police state – Page 219 – Hellbound and Down

Here’s What’s Really Behind the Global Reset and Sustainable Development Agenda 2030

The title of this article projects an ominous future where the masses are controlled by a few. Over the years I have written several articles covering the elite gathering in Davos. The global elites see the World Economic Forum (WEF) as an opportunity to promote their views and various causes. These people often fail to see that many of us have come to view Davos, as a notorious rendezvous for the world’s elite that grant us the honor of paying for their schemes in some way or form.

Such gatherings are not for our sake but more for the benefit of plutocrats like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon’s Jeff Bezos. The Global Reset they are pushing often reeks of their desire to “break the world” with their ruthless corporate agendas that continue to move political power into the hands of the globalist elite. To counter this attitude reassuring words are cast out over the airwaves to us, the minions of the world, to encourage faith in their wisdom. Oh, what a tangled web those in charge of our fate have woven for us as they rush to sell and bargain away our freedom for power and wealth.

When the WEF revealed its Davos 2021 Agenda, it confirmed the event of that year would be digital and herald the public unveiling of its Great Reset Initiative. Angel Gurría and Klaus Schwab have outlined how governments and businesses can shape a new labor market that supports workers to thrive in the future. This underlines how the covid-19 pandemic has accelerated systemic changes that were apparent before its inception.

The Covid-19 pandemic has been used as confirmation that no institution or individual alone can address the economic, environmental, social, and technological challenges of our complex, interdependent world. It is also being touted as a reason to support the “The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” One hundred and ninety-three UN member states adopted this 15-year global framework and its ambitious set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in September 2015.

Keep reading

What the Australian excess deaths inquiry refused to publish

A committee investigating potential causes of Australia’s record excess deaths has refused to publish a comprehensive interdisciplinary submission by the Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS), of which I am a contributor.

Since 2021, Australia has experienced excess mortality at rates not seen outside of wartime. Not all of it is due to Covid. Therefore, the Australian Parliament established the world’s first excess deaths inquiry to get to the bottom of what’s causing so many more Australians to die than would normally be expected.

The AMPS submission includes :

Evidence of an uptick in all-cause mortality (ACM) with the introduction of Covid vaccines to a zero Covid community,
An estimate of the true contribution of Covid to excess deaths (29% at most),
An estimate of the true number of Australian cumulative excess deaths throughout 2021-2023 in the ballpark of 40,000 as opposed to the official Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) estimate of 29,601,
Discussion of how the ABS drastically reduced its excess deaths estimate overnight by changing its baseline modelling,
Evidence that Covid vaccine injuries and deaths are under-reported in official record keeping,
A review of the Australian Government’s unscientific response to the Covid pandemic and its detrimental impact on health outcomes, likely contributing to excess deaths,
And evidence that deaths in the vaccine arm of the Pfizer trial were concealed prior to the US Emergency Use Approval (EUA) data cut-off date, plus evidence of a 3.7-fold increase in cardiac events in vaccinated vs. placebo arm subjects.

After AMPS made its submission to the inquiry earlier this year, the organisation was invited to testify at a public hearing. This resulted in some rather explosive content going in the public record, including Dr Jeyanthi Kunadhasan asking the committee,

“If the clinical sponsor can hide deaths and autopsy results, ignore a sudden adult death and cardiac event signal in the clinical trial, with the regulator waving this along, what else can they hide?”

Keep reading

No Means No: The Child in Vermont Said No, So What Good is the Vermont Supreme Court Ruling?

During the height of the COVID19 pandemic debacle, suggestive reasoning in advocating for Federal vaccine mandates was used to nudge the unthinkable. This observation is directed at a 2022 article by Fraser and Neuss in the journal Chest. At a time when it was already known that the vaccines failed to prevent transmission, the authors nevertheless attempted to nudge subtly toward a nationalized approach to vaccine mandates without explicitly stating this position. Their approach is easily criticized for its passive-aggressive tone, lack of clarity, and failure to fully engage with counterarguments.

I will argue that via a detailed analysis of the principle of informed consent. I will argue that solicited, explicit, and voluntary agreement before administering medical procedures, particularly vaccinations, without pretext, coercion or presumption, is a basic human right. The Vermont Supreme Court’s recent ruling, interpreted by some as allowing schools to vaccinate children without explicit parental consent, is highlighted as an anomalous but significant threat to informed consent and parental rights. In particular, in addition to rights to choose (accept or decline) proferred medical options, this ruling potentially enables the state to enroll children in long-term vaccine safety studies without parental knowledge or consent, contravening ethical standards outlined in 45 CFR 46, the Common Rule, and other federal regulations designed to protect vulnerable populations.

Case examples, such as Murthy v. Missouri (2024) and Medical Professionals for Informed Consent v. Bassett (2023), are used to illustrate the importance of maintaining individual rights and informed consent in public health policies. These cases underscore the necessity for clear legislative frameworks and robust protections to prevent overreach and maintain public trust.

I call for more direct and transparent discussions on vaccine mandates, urging a balanced approach that respects individual autonomy and informed consent while addressing public health needs. The current trend of suggestive reasoning and ambiguous policy advocacy undermines ethical principles and fails to provide a solid foundation for public health strategies.

Keep reading

British Government Advisor Calls for Lockdowns To Tackle Unrest

An advisor to Britain’s Labour government has suggested using COVID-style lockdowns to tackle growing unrest, as protestors clash with police and counter-protestors across the UK after the murder of three young girls at a dance class.

John Woodcock, Baron Walney, a former MP and the UK government’s advisor on political violence and disruption, told Times Radio that the government should be prepared to implement lockdown measures to tackle unrest.

He said the British public will back measures they “feel are necessary to get this situation under control.”

“I think the government and new ministers will understand the British public will back them in whatever measures they feel is necessary to get this situation under control.

“Hopefully we can see this petering out now over the next few days and the extra effort which is being put on forces being able to have effect.

“But if that isn’t the case, I think the British public will back further action from ministers in this emergency to get things under control.

“Back in Covid, they were prepared to back measures that were needed in that situation and I think they would take a similar approach to keeping rioters off the streets now given the scale of damage that has been done to communities.”

Tensions across the UK remain extremely high after the murder of three schoolgirls by Axel Muganwa Rudakubana, the son of a Rwandan immigrant, at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport.

Keep reading

California Regulators Propose Gov’t Takeover Of Oil Refineries To Stave Off Energy Crisis

California regulators have proposed a variety of government intrusions into the petroleum industry in order to combat future energy price surges, according to a report released Thursday by the California Energy Commission (CEC).

As the Golden State continues to pursue its green agenda, the CEC expects some of California’s nine oil refineries to be shuttered due to falling demand, which would give the remaining refineries increased pricing power and raise the possibility of a surge in gas prices, the study concluded. To solve this problem, the commission proposed a variety of government interventions, including expanded regulation on private refineries, the establishment of state-owned refineries and an increase in imports. (RELATED: Chevron Leaving California Behind After Years Of ‘Adversarial’ Dem Policies)

“The deployment of ZEVs [zero-emission vehicles] and a robust mass transit system are critical for achieving the state’s climate goals, reducing local air pollution, and eventually eliminating dependence on the volatile global petroleum markets. As demand for gasoline shrinks, refineries may close or convert to processing clean transportation fuels,” the report states. “This will lead to fewer gasoline refineries, with increased market concentration and associated market problems that often accompany it.”

Keep reading

We Reap the Harvest of Lies

Public life has become disorienting. Most people, by and large, previously expected to hear the truth, or some semblance of it, in daily life. We would generally expect this from each other, but also from public media and authorities such as governments or international agencies set up ostensibly for our benefit. Society cannot function in a coherent and stable way without it, as so much in our lives requires us to place trust in others.

To navigate the complexity of existence, we generally look for guidance to certain trusted sources, freeing up time to sift through the more questionable ones. Some claim they always knew everything was fake, but they are wrong, as it wasn’t (and still isn’t). There were always liars, campaigns to mislead, and propaganda to drive us to love or to hate, but there was a core within society that had certain accepted norms and standards that should theoretically be followed. A sort of anchor. Truth is indestructible but the anchor cable connecting us to it, ensuring its influence, has been cut. Society is being set adrift.

This really broke in the past four or five years. We were already in trouble, but now public discourse is broken. Perhaps it broke when governments elected to represent the people openly employed behavioral psychology to lie to their constituencies on a scale we had not previously seen. They combined to make their peoples do things they rationally would not; accept bans of family funerals, cover faces in public, or accept police brutality and the isolation and abandonment of the elderly. The media, health professionals, politicians, and celebrities all participated in this lie and its intent. Virtually all our major institutions. And these lies are continuing, and expanding, and have become the norm.

We are now reaping the harvest of untruth. The media can openly deny what they said or printed just months earlier about a new candidate for presidency or the efficacy of a mandated vaccine. A whole political party can change its narrative almost overnight about the fundamental characteristics of its leader. People paid as “fact-checkers” twist reality to invent new facts and hide the truth, unflustered by the transparency of their deceit. Giant software companies curate information, filtering out truths that run contrary to the pronouncements of conflicted international organizations. Power has displaced integrity.

Internationally, we are pummeled by agencies such as the UN, World Bank, G20, and World Health Organization to give up our basic rights and hand their new masters our wealth on claims of threats that can unequivocally be shown to be false. Paid-off former leaders, grasping legitimacy through the legacy of greater minds, reinforce mass falsehoods for the benefit of their friends. Once aberrations that a free media might highlight, fallacies have become norms in which the same media is openly complicit.

The frightening part is not the lies, which are a normal aspect of humanity, but the broad disinterest in truth. Lies can stand for a time in the presence of a people and institutions that value truth, but they will eventually fail as they are exposed. When truth loses its value, when it is no longer even a vague guide for politics or journalism, then recovery may not occur. We are in an incredibly dangerous time, because lies are not just tolerated but are now the default approach, at the national and international level, and the fourth estate that was to shed light on them has embraced the darkness.

Keep reading

UK PM Keir Starmer Uses Riots To Call For Mass Surveillance and Social Media Censorship

The more things change, the more they remain the same, at least in the UK; after many years of Tory governments’ vigorous efforts to extend mass surveillance indiscriminately targeting citizens and enact stringent anti-free speech laws, the new Labour government seems to be picking up right where the previous one left off.

The wake of the Southport riots has elicited the usual medley of reactions: moves to address societal issues with more surveillance, strengthen the police state, blame “misinformation” and unproven, but always handy to bring up, “foreign meddling.”

But the real malady seems to be squarely at home: in fact, in the prime minister’s office. Keir Starmer happens to be sitting there now, but the policy hardly ever changes: he, too, wants more mass surveillance based on facial recognition, and more pressure on social media to ramp up censorship.

If anything does change it is the intensity of these demands that have long since been rejected as “Orwellian” by rights groups like Big Brother Watch.

Here, Starmer told a news conference called after the events branded as far-right riots, that participants in the protests (whom he called “thugs” and compared with football hooligans) are “mobile” and for that reason, police forces will, going forward, be a part of a network of sorts.

The prime minister added that there will be intelligence and data sharing, as well as “wider deployment of facial recognition technology, and preventative action, criminal behavior orders to restrict their movements before they can even board a train, in just the same way that we do with football hooligans.”

Movement restrictions are said to apply only to those with previous convictions, and those who have committed “violence at protests.” But here things get complicated because even those who were charged with relatively minor offenses like disorderly conduct could end up having their movements surveilled and restricted.

Starmer isn’t in favor of enacting new laws; he seems satisfied that all this can be achieved within the existing legislation and announced a “coordinated response” within the police across the country and law enforcement taking advantage of those laws more than before. But he does want more police officers, and it seems that increasing their numbers will be one election campaign promise that will be kept.

Keep reading

Minnesota Supreme Court Rules That Threatened Person Must Retreat Before Brandishing a Weapon

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in a split decision that a person who is being attacked or threatened must retreat if “reasonably possible” instead of brandishing a weapon.

The court upheld two second-degree convictions of assault with a deadly weapon against a man who was armed with a machete who alleged that he was threated by another man with a knife at a light rail station in Minneapolis in 2021.

A 4–2 decision, issued Wednesday by the state’s high court, said that Minnesota law stipulates that there is a “duty to retreat” when reasonably possible before using deadly force. That applies when the person faces bodily harm, the judges ruled.

In its decision Wednesday, the state court wrote that the “duty to retreat when reasonably possible—a judicially created element of self-defense—applies to persons who claim they were acting in self-defense when they committed the felony offense of second-degree assault-fear with a device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm.”

The plaintiff in the case, Earley Romero Blevins, brandished a machete after a man with a knife allegedly threated him at a rail station in Minnesota. The man approached Blevins as he was arguing with a woman, according to Blevins, who said that the man armed with the knife told him to come to a shelter at the station so he “could slice” his throat.

Blevins had argued that he feared for his life and was acting in self-defense when he produced the machete, according to the ruling. The justices, however, said that after they reviewed video footage of the incident, they found that he had ample opportunity to leave the situation.

Keep reading

BRITAIN BURNING: Riots and Protests in 35 Towns and Cities as PM Keir Stamer Announces Police Crackdown

Keir Stamer has barely been in office a month after winning a mere 33.7% of British votes July 4. Stamer announced a police crackdown using facial recognition technology and internet censorship. Facial recognition would prevent protestors “from even boarding a train”, the Socialist PM said, apparently suspending the presumption of innocence in UK.

Brits are now making fun of their WEF Davos PM under the hashtag #FarRightThugsUnite.

Nigel Farage called the protests a “reaction” to “fear” and “societal decline” in the UK: “Law and order is breaking down, and this Prime Minister hasn’t got a clue what to do about it.”

Over 35 protests are planned across the country under the motto “Enough is Enough”, with several counter-protests organized by far-left Soros NGO “Hope Not, HATE”.

7 people were arrested in Southport after riots Tuesday, while 111 were arrested in London Wednesday, and 7 arrested in Hartlepool Thursday.

A protest in Sunderland outside Newcastle in Northumbria turned violent Friday night. 10 people were arrested, 3 police officers were injured.

Keep reading

	Trump Claims Netanya… on Trump claims Netanyahu will sc…
	Key Trump agency unl… on Key Trump agency unleashes pro…
	Pope Leo XIV Picks a… on Pope Leo XIV Picks a Top Roths…
	Bigus Macus on Why Is The Trump DOJ Still Enf…
	High Taxes Are Turni… on High Taxes Are Turning Seattle…

Every person alive right now PAY ATTENTION

Section 71A

states that a member of the police may do anything reasonably necessary (including the use of force) to help a medical officer of health or any person authorised by the medical officer of health in the exercise or performance of powers or functions under sections 70 or 71.

section 70(1)(f)

section 70(1)(h)