Thanks and I stand with you Meryl and any logical person would regarding the draconian WHO which I personally call a terrorist organization, along with the WEF and UN .
Frankly there is ZERO good or advantages to have UNELECTED NGO thugs, telling we the people about our laws, or/and how a state, nation or even tiny community should conduct themselves.
As to doctors and patients the single most inalienable human right is in fact MY BODY MY CHOICE. If you cannot control that, simply put you are a slave .
The world we live in is really dark and evil. I could say it is upside down .
You and every citizen are PRIVATE CITIZENS and rhe government HAS NO RIGHT right to know anything about you or me as private citizens..
Meanwhile those we elect and hold office are so-called CIVIL SERVANTS of the people and we the people HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THEM.
Over decades we the people looked away at the ever creeping INTRUSIONS and SURVEILLANCE on personal people.
The concept of allowing the ENSLAVEMENT of citizens and knowing WVERY ASPECT of yout life is KNOCKING ON OUR DOOR.
In summary, the veterans the suffered and died for your liberty, freedoms and democracy have been spit on. Everyone has an inalienable right to security of person and privacy.
Evil Gates just donated ANOTHER 1 2 BILLION to speed up and advance the bringing in of digital ID .
IF WE THE PEOPLE DO NOT RISE UP and take back our rights, we will soon wake up with CAMERA'S with facial recognition in your, and your children's bedrooms .
I feel like I am living in a horror movie where the BORG say you will be assimilated- resistance is futile.
I say HELL NO . I WILL FIGHT THIS CRAP AND DIE ON THIS HILL IF NECESSARY.
YES, it's bad . Yes, it's really really bad and EVERYONE MUST GET ANGRY and SAY STOP - I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE .
I hear you! I'm sick of it. I will die saying NO if I have to. Most people are still slumbering.... and they are going to slumber their way into a hell that they will never get out of in their lifetimes. I really don't know what we can do. I still believe that the people that are truly awake and aware right now are it. I don't hold out a lot of hope that more people will wake up *before* the nightmare is fully implemented. Many will wake up afterwards, and then, it will be too late. Ugh. Trying to stay positive... but it's very difficult. As a veteran myself, watching this unfold around me is beyond frustrating.
The guilty "fleeth" where no one pursues. Arent countries run by big boys and big girls that can make their own decisions?...why does everything have to be centralized?...that's my big question. Because it's a lie -it's an attempt at world government- it's so obvious- it's patently obvious
{...big boys and big girls that can make their own decisions...} 🤣🤣🤣
NOBOBY that reaches the high-echelons of politics and corporate admin. is free to make own decisions (as to his knowledge, heart, gut or conscience tells him/her).
They are ALL pre-selected and highly compromised (see Epstein and alia.); can ALL be taken out of the game (and big money) at any time.
ALL are part of the ZIONIST MATRIX, just hollow puppets to mis-direct the public's perception.
Yes we all know that, but we're talking about "on paper."... Coming from the mouth of the Jews -like the rothschilds etc. it's not just Zionist it's Bolsheviks... a shortcut here is: just call him f****** Jews cuz that's what they are they're f****** Jews. Descendants of Genghis Khan. I hope you didn't piss your pants laughing so hard glad it's so f****** funny to you
Just let me dig deeper into the relation of Genghis Khan to the Khazarians ...
Bolsheviks and Zionists have close relations, but genuine Jews, just practicing their religion are something different and definitively NOT to be put into one category ...
See their overt opposition to current affairs. Or is this too just a controlled-opposition ??
If it's Talmudic, it's evil - reflective barbarism on the part of new-comer Kazarians. As the Cathars taught: Torah and Old Testament is of an evil demiurge. Too exhausting to cover hear. Thanks
Meryl....You are so spot on. This person is starting to make me think he is working for the other side. Meryl I must also add that a new version of the Pandemic Agreement is dated March 13, 2024. I am sure there must be some changes or why else have a revised version. At this point most of what they change in the agreement seems to be minor but who knows. For your readers. Know the power the states and the people of the states truly have. Law schools no longer teach constitutional law and our public schools no longer teach the founding documents and what little they may teach is not the original intent of the documents. This should help clear up just one of the lies people have been told. https://tennesseeconservativenews.com/the-constitutionally-illiterate-and-the-supremacy-clause-of-the-us-constitution/
If I might state the misunderstanding, I'd say that what Roguski (and his main source for his legal thinking on the IHRs, Professor Bruce Pardy) is saying is that we didn't need any treaty or accord to impose the Covid measures that took away our rights: these measures were instituted by the tyrants among us.
In like manner, the IHRs are about giving cover to the actions of the tyrants existing right here in our country who would be quick to trample our basic rights. The problem is the tyrants; the problem isn't so much the documents that enable them. That such people who would trample on liberty have power, is the real problem, treaty or no treaty, because as Covid demonstrated they don't need no stinking treaty.
There is no misunderstanding. Pardy and Roguski are throwing whatever they have to misdirect us from the most immediate threat which takes off in 7 weeks. Of course there are many enemies but the WHO is already hated by many and is the immediate threat. Note the Louisiana vote.
Do they demand that we change course? Or do they request that we re-think? Are they against the IHR Amendments and the Pandemic Treaty? Yes, they are.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this after watching the six videos that Roguski recommends, but from what I can gather states' rights are something of a distraction (I disagree; I believe state push-back is important) within the overall framework to build out a medical-pharmaceutical-pathogen-biolab mafia that will extract money from citizens to fund a global pathogen creation and remedy scam, whose powers-- such as the ability to quarantine international travelers-- will help build out the surveillance infrastructure that will likely expand even into interstate travel, the better to expand the scam.
I don't think you and Roguski are on opposite sides at all, and nowhere do I find where he says that we shouldn't worry about the IHRs or the Treaty. I think he has a somewhat different take on what it's about, which is not so much controlling health (OK, yes it is) but about a venture capital scheme to scare everyone and make billions or trillions off that. Perhaps the vultures have seen the monetary value of fear porn?
I think Roguski is a bit strident but he's also passionate about this.
Please show where he says we shouldn't oppose the Amendments or the Pandemic Treaty. He condemns both in the strongest terms.
Two armies are probably on the same side, if they are both 100% against a third army.
If there seems to be a divide, it may just be a matter of focus and perspective.
Destroying national sovereignty to pillage the people, can be the same as empowering national sovereignty to do the same.
The difference is:
an external power is empowering nations under friendly cover, to pillage their own people under friendly cover; or
an external power is dis-empowering nations under friendly cover, to enable the external power to pillage the people under friendly cover.
The intent of both parties, may or may not be the same.
The result is the same either way.
If the intent is democide, this can be achieved by destroying national sovereignty to prevent nations from disabling the democide, or empowering national sovereignty to enable nations to subject their own people to democide.
Meryl forgot to link to James Roguski's article that she references and I do not see the point of not mentioning him by name. Omitting his name and citation is not refraining from this being a personal attack. It is. Roguski is presented as a wolf in sheep's clothing. Red Herrings
My first suggestion is that Meryl suck it up and telephone Roguski to see whether there has been some misunderstanding. He provided contact information. "If you are dedicated to exposing the TRUTH about the WHO negotiations and you are ready, willing and able to join me in this battle against the WHO, call me anytime at 310-619-3055."
I had phoned James early on when the WHO treaty/amendments first came up and he was endlessly patient in explaining the ins and outs of the issues--we talked a very long time until I became bored with the details and begged off telling him I would try to get him on Jimmy Dore, which I did without success. I did not detect a hint of insincerity or hype, but an endless patience for getting out the word that is contrary to my DNA, but is part of Meryl's. The malignant intent of both the amendments and the Treaty are so patent and palpable that any but the super-heroic are not going to read and re-read and read again each of the versions and revisions. The Augean Stables have been deliberately covered with shit to discourage such endeavors and only a very few heroes like Meryl can bear them. That said, before deciding that he is a wolf in sheep's clothing Meryl really should telephone James and attempt to thrash this out.
Let me be very frank about why this is a good idea, so we do not have a "split" as in 9/11 where we all agreed that the Towers & B7 were taken down by controlled demolition but it seemed--falsely--to be absolutely imperative to also determine whether a missile or a plane hit the Pentagon, when the first claim was easy to prove and the second almost impossible to prove satisfactorily either way. Unlike the Pentagon and 9/11, here it does matter whether Meryl or James is correct and that needs to be thrashed out.
I've enjoyed the advantage of a very very good brain--one that is now sadly decaying--and an extraordinary education and the leisure time to read and research widely on a variety of topics. I've noticed that almost every expert on every important topic gets one and often many others of them wrong, and often dead wrong, for entirely innocent reasons--ignorance rather than malice or political compromise. I'll use RFK, Jr. as an example because he is brilliant, politically gifted, hard working and energetic beyond belief, dedicated to a better America and seemingly profoundly motivated by moral concerns. That said, he was politically off target in briefly supporting reparations for blacks; he was dead wrong in characterizing Putin as "a thug and a gangster"; he is dead wrong about man-made carbon-generated global warming (see "Climate the Movie The Cold Truth" that Meryl recommended) something I've known for over a decade), and is on the side of the moral monsters in his support for Israel's genocidal "self-defense" against the supposedly inhuman terrorists of October 7. The global warming error is a deep but hard-core factual error about which Kennedy is perfectly sincere and about which he could be set straight if forced to listen to the right lectures by the right scientists, just as he was set straight about vaccine safety and efficacy in the wake of having the science dumped on his porch by a recalcitrant mother of a vaccine-injured child. Set aside for now reparations, Putin, and Israel.
Very few if any of us are going to read or re-read the latest WHO amendments and versions of the Treaty, but both James and Meryl have and they should talk directly. We don't need another repetition of a Malone-Breggin brouhaha where both are too angry and/or hurt and/or prideful to engage in the necessary private and then public discussion to get to the bottom of the disagreement and resolve it, but that is what needs to be done.
I agree that it is very perplexing, but nothing in Meryl's account suggests that she had spoken to the anonymous antagonist. If she has, she might have shared a bit more of its content than she did.
Crucially, this isn't about taking sides. It’s about understanding what the latest version of the W.H.O. amendments and treaty actually say. From my perspective it does not much matter because the drafts already declared their evil intent. Meryl's integrity and sincerity is beyond doubt; I don't follow Roguski so cannot make an assessment of his sincerity, but he was on this topic before anyone else and exposed it handily enough that Meryl on more than one occasion referred us to Roguski's analyses. If I thought that my opinion would matter I would spend whatever time was needed in the weeds, but it won't so I won't.
I suggest that you underestimate the warp & woof of everyday narrative stupidity. Here are two examples of it. I had a brief exchange on this site with Meryl in which I corrected her claim--it's our movement's claim--that Obama banned gain of function research for coronavirus in 2014. I linked to the Executive Order and advised that it banned new funding for this research, not research already funded, and asked for voluntary cessation of ongoing dangerous research. She read it and did not change her mind nor show my supposed mistake. She is extraordinarily busy, but I suggest that she was also caught up in our narrative and to her credit it is the only time I have seen her so entrapped. Certainly everyone else on our side parrots the idea that g-o-f research was banned--the narrative stupidity--but the ban is only on new funding; if I am wrong about this, then please let someone provide a link and the excerpted text showing so.
Here is a stronger example. Ed Dowd made his bones exposing the 40% rise in death rates among working class persons and asked "What else could it be but the vaccine?" I looked up the stats and was shocked to find that about half of the rise in payouts from the carriers by that time were due to deaths that had occurred in 2020 before the vaccine. Later, after his book had been published, Ed appeared on The Highwire and at about minute 59 they are discussing the data supporting his "what else" question. I froze the video, went up to the TV to be sure, and guess what? Ed's own graph showed that nearly half of the rise in deaths had occurred in 2020 before the COVID vaccine. Both Del and Ed were in the grips of their own narrative stupidity. I used to write people on our side about their errors but never received a response, so stopped. I spent an hour trying to find this episode of Dowd without luck—there are too many of him on Highwire and they are edited so the time catch @59:00 does not work—but you can see the huge jump in excess mortality here in 2020 largely before the COVID vaccine, following by a slight increase in deaths for 2021, then a sharp decline. Historic Population Deaths in United States of America (1950-2024) https://database.earth/population/united-states-of-america/deaths This is one reason that the otherwise amazing Swiss Policy Research website finds the COVID vaccine safe enough, and effective in lowering overall death rates. They do not use the 5-year average 2015-2019 that our side uses; instead they note a rising mortality curve and compare it with an extrapolation of same and give the vaccine credit for the reduction. These are very complicated issues that require great diligence and skill to resolve.
Ed's first diagram was wrong; I also pointed out his dates for when vaccines rolled out were off.
Now the newest claim is that this is all about Quarantines and preventing people entering the US. Really? As JR says, read the damn documents and find out who is interpreting them correctly.
I think Roguski's point is that the quarantines and testing would apply to international travelers no matter if the US rejected the documents or not, so long as a sufficient number of nations signed on. This would initiate the surveillance build-out-- which is the entire point-- and the curious finding of ever more dangers lurking as tests revealed pathogens that then must be addressed according to treatments determined by ... let's see if I can find it ... ah, yes, the WHO itself. Thus the pharma-biolab-pathogen scam expands (ever more money sent by governments to counter this ever-growing danger) and it likely wouldn't be long until some states required following the WHO guidance on travel, to "stay safe." Perhaps there might be monetary incentives for some legislators to follow proper guidance ....
In short, as Roguski states, the documents provide cover for traitors and tyrants within the US itself, enabled by the foot-in-the-door tactic of testing, isolation, and quarantine regulations for international travel. I don't think this is a far-fetched interpretation. The antidote to this might be the enactment of laws that forbid the testing, isolation, and quarantine of US citizens, but our lawmakers have to be up to the task and willing to stand up to the international GOF medical mafia.
This isn’t at all like Malone & Breggin being at odds. This is a case of one person suddenly coming at things from a totally different angle in a way that’s confusing and undermining. I don’t see calling that person to resolve differences is called for. I think staying focused and not getting distracted makes more sense, especially given that the clock is ticking.
"These grossly wrong assertions were made 2 days ago by someone we had trusted" So this is someone that we can no longer trust because now, unlike before, he is making "grossly wrong assertions." Has Roguski had a psychotic break or somehow gone off the deep end? Did he change his mind only by ignoring what we had previously agreed upon, or he seeing something that we are now missing? Or is he a wolf in sheep's clothing? Perhaps you can think of another possibility. When Roguski has gotten as much right as he previously had, I think it's well worth 30 minutes of Meryl's time to figure out which of the above is so, but of course it's hers to spend. The fundamental reason for the call would be to rule out the possibility that he is seeing something in the newest revisions that we have somehow overlooked. I only hope that her endless talks find the audience they deserve instead of forming the boundaries of our tide-pools of passionate dissent.
Since it was James who changed direction, why didn’t he give Meryl a call to discuss why? My gut reaction when I read James’ piece was to distance from it because I found it so troubling. Imploring us to watch five videos to be able to grasp what was happening, rather than provide some explanation was puzzling and annoying to me. I am not willing to take the time to wrap my head around how he could come to conclusions so different from not just Meryl's, but who-knows-how-many of us who have researched the WHO and are paying close attention to its agenda. It doesn’t add up. I don’t understand it, and I don’t trust it.
Roguski comes to no conclusions about the IHRs or the Pandemic Treaty that are different from Dr. Nass', so far as strong opposition to these go. The dispute is, I believe, over the intent of the documents, which Roguski believes is to build out a GOF fear-based shakedown mafia, if I may state it that way. I don't think Dr. Nass would disagree with that.
Part of Roguski's point is that the documents themselves don't force anything on the citizens of the US that can't be cancelled by the US simply saying, hell, no. Then there's nothing the WHO can do against one of the most powerful nations on earth. But on the other hand, the WHO documents would enable tyrants and traitors (persuaded by a decent chunk of the shakedown money) within the US. I think this is an important point.
However, Roguski is pointing to the quarantine stipulations that would impact international travel and would be based on compliance with testing and vaccination requirements, and could be the initial build-out of an expanding surveillance and passport system that might extend to interstate travel in the US, aiming to swallow more citizens in the medical shake-down operation. I think Roguski's take on the intent of the documents is something to think about and he isn't at all saying that we should ignore the documents. Perhaps he's saying that asserting states' rights is a misguided effort at this point, and he could very well be correct if the intended mafia build-out occurs and swallows international travel, and will be coming to a destination near you.
So the foot in the door, so to speak, for the shakedown racket would be the quarantine and isolation requirements that could be imposed on international travelers (with nations offered an incentive to do so) and, with a little more monetary incentive ("here's a piece of the shakedown money") might even find itself applied interstate.
I hear you, Jim, but the way that email from James made it seem like there was critical information that most people following the WHO had somehow missed. I found it confusing and unhelpful, especially when there’s an effort underway to spread the word about the WHO’s intentions in a big way. Most people won’t have the time or desire to get into the details of amendments vs treaty and the specifics of each, but be alarmed how they intend to take total control of global public health policy to enrich themselves, encourage bioweapon proliferation and enslave humanity. Actually, just writing back and forth about this is time-consuming, and although I appreciate your thoughtful comments, I would have preferred focusing on the cartoons I’m doing about the WHO and other issues of these insane times.
Yes, I think maybe James had a flash of insight on a particular aspect of what's going on and wanted to share it, and yes, it took me a heck of a lot of time to try to understand what the dispute was about. I agree with those who said he could have explained the gist of it in one or two paragraphs (the elevator speech.) But he's passionate and I don't think meant harm.
I do think, though, that the perception of what's going on as basically a venture capitalist scheme (that disregards human rights and is based on fear porn) is a good insight. We should recognize, too, that the problem really isn't so much the IHRs, which the US can ignore, but it's the traitors in the US who would use the IHRs to impose tyranny. If we had no traitors to freedom we wouldn't care an iota about what the WHO could do to us. Unfortunately Covid showed us that there are too many people who would "screw your freedom." This also is an important insight of Roguski's.
My view is that we should work on building shields against whatever might be coming. This shield would include:
1) Free speech, informed consent, freedom to travel, etc., are all inviolate rights that cannot be suspended under any circumstances, for any emergency.
2) American citizens cannot be tested, isolated, or quarantined in any country.
There are traitors among us, here in this country. There are also patriots, and we need laws that protect patriots against emergency measures that the tyrants and traitors among us would impose.
Chinese government? How about the WEF, Bilderberg, the Deep State, the globalist conspiracy, Bill Gates, the Biden White House, Obama and the Clintons, and a few others I can think of!
If I remember correctly, when Tedros was appointed as head of the WHO, Chairman Xi and Bill Gates were the only two people on the stage doing the appointing. This surprised me, as I felt it spoke volumes. I should try to find that photo.
You know I red-pilled two people with the video of Naomi Wolf reading from the Pfizer documents at Hillsdale College. I wonder if you could give a presentation there? Framed as a debate, with someone representing what the WHO says is occurring and you reading from the actual documentation? Just a thought.
"It is not given to us to know which acts or by whom, will cause the critical mass to tip toward an enduring good. What is needed for dramatic change is an accumulation of acts – adding, adding to, adding more, continuing. We know that it does not take “everyone on Earth” to bring justice and peace, but only a small, determined group who will not give up during the first, second, or hundredth gale."
From Clarissa Pinkola Estes, Do Not Lose Heart, We Were Made for these Times
The other side will never debate cuz they have no leg to stand on. In writing they go for the straw man arguments and it is painful and the audience just gets confused.
Knowing, such a low caliber man heads the WHO, I would not believe anything good could come from being associated with this organization. Those who would trust the WHO have to be of very low intelligence.
If we stay focused on opposing the WHO power grab, we won’t go wrong.
The WHO is unelected & unaccountable. It’s controlled by people who are unelected & unaccountable. They are seeking power over all nations on all topics. We must OPPOSE their attempted coup & if governments go along with it WE must make it unworkable by refusing to comply.
Very well stated, Astrgale, and I agree wholeheartedly. Let us not get bogged down by focusing too much on individuals. It is the WHO's uniquely structured power-grab via the carefully crafted IHR framework that must be opposed at all costs.
Their tyrannical behavior during the so-called "pandemic" was just an appetizer of what they have in store. Whether or not their global agreement will technically be binding for all signing parties is already answered in the INTENTION to make it binding.
Sadly, Roguski tends to ramble in both spoken and written language. Unlike Meryl Nass, Roguski has enormous difficulty successfully summarizing the most salient, important points on the topic. He's consistently bogged down in detail after detail after detail in addition to paraphrases within paraphrases within paraphrases. Hence, it's very difficult to decipher what his main points are.
There will be a war in the foreground and a pandemic treaty in the background. A treaty is the only thing that usurps a constitutional amendment. Declare a pandemic of gun violence and poof goes your second amendment.
Meryl, I'm glad you reiterated the very real threats present in the amendments to the IHR. After reading Roguski's post, however, it seems he is clumsily pointing out the differences between the amendments to the IHR and the "pandemic treaty" so people stop confusing the two things and fight each one with accurate details regarding what they actually do. The whole thing seems to be about making the distinction that these documents serve different purposes. Unfortunately, it is extremely confusing and links have to be followed to see what he's getting at. I'm not defending him nor his approach, but that is what I understood from his post, which is quite unfortunately counterproductive because of its overwrought, unclear presentation. His written communication skills have always left much to be desired. You know him, I do not, so there may be details I'm unaware of. This is just my take after reviewing his post.
I believe Roguski's thinking is more subtle than that.
If the IHRs get ratified by the US, guess what? We can, if we decide, simply ignore them. Treaties are ignored or violated all the time. Thus treaties and accords aren't as powerful as we believe and don't fatally take down the sovereignty of the US, a powerful country that if it wishes can tell the WHO to go to hell, treaty or no treaty, and virtually nothing can be done about it.
The problem that Roguski and Pardy point to is the attack on individual sovereignty, such that tyrants in the US might again take away our liberties if they get the chance and just as during Covid, no treaty or accord would be needed for tyranny. The problem is within, isn't it? I think this is an important point. And I don't think they mean that the assertion of state's rights doesn't matter, but rather that it's the tyrants among us who will find a way to trample states' rights if we don't build a shield against them. That shield is called the absolute inviolability of individual sovereignty such that no emergency can ever take it away.
He did not call them red herrings. He was speaking of the "pandemic treaty" as opposed to the amendments to the IHR. All of Meryl's points address the latter.
Roguski simply cannot write or speak clearly and coherently enough to enable readers/listeners to understand his messages without having to consult the Oracle of Delphi for an interpretation. He's unable to succinctly summarize the most salient points of either the IHR or the PT so that listeners/readers can focus on what's important. He always includes far too many extraneous details, such as when this or that IHR was amended by whom, why, and when, rather than isolating the nitty-gritty and boiling it down into a concise message.
Yes, I agree. It is still misleading to say he called Meryl's points "red herrings," and this can promote yet more confusion and division in the ranks. He is a poor communicator. It does not make him a traitor to the cause.
He didn't call Dr Nass's points "red herrings", rather, THAT was the title of his substack article in which he contended that the bulleted points highlighted by MEP Christine Anderson and other MEPS (among many others) in their parliamentary sessions were "red herrings". Dr Nass was simply calling him out on these points as they are clearly core elements of the tyrannical regime the WHO has in store for us. If Roguski sees this, then he failed miserably to make that clear in his substack post. What's more, as Dr Nass stressed in her rebuttal, he has still not retracted his statements, and THAT is worrying. I for one tend to think that he has good intentions but that he's simply an abysmally poor communicator.
I read his post thoroughly, including following the links that provide context. And my phrasing was poor in my last comment. The points Meryl made to rebut his post pertained to the IHR amendments. He was speaking of the pandemic treaty. They are different documents that serve different purposes. His difficulty with communicating clearly is not a reason to attack him. He has published a great many posts regarding the dangers of the IHR amendments, agreeing with everything Meryl pointed out as a rebuttal. It seems no one sought clarification before branding him as having "turned." All of this just muddies the waters and hurts the cause.
I know nothing about this except that I received an email from an Elsa at https://truthsummit.substack.com, who cross-posted the following "Red Herrings" post which originated, I believe, from James Roguski, which is too long and convoluted for me to want to spend my time with it. I'll put my trust in Meryl.
Same here! Roguski goes off on so many detailed tangents and focuses on so many unimportant minutiae that I for one simply believe he's "lost the plot"! On the other hand, could his thinking possibly be affected by the spike proteins contained in the jabs?
Thanks and I stand with you Meryl and any logical person would regarding the draconian WHO which I personally call a terrorist organization, along with the WEF and UN .
Frankly there is ZERO good or advantages to have UNELECTED NGO thugs, telling we the people about our laws, or/and how a state, nation or even tiny community should conduct themselves.
As to doctors and patients the single most inalienable human right is in fact MY BODY MY CHOICE. If you cannot control that, simply put you are a slave .
The world we live in is really dark and evil. I could say it is upside down .
You and every citizen are PRIVATE CITIZENS and rhe government HAS NO RIGHT right to know anything about you or me as private citizens..
Meanwhile those we elect and hold office are so-called CIVIL SERVANTS of the people and we the people HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THEM.
Over decades we the people looked away at the ever creeping INTRUSIONS and SURVEILLANCE on personal people.
The concept of allowing the ENSLAVEMENT of citizens and knowing WVERY ASPECT of yout life is KNOCKING ON OUR DOOR.
In summary, the veterans the suffered and died for your liberty, freedoms and democracy have been spit on. Everyone has an inalienable right to security of person and privacy.
Evil Gates just donated ANOTHER 1 2 BILLION to speed up and advance the bringing in of digital ID .
IF WE THE PEOPLE DO NOT RISE UP and take back our rights, we will soon wake up with CAMERA'S with facial recognition in your, and your children's bedrooms .
I feel like I am living in a horror movie where the BORG say you will be assimilated- resistance is futile.
I say HELL NO . I WILL FIGHT THIS CRAP AND DIE ON THIS HILL IF NECESSARY.
YES, it's bad . Yes, it's really really bad and EVERYONE MUST GET ANGRY and SAY STOP - I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE .
Retired Veteran living in the Canadian Gulag.
I hear you! I'm sick of it. I will die saying NO if I have to. Most people are still slumbering.... and they are going to slumber their way into a hell that they will never get out of in their lifetimes. I really don't know what we can do. I still believe that the people that are truly awake and aware right now are it. I don't hold out a lot of hope that more people will wake up *before* the nightmare is fully implemented. Many will wake up afterwards, and then, it will be too late. Ugh. Trying to stay positive... but it's very difficult. As a veteran myself, watching this unfold around me is beyond frustrating.
The guilty "fleeth" where no one pursues. Arent countries run by big boys and big girls that can make their own decisions?...why does everything have to be centralized?...that's my big question. Because it's a lie -it's an attempt at world government- it's so obvious- it's patently obvious
{...big boys and big girls that can make their own decisions...} 🤣🤣🤣
NOBOBY that reaches the high-echelons of politics and corporate admin. is free to make own decisions (as to his knowledge, heart, gut or conscience tells him/her).
They are ALL pre-selected and highly compromised (see Epstein and alia.); can ALL be taken out of the game (and big money) at any time.
ALL are part of the ZIONIST MATRIX, just hollow puppets to mis-direct the public's perception.
Yes we all know that, but we're talking about "on paper."... Coming from the mouth of the Jews -like the rothschilds etc. it's not just Zionist it's Bolsheviks... a shortcut here is: just call him f****** Jews cuz that's what they are they're f****** Jews. Descendants of Genghis Khan. I hope you didn't piss your pants laughing so hard glad it's so f****** funny to you
Just let me dig deeper into the relation of Genghis Khan to the Khazarians ...
Bolsheviks and Zionists have close relations, but genuine Jews, just practicing their religion are something different and definitively NOT to be put into one category ...
See their overt opposition to current affairs. Or is this too just a controlled-opposition ??
If it's Talmudic, it's evil - reflective barbarism on the part of new-comer Kazarians. As the Cathars taught: Torah and Old Testament is of an evil demiurge. Too exhausting to cover hear. Thanks
Meryl....You are so spot on. This person is starting to make me think he is working for the other side. Meryl I must also add that a new version of the Pandemic Agreement is dated March 13, 2024. I am sure there must be some changes or why else have a revised version. At this point most of what they change in the agreement seems to be minor but who knows. For your readers. Know the power the states and the people of the states truly have. Law schools no longer teach constitutional law and our public schools no longer teach the founding documents and what little they may teach is not the original intent of the documents. This should help clear up just one of the lies people have been told. https://tennesseeconservativenews.com/the-constitutionally-illiterate-and-the-supremacy-clause-of-the-us-constitution/
If I might state the misunderstanding, I'd say that what Roguski (and his main source for his legal thinking on the IHRs, Professor Bruce Pardy) is saying is that we didn't need any treaty or accord to impose the Covid measures that took away our rights: these measures were instituted by the tyrants among us.
In like manner, the IHRs are about giving cover to the actions of the tyrants existing right here in our country who would be quick to trample our basic rights. The problem is the tyrants; the problem isn't so much the documents that enable them. That such people who would trample on liberty have power, is the real problem, treaty or no treaty, because as Covid demonstrated they don't need no stinking treaty.
I think this is an important insight.
There is no misunderstanding. Pardy and Roguski are throwing whatever they have to misdirect us from the most immediate threat which takes off in 7 weeks. Of course there are many enemies but the WHO is already hated by many and is the immediate threat. Note the Louisiana vote.
They demand we change course. Why?
Do they demand that we change course? Or do they request that we re-think? Are they against the IHR Amendments and the Pandemic Treaty? Yes, they are.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this after watching the six videos that Roguski recommends, but from what I can gather states' rights are something of a distraction (I disagree; I believe state push-back is important) within the overall framework to build out a medical-pharmaceutical-pathogen-biolab mafia that will extract money from citizens to fund a global pathogen creation and remedy scam, whose powers-- such as the ability to quarantine international travelers-- will help build out the surveillance infrastructure that will likely expand even into interstate travel, the better to expand the scam.
I don't think you and Roguski are on opposite sides at all, and nowhere do I find where he says that we shouldn't worry about the IHRs or the Treaty. I think he has a somewhat different take on what it's about, which is not so much controlling health (OK, yes it is) but about a venture capital scheme to scare everyone and make billions or trillions off that. Perhaps the vultures have seen the monetary value of fear porn?
I think Roguski is a bit strident but he's also passionate about this.
Please show where he says we shouldn't oppose the Amendments or the Pandemic Treaty. He condemns both in the strongest terms.
Two armies are probably on the same side, if they are both 100% against a third army.
If there seems to be a divide, it may just be a matter of focus and perspective.
Destroying national sovereignty to pillage the people, can be the same as empowering national sovereignty to do the same.
The difference is:
an external power is empowering nations under friendly cover, to pillage their own people under friendly cover; or
an external power is dis-empowering nations under friendly cover, to enable the external power to pillage the people under friendly cover.
The intent of both parties, may or may not be the same.
The result is the same either way.
If the intent is democide, this can be achieved by destroying national sovereignty to prevent nations from disabling the democide, or empowering national sovereignty to enable nations to subject their own people to democide.
Divide and conquer is the strategy of the enemy.
Know thy enemy.
He who is not against you, is for you.
Meryl forgot to link to James Roguski's article that she references and I do not see the point of not mentioning him by name. Omitting his name and citation is not refraining from this being a personal attack. It is. Roguski is presented as a wolf in sheep's clothing. Red Herrings
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/red-herrings?utm_source=cross-post&publication_id=746475&post_id=142790460&utm_campaign=1565735&isFreemail=true&r=wwyoh&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
My first suggestion is that Meryl suck it up and telephone Roguski to see whether there has been some misunderstanding. He provided contact information. "If you are dedicated to exposing the TRUTH about the WHO negotiations and you are ready, willing and able to join me in this battle against the WHO, call me anytime at 310-619-3055."
I had phoned James early on when the WHO treaty/amendments first came up and he was endlessly patient in explaining the ins and outs of the issues--we talked a very long time until I became bored with the details and begged off telling him I would try to get him on Jimmy Dore, which I did without success. I did not detect a hint of insincerity or hype, but an endless patience for getting out the word that is contrary to my DNA, but is part of Meryl's. The malignant intent of both the amendments and the Treaty are so patent and palpable that any but the super-heroic are not going to read and re-read and read again each of the versions and revisions. The Augean Stables have been deliberately covered with shit to discourage such endeavors and only a very few heroes like Meryl can bear them. That said, before deciding that he is a wolf in sheep's clothing Meryl really should telephone James and attempt to thrash this out.
Let me be very frank about why this is a good idea, so we do not have a "split" as in 9/11 where we all agreed that the Towers & B7 were taken down by controlled demolition but it seemed--falsely--to be absolutely imperative to also determine whether a missile or a plane hit the Pentagon, when the first claim was easy to prove and the second almost impossible to prove satisfactorily either way. Unlike the Pentagon and 9/11, here it does matter whether Meryl or James is correct and that needs to be thrashed out.
I've enjoyed the advantage of a very very good brain--one that is now sadly decaying--and an extraordinary education and the leisure time to read and research widely on a variety of topics. I've noticed that almost every expert on every important topic gets one and often many others of them wrong, and often dead wrong, for entirely innocent reasons--ignorance rather than malice or political compromise. I'll use RFK, Jr. as an example because he is brilliant, politically gifted, hard working and energetic beyond belief, dedicated to a better America and seemingly profoundly motivated by moral concerns. That said, he was politically off target in briefly supporting reparations for blacks; he was dead wrong in characterizing Putin as "a thug and a gangster"; he is dead wrong about man-made carbon-generated global warming (see "Climate the Movie The Cold Truth" that Meryl recommended) something I've known for over a decade), and is on the side of the moral monsters in his support for Israel's genocidal "self-defense" against the supposedly inhuman terrorists of October 7. The global warming error is a deep but hard-core factual error about which Kennedy is perfectly sincere and about which he could be set straight if forced to listen to the right lectures by the right scientists, just as he was set straight about vaccine safety and efficacy in the wake of having the science dumped on his porch by a recalcitrant mother of a vaccine-injured child. Set aside for now reparations, Putin, and Israel.
Very few if any of us are going to read or re-read the latest WHO amendments and versions of the Treaty, but both James and Meryl have and they should talk directly. We don't need another repetition of a Malone-Breggin brouhaha where both are too angry and/or hurt and/or prideful to engage in the necessary private and then public discussion to get to the bottom of the disagreement and resolve it, but that is what needs to be done.
Don't assume they have not talked directly. I find this whole thing perplexing and stand with Meryl.
https://merylnass.substack.com/p/rebutting-bizarre-assertions-about/comment/52898669?r=emu4z 04/01/24
I agree that it is very perplexing, but nothing in Meryl's account suggests that she had spoken to the anonymous antagonist. If she has, she might have shared a bit more of its content than she did.
Crucially, this isn't about taking sides. It’s about understanding what the latest version of the W.H.O. amendments and treaty actually say. From my perspective it does not much matter because the drafts already declared their evil intent. Meryl's integrity and sincerity is beyond doubt; I don't follow Roguski so cannot make an assessment of his sincerity, but he was on this topic before anyone else and exposed it handily enough that Meryl on more than one occasion referred us to Roguski's analyses. If I thought that my opinion would matter I would spend whatever time was needed in the weeds, but it won't so I won't.
I suggest that you underestimate the warp & woof of everyday narrative stupidity. Here are two examples of it. I had a brief exchange on this site with Meryl in which I corrected her claim--it's our movement's claim--that Obama banned gain of function research for coronavirus in 2014. I linked to the Executive Order and advised that it banned new funding for this research, not research already funded, and asked for voluntary cessation of ongoing dangerous research. She read it and did not change her mind nor show my supposed mistake. She is extraordinarily busy, but I suggest that she was also caught up in our narrative and to her credit it is the only time I have seen her so entrapped. Certainly everyone else on our side parrots the idea that g-o-f research was banned--the narrative stupidity--but the ban is only on new funding; if I am wrong about this, then please let someone provide a link and the excerpted text showing so.
Here is a stronger example. Ed Dowd made his bones exposing the 40% rise in death rates among working class persons and asked "What else could it be but the vaccine?" I looked up the stats and was shocked to find that about half of the rise in payouts from the carriers by that time were due to deaths that had occurred in 2020 before the vaccine. Later, after his book had been published, Ed appeared on The Highwire and at about minute 59 they are discussing the data supporting his "what else" question. I froze the video, went up to the TV to be sure, and guess what? Ed's own graph showed that nearly half of the rise in deaths had occurred in 2020 before the COVID vaccine. Both Del and Ed were in the grips of their own narrative stupidity. I used to write people on our side about their errors but never received a response, so stopped. I spent an hour trying to find this episode of Dowd without luck—there are too many of him on Highwire and they are edited so the time catch @59:00 does not work—but you can see the huge jump in excess mortality here in 2020 largely before the COVID vaccine, following by a slight increase in deaths for 2021, then a sharp decline. Historic Population Deaths in United States of America (1950-2024) https://database.earth/population/united-states-of-america/deaths This is one reason that the otherwise amazing Swiss Policy Research website finds the COVID vaccine safe enough, and effective in lowering overall death rates. They do not use the 5-year average 2015-2019 that our side uses; instead they note a rising mortality curve and compare it with an extrapolation of same and give the vaccine credit for the reduction. These are very complicated issues that require great diligence and skill to resolve.
Ed's first diagram was wrong; I also pointed out his dates for when vaccines rolled out were off.
Now the newest claim is that this is all about Quarantines and preventing people entering the US. Really? As JR says, read the damn documents and find out who is interpreting them correctly.
I think Roguski's point is that the quarantines and testing would apply to international travelers no matter if the US rejected the documents or not, so long as a sufficient number of nations signed on. This would initiate the surveillance build-out-- which is the entire point-- and the curious finding of ever more dangers lurking as tests revealed pathogens that then must be addressed according to treatments determined by ... let's see if I can find it ... ah, yes, the WHO itself. Thus the pharma-biolab-pathogen scam expands (ever more money sent by governments to counter this ever-growing danger) and it likely wouldn't be long until some states required following the WHO guidance on travel, to "stay safe." Perhaps there might be monetary incentives for some legislators to follow proper guidance ....
In short, as Roguski states, the documents provide cover for traitors and tyrants within the US itself, enabled by the foot-in-the-door tactic of testing, isolation, and quarantine regulations for international travel. I don't think this is a far-fetched interpretation. The antidote to this might be the enactment of laws that forbid the testing, isolation, and quarantine of US citizens, but our lawmakers have to be up to the task and willing to stand up to the international GOF medical mafia.
This isn’t at all like Malone & Breggin being at odds. This is a case of one person suddenly coming at things from a totally different angle in a way that’s confusing and undermining. I don’t see calling that person to resolve differences is called for. I think staying focused and not getting distracted makes more sense, especially given that the clock is ticking.
"These grossly wrong assertions were made 2 days ago by someone we had trusted" So this is someone that we can no longer trust because now, unlike before, he is making "grossly wrong assertions." Has Roguski had a psychotic break or somehow gone off the deep end? Did he change his mind only by ignoring what we had previously agreed upon, or he seeing something that we are now missing? Or is he a wolf in sheep's clothing? Perhaps you can think of another possibility. When Roguski has gotten as much right as he previously had, I think it's well worth 30 minutes of Meryl's time to figure out which of the above is so, but of course it's hers to spend. The fundamental reason for the call would be to rule out the possibility that he is seeing something in the newest revisions that we have somehow overlooked. I only hope that her endless talks find the audience they deserve instead of forming the boundaries of our tide-pools of passionate dissent.
Since it was James who changed direction, why didn’t he give Meryl a call to discuss why? My gut reaction when I read James’ piece was to distance from it because I found it so troubling. Imploring us to watch five videos to be able to grasp what was happening, rather than provide some explanation was puzzling and annoying to me. I am not willing to take the time to wrap my head around how he could come to conclusions so different from not just Meryl's, but who-knows-how-many of us who have researched the WHO and are paying close attention to its agenda. It doesn’t add up. I don’t understand it, and I don’t trust it.
Roguski comes to no conclusions about the IHRs or the Pandemic Treaty that are different from Dr. Nass', so far as strong opposition to these go. The dispute is, I believe, over the intent of the documents, which Roguski believes is to build out a GOF fear-based shakedown mafia, if I may state it that way. I don't think Dr. Nass would disagree with that.
Part of Roguski's point is that the documents themselves don't force anything on the citizens of the US that can't be cancelled by the US simply saying, hell, no. Then there's nothing the WHO can do against one of the most powerful nations on earth. But on the other hand, the WHO documents would enable tyrants and traitors (persuaded by a decent chunk of the shakedown money) within the US. I think this is an important point.
However, Roguski is pointing to the quarantine stipulations that would impact international travel and would be based on compliance with testing and vaccination requirements, and could be the initial build-out of an expanding surveillance and passport system that might extend to interstate travel in the US, aiming to swallow more citizens in the medical shake-down operation. I think Roguski's take on the intent of the documents is something to think about and he isn't at all saying that we should ignore the documents. Perhaps he's saying that asserting states' rights is a misguided effort at this point, and he could very well be correct if the intended mafia build-out occurs and swallows international travel, and will be coming to a destination near you.
So the foot in the door, so to speak, for the shakedown racket would be the quarantine and isolation requirements that could be imposed on international travelers (with nations offered an incentive to do so) and, with a little more monetary incentive ("here's a piece of the shakedown money") might even find itself applied interstate.
I hear you, Jim, but the way that email from James made it seem like there was critical information that most people following the WHO had somehow missed. I found it confusing and unhelpful, especially when there’s an effort underway to spread the word about the WHO’s intentions in a big way. Most people won’t have the time or desire to get into the details of amendments vs treaty and the specifics of each, but be alarmed how they intend to take total control of global public health policy to enrich themselves, encourage bioweapon proliferation and enslave humanity. Actually, just writing back and forth about this is time-consuming, and although I appreciate your thoughtful comments, I would have preferred focusing on the cartoons I’m doing about the WHO and other issues of these insane times.
Yes, I think maybe James had a flash of insight on a particular aspect of what's going on and wanted to share it, and yes, it took me a heck of a lot of time to try to understand what the dispute was about. I agree with those who said he could have explained the gist of it in one or two paragraphs (the elevator speech.) But he's passionate and I don't think meant harm.
I do think, though, that the perception of what's going on as basically a venture capitalist scheme (that disregards human rights and is based on fear porn) is a good insight. We should recognize, too, that the problem really isn't so much the IHRs, which the US can ignore, but it's the traitors in the US who would use the IHRs to impose tyranny. If we had no traitors to freedom we wouldn't care an iota about what the WHO could do to us. Unfortunately Covid showed us that there are too many people who would "screw your freedom." This also is an important insight of Roguski's.
My view is that we should work on building shields against whatever might be coming. This shield would include:
1) Free speech, informed consent, freedom to travel, etc., are all inviolate rights that cannot be suspended under any circumstances, for any emergency.
2) American citizens cannot be tested, isolated, or quarantined in any country.
There are traitors among us, here in this country. There are also patriots, and we need laws that protect patriots against emergency measures that the tyrants and traitors among us would impose.
Thanks for your cartoons!
Chinese government? How about the WEF, Bilderberg, the Deep State, the globalist conspiracy, Bill Gates, the Biden White House, Obama and the Clintons, and a few others I can think of!
If I remember correctly, when Tedros was appointed as head of the WHO, Chairman Xi and Bill Gates were the only two people on the stage doing the appointing. This surprised me, as I felt it spoke volumes. I should try to find that photo.
🎯
You know I red-pilled two people with the video of Naomi Wolf reading from the Pfizer documents at Hillsdale College. I wonder if you could give a presentation there? Framed as a debate, with someone representing what the WHO says is occurring and you reading from the actual documentation? Just a thought.
"It is not given to us to know which acts or by whom, will cause the critical mass to tip toward an enduring good. What is needed for dramatic change is an accumulation of acts – adding, adding to, adding more, continuing. We know that it does not take “everyone on Earth” to bring justice and peace, but only a small, determined group who will not give up during the first, second, or hundredth gale."
From Clarissa Pinkola Estes, Do Not Lose Heart, We Were Made for these Times
https://www.dailygood.org/story/1538/do-not-lose-heart-we-were-made-for-these-times-clarissa-pinkola-estes/
The other side will never debate cuz they have no leg to stand on. In writing they go for the straw man arguments and it is painful and the audience just gets confused.
Knowing, such a low caliber man heads the WHO, I would not believe anything good could come from being associated with this organization. Those who would trust the WHO have to be of very low intelligence.
If we stay focused on opposing the WHO power grab, we won’t go wrong.
The WHO is unelected & unaccountable. It’s controlled by people who are unelected & unaccountable. They are seeking power over all nations on all topics. We must OPPOSE their attempted coup & if governments go along with it WE must make it unworkable by refusing to comply.
Very well stated, Astrgale, and I agree wholeheartedly. Let us not get bogged down by focusing too much on individuals. It is the WHO's uniquely structured power-grab via the carefully crafted IHR framework that must be opposed at all costs.
Their tyrannical behavior during the so-called "pandemic" was just an appetizer of what they have in store. Whether or not their global agreement will technically be binding for all signing parties is already answered in the INTENTION to make it binding.
Thank you, Meryl.
I was dumbstruck by that email, Meryl, and I’m very glad you commented on it. Felt like my brain was in a blender as I read it. Beyond the beyond.
Sadly, Roguski tends to ramble in both spoken and written language. Unlike Meryl Nass, Roguski has enormous difficulty successfully summarizing the most salient, important points on the topic. He's consistently bogged down in detail after detail after detail in addition to paraphrases within paraphrases within paraphrases. Hence, it's very difficult to decipher what his main points are.
Maybe that is deliberate?
There will be a war in the foreground and a pandemic treaty in the background. A treaty is the only thing that usurps a constitutional amendment. Declare a pandemic of gun violence and poof goes your second amendment.
Meryl, I'm glad you reiterated the very real threats present in the amendments to the IHR. After reading Roguski's post, however, it seems he is clumsily pointing out the differences between the amendments to the IHR and the "pandemic treaty" so people stop confusing the two things and fight each one with accurate details regarding what they actually do. The whole thing seems to be about making the distinction that these documents serve different purposes. Unfortunately, it is extremely confusing and links have to be followed to see what he's getting at. I'm not defending him nor his approach, but that is what I understood from his post, which is quite unfortunately counterproductive because of its overwrought, unclear presentation. His written communication skills have always left much to be desired. You know him, I do not, so there may be details I'm unaware of. This is just my take after reviewing his post.
Thanks, Meryl!
Who was it that made the assertions? We should know we can be so aware of following this said person...
James Roguski termed the assertions cited by Dr Nass as "red herrings" in his substack post. They are NOT red herrings.
I believe Roguski's thinking is more subtle than that.
If the IHRs get ratified by the US, guess what? We can, if we decide, simply ignore them. Treaties are ignored or violated all the time. Thus treaties and accords aren't as powerful as we believe and don't fatally take down the sovereignty of the US, a powerful country that if it wishes can tell the WHO to go to hell, treaty or no treaty, and virtually nothing can be done about it.
The problem that Roguski and Pardy point to is the attack on individual sovereignty, such that tyrants in the US might again take away our liberties if they get the chance and just as during Covid, no treaty or accord would be needed for tyranny. The problem is within, isn't it? I think this is an important point. And I don't think they mean that the assertion of state's rights doesn't matter, but rather that it's the tyrants among us who will find a way to trample states' rights if we don't build a shield against them. That shield is called the absolute inviolability of individual sovereignty such that no emergency can ever take it away.
Yes, this is my understanding also.
“Breach of individual sovereignty” is a good way of outing it.
He did not call them red herrings. He was speaking of the "pandemic treaty" as opposed to the amendments to the IHR. All of Meryl's points address the latter.
Roguski simply cannot write or speak clearly and coherently enough to enable readers/listeners to understand his messages without having to consult the Oracle of Delphi for an interpretation. He's unable to succinctly summarize the most salient points of either the IHR or the PT so that listeners/readers can focus on what's important. He always includes far too many extraneous details, such as when this or that IHR was amended by whom, why, and when, rather than isolating the nitty-gritty and boiling it down into a concise message.
Yes, I agree. It is still misleading to say he called Meryl's points "red herrings," and this can promote yet more confusion and division in the ranks. He is a poor communicator. It does not make him a traitor to the cause.
He didn't call Dr Nass's points "red herrings", rather, THAT was the title of his substack article in which he contended that the bulleted points highlighted by MEP Christine Anderson and other MEPS (among many others) in their parliamentary sessions were "red herrings". Dr Nass was simply calling him out on these points as they are clearly core elements of the tyrannical regime the WHO has in store for us. If Roguski sees this, then he failed miserably to make that clear in his substack post. What's more, as Dr Nass stressed in her rebuttal, he has still not retracted his statements, and THAT is worrying. I for one tend to think that he has good intentions but that he's simply an abysmally poor communicator.
I read his post thoroughly, including following the links that provide context. And my phrasing was poor in my last comment. The points Meryl made to rebut his post pertained to the IHR amendments. He was speaking of the pandemic treaty. They are different documents that serve different purposes. His difficulty with communicating clearly is not a reason to attack him. He has published a great many posts regarding the dangers of the IHR amendments, agreeing with everything Meryl pointed out as a rebuttal. It seems no one sought clarification before branding him as having "turned." All of this just muddies the waters and hurts the cause.
I know nothing about this except that I received an email from an Elsa at https://truthsummit.substack.com, who cross-posted the following "Red Herrings" post which originated, I believe, from James Roguski, which is too long and convoluted for me to want to spend my time with it. I'll put my trust in Meryl.
Red Herrings
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/red-herrings?utm_source=cross-post&publication_id=746475&post_id=142790460&utm_campaign=1565735&isFreemail=true&r=wwyoh&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Same here! Roguski goes off on so many detailed tangents and focuses on so many unimportant minutiae that I for one simply believe he's "lost the plot"! On the other hand, could his thinking possibly be affected by the spike proteins contained in the jabs?
Yes, I subscribe to James' substack..... yikes....I see it now....
yes that would be good to know
Found it
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/red-herrings
This article by James Roguski looks to me like he is coming from a point of sarcasm. If not this is truly alarming.
Thanks for posting this!
Yes, why would we follow anyone undermining us and the work that needs to be done. :)
Almost all of the truth movement is controlled opposition. Discernment is desperately needed 🙏🙏🙏
The twists and turns are shocking. I trust very few.
The WHO coup is about all those things and more.
I looked at what James Roguski was saying but it was very convoluted & confusing.
The WHO is attempting to consolidate a global government. We most oppose that.
Meryl, Meryl - if there is one thing you could NEVER do - it is that you could NEVER bore us.