Free People Don't Have Health Masters

 

New "Pandemic Treaty" Warning: Was 2020-2022 a global test run for permanent medical tyranny?

New Petition Against World Health Organization's Plans:

"The past two years has been rife with infringements on civil rights by national governments, but now the World Health Organization is seeking to appropriate those same draconian powers to itself at a global level.

194 countries representing 99% of the world's population are expected to sign pandemic treaties that would allow the WHO to dictate exactly how your nation responds to a new disease outbreak which they consider a pandemic.

These are precarious times in which freedom and self-determination must be defended from those who would ride rough-shod over your civil rights.

Tell the WHO you will never live under their control:

https://lifepetitions.com/petition/stop-tedros-who-pandemic-treaty

The wheels are already in motion, with the Biden administration submitting amendments to the WHO's International Health Regulations (IHR), which would give the Director General the right to declare health emergencies in any nation, even when disputed by the country in question.

These amendments, which will be legally binding if passed by the World Health Assembly (the governing body of the WHO), set the stage for a fully-fledged pandemic treaty to be passed.

SIGN THE PETITION

https://lifepetitions.com/petition/stop-tedros-who-pandemic-treaty

With 20 national leaders already calling for a Pandemic Treaty, we must oppose a return to global lockdowns, vaccine mandates and propoganda, most of all from the WHO.

Our right to self-determination must be respected in all policy decisions.

Thank you for SIGNING and SHARING this petition to show the WHO that you won't accept their power-grab.

Yours faithfully,

Tim Jackson and the entire Team at LifeSite"

-------------------------------------------------------

 

The Exact Reasons Why Medical Mandates Are Wrong

"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government,

but illegal for the citizenry.”

- Thomas Jefferson

Medical mandates are not ethically legitimate, and should not be accepted, because:

1) One neighbor does not have the right to coerce another neighbor into being tested for a disease (a test which may or may not be accurate), or into using a medical device (like a mask), or into taking some kind of pill or injection.  That would be abusive control, it would be criminal.  The reason it is wrong and criminal for you to coerce your neighbor to take medical tests, drugs, or use medical devices, is the same exact reason why it is wrong and criminal for politicians to do that; it does not become okay just because they are people on TV that say the word “emergency.”

2) Governments are people too (“of the people”), and we are not the livestock of these other people; we refuse to be human livestock on their farms that they can control and medicate however they want to; they are not our parents, we are not their children; they are not our masters, we are not their slaves; when they do something abusive, it’s still abuse regardless of what crisis is happening (or is reported to be happening by the fear-pushing mass-media or designed-to-be-addictive social-media).  Politicians can be mistaken or deceptive (and sometimes even create a crisis so that they can offer their “solution” of having more power); pharmaceutical companies (making tens of billions of dollars off this, and not liable for any injuries or deaths caused by their products) can be mistaken or deceptive.  Coercing people to trust them with our lives and the lives of our children, to inject with whatever they want to (like aborted fetal cells), forever, is just plain evil; it’s authoritarian medical tyranny, it’s totalitarianism, fascism (merging of Big Pharma and Law, purchase and use of their products made mandatory) and Communism (the State taking control of private business and the most fundamental form of private property: our own bodies). Government employees don’t own the bodies of non-government employees; again, citizens aren’t the livestock of the State.  Freedom is another form of safety; we aren’t safe if we don’t have the freedom to control our own bodies (or the freedom to protect our bodies, with whatever weapon needed to do so).

3) Preemptive attack is when someone is committing real violence now, to supposedly prevent possible violence or harm; if we accept this bunk premise, then people could commit violence whenever they say “it’s for safety” or “the greater good.”  One neighbor cannot be abusive toward another neighbor (for example, by disarming that neighbor, or pushing drugs on them) just because they say “it’s for safety.”  Preemptive attack in any form, including medical mandates, is never ethically legitimate; it’s bunk morality used by abusers over and over as supposed justification for their abuse.

------------------------------------

[please copy and print the above as a one-page flyer for in-person distribution (that's the most effective way to educate on this right now)]

------------------------------------

And here's an additional idea, ask all members of law enforcement that you know the following questions:
"If one citizen were to go next door to a neighboring citizen and start coercing them to take certain drugs and use certain medical devices, would that be a crime? What crime exactly? What's the exact words for that criminal offense? Why can't a person who is simply a government employee not be charged with that same offense with that same exact crime? If someone has a title "governor" does that make them above the law any time they say the word "emergency"? Can they do whatever they want as long as they say "it's for safety"? If the law does not apply to them, what protection is there from a dictator or tyrant who can easily hide behind the false "caretaker" role by just saying the word "safety" over and over?"

---------------------------------------------------

Communist Medical Tyranny and Genocide in China: 

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuNA3yIh-KFmchkHnHjH0iJB_ragBNveT

-------------------------------------------

Additional thoughts on medical mandates:

• What if a lot more people were dying of an illness (and not just the "medicine")?  What if it was a real and obvious pandemic?  Many people would say, "Well now we certainly need to accept medical mandates."  Wrong.  As long as people think inalienable rights are actually only valid in non-emergency circumstances, all the control-freaks have to do is up the level of emergency until most people agree it's "reasonable precautionary measures."  People need to get a handle on the ethical fundamentals: aggression (e.g., coercing people to stay home, not travel, not assemble, get vaccines, etc.) is evil, and preemptive attack in the name of public health & safety is a form of aggression.  Otherwise the door stays open for deception and abuse.

• Concerning churches being forced to close, freedom of assembly and religion, violated because some people are sick and dying in the world, is 0% ethically valid.  Counting on States to protect our natural rights is foolish because there's no guarantee they will, no matter what's written in a Constitution, and because the main master-slave arrangement of automatic citizenship and extortion/taxation is aggression, so it's fundamentally relying on someone who's been repeatedly attacking/violating you to also simultaneously defend you from attack/violation, which is irrational, it's actually an impossibility.  If most people could really understand this we could transform into a truly just/nonviolent/free society, but Stockholm Syndrome is unfortunately very dominant and entrenched worldwide.

• Yet pro-mandaters think they're smarter, saying things like "It's an INFECTIOUS DISEASE, we have to take precautions you dumbass!," as if we don't understand what infectious means or that we don't think anything infectious exists, or don't believe in any form of healthcare or medicine; they are projecting their own ignorance, in this case an ignorance of what tyranny is (unable to define it if asked) and mislabeling it simply "precautions," and if they do have some understanding of what tyranny is, they don't believe it can actually exist here and now, because of "checks & balances & voting & rule of law."

• Abuse/Tyranny/Slavery is never actually a valid response to a sickness (voluntary precautions are), because that's just adding one problem on top of another, and two problems are worse than one; it's really that simple, but the mass-media and politicians are constantly trying to confuse you and make it seem more ethically complicated than it really is. A website like Vaccine Liberation should never have been needed to be created.

• It's good to give accurate perspective on this so-called pandemic, but in a sense the numbers are irrelevant, when we are talking about freedom vs. slavery; at what % mortality from a virus is it justified to have your life controlled by other people, people that simply have the State as their employer? 5%? 50%?  To be open to enslavement under any circumstances = an inferiority complex ingrained via indoctrination.  Aggression is always wrong, as is slavery; true morality is absent in the mass-media programming. 

• The possibility that authorities could be wrong, or even malicious, is unthinkable to those in which the irrational indoctrination that "those with power are the most trustworthy" is still unshaken, the cognitive dissonance acting as a shield to their core beliefs, all questioning of authority perceived as irrational, projecting their own irrational trust in it; and so the world gets worse, one big lie deception at a time, preemptive attacks tightening the controls on a population perceived as human livestock by "the elite." 

Mandatory Masks in the "Land of the Free"

[updated April 11th, 2022]

"It's just a mask."

No, it's not.  In the context of medical mandates, it's a medical device, and it's being forcefully prescribed by politicians; you're being coerced to use this medical device as if government employees have a right to make medical decisions for you, as if you were their livestock, on their farm.  A more honest and accurate statement by those pushing and supporting medical mandates would be: "If you don't submit to the medical tyranny of pre-emptive attack against your bodily autonomy, which pre-supposes the intellectual and ethical superiority of officials and their right to treat you as their livestock, then you're selfish, and should be subject to further violence in the form of fines and possible arrest (which if you resist you can be killed, and that's okay too); they are making the world a better, safer place, so just obey and shut up."

There is a clear right & wrong with this issue, and it's this: Controlling a nonviolent person's body is an act of aggression; your body does not become the property of the State whenever there is a sickness in the world.

 

People that yell at, stare/scowl at, video without permission, exclude from store entry, etc., someone just for not wearing a mask, are following a false morality, they're being aggressive toward someone who could only *possibly* and unintentionally harm someone else.  The real  aggression of medical mandates needs to be rejected, otherwise the State will likely push even more travel restrictions, bodily violation (e.g., toxic vaccines), control of private businesses (putting them out of business), charging people fines  etc., making our lives even more controlled by untrustworthy people we are "mandated" to trust, always in the name of safety; remember, if you're being abused, you're not safe, even if you don't have the flu because of that abuse.

The nonsense-backed tyranny passing as "reasonable precaution" is fundamentally saying it's okay to commit actual violence against someone by controlling their bodies against their will (e.g., mandatory masks) in order to prevent possible harm, it's saying real violence now is fine if it *might* prevent harm, it's saying being abusively controlled is okay if it reduces risk of illness being spread in the world; by that premise the government could seal everyone up in prison cells for "safety," as if being abusively controlled is a condition of safety (of course it's not).  

Preemptive attack is never legitimate, it's just aggression, which is always evil. This is what people should be pointing out, not the latest numbers; the number of supposed cases is irrelevant to the core ethics of it.

"How is the mask mandate communist?" you may have been wondering.  The reason it's communism in action is because communism is defined as the end of private property, all that was previously owned by individuals is now owned by the State, and what is fundamentally more your property than your own body.  Mask mandate operates on the unsaid subliminal premise that the State owns your body, because a main part of property rights is the ability to control your property; so if you can't control your body, but the State can, then who owns it?   We are all now being attacked, yet we are to believe that we are now safer while under this daily attack?

We are essentially being told that we have to trust whatever numbers and "science" they put out are accurate, now and forever, trust that it's impossible that it's a deception in any way, trust that whatever medical treatment they deem necessary (masks today, who knows what tomorrow) is safe and effective... They want you to accept that the State is essentially your doctor and owns your body and the bodies of your children.  State officials are not your doctor, and preventative health care medical choices should always be the choice of the individual.

If you think mask-wearing, distancing, etc., is a good idea at this time, that's fine, again the issue is it being a mandate.  If you believe officials are saints that are never mistaken or deceptive, then you can go on obeying their every order for the rest of your life, submitting to slavery, but don't expect others to do the same. 

Thankfully atheist statism is not everyone's worldview, many people are still clear-headed enough to recgonize the true moral authority of Jesus and his greatest commandments, and they have an inalienable right to do just that.

---

Related website/resource:

https://www.vaclib.org/

Fascist Foo Fighters

foo figh•ter; n.: unidentified flying object (UFO)

[updated January 11th, 2019]

Let's say, even just hypothetically for argument's sake, that there are fascists in the world who engineer crisis situations so their proposed "solutions" (that increase their wealth and power), can be pushed on the public.  Guess what would be a perfect scenario for consolidating their power at a global level previously unheard of?  An alien invasion.  And the aliens could come as enemies, or "friends;" either way could be utilized for the same purpose, either way could utilize the classic problem/reaction/solution dynamic/dialectic, it's jut a matter of whether they use the already-existing problem of the global environmental/health crisis they largely created, or use a new problem of aggressive "aliens."  The reaction is the same for both (mainly anger/fear/discontent), and the solution would be the same too, namely some rehashed form of fascism/communism.

Did a UFO really crash in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947, and the technology has since been reversed engineered?  Or was that just a psy-op to prepare the public for an even grander later psy-op?

Following several mass deceptions concerning terrorism, could there be another even bigger engineered crisis/deception, similar to the "War of The Worlds" book/movie?  Could UFO's (that are really top secret military aircraft, possibly reverse engineered from real UFO's) appear and shoot powerful lasers (that the military already admits they have), and then the solution to this global crisis will be a global government, in keeping with the aforementioned ever persistent fascist agenda?  Or will they come as "saviors," that will facilitate a fascist/communist restructuring of society "for our own good?"

Here's a very interesting quote attributed to Henry Kissinger (former U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, as well as the G.W. Bush Administration's first choice to direct the 9/11 Commission, a position later rejected for concern that it would be perceived as a conflict of interest):

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there’s an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."

And these from Ronald Reagan:

"... when you stop to think that we're all God's children, wherever we may live in the world, I couldn't help but say to him, just think how easy his task and mine might be in these meetings that we held if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet outside in the universe. We'd forget all the little local differences that we have between our countries and we would find out once and for all that we really are all human beings here on this earth together."

- White House transcript of "Remarks of the President to Fallston High School Students and Faculty," December 4, 1985

"In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world."

- Speech to the United Nations General Assembly, 42nd General Assembly, September 21, 1987

Keeping all this in mind, I find it very curious that lately there has been more talk of an imminent "revelation" of aliens visiting the Earth, for example, this "transmission" from the "humans are free" (we're definitely not currently free) website--> http://humansarefree.com/2014/10/alien-message-to-mankind-do-you-wish.html

The important take-away from that post is the statement that "our destiny is fraternity." Fraternity is just a code word for collectivism/communism, i.e. the complete elimination of the sovereignty of the individual. 

And what exactly does "the safeguarding of fraternal equilibrium" mean?  Control, no doubt.  The "aliens" say "making a decision by yourself, as an individual, is your right as well as your responsibility," but then they also say that whether they will come or not (to take their "hand-hold over the Earth") is a matter of a collective decision; this is contradictory, irrational and immoral.  There is no such thing as a collective decision unless it is a consensus, and they are not talking about consensus at all, saying just a few is all that is really needed.  What about the minority (or majority) that won't want their "hand-hold," whatever that turns out to be? (again, undoubtedly control, which "they" claim to be against.)   No mention of God in that "transmission" either, though they claim to be of a "higher" sort; this subliminal anti-God content gives credence to those that believe these aliens are actually the fallen angels/demons the Bible speaks of.

Yes, yes I know there are many billions of galaxies out there, so it seems probable that there is life out there somewhere.  But before you think you're smarter than me, because you're making an assumption and I'm not (assuming is never smart btw), and/or that I'm just some "reactionary extremist" (or whatever similar label that might pop into your mind), keep these FACTS in mind:

1.  There really are rich/powerful people that want a "New World Order," and are even pretty open about it sometimes.
2. Some other humanoid life-form has never been confirmed; sure there's lots of people who have seen UFO's (including me, 3 times), and people who have even testified to meeting them in friendly or very unfriendly encounters, but this doesn't actually prove that aliens exist.  They could be humans (i.e. NWO engineers) with advanced costumes & tech posing as aliens, or they could even be extra-dimensional beings (a.k.a. demons). 
3. There has been a lot of information coming at the public in the past 65 years or so (in news media, books, radio/TV/movies "entertainment," etc.) about the "reality" of aliens, and at an increasing rate in recent years, and public conditioning/manipulation/deception certainly does actually go on, a lot, so skepticism about all this unusual activity is definitely rational.

In the TV show Ancient Aliens there's an episode ("The Visionaries") that says that the super acceleration of modern tech, namely with the beginning development of computers,was inspired/given by aliens.  This is thought to be a "gift," but if one looks at this through the Christian lens that identifies such beings as demonic, and the anti-civ lens that recognizes the terribly destructive consequence of modern tech, (to mind, body and spirit; e.g., the trans-humanist agenda, which was covered in "The Next Humans" episode, also in season 9 of Ancient Aliens), then this "gift" is seen more clearly for what may be, sabotage and assimilation by those that are fully possessed, having become totally unnatural cyborg beings with little to no soul left.  The devil wants people to be more and more like him, more morally corrupt and just a tool of the larger collective/system; the trans-humanism agenda may be seeded by demonic ETs who are advanced cyborgs themselves.  The idea being that just like "the Borg" from the TV show Star Trek TNG, they want to assimilate us to be like them and merge with their destructive collective, more aligned with the evil force and not the good & natural.  This behavior of forceful assimilation of course predates cyborgs, and doesn't require tech to carry out (though it is made more powerful and destructive through those means); toxic devil-minded people take pleasure in corrupting others to be like them and really don't like when anyone takes a moral stand and resists.

Overall my two cents is this: I wouldn't bite an "alien" line, whether it came in friend or foe form.  If anything like what's described in the above-shared "channeled transmission" does come to pass, I think it's most likely just the "elites" looking to bring in their New World Order via a grand deception, like 9/11/o1, but bigger.  And of course they would ostracize those that don't buy it as "ignorant Christians set in their beliefs," etc., but that would just be more b.s.; there are really good reasons to doubt any alien revelation, and there is really good wisdom in the Bible too by the way, the warning of false prophets (e.g., "wise aliens") who can deceive many being an example of it (Mark 13:22).

Ultimately I believe, based on a lot of research and contemplation, the key is this: if anyone ("alien" or human) offering a global "solution" isn't talking about sovereign veganic homesteads as an option for everyone, i.e. the ability to live free, naturally and nonviolently, then it's just another collectivist scheme/deception that doesn't really benefit mankind, animals or the Earth.

Never assume, to do so is to be believing the lie that you know something that you really don't, and lies are of the devil, who is here only to kill and destroy (John 10:10).

Focus on la paz, la libertad, la verdad, y el amor!

C

p.s.

Here's another new article, also possibly for the purpose of mentally preparing the public for the coming fake revelation:

http://observer.com/2016/08/not-a-drill-seti-is-investigating-a-possible-extraterrestrial-signal-from-deep-space/

p.p.s. Some more perspective on this topic: