I have not tested this so would be interested in your experience with it.
If You Knew You’d Vote No!
And, you’d vote No against the thin edge of the wedge.
From Josephine Cashman:
I am an insider whistleblower. I have been asked to speak for elders who are silenced by people such as yourself who want to dominate the discussion around Aboriginal people. Who I have tried to defend for more than 20 years. I have since come to terms with the fact it is not about left and right. It is about right and wrong.
They are playing both sides. It is about an agenda to hand over the wealth of all Australians regardless of skin colour, or left or right allegiance. It is about using Aboriginal people as scapegoats so they can siphon into billionaire corporate cartels. Because of people like you who want to use Aboriginal people as a scapegoat platform to get through the rollout of Agenda 2030. If you were legitimately concerned about Aboriginal people why are not you listening to someone who has been asked to speak for elders about their concerns about the death of children and corruption? Someone who is meant to be so intelligent. Yet comes across so sanctimoniously as attacking Aboriginal people to silence their voice – shows the Australian people the malevolent undercurrent of the Yes campaign.
Twenty years ago, I lived in an Aboriginal community that was described as a war zone. My life was then devoted to understanding the managed decline of Aboriginal Australia in my early 20s. After leaving this community, I brought my infant son along with me and completed a double degree. In 2019 my Aboriginal relatives in Kempsey contacted Crime Stoppers, and their report was leaked to the paedophile offender responsible for the death of more than 6 Aboriginal children. This same offender was tasked with consulting with the community about the Uluru Voice Con. For 40 years, my family has tried to stop this government appointed crook for three generations, including my uncle Ray, a former corporal in the Malaysian jungle.
No one on the North & South Coast of NSW I spoke to had been consulted about the Uluru Voice. I was really concerned. I paid someone to survey community members & my worst fears were confirmed.
I asked the Government & Marcia Langton to speak to the Crime Commission & AFP about it. They sacked me for standing up for community members who had dobbed in a phoney aboriginal leader, a funded government con trafficking children. Responsible for the deaths of kids. Running a massive distribution operation of the drug ice sold out of an Aboriginal childcare centre.
Do not treat us like subhumans and tell us that other people can decide what we think. My own investigation of more than 2 decades led me to the truth:
https://josephinecashman.com.au/protecting-children
Maybe They Aren’t Conspiracy Theorists
Next time someone accuses you of being a conspiracy theorist, look them straight in the eye and with no malice or anything but professional interest, ask, “When did you decide to not know?”
Because you have to not know something in order to have a game. If you knew everything there would be no game. You could predict everything.
You would know every move your opponent was going to make before they made it and so counter it.
You would be 100% cause.
You would win all the time.
You would lose interest in life.
So at one time or another we have all decided to not know in order to have a game.
But some of have decided to not know a LOT harder than others of us! To the point where they are not even capable of seeing the moves the opponent makes.
This makes them unable to play a game. They are almost total effect.
By asking them the question, “When did you decide to not know?” who knows but you might get a small percentage of them to actually look, spot that moment and be capable of knowing a lot more.
Aluminum Dust from Geoengineering Fueling Super Wildfires According to Author
While researching for his new novel, author Denis Mills discovered an alarming link between chemtrails and the super wildfires.
The author discovered that unprecedented levels of aluminum and barium nanodust, primary components in chemtrails, both of which are incendiary, are fueling the ferocity of the super wildfires.
A retired USAF brigadier general, Gen. Charles Jones, has been quoted from a public source as stating, “These white aircraft spray trails are the result of scientifically verifiable spraying of aluminum particles and other toxic heavy metals, polymers and chemicals.”
“Millions of tons of aluminum and barium are being sprayed almost daily across the U.S., stated Mills, a former naval officer and UCLA graduate. “Just sprinkle aluminum or barium dust on a fire and see what happens. It’s near explosive. When wildfires break out, the aluminum/barium dust results in levels of fire intensity so great as to cause firefighters to coin a new term ̶ ‘firenados,’ ” he said. The entire U.S., in addition to various other NATO countries, are being sprayed.”
The government has for years denied the existence of chemtrail spraying. It now calls the program by various names, all under Geoengineering.
According to Cal Fire operation chief Steve Crawford, the fires are burning differently and more aggressively. It has been reported the fires move faster than anyone has ever seen and barriers that in years past contained them such as rivers, no longer do.
In California’s Mt. Shasta region, Francis Mangel, a USDA biologist tested and found elevated levels of aluminum in water and soil samples of 4,610 parts per million which is 25,000 times the safe guidelines of the World Health Organization.
Some have claimed Mr. Mills is publicity-seeking for his teen and young adult fiction adventure series, Matt Legend, about four teens who encounter and battle the supernatural and all kinds of strange things, including the forces behind the chemtrails. The adventure thriller is being called the new Harry Potter. Mr. Mills states the research speaks for itself and the novel is only what led to the discovery. “Authors are known for researching things to death,” he stated. No one can argue, however, the wildfires’ newfound ferocity or the millions of tons of aluminum/barium nanodust which have appeared, which is killing vegetation and causing illness and death.
PFIZER VACCINE CONTRACT REVEALED – Our Government has been lying to us.
A South African court has ordered that the Pfizer vaccine contract between the SA Government & Pfizer be made public.
It‘a reasonable to assumed that the terms and conditions in this contract would be very similar for every nation.
Clause 5.5 provides,
Purchaser (the government) further acknowledges that the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known.
So while poltiticans around the world were assuring the public that the vaccines were “safe & effective” – they’d signed a contract acknowledging that the long-term effects & efficacy of the Vaccine were not known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that were not known.
Our government and politicians lied to the public. No wonder they are so desperate to keep these contracts hidden.
And here it is: https://healthjusticeinitiative.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/OCRPfizer-1_Redacted.pdf
Dr Mercola On MacroNutrients
Ancel Keys is typically credited with starting the low-fat movement. Critics say he cherry picked data to show that the more saturated fat a population ate, the higher the rate of heart disease. However, by then, doctors had already been using low-fat diets in clinical practice for decades, with good success
The first “Dietary Goals for the United States” were published in 1977. For the first time, government was making recommendations about what to eat to maintain good health, and they specifically recommended that people increase consumption of carbohydrates and reduce saturated fat intake
However, while low-fat diets were pushed, Americans did not lower their fat intake. Americans did raise their carb intake after the guidelines were released, but they did not cut their fat intake. Portion sizes also went up, and sugary snacks were coming onto the scene
In the 1930s through the late 1950s, several doctors achieved stunning successes treating chronic diseases with extremely low-fat diets. The reason low-fat diets don’t seem to work anymore is because the term “low fat” was redefined from 10% of calories or less, to 30%, which is too high to achieve metabolic benefits
Author and health consultant Denise Minger has proposed a hypothesis that “metabolic magic” occurs on two ends of the dietary fat spectrum: at or above 65% fat, and at or below 10%. Most dietary recommendations call for 30% fat, which is where fat becomes problematic
The video above features a lecture by health consultant and author Denise Minger at the 2016 Icelandic Health Symposium. Her 2014 book, “Death by Food Pyramid,” explores the roots of our beliefs about food and provides readers with tools to navigate conflicting dietary claims, and she does so in this lecture as well.
While Minger’s presentation primarily challenges our beliefs about low-fat diets, more broadly she also encourages everyone to keep an open mind, to question everything, to avoid group-think and premature assumptions based on the illusion of consensus. This is good advice for all of us.
As you may have noticed, I’ve made several U-turns myself over the years, as I delved deeper into various metabolic issues and gained a deeper understanding about how the human body works.
Optimal health is not a one-and-done, but rather an ongoing journey. New information surfaces. Your body changes with age, and new environmental factors come into play. So, we must adapt to changing circumstances and learn to listen to our bodies.
For many years, I was convinced a long-term, high-fat diet was the way to go, and that fat burned “cleaner” than glucose. I’m now coming to understand that there’s far more to this equation than I had previously appreciated, and that carbs, fructose in particular, have been wrongly blamed for damage that actually isn’t the fault of sugar itself.
I’m presenting Minger’s lecture here as food for thought. It’s not a wholesale endorsement of her views, but an opportunity to hear the other side of the high-fat/low-fat argument.
As noted by Minger, the history we’re told is not necessarily the whole truth. It’s typically curated to create a particular narrative, and this applies to the history of dietary recommendations as well. I think you’ll really enjoy it, as she presents a rather revolutionary hypothesis that, indeed, may clear up much of the confusion surrounding high- versus low-fat.
The Prevailing History of Low-Fat Diets
Minger starts out by reviewing the history of low-fat diets because, according to her, this is where most get off track. Physiologist Ancel Keys — creator of Army K rations — is typically credited with starting the low-fat movement in the 1950s.1
According to the prevailing narrative, he cherry picked data to show that the more saturated fat a population ate, the higher the rate of heart disease. He then used his charisma and influence to convince the American Heart Association to adopt low-fat dietary guidelines and promote that for cardiovascular health.
The first “Dietary Goals for the United States” were published in 1977 by the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, chaired by Sen. George McGovern.2 This report eventually grew into what today is known as the U.S. Dietary Guidelines.
For the first time, the government was making recommendations about what to eat to maintain good health, and they specifically recommended that people increase consumption of carbohydrates and reduce saturated fat intake.
However, as the low-fat recommendation took hold, obesity skyrocketed. The subsequent obesity epidemic has long been viewed as evidence that the low-fat recommendation was in error.
Did Low-Fat Diets Cause the Obesity Epidemic?
But not so fast, Minger says. While low-fat diets were in fact pushed, did Americans really follow that recommendation? Looking at macronutrient intake data, Minger points out that while Americans did raise their carb intake after the guidelines were released, they did not cut their fat intake. Portion sizes also went up, and sugary snacks were coming onto the scene.
Interestingly, though, if you look at macronutrient intake data from the early 1900s, carb intake (in terms of grams per day) at that time was quite similar to what it was in 2000.
“So, we can’t really even say that our diet was higher carb than it has ever been,” she says. “Not only that, but things look very interesting on a global level when we consider what other countries are eating.
We can see that as the percent of total calories, America actually has a very, very low, relatively speaking, intake of carbohydrate compared to a lot of other countries.
Other countries with low carbohydrate intakes, relatively speaking, include Australia, Iceland, a lot of different parts of Europe, many places that are also experiencing obesity epidemics.
And if we look at relative fat intake, we can see that America, Australia, Europe, Iceland — again many of the same areas experiencing obesity epidemics — actually have the highest intake of fat. So, bottom line here is that you do not eat a low-fat diet in the West at all. We can’t really blame anything that’s going on, on … low-fat [diets].”
The Forgotten Timeline of the Low-Fat Movement: Dr. Kempner
Menger goes on to review how, in 1939, Walter Kempner, a medical doctor and research scientist, used low-fat diets to successfully treat a wide array of chronic disease, including kidney disease and kidney failure, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, psoriasis and more.
He’s been referred to as the father of modern diet therapy, and is the creator of the Rice Diet, which was based on 250 grams to 350 grams of white rice (dry weight), unlimited fresh fruit and fruit juice, and, shockingly, unlimited white sugar. On average, his patients consumed between 100 grams to 400 grams of refined sugar a day. This diet is basically 94% carbs and only 2% fat.
The result? Patients with a range of diseases (listed above) dramatically improved, including diabetics. In a study that followed patients for up to 11 years, Kempner found that only 15% of diabetics experienced a rise in fasting blood sugar on the Rice Diet; 22% had no change; and 63% experienced a decrease, with an average drop of 101 mg/dL.
Insulin usage also decreased by 58% and 1 in 4 were able to cease taking insulin because their levels were completely normalized. A quote from a conference paper reviewing the Rice Diet reads:3
“Patients … were able to transition into a more flexible diet over time, while leading a normal, active life, without medications, indicating that the disease state [i.e., diabetes] had been permanently modified.”
The Forgotten Timeline: Drs. Morrison and Swank
In the 1940s, Dr. Lester Morrison, another pioneer of the low-fat diet, used a low-fat diet to treat heart disease in people who had already experienced a heart attack. The “Morrison Diet-Heart Study,”4 begun in 1946, found that people in the low-fat diet group had about half the mortality rate of controls after three years (14% compared to 30%).
Fat was the only macronutrient that was limited. The test group maintained daily fat intake between 20 grams and 25 grams, while eating as much sugar and refined grains as they wanted. After eight years, the low-fat group still had a lower mortality rate — 44% — compared to controls at 76%.
In the late 1940s, Dr. Roy Swank was a neurologist who not only advocated a low-fat diet, but also treated multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with it.5 He developed a theory that MS was the result of genetics combined with dietary triggers, saturated fat in particular. He put 150 MS patients on a low-fat diet (max 10 grams to 15 grams of saturated fat a day, primarily from meat and dairy). Sugar and refined grains were not limited.
Swank followed his patients for up to 50 years. Follow-up after 34 years showed that disease progression stabilized among those who adhered to the low-fat recommendation, while worsening among those who went back to eating more fat.
Mortality statistics confirmed this, showing that 31% of those who had died during the 34th year of follow-up had been eating less than 20 grams of saturated fat a day, while 80% of those who had died had been eating more than 20 grams.
The Forgotten Timeline: Drs. Pritikin and Esselstyn
Keys doesn’t enter the low-fat scene until the mid-1950s. By then, doctors had already been using low-fat diets in clinical practice for decades, with good success.
“So, Ancel Keys is not really the beginning of the low-fat movement,” Minger says. “There are a few people who have been swept under the rug of history, whom we’ve forgotten about.”
In the late 1950s, Dr. Nathan Pritikin founded a longevity center and became well-known for treating obesity and heart disease with a very low-fat diet based on vegetables, grains and fruits.
Then, in 1977, the first U.S. dietary guidelines recommending low fat came out. So, these guidelines were not necessarily the result of Keys’ alleged charisma, but did in fact have a long history of clinical successes to back them up.
Minger also reviews more recent research by Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, a cardiac surgeon who in 2014 published the results of a five-year study using an extremely low-fat, plant-based diet on 198 patients with advanced heart disease. Of those, 177 adhered to Esselstyn’s strict diet. The rest ended up serving as an accidental control group.
Among adherents, 22% completely reversed their heart disease, and only one person — 0.6% — had a cardiac event (stroke), compared to 62% of nonadherents.
“So, can we really say that low-fat, high-carb diets categorically are bad for cardiovascular health when … very, very, very low-fat [diets] have been shown —with evidence in clinical settings — to reverse heart disease? We need to refine the way we’re looking at these things,” Minger says.
Why Don’t Low-Fat Diets Work Today?
All of this brings us to an important question. If low-fat diets were so effective in decades past, why don’t they work today? Most modern research suggests low fat isn’t effective. The answer, Minger says, is that we’ve redefined the term “low fat.”
Between 1930 and 1970, “low fat” meant fat accounted for 10% of calories or less. Since the 1980s, “low fat” has been redefined as 30% of calories, which by all accounts is more like “moderate fat,” or even “relatively high fat,” based on the average global fat consumption. Minger then presents a rather intriguing, if not revolutionary, hypothesis.
We know that when your diet is 65% or more fat, you enter a metabolic state called ketosis, which has a long list of health benefits. “What if,” Minger says, “on the other end of the spectrum there’s a mirror metabolic state that happens when you restrict fat to [10% or less]?” The image below, from her slide show, illustrates her novel hypothesis.
Minger has dubbed this low-fat metabolic state “carbosis,” because there’s no official name for it. She explains:
“We got ketosis on one end; we got carbosis on the other end, and my thought is that what’s in the middle is the macronutrient ‘swamp land.’ And this swamp land, unfortunately, is where most of our obesity-producing diets tend to fall.
We see that a toxic combination [of] very processed carbohydrates with industrial vegetable oils … mixed with some salt, become highly addictive, maybe cause some changes in appetite regulation …
But the important thing here is … we have USDA guidelines that fall here, American Heart Association guidelines that fall here, American Diabetes Association guidelines that fall here, American Dietetic Association guidelines that fall here.
And, most importantly, if you look at almost any ‘low-fat’ study that has been conducted in recent years, it is also going to use a fat intake of about 30% — swampland values.
Of course, it’s not going to [produce] that therapeutic effect that we saw in some of this older research. That also brings us to a new question, which is why does [fat] need to be so low in order for that magic to happen?”
Dietary Fat Reduces Insulin Sensitivity
Minger goes on to review evidence suggesting that fat can reduce insulin sensitivity. Importantly, many experiments try to extrapolate the effects of macronutrients based on processed foods loaded with unnatural ingredients like hydrogenated soybean oil. That’s not a reliable way to ascertain the effects of fats and carbs found in whole foods.
One study, however, used just two basic ingredients: potato and butter. Metabolically healthy, nondiabetic, lean adults were fed a baked potato (50 grams of carbohydrate) either alone, or with 50 grams of butter. There’s a belief that eating fat with a high-carbohydrate meal will result in a lower blood sugar spike and insulin response, and this is what they wanted to test.
“As predicted, adding the fat to the potato did lower the glucose response, but it did not dramatically, significantly lower the insulin response. In fact, adding fat to the potato caused insulin levels to stay elevated for an hour longer than eating the potato alone.
It took a longer time for that level to return to baseline … and there was actually a potentiating effect on insulin from the fat. What that means is, more insulin was needed to handle the same amount of blood sugar when fat was added to the potato … So, for some reason the insulin was not being as effective, or it was circulating abnormally …”
They then repeated the experiment using patients with untreated Type 2 diabetes. They ate either a baked potato alone, or with varying amounts of fat from butter, ranging from 5 grams to 50 grams.
Interestingly, in diabetics, adding fat did not lower the blood sugar response. The insulin response to potato alone was also lower than it was for potato with as little as 5 grams of fat. The effect leveled off at 15 grams of fat, but all insulin responses were higher with fat than with potato alone.
“So, there’s something about adding butter to a high carbohydrate meal that increases insulin levels relative to the carb food being eaten alone,” Minger says.
This could explain why the Rice Diet, which was 94% carbohydrate and only 2% fat, improved insulin levels in diabetics. Kempner himself observed that even minimal additions of fat spoiled the therapeutic effect.
Dietary Fat Reduces Blood Oxygen
There’s also evidence suggesting that dietary fat can reduce the ability of oxygen to reach different tissues, including your brain and heart. Minger cites a 1955 study in which 14 patients with angina (a form of heart disease that causes severe chest pain) fasted overnight and were then given a glass of heavy cream to drink the next morning.
They then measured the plasma lactescence,6 a marker for fat flooding the blood stream during the process of digestion. Plasma lactescence started rising after two hours of ingestion, peaking at Hour 3. And, right as plasma lactescence peaked, that’s when patients began to experience bouts of angina and abnormal EKGs.
There were 14 angina attacks among the 14 patients, but some experienced multiple attacks while others had none. During peak lactescence, there was also a reduction in oxygen carrying capacity, meaning less oxygen was reaching their hearts. On top of that, platelets and red blood cells started clumping together, so blood flow was impaired.
They then replicated the experiment using an isolated protein powder drink with dextrin and maltose that had the same calorie content as the heavy cream. And, while this drink objectively contains less healthy ingredients, after five hours, none of the patients had experienced an angina attack and none had abnormal EKG.
“So, something to think about: There might be … certain susceptibilities among certain people to be sensitive to a high saturated fat intake,” Minger says.
“I’m not going to draw conclusions right now. This is still something I’m researching. But for anybody who does have any type of heart condition, consuming a lot of saturated fat in one meal might not be the best idea.”
Conclusion
In conclusion, Minger notes:
“… we sometimes blame carbohydrates for breaking our carbohydrate metabolism … We have another option though … This is what I’m thinking: Low carbohydrate diets are amazing for managing the symptoms and expressions of insulin resistance.
If you’re diabetic, you can go on a low carbohydrate diet, normalize your blood sugar, normalize your a1c, do great on the Surface, but if you ever go back to eating carbohydrates, you will be in trouble. There is still something about the body that is broken …
For some people, [their] bodies may be permanently broken beyond repair. I’ll definitely acknowledge that. But for some people, there may be the potential to actually restore glucose control … restore metabolic flexibility, and actually heal things like diabetes.
And right now, there is more evidence that a very low-fat diet can do that than a very high fat diet can … So, it’s a matter of, what are we willing to risk? What are we willing to play around with? …
So, I would like to leave with this one thought, which is that we have been engaged in a macronutrient war for a very, very long time — decades. The first victim was fat. We decided that was bad … [E]ventually we started realizing that that strategy didn’t work so well. Then we started targeting carbohydrates …
In my opinion this is also very narrow-minded. Both of these macronutrients operate in ways that are context-dependent. Fat can make carbohydrates look bad. Carbohydrates can make fat look bad. But in reality, we have these two different worlds that, most of the time, we consider irreconcilable, mutually exclusive.
We can’t figure out why one would work and the other one would work. So we tend to choose sides and root for just one. I would like to offer the idea that maybe these two things are not in fact at odds.”
28 Tips For A Happier And Healthier Life
1. Embrace life; don’t take waking up for granted.
2. Live with the three E’s: Enthusiasm. Empathy. Exemplary.
3. Cultivate the three I’s: Integrity. Inclusivity. Improvement.
4. No matter how favorable or unfavorable a situation may seem, it is bound to change at some point. Everything is impermanent. So carry on.
5. Make time for rest, meditation, reflection, hobbies, and creativity.
6. Your job won’t care for you when you are sick. Your family and friends will. Stay in touch.
7. Regularly read uplifting and inspiring stories, quotes, and books.
8. Make enjoyment of giving an essential task in your life.
9. It only takes six months of pure dedication to change your life.
10. Imperfections are part of being human, so let’s embrace ourselves, flaws and all.
11. Life is a school for learning and growth. Problems are part of the curriculum that appear and fade away, but the lessons learned last a lifetime.
12. Be selective and careful with whose energy you want to absorb.
13. Don’t overdo anything; keep all things in moderation.
14. Become so confident in who you are that no one’s opinion or behavior can rock or disturb you.
15. Sit in silence for at least 10 minutes each day. Sleep for at least 7 hours every night.
16. Take a 20-minute walk daily——and practice deep breathing while you walk.
17. Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need.
18. Avoid bringing up past mistakes to maintain present happiness in relationships.
19. Spend time with people over 70. You’ll learn something useful.
20. Nothing has more power over you as much as your thoughts. Think good thoughts.
21. No one is in charge of your happiness except you.
22. Be content with what you have and where you are.
23. Cry when you need to, but smile and laugh more.
24. You don’t have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.
25. Always strive to do the right things.
26. Forgive everyone for everything.
27. Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a princess, and dinner like a beggar. Eat more foods that grow on trees and plants, and eat less food manufactured in plants. Limit high-fat food, salt, and sugar. Stay hydrated. Don’t smoke. Drink sensibly.
28. Slow down, embrace the present moment, and embrace what you have.
Global Governance
Josephine Cashman writes:
By 2030, a ruling class of transnational crooks will control 80% of Australian land, allowing them to strip assets and eliminate home ownership to own everything.
The ruling class handlers of the UNi-party of the Canberra swamp are denying Aboriginal Australians private property rights through communal Native Title as part of their agenda to own everything and be happy. Communal Native Title land cannot be owned by Australians. In order to remove all Australian home ownership rights by 2030, UN communal Native Title land will cover 80% of Australia. So their next step is to shame us into accepting their phoney solutions of Voice/Treaty/Truth.
Aboriginal people worldwide are being exploited without their permission as scapegoats for the Great Reset/Agenda 2030 plan, led by King Charles III, its ambassador. As part of a ruling class intergenerational enslavement agenda of our wannabe overlords.
Take a look at the Nazi SS leader Prince Bernard and King Charles’s father Prince Philip, for example, it is clear that this agenda is preplanned. They started the WWF in Brazil and the Australian Conservation Foundation as a device to manipulate public opinion to push for the establishment of a UN “indigenous” communal land title, which by 2030 will include the vast majority of the Australian nation.
As has been evident in Africa, W.E.H. Stanner’s contribution helped shape a system in which Africa is at one end of the spectrum asset-rich and at the other end starving to death.
Stanner, a diplomat and a central banker were the three founding members of the Aboriginal Affairs department in Canberra. Before this Stanner worked for the Packer billionaire traitor family when he returned from Kenya for the first test run of this communal “indigenous” title.
In the 1930s Guerrilla warfare expert and anthropologist L.S.B. Leakey recruited Stanner for British intelligence in Kenya. Where Indigenous “owners” were given name-only titles to lands without real property rights. As a device to control natural resources for asset stripping, This is why British intelligence operatives faked a “liberation” in Africa after World War II, granting African nations independence in name only.
These ruling-class transnational crooks won’t be happy unless they own everything in Australia and around the world. Similar plans have been implemented in the United States, Canada, and New Zealand, among other places.
This agenda isn’t known by the public, why?
A combination of strategies, including demoralisation agents, is used as divide and conquer tactics including a phoney “freedom” movement to push the idea we are sheep and stupid.
These crooks groom us like paedophiles. Blaming each other is similar to blaming the family of a child abuse victim. We have to defeat them by getting over the target and not fighting each other, as it accomplishes nothing other than serving their agenda of enslaving humanity. Please be kind to yourself and to your fellow countrymen because we are victims of this.
It is said: When all are guilty, no one is; confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime the best excuse for doing nothing ? Hannah Arendt
The truth is being hidden by the guilty
In order to accomplish this, a combination of methods is used: With the aim of holding an initial “freedom” rally in Alice Springs in 2014, the fake freedom movement was established. How were they aware of the Covid experimental medical treatment, before a shellshocked public? The “freedom” leaders weren’t just born out of nowhere; they were preconceived years before. Likewise, to suppress dissent during the Russian Revolution, they created a fake “anti-communist movement” code-named Operation Trust.
In order to discredit good-hearted Australians seeking solutions committed to fighting for all of Australia, these fake “freedom” advocates use pseudo-law lies and hypotheticals without supporting facts.
The compromised UNi-party of the Canberra swamp is no doubt a troupe of clowns performing political partisanship for the amusement of their handlers. There are fake left and right camps to distract the masses.
Public awareness of this obvious issue is made difficult by the big lie media owned by the ruling class.
Australia is back when you back yourself
There are a number of fundamental themes that are associated with this agenda, and if you do your own research, you will find that one such theme is the use of Aboriginal people as scapegoats under the guise of decolonisation and themes such as “Indigenous transnational global governance.”
Do not underestimate your own power to UN-veil the betrayal to Expose the Traitors. Fight together not each other.
Permission or Manipulation by Greg Yodis
Permission is defined as allowing yourself to proceed forward with the choices, decisions and actions you make.
Yet there is a second part to the definition that cannot be left out. It becomes permission only when one is willing to accept full responsibility for their choices, decisions and actions.
If one allows themselves to proceed forward with their choices, decisions and actions without taking and accepting full responsibility, than this changes the label from Permission to Manipulation.
When a person allows someone else to take responsibility … than that is the purest definition of manipulation.
Understanding the differences between these two words in a real and genuine way, helps you to discern in life much easier and faster.
Example 1: What about a man who wants to live with a woman, yet doesn’t want children and will leave if the woman gets pregnant? Is he giving himself permission to love her or would this fall under the definition of manipulation? This is a conversation I’ve had with my own daughter.
Example 2: I spoke with a man in Bali and he told me how a business of his didn’t do well and he was stuck being responsible for all the debt and his partners were not. His partners had the agreement that he would shoulder the debt while they were “allowed” to share in the profits. I looked at him and I said, “Wow, they weren’t real business partners, they were just manipulator partners. He said, “Oh no, I don’t think so.” … I said to him, “They never took responsibility for the business … you did. You gave yourself permission while they gave themselves manipulation.” It’s so quick and easy to see once these words are understood.
So, really think about the differences between these two words. Where do you see the two differences playing out in your life? Where do I see them being played out in my life? Where do you see them playing out in the world?
So the question is this: Does what you see and hear have the credibility of permission or the cleverness of manipulation?
The thing about these definitions, is once I personally came to understand them, it became easy for me to understand up front who was giving themselves true permission and who was only manipulating. It gave almost a clairvoyance to insightful discernment.
When I finally understood what these words really meant, it didn’t take long to perceive the truth and respond to most situations. People tell me who they are and I believe them.
Does a politician, your doctor, your grocer, your gov’t, the companies you deal with and buy from, the people you deal with, your pharmacist, your car salesman, the Media give themselves permission or give themselves manipulation?
How about the Pharmaceutical Companies?
When Fauci absolved all the Pharmaceutical companies from any liability for the Vxxxns they manufacture and are now forcing on the world, did he give them permission or manipulation? In 1986 when the gov’t absolved all the Vxxxn companies from any liability to to the adverse effects of their products, were the companies given permission or manipulation? When the Gov’ts of the world need to give a waiver on the liability of a Vxxxn before a Pharmaceutical Corporation will sell to them, are they giving themselves and the companies permission or just the ability to manipulate?
Really ask yourself these questions and answer for yourself honestly. Upon reflection of these two definitions, It doesn’t take much thought process to understand what is happening does it?
They want to give your children these shots and they have never given themselves true permission to do so.
So why should you give in to their manipulation and take all the responsibility?
People tell me who they are and I believe them. Companies tell me who they are and I believe them.
The people in gov’t tell me who they are and I believe them.
The politicians of today and the Big Pharma companies are manipulators through and through. Nothing more needs to be understood. This whole Covid mess could have been stopped right in the beginning if the world only understood the meaning of these two simple words …
Permission and Manipulation
So do it now. Stop this mess, stop the ruse and protect your children. Stop participating and say NO to these manipulative criminals.
The West’s Sanctions Hypocrisy: Russia’s Import Substitution. Sanctions Backfire.
Sanctions against Russia have proved to be a farce, with damaging blowback against European economies, continued (but never mentioned) western energy imports from Russia, a big recovery in Russian GDP growth since early 2022 and a major Russian programme of import substitution aiming at long term self sufficiency in goods and services previously bought from the West.