VOTING ILLUSION

Subscribe thank You https://www.youtube.com/@constitutionalconventions6240 Subscribe to We the People Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1516344 Subscribe to Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/user/ConstitutionalConventions Subscribe to get important Information https://constitutionalconventions.ca/contact/ - ensure you get confirmation - check spam or junk mail. Zoom 5-10 EST daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09 SwT80SwT8 https://rumble.com/v4govwc-facts-vs-fiction-know-who-owns-the-land-not-canada-or-their-corrup-peice-of.html [email protected]

Subscribe thank You https://www.youtube.com/@constitutionalconventions6240 Subscribe to We the People Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1516344 Subscribe to Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/user/ConstitutionalConventions Subscribe to get important Information https://constitutionalconventions.ca/contact/ - ensure you get confirmation - check spam or junk mail. Zoom 5-10 EST daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09 SwT80SwT8 https://rumble.com/v4govwc-facts-vs-fiction-know-who-owns-the-land-not-canada-or-their-corrup-peice-of.html [email protected]

pissed of grama,grama,gramas,dallas hills,constitutional conventions,mayors,pogg,councillors,de fact,de jure,lawful,clear field doctrine,love,truth,facts,corruption,corporation,canada,provinces,municiplaity,deputations,mother,father,live birth,cra,taxes,by laws,town,community,off grid,coop

In this afternoon's Nova Scotia Free Speech Bulletin Board Podcast John Olooney a funeral embalmer joins host Tony Lohnes. On the X Chris McKee - Something seems fishy with the election result. I was working for elections Canada tonight in Durham Region & we hadn’t counted a single vote. Then I go on my phone & see CTV declared the Liberals winning. How is that possible? How is this possible? John and I dig into this issue? Was the election rigged? We dive into the excess death rate. If voting made a difference they would not allow you to vote "John Olooney". The same quote was mentioned in a previous podcast with Donald Lee. People are waking up. We will not get out of this by voting. Don't comply to anything "John Olooney". Lots of topics, lots of issues please share our podcast. A big thank you to John Olooney for joining me on the podcast today.

King Charles will visit Canada, deliver throne speech to open Parliament Visit will mark the 1st time a monarch has delivered the throne speech since 1977 King Charles will travel to Canada later this month and deliver the speech from the throne on May 27. "This historic honour matches the weight of our times," Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Friday as he announced the news. He added that Queen Camilla would join the visit. Gov. Gen. Mary Simon issued a statement confirming the royal visit on May 26 and 27. "Whit and I will be delighted to welcome Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla to Canada. Our Canadian identity is deeply rooted in our Constitution and this visit highlights the enduring relationship between Canada and the Crown," she said. "Now more than ever, we need to come together to ensure a future that builds on our shared global values of democracy, equality and peace." Prime Minister Mark Carney says the decision to have King Charles open the next session of Canada's Parliament ‘clearly underscores’ the sovereignty of the country. Every new session of Parliament is opened by a throne speech, a document that lays out the government's expected direction and goals, and how it plans to achieve them. When Charles and Carney met at Buckingham Palace before the election, the prime minister asked the King about the possibility of him coming to Canada to deliver the next throne speech, CBC News has learned. That Charles would come to Canada to open Parliament "sends a clear message regarding his dedication to the role of King of Canada," Toronto-based royal author and historian Carolyn Harris said via email. Much attention has focused in recent weeks on Charles's role as head of state of Canada, particularly in the face of repeated taunts from U.S. President Donald Trump about it becoming the 51st state. "It seems fairly likely that the current state of relations between Canada and the United States shaped the decision to not only have the visit so soon but also for it to involve the opening of Parliament," Justin Vovk, a royal historian and member of the advisory board of the Institute for the Study of the Crown in Canada, said in an email. "Mark Carney ran his campaign on a largely anti-Trump platform and reiterated that Canada will always remain sovereign, independent and free. Having Charles assume his place at the centre of our parliamentary institutions is a clear signal of Canada's unique political and national identity compared to our neighbours to the south." Prime Minister Mark Carney sits down with King Charles in London during his first foreign trip as Canada’s prime minister. Those who watch Charles closely saw an increase in signals and royal symbolism in support of Canada as it faced that repeated rhetoric, which resurfaced recently after a relatively quiet spell. Charles also referenced his role as "King of Canada" during an address recently to the Italian parliament, a rare statement — particularly coming as it did in an international, non-Commonwealth setting. The opening of Canada's new Parliament provides an "ideal opportunity" for a visit from Charles, who has not yet come to the country as monarch, said Harris. "President Trump's comments about Canada becoming the 51st state, however, have increased the political significance of King Charles undertaking official engagements as King of Canada." The King delivering the throne speech in Ottawa also follows historical precedent, she said. "Queen Elizabeth II opened Parliament during her first visit to Canada as a reigning monarch in 1957." WATCH | Queen Elizabeth reads the speech from the throne on Oct. 14, 1957: For the first time ever, the sovereign opens Canadian parliament. (Footage is black and white.) The last time the speech was actually read by Canada's head of state was when Queen Elizabeth delivered it in 1977. Simon's statement said the royal visit's detailed itinerary will be published at a later date by the Department of Canadian Heritage. At two days, it will be a short visit, but that, too, has precedent. "Queen Elizabeth II's 1957 visit to Canada to open Parliament was also quite short," said Harris. Queen Elizabeth reads the throne speech in the Senate in Ottawa on Oct. 18, 1977, officially opening that session of Parliament. Then prime minister Pierre Trudeau sits to the right of the Queen. Other factors and logistics likely played into the timing, she added. "The specific dates of the visit will have been organized quite quickly after the election, and royal schedules are set long in advance," said Harris. "There may be a longer Canadian royal tour scheduled in the future when there is more time for planning and preparation. King Charles III's cancer treatment also limits opportunities for extensive royal tours, as demonstrated by his visit to Australia and Samoa, which did not include New Zealand." The visit will be the King's 20th visit to Canada, and the Queen's fifth. Their last visit was in May 2022, when Charles was still the Prince of Wales. If you still think Canada is a sovereign nation you have been duped, It is a Corporation same the United States, Russia, China, Iran and many other fake countries they are and always been corporations. All owned by the Crown of the Vatican. So when millions are deceived to believe voting is going to change a thing you been duped over and over. The people are given an illusion your voting in the conservatives or the liberals in the corporation of Canada or even the United states is a corporation owned by the Crown. When you vote it gives the people the illusion you have a choice but in reality you never had a choice They already have selected the new CEO such as carney to be the Crime Minster or to the sough in the United States they selected Donald Trump as the acting CEO of United States corporation What will it take for the people to realize the constitutions are contracts of the crown not for we the people. It will be you to realize we are all enslaved and the was to remove the herd. The herd is you and I to manageable numbers. This is why the pushed the kill shot, destroying the economy to create chaos and move to their final object of their New World Order. This is no conspiracy theory it is fact and so many are still blind to what these evil things have planned for them all. I recommend you all start to look at what we must do to survive this ultimate destruction in stealth to all of us. We must work smarter than ever to build community , stop paying taxes. The message must be clearer now than ever they are not your government and never were. We are not fighting for freedom we are fighting to exist. Those who want to continue with the illusion can do so but those who see the threat we must unite under one force. We must create our own system. Facts must be presented all the time. Help those who still partially awake to become more involved in their local community The greed of the fiat cash will only enslave you more each day. This fiction is the vice that holds you imprisoned in their system We must walk away and stop funding their system we must build our own system now. Yes it will be hard but it is the only path forward for us to even have an opportunity to survive, We continue with the illusion of them being a government then the righting is on the wall Share please lets organize Thank you for watching and best of luck Dallas

ELECTIONS TODAY With the Canadian elections today, where the result was already pre cast before the election was called.....the official selection of the person pre crowned as the leader will move the markets. If the preselected leader is the PC leader, the stock markets will move up, the Canadian dollar will strengthen compared to the US dollar, gold will move down and crypto will go up. If the preselected leader is the Liberal leader, gold will move up and the Canadian stock market will flash crash, the Canadian dollar will weaken and crypto will go down as well. Optimally you should have positions in all markets and move accordingly depending on what happens after the elections. Good luck today and no matter who you vote for, the government always gets in....which is something most people today don't even know how to process. The people do not control which actors are on the TV screen. The owners of the movie studio control what actors are hired. It's all theatre for the masses, to give them the illusion that they have a say and that they still have some form of control. It's important to know how the system works, so you can move more efficiently inside the mouse trap. The cheese isn't free and it's not there to feed you. If you don't know the basic rules, the mouse trap will do what it's designed to do. The solution is small baby steps, over the long haul, where you take back control of everything in your personal life. First step is to stop eating, drinking, watching and injecting their poison. The solution is about you changing, not hoping someone else organizes those changes for you. This is what I finally understood: all famous people are there to misdirect you. ALL OF THEM. They didn't accidentally get famous. They don't accidentally get on TV or in movies or in books or on CDs or on the internet. And they certainly don't earn their way into these positions, as is now clear. So how did they get there? Why do you have to see them and hear them all the time? Why do you know who they are? Because they were placed there. They were chosen to fill that position, and they were chosen in order to misdirect you from the truth. In the Comments Be a Link for Miles Mathis https://mileswmathis.com/guru.pdf What I Finally Understood by Miles Mathis I am now almost 51, and it took me this long to figure out how the world really works. This time last year, I didn't know. The truth is, I didn't work on the question much for the first 40 years of my life, so it isn't really surprising I didn't discover this sooner. I am not claiming to understand how ALL of life works. Just this one thing. This is what I finally understood: all famous people are there to misdirect you. ALL OF THEM. They didn't accidentally get famous. They don't accidentally get on TV or in movies or in books or on CDs or on the internet. And they certainly don't earn their way into these positions, as is now clear. So how did they get there? Why do you have to see them and hear them all the time? Why do you know who they are? Because they were placed there. They were chosen to fill that position, and they were chosen in order to misdirect you from the truth. You will say, “C'mon, Miles, that can't be true. All of them? I mean, they disagree with eachother. How can they all be placed there?” Look at it this way: say you wanted to control everyone in the world. Well, people are at different levels. They have different interests and beliefs and levels of intelligence. So if you want to control everyone, you have to place your guys at all these levels, on all possible paths. If you are a football coach setting up a defense on the field, you don't put all your tacklers in the middle of the field, or all on one side. You spread them out. You want to block all possible paths to the goal. You have to defend against the run and the pass, the short ball and the long ball. It is the same with government. If you want to govern people, you have to keep them on the path you have chosen for them. That is how the governors understand government. You may think government is about keeping people employed and building highways and educating children, but it isn't. It is about “governing” them. Moving them around at will. Think of a governess. She keeps the kids out of trouble and molds them into the sort of adults her employer or her society requires. Same thing with the governors. They keep you from troubling them and mold you into someone who can make them richer. That is what our society requires, and very little else. With that goal in mind, the last thing the governors want is “enlightened” people or “self-actualized” people. Those people might make money for themselves, think for themselves, and govern themselves. People like that make very poor clients. People like that are just trouble. So the governors have to head them off. Since people take many different paths, the governors have to place their blockers and tacklers everywhere. They have to have blockers for smart people and dumb people, lazy people and ambitious people, caring people and uncaring people, progressive people and conservative people, men and women, young and old. And they have to have blockers and tacklers up and down the field, on the fifty-yard line as well as on the five-yard line. If you get past one line of tacklers, they have to have another line ready for you. To switch the visualization, no matter how high up the mountain you climb, they have to have some guru on a goat-ledge positioned there to shunt you off on the wrong path. No matter how deep down the rabbit hole you have climbed, they have to have some bearded caterpillar waiting for you to give you bad advice in solemn tones, recommending you eat the wrong cake or try the wrong door. I admit it took me a while to figure this out. Over the past decade I have lost more and more of my old heroes. I got around them and moved on up the mountain. But then I came to another set of heroes perched up there, and instead of learning from my past mistakes and looking at these heroes with suspicion, I instead protected them from questions like that. I didn't want to lose them, so I didn't look closely at them. I nodded politely in the old ways and knelt down for the next lesson. But eventually they said something that didn't fit the script, and the curtain was torn. I then felt like Jim Carrey in The Truman Show, when his car radio accidentally picks up the director's channel. I was forced to pick up my bamboo mat and kettle of fish and move further up the mountain. No matter how high I got, I was always met by a new expert, pointing sideways along a path and smiling knowingly. Finally, I figured out the game. I figured it out by noticing that all these guys popped up there like jack-in-the-boxes, rising up from underground tunnels dug centuries earlier by an army of evil moles. They knew I would come eventually—me or someone like me—and they had made plans. The entire mountain and rabbit hole had been trapped and mined, and I began to look around for David Bowie in the Labyrinth. Like Bowie, these pretend sorcerers gave themselves away to a keen eye, since they got more desperate the nearer you got to the truth. The longer I stayed on the right path, the less likely I was to be fooled by the next trap, and they knew that. That doesn't mean any of this is easy. Maybe the hardest part is that you have to pass through a treacherous middle level on the mountain. Once you pass the halfway point on the mountain, the gurus get more clever. You already know a lot by that time, so they have to take that into account. They have to lead the lesson by re-teaching you a lot you already know. This makes you trust them. One of their greatest tricks is unmasking gurus on lower levels, although those gurus are really their colleagues. They say, “Oh, by the way, you know that the gurus at level 42, 43, and 44 are working for the man, right? They were trying to keep you from climbing up to this level, because they are jealous of the view I have from here. Beautiful, isn't it?” Guru 45 then subtly suggests his view is superior to views from even higher, and that you have no need to climb up further. He has to say that in just the right way, though, at the right speed, with the right inflections, or you remember that guru 44 just told you pretty much the same thing. You hit another hard part when you realize all the gurus are planted. As soon as that sinks in fully, they stop sending you gurus. The jack-in-the-boxes stop popping up from the mountain ledges, and you find yourself alone with the birds and the bears. That is scary not only because you have no one to talk to, but even more because your trick of doing the opposite of what you were told no longer works. You can no longer wait for the guru to point left and then move right. You have to decide on your own, without the help of negative evidence. I know some of you are laughing, but do you understand how hard that is? If you are a good ways up the mountain, just think how many of your decisions were decisions of avoidance. Compare the number of paths you refused because they looked bad to the number of paths you chose because they looked good. If you are like me, most of your progress has been due to the former. Given ten paths, you chose number 7 because 1-6 and 8-10 all stank. And they all stank because you could see lots of stinky people clogging up those paths. The choice was easy. But once you get past the gurus, you no longer have stinky people showing you how not to live. Up above you are only empty paths, none of them either beckoning you or offending you. All is silent. With the mountaintop draped in cloud, how do you know which way to go? Let us transport ourselves back down the mountain some ways, where the gurus are as thick as flies on a summer dunghill. At this level, I will not find many who wish to learn my lesson. The students are in thrall to the teachers, and do not wish to fall out of thrall. These students will tell me that one side or the other must be right. Given a certain question, they can't all be wrong, can they? Well, if they are all paid to be wrong, they can. This is easiest to see from the so-called debates we watch on TV. Whether it is political debates between candidates or manufactured debates on news programs, we always see the question divided two ways, and the people on both sides speaking nonsense. The truth is always avoided by both sides, as if it is a virus. Let's take a topic, say, gun control. This is probably the hottest topic of the past two years. My knee-jerk reaction is to be against gun control, if only because the governors are for it. If the government is trying this hard to sell me something, I know it is not worth buying. The government has proven over and over it can't be trusted, so I do the logical thing and refuse to trust it. But that doesn't mean I have gone out and bought a gun. I am not a hunter so I have no use for a gun. I don't really think a gun is going to even my chances against the government. But this is exactly what the pro-gun side seems to be arguing. And it seems to be what the audience is hearing, since the audience is going out and buying guns like they are about to be discontinued. Here is what you never hear in the gun control debate from either side. This is what I would say to the government when it sent in some stuffed shirt to promote gun control: Look, I have no need for guns. Most of my neighbors have no need for guns, unless they are hunters. If you want us to quit buying guns and ammunition in such outrageous numbers, why don't you quit scaring the shit out of us with all these faked murders like Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon? Why don't you quit arming the police with tanks and machine guns? Why don't you quit using the army and National Guard to run suspicionless checkpoints? Why don't you quit running drills in schools and small towns, with black helicopters and live ammunition? Why don't you quit tasering people to death for minor infractions? Why don't you quit building private jails to house people who have done next to nothing? Why don't you quit turning the DHS into a Gestapo? Maybe if you guys quit acting like Nazis, we would quit buying so many guns. Has that ever occurred to you? But you never hear that. You often hear some variation of the argument that the Constitution gives people the right to have arsenals of AR-15's, to protect themselves from the government. That isn't any more sensible than the government line. If we are going to debate the topic (rather than just allow that what is, is what must be), we might want to make some rational suggestions, such as that it isn't necessary for the government to be at war with its own people. We got along fine as a country for 225 years without a Department of Homeland Security, and it wouldn't be that hard to turn back the clock just 14 years, to before 2001. None of this is necessary, neither the arming of the citizenry nor the militarizing of the police force. If we got rid of a few bad people at the top, it would all end tomorrow. As it goes with that topic, it goes with most others. Neither side is ever telling you the truth, because they are both trying to make a buck off of you. The gun control people are trying to get more taxes for “Homeland Security,” while the gun advocates are hoping to sell you a gun. Just imagine the total market for domestic arms sales in the past five years. It boggles the mind. Which means the government is probably playing both sides, as usual. I would be willing to bet that most of the money spent on guns in the US since Obama took office has gone into the pockets of the same billionaires who are profiting from Homeland Security. It is doubtful that most folks have ever thought of that. Those who haven't should study the recent history of Smith&Wesson. Did you know that Smith&Wesson was bought out in a hostile takeover in 2001, and that the government was involved? Remember, 2001 was also year one of DHS. Coincidence? Did you know that the $200 million company was bought for $15 million, and that this rock-bottom price was due to fire-arm regulation by President Clinton? Did you know that after an initial plunge due to the Clinton regulation, their sales have since skyrocketed? Just a coincidence, right? Did you know that the buyer of Smith&Wesson was a start-up company named Saf-T-Hammer? We are told it was a maker of gun locks, but it wasn't. It was a start-up company with no history of making anything. “Saf-T-Hammer never manufactured that lock independently before buying out S&W, and does not now manufacture it separately from the guns.” This brings up the question of who does own Saf-T-Hammer. Well the company changed names to Smith and Wesson Holding Group, which now has 83% Institutional Ownership. What does that mean? It means the company is owned by institutions, mainly investment firms and banks. The two biggest owners are the Vanguard Group and Fidelity Investments, but other owners include the Royal Bank of Canada, ING, and Barclays. So my suspicion is proved true once again. The billionaire investors are making money off you both ways: they tax you for Homeland Security, which scares you into buying guns, and the money you spend on guns also goes to them. This list of institutional investors of Smith&Wesson rings a bell, since the top two appear on Project Censored's 2013 list of the world's top investment firms: 1 BlackRock US $3.560 trillion 2 UBS Switzerland $2.280 trillion 3 Allianz Germany $2.213 trillion 4 Vanguard Group US $2.080 trillion 5 State Street Global Advisors (SSgA) US $1.908 6 PIMCO (Pacific Investment Management Company) US $1.820 trillion 7 Fidelity Investments US $1.576 trillion 8 AXA Group France $1.393 trillion 9 JPMorgan Asset Management US $1.347 trillion 10 Credit Suisse Switzerland $1.279 trillion 11 BNY Mellon Asset Management US $1.299 trillion 12 HSBC UK $1.230 trillion 13 Deutsche Bank Germany $1.227 trillion The number is managed funds. Notice that Vanguard and Fidelity are high on the list. Blackrock bought out Barclays Investments in 2009, but Barclays still has company assets of over 2 trillion. Note, that is company assets for Barclays, not managed funds. Beyond that, all of these companies have been caught up in illegal activities in the past decade, including the gigantic LIBOR and ISDAfix scandals, in which these people were caught fixing the prices of just about everything. Many of them have been fined hundreds of millions of dollars, but they still refuse to obey the laws. Most of them have been caught laundering huge amounts of money, but again, they have just been slapped on the wrist and gone on as before. Vanguard was prosecuted by the government under the RICO Act for illegally investing clients' monies in offshore gambling sites. They bought off the court. You might also be interested to know that Vanguard and Blackrock are invested in Sturm, Ruger &Co., a competitor of Smith&Wesson. No matter what brand of gun you buy, they are raking in the money. The gurus are screwing you from both ends. The people they are hiring to debate gun control in the media on both sides are working for the banks. The escalation benefits them from all directions. So make a list of all the famous people selling both sides of this argument. No, really. Make an actual list. Write down all the people you love to hate who are on the other side. Then write down all the people that you think are on your side. Then ask yourself, “Are any of them speaking any sense?” Or are they all promoting this escalation one way or the other? This is how it goes, on all topics. So what pushed me over the edge on the greater question of famous people? What was the AHA moment? You may laugh, but it was Lyndon LaRouche. Someone said to me recently, “You know, what is weird is how right Lyndon LaRouche was.” And I got to thinking. Yes, he was right about a lot of things, and he was even right about the “out there” stuff, like the government pushing drugs [see Dope, Inc.], laundering money, fluoride, the financial meltdown, pedophilia, and so on. So I went back and studied his writings across the board. Do you know what I found? A higher-level guru, placed fairly far up the mountain to misdirect the most avant of the avant garde conspiracy theorists. I found he was a Marxist until he was almost 60, which of course I saw as a red flag. No one over thirty was still a Marxist in the US in 1970, except a few dupes and a few small-time spooks working the campuses. No true intellectual could stomach Marx's prose, much less his theory. I say that not as a champion of capitalism or of the US system in general, but only as a champion of reason. It should now be clear that Marxism was never anything else but a disguised replacement for Republicanism, created to appeal to the idealistic youth of the West who were disenchanted with their own failed institutions. That is, Socialism was dressed from the beginning to look like a fairer sister of Democracy/Republicanism, but it was actually a crone in poor make-up. It was purposely created to break down immediately into fascism, the way plastic is now made to break down when exposed to light. Marxism borrowed the egalitarian platitudes of Republicanism, and even outdid it in its flattering of the lower classes; but the theorists conveniently left out any of the hard facts of government, like constitutions or courts or human nature. And by resting the whole theory on the workers, Marx and his buddies knowingly built their edifice on sand. Though top-down governance is often or usually predatory, bottom-up governance is simply a contradiction in terms. You are just as likely to successfully run a country from workers' cooperatives as you are to run your house from the kids' bedroom. I am all in favor of trade unions and worker-owned companies; but at the same time I would not like to see a co-op of Walmart, McDonald's, and USPS employees running the country. While the system we have doesn't put the best people at the top, Marxism wouldn't either. But there were many other red flags with LaRouche, including his promotion of Leibniz, Abe Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, NAWAPA, SDI, and so on. It may seem strange to say it, but LaRouche was a gatekeeper like Chomsky, placed pretty far down the road to catch those who got too far ahead. Like Chomsky, LaRouche was instructed to admit to a large percentage of US and British crimes, to appeal to progressives and good researchers who had already discovered them. And also like Chomsky, LaRouche was there to prevent deeper truths from being discovered. Ironically, perhaps, LaRouche was—in most ways—positioned further up the mountain than Chomsky. LaRouche could admit to 911 where Chomsky couldn't. LaRouche could talk about outre crimes that wouldn't appeal to Chomsky's audience. And they were instructed to blow a very different smoke regarding Kennedy. While Chomsky pretended to be above the whole discussion, LaRouche was instructed to tell a new variant of the Oliver Stone story, intellectualizing it with the Yalta system and a new player, Mortimer Bloomfield. Notice in that link that LaRouche suggests Kennedy was killed for believing the US could win a war [“war-winning capability”] with the USSR. You have to be kidding me! Talk about muddying the waters with an absurdity. Do you really believe a US President could be too hawkish for the financiers behind him? This should only serve to remind us that LaRouche is himself a hawk, even hungrier for confrontation and new weapons systems than his colleague (I mean archenemy) Kissinger. Which brings up LaRouche's web of contacts. We are told that LaRouche traveled the world, having meetings with top people in many countries, including the Soviet Union. So how did he manage that? In 1967, at age 45, we are told he was teaching at New York City's Free School, but there is no listing anywhere for that. We are told a group of students from Columbia and City College came to his classes and suddenly the National Caucus of Labor Committees was born. But if LaRouche was charismatic enough to start this movement on his own, why didn't he start it earlier? Why did he wait until 1968, when he was 46? We must ask not just why his movement caught fire then, but how. How were all the magazines and books and travel funded? How did LaRouche manage to schedule meetings with important people, seeing that up to 1968 he was not one and had no contacts? Some would say I have some far-out ideas like LaRouche had in the 1970's. Do you think I can use those ideas to schedule meetings with the heads of state in Europe, Russia and Asia? Of course not. Revolutionary or nonmainstream ideas are precisely what prevent one from doing that. LaRouche's entire biography is a contradiction, since we are being sold the idea that he was attacking the mainstream leaders viciously, while at the same time taking meetings with them. You will say I am implying that SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) or parts of it were infiltrated by the government, but LaRouche himself tells us that. His NCLC was originally a faction of SDS, and although “it was originally a New Left organization influenced by Trotskyist ideas,” it was “opposed to other New Left organizations which LaRouche said were dominated by the Ford Foundation, Institute for Policy Studies and Herbert Marcuse.” If you can accept what he says—that other New Left organizations were dominated by these government think-tanks and foundations—why not his NCLC? LaRouche's organization has all the earmarks of late 1960's government programs, including brainwashing, violence, cultism, and created confusion, so why not ask the question? “LaRouche writes in his autobiography that in 1971 the NCLC formed 'intelligence units', and the following year started training members in paramilitary tactics.” Intelligence units? Does that sound like the language of a Marxist professor, or of a CIA agent? So if he is an agent, why did they later throw him in jail? Are you sure they did? I have shown you in recent papers that several famous people you thought were in jail probably never were, including Ezra Pound and Charles Manson. LaRouche's alleged time in jail simply glosses up his resume even more in the eyes of those who would follow him. Notice that LaRouche has always been encouraging confrontation. In the early years we are told his followers beat their Marxist foes with pipes and bats. I think it is just another planted story, but the form of the story is crucial. They want you to think there is a lot of political violence going on, even though there isn't; just as now they want you to think there are mass murders every month, although there aren't. The billionaires love a manufactured world of fear and chaos, because fear and chaos keep all markets brisk. In a world of love and satisfaction, all sales would plummet. This is why we saw George Bush telling people to go out and buy stuff after 911. They found that they had overplayed that one by a tad, and that people were so shocked they had stopped buying. You want to scare people just enough to make them buy stuff to decorate the bunker, but not enough to send them down into it. They learned their lesson there, and they keep the security level at a constant bright orange now, instead of blinking red. At orange, most people will be at Walmart every other day stocking up on toilet paper, baking soda, and camouflage pants; at red they will have pad-locked the shutters, armed the booby traps, and lit the candles. Some will say, “What about you? How do we know you aren't another posted guru, planted to misdirect us?” Well, I'm not famous, am I? I am not on TV, am I? I am not promoted by some studio or consortium or publisher or think-tank. No one is sending you here: if you got to these pages you got here on your own, probably by lucking out in a websearch. That is another difference between me and someone like LaRouche. Although most of the US articles about him over the years have been negative, they still wrote about him. You should find that curious in itself. Coverage is coverage, you know, positive or negative. As they say, all press is good press as long as they spell your name right. None of the articles on LaRouche over the years made any sense, because if LaRouche really were what the articles were claiming—a crazy cultist out to defame America and England—why were they writing about him? Why would the mainstream give someone like that the publicity? Remember, LaRouche was right about some things, and one of the things he was right about was the CIA's total control of the press. We didn't need him to tell us that, since we got proof of it from the Senate hearings in the late 1970's (see the Church Committee hearings). Well, given that, why would this controlled press want to publicize LaRouche at all? Why not just ignore him completely? That's what they do to people they really wish to bury, like me for instance. I don't even have a Wikipedia page. Go try to build a Wiki page for me, and see how long it lasts. By contrast, study LaRouche's Wikipedia page. Not only is it extremely long, it is not nearly as black as you might think it would be, given his professed stance against the mainstream. Normally, Wikipedia blackwashes people it doesn't like unmercifully. Although we see large parts of his page spun negative, we see surprisingly large parts spun positive. You will say those parts were written by his acolytes, but that is to ignore how Wikipedia normally works. Normally, if you go on a page of someone the institutions hate, you will find a complete blackwash. If you try to add any positive remarks or correct the negative ones, your comments will be deleted immediately. But we don't see that with LaRouche. That in itself is a sign I am right about him. I am not saying you should trust me. You shouldn't trust anyone, especially someone you haven't met in person. You should read everything closely and make a decision based on continuity and logic, not on trust. So how far back does this rule go, you will ask. Is every famous person in history a plant, or just the living ones? I intend the rule to apply to only the living ones, and the recently dead. I have shown in recent papers that we can take the rule back to the Civil War, but the further back we go the more exceptions there will be. My research is limited, of course, so I can't address every famous person who ever lived. But any famous person from the past who is still promoted heavily should immediately fall into your bag and ring a bell. I saw Alan Watts being promoted in strange ways in the film Her recently, and had I not already known he was an agent, I would have been alerted to him in that way. Going further back, I showed in a recent paper that Walt Whitman was being promoted in the film Kill Your Darlings. This was one of the red flags that outed him for me. Since the broad control of media didn't take effect until recently, there will no doubt be many exceptions to the rule even in the late 19th century and early 20th century. There may be some few exceptions still. But don't make the mistake of assuming that just because you have gone back before 1947 that the control no longer exists. It was less perfect and less broad, but it has existed for many centuries, and perhaps forever.

Voting is Useless: The Illusion of Choice If you’re a proud voter, I know what you’re thinking: “I believe in voting because A.) we live in a democracy, and B.) we have the freedom to, so C.) why not try to change the system from the inside?” But what if I told you that voting (and the entire notion of “authority” and “government”) is a type of cultural brainwashing based on nothing but lies to keep you distracted, enslaved, and consenting? What if I told you that voting is pointless, political campaigns are a charade, politicians are all megalomaniacal authoritarians, government is completely controlled by international banking and corporate oligarchies, and a better way is possible. And I’m going to prove it to you. Voting has been repeatedly shown to be unreliable and easily manipulatable without any public knowledge. Going beyond the unreliability of large-scale voting, and underneath the fundamental futility of democratic government in an unhealthy and uneducated society, a deeper issue is that the entire fundamental premise of society being a “democratic government” or even a “republic” nowadays is a complete fallacy. The fact is that government will never allow its core power structure to be challenged by fundamental change; it will only allow concessions like gay marriage or the decriminalization of marijuana. All candidates are pre-ordained and supported through mainstream media largely controlling public opinion. Sure, they allow puppets to be changed every few years and make concessions like gay marriage or decriminalizing marijuana. But what about the Central Banking system and the Federal Reserve that’s systematically devaluing the American currency? Why . I’m amazed that there are people who- after all the OBVIOUS corruption and perpetual global atrocities created and perpetuated by those in power- still can’t see the absolute illegitimacy of government. People are brainwashed to a flag-loving Statist. I get it. The brainwashed authoritarian indoctrination to the religious faith of government runs deep. But compared to pre-911, the corruption has become SO much more blatantly obvious, and information is far more readily available online that you literally have to CHOOSE to not be well informed. You have to CHOOSE to not give a shit. I’m astonished people remain silent about, much less continue to vote with the “hope” that it will fundamentally “change” anything substantial. How many times do billboards have to fall on your head before you start to see the signs? “Once the election is over, and once the winner is declared, everybody forgets about it. Most attempts are caught by the system. But there are cases that do slip through. Voter fraud undermines public confidence in democracy.” 2 There are many overseeing agencies of the de facto government which can overturn local decisions for any number of reasons. Therefore, state or provincial legislators often complain about an overpowering federal government usurping the rights of the states or provinces, while themselves working to increase the power of state government at the expense of city and corporation governments. The issues of property rights and government regulation, even when legalized on the State or provincial level, are frequently subjected to persecution when not legalized by the de-facto Federal Government, as has been shown with the issues of marijuana, gay marriage, and the mass invasion of migrants to destabilize local communities and create massive unemployment and division, to name a few. To place one’s hope in local government as a reliable bastion for justice and effective social transformation is to try to save a house consumed by flames by throwing cups of water in to the fire; while well meaning and perhaps marginally helpful for a moment, it is ultimately ineffectual against the Evil corporation masquerading as a governmental momentum corrupted beyond the wishful thinking of hope for change Even those who think limited government is the best option to strive for need only take a brief walk through history. America, widely known as the best attempt to create a country with limited government which recognizes and respects unalienable individual rights, wound up becoming the most militarized, coercive, imperialist authoritarian empire the world has ever known. The founders of America knew that government was a beast that easily grew out of hand, which is why emphasized the necessity of a system of checks and balances. However, as the times change, those checks and balances become archaic, inefficient, convoluted, obfuscated, obsolete, and thereby no longer work to keep the corporations government efficient, virtuous, and honest on all levels. This is the inevitability for all the corporations masquerading as governments. I still here the uneducated refer to China , or Russia, or Iran as countries , when we show them one hundred percent facts they are all corporation and all owned by one corporation the Vatican City State. Never, in the history of the world, anywhere on the planet, has the corporation government only PROTECTED individual rights. Instead, it has been the primary VIOLATOR of individual rights. Nonetheless, there are still many indoctrinated government supporters who insist that we cannot give up the institution of these corrupt government. Why not? Because, they say, we NEED it to do something that it has NEVER DONE, in order to protect us from injustices that it has ALWAYS itself inflicted on the people. Then they complain when I say that statism is immoral, irrational and faith-based. We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking when the parasites created them. The biggest misconception Americans or Canadians have is that Power will allow itself to be voted out of office. Being an American or Canadian has enslaved you over and over. You are not a Canadian or American you are a man or a woman. This is the first step to free yourself from the indoctrination. No man or woman has any authority over you. Once a government resorts to terror against its own population to get what it wants, it must keep using terror against its own population to get what it wants. A government that terrorizes its own people can never stop. If such a government ever lets the fear subside and rational thought return to the populace, that government is finished. Unable to grasp the situation, many nationalists will dismissively say, If you don’t like it, then you can just get out! If only it were so easy and just about one country Yet I, like many people living in a sick society, have thought to myself, Maybe I should move to a different country to escape all this madness, but let’s be realistic. Given the global control by the international cabal of corporate, banking, and political psychopaths, there really isn’t a place to go where people can be free without the inevitable encroachment and imposition by megalomaniacal institutions. However, some places may be more conducive to support, networking, and co-creating with likeminded individuals, which can be a great strategy! But if simple avoidance” is the underlying purpose, consider that avoiding this increasingly destructive global situation is like hiding in a closet while your home burns down. You can try to shut it out, but it’s not going away. In most cases, you’ve just temporarily secluded yourself and stopped being able to positively contribute on a larger scale. Furthermore, getting caught up in 3D Survivalist thinking instead of a more holistic, integral perspective is also a dead-end as history has repeatedly shown. But despite the non-stop bombardment of political drama on nearly every media outlet, when looking at the numbers of votes comparative to the total population of able-bodied voters, you’ll find an interesting trend: nearly half of the population DOES NOT VOTE. Of course, this isn’t discussed in the mainstream since it exposes the crumbling foothold of government. Analyze the data and you’ll see an overall trend indicating less voters, less care, and, despite the mainstream media’s propaganda, less and less confidence in government’s violence and lies. Conversely, it indicates a greater interest toward personal empowerment outside the regulations of the system and an awakening desire for individual liberty beyond the hollow, short-sighted rhetoric of authoritarianism. Pretty indicative of government’s illegitimacy, and its disastrous relationship with society, right? So, since willful ignorance or running away is selfishly futile, and trying to work within the system is completely useless and delusional, ultimately, we come to the question: What can we do instead of voting? Since culture is a consensus reflection of many individuals, if we wish to have a more conscious, compassionate, educated, responsible, and healthy society, then we who are awake enough to see, and privileged enough to act, must fundamentally strive- with all our being, in every moment we can muster- to become the change we wish to see in the world. So, how do we begin to do this? I have always believed there is only one way out. We must organize house to house. Neighbor to neighbor to build our own village or community. Create our wealth by working together to create our own opportunities such as business that make our local economy thrive not corporations who are our the enemy We have many who comprehend this and are encouraging others to comprehend this as the solution I have seen over the last 50 years of protests and creating new political parties to become elected in their corrupt system to fix their system from inside to no avail have always failed and will continue to fail. The system they created will never fail as it is 100 percent guaranteed to keep you enslaved Every protest was controlled and created by the Parasites with their agents of the corporations. Example the Trucker convoy was created by the Parasites to ensure the true messengers were silenced. I and many others worked vagrantly to work with the so called convoy organizers to stop wasting time on convoys to have temper tantrums like children screaming at an empty building on Ottawa honking horns. Stop promoting the Corporate flag of Canada to no avail, they did not want a solution they were bought and paid for by the corporation of Canada. I encouraged them we can use the convoy during the summer to go to town to town and have 50 thousand people go meet their brothers and sisters of a plan. Then move to the next town with a hundred thousand in the convey and start to educate the next town of our brothers and sisters. This would of started the solution we all been looking for This fell on deaf ears as the globalists who own the protests and convoy want nothing to do with a solution, they want the people to go in circles and slowly erode their hope. The Parasites know how to manipulate the masses with distractions The answer to this problem is we must have one mission, one agenda, one plan and all committed to achieve this. The plan is simple we restore Natural Law, we stop paying for our own enslavement. Seems pretty simple if we want a future but this message was always silenced because of the controlled agents hijacking your freedom and your future You know who the controlled agents were and grifters who stole millions of dollars of your hard earned blood sweat and labour dollars to false idols and masquerading as your friend when they were your foe Moving forward, natural law wasn't just about moral obligations but also about individual rights. Birthed essence, these rights included life, liberty, and property—an echo that resounded powerfully with the American Founding Fathers. The logic here is straightforward. If men and women naturally hold rights by virtue of their human nature, any government must respect these rights to maintain legitimacy. A government that fails in this regard loses its right to govern. A government that acknowledged and protected the natural rights of men and women. It's also crucial to understand that natural law played a role not just in declaring rights but also in limiting government power. The Framers carefully created a system of checks and balances designed to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. They wanted to make sure no one's natural rights could be easily trampled. This deep-seated respect for natural law is what provided a rationale for the structure of the American government. It wasn't just about creating laws and policies but aligning them with an existing, timeless moral order. The Founders' design was intended to serve as a safeguard for the natural rights everyone is born with, ensuring that the government remained an instrument for the people, not a force against them. In analyzing the Declaration of Independence, we find the essence of natural law principles intricately incorporated into its text. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and Property. These rights are depicted as self-evident truths, aligning with the natural law view that such principles are inherent to human nature and universal. They do not depend on the whims of governments or external authorities but are intrinsic to our existence. We the People' are better able to protect and advance freedom and opportunity for all. Together, these principles bind diverse, self-governing people together in communities and promote a healthy civil society. Many have tried to use their system of voting, the constitution, the courts, common law, UCC, proof of claim, and numerous other endeavors to stop them from intruding on our unalienable rights and has been effortlessly blocked at every level So I urge you to consider what I have said today and help me help others grasp the magnitude of this serious reality we face at this critical point in history We must forge forward with one message we the people must restore natural law now not later. We may struggle walking away from their corrupt system. But its clear if we do not we are finished because the globalists only have one plan and we know it as they deliberately murdered 100 million people with the kill shot. Even when ten of thousands proved it was designed for mass murder. That alone must sink in! another example as Smith the CEO for Alberta or to the uneducated people the new acting Premier of the corporation of Alberta did nothing after she was selected to investigate all the crimes against us all. Nothing changed at all It was business as usual for the corporation more theft more crimes. I hope this message Resonates with you - We must push forward and build our owns system even though it may be hard we have no choice. We continue with the charade we surely will be murdered or a slow painful death, We leave their system and build our own system we may struggle for a while but the opportunities are ours to forge forward to build a future for ourselves and our next generation. Please share and like the video Its up to all of us to be committed to one powerful message of a solution I added a video at the end of my journey to educate a solution and a song me and Ed wrote many years back when Ed and I were young men. Time sure flies Thank You for taking the time to view this video - I appreciate everyone who support our channel and add your ideas Thank you again greatly appreciated Dallas