It’s estimated that 129 billion face masks are used worldwide each month, which works out to about 3 million masks a minute
Not only are masks not being recycled, but their materials make them likely to persist and accumulate in the environment
Because masks may be directly made from microsized plastic fibers with a thickness of 1 mm to 10 mm, they may release microsized particles into the environment more readily — and faster — than larger plastic items, like plastic bags
Microbes from your mouth, known as oral commensals, frequently enter your lungs, where they’ve been linked to advanced stage lung cancer; wearing a mask could potentially accelerate this process
The “new normal” of widespread masking is affecting not only the environment but also the mental and physical health of humans
The ubiquitous COVID-19 face masks are online, in stores and in pockets. Their use has been required by many government agencies and executive orders, private corporations and even, in confrontations that sometimes have turned violent, passersby on the street.
The “experts” have, at times, said they must be used, or shouldn’t be used. Or maybe three or four should be used.
Advertisement – story continues below
Now a prominent physician is warning of the harm they can cause to individuals and the global community.
The extracts below are taken from an article by Kennedy Hall published on the Fatima Center website, 18 March, 2021…
The reported deaths of the elderly have caused sadness and anger amongst the public who believe it is wrong that they were not protected. These feelings may be warranted, but there is a sad irony to this, considering we live in a society that has either totally accepted or is on the path to legalization of assisted suicide/euthanasia.
Our societies have collectively accepted it as ‘dying with dignity’ that an old and sick person should be assisted in their suicide if they have no ‘quality of life’ left. Yet, we are also told that it is somehow a tragedy if portions of this same demographic die a few months before they otherwise would have, from an apparent virus.
Personally, I believe this is a distraction. And when I consider the damning public health numbers, I cannot help but see the demonic spirit of euthanasia all over the lockdown. If you dig a little bit, you will find that the elites and globalists have always been obsessed with population control and eugenics… the modus operandi of achieving their goals has always been to find ways to either kill off the sick and infirm, or to allow them to die off by other means.
The motivations fed to the public by media-propaganda machines can change with time. Today it is the cause of climate-change and environmentalism that stokes alarm amongst those worried about the planet “having too many people.” This is why we see, on the one hand, the alarmism about how tragic this virus has made society; and, on the other hand, we are told that the slow-down of society has been beneficial to the environment. The so-called Great Reset initiative is gleefully exploiting the pandemic narrative in order to push an environmentalist agenda forward. All of this is to say that, in my opinion, I believe the globalists have achieved their goal, and have done it amid myriad distractions. They have always desired a culling of the people who are a ‘drain’ on the system; and while most people have worried about Chinese flus and double masking, they have made it so millions of people worldwide will die from lack of access to necessary treatments.
As with all things diabolical, the duplicitous nature of how all of their ultimate evil-end has been covered up, is quite telling of their motivations.
This has always been a mass-euthanasia campaign; it has never been about a virus.
Consider just this little known statistic. The entire population of the world could fit into just two states of the United States and the population density would only be similar to that of San Francisco, which is only the 20th most densely populated city in the USA. There are about 7.6 billion people in the world. Texas (268,597 square miles) and California (163,696 square miles) have a combined area of 432,293 square miles. If all the earth’s people were located in just those two states, the population density would be 17,580 people per square mile (compared to San Francisco’s 17,246 people per square mile). Ends
Worrying reports are coming in from all over the place about these rushed vaccines, and, given the above thoughtful analysis of the irony in contrived care for the elderly coupled with a drive for population control and euthanasia, this latest report of an elderly death only three hours after receiving the vaccine should give even the most ardent defenders of all things Covid-driven, pause for thought.
Is it likely that the same politicians in the UK (and elsewhere in the western “civilised” world) who are clearly sympathetic to legalising euthanasia and assisted dying are suddenly keen to preserve the lives of the elderly?You’re asking me? My response? Politicians want to preserve the lives of our senior citizens? Yeah right!
People in the UK who rely on the mainstream British news outlets may not even have heard of Antifa, or think that it is only active in the USA. Wrong. Both Antifa and Black Lives Matter (BLM) are extreme left-wing groups, each openly committed to political violence – and they’re becoming more committed by the nano-second.
Members of these groups have been causing chaos in the USA throughout the summer of 2020, setting fire to buildings and police cars, terrorising cities and towns. They hated President Trump with a vengeance and, in advance of the November 2020 election, the windows in Washington DC were boarded up in anticipation of a Trump victory. When Biden was announced the winner, there was no violence. Having said that, there is still ongoing violence in certain parts of the USA, but, amazingly, nothing is done about it. Perhaps RCA Victor, our American Blogger-in-Chief, can explain that.
BLM is also active in the UK. One headline in the local Evening Telegraph on 12 June, 2020 read: Outrage at posters in Dundee calling for police, MPs and white people to be killed. All signed off with #BlackLivesMatter / #Antifa /#BLM Scotland /#Avenge Slavery…
In fact, these groups are not remotely concerned about racism – they’re anarchists. We saw how the police did nothing when BLM protests took place in the UK at the height of the lockdown – when I say “did nothing” I mean they did nothing to end the protests or round up protesters for breaking Covid restrictions; they did something, though – they joined in with the protest, “taking the knee” to use the silly coinage which has gone into common parlance since the death of George Floyd.
So, what now? Should the police in the UK show tolerance and even sympathy to these anarchist groups, treat them as domestic terrorists, or set up lines of communication in the hope of winning a few more “converts to sanity” – enabling young people to escape the clutches of these dangerous rebels, and perhaps, in time, with some apostolic endeavour on the part of the Church, convert to Christ?
Nicola Sturgeon’s coronavirus regulations that forced the closure of churches in Scotland and criminalised public worship have been deemed unlawful.
Some representatives from the Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) and a number of independent churches launched a claim for judicial review against the rules that closed churches during lockdown.
The group of 27 church leaders launched a case at the Court of Session arguing Scottish Government ministers acted out with their powers when ordering the closure of places of worship under emergency legislation.
Their case has now met with success just ahead of new guidance out on Friday allowing churches to open with congregations of up to 50 people.
Judge Lord Braid issued his judgment on Wednesday, finding the Scottish Government regulations were unlawful as they disproportionately interfered with the freedom of religion secured in the European Convention on Human Rights (EHRC).
He said: “It is impossible to measure the effect of those restrictions on those who hold religious beliefs.
“It goes beyond mere loss of companionship and an inability to attend a lunch club.
“The fact that the regulations are backed by criminal sanctions is also a relevant consideration.
“Were the petitioners to insist on manifesting their beliefs, in accordance with their religion, they would be liable to be met with a fine of up to £10,000, a not insignificant penalty.
“The above factors all point towards the conclusion that the regulations have a disproportionate effect.”
“There are however other factors which point the other way, not least the severity of Covid-19 and the threats posed by the new variant, which I do not underplay in the slightest. This factor deserves considerable weight.
“The need to avoid the NHS being overwhelmed is another factor, although if I am correct in saying that the risk is reduced to an insignificant extent by the regulations, this factor attracts less weight.
“The fact that much public opinion, including that of other faiths and church leaders, supports the closures is also a relevant consideration, which I thought initially might carry some weight. [Emphasis added].
“However, I have concluded that it does not, for a number of reasons.”
Additional party Canon Tom White’s argument that the regulations were disproportionate on constitutional grounds was also found to be the case by the judge.
A further hearing will now take place so potential remedies can be discussed.
The petitioners have asked for a declarator that a person living in a Level 4 area may lawfully leave their home to attend a place of worship.
Thank you to our Protestant friends who brought this challenge to court. And notice that the fact that the Bishops (‘church leaders’) supported the closures, might have cost the case. Maybe now they will show some backbone and refuse to go along with further restrictions on the worship of God. For, some day, they will hear a similar, if much more damning (literally) judgement from the highest authority imaginable…
This ruling will, of course, be a disappointment to those apparently work-shy clergy (see report on page 6 of our current, March, newsletter) who have expressed enthusiasm for the lockdown closures. This will come as something of a blow to them. No ‘Church of the New Abnormal’ after all… Shucks. Ach well… back to the future…
However, former Conservative minister Steve Baker described the Coronavirus Act as “excessive and disproportionate”, adding that it “should now go”.
He said: “The government really does need to start taking advantage of their own great success on the vaccination programme.” Source
The two interviews relevant to this discussion in the Sophy Ridge show are the first two: Ben Wallace MP and Steve Baker MP.
Nobody can even pretend surprise now at the predictable call to further extend the tyranny being imposed upon the peoples of the UK in the name of protecting us from a virus from which the majority of people who become infected including the elderly recover. Only those elderly with serious underlying conditions are at any risk, as they are always at risk from any other flu virus.
I say “the peoples of the UK” because – just as predictably – what happens in England today comes to Scotland tomorrow. How long is this “stay safe” baloney going to last? With every promise of the easing of restrictions comes a cautionary warning; keep washing your hands, wearing masks, [anti]social distancing OR we will imprison you again. In other words, the “stay safe” message is merely a rather unsubtle form of a quite different, if highly effective, message; stay scared.
So, again, I ask – how long is this tyranny going to last? Some think another year. Others think two years. Others even longer – I read one estimate of eight years recently. Meanwhile, people are forgetting what it’s like to be free – and many young people have never known what it is like to live as a free person. Will we continue (as a population) to accept the kind of arrogance displayed by Ben Wallace MP during the above Sophy Ridge interview? One thing is a dead cert – if the Westminster Parliament (and the other devolved assemblies) extend police state powers allegedly for another six months, there is no guarantee that we will be free in six months. The more we go along with this authoritarian abuse of power, the longer it will last. Contrary to what Ben Wallace MP said, Governments do not give up powers they’ve taken in alleged emergencies. Doesn’t happen.
People drift into situations and we have already drifted into totalitarian governance. Have we no option but to accept this “new normal”? Some people ignore the rules and live as we did prior to lockdowns. I sympathise, especially for two people I’ve been reading about: one said “I’ve been in more lockdowns than relationships” and another who, in future job interviews, can only explain the gap, the missing year, in his Curriculum Vitae, by saying that he was washing his hands 😀
This is all serious stuff folks so think carefully before you shrug off this latest extension of police state powers with a casual: “what’s six more months…”
The issue of women’s safety has been again thrust into the spotlight following the disappearance of 33-year-old Ms Everard as she walked home to Brixton from her friend’s home in Clapham, south-west London, on March 3. Met Commissioner Cressida Dick revealed last night that human remains were found in the week-long search for the marketing executive in woodland near Ashford in Kent [Ed: these remains have now been identified as Sarah Everard RIP]. Speaking in the House of Lords last night Baroness Evans said: ‘In the week that Sarah Everard was abducted and, we suppose, killed-because remains have been found in a woodland in Kent – I argue that, at the next opportunity for any Bill that is appropriate, I might put in an amendment to create a curfew for men on the streets after 6 pm. I feel this would make women a lot safer, and discrimination of all kinds would be lessened.’
Firstly, our sincere sympathy is extended to the family of Sarah Everard. This is a huge suffering for them, suffering increased by the knowledge that the person arrested on suspicion of this crime is a serving police officer.
Seriously, though – a 6pm curfew for men in order to keep women safe? There’s really nothing left for April 1st, now, is there?
Meanwhile, north of the border, Scotland’s appalling Hate Crime Bill was passed today. One critic stated that “… it will make Scotland one of the most hostile places for freedom of expression in Europe” – click here to read more
There’s the above madness, and then there’s another kind of madness. Irritating changes in the use of language which have crept in over a period of time and which drive some of us – namely me and moi – crazy. Not just the terms themselves, which are bad enough, but the speed with which they are replaced by other equally annoying words and phrases.
No sooner had I become accustomed to “political correctness” than it was replaced by the nonsensical “woke”. Then there’s “toxic” – everything, but everything is “toxic” – have you noticed? “Cool” is another one. It used to refer to the weather, but now it means “great news” or “clever” or “with it”… whatever. It no longer refers to the weather – that’s my point…
“You guys” is another irritant. During my visit to America some years ago, a group of us visited a café where we met with the usual “what can I get you guys?” When the waitress had departed, by which I mean gone to deliver our orders, not departed from the planet, one of my friends told me that she shared that particular annoyance and that she once asked a waiter: “Do I look like a guy?” I’d be afraid to try that in case I got the wrong answer.
My other major complaint is about the way “So” is no longer used as a linking word, to connect ideas, but as a sentence starter, or what we used to call “a filler”. Instead of saying “Em…well… and answering”, it’s now “So…” And nearly always it is unconnected to what has gone before.
Q Do you think the Hate Crime Bill passed in Scotland today, will threaten free speech? [obvious answer “yes” or “no”]
A So, yes – or – So, no….
Do you see where I’m going with this? Tell us, in the comments below if you have your own personal list of irritating 21 century words, phrases or whatever – just do NOT begin your comment with “So”! Throw in your thoughts about the idea of a 6pm curfew for men as well, and tell us what you think about the Scottish Hate Crime Bill. Ask yourself… So – 😀 are we, or are we not, living in truly crazy times? 😀
We’ve discussed the Covid-19 vaccine roll-out a number of times on this blog, most recently here and here
Our focus has been largely on the issue of the morality of taking an abortion-tainted vaccine.
I’m quite sure, though, that I will have expressed the concern which has been uppermost in my mind since the vaccine arrived on the scene – that these vaccines have been produced in such a rush that, by definition, they cannot possibly have been properly tested. It is for this reason that I will not accept any Covid-19 vaccine under any circumstances and despite the coercion underway, including via the label “anti-vaxxer”. I’m not against vaccination per se – truth to tell, I haven’t given the matter much thought. I just don’t want one that hasn’t been properly produced, and tested over time. Forcing medical procedures on populations is immoral and has been against international law since at least the end of the Second World War. So, no thanks… I’m not taking it… Thanks but no thanks…
The majority of Catholics who are expressing concern about these vaccines, however, limit their concerns to the question of the morality of accepting abortion-tainted vaccines. The fact that the Government is using us to participate in a medical experiment doesn’t seem to trouble many.
Below, an extract from my reply to one lady in England who has emailed me a number of times, very concerned about the abortion-tainted issue, but, apparently not aware of the danger of allowing herself to be part of the experiment. The extract below is from the most recent in a series of exchanges over time with this particular correspondent, who continues to puzzle over the Catholic position because she doesn’t fully understand the “remote co-operation” argument. I have explained to her that I am not in a position to engage in lengthy email exchanges (this blog was launched to cut down my emails) so I’m posting this thread, with the above links to our previous conversations, in an effort, firstly, to see if others may be able to clarify the Catholic position as it relates to abortion, and secondly to check how many, if any of you share my concerns about the fact that these vaccines are experimental…
Extract from my email to reader in England…
“…However, I return to my key point and it is this: anyone who takes a vaccine which has been rushed into production without due testing, in order to vaccinate an entire population of healthy individuals in the name of protecting them from a virus from which 99.97% (clear majority) recover, frankly, in my unvarnished opinion, deserve all they get.
They must understand that they are part of an experiment. Normally, vaccines are only released after a number of years once the effect on the patients have been assessed, and the types and numbers of side effects have been recorded, the number of deaths noted. Obviously, this is now an ongoing process – WE (or rather those who are stupid enough to take this vaccine) are part of the testing process. I’m emphasising this because I’m assuming that you are preoccupied with this issue because you are considering taking the vaccine and your only concern is the “abortion-tainted” issue. That is not MY issue. I will not be used for medical experiment. If a vaccine were being proposed which had been through the normal processes and tested over a period of years, THEN my issue would be the abortion-tainted issue. I am just stunned at the number of people I’m hearing about already who have taken the vaccine.
Listen, people of even minimal intelligence should be noticing the TV shots of people being vaccinated, followed by applause and expressions of delight. It takes a particular kind of stupid not to say ‘Whoa! Something is not quite right here…’ ” Ends.
So, what is YOUR issue? IS it that these vaccines are abortion-tainted… Or is it the fact that you don’t want to be part of this medical experiment? Perhaps, though, you feel forced to take the vaccine for the sake of keeping your job, being allowed to travel etc? Over to thee…
As this thread is launched, Boris Johnson is holding a press conference to offer his exit strategy for coming out of lockdown. From the snippets appearing online already, this is going to be a very slow process. Politicians do not give up power easily. Nicola Sturgeon is to make her latest announcement tomorrow afternoon but she’s already told us that her focus will be on “data rather than dates” which, of course, means that she can keep moving the goalposts at will.
Will telling these people that lockdown is inhumane move them, at all? Will it touch them sufficiently to decide to end this misery once and for all?
Those who followed the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump know that the Democrats did not remotely prove their case. Far from it. Being a defence lawyer in that Senate hearing was the easiest task in the world. Mr Bean would have won the day, so it’s little wonder that the excellent Trump legal team wiped the floor with his accusers – figurately speaking, I hasten to add. Given the loose interpretation of the Constitution over there, I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to impeach a (very) humble Scotswoman for inciting the Scottish Catholic population blah blah. You have to laugh..
However, lest you think that this is The End, think again. The one person whom you would imagine that Trump could rely on for support – the leader of the Republicans in the House, Mitch McConnell – spent around 20 minutes after the “not guilty” verdict effectively undermining the work of the defence team and hinting, strongly, that Trump might yet be criminally prosecuted. That is how his weasel words are being interpreted in the fake news media. With glee.
So, here’s the question; what IS it that causes this undiluted, violent, ongoing hatred of Donald Trump? Is it, as many people claim, because he sought to clean up the establishment – the inner workings of the “deep state” – or is it something else? I know the theory that they don’t want him to run again in 2024 but why not give themselves a rest, and wait until the campaigns begin for the next election. It must be exhausting to keep up that level of fury and hatred – not healthy for either body or soul. So, why are they doing that?
I can’t think of anyone in politics who is similarly irrationally hated in the UK – even those Catholics who claim to be pro-life (such as Jacob Rees-Mogg MP) are tolerated with an indulgent smile. Of course, he is at pains to assure the populace that even if he were Prime Minister, he would not be changing the law on abortion. So, that’s not an issue and I’m struggling to think of any other taboo issue that would excite the kind of hatred here in the UK that is clearly on display in America. Similarly, there is no politician here claiming to root out corruption and crime in the UK. Maybe, of course, there IS no corruption and crime within the establishment in the UK… Moving on swiftly…
As always, Diamond’s and Silk’s presentation of the impeachment trial (prior to acquittal) is entertaining, with some hilarious moments. Enjoy!
Mike Graham is to be congratulated on his professional chairing of the above video debate between two well-known journalists. The question for our discussion is who won the debate? That will be for you to decide, based, of course, on whether you are more convinced by Peter Hitchens’ arguments or those of Dan Hodges. Watch out for one piece of brilliant “classic Peter” in there – but will it be sufficient to win your vote?