Puppetician Biden Pledges $9B More to Pfizer for COVID Shots. All Doses Continue to be Distributed as Emergency Use (Not FDA Approved) Enabling Legal Immunity for Any Injury Caused by the Injections

The federal government has given complete immunity to Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J for any injury caused by their Covid-19 vaccines.  That’s right: you cannot sue them if you are injured by their Covid-19 vaccine.  (See Note 1 to read the law yourself.)  So, while their product may not give you immunity, Pfizer and Moderna are guaranteed immunity.  Said immunity also shields doctors, hospitals and any other persons who administer or coerce people to take deadly COVID injections.

And it gets even worse.  These companies are even immune for – hold your breath – willful misconduct.  That may sound crazy, but it is shockingly true.  You can only sue them for willful misconduct if the federal government first sues them for such conduct.  (See Note 2 below to read the law yourself.)  And what are the odds the federal government will do so after wildly promoting the vaccine?  About as likely as the FDA ever admitting they promoted a vaccine that caused widespread harm. [MORE]

From [HERE] Is there any more doubt that the COVID-19 plandemic, which was used to transfer America’s wealth to Big Pharma with literally TRILLIONS of taxpayer funds transferred into their accounts, has now allowed Pfizer to have complete control of the country by buying the White House and President of the United States?

It began with fellow billionaire Donald Trump, of course, in 2020 who strong-armed the FDA into giving fast-track emergency use authorization to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

Then Biden was installed as President and kept the coffers full, and now that 80% of Americans have already received a COVID-19 vaccine and demand is waning, with 98 million doses of Pfizer’s vaccine currently sitting unused due to lack of demand, the call was put in to Joe this week to keep the faucet running, and the White House obliged and pledged another $9 BILLION for 300 million more doses of the deadly COVID-19 shots.

Trump and Biden might disagree on a lot of things, but Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines ain’t one of them. (Bitchute channel.)

The top three firms who hold the most stock in Pfizer are Vanguard, Blackrock, and State Street (source), and there probably are very few investment firms who do NOT own some Pfizer stock, so when you see officials with the FDA, CDC, and others promoting Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines, they are probably all shareholders and cashing in, as are most members of Congress (unfortunately, these records at opensecrets.org only go through 2018; it would be interesting to see from 2020 and later.)

Pfizer is already swimming in record profits, but that hasn’t stopped the drug company from gouging the American taxpayer for every last dollar.

On Wednesday, the Biden Administration signed off on a new vaccine supply deal with Pfizer for $3.2 billion for 105 million COVID injections, but that’s only for the first batch of mRNA shots. The contract will generate well over $9 billion for Pfizer, as this latest purchase agreement tops off at 300 million doses. Compared to previous settlements with Pfizer, this public-private no-bid arrangement will come at a much higher cost to the U.S. taxpayer.

The Biden Administration has justified the deal by claiming that it needs to restock supply to prepare for seasonal spikes. The data does not support such a claim. According to the CDC, almost 100 million taxpayer-funded Pfizer shots (and 169 million total shots) have gone unused, resulting in billions of dollars in waste.

The new arrangement allows for the Biden Administration to buy Pfizer’s authorization-pending COVID injections, which the company claims is reformulated for newer variants.

However, even the new formulation is already outdated. It was designed and trialed for an Omicron subvariant (BA.1) that was popular last Winter, but no longer exists in circulation, potentially rendering it just as useless as the Wuhan strain shot. The deal includes the infant and toddler formulations, which are based on the non-existent Wuhan strain.

None of the shots for this deal will be supplied under an FDA approved label. Instead, they will be distributed under emergency use authorization (EUA). Pfizer has never deployed its FDA-approved vaccine in the United States. The company recently acknowledged that it never intends on producing its original FDA approved vaccines.

The original deal with Pfizer was negotiated by the Trump Administration during the days of Operation Warpspeed. It paid the pharma giant $19.50 a dose. The new pact gives Pfizer $30.48 per dose, resulting in an astronomical 56% hike from the deal negotiated by the last administration.

The price hike conflicts with the probability that Pfizer’s costs are likely much lower than they were with the original purchase order. The infant and child shots have a fraction of the active agreement as the adult supply, and each vial stores more doses . Moreover, Pfizer has added an ingredient to the formula that allows for a significant shelf life extension, making the logistics much more cost effective.

Pfizer’s margins were already through the roof prior to the Wednesday announcement.

Pfizer’s May earnings report showed that the company logged a record breaking $26 billion in Q1 sales, marking a quarterly profit of $7.86 billion. Revenue was up 77% from 2021, while profit was up 61%. Now absorb these 2022 numbers in the context of Pfizer’s 2021 revenue outperforming its 2020 revenue by 95%.

Before the new vaccine purchase order, Pfizer was already on track to bring in over $100 billion in revenue and $32 billion in net income this year. In financial statements, the company has acknowledged that it has transformed itself into a COVID-19-driven business. All of its new income is coming from the American taxpayer and other government “customers” via their taxpayers, who have virtually no say in the matter. [MORE]

As Gas Prices Soar Biden Sent 5M Barrels of Oil from US Strategic Petroleum Reserves to China (other places) at No Cost. Dems Use the Jan 6th Unarmed, HonkeyKong Misdemeanor Insurrection to Distract

OVER PLAYING THEIR HAND. How many neuropeons were armed?? Nearly all charged with misdemeanors, such as trespass or disorderly. [MORE] One person died inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt. Despite being unarmed and presenting no physical threat to anyone, she was shot dead by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd. Fake news reports claimed that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was killed by rioters wielding a fire extinguisher. However, as George Parry reported at TheAmerican Spectator, Sicknick died on Jan. 7 of a stroke. The medical examiner found no evidence of physical trauma. Kevin Greeson, Benjamin Phillips, and Roseanne Boyland were all protesters who died outside of the Capitol building pursuant to ongoing health issues. [MORE]

From [HERE] More than 5 million barrels of oil that were part of a historic U.S. emergency reserves release to lower domestic fuel prices were exported to Europe and Asia last month, according to data and sources, even as U.S. gasoline and diesel prices hit record highs.

The export of crude and fuel is blunting the impact of the moves by U.S. President Joe Biden to lower record pump prices. Biden on Saturday renewed a call for gasoline suppliers to cut their prices, drawing criticism from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

About 1 million barrels per day is being released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) through October. The flow is draining the SPR, which last month fell to the lowest since 1986. U.S. crude futures are above $100 per barrel and gasoline and diesel prices above $5 a gallon in one-fifth of the nation. U.S. officials have said oil prices could be higher if the SPR had not been tapped.

"The SPR remains a critical energy security tool to address global crude oil supply disruptions," a Department of Energy spokesperson said, adding that the emergency releases helped ensure stable supply of crude oil.

The fourth-largest U.S. oil refiner, Phillips 66 (PSX.N), shipped about 470,000 barrels of sour crude from the Big Hill SPR storage site in Texas to Trieste, Italy, according to U.S. Customs data. Trieste is home to a pipeline that sends oil to refineries in central Europe.

Atlantic Trading & Marketing (ATMI), an arm of French oil major TotalEnergies (TTEF.PA), exported 2 cargoes of 560,000 barrels each, the data showed.

Phillips 66 declined to comment on trading activity. ATMI did not respond to a request for comment.

Cargoes of SPR crude were also headed to the Netherlands and to a Reliance (RELI.NS) refinery in India, an industry source said. A third cargo headed to China, another source said.

At least one cargo of crude from the West Hackberry SPR site in Louisiana was set to be exported in July, a shipping source added.

"Crude and fuel prices would likely be higher if (the SPR releases) hadn't happened, but at the same time, it isn't really having the effect that was assumed," said Matt Smith, lead oil analyst at Kpler.

The latest exports follow three vessels that carried SPR crude to Europe in April helping replace Russian crude supplies. read more

U.S. crude inventories are the lowest since 2004 as refineries run near peak levels. Refineries in the U.S. Gulf coast were at 97.9% utilization, the most in three and a half years.

The Second Scramble for Africa Under the Guise of “Conservation”

How the International Union for Conservation of Nature Congress continues be a farce, and perpetuates a fake conservation in Africa: basically the interests are just commerce. From [HERE] The International Union for Conservation of Nature Congress in September 2021 was a key platform for the elaboration of the European Union’s NaturAfrica plan, which aims to build on the contentious conservancy model of conservation in 31 African states. Mordecai Ogada reflects on his experiences at the congress, and whether Africa’s “… heritage salesmen and saleswomen are facilitating the second scramble for Africa delivered in the guise of conservation.”

Dear natives, do you know any conservationist who was in Marseille, France, in the last couple of weeks? If you’re a conscious African citizen, you need to ask them exactly what they were doing there and what they discussed at the IUCN World Conservation Congress. Personally, I was there as part of a group organizing resistance against the relentless advance of colonialism throughout the global South under the guise of conservation. Like most conservation conferences today, this meeting was full of backslapping and self-congratulatory nonsense exchanged between celebrities, politicians and business people. This is the ultimate irony because this is the group of people most responsible for the consumption patterns that have landed the world in the climate predicament we’re in today.

They created the most effective filter to keep out people from the global South (where most biodiversity exists), the students who may be learning new scientific lessons on conservation, and the independent-minded practitioners who would be there to share their views, rather than show their faces, flaunt their status and prostitute their credentials for the benefit of their benefactors. This filter was the registration fee. The cheapest rate was the “special members fee” which was 780 Euros.

While most of the Kenyan conservationists are now back from Marseille gushing about the beauty of the South of France (which is true), I come back home a worried man, even more perturbed than I was before about the march of colonialism under the guise of conservation. For any African proud of their heritage, this worry is heightened by the unending queue of Home Guards and Uncle Toms lining up to sing for the crumbs and leftovers from Massa’s table: the small jobs, big cars and trips to conferences where the only thing prominent about them is their dark complexion and not the intellectual content of their contributions. These heritage salesmen and saleswomen give themselves all sorts of fancy titles, but their brains are of no consequence to the European colonizers. They are as much props as the obviously (physically, mentally, both?) uncomfortable woman unfortunate (or foolish?) enough to have her ridiculous image carrying a pangolin used on the blueprint for the new Scramble for Africa.

The biggest thing out of Marseille was the European Union’s grand plan to capture Africa’s natural heritage through a program called NaturAfrica. Since they know that they have selected partners in Africa to whom prostitution comes easily, they drowned the announcement in noise about doubling of funding for conservation on Twitter.

In the first photo above, you can see the EU’s Philippe Mayaux presenting the audacious grand plan. He expressly stated that they are going to use the “Northern Rangelands Trust model” which has served them well thus far. I’ve been saying for the last 5 years that NRT is a model for colonialism and some invertebrates here have been breaking wind in consternation at my disrespect for their cult. The financiers have now said that it is a pilot for their planned acquisition of Africa’s natural heritage. What say you now? Who’s in charge of the plantation? Do the naïve majority now understand the violence in northern Kenya? Do the naïve majority now understand why foreign special forces are training armed personnel (outside our state security organs) to guard the so-called conservancies?

Following this extravagant declaration by Mayaux, the CEO of the NRT, Tom Lalampaa, barely containing his joy, took to the podium and gushed that “NaturAfrica will be welcomed by all Africans.” Only the irrational excitement brought on by Massa’s praises can cause a mere NGO director to purport to speak for the 1.3 billion inhabitants of the world’s second largest continent. Kwenda huko! Get out of here! We can see through the scheme!

On the map presented by Mayeux, youcan see the takeover plan (the dark green areas); Tsavo, Amboseli and Mkomazi in northern Tanzania is a colony of the WWF “Unganisha” program. To the west is The Nature Conservancy colony consisting of the Maasai Mara Wildlife Conservancies Association in Kenya, and the northern Tanzania Rangelands Initiative. The rest are the NRT colony (including the Rift Valley, which is clearly marked) and the oil fields in northern Kenya. East Africa’s entire Indian Ocean seascape is marked for acquisition; spare a thought for the island nations therein, because they have been swallowed whole. The plan has already been implemented around the Seychelles and documented.

I will repeat this as often as necessary: the biggest threat to the rights and sovereignty of African peoples in the 21st century is not military conflict, terrorism, disease, hunger, etc. It is organizations and governments that seek to dominate us through conservation. They will bring their expatriates, their militaries, and their policies. If you look at the map, the relatively “free” countries—like Nigeria, Congo, Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, etc.—are those where international conservation NGOs haven’t been able to get a foothold. Here in Kenya, our state agency, the Kenya Wildlife Services, is busy counting animals, not knowing that it is well on the way to becoming an irrelevant spectator in our conservation arena. If you think this is far-fetched, ask someone there why there are radioactive materials dumped by the Naro Moru gate to Mt. Kenya National Park. Or why the Kenya Forest Service is standing by without any policy position while the Rhino Ark goes on about fencing Mt. Kenya Forest, a UNESCO world heritage site. [MORE]

Western Nonprofits are Trampling Over Africans’ Rights and Land Indigenous People are Being Forced Out from so-called Protected Areas

From [HERE] The accelerating deterioration of the natural environment has manifested in devastating loss of biodiversity and extreme weather events posing existential threats to our world. As a concerted effort to address the twin issues of climate change and biodiversity loss, climate scientists and conservationists are advocating to double the coverage of protected areas by setting aside at least 30 percent of terrestrial cover for conservation by 2030.

The plan, known as Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, was initially proposed by Western non-profit conservation organizations, pushed by corporate donors, and supported by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Indigenous and human rights activists, however, are sounding the alarm, noting that the plan would further dispossess Indigenous lands for commodification under the guise of conservation. They are comparing the so-called 30×30 plan to the second scramble for Africa and a “colossal land grab as big as Europe’s colonial era” that will “bring as much suffering and death.”

Protected areas are all the national parks, game reserves, forest reserves, and myriad other places and spaces where states evict their original inhabitants to provide special protection from human interference. They already cover 15.73 percent of the world terrestrial surface—and two-thirds of that is within the global south. Within Africa, countries such as the Republic of Congo, Namibia, Tanzania, Zambia, and Guinea have each set aside between 36 to 42 percent of their national territories exclusively for wildlife and biodiversity conservation compared to nearly 13 percent in the United States.

Political ecologists Dan Brockington and Rosaleen Duffy point out that the most dramatic growth of protected areas in Africa was between 1985 and 1995, which coincides with the continent’s wave of global neoliberal economic policies. During that period, powerful institutions, notably the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, imposed structural adjustment plans all meant to reduce the power, reach, and interference of government and give industry greater freedom and less red tape surrounding natural resource use. As such, protected areas became a means to deliver, under coercive pressure, economic development through wildlife conservation and tourism that significantly contributed to the national economy.

Rogue Cops: The Supreme Court is Turning America Into a Constitution-Free Zone

Federal Cop Accountability Nearly Impossible after Supreme Ct Border Patrol Case: Constitutional Rights don’t apply fully w/in 100 miles of US borders But 2/3 of the US population lives w/in the Zone

From [DAVIDICKE] The Supreme Court has spoken: there will be no consequences for cops who brutalize the citizenry and no justice for the victims of police brutality.

Although the Court’s 2021-22 rulings on qualified immunity for police who engage in official misconduct were largely overshadowed by its politically polarizing rulings on abortion, gun ownership and religion, they were no less devastating.

The doctrine of qualified immunity was intended to insulate government officials from frivolous lawsuits, but the real purpose of qualified immunity is to ensure that government officials are not held accountable for official misconduct.

In Egbert v. Boule, the Court gave total immunity to Border Patrol agents who beat up a bed-and-breakfast owner, in the process carving out a massive exception to the Fourth Amendment for border police (and by extension, other federal police) who unconstitutionally use excessive force. As journalist Ian Millhiser concludes, “Egbert v. Boule is a severe blow to the proposition that law enforcement must obey the Constitution.”

In Cope v. Cogdill, the Court let stand a Fifth Circuit ruling that granted qualified immunity to jail officials who watched a suicidal inmate strangle himself without intervening or calling for help. Likewise, in Ramirez v. Guadarrama, the Court let stand a lower court ruling granting qualified immunity to police officers who fired their tasers at a suicidal man who had doused himself in gasoline, causing the man to burst into flames.

Both Cope and Ramirez move the goal posts for the kind of misconduct that merits qualified immunity, suggesting that even sheer incompetence is excusable when it involves a cop.

It’s a chilling reminder that in the American police state, ‘we the people’ are at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to ‘serve and protect.”

This is how unarmed Americans keep dying at the hands of militarized police.

Under the guise of qualified immunity, there have been no consequences for police who destroyed a private home by bombarding it with tear gas grenades during a SWAT team raid gone awry, or for the cop who mistakenly shot a 10-year-old boy after aiming for and missing the non-threatening family dog, or for the arresting officer who sicced a police dog on a suspect who had already surrendered.

Qualified immunity is how the police state stays in power.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982) that suing government officials for monetary damages is “the only realistic avenue” of holding them accountable for abusing their offices and violating the Constitution, it has ostensibly given the police and other government agents a green light to shoot first and ask questions later, as well as to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching motorists on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.

Make no mistake about it: this is what constitutes “law and order” in the American police state.

These are the hallmarks of a police state: where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

Unfortunately, we’ve been traveling this dangerous road for a long time now.

A review of critical court rulings over the past several decades, including rulings affirming qualified immunity protections for government agents by the U.S. Supreme Court, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order, protecting the ruling class, and insulating government agents from charges of wrongdoing than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Indeed, as Reuters reports, qualified immunity “has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights.” Worse, as Reuters concluded, “the Supreme Court has built qualified immunity into an often insurmountable police defense by intervening in cases mostly to favor the police.”

For instance, police can claim qualified immunity for warrantless searches. In Anderson v. Creighton, the Supreme Court ruled that FBI and state law enforcement agents were entitled to qualified immunity protections after they were sued for raiding a private home without a warrant and holding family members at gunpoint, all in a search for a suspected bank robber who was not in the house.

Police can claim qualified immunity for using excessive force against protesters. In Saucier v. Katz, the Court ruled in favor of federal law enforcement agents who forcefully tackled a protester as he attempted to unfurl a banner at Vice President Gore’s political rally. The Court reasoned that the officers acted reasonably given the urgency of protecting the vice president.

Police can claim qualified immunity for shooting a fleeing suspect in the back. In Brosseau v. Haugen, the Court dismissed a lawsuit against a police officer who shot Kenneth Haugen in the back as he entered his car in order to flee from police. The Court ruled that in light of existing case law, the cop’s conduct fell in the “hazy border between excessive and acceptable force” and so she did not violate clearly established law.

Police can claim qualified immunity for shooting a mentally impaired person. In City of San Francisco v. Sheehan, the Court ruled in favor of police who repeatedly shot Teresa Sheehan during the course of a mental health welfare check. The Court ruled that it was not unreasonable for police to pepper spray and shoot Sheehan multiple times after entering her room without a warrant and encountering her holding a knife.

Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. In Plumhoff v. Rickard, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that police officers who used deadly force to terminate a car chase were immune from a lawsuit. The officers were accused of needlessly resorting to deadly force by shooting multiple times at a man and his passenger in a stopped car, killing both individuals.

Police can stop, arrest and search citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. In a 5-3 ruling in Utah v. Strieff, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively gave police the go-ahead to embark on a fishing expedition of one’s person and property, rendering Americans completely vulnerable to the whims of any cop on the beat.

Police officers can stop cars based on “anonymous” tips or for “suspicious” behavior such as having a reclined car seat or driving too carefully. In a 5-4 ruling in Navarette v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that police officers, under the guise of “reasonable suspicion,” can stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior. Then in State v. Howard, the Kansas Supreme Court declared that motorists who recline their car seats are guilty of suspicious behavior and can be subject to warrantless searches by police. That ruling, coupled with other court rulings upholding warrantless searches and seizures by police renders one’s car a Constitution-free zone.

Americans have no protection against mandatory breathalyzer tests at a police checkpoint, although mandatory blood draws violate the Fourth Amendment (Birchfield v. North Dakota). Police can also conduct sobriety and “information-seeking” checkpoints (Illinois v. Lidster and Mich. Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz).

Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. In Maryland v. King, a divided U.S. Supreme Court determined that a person arrested for a crime who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty must submit to forcible extraction of their DNA. Once again the Court sided with the guardians of the police state over the defenders of individual liberty in determining that DNA samples may be extracted from people arrested for “serious” offenses. The end result of the ruling paves the way for a nationwide dragnet of suspects targeted via DNA sampling.

Police can use the “fear for my life” rationale as an excuse for shooting unarmed individuals. Upon arriving on the scene of a nighttime traffic accident, an Alabama police officer shot a driver exiting his car, mistakenly believing the wallet in his hand to be a gun. A report by the Justice Department found that half of the unarmed people shot by one police department over a seven-year span were “shot because the officer saw something (like a cellphone) or some action (like a person pulling at the waist of their pants) and misidentified it as a threat.”

Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes.” In Florida v. Harris, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court determined that police officers may use highly unreliable drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops. The ruling turns man’s best friend into an extension of the police state, provided the use of a K-9 unit takes place within a reasonable amount of time (Rodriguez v. United States).

Not only are police largely protected by qualified immunity, but police dogs are also off the hook for wrongdoing. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a police officer who allowed a police dog to maul a homeless man innocent of any wrongdoing.

Police can subject Americans to strip searches, no matter the “offense.” A divided U.S. Supreme Court actually prioritized making life easier for overworked jail officials over the basic right of Americans to be free from debasing strip searches. In its 5-4 ruling in Florence v. Burlington, the Court declared that any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a strip search by police or jail officials, which involves exposing the genitals and the buttocks. This “license to probe” is now being extended to roadside stops, as police officers throughout the country have begun performing roadside strip searches—some involving anal and vaginal probes—without any evidence of wrongdoing and without a warrant.

Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home. In an 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v. King, the U.S. Supreme Court placed their trust in the discretion of police officers, rather than in the dictates of the Constitution, when they gave police greater leeway to break into homes or apartments without a warrant. Despite the fact that the police in question ended up pursuing the wrong suspect, invaded the wrong apartment and violated just about every tenet that stands between us and a police state, the Court sanctioned the warrantless raid, leaving Americans with little real protection in the face of all manner of abuses by police.

Police can use knock-and-talk tactics as a means of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment. Aggressive “knock and talk” practices have become thinly veiled, warrantless exercises by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night. Andrew Scott didn’t even get a chance to say no to such a heavy-handed request before he was gunned down by policewho pounded aggressively on the wrong door at 1:30 a.m., failed to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shot and killed the man when he answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense.

Police can carry out no-knock raids if they believe announcing themselves would be dangerous.Police can perform a “no-knock” raid as long as they have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile or give occupants a chance to destroy evidence of a crime (Richards v. Wisconsin). Legal ownership of a firearm is also enough to justify a no-knock raid by police (Quinn v. Texas). For instance, a Texas man had his home subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household. The homeowner was actually shot by police through his closed bedroom door.

Police can recklessly open fire on anyone that might be “armed.” Philando Castile was shot and killed during a routine traffic stop allegedly over a broken taillight merely for telling police he had a conceal-and-carry permit. That’s all it took for police to shoot Castile four times in the presence of his girlfriend and her 4-year-old daughter. A unanimous Supreme Court declared in County of Los Angeles vs. Mendez that police should not be held liable for recklessly firing 15 times into a shack where a homeless couple had been sleeping because the grabbed his BB gun in defense, fearing they were being attacked.

Police can destroy a home during a SWAT raid, even if the owner gives their consent to enter and search it. In West v. Winfield, the Supreme Court provided cover to police after they smashed the windows of Shaniz West’s home, punched holes in her walls and ceilings, and bombed the house with so much tear gas that it was uninhabitable for two months. All of this despite the fact that the suspect they were pursuing was not in the house and West, the homeowner, agreed to allow police to search the home to confirm that.

Police can suffocate someone, deliberately or inadvertently, in the process of subduing them. “I can’t breathe” has become a rallying cry following the deaths of Eric Garner and George Floyd, both of whom died after being placed in a chokehold by police. Dozens more have died in similar circumstances at the hands of police who have faced little repercussions for these deaths.

Clearly, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the system is rigged.

Because the system is rigged, because the government is corrupt, and because the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently chosen to protect the police at the expense of the people, we are dealing with a nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence carried out with impunity against individuals posing little or no real threat.

This is how “we the people” keep losing.

Chauvin Gets 21 Years for Violating Floyd’s Civil Rights

A GLOBAL SPELL AGAINST RACISM WHITE SUPREMACY, GENOCIDE, WHITE FRAGILITY, GENTHANASIA AND POLICE BRUTALITY

From [HERE] A federal judge on Thursday sentenced Derek Chauvin to 21 years in prison for violating George Floyd’s civil rights, telling the former Minneapolis police officer that what he did was “simply wrong” and “offensive.”

U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson sharply criticized Chauvin for his actions on May 25, 2020, when the white officer pinned Floyd to the pavement outside a Minneapolis corner store for more than nine minutes even as the Black man pleaded, “I can't breathe,” and became unresponsive. Floyd’s killing sparked protests worldwide in a reckoning over police brutality and racism.

It's a Good Thing the Cop who Killed Tamir Rice Quit His Job b/c Police Can't be Fired or Hired by the Public and Their Authority Over People is Uncontrollable While They Provide Compulsory "Services"

FUCK THE GOVERNMENT TOO. From [HERE] The former Cleveland officer who fatally shot 12-year-old Tamir Rice in 2014 resigned Thursday as the lone police officer in a small Pennsylvania town, two days after his swearing-in sparked backlash from residents and the mayor.

Timothy Loehmann withdrew his application to be a Tioga, Pa., officer Thursday morning, according to the town’s website, and the mayor called for three borough council members to resign over their roles in the hiring.

Loehmann was sworn in Tuesday after a unanimous vote by the council, the Williamsport Sun-Gazette reported. The newspaper and other local media were told the town was hiring an officer by the name of Timothy Lochmann.

Council President Steve Hazlett clarified on Facebook on Wednesday that the officer hired to represent the borough of about 700 people was Loehmann, who was fired from the Cleveland Police Department in 2017 for lying on his job application but faced no criminal charges connected to Rice’s death. Rice was carrying a pellet gun at a playground when Loehmann fatally shot him in November 2014, spurring nationwide protests over law enforcement’s use of deadly force against Black people. [MORE]

Judge Orders the Government of Uruguay and Pfizer to Turn Over Documents as Court Considers Request to Halt COVID Injections for Kids

From [CHD] Uruguayan government officials and Pfizer on Wednesday appeared in court after a judge gave them 48 hours to present detailed information on Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine while the court considers an injunction request to halt COVID-19 vaccinations for children 5 and older.

Judge Alejandro Recarey of the Administrative Litigation Tribunal used his inquisitorial powers to demand the Uruguayan Ministry of Public Health, State Health Services Administration and the President’s Office submit all information regarding the contracts for the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines, including contractual information related to any clauses of civil indemnity or criminal impunity of the suppliers in the event of adverse effects.

According to a court order released on Saturday, Judge Recarey ordered Pfizer and government officials to:

• Provide full and unredacted, certified copies of “each and every one of the purchase contracts (as well as any other related negotiation agreement), of the so-called anti-COVID vaccines that you have signed, own or are simply within your reach.”

• Explain whether “these instruments” contain clauses of “civil indemnity and/or criminal impunity of the suppliers regarding the occurrence of possible adverse effects.”

• Provide extensive detail about the biochemical composition of “so-called vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in supply to the national population, especially the one aimed at children.”

• Explain if the “different doses are distributed in batches or differential (different) items,” and if so, “clarify for what reason, and based on what criteria, each would be provided to different population levels, whether the drugs in each batch are diverse by their content and how and for whom they would be distinguishable. If it “turns out to be the real existence of different lots,” doses of each are “requested for judicial expert examination.”

• Specify if the “so-called vaccines” contain messenger RNA by explaining, if necessary, what that means. Explain what “therapeutic or extra therapeutic consequences — adverse or not — [mRNA] can have for the person inoculated with it. It must be specified with regard to the latter, and in a negative hypothesis in terms of alleged damages, if there is indeed — with scientific rigor — the possible safety of the messenger RNA, or if there is simply a lack of information on the point.”

• State “very specifically and beyond what has been inquired, it is requested that it be said if it is known to you that those labeled as vaccines contain or may contain nanotechnological elements. Clarifying, if not, whether such a temperament would arise from an effective verification of its absence, or from mere ignorance of the components of the referred ‘vaccinal’ substances.”

• Certify whether the substances contained in the “so-called vaccines” supplied in Uruguay are experimental or not. That is, “explain in full and detail whether they are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or equivalent body, according to the usual protocols, or if they have some other type of emergency permission.” If this is the case, explain “granted by whom and with what guarantees and based on what regulations.”

In short, you “must also respond if you are aware that either the manufacturer and/or supplier, or any academic or governmental body (domestic or foreign), have admitted — in any way that may be — the experimental nature of the aforementioned vaccines.”

• Present complete and up-to-date information in your possession about “what is scientifically known — and what is not known — about the effectiveness of those labeled as vaccines” and their possible short, medium and long-term adverse effects.

• “Provide official figures that demonstrate the negative or positive incidence of so-called vaccination in the number of infections and deaths diagnosed with COVID from the beginning of the campaign to date.”

• State whether “studies have been carried out to explain the noticeable increase in deaths for COVID-19 since March 2021 or if information is in your possession — with sufficient scientific support and evidence — about it.”

• Provide information on the total number of deaths in Uruguay due to COVID-19 since the beginning of the “so-called pandemic,” the global average age and how many were for “COVID-19 in an exclusive causal relationship” and how many were “with COVID-19” — that is, with the presence of the virus, but was not the main cause of death.

• “Demonstrate scientifically — with evidence of national or international studies that have been done — whether the status of non-vaccinated poses a health hazard to the entire population or third parties.“

If it is the case, two other things will be required: the determination and demonstration of the degree of danger, and the reason that explains why, if this were eventually the case,” vaccination would not have been mandated. Prove whether both the vaccinated and unvaccinated infect equally. If they do not, explain what this would be like and in what proportions — and prove what is stated.

• Clarify the reasons for the “lack of preview informed consent, in relation to the act components of what the government itself presents as a vaccination campaign.”

• “Detail, with first and last names, the identity of the professional technicians who have directed and direct the aforementioned campaign, or anyone who has provided advice at any level.”

Also provide relevant data for their location “for their judicial interrogation, adding to the required information, data about whether any of them are part of any foreign governmental or para governmental organization, or they have worked for one of them in any way, or, where appropriate, manage in a multinational company” focused on healthcare. “Detail, if necessary, the personal names and organizations or companies involved.”

• Explain if alternative therapies for COVID-19 have been studied for any variants. If not, clarify why those were not explored. “If positive, give the research results — giving an account of whether those were used in Uruguay or not.”

For the latter option, provide the reasons that would have been taken to discard the use of alternative therapies, adding whether or not “you know that they have been used in other countries successfully, still relative, or not.”

The order also required Pfizer to state within 48 hours whether it has “admitted, in any area, internal or external to it and its partners, the verification of adverse effects” of its COVID-19 vaccines in children.

“I applaud Uruguayan judge Recarey for posing many tough questions to Pfizer over its COVID shots and the contracts it imposed on Uruguay,” Mary Holland, president of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), told The Defender in an email.

“From the beginning, Pfizer has hidden its data and liability-free contracts to avoid liability from the shots,” Holland said.

She explained:

“Many countries, including those in Latin America, have relied on U.S. regulatory agencies in the past to guide health policy. But the U.S. regulatory bodies have failed regarding COVID.

“There is no scientific or ethical justification to authorize COVID shots for children, as some countries, including Denmark, now acknowledge. We know that children are at almost zero risk of dying from COVID. The FDA has extended Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine while illegitimately ‘approving’ Comirnaty, thus engaging in a fraudulent ‘bait-and-switch’ scheme to avoid all liability while hawking ‘approved’ vaccines.”

Holland said CHD is currently pursuing two lawsuits against the FDA for its arbitrary and capricious decisions on COVID-19 shots, and she is “pleased to see that other countries are stepping into the scientific and legal breach.”

“I hope Pfizer complies with the judge’s order, but given its long criminal rap sheet, it remains to be seen,” Holland added.

Although Judge Racarey took it upon himself to review data presented by Pfizer and government officials on COVID-19 vaccines, Uruguay is one of 47 co-sponsoring countries that agreed to the Biden administration’s amendments to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2005 International Health Agreements that attempted to place member states’ health sovereignty in the hands of WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and its regional directors. [MORE]

76 UK Doctors Sign Open Letter to Government Warning Against COVID Injections

From [HERE] A group of 76 physicians have penned an open letter to Her Majesty’s government warning against following in the footsteps of the United States, whose Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as six months. 

The letter, posted by world-renowned scientist Dr. Robert Malone, began by saying that the “balance of benefit and risk” in administering the vaccine to small children is “totally inappropriate”, citing the very low risk and very high immunity young children have. 

Then the physicians attacked Pfizer’s documentation used to convince the FDA to allow small children to be vaccinated. 

To begin with, “the protocol was changed mid-trial. The original two-dose schedule exhibited poor immunogenicity with efficacy far below the required standard. A third dose was added by which time many of the original placebo recipients had been vaccinated.” 

Second, no statistical significance was found between the placebo groups and vaccinated groups, and the results were based on only three participants in the younger age group, and seven in the 2-4-year-olds. 

Third, the calculated vaccine efficacy is only 15%. 

The letter also added that in the immunogenicity studies against Omicron, only 66 children were tested a full month after the third dose. 

“It is incomprehensible that the FDA considered that this represents sufficient evidence on which to base a decision to vaccinate healthy children,” wrote the physicians. They highlighted other gaps in Pfizer’s research, and noted that countries like Sweden, Holland and Norway are not injecting small children who have had COVID-19. 

The meticulously sourced letter cited several studies and data to build a case based on a) the extremely low risk from COVID-19 in young children; b) the vaccine’s low efficacy; c) the potential harms of the vaccines, drawing data from Pfizer’s own study; d) the lack of informed consent which “borders on misinformation”; and e) the effect on public confidence when the government pushes a COVID-19 vaccine instead of those “against much more serious diseases, such as polio and measles.” 

“Pushing an unnecessary and novel, gene-based vaccine on to young children risks seriously undermining parental confidence in the whole immunization program.” 

Furthermore, the “poor quality of the data presented by Pfizer” risks undermining public confidence in regulators and the pharmaceutical industry. 

The physicians also took a swipe at the vaccine for older children: 

“In older children, for whom the vaccines are already licensed, they have been promoted via ethically dubious schemes to the potential detriment of other, and vital, parts of the childhood vaccination program.” 

“For a tiny minority of children for whom the potential for benefit clearly and unequivocally outweighed the potential for harm, vaccination could have been facilitated by restrictive licenses,” the letter concluded. “Whether following the precautionary principle or the instruction to First Do No Harm, such vaccines have no place in a routine childhood immunization program.” 

A Curated List of 750 Studies On the Dangers of COVID-19 Injections

'NO ANSWERS, JUST LIES.' 6 Year Old Black Child Severely Injured After Getting COVID Injection. Diagnosed with Myocarditis. Docs Recommended the Shot, Said it was "Safe," Now Refuse to Discuss it

From [HERE] Kyle Beattie has shared this extensive curated list of literature references on COVID-19 “vaccine” adverse effects from 2021 and early 2022.

It can be downloaded [PDF] or seen here or here

Not on this list is Kyle’s own study, which however is very important and illuminating nevertheless:

Beattie, K.A. (2021) Worldwide Bayesian Causal Impact Analysis of Vaccine Administration on Deaths and Cases Associated with COVID-19: A Big Data Analysis of145 Countries. ResearchGate (preprint) https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34214.65605

Kyle’s study shows that in the vast majority of countries that deployed the gene-based vaccines, all cause mortality increased promptly and significantly.

Video of a Fleeing, Unarmed Man Getting Shot 60 Times Doesn't Establish Probable Cause for Murder? White Ohio AG Unsure About Charging White Cops, 'Probably Cause' Jayland Walker Was Black

Unlike microwave mass murders which are instantly solved/charged without any video, here, David Yost, the white republican ag wants to take his time because this video recorded event is no false flag. Will he serve the public or the public’s masters? He said

"People want and deserve answers, and they shall have them. BCI will conduct a complete, fair and expert investigation," Yost said, referring to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation's handling of the inquiry. "Body-worn camera footage is just one view of the whole picture – before drawing conclusions, the full review must take place. The goal is the truth, and we need to talk to anyone who knows anything. Silence will never produce justice."

Massacre of Jayland Walker Sounded Like Fireworks. On Video an Army of Lathered-Up, White Akron Cops Shot Unarmed Black Man 60 Times as He Fled on Foot. Cops Claim He Didn't Stop for an Unknown Traffic Violation. Above is one bodycam video. According to police eight officers, seven of whom were white, were actively involved in the incident, however over a dozen or more appear on video.

Pressed by reporters for evidence that Walker had fired a gun from his car, Chief Mylett said police had returned to the area where they believe Walker had fired from his car after the incident and found a bullet casing "consistent with a firearm that Mr. Walker had in his vehicle."

Ohio's Bureau of Criminal Investigation, which is investigating the shooting, has not confirmed any of these details.

Such details are fabricated misdirection and distraction from the only material issue of whether the black man posed a threat as he fled from police. He had no object in his hand and the cops never saw a gun, because it was on the car seat.

Only Barbarians Would Handcuff a Corpse. Akron Cops Handcuffed Jayland Walker After Shooting Him 60 Times. According to the Autopsy report, His Body Arrived Cuffed at Coroner's Office

According to FUNKTIONARY:

authoritarian – any humanthropoid who has been reared and formally educated (in form over reality, iron rule over golden rule, coercion over contract, and law over humanity) in such a manner that at the normal time of maturity, character structure has become impuissant and ineffective. 2) a humanoid—a human still operating as a creature from its animal instincts, not its human potential. (See: Political Power, Iron Rule & Golden Rule)

authoritarians – the great unweaned of the world. 2) violentists. 3) ‘reality-violaters.’ 4) uniform (costume-wearing) and non-costume wearing purveyors of the absolute worst crimes against humanity. 5) the coercive class within an economic and social caste-based society. While the State is a military formation, it is first and foremost a fruit of justice—not to be confused with (or extrapolated to imply or mean that) justice is a seed of the State. There is a high correlation between justice systems and the development or proliferation of the State. (See: Justice, Government, Political Power, Iron Rule, Conflict, Tyrannolaw, Control, BOG, Statists, Power, Tyranny, Force Continuum, Psychopaths & Violence)

From [HERE] Jayland Walker was handcuffed behind his back when his body arrived at the coroner's office to be processed as part of the investigation into the officers who shot and killed him in Akron last week, according to a medical examiner's report that was reviewed by CNN.

The preliminary report by the Summit County Medical Examiner's Office contains several pages of thumbnail photos showing Walker dead and handcuffed at the scene and after his body arrived at the coroner's office.

The photos also contain evidence of lifesaving efforts, including what appear to be tourniquets and bandages attached to and lying around his body.

CNN was granted permission to review the report after making a formal request, but was not allowed to make copies of its contents per office policy.

A final autopsy report will be turned over to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigations, which is investigating any criminal wrongdoing by the officers. The autopsy report will be part of what the state attorney general's office considers for presenting a case to a grand jury.

Walker was killed in the early morning hours of June 27 after he fled what police said was an attempted traffic stop, leading officers on an 18-minute car chase and then a brief foot chase. It ended after he quickly stopped and officers believed he was reaching toward his waist, and "felt that Mr. Walker had turned and was motioning and moving into a firing position," officials have said.

Eight officers fired dozens of bullets resulting in more than 60 gunshot wounds, officials have said.

Photos taken at the medical examiner's office hours after the shooting show Walker in the body bag and subsequently on the examining table. The photos show dozens of gunshot wounds from his ankle to his cheek on both sides of his body.

Photographs in the report also show items such as Walker's driver's license and a bloodied set of handcuffs.

The Walker family attorney on Tuesday said he was sickened after watching the bodycam footage. "It's devastating to see a young life taken in this rabid, crazy way," Bobby diCello told CNN.

"He was unarmed and I'm going to echo exactly what the (police) chief said: Each one of those bullets -- and there were over 90 of them -- have to be accounted for and have to be shown to be meaningfully shot."

Dr Palmer: mRNA Vaccines Don’t Stay at the Injection Site and Quickly Exit the Body. It Spreads to Organs, Causes the Immune System to Attack Blood Cells. Remains in the Body and is Copied into DNA

From [HERE] Dr. Michael Palmer, MD, summarizes the evidence from autopsies which was produced by pathologist Prof. Arne Burkhardt and colleagues, and which substantiates the damage mechanism outlined by Dr. Bhakdi in his preceding talk: the mRNA vaccine is taken up into our body cells, which express the spike protein and are then attacked and destroyed by our own immune system. The observed mechanism of immune attack appears to be completely general and must be expected to apply to future mRNA vaccines against infections other than COVID as well.

Dr Sucharit Bhakdi: Whether COVID Shots are Stopped or Not, the Introduction of mRNA Injectables for Routine Use as Conventional Vaccines Will Destroy People’s Immune Systems, Causing Mass Murder

mRNA vaccines pose a serious threat to mankind From [HERE] To open the symposium, Immunologist and Former Chair at the Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Professor Sucharit Bhakdi MD, explained how and why mRNA injections pose a mortal danger to their recipients, irrespective of the disease for which they are deployed. He called the decision to use the deadly COVID spike protein for the first mRNA rollout a uniquely brilliant tactic, under which the inherent dangers of mRNA technology can hide.

The reality, Dr Bhakdi explained, is that mRNA technology – spike protein or not – perverts the genetic functioning of the body’s cells by instructing them to produce disease fragments. This transforms our own cells and tissues from ‘self’ into ‘non-self’, inviting the immune system to attack. It is a recipe for medical disaster that turns the body against itself. Dr Bhakdi called the plan to roll out the underlying mRNA technology from COVID-19 to conventional vaccines:

“The greatest conceivable man-made catastrophe of all time… Routine introduction of gene-based vaccines spells the downfall of man and mankind.”

Birth Rates Dropping in Multiple Countries Following Mass COVID Injection Rollout Last Year

GERMANY

From [Kanekoa] Germany reported a 13% decline in births between January and March 2022 compared to the same period in 2021.

The United Kingdom reported a 7.7% decline in births with 75,670 births between January and February 2022 compared to 82,042 births during the same period in 2021.

In Switzerland, birth rates have also plummeted since the introduction of the covid vaccines.

Taiwan reported a 23.2% decline in births in May 2022 compared to the same month in 2021.

Igor Chudov, the author of a popular covid newsletter wrote, “When expressed in “sigmas”, units of standard deviation, the 23.24% drop in the birth rate in Taiwan is a 26-sigma event! This is can be described as “unimaginable” in terms of the likelihood of happening due to random chance.”

Sweden

Sweden, without lockdown and school closures, reported a 6.6% decline with 35,454 births between January and April 2022 compared to 37,950 births during the same period in 2021.

The decline in birth rates is 6.9% for that same time period when compared to the average of 2019-2021.

Netherlands

Netherlands reported a 6.3% decline with 53,090 births between January and April 2022 compared to 56,671 births during the same period in 2021.

In conclusion, data from around the world shows a substantial monthly decrease in birth rates from January 2022 to April 2022 compared to previous years.

Biodistribution studies show that Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine lipid nanoparticles do end up in the ovaries and testes and subsequent studies have shown that covid-19 and covid vaccines lower sperm counts. [MORE]

COVID Shots Are Driving Reinfections: Pfizer’s pediatric trial revealed the shots raise the risk of Reinfection. Moderna’s trial suggests the shots make adults more prone to repeat COVID infections

From [MERCOLA] STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• COVID-19 is more than twice as prevalent among the boosted, compared to those who quit after the initial series. Those with a primary series plus one or two booster shots are catching the infection at a rate of 119.94 per 100,000, while those with the primary series only have an infection rate of 56.44 per 100,000

• Pfizer’s pediatric trial reveals the shots raise, rather than lower, the risk of reinfection (meaning catching COVID more than once). In all, 12 of the children in Pfizer’s trial were diagnosed with COVID twice within the follow-up period (one to four months). Of those, 11 had received two or three jabs; only one unvaccinated child got COVID twice

• Data from Moderna’s trial also suggest the shot makes adults more prone to repeat COVID infections, thanks to an inhibited antibody response

• In Pfizer’s pediatric trial, six of the children, aged 2 to 4 years, in the vaccinated group were diagnosed with “severe COVID,” compared to just one in the placebo group. So, the shot may actually cause more severe infection in young children

• In mid-June 2022, Israel experienced a sudden 70% spike in seriously ill COVID patients. The spike is being blamed on a new variant mutated from Omicron, referred to as BA.5., which is thought to be more resistant to vaccines than previous strains

Believe it or not, we’re now at the point where even mainstream media are reporting that COVID-19 is more prevalent among the boosted, compared to those who quit after the initial series. That doesn’t mean that sanity is returning; it’s just interesting that they’re not able to ignore it completely, even though their efforts to rationalize it teeter on the verge of lunacy. June 6, 2022, CBS News reported:1

“As COVID-19 cases began to accelerate again this spring, federal data suggests the rate of breakthrough COVID infections in April was worse in boosted Americans compared to unboosted Americans ...

Meanwhile, federal officials are also preparing for key decisions on future COVID-19 vaccine shots ... In the short term, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky recently told reporters that her agency was in talks with the Food and Drug Administration about extending the option for second boosters to more adults.”

If Walensky’s logic makes your brain feel like it’s been beat with a meat mallet, you’re not alone. It’s so beyond irrational as to be inexplicable. If boosters make you more prone to infection, is giving boosters to more people really the prudent answer?

Three Doses Makes You More Infection-Prone Than Two

Overall, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s new COVID dashboard2 show boosted Americans are catching COVID at nearly twice the rate of the unboosted — a statistic John Moore, professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medical College, attributes to the boosted feeling “more protected than they actually are,” and therefore taking fewer precautions.3

Considering we know that masks, social distancing and lockdowns don’t work to prevent infection spread, Moore’s explanation is flimsy at best. It’s far more reasonable to conclude that the COVID injections are the problem.

According to the CDC, the unvaccinated still account for a majority of positive COVID tests, at a rate of 188.2 per 100,000 as of April 23, 2022. Those with a primary series plus one or two booster shots are catching the infection at a rate of 119.94 per 100,000, while those with the primary series clock in at a rate of 56.44 per 100,000.

Of course, CBS is careful to note that “The new data do not mean booster shots are somehow increasing the risk” of COVID, but rather that “the shift underscores the growing complexity of measuring vaccine effectiveness at this stage of the pandemic.”4

CBS also misleadingly claims that while the boosted have more than double the rate of infections of the unboosted, it’s still “but a fraction of the levels among unvaccinated Americans.” However, 120 (rounded up from 119.94) is hardly “but a fraction” of 188. At 64% of the unvaccinated rate, using the term “a fraction of” seems like an intentional attempt to downplay just how common COVID is getting among the boosted.

COVID Jab Also Causes Repeat Reinfections

In related news, Pfizer’s pediatric trial reveals the shots raise rather than lower the risk of reinfection (meaning catching COVID more than once).

In his Substack article,5 “Finally Proven: Pfizer Vaccine Causes COVID Reinfection, Disables Natural Immunity,” Igor Chudov — a businessman and mathematician6 — points to the black-and-white data on page 38 of the documentation7 submitted to the FDA for its COVID jab Emergency Use Authorization request for use in children 6 months through 4 years of age. Here’s a screen shot with Chudov’s markings and notes:

In all, 12 of the children in Pfizer’s trial were diagnosed with COVID twice within the follow-up period, which ranged from one to four months. Of those, 11 had received two or three jabs; only one child in the placebo (unvaccinated) group got COVID twice.

“So, what caused vaccinated children to develop a disproportionate amount of repeat infections? The vaccine, of course. It’s a randomized controlled trial, after all,” Chudov writes.8

“Thanks to Pfizer, we finally know that COVID reinfections are real and that their vaccine causes them by disabling natural immunity. A little caveat is that Pfizer made the trial purposely complicated (because it is a resuscitated FAILED trial where they added one more booster dose and more kids).

Pfizer vaccinated the control group. This complication somewhat affects the 6-23-month age category, but still shows obvious vaccine failure. The 2-4-year-old group is much less complicated: all reinfections happened in the vaccinated participants, five of six were from the first-vaccinated group.

‘All of these participants received 3 doses of assigned study intervention, except for one participant ... who received two doses.’ We have a smoking gun that reinfections are vaccine driven.”

This post-jab reinfection anomaly has also been stressed by Dr. Clare Craig, a diagnostic pathologist,9 who reviewed some of the most damning data from Pfizer’s pediatric trial in a recent video (below).

Moderna Data Also Show Repeated Infections Are Likely

Data from Moderna’s trial also suggest the shot makes adults more prone to repeat infections, thanks to an inhibited antibody response. A preprint study10 11 posted on medRxiv April 19, 2022, found adult participants in Moderna’s trial who got the real injection, and later got a breakthrough infection, did not generate antibodies against the nucleocapsid — a key component of the virus — as frequently as did those in the placebo arm.

Placebo recipients produced anti-nucleocapsid antibodies twice as often as those who got the Moderna shot, and their anti-nucleocapsid response was larger regardless of the viral load. As a result of their inhibited antibody response, those who got the jab may be more prone to repeated COVID infections.

These findings are further corroborated by data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. It publishes weekly COVID-19 vaccine surveillance data, including anti-nucleocapsid antibody levels. The report12 13 for Week 13, issued March 31, 2022, shows that COVID-jabbed individuals with breakthrough infections indeed have lower levels of these antibodies.

Pfizer’s Data Do Not Support Use in Children

Another crucial piece of information that Craig highlights in her video is that of the 4,526 children enrolled in the trial, a whopping 3,000 dropped out. Pfizer does not explain this highly suspicious anomaly. Oftentimes, trial participants will drop out when side effects are too severe for them to continue.

Drug companies will also sometimes exclude participants who develop side effects they’d rather not divulge. This is one of those nasty loopholes that can skew results. Here, we don’t know why two-thirds of the participants were eliminated, and “on that basis alone, this trial should be deemed null and void,” Craig says. Pfizer’s pediatric trial data also show that:

• Six of the children, aged 2 to 4 years, in the vaccinated group were diagnosed with “severe COVID,” compared to just one in the placebo group. So, the likelihood the shot is causing severe COVID is higher than the likelihood that it’s preventing it.

• The only child who required hospitalization for COVID was also in the “vaccinated” group.

• In the three weeks following the first dose, 34 of the children in the vaccinated group and 13 of the unvaccinated children were diagnosed with COVID. That means the children’s risk of developing symptoms of COVID within the first three weeks of the first dose actually increased by 30%. These data were ignored.

  Between doses two and three, there was an eight-week gap, and the vaccinated arm again experienced higher rates of COVID. This too was ignored. After the third dose, incidence of COVID was again raised in the vaccine group, and this was ignored as well.

  In the end, they only counted three cases of COVID in the vaccine arm and seven cases in the placebo group. They literally ignored 97% of all the COVID cases that occurred during the trial to conclude that the shots were “effective” in preventing COVID.

More Evidence of Vaccine Failure

There’s really no shortage of evidence indicating the COVID shots are a complete failure and should be stopped immediately. One example I haven’t reviewed in previous articles is the difference between Portugal and Bulgaria.In his article, Chudov14 presents the following graph from Our World in Data, which shows the rate of new COVID cases in these two countries. The vaccination rate in Portugal is 95%, whereas Bulgaria’s is 30%. Guess which country has the higher COVID case rate? The graph speaks for itself.

In mid-June 2022, The Times of Israel also reported15 a sudden 70% spike in seriously ill COVID patients from one week to the next. According to Reuters’ COVID data tracker,16 Israel has administered enough doses to vaccinate 100.4% of its population with two doses, so it has one of the highest vaccine uptake rates in the world.

“Despite a significant increase in antibodies after the fourth vaccine, this protection is only partially effective against the Omicron strain, which is relatively resistant to the vaccine.” ~ Professor Gili Regev-Yochay

In mid-January 2022, Israel reported17 a fourth dose (second booster) was “only partially effective” against Omicron. Lead researcher, professor Gili Regev-Yochay, told reporters, “Despite a significant increase in antibodies after the fourth vaccine, this protection is only partially effective against the Omicron strain, which is relatively resistant to the vaccine.”

The latest spikes in both Israel and Portugal are being blamed on a new variant mutated from Omicron, referred to as BA.5.18 According to The Times of Israel,19coronavirus czar Dr. Salman Zarka said “the new variant BA.5 is quickly gaining traction and is more resistant to vaccines than previous strains.” So, what’s Israel’s answer? More shots to encourage “herd immunity” and more mask wearing.

Natural Immunity Versus the COVID Jab

An analysis of the Omicron wave in Qatar is also illustrative of vaccine failure. June 21, 2022, The Epoch Times reported20 on the study,21 published the week before in the New England Journal of Medicine. In summary:

• People with previous infection (natural immunity) and no COVID jab had 50.2% immunity against symptomatic BA.1 infection (a subvariant of Omicron) for at least 324 days. Against the BA.2 variant, natural immunity was 46.1%

• People with no previous infection (no natural immunity) who got two doses of the Pfizer shot had immunity against BA.1 infection ranging from −16.4% on the low end to 5.4% on the high end on day 268 after the last dose. The average was -4.9%. Against the BA.2 variant, immunity was -1.1% on average. Most entered the negative ranges around the six-month mark

• The effectiveness of three doses and no previous infection against BA.1 was 59.6%, which persisted for at least 42 days (the extent of the follow-up). Against BA.2, immunity topped out at 52.2%

Though the authors’ conclusion was that there were “No discernable differences in protection” between vaccination and natural immunity, ask yourself which you would rather have: 50% immunity for at least 10 months, or 50% immunity for about six months followed by an increased risk of infection (negative protection) thereafter?

Clearly, if your goal is to avoid infection, you would avoid anything that will — immediately or in the future — raise your risk. Yet, in the upside-down world we now find us in, the answer continues to be: “Get another shot.”

As discussed in “FDA and Pfizer Knew COVID Shot Caused Immunosuppression,” Pfizer’s trial data also reveal they’ve not ruled out the risk of antibody-dependent enhancement, and vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED) is listed22 as an “Important Potential Risk.” (ADE and VAED are two terms that basically refer to the same thing — worsened disease post-injection.)

So, not only are you at increased risk of COVID infection, and repeated reinfections, if you get the jab — especially if you get boosted — but you may also experience more severe illness, which is the opposite of what anyone would want. U.K. government data show that, compared to the unvaccinated, those who have received two doses are:23

• Up to three times more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19

• Twice more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19

• Three times more likely to die of COVID-19

Final Thoughts

In closing, it’s clear there are no long-term benefits to the COVID jabs, only risk. How much more data do we need before our health agencies snap to and start protecting public health?

I don’t have an answer to that question, seeing how nothing works the way it’s supposed to anymore. Our health agencies have been captured by the drug industry and have basically gone rogue. They ignore even the most basic rules and ethics nowadays.

Something will clearly need to be done about that, but until then, the best advice I have is to take control of your own health and make decisions based on actual data rather than corporate press releases.

If you’ve already taken one or more COVID jabs and now regret it, first, the most important step you can take is to not take any more shots. Next, if you suspect your health may have been impacted, check out the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’s (FLCCC) post-vaccine treatment protocol, I-RECOVER,24 which you can download from covid19criticalcare.com in several different languages.

Footnotes
1

CBS June 6, 2022

2

CDC COVID Dashboard

3

CBS June 6, 2022

4

CBS June 6, 2022

5

Igor Chudov Substack June 19, 2022

6

Igor.chudov.com

7

FDA VRBPAC June 15, 2022

8

Igor Chudov Substack June 19, 2022

9

Twitter Clare Craig

10

medRxiv April 19, 2022 DOI: 10.1101/2022.04.18.22271936

11

The Defender May 4, 2022

12

UK Health Security Agency COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report Week 13

13

The Defender May 4, 2022

14

Igor Chudov Substack June 19, 2022

15

Times of Israel June 17, 2022

16

Reuters COVID Data Tracker, Israel

17

Health Policy Watch January 17, 2022

18

Times of Israel June 17, 2022

19

Times of Israel June 17, 2022

20

Epoch Times June 21, 2022 (Archived)

21

NEJM June 15, 2022 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2203965

22

5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports, Page 11, Table 5

23

Daily Expose April 3, 2022

24

FLCCC I-RECOVER Post-Vaccine Treatment Protocol (PDF)

A New Analysis of "Vaccine" Trial Data shows that Pfizer, Moderna Shots are More Likely to Cause Serious Injury Than Reduce Risk of COVID Related Hospitalization

By [Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.] A new analysis of Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine trial data shows the risk of serious injury following the vaccine is greater than the reduction in COVID-19 hospitalizations, according to a study posted June 23 on Social Science Research Network.

“Combining the trials, there was a 43% increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest and an absolute risk increase of 12.5 serious adverse events of special interest per 10,000 vaccinated participants,” the authors of the pre-print paper wrote.

Based on their findings, the authors called for a harm-benefit analysis of COVID-19 vaccines.

The researchers — among them Peter Doshi, Ph.D., senior editor at The BMJ and associate professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy — concluded:

“A systematic review and meta-analysis using individual participant data should be undertaken to address questions of harm-benefit in various demographic subgroups. Full transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data is needed to properly evaluate these questions. Unfortunately, well over a year after widespread use of COVID-19 vaccines, participant-level data remain inaccessible.”

Doshi leads the Restoring Invisible & Abandoned Trials (RIAT) initiative, which seeks to ensure clinical trial publications are accurate and complete, and data are publicly available.

The study’s other authors are:

• Robert Kaplan, Ph.D., who leads Stanford University’s Clinical Excellence Research Center and previously led the behavioral and social sciences programs at the National Institutes of Health and served as the chief science officer at the U.S. Agency for Health Care Research and Quality.

• Dr. Patrick Whelan, M.D., Ph.D., associate clinical professor of pediatrics in the division of rheumatology at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA).

• Sander Greenland, Ph.D., professor emeritus of epidemiology and statistics at UCLA who served as an advisor for the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Academy of Sciences.

• Mark Jones, Ph.D., associate professor of health sciences and medicine at the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, as well as a biostatistician at Bond University in Robina, Australia.

• Juan Erviti, Ph.D. Pharm. D., qualified hospital pharmacist at Navarre Health Service, Spain.

• Dr. Joseph Fraiman, emergency medicine doctor at Louisiana State University’s Lallie Kemp Regional Medical Center.

“This important study uses actual Pfizer and Moderna clinical trial data to show that the risks of serious adverse events outweigh the benefits of these vaccines against COVID-19 hospitalization,” said Brian Hooker, Ph.D., Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer and associate professor of biology at Simpson University in Redding, California where he specializes in microbiology and biotechnology.

“The public, and public health officials, need to immediately consider the implications of these study results,” Hooker added.

What the researchers did, and why

The researchers analyzed data from the clinical trials the FDA used as the basis for granting Emergency Use Authorization of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines “to investigate the association between FDA-authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and serious adverse events identified by the Brighton Collaboration.”

According to the researchers, the Brighton Collaboration in March 2020 created and later updated a priority list of “potential adverse events of special interest relevant to COVID-19 vaccine trials” in collaboration with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations partnership, Safety Platform for Emergency Vaccines.

The priority list identified serious health events as being “adverse events of special interest for safety monitoring” (AESIs) if they met one or more of the following criteria:

• Known association with immunization or a specific vaccine platform.

• Occurrence during wild-type disease as a result of viral replication and/or immunopathogenesis.

• Theoretical association based on animal models.

The AESIs noted on this list included serious adverse events (SAEs) of the following types: cardiac, dermatologic, endocrine, gastrointestinal, hematologic, liver, kidney, multisystem inflammatory syndromes, musculoskeletal, neurologic, ocular, respiratory and pregnancy.

The WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety endorsed the list as a safety monitoring tool and recommended AESIs be reported based on the list — yet no research using the list was conducted on randomized trial data to determine the association between vaccination and the occurrence of AESIs, according to the study authors.

For this reason, the authors of the study conducted an analysis of SAEs reported in the placebo-controlled, Phase 3 randomized clinical trials of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (NCT04368728 and NCT04470427).

How they conducted the analysis

First, the team searched Pfizer and Moderna trial data on the FDA and Health Canada websites to locate SAE results tables for the trials.

Following regulatory norms, the two pharmaceutical companies used nearly identical definitions for what constituted a “serious” adverse event by deeming any adverse event to be an SAE if it resulted in any of the following conditions:

• Death

• Life-threatening at the time of the event

• Inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization

• Persistent or significant disability/incapacity

• A congenital anomaly/birth defect

• Medically important event, based on medical judgment

Although Pfizer and Moderna were expected to follow participants for two years, within weeks of the FDA granting EUA of the vaccines, “the sponsors began a process of unblinding all participants who elected to be unblinded,” the authors said.

Additionally, participants who initially received the placebo were offered the vaccine.

“These self-selection processes may have introduced nonrandom differences between the vaccine and unvaccinated participants,” wrote the authors, “thus rendering the post-authorization data less reliable.”

To “preserve randomization,” the researchers used “the interim datasets that were the basis for emergency authorization in December 2020, approximately 4 months after trials commenced.”

Next, for each of these dataset trials, the researchers prepared blinded SAE tables — showing types of SAEs but not showing results data.

Then, two clinical reviewers used the tables to independently judge whether each SAE was an AESI.

Using statistical analyses, the team then calculated risk ratios and risk differences between the vaccine and placebo groups for the incidence of SAEs.

Finally, the researchers used a simple harm-benefit framework to place their results in context by comparing the risks of excess AESIs against reductions in serious complications of COVID-19.

What the results showed

The Pfizer trial reported a “36% higher risk of [SAEs] unrelated to COVID-19 in

175 vaccinated participants” compared with placebo recipients, the study’s authors reported.

“The Moderna trial reported a 5% higher risk of SAEs unrelated to COVID-19 in vaccinated individuals compared to those receiving placebo,” they wrote.

The researchers’ blind and independent review determined the majority of SAEs were AESIs — meaning most of these events were the type known to be of particular safety concern related to the COVID-19 vaccine.

The researchers’ findings contrast with Pfizer’s previous claim that nearly all SAEs during the vaccine trials were “not related” to the vaccine.

As The Defender reported, Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine documents released June 1 by the FDA revealed numerous instances of participants who sustained severe adverse events during Phase 3 trials.

Some of these participants withdrew from the trials, some were dropped and some died.

According to the study:

“In the Moderna trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs (15.1 per 10,000 participants) surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group (6.4 per 10,000).

“In the Pfizer trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs (10.1 per 10,000) surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group (2.3 per 10,000 participants).”

The authors noted limitations of their study, such as that their analysis used an existing dataset rather than recent data.

However, they noted, “Our analysis has an advantage over postmarketing observational studies in that the data are from blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trials vetted by the FDA, and uses the Brighton Collaboration AESI list, which was pre-specified, endorsed by WHO, and established well before the availability of the clinical trial results, and designed for use in COVID-19 vaccine trials.”

They also noted their results showing a heightened risk of AESIs in the vaccine group represented an average across the group.

“SAEs may not be distributed equally across the demographic subgroups enrolled in the trial, and the risks may be substantially less in some groups compared to others.”

“Knowing the actual demographics of those who experienced an increase in AESI in the vaccine group is necessary for a proper harm-benefits analysis,” they added

Over 1M PropaGandhi Sign Petition To Remove Clarence Thomas After He Eviscerated NY's Medieval Gun Ban [remember, Uncle Tom was Killed for Withholding Info/Emancipating others. Sambo was the Snitch]

UNCLE TOM MUST BE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT IF PROPAGANDI IS AFTER HIM. Justice Thomas destroyed the emotional clogic of freedumb/slavery advocates in the case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. In the opinion he also dropped a few “revelation sandwich” reminders for serious, responsible Black individuals to consider in light of the facts that the quality of Black citizenship is so low that; no matter what the law says, Blacks are prohibited from possessing guns, Blacks are subject to omnipresent interference by cops with their freedom of movement and their right to be left the fuck alone, Black people are 3 times more likely than whites to be murdered by cops and the police have no legal duty to protect any particular citizen from harm unless they are in custody (“the public duty doctrine”). Said factors exist in a legal context in which law enforcement is uncontrollable by citizens, generally unaccountable to them, can’t be hired or fired by citizens and has irresponsible, limitless power over people to take life on the street as they see fit while providing a compulsory “service” that citizens have no “right” to decline. While discussing the existence of the right to carry weapons for self-defense against public confrontation during Reconstruction, Justice Thomas discussed the historical need for Blacks to vigorously defend themselves in a violent, racist society:

In the years before the 39th Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment, the Freedmen’s Bureau regularly kept it abreast of the dangers to blacks and Union men in the postbellum South. The reports described how blacks used publicly carried weapons to defend themselves and their communities. For example, the Bureau reported that a teacher from a Freedmen’s school in Maryland had written to say that, because of attacks on the school, “[b]oth the mayor and sheriff have warned the colored people to go armed to school, (which they do,)” and that the “[t]he super- intendent of schools came down and brought [the teacher] a revolver” for his protection. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 658 (1866); see also H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 68, 39th Cong., 2d Sess., 91 (1867) (noting how, during the New Or- leans riots, blacks under attack “defended themselves . . . with such pistols as they had”).

Witnesses before the Joint Committee on Reconstruction also described the depredations visited on Southern blacks, and the efforts they made to defend themselves. One Virginia music professor related that when “[t]wo Union men were attacked . . . they drew their revolvers and held their assailants at bay.” H. R. Rep. No. 30, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, p. 110 (1866). An assistant commissioner to the Bureau from Alabama similarly reported that men were “rob- bing and disarming negroes upon the highway,” H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 70, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 297 (1866), indicating that blacks indeed carried arms publicly for their self- protection, even if not always with success. See also H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 329, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., 41 (1868) (describ- ing a Ku Klux Klan outfit that rode “through the country . . . robbing every one they come across of money, pistols, papers, &c.”); id., at 36 (noting how a black man in Tennes- see had been murdered on his way to get book subscriptions, with the murderer taking, among other things, the man’s pistol).

Blacks had “procured great numbers of old army muskets and revolvers, particularly in Texas,” and “employed them to protect themselves” with “vigor and audacity.” S. Exec. Doc. No. 43, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 8. Seeing that government was inadequately protecting them, “there [was] the strongest desire on the part of the freedmen to secure arms, revolvers particularly.” H. R. Rep. No. 30, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 3, at 102.

On July 6, 1868, Congress extended the 1866 Freedmen’s Bureau Act, see 15 Stat. 83, and reaffirmed that freedmen were entitled to the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty [and] personal security . . . including the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.” §14, 14 Stat. 176 (1866) (emphasis added). That same day, a Bureau official reported that freedmen in Kentucky and Tennessee were still constantly under threat: “No Union man or negro who attempts to take any active part in politics, or the improvement of his race, is safe a single day; and nearly all sleep upon their arms at night, and carry concealed weapons during the day.” H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 329, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., at 40.

Similarly today, any protection from police is incidental and random - keeping us safe is not their goal. Cops exist primarily to manage the behavior of Blacks & Latinos within a free-range prison. Their goal is to place you in greater confinement. As Dr. Blynd observes, "people who are awake see cops as mercenary guards that remind us daily through acts of force, that we are simultaneously both enemies and slaves of the Corporate State - colonized, surveilled and patrolled by the desensitized and lobotomized drones of the colonizers." Black people need to once again protect themselves, family members and their communities with “vigor and audacity,“ grow up and stop looking for authority to solve the many problems It actually creates and maintains. FUNKTIONARY explains, “only a slave waits for someone else to free him.

Observant Black folks know that propaghandi is not just after Clarence Thomas, its actually also after them and all Black folks. Funky ass white liberals, friendly looking, grimacing racist suspect puppeticians seek an inversion of life. They are a white party also. Their agenda is also not a Black agenda, it is based entirely in fear, obedience to granfalloons and law over humanity. How could being unarmed in dirty ass NYC make you more safe? And for what reason would you want to rely on other people, particularly authoritarians or racists, to protect you or provide for your well being in any area of people activity?

FUNKTIONARY sets forth the following,

UNCLE TOM – Undermining New Consciousness Laminates Enslavement To Omnipresent Matrix. Remember, Uncle Tom was killed for withholding information and emancipating others. Sambo is the hanky-head $nigger on which we should look to pull the trigger and drop. In each documented ‘slave revolt’ on record, there was an enslaved Sambo who exposed the plot and sided with the oppressor. SNAGs and $niggers get dealt with!! (See: Sambo, $niggers, Black-Flask Brigade, The Matrix, Piece-Activist, The OCTOCON, SNAGs, Niggadeemus, Astro Black Futurism, Niggerosity & Coin-Operated)

Endependence – the open declaration of the beginning of self-determination, self-reliance and Self-realization that spells the end to dependence on objective truth, abstractions, reification, granfalloons, father figures and organized religion.

PropaGandhi – passive social non-resistance propaganda. 2) obedience-based servitude to the enforcers of granfalloons uncommonly known as Corporate States and any other group-entities. Mahatma Gandhi mostly walked barefoot which produced calluses on his feet. He also had a very weird diet sprinkled with bouts of fasting which made him rather frail and suffer intermittently from halitosis—this made him… “A super callused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.” (See: Poser, Class, Mass, Racism White Supremacy, Gun Control & Caste)

freedumb – the state of unrecognized psychological captivity (brain hemispheric hostage) that sheeple remain in because they don’t speak the language of reality nor constantly edit truth from perfecting heart to perfecting power—and when truth is spoken around them, refrain from being open, or impervious to it thus being forever chained to its distortions and limitations. 2) the mindset that proposes “since we are liberated, we are also free.” 3) the mindset that operates upon the notion that you can have individuality without accountability or responsibility. 4) the pretense that reality is truth and viceversa. People cherish unwarranted assumptions and relish their freedumb because they have been socialized into selfcensorship along with misidentification with the ego-mind—the absence of knowledge of Self. (See: Phfreedom, Truth, Unfreedom, Dumbelievers, Self, Belief Systems, Objective Truth, Individuality, Objective Reality, True Self & Reality)

Placebo Syndrome – mindless obedience, commercialism, sinsationalism and servitude to the disco-sadistic purveyors of the spanktronic Death-Force, e.g., CrimethInc., Religious Dogma, and the Corporate State (creating and operating within the zone of zero-funkativity—a metaphor for life-negating impulses, memes and actions). 2) the faceless dull sameness generated by belief, conformity, belonging and fear. The Placebo Syndrome allows / affords one theopportunity to feel the hypocrisy of being someone other than yourself, living another’s script not your own. (See: Sir Nose D’Voidoffunk)