Mitochondrial Eve

Whilst debate rages back and forth as to whether the allegations against Russell Brand are true, I am not sure that matters (although I will caveat that by saying that it will of course matter to any victims of his, if there are indeed any, but that I make that statement with the bigger picture in mind). In spite of that, I will say that I suspect Brand is serving an agenda, whether wittingly or not. The allegations, or at least some of them, may hold some truth and have been saved up until the time is ripe to expose matters. Alternatively, they could've been fabricated to serve a purpose. Brand may even be playing along with this narrative safe in the knowledge that he is one of “them”. Or maybe he is truly innocent, controlled opposition or not, and is being thrown under the bus or punished for his “opposition” to mainstream narratives. Whilst we are kept guessing as to whether he is innocent or not, the AI agenda gains pace. From watching Brand's interview with Yuval Noah Harari which I must confess I have only just got round to viewing, I suspect we are being primed towards the acceptance of algorithms. A Hegelian Dialectic is perhaps being created here with the “problem” being that human beings cannot be trusted to “know themselves” or others, and that algorithms can step in to address this whilst further distancing mankind from intuition and spirituality innately held. Harari believes it is possible to “create an algorithm that understands humans better than they understand themselves” and that they could be utilised to determine an individual's sexual inclinations and choose a partner for them. Looking at the Brand allegations amid other cases of late, including Huw Edwards and the Lucy Letby trial, I wonder if AI will be presented as the “solution” to the aforementioned “problem” particularly within the context of the mental distress that arises from trial by media or otherwise. The narrative apparently being woven suggests that human judgement cannot be trusted – it can be biased, influenced or bought against a backdrop where it is becoming increasingly difficult to discern truth amid fake news and competing narratives. Where there is one person's word against another, the human mind is “hackable” and any secrets could be rooted out. Algorithms could therefore attract buy in from the masses if touted as completely fact oriented and unbiased when compared to human decision makers and, indeed, Harari has identified that replacing human instincts as such is an ideological trend coming from Silicon Valley known as “Dataism”. That is why I suggest that it may not matter, from an angle of observing the agenda, whether Brand, Edwards or Letby are innocent or not – all that is needed is for there to be doubt over our existing means of determining guilt and consent which could lead to calls for reform and thus paving the way for a pre-planned "solution".

New York Supreme Court reinstates all employees fired for being unvaccinated, orders backpay https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-supreme-court-reinstates-all-employees-fired-being-unvaccinated-orders-backpay In a hearing which took place yesterday, the New York Supreme Court concluded that "being vaccinated does not prevent an individual from contracting or transmitting COVID-19". On this basis, the employees - many of whom were firefighters and police officers - should not have had their jobs terminated and it has been found their rights were violated. Here is the link to the full ruling: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=JK5E3gx5XV1/ku37jnWR_PLUS_w==&system=prod

Episode 2 of 'This Pivotal Moment' has been released and builds on the first instalment which warned of vaccine passports and how their use would help to usher in total digital surveillance. The second part below further examines the dystopian transition to AI automation and CBDCs giving rise to the creation of an economic underclass which, in a post labour world, will be controlled via UBI, social credit scoring, carbon credits and behaviour modification technologies. A permanent caste system would exist where temporary privileges are granted to those who submit without question whilst access to basic necessities could be withdrawn for the slightest contravention of the rules. The totalitarian playbook of the feudal overlords is playing out with them hell-bent on installing their new totalitarian technocratic architecture. The means they would go to cannot be overstated - from release of biological pathogens to starvation, conflicts and complete societal breakdown.

Whilst the Wikipedia link confirms Truss assumed the premiership on 6th September rather than the 5th September, this still makes for 25 days in office during September if we are to include the day of 6th September itself. So I agree that she was PM for 45 days from 6th September to 20th October and is seems strange, and perhaps suspicious, that the MSM are claiming otherwise.

I am not necessarily recommending this as a form of action, but just throwing it out there as a potential means to stand up to businesses refusing to accept cash. At the moment, one of the focuses of our local "freedom" collective is the issue of cash payments. Earlier on in this thread, I posted Julian Chamberlain's video where he has stood his ground on paying for fuel at petrol stations using "legal tender" with his penchant being Royal Mint commemorative coins. The insistence on making repayment for monies owed, via means of legal tender, is only applicable in the settlement of debts. This means that you cannot insist on using legal tender to purchase a product - however, if a debt is owed, legal tender can be insisted upon as a means to discharge the debt. Apparently Gail's Bakery have gone cashless in the last few days. In reply to this news, one of our local collective has said: Perhaps if more people were to make a point as such, offending businesses would be forced to U-turn from their cashless stance?

Thanks Grumpy Owl for linking to the new version of the video. I have noticed that, since it was re-uploaded, Richard D Hall has now added a disclaimer on the thumbnail and at the beginning of the video stressing that the "news clips are dramatisations by an actor". I think Richard D Hall may have removed the original video because of concerns that the film was "pretending" to be the BBC and that it was a "deceptive portrayal". This is feedback I have seen even among "awake" circles - naturally I don't agree with the conclusions some have reached in this regard, but I am encouraged to learn that the video has apparently been shared even by "Normies" on Facebook.

I may be missing the relevance of this Pfizer Tweet but considering it is dated Jan 13th 2021 and is therefore almost two years old, how does this apply to the here and now? And do you have the link to the original Tweet as this is just a screenshot?

Welcome to the forum neonbelly and thank you so much for your insightful post and sharing your blogs which I must say are brilliantly written. As far as I understand mainstream law school teaching, common law is defined as honouring the precedent case by case. This is where judges have made rulings and such decisions are binding on lower courts. Judges often have to settle the actual meaning of legislative wording and from this a body of case law (common law) builds up. There is also the matter of our constitution which is a common law one - it has never been codified and the British legal order is such that any adjudicators are "Umpires" rather than "Inquisitors". Parliament doesn't need to define every little thing because principles of justice, fairness and mercy should prevail. From a philosophical point of view, I certainly see merit in "natural law" which essentially means to do no harm. I would also agree that each of us have, as part of the natural order of things, inalienable rights including to life, free movement, freedom of speech, conscience, association and the right to a fair trial. A universally acknowledged natural law which is common to all could be one definition of common law. So I can find some common ground with some of what is being said by those who promote "common law" - namely, inalienable rights which cannot be taken away by any government. But, similar to the experience you describe, I have distanced myself from our local "freedom" movement because the focus is becoming increasingly about a different concept of "common law" with workshops being organised by the latest pop up guru or local enthusiast. This alternative understanding of "common law" was something I was initially open to exploring but I quickly found it failed to live up to its hype especially when I researched the failings of the Freeman of the Land movement which cropped up in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Whilst "common law" is promoted as a means to living in "honour", I have concerns about some of what is being touted. Much of the focus is about getting out of paying bills and debts etc which some may be pursuing without entirely honourable intentions. I have first hand seen the consequences of people not paying their bills, especially to priority creditors which comes with significant risk. Some people do win small victories and manage to get debts written off but it is probably because they have made a nuisance of themselves and the creditor in question has, rather than suddenly acknowledging previously unknown ancient common law rights, merely decided not to pursue the debt further. There is also a penchant for sending "conditional acceptances" including of taking the vaccine. Why is this necessary - why not just simply say no? Common law proponent David Adelman has said it is the most honourable thing to do but hasn't explained why whereas I see issuing a conditional acceptance of something you have no intention of doing as dishonest. I really haven't been able to find any evidence of so-called "Admiralty-Maritime" law. I can certainly see parallels between maritime terms and commerce (e.g. bank, current-sea / currency, birth / berth etc) apparently dating back to the ancient sea-faring Phoenicians, but that is not solid enough for me to jump on board with it to the point of seeing it as dominating our legal system. Much of the "common law" content being touted involves grandiose, or as you describe it, "esoteric" language rather than simple plain English - this contradicts the message that the law should be easy to use and common to all, especially when the mainstream legal system is criticised as using complicated language aka legalese. This "word magic" seems akin to mental gymnastics and trying to look clever whilst glossing over a foundation which is lacking in substance. Like you, I have witnessed an apparent brainwashing of people, who consider themselves to be "awake", into the "common law" cult. I have tried warning people of the potential ramifications of certain "common law" strategies but sadly my concerns have fallen on deaf ears and critical thinking has been absent. You consider in part one of your blog where the "common law" appeal lies, and I would add to your thoughts that it provides a form of hopeium and false empowerment in order to channel energies into a dead end. What I have observed in the keenest, well intentioned "common law" proponents is that they are those who really feel they need to be doing something in the face of tyranny and "common law" gives them something they can actually do to feel like they are bucking the system. It is a bubble that is hard to burst as cognitive dissonance sets in as equally as it did with the general population when it came to the Scamdemic. I find the whole field misguided, piecemeal and confused. The underlying concept of natural law and inalienable rights is sound, but the way in which so-called "common law" is being practiced seems somewhat removed from its philosophical underpinning. And, in any event, it won't be recognised by the courts and police who hold the powers of enforcement backed up by the consent of most of the general population and, for that reason, I see little use for it in practice.

It was Dutch MEP Rob Roos who questioned Pfizer Executive Janine Small after Albert Bourla apparently backed out of appearing before the European Parliament's Covid Panel to answer questions. Small was sent instead as the Pfizer rep. Here is the link to Rob Roos' Twitter thread which contains the embedded video he uploaded and from which the Tap Newswire article has transpired. There are some questions over Small's apparent slip of the tongue. Roos clearly asked her whether the Covid injection had been tested to ascertain whether transmission of the "virus" could be stopped before it was put on the market. After laughing, Small used the term immunisation in her reply and stated the speed of the science meant this wasn't possible. Some have remarked the terms transmission and immunisation may be used interchangeably whereas other commentators have suggested that the video of Small's reply may have been edited deceptively. Even allowing for editing, however, it does appear that Small was replying directly to Roos' question and mixed up the terms. The link below includes a useful transcript of the video for ease of reference. https://hotair.com/headlines/2022/10/11/pfizer-exec-we-never-tested-our-covid-vaccine-for-transmissibility-n502501 I doubt it will be news to most forum members that the Pfizer injection does not prevent transmission. However the video is interesting nevertheless in that this information could reach a wider audience especially when considering the bold claims made in the MSM about the jabs and the need to have them to "protect others".

I hope you don't mind my jumping in here as the question was not directed to me, but I was reading some Michael Tsarion content only yesterday evening which touched on this and may help answer your question. It seems that El, whilst originating as a Canaanite God, eventually became a general word for God in the Old Testament and was later absorbed into the Yahwistic religion of Israel along with other deities such as Baal and Asherah. https://www.astrotheologyzone.com/origins-of-jehovah.html Tsarion goes further by pointing out that the deity of Set / Seth of Egyptian tradition was known as El Shaddai outside of Egypt whilst also appearing in female serpentine form as Apophis or Apep. In his opinion, the monothiestic religion of the Israelites arose out of worship of Set and was brought into Egypt by the notorious Hyksos (possibly Scythian) people who were "pre-Israelite Western Semites or Canaanites who worshiped Semitic, Sumero-Babylonian and Egyptian deities, such as Baal-Seth" - D. M. Murdock (Did Moses Exist?). He then contends that Baal-Seth worship later morphed into Atonism which Tsarion describes as a form of dark solar worship which operated from behind a dark curtain with the masses blinded by the light of the solar deities. Set, he says, was given a makeover by the 18th dynasty Pharaoh Akhenaton (allegedly of Hyksos nobility) and his followers and became Yahweh after which official Jewish history begins. http://www.femaleilluminati.com/article-3.html

BREAKING NEWS: ICAN OBTAINS CDC V-SAFE DATA https://thehighwire.com/videos/breaking-news-ican-obtains-cdc-v-safe-data/ In September 2022, the CDC lost a court case to ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network), headed by Del Bigtree, and were ordered to release health entry data from their v-safe app which seems to be the equivalent of the UK's Yellow Card Scheme. The v-safe app tracked adverse effects experienced after the Covid injections. The first batch of data has now been released to ICAN and contains 144 million rows of health records from v-safe users. ICAN have created a searchable interface and dashboard from the data which can be interrogated by categories including "vaccination," severity, symptoms, age, gender, and ethnicity. Members of the public and professionals alike are encouraged to scrutinise the date but there is, however, a sign up process to use the tool. https://www.icandecide.org/v-safe/