|
The Writing on the Wall
April 2020
As blanket media coverage of the novel corona virus outbreak provides worldwide just the kind of distraction and PR exercise/rationale for increase of powers of establishment forces alluded to in our February article (here) we further note the following: one, it is doing so with much greater menace and general disruption than reports of regular "terror attacks" on the streets of major cities in Europe and the Anglosphere in recent times ever did; and two, the political climate in the UK, Europe and elsewhere just prior to the ramping up of reported Covid-19 cases in the West was likely at least as menacing and unsettling to those trembling behind their fragile and corrupt walls of power as reports of an unpredictable pandemic have proved to be to many among the general population in the days and weeks since.
 |
Yet the former have seen the writing on the wall, make no mistake.
And while there has been much speculation about the origin of Covid-19, with conflicting, rescinded and, no doubt, suppressed statements coming from the utterly corrupt science community and elsewhere in recent weeks, as well as official denials, we really need only consider that which is beyond any debate : that man-made sources of viral outbreaks for bio-war and bio-terrorism purposes are possible, as is obfuscation in the press and science community regarding them.
In fact, as alarming as it may be, even the briefest of looks into the history of bio-weapons reveals that the development or theft of related technology is and has been at times a relatively simple, inexpensive and certainly not unheard of affair, even for amateurs, terrorists and criminals apparently, let alone sovereign states. The end of the Soviet era, for example, and in particular, the gap between collapse and restructuring, provided all kinds of remarkable opportunities for scoundrels in this regard (and others), and it is but one instance. This is important to understand because it has a bearing on how we ought to respond to bio-threat in any case.
Fact is, it has long been widely known and accepted by sensible policy makers that in the case of extortion, and in particular terrorism, an over-readiness to comply with demands serves only to encourage further abuses and increasingly intolerable demands down the line. (Astute readers will have noted that government "counter-measures" to the corona virus pandemic have come in "stages".) The reason for this is simple: to the tyrant and the criminal a concession is invariably perceived as weakness while at the same time there tends to be no limit to the greed and paranoia of such except refusal, rejection or reality. Thus an overly concessive, concilliatory or submissive approach is generally avoided by wiser and cooler heads when dealing with extortion demands even if it means possible sacrifice early on.
Of course, what we are prepared to sacrifice depends on what is at stake, and that is a matter of perception. And faith. For though most are well-acquainted by now with one side of the corona virus equation - the side much discussed by media and government in terms of case numbers, mortality rates and social restrictions etc - the other side, which we will attempt to elucidate now below, has not received quite the same attention, at least not in terms that make clear its weight and significance.
 |
Despite the fear, panic and confusion, the steady stream of statistics, the increasingly draconian measures adopted and the implicit, weaponizable guilt that serves to bind us to them (do as you're told or be responsible for the death of your neighbour!), an age old question will not go unconsulted by men of character in the trial ahead: what price our freedom?
 |
| Above: Flinders Street, Melbourne, last month. Ghost-town, Franken-sky. |
In fact there is far more at stake in the current "crisis" than most people realize, a fact that explains why some have such a keen interest in ensuring that the present pandemic is characterised by government and media as a medical problem only, without the further implications and considerations of bio-war for example, or fundamental questions of liberty and being, and why there is so little chance of a genuinely impartial account of the source of Covid-19 getting through to the public in the near term.
But actually, in the case of an epidemic or pandemic it matters little, at least as far as countermeasures go, what the original source is, be it God, nature or man, since an advantage can be sought by unscrupulous men regarding it in any case, while the desired effect of any advocated, ostensible "countermeasure" depends entirely on the nature of the advocate (or those who pull his strings) and not necessarily on the attending, publicised rhetoric or the physical properties and epidemiology of the pandemical virus.
Consider. If our response to an outbreak is one that is perceived for one reason or another to be desirable to a group with both the means and the ruthlessness (and desperation) to cause an epidemic and to obfuscate in the media and science community regarding the true nature of the source, then where will it end?
As of a few days ago there are literally dozens of candidates for a Covid-19 vaccine. In fact, as companies and institutes from around the world partake in the usual fragmented proprietary race to be first past the post, at least two candidates have already begun clinical trials. Still others are in a pre-clinical stage. But while the world waits anxiously for some kind of scientific rescue in the shortest possible time, from a strictly bio-war perspective the identity of the most successful vaccine developer (in the long run) may turn out to be as suggestive as it is timely; as suggestive in fact as the identities of the nations hardest hit by the virus outbreak early on. In any case, it is an undeniable fact that there are those who profit from disaster, and not just in terms of money.
Think about it. Supposing, as is possible with bio-weapons, that a group develops a vaccine based on a virus prior to deploying same virus and causing an epidemic. The vaccine could be ready in that case for release to the public at any moment deemed opportune, complete with price tag of course, and a bogus cover story about the chronology of its development. Worse still there is little, short of people wising up to the scam, to stop the scenario from happening again and again; as required, as it were.
Which brings us back to the question of what is at stake here. Or what we are prepared to give up in order to preserve our lives. And what sort of "life" we are prepared to be left with as a result. For few would disagree that we should try to save lives where possible, or more precisely in this case, the lives of bodies, but what and how much exactly we are prepared to give away depends ultimately on what we think life is, and what we believe we are really up against right now.
Actually materialism, slavery and cowardice always go together - it takes intelligence to perceive this. Just as Spirit, freedom and courage go together in Christ. For death is the lot of every body, sooner or later, no matter what. Yet life is more than the body.
For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
Matthew 16:25
Of course, such considerations are largely overlooked, ignored or discounted by our intellectually corrupt and cornered governments, with their pathos and ethos driven arguments and characteristically soulless and effeminate approach. They are, of course, more than happy to cast themselves, with the help of the media, as our tireless and battling saviours, while effectively condemning us, summarily, to imprisonment in our own homes for an indefinite period - a tyrant's dream after all. Oh, no doubt we will be provided with plenty of propaganada outlets, handouts and "services" to keep us as amused and docile as possible in the meantime. Anything we like in fact, except togetherness; and solidarity.
(I mean we wouldn't want too much meeting of minds going on right now would we? Especially when there is so much to discuss. Like the news story covered by CG in February for instance ....)
|
They are, of course, more than happy to cast themselves, with the help of the media, as our tireless and battling saviours, while effectively condemning us, summarily, to imprisonment in our own homes for an indefinite period - a tyrant's dream after all. Oh, no doubt we will be provided with plenty of propaganada outlets, handouts and "services" to keep us as amused and docile as possible in the meantime. Anything we like in fact, except togetherness; and solidarity.
Yet despite the fear, panic and confusion, the steady stream of statistics, the increasingly draconian measures adopted and the implicit, psychological, materialistic and weaponizable guilt that serves to bind us to them (do as you're told or be responsible for the death of your neighbour!), an age old question will not go unconsulted by men of character in the trial ahead: what price our freedom?
Further Reading/Viewing
Prince Charles Helps Fuel the Fires of Ignorance and War
The February article: from the Australian bushfire apocalypse and its hidden causes to a multiple stabbing attack on a London High street; from a grovelling prince at Yad Vashem to a honey trap in the Caribbean, CG provides the background that links it all together.
A puzzle for Central Australian Indigenous people: Rain in the desert in the middle of the dry season at UluruDerailment and sabotage! Disruption and/or threat to food and essentials supply is by no means a novel strategy of mass distraction when the gangsters controlling our governments feel threatened with exposure, especially when it comes to ongoing geoengineering operations. (Question: what comes first? Panic or the news story reporting it ....?) CG covered an application of the method back in 2014, in this article from 2015.
The Third Truth: Dimitri Khalezov*
As bio-threat overwhelmingly supplants terror attacks on European streets as a source of media distraction and rationale for escalation of police powers, it may be a good time to revisit the last major security "crisis" by which that was widely accomplished, viz. 9/11.
Former Soviet nuclear intelligence officer, Dimitri Khalezov, provides extraordinary insight in this video document - quite possibly the most revealing of all on the subject, even if one is inclined to be sceptical or cautious. Besides the essential testimony and premise, Khalezov's suggestions about the role that stolen Soviet-era "Granit" missiles played on that fateful day are compelling. Briefly, no less than twenty four of the missiles, which were equippable with nuclear warheads, were reportedly on board the ill-fated nuclear submarine K-141 Kursk when it sank off the Russian navy base of Severomorsk in August 2000. The sub was not finally raised until October of the following year ....
Khalezov's testimony and inferences are important. They serve to highlight the enormous leverage that "acquisition" or possession of WMD can endow to relatively few, especially when coupled with monopolistic control of mainstream media narratives in demoralised target nations.
*Note: the video description on the linked page has been provided by the uploader, not CG.
Will the Real Mr. Churchill Please Stand Up?
It is perhaps a little known fact today that Winston Churchill (and his shadowy financial backers no doubt) wanted to use both chemical (poison gas) and biological (anthrax) weapons against the Germans in the closing stages of World War Two, despite the 1920s Geneva protocol forbidding both. (Note that notwithstanding tactical fear-mongering by the usual suspects before and during the war, the National Socialists in Germany never possessed either a biological or nuclear weapons program.) In fact the wartime British Prime Minister was finally dissuaded from the hare-brained scheme not by moral arguments (which proved futile per se in the face of Churchill's relativistic amorality and oft times questionable sobriety), but by the added political weight of strictly logistical concerns: chiefly that the tactic would backfire. Indeed, had the plan been implemented, particularly with regards to the two million proposed "anthrax bombs", it would have proved unimaginably disastrous not only for the the whole of Europe for decades to come, but also for the people of Britain and beyond.
Exceptional British historian, David Irving, tells this story and others in his own inimitable style, in a presentation he gave for his book, "Churchill's War", in Toronto in 1986. In the linked article we provide both the video and transcript, and much else besides.
Matthew 10:28-31
Somebody Killed Old Man Liberty
Somebody killed Old Man Liberty and so the Herald cried
Liberty is no more!, he said, the Old Man he has died!
The Lawman took the body back to the City Hall
The Mayor made some faces for the benefit of all
The Judge declared he met his death by causes still unknown
The Lawyer stood, the Liar spat, the People all went home
The King demanded to be told what all the fuss was for
The Priest was called, the Parson too, but he was not informed
The Tyrant and his Mouthpiece said the Old Man was but sick
The Doctor said 'twas nothing that a shackle wouldn't fix
The Traitor and the Pragmatist, the Soldier and the Chief
were making deals and drawing lots and justifying it
The Poet wrote a eulogy, the Piper played a tune
The Believer paid the Piper and the Pauper took a pew
The Lover, he was weeping, the Banker, he was broke
The Scientist sought consensus, the Opportunist sought a vote
The loudest Politician was talking out of turn
His Counterpart insisted that the meeting be adjourned
Then Somebody suggested that their parts were all in vain
And from that day on it was decided he would take the blame
And he did.
Update April 18th: While the world looks the other way ....
More sleight of hand from the scoundrels currently controlling our governments, courts and mainstream media.
A US federal appeals court panel ruled last week, in a 2-1 decision based on a technicality, that the disgracefully lenient plea deal offered to pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, in 2007 by Florida prosecutors, did not violate his victim's rights under the Crime Victim's Rights Act (CVRA), despite a ruling last year by a US district court judge to the contrary.
The panel ruled that the federal prosecutors had not filed charges or began criminal proceedings against Epstein before brokering the deal thus keeping it outside the scope of the CVRA; a fact we can be sure did not escape the notice of lawyers on both sides of the table when they were busy keeping Epstein's victims in the dark about the deal at the time.
Significantly, the new decision leaves provisions in the agreement for immunity from prosecution of Epstein's co-conspirators unchallenged.
While the world has been busy watching the unfolding Covid-19 hysteria and straining under the burden of attending social restrictions, a 2007 agreement granting immunity from criminal prosecution to Epstein's cohorts, including Ghislane Maxwell, has been upheld in a US federal court of law.
No surprises there certainly, at least not for regular followers of this website. In fact, it is difficult for an impartial observer to take any of the Epstein judicial proceedings seriously, no matter what side of an argument the judges purport to be on or what technicality they cling to.
Even the aforementioned US district court judge declined last year in a September ruling (handed down after Epstein's apparent suicide) to invalidate the 2007 agreement he had only months earlier ruled to be illegally brokered. Needless to say, his reported arguments, particularly in regard to the co-conspirator immunity issue, appear highly questionable to say the least. Essentially he passed the buck, though he knows full well that there are no takers.
Similarly, while the protestations of the ostensibly dissenting federal court judge in the latest ruling might provide a comforting illusion of democratic debate or indignation to those still silly enough to believe in it, his decision and platitudes have exactly zero practical significance for anyone, including Epstein's victims.
Amidst all these apparent contradictions, therefore, it may be helpful to sort the sentiment and legal argumentation from the actual political effect, viz. while the world has been busy watching the unfolding Covid-19 hysteria and straining under the burden of attending social restrictions, a 2007 agreement granting immunity from criminal prosecution to Epstein's cohorts, including Ghislane Maxwell, has been upheld in a US federal court of law. Presumably, that means that any prosecution of Maxwell on federal charges in US districts other than Florida, if permitted to happen at all, will have to be based on evidence other than that collected by federal investigators as part of the original fifty-three page Florida indictment.
Meanwhile Maxwell continues her vanishing act, at least as far as the mainstream media and government "investigators" in Manhattan are concerned, though it is probably safe to say that the latter won't be looking for her in Israel any time soon ....