Original subtitles

At the very beginning of this to stay within the four walls of the laws as we have them today

I've only asked for the laws to be upheld if we have laws if we have what we call fair play

Then let's actually play by the rules the courts across the board made an unambiguous

declaration that we were in a public health emergency and that

the World Health Organization and the CDC were the only arbiters of what the facts were and

So you could not argue the facts gates represents 88% of the donation

To the World Health Organization from donor organizations and agencies by any definition. That's a controlling interest

They had no problem going after osteopaths and chiropractors and people who were advocating for zinc or hydroxychloroquine

And they were shutting people down. They were taking people's licenses

So the deceptive medical practices law was very much in play

We will cite you and if we need to we will arrest you and we will take you to jail

So I think we're gonna get different pathogens

We already said the NIFA craze that was going on in India and we've got a bunch of other toxins that are being discussed

Apocalypses have been overrated every time they've been promoted and by the way human history is filled with apocalypse forecasts and they all suck

we forget that we have a conscious role to play in and

If we give the frequency of evil the carrier frequency on which it can transmit guess what will be transmitted evil

We have done a terrible job as humanity and learning how to grieve and

Even a worse job in understanding how to grieve for people who have been cruel to us I

Had a very particularly interesting experience

Because in my family I have not only several public health

very senior people my oldest brother works at CDC and

Was one of the celebrated

members of the Ebola team that went to

You know Africa and what I found was that

Obviously I was on the wrong side of their

existential view of things and

My very outspoken position had led to an increased distance of an already broken family

So I had a personal narrative which was I was trying to always be respectful of people

That I do actually have a level of affection for even though our lives have gone very different directions and I tried to

Always measure how I spoke in a way that said if my brother at CDC listened to what I said, I

know he would vigorously disagree with me, but I wonder if he could hear in my voice a

fundamental respect for humanity

That says we can have honest discourse we can have honest disagreement and we can still arrive at a human

response at the end and

For me up until the rollout of the injection

That felt like a possible

potentially attainable goal

But when people were coerced

manipulated and lied to

To first get themselves injected and then have you can't come to the family reunion

You can't come to a wedding. You can't come to a school. You can't come to a whatever unless you have evidence of injection

When coercion became part of the narrative I

lost my

capacity to hold that equanimity

because this went from an honest disagreement to murder and

I had to do everything I could and I still do to restrain myself from the recognition

That I had spent a year and a half before all this started

Publicly trying to pump the brakes on the rollout of what was going to ultimately kill human beings

And I was not only ridiculed for the positions that I took

But I lost an enormous amount of both business and social interactions because of it

So for me, it was a deeply personal thing

This was one of those things where I indicted my own performance

For having failed to alert people at a level that would have gotten them to stop it before it happened

and

so if I were to say that I had a dark night of the soul moment I

Would say that early early in 21 going into the middle of 21. I

Was pretty upset that somehow or another there was an inadequacy in what I communicated or how I communicated it

And I started doing a real deep examination of what had I done wrong

Because I actually wanted to do something in a clear and compelling enough way

Whether it was planned emic with Mickey Willis whether it was the butterfly of the week

Which is the show that Kim and I did whether it was the activate humanity platform that I also did

I wanted somehow to communicate to enough people

Don't fall for it. Don't let your family get injured by it. Don't let your kids get injured by it

don't let all of these things happen and

Tragically, I found that there was no one

Not on the Liberty side

Not on the alleged freedom

Opposition movement and certainly nobody on the other side who was willing to even hold the dialogue

That would say hey shouldn't we examine this and so what happened interestingly for me is that the entirety of 2021 I

judged my contribution as largely a failure and

That's a very egoic personal just you know reflective injury where I'm sitting there going

I didn't succeed in doing what I wanted to do

And across 2021 I worked very hard to see if I could do something to change that trajectory for myself

And so I laid out a series of legal arguments that ultimately were embraced by a group of attorneys in Idaho and in Louisiana

Which gave rise to the first filing that ever was done to try to block the CMS mandate the the medical

mandate that was associated with the injections and

Throughout the back end of 2021 going into the spring of 2022 I

Actually worked to prepare and ultimately filed the first case in federal court

About the illegality of the coercive mandate on the health care providers the equal opportunity

Commission's opinion that said that employers were authorized to in fact coerce

Employees to do things is

Exactly the same thing that happened in 1920s when the Nazi Party decided that it was employers who had to implement their programs because they knew

In Germany at the time the rules that they were making were actually illegal in Germany

But they could enforce it through organized labor and employment law and so the methodology by the way if you go back and look

At the 1947 transcripts of the Nuremberg trials. This is ripped right out of the pages

I mean it is unambiguous that this was a plan program that said we know what we're doing is a violation of constitutional rights

And the Bill of Rights we know it's a violation of the law

But we're gonna allow employers to be the implementation arm

Which is the bookend to the Defense Department's rollout because remember

Ati and answer the companies that got the operation warp speed contract which by the way had to get independent

Jag review not once but twice to make sure that if the Department of Defense was the agency through which all these things rolled out

That there wouldn't ultimately be a liability that would flow back up to the Defense Department

And those Jag reviews are a matter of public record which was in fact the the at the time

US Attorney General William Barr

Kicking the can over to the Department of Defense the Jag attorneys reviewing on behalf of the Department of Defense a

double opinion that allowed ati as a

Contracting entity to essentially get a hard pass on any liability ultimately back to the Department of Defense

If we look at these as bookends right you have the DOD on the one hand as the agent of distribution and you have employers as

The means by which that distribution happens. It's not surprising at all that the effectiveness was absolute

because now you have a military op on one side and

You have an authorized liability proof

Distribution agency on the other side it was brilliantly executed, but it was absolutely criminal

so while the rest of what I'm going to call the Liberty movement moved down the pathway of

speaking about the violations of individual liberties and the violation of basic health provisions and the

violation of the patient

Doctor relationship and all the things which are actually correct in terms of the assessment of there was something wrong there I

Decided to swing the pendulum even further towards I'm gonna stay absolutely laser focused on the criminality of what was happening

And as I've said in numerous interviews and as I continue to say

we have to go back to 1913 to understand this crime and

Specifically what we have to do is we have to look at the Rockefeller Foundation and then a few years later the Wellcome Trust

Which became the colluding parties that authorized the idea of allopathic medicine becoming the agency through which

behavior modification will be done through medicine

Remember that the Flexner report had come out and it basically said that if you had another way of healing other than the

Industrial pharmaceutical way of healing it was going to be deemed quackery and we were gonna throw it out the window

Shortly thereafter you had the Wellcome Trust being set up and if you look at the Wellcome Trust

Going into the Second World War it was very explicitly the commercial offense of the United Kingdom on the German

Pharmaceutical chemical industrial complex so to the point where if people want to they can go back and they can look at literal battle plans

I don't know what mean metaphoric

Actual battle plans drawn by the Wellcome Trust on how you invade Germany to take out the pharmaceutical

Manufacturers and the chemical manufacturers of Germany so when I say it was a battle, I'm not metaphoric in this there's actually

Archive documents that show you that they had battle plans about how to take out the various you know chloroquines and the various

drugs for malaria the

Aspirins all kinds of things and it's bizarre to look at this obviously cocaine one of the very major pieces of that

Pharmacopeia back then which was an enormous part of the business of the pharmaceutical end disease in the late 20s and early 30s

And so if we don't go back in time

We actually missed the point that the Rockefeller Foundation and the Wellcome Trust became the organizing entities which ultimately in 1947

Put the World Health Organization on the map

But what's really interesting in that is in the

Charter of the UN affiliated organizations for the World Health Organization

they wrote into the Charter the

absolute

liability shield from all criminal prosecution in perpetuity for any

person associated with the World Health Organization and its and any of its activities

Where it quite specifically goes down to the level of saying you cannot be prosecuted for any crime of any manner in any way

As long as you do it under the umbrella of the World Health Organization

It's important to realize that when we talk about the World Health Organization. We're not talking about an

Institution of the United Nations. We're talking about a criminal

Conspiracy that was put in place by two

Foundations who had a commercial interest in building a criminal liability shield for themselves

That's what it is never was a health organization. It was a criminal organization and

By criminal I literally mean that under the Clayton Act in the United States and under the Sherman Act in the United States and

Under the Competitiveness laws of Europe

What they did was a crime

They colluded they price-fixed they did all of the things which were antitrust violations

But put it under the umbrella of public health and everybody's supposed to go. Oh, they're doing it for the good of humanity

Except when you look at the actual financial statements of the World Health Organization you find out that by 1950 and then again in 1955

The singular focus of the World Health Organization was are you ready for this vaccine promotion?

We have the director general of the World Health Organization

Going one step further and saying and I'm quoting this is about population control

Now what does that mean? That means that when we're taking orders from the World Health Organization, we're not

and

Fast forward to the Gates Foundation, which most people don't realize

Was an undisclosed settlement between the US Department of Justice and the gates

convicted

felony antitrust violations

Right. This was not there was an allegation Microsoft did bad things. This is a they were convicted of antitrust crimes

quite mysteriously the Gates Foundation just shows up and

Instantaneously starts laundering money into are you ready for this the World Health Organization?

If you look at the financial statements beginning with the Gates Foundation when it was established you start seeing an anomaly

It used to be that UN associated organizations and specifically the World Health Organization

Had two line items for most countries the country through

Organization like the State Department or through a line item budget would allocate money to the World Health Organization

And then there's the corporation for the same country and there's another allocation coming from there

but with

Welcome Trust Rockefeller Foundation and Gates Foundation and the minor players like the Bloomberg Foundation and a couple others now

But mostly the top three

Suddenly, we actually have the formation of what we called the global preparedness monitoring board. Well, who's sitting on that?

Dr. Elias from the Gates Foundation Anthony Fauci from an IAD, you know, Jeremy far from the Welcome Trust

I mean, this is a criminal conspiracy and I'm not saying that from the standpoint of conspiracy theory

I'm saying that from the definition of what it means to be a criminal conspiracy

And so if you ask the question, which is a legitimate thing to do

Was the FDA was the CDC following orders from the who the answer is?

Asterix almost but who were they really following orders from and

That's where you get into the nasty answer

Which is the answer was that interlocking directorate that violation of antitrust laws?

That corporate machine not health not you know

We're out for the good of humanity that corporate criminal

Conspiratorial organization that was guilty at the time of racketeering was guilty at the time of interlocking directorates all felonies

Was guilty at the time of price fixing another felony which was guilty at the time of actually suppressing commercial alternatives

Which is called market allocation another felony that criminal organization announced that it was going to take over the world and they did

But we have to name the names. It wasn't just the World Health Organization

Anybody thinks that Tadris is smart enough to pull this off is delusional

He's a puppet and there's a giant stick up his ass, which is what's making his mouth move

But who's moving the stick for the puppet and that is welcome gates and Rockefeller

By 2023 which is kind of where we are right now

Gates represents 88% of the donation to the World Health Organization from donor organizations and agencies

by any definition, that's a controlling interest

So is it independent? No, is it the World Health Organization?

Nonprofit in Switzerland. No, this even violates Swiss law

Everything I'm saying is a violation of Swiss law if we think about how bizarre it is that we have the

Essentially the extension of the Carnegie Foundation's eugenics office, which they put at Cold Spring Harbor labs back in the early 1900s

The continuation of that with the explicit inclusion of that as an agenda in the 1950s when the World Health Organization gets off the ground

the ongoing nature of Bill Gates getting up and talking about how there's too many people on the earth and Bloomberg and others getting up and

Saying we need to figure out how to control populations in

2011 when we had the decade of the vaccines publication come out of the global preparedness monitoring board

We had a very explicit statement that said that if we have vaccinations where we need them

We will actually see potentially as much as a 20% reduction in the population on earth

Those are not allegations. Those are stated objectives

But if we go and look at an examine what's underneath that what you'll see is that

Everything points back to a date in history that people don't

actually understand well at all and that is

1944

1944 at the Bretton Woods Conference

Which in and of itself is an anomaly

But I want to put a pin in it because it's the biggest piece of hope that we have on earth

So let's put a pin in this and come back to it

When we actually saw the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944

What we saw was a group of then allies who got together

before the end of the Second World War and

Came up with this program and the program was we're going to assume that we win the war which by the time

1944 wasn't a foregone conclusion

We didn't know we were going to win the war in 1944 and the allies certainly had every reason to believe that maybe it wouldn't

Go their way

But the agreement was if we win then we're going to create this multilateral agency program

Which is what the establishment of the International Monetary Fund?

The establishment of what became the World Bank the establishment of what was the League of Nations which became the United Nations

the establishment of all of these multilateral agencies and with no

Public oversight whatsoever and this is so critical to understand they got to write laws for themselves

Not kind of like diplomatic community laws like full immunity from every crime that they would ever do laws

And if you go back and you read the Charter you sit back and kind of sit a little bit in awe

Nobody at any point in time raised their hand going under what authority

Does a group of 120 people on earth have to just make their own laws and then have them stick

Like think of how ridiculous that is

But then also think about why isn't that we're not doing the same thing

Why don't we have a Bretton Woods of responsible humans?

Why don't we actually do what that same group did? Why don't we have the audacity of sitting down and going well?

What's the precedent I?

Don't know the World Bank the IMF the World Trade Organization the United Nations. Why don't we actually do it?

It never was authorized

There was never

Permission granted to absolve yourself of criminal liability. They just gave it to themselves

And I would encourage people who are actually listening and thinking about this particular conversation

Go back and read the final

Presentation of Morgenthau at Bretton Woods because if you go back and read it you'll go

That's just a dude

He wasn't elected

He wasn't you know, he didn't have any legislative or judicial or executive authority

He just was a dude and he just said I'm gonna take over the world and

We let him take over the world

Then as now it was actually the Rockefeller Foundation and the Wellcome Trust and

At the time those were the two biggest check writers and then after that we had a bunch of other multilateral donors

But the big ones I mean Ford was very involved other big corporations were very involved at the time, but it was just

company sponsored

So we could actually have Elon Musk. Oh, hey, guess what Bretton Woods 2.0. Let's do it and it would be that ludicrous

Klaus Schwab is the same thing most people don't remember that the World Economic Forum almost went bankrupt and

But for some economic support largely provided by a guy in Melbourne, Australia

Which has an interesting link to the draconian lockdown in Victoria in Australia and the horse

Trampling of people and the you know people getting dragged out of their homes for their Facebook posts and everything else

That Melbourne that Victoria the guy who actually kept Klaus Schwab alive when WEF was almost going out of business

Was in Australia very few people actually know that

But we should and we should talk about that. We should talk about why

WEF was allowed to continue to exist at the time when Klaus Schwab had steered it right into the iceberg and

Then we should ask. Well, why was it?

Kept alive and what is it really not unlike the Gates Foundation. There's a story behind the story

WEF is a marketing arm of stupidity

To see how many things you can say like a uval harari

Saying that we don't need to have reproduction after 2030 and what happens is that they say ridiculous things and

Then people get whipped up into a frenzy over we're gonna have 15-minute cities. We're gonna have digital currency

We're gonna have this we're gonna have that we're gonna have something else and nobody stops and says hold on a minute

Why don't we just

Not let his voice be heard

Because we could if we say no airtime to you've all

in fact hashtag silence you've all

Hashtag silence Klaus, right? Where's that?

What if we actually just didn't let their message go anywhere?

Well, they would actually collapse on the ground in a heap as the very evidentiary

Hollow beings that they are and their minions which work within their organizations would all go

You know what Davos really isn't fun anymore and they'd stop going

We're the problem and if we took their voice away, they would have no voice and

This is the part that gets really uncomfortable because too many people tell me oh, but they're all powerful. No

You're giving them power

It is easy for me to listen to you vol harari and not share the stupidity of a sociopath

It's easy to do that

Just like I would have no problem not sharing something Bill Gates said

Just like I have no problem not sharing something as stupid as anything that comes out of the mouth of Joe Biden

I don't have a need to share it and I think we'd do ourselves a great favor if we backed off of

our promulgation of their message and

Just said why don't we actually I don't know share messages that maybe are encouraging

Of humanity maybe are positive maybe are calls to action

Maybe are things that you can do something about rather than going look how dark the darkness is getting

If we actually keep those conversations going guess who wins?

the darkness

We're the problem

Because if we are being pumped through the mainstream media a story that says it's the border wall today

It's the Target store closing in Philadelphia tomorrow every time we jump for another one of these nonsensical cover stories

We are actually ignoring the fact that this is organized crime

And we need to start being the solution

We need to start having conversations about the fact that humans taking a stand and rising up and saying no and remember

Within the last two months one of the largest health care

consortiums in California

reinstated the mask mandate you know what happened it lasted 48 hours because the employees said no

40,000 people said no and

Suddenly the mask mandate was rescinded

we should be talking about that story and

They were woke health care providers who go nah

I'm not playing the game this time

There's two answers to when are we gonna get justice?

The first answer is I think non-compliance because ultimately there will be cases

Where people are actually held to some sort of judicial review?

We by the way saw this already in several states where doctors who lost their

licenses because they advocated for certain treatments are now having the medical boards having to eat crow and

They're now getting their licenses reinstated and those doctors

I applaud because they stayed true to themselves and they said I'm not gonna fall for it and they suffered and

They are now getting certain restitution

The cool thing is those cases are an indicative element of where the future might go because at some point in time

There will be a discovery

In which somebody is accused of a thing making a false statement

Criticizing a certain organization and there will be a libel charger there will be something and inside of it

there's going to be discovery and

Most people don't understand how the law works, but what we need is we need a couple cases

That actually are going to feel very uncomfortable in the moment

But when an allegation is made that you said something that was false guess what they have to prove it was true you don't

And it would be really really fun right now

To actually have a few of those cases

Where you get to depose Anthony Fauci you get to get access to unredacted emails

You get access to what civil procedure gives you and before long what you get is the evidence of the crime

What we did in Utah is actually a groundbreaking story and the story isn't over

It feels over to the casual observer, but it is not over

we allegedly lost the case and

Technically anybody reviewing the federal case will say it was dismissed under the grounds of rightness

Because our plaintiff Devon Greiner who was an amazingly courageous position in Utah who actually took the first federal case

He put himself up there first guy to paint the target on his back

The court held that since he was not fired. He was threatened to be fired, but he was not fired for not getting the jab

Because he did not actually have the firing happen

The court case couldn't move forward now. We argued that the threat of firing was coercion

But the judge said no he needed to be fired to have the standing to bring the case

That's true

And we lost

But we didn't

Because it turns out that in the state of Utah

There's a law that says that there's a thing called the illegal practice of medicine

Which is actually to make medical recommendations and give medical guidance as an entity that is not licensed to practice medicine in the state

That is a class 3 felony and in the state of Utah as a class 3 felony

that practicing of medicine without a license is not limited to

Doctors who are actually practicing in Utah and the federal government in its own defense in our federal case

Admitted to the practice of medicine in Utah without a license

Under the state statute in Utah. It says the Attorney General shall

Prosecute that class 3 felony not may shall it doesn't give the Attorney General any discretion

The law says that crime has to be prosecuted now Sean raised current Attorney General in Utah

Has because of his moral and ethical compromise been unwilling to take that case

That's fine. But guess what? He won't be Attorney General forever and

That crime doesn't go away and

We have because of the case we filed a felony

Case against the US government for the illegal practice of medicine in the state of Utah

Now how would they defend themselves?

Well, they'd have to actually produce evidence that they somehow had the basis for making the recommendations

They did they would have to have the evidence that they actually had legitimate data backing up the support for it because all of that

Is required under the statute and none of that exists

so the crime is already there and the prosecution pathway is already there and

Those are going to be the cases where we have to take a step back and realize and I like to use historical metaphors

1774 is when we started the revolution

And we didn't finish the fight the first time around till the 1780s

And we didn't really finish conflict until the Treaty of Ghent after the War of 1812

So let's just do the little math on where we are versus where independence was

1774 to 1815

Last time I checked that's a generation

That took us to just declare independence

We're three years into this fight we're not 30 years into it yet

So the way I look at it we're on track

Right. We're on track

we actually have some wins on the board and we have some contingency wins on the board and I'm

Super excited about the fact that we're ahead of the founding fathers of this country my ability to conduct my life

Should be an absolute authority at Liberty provided that the exercise of my Liberty does not impair yours

Because for a functional society to work we have to have absolute Liberty

within the boundaries of

Not impairing someone else's ability to access the same thing. That's what community is and

That's the definition of Liberty that Thomas Jefferson espoused. That's the definition of Liberty that goes back to the code of Hammurabi

That's the definition of Liberty that goes back to the Syriapedia and that's what we should be talking about as truth

Because then what what does that imply that implies not only do I have a self-respect?

To honor my essence, but I also have an obligation to understand yours

To make sure that my exercise of Liberty doesn't impinge on yours and vice versa

That means we have to talk we have to communicate we have to engage in respectful dialogue

We have to do a number of things and that is a truth that is missing from all of our conversations

And that's the truth we have to access

So the answer is really simple

You can't take from me what I don't have

Have I risked anything? No

I've actually done the best I can with what I have I

Don't have a lot of resources so I can't buy advertisements and I can't do a bunch of other things

My message has landed in every country on earth. I

Haven't had to pay to push that out. I've lived a life so far beyond

my wildest expectations and dreams

I've had experiences that I could not have imagined times a thousand

Because the fact is that I have lived fully

And I've done everything I can to the best of my abilities I'm gonna go bring every drop out of this rag

Freaking let nothing remain because I want to know that I was fully spent on the day that I'm done