“You need to designate the group as a terrorist group and seize their assets and impair them.” —Planning Notes of Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister of the Canadian Government. Feb. 13, 2022 in Preparation for a Clampdown on the Freedom Convoy Members
We are in dire need of some effective reckoning with the culprits who manufactured and who continue to exploit the COVID-19 Apocalypse. The terms for such a reckoning were suggested by the many negative commentaries raised in response to a trial balloon calling for a “Pandemic Amnesty.” Brown University Professor, Emily Oster, floated this much-discussed proposal for an amnesty in The Atlantic Magazine.
If Oster’s concepts were to be implemented, all legal accountability would be bypassed and deleted for a catastrophic crime spree mounted in the name of fighting COVID. This criminal activity gave rise to tsunamis of lies about many topics including COVID tests and deaths. The ongoing COVID Hoax continues to energize the accelerating decline in the viability of many societies worldwide.
The manufactured COVID crisis has proven to be a catalyst in the radicalization of increasingly authoritarian dictatorships. These regimes are caught up in intertwined globalist agendas whose effect is to unhinge governments from even a semblance of adherence to the rule of law. This decline into lawless tyranny is already well advanced in many polities including Canada, the United States, Israel, and the UK.
Oster’s essay was published prominently in a venue well within the regime whose aim is to impose a template of mental conformity largely through the legacy media’s imposition of lockstep propaganda.
Oster is clearly speaking for a large and influential constituency with her request that an amnesty should be granted. This double-edged proposal includes an implicit admission that serious crimes have indeed been committed in the name of fighting COVID-19.
Many commentators have aligned their voices in rejecting Oster’s proposal. Ever since the WHO-declared pandemic began, Oster has used her academic and journalistic platforms to actively demonize critics of the COVID officialdom.
A key objective of COVID-driven globalism is to transfer jurisdiction over health care from national governments to the UN’s World Health Organization. This uploading of authority from elected officials to unelected operatives at the United Nations is meant to advance the centralization of authority. Such supranational centralization is avidly sought by the leadership of the World Economic Forum and the corporatist agencies and interests its leadership represents.
Oster argues that the COVID saga developed under a dark cloud of uncertainty and confusion. As she would have it, everyone’s judgment was equally impaired. Getting things right or wrong was, in Oster’s opinion, simply a matter of luck. “We simply didn’t know.”
The Big Kill
Some, however, obviously did know more than others. More important yet, some of those who did hold superior levels of scientific expertise and understanding also had the courage and temerity to speak truth to power. One of them is the outspoken Alberta physician, Dr. Roger Hodkinson. He refers to the unfolding holocaust in our midst as “the big kill.”
Even now, the main critics of the scientific and ethical impoverishment afflicting COVID officialdom continue to face serious recriminations. The critics of lockdowns as well as mandatory masking and COVID jabs are subject to efforts aimed at intimidating them into silence by ruining their careers, reputations, and livelihoods.
As with the assaults on Dr. Charles Hoffe and Dr. Francis Christian in Canada, the persecution of Dr. Peter McCullough in the United States points to the deep corruption permeating many of the medical profession’s governing bodies.
There are scores of illustrations revealing the severity of the witchhunt aimed at those engaged in exposing the unscientific bafflegab integral to the COVID-19 power grab.
Oster’s many critics, including me, have made it clear that we reject the core concepts supporting her proposal for an amnesty. Such a concession makes no sense, but especially now that we are gaining a fuller sense of the enormous scale and intensity of the drive to cull the human population. This depopulation is happening simultaneously with the onslaught of transhumanist projects aimed at altering the genetic, biological and physical characteristics of the enfeebled survivors.
On a more personal level, we refuse to ignore the treatment that Oster and her cronies directed against those of us who now stand vindicated because of our refusals to take the untested gene-modifying jabs.
Saying No to Oster’s Whitewash
Of many dozens of thoughtful critiques of Oster’s Atlantic essay, Neil Oliver’s commentary stands out for its principled balance and coherence. An archaeologist and historian who shot to prominence in making documentary films in the UK, Oliver sees as “absurd” Oster’s argument that an amnesty is required to “move forward.” Oster’s interpretation opens the door to what Oliver characterizes as a cynical “whitewash.”
Oliver reminds us that the Covidian crimes that Oster seeks to sweep under the rug include the hugely destructive travesty of mandatory lockdowns that treated citizens like prisoners to be subdued.
The lockdowns targeted workers and small businesses. The lockdowns were meant to impoverish and demoralize many people; to drive them into depression, substance abuse, domestic violence, and suicide.
Oliver also highlighted the invocation of coercive state power to enforce mandatory masking whose destructive impacts include the extensive damage done to the healthy learning of school-aged children.
“Emergency Measures” as Subversive Means of Grabbing Power and Money
In the prelude to the imposition of the most massive medical procedure ever imposed on the global population, many of even the most basic rules for the development of relatively safe and effective medical products were ignored and thereby transgressed. The requirements for animal and double-blind placebo tests, for instance, were mostly neglected or sabotaged by the drug makers as well as by their cronies in thoroughly captured and corrupted federal regulatory agencies.
One of the main means of bypassing the safety rules was provided by a legal abomination known as Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). The US Federal and Drug Administration (FDA) clarified the distribution of the Pfizer-BionTech shots was “unapproved” yet “permitted.”
Underlying this internally contradictory statement is officialdom’s ill-backed position that the supposedly new coronavirus was so lethal that it created a global emergency, one that justified the emergency release of improperly-tested medical products.
[See Michel Chossudovsly, The Worldwide Corona Crisis: Global Coup d’État Against Humanity. Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, (Montreal: Centre for Research in Globalization, 2022), Chapter 8, passim]
The legal provisions of EUA were put in place as a one of the sweetheart deals extended by corrupt lawmakers seeking inclusion in Big Pharma’s financial bonanza. The EUA protects drug makers from being sued for the injuries and deaths caused by their hastily produced products. When seen in the light of the abundant evidence of the millions of injuries and deaths caused by the COVID injections, the EUA can be seen as a federal license to kill and to maim on a grand scale.
The criminal abuses of the authoritarian powers claimed in the name of emergency measures, draw on many of the precedents established following the pervasive misrepresentations of the 9/11 false flag. See this.
The widespread mischaracterization of the events of 9/11 in 2001 was exploited to justify the massive inflation of arbitrary powers available to the executive branches at all levels of government. With the new powers came the capacity of top executive authorities to designate, incarcerate and sometimes torture and kill suspected “terrorists” without the safeguards of due process.
Many governments abused the authority to classify their most effective political opponents as terrorists, a travesty being attempted again in the 2020s by the Biden government in USA and the Trudeau government in Canada.
The manufactured COVID crisis resulted in the further expansion of emergency measures powers far beyond those seized in 2001. Beginning in 2020 many governments pushed their agendas forward by invoking the shortcut of regulatory fiat to bypass the more demanding requirements of legislative procedures.
An elaborate collection of emergency measure declarations piled up across Canada culminating in the federal executive branch’s decision in February of 2022 to invoke the outgrowth of the War Measures Act. Some facets of the process attending the Canadian government’s invocation of the Emergency Act on 14 Feb. 2022 will be highlighted below.
A Turn Against the Sanctity of Life and the Mysteries Animating the Unique Spirit of Every Human Being
The COVID emergency measures are already creating the prototype for many “Green” emergency measures to follow. To help this process along we are being subjected to a series of cabal-created and cabal-augmented catastrophes. From war mongering to attacks on food supplies, energy sources, supply chains, as well as on any and all platforms providing economic security for average working people, an unprecedented plan of global depopulation and enfeeblement is well underway.
Suddenly even the façade of respect for the sanctity of human life is being abolished by many of those engaged in our top-down governance. Such governors and their agents apparently want to make a virtue of creating the conditions for the breakdown of human fertility as well as for surges of injury, sickness and premature deaths.
What are we to make of this turn, a turn by some of the most powerful people on earth against any reverence for the eternal mysteries animating the unique spirit of every human being? The obsession with shrinking and eliminating carbon footprints is being stretched to outrageous extremes.
The Green preoccupation with eliminating carbon, the primary ingredient in the chemistry of all life, is forming the basis of the eugenic drive to eliminate people along with our footprints. This genocidal event is well reflected by a growing body of compelling evidence. The evidence includes statistics showing startling rises in all-cause mortality since the COVID injections began.
We cannot allow recognition of the lethal crime wave in our midst to be waved aside any longer as “conspiracy theories.” The stakes have become too high to allow for the continuation of such willful blindness especially on the part of those most responsible for the depopulation event unfolding in our midst.
Conflict of Interest Built into the Emergency Act Inquiry
Neil Oliver presents a succinct list of the criteria that would have to be met before there can be any consideration of amnesty for those who maliciously engineered and continue to broaden the manufactured COVID crisis. He asks, “How can you seek an amnesty and seek to put behind you things you are still doing now?” Oliver stipulated that no amnesty should be put on the table without
- confessions of guilt
- acceptance of culpability
- taking of responsibility
- necessary punishment
- assurances that nothing similar will ever be done again
See this video.
A common thread running through all these criteria is that there would have to be some sequence leading from probing investigations to fair and objective trials of those credibly accused of pushing and exploiting the COVID crisis. Such a process would have to include provision for studying, formulating, implementing, and enforcing appropriate terms as the preconditions for any kind of amnesty settlement.
In Canada a federal investigation known as the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) is presently taking place. This inquiry veers quite far from the kind of procedures we most require across many configurations and levels of governance as exercised in both the public and private sectors.
Nevertheless, in spite of the abundant shortcomings of the inquiry, the Canadian example opens the door of national and international consideration to some aspects of what a proper investigation of the COVID crisis and its attending crimes might look like.
The Emergency Act was initially invoked by the Liberal Party minority government led by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The enactment came in response to the many-faceted public education activities generated by the Truckers Freedom Convoy and its supporters over a three-week period in late January and February of 2022. The Truckers’ Convoy touched down in Ottawa and in several sympathy protests organized along the Canada-US border.
The Public Order Emergency Commission was established to fulfill the provision of the Emergency Act that calls for a Canadian government inquiry to be followed by a report to both legislative bodies of Parliament. This inquiry is “to examine and assess” the soundness of the Canadian government’s decision to invoke the Emergency Act which it did from February 14 to February 23 of 2022. See this.
The biggest problem with the POEC is that it was largely created of, by, and for the Liberal Party government of Justin Trudeau. Trudeau thus finds himself in a classic conflict of interest. The Trudeau government has engaged in establishing the makeup and procedures to investigate federal actions and decisions for which Justin Trudeau is ultimately responsible.
This setup reflects the problem that Neil Oliver anticipated. In rejecting Emily Oster’s call for a COVID amnesty, Oliver predicted that the main protagonists in creating and exploiting the COVID crisis “are going to investigate themselves and each other.”
How might this Catch 22 be transcended in future processes of investigation? What new departures in procedure would be required to move beyond the phenomenon of having COVID culprits investigate other COVID culprits? In the Canadian context this problem is compounded because of the actions and decisions made by many judges. By and large Canadian judges abandoned their judicial independence by making themselves enforcers rather than objective arbitrators of government COVID measures. See this.
The Liberal Party bias of the Emergency Act Inquiry was well reflected in Trudeau’s choice of a well-known Liberal Party insider, Justice Paul S. Rouleau, to lead the POEC. Before becoming a judge, Paul Rouleau helped elect and staff the Liberal governments of Prime Ministers John Turner and Paul Martin. Paul Rouleau was briefly a partner in Heenan Blaike, the Montreal law firm that hired both Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien after each of them left the job of prime minister. See this and this.
True to his reputation for speciousness, Trudeau explained to the public that the Emergency Act Inquiry was initiated through the Prime Minister’s benevolence rather than on the basis of legislative requirement. Trudeau announced,
“We called this inquiry so Canadians could see exactly why we needed to invoke the Emergency Act, and how, when we invoked it, we invoked it in ways that were responsible, limited and targeted on solving the problems as quickly as possible.”
Whose Violence Against Persons and Property?
The question of whether or not the Trudeau government had “reasonable grounds” to invoke the Emergency Act is the subject of the report being prepared by Justice Rouleau on behalf of the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC). Commissioner Rouleau’s final report is due on February 6, 2023.
A key aspect of the Commissioner’s findings will be based on his assessment of whether federal authorities acted in accord with a key provision of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (CSIS ACT).
Section 2 (c) of the CSIS Act, which was reproduced in February of 2022 as part of the Proclamation Declaring a Public Order Emergency, stipulates that a threat to Canada’s security exists when “ activities within or relating to Canada [are] directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state.” See this and this.
A major theme addressed throughout many of the Commission’s examinations of more than 70 witnesses during a six-week period, concerned various perceptions concerning the “threat” of “serious violence against persons and property.” Much of this discussion was based on the perceptions of witnesses about what they feared might happen, rather than what actually did happen.
What did happen is a peaceful protest combined with some expressions of civil disobedience in the form of illegal parking and some early rounds of excessive honking.
The discussion of violence in the inquiry’s proceedings would have been much enriched by a more comparative approach. Many Truckers and their supporters surely conceived of their own actions as attempts to put checks on various types of invasive violence directed at people and property through a series of ill-considered government decisions and actions.
Cancelling Out Diverse Perspectives and Interpretations to Impose a Single COVID Narrative on Canada and the World
These irrational and arguably illegal violent acts of the state were not exclusive to Canada but were replicated in varying degrees throughout many of the world’s 195 countries. A key aspect of the global reproduction of similar sets of wrongful government actions has to do with the lockstep managing and messaging of the legacy media in country after country.
How was this many-faceted coordination of media communications achieved? This subject is one that awaits penetrating rounds of national and transnational investigation. Even in the proceedings of the POEC, there are conspicuous absences when it comes to considering the role of the media.
Much like in many other countries, clearly a decision was made far above the level of Parliament and the Supreme Court that the legacy media would direct the responses of officialdom and the public to the manufactured COVID crisis. The big media venues would publicize and legitimize a uniform COVID narrative no matter how specious. They would develop and coordinate a single narrative rather than provide fair and balanced news coverage so that their audiences could have sufficient access to a range of perspectives enabling them to develop well-informed decisions for themselves and their families.
This same single narrative approach was extended even into the now-discredited medical profession where independent analysis became more the exception than the rule.