We The People Are Taking Down The Global Power Structure, The Day Of Reckoning Is Upon Us

Ep 2405b – We The People Are Taking Down The Global Power Structure, The Day Of Reckoning Is Upon Us

Ep 2405a – The Movement Has Begun, The Patriots Are Coming For The [CB]s

The push is on to put pressure on the [CB]. People will now start to wake up to the fact that the fiat currency is worthless. The people are now being exposed to a new currency. The [CB]s are in trouble, the Great Reset is in trouble. The [CB] in Myanmar has been taken over, this is just the beginning. The patriots are now pushing the plan forward, the [DS]/MSM have lost, the people see it all and many more are waking up. The global power structure is being dismantled. The day of reckoning is upon us. Trump let everyone know that in the months ahead he has something to share. The DOD put a pic of GW crossing the Delaware, message received. Dan Scavino sends another message.

 

Absolute Proof: Talk Radio Expose featuring General Thomas McInerney

See the source image

Inside the Lincoln Project’s ‘toxic’ workplace: Accusations of sexual harassment and a culture of infighting

Amanda Becker
The 19th

This story was published in partnership with The 19th, a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom reporting on gender, politics and policy. 

The Lincoln Project’s launch in late 2019 was designed to make a splash.

“We are Republicans, and we want Trump defeated,” four of its co-founders wrote in The New York Times. The organization would go on to raise nearly $90 million for its stated mission of defeating Donald Trump and Trumpism at the ballot box in 2020.

They created attention-grabbing ads that provoked responses from the former president. High-profile liberals such as DreamWorks co-founder David Geffen wrote them six-figure checks. Hundreds of small-dollar donations poured in. Leaders and staff decamped to a preelection headquarters in the ski haven of Park City, Utah, where their effort was chronicled by Hollywood filmmakers. Their plans after the election included leveraging the massive following they gained to build a media empire. They recently launched the platform LPTV.

But as of last week, just three of the Lincoln Project’s eight co-founders remained – Rick Wilson, Reed Galen and Steve Schmidt. Schmidt resigned from the organization’s board late Friday, though he remains affiliated with the organization.

The organization faces a  rapidly escalating controversy over allegations that another of its co-founders, John Weaver, sexually harassed more than a dozen young men, including some working for the project, and over what other members of senior management knew about the claims and when they knew it.

The accusations have roiled the organization, and as its current and former employees and contractors began coming forward to discuss them, they described a workplace where women in key positions were sidelined and where sexist and homophobic language was used by those in leadership posts.

In reporting a story over the past several weeks about the Lincoln Project’s management, culture, finances and handling of the Weaver allegations, The 19th interviewed nearly two dozen people currently or formerly associated with the group or familiar with its operations.

Nearly all of them said they feared speaking publicly about their experiences with the Lincoln Project and its remaining co-founders. Many cited leaders’ tendency to “go nuclear,” as several put it, when faced with internal dynamics that could undermine the public image they cultivated with their liberal fans.

The interviews depict an organization that grew quickly, with little planning at its inception, then began to spiral out of control as its founders quarreled over the organization’s direction, finances, tactics and even who would own the donor data that the project eventually would amass. Some of the co-founders had an informal management agreement that excluded the others, without their knowledge. Several had private firms to which the Lincoln Project channeled tens of millions of dollars that were then not subject to disclosure, while others were paid relatively modest amounts directly or nothing at all. There were clashes over ego and resentments over podcasts and television contracts.

The Lincoln Project began in late 2019 with eight co-founders. By late February 2020, six remained with the group: Steve Schmidt, Rick Wilson, Jennifer Horn, Reed Galen, Mike Madrid and Ron Steslow. As of last week, there were three.

Lincoln Project co-founders (left to right) Ron Steslow, Mike Madrid, Jennifer Horn, Reed Galen, Rick Wilson, and Steve Schmidt on Election Day, Nov. 3, 2020, in Park City, Utah.

The Lincoln Project’s founders were some of the highest-profile players in Republican politics before they rejected Trump and became apostates within their own party. There was George Conway, a high-profile conservative lawyer who is married to Kellyanne Conway, who was a top adviser to Trump. Weaver worked on Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaigns, as did Galen and Schmidt. Mike Madrid is a strategist specializing in Latino voting trends. Jennifer Horn is a former GOP chair in New Hampshire. Wilson worked on Rudy Giuliani’s mayoral and Senate campaigns. Ron Steslow started his own consulting firm after working at the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Conway was the first to leave in August, citing family obligations. Weaver took medical leave around the same time.

A three-person board – Galen, Madrid and Steslow – was created without input from some of the other co-founders. Eventually, disputes over that board, and its scope, led to bitter infighting that involved individual co-founders lawyering up and threatening one another with “oppo” research, Washington-speak for the type of negative information amassed by a political campaign or organization to use against a rival.

In late 2020, Conway stepped in to help mediate what was quickly becoming a civil war within the organization. Madrid and Steslow departed in December after signing nondisclosure agreements and receiving separation packages that those familiar with the negotiations describe as lucrative.

Group’s super PAC status makes tracking spending difficult

On Dec. 21, the Lincoln Project paid Madrid’s firm, Grassroots Lab, two round-sum payments of $1.1 million and $300,000. On the same date, it paid Steslow’s firm, TUSK Digital, $900,000. All of the payments were described as for “political strategy consulting” on campaign finance filings.

The Lincoln Project was organized as a super PAC, meaning it could raise and spend unlimited sums of money but had to disclose only basic details about where the money was going. The firms that some of the co-founders brought with them to the Lincoln Project’s work became a source of internal frustration as more than half of the nearly $90 million raised by the project flowed to firms controlled by its various founders. Once it was there, there was usually no way to track how they spent or kept it.

As of late January, Galen’s firm, Summit Strategic Communications, had received roughly $27.5 million from the Lincoln Project, with the bulk of that going to “independent expenditures” such as television or internet advertisements and nearly $7 million to consulting. Steslow’s firm, TUSK, received $22.4 million, with $7.1 million for consulting.

Schmidt’s firm, SES Strategies, received $1.5 million for consulting, but he told the Chicago Tribune he returned it. Madrid’s Grassroots Lab received nearly $2.2 million for consulting services. The Lincoln Project paid Horn directly in amounts of $5,000 or $10,000 a month, campaign finance filings show. In the fall, she began receiving additional payments from LPTV, but in all, her annual compensation was about $150,000, sources familiar with the situation said.

There is no way to determine what portion of the consulting fees went directly to the co-founders as their compensation for Lincoln Project work or whether they paid one another, according to campaign finance experts. Super PACs are structured that way by design.

Super PACs are widely used by both political parties, but the percentage of the Lincoln Project’s money that went to vendors and firms connected to its co-founders raised eyebrows given the group’s criticism of Trump-affiliated political groups that similarly directed money to the organizations of allies as a “criminal enterprise.”

Another point of internal financial contention was the donor information that Lincoln Project amassed with ads that spread across social media. The specifics over who or which entity would own the data was not negotiated in advance, sources said, and the data’s market value grew as more people gave.

A frequent quip from Schmidt overheard by multiple people was that the Lincoln Project was his vehicle to achieve “generational wealth.”

Sexist, homophobic language cited in a toxic workplace

As senior management squabbled over how to divide the pieces of the project’s financial pie, dissatisfaction was growing within the organization’s more junior ranks, which were made up of largely young and liberal staffers who said they had different standards from some of the group’s leaders, citing Schmidt and Wilson specifically. There was language used in both the Lincoln Project’s ads and within its workplace about gender and sexuality that made many of them uncomfortable, the dozens of interviews revealed.

Young men were “wizards” while young women were “girls.” Political rivals were referred to using crude sexual and homophobic slurs. By the time the staff convened in Park City, the situation had become so “toxic,” according to more than a dozen accounts, that at least two co-founders, neither of whom remain at the project, had tried to intervene to improve working conditions.

Staff had also complained that some of the project’s ads, specifically some related to Ivanka Trump, were sexist.

Plans to sue:Ivanka Trump, Jared Kusher threaten to sue over Lincoln Project Times Square billboards

There was dissatisfaction among the ranks when Ben Howe, billed as the wunderkind behind some of the Lincoln Project’s earliest ads, was brought back by Wilson. Howe had been fired after The 19th reported that in a series of tweets, he had used offensive slang for female anatomy to insult political rivals.

Lincoln Project women were treated differently from men

There were few women in Lincoln Project’s leadership, and those who were there were treated differently from the men, multiple people said. Horn was left out of meetings and not consulted about key decisions or public statements. At points, others within the organization had to persuade her not to quit.

On Thursday night, the Lincoln Project tweeted out private direct messages on the social media platform between Horn, who left the organization the previous week, and this reporter.

Jennifer Horn, a co-founder of The Lincoln Project, says one of the reasons she broke ties with the group was the way it handled sexual harassment allegations against John Weaver and how she was treated when she raised the issue.

Horn had just provided a lengthy statement to The New York Times on the specifics of her departure, citing the remaining co-founders’ handling of the allegations against Weaver and saying that when she raised her concerns, she was “yelled at, demeaned and lied to.”

The Lincoln Project had the week before released a statement about Horn’s departure – it had not done so for Madrid or Steslow – that said the organization had parted ways with Horn over a compensation dispute after she asked for a “signing bonus” of $250,000 to remain with the group for its post-election work, along with a $40,000-a-month consulting contract.

Horn, who was in the middle of negotiating a post-election employment contract, has not denied the specifics. She said her departure was not about compensation but a request to address sexual harassment that was “rejected outright.”

Some of Horn’s allies with ties to the Lincoln Project reached out to The 19th at that time, wanting to discuss the group’s treatment of her specifically and women generally.

The screenshots shared Thursday night by the Lincoln Project, one of which was reshared by Wilson from his personal account, were of Horn’s inbox on the social media platform. She said she had neither provided the images to the Lincoln Project nor had she given anyone permission to access her account. The tweets were deleted after Conway said publicly that the move “looks on its face to be a violation of federal law” and urged their removal.

The Lincoln Project’s sharing of Horn’s private messages came shortly after The 19th had reached out to the group’s spokesperson, Kurt Bardella, as well as Wilson, Schmidt and Galen, with a list of more than 20 specifics about the group’s management, finances and handling of the Weaver allegations, drawn from publicly available government records and the interviews it intended to publish in a forthcoming story.

Bardella said Friday that he was no longer with the Lincoln Project, effective immediately. Wilson, Schmidt and Galen did not directly respond to any of the points laid out by The 19th.

Spotlight shines on allegations of Weaver harassing young men

New attention has been drawn to the Lincoln Project in the wake of allegations about Weaver.

Sources familiar with internal communications said that in June, multiple members of the Lincoln Project’s senior leadership team were told in conversations and in writing about allegations that Weaver had sexually harassed young men, including some who were working for the organization.

By August, nearly all of the co-founders still with the project were aware and a media plan was being crafted after the group’s employees and contractors were contacted by a news outlet working on a story about the allegations. By the time staff gathered in Park City for the buildup to the election, the accusations were an open secret even among junior staff, sources said.

Lincoln Project co-founder John Weaver is accused of sexually harassing at least 10 young men, including two of the group's employees.

The first allegations were published in January, first in the American Conservative and later in other publications, including The New York Times. Schmidt told The Times that senior management was not aware until that month. Schmidt’s timeline conflicts with that offered by more than a dozen sources who worked within and as contractors for the group at various times.

In the past few days, multiple news outlets have published articles laying out more extensive accusations against Weaver, as well as allegations that they were known earlier than previously reported. Schmidt has run point on responding to the reporting.

He told The Associated Press on Wednesday that no Lincoln Project employee, intern or contractor ever made an allegation so serious it would have triggered an investigation by an independent investigator. He provided the same statement to New York Magazine on Thursday. By Thursday night, the Lincoln Project announced it would hire a “best-in-class outside professional” to investigate the matter.

Calls to release staffers from nondisclosure agreements

Who knew how much and when, and who can say what, is now dominating the back-and-forth between those who remain at the Lincoln Project and those who have left.

When Ryan Girdusky first wrote about the allegations for the American Conservative magazine, he told The 19th it was a “constant problem of finding someone willing to come out and make allegations, go on the record, and within 48 hours, out of fear for their future, would drop out of the story. It happened for months on end.”

Conway and Horn, who said she was not aware of severity of the allegations against Weaver until The New York Times published its story in January, have called for the Lincoln Project’s current and former staff to be released from their nondisclosure agreements.

The group’s remaining leaders said Thursday night that anyone who wants to be released from their nondisclosure agreements to discuss allegations against Weaver should reach out to them directly. Six individuals told The New York Times that they did not feel comfortable doing so, citing Horn’s treatment and Schmidt’s statements about when he first learned of the allegations.

Steslow’s lawyer sent the Lincoln Project a letter late Thursday asking that he be released from the nondisclosure agreement he signed at the time of his departure, a spokesperson said.

“Any time there is an imbalance of power in a relationship, the weaker person becomes vulnerable to abuse. The stronger, more influential person has an obligation to conduct themselves with honor and integrity in order to preserve the dignity and autonomy of all involved,” Horn said in the statement Thursday night.

“Victims deserve to be  – and must be – heard,” she added.

Mask Mandates Seem to Make CCP Virus Infection Rates Climb, Study Says

Mask Mandates Seem to Make CCP Virus Infection Rates Climb, Study Says

December 22, 2020 Updated: December 22, 2020

Protective-mask mandates aimed at combating the spread of the CCP virus that causes the disease COVID-19 appear to promote its spread, according to a report from RationalGround.com, a clearinghouse of COVID-19 data trends that’s run by a grassroots group of data analysts, computer scientists, and actuaries.

Researchers examined cases covering a 229-day period running from May 1 through Dec. 15 and compared the days in which state governments had imposed mask mandates and the days when they hadn’t.

In states with a mandate in effect, there were 9,605,256 confirmed COVID-19 cases, which works out to an average of 27 cases per 100,000 people per day. When states didn’t have a statewide order—including states that never had mandates, coupled with the period of time masking states didn’t have the mandate in place—there were 5,781,716 cases, averaging 17 cases per 100,000 people per day.

In other words, protective-mask mandates have a poor track record so far in fighting the coronavirus. States with mandates in place produced an average of 10 more reported infections per day than states without mandates.

“The reverse correlation between periods of masking and non-masking is remarkable,” RationalGround.com co-founder Justin Hart tweeted on Dec. 20.

The 15 states that went without a statewide mask mandate for the duration of the analysis were Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming, Daniel Horowitz notes in an explainer at Conservative Review.

The analysts allowed the mandate states a 14-day grace period from the time of implementation in order to begin counting cases against mask efficacy in order to arrive at accurate results.

Supporters of the protective-mask mandates might say that the mandates were often imposed once cases already spread quickly, so there’s a negative bias of increased cases in those areas (or times) that had mandates in place, but there was “no evidence of any reduction in cases or even better outcomes many weeks later,” Horowitz writes.

RationalGround.com researcher Ian Miller discovered that three counties in Florida—Manatee, Martin, and Nassau—that let their mandates expire, had fewer cases per capita than those counties that kept the mandate.

Miller tweeted sarcastically on Dec. 20 that it was “extremely confusing how this could happen, considering” the pro-mandate side’s claim that protective masks “are the single most important public health tool we have” and that masks “provide protection for the wearer, too.”

“The mask religion will have a number of inaccurate excuses ready to go, but of course, they’re obscuring and ignoring that this should not be possible, no matter what the mitigating circumstances, if masks were as effective or important as we were told,” Miller wrote.

Nor, according to Miller, has the protective-mask mandate worked in states such as California, where it was imposed long before the surge in cases began.

“The simple reality is that there is no legitimate data showing the mandates worked,” Horowitz concludes.

There are those who might question the findings, arguing that population density skews the results. The study looked at Florida using county data and found no correlation between mask mandates and fewer cases, even adjusting for population density, Horowitz notes.

While Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, was attacked vigorously by the mainstream media for refusing to impose a statewide protective-mask mandate, counties in the state that avoided mandates performed well in the study.

Of the state’s 67 counties, 22 imposed an executive mandate at some point during the period examined.

When counties did enforce a mandate, there were 667,239 cases, for an average of 23 cases per 100,000 people per day. When counties didn’t have a mandate, there were 438,687 cases, for an average of 22 cases per 100,000 people per day.

“When you isolate only the top 12 most populous counties in the state … eight of them had effective mask orders implemented at some point during the study period, and four never had a countywide order (Brevard, Lee, Polk, and Volusia),” Horowitz writes.

“When the eight did have an order in effect, there were 24 cases per 100,000 a day. On the other hand, during the days when mandates were not in place (which is never in four counties, and some weeks in seven of the other eight, except for Miami-Dade), there were 17 cases per 100,000 per day.”

There’s no evidence that protective-mask mandates are correlated with a reduced spread of the coronavirus, he states.

“If anything, the opposite is true,” Horowitz writes.

“And it sure as heck is not because of a lack of compliance.”

Science of Mask Risks and Spiritual Implications

Science of Mask Risks

While we hope masks offer protection against COVID-19, research finds that may not be true and they may cause other health problems. (FamVeld/Shutterstock)
Masks have become mandatory in many places, despite conflicting research
December 18, 2020 Updated: December 18, 2020

If 2020 could be summed up in a single garment, it would be a mask.

Whether it’s one of those blue pleated surgical models, a snug-fitting N95, or a homemade version with a cheery seasonal print, the mask has become the face of the pandemic. There are several ways doctors say we can protect ourselves from COVID-19, but the loudest and most persistent prescription by far is a mask.

Wearing a mask is supposed to contain a potentially deadly disease. And with no end in sight for the COVID-19 pandemic, health officials want to see more masks on more faces.

Of course, not everyone embraces the idea. Masks are uncomfortable, inconvenient, and some evidence suggests they might be unnecessary. However, in many indoor places, masks are a requirement. And as case numbers continue to climb, many call for a mandate in which everyone must mask up anywhere they go.

The rationale for mask mandates is that responsibility trumps rights. If health officials say masks save lives, then we owe it to everyone to make this sacrifice. In an Aug. 25 blog post titled “Masks Save Lives,” National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins says he masks up whenever he’s outside his home. He points to a “sophisticated mathematical model” funded by NIH and published in Nature Communications to justify the recommendation for everyone.

“Under different outbreak scenarios and mask usages, the researchers calculated the total numbers of expected SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths from COVID-19,” Collins said. “Not surprisingly, they found that the total number of deaths and infections declined as the availability and effectiveness of face masks increased.”

But what if masks actually create more problems than they solve? That’s a question pondered in four peer-reviewed research papers published in the journal Primary Doctor.

In their last installment, researchers concluded that due to the extensive risk to mask wearers documented in these papers, “we urgently recommend that no adult or child be coerced to wear a mask under any circumstances.”

In a world in which people consider a mask a life-or-death issue, such a statement seems dangerous, blasphemous, and anti-science.

But according to co-author of the papers on the problems associated with masks, Dr. Colleen Huber, forcing everyone to mask up doesn’t make sense.

“Respiratory droplets have been really exaggerated recently by those who advocate masks. As if we were spitting all over everything all the time,” Huber said. “It suggests we’ve been lethal to human success of the species. However, for 99.999 percent of our existence on earth, we’ve been a relatively successful species from an evolutionary perspective.”

While Huber’s statement may sound radical in a discussion of mask mandates, many doctors and scientists back her claim.

In October, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a medical professor at Stanford University, told Just the News that mask mandates are “not supported by the scientific data.”

“For instance, there is no randomized evidence to show that mask mandates would work to slow the spread of the disease. In fact, for influenza, the randomized studies that have been done suggest that they don’t work to slow the spread of the disease.”

Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which is now a staunch supporter of masks as a public health measure, previously saw little use for them. In a CDC policy review on “non-pharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in non-healthcare settings,” researchers stated that after examining 10 randomized controlled trials, they “found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.”

Huber and her team observed a similar theme in regard to COVID-19. They looked at data from a survey on masks done by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) this summer, and compared it to their own survey with the same 25 countries three months later.

Both surveys asked subjects if they had always worn a mask when they left their homes. In the CFR survey, Singapore had the highest yes responses: 93 percent. The fewest were Finland and Denmark, where only 1 percent answered yes.

“When we looked at the same countries in October, there were actually fewer positive COVID tests in the countries that were the least masked,” Huber said.

The largest and most recent scientific evaluation on the effectiveness of masks also shows no support for the practice.

Danish researchers published their findings in a November issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. They conducted a randomized controlled study with about 4,800 participants completing the trial. Half the subjects were assigned to wear masks, and the other half went without. Both groups were instructed to maintain other public health measures—social distancing and clean hands.

COVID-19 infections occurred in 42 participants who wore masks (1.8 percent) and in 53 of the maskless control participants (2.1 percent), resulting in a “statistically insignificant” difference of 0.3 of a percentage point.

The study didn’t assess whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.

Stopping the Spread?

It seems hard to believe now, but when the COVID-19 pandemic first hit, health officials actually discouraged people from wearing masks. On March 30, a United Nations tweet, citing experts from the World Health Organization (WHO), stated that “there is no evidence that wearing a mask by healthy people has any medical benefit.”

Today, masks must now be worn everybody, whether you feel sick or not.

The policy changed when health officials discovered that asymptomatic carriers, people actively infected with COVID-19 but showing no symptoms, were inadvertently spreading the disease through the process of normal respiration.

How much this asymptomatic influence has on the spread of COVID-19 is unclear. Statements from the WHO say this type of transmission is “rare,” but the degree to which it occurs is unknown. One study from September estimates the proportion of asymptomatic infections from 18 to 81 percent. Researchers could provide no guidance for how the data should influence public health measures.

However, health officials remain firm that masks are a must for perhaps years to come. Even with a vaccine, health experts say we must remain diligent in containing our droplets.

In October, Dr. Anthony Fauci, infectious disease expert and head of the U.S. COVID-19 task force, forecast that mask-wearing and social distancing may remain in our world well into 2022.

“It’s not going to be the way it was with polio and measles, where you get a vaccine, case closed, it’s done,” Fauci told the Philadelphia Inquirer. “It’s going to be public health measures that linger for months and months.”

The mathematical model used to support mask mandates primarily focuses on medical-grade, surgical masks. But anything that covers your mouth and nose will get you in a store without a hassle.

However, a study from Duke University suggests that some masks may spread droplets more than no mask at all. The study explored how different masks filtered droplets during speech. Researchers noticed that “speaking through some masks (particularly the neck gaiter) seemed to disperse the largest droplets into a multitude of smaller droplets, which explains the apparent increase in droplet count relative to no mask in that case. Considering that smaller particles are airborne longer than large droplets (larger droplets sink faster), the use of such a mask might be counterproductive.”

Another issue was noted with N95 masks that feature an exhalation valve. Researchers said the valve doesn’t compromise the protection of the wearer, but it “can decrease the protection of persons surrounding the wearer.”

The Duke University study also found that bandanas and knitted masks also performed poorly, but none of these findings have done anything to change health policy.

Huber says there’s a concerted effort to censor any negative information about masks, even if the details might be important to public health.

“Those blue masks available at the grocery store, they’re sterilized with ethylene oxide, which is a known carcinogen. And they are made with PFOA in their fibers which is a known lung cancer risk,” Huber said. “I retweeted this on Twitter and I was kicked off for seven days.”

Before this report went to print, Huber was removed from Twitter permanently.

Weighing the Risks

Throughout the pandemic, YouTube and social media have routinely silenced voices that stray from official statements and policy pertaining to COVID-19, or attached warning labels to give context to rogue commentary.

The goal is to protect public health. In a statement about “immunizing the public against misinformation,”the WHO stated that bad information can have “social and lethal health ramifications in the context of a global pandemic.”

“We’re not just battling the virus,” said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “We’re also battling the trolls and conspiracy theorists that push misinformation and undermine the outbreak response.”

For example, if masks truly save lives, then any information that might discourage the public from wearing one could prove deadly.

However, if there are health problems associated with masks, shouldn’t this also inform policy?

In Huber’s studies, and in several she cited, masks compromise oxygen intake. They may be made of thin cloth, but a physical barrier is still covering your airways, and breathing is clearly better without one.

“There is no successful species that has any obstruction to their breathing,” Huber said. “No species has evolved a mask, chosen to wear one, or sought out a mask in nature. It’s only humans and this has been very rare throughout our history, for free people anyway. Masks have been used historically in slavery, and in torture at Guantanamo.”

Of course, surgeons regularly wear masks for hours on end, so we should theoretically have little problem with one when we go about our business. However, there is evidence that even medical personnel can have issues.

“We found a study where surgeons also suffered from deoxygenation,” Huber said.

That 2008 study “revealed a decrease in the oxygen saturation of arterial pulsations (SpO2) and a slight increase in pulse rates compared to preoperative values in all surgeon groups. The decrease was more prominent in the surgeons aged over 35.”

Since 1979, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has determined that the optimal range of oxygen in the air for humans is 19.5 percent or more. Anything less has been labeled as “not safe for workers.”

When Huber and her team measured the airspace inside a mask with an OSHA-approved oxygen meter, it measured 17.4 percent within 10 seconds, and stayed below that threshold.

Children under 2 years of age are exempt from mask regulations, but Huber and her colleagues believe older children should also be exempt. They note that oxygen deficiency is even more of an emergency for younger people than it is for adults. They point to anatomical differences in children’s bodies that make them more vulnerable to “injury from hypoxic assault.”

Another issue with mask-wearing is particulates. Huber and her team looked at brand-new masks of the models most frequently worn, and at 40 times magnification found lots of debris and loose fibers all over the face-side surface. The most debris was found on cloth masks that had been laundered once.

Inhaling a few particulates may seem fairly harmless. But Huber found numerous air-quality issues that exist inside a mask compared to barrier-free breathing. And over time, these issues could lead to serious illness.

“If you inhale particulates, then you put yourself at risk for lung diseases,” Huber said. “One of the worst diseases that we mention that is a risk is pulmonary fibrosis. It’s a very threatening disease because there is no cure for it in conventional or natural medicine. Pulmonary fibrosis is slow suffocation of a patient. The survival rate at five years is only 20 percent.”

Because a mask deprives you of oxygen, you have to breathe more forcefully to get the air you need, which results in more suction, drawing in debris.

Our bodies are designed to cough out most particulates we might happen to inhale, thanks to little hair-like structures in our upper airways called cilia that help us expectorate. However, because a mask makes it harder to expel carbon dioxide, Huber says it can make cilia immobile, and keep particles stuck deep in our airways.

It’s clear that good breathing is essential to good health. We inhale life-giving oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide waste with every breath. But Huber says that for all types of masks, the carbon dioxide in the masked airspace exceeded the OSHA requirement for room air in about 30 seconds, and continued to increase the longer it is worn.

“People might say, ‘Carbon dioxide molecules are so tiny, even tinier than a virus that it can easily escape through the mesh of a mask,’” Huber said. “This isn’t true. While it only takes a microscopic amount of viral particles to infect, we breathe in about a half liter to a liter of carbon dioxide with every single breath. … That’s a lot of carbon dioxide.”

Wearing a mask can also create a buildup of bacteria, and many doctors are now seeing health problems related to it. At an August press conference for a lawsuit to stop Oklahoma City’s mask mandate on the grounds that it’s “harmful to healthy people,” Dr. James Meehan reported seeing patients with facial rashes, fungal infections, and bacterial infections due to their masks.

“Reports from my colleagues coming from all over the world are suggesting that bacterial pneumonia is on the rise,” Meehan said. “Why might that be? Because untrained members of the public are wearing medical masks repeatedly in an unsterile fashion.”

Meehan estimates having worn a medical mask in surgical procedures more than 10,000 times, but he says even those who wear masks properly in an operating room, an environment designed for people to wear masks in for prolonged periods of time, suffer health problems from wearing them.

“I’ll start to develop a tremor after 30 minutes of mask wear in that high air-exchange, higher oxygen level, cool environment [of the operating room]. Imagine what untrained members of our community are doing when they are wearing them in the Oklahoma summer.” he said. “Masks can block oxygen intake significantly. That’s been demonstrated in experiments all over the world. It’s been studied in surgeons in an optimal environment where there is a higher level of oxygen in an operating suite.”

As case levels rise, and officials struggle to get a pandemic under control, many look to mask mandates as part of the solution. But should a cost-benefit analysis of a mass medical intervention also be included in the conversation? Huber believes so. She says that understanding the harms is especially urgent for children, employees, and others compelled to wear a mask for extended periods of time.

“People think, ‘Well, it’s just a piece of cloth. I’m just going to wear it for a few minutes while I go to the grocery store. What’s the big deal if it protects Grandma?”’ Huber said. “But at what point does the illness that results from this going to be regrettable?”  END

Follow Conan on Twitter: @ConanMilner 

MANDATORY MASKS AS A RITUAL?
Perhaps the  mask is more of a global ritual under the  disguise of a health pandemic.  We have all heard of the Great Reset.  This is a battle of Good and Evil. For ceremonies  where masks are worn, they are viewed by both spectators and participants as consecrated objects imbued with supernatural power. Let’s examine the four distinct, but interrelated, occult rituals that make up this massive global occult ritual initiation ceremony today: Ritual Mask-Wearing, Ritual Hand-Washing, Ritual “Social Distancing” and Ritual Lockdowns. Among other things, the wearing of the mask over one’s mouth is a token of submission, a gesture of your willingness to be subject to others who are not your usual Sovereign.

When persons being held as slaves were accused by their masters of insubordination, or of eating more than their allotment of food, they might expect to be fitted with an iron muzzle. In his autobiography, Olaudah Equiano described his first encounter with such a device in the mid-1700s. . .

“I had seen a black woman slave as I came through the house, who was cooking the dinner, and the poor creature was cruelly loaded with various kinds of iron machines; she had one particularly on her head, which locked her mouth so fast that she could scarcely speak, and could not eat or drink. I [was] much astonished and shocked at this contrivance, which I afterwards learned was called the iron muzzle.”

Slave with Iron Muzzle is an illustration from the 1839 publication, Souvenirs d’un aveugle, by Jacques Etienne Victor Arago  (link).

Perhaps it is time to consider  the wearing of a mask may represent an occult transformation, a human alchemy, if you will , from one role to another.  From one manner of being, to another.  In this case, from individual sovereign under God to collective subject under the children of the devil,  a positive to negative transformation. The masking ritual is specifically designed to reverse the order of hierarchy  of Infinite Intelligence.  In the hierarchy of God, you are a sovereign representative of the divine.  Psychologically, as a spectator, you  are linked to the past through the spirit power of the mask.  So ask yourself , does your mask  represent malignant, evil, negative or potentially harmful spirits?

Using our God Given Gift of Discernment can assist you in answering those questions.

Landmark Study Finds Masks Are Ineffective

STORY AT-A-GLANCE        Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola 

Full article here

  • The first randomized controlled trial of more than 6,000 individuals to assess the effectiveness of surgical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection
  • Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among controls. When they removed the people who did not adhere to proper mask use, the results remained the same — 1.8%, which suggests adherence makes no significant difference
  • Among those who reported wearing their face mask “exactly as instructed,” 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% of the controls
  • 1.4% tested positive for antibodies at the end of the month-long study compared to 1.8% of controls
  • 0.5% in the mask group and 0.6% tested positive for one or more respiratory viruses other than SARS-CoV-2

No matter how strictly mask laws are enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases all fall and rise around the same time. ~ Yinon Weiss

Unmasking the Ritual of the Mask

When persons being held as slaves were accused by their masters of insubordination, or of eating more than their allotment of food, they might expect to be fitted with an iron muzzle. In his autobiography, Olaudah Equiano described his first encounter with such a device in the mid-1700s. . .

“I had seen a black woman slave as I came through the house, who was cooking the dinner, and the poor creature was cruelly loaded with various kinds of iron machines; she had one particularly on her head, which locked her mouth so fast that she could scarcely speak, and could not eat or drink. I [was] much astonished and shocked at this contrivance, which I afterwards learned was called the iron muzzle.”

Slave with Iron Muzzle is an illustration from the 1839 publication, Souvenirs d’un aveugle, by Jacques Etienne Victor Arago  (link).

There is much controversy today regarding the mandate of mandatory mask, perhaps some would say our iron muzzle.   The recommendations to wear mask or not wearing mask, come from  CDC, the US Department of Health and Human Services and the State Health Departments who are referred to as the  Global scientists aligning with the World Health Organization. Depends on who you ask and when you will get different answers.  If the masking would actually stop the spread of a deadly virus, there would be no hesitation from most people. But this so called pandemic seems to be very questionable. Ninety-four percent of Americans who died from COVID-19 had other “types of health conditions and contributing causes” in addition to the virus, according to a new CDC report. That leaves the  6 percent of those deaths directly related only to covid19 while the rest had at least two or more underlying pre-existing  conditions, including diabetics, obesity. heart disease, lung disease, kidney disease, dementia and hypertension.

In fact, people who are obese, who also have the coronavirus, are more than twice as likely to end up in the hospital and nearly 50 percent more likely to die.

So why the mask? Is it to create division?  Some believe they are keeping themselves and others safe while others feel it hinders good health,  our immune system; and even believe it falls in line with slavery and  satanic rituals.

The New England Journal of Medicine said in an article published in April 2020 stated,  ” We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.”

“We are not defenseless against COVID-19,” said CDC Director Dr. Robert R. Redfield. “Cloth face coverings are one of the most powerful weapons we have to slow and stop the spread of the virus – particularly when used universally within a community setting. All Americans have a responsibility to protect themselves, their families, and their communities.”

It appears the medical community that has been silenced by Mainstream Media. Especially those who do not  believe the masks are beneficial, but yet communities around the county are making mask mandatory in order to work or go in to a business or even leave your home.  In Blaylock: Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy, Dr. Russell Blaylock says that not only do face masks fail to protect the healthy from getting sick, but they also create serious health risks to the wearer. If you are not sick, you should not wear a face mask.

This is the first time in modern human history, an entire populace now faced each other, masked-up and social distancing. This was the first step toward chaos on the American street. Some didn’t realize the unintended consequences; some did and exploited this opportunity for the next step in manipulating society. The mandate of wearing masks or face coverings is  becoming more common in cities than suburbs.

The mask may represent the persona, the image you present to the world. Perhaps it means do not speak just do as you are told. Perhaps this entire pandemic is allowing you to take a fresh look at that image and also to look behind it, to discover your true self. It may have served you and supported your ego in the past, but possibly you are now beginning, or being urged, to see yourself in a new way.

For ceremonies  where masks are worn, they are viewed by both spectators and participants as consecrated objects imbued with supernatural power. Lets examine the four distinct, but interrelated, occult rituals that make up this massive global occult ritual initiation ceremony today: Ritual Mask-Wearing, Ritual Hand-Washing, Ritual “Social Distancing” and Ritual Lockdowns. Among other things, the wearing of the mask over one’s mouth is a token of submission, a gesture of your willingness to be subject to others who are not your usual Sovereign.

But there’s more.  According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, mask-wearing is:  “A form of disguise or concealment usually worn over or in front of the face to hide the identity of a person and by its own features to establish another being.”

In other words, the wearing of a mask may represent an occult transformation, a human alchemy, if you will , from one role to another.  From one manner of being, to another.  In this case, from individual sovereign under God to collective subject under the children of the devil,  a positive to negative transformation. The masking ritual is specifically designed to reverse the order of hierarchy  of Infinite Intelligence.  In the hierarchy of God, you are a sovereign representative of the divine.  Psychologically, as a spectator, you  are linked to the past through the spirit power of the mask.  So ask yourself , does your mask  represent malignant, evil, negative or potentially harmful spirits? Much to consider.

As the debate in schools regarding the mask requirement for children continues, it seems humanity has literally lost its moral compass by requiring mask for  the children. We all have our God Given immune systems to fight any type of disease and infection and we can develop herd immunity .  We simply have to nurture our mind, body and spirit by the foods we eat, the movement of our bodies, and by our thoughts, emotions and actions. God is closer than your heartbeat, all you have to do is listen.