I want to thank the writers who compile and share this information. It's overwhelming, but I try to stay up with it. I have felt for most of my life that the control mechanism has been trying to take over EVERYTHING for their purposes and I resist by sharing what I can with the few that will listen. May you all live long and prosper!
This is fantastic research it goes right in line with my research and my book The Sleeper Agent: The Rise of Lyme Disease, Chronic Illness, and the Great Imitator Antigens of Biological Warfare. All of these 1972 agreements were a betrayal to America and putting us in enemy hands. A lot of people dismiss my book for bringing up Russia and the Soviet Union but they were very important players in this whole UN and globalization agenda. In 1954 we allowed Albert Sabin of the US Public Health System to team up with a hardcore Stalinist bioweaponeer from the USSR named M. P. Chumakov to create the oral polio vaccine, and Chumakov also worked to some degree with Jonas Salk, and of course both vaccines were contaminated with the cancer virus SV40. Then fast forward to today I showed how M. P. Chumakov's son Konstantin Chumakov landed a position leading vaccine safety and review at the FDA and approved the COVID-19 vaccine! Anyway, this was a great article thank you for this amazing work!
much apperciated and t/y - will check out those books. china and the soviet union were indeed very influential, but often, it's not touted whatsoever. The declaration of alma-ata, for instance, with its focus on prevention, not treatment, is very similar to the 1918 Ministry of Health declaration in the Soviet Union:
>On 1lth July, 1918, the People's Ministry of Health was established as a central body, its purpose being:
>(c) Prevention of the development and spread of contagious diseases
I used a ton of these CIA reading room files in The Sleeper Agent, its cited with 1000+ citations. I showed that in 1918 the USSR thought Britain used the 1918 Influenza as a weapon against them, and they started going full tilt into the biological warfare race. So it makes sense what this document is showing. My book mainly centers around the German virologist Erich Traub but it ties in a global biological war and espionage/sabotage intrigue where Traub is kind of at the center of and the early days of the Cold War and biological warfare race. Donald Maclean the Cambridge Five spy was instrumental in getting Traub over to America for Paperclip before defecting to Moscow in 1951 and he was also instrumental in the early days of NATO and the UN. But then you have all this excellent research you've put together here that shows how this whole globalism thing comes together from that story. Especially those 1972 agreements. I think I covered the US-USSR Health Agreement to some degree in that book. We started giving them all our cancer research via Telex line.
no reason to let it go indeed. great post. good thread pulling.
i am an american, elder millennial - we were force fed on 'rainforest losses,' 'acid rain,' and the 'hole in the ozone layer (stop it with your hair spray you're murdering the earth!' at school.
i recall both 'earth day' and that god awful cartoon Captain Planet always seemed 'out of step' with what i understood to be american culture.
First let me be clear — I love everything about this substack and this isn’t a criticism
My question though is whether or not the whole idea of international control of protecting the environment is entirely bad.
I completely agree that doing it in an opaque way that allows those in control infinite power is evil. But if we want to do anything about it then we need to be able to unpack why the population accepts the unspoken boundaries of discourse.
I think everyone out there exaggerates the extent to which they understand science about the climate. Surely it gets manipulated in both directions who want to benefit their own agendas.
But I don’t think the idea that everything about protecting the environment is pure evil is something that will ever be believable. I think there has to be some acknowledgment of environmental problems — like that we have plastic in our blood or that we eat pesticides and have increasing rates of colon cancer — if there is any hope of turning around the nefarious system of control. There has to be some alternative solution proposed for people to buy into it
Generally if I were to guess what the author’s response would be it would be that the solution is that the discussion and governance mechanism should be transparent and political and not opaque, technical, and centralized. I would agree with almost all of that except that I genuinely am not sure how it can be solved without some kind of international agreement, standards, cooperation, etc.
Maybe the point is that in terms of cost benefit the cost of allowing any kind of centralized international control outweighs the benefit of loss of freedom and that the current mechanism of control actually has no intention of solving the problem and will only make it worse. It does seem clear that if the environment is at risk that whatever this current cybernetic system is is definitely making it worse.
But my main point is that as long as there is no better solution then the ones who are manipulating will continue to be able to do it. It’s more realistic to say “ok yes there are valid reasons to be concerned about the environment but we need to have transparency and accountability in how we address it” than to just imply “all climate science is a big lie and conspiracy”.
they carried out their plans during the night, they never informed people of what they did, they're progressively stripping people of property, demand everyone sign up for their precious 'digital public infrastructure' while pretending this is all about an 'ethical imperative' which is determined through opaque models and 'science' you're not allowed to call into question.
if this was legit, none of the above would be required. they have systemically lied about everything. trusting pathological liars is, well, always a terrible mistake.
Someone comes to you and says “hey there’s a lion there so I need you to give me $100 so we can do something about the lion.”
So you’re like “ok here’s $100.”
Then they disappear with your money and you realize they put the lion there.
Well you still have the problem of the lion outside.
I think every human on earth operates on 99.9999% faith and can prove almost nothing about what they claim to know. So I don’t think that arguing about climate science is really even worth the energy. It’s complicated and no one really knows anything for sure. There are lies on all sides.
But the idea that there’s nothing wrong with the environment—that there’s no lion outside—is not a solution. As long as the lion is there then the thieves can continue to go to new people and take their $100. You have to come up with something better than saying “no that lion isn’t as bad as you think it is. They’re exaggerating about the lion.” People are still going to stay inside even if there’s a small chance that a hungry lion is somewhere within 50 miles of my house.
As long as there is a small chance that we have literal plastic in our brains and carcinogens in our water then we all have a good reason to be scared.
If Lady Rothschild can come around and say “hey I see you’re scared about that plastic in your baby’s blood” — even if she’s the one who put it there in the first place — then she will be able to successfully control the parameters of discourse. The system of using “ethical imperative” is only effective if there is a basis for the imperative and there is no better alternative.
I definitely don’t have the answer here. I’m just calling the balls and strikes and hoping that by more accurately defining the problem a better solution can be discovered.
I want to thank the writers who compile and share this information. It's overwhelming, but I try to stay up with it. I have felt for most of my life that the control mechanism has been trying to take over EVERYTHING for their purposes and I resist by sharing what I can with the few that will listen. May you all live long and prosper!
This is fantastic research it goes right in line with my research and my book The Sleeper Agent: The Rise of Lyme Disease, Chronic Illness, and the Great Imitator Antigens of Biological Warfare. All of these 1972 agreements were a betrayal to America and putting us in enemy hands. A lot of people dismiss my book for bringing up Russia and the Soviet Union but they were very important players in this whole UN and globalization agenda. In 1954 we allowed Albert Sabin of the US Public Health System to team up with a hardcore Stalinist bioweaponeer from the USSR named M. P. Chumakov to create the oral polio vaccine, and Chumakov also worked to some degree with Jonas Salk, and of course both vaccines were contaminated with the cancer virus SV40. Then fast forward to today I showed how M. P. Chumakov's son Konstantin Chumakov landed a position leading vaccine safety and review at the FDA and approved the COVID-19 vaccine! Anyway, this was a great article thank you for this amazing work!
much apperciated and t/y - will check out those books. china and the soviet union were indeed very influential, but often, it's not touted whatsoever. The declaration of alma-ata, for instance, with its focus on prevention, not treatment, is very similar to the 1918 Ministry of Health declaration in the Soviet Union:
>On 1lth July, 1918, the People's Ministry of Health was established as a central body, its purpose being:
>(c) Prevention of the development and spread of contagious diseases
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP83-00418R000800180003-7.pdf
also - if you liked this one, read 'the missing link' as it cements the illogical nature of what took place.
I used a ton of these CIA reading room files in The Sleeper Agent, its cited with 1000+ citations. I showed that in 1918 the USSR thought Britain used the 1918 Influenza as a weapon against them, and they started going full tilt into the biological warfare race. So it makes sense what this document is showing. My book mainly centers around the German virologist Erich Traub but it ties in a global biological war and espionage/sabotage intrigue where Traub is kind of at the center of and the early days of the Cold War and biological warfare race. Donald Maclean the Cambridge Five spy was instrumental in getting Traub over to America for Paperclip before defecting to Moscow in 1951 and he was also instrumental in the early days of NATO and the UN. But then you have all this excellent research you've put together here that shows how this whole globalism thing comes together from that story. Especially those 1972 agreements. I think I covered the US-USSR Health Agreement to some degree in that book. We started giving them all our cancer research via Telex line.
no reason to let it go indeed. great post. good thread pulling.
i am an american, elder millennial - we were force fed on 'rainforest losses,' 'acid rain,' and the 'hole in the ozone layer (stop it with your hair spray you're murdering the earth!' at school.
i recall both 'earth day' and that god awful cartoon Captain Planet always seemed 'out of step' with what i understood to be american culture.
First let me be clear — I love everything about this substack and this isn’t a criticism
My question though is whether or not the whole idea of international control of protecting the environment is entirely bad.
I completely agree that doing it in an opaque way that allows those in control infinite power is evil. But if we want to do anything about it then we need to be able to unpack why the population accepts the unspoken boundaries of discourse.
I think everyone out there exaggerates the extent to which they understand science about the climate. Surely it gets manipulated in both directions who want to benefit their own agendas.
But I don’t think the idea that everything about protecting the environment is pure evil is something that will ever be believable. I think there has to be some acknowledgment of environmental problems — like that we have plastic in our blood or that we eat pesticides and have increasing rates of colon cancer — if there is any hope of turning around the nefarious system of control. There has to be some alternative solution proposed for people to buy into it
Generally if I were to guess what the author’s response would be it would be that the solution is that the discussion and governance mechanism should be transparent and political and not opaque, technical, and centralized. I would agree with almost all of that except that I genuinely am not sure how it can be solved without some kind of international agreement, standards, cooperation, etc.
Maybe the point is that in terms of cost benefit the cost of allowing any kind of centralized international control outweighs the benefit of loss of freedom and that the current mechanism of control actually has no intention of solving the problem and will only make it worse. It does seem clear that if the environment is at risk that whatever this current cybernetic system is is definitely making it worse.
But my main point is that as long as there is no better solution then the ones who are manipulating will continue to be able to do it. It’s more realistic to say “ok yes there are valid reasons to be concerned about the environment but we need to have transparency and accountability in how we address it” than to just imply “all climate science is a big lie and conspiracy”.
they carried out their plans during the night, they never informed people of what they did, they're progressively stripping people of property, demand everyone sign up for their precious 'digital public infrastructure' while pretending this is all about an 'ethical imperative' which is determined through opaque models and 'science' you're not allowed to call into question.
if this was legit, none of the above would be required. they have systemically lied about everything. trusting pathological liars is, well, always a terrible mistake.
Right I totally agree but it’s missing my point.
Let’s say there’s a lion outside.
Someone comes to you and says “hey there’s a lion there so I need you to give me $100 so we can do something about the lion.”
So you’re like “ok here’s $100.”
Then they disappear with your money and you realize they put the lion there.
Well you still have the problem of the lion outside.
I think every human on earth operates on 99.9999% faith and can prove almost nothing about what they claim to know. So I don’t think that arguing about climate science is really even worth the energy. It’s complicated and no one really knows anything for sure. There are lies on all sides.
But the idea that there’s nothing wrong with the environment—that there’s no lion outside—is not a solution. As long as the lion is there then the thieves can continue to go to new people and take their $100. You have to come up with something better than saying “no that lion isn’t as bad as you think it is. They’re exaggerating about the lion.” People are still going to stay inside even if there’s a small chance that a hungry lion is somewhere within 50 miles of my house.
As long as there is a small chance that we have literal plastic in our brains and carcinogens in our water then we all have a good reason to be scared.
If Lady Rothschild can come around and say “hey I see you’re scared about that plastic in your baby’s blood” — even if she’s the one who put it there in the first place — then she will be able to successfully control the parameters of discourse. The system of using “ethical imperative” is only effective if there is a basis for the imperative and there is no better alternative.
I definitely don’t have the answer here. I’m just calling the balls and strikes and hoping that by more accurately defining the problem a better solution can be discovered.
why would the west cooperate with the east, knowing fully well that the east couldn't care less about the environment?
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/the-missing-link?utm_source=publication-search
This took me three full days to read and comprehend. Oh my goodness.