Protect West Virginians from Human Rights Violations and Restore Our Freedoms

With permission, sharing this letter from a friend to the governor of West Virginia. The writer’s name and contact information is redacted.

25 November 2020

James C. Justice II

Office of the Governor of West Virginia

State Capitol

1900 Kanawha Blvd. E.

Charleston, West Virginia 25305

By mail and by online portal

Re. Protect West Virginians from Human Rights Violations and Restore Our Freedoms

Dear Governor Justice:

In West Virginia, in most other states of the United States, and in many nations around the world, leaders have used the dangers posed by COVID-19 as justification for persistently violating the human rights of citizens. As you know, these rights violations, in the form of restrictive orders and mandates, have been committed not just for the temporary period of two to three weeks, originally stated as cause for extreme actions, but for eight months and counting.

As violations of inalienable human rights, COVID-19 restrictions and mandates also violate numerous elements of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of West Virginia, the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If you doubt my assertions, please take a moment to re-read these documents, keeping in mind our rights exist whether or not enshrined in a document.

Many citizens have unquestioningly believed the “authorities” and become fearful and compliant, as their leaders in government and in the media have repeatedly requested they do. Many other citizens, who may not fear for themselves, have nonetheless been falsely led to believe they will endanger others by not complying with mandates and orders.

Some citizens in the US and around the world, with access to data, to experts, and to historical documentation, as well as possessing skills in data analysis and research, have taken on the urgent and necessary responsibility for asking essential questions of the authorities. The answers to these questions, the realities they exposed, have caused these brave individuals to be censored and even vilified for stating them. Contradicting the official narrative has become dangerous, and even some world-renowned experts have been trampled by the COVID-19 herd. Outspoken medical doctors have likewise been censored, trampled, and even had their livelihoods threatened by medical boards.

What these researchers, experts, and doctors have exposed is a deliberate and systematic exaggeration of the dangers COVID-19 poses to individuals and to society. What they have also exposed are criminal human rights violations committed and being committed by leaders around the world, in the name of saving lives. Moreover, they have exposed how these violations increase rather than mitigate death, illness, and other destructive forces.

As a result of these persistent human rights violations, in addition to individuals lost to illness caused by COVID-19, people have also lost months of essential participation in life including assembly for professional, political, social, or religious purposes; travel; personal connection with family and friends; and appropriate attendance to the elderly, ill, or others in need. The isolation and stress created by these human rights violations has caused and will cause many to lose their emotional and mental health. Many have lost or will lose businesses built painstakingly over many years, years they cannot recover. Many, especially children and young people, have lost significant developmental and educational opportunities. Many have lost their employment or potential for employment. Meaningful group celebrations of milestones—funerals, christenings, holidays, weddings, anniversaries, birthdays, graduations—have been forever lost. Others have forever lost athletic and sporting opportunities. Human rights violations in the form of restrictions and mandates have destroyed myriad opportunities afforded by human activity and commerce.

Moreover, people, most tragically, children, have been required to add insult to injury by covering their faces with masks, all at a cost to their health and well-being. People have also been asked to censor, enforce, and report on their fellow citizens for not complying with mandates and restrictions (human rights violations), creating a dangerous cognitive and emotional dissonance serving to undermine the foundations of a free society.

All of the above human rights violations constitute government seizures of person, of property, and of human potential; seizures history and reality prove to be counterproductive and destructive to human life rather than protective of it; seizures we cannot rightfully attribute to the “cost of the pandemic.” COVID-19 did not require nor inflict human rights violations; these violations resulted directly from government policy and government and media reinforcement of government policy through fear and intimidation of citizens.

Government representatives and media organizations have presented COVID-19 as a threat so dire as to justify persistent violations of human rights in the form of seizures of persons, property, and potential. However, actual evidence for the justification does not exist. Evidence never consists of mere exaggerations and deliberate manipulations of available data. Furthermore, real evidence available by mid-March or earlier indicated exactly what could be expecteda mild illness for most, with little to no risk for young people (nor risk of them being super-spreaders), with more serious risks for the infirm elderly and individuals with impaired immune systems. Adequate hospital capacity (even New York City ended up with excess) and early treatment, available but (criminally) heavily censored, would have prolonged many lives.

In the course of continuing our normal daily lives, had we been permitted to do so, natural immunity would have developed quickly among the young and healthy, thereby protecting the vulnerable. Moreover, because natural immunity lasts longer, without risk of adverse events from vaccinations, society would have gained additional benefits. To protect the vulnerable, special equipment (such as respirators and PAPR) and accommodations could have been offered and the costs subsidized. The relative risks could have been explained and people would have been free to take on as much or as little risk as desired—just as societies have always done when facing seasonal colds and influenzas and even prior pandemics. As referenced above, inexpensive, life-saving treatment with a generic drug could have been widely used early on, rather than censored and smeared in favor of expensive pharmaceutical interventions.

Alas, instead of focusing on productive and life-saving measures, governments the world over chose to use destructive, rights-violating tactics, such as lockdowns, roadblocks, isolations, quarantines, and other restrictions. Moreover, many in government and industry have proposed mandatory testing (despite unreliable test results; 90% false positives), mandatory vaccinations, and enforced isolations—all extreme violations of human rights. Additionally, they have promoted requiring immunity passports—as a means of ensuring continuing employment or freedom to travel—also violations of human rights.

Censorship (even of qualified experts) and propaganda have been used to attempt to require all citizens to think alike on significant issues and to unquestioningly accept authority. Most egregiously, people have been deliberately encouraged by government officials, the media, and many public health authorities to think of themselves and others as walking, talking biohazards. In fact, the opposite is true. Immune systems require regular challenges and exposure through social interaction to develop and to function properly. Moreover, spending time with family and friends improves health and increases longevity, as does regular exercise, especially team sports.

By accepting and following extended mandates and restrictions from elected leaders, we the people have contributed to the commission of deeply tragic wrongs. To the death toll from the pandemic, we must add deaths from despair, fear, and isolation. To the destruction toll, we must add the wrongs committed against our children by requiring them to wear masks and by encouraging fearful thinking about human immune systems, social interactions, and human well-being. To the destruction and the death tolls, we must add our pathologically passive reactions to requiring the elderly and ill to be isolated, sometimes for months, or to be denied hospital care, or to die alone. Sadly, very few have dared to actively challenge these morbid policies.

Adding to these serious failures of our collective character, through our compliance, we have enabled the destruction of opportunity and potential for all ages, for people all over the world. Furthermore, we share responsibility for the grim reality of increasing poverty and starvation worldwide, not because of COVID-19, but because of the human rights violations committed by governments in responding to it, and enabled by insufficient peaceful resistance from the people.

Going forward, we, including you, Governor Justice, must insist our leaders stop the destruction and never again permit such violations of human rights to be committed upon us or others within our reach. Many people have permitted fear to blind them to the tragic consequences of violating personal integrity and shutting down society, and for some reason our leaders also failed to foresee these consequences. Or if they did foresee them, they failed to take a principled stand in favor of human rights.  

Could our leaders really have been so blind? Why would United States governors so readily violate human rights and in doing so their state constitutions, the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Why would governments and media organizations in the United States and nations around the world actively seek to instill fear in people, rather than promote a realistic and balanced view of health risks alongside courage and productive solutions?

The extreme nature of these responses defy logic, and their more absurd components—such as requiring masks outside or closing of parks and beaches—indicate other motivations. Panic alone does not suffice to explain these phenomenon. Do the reasons behind these persistent human rights violations relate to the World Economic Forum’s (WEF’s) Great Reset? One of WEF’s reset promotional videos from 2016, titled “8 predictions for the world in 2030,” asserts: “You’ll own nothing and be happy. Whatever you want you’ll rent and it’ll be delivered by drone.” Are these COVID-based persistent violations a form of conditioning people to develop amnesia concerning their human rights so they will accept whatever is foisted upon them as “in their best interests”?

Do the reasons have to do with building a biometric database for every citizen, beginning with forced testing, forced vaccination, and requiring “immunity” passports? Do the reasons have to do with instituting universal basic income and using a system of social credits to control human behavior? Do the reasons have to do with ending all cash transactions and private real estate ownership, with the goal of restricting a human being’s ability to maintain privacy and to be self-sufficient?

Do the reasons have to do with the billions paid to pharmaceutical companies for vaccine development and these companies’ aims for future profits based on vaccine mandates and FDA approval of drugs? Do the reasons have to do with billions in federal funds paid to state governments, resulting from passage of the CARES Act? Do the reasons have to do with vast debt obligations of governments, elite corporations, “zombie” corporations, and wealthy individuals?

Governor, whatever your reasons for being complicit in violating the human rights of the people of West Virginia, whether it is ongoing propaganda you have fallen prey to or some other reason, please take a courageous stand and stop now. Please consider how violating human rights in the name of safety or any other cause NEVER has nor EVER will contribute to a better world. If we collectively need to do a better job of protecting the vulnerable, let us do it, but by voluntary means not by violating human rights and shredding the fabric of society. Leaders fail to protect when they violate rights in the name of offering protection. Violating human rights, even in the name of safety, always results in greater harm on balance.

Forced “non-pharmaceutical interventions” (NPIs)—as the experts call lockdowns, restrictions, and mandates—imposed by governments around the world under the guise of saving lives, have been a massive Medical and Social Experiment conducted upon the people without their consent. This Experiment has been conducted in clear violation of the Nuremburg Code of 1947. This Code, enshrined by the war crimes tribunal at Nuremburg, Germany, after the horrors of Nazi Germany’s experiments conducted upon innocent prisoners, enunciated the human right of “voluntary informed consent” and the inherent and inalienable right of an individual to control his or her own body.

The Medical and Social Experiment of lockdowns, restrictions, and mandates has already resulted in approximately 100,000 excess deaths in the US alone, deaths over and above those deaths with or from COVID-19. When one tallies the lockdown toll from around the world, it becomes clear this Experiment constitutes a worldwide crime against humanity.

Longer-term serious consequences of these forced interventions—damages caused by induced anxiety and fear, by wearing masks, by lack of regular social interaction, by interruptions to education and other elements of life, and by loss of livelihood and property—will become more apparent in the years to come, adding to the severity of the crimes. If the FDA and other agencies approve vaccines for use prior to adequate safety testing, even greater harm will result, especially if governments mandate their use. When governments mandate vaccines, they violate human rights in the process. Furthermore, when governments mandate damaging vaccines, they commit human rights crimes.

The Nuremburg Code of 1947 articulates 10 rights with respect to medical experiments conducted upon human beings. This is principle number one:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and [the subject] should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.

The Declaration of Helsinki further articulates individual rights with respect to medical experiments. Principle eight states: “While the primary purpose of medical research is to generate new knowledge, this goal can never take precedence over the rights and interests of individual research subjects (emphasis added).”

Of course, no person in lockdown-, restriction-, and mandate-affected countries has freely consented to being experimented upon with forced NPIs, not even those passively tolerant. We the people did not consent. We the people do not consent. We the people will never consent.

Governor, you, we, and all people around the world subjected to the human rights violations committed in the name of protecting us from COVID-19 have every right to hold leaders accountable, with criminal charges when appropriate. Those of us able to speak out have the responsibility to do so. We also hold the responsibility for taking peaceful action to prevent leaders from violating human rights going forward, including reminding others of their rights and assembling and peacefully protesting with requisite diligence.

Any leader who cares about humanity—whether in government, media, or public health, must solemnly accept the responsibility of having committed human rights violations and possibly crimes (by imposing or encouraging lockdowns, restrictions, and mandates) regardless of “benevolent” intentions.

Going forward, any caring and moral leader must take firm and swift action to stop all human rights violations and to prevent violations from occurring in the future. To do otherwise is to knowingly and purposefully commit a crime against humanity. Foremost, because people did not consent to the Experiment, but also because the people are being gravely injured. Item 10 of the Nuremburg Code articulates this perfectly:

During the course of the experiment the scientist [governor, leader] in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of good faith, superior skill and careful judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject (emphasis added).

Governor Justice, you do have the “probable cause” articulated in the Nuremburg Code.

In the coming days, please consider the future of our children and grandchildren. What sort of world do you want them to experience as they grow and begin having families of their own? A fear-based biological and technological surveillance state stripped of privacy, private property, private transactions, and opportunity for self-sufficiency? Or a free world respecting human privacy in all aspects, respecting private property ownership, and alive with opportunities for full realization of human potential?

Do the words on West Virginia’s Great Seal, Montani Semper Liberi, stamped on every executive order you sign, have meaning to you? Knowing you are a lifelong West Virginian and American, I imagine they do, and I and many others fervently hope you do not take the words lightly. We hope you do know Mountaineers Are Always Free, and we hope you do value human rights and freedom, despite your significant lapses in protecting them.

Please take a courageous stand to protect the human rights and freedoms of the citizens of West Virginia by ending all COVID-19-related restrictions and mandates immediately and taking collateral action to protect our human rights going forward.

By doing so, you would also be taking a much-needed stand toward protecting the human rights and freedoms of everyone in the US and of people around world.


The Souls of Dogs Who Love You

By GM Kemman

The souls of dogs who love you never leave

Your side, or, rather, your insides.

At last, freed from cumbersome flesh and fur,

Bone and sinew, they are free to crawl inside

You as they had always intended, and

To reside there, a loving part of you that

Embodies all the comfort and joy of them.

Their eyes gaze both out and back and their

Spirits wag with joy at your recognition.

© GM Kemman, 2018

Reprinted with permission.

This is the work of happiness.

Kindred spirits, please share this far and wide!

Dear Fellow Human Being, Part Four

Many leaders in academia, charitable foundations, corporations, media, NGOs, and government have failed and continue to fail in their duty to protect human rights, stooping to the depraved method of characterizing those who attempt to assert their rights as dangerous, immature, uncaring, selfish, thwarting of others’ freedom, and even sociopathic. They purposefully violated or made themselves complicit in violating human rights including but not limited to freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom to pursue a livelihood, freedom to pursue education, freedom to own and maintain property, freedom to travel, freedom to maintain bodily integrity and privacy, freedom to refuse unwanted medical interventions, and freedom to maintain a healthy immune system, among others.

In addition they have purposefully, through their seemingly unstoppable encroachments over the course of many decades prior, adding insult to injury with each new layer of deceit accreted over the years, denied the people accountable, honest government, comprised of representatives and agents dedicated to upholding a foundational commitment to human rights. Moreover, many, acting mostly in secret, have contributed to co-opting and corrupting leaders of other nations.

Among the most recent corrupt acts of some leaders of our country has been deliberate censorship of doctors attempting to assist the public by providing information. Even worse, someone arranged the corruption of several medical studies (later exposed and retracted) to make it appear an FDA-approved cheap and effective medication—initially recommended by BARDA and given Emergency Use Authorization [EUA] by the FDA—“oroquinechlorhydroxy” or (QCH), was not effective and possibly dangerous. Then, someone designed several studies using toxic doses of this cheap and effective medication, with a 60-plus-years safety record, doses far in excess of normal, administered late in the progress of the infection. The designs of these studies appear to have resulted in the criminally negligent or possibly purposeful killing of patients in the service of a desired outcome.

Dr. A. Fucia, having numerous and deep-rooted conflicts of interest, halted the single major study designed to look at QCH’s effectiveness for early treatment, claiming the researchers could not find enough participants. Social media and mass media censored and smeared doctors with experience treating patients with the ursiv for trying to let the public know about QCH, as a prophylactic and as a treatment, especially when used early and in combination with “nizc” (an ionophore allowing the anti-viral QCH to enter cells) and “thromaziycin” (a safe antibiotic to prevent or heal bacterial pneumonia). The same censorship and smearing happened to a prominent physician in France.

Harvey Risch, an epidemiologist from the Yale School of Public Health, reviewed data from numerous studies and found QCH effective for THEVOID and very safe. In Michigan, a large study found QCH safe and effective. Yet, government figures, scientists, and media pundits, and politicians attacked Dr. Risch, mercilessly.

Whenever doctors or scientists or reporters tried to find a major media outlet willing to present the information they wished to share directly to the public, they found themselves rejected. In many instances, only Fox News and other outlets considered “right wing,” “libertarian,” or “alternative” would interview them. Thus, this deliberate marginalization contributed to the end goal, politicization of the issue, which intensified after President Trump announced publicly in late March his prophylactic use of QCH. Few mainstream media outlets made any attempt to share the unbiased view with the public.

QCH’s safety at appropriate doses has long been established. Its record of safe use extends back almost seven decades. A version of quinine (derived from tree bark), QCH is generic, widely available, and costs about $10 per dose. In fact it’s widely prescribed, even to pregnant women and children, as a prophylactic for malaria. In some countries, it’s available without a prescription. Moreover, many patients with lupus and rheumatoid arthritis use it for years at a time to help manage their diseases, and it is some of these patients who experienced heart arrhythmia, but generally only after years of use, and not normally leading to serious permanent conditions.

Many people died needlessly, especially patients in nursing homes, because the FDA revoked the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for this cheap, safe drug and even urged pharmacists to block its use. Many more died needlessly when their doctors believed Dr. Fucia and the media and refused to prescribe the drug, even when patients asked for it. Meanwhile, Dr. Fucia, unethically, possibly criminally, promoted Desiremvir, an expensive drug, about $3,000 per dose (recycled by big pharma when it failed to work for Ebola), never shown to be highly effective for treating THEVOID, and now shown to be completely ineffective. Furthermore, the FDA condoned this by listing it for EUA.

Now these corrupt figures aim to put rushed, improperly tested vaccines under the EUA, for which many companies, including one in Gaithersburg, Maryland and one in Richmond, Virginia, have already received multi-millions and billions in payouts and stand set to make huge profits should the vaccines be mandated. Manufacturers of medical devices, tests, and pharmaceuticals as well as others have set themselves up to profit from the pandemic and directly benefit from promoting fear.

Vaccine mandates threaten hideous human rights violations. History proves under no circumstance do mandated or forced or coerced inoculations or vaccines have justification. The mere threat of mandates in itself violates human rights by needlessly inducing fear and anxiety and creating division. The public health officer for the State of Virginia has already threatened to mandate the THEVOID vaccine.

University of California mandated the influenza vaccine for its students returning to campus this fall, a violation enough in itself. But when taken together with evidence from the Veterans Administration indicating members of the military who had recently had a vaccination for influenza had worse outcomes for THEVOID, perhaps owing to paradoxical immune response, one can find negligence, if not criminal negligence in such mandates.

One public health officer in Ventura County, California expressed the agency’s intention to inspect the homes of the infected, and to remove those infected lacking “adequate” facilities for proper isolation. New Zealand has done this.

All of the above include criminal acts at worst and unwarranted violations of human rights at best, all disguised as protecting the health and safety of the public.

Inalienable human rights exist—one can deny this, many can deny this, but they exist nonetheless. Despotic minds deny human rights exist. Despotic minds tend toward certain roles in society and often join forces. Despotic minds think alike. Despotic minds favor policies increasing control and power and decreasing human rights. Despotic minds actively violate human rights by using propaganda to manipulate good people. Despotic minds actively violate human rights by hiding or twisting the truth and by making good people believe other good people could be the bad ones.

Despotic minds systematically teach good people to be dependent and fearful rather than independent and bold. Despotic minds cultivate compliant people who do not recall their inherent rights, who develop a self-protective form of amnesia. Despotic minds push people into amnesia by painting compliance with authority as unerringly virtuous. Despotic minds attempt to disparage independent and bold people who strive to protect their inherent rights. Despotic minds disparage bold and independent people by painting questioning of authority as unerringly shameful. Despotic minds attempt to teach dependent and fearful people to fear bold and independent people, to think of them as inferior and contemptible.

Despotic minds attempt to teach dependent and fearful people to band together with other dependent and fearful people as testament to their virtue. Despotic minds attempt to teach bold and independent people to doubt themselves and to feel inferior and contemptible. Despotic minds attempt to teach bold and independent people it is dangerous for them to band together, as testament to their inferior and contemptible nature.

Despotic minds attempt to teach people to rely upon and obey at any price the dictates of chosen authorities and experts, describing the compliant as well-mannered, reasonable, and empathetic. Despotic minds attempt to teach people to revile open discussion with a variety of experts and allowance for variations in conclusions, describing participants and the process as dangerous, foolish, and selfish. Despotic minds teach people to favor centrality, homogeneity, and uniformity over dispersion, heterogeneity, and diversity.

Dependent and fearful people have been browbeaten into forgetting they have inherent rights and become unthinkingly compliant in all things, never intending any harm. Independent and bold people pay a price for never forgetting their inherent rights yet remain ever protective of them and intelligently disobedient much of the time, never intending any harm.

Despotic minds purposefully seek to divide all good people, weakening their collective ability to protect their own rights. The propaganda used by despotic minds to deceitfully control humankind underlies all crimes committed against humanity and, in itself, comprises the greatest crime of all.

Some of the direct violations of late have been extreme and despotic. For example, only despotic minds could make organizing a peaceful protest the basis for arrest for incitement. Only despotic minds could order their apparently robotic “amnesiatic” police officers to place a pregnant woman in handcuffs behind her back, especially one who is innocent of any harm or wrongdoing. Zoe-Lee Buhler’s arrest in Ballarat, Victoria, Australia—especially gut-wrenching because Zoe-Lee, innocent of any crime, pregnant, in her pink pajamas, in her own home, apparently had no idea such a thing could ever happen in a “free country”—provides a grim harbinger of things to come—there, here, and almost everywhere. Australian police arrested other brave innocents the same day.

In Ohio, US, a school security officer tased and handcuffed a woman for refusing to don a mask at an outdoor football game. In Kentucky, US, the local authorities placed a young couple in electronic ankle monitors, for refusing to sign a health department form. Despotic minds ordered these actions; robotic minds suffering from amnesia carried them out.

When despotic minds attain power over a sufficient number of robotic minds, unadulterated totalitarianism looms. Despotic minds lust for power; therefore, despotic minds deny the reality of inalienable human rights. Despotic minds believe they have the power to grant and rescind rights to conform with their agendas and goals; therefore, despotic minds deny the reality of inalienable human rights. Despotic minds feign compassion and empathy whenever it contributes toward achieving a goal but resort to cruelty and destruction when met with an obstacle; therefore, despotic minds deny the reality of inalienable human rights. Despotic minds do not follow principles rooted in compassion and goodness, wishing the best possible for all, rather, despotic minds thrive upon crude pragmatism and reject the “impracticality” of rights; therefore, despotic minds deny the reality of inalienable human rights. Despotic minds adopt a Machiavellian ends-justify-means, “worldly success through scheming deceit,” frame of mind; therefore, despotic minds deny the reality of inalienable human rights.

Human rights exist. Denial and use of force cannot erase the truth of human rights from the minds of people who desire to remain human. Human rights exist regardless of whether a city or a nation or a group of nations has enshrined them in its official documents. Since ancient times these principles of goodness we call rights have provided a basis for civil, peaceful, and respectful human interactions. Since ancient times, protecting these rights has required unceasing effort from humankind, because despotic minds constantly develop and gain power, often in the guise of benevolent and charismatic leaders. Despotic minds deliberately abuse the law and morality when it suits a purpose, contorting principles by devious circular reasoning until they seem to justify encroachments and extreme violations. In Zoe-Lee Buhler’s country, despotic minds skillfully twisted making a Facebook post to organize a peaceful freedom rally into a “criminal” act of incitement. Inciting what? Riot? Murder? No, inciting freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.

Persistent need to protect human rights by whatever means available without violating them in the process led people to articulating human rights and enshrining (preserving) them in the public record, as a code intended to rein in and guide all those empowered to devise and enforce ordinances, mandates, orders, regulations, and statutes affecting the lives of human beings. In addition, enshrined rights help guide those interpreting the law in courts. In the US, the first ten amendments to the Constitution enshrine human rights. Each state in the US enshrines human rights in its constitution. But the existence of these documents does not create the rights. Human rights exist no matter what.

In an effort to enshrine the rights of people around the world, the United Nations sponsored the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Moreover, by agreeing to sign the Declaration, signatory nations enshrined their commitment to ensure every [within their borders] “domestic legal system . . . provides the principal legal protection of human rights guaranteed under international law.” (emphasis added) The Foundation of International Human Rights Law (retrieved 10/22/2020). While the UN has many faults and flaws and could be said through some of its current and past actions to encroach or violate human rights, the Declaration does serve as a basic outline of human rights against which one can measure the current widespread human rights violations.

Thus, we have human rights which exist despite the co-existence of numerous intrusions and violations onto them, which people tolerate to varying degrees, often because of amnesia or ignorance, and more often because protecting rights involves considerable risk and takes tremendous amounts of effort and time, and sometimes funds, yet so many people have none of these to spare. Despotic minds take full advantage of this fact, often deliberately causing confusion, chaos, and economic hardship, as a means of manipulation. Yet, despite the odds being against good people, all is not lost.

Good people, while indeed facing a Leviathan, do have public documents enshrining their rights. And when numerous petty intrusions have compounded into serious violations, they must take these documents up and use them for their intended purpose. These documents create a powerful shield, a protective forcefield, and offer a peaceful and non-violent means of requiring despotic minds to retreat and robotic minds to restore memory.

However, even the finest shield when left propped in a corner merely collects dust. Even the most powerful forcefield, when left disconnected from its power source, remains inert. To protect, the shield must be held up as a barrier, yet its substantial weight requires numbers to join in. To protect, the forcefield must be empowered, people powered, but its scope requires kindred spirits to engage.

If enough people come together we can use these protective forces to defend us as we reclaim our human rights and rebuild our societies and our world on a solid and good foundation, starting by coming together in our own communities.

To be continued . . .

This is the work of happiness.

Kindred spirits, please share this far and wide!

Sources: (QCH)

Lockdown distresses almost half of young people (The Arrogance of the Intellect—“no quick pathway from smart to wise.”) (Silenced, Censored, and Ridiculed, re. intrusions on health freedom elsewhere.) (Yuk!) (International Bill of Rights) (US Bill of Rights superior articulation of human rights)

Sharing a poem . . .

A Place to Begin

by GM Kemman

Let me begin by feeling grateful

For all the beauty and the joy

For all the love and tender care.

And given all I had and all I do

Have alongside all I will grow into

These, I know, should be enough

To satisfy my highest needs.

Yet striving abides, dignified tension:

To record a worthy thought or action

That carries a spark of being aloft

A valued token to ride upon the winds

Of time, a good emblem of what helps

Us feel we’ve earned enjoyment of these days.

A trace that endures, a glimmer of strength,

This essence of creation. 

Copyright © 2018 by GM Kemman


Used with permission.

This is the work of happiness.

Kindred spirits, please share this far and wide!

Dear Fellow Human Being, Part Three

Beyond an initial two-week period, reasonable for evidence gathering and preparation, the emergency orders issued and repeatedly extended in response to THEVOID have no basis in evidence and therefore are illegal and deliberate violations of human rights. There was no just cause for extending them. There is no just cause for continuing them. The evidence and scholarship, available by the end of March 2020, did not demonstrate just cause to continue emergency restrictions anywhere. In fact, evidence and scholarship repeatedly demonstrated the opposite. By this time, top epidemiologists had determined RASS-VOCII has a relatively low infection fatality rate, as indicated by early data collected from closed environments such as the Diamond Princess cruise ship and the U.S.S. Roosevelt. Adjusted for population, they knew this nouveau crown pathogen posed a threat equivalent to, or less dangerous than, the pandemic influenzas of 1957 and 1968, neither of which prompted closing down of societies or of the world.

When stewardships or other actors empowered by stewardships seek to deprive one person or some people of their inherent human rights, red flags should immediately go up in the minds of every human. Even when urgent action may be required, the full range of consequences, the ripple effects, of the violations and resultant deprivations, must be taken into account and projected into the future.

Moreover, efforts must be made to use only the least intrusive, least violating methods of handling any crises, those methods which serve to balance the rights of all concerned, while inflicting the least possible interference and harm.   In addition, any continuance of the violations must be subjected to rigorous tests, and the victims of the violations must be compensated for what in effect is stewardships’ seizures of person and a seizure of life potential. None of this happened with respect to THEVOID, despite many sane voices calling for a reasoned approach.

Societies during prior pandemics of the modern era remained fully or mostly functional while providing necessary medical care to those in need. Even during the pandemic of 1918, far more deadly to young people, and far more deadly in total lives lost, few leaders found it necessary or wise to impose prolonged and widespread emergency measures. Few in society demanded it. The ability of most societies in the world to provide effective treatments for the worst effects of any ursiv, means far fewer deaths would have resulted had humankind faced the 1918 ursiv today. In fact, many doctors have pointed out the initial advice given by officials in March and April, to avoid hospitals and not seek early treatment, may have resulted in many unnecessary deaths, as did their admonitions and orders to not use “oroquinechlorhydroxy” as a prophylactic or early treatment in combination with “nizc” and “thromaziycin.”

A balanced and well-reasoned approach would have been applied to THEVOID, as well, had the threat not been deliberately exaggerated by nefarious forces. Please do not scoff. Early on, top epidemiologists and immunologists knew the rapidly spreading respiratory infection, asymptomatic or mild in a vast majority, followed the known, expected pattern for a respiratory virus. The RASS-VOCII ursiv moved swiftly and stealthily through the population undetected. In certain countries, samples of human sewage collected in November 2019, show presence of the ursiv. A successful ursiv tends not to kill its host or even make its host ill, thus enabling it to continue to replicate itself.

This ursiv could never be fully contained, only slowed for a time, and the authorities knew it from the beginning. Countries with the strictest and earliest lockdowns must now admit the impossibility of fully containing it, and must own up to the extreme destruction caused by their ill-advised attempts to do so.

In fact, top scientists spoke out early on to explain a more rapid spread among the healthy would benefit everyone. By allowing normal life to go on for the healthy, a large percent of people cope with the ursiv early on, not necessarily by presenting with symptoms, but simply allowing their immune systems to function as designed—antibodies only indicate a recent more pronounced reaction but human immune systems have many other effective responses. A natural phenomenon called herd immunity exists and comes to pass with most pathogens at some point, either sooner or later, but at some point. This phenomenon develops without intervention or can be aided in some instances through immunization. In many instances, the sooner herd immunity arrives, the better for all concerned, and natural immunity confers more benefits than the form artificially induced through vaccination.

Some scientists and doctors with help from the media have deliberately spread the unscientific and dangerous idea herd immunity constitutes a cruel “strategy” rather than a natural occurring phenomenon. Even worse, they have deliberately attempted to teach the public to be afraid of something highly beneficial to humankind. Herd immunity may be defined as the ineluctable point at which most immune systems have previously coped with (not necessarily been sickened by) a pathogen, meaning far fewer people shed infective pathogens; they may shed pathogens but not necessarily highly infective ones. The sooner this happens, the sooner the vulnerable may return to normal with little risk.

Moreover, everyone’s immune system gains valuable experience, through numerous mild exposures, serving to protect everyone from future similar pathogens, often for many years. Many scientists, doctors, government officials, and media pundits have deliberately tried to make the people believe only antibodies indicate immunity, but this is false. Even worse, they have deliberately added to fears by trying to cause people to worry about reinfections.

Antibodies may or may not be present in the blood soon after a person has had an active infection, and they tend to disappear once they are not longer needed. However, T-Cells and other elements of the human immune system remain in place and vigilant. They have an excellent memory, and the immune cells even call upon lessons learned from prior experiences to cope with “new” pathogens. Thus, through past experiences with commonly circulating crown ursivs, human immune systems have learned how to deal effectively with new arrivals.

This analysis and approach incorporates knowledge of long-proven behavior of respiratory viruses, which follow predictable mathematical patterns, as Nobel Laureate Michael Levitt pointed out publicly in March. We all know the officially-stated rationale for the first two- or three-week closure, “flatten the curve,” the curve meaning the number of severe symptomatic cases requiring medical attention, buying a little time to prepare. However, by the point at which the earliest lockdowns occurred, top scientists knew not even the most stringent measure could not fully contain a mild crown-type ursiv; and yes, they had data proving it to be mild for most of the population.

Therefore, top scientists knew then prolonged lockdown would be harmful and counterproductive. Many tried to warn of this but got censored and shouted down. Many scientists, doctors, stewardship officials, media pundits, and politicians deliberately politicized a public health and public policy issue and polarized the public.

Adding deep insult to injury, many scientists, doctors, stewardship officials, and media pundits, and politicians encouraged the public to behave in ways more likely to be injurious than beneficial to the human immune system, by preventing people from keeping their businesses open; by preventing people from earning a living; by preventing children from attending school and activities; by preventing people from accessing services and cultural outlets; by preventing people from being with their loved ones; by mandating and encouraging wearing camouflages outside of healthcare settings; by discouraging people from getting outside into the sunshine and fresh air (even arresting people on a beach); by prohibiting or discouraging in-person social activity; by encouraging isolation; by distracting and harassing asymptomatic people with TR-RPC testing and contact tracing; by encouraging frequent use of toxic chemicals for cleaning, chemicals which harm lungs and the human microbiome; and by inducing widespread fear, cognitive dissonance, and psychological trauma.

Many of these same scientists, doctors, stewardship officials, and media pundits, many of whom have extreme conflicts of interest, have tried to gain support for prolonged emergency measures by making people believe only a vaccine can save society, save the world, which is an outright lie. As some top scientists have explained numerous times, even if an effective vaccine can be developed, no successful vaccine has been developed for a crown ursiv, despite years of effort and expense. Moreover, as some top scientists have explained numerous times, even an effective vaccine will not be 100 percent effective. Many have also raised deep concerns about rushed development leading to improper safety testing.

Already we know at least one of the THEVOID vaccine studies does not use a saline placebo but instead uses a meningococcal vaccine known to provoke adverse reactions. One young and healthy study participant died after being injected with this “placebo,” at least two others had severe adverse reactions involving their neurological systems. Meanwhile, billions of dollars have already flowed and may continue to flow (if we do not stop this) to pharmaceutical companies.

Again, by allowing a mild ursiv to move naturally through the healthy populations, while protecting those vulnerable to severe attack, natural immunity would build and be widespread. Symptomatic cases would rapidly be fewer in number. Shedding of active pathogens would diminish. Finally, the elderly and otherwise vulnerable would soon be free to mingle and function as usual with only normal precautions. Every year societies have proceeded in this same manner with new mutations of influenza ursievs or exposures to prior-circulating crown ursievs. Nothing about THEVOID indicated a need for drastic action past the end of March. No danger of any kind could justify the deliberately-induced panic people the world over endured.

Furthermore, by the end of March 2020, the dire predictions of Imperial College, London, had been discredited by reality; its author resigned in disgrace when caught violating emergency orders for a sexual liaison. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation tempered its own dire predictions but have since issued new disproportionate warnings.

Hospitals in the US and abroad stood empty, because though all normal operations had been suspended, THEVOID patients had not poured through the doors. Temporary medical facilities stood empty as well, for example, those rapidly build in New York City, two Navy hospital ships docked in NY harbor, and Nightingale hospitals in the UK.

By mid-April at the latest, late March in most instances, all justification for violating human rights through emergency orders, ostensibly issued in the name of health and public safety, ceased to exist. Many doctors, epidemiologists, public policy experts, honest politicians and others spoke up and tried to expose the destructive power of continuing emergency measures, but they faced being vilified and suppressed by major media outlets, corrupt politicians, and others. Moreover, many faced being censored by social media platforms. Many scientists whose studies showed reason for optimism faced being blocked from publication in major medical journals.

From this time forward, all emergency orders, mandates, and restrictions had no basis in evidence and therefore no basis in law, rendering them arbitrary and intentional or negligent violations of human rights on the parts of complicit presidents, prime ministers, governors, mayors, public health officers at all levels, public pundits, major media outlets, prominent scientists, county sheriffs, and all others duty-bound by law or a code of ethics to protect human rights.

In the eyes of the law, panic may be a mitigating factor; however, it is not a complete defense, neither is seeking to appease voters, seeking to influence viewers, seeking peer approval, seeking to cover corrupt liaisons, nor any other arbitrary and capricious rationale. Moreover, willful ignorance does not absolve an individual or public official from responsibility for suspending or violating human rights when lacking proper foundation.

In addition to these violations of human rights, numerous others occurred in conjunction. Social media platforms, committed by law to neutrality, engaged in blatant censorship, thereby illegally influencing public discourse. “Fact-checkers” engaged in presenting non-factual articles intended to discredit others, deliberately tainting the public square. Major media outlets, such as Forbes and The New York Times, removed or changed news stories tending to expose contradictions or counter fear-based narratives, others, such as NPR, refused to investigate or report facts of great import to the public. The New York Times published at least one sensational THEVOID death story, containing inaccurate facts about cause of death and when exposed refused to issue corrections. Google altered search results and erased documents from its servers as a means of influencing opinion. Major peer reviewed medical and scientific journals published (then retracted) several flawed studies and when exposed, by watchdog doctors and scientists, offered inadequate explanation.

Public health figures politically manipulated approved treatments for the ursiv through policy making, tending to favor expensive drugs and vaccines over affordable, time-tested remedies, and then lied about it to the public, and continue to lie; these actions alone led to many unnecessary deaths and much needless suffering.

Some politicians and media pundits deliberately promoted fear and attempted to escalate it to frenzied heights, day after day after day. Stewardships passed aid packages adding trillions of dollars to the public debt, with billions flowing to vaccine manufacturers, and billions in loan dollars flowing to large corporations rather than to genuinely small businesses.

Some prominent teachers, rather than encouraging fellow teachers to return to their students and help them make up for lost time, publicly exaggerated the THEVOID threat (less than influenza for children, who are not “super-spreaders”—not new information) and escalated fears, thereby contributing to prolonged school closings and further trauma to children.

Media figures viciously smeared prominent epidemiologists and public policy experts for attempting to quell fear and promote reasoned action—and in one instance for spreading good news about early treatment. As early as April, YouTube blatantly censored two of the world’s best epidemiologists and numerous doctors attempting to speak directly to the people with an optimistic message.

The corrupt World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) constantly changed recommendations, with no foundation in evidence. In April, without explanation or proper review, the CDC issued changes to the US Vital Statistics Reporting Guidance, previously unchanged since 2003, stating: “Ideally, testing for [THEVOID] should be conducted, but it is acceptable to report [THEVOID] on a death certificate without confirmation if the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty.” This alteration insured higher THEVOID death counts in statistics than would have otherwise existed. The CDC also implemented changes to the method for reporting the Underlying Cause of Death (UCOD), which would also tend to inflate numbers of deaths attributed to THEVOID.

Furthermore, recent changes indicate the CDC will now be “stacking” data from regular seasonal influenza and pneumonia with THEVOID data, falsely inflating the death rate going into the winter and spring. Additionally, county officials “laundered” many death certificates, returning to code them as THEVOID and report them, thus artificially increasing numbers of daily deaths. When the CDC itself reported only six percent of all THEVOID-related deaths had no cause other than the ursiv—good news, great news—mass media promptly distorted this by declaring it “fake news.”

Many people who died essentially of old age, advanced disease, or accidents had THEVOID listed as cause of death, based only on a positive TR-RPC. Medicare and Medicaid greatly increased payments to hospitals for treating patients coded as THEVOID, offering $39,000 for patients placed on a ventilator. YouTube censored a doctor and state legislator who publicly pointed out this perverse incentive, as well as the changes to death certificate reporting, and the state threatened to revoke his medical license, not once but twice.

Moreover, massive testing of asymptomatic people has resulted in huge numbers of positives and false positives, generating more fear and confusion, because officials have labeled mere positive tests “cases.” The number of positive tests alone says nothing except a lot of testing is occurring. Shoddy standards for TR-RPC test analysis and their applications, have resulted in up to 90 percent false positives.

Despite knowing of these inaccuracies, many officials have continued using the percentage of positive tests, number of positives divided by number of tests administered, to hold emergency measures in place, and the mass media have continued to use the same numbers to foment panic. Numerous university students, and many others, have been tormented by mandated repeat-testing and by contact tracing related only to a positive RPC result. From the beginning, Johns Hopkins University of Medicine Coengaged in blatant fear-mongering and propaganda with its infamous THEVOID Death Clock, ticking off the ends of human lives as coldly as if counting gallons of gas or kilowatts of electricity.

Several excellent data analysts estimate only about 25 to 28 percent of total deaths labeled as THEVOID could be properly attributed as such, making today’s actual THEVOID deaths figure about 75,000, closer to a severe influenza season. The CDC and other analysts also estimate at least 100,000 additional lives lost, in the US alone, should never properly be said to have resulted from the ursiv, because they relate only to the extremity of the response, and only to the fear and uncertainty caused by the response. These excess deaths, owing to the ripple effect of prolonged emergency measures and unnecessary disruption of society, constitute criminal human-rights violations made in the name of public health and safety.

Many of these deaths include the unnecessarily abandoned and bereft elderly, already very close to the end of life but sadly left to die alone, or have their deaths hastened by isolation and fear, as well as many young individuals statistically unlikely to die from any ursiv and confirmed to have died from other causes. Certain governors contributed to the death count and to the count of criminal human rights violations by forcing sick patients back into nursing homes, and by refusing to allow some in nursing homes to seek medical care in the hospital. Many other lives have been lost or damaged by refusals to permit patients to be transported across state lines.

The United Nations predicts about 133 million more innocent people than baseline will starve to death this year alone. These people will not starve because young and able people have been dropping dead from an ursiv. No, they will starve because closing up the world disrupts commerce, farming, food processing, and supply chains. Numerous others have died and will die from not being able to get proper medical or preventive care, owing to media-induced fear, hospital closures, or being afraid of dying alone in forced isolation in hospital. Deaths from suicide have risen steeply in young people and veterans as have deaths from drug overdoses. Mental health problems have increased and will continue to rise.

Billions of human lives have been co-opted and interrupted for no valid reason and profoundly distorted by induced fear, forced  camouflage wearing, asymptomatic testing, contact tracing, isolation, quarantining, neighbor policing neighbor, social distancing, and disruption of commerce. Millions of small businesses have been bankrupted by an arbitrary prohibition on their in-person commerce, not because they could not operate owing to illness but because restrictions or steep fines for violations of emergency rules destroyed them; meanwhile, huge corporations have continued to operate and grown wealthier and more powerful by the minute. Billions of people around the world have been thrown into unemployment and poverty, rendering them newly dependent upon government aid.

There seem to be insufficient hours in the day to list all the grievances and harms, and the list grows by the minute. Many have been omitted here for brevity. Individually and collectively, those stated and those omitted, these deceptive, malicious, or negligent acts or omissions, some deliberate, some rooted in panic, comprise crimes against humanity.

Our leaders failed and continue to fail in their duty to consider the profound impact and long-term consequences, emotional, physical, and psychological, of creating and implementing public policies, mandates, and orders which, in themselves, by their very structure, violate human rights and generate numerous violations in consequence.

To be continued . . .

This is the work of happiness.

Kindred spirits, please share this far and wide!

Please note: November 21, 2020 – Reformatted sources, added one, made a minor correction to main text.


Q&A: Nobel laureate says COVID-19 curve could be naturally self-flattening

A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data

Complete Command Probe into USS Theodore Roosevelt COVID-19 Outbreak

Mapping the Mortality Maze: How Deadly Is COVID-19?

How History Shows Pandemic Lockdowns Are Not Necessary

The Case for Lockdown Reparations

COVID-19 Outpatient Study (Physicians being censored and pressured.)

Brazilian Doctor Dies Participating in AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trial



Ep. 1768 Why Don’t More People Want to Live? And Other Important Questions


Dear Fellow Human Being, day two:

As I outlined in yesterday’s letter, I have decided to devote my skills and time to finding ways to protect inalienable human rights and to helping others to do the same. Perhaps even with years of effort, I may be responsible only for small changes in thinking and in direction. However, I am choosing to do this work, because, as I described, good people worldwide, including in our country, face a worsening human-rights crisis, unprecedented in its scope, and unprecedented in its destructive power.

Over the last eight months, billions of people have endured and continue to endure, numerous encroachments and violations of human rights, all committed in the name of public health and safety. The world-wide response to COVID-19 violates numerous human rights by its very methods, and by itself—the overreaction not the infection—has placed societies the world over in grave danger of slipping deeper under the power of oppressors, thus moving farther along the path to totalitarianism.

These human rights violations have rapidly placed many people in danger of starvation, when they had not been before. These violations have hurled many into poverty or deeper poverty. A preponderance of solid evidence tells us, has told us for months, not one human rights violation committed in the name of saving lives contributes to health and well-being overall. Not one of these violations saves or improves lives on balance. Not one of these violations makes sense to currently rational people, people who, by some grace, avoided being overcome by media-induced fear.

Furthermore, many scientists, scholars, policy makers, and politicians knew this at the outset, yet they encouraged or permitted it to happen and to continue. Now they have built earthworks around their egos and continued to wreak havoc. Those connected to the larger agenda, whether by choice or by blackmail, may be proceeding according to the plan. The famous philosopher and journalist Hannah Arendt, in her report on the 1961 trial of Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann, described what she called the “banality of evil,” a phenomenon wherein ordinary individuals participate in or comply with atrocious acts against humankind, deceiving themselves by feigning virtue.

Human rights violations as a response to an infectious disease have never before been condoned or perpetrated on such a massive scale. We must do everything within our individual and collective power to learn how and why this happened. At the same time, we must take urgent yet persistent action to build societal frameworks protecting our human rights from violations or extinction.

I sincerely believe everyone who values freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, human autonomy, individual private property, and other inherent human rights, no matter other details of ideology or philosophy, must join together immediately in peacefully, non-violently protecting human rights. We must begin now, before the violations become nearly immutable barriers to reclamation and restoration.

Because we also face extreme challenges from the unchecked power of corporate and government technology, time is of the essence. I believe our best hope could be to ally ourselves using existing grassroots, human-rights-based organizations as a framework. Deeply dedicated people run these organizations and have built a foundation of knowledge and strategies for peaceful action. To illustrate further why I feel such urgency, I submit the following . . .

To be continued . . .

This is the work of happiness.

Kindred spirits, please share this far and wide!

Dear Fellow Human Being

While you may find my reasons for writing this letter unusual, I am sending it because I trust you to give me the benefit of the doubt when I begin by asserting: Every one of us must begin now to actively work to protect our inherent, inalienable human rights or reconcile ourselves to their extinction—yes, ceasing to exist as fully human beings—within a few more generations.

The extinction would not result from environmental damage caused by humans, or from collision of an asteroid with earth, or even from nuclear war—though these threats do exist. Rather, accumulating evidence points to a more dire and urgent danger, the imminent extinction of our ability to assert our inherent, inalienable human rights. This threat of extinction has been made possible by widespread learned tolerance of deliberate and persistent human rights violations over many decades. However, with the latest crisis acting as catalyst and cover, this threat has risen to an extreme level. Whether aware of this or not, almost every person on earth has recently witnessed outright criminal misuse of advanced technology.

Human rights violators, while always present in society, now openly use their powerful technological advantages, enabled by vast accumulations of wealth, to increase their grip on the minds of good people: by the minute, by the hour, by the day. They act in the guise of providing services and supportive goals for the good of all people. However, their underlying purpose, solidified long ago and incrementally implemented over the decades, includes directing and managing the “world’s population,” into a future they, not the people, have envisioned; a future they, not the people, will control.

One purpose the human rights violators share, other than a lust for power, includes gaining control of ever more of the world’s true wealth, its resources—farmland, grazing land, mineral sources, and water sources, all vital to human existence. Eerily, using abusive and intrusive technology, this alliance of human rights violators can now beam consistent and persistent propaganda to almost every corner of the world, while also collecting vast amounts of data about individual behavior and personal lives, creating a reach far beyond mere print, telegram, radio, movies, telephone, or television.

By this means of the internet and its companion devices—all great forces for good when not controlled or managed by those with deep conflicts of interest—human rights criminals have almost succeeded in teaching human beings to accept being controlled. These criminals have almost succeeded in convincing people to relinquish independent thoughts and principle-based deeds to the intimidating and directing force of this “higher” unseen power.

These control mechanisms, disguised as terms of some “benevolent” social contract from which good people cannot withdraw, have proven to be deadly—to our bodies, to our minds, and to our spirits. If we continue to permit ourselves to be stripped of our inalienable human rights, we will eventually lose all power to direct and protect our own communities, properties, and the vital resources we rely upon. If we lose this power, we will lose the power to help determine our own fates through good and productive actions and wise stewardship. Eventually, or maybe even sooner than we could imagine, we will lose the power to sustain ourselves and our neighbors, having lost direct access to our own resources, finding them suddenly placed behind impenetrable “pay walls.”

As human beings, we stand at a crossroads.

One path leads toward technology-enabled domination of our persons and our lives, by enormous corporations allied with secretive governments, “charitable” foundations of dubious virtue, and self-appointed “thought leaders” with outsized wealth and influence. These combined forces have begun a process of attempting to persuade the people of the world to willingly accept a powerful system designed to manage people from cradle to grave.

In some parts of China, the government, in conjunction with commercial entities, has constructed a massive human surveillance and control system, which presumably will continue expanding, barring a miracle rejection by huge numbers of people. In some areas the system has the capability to rapidly locate anyone, based on a facial image, within its tight net containing millions of cameras and sensors. The visual surveillance system, in combination with commercial, financial, and judicial systems, tracks the behaviors, interactions, movements, and purchases of individuals. The commercial entity or government agency then issues or subtracts social credits based upon its determination of the appropriateness of the person’s behavior across a range of areas, as a means of social control. These social credits control a person’s access to “rights” within the society. This itself violates the human rights of every person subjected to such a system, as does the intrusive degree of surveillance. However, many naively welcome the increased “order” they believe it adds to society, failing to recognize its inherently abusive nature.

Alas, many people of the world have been born into and lived entire lives without experiencing autonomy, privacy, and the independence of thought on which human creativity and human-friendly innovation depend. Many have also been impaired by extreme poverty, another reason developing human-focused thought, dedicated to empowering people to be free and self-sufficient, remains essential.

One particular coalition of human rights usurpers and violators have existed as various non-governmental (NGO) policy-oriented organizations for many decades. Their topical areas of focus include population and resource control and management but placed under the mantle of philanthropy—health and economic welfare and environmental protection. These groups have established ties in many countries of the world. An organization perhaps extending the reach of the NGOs, the Commonwealth of Nations, consists of former British dependencies who have “chosen to maintain ties of friendship and practical cooperation and who acknowledge the British monarch as symbolic head.” I will list all of them to help make clear the reach of any policies these groups might implement: United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Ghana, Malaysia, Nigeria, Cyprus, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, Malta, Zambia, The Gambia, Singapore, Guyana, Botswana, Lesotho, Barbados, Mauritius, Nauru, Swaziland, Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, Bangladesh, The Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Dominica, Kiribati, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Vanuatu, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Maldives, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Brunei, Namibia, Cameroon, Mozambique, Rwanda.

Currently, members of these elite policy-making groups may be found in the International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, and The World Economic Forum, among other groups. Much of the time, they place evidence of their intentions in plain sight, presumably as one element of their propaganda. See Klaus Schwab’s recently published book COVID-19: The Great Reset and other “future shaping” plans published by Schwab’s World Economic Forum (WEF). Many of these ideas have been around for ages but get redesigned to take advantage of current times and current crises.

Also, to further understand the forces determined to place most of humanity into a total control and surveillance net, akin to the developing system in China but with tweaks to make it more “palatable,” it pays to examine the “future shaping” projects of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and of the Rockefeller Foundation. The underlying agenda of these “charitable” foundations aligns with those of the elite NGOs. Many great researchers have spent years attempting to expose these groups, which, while pretending to have the best-interests of the average person at heart, continue actively working to undermine the most meaningful elements of human life. Chief among these would be private property ownership and self-sufficiency—the ability to access clean water and fertile land and to grow or raise food, and to keep the fruits of one’s labor as well as benefit from the excess by selling or sharing it. If you read the WEF plans for our future, they include weakening private property ownership and “urging” people into carefully managed smart cities. Please review the WEF website yourself for greater detail.

The other path, the one leading away from technology-enabled domination, the one still open to us, leads to a human-centered, human- and nature-friendly society, with operating principles rooted in protection of inalienable human rights. Such a society would include continued individual private property ownership and shared direct stewardship of public resources. Of course, such a society would be free to use and advance technology—digital, biologic, genetic and other tools—but subject to stringent openness, allowing for public review and enforcement of appropriate limits, such as informed consent, personal privacy, and strict containment of other potential abuses and harms.  

I and many others sense the people of the world being pushed rapidly down a path leading into the maw of a Leviathan. This monster, comprised of an alliance of extremely wealthy and connected individuals with corrupt corporate, governmental, “charitable,” and non-governmental organizations (NGOs, such as WEF), has thus far succeeded in increasing its power, by deliberately demoralizing many human beings through repeated financial crises and incessant propaganda, sapping people’s strength and will to protect their own dignity and right to live in freedom, peace, and financial security. The monster has done this, culminating in the current crisis, to prepare humankind to accept and even welcome The Great Reset, referenced above, which, while seeming to be benevolent and offer security, will undermine human autonomy and self-sufficiency. This Reset will, sooner or later, be imposed upon the world without the consent of the people, unless we protect ourselves, starting now, by sending a resounding: No!

Every human being has inherent, inalienable rights to live without subjection to constant coercion and violation from other entities or persons. Every human being has an inherent right to autonomy and to respect. The only requirement of each person is a recognition of and consistent respect for the human rights of others. Authentic and legitimate “laws” and “governments” exist for the sole purpose of protecting inherent, inalienable human rights, while also helping people work together in peaceful, well-functioning societies, which contribute to every person’s well-being and to vibrant cultures.

Before reading further, please take a moment to read or re-read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, sponsored by the United Nations in 1948. As you read, please consider the events of the last eight months. The words of this Declaration serve to highlight the extreme human rights violations the world’s leaders have perpetrated and continue to perpetrate upon billions of good people, in the name of protecting public health and safety.

Standing as we do at this crossroads, we will either continue being complicit in permitting further imposition of a world and societies devoid of human rights’ protections, as The Great Reset portends, or we will choose to be actively involved in building a world and societies dedicated to protecting human rights, including human autonomy and individual privacy and private property.

It may be worth noting here one of my favorite independent journalists, Caitlin Johnstone, who has been trying for years to help people see beyond the illusions created to keep us compliant, opined upon her surprise at seeing so many suddenly wake up to a sense of urgency since the widespread imposition of public safety despotism. Caitlin, who calls herself a “bogan socialist,” which I take to mean a regular gal who wants working class people to have half a chance, has a Buddhist-rooted and wise long view, which recognizes we do need to awaken but we must not kill ourselves trying. One can try too hard to force a change. I believe her point may be valuable: change must be organic, take root, and slowly grow into existence. Meanwhile, people like me feel an urgency, which may be necessary to motivate some of us to take the risk of speaking out and necessary to make an impression on others. But the actual change will take more time. We must expect it to take time and meanwhile live our lives and take heart, not despair.

We could easily despair at the number of obstacles humanity currently faces, but we must not. Instead, we must realize protecting our human rights depends upon our ability to join together in an intelligent, persistent, and peaceful effort. If enough people from all walks of life, from various philosophies, from all over the world come together, we can protect our rights from further intrusions and violations and establish a framework to consistently protect the people of the world now, as well as future generations.

This crisis has presented a unique opportunity to identify the true allies of human rights among our leaders. These people will help connect us and show the way forward. Accomplishing a project of this scale will require concerted and persistent effort, perhaps the rest of my life, and of your life, long-term effort from billions of people who refuse to give up on each other. If we fail, we fail the future of humankind. We must find a way to succeed.

The first step would be to imagine a world in which we make use of technology, but in which we never again permit technology to encroach upon or violate human rights—the inherent rights which make our lives worth living. Of course, it would take many people working together to build such a protective framework, but I believe it can and must be done. I am guessing some people and groups have already done a tremendous amount of work toward trying to rein in technology and keep it human-friendly, so a second step would be to identify those people or groups working FOR and not against humankind and ally ourselves with them.

My CRUDE outline of the basics for a better world includes:

(1) Development of human-friendly, privacy-protecting digital tools, with full openness and accountability required by their creators, manufacturers, and communications systems operators, and others involved in their functioning. Additionally, these tools and their users would undergo regular independent review and public reporting, for every corporation, charitable foundation, government entity, and associated entity of any kind. This matters because of the unique and almost limitless inherent power of digital, biologic, and yet to be invented data collection or transmission devices to potentially violate human rights. As we know, these technologies currently hold inordinate power—to censor, to influence, to monitor, to track, to collect information—over the human user or possessor, power over which we have ever-lessening control. Humans, therefore, must insist upon retaining control over the power of any technology to alter, collect, control, monitor, record, or transmit information of any kind associated with human persons, property, or surroundings we inhabit or move through, regardless of the means collected.

(2) Agreement to a total prohibition of forced or coerced medical or pharmaceutical interventions, bodily invasions by biometric scanners, implanted devices (digital or biologic), or any other technology designed to collect, monitor, and, or transmit biological or other information from a human being’s body or mind, or designed in any way to control or interfere with human brain waves, thoughts, biological systems, or other human behaviors. The agreement to a total prohibition of forced or coerced reporting to any entity regarding a human being’s personal health, mental health, or medical condition or regarding the human being’s related perceptions. The agreement to a total prohibition of forced or coerced release of detailed medical records to a central database.

(3) Agreement to total openness and regular review, as described in item (1), respecting any voluntary invasions or implantations of the human person, to ensure only ethical and humane uses of technology, including in other animals, and including in the structures we inhabit, in our natural environment, in public spaces, and within the other tools we use, such as our appliances, devices, and vehicles, among other applications.

(4) Development of persistent protection of all human rights from violations enabled by any technology, including through biologic or genetic modification techniques or related techniques yet to be developed. This would, therefore, include a complete ban on restrictions or burdens being imposed upon any human being for choosing to opt out of any and all personal data collection programs, implanted, environmental, or administrative, even those intended or used for medical or security reasons. Furthermore, this would include a complete ban on genetically modified organisms or otherwise engineered devices (such as nanoparticles and nanobots), which through their use, have potential to affect persons who have not given consent. For example, this ban would include the release and use of genetically modified mosquitoes or vaccines or other products designed to alter human or animal cells, which cannot be reliably contained or could knowingly or unwittingly be shed or be spread. Organized monitoring and exposure of entities suspected of violating the ban or restrictions would be essential. Development of benevolent tools to protect human beings against malicious construction and use of banned or restricted technologies would also be essential. The idea would be to avoid needlessly infringing on the rights of others to create and engineer while protecting innocent parties from being subject to life-altering technologies against their own interests or free will.

(5) Recognition of the right of human beings to exist and interact in their biologically natural states, meaning they may at times shed and possibly transmit natural pathogens or adapted pathogens to one another. Recognition of the beauty and power of the human immune system in maintaining human health and well-being. Recognition human immune systems function optimally with regular mild exposure to challenges. Recognition most infectious illness can be remedied through immune response or early medical treatment when needed. Finally, following the long tradition of human culture, recognition of the right of the vulnerable to choose their own acceptable degrees of exposure and risk, at any given time, and to never be isolated against their will, while also recognizing they retain the power to shape their personal environments within reasonable limits, but may not violate the human rights of others as a means of shaping public or shared environments.

(6) Creation of an effective movement to end to all secrecy regarding the functioning of any entity or person—administrative, executive, legislative, judicial, military, corporate, or private—holding any power to or contributing to use of coercion or force to place a burden upon another person or persons, for any reason. This would include de facto coercion through compliance-related privileges, involving employment, travel, or other significant element of life. This open means of operating society would require ongoing review of the justification for any act or mandate or order or law in itself a violation of a human right. It would also require an extremely high bar for coercive demands upon people, placing all preferences upon non-coercive, non-violent, principled means to accomplish goals. This would not be license for people to invade the private affairs of families; however, people would be encouraged to follow the same principles with family members but making allowances for the existence of familial duties and the need for parents to have authority over their children as a means of guiding and protecting them.

(7) Dedication to building honest, compassionate, non-coercive, and open ways of organizing communities and societies firmly committed to protecting human rights through principled actions and full accountability at all times, even, especially, in times of crisis. The impositions and violations of human rights lately encountered by most people of the world, such as lockdowns, restrictions on operations of businesses and institutions, travel restrictions, forced isolations, forced quarantines, forced distancing, forced testing, and mask mandates, would be abhorred by all, knowing more humane solutions could be found and voluntarily agreed upon. A society built upon protection of human rights also includes a deep commitment to humane, and respectful stewardship of animals, nature, and shared resources, such as air, sunlight, water, public land, airwaves, and other aspects of the natural environment, including spaces and places beyond the earth, the modifications of which could adversely affect the lives of human beings.

I’ve been thinking about all of this because of my deep concerns about the widespread disregard for inalienable human rights we have all witnessed throughout these last eight months. Many people of the world, including in our own country, in the name of public safety, have been and continue to be subjected to barbaric, callous, and sadistic restrictions and other intrusions.

Only a few countries in the world and a few states in the US have put human rights ahead of perceived safety and tempered their actions with reason, some to a greater extent than others. For a while, I felt overwhelmed with sadness for all we humans have lost so swiftly, and for all we will continue to lose in the coming years. However, after letting myself feel the loss, deeply, I have decided to channel my sadness into helping shape a better world going forward, but NOT in “Great Reset” fashion.

To the contrary, I want to help others understand the power of using the principles of inalienable human rights to guide human action in all of its forms. A world and societies built on protecting human rights would not, could not, permit top-down control or management of people for any reason, not even for so-called common good or “safety,” because such impositions inherently violate human rights. Therefore, a world devoted to protecting human rights and humane societies would move away from homogenization and central planning and toward diversity and creative collaborations.

Every single safety or health concern or other widespread problem people face can be addressed while also adhering to the principles of human rights. Each time people permit authorities to deny this fact and to violate their human rights in the name of public safety or “national defense,” we take another collective step down the path to totalitarianism. Each time people insist upon solutions which never violate human rights, we take a big step towards humanitarianism.   

The world and societies I envision protect human rights no matter what, place them first, and allow human beings the freedom to grow and thrive in diverse communities without constant intrusions and invasions made in the name of the common good, safety, or security. This world and these societies would not be desolate, denuded, or destitute. This is because when people live by good principles they become good people. They build communities and strive to take care of each other, naturally, as well as of their property and of the environment. The only people who do not want to even consider a more humane way forward or to understand how it could work, will most likely be either fearful and traumatized people who need help healing, or the people who willfully choose to violate human rights because of their greed or lust for power.

I trust you to believe me when I say my motives for writing to you bear no connection to electoral politics. I am no longer registered with any political party or effort. Furthermore, I am firmly committed to remaining non-partisan, though this does not mean certain politicians could not be considered allies on certain issues at certain times. I recognize billions of good people of the world will have to work together on this project to protect human rights. Politics as we know it today serves only to divide. I have an opposite goal of bringing people together. We need not agree upon every detail; however, I believe good people agree inalienable human rights need protecting, and building consensus around this idea means less use of coercion and force and a more humane and vibrant world for all. I am writing to connect with you, to bare my heart, mind, and soul for a good cause. I believe this is THE cause for these times and for many years ahead.

To be continued . . .

This is the work of happiness.

Kindred spirits, please share this far and wide!


Part Ten: Stop Your Ears with Wax and Help Free the World

Part Ten: They Scared Us and Scarred Us, On Purpose

Getting back to the pandemic, the initial reason given us in March for curtailing our activities, to permit hospitals and medical personnel time to prepare, to “flatten the curve,” could have been implemented without emergency orders. Experts knew by then the virus would inevitably spread through the population and could not be contained. Moreover, they knew for most it meant a mild illness at worst, no symptoms at best. Most individuals and organizations would have complied. Voluntary measures alone would have been sufficient to give doctors and hospitals time to prepare.

As things played out, added hospital space stood empty, including in New York City, yet after the first two weeks, most states kept restrictions in place or imposed even more, beginning a destructive cycle continuing through today. US governors with only two exceptions have rigidly followed guidelines, presumably issued by the CDC, for months, regardless of the absurdity and chaos this adherence created in people’s lives. These governors have blatantly disregarded and violated human rights, repeatedly. The restrictions imposed have destroyed many small businesses and permanently set back vital institutions and organization. The same or worse has happened in Canada, throughout South America, the UK, Europe, Australia, and parts of Africa and Asia.

Even in a situation involving an extremely dangerous pathogen, the risks of becoming infected must be weighed against the risks of a non-functioning society. For example, at a minimum food must be grown, processed, and transported or people will go hungry and eventually starve. Regular medical care must be provided or people will needlessly die from many causes other than the dangerous pathogen. Sick loved ones must be permitted the bedside comforts of family and friends or deep regrets will pierce and wither souls. Small business owners must be permitted to earn a living or their livelihoods will be destroyed and community commerce will die. People desiring the society of others and participation in the arts and educational institutions must be allowed to risk congregating or the moral growth and the health of culture will be stunted. Worshipers must be allowed to worship together, and to dance and to sing if they wish, or many spirits will languish. Sports enthusiasts must be allowed to engage in the activities so vital to their well-being. People must be allowed to touch and to see each other’s full faces or lose a vital sense of connection. Human immune systems must be allowed to practice and strengthen to the extent of their ability or human beings will grow weaker and more susceptible. All of the deprivations listed above weaken the human spirit and also weaken the human immune system. Humans have great power in their ability to form natural resistance and immunity; all of the above have undermined our ability to use our bodies as nature intended. All of the above constitute crimes against humanity.

After two previous “pandemic scares,” neither on the scale of THEVOID, thank God, some experts tried to warn of the hazards of a systemic tendency toward overreaction. In a Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2011;89:539-540. doi: 10.2471/BLT.11.089086, Luc Bonneux  and Wim Van Damme, prophetically stated:

“In both pandemics of fear, the exaggerated claims of a severe public health threat stemmed primarily from disease advocacy by influenza experts. In the highly competitive market of health governance, the struggle for attention, budgets and grants is fierce. The pharmaceutical industry and the media only reacted to this welcome boon. We therefore need fewer, not more “pandemic preparedness” plans or definitions. Vertical influenza planning in the face of speculative catastrophes is a recipe for repeated waste of resources and health scares, induced by influenza experts with vested interests in exaggeration. There is no reason for expecting any upcoming pandemic to be worse than the mild ones of 1957 or 1968,7 no reason for striking pre-emptively, no reason for believing that a proportional and balanced response would risk lives.”

Regrettably, many have misunderstood or been led to misunderstand the concept of “herd immunity,” including, apparently, the director of the World Health Organization (WHO). As epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta, among others, has pointed out, herd immunity is simply an eventual reality. Brian K. Lee, writing for Encyclopaedia Brittanica, offers a clear and succinct definition:

Herd immunity, also called community immunity, [is a] state in which a large proportion of a population is able to repel an infectious disease, thereby limiting the extent to which the disease can spread from person to person. Herd immunity can be conferred through natural immunity, previous exposure to the disease, or vaccination. An entire population does not need to be immune to attain herd immunity. Rather, herd immunity can occur when the population density of persons who are susceptible to infection is sufficiently low so as to minimize the likelihood of an infected individual coming in contact with a susceptible individual. Herd immunity can prevent sustained disease spread in populations, thereby protecting susceptible individuals from infection. It is applicable, however, only to infectious diseases that can be spread by human contact.”

Herd immunity may also be called population immunity. Moreover, as stated above by Professor Lee, natural immunity, not vaccines only, contributes to herd immunity. Moreover, natural immunity may be superior in many respects. Here is Harvard’s Martin Kulldorff explaining herd immunity in a recent debate held online by Democracy Now:

“I would say that one thing that is wrong is to have a debate about herd immunity is nonsensical. That’s like having a debate among physicists about gravity. Herd immunity is a scientifically established phenomena that just exists. So, to have — and every strategy that we use will eventually lead to herd immunity. So, for us to discuss whether we should reach herd immunity, that’s like having two pilots in an airplane discussing whether they should use gravity as a strategy to get the airplane down on the ground. The airplane will eventually get down on the ground, no matter what. The key thing is to minimize mortality. So we want to minimize mortality until this pandemic is over.”

As many prominent scientists have pointed out, our immune systems use numerous mechanisms to prevent a pathogen from causing a serious infection and they maintain a long-term memory for similar pathogens and evidence indicates this is as true for THEVOID as for more familiar pathogens. Moreover, blood antibody levels are not the only measure of immune response. While antibodies may wane when not actively needed, T cells remain prepared to respond. And unlike what some corporations and public officials (some possibly criminals) with deep conflicts of interest would have you believe, a population can adequately handle most pathogens naturally, without the need for vaccines, and without unduly endangering the vulnerable.

As Antonio Regalado highlights in this August 11, 2020 article for MIT Technology Review:

‘A virus outbreak will cease to grow, even without any control measures, when a threshold called herd immunity is achieved. That’s when so many people are immune that the virus can’t find new hosts quickly enough.

. . . .

Natural infection also turns out to be extremely efficient at reducing virus transmission—even more effective than an equal number of people getting a vaccine. The reason is that the virus has been finding and infecting precisely those people who—whether because of behavior, circumstances, or biology—are most likely to be part of transmission chains.

Perhaps they are college students on spring break, or hospital nurses, or people who touch their face all the time. Whatever the reason, once these individuals become infected and are removed from the equation through death or immunity, the effect on the pandemic is outsized. By contrast, vaccinating a sheltered older person might protect that individual but does relatively less to stop transmission.

“When the disease itself causes herd immunity, it does so more efficiently than when we give out vaccine at random,” Marc Lipsitch, a public health modeler at Harvard University, told the political pundit Bill Kristol last week during a podcast interview. As a result, “there is discussion” about whether viral transmission could be reduced more quickly than generally believed, he says.”’

The other aspect of this, to paraphrase Sunetra Gupta, an infectious disease epidemiologist from University of Oxford, managing disease while keeping society open and functioning is part of our longstanding social contract. Here is the idea expressed in her own words:

“I think the [closedown] is really individualistic in its general construction. Things that we normally disperse within the community, such as individual risk, and individual blame. Now I see young people being terrified, even though they realise the risk to themselves is low, that they might infect a friend who will then give it to their grandparents. This chain of guilt is somehow located to the individual rather than being distributed and shared.

We have to share the guilt. We have to share the responsibility. And we have to take on board certain risks ourselves in order to fulfil our obligations and to uphold the social contract. So I’d like the patricians to remind people of that, because that’s what they’ve been elected to do – to see the social contract is being properly transacted.”

Professor Gupta also articulates her observations concerning the counterproductive and unrealistic mindset promoted by certain politicians, media pundits, and even scientists who insist on pitting people against THEVOID, as though some magical combination of actions and behaviors could eradicate it completely or cause it to move past entire populations without effect. In Professor Gupta’s words:

“The other interesting issue that I’ve suddenly realised with this particular threat, is that people are treating it like an external disaster, like a hurricane or a tsunami, as if you can batten down the hatches and it will be gone eventually. That is simply not correct. The epidemic is an ecological relationship that we have to manage between ourselves and the virus. But instead, people are looking at it as a completely external thing.

What’s disappointed me about the way this has been approached is it has been approached along a single axis, which, if you like, is a scientific one. Even within that context, you could argue that it’s too one-dimensional, so we’re not thinking about what’s happening with other infectious diseases or how many people are going to die of cancer.

That’s the axis of disease, but then there’s the socioeconomic axis, which has been ignored. But there’s a third, aesthetic access, which is about how we want to live our lives. We are closing ourselves off not just to the disease, but to other aspects of being human.”

Also, here is another excellent interview with Professor Gupta, both in summary form and featuring video:

I hope my own quiet refusal to comply with what would be violations of my human rights might help (it is a drop in the bucket but still, a drop) draw attention to the gravity of what we as a society have permitted to happen by remaining susceptible to obvious Propaganda and by complying with emergency mandates for so long, far beyond when a preponderance of the evidence proved them counterproductive and even destructive. The UK’s Lord Sumption, in his eloquent and poignant 2020 Cambridge Freshfields Lecture entitled “Government by decree – Covid-19 and the Constitution,” explains why civil disobedience may be required with respect to the unjust “laws” being imposed upon people around the world based upon “emergency” powers.

Most heartbreaking of all is what the world-wide panic has done to children, depriving them of their freedom to grow and learn and develop properly, to have faith in the power of their own immune systems, possibly for years to come. Many will be permanently stunted. Millions more children will starve to death than previously predicted. Closedowns harm the poor far more than being infected by THEVOID ever could. As HJ Mai highlights in this May 5, 2020 article for NPR: ‘The effect of that [economic fallout] is going to be, for the first time in probably in 30 years, a big increase in the number of people in extreme poverty, people living on less than $2 a day,” said Mark Lowcock, U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator. “And as part of that,” Lowcock said, “we expect, unfortunately, that there could be a doubling this year in the number of people who are literally starving to death and won’t survive unless they get help.”’

Also, because of trauma to society caused by induced fear and closedowns, it may be years before children have—alas, they may never have—the pleasure of knowing churches, theaters, museums, libraries, universities, and a variety of community institutions crucial to culture and to societal well-being, as humming, vibrant places centered on gathering close together and connecting in person. If we allow these places to become sterile shadows of themselves, if we fail to insist they restore their missions and serve humanity as intended—as institutions dedicated to protecting and honoring human rights and dignity—we fail our children, we fail our grandchildren, we fail generations of the future, and we fail ourselves. We must keep the flames alive and restore as much as we can as as rapidly as possible.

Numerous prominent scientists tried to warn about an overreaction to the “novel corona virus” beginning in early March or earlier but the heavily biased media rapidly politicized their views and even censored some of them. Sane voices were drowned by media and political fearmongering and the ensuing panic. Lately, a bit of reason has broken through the heavily-seeded clouds, offering a ray of hope. Yet some fearful citizens, who unquestioningly believe major media outlets, media pundits and organizations, patricians, and scientists, continue to push for closedowns despite mounting evidence of myriad harms they cause, and stories such as this one, which originally appeared in the Washington Post, seem to discredit people who seek more information and, rightfully, question authority while elevating those who unquestioningly follow “authority.”

Since when is it responsible or moral to discourage citizens from fact-checking for themselves, from being advocates for an honest, free, and independent press and honest and open stewardships? Appropriately questioning authority is essential to our existence as free people, to our ability to detect unethical and immoral orders and RESIST following them, lest we become unethical or immoral persons ourselves and contribute to violence to others.

Significantly, a close examination of many prominent figures in this crisis reveals serious conflicts of interest. Many are funded and have ties to pharmaceutical companies and other corporations who have profited handsomely from the “THEVOID crisis” while positioning themselves for even greater profits in the future.

One such figure, Ezekiel Emanuel, also discussed above, on an MSNBC program aired March 27, 2020, warned about major rationing in the country, promoted extensive contact tracing, and made the frightening claim 100 million would be infected in four weeks time. All of which adds up to shameless fearmongering, especially egregious coming from an expert in public health policy. We must ask ourselves why Emanuel would deliberately promote exaggerated claims.

Even using the prediction of actual cases being about ten times greater than PCR positives, we arrive at a total of about 90 million testing positive over nine months, not four weeks. Per the CDC, the official case count for the US, from January 21, 2020 to November 3, 2020, stands at 9,268,818. This does not address the varied quality of the testing itself, the asymptomatic nature of a majority of “infections,” or the inaccuracy of describing mere positive tests as cases, but it does highlight the extremity of Emanuel’s public prediction.

Mr. Emanuel also failed to bring up mitigating information someone with his credentials most certainly knew. By March 17, 2020, one of the world’s most prominent epidemiologists, John Ioannidis, publicly raised serious concerns about the wisdom of closedowns and placed the risks into clear perspective:

“One of the bottom lines is that we don’t know how long social distancing measures and [closedowns] can be maintained without major consequences to the economy, society, and mental health. Unpredictable evolutions may ensue, including financial crisis, unrest, civil strife, war, and a meltdown of the social fabric. At a minimum, we need unbiased prevalence and incidence data for the evolving infectious load to guide decision-making.”

In this same article, Dr. Ioannidis went on to try to make a serious and valid estimate of what to expect based on the evidence available at the time:

“Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population, the death rate among people infected with [TheVoid] would be 0.125% [the IFR]. But since this estimate is based on extremely thin data — there were just seven deaths among the 700 infected passengers and crew — the real death rate could stretch from five times lower (0.025%) to five times higher (0.625%). It is also possible that some of the passengers who were infected might die later, and that tourists may have different frequencies of chronic diseases — a risk factor for worse outcomes with SARS-CoV-2 infection — than the general population. Adding these extra sources of uncertainty, reasonable estimates for the case fatality ratio in the general U.S. population vary from 0.05% to 1%.

That huge range markedly affects how severe the pandemic is and what should be done. A population-wide case fatality rate of 0.05% is lower than seasonal influenza. If that is the true rate, locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies.”

Furthermore, March 17, 2020 (with an update in April), the Center for Evidence Based Medicine published estimates corresponding to those made by Dr. Ioannidis. Keep in mind Case Fatality Rates are always higher than Infection Fatality Rates, which are always higher than Population Fatality Rates:

“Taking account of historical experience, trends in the data, increased number of infections in the population at largest, and potential impact of misclassification of deaths give a presumed estimate for the [THEVOID] IFR somewhere between 0.1% and 0.35%.
. . . . .
Modelling the data on the prevalence of comorbidities is also essential to understand the CFR and IFR by age (the prevalence of comorbidities is highly age-dependent and is higher in socially deprived populations). It is also not clear if the presence of other circulating influenza illnesses acts to increase the IFR (testing for co-pathogens is not occurring). And whether certain populations (e.g., those with heart conditions) and also in areas of high social deprivation put people at more risk of dying.

In those without pre-existing health conditions, and over 70, the data suggests the IFR will likely not exceed 1%.

Mortality in children seems to be near zero (unlike flu) which is also reassuring and will act to drive down the IFR significantly.

It is now essential to understand whether individuals are dying with or from the disease. Understanding this issue is critical. If, for instance, 80% of those over 80 die with the disease then the CFR  would be near 3% in this age group as opposed to 15%. Cause of death information from death certificates is often inaccurate and incomplete, particularly for conditions such as pneumonia. These factors would act to lower the IFR.”

A number of prominent scientists (not just those mentioned here) provided sufficient information early on in the crises indicating prolonged closedowns could and should be avoided. In contrast, Mr. Emanuel urged restrictive closedowns continuing for months and normalizing mask wearing, even outdoors. As discussed above, his conflicts of interest run deep. Current calculations of the range of fatality rates around the world reflect the accuracy of the predictions made by John Ioannidis and CEBM, In other words, extreme responses and inducement of panic would not have helped in any case, but promoting them seems criminal.

While this is not probative evidence of deliberate and premeditated wrong-doing on Mr. Emanuel’s part, it does raise important questions about numerous powerful individuals helping to set policy related to THEVOID. After nine months of a THEVOID crisis, many corporations and government agencies and contractors now have vested interests in maintaining the fear and restrictive responses, medical supply and pharmaceutical companies foremost among them, along with Amazon, Walmart, and other huge companies.

Moreover, as reporter Alex Berenson has pointed out repeatedly, even The New York Times (once his own employer and widely considered the paper of record) deliberately promotes fear in many of its headlines and articles. Among the most egregious examples of this is a sensational story highlighting a young man, who had been in the prime of his life, stating he died from THEVOID when he actually died with symptomatic THEVOID but accidentally from a drug overdose. Quoting from the medical examiner’s report: “Averil Amburgey’s death was ruled an accidental death due to oxycodone and alprazolam toxicity with symptomatic THEVOID infection contributing [emphasis added] to his death.” Yet to date, despite Mr. Berenson’s public correction and posting of the medical examiner’s report, the Times has not corrected the article to reflect reality or explained how the error made it through their vetting processes.

Related to the media’s exaggeration of the threat posed by the virus, it is important to note the National Center for Health Statistics changed its Vital Statistics Reporting Guidance in April of 2020 in a way which would tend to inflate the number of persons killed by the pathogen:

“When a death is due to THEVOID, it is likely the UCOD [underlying cause of death] and thus, it should be reported on the lowest line used in Part I of the death certificate. Ideally, testing for THEVOID should be conducted, but it is acceptable to report THEVOID on a death certificate without [emphasis added] this confirmation if the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty.”

A paper published October 12, 2020 in Science Public Health Policy and the Law by the non-profit Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, which also established the peer reviewed journal, examines how this change in reporting methods affected the gathering of statistics regarding THEVOID:

‘According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on August 23, 2020, “For 6% of the deaths, [THEVOID] was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to [THEVOID], on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.”[1] For a nation tormented by restrictive public health policies mandated for healthy individuals and small businesses, this is the most important statistical revelation of this crisis. This revelation significantly impacts the published fatalities count due to [THEVOID]. More importantly, it exposes major problems with the process by which the CDC was able to generate inaccurate data during a crisis. The CDC has advocated for social isolation, social distancing, and personal protective equipment use as primary mitigation strategies in response to the [THEVOID] crisis, while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the promise of inexpensive pharmaceutical and natural treatments. These mitigation strategies were promoted largely in response to projection model fatality forecasts that have proven to be substantially inaccurate. Further investigation into the legality of the methods used to create these strategies raised additional concerns and questions. Why would the CDC decide against using a system of data collection & reporting they authored, and which has been in use nationwide for 17 years without incident, in favor of an untested & unproven system exclusively for [THEVOID] without discussion and peer-review? Did the CDC’s decision to abandon a known and proven effective system also breach several federal laws that ensure data accuracy and integrity? Did the CDC knowingly alter rules for reporting cause of death in the presence of comorbidity exclusively for [THEVOID]? If so, why? (p. 1)

The authors further assert the CDC implemented the change in reporting method (which may have resulted in extreme over-reporting of THEVOID as the Underlying Cause of Death), without proper oversight and review:

“We allege the CDC violated the IQA, PRA, OMB compliance guidelines, and Executive Order 12866. In doing so, the CDC has fatally compromised all [THEVOID] data and adversely impacted federal, state, and local public health policies regarding [THEVOID]. As a result of these far-reaching and adverse impacts, the CDC as a federal agency MUST be held to the highest of standards for the assurance of flawless data quality. (p. 17)

Another essential piece of the puzzle lies in understanding what PCR positives actually mean. Put simply, a rise in PCR positives does not at all indicate a rise in dangerous transmission of the virus. Moreover, it does not indicate a rise in actual cases of THEVOID. I will allow the Center for Evidence Based Medicine to explain:

“Conclusion: symptoms and signs of [TheVoid19] are necessary to support the claim that the subject is or can be infectious. But calling PCR positives “cases” does not specify whether the persons have carried the virus for long or whether it is “active”. This could lead to the finding of many “cases” as a function of the number of PCR tests conducted. For example, if 20% of a population are PCR positive, the number of PCR positives will depend on the size of the sample. This means that the more PCR test are carried out the larger the fraction of the population that is confirmed but this might not speak of changes in the population. That is, it is possible that the population was infected already long before deciding to test and PCR positives would therefore not speak of “an advancing pandemic”

Thus, those who advocate “zero positives” before ending restrictions are essentially calling for never-ending restrictions, especially because other major questions have arisen regarding the predictive value of the tests.

Closedowns and related restrictions (not the virus itself but this perverse reaction to it) have already caused needless excess deaths and other serious damage, including a steep rise in drug overdoses and suicides, a steep and growing rise in poverty, increased threats of malnutrition and starvation, and other harms, more of which will become apparent in the years to come. Per a recent United Nations Report “The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World” (p, 17):

“On the demand side, the massive [closedowns] across the world are expected to hamper people’s ability to access food and create serious economic downturns. This will make it difficult to afford food, particularly for the poor and vulnerable groups. Low- and middle-income countries will likely be the most affected, as they do not have the contingency mechanisms and funds to stimulate their economies and protect the most vulnerable. As a consequence, a pandemic-induced global economic crisis is likely to generate new pockets of food insecurity even in countries that did not require interventions previously.”

The non-partisan Great Barrington Declaration is a recent effort by prominent infectious disease epidemiologists and public health professionals to bring an end to the widespread promotion of chaos and fear by media, public health officials, and patricians, and to help restore society before even more dire consequences result:

“The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing [THEVOID] policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. 
Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current [closedown] policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”

Since publishing the declaration October 4, 2020, the authors have been subjected to harsh and unfounded criticism bordering on outright smears. Fortunately for us, they stand by their work.

As of today, November 3, 2020, just one day shy of a month from the Declaration’s publication date, 11,725 medical and public health scientists, 33,661 medical practitioners, and 613,026 concerned citizens have signed. While this represents only a small portion of the world’s population, the numbers hold great significance. Each signatory must learn about the Declaration, have access to its website, and be willing to stand by the act of signing, fully prepared to face whatever consequences might ensue. In these difficult times rife with censorship and ad hominem attacks, the level of dedication required gives deep meaning to each signature. Thus far, the Declaration has been translated into 43 other languages.

The Declaration moderators use a rigorous verification system so the value of the number of signatories is maintained:

If you have not already joined these brave fellow humans in helping to protect our human rights and to prevent further harms caused by human rights violations, I hope you will consider doing so now. Read it here and follow the directions should you wish to sign:

This brings us to the conclusion of my pamphlet, though I have completed some related material I will be posting soon. In addition, I have numerous ideas for future articles.

Thank you for reading.

This is the work of happiness.

Kindred spirits, please share this far and wide!

Part Nine: Stop Your Ears with Wax and Help Free the World

Part Nine: Who Are THEY, Really?

All good people mourn every life which ends prematurely. We do this naturally as part of what makes us human. Inherently, we wish others well and want to see them do well. However, we do not thrive when dwelling too much on what we have no power to improve. We realize our best contribution toward the collective good comes from each person thriving as much as possible, helping lift others in the process. Simply by living our unique lives with steadfast cheerfulness, honesty, and kindness we create a buoyant goodness around us. Smiling at others as we pass in the street, holding a door for the person behind us, helping a parent lift a stroller over the curb—myriad small courtesies we offer others, on our own time and in our working lives, connect us and give meaning to life.

Beyond these courtesies, many people volunteer hours each week to help someone learn to read, or to use a computer, to sing a song with a choir, or even to play a role in a play. At least, this describes how we were, not so long ago. And all of this continued despite losses and mourning and numerous risks, and it continued because we all agreed connecting face to face, person to person, side by side, matters far more than most risks, even for, perhaps, most especially for, the elderly who often crave connection.  

In past times, for the most part, with some exceptions, the media and government officials would not direct our attention every hour on the hour toward counting deaths from any cause, whether from influenza or from automobile or airplane accidents or iatrogenic illness. As human beings, we usually know better than to dwell in fear for more than a few minutes at time, the few minutes necessary to assess risk. We know doing otherwise drags us into a counterproductive paralysis. True, a wise person’s time spent gathering information and balancing benefits with risks usually increases with increasing risk—and we may seek expert assistance in certain instances.

But generally speaking our natural human abilities allow most of us to effectively balance probable risks with potential rewards, on regular basis. Should I take the interstate home during the rainstorm when it’s full of tractor trailers? Or would it be best to take the old highway? Is it worth it to drive two hours each way to visit a museum this weekend when I am exhausted from a difficult week? Or should I stay home, read a book, and rest? Do I want to learn to snowboard this winter and risk a sore back? Or would I prefer to take yoga classes first to help me become more limber? Do I want to have one glass of wine with dinner to help me relax? Or would I prefer to have sparkling water to be sure all my wits are present when driving home?

As human beings, we naturally maintain a peripheral awareness of seasonal illnesses, and most of us cope with some minor symptoms each year. Our awareness heightens, of course, when an acquaintance becomes ill or dies and intensifies when a friend or loved one becomes ill or dies. We use appropriate caution when necessary and possible. We extend our sympathies and offer assistance and comfort to those afflicted or experiencing loss. But through all of this, we go on with living our lives, for the most part, for an excellent reason. Our going on helps others do the same. Our going on helps ensure all the stuff of life which makes it so worth living remains at the ready for anyone wishing to rejoin after illness, or after mourning a loved one. Moreover, all of those who keep going build and strengthen their immune systems in the process, helping to keep themselves and those around them healthy as well.

This was how we lived. It worked well. Certainly, much could have been and could be done to help strengthen immune systems and prevent illness across the board—sunshine, vitamin D3 supplements, clean water, fresh air, whole foods, but none of this required ending our way of life; none of this entailed destruction. We could live this way tomorrow, wake up and just go about life as usual, if only everyone could remember how real life felt.

It would be so easy—toss all the camouflages, set aside the depressing angst and fear, and let go of pointless posturing. Hug everyone you see. Shake hands with people on the street. Sit next to a stranger on the bus. Go to church and sing in the choir. Take ballroom dancing lessons in a crowded room. Go to the packed gym and work out. Sit in a crowded pub and put your arm around your buddy. Yet, you do not dare, do you? Even if you wished to dare, current circumstances would render it nearly impossible.

In February 2020, everyone would have thought you absolutely insane if you’d said these activities would be “illegal” by April and remain “illegal” until some unknown time in the future or perhaps forever. Please ask yourself, WHY? Please ask yourself, HOW DID THIS HAPPEN TO US? Please ask yourself, HOW DID WE LET THIS GO ON SO LONG?

Propaganda, expertly created and purveyed by human rights criminals, lured us into committing these crimes against ourselves. Her songs drove us to give in to fear and self-loathing and excessive reliance on authority figures.

Now, we know better. Now, we have enough strength remaining to stop our ears, to quit listening, and to free ourselves from Propaganda’s powers.

Throughout this crisis only approximately six percent of those lost died prematurely solely because of an infection with THEVOID. A far higher proportion died because the infection exacerbated other serious conditions AND some died needlessly because they did not receive adequate treatment in time or because they were given exacerbating treatment made more likely owing to perverse incentives put into place by our stewardship.

Around the world, politicians, with the help of certain “scientists” and members of the media have frightened and manipulated people by exaggerating the threat THEVOID poses to healthy people and attempting to shame anyone—even top epidemiologists—who dares challenge their narrative. Many of these people knew better but they did it. They continue to do it. This is gross negligence at best. Mostly, this is criminal.

I assure you my strong stance has nothing to do with partisan politics. Why do I feel I need to say this? I think you probably know. Almost everything we say or do gets politicized in the media, by Propaganda, polarizing our thinking in dangerous ways, pushing us into camps or factions. Thus, given the environment, I must present my disclaimer: I do not harbor or promote disregard for the health and well-being of anyone, regardless of political affiliation, and most especially not for your grandmother. I love grandmothers in general, have deeply loved my own grandmothers, and recently, I became a grandmother myself. To the contrary, I care deeply about individuals as well as about the future of humankind in general, as you likely do, too. Moreover, we also likely agree, the fundamental purpose of stewardship is to protect human rights, not to intrude upon them disproportionately. When stewardships intrude upon these rights, general human well-being falls in proportion to the intrusion.

Regarding the novel corona virus, top experts (to be discussed below) had a sufficiently accurate picture by late March to warn policy makers about the destructive nature of closedowns. Moreover, as commonly held wisdom informs us, regarding any real or perceived crisis, there comes a point at which the unintended consequences of an emergency response begin to outweigh its benefits, indicating the response must be withdrawn.

For example, when performing CPR to save a life, should the person who seemed to require resuscitation open her eyes and try to sit up, you would immediately halt chest compressions. I am quite certain you would not push her down and give two breaths before starting compressions again. In your attempt to render aid, you would have reached the “point of diminishing returns.” Related to this is the law of the vital few, often called the “Pareto Principle” or the 80/20 rule which states: 80 percent of the results come from 20 percent of the inputs. In health and safety circles this principle is commonly applied, or it used to be:

Occupational health and safety professionals use the Pareto principle to underline the importance of hazard prioritization. Assuming 20% of the hazards account for 80% of the injuries, and by categorizing hazards, safety professionals can target those 20% of the hazards that cause 80% of the injuries or accidents.”

Societies worldwide have traditionally adhered to this principle or something close to it in managing pandemics, as evidenced by records of prior pandemics in the United States. For example, as Jeffrey Tucker pointed out in his May 1, 2020 article for AIER, the renowned Woodstock, New York concert occurred in August of 1969, in the midst of the 1968-1969 H3N2 pandemic. Societies around the world, not just in the US, coped well, without forced closures or widespread cancellation of life.

Public health authorities and doctors did what they could to protect the vulnerable and to provide adequate treatment to the ill. Yet, despite equivalent or even greater deaths than from THEVOID—when adjusted for age, co-morbidities, and population—the world did not suffer from needless collateral damage. The healthy carried on with life and sustained society’s vital functions: culture, commerce, education, webs of relationships. They kept it all going. Many people, including me, never even had an awareness of being in a pandemic.

Thus, with respect to a newly discovered pathogen, once a reasonable calculation of risk and type of spread is known, and once an adequate medical response is mustered, all or most emergency restrictions should be lifted. After this, those willing to assume the stated risk should be permitted to do so. Others desiring longer term protection are afforded assistance–by society whenever need be–in taking mitigating action (for example, in current times, with PAPR equipment) to an extent they prefer.

Inexpensive and safe therapeutics and prophylactics should be identified and made available as rapidly as possible (which the US initially did but then withdrew (possibly criminally, I believe history may show, causing many needless deaths). Meanwhile, the immune systems of most individuals adapt to the pathogen, rendering them stronger and less likely to infect others, and those especially vulnerable because of age or medical problems gain protection from this state of equilibrium.

With respect to THEVOID, there was and is no need to “wait for a vaccine” to return to normalcy, yet billions of dollars from the US and other stewardships have passed and will pass to pharmaceutical companies already profiting from the pandemic by the increased market value of their stock. For example, according to this July 8, 2020 MSN article by Gina Cook, Novavax, Inc., a Gaithersburg, Maryland company, has received $1.6 billion in federal funds: “Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan said it is the largest grant yet from Operation Warp Speed.” Moderna received $2.5 billion from the federal government for vaccine development; meanwhile several of its executives have cashed in $90 million in company stock based on the related rise in value.

Regrettably, our stewardship representatives so far are failing to demand answers to serious questions posed regarding testing the safety and effectiveness of the various forms of corona virus vaccines in development. How much these corporations stand to profit over the long-term depends upon demand for the vaccine, which rightfully will wane should it prove to cause numerous adverse reactions. The manufacturer’s profits will greatly increase should the vaccines be mandated, whether by direct order or de facto by employment- or travel-based requirements, both of which await in the wings. Virginia’s health commissioner has already stated he will mandate vaccination, if it proves safe.

It is also essential to note these corporations have been granted immunity from liability should their products cause harm, which is also the case, since 1988, for vaccines listed on the childhood vaccination schedule. As a result of this unfortunate legislation, vaccine manufacturers escape sufficient scrutiny, and many vaccine-injured children have failed to receive adequate compensation. Pharmaceutical companies have been granted similar shielding from liability with respect to vaccines for THEVOID. Per this August 28, 2020 article by Sharon Lerner, for The Intercept: ‘An amendment to the PREP [Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness] Act, which was updated in April, stipulates that companies “cannot be sued for money damages in court” over injuries caused by medical countermeasures for Covid-19. Such countermeasures include vaccines, therapeutics, and respiratory devices.’

The stewardship’s National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program’s rigid guidelines have held injury compensation payments to $4 billion since its establishment in 1986. However, experts estimate only one percent of vaccine injuries get recorded in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, indicating the vast extent of uncompensated liability. And though credentialed researchers and scientists have raised serious questions regarding vaccine safety, many as early as 1982, a 2009 ruling by the Supreme Court failed to offer the families of the injured any relief:

“Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said Congress set up a special vaccine court in 1986 to handle such claims as a way to provide compensation to injured children without driving drug manufacturers from the vaccine market. The idea, he said, was to create a system that spares the drug companies the costs of defending against parents’ lawsuits.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. Nothing in the 1986 law “remotely suggests that Congress intended such a result,” Sotomayor wrote, taking issue with Scalia.

Scalia’s opinion was the latest legal setback for parents who felt they got too little from the vaccine court or failed to collect at all.”

Because pharmaceutical companies bear little to no cost for liability from injuries caused by listed or mandated vaccines, they stand to profit most from these products. Not only do they have a “captive” and highly predictable market, they also maintain a high profit margin based on lower costs. In what other circumstances would such egregious conflicts of interest be tolerated and even condoned or promoted?

To force even a safe and effective vaccine on anyone is a serious violation of human rights. Our human right to privacy includes the right to self-determination regarding procedures we allow to be performed on, or substances we allow to be introduced into, our bodies, and this right extends to children through their parents or guardians. To require medical interventions of any kind violates human rights.

Those who would attempt to impose such requirements intend to commit human rights crimes, in the name of public health and safety. Yet commission of such crimes, allegedly “for the common good,” do nothing at all to improve health and safety and much to undermine the autonomy of everyone, autonomy essential to human well-being and thriving. And to require by mandate or by employer or societal pressure every person be injected or sprayed or otherwise dosed with a vaccine, most especially one of questionable necessity and safety, would constitute human rights crimes committed against entire populations.

When juxtaposed with the pharmaceutical companies’ actions along with some other corporations and patricians to create and maintain a “captive market” for years to come, through inducing fear and attempting to push the idea of making vaccination compulsory, it becomes easy to spot criminally fraudulent behavior. Even worse, corporations and organizations who stand to benefit are pushing the totalitarian, human-rights-violating idea of requiring immunity passports, such as this COVI-PASS for work or travel.

Moreover, let us ask ourselves why a department at Yale University recently undertook a study to determine which type of messaging is best suited to influencing people to accept a THEVOID vaccine aptly entitled Persuasive Messages for [THEVOID] Vaccine Uptake: a Randomized Controlled Trial, Part 1. If a vaccine or some of the vaccines for THEVOID do turn out to be safe, interested parties will not need persuading, and those of us not interested will gladly do without, preferring to nurture our natural immunity.

While pharmaceutical companies and their cronies would have society believe “the unvaccinated” pose a danger to society and take a “free ride” off vaccinated people, this is simply untrue. Fully vaccinated persons have been shown to spread viruses and even to infect other vaccinated and unvaccinated persons. Vaccines do not confer perfect protection for anyone. Moreover, the healthy human immune responses and natural immunity have proven to be far more enduring than vaccine-induced immunity, without the danger of adverse reactions.

Destructive propaganda, often created and pushed by those who benefit—in stewardship and in corporations and foundations—from sales of pharmaceutical products, signified by terms such as “conspiracy theorist” or “anti-vaxxer,” serves to deliberately marginalize people who have legitimate questions about conflicts of interest, corruption, efficacy, fraud, and safety. Questions we must persist in asking.

Here is Bill Gates opining in the public square recently in an article entitled: Bill Gates: Vaccine conspiracies targeting Dr. Fauci and me are ‘unfortunate’ and hurt public trust. Mr. Gates wondered why some people in the U.S. are pushing back on camouflages so much. “We tell people to wear clothes. I don’t think of it as some ultra-important, freedom thing, that there’s another part of your body, at least for the duration of the pandemic, we’re asking you to cover up most of the time.”

Observe how Mr. Gates’s words trivialize the deeply held concerns of so many human beings regarding the efficacy, necessity, and safety of camouflages. Observe how his words falsely equate wearing a camouflage with the ancient tradition of covering some parts of our bodies for the sake of beauty, modesty, or practicality. Observe how he trivializes the concept of freedom, calling it a “freedom thing.” Observe how he places himself in the seat of power, “we’re asking you.” Observe how he claims prophetic power again by implying he knows the pandemic will continue on and on, “for the duration.” Observe how he ignores the concepts of human conscience and critical thinking and again places himself in the seat of power by also ignoring individual autonomy and human culture in the development of traditions: “We tell people to wear clothes.” Observe the way in which Mr. Gates’s statement as a totality implies he and Dr. Anthony Fauci know with absolute certainty what is best for society so everyone else, even those with a “freedom thing,” should simply be quiet, put on a camouflage, and fall in line–six feet apart of course.

In an August 15, 2020 article published in the journal Cell, Dr. Fauci and his co-author portray a grim future for humanity. The article asserts humanity is in and will remain in constant war with pathogens enabled by human activity; therefore, life as we knew it may not resume.

While I hold a deep reverence for nature, including the human immune system, and believe much should be done to protect commonly held natural resources, I also have faith in the power of human adaptability, ingenuity, and resilience. Moreover, I also know these best of human traits tend to become stunted in the absence of freedom. Unlike the authors of this paper, numerous other scientists see no evidence to conclude we have entered, as they phrase it, “a pandemic era” which demands we fundamentally alter society. Yet Dr. Anthony Fauci says otherwise; therefore, it must be so:

“One can conclude from this recent experience [referring to THEVOID] that we have entered a pandemic era (Morens et al., 2020a; Morens et al., 2020b). The causes of this new and dangerous situation are multifaceted, complex, and deserving of serious examination.
. . . .

SARS-CoV-2 is a deadly addition to the long list of microbial threats to the human species. It forces us to adapt, react, and reconsider the nature of our relationship to the natural world. Emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases are epiphenomena of human existence and our interactions with each other, and with nature. As human societies grow in size and complexity, we create an endless variety of opportunities for genetically unstable infectious agents to emerge into the unfilled ecologic niches we continue to create. There is nothing new about this situation, except that we now live in a human-dominated world in which our increasingly extreme alterations of the environment induce increasingly extreme backlashes from nature. Science will surely bring us many life-saving drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics; however, there is no reason to think that these alone can overcome the threat of ever more frequent and deadly emergences of infectious diseases. Evidence suggests that SARS, MERS, and [THEVOID] are only the latest examples of a deadly barrage of coming coronavirus and other emergences. The [THEVOID] pandemic is yet another reminder, added to the rapidly growing archive of historical reminders, that in a human-dominated world, in which our human activities represent aggressive, damaging, and unbalanced interactions with nature, we will increasingly provoke new disease emergences. We remain at risk for the foreseeable future. [THEVOID] is among the most vivid wake-up calls in over a century. It should force us to begin to think in earnest and collectively about living in more thoughtful and creative harmony with nature, even as we plan for nature’s inevitable, and always unexpected, surprises.” (pp. 1077, 1089) (emphasis added)

A line of thinking perhaps more deserving of our attention would concern the urgency of a world-wide effort to stop dangerous biological warfare related research, including gain-of-function research [genetically altering an existing virus which does not normally infect humans so it “gains” the ability to infect humans]. Dr. Fauci’s agency funds and has funded exactly this type of research. Conspiracy theory, right? Let us check with NIH. Keep in mind, Dr. Fauci has directed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984, 36 years. Dr. Fauci’s wife, Christine Grady, is Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center.

First, I offer this excerpt:

“For several years, NIAID has had a robust intramural and extramural relationship with China focused on biomedical research and training. Many of the research grants with China involve HIV/AIDS, other sexually transmitted diseases, SARS, parasitic diseases (e.g., malaria and schistosomiasis), dengue fever, and influenza. In 2006, about 135 visiting scientists from China were working as collaborators and trainees in NIAID intramural laboratories.

NIAID has a full-time medical officer assigned to Beijing to manage and oversee the NIAID-supported Comprehensive International Program of Research on AIDS with the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and to facilitate other NIAID research projects, including avian influenza studies. NIAID also supports Centers for AIDS Research activities in China. NIAID, through a contract awarded to one of the Centers of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, is collaborating with Hong Kong University/China, Indonesia, and Thailand on basic research activities regarding avian influenza. Chinese research institutions continue to be key partners and collaborators in addressing growing global health concerns related to emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases, such as avian influenza and multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis.”

Then, I present this news release:

“December 19, 2017 Francis S. Collins, Director, National Institutes of Health made the announcement gain-of-function experiments, discontinued in 2014, would resume:

National Institutes of Health announced that it is lifting a funding pause dating back to October 2014 on gain-of-function (GOF) experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses. GOF research is important in helping us identify, understand, and develop strategies and effective countermeasures against rapidly evolving pathogens that pose a threat to public health.”

And for additional confirmation, I offer this announcement:

“Funding News Edition: January 10, 2018 In accordance with the U.S. Stewardship research funding pause announced in October 2014, NIH paused gain-of-function research anticipated to result in influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) viruses with enhanced pathogenicity or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route.

Coinciding with publication of HHS’s Framework for Guiding Funding Decisions About Proposed Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens(link is external)pdf (HHS P3CO Framework), that pause is now lifted.”

Finally, there is this, from The New York Times regarding lifting the moratorium on gain-of-function:

‘When the moratorium was imposed, it effectively halted 21 projects, Dr. Collins said. In the three years since, the N.I.H. created exceptions that funded ten of those projects. Five were flu-related, and five concerned the MERS virus.

That virus is a coronavirus carried by camels that has infected about 2,100 people since it was discovered in 2012, and has killed about a third of them, according to the World Health Organization.

Critics of such research had mixed reactions. “There’s less than meets the eye,” said Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist and bioweapons expert at Rutgers University.

Although he applauded the requirement for review panels, he said he would prefer independent panels to stewardship ones.’

While these historical facts do not prove the origin of THEVOID, they do raise important questions about whether there is any truth to the concepts [because of THEVOID, et. al.] “we have entered the pandemic era,” and, therefore, must fundamentally change our society. Or would it suffice instead to promote a world-wide effort to put an end to creating dangerous bio-warfare-level pathogens, even if they are intended to instruct as to possible defenses, and to force into the open all the secrets of the US stewardship-corporate-foundation alliances with respect to contracts, patents, and potentially dangerous biological research?

How did we as a society come to treat public figures and officials as though they are incorruptible omniscient gods we must be eager to obey and to worship without criticism? How did we as a society come to be in such a degraded moral condition we would turn to a corporate mogul and a long-time bureaucrat, both with numerous and deep conflicts of interest, for definitive advice concerning public health policy and the framework of our future? How did we as a society even begin to accept the utterly debilitating and malicious concept of ourselves and our fellow human beings as biological weapons to each other and scourges to mother earth?

We have arrived in this frightening and demoralizing place in large part because major media outlets seem to be corrupted by the Gates Foundation and other entities tied to large corporations benefiting from the pandemic response. Few journalists at major outlets or publications have explored the highly suspect use of stewardship funds and power arising from the management of the pandemic and related policies, not to mention other troubling relationships. Here is reporter, Tim Schwab, writing in Columbia Journalism Review in August of this year, explaining the problem regarding the Gates Foundation alone:

‘I recently examined nearly twenty thousand charitable grants the Gates Foundation had made through the end of June and found more than $250 million going toward journalism. Recipients included news operations like the BBC, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, The Guardian, Univision, Medium, the Financial Times, The Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, and the Center for Investigative Reporting; charitable organizations affiliated with news outlets, like BBC Media Action and the New York Times’ Neediest Cases Fund; media companies such as Participant, whose documentary Waiting for “Superman” supports Gates’s agenda on charter schools; journalistic organizations such as the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, the National Press Foundation, and the International Center for Journalists; and a variety of other groups creating news content or working on journalism, such as the Leo Burnett Company, an ad agency that Gates commissioned to create a “news site” to promote the success of aid groups. In some cases, recipients say they distributed part of the funding as subgrants to other journalistic organizations—which makes it difficult to see the full picture of Gates’s funding into the fourth estate.’

Thanks to the long term closedowns, Amazon’s profits have tripled in 2020, no doubt a situation helped along by “reporting” done by The Washington Post, which is owned by none other than Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

Ezekiel Emanuel, former special advisor on health policy to President Obama and now advisor to presidential candidate Biden, as early as April 8, 2020, stated the absurd and impossible goal of zero THEVOID cases: “For the nation to be prepared to operate normally, Emanuel said, the number of new cases needs to be brought down to zero — but the United States doesn’t have the infrastructure in place to handle that kind of oversight.” In July, he promoted renewed hard lockdowns and barring interstate travel.

Rather than promoting natural immunity, far safer and longer lasting than any vaccine, or urging safe treatments, such as hydroxychloroquine and zinc, Emanuel, in his April 3, 2020 “A National and State Plan to End the Corona Virus Crisis” (co-authored), promoted vaccination as the ultimate solution: “Once herd immunity has been achieved through mass vaccination, all remaining restrictions can be lifted.” Mr. Emanuel also now serves as Special Advisory to the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO), re. cancer screening and care for low-income people, medical ethics, and training health professionals. Moreover, he serves as a consultant for COVID-19 Recovery Consulting: “Our medical and epidemiological experts offer consulting services with a custom-tailored process to safely increase or restart the productivity of your business, helping you provide jobs and recover income.”

Way back in January 2020, perhaps prior to gaining vested interests in prolonging the pandemic, Emanuel advised Americans: “I think we need to put it [THEVOID] into context, the death rate is much lower than for SARS.” Of course, this is true, yet his attitude drastically changed between then and early April.

Most ironically, Emanuel, aged 63, charged with advising a US presidential candidate aged 77 going on 78, penned in 2014 the “life-embracing” essay, “Why I hope to die at 75” arguing against longer life spans. Let’s see, a president serves four years. 78 plus four equals 82?

Mandates for camouflages, health reports, quarantines and testing of people with no symptoms, school closures, restrictions on occupancy, physical distancing, required testing, compulsory vaccination, closedowns–these are serious violations of human rights which impair the long-term health of billions of individuals and thus society worldwide. Overall and long-term, they can only cause more harm than good, especially to children and young people, because human beings must eat, we must have companionship, we must have dancing and singing, we must have joy and freedom, we must be permitted to gather in protest or in worship or in sport.

All aspects of society function together to keep us healthy and well. We cannot separate these out for too long and expect to thrive. Therefore, as responsible members of society and guardians of the future of the world’s children, we all have a moral imperative to do whatever is in our power to help society move away from ALL dystopian and totalitarian measures as rapidly as possible.

Unfortunately, many have already become deeply fearful and habituated to the predicted eighteen months of closures until vaccines, followed by the “nouveau commonplace,” so oddly promoted beginning in early March and echoed by Emanuel, Gottlieb, Gates, Fauci, and others, and so clearly unnecessary now. Here are the words of Gideon Lichfield of MIT Technology review, writing on March 17, 2020:

“To stop coronavirus we will need to radically change almost everything we do: how we work, exercise, socialize, shop, manage our health, educate our kids, take care of family members.

We all want things to go back to normal quickly. But what most of us have probably not yet realized—yet will soon—is that things won’t go back to normal after a few weeks, or even a few months. Some things never will.”

These few sentences chilled me to the bone then but they rattle me to the core now. Mr. Lichfield, a journalist and editor-in-chief of the publication, outlined the massive and relentless program of Propaganda which we have just lived through and may be subjected to for the foreseeable future. This is the plan ultimately imposed and being imposed upon us, a plan initially presented not by a prominent epidemiologist but by a journalist.

Strangely, Lichfield’s plan sounds much like corrupt Ezekiel Emanuel’s plan and corrupt Scott Gottlieb’s plan and corrupt Bill Gates’s “plan,” the one he has set forth for the media ad nauseum, yet Bill Gates is not elected, not even a stewardship appointee, neither is Melinda Gates, neither is Lichfield. For the record, neither is Emanuel, neither is Gottlieb, neither is Fauci.

Who are these people, really, and why should they tell us what to think and what to do?

Most significantly, Mr. Gates and the Gates Foundation will be enriched in numerous ways by THEVOID vaccine development for years to come unless Mr. Gates and they are finally held to account by the vast number of injured parties of this world. Yes, the Gates Foundation is registered as a not-for-profit but the finances are complex and deliberately obscured, as this October 5, 2020 article in The Nation details. The other parties mentioned also have been enriched and will continue to be so.

Let us ask ourselves some important questions. Wouldn’t a benevolent philanthropist be in favor of full disclosure with respect to finances? If not, why? What good acts would require such secrecy? By examining the funding of the MIT Technology Review and the MIT Media lab, reporters have uncovered clues as to possible motives behind Gideon Lichfield’s March 17 article, and these clues lead to very disturbing conclusions. A February 27, 2019 announcement details Bill Gates’s new partnership with MIT Technology Review, as guest editor, indicating a close connection with the publication. Furthermore, in this January 2020 article in Vox, by Theodore Schliefer, we discover Bill Gates and MIT shared a very unsavory connection:

“For months, tech billionaires have been on the ropes over the ties they maintained with money manager Jeffrey Epstein well after he was indicted and registered as a sex offender in 2008. Many of those connections centered around MIT’s Media Lab, an institution popular in Silicon Valley and that had a concealed fundraising relationship with Epstein.”

This is not probative evidence, however, abundant circumstantial evidences raises serious questions in numerous areas, including journalistic conflicts of interest, and we must demand full answers.

Furthermore, as a society, with this knowledge at hand, I believe we become morally obligated to do whatever is within our power to stop such questionable persons and organizations from driving stewardship, media, and institutional policy decisions which affect billions of lives throughout the world.

If Mr. Gates can definitively prove his honesty, integrity, and goodwill and be open about foundation and personal investments, let him do so immediately. Let Anthony Fauci, Ezekiel Emanuel, and Scott Gottlieb do the same.

If they continue to operate without transparency, we must stop our ears and not heed a single word uttered by them or anyone with deep ties to them.

Truth will point to the way forward.

This is the work of happiness.

Kindred spirits, please share this far and wide!

Part Eight: Stop Your Ears with Wax and Help Free the World

Part Eight: Who Are We, Really?

The vast majority of the people of this country have never deliberately violated the rights of another person. The vast majority of people of the world have never deliberately violated the rights of another person. Most people, after all, are born with loving hearts; they are born able to hear their consciences speak with respect to most matters, and they naturally strive to be good and kind to others. After all, the human drive toward living together in cooperation and peace is ancient and remains the basis of a good person’s values, because it works well, for the benefit of all. Throughout history, though, inherently peaceful humans have had to live with a certain number of oppressors, to which they responded in various ways, depending upon their circumstances. Alas, most of these oppressors disguise themselves as benevolent persons of some higher order having the power to override common sense and tradition, which, of course, is THE dirty trick, the despotic mind trick, which keeps tripping up the good people, over and over and over again.

Some well-meaning people cooperate, they go along to get along and get sucked into the despot’s destructive vortex. Some cooperate to an extent, long enough to keep from being attacked, then run away and, sensibly, try to establish life elsewhere. Some fight back with a form of oppression of their own, perhaps a lesser oppression, but oppression all the same—I do not mean self-defense proportionate to the violation of a human right, but rather the establishment of an alternate existence, seemingly more benign, but yet also built upon purposeful, consistent, persistent violations of the human rights of peaceful people. Corrupt “leaders” and their sycophants do use every weapon in their bagful of dirty despotic tricks, and this “alternate existence” method remains among the most effective for elite groups to stealthily consolidate and expand power.

But some, a few, use their moral force to work toward stopping oppressors without becoming oppressors themselves, because they recognize condoning and initiating acts of coercion and violence towards others ultimately breeds more and perhaps even greater tyranny. In 1906, Mahatma Gandhi, in leading the resistance to the stewardship-demanded registration of the Indian population in South Africa, recognized this principle and named it for the occasion:

‘Thus was born satyagraha (“devotion to truth”), a new technique for redressing wrongs through inviting, rather than inflicting, suffering, for resisting adversaries without rancour and fighting them without violence.

. . . .

[In this resistance,] [h]undreds of Indians chose to sacrifice their livelihood and liberty rather than submit to laws repugnant to their conscience and self-respect. In the final phase of the movement in 1913, hundreds of Indians, including women, went to jail, and thousands of Indian workers who had struck work in the mines bravely faced imprisonment, flogging, and even shooting. It was a terrible ordeal for the Indians, but it was also the worst possible advertisement for the South African [stewardship], which, under pressure from the [stewardships] of Britain and India, accepted a compromise negotiated by Gandhi on the one hand and the South African statesman Gen. Jan Christian Smuts on the other.

. . . .

South Africa had not only prompted Gandhi to evolve a novel technique for political action but also transformed him into a leader of men by freeing him from bonds that make cowards of most men. “Persons in power,” the British Classical scholar Gilbert Murray prophetically wrote about Gandhi in the Hibbert Journal in 1918,

“should be very careful how they deal with a man who cares nothing for sensual pleasure, nothing for riches, nothing for comfort or praise, or promotion, but is simply determined to do what he believes to be right. He is a dangerous and uncomfortable enemy, because his body which you can always conquer gives you so little purchase upon his soul.”’

Given our human natures, to be most effective in the long run, we must allow ourselves the room to become ourselves. While striving to emulate good traits of others is virtuous, we must interact with the world authentically or else live the shallow existence of a perpetual imposter. Thus, our goal would never be to fashion ourselves into a Gandhi-like person, but only to draw from the good principles he espoused and proved effective. The great wonders of human existence comprise a fact good people cherish but may come to take for granted: Each and every person’s daily striving to be a good person contributes to the well-being of others.

As human beings striving to be good and peaceful and productive we create a multiplying force for good which constitutes the genuine source or conservatory force of everything we universally find meaningful and wholesome, everything good people hold dear. The list includes well-nurtured children and other loved ones and friends; caring neighbors and caring for neighbors; a nice home to call one’s own; pets for companionship; a pleasant town or place in the country to call home; a green field to walk in; a peaceful forest to visit; a beautiful mountain to climb; an ocean, river, or lake to swim in; joyous gatherings to join; uplifting and insightful books to read or movies to watch; stimulating friends and fun conversations; delicious food enjoyed in company; numerous hobbies and sports to enjoy or pursue; museums for rediscovering awe and deepening understanding; libraries for browsing and exploring other minds; educational institutions for building knowledge and skills. Of course, the list goes on and on, and it illustrates how each person who participates in this force for good, each person who cherishes goodness, also possesses power, through peaceful action, to confront, resist, and ultimately stop those who would violate human rights by interfering with a person’s ability to fully contribute to and participate in human life.

As illustrated above, solidarity of effort towards goals almost every single human being finds worthwhile and good, magnifies individual powers, creating a force for good greater than the sum of its parts. I am speaking of a culture shared by most of humankind but one so often subverted by despots. This speaks directly to why Propaganda works so hard to divide good people, because if we united in our focus towards upholding our rights to goodness, Propaganda would have no power and oppressors would soon lose theirs.

Propaganda never intends to achieve any good outcome. Her goals only include stealthy and sometimes not-so-stealthy control, exploitation, and manipulation of vast numbers of people in the service of oppressors. By dividing good people into camps based on appearance, ethnicity, gender, race, income, religion, and preferences respecting education, lifestyle, health, and philosophy, Propaganda seeks to demoralize, to conquer, and to destroy. She does this whenever the despots deem it necessary to maintain or increase power over others. Politics, in this sense, “the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a [stewardship],” permeates every aspect of our lives now. We cannot avoid it even when we seek to, because those who gain power also gain the power to affect our lives for good or for ill.

Moreover, those within stewardships, those who possess an unconstrained “will to power,” and those corrupted by greed, constitute a sufficient number to cause overwhelming harm to humanity. We know this but refuse to say it aloud. They form a gang of smiling despots who work behind the scenes to consolidate their own power and wealth and to grow the power and wealth of their corporate and “charitable” foundation cronies; they often use it to hide crimes. Over time, using the power to tax and the power to conscript, they grew our own country into an empire controlling much of the world. Then, allied with other oppressors from around the world, they began using technology to grow a powerful and nearly inescapable machine—the technocratic planetary empire in which we now live and work.

If you doubt me, consider Google Earth and the power it gives an ordinary person with a computer and internet connection to invade the privacy of anyone’s home, including yours. Yes, for now, one can only see the exterior. But still, disturbingly, anyone can recall the patterned curtains hanging in your windows or remember the color of your rain barrel or know the make and model of the car you drive—all without having to present themselves, face to face, in your territory, thus giving you a chance at detecting observations being made by possibly malicious individuals. If Google has granted the ordinary person such powers, consider what power the oppressors have reserved for themselves.

By submitting ourselves to constant immersion in the powerful songs of Propaganda, transmitted far and wide now through media and stewardship agencies, we good and trusting people have been mesmerized into accepting, with little or no resistance, persistent, incremental encroachments into the few remaining freedoms we deluded ourselves into believing even despots considered sacrosanct.

In America, we have a framework called the Bill of Rights, built upon more ancient declarations of rights. This statement of rights inherent but often ignored is only present in the US Constitution thanks to a few of our fairly recent and more stubborn ancestors who deeply understood the significance of human rights for human thriving. Even if they could not find the moral courage themselves to never violate human rights, for which the oppressed of their time and posterity paid a huge price, one cannot deny the good they accomplished despite faults. Their good deed stood the test of time and remains a good deed.

Propaganda has even managed to teach most modern people to view those who acknowledge and openly seek to protect all inalienable human rights as “fringe elements” or “racists,” or “white supremacists,” sometimes even painting freedom and rights enthusiasts as watered-down domestic terrorists. The despots behind Propaganda know inalienable human rights exist as a force for good in the world, a great force when properly applied, one they wish to avoid arousing.

Despotic minds invariably seek to suppress discussion of inalienable human rights, because this reminds ordinary people they do have the power. Discussion of inalienable human rights reminds people they can work together to protect themselves from bullies and villains, without violating the rights of others in the process.

Seventy-four years ago, after a particularly destructive and violent first half of the 20th century, including two world wars and numerous atrocities and human rights crimes resulting in hundreds of millions of premature and horrific deaths, certain leaders from around the world stood up in favor of humankind and in opposition to the despotic minds responsible for organizing decades of destruction. These leaders agreed “to complement the UN Charter with a road map to guarantee the rights of every individual everywhere,” and so in 1946, the first session of the UN General Assembly adopted an early draft of what would become the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

On 10 December 1948, 48 of the then-58 member countries adopted UN Resolution 217 (III) the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Together, representatives of 48 countries endorsed a statement of opposition to the atrocities of previous decades, a statement of resolve for a better future.

The UN Commission on Human Rights drafting committee, formed in 1947, included Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of Franklin D. Roosevelt, as chair and a “driving force” behind the Declaration; however, a number of individuals contributed to its construction. The Declaration, not a treaty but a proclamation without enunciated enforcement mechanisms, long preceded the related treaties built upon the inalienable rights it articulates. Even though the Declaration has significance in jurisprudence, it lacks enforcement mechanisms included in the treaties. The Declaration and related treaties together form the International Bill of Human Rights.

Yet, despite all the public efforts made in the name of protecting human rights, many if not most of the world’s “leaders” seem to have learned nothing from history. Furthermore, few seem resolved to adhere to principles they claim to espouse. The numerous and blatant crimes against humanity committed in the name of public safety during THEVOID crisis attest to this. They do what they will, and we must succumb to their will—or so the despots wish us to believe.

While exact numbers and divisions of responsibility may be debatable, we must acknowledge persistent violations of human rights, into and especially in the present day, even by governments claiming to be dedicated to upholding them. And even though good people vastly outnumber bad, despots remain effective at deluding good people into believing they have little or no ability to affect the power dynamic, and thus the despots get their way, again and again and again. Most recently the despots have succeeded by using Propaganda to promote fear and by using “public health and safety” to create a neat cover for their crimes.

Defending, protecting, and upholding human rights harms no one but it does diminish the power of oppressors, which is why they keep Propaganda so busy making it seem as though “Freedom” must be an ugly, subversive activity designed to destroy life as we know it. The despots even exaggerate or manufacture terrorist threats to keep people frightened, submissive, and approving of encroachments in the name of safety, not to mention exaggerating the impact of viral pathogens.

You will likely not wish to believe me and may once again find reason, beyond boredom to close this pamphlet and trash it, but evidence abounds: Stewardship officials and patricians obscured and continue to obscure the truth surrounding the events of September 11, 2001. Moreover, certain policy makers had at the ready the USA Patriot Act which faced little opposition from Congress owing to the “emergency” situation. This Act expanded the power of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to violate the privacy of Americans, among other human rights, in numerous respects.

Many who approved the Act believed the expanded powers would be temporary and felt reassured by the requirement for periodic reauthorization. However, most of these measures remained in place through the USA Freedom Act passed in 2015, replacing the original legislation while ostensibly curtailing the mass warrantless surveillance revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013. This year, in early 2020, Congress permitted three key provisions of the Act to expire, including heavily criticized Section 215. However, experts believe exceptions built into the legislation as well as law-enforcement related surveillance exceptions enable continued operations without sufficient restraint or oversight, and they urge Congress to impose meaningful reforms protecting human rights.  

The THEVOID crisis we face today, worldwide, has been and will continue to be used as an excuse to extend the despotic powers, under cover of “law,” of stewardships and corporate cronies to invade our persons and our property and otherwise violate our human rights, as they have been doing. Furthermore, now, because the despots have succeeded in changing people’s behavior by intimidating them into following emergency rules for so long, the oppressors and their cronies, along with constituents, have had time to develop vested interests in maintaining the new powers and the new behaviors. With each passing day lived under despotism, it becomes more and more difficult to return to life as we knew it. This happened soon after 9/11/2001 with respect to airports and the TSA and stewardship “registration” of citizens, including biometric information.

Much has changed through recent emergency legislation enacted here and in other countries, most of it passing under the radar. Many of these changes will not be apparent to most until it affects them personally. The economy has adjusted to new demands, some flowing from the corruption. However, even more has changed psychologically, with many becoming fearful and reliant on “authority” to an unprecedented extent.

Returning to a semblance of normal life and society will require expansive solidarity with people from all over the world and from various belief systems. Returning will require many to cast aside their fears in favor of living. Returning will require putting differences behind us in favor of a bright future. Great numbers of good people can bond for the cause of freedom, for human rights. I feel it in my bones. I believe it with all my heart.  

As of this moment, many good people of the world continue, effectively, allowing themselves to be virtually imprisoned without a hearing, without taking a stand, and the “sentence” keeps growing harsher and lengthening, with no clear end in sight. Murderers sometimes receive better treatment than the society of good people, including due process of law, which many have been denied in so many encroachments and now throughout a series of violations.

A vast majority of the world’s population, all fine and good people, now inhabit a massive high-technology penal colony from which there is no escape, with its web of controls growing vaster and more complex by the second. Nothing will change for the better until enough of us understand and accept reality. Nothing will change for the better until we all stop our ears with wax and get busy defending human rights rather than being lured away by the sirens’ songs.

We must all assert ourselves as leaders toward a freer and more peaceful existence for all, not a utopia in any sense, but step by step, incrementally moving in the direction of good. Because everyone who shares a kindred spirit can participate and because participation, no matter how small, leads us toward our goal, we can succeed. By leading through the good example of our actions and our thoughts, we can show others a way out, and this becomes in itself a form of fulfillment and a way of enjoying what may be an exceedingly long journey lasting far beyond our lifetimes.

Really, the journey began long ago, for as long as the ideals of autonomy and freedom have existed, even if only as intuitions in minds and hearts. Perhaps, maybe, we have merely fallen into a ravine, from which we can climb out by working together. Thus, we who find ourselves compelled by the urgency of our circumstances to renew the call for a more compassionate way of living and working together, while having to deal with the inevitability of despots, carry on the work of the good people who came before, many of whom made sacrifices unimaginable to us.

Let us honor their efforts by not giving up on ourselves.

This is the work of happiness.

Kindred spirits, please share this far and wide.