9 Comments

After coming back to this and reading it again, this thought: your prescription at the end is apt. Recently the Public Order Emergency Commission (predictably?) found the government's invocation of the Emergency Measures Act was justified. If I thought our hope was in government or the courts, this would be a time to despair. Canada is notably and measurably declining at a precipitous rate. But since I know our hope is in the one who rules over governments, and who tells us "Do not put your trust in princes", I don't despair. At the same time, as you rightly point out, we should be prepared to both pray *and* act.

Expand full comment

Excellent, Doug, and a helpful reminder to those of us who psyches wander too frequently false hope or despair.

Expand full comment
author
Feb 21, 2023·edited Feb 21, 2023Author

Let them not reduce to rage either, but move resolutely toward justice and the penalties proper to justice, concerning private wealth and public malfeasance on a scale difficult to comprehend: https://twitter.com/denisrancourt/status/1628076145538215943?s=20 and

https://correlation-canada.org/report-age-stratified-covid-19-vaccine-dose-fatality-rate-for-israel-and-australia/

Expand full comment

Dr. Farrow, I had to reread your <i>Emerging Nowa Huta</i> article to get back into context for this article. In doing so I was intrigued that what you wrote in 2021 was essentially the same explanation of the lockdowns and jab-job hostage-taking presented in the Big Reset Movie on the Rumble platform last week.

Now with this article, I am intrigued by your mention of medicine being the intersecting point or forum where so many interests are finding common ground, for I earlier read today another article that refers to the "One Health" masterplan in a WHO "zero draft" agreement with the bland title <i>WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (“WHO CA+”)</i>. I downloaded the draft agreement and I recommend jumping to its paragraph 3 of Article 18. If that agreement is adopted, it would effectively give the WHO, or those to control the WHO, authority to dictate how signatory parties respond to climate changes, land uses and so forth, all in the name of health. One Health would also nicely sweep any distinction between public health and individual health, let alone animal health and climate health under the rug. It would also be a cunning tool for justifying and instituting digital IDs internationally, for no one can argue against health.

Article 18 Paragraph 3

The Parties will identify and integrate into relevant pandemic prevention and

preparedness plans interventions that address the drivers of the emergence

and re-emergence of disease at the human-animal-environment interface,

including but not limited to climate change, land use change, wildlife trade,

desertification and antimicrobial resistance.

You can download the "zero draft" at https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/e/e_inb-4.html.

Click the second link <i>A/INB/4/3</i>

Expand full comment
author

Thank you very much for highlighting this. I entirely agree. One Health is nothing if not the one ring to rule them all. Anything and everything is now 'health', except what actually pertains to your own well-being as a unity of body and soul. As I said last April on this site, in 'WHO Goes There', the people inventing this stuff are not our saviours but our tormenters. Those who fall for their contrivances, after what we have seen and suffered these past three years, deserve a fate worse than being the subject of Pauline sarcasm. They deserve what this draft treaty (on which see the link above at "instruments of observation and control") will serve up, which is whatever those of whom "America's War" speaks wish to serve up. The idea, without doubt, is to do an end-run around the constitution and to bypass state or provincial rights. Those in high places on both sides of the border (and both sides of the pond) who are colluding to impose this treaty are pressing on in their treasonous ways. It is necessary, or soon will be, to confront them with that. I believe Lincoln would say so himself.

Expand full comment
author

Further to this, an excerpt from David Bell at the Brownstone:

"The proposed IHR amendments reverse these understandings. The WHO proposes that the term ‘with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons’ be deleted from the text, replacing them with ‘equity, coherence, inclusivity,’ vague terms the applications of which are then specifically differentiated in the text according to levels of social and economic development. The underlying equality of individuals is removed, and rights become subject to a status determined by others based on a set of criteria that they define. This entirely upends the prior understanding of the relationship of all individuals with authority, at least in non-totalitarian states.

It is a totalitarian approach to society, within which individuals may act only on the sufferance of others who wield power outside of legal sanction; specifically a feudal relationship, or one of monarch-subject without an intervening constitution. It is difficult to imagine a greater issue facing society, yet the media that is calling for reparations for past slavery is silent on a proposed international agreement consistent with its reimposition." https://brownstone.org/articles/amendments-who-ihr-annotated-guide/

Expand full comment

The reparations for slavery should be paid by the very mercantilists who were enriched by it these past 500 years.

Expand full comment

I just discovered your substack and am thankful of it. Your writing is rich, and I will have to read this one again and savor it.

Expand full comment
author

Welcome to DBC, then. I see we launched about the same time. The present piece, being built on a concatenation of quotations, is not entirely typical, but I do hope readers will find in it things worth savouring.

Expand full comment