Blog

One of the big controversies that’s come up in the last few weeks is Dr Peter Breggin (author of Covid19 The Global Predators: We Are The Prey”) has been exposing some hidden truths about the history and background of Mattias Desmet who authored a recent book called “The Psychology of Totalitarianism”. He also in this same video exposed some of the financial background of Dr Robert Malone who still seems to be profiting dearly from pharma vaccine interests.

Here’s the first video then I’ll share my opinion on this subject and some more details and additional videos

[iframe width=”640″ height=”360″ scrolling=”no” frameborder=”0″ style=”border: none;” src=”https://www.bitchute.com/embed/7AG3IeVfcdif/” data-mce-src=”https://www.bitchute.com/embed/7AG3IeVfcdif/” data-mce-style=”border: none;” /]

I think the points that Dr Breggin brings up are interesting and should be noted. It’s important to know the background when hearing concepts proposed by various influencers. I can’t comment so deeply on this because I haven’t yet read Desmet’s book but I do plan to read it and will likely update this when I do.

I’ve seen a few other interviews with Desmet and while his past clinical work and potential failures to properly diagnose a mass murderer in Belgium is rather serious – my question is whether that should lead to a full dismissal of his historical account of what he and others are calling “mass formation”?

Here’s his recent interview on TheHighwire with Del Bigtree:

[iframe width=”640″ height=”360″ scrolling=”no” frameborder=”0″ style=”border: none;” src=”https://www.bitchute.com/embed/1d2yl8D10dRj/” data-mce-src=”https://www.bitchute.com/embed/1d2yl8D10dRj/” data-mce-style=”border: none;” /]

He articulated these concepts quite well on that above interview.

Here’s the rub – if Desmet is arguing that we should NOT try to stop the elites from taking over the world and blame it on the masses that are essentially hypnotized then I would agree with Dr Breggin’s conclusion and we should dismiss Desmet. It doesn’t seem from the above interview that Desmet is saying we should let the elite’s get away with this. It actually seems he is saying the opposite and that we MUST speak out about this and spread the word and that is how we break the mass formation.

Here’s another interview that Dr Peter Breggin had recently on the Pete Santilli show where he gets into more details about why he is speaking out against Mattias Desmet and Dr Robert Malone:

[iframe width=”640″ height=”360″ scrolling=”no” frameborder=”0″ style=”border: none;” src=”https://www.bitchute.com/embed/nF96TTadq1Em/” data-mce-src=”https://www.bitchute.com/embed/nF96TTadq1Em/” data-mce-style=”border: none;” /]

Now this last video isn’t directly related to the Desmet Malone debate but we recently posted another interview that Dr Breggin did with Patrick Wood regarding Technocracy and the global elite totalitarian agenda. This may give you some perspective about where Dr Breggin is coming from:

[iframe width=”640″ height=”360″ scrolling=”no” frameborder=”0″ style=”border: none;” src=”https://www.bitchute.com/embed/BLfuxhjL858I/” data-mce-src=”https://www.bitchute.com/embed/BLfuxhjL858I/” data-mce-style=”border: none;” /]

As usual our videos can be found on our bitchute channel here:

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/knowingthetruth/

What do you think about Mattias Desmet, the concept of Mass Formation, Dr Robert Malone and his financial backers, and about Dr Peter Breggin? Please share your thoughts in the comments below and if you found this post interesting please share it with your friends in any way you like.

Awhile back I wrote a few posts on Controlled Opposition and on one of them I broke down the different types of controlled opposition as I understand them.

I broke down the types of controlled opposition into 3 categories:

• Financially Controlled Opposition
• Philosophically or Ideologically Controlled Opposition
• Blackmailed Controlled Opposition

You can read more about the basis for this in my original post here.

The purpose of that original post was really just to get you to think about the people you follow and what may be influencing their sentiment, what they say and how they view “the truth”.

This brought up some questions and even some concern by some of our subscribers who seemed to kind of misunderstand my point in thinking that I was calling out ideologically controlled opposition, who are quite literally indoctrinated into their belief system, as liars.

My point was not to say that ALL controlled opposition publishers are liars. In fact the point was exactly the opposite!

After all most people probably don’t think about the middle group and my argument is that they are NOT liars but in fact believe what they are conveying IS the truth when in fact they may be on the old side of a paradigm shift that the popular opinion is awakening to. You are of course welcome to disagree with this argument and type in some comments on this post about why you disagree but that is my argument.

With this in mind here I’ll expand on the concepts of controlled opposition, opposition bias and paradigm shifts and how this relates to the court of public opinion and what we see as “truth”. Popular opinion is, after all the true voice of the people regardless of the potential conflict with a mainstream narrative.

Every single one of you on this planet has a life trajectory that is unique to your life and what you go through and this creates your unique (cultural) bias which is essentially the lens you see the world through. The more cultures you are exposed to as you grow up the more diverse your cultural bias would be.

This bias is not fixed, you can always change it if you are determined to accomplish this and do the work that is required to see the world in a new light. You might describe this as a type of pardigm shift that you’d experience in your life.

If your career is oriented around science the individual mentors who you were exposed to would have a large influence on your scientific bias. This could be for better or worse depending on who you are mentored by and who you work with.

Interestingly some that are exposed to extremely corrupt science such as was apparently the case with Dr Judy Mikovits and her work with Anthony Fauci can actually spin a rebellious bias against the corruption that has plagued the scientific community. In her case it catapulted her to reject mainstream corrupt science and write her series of books on the “Plague of Corruption”. One could argue Dr Mikovits had a paradigm shift in this outcome becoming quite the whistleblower about the ingredients in vaccines and other corruptions in medical practice.

I feel that my upbringing and being influenced by my Dad, who is a very mainstream doctor, had a similar effect on me. This is at least partially why my bias had evolved many years ago into a hardened anti-pharma person that is also highly skeptical of what’s now often referred to as “scientism” (the concepts that science has turned into more of a religion with the scientific method being rejected in favor of the almighty dollar based on who is paying for the “research”). I guess that could be part of the reason that over these last few years I’ve consistently maintained my health throughout and never felt the need for even the praised ivermectin instead focusing on non-pharma natural, herbal and energy medicine.

So I probably went through my paradigm shift decades ago when I moved to Oregon, which at the time was a bastion of natural health. Since then a great deal of the populace here has been co-opted to believe the decades long programming by what is lately being referred to a “liberal” media. The liberal media label may in fact be part of the divide and conquer strategy because really all mainstream media, no matter what the station’s call letters or whether they lean left or right, are in fact ALL sponsored in one way or another by Pfizer and Big Pharma. If the sponsorship is not direct the funding sources will always lead through the quagmire network of so called philanthropic foundations, which ultimately leads to the same Rockefeller or George Soros cartels of NGOs that sponsor state terrorism and regime change on a global scale.

I believe culturally the entire world is going through a large scale version of this sort of paradigm shift right now due to the way of the “powers that be” responded to the covid-19 fiasco. It’s some sort of awakening which is multi-faceted but I believe the roots are in a large population base being shocked into realizing that the core scientific establishment is based on fraud.

That rabbit hole is rather deep and different prominent doctors have gone down it to different levels and therefore express differing opinions on how they see the situation. The cultural bias lens that they see the world through is morphing in realtime as they do more and more “truth” interviews.

Does it mean that these “respectable” doctors that may only be just below the surface of that rabbit hole are lying because they may not expose “the whole truth”?

My answer to that would be absolutely not.

We all have different beliefs and these may have something to do with how far down we’ve gone. Your beliefs may not be as extreme as mine. I was lucky to find an old copy of Jon Rappaport’s book “AIDS Inc.” at an estate sale in the 1990’s and it definitely opened me up early to just how corrupt pharma can be and how long lasting public opinion can be influenced by corruption. After all most of our population didn’t realize how much of a scam AIDS was until RFK Jr published “The Real Anthony Fauci” in 2021.

Books like RFK’s (more than Jon Rappaport’s unfortunately) can trigger a global paradigm shift against the scientific establishment. These effects are clearly timely because the general populace wasn’t ready for such a shift in the late ’80’s when I believe AIDS Inc was first published. It took a cultural upheaval of lockdowns, destroyed businesses and a forced “vaccine” agenda to trigger this latest paradigm shift of awakening to the extreme levels of corruption in science and captured government agencies.

I personally hope this leads to a full rejection of the frauds behind the germ theory of disease and a full embrace of the importance of the terrain theory. The work of Antoine Bechampe needs to be understood. He was an adversary of Louis Pasteur and published numerous experiments to debunk the germ theories of disease put forth by Pasteur.

These concepts have been exponentiated in the concepts of viral cause of disease as exposed quite articulately by Drs. Andrew Kaufman, Stefan Lanka and Thomas Cowan among others.

When the realization that pretty much all peer-reviewed scientific journals are in on a fraud that skews science towards one or another political direction it’s obvious we can’t rely on it for anything.

In closing, will the collapse of science and medicine we are witnessing right now be just part of the ultimate collapse of our industrial civilization?

I don’t know the answer to that but it sure seems like the general public opinion is very concerned about this type of question and is now rejecting the media narratives that have driven society for far too long. Regardless of where some indoctrinated “truthers” may be in their life path it’s important to realize that many that may be in some ways incorrect about what they believe are often well meaning and not intentionally trying to deceive you.

Since this was a rather serious post I’ll lighten this up a bit with a funny parody of a Beach Boys song by The Babylon Bee:

[iframe style=”border: none;” src=”https://www.bitchute.com/embed/7e7kjtR58lwB/” width=”640″ height=”360″ frameborder=”0″ scrolling=”no” data-mce-src=”https://www.bitchute.com/embed/7e7kjtR58lwB/” data-mce-style=”border: none;” /]

Here’s our video channel so you can see the videos we post almost daily:

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/knowingthetruth/

Please share your thoughts below and share this with anyone you feel would benefit from reading it.

Featured Photo By DES Daughter
Liar Image courtesy of: id-iom
Fauci Caricature Image courtesy of: DonkeyHotey
911 Inside Job Image courtesy of: worldgathering

Semiconductors of our “current” generation which are used in common computers and electronics are silicone based chips. These have certain limits on speed as well as limits on miniaturization in nanotech.

Now with all the attention that the Covid jabs have brought to graphene oxide and graphene based technology there hasn’t been enough attention on the development of graphene based microchips (and even nanochips).

Graphene transistors have been in development for many years and the connection to biotech has probably been there from the beginning due to the hurdles in developing nano sized circuitry. A team at Stanford University in 2013 came up with a method of “building” nano-sized graphene transistors using strands of DNA as a template:

“The loose carbon atoms stayed close to where they broke free from the DNA strands, and so they formed ribbons that followed the structure of the DNA,” Yap said.

So part one of the invention involved using DNA to assemble ribbons of carbon. But the researchers also wanted to show that these carbon ribbons could perform electronic tasks. So they made transistors on the ribbons.

“We demonstrated for the first time that you can use DNA to grow narrow ribbons and then make working transistors,” Sokolov said.

Fast forward to our present where GBH (graphene based hydrogels) are being used in both PCR test swabs as well as ingredients in “experimental” gene therapy injections. Gels in general are used as delivery systems and engineered specifically based on their purpose, in order to hold the integrity of the gel and melt when the payload is to be delivered. In the case of the swabs that may be rather simple based on temperature changes when inserted in order to deliver an ethylene oxide or graphene oxide poison.

The Stanford paper further discussed DNA and the challenges of this method of building graphene structures and nano-circuits:

The paper drew praise from UC Berkeley associate professor Ali Javey, an expert in the use of advanced materials and next-generation electronics.

“This technique is very unique and takes advantage of the use of DNA as an effective template for controlled growth of electronic materials,” Javey said. “In this regard the project addresses an important research need for the field.”

Bao said the assembly process needs a lot of refinement. For instance, not all of the carbon atoms formed honeycombed ribbons a single atom thick. In some places they bunched up in irregular patterns, leading the researchers to label the material graphitic instead of graphene.

Of course this was 2013 and years of research and refinement may have ironed out some of those hurdles.

But if it didn’t fix all of them could it explain some of the clotting experienced by many of the jabbed?

Now personally I don’t believe that it’s this simple but more likely the result of GBH programmed for self-assembly using metals and minerals found in our blood to create the structures and synthetic biology (synbio) found in the clots. But experiments can also go awry and we really don’t know how perfected these technologies were before this massive experiment was unleashed on humanity.

Keep in mind that one of the reasons this research on graphene was going on at Stanford in 2013 and elsewhere is that graphene has very interesting magnetic and electrical conductivity properties and can exhibit superconductivity characteristics giving it the potential to revolutionize the switching speed of microchips paving the way for low cost (?) quantum computers.

What we are talking about here is speeds of 100 Gigahertz and possibly higher. These frequency ranges are desired by big tech because of the immense data carrying capacity at these ultra-high frequencies.

Graphene also has very unique light absorption properties and actually has been shown to absorb light beyond it’s size and shape. Part of the effect is due to a phenomena called cyclotron resonance but I’ll avoid getting too geeky here and let you follow the referenced links if that’s your forte. Suffice it to say that the unique phenomena that graphene has involves literally trapping light giving it time to be absorbed, very unique:

Light striking graphene is trapped and transformed into an ultraslow surface wave. These waves get “stuck” in graphene and stay there until they are absorbed. The more light graphene absorbs, the more it heats up and the more its resistance changes leading to a larger photosignal. Hence, the change in resistance of graphene under the action of light is a measure of its absorptivity.

In the context of GBH (graphene based hydrogels) injected into humans as part of experimental gene therapy injections it begs the question of how these could be used as power sources by absorbing terahertz radiation in order to power nano-circuitry in experimental synthetic biology systems attempting to create artificial neural networks.

In this regime graphene is expected to be a super absorber. That is, it will not only capture light from an area larger than its geometric size, it will be able to capture light from an area larger than the square of the wavelength. The anomalously low plasmon velocity in magnetized graphene creates all the prerequisites for this.

Why is this important?

A number of reasons actually but briefly to touch on one area, we use light signaling in our intracellular communication networks (Pollack 2013) and this mechanism could potentially be hijacked with various nano-technology including graphene based hydrogels both for powering graphene based nano-circuits as well as using these for light emitted neural signaling.

I guess we will see where this leads because obviously this is a deep topic but I can only go so far in this post.

The group at La Quinta Columna discussed this topic here on this video:

With all this discussion of graphene based hydrogels it seems important to mention the work of Gerald Pollack and his 2013 book “The Fourth Phase of Water” where he makes a well documented scientific argument for living cellular water as a “gel” in biological systems as well as detailing the associated communication networks.

Personally I find it quite interesting, and not just coincidental that he published this groundbreaking work as the “revolution” in the development of graphene based gels was gaining serious momentum.

I hope this report wasn’t too deep in the weeds and gave you some jumping off points to research further.

More on these subjects will be covered in the future

Please share this to your friends that may be able to gain some insight from it in all the places you like to share things.

 

As usual our videos can be found here where you can subscribe on our bitchute channel:

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/knowingthetruth/

Stanford Source: https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/stanford-scientists-use-dna-assemble-transistor-graphene
Graphene Light Absorption reference: https://phys.org/news/2022-02-abnormally-strong-absorption-graphene.html