New World Order (NWO), sometimes called the Great Reset

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pargat:

Pargat Perrer - Post # 231 -23/8/18 - "Such hypocrisy from Sid and Dilip! Please recognize that, Bob."



My Response:

Pargat, you can call whomever you wish a "troll". You can post whatever judgments you wish, subject to libel law.

However..........I am group secretary - it is not up to me to judge participants. I am simply a "facilitator". For the benefit of the group, I try to put into good form, as readable, executive summary Statements, the declarations of participants here.

Secondly, you go on and on in the posts above about what you think Dilip's Libertarian position is. Yet you make no formal "Challenge" to the Statement as being an inaccurate Statement of Libertarian policy. Yes, you say that surveillance will not only be in "public spaces", but in the bedroom and everywhere in our private spaces. Yet you will not make the effort for this group of CT'ers to even do us the courtesy of making a slight amendment to the Statement, and posting the revision. And it seems you otherwise accept my rendition of the Libertarian position. What is going on here? If you think it is "whitewashing" Libertarianism, produce the more accurate Statement......if accepted by this CT'er group, then we will thank you.

I am NOT a Libertarian; I am a Democratic Marxist.

But, as group secretary, I have put my partisan politics on the shelf, and have tried, quite successfully I believe, to put myself in the other's shoes, and think as they do. So what do you want of me as Group Secretary, Pargat?

Is there anyone in this CT'er Group who supports my position, as a group member, that our producing generally accepted Statements on Human Self Government, and on Libertarianism, and I've now been asked to make some Statements generally acceptable to Democratic Marxists in this CT'er Group, is a very worthwhile project?

Or does the whole group feel pursuing my project here (I originated this thread on 22/12/5) is a total waste of your time. If so, why have you been coming, and making responses, for over 8 months now? If so, I have lots of other things to do with my time than to be a totally volunteer secretary here. I don't waste my time either.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:



I have done nothing here except to try to help Dilip set out his Libertarian principles. I have been objective and fair. I have never personally attacked any CT'er participating here. If so, please post the post #. So I appreciate it being said that I do not troll.

If you say I have failed to capture the essence of Libertarianism in one of my proposed Statements for Libertarianism, and, as group secretary, I ask you to revise the Statement to be satisfactory to you (My Post # 230, 23/8/18), you IGNORE me and rant on about stuff posted by Pargat Perrer, and which make no appearance in my draft Statement.

I am getting confused about what your agenda now is here.......you seemed to appreciate the first 7 Statements that I put into Statement form for you; now you seem to be attacking me.

If you are well-intentioned, which I believe you are, you will either accept my Statement # 8, you will tweak/revise it to eliminate what you don't like, or you will provide a good alternate Libertarian Statement on the use of audio/visual surveillance.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Dilip Panjwani]

- there will be less and less interpretation of law under Libertarianism

Now can you see that Libertarianism WILL NECESSARILY BRING ABOUT increase in digital surveillance?

In fact, to achieve its objectives of having VIRTUALLY ZERO interpretation of law, Libertarianism will demand almost TOTAL digital surveillance comprised of both video AND audio recordings.

This is what one would expect a troll to write (by definition, deliberately posting misinterpretations, misquotations, exaggerations, misleading, irrelevant, offensive or other disruptive posts).
Nobody said there will be less interpretation of the law in Libertarianism, etc. What was said is that interpretation of the law has always been a small problem in jurisprudence, and as always, it will continue to be dealt with using common sense even in Libertarianism.
Also, digital surveillance is likely to help miscarriage of justice in jurisprudence in the future, whatever the governing system which may exist.

And btw, digital surveillance does not mean somebody constantly watching you in your bedroom; in the future, it could be intelligently and discretely applied in jurisprudence in a way that is acceptable to all (except the criminals who do not want any truth to be revealed against them).

Bob, so long as you keep the trolling out of your statements, you are fine...thanks!

[Pargat Perrer]

Bob, to clear things up, here is exactly what Dilip wrote in his post #176 in this thread:

"There is nothing philosophical or ambiguous about the Natural Law. It is as simple and straightforward as you can get. On the other hand, the huge number of laws we currently have, and the contradictory nature of judgements which have been possible on them, shows that ambiguity and complexity and stupidity are characteristics of what now exists, and along with the liars (lawyers) misusing the already unclear scenario, seeking justice is a nightmare now for the ordinary citizens...as you would certainly agree with me. Making things simpler and straight-forward (as with Libertarianism) is what is needed, right?"


and here is exactly what Dilip wrote in his post #188 in this thread:

"'Interpretation of the law' has been a lesser problem than the 'determination of the facts of a case', in the administration of justice. The former has always been dealt with, and will continue to be dealt with, using common sense, by the jurors and the judges. The latter is what is responsible for delays, backlog & miscarriage of justice, and hopefully digital surveillance will help with that in the future."


So post 176 says that Libertarianism will make things simpler and more straight-forward ... getting rid of the many laws we now have and replacing them with one simple Natural Law.

In other words, there will be less and less interpretation of law under Libertarianism.

Agreed?

Post 188 says what we REALLY need is to have more determination of the facts of a case than we are currently having, because he says "hopefully digital surveillance will help with that in the future".

Agreed?

So let's put these 2 statements together:

- there will be less and less interpretation of law under Libertarianism
- what we REALLY need is to have more determination of the facts of a case than we are currently having

Now can you see that Libertarianism WILL NECESSARILY BRING ABOUT increase in digital surveillance?

In fact, to achieve its objectives of having VIRTUALLY ZERO interpretation of law, Libertarianism will demand almost TOTAL digital surveillance comprised of both video AND audio recordings.

It is not a "red herring" to suggest this will involve surveillance in people's bedrooms. A lot of criminal activity is hatched in bedroom conversations! So if we need to catch all cases of people hatching criminal plots, we need to surveil them IN THIER BEDROOMS and everywhere else they go.

How is any of this trolling? It is cut and dried analysis of what Dilip Panjwani is proposing for the future. His own words damn him.

Accusations of trolling are just diversionary tactics, please recognize them for what they are.

Sid hates it when others attack the messenger instead of the message .... but he does it himself, and he applauds Dilip for doing it as well.

Such hypocrisy from Sid and Dilip! Please recognize that, Bob.

Dilip Panjwani:
"hopefully digital surveillance will help with that in the future".

Word for word quote.

And of course, it should be added that the solution of the non-Libertarians -- the people who do not want increased digital surveillance -- is to continue to formulate and create laws to cover ever more and more situations and create precedent, and to prosecute those laws.

Yes, facts of the cases are still needed, for cases where INTENT needs to be determined, but the justice system can never be perfect when it comes to intent without the incorporation of total and complete digital surveillance.

Thus it is up to voters to decide if they feel PERFECT justice is worth the price of TOTAL surveillance.

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Dilip:

Statement # 8 of the Libertarians (Proposed)

I am unclear - I read your objection, but it seems that the Statement proposed does not say anything about what you are complaining about.

Dilip: "do not say that digital surveillance will be more needed in Libertarianism,"

Response: the Statement # 8 takes no position on the extent of surveillance under Libertarianism compared to other systems. You are right though, I believe, that I in one of my posts, may have made such an allegation - that is not in the Statement.

I have tried to put forward a Statement (Including posts by Pargat) on how Libertarianism will employ audio and video surveillance; this is a topic you raised as being an important aspect of Natural Law Libertarianism (We will ignore any trolling and stick to the topic). I thought I had been moderate - I said only in "public spaces" (Pargat threw in the bedroom red herring, not me). I gave the reasons that the human rights over-ride was necessary.......you have supported that by your comments, as far as I can see - "digital surveillance is something for law and order,".

......

Bob, to clear things up, here is exactly what Dilip wrote in his post #176 in this thread:

"There is nothing philosophical or ambiguous about the Natural Law. It is as simple and straightforward as you can get. On the other hand, the huge number of laws we currently have, and the contradictory nature of judgements which have been possible on them, shows that ambiguity and complexity and stupidity are characteristics of what now exists, and along with the liars (lawyers) misusing the already unclear scenario, seeking justice is a nightmare now for the ordinary citizens...as you would certainly agree with me. Making things simpler and straight-forward (as with Libertarianism) is what is needed, right?"


and here is exactly what Dilip wrote in his post #188 in this thread:

"'Interpretation of the law' has been a lesser problem than the 'determination of the facts of a case', in the administration of justice. The former has always been dealt with, and will continue to be dealt with, using common sense, by the jurors and the judges. The latter is what is responsible for delays, backlog & miscarriage of justice, and hopefully digital surveillance will help with that in the future."


So post 176 says that Libertarianism will make things simpler and more straight-forward ... getting rid of the many laws we now have and replacing them with one simple Natural Law.

In other words, there will be less and less interpretation of law under Libertarianism.

Agreed?

Post 188 says what we REALLY need is to have more determination of the facts of a case than we are currently having, because he says "hopefully digital surveillance will help with that in the future".

Agreed?

So let's put these 2 statements together:

- there will be less and less interpretation of law under Libertarianism
- what we REALLY need is to have more determination of the facts of a case than we are currently having

Now can you see that Libertarianism WILL NECESSARILY BRING ABOUT increase in digital surveillance?

In fact, to achieve its objectives of having VIRTUALLY ZERO interpretation of law, Libertarianism will demand almost TOTAL digital surveillance comprised of both video AND audio recordings.

It is not a "red herring" to suggest this will involve surveillance in people's bedrooms. A lot of criminal activity is hatched in bedroom conversations! So if we need to catch all cases of people hatching criminal plots, we need to surveil them IN THIER BEDROOMS and everywhere else they go.

How is any of this trolling? It is cut and dried analysis of what Dilip Panjwani is proposing for the future. His own words damn him.

Accusations of trolling are just diversionary tactics, please recognize them for what they are.

Sid hates it when others attack the messenger instead of the message .... but he does it himself, and he applauds Dilip for doing it as well.

Such hypocrisy from Sid and Dilip! Please recognize that, Bob.

Dilip Panjwani:
"hopefully digital surveillance will help with that in the future".

Word for word quote.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

Statement # 8 of the Libertarians (Proposed)

I am unclear - I read your objection, but it seems that the Statement proposed does not say anything about what you are complaining about.

Dilip: "do not say that digital surveillance will be more needed in Libertarianism,"

Response: the Statement # 8 takes no position on the extent of surveillance under Libertarianism compared to other systems. You are right though, I believe, that I in one of my posts, may have made such an allegation - that is not in the Statement.

I have tried to put forward a Statement (Including posts by Pargat) on how Libertarianism will employ audio and video surveillance; this is a topic you raised as being an important aspect of Natural Law Libertarianism (We will ignore any trolling and stick to the topic). I thought I had been moderate - I said only in "public spaces" (Pargat threw in the bedroom red herring, not me). I gave the reasons that the human rights over-ride was necessary.......you have supported that by your comments, as far as I can see - "digital surveillance is something for law and order,".

In order to be clear, if you feel my Statement mis-states the Libertarian position, then please Propose an "alternate" Statement # 8 that properly sets out the Libertarian position on public surveillance (What other political parties say there policy is on this is not relevant).

We CT'ers want to be clear what the Libertarian policy is, and we see no reason there cannot be a Libertarian Statement on this to add to the very good list so far. But it seems you (Sid has not yet spoken up against any particular part of this Statement, though you have quoted him) are not satisfied with my attempt.

So you need to take over on this issue and produce a Statement on the issue of surveillance that IS Libertarian policy. My guess is that your Statement will in all likelihood not be challenged as "not" Libertarian policy.

Thanks.

Bob (As Group Secretary)

[Dilip Panjwani]

No, sadly, the reality is it is much worst than what Dillip said.

Absolutely, Sid. What we are seeing today is liars (often called lawyers) use their knowledge of the thousands of contradictory laws to keep them in business, and will go out of business once they realize that they can get punished for 'legal trolling'...

[Dilip Panjwani]

Libertarian Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians among CT'ers here

Statement # 8 (Proposed by Pargat Perrer - see Note below)

Libertarianism will employ 24/7 digital surveillance of every citizen in public spaces, including not just video but audio as well. This will help Natural Law enforcement to have the facts necessary to make discretionary decisions on whether to lay charges for breach of the Natural Law or other laws. It will also provide needed evidence for court hearings, where the issue is whether the Natural Law provided an exemption for non-compliance. This is seen as a necessary over-ride of the citizen's right of privacy and freedom from surveillance.

[Note: As group secretary, I am attempting to extract a Statement from the recent post # 218 (23/8/18) of Pargat Perrer. Pargat is free to revise my draft here as he needs to, to make it his own, if mine fails to capture it. As well, he can post any future Statement on his own, in this format for Proposed Statements, as can any member of the group.]

Processing

If the proposed Statement is not "Challenged" as not accurately representing the Libertarian view, within one week (Deadline: Friday, 23/8/25 @ 11:59 PM EDT), then it will be "generally accepted" by Libertarians in this CT'er group, and inserted in the list of Statements generally acceptable to the Libertarians here.

[Note: At this point, in Phase I, we are attempting to achieve an accurate Libertarian policy Statement. Opposition to this Statement as not being factual/beneficial will occur during Phase II.]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

Bob,
I thought you were better than a troll to not put words in my mouth. As Sid has rightly pointed out, digital surveillance is something for law and order, not anything specific to Libertarianism. The trolls and habitual litigators who always like to complicate simple concepts feel threatened by Libertarianism, because they know that their tendency to twist facts will be easily exposed and punished appropriately in a Libertarian system and hence they will not be able to pursue their stupid desires (unless they like going bankrupt). Sid knows that digital surveillance in a 'harm no one' system cannot be used by the government to keep on watching what you do in your bedroom, and people who gain access to it for their vile desires will be appropriately penalized...
And do not say that digital surveillance will be more needed in Libertarianism, as I point out that the opposite is true, in my post below...

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid, what we have now is nothing compared to what Dilip is saying will be necessary. Dilip made it clear that the problem with the justice system of today is not that we need myriad laws, but rather that the pertinent facts of the cases have to be established. And he mentioned that an escalation of digital surveillance would be necessary to accomplish this.

Really think hard about how much digital surveillance a society would need in order to ALWAYS know all the pertinent facts about any complaint of violation of the Natural Law. For one thing, we need microphones recording everything we say, no matter where we are, even in a public washroom. Even sitting at a bar having a drink with someone. Even lying in bed with our significant other(s).

Literally every snippet of conversation we have MUST be recorded for possible download to the Benevolent Overseer of the Natural Law. And where we have audio recording, we must also have video.

No, sadly, the reality is it is much worst than what Dillip said.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re Sid Belzberg Post # 221 (23/8/18)

"We already have 24 7 digital monitoring independent of which party is in power."

My Response

What you say may be true. But we are here just dealing with Libertarian positions, and it is important that they clearly state that this is Libertarian policy, regardless of whether it is also a policy of all other political parties on the planet......the other parties (Canadian Liberal Government/NDP Supported) don't put it in their policy booklets! We'll try to make Libertarians do this .

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

I am very sure Dilip will tell you it is not a libertarian policy; Law enforcement is a constant of any party. Sadly with the new technologies, one of the costs is sacrificing.privacy.
That is simply a reality and not Libertarian policy. I Hope Dilip clarifies, although I can understand him not wanting to dignify what he considers trolling.

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Bob,
We already have 24 7 digital monitoring independent of which party is in power. I fail to see any distinction for Dillip's Liibertarian ideas.

Sid, what we have now is nothing compared to what Dilip is saying will be necessary. Dilip made it clear that the problem with the justice system of today is not that we need myriad laws, but rather that the pertinent facts of the cases have to be established. And he mentioned that an escalation of digital surveillance would be necessary to accomplish this.

Really think hard about how much digital surveillance a society would need in order to ALWAYS know all the pertinent facts about any complaint of violation of the Natural Law. For one thing, we need microphones recording everything we say, no matter where we are, even in a public washroom. Even sitting at a bar having a drink with someone. Even lying in bed with our significant other(s).

Literally every snippet of conversation we have MUST be recorded for possible download to the Benevolent Overseer of the Natural Law. And where we have audio recording, we must also have video.

[Sid Belzberg]

Part 2


Correlation between Non-Polio Acute Flaccid Paralysis Rates with Pulse Polio Frequency in India

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6121585/


Abstract

The last case of polio from India was reported in 2011. That year, the non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) rate in India was 13.35/100,000, where the expected rate is 1–2/100,000. A previous study of data from 2000 to 2010 has detailed the NPAFP rate in a state correlated with the pulse polio rounds conducted there, and the strongest correlation with the NPAFP rate was found when the number of doses from the previous 4 years were used. However, a simple association being found with regression analysis does not prove a causal relationship. After publication of those findings, as the threat of polio had lessened, the number of rounds of OPV administration was brought down. The present study has been done to look at data till the end of 2017, to see if the incidence of NPAFP declined with this reduction in polio immunization rounds. We used polio surveillance data acquired by the Government of India from 2000–2017. Correlation of the NAFP rate to the number of polio rounds in the state was examined, and the cumulative effect of polio doses administered in previous years was sought. NPAFP rate correlated with the OPV pulse polio rounds in that year (R = 0.46; p < 0.001), and the NPAFP rate started to decrease from 2012 when the number of pulse polio rounds had decreased. NPAFP rates in the states of Uttar Pradesh (UP) and Bihar were the highest in the country. Looking at the high-NPAFP states of UP and Bihar, we found that the correlation coefficient was strongest when doses used over 5 years was considered (R = 0.76; p < 0.001). The response to the reduction in OPV rounds (de-challenging) adds credence to the assumption that OPV was responsible for the change in the NPAFP rate. Now that India has been polio-free for over 6 years, we propose that we may be able to reduce NPAFP by further reducing pulse polio rounds.
Keywords: polio surveillance, AFP, oral polio vaccine, non-polio acute flaccid paralysis, Guillain Barre Syndrome


1. Introduction

Surveillance of polio is complicated, due to the fact that 99% of those infected do not exhibit paralysis [1]. Given this obscure presentation of polio, it is vital that all cases of acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) are studied to ensure that they are successfully surveilled. In India, active poliomyelitis and AFP surveillance began in 1997 [2].
For polio surveillance purposes, a diagnosis of AFP is defined as any patient <15 years of age with acute onset flaccid paralysis, or a patient of any age in whom a clinician suspects polio [3]. Those with other, more obvious causes (like trauma) are excluded [4]. Short-lived paralysis, as with Todd’s paresis, are excluded [5]. Marx et al. have reviewed and listed the causes of non-polio AFP [6]. Stool specimen testing was used to try and separate the true cases of polio AFP from that of non-polio AFP (NPAFP) [3]. It was expected that conducting surveillance in this way would help identify reservoirs of wild poliovirus transmission and provide evidence that wild polio transmission was not occurring [7].
AFP surveillance data from America shows that there were 1975 cases of AFP reported in 2017, corresponding to an AFP rate of 1.17 cases per a population of 100,000 [8]. Internationally, the incidence of NPAFP is 1 to 2/100,000 in the under-15 population [6,9]. In the absence of wild polio transmission, it was expected that the AFP rate would reduce to around 2/100,000, which is considered an acceptable NPAFP rate [10].
The surveillance quality indicators from India show that surveillance has been exemplary, and the last case of polio reported was in 2011 [11]. However, the anticipated fall in the AFP rate to 2 per 100,000 has not yet materialized.
Analysis of data over 10 years (from 2000 to 2010) showed that the NPAFP rate increased nationally during this time [12]. The NPAFP rate in 2010 was 12/100,000, which was some way away from the expected number of 2/100,000. It has been reported that in 2005 there was a sharp increase in the national NPAFP rate, which coincided with the introduction of a high-potency monovalent vaccine that contained 5 times the number of Type 1 viruses, compared to that contained in the previously used vaccine [13]. The NPAFP rate, which was 3.11/100,000 in 2004, more than doubled (to 6.43/100,000) in 2005.
Some states had a higher rate of NPAFP than others. In 2011, the NPAFP rate in UP and Bihar was 25/100,000 and 35/100,000 respectively.
Pulse polio immunisation refers to periodically vaccinating all children under the age of five years against the polio virus (in a defined region) for the purposes of eliminating the virus. The NPAFP rate in the states over the years was examined, and it was found that the number of pulse polio rounds conducted had a high correlation with the NPAFP rate in the state. There was no association with other socioeconomic factors of the state, such as literacy levels, population density, or income per capita [12]. In one of the years (2011) there were an additional 47,500 children with paralysis [12] which was over and above the assumed NPAFP rate of 2/100,000 [6,9].
It has been suggested that the rise in the recorded rates of NPAFP was an artifact related to over-enthusiastic reporting promoted by the government’s efforts to improve surveillance [14]. An analysis in 2005 showed that where one-fifth of the cases of NPAFP were followed up at 60 days (in the state of UP), 8.5% of them had died, and 35% were found to have been left with residual paralysis [15]. Sathyamala analysis of NPAFP data from UP found that the mortality rate in patients with NPAFP was twice the mortality rate for wild polio [16]. This suggests that the recorded cases of NPAFP were not just instances of exaggerated reporting.
It is crucial to note that a mere association with regression analyses does not prove a causal relationship. Aggregated variables examining cross-sectional data which have no bearing on what happens to individuals can result in ecological fallacies, and necessitates more in-depth analyses. De-challenging after challenging is one way to test for a causative relationship. In de-challenging, the suspected offending agent is withdrawn, or its dose reduced, which should result in the amelioration of the adverse event [17].
After the publication of the findings reported above [12], because the threat of polio had receded, the number of polio doses administered to children each year was gradually reduced from 2012. The present analysis was done looking at present data till 31 December 2017, to see whether the reduction in the number of doses of OPV administered in recent years was associated with a decline in the reported NPAFP rates. This would add strength to the likelihood of a causative association.






"there were an additional 491,000 paralyzed children above our expected numbers for children with NPAFP."

[Sid Belzberg]

Part 1

World Economic Forum (WEF)



Sid Belzberg Post # 206 (23/8/17) - "A History of Nazi WEF leader Klaus Schwab AKA "Benevolent tyrant" as per Bob A."

My Response (Post # 220 - 23/8/18)

What I stated (I hope) was that the WEF had goals for humanity that were "benevolent" (For the future good of humanity).

And I stated that the WEF appears to be a vehicle for implementing what is called the New World Order (NWO) - I said that this would lead to a "Benevolent" Authoritarian regime, the creation of which I opposed.

I also noted that there were anti-social elements involved in the WEF who had the covert agenda of making themselves the Dictators in this future society, but that this was not the majority position of those many good people involved in the WEF.

Nowhere have I ever taken, to my knowledge, a position on the Chairman of the WEF, Klaus Schwab (It is Sid that has made his judgment).

Note: Wikipedia: Klaus Martin Schwab is a German engineer, economist, and founder of the World Economic Forum. He has acted as the WEF's chairman since founding the organisation in 1971.

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

Bob there has been nothing benevolent about this organization since its founding in 1971 that was promoting depopulation based on long debunked Malthusian theories espoused by its sister organization the Club of Rome started in 1969. These organizations were established by the CIA. Henry Kissinger in fact recruited Klaus Schwab to start the WEF. Your word "appears" is the operative word.
Th CCP has infiltrated and taken control of this organizatiom sometime ago and indeed the largest annual meetings take place not in Davos Switzerland any more but now in Beijing and other places in China.

Bill Gates who is very close to the CCP and is the largest individual funder of the WHO all have a long history of mass poisoning under the guise of "vaccination". The problem is mass sterilzation without informed consent that goes against all medical accords including the declaration of Helsinki. The tragic example of the mass sterilization in Kenya iwith mass sterilizations and no informed consent comes to mind.

Bil Gates presided over the mass polio vacination program in India in the early 2000s and this was the result: 491000(!) children paralysed He has been charged with mass poisoning in India long beforethe Pandemic.

Many of the World leaders have been installed around the World courtesy of the CCP and indeed Klauss Schwab brags about the infiltration of his organization into cabinet positions around the World including his "Young WEf Global leader" Justin Trudeau and his sidekick Cynthia Freeland deputy prime minister who is also deputy director of the WEF.

Bill Gates Borris Johson, Ricci Sunak, Emanuel Macron, Mark Rutte, Angel Merkyl, Vladimir Putin etc....all trained "Young Global Leaders" of the WEF. The 21st century equivalent of the Hitler Youth. They have now presided over the greatest mass poisoning in human history with the so called vaccines that are not vaccines in any way shape or form.


The next goal is the climate change scam as a means of inducing mass fammine around the World as they have aslready demonstrated in Sri Lanka.
One thing you may have noticed about me is that I never make any statements lightly without having massive evidence to back them up.


https://scirp.org/journal/paperinfor...?paperid=81838

HCG Found in WHO Tetanus Vaccine in Kenya Raises Concern in the Developing World

Abstract

In 1993, WHO announced a “birth-control vaccine” for “family planning”. Published research shows that by 1976 WHO researchers had conjugated tetanus toxoid (TT) with human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) producing a “birth-control” vaccine. Conjugating TT with hCG causes pregnancy hormones to be attacked by the immune system. Expected results are abortions in females already pregnant and/or infertility in recipients not yet impregnated. Repeated inoculations prolong infertility. Currently WHO researchers are working on more potent anti-fertility vaccines using recombinant DNA. WHO publications show a long-range purpose to reduce population growth in unstable “less developed countries”. By November 1993 Catholic publications appeared saying an abortifacient vaccine was being used as a tetanus prophylactic. In November 2014, the Catholic Church asserted that such a program was underway in Kenya. Three independent Nairobi accredited biochemistry laboratories tested samples from vials of the WHO tetanus vaccine being used in March 2014 and found hCG where none should be present. In October 2014, 6 additional vials were obtained by Catholic doctors and were tested in 6 accredited laboratories. Again, hCG was found in half the samples. Subsequently, Nairobi’s AgriQ Quest laboratory, in two sets of analyses, again found hCG in the same vaccine vials that tested positive earlier but found no hCG in 52 samples alleged by the WHO to be vials of the vaccine used in the Kenya campaign 40 with the same identifying batch numbers as the vials that tested positive for hCG. Given that hCG was found in at least half the WHO vaccine samples known by the doctors involved in administering the vaccines to have been used in Kenya, our opinion is that the Kenya “anti-tetanus” campaign was reasonably called into question by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association as a front for population growth reduction.

The problem is mass sterilzation without informed consent that goes against all medical accords including the declartion of Helsinki.


Bil Gates presided over the mass polio vacination program in India in the early 2000s and this was the result: He has been charged with mass poisoning in India long before
the Pandemic.

---

[Bob Armstrong]

Re Sid Belzberg Post # 221 (23/8/18)

"We already have 24 7 digital monitoring independent of which party is in power."

My Response

What you say may be true. But we are here just dealing with Libertarian positions, and it is important that they clearly state that this is Libertarian policy, regardless of whether it is also a policy of all other political parties on the planet......the other parties (Canadian Liberal Government/NDP Supported) don't put it in their policy booklets! We'll try to make Libertarians do this .

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Sid Belzberg]

Libertarian Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians among CT'ers here

Statement # 8 (Proposed by Pargat Perrer - see Note below)

Libertarianism will employ 24/7 digital surveillance of every citizen in public spaces, including not just video but audio as well. This will help Natural Law enforcement to have the facts necessary to make discretionary decisions on whether to lay charges for breach of the Natural Law or other laws. It will also provide needed evidence for court hearings, where the issue is whether the Natural Law provided an exemption for non-compliance. This is seen as a necessary over-ride of the citizen's right of privacy and freedom from surveillance.

[Note: As group secretary, I am attempting to extract a Statement from the recent post # 218 (23/8/18) of Pargat Perrer. Pargat is free to revise my draft here as he needs to, to make it his own, if mine fails to capture it. As well, he can post any future Statement on his own, in this format for Proposed Statements, as can any member of the group.]

Processing

If the proposed Statement is not "Challenged" as not accurately representing the Libertarian view, within one week (Deadline: Friday, 23/8/25 @ 11:59 PM EDT), then it will be "generally accepted" by Libertarians in this CT'er group, and inserted in the list of Statements generally acceptable to the Libertarians here.

[Note: At this point, in Phase I, we are attempting to achieve an accurate Libertarian policy Statement. Opposition to this Statement as not being factual/beneficial will occur during Phase II.]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

Hi Bob,
We already have 24 7 digital monitoring independent of which party is in power. I fail to see any distinction for Dillip's Liibertarian ideas.