Last week I watched an “Emergency News Broadcast” from Rodney Howard-Brown (RHB), which I thoroughly recommend to you as worthy of careful consideration and to which I will turn to specifically consider in the latter parts of this article. You can watch it here. However, let us review how we have got to this place and what it is that makes even countenancing such an extreme assertion regarding COVID, perhaps reasonable and rational.
- RHB is the pastor of the River Church in Florida who gained worldwide notoriety over a period of 24-hours in March 2020 when he was arrested for refusing to comply with a city ordinance closing the churches. The legacy of that incident was that within 24-hours of his arrest, the Florida governor made churches an “essential service” (which, whether or not we are religious, is correct) and Floridians have enjoyed the freest conditions in the US. Such is their freedom, that politicians from the most repressive States who declined to offer their own citizens the same freedom (such as New York) were frequently caught (maskless), enjoying the Florida hospitality. Even more significantly, many businesses of those same locked down States have been heading to Florida to relocate their operations. The other States who followed Florida’s examples, are also seeing waves of emigration.
- The socio-economic consequences of the management of the pandemic, with the mass closures of small and medium businesses (as well as some larger ones) and the concentration of economic power in government (in the sense we have been forced to become dependent on the government) and “lawless” transnational corporations, has been one of my chief criticisms of it and one of the reasons I concluded this was an orchestrated worldwide event by the moneyed and eugenically inspired elite who have been openly advocating for radical population reduction for most of the last one hundred and twenty years. Similarly, the early demonisation of “cash” as a viral spreading medium, has meant a large number of businesses now no longer process cash at all. You pay electronically, or you do not pay at all. “Cashless” has long been an aim of the WEF (World Economic Forum) driven new economics since its early pilot experiments in New Zealand in the late 1980s, for it allows social engineering on a dramatic scale.
- Watching 30 minutes of Klaus Schwab or hearing Canadian bankers talk about “the merging of your digital and personal identity” is enough for you to realise that the “opportunity of the pandemic to advance what we were planning” (a neat snippet from an early broadcast by Justin Trudeau), is one of the drivers towards keeping the WHO in charge of the international health scene. If you can maintain an independence from the “digital” world, you can maintain a level of autonomy and independence from government interference (benevolent or otherwise). Rather like the “scraps” of Demolition Man (the 1993 film starring Wesley Snipes and Sylvester Stallone), you are a “constant irritation to the harmony of their existence”, you are those who choose to live outside of the utopia that are most wise benefactors have prepared for us, and to which we should give unending loyalty and bestow gracious thanks for their bountiful beneficence.
- What was also disturbing, in my nation (the UK) at least, and from what I could see in all sorts of other Western nations, that even as the risk from COVID was receding, vaccine mandates were becoming more severe. It seemed in our own nation we were days from “vaccination teams” going door-to-door to unvaccinated households “offering” vaccination. Refusal to comply was going to mean the inability to access any kind of social establishment and being restricted to shopping at specific locations at specific times that you might not be a “risk” to the wider community. It would be hard to believe that the freedoms which my great grandparents fought for, were being casually dismissed in the name of a public health crisis, never to be returned. Only the utterly courageous stand of the Canadian truckers seemed to press the panic button amongst the globalists and suddenly “we all have to learn to live with COVID”.
- There also appeared a convenient “war” which distracts the world and rehabilitates some of the same failed Western politicians who could somehow applaud Zelensky for his stand against “totalitarianism” when two weeks before they were beating up their own citizens for refusing to comply with government mandates.
- Even as we speak (April 2022), the Chinese mega-city of Shanghai was locked down again, it was being policed by drones using facial recognition software which, if it identified people had transgressed the lockdown, debited fines directly from their bank account. (Can you imagine the problems being caused by false positives?) Reports from within Shanghai leaked out were showing people screaming from their high-rises for food but then being fined for being on their balconies in an “unauthorised” fashion. This, of course, is all done in the name of the “common good” and “social cohesion”. As I understand it, restrictions had to be lifted to a degree because people got so hungry, they began descending on distribution centres and pillaging the food.
Someone made the comment that the Chinese were doing what the social planners of the WEF wanted to introduce worldwide to create a more equal, fairer, more ordered, and calmer world. Klaus Schwab himself indicated that short-term instability and disruption in the years to come was a price well worth paying during this “revolution” into a new world order. We were of course, seeing the second coming of the communist revolution with a more benign physiognomy, but equally as brutal psychology. The degree to which even neighbours were prepared to film each other on their iPhones and then report them via anonymous government and police websites demonstrate how far down the totalitarian path we had already walked.
However, despite my large amount of research surrounding the COVID pandemic and its management, I had not fully appreciated the degree of sophistication and the depravity of those who orchestrated it which our presenter does an excellent job of firming up in my understanding of the details. I had come to appreciate the utter obsession during the last 100 years of the very richest of the world with “population control”. In many ways, the eugenicist agenda, has been through various incarnations during the 20th century, the “environmentalist, green revolution and Family Planning” good, the “colonial forced sterilisation of undesirables” bad and the Nazi ugly.
What the “Emergency broadcast” showed was the technocratic face of the new world order science and its complete lack of any moral context. We had already seen the prostitution of science and scientists on a global scale to peddle a narrative but what RHB’s broadcast captured was the utter sophistication, ingenuity and ruthlessness that characterised the application of science to prototype a solution to the world population “crisis”. If you have ever studied the engineering sophistication of the delivery system for Zyklon B at Auschwitz, you realise why films such as Underseige-2 have classic lines such as “how can individuals like this have senior positions in one of our top intelligence agencies?” be answered with “sane men do not build weapons like this”. Likewise, when I studied “madness” and “insanity” in my psychology of religion undergraduate course, the triumphant conclusion of my instructor was simply “madness is socially constructed and defined”, from which we can get the pragmatic maxim that even the most perverse and morally bankrupt motivations can be transformed into merciful angels of light with some creative moral calculus that would cause Bentham to be dancing in his grave.
Thus, in this age of tough choices requiring tougher visionary choices, the threat of over-population requires direct action now. This is where we get a glimpse of what the broadcast protagonist presents to us. Apparently, he is a retired medical practitioner (with the title ‘Dr’) who was alarmed in May 2020 with a memo from Anthony Fauci that set the direction of the research into what drug therapies could be used to treat early stage COVID. The direction of the research was such that it has mandated only a single drug was to be used to treat early stage COVID from babies just weighing a few pounds. All other drugs, including generic anti-virals such as HCQ and Ivermectin, and mono-clonal antibody therapies, were prohibited despite consistent and wide-ranging evidence of their efficacy and the known, deleterious effects of the mandated drug. The latter is not a minor point, for there are major studies highlighted that provided empirical evidence of multiple adverse effects of the mandated drug on major organs which has since been borne out with the actual data. Dangers of the booster shots are even finding their way inadvertently onto Sports talk shows where the commentators are highlighting the number of athletes who have suffered adverse reactions.
This individual had become known as the R…. man (after the drug) and has dedicated himself to trying to educate people about the dangers of the drug for routine treatment. However, it describes a moment of revelation for him when a practicing physician sent him a text with the question, “if you were bitten by a snake, would you get anti-toxins?”. This puzzled the R…. man, but the story unfolds as to how both early research into COVID-deaths, an “assassinated” early researcher (at a major University whose boss still has not published the results) and now comprehensive analysis of a cohort of New York City COVID deaths have led to the conclusions:
- COVID is in fact a humanised version of snake venom of the King Cobra and Krait snakes.
- By “humanised” it means scientific research has painfully and meticulously reconstructed the very protein and poly-peptide structures within the venom – numerous, peer-reviewed published research studies are cited illustrating how shortly before the pandemic patents were filed by a research company for these synthesised compounds.
- mRNA technology has been progressively refined to stabilise and deliver these compounds in a protective carrier which are added as ingredients to the “vaccines” which allows targeted euthanasia.
- One characteristic of these stabilising compounds is that they are magnetic – this helps explain the previously unexplained behaviour (other than by creative conspiracy theories) of people becoming magnetic around their injection sites.
- COVID has been delivered to targeted population groups via the water supply – cities were informed, apparently through testing wastewater, of imminent outbreaks.
- The same companies that manufacture the vaccine also own the patents on the synthetic compounds and self-declared a “conflict of interest” in their academic papers.
- The DoD, UN and CDC are jointly funding a spin-off company for “treating snake bites” despite there only being 120000 snake bite deaths a year.
- The analysis of deaths through COVID demonstrate a pattern consistent with paralysis of the diaphragm that occurs through these particular venoms and the particular patterns of organ failures demonstrate a pattern consistent with the toxic effects of these venoms.
- The venom has increased toxicity if applied at regular intervals after the initial infusion – this was why such extreme worldwide pressure was (and still is in some places) being put on people to receive their booster shots.
- By ensuring hospitalisation was the only treatment option available, euthanising drugs could be used as part of the treatment, particularly once people are sedated for ventilation.
- Some specific religious motivations governed the instigators of the pandemic (mentioned specifically below).
So, what are we to make of these claims? Particularly from someone like myself who is totally convinced of the synthetic nature of the pathogen and the organised nature of the pandemic.
Well, to assert that COVID has no viral dimension seems to be negating much of the research regarding its origination, its genomic sequencing and the like. That story in itself is a complex web of gain of function research, military research facilities and joint US-Canadian-Chinese, UK-US etc projects which create synthetic and extremely contagious viruses for use as biological weapons. I have written about that at length during my initial research.
However, in fairness to the presentation, they make the point there is an extremely fine line between virus and venom with even the etymology of the word “virus” communicating that to us. A self-replicating protein with all sorts of polypeptides that behaves with some kind of chemical determinism in a biological environment of our bodies could well be argued to be demonstrating “viral” characteristics. The “symptoms” of venom poisoning could well, in good faith, be ascribed to a virus “caught” from a snake bite by someone familiar with viruses but unfamiliar with venom.
The mass vaccination programme would indeed provide an ideal cover for the dissemination of specialised vaccine batches that contain these magnetically sheathed mRNA compounds which would explain the unusual behaviour some vaccine takers noted and were alarmed by whilst allowing professionals to accuse those suffering from adverse reactions as “caught up in anti-vaccine hysteria”. It is certainly plausible that if population is indeed the “crisis” it is made out to be, this was prototyping the direct action to avert the crisis. It established the protocols for mandating vaccination in response to a perceived public health threat and trialled the technologies for ensuring compliance in a population group, even to the level of enforcing vaccination as a condition of employment or commerce. It allowed profiling and predictions of the amount of resistance within different sections of the population.
It was ethically defended as a protocol established through the weight of pragmatic necessity and though at first glance ruthless and brutal, it was acting in the best interests of humanity. This last comment is perhaps worth special attention if you have watched the presentation and picked up on some of the religious claims made by the presenter. In broad terms, I would agree with those that assert that one of the primary aims of the pandemic was to undermine the authority of specifically Christian churches within Western culture in order to reinforce the authority of and the dependence on, government. By demonstrating that it was in fact the State that could rescue you from the virus rather than the “healing” allegedly available through Psalm 91 or the practice of the laying on of hands or other “sacraments” of the church, it served to undermine the role and authority these institutions had within the population. Indeed, many “mega-churches” closed to never open again or if they tried to open, nobody showed up.
This secular reasoning of the protagonists did indeed have weight where the church was merely a sociological phenomenon and “God” as a present and personal presence, was nowhere to be found. What we witnessed during the almost universal compliance of these religious institutions to the State, was a demonstration that they did not believe what they claimed to believe and quite correctly, people abandoned them either for the vaccine or for the few places that did believe what they said they believed.
This pattern of secular humanistic thinking is not unprecedented or unusual, many a humanist has made it a priority of their plan for humanity that “religion was to be seen as the enemy of all moral progress” (as the great Bertrand Russell had put it). What we have witnessed with the pandemic could merely be seen as the technocratic version of the humanist programme that was previously fought in the hallowed halls of academia or the media and had lacked the technological resources until now to operate on the wider human consciousness. Thus, I do believe there will be further, more severe pandemic events of which this served as an extended pilot, that will push us towards what globalists believe is the next industrial revolution that organises humanity according to a utopian and benevolent, but totalitarian vision.
However, where I believe the presenter sounded a false note was the idea that inseminating us with “snake” venom somehow makes us more satanic in nature, and not merely the creatures of God (the pandemic thus being a satanic plot). Whilst I am happy to accept it was indeed a satanic plot (one of my earliest and most well-read commentaries on the pandemic might be seen as asserting this), I believe the view presented is well beyond the Christian understanding of humanity as a whole and particularly antithetical to what it is that constitutes the individual human being in any sense with respect to orthodox Christian theology.
This is because the individual person is primarily a spirit being, clothed in a body and possessing the rational faculties of the soul. A person is influenced to an important degree by their biology and how they relate to the physical world and the chemical processes of their brain do indeed influence their actions and emotions. Individuals can indeed become dependent on physical substances and develop complexes which militate against acting in their own good (in a rational way). It is even defensible that state actors have actively introduced compounds into food and water to influence social behaviour and we would do well to heed the wider injunctions within the scriptures regarding what we eat and what our relation to government is.
However, to assert that via an exotic chemical cocktail modelled after snake venom, will make us more satanic is a false assertion and an irrational jump from an otherwise defensible position the presenter took. It might indeed be the case that Christians who took the vaccination will need some kind of ministry to recover from side effects or injuries, and personal repentance for trusting in a State provided vaccine rather than in the healing or preserving power of God to keep them well. After the same manner, it could be considered an act of faithlessness and lead to the increase of ungodly spiritual influences in their lives.
However, that is different than describing such a person as apostate and the graceful mercy of God is able to restore those who by lack of example or by force of fear or pressure felt obliged, or even in good confidence in the science, were happy to take vaccines and boosters until the prospect of a third, fourth, fifth (now sixth) suggested that there was in fact no good reason to receive further shots even when threatened by political and social sanction. It is a simple process to repent and to be restored.
So, in final conclusion, I would certainly recommend listening to the presentation and assessing the evidence. There are plenty of thought-provoking references to real live research and there is provided an empirically adequate theory with respect to the architecting of much of the COVID pandemic. Of course, empirical adequacy is distinct from truth and my personal feeling is that though there is a lot of substantive material that is of use, and it explains some previously unexplained phenomena, we do not need to fear injections that dilute the nature of God in us.
 It is grim to now witness the same, now penitent scientists or media pundits criticise the fear-filled narratives like ‘Stay Home and Save Lives’ replete with the dying patient in the hospital bed which were plastered over every available space to promote the pandemic in its early days.
 Bentham (1748-1832) proposed a moral “calculus”, that would allow the assessment of whether an action was right or wrong (and the corollaries, good or bad) by analysing whether it would create the “greatest happiness in the greatest number”. It was a strictly non-religious ethical theory of moral action which was foundational to utilitarianism which exerted a large influence on the socialism and pragmatism of succeeding generations.
 I have personal, eye-witness testimony from some of those.
 Thus, for those churches like those of RHB, his supporters and his fellow travellers who refused to comply, their churches have grown dramatically.
 One senior leader in my area who is a research scientist in real life, took this position, regarding the ?-er jab as “ancient technology” and were motivated to take the jab “so that they could see their mother” who was in a home. Other leaders I know took two jabs for similar personal reasons and then said, “no more”, despite government edicts that refusal to take future jabs would mean their status would revert to “unvaccinated” and “unprotected”. The very fact that these were claimed as identical “booster” jabs which were increasingly ineffective against new variants made it all the more perplexing that they should be mandated.
 In retrospect, you could well conclude the entire pandemic and vaccination programme was a financial scam that made, last count, over 55bn for one of the manufacturers. The same company now has “thirteen primary pathogens” that it wishes to counter with new mRNA vaccines.