“What I need is someone to help me save these patients from being killed”

A nurse sent from Nevada to work in New York City reveals the heart and soul of a medical industry out of control. This very conscientious, capable and sincere nurse cannot comprehend how medical professionals can let patients die without giving them all the help that is possible.

Some say we are in the time of the biblical Revelation and what is being revealed is the cruelty and corruption that has been plaguing our country and world for eons.

There is a kind and gentle divine power that breathes us all – and then there is the enemy of that power that hates life and loves death and destruction. Fortunately, Kerth’s books connected the dots for me. Without the Luciferian piece, the puzzle was never complete.

See video “It’s a nightmare out of a horror movie” at  https://www.brasscheck.com/video/another-whistleblower-nurse/

Another story of a sad and mysterious death: “New mom, 26, dies of a C-section gone wrong just four days after threatening to expose ‘incompetent doctors’ at a New York City hospital” can be read at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8285173/Mom-dies-C-section-gone-wrong-just-four-days-threatening-expose-incompetent-doctors.html

and then read:

Research Coverup of Vitamin D Scandal Continues

Medicalized Eugenics in Evidence as COVID-19 Disproportionately Kills African Americans

Dr Wallach – “Dead Doctors Don’t Lie”

Dr. Joel Wallach grew up on a Missouri farm and wondered why the animals got better nutrition than the farmers did, leading to better health in the animals than in people. Wallach became a vet and then a doctor of nutrition in order to try animal nutrition on people – and it worked. He was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1991. He made this famous tape in 1994, and human nutrition has only gotten worse since then. If you suffer from cancer, arthritis, osteoporosis, autism, ADD, ADHD, Parkinson’s, Alzheimers, diabetes or many of hundreds of other diseases, this audio will explain what you can do about it.

  • There are at least 5 groups of people in the world whose average life span exceeds 100 years. (Find out what they all have in common)
  • Many major diseases have been eliminated in the livestock industry years ago by simple inexpensive nutritional supplementation.
  • According to U.S. Senate Document #264, our farmlands have been depleted of essential minerals. This document dates back to 1936.
  • There is no such thing as “Eating Right”. If the minerals aren’t in the soil where the food is grown, they are not in our foods.
  • Our bodies need no less than 90 essential nutrients, and there are as many as 10 deficiency diseases that can result for each nutrient that is missing for any length of time. This is a total of up to 900 diseases that can be prevented with proper nutrition.

Dead Doctors Don’t Lie is the most informative common sense approach to health and longevity that you have ever heard.

Order of Lecture: Continue reading Dr Wallach – “Dead Doctors Don’t Lie”

Churches closed for Easter, covens open for Beltane, May Day

Jesus Christ was born for the final purpose of his execution on the cross. Christians traditionally celebrate his birth on Christmas as well as his sacrifice on the cross on Easter, but Easter is, nonetheless, the most significant of all Christian holidays. Christmas gets more attention, but Easter is at the core of our beliefs because it is his sacrifice on the cross that reconciles us with God our Creator. So if the Luciferian rulers of the governments of the world can force Christians to stop openly worship our God on Easter Sunday, who is really in charge?

501(c)(3) Christianity is actually a sub-branch of the Church of Lucifer. With compliance to the Covid19 scam, 501(c)(3) Christians have now openly conceded their submission to the Luciferian Theocracy which desires ultimately to oppress and systematically eliminate Christianity. Not all Christians organize themselves into 501(c)(3) churches. I’ve known Christians who organize and pray in private, remain anonymous as much as possible and act covertly in political activism; they have nothing to do with the government and its tax laws. This is how the early Christians had to operate in the oppressive environment of the ancient Roman Empire; this is how some Christians still operate.

We are not 501(c)(3) Christians. We do not take our marching orders from the Luciferian theocracy that presently still runs our government. We are the new Christians, the Christian Nationalists.

Seventeen thousand years ago, the Roman Empire passed the Edict of Milan which legalized Christianity and ever since then, Easter, in the Western World, has been practiced openly; that is, until the year 2020 AD, in which the Luciferians finally drove the Christian worship on Easter back underground. The Anti-Christ must feel so pleased with himself. My feeling is that now the only effective resistance against the Luciferian Theocracy is coming from those Christians who are beginning to transcend the stunted spirituality of 501(c)(3) Christianity.

This is not a dismissal of President Trump and the Q movement. They are good Christians, who still support 501(c)(3) churches, and yet who are effectively working to making things better and to eliminate the corruption. So I am not entirely dismissing those who continue to use the 501(c)(3) system. But Trump and all of his followers, in the the process of overcoming this corruption, are going to have to eventually transcend the limitations placed upon 501(c)(3) Christianity.

The nature of Christianity is going to evolve into a higher form with the eventual fall of Luciferianism. The new Christians, the neo-Christian movement, the Christian Nationalists, are all going to have to outgrow the naive attitudes that have allowed the Luciferian Theocracy to chain down the 501(c)(3) Christians. For now, those Christians who dare to challenge Luciferianism can no longer trust the leadership of the 501(c)(3) churches or the governmental leaders who so easily dismiss the American Constitution in the face of every major false flag. For the new Christian Nationalists, our only leader is the Holy Spirit and our only constitution is the Four Gospels.

FEMA Clergy Response Teams, COG & Martial Law

State of Oregon Plans to Confiscate Children If Parents Test Positive for Coronavirus

In case you didn’t know,

  • you can test positive for CV if you have been vaccinated for CV,
  • children are a lucrative business thanks to federal laws.

I saw the system in action when I lived in Oregon. Broke my heart… and the hearts of the parents and children who were separated by the courts – another assault on the family system – and on vulnerable little ones. A one-year-old female infant in foster care had vaginal infection, tearing and bruising. Other children have died in foster care. Do not be fooled. We are in a war with evil and children are at risk, at the hands of the very ones in authority who claim to want to protect them.

Oregonians in general are some of the kindest, purest-hearted people I have ever met. It’s only those who profit from the cruel, rigged system who are questionable. Perhaps they are the ones whom the Oregon sealed indictments target. Currently there are 166,378 sealed indictments in the USA and each indictment can cover numerous people. May the indictments be served very soon.

May all children be safe from abuse, neglect and trafficking.

At the behest of the World Health Organization (WHO) executive director Michael Ryan, Oregon is slated to remove children from homes and place them in “substitute care” if parents are deemed “unable to support them.”

Ryan, who was criticized for stating that governments need to go door-to-door looking for people infected with coronavirus and if found, “Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick, and remove them and isolate them.”

Oregon seems to be complying with these orders…

See the forms and more at https://montanadailygazette.com/2020/05/01/state-plans-to-confiscate-children-if-parents-test-positive-for-coronavirus/

Crushing the States, Saving the Banks: The Fed’s Generous New Rules

Congress seems to be at war with the states. Only $150 billion of its nearly $3 trillion coronavirus relief package – a mere 5% – has been allocated to the 50 states; and they are not allowed to use it where they need it most, to plug the holes in their budgets caused by the mandatory shutdown. On April 22, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he was opposed to additional federal aid to the states, and that his preference was to allow states to go bankrupt.

No such threat looms over the banks, which have made out extremely well in this crisis. The Federal Reserve has dropped interest rates to 0.25%, eliminated reserve requirements, and relaxed capital requirements. Banks can now borrow effectively for free, without restrictions on the money’s use. Following the playbook of the 2008-09 bailout, they can make the funds available to their Wall Street cronies to buy up distressed Main Street assets at fire sale prices, while continuing to lend to credit cardholders at 21%.

If there is a silver lining to all this, it is that the Fed’s relaxed liquidity rules have made it easier for state and local governments to set up their own publicly-owned banks, something they should do post haste to take advantage of the Fed’s very generous new accommodations for banks. These public banks can then lend to local businesses, municipal agencies, and local citizens at substantially reduced rates while replenishing the local government’s coffers, recharging the Main Street economy and the government’s revenue base….


Why Sweden succeeded while others failed 

How do you measure success in dealing with an illness for which there is no cure?

This is the question we need to ask ourselves before judging which country’s approach has been most successful in dealing with the coronavirus. The fact that there is no silver bullet, no vaccine, does not change the fact that leaders must seek the best possible way forward by crafting a social policy that helps to achieve their goals. In my opinion, most of the European countries and the United States have imposed a social policy that is the least likely to help them achieve the objectives that they should be pursuing. In other words, while the “containment” strategy of self isolation and social distancing might temporarily prevent the spreading of the virus (and prevent the health care system from collapsing), the infection will undoubtedly reemerge when the lockdown is lifted causing a sharp uptick in the cases and deaths. This is the problem that many countries, including the US, now face. They want loosen the current restrictions, but additional easing unavoidably triggers a surge in new cases. So, what is to be done?

Comment: The vast majority of cases do not require a “cure” per se; just good supplementation and nutrients that one might take to boost their immune system for anything like the flu. In more severe cases, other things may be taken like hydroxychloroquine – given with zinc and other medications that now have a proven track record of success among many.

The problem is that the approach was never sufficiently thought-through from the very beginning. This scenario should have been gamed-out before the policy was ever adopted. Now it’s too late. Now the people are anxious to get back to work, but the threat of infection still remains. That means that we’re going to see workers return to their jobs followed by sporadic outbreaks that ignite more social reaction and unrest leading to more “walk-offs”. These disruptions will prolong the recession and intensify the fractious political climate that is already as acrimonious as any time in recent history.

All of these problems can be traced back to the early days of the pandemic when the government first concocted its containment strategy. The aim of containment was to prevent a collapse of the public health system. That’s fine, but containment is just one wheel on a two-wheel axle. The other wheel, which is equally important, is immunity. The question is: How does one achieve immunity while imposing a containment policy that forces isolation? It can’t be done or can it?

Swedish experts figured out how pursue two seemingly-conflicting objectives at the same time: Contain the virus sufficiently so it doesn’t collapse the health care system while exposing enough people to the infection to eventually achieve herd immunity. They encouraged the public to comply with their distancing directives while – at the same time – they allowed the controlled spread of the virus. This is how they managed to achieve their core objectives: Containment and immunity. At the same time, Sweden eschewed the lockdowns, kept their economy running, and preserved an atmosphere of normalcy unlike any other country in Europe. It’s really an astonishing achievement.

The Swedish strategy rests on three main pillars: Immunity, sustainability, and protection of the old and vulnerable. On the immunity count, they score an A+, far superior to any of the other countries that opted for a containment plan that ends as soon as the lockdowns are terminated resulting in a surge of cases and fatalities. What good is that? What good is a strategy that forces people to bolt the door and hide under the bed until the pain of economic retrenchment becomes too excruciating to bear? It’s lunacy. In contrast, the Swedish strategy employs some social distancing and crowd control measures while – at the same time – allowing low-risk people to engage in normal social interactions that expose them to the virus. The vast majority of these healthy people remain either completely asymptomatic or get a minor cough or fever. They don’t wind up in the hospitals or ICU or on ventilators. Instead, they get the infection, they recover from the infection and, in the process, they develop the antibodies they need to staunch (or mitigate) any future outbreak. This is crucial, because without immunity, nations are condemned to an endless cycle of recurrent outbreaks that decimate the economy, stress the health care system and wipe out the old and weak.

Even so, some critics now question whether exposure to the virus will produce sufficient antibodies to create immunity. It is an interesting question, but irrelevant. Swedish epidemiologists must proceed on the basis of their prior experience that infections do in fact produce antibodies that will help to fight future forms of the viruses. In any event, the matter should be settled soon enough, perhaps within the year, when a second or third wave of the infection spreads across the world. That is when the “herd immunity” theory will be put to the test. We will suspend judgement until then.

A great deal of attention has been focused on Sweden’s fatality rate which is noticeably higher than any of its neighbors. But the numbers don’t tell the whole story. More than 50 percent of the deaths have taken place in Sweden’s large nursing homes. This is tragedy and Sweden’s leaders have admitted their failure. They’ve accepted responsibility for the deaths and taken steps to tighten protective restrictions, like banning visitation.

Some of the other deaths can be attributed to the strategy itself which allows for greater circulation in the community leading to more infections. But there’s the tradeoff here: While more public interaction may increase the death toll on the front end, the lockdowns merely postpone those fatalities until the restrictions are lifted. When the dust settles and we look back a year from today, we will probably see that the percentage of deaths are only slightly different between the various countries. That, at least, is the assumption of some well-respected epidemiologists.

As we noted earlier, the Swedish plan does not impose lockdowns, does not decimate the economy, and does not overtax the public health system. In this way, it achieves its second goal of sustainability. Swedish leaders say they can continue in this same vein indefinitely without causing serious damage to the economy. Can the same be said for the US? Will the United States be able to shut down the economy, lay off millions of workers, destroy thousands of small and mid-sized businesses and spend trillions of dollars if a second wave of the virus hits in the Autumn? …


The Inevitable Coronavirus Censorship Crisis is Here

Earlier this week, Atlantic magazine – fast becoming the favored media outlet for self-styled intellectual elites of the Aspen Institute type – ran an in-depth article of the problems free speech poses to American society in the coronavirus era. The headline:

Internet Speech Will Never Go Back to Normal

In the debate over freedom versus control of the global network, China was largely correct, and the U.S. was wrong.

Authored by a pair of law professors from Harvard and the University of Arizona, Jack Goldsmith and Andrew Keane Woods, the piece argued that the American and Chinese approaches to monitoring the Internet were already not that dissimilar:

Constitutional and cultural differences mean that the private sector, rather than the federal and state governments, currently takes the lead in these practices… But the trend toward greater surveillance and speech control here, and toward the growing involvement of government, is undeniable and likely inexorable.

They went on to list all the reasons that, given that we’re already on an “inexorable” path to censorship, a Chinese-style system of speech control may not be such a bad thing. In fact, they argued, a benefit of the coronavirus was that it was waking us up to “how technical wizardry, data centralization, and private-public collaboration can do enormous public good.”

Perhaps, they posited, Americans could be moved to reconsider their “understanding” of the First and Fourth Amendments, as “the harms from digital speech” continue to grow, and “the social costs of a relatively open Internet multiply.”

This interesting take on the First Amendment was the latest in a line of “Let’s rethink that whole democracy thing” pieces that began sprouting up in earnest four years ago. Articles with headlines like “Democracies end when they become too democratic” and “Too much of a good thing: why we need less democracy” became common after two events in particular: Donald Trump’s victory in the the Republican primary race, and the decision by British voters to opt out of the EU, i.e. “Brexit.”

A consistent lament in these pieces was the widespread decline in respect for “experts” among the ignorant masses, better known as the people Trump was talking about when he gushed in February 2016, “I love the poorly educated!” [note: the context was that Trump loves all his constituents.  The author is taking liberties here -rw]

The Atlantic was at the forefront of the argument that The People is a Great Beast, that cannot be trusted to play responsibly with the toys of freedom. A 2016 piece called “American politics has gone insane” pushed a return of the “smoke-filled room” to help save voters from themselves. Author Jonathan Rauch employed a metaphor that is striking in retrospect, describing America’s oft-vilified intellectual and political elite as society’s immune system:

Americans have been busy demonizing and disempowering political professionals and parties, which is like spending decades abusing and attacking your own immune system. Eventually, you will get sick.

The new piece by Goldsmith and Woods says we’re there, made literally sick by our refusal to accept the wisdom of experts. The time for asking the (again, literally) unwashed to listen harder to their betters is over. The Chinese system offers a way out. When it comes to speech, don’t ask: tell. …


It’s hard to miss the class-like echo-chamber of the academic  structure of the establishment.   Individual “success” is highly correlated with utility to the system so it’s not a surprise that universities and the “liberal” establishment are largely beacons of the status quo.   In that respect the “poorly educated” are a source of the constant novelty and synthesis which gives rise to collective intelligence because they aren’t fully brainwashed.  And the internet allows all this novelty and synthesis to occur on an ethereal level, there are no dead bodies strewn on the internet highways, just increasingly aware minds.   Highly efficient self-organization going on.  Brainiacs need to learn to trust the structure of life.   It’s where they came from, after all.

Church of Science Examines Speed of Heresy in Society

Sciam: Don’t Regulate Artificial Intelligence: Starve It

Artificial intelligence is still in its infancy. But it may well prove to be the most powerful technology ever invented. It has the potential to improve health, supercharge intellects, multiply productivity, save the environment and enhance both freedom and democracy.

But as that intelligence continues to climb, the danger from using AI in an irresponsible way also brings the potential for AI to become a social and cultural H-bomb. It’s a technology that can deprive us of our liberty, power autocracies and genocides, program our behavior, turn us into human machines and, ultimately, turn us into slaves. Therefore, we must be very careful about the ascendance of AI; we don’t dare make a mistake. And our best defense may be to put AI on an extreme diet….

We also know that profit motives and the will to power and control have already driven the rapid growth of vast libraries of antisocial applications. We need look no farther than the use of facial recognition and other AI techniques by the government of China to control the behavior of its citizens to see one such trajectory. That country’s Social Credit System monitors the behavior of millions of its citizens, rewarding them for what the government judges to be “good” behavior—and punishes them for “bad” behavior—by expanding or limiting their access to the institutions of daily life. Those being punished often do not even know that their lives are being circumscribed. They are simply not offered access to locations, promotions, entertainment and services enjoyed by their neighbors.

Meanwhile, here in the free world the most worrisome threat is the use of AI by industry to exploit us—and of special interest groups to build and manipulate affinity groups to increasingly polarize society. The latter activity is particularly egregious in election years like this one. We are also concerned about the use by law enforcement, the IRS and regulators to better surveil people who might commit crimes, evade taxes and commit other transgressive acts. Some of this is necessary—but without guardrails it can lead to a police state.

Sound extreme? Consider that already all of us are being detained against our wills, often even against our knowledge, in what have been called “algorithmic prisons.” We do not know who sentenced us to them or even the terms of that sentence. What we do know is that based upon a decision made by some AI system about our behavior (such as a low credit rating), our choices are being limited. Predetermination is being made about the information we see: whether a company will look at our resume, or whether we are eligible for a home loan at a favorable rate, if we can rent a certain apartment, how much we must pay for car insurance (our driving quality monitored by new devices attached to our engine computers), whether we will get into the college of our choice and whether police should closely monitor our behavior….

[note: google’s “info-bubble” algorithms actually diminish human access to information.   The AI of the legal fiction of immortal, limited-liability corporations is using electronic AI tools to dumb humans down.   We should go back to the pre-rockefeller era when corporations were formed for specific projects after which they were euthanized.]

How do we choke down the flow of this personal information? One obvious way is to give individuals ownership of their private data. Today, each of us is surrounded by a penumbra of data that we continuously generate. And that body of data is a free target for anyone who wishes to capture and monetize it. Why not, rather than letting that information flow directly into the servers of the world, instead store it in the equivalent of a safe deposit box at an information fiduciary like Equifax? Once it is safely there, the consumer could then decide who gets access to that data….