order to accomplish total control over the world, it has been necessary to slowly build a comprehensive and weaponized surveillance grid throughout the world. The surveillance grid in China, built on the back of American technology that has been strategically leaked to China by Deep State American actors (think the supposed Chinese ‘hack’ of Hillary Clinton’s private server which contained classified information as one example) seems to be the model that the Deep State was looking to proliferate worldwide, both technologically and politically.

Now getting this done in the United States would probably be the biggest challenge, but through the Obama administration a lot of progress was made in building the domestic surveillance infrastructure and actually putting it into practice. In an article I wrote entitled ‘The Hidden Reason The ‘Russia Collusion’ Investigation Ever Got Started,‘ I provide evidence that a surveillance system secretly referred to as The ‘Hammer,’ designed by software design genius Dennis Montgomery for foreign surveillance, was weaponized and turned against the American people. The following is from the article, which I would call a must-read if you want to get to the heart of ‘Obamagate’:

Montgomery eventually discovered that his surveillance system was being used against the American people. And so on August 19th, 2015, Montgomery turned whistleblower and alerted FBI Director James Comey’s office in 2015 that President Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan and Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had turned the super-surveillance system that Montgomery designed for foreign surveillance into a domestic surveillance system. Montgomery asserts that Obama, Brennan, and Clapper used ‘The Hammer’ in a diabolically intrusive manner in order to spy on the American people and collect massive amounts of surveillance data for “leverage” and “blackmail.”

It should not come as any surprise that James Comey sat on the voluminous whistleblower testimony he received from Montgomery and to this day this information has not been officially acknowledged. As indicated in the article, the information has only come out through the work of brave investigative journalists that my article gets much of its information from whose sole motivation is to reveal the truth.

I would like to reiterate what those journalists have said, and what all those whose sole objective is to uncover the truth have said: You don’t have to trust me. In fact you shouldn’t. Please do your own research. Follow the facts where they lead you to. Be a relentless seeker of the truth. Once a critical mass of people do that, all this deception will no longer have a place to hide.

Why ‘Obamagate’ Could Become The Biggest Political Scandal In History

We are a long way from being able to confirm or deny the substance behind Donald Trump’s current rallying cry “Obamagate!” However, one thing is pretty certain. In today’s polarized climate, a vast majority of right-leaning folks would give credence to the notion that Obama has committed serious malfeasance, while most who identify on the left consider the single-word accusation ludicrous. Whatever turns out to be true, if and when we get to the bottom of it American politics will never be the same.

Let’s be clear right off the top that, unlike the majority of political commentaries in the mainstream and even in alternative news, I will be making an effort not to align with either side of the well-worn battle lines between Left and Right, Republican and Democrat. The attempt here will be to rise above that artificial polarity and examine the known facts as objectively as possible, with the intention of informing the reader as to what has actually been going on behind the scenes.

It is heartening to see that in this time of awakening, people are starting to reject this artificial polarity and the identities of a growing number of people are no longer defined by whether they are ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative.’ Certainly, one can say that there is a ‘real’ distinction between the two sides, but the only value in making this distinction is to realize that the human experience is optimized when these two polarities are in balance. The notion that one will ultimately win over the other is what fuels the never-ending political divide. In effect, once we distance ourselves from identifying with one or the other of these polarities, we begin to see the whole political dichotomy as a control mechanism designed to keep us divided.

My Liberal Origins

So I’ll start with full disclosure: most of my life I identified with the Liberal party in Canada. When I turned my attention to American politics a few decades ago, I was an ardent supporter of Bill Clinton, a critic of George W. Bush and later was absolutely enamored with Barack Obama. In fact, in early 2008, I happened to be visiting my sister in Florida and Barack Obama had a rally scheduled less than an hour away. I felt that the Obama presidency might be historic and I wouldn’t have forgiven myself if I didn’t take this rare opportunity to see the man in person.

I was not disappointed. Not only did I find him to be even more charismatic and articulate than I even thought he was, I was even more convinced that he was about to bring “Change We Can Believe In.” Here is the sign I held up at the rally all those years ago.

The climax of the evening actually came after the rally was over, and Obama walked off the stage to rousing applause and outstretched hands. There was no way of getting close to him to offer my hand, I thought. I was stuck at the front of some grandstands that sat far from the stage. Yet as fate would have it, his exit path ran directly past the grandstands that I was in. He started reaching up hand over hand with the people at the front. I squirmed through and somehow my left hand clasped his (extra special since we are both left-handed) and our eyes met at the same time. The moment was electric, as it felt like I was seeing into the soul of one of the greatest and most sincere leaders the world has ever known. I may have been willing to give him my left arm right then and there if he asked for it.

The Evolution Of My Thought

Twelve years later, much has changed–and it is not the ‘change we can believe in’ that Obama was touting in 2004. But it is a good change nonetheless, a change within me. As painful as it sometimes is, if our thinking is to continue to grow and evolve, we must always subject our own cherished beliefs to scrutiny, especially in the face of events that contradict them. While I found many of Obama’s early speeches to be inspiring and captivating, some of the policies coming out of his administration were a bit puzzling.

Then as his second term wore on, his actions in the world appeared contradictory to his promise of peaceful collaboration, while his rhetoric, always measured, became more serious and less heartening. During his presidency, though, I went along with the popular theory that Obama was highly compromised, as all presidents are, and that he had to ‘play ball’ with the powerful forces behind American politics instead of really doing what he wanted if he was to avoid the fate of JFK.

Today, I can’t say that I know for sure who Barack Obama is, or ever was. But in my eyes, evidence seems to be growing that he has been part of criminal activity like massive illegal domestic surveillance, unjust violence abroad under the fog of war and terrorism, a reduction of protections for whistleblowers, and huge coverups of the illegal activities of people connected to his administration.

Was he a manchurian candidate from the start, or was he an idealistic community organizer who rose to great heights only to get the hammer of reality dropped on him when he was inaugurated? Did he succumb to threats, bribes, and other such enticements to become ideologically and morally aligned with dark forces? Or is he in fact exactly as he currently portrays himself, as a good person and a great president whose administration, in his words, ‘didn’t have a scandal’? Let’s see what the evidence suggests.

It must be said that ‘Obamagate’ presupposes the existence of a ‘Deep State’, a cabal that has placed or bribed/blackmailed a great number of people in powerful and influential positions in all branches of government, the military, intelligence, and mainstream media. Further, unlike previous presidents including Barack Obama who were part of or have been willing to go along with the Deep State, Donald Trump is seen as having been supported by a military/intelligence axis that opposed the Deep State, and who sought to employ Trump to help them ‘drain the swamp’ (i.e. remove Deep State players from power and, where possible, prosecute them for their crimes). I’m not asking you to just take my word on this, but you have to admit that if it’s true, it would really explain the relentless motivation to denigrate Donald Trump in the public eye at every turn, and ultimately try every trick in the book to remove him from power.

Please note that the belief in the existence of a ‘Deep State’ based on the evidence available is not participating in ‘far-right’ conspiracy theories, much as the mainstream media would want it characterized that way. In fact, the Deep State is seen as having had control over powerful people on both sides of the political aisle for a very long time. It was certainly in control during the George W. Bush administration, and his father George H. W. Bush was known as a high-ranking member. John F. Kennedy, probably the last president truly opposed to the Deep State, recognized its presence a lot more clearly than most people realize:

We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

Today, the Deep State is doing most of its damage through the Democratic party because Donald Trump has not aligned with them, or their minions within the Republican party. Many such players have already been removed from power. For me, this is not a testament to Trump as much as it is a testament to the power and cohesion that the military/intelligence axis that supports him has finally reached, an endeavor that has been going on at least since JFK was murdered.

It’s not within the scope of this article to provide evidence of the existence of the Deep State, but some of my previous articles here, herehere, here, and here should help to satisfy those who are looking for more concrete examples of the Deep State’s activities and modus operandi.

What Is Obamagate?

Now ‘Obamagate’ itself centers on claims that officials in then-President Barack Obama’s administration went after a number of Trump officials as early as Trump’s nomination in order to prevent him from winning the 2016 election, and then through his early presidency to get him removed from office. The narrative holds that Obama, along with his then-Vice President Joe Biden, former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and agents from multiple intelligence services in both the US and abroad, knowingly planted a phony theory that Trump was colluding with Russia in order to win the 2016 election. This theory, supported by virtually no ‘evidence’ except the now-dismissed ‘Steele Dossier,’ was used as the basis to get FISA warrants to spy on select members of Donald Trump’s inner circle who could be tied in any way to Russia, in order to further build on the narrative of Russian collusion.

Wherever possible, those spied upon were prosecuted in order to amplify suspicion of Trump’s wrongdoing, despite the fact that none of the prosecutions that took place were actually related to the theory that there was Russian collusion in the 2016 election. Among those spied upon through questionable FISA warrants were foreign policy advisor Carter Page, foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos, campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who was prosecuted by the Mueller Special Counsel for a number of unrelated crimes, and National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn, who was indicted for lying to the FBI by the Mueller Counsel as well.

While each of these four, and many others, have their own detailed story to tell that allege they were wrongfully targeted by the Obama administration, we would require a full article for each person in order to examine their complex story properly. So for the purposes of this article we will focus on the person who is currently in the news, General Michael Flynn, and dive into the facts surrounding his experiences and see what we can extrapolate from that.

The Case Study: General Michael Flynn

Here I will attempt to use the pertinent facts in the Michael Flynn case in order to see if these facts give any support to the ‘Obamagate’ narrative. I have to honestly note here how difficult it is to try to walk the line between two opposing narratives while objectively presenting the points of view in good faith. Here goes.

FACT: Barack Obama had issues with General Michael Flynn’s pushback on Obama’s attempts to remove Syria’s president.

Under President Obama, Flynn became director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in July 2012. They clashed heads over foreign policy in the Middle East and particularly in Syria.  Flynn announced his retirement from the military on April 30, 2014, about a year earlier than he had been scheduled to leave his position. As noted in Wikipedia:

[Flynn] believed he was pressed into retirement for questioning the Obama administration’s public narrative that Al Qaeda was close to defeat. Journalist Seymour Hersh wrote that “Flynn confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings… about the dire consequences of toppling [Syrian President] Assad.”

According to Flynn, these reports “got enormous pushback from the Obama administration,” who he felt “did not want to hear the truth.” According to former DIA official W. Patrick Lang: “Flynn incurred the wrath of the White House by insisting on telling the truth about Syria… they shoved him out. He wouldn’t shut up.”

There is a lot of information supporting the notion that the Obama administration and his CIA were facilitating the rise of (if not downright building, supplying, and training) Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist groups in the Middle East. This coincided with a primary objective for the Deep State in the Middle East, the removal of Syrian president Bashar al Assad. We have written extensively about the Deep State propagation of false-flag chemical attacks through their mainstream media arm, falsely blaming the Syrian president for ‘gassing his own people’ to sway public opinion against him here, here, here, here and here.

If someone has as their agenda the removal of a sitting president in a foreign country, and they have become aware of the Deep State’s previous commerce-centered strategy which John Perkins so comprehensively describes in his book Confessions of an Economic Hitman, then the next strategy is to build up local opposition groups with money, training, and supplies in order to fight the proxy war, with promises of untold rewards if the objectives are met. This appears to be why ISIS and other Middle East terrorist groups gained steam during the Obama administration. If General Michael Flynn was blowing the whistle on this powerful operation, and was not willing to shut up despite pressure being applied, then he would certainly be seen as a dangerous impediment to their plans and would get labeled an ‘Enemy of the [Deep] State’ in the eyes of the Obama administration.

FACT: Barack Obama warned president-elect Trump about Flynn

Still in the aftershocks of Trump winning the 2016 election, Obama must have felt it important enough to stress in their first post-election meeting how much of a bad idea it would be to have Michael Flynn on his national security team, as per this New York Times article:

President Barack Obama warned Donald J. Trump against hiring Michael T. Flynn to be part of his national security team when Mr. Obama met with his successor in the Oval Office two days after the November election, two former Obama administration officials said on Monday. Mr. Obama, who had fired Mr. Flynn as the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Mr. Trump that he would have profound concerns about Mr. Flynn becoming a top national security aide, said the administration officials, who were briefed on the Oval Office conversation.

So one way of looking at this, to give the mainstream narrative its due, is that Barack Obama sincerely felt that Michael Flynn would be a detriment to Trump’s administration, and wanted to help Trump out. But are we really that naive? How often does someone from one party actually help out someone from the other party? Is it not more likely, given the general polarization we see in American politics, that there was an ulterior motive here?

I will be presenting evidence later that demonstrate that the outgoing Obama administration did little to nothing to help Trump out during the transition. Here is what I consider a more plausible explanation for Obama’s warning: if the election of Donald Trump was, as the narrative goes, big trouble for the past administration, since Trump was not one of ‘them,’ then Michael Flynn, a man who ‘knew where the bodies were buried,’ as they say, would be very damaging to them if he had Trump’s ear on national security.

Certainly, Obama going to Trump and chumming up to him in order to dissuade him from hiring Flynn would be one of many strategies the Deep State would consider using if they wanted to delay the uncovering of their crimes, until such time as they could find a way to remove Trump from power. And hasn’t removing Trump from power been the focal point of the Democratic Party/mainstream media axis the whole time? Whether it be by digging up potential scandals from the past, having bought-and-paid-for celebrities graphically wishing him dead, organized campaigns accusing him of racism, misogyny and xenophobia, pushing the Russia Collusion narrative all the way to the East Siberian Sea, and filling the news cycle with insubstantial articles of impeachment, we have been inundated by a perceived need in the mainstream to get him out of office any which way we can. 

Beyond just hating Trump for being a pompous reality-TV buffoon, there must be a serious reason for all the commotion we’ve seen. If in fact he was such a buffoon and incapable of handling the rigors of being president and commander-in-chief of the biggest armed forces in the world, as the mainstream media continues to suggest, the opposition likely would have sat back and let the fruits of his actions speak for themselves. But rather than do that, the mainstream media is working hard to characterize every one of Trump’s actions in a bad light before people even have a chance to evaluate the actual impact of what he is doing. This smells like panic and fear evoked by threats to one’s self-preservation more than anything else. 

This article has reached its limit and we haven’t even gotten into the timeline of the case against General Michael Flynn! I guess that’s a consequence of diving deep into the details. Instead of continuing here, I will work on a second article that will serve as Part 2 of this analysis of why ‘Obamagate’ could become the biggest political scandal in history. The full timeline and details of Michael Flynn’s prosecution are sure to continue providing some interesting insights. 

Another Reason Why This ‘Pandemic’ Is Looking More Like A Social Engineering Experiment

Why This Pandemic Is Looking More Like A Social Engineering Experiment, Part 1

When something is repeated over and over, it often has the capacity to put us to sleep. But occasionally, it has the opposite effect. Sometimes in the wake of redundant messaging our senses are aroused to a bitter taste or a stale odor that tells us something is just not right.

I had such an experience in tuning in to Ontario’s daily COVID-19 briefing today which I had done, optimistically, to see if there was any advance on when schools would be opening for my 6-year old. (no such luck). It came at the beginning of health minister Christine Elliot’s segment:

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge and celebrate our amazing nurses, on this first day of National Nurses Week. Day and night our heroic nurses work tirelessly to care for the people of Ontario. From the bottom of my heart, thank you. Over the past few months, Ontario’s health care system has demonstrated remarkable responsiveness to the COVID-19 outbreak. That is in large part to our partners on the front lines, including our nurses, doctors, homecare, hospital and long-term care staff, personal support workers, and first-responders among many others. As we’ve confronted COVID-19, we’ve made historic investments to dramatically expand hospital capacity, and support the brave heroes working on the front lines of our healthcare system.

Elliot was literally gushing as she extolled the virtues of our health care workers. It was almost as though she had convinced herself that her plaudits were sincere.

Special note to our followers: Is 5G safe? Learn the unbiased truth and the steps to implement better solutions in your community at the 5G Health Summit. It’s a free worldwide call to action from the leading independent experts, scientists and doctors in the field. You can sign up here.  

What’s The Motive?

The surface political motive for many of our leaders to heap praise on health care workers, and encourage the public to do the same, is fairly straightforward. In thanking others, one gets to bask in the reflected glory of their accomplishments.

But upon deeper reflection, one can see that this strategy is so widely employed in the case of this pandemic because it simultaneously touches on all the bases that our authority want conveyed during their public proclamations. In fact, there are few social programming techniques that I can think of that are more powerful or effective. Let’s touch on a few of the bases ourselves:

Amplifying the Severity of the Pandemic. Through the clever sleight-of-hand of the praise of others, which the listening audience tends to take in readily with their guard down and their discernment filters on pause, the speaker is able to fully convince us of the danger we are facing, by commending health care workers for being willing to confront this danger. The more heroic we are made to think they are, the more danger that is implied. While the praise towards our fellow human beings (who are not part of the authority) makes us feel good to a certain extent, what is really being heightened in us is that low-level fear that this virus is lurking, ready to pounce on us at any misstep. A public that is in this state of fear is much easier to control and manipulate.

Legitimizing Western medicine. Listen to her terminology. ‘our partners on the front lines…the brave heroes working on the front lines.’ Why ‘Front lines’? Why is health care a ‘fight,’ always some kind of ‘war’? Because this has been the pre-eminent strategy of Western medicine all along–to make us feel that there has been an enemy invasion (a virus). To make us feel that our body does not have the necessary defense mechanisms (Western medicine virtually ignores our immune system). To make us feel that we are under attack, need protection, and the army of doctors and researchers spawned from Western medical school is our only hope (of course this is why traditional medicine, which works in concert with the immune system, has for so long been labelled quackery and pseudoscience).

Reinforcing government authority. In praising the health care workers and the system they operate within, our authority is actually reinforcing its own praiseworthiness without saying it directly. Instead, the government is seen as the benevolent manager of the whole process, ‘partnering’ with those laudable heroes in the health care system. So when the government brags that they’ve ‘made historic investments to dramatically expand hospital capacity,’ should we be standing up and applauding? Or should we be asking, if this whole government-medical system partnership is working so well, shouldn’t we be seeing a reduction in hospital beds instead of a constant increase? Shouldn’t the citizens as a whole be getting healthier, rather than getting sicker and more in need of drugs and treatments, as all the evidence and statistics tell us?

Nobody’s Knocking Our Health Care Workers

Now before anybody starts saying I’m knocking our health care workers, stop. Actually, if you’ve gotten this far in the article, I probably don’t have to worry about you. It is those who just read the headlines and then feel justified in making their outrage known on Facebook about seeing ‘another ridiculous conspiracy theory.’ The fact is, a bit of honest reflection will force us to admit that at some level we all know that our authority is trying to pull something on us every time they speak.

Just for the record, I believe health care is a very noble profession, with a majority of those working within the system being truly dedicated to the health and well-being of the patients they come into contact with.

However, this pandemic has not turned everybody working in health care into Florence Nightengales, as our leaders and mainstream media would have us believe. Those who were competent and caring in 2018 and 2019 are competent and caring in 2020 during this pandemic. Those who were incompetent and apathetic to their patients in the past have for the most part probably remained that way under the circumstances we currently face. Like in any occupation, there are good workers and bad workers. When a patient says ‘thank-you’ to a nurse or doctor for their service and care, it is spontaneous and authentic. It is meaningful. On the other hand, calling on the entire public to say ‘thank you’ to all health care workers, in speeches and promotional ads everywhere, 24/7, is likely staged and grounded in a very different agenda.

The Takeaway

The sooner we see through the motives behind these attempts to tell us what to think and how to feel, the sooner we will have a society founded on truth and authenticity.

Police Officer First Praised, Then Threatened Over Viral Video Criticizing Police Tyranny

When Seattle police officer Greg Anderson’s Instagram video reached a few thousand views, his command sent him a message saying ‘Wow, Greg. What a powerful message! We agree with that one hundred percent. Well done!’

Three hours later, he got a call from his command and their tone had changed considerably: ‘Hey, Greg. The video is up to 400,000 views. It’s time to pull the plug on this thing.’ Anderson declined.

A couple of hours later, with the video skyrocketing and Anderson getting a multitude of encouraging messages from fellow law enforcement officers past and present he has known, the tone of his command in a subsequent phone call was even more threatening: ‘Listen, the video needs to be taken down right now, and you need to accept a letter of reprimand–or, we’re going to take a very different approach to this if you say ‘no’ again.’

Later he was contacted by the Chief of Police, who Anderson says he has great respect for. The Chief put things squarely to Anderson: ‘Greg, if you openly defy your governor, you can’t be a police officer in the state of Washington.’

Greg Anderson’s Video

The video you are about to see here is a remarkably frank and candid reflection on police overreach and tyranny during the current COVID-19 crisis,  and the actual role and true responsibilities of police whether in times of crisis or not:

Every time I turn on the television, every time I look to the internet, I’m seeing people arrested, or cited, for going to church, for travelling on the roadways, for going surfing, opening their businesses, going to the park with their families, or doing nails out of their own house, using their own house as a place of business, and having undercover agents go there, and arrest them, and charge them. With what? With a crime? I don’t know what crime people are committing by doing nails in their own house, but, we’re seeing this more and more and more, and we need to start looking at ourselves as officers, and thinking: ‘Is what I’m doing right?’

Now I want to remind you that no matter where you stand on the coronavirus we don’t have the authority to do those things to people, just because a mayor, or a governor, tells you otherwise. I don’t care if it’s your sergeant or your chief of police, we don’t get to violate people’s constitutional rights because somebody in our chain of command tells us otherwise. It’s not how this country works.

I could really quote the whole video, because I believe it is gold. I would highly recommend listening carefully to what Greg Anderson has to say here.

The Aftershocks

A few days after his video was released, Anderson released a companion video to get people caught up with what has happened to him. Here we find out that he has been put on ‘administrative leave pending termination,’ which is essentially his authority’s cowardly way of essentially firing him without having to deal with as much immediate blowback from the public.

After hearing Anderson speak here, it is hard not to be wholly impressed by his integrity and equanimity in the face of uncertainty that has been brought upon him.

What Is A Hero?

Heroes inspire. Heroes stand up for principles no matter the threats to their own personal well-being and safety. Greg Anderson has put a very important stake in the ground representing what it means to be a police officer, and all fellow police officers owe it to themselves to follow his example. The public is certainly behind Anderson’s initiative. If you don’t believe it, look at the overwhelming support he is getting on a GoFund Me page set up by his wife’s best friend, after being willing to forsake his job for his principles:

I just checked again. The donations are at $239,004. In. One. Day. The public is inspired, and obviously have been hungry to hear this kind of message from a member of the police force.

Heroes are now emerging from all of the institutions in our society that are part of a much larger control and domination agenda. We have written about those who have spoken out from the inside about the corruption of mainstream media (CNN’s Political Bias Exposed By Whistleblower’s Hidden Camera FootageNBC Journalist Quits Then Blows The Whistle On How Mainstream Media Deceives The Public) and the Western medical establishment (Dr Jeff Barke: “What If Quarantining The Healthy Doesn’t Actually Save Lives?”Dr. Peter Gotzsche On Coronavirus: “A Pandemic Of Panic, More Than Anything Else”), but it is particularly prescient at this time in history for law enforcement officials to stand up to tyranny and oppression of the authority, because without the complicity of law enforcement, our authority would instantly lose their ability to enforce any decrees that are against the will of the people.

The Takeaway

I have long thought about the plans in place for a dystopian totalitarian security state in the image of George Orwell’s 1984, and the one thought that always gave me solace was that there would hopefully be enough awakened and principled people in law enforcement that would not be willing to carry out orders that would infringe on the rights of their fellow human beings. With courageous messages such as the one shared by Greg Anderson, which hopefully will be reiterated by others in law enforcement who have told him that they support his position, my faith is strengthened.

What is important for each of us, however, especially if we want to honor the bravery of people like Greg Anderson, is to examine ourselves and ready ourselves to stand up for our principles any time they are infringed upon, even if this costs us our job or more. If we are together on this, it will not be long before the obsolete control mechanism we have been living under all our lives is disabled for good.

Dr Jeff Barke: “What If Quarantining The Healthy Doesn’t Actually Save Lives?”

Dr. Jeffrey Barke, a well-respected California family doctor, took to the microphone during a rally in Riverside, CA a few days ago to air some of his common-sense views shared by many in his profession that he says are being silenced by those in power.

My name is Dr. Jeff Barke and I’m here representing thousands of physicians across the country whose voices are being silenced because we don’t agree with the mainstream media, and the ‘experts’ who are telling us what to do.

As I mention in my previously published article ‘Why This ‘Pandemic’ Is Looking More Like A Social Engineering Experiment,’ those in power seem to be enforcing safety and health measures that do not square with the actual data (which itself has been shown to be exaggerated) in order to test out larger and more comprehensive attempts to gain power and enforce compliance of the people.

The Revolution Has Started

Of course, we can take solace in the notion that the quarantine measures that healthy people are being subjected to are probably getting rushed in and forced upon us a bit more quickly than our authority would want, because they are feeling like their time is running out and they have to make this push now while some in the population have not yet awakened to the truth.

However, with the rapid communication afforded by social media to get a message out to the world–this article itself being spawned by a video found on social media–we are past the point when the genie can be put back in the bottle. The revolution that is the awakening of the people of the world to the truth cannot be stopped.

With the help of people like Jeff Barke and many others, we are starting to see the links between health, media, politics, and our inherent rights and freedoms as citizens.

Never in the history of this great Republic have we quarantined the healthy. Never in the history of this great Republic have we told church-goers that it’s illegal for you to exercise your first-amendment right of freedom of religion–yet, at the same time, it’s essential to keep pot dispensaries open.

Never before in our country have we let criminals out of jail, but we’ve told you you can’t exercise your second amendment right and protect yourself by purchasing a firearm.

The Declaration of Independence and our U.S. Constitution was never designed to restrain the people, it was designed to restrain the government.

Dr. Barke then goes on to discuss the data that is fairly widely agreed upon–that COVID-19 appears to have the same risks as a bad seasonal flu, and herd immunity, widely seen as the best and only way to truly protect against such diseases.

We can never achieve herd immunity by keeping the herd quarantined. It’s time that we protect the vulnerable and the most at risk, but we allow the young and the healthy to open the doors and go back to work.

The Takeaway

Certainly people have different opinions about this and any other matter. However, what we obviously would have consensus on is that we each have the right to make our own decisions and choices. This is the basic precept we must come together on. Once we the people fully grasp the power we have as a collective, and awaken to the truth of what has been going on in the world, that is when the world will start becoming a reflection of our loftiest dreams.

Related CE Articles:  

Two Emergency Medicine Doctors On Why Quarantine “Just Doesn’t Make Sense”

Leading Scientist Claims Lockdown & Quarantine is a “Human Catastrophe” (New Interview)

Renowned Microbiology Specialist On Why He Believes Coronavirus Measures Are “Draconian” (Video)

Why This ‘Pandemic’ Is Looking More Like A Social Engineering Experiment

Yesterday my wife, a native of Korea, made the arduous trip to her homeland from Toronto in order to help her mother, who had been diagnosed with Stage IV cancer, with the protocols of High-Dose Vitamin C and a natural eating regimen. This hopefully will be an inspiring story in itself as things continue to progress along.

However, the reason I bring it up is because of the difficulties my wife experienced in getting to Korea as a result of COVID-19 regulations, and how this has gotten me thinking even more deeply about the nature of this pandemic.

In order to go to Korea to assist her mother, my wife had to go to the Korean Embassy in Toronto, provide proof that she was not suffering from the Coronavirus, (with the documentation having a 48-hour expiry date), proof that her mother had been diagnosed with cancer, proof that she had enough money to sustain herself while in Korea, and proof that she would have a place to stay in Korea. Eventually satisfying all these conditions, she was given a visitor’s visa and set out to fly to Korea through Vancouver. Before boarding the flight to Korea, she was given a document in which she was asked to agree to finance her own quarantine in a special hotel for 14 days (about $1600) if deemed necessary and agree to abide unconditionally to all government measures including departure from Korea orders if the authorities deemed it appropriate.

Arriving in Korea, she told me she literally had to go through hoops from one counter to the next and get documents sent from her mother’s house certifying her family identity, then agree to pay a taxi over $100 in order to be ushered directly to her mother’s house, where she had to sign off on a strict 14-day quarantine in the house that would be monitored by the government and law enforcement on a daily basis.

What strikes me as odd, from this one experience that is absolutely factual and affects my family personally, is the amount of care, attention, precision, and gravity that was given in the case of a person (my wife) who had no signs of illness and furthermore had a doctor-certified test document saying that she did not have COVID-19. Measures like this worldwide would purport to solely be motivated by the prevention the death of world citizens, would they not? I would argue that, even based on mainstream-accepted ‘dangers’ about COVID-19 (themselves dubious at best), all these measures were useless, a complete waste of time, money, and valuable human resources.

For Saving Human Lives?

This all got me thinking. If that attention and the human and financial resources that have been spent on this ‘pandemic’ had been given to end world hunger, do any of you doubt that world hunger would have been eradicated by now?

The ‘official’ numbers of COVID-19 deaths worldwide, according to the website, as of May 4th, is 251,421. I will not contest this figure for the moment, but later on will give evidence that this number is inflated. But let’s use this number for now.

Let’s compare it to the number of deaths worldwide from starvation since January 1st, according to the website 3,073,421. Even as I type in this number it has already changed, as it does continuously every two seconds or so. My question is, if our world leaders are so concerned about human mortality, should they not be devoting at least 10 times the amount of financial and human resources that they are giving to this pandemic to ending world hunger? Should they not have come together and done this decades ago?

This is just one example. There are countless, which show us time and again that the true agenda of our political leaders is almost completely antithetical to the actual health and safety of the people of the world. And it should have all of us suspecting that the coordinated worldwide efforts to mitigate the effects of COVID-19 on the global population is not really about public health and safety but rather part of a different agenda.

Inflating Numbers, Maximizing Fear

Now as to that staunch figure of worldwide deaths from COVID-19, which tells us that over a quarter of a million people have died from the virus–not an insignificant number, when it gets stand-alone framing in big bold print on mainstream media 24/7. That, in combination with the ongoing ticker of new cases cropping up, is used strategically to maximize fear, thereby maximizing public compliance.

Evidence is coming out every day that these numbers and the way they are presented are not truthful and are conflating the level of danger (and thus the need for a lockdown).

For example, many of the deaths that are in the official number of COVID-19 deaths are actually co-morbidities, meaning that the person who died had other pre-existing health conditions that contributed to their death. There is no evidence of the extent of the impact, if any, of COVID-19 in the case of these co-morbidities. In fact, in some cases, even where an alternative cause is determined, it is still registered as a COVID-19 death.

Dig Deeper: “If You Die of a Clear Alternative Cause, It’s Still Listed As A COVID Death” – Dr. Ngozi Ezike

This chart below of weekly pneumonia deaths reported shows a precipitous decline in the number of pneumonia deaths in the US which coincides with, you guessed it, the beginning of the reporting of COVID-19 deaths.

In other words, deaths that would have been determined to be caused by pneumonia in previous years are being called COVID-19 deaths, in some cases without that person even being tested for COVID-19! In effect, more and more evidence is pointing to the idea that there is nothing really happening in the world any different from any other year in terms of deaths from infectious flu-like diseases. Yet my wife has to go through all sorts of machinations in order to be permitted to visit her mother?

Dig Deeper: New Stanford Study Suggests COVID-19 Has The Same Infection Fatality Rate As Seasonal Influenza

So much more can be said about particular ways that figures and projections are manipulated to create a perception of fear and danger for this pandemic, but for now let’s look at the larger mechanism at play here.

The Script Followed By Our Leaders

In the interests of having an informed and capable public, are our leaders keeping us updated on these inconsistencies, and helping us get an accurate picture of the true extent of the dangers involved with this particular disease? For the most part, no. Politicians of all stripes come onto the airwaves to make the same announcements everywhere: “Because you have been good boys and girls, we, your authority, has been able to start getting this crisis under control,” combined with “you are warned that you must continue to obey us to prevent a rebound in the number of infections.” Then they might criticize examples of “bad” citizens not complying.

Again, I simply need to reflect on my personal experience here in Ontario, Canada, to reinforce my theory. Most readers could do the same within their locality. With just a cursory glance at the official briefings here, I heard Ontario Premier Doug Ford try to convince viewers how deeply concerned he was about the safety and health of Ontarions. He was quick to rebuke those who protested in front of parliament in Toronto calling for an end to the lockdown as ‘a bunch of Yahoos.’

And on the subject of something that affects me personally with a 6-year old at home, namely the opening of schools, he has done his best to bring  gravitas to his proclamation that schools will continue to stay closed for the forseeable future, citing that ‘my No. 1 concern is protecting our kids out there.’ From stories I’ve heard about Doug Ford, he may be one of the last people I would trust to protect my child. And the notion that keeping kids cooped up at home and not in contact with their friends is keeping them safe ignores the known statistics about COVID-19, where children are in the lowest risk-class for infection and morbidity.

Social Engineering

Many theories floating around out there as to the true origins and purpose of COVID-19, based on evidence that it was man-made and the possibility that it was released intentionally, are certainly worth investigating. However, none of those have to be proven for us to be able to see that the pandemic is being used as a social engineering experiment. Now this is nothing new, as basically everything our leaders do is grounded in their attempts to see how much more power they can amass and how much more of our freedoms can be taken away. “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” as Churchill said.

In the case of COVID-19, we are dealing with a worldwide event, and perhaps the biggest social engineering experiment ever attempted. Those who have the ultimate power in the world, those who control our political leaders, are trying to determine how much the public will comply under the circumstances of a pandemic. You can see everything being said by our leaders is based on affirming that they are in control, that we must follow. When attempts to control things in Ontario went too far and the people pushed back, as when an Aurora mom was fined $880 for standing too long in a park with her baby, Doug Ford said bylaw officers “could have used a little bit different judgment.”

Without ceding his own power, he yielded some ground in order to reinforce his own legitimacy, using a famous Machiavellian political strategy. This type of push and pull has been happening all around the world as this pandemic continues to be employed to erode our freedoms. It is part of a bigger war that is being fought between forces with a dark agenda of control and those who are working to bring out the truth. The sooner we all start to see what is going with this pandemic in this larger context, the sooner the truth will shine for everyone to see, and empower us to restore our freedom.

Is Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Trying To Splinter The Health Freedom Movement?

We are at a time in history when we are being called upon to consciously join together to restore our natural and inherent freedoms. I use ‘restore’ with hesitation, since we have to acknowledge the fact that human beings have scarcely ever fully enjoyed their natural freedoms within their society. The United States after the American Revolution may have been the closest thing to it, although the abolition of slavery almost a century later would have to be considered an essential aspect of a truly free society. And by that time, powerful external interests had already begun their infiltration with an agenda to regain control and slowly erode the freedom of American citizens.

Nonetheless, this article is not meant to be a history lesson, but rather an examination of the reality we are facing here and now. Just as independent states united in the name of individual freedoms always needed to be extremely vigilant about deceptive wolves in sheep’s clothing intent on derailing that freedom, the grassroots movements of today need to be extremely discerning in order to recognize those within the movement that are actually agents provocateur with an agenda to derail the movement in the interests of the powerful overlords they serve.

Discernment of Motive

The characteristics of true and authentic participants in any grassroots freedom movement is the desire for unity. These participants respect the differences of others as a prerequisite to fostering that unity within the community. People are free to have and express their views, and true participants tend to be tolerant of signs of ignorance or even egocentricity, as long as it seems that the person has a real desire to arrive at the truth and help to promote freedom.

In a sense, this is what makes it easy to infiltrate grassroots movements. There are no established ‘leaders’ of these movements who decide who can be part of the movement and by what criteria. Certainly, some figures rise to positions of prominence within these movements due to their expertise and effective communication; but if these figures are true participants they maintain a sense of humility within the group, understanding that their opinion is not ‘more important’ than someone else’s, and only has value insofar as it helps lead the community to the truth.

The agent provocateur, on this other hand, has the goal of disunity and fragmentation of the community. Such a person may be a ‘sleeper’ within a community for a given period of time, and tends to be ‘on their best behavior’ at first in order to gain status and trust within the community. When activated, this person will try to divide the group, often by accusing those who are gaining status and respect of actually being the infiltrators and part of a ‘controlled opposition.’ This refers to people that publicly speak out against the powerful oppressors of freedom but ultimately do so in a limited/controlled way so that at crucial moments the full power of the movement is thwarted. The ‘controlled opposition’ may eventually get sussed out by the more conscious participants of the group, but by that time the agent may have succeeded at preventing the movement from spreading widely with their polarizing black and white accusations directed at others. In the past, this type of strategy has often been very successful in undermining a grassroots movement.

Of course, there are many internal disruptors within movements that are not agents of powerful forces, they are simply involved for their own self-aggrandizement. They want to ‘stand out’ in opposition to others who are gaining status, often accusing those others of being untruthful about their motives.

Either way, if we want to effectively support or participate in grassroots movements in the age of rapid social media communication, it is critical that we develop a high level of discernment in distinguishing between those who would foment division for their own ulterior motives, and those who are making tremendous efforts required to foster unity.

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai vs Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

According to Wikipedia, Dr. Shiva Ayyaduri is an Indian-American scientist, engineer, entrepreneur, and promoter of conspiracy theories and unfounded medical claims. He holds four degrees from MIT, and garnered 3.4% of the vote as an independent candidate in the 2018 United States Senate election in Massachusetts. He is running as a Republican in the 2020 U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts.

In other words, Dr. Shiva is both someone who gets the attention of people interested in discovering the hidden truths in the sociopolitical arena, and someone who is running for a place in the political establishment. I first encountered Dr. Shiva in a video in which he was discussing details of the Climate Change agenda as a money-making hoax. I found him to be intelligent and articulate.

As a doctor, he has advocated for freedom of choice when it comes to our health. He has recently made criticisms about members of the Health Freedom Movement, labeling some of them as “controlled opposition.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a long-standing and highly respected vaccine safety advocate, had been enduring these criticisms for months without responding, but when his colleagues began to be attacked by Dr. Shiva, he was motivated to write an article entitled “Critical Questions for Dr. Shiva About His Attempts to Splinter the Health Freedom Movement.” His article opened like this:

For many months I have remained silent in the face of defamatory and dishonest attacks against me by Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai. My approach was to ignore the sniping to preserve the unity of the Health Freedom Movement. However, Shiva has expanded his malevolent campaign to include venomous salvos against our community’s most prominent and effective leaders, including Del BigtreeMark BlaxillDr. Rashid ButtarPolly Tommey and Samoan-Australian activist Taylor Winterstein. Because he now has some of our outstanding spokesmen in his gun-sites, and because his poisonous volleys have begun to damage the solidarity that is critical to our success, I reluctantly make this response.

Dr. Shiva soon created a response to the article in a Youtube video entitled ‘Dr.SHIVA and Young Pharaoh DESTROY RACIST Robbie Kennedy, Jr. Party Over!‘ which currently has almost 50,000 views.

Testing Your Discernment

Comments about this battle on social media show that it is certainly causing confusion and dismay for many. Some are quite polarized in one camp or the other. Others are saying they don’t know who to believe. For most of us I think this dismay is easily solved, when we decide to do our own research, and make our own evaluations about who is truly seeking unity and who is seeking division. For our part, simply reading headlines on social media and following along with narratives that seem to match our own is not the way to truly support grassroots initiatives that we believe in.

Here’s a very valuable exercise for those who would like to consider themselves active participants in the Health Freedom Movement: Read RFK jr.’s article, watch Dr. Shiva’s response, and decide for yourself about who is truly seeking truth and unity and who is actually seeking to divide. By diving deep into the facts of any story like this, you are participating in an exercise in expanding your discernment that helps make it more difficult for infiltrators to break up these grassroots movements, and hence increases the ability of honest and dedicated human beings to come together and make the world a better place.

Freedom Advocate Explains How To Say NO If COVID-19 Vaccination Becomes Mandatory

For those of us who believe vaccines to be unsafe and not properly tested, news coming out that plans are underway to mandate vaccination for COVID-19 is troubling.

Bill Gates, a man who everyone knows has the biggest financial stake in all this, has said that we won’t go back to normal until a vaccine has gotten out to the entire world.

Many world leaders are ready to follow Gates’ playbook, like Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who stated, “Normality as it was before will not come back full-on until we get a vaccine for this.”

And now some officials on the ground, those who are directing the logistics of a vaccine rollout, are telling us how imminent these plans may be. Let’s listen to the words of Dr. Allison Arwady, the head of Chicago’s Public Health Department, who tells us “We’ve already bought the syringes, we already know where it’s going to happen…”:

Defying Mandatory Vaccination Plans

In order to understand how you would be able to defy any initiatives that would attempt to force you or any of your family members to take any vaccines, or ingest or have anything injected into your body for that matter, it is important to grasp one of the most basic principles underlying life on Earth: each of us as individuals are free and sovereign beings. The only way someone can have any power over us is by our consent. Mostly without knowing it, we have consented to the entire political and legal structure that we believe has power over us. If you would like to dive more deeply into the broader discussion of this, please take a look at my series of articles on Natural Law here.

Keeping it within the context of mandatory vaccination, I would like to introduce you to Jerry Day, whose website FreedomTaker serves as a resource for those who would like to come to a better understanding of their sovereignty as individuals and learn about the practical defense of their innate liberty in our current society.

In the video below, Day gives a strong indictment against the Bill Gates/WHO vaccine agenda and its inherent risks to each of us personally, and explains what we need to do if we ever find ourselves being coerced by our government and medical establishment into taking a vaccine:

The first thing we must do is state our position clearly and on the record to those people who administer vaccines. We are certainly not protected if we haven’t even stated our position. You will see links to two free download documents at The first document is a requirement that all medical service and vaccine providers sign for you, to acknowledge the risks of vaccines, that they are causing that risk by offering vaccines, and that they accept full personal liability to pay for all damage they cause by administering a vaccine.

Of course, if vaccines were safe and effective, they would not hesitate to sign a liability agreement… [but] they know they are doing harm, so most likely, they will refuse to sign that document, and refuse to be responsible for the harm they cause. That refusal to sign is evidence that they know that vaccines have risk, and you therefore are fully within your rights to refuse the vaccine regardless of any legal mandates. That type of document is referred to as a ‘Conditional Acceptance.’ You agree to have a vaccine if they agree to pay for all damage you suffer. They will refuse to sign it. And that gives you the right to refuse their vaccine, because they failed to meet your reasonable requirements of safety.

Jerry Day helps us here to bring the matter back into the real-world situation: the actual person who is physically administering the vaccine is rightly seen as the one who needs to assume responsibility for any consequences of their actions, rather than simply being a compliant cog of a faceless medical industry. It is not hard to see that, once we all start to make those who are simply ‘doing their job’ carrying out the orders from above personally responsible for their actions, by and large they will not follow through and the whole control mechanism and ability to mandate anything falls apart.

The Takeaway

Perhaps the day will not come when you will be faced with having to refuse mandated vaccines for yourself or your family. However, coming to understand a way in which you can assert your inherent right of self-protection can be very empowering. Not only does it help give you confidence that you can assert your will in such a circumstance, it can broaden your understanding of your inalienable sovereignty. I believe if each of us is able to strengthen our sense of personal sovereignty and see that we are all co-creators of our collective experience, we will be much closer to bringing the world of our dreams into reality.