April 22, 2022
It has been nearly six months since some 4,000 federal public servants who chose not to be vaccinated, chose not to disclose their status, or sought exemptions were put on leave without pay.
As of the beginning of this month, nearly half remain at home.
These Canadians, like so many people, have been treated like outcasts, coerced, and threatened with the loss of their livelihoods. Unlike other Canadians, however, they have also been denied access to Employment Insurance.
I have been clear from day one, I believe any Canadian who wants one should have access to vaccines and those who choose not to should not be discriminated against. Period.
I believe vaccination—like any other personal medical decision—is a private matter and should be left up to individual Canadians to decide for themselves what is best for them and for their family. Nobody should lose their job or be made to feel “less than” because they chose not to be vaccinated or chose not to disclose on the grounds of privacy.
For the government to coerce anyone to take any medical treatment they do not wish to receive is wrong and sets a dangerous precedent.
The government was supposed to inform those on leave by April 6th whether they still had a job or if they’d be dismissed. That deadline has come and gone, leaving many families still in limbo.
The federal government owes it to these families to let them know their fate—personally, I think they should be re-instated with full back pay for the past six months for the cruel and unfair way they were treated.
Moreover, many others—who are vaccinated—could suddenly be affected by this same policy if the government chooses to change their definition of “fully vaccinated” to include a booster shot. A growing number of Canadians are wary of getting a third (or fourth) shot. These individuals who complied, initially, could soon find themselves facing the same fate as their peers who chose not to. Or not, we just don’t know, because the government has failed to articulate their policy.
This is likely because the government cannot make a logical case for keeping the existing policy but won’t lift it because they want to continue to punish anyone who chooses not to submit to government overreach.
This isn’t about health. It’s about power.
This decision wasn’t based on medical science. It was (and remains) political, punitive, and arbitrary. How else can one explain putting a public servant who was already working from home on leave? Moreover, thousands of public servants were exempted from the mandate, with no explanation as to why, making this mandate—like so many others—the very definition of arbitrary.
It’s time to end ALL federal restrictions.
The Provinces get it. The rest of the world gets it. Only this Prime Minister and his Cabinet, drunk on the additional powers they’ve enjoyed the past two years, remain out of touch.
Send our RCMP officers and public servants back to work. Allow members of our military to be reinstated. Open the border. Remove the equally arbitrary and discriminatory travel restrictions.
To Justin Trudeau I say, end the mandates, end the restrictions, apologize for the harm you have done, and let ALL Canadians get back to work, travel and a normal life.
By Sally Beck
April 19, 2022
GEORGE Gammon, ‘rebel capitalist’, American entrepreneur and a property investor who teaches macroeconomics, has been dissecting the roots of the World Economic Forum and the Davos global elite. The two hold responsibility for the ‘great reset’ we are experiencing.
Gammon discovered what appears to be a Bond villainesque agenda to cover up the unfolding financial catastrophe behind the Reset. Diversionary tactics include blaming global warming, scapegoats and external enemies. Just like we are doing to the unvaxxed and Vladimir Putin.
What Gammon found feels like a blueprint for the Covid response nightmare that we have endured for the last two years, and as highlighted by Wall Street executive Edward Dowd to TCW where he discussed whether the Covid crisis was a fraud to cancel global debt.
We saw the results of reckless banking when Greece faced a sovereign debt crisis after the 2008 global finance crash. Last week, Saadeh Al-Shami, the Deputy Prime Minister of Lebanon, declared his country bankrupt. More countries will follow and those who have caused this 21st century financial crisis will not want to take responsibility. The WEF agree and make transferring the blame to third parties a clear agenda.
Gammon’s sources are solid, taken from 1970s papers written by the World Economic Forum (WEF). He breaks them down in a YouTube video that, interestingly, has not been removed or censored. Its title: ‘They’re More Evil Than You Think (Here’s Proof)’.
For background, the WEF was set up 51 years ago by Klaus Schwab, now 84, a German engineer and economist. This is the measure of the man: he declared publicly that excessively high management salaries were ‘no longer socially acceptable’, while as WEF’s executive chairman, he receives 1million Swiss Francs annually (that’s £825,000, €990,000 or $1.1million).
Gammon’s research begins in 1971 and the first 280-page WEF summary which gives a year-by-year account of WEF activity until 2010: the first 40 years. On page 25, in 1973, they talk about the first Davos meeting, ‘Shaping Your Future in Europe’, and they began discussing our limits to growth.
The lecture was delivered by Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei, who in 1968 co-founded the Club of Rome, a global think tank.
The Limits to Growth, a book commissioned in 1972 by the Club of Rome, caused a sensation as it explained that the global population would continue to grow exponentially, and that we were living in a world with limited resources. In plain English, there would be too many people and not enough food. His solution was bald and suggested reducing the population or reducing the level of consumption. He did not say how he planned to curb population growth.
This landmark publication caught people’s imagination. It was translated into 30 languages and sold 12million copies.
The idea was not new: it was first mooted in the 18th century by scholar Thomas Malthus. Malthusianism became the practice of balancing population growth and food supply by applying checks and balances to prevent food and resources running out.
The elite warmed to this at their annual conference in Davos, Switzerland. (Davos is a snow-covered ski-resort where up to 3,000 of the world’s richest and most powerful heads of state, CEOs, corporate executives, politicians, celebrities and charitable organisation leaders, jet in for the five-day WEF exclusive annual event. Today, each pays £22,300 to attend on top of a hefty membership fee. Membership is limited to the top 1,000 corporations and can cost anywhere between £48,000 and £480,000.)
Peccei and Malthus’s idea is regurgitated year after year. Many different papers say ‘we have an exploding population but limited resources so what do we do?’ But is it true? If you have ever flown at 35,000ft above the Earth, the first thing that strikes you is how tiny even big cities look against abundant green landscape. No one seems to have noticed this and currently, predictions are that we will run out of food by 2023.
Back to the Club of Rome which has its headquarters in Switzerland, like the WEF, and the World Health Organisation, and was co-founded in Italy by Aurelio Peccei, British chemist Alexander King and American investment banker David Rockefeller, a member of one the world’s richest families.
Peccei highlighted many problems impacting humankind, including endemic ill-health, environmental deterioration, urban blight, poverty and criminality.
It was his opinion that these ‘problems were incapable of being solved in their own terms’, and that if ordinary people tried they would fail. The only way to solve these huge issues, he said, was via a centralised approach and that the global elite should control the response because they were smarter than everyone else.
Henry Kissinger, the former US National Security adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, gave a speech at the WEF saying the problems would be solved only with a single world government, which is consistent with what the WEF has been saying and consistent with the Great Reset agenda. (Kissinger is German-born like Schwab; awarded the Nobel Peace prize in 1973, he taught Schwab at Harvard University.)
Last month, the World Health Organisation announced its intention to take control of global pandemic policy and explained that it could order mandatory vaccines, digital health IDs, lockdowns, isolation, testing regimes, no-jab-no-job rules, or anything else it decided as policy.
This news would have delighted the Club of Rome, who in 1991, published The First Global Revolution analysing the problems of humanity and giving them the collective name ‘problématique’.
The Club discussed identifying common enemies and if one was not obvious, it was good to make one up. They said this created motivation for social and political unity.
‘The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor,’ they explained. ‘Some states have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by blaming external enemies. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself – when things become too difficult at home, divert attention to adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose. With the disappearance of the traditional enemy, the temptation is to use religious or ethnic minorities as scapegoats, especially those whose differences from the majority are disturbing.
‘Every state has been so used to classifying its neighbours as friend or foe that the sudden absence of traditional adversaries has left governments and public opinion with a great void to fill. New enemies have to be identified, new strategies imagined, and new weapons devised.
‘In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we [the Club of Rome] came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.’
WERE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DENIED FREEDOM FOR NOTHING?
Arwen~ The short answer, absolutely it was for nothing, unless you are a globalist, then it accomplished much.
Johan Anderberg is a journalist and author of The Herd, a bestselling history of the Swedish experience during Covid-19.
When, the summer before last, the results of the first Covid wave began to be tallied in the media, there were different ways of measuring the devastation. One way of looking at the pandemic was to focus on how many people died — more than half a million around the world by the end of June. Another was to try assessing the complicated impacts of the various measures taken to combat the virus. When a lot of the functions in society were frozen, people struggled — especially the most vulnerable.
For those who preferred the first perspective, there was plenty of data to lean on. Meticulous records of the death toll were being kept in most countries, especially the wealthy ones, and presented in stylish graphs on various sites: the Johns Hopkins University website, Worldometer, Our World in Data.
It was a lot harder to measure the consequences of the lockdowns. They appeared here and there as scattered anecdotes and figures. Perhaps the most striking data point came from the US: by the end of the academic year, a total of 55.1 million students had been affected by school closures.
But still, the death toll was more interesting. In early summer, The New York Times had published a front page completely devoid of pictures. Instead, it contained a long list of people who had died: a thousand names, followed by their age, location, and a very brief description. “Alan Lund, 81, Washington, conductor with ‘the most amazing ear’”; “Harvey Bayard, 88, New York, grew up directly across the street from the old Yankee Stadium”. And so on.
It was The New York Times’s national editor who had noticed that the US death toll was about to pass 100,000, and so wanted to create something memorable — something you could look back on in 100 years to understand what society was going through. The front page was reminiscent of what a newspaper might look like during a bloody war. It brought to mind the way American TV stations had reported the names of fallen soldiers at the end of every day during the Vietnam War.
The idea spread quickly across the world. A few weeks later, in Sweden, the front page of Dagens Nyheter was covered with 49 colour photographs below the words: “One Day, 118 Lives.” Those 118 people had passed away on 15 April. It was the highest daily death toll recorded throughout the Spring. Since then, it had steadily been falling.
When the epidemiologist Johan Giesecke read the paper, it left him a little puzzled. On any normal day, 275 people die in Sweden, he thought. He’d spent a large part of his life studying just that: where, when, and how people die. The way the world currently thought about death was, to him, completely alien. When he’d taken part in an online conference in Johannesburg, one participant had pointed out that, in that year alone, more than 2 million people had died of hunger in the world. During the same period, Covid-19 had claimed between 200,000 and 300,000 lives.
Giesecke felt as though the world was going through a self-inflicted global disaster. If things had simply been left to run their course, it would have been over by now. Instead, millions of children were being deprived of their education. In some countries, they weren’t even allowed to go to playgrounds. From Spain came stories of parents sneaking down into parking garages with their children to let them run around.
Tens of thousands of surgeries had been postponed by healthcare services. Screenings for everything from cervical to prostate cancer were put on ice. This wasn’t just happening in other countries. Sweden had seen its fair share of peculiar decisions, too. The Swedish police hadn’t tested drivers for insobriety for months, out of fear of the virus. This year, it didn’t seem quite as serious if someone were to get killed by a drunk driver.
It was becoming obvious that the media, the politicians, and the public had a hard time assessing the risks of the new virus. To most people, the figures didn’t mean anything. But they saw the healthcare services getting overwhelmed in several countries. They heard the testimonies from nurses and doctors.
Here and there in the world — in Germany, the UK, Ecuador — people had been taking to the streets to protest the rules, laws, and decrees curtailing their lives. From other countries came reports that people were starting to flout the restrictions. But the force of the resistance remained weaker than Giesecke had expected. There had been no French revolution, no global backlash.
One explanation for the citizens’ passivity might have been the coverage of the deadliness of the virus in the media; it seemed they had been fed a non-contextualised picture of how serious the Covid-19 pandemic really was. During the Spring and Summer, the global consultancy firm Kekst CNC had asked people in five big democracies — the UK, Germany, France, the US, and Japan — about all kinds of things relating to the virus and society. The sixth country in the survey was Sweden. Sweden was a lot smaller than the other countries, but was included due to the unique path it was taking through the pandemic.
The questions were about everything, ranging from people’s opinions on actions taken by the authorities, to the state of the job market, and on whether they thought their governments were providing sufficient support to trade and industry. The twelfth and final topic in the survey contained two questions: “How many people in your country have had the coronavirus? How many people in your country have died?” At the same time as increasingly reliable figures were trickling in with regard to the actual deadliness of Covid-19, there was now a study of the number that people believed had died.
In the US, the average guess in mid-July was that 9% of the population had died. If that had been true, it would have corresponded to almost 30 million Americans deaths. The death toll was thus overestimated by 22,500% — or 225 times over. In the UK as well as in France and Sweden, the death toll was exaggerated a hundredfold. The Swedish guess of 6% would have corresponded to 600,000 deaths in the country. By then, the official death toll was more than 5,000 and inching closer to 6,000.
Reporting the average guess was perhaps a little misrepresentative, as some people replied with very high numbers. In the UK, the most common answer was that around 1% of the population had died — in other words, a lot less than the 7% average. But it was still a figure that overestimated the number of deaths more than tenfold. At this point, 44,000 Brits had been registered dead — or around 0.07% of the population.
The breakdown of the numbers further showed that more than a third of the Brits responded with a figure of over 5% of the population. This would have been like the whole population of Wales dropping dead. It would have meant many times more Brits dying of Covid-19 than during the entire Second World War — civilian and military casualties included.
The war rhetoric brandished by the leaders of the world had had an impact. Their citizens really did believe they were living through a war. Then, two years into the pandemic, the war ended. There were no longer any foreign journalists at the Swedish Public Health Agency’s press conferences. No Americans, Brits, Germans, or Danes asked why schools were staying open, or why the country hadn’t gone into lockdown.
In large part, this was because the rest of the world had quietly begun to live with the new virus. Most of the world’s politicians had given up hope on both lockdowns and school closures. And yet, considering all those articles and TV segments that had been produced about Sweden’s foolishly libertarian attitude to the pandemic, considering the way some data sources had been referenced daily by the world’s media, this sudden lack of interest was strange.
For anyone still interested, the results were impossible to deny. By the end of 2021, 56 countries had registered more deaths per capita from Covid-19 than Sweden. With regard to the restrictions that the rest of the world had put so much faith in — school closures, lockdowns, face masks, mass testing — Sweden had more or less gone in the opposite direction. Yet its results were not noticeably different from those of other countries. It was beginning to become increasingly clear that the political measures that had been deployed against the virus were of limited value. But no one spoke about this.
From a human perspective, it was easy to understand why so many were reluctant to face the numbers from Sweden. For the inevitable conclusion must be that millions of people had been denied their freedom, and millions of children had had their education disrupted, all for nothing.
Who would want to be complicit in that?