Andrew Bridgen and where the UK narrative is going?

All info related to the new biggest hoax of our time.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 4035
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1503 times
Been thanked: 1772 times

Re: Andrew Bridgen and where the UK narrative is going?

Unread post by rachel »

The video in this tweet is 4:40 minutes long. So a "44".


'In an environment in which a government feels it's acceptable to deploy advanced psy-ops on their citizens, the concept of sovereignty becomes obsolete, an anachronism.'

Dr Robert Malone & Neil Oliver discuss the WHO's Pandemic Preparedness Treaty.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 4035
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1503 times
Been thanked: 1772 times

Re: Andrew Bridgen and where the UK narrative is going?

Unread post by rachel »


'It would have been easy to be distracted today by pageantry and pomp, all the music and marching, that’s the name of the game on a day like today... razzle dazzle ‘em.'

Neil Oliver shares his thoughts on King Charles' Coronation and the British Monarchy.
Samson79
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2021 12:50 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 111 times

Re: Andrew Bridgen and where the UK narrative is going?

Unread post by Samson79 »

I forget which Dr Campbell video it is where he is conversing with Andrew Bridgen, something strange popped out of the conversation, in one video (maybe different) I learned Andrew Bridgen has a very accomplished past in genetic studies, then in the conversation with Dr Campbell ....Andrew relates that he has infact recieved "2" doses of Astra-Zeneca covid-19 vaccines, so given his credentials it makes no sense at all that he would involve himself in any novel gene therapy....let alone twice!!

Very strange admissions, presenting a confusing narrative, a qualified geneticist who accepts two doses of a vaccine he later pioneers criticism of. As a politition (acting) how much trust does he deserve?
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 4035
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1503 times
Been thanked: 1772 times

Historic Rump Parliament

Unread post by rachel »

Yes, I agree with you. There is a lot of papering over the fact he went along with lockdowns. And his comment that apparently got him expelled from the Conservative party seems contrived. Likewise Matt Hancock's, who was expelled for appearing on "I'm a Celebrity". I think I know the reason for Matt's disappearance, but I wonder if Bridgen's status as independent MP is really about getting certain statements on the record in Hansard.

Hansard is the minutes of Parliament and is relevant to all Commonwealth countries. It exists so people don't come up with the suggestion, "these things never happened". I don't believe we are looking at one unified side in this, but the split isn't on party lines. So getting vaccine damage claims on public record is important, but as MPs left the chamber when it happened, they can claim ignorance in front of the law. The movement of Parliament is such that I don't know enough yet to trust it or miss trust it. Who are they double-crossing?

00spldel-861148-501920.jpg

All through covid they were showing the double-cross. And it's the Cross of St George. If you know anything about Oliver Cromwell, he had a Rump Parliament. Charles I - Charles III. It seems the whole point of his name is to somehow replay the events of Charles I.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rump_Parliament
The Rump Parliament was the English Parliament after Colonel Thomas Pride commanded soldiers to purge the Long Parliament, on 6 December 1648, of those members hostile to the Grandees' intention to try King Charles I for high treason.

"Rump" normally means the hind end or back-side of a mammal; its use meaning "remnant" was first recorded in the above context in English in 1649.

Treaty of Newport
In September 1648, at the end of the Second English Civil War, the Long Parliament was concerned with the increasing radicalism in the New Model Army. The Long Parliament began negotiations with King Charles I. The members wanted to restore the king to power, but wanted to limit the authority he had. Charles I conceded militia power, among other things, but he later admitted that it was only so he could escape. In November the negotiations began to fail, and the New Model Army seized power. Charles I was then taken into the Army's custody to await trial for treason.

Pride's Purge
The New Model Army wanted to prevent Parliament from agreeing on the Treaty of Newport to reinstate King Charles I. While Presbyterian and moderate elements within Parliament were inclined to continue negotiations, the Army was impatient with Charles. Thomas Fairfax, by issuing a command to Commissary General Ireton, organized a military coup in 1648. Ireton intended to dissolve the Long Parliament but was persuaded to purge it instead. He then ordered Colonel Thomas Pride to prevent the signing of the Treaty of Newport.

Between 6 and 12 December, Pride—supported by two regiments—prevented 231 known supporters of the treaty from entering the House, imprisoning 45 for a few days. The remaining free members then became the Rump Parliament.

Execution of Charles I and abolition of the monarchy
When it became apparent to the leaders of the New Model Army that Parliament—then controlled by the Presbyterian faction—was ready to come to an agreement with the King that would restore him to the throne (though without effective power) and negate the power of the Army, they resolved to shatter the power of both King and Parliament. Pride's Purge brought Parliament to heel under the direct control of the Army; the remaining Commons (the Rump) then on 13 December 1648, broke off negotiations with the King. Two days later, the Council of Officers of the New Model Army voted that the King be moved from the Isle of Wight, where he was prisoner, to Windsor, "in order to the bringing of him speedily to justice". The King was brought from Windsor to London in the middle of December.

On 4 January 1649, the House of Commons passed an ordinance to set up a High Court of Justice, to try Charles I for high treason in the name of the people of England. The House of Lords rejected it, and as it did not receive Royal Assent, Charles asked at the start of his trial on 20 January in Westminster Hall, "I would know by what power I am called hither. I would know by what authority, I mean lawful authority", knowing that there was no legal answer under the constitutional arrangements of the time. He was convicted with fifty-nine commissioners (judges) signing the death warrant.

The execution of Charles I was stayed until 30 January, so that the House of Commons could pass an emergency act, the "Act prohibiting the proclaiming any person to be King of England or Ireland, or the Dominions thereof", that made it an offence to proclaim a new King, and to declare the representatives of the people, the House of Commons, as the source of all just power. The Commons voted to abolish the House of Lords on 6 February and to abolish the monarchy on 7 February; an act abolishing the kingship was formally passed by the Rump on 17 March, followed by an act to abolish the House of Lords on 19 March. The establishment of a Council of State was approved on 14 February, and on 19 May an Act Declaring England a Commonwealth was passed. The Treasons Act made it an offence to say that the House of Commons (without the Lords or the King) was not the supreme authority of the land.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 4035
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1503 times
Been thanked: 1772 times

Dr John Campbell vs Triggernometry

Unread post by rachel »

Vaccine truth versus propaganda
https://fakeologist.com/blog/2023/04/26 ... ropaganda/

I wasn't able to link to the post, but the is grab from part two of Thinking Slow's research on John Campbell with regards to youtube earings.

Screenshot 2023-05-12 at 17.40.18.png

And Campbell appears on Triggernometry. You know my feeling about KK and his mate FF. This, rather amusing, from Alistair Williams.

DR SHILL VS TRIGGERNOMS
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 4035
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1503 times
Been thanked: 1772 times

Re: King Charles III's Coronation

Unread post by rachel »

rachel wrote: Sat May 06, 2023 8:41 am I found these two videos rather interesting. I was looking for an update on the oath King Charles was going to take.

In the earlier videos, Dr G Ashenden talks about King Charles being a follower of Carl Jung. So I've just come across this post about Jung, it might be a useful reference. Some references to Freemasonry.

Carl Jung - His Secret Masonic Lineage and Alchemical Studies
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 4035
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1503 times
Been thanked: 1772 times

UK Biosecurity State

Unread post by rachel »

I've posted up a couple of Simon Elmer interviews. He's very clear in what we are facing, as he has a career in the UK Housing sector. This is a section from his book Virtue and Terror, which is a collection of articles he wrote during covid. I'll give you the site, because the actual articles are probably still there.

Category: Biopolitics
https://architectsforsocialhousing.co.u ... opolitics/


Virtue and Terror: Selected Articles on the UK Biosecurity State, Volume 1
https://architectsforsocialhousing.co.u ... -volume-1/
Introduction, 4. Truth and Lies

These articles are a record of how, with the collaboration of a terrorised and virtuous public, a threat to public health that never existed was turned into a ‘crisis’, and on the justification of combatting it the experimental ‘vaccination’ programme was implemented, laying the foundations for the UK biosecurity state of today. Published in two volumes titled, respectively, Virtue and Terror and The New Normal, they have been selected from the two-dozen or so that first appeared on the website of Architects for Social Housing in the eighteen months between April 2020 and October 2021. These received a far more positive response than I had reason to expect at the time, having been visited on our website by over 300,000 readers from 190 countries. Indeed, I have previously made collections of all these articles, which were distributed as pdf files to those who wanted to read them in a different format to the scroll of an online text. So why publish them now, 18 months and more later? The answer, partly, is in order to capitalise on the unexpected success of my book, The Road to Fascism: For a Critique of the Global Biosecurity State, which I published last September, and which gives me the chance to bring these articles to a wider audience now that more ears and eyes are opening to the information and arguments they contain. But there is another, more pressing, reason.

As the evidence of the immense and increasing damage of both lockdown and the UK ‘vaccination’ programme has become too overwhelming for all but the COVID faithful to ignore, those who called loudest for their enforcement — politicians, journalists and doctors — have claimed not only that they did not know what the consequences would be but that nobody else knew either, and have made plaintive appeals for an ‘amnesty’ between the financially ruined, psychologically traumatised, ‘vaccine’ injured and bereaved and those responsible for their suffering and loss. I’m happy to say that these appeals have been almost universally rejected and denounced for what they are: denials of culpability by cowards and criminals. The data and analysis contained in these articles are a reminder and historical record that those who took the time to look knew almost from the start that the coronavirus ‘crisis’ had been manufactured, that closing down the economy for two years would impoverish millions and enrich a few, that printing hundreds of billions of pounds in quantitative easing to save it from collapse would lead to rampant inflation, that withdrawing medical diagnosis, care and treatment for 68.8 million people for two years would cause the deaths of tens of thousands of UK citizens, and that injecting 170 million doses of experimental gene therapies into a terrorised public would kill thousands, injure millions, and go on to have still unknown consequences for the health and lives of the British people.

It is a convention of the House of Commons that Members of Parliament can (and do) lie through their teeth to their honourable friends but cannot accuse another MP of doing the same, and the UK media and publishing industry obediently follows this gentleman’s agreement; but if we are to expose and oppose the Great Lie we have been living since March 2020, we’ll have to overthrow more entrenched conventions than this. We can start by calling a lie a ‘lie’ when we hear or read one. To claim ignorance of the consequences of these medieval health ‘measures’ is a lie, and the articles collected in these volumes, like many others written by other independent researchers, are the proof of that lie. I am neither a medical doctor nor an actuary, yet anyone who had the courage to analyse the impact of lockdown on both the economy and medical services of the UK and other countries, or what should have been the ample safety signals about the dangers and risks of these injections, and of the complete absence of medical, scientific or rational basis to either, knew that this was a lie. If the guilty are now protesting their ignorance, they are doing so to absolve themselves of responsibility for what they collaborated in doing or enabling, to deny culpability for the damage and deaths, and to avoid retribution from a public coming to the realisation that we have been the object of a campaign of impoverishment and genocide being waged against us by the UK state and its global partners, and in which large portions of the population continue to be complicit.

The truth is not merely a statement of fact — that, for example, this chair is made of wood, or that all men are mortal. The truth is always stated in the face of the attempt and threat of powerful forces to silence it and those who dare to speak it. Totalitarianism is not only the agreement but the dogmatic insistence of the vast majority of the population of a society and all those in positions of power that what is clearly, evidently and demonstrably false is true. When a mother insists that the child she persuaded or allowed to be injected wasn’t killed by the experimental gene therapy that was injected into it a few hours earlier she is, understandably, trying to deny her complicity in the naivety and stupidity that led her to agree to allow someone to expose her child to such a risk. But she is also silencing what is impossible for her, at that moment, to entertain as a possibility: that the National Health Service she has been raised to regard as a secular Church, the pharmaceutical industry and her Government not only don’t care about whether her child and everybody else she knows lives or dies, but may even be intentionally trying to kill them. Between this realisation and denial of the reality of everything she knows, has seen, learned and experienced in her life, it is the latter that she and the vast majority of people in this country as in others have chosen to believe; or if not to believe themselves then to insist others believe, even on pain of being silenced, fined, imprisoned and worse for not believing. It is on this mutual agreement to insist on the truth of a lie that nobody believes that a totalitarian society is made. This describes, precisely, the society we are living in now.

Everything — every last thing without exception — that we’ve been told about the ‘pandemic’ over the last three years has been a lie. Nothing we have been told is true. Whether we did or do choose to believe it is not a question of opinion, or what we grandly call ‘our’ politics, or even of our trust in authority. Those in authority in our society, as in every other across the world and throughout history, didn’t get there by telling the truth: they got there by lying — among other and worse things. If we chose to believe them — and as a ‘people’ the British did so in overwhelming numbers — it was because we were scared, and our fear made us stupid, it made us compliant, it made us weak, it made us turn to the liars in authority and ask them to tell us what to do — worse, to demand that they tell us what to do, and not only us but everybody else too. No-one who wanted to could not have failed to realise, very early on, that we were being lied to. There were and are no grey areas between what was and wasn’t true. The truth was and still is there for anyone who wants to find it. The lies were and are easier to listen to, for they are everywhere, in every mouth, across every screen, loud and stupid and unbelievable except by an act of will — not to truth but to believe easy lies. But the difficult truth is that only cowards believed them, that only cowards can possibly choose to continue to believe them after three years of unrelenting and universal lying. It is on this collective cowardice, and on the acceptance and repetition of lies to the point that they are now accepted and enforced by the authorities as truth, even when secretly scarcely anyone still believes them, that the New Normal has been constructed. And the unpleasant truth is that this tells us something about where we are, in the UK, as a society and perhaps, in the West, as a civilisation, as well as about the terrible place we are heading.

The accusation of ‘conspiracy theorist’ by which anyone opposing or even questioning Government policy continues, still, to be dismissed by our representatives in Parliament, slandered in mainstream and social media, and now criminalised by our Government, judiciary and police forces, is the dark seed of our postmodernity come to fruition. Where modernity understood the truth to be concealed beneath the surface reality of things and sought to excavate it from beneath the lies of the powerful, postmodernity views reality itself as constituted by those surfaces, beneath which there is only the abyss of competing opinions, whose will to power produces a truth that is therefore always contingent, always a product of power, regardless of any purchase that truth may have on the world.

Not only truth, therefore, but reality itself now is up for grabs. A man in a dress is now a woman if those with the legislative power to punish us for denying it say he is. Gene therapies that do nothing to stop transmission of the virus but instead destroy the human immune system can be injected into the population of the globe as a ‘vaccine’ if governments accord themselves the power to lock us in our homes until enough of us comply. A global pandemic which leaves little or no trace on the overall mortality of the populations infected is the excuse for removing our human rights and freedoms under a permanent state of emergency and dismantling our democracies for a constitutional dictatorship if there are enough police to enforce it and the media machinery to make people believe it. The imminence of an environmental catastrophe for which there is little and contested evidence is the justification for the revolution into the new totalitarianism of global governance if the financial institutions, international corporations and national governments that form it want it to happen. And they do. Totalitarianism is a dictatorship in which everyone is complicit, in which everyone collaborates, because everyone believes the reality for whose consensus they lost the struggle. The outcome of our struggle is still not decided — not yet, not quite — but on its triumph or defeat will depend the fate of the West, and perhaps even of humankind.

When I look back on the last three years and the memories that most capture its insanity and obscenities, I recall the elderly residents of Porlock, a village on the North Coast of Somerset I visited on the first summer of lockdown, shuffling through the sweltering streets with their terrified faces covered not only with masks but with plastic visors. Or of the dozens of virtuous members of the public who, in pubs, shops, supermarkets or on country walks, have screamed at me for not keeping my distance or wearing a mask. And, most horrifying of all, the recorded videos, too numerous to recall, of men and women, young and old, shaking uncontrollably, too weak to walk or even stand, lying in hospital beds, their skin covered in rashes, some with their limbs amputated, their eyes blank and staring, coming to terms with what they’ve done.

But the memory that haunts me most is only tangentially connected to the effects of lockdown restrictions or the experimental gene therapies. Recently, I saw a small child, no more than a year old, sitting in a pram in the entrance to a supermarket. Admittedly, there was little for him to look at beside the wall-to-wall adverts with which we are surrounded in the city today, but even these were withdrawn from his attention. For the child’s mother had placed in front of his face a screen, in size an infant’s equivalent to the laptop on which I write these words, but across which a parade of brightly-coloured, digitally-generated images that bore no relation to the world flashed before his transfixed gaze. I don’t know if this is typical of the practices of child-raising in the UK today, and whether this machine is the latest digital upgrade to what we in the UK call ‘dummies’ and in the US they call ‘pacifiers’; but it was clearly doing the latter and producing the former. Not once, as I stood there watching this new model of the human being being made, did this infant look up at the world around him, or appear to make any distinction between that world and the virtual one into whose navigation and eventual mergence he was being subliminally trained. These are minds that can learn languages and skills in months that would take adults years of study and training; and it’s to the digital, virtual and augmented world over which the enemies of humanity have complete control that our children are being raised, not the material, real and natural world from which they want to ban us, in order to possess and control its resources.

It is not by chance that the target and primary object of the trans-human programmes, technologies, ideology and agenda of the Global Biosecurity State is our children, whom they are doing their best to take away from the protection of their parents and families and into the control of the state. Only a generation raised by their iPhones into a childhood of austerity and national decline, educated by social media into the orthodoxies of identity politics and woke ideology, and which graduated to masks, lockdown and medical mandates, could possibly view the image of the future being created for them by the World Economic Forum as something desirable. Only a generation terrorised by an endless succession of civilisation-ending crises could swap their freedoms, their rights, their agency and their humanity for the promise of an all-encompassing ‘safety’. The dystopian horror of that future is our greatest weapon in the fight to stop it becoming a reality. It is up to us, who are guilty of handing our children’s education over to globalists, propagandists, ideologues, fanatics and preachers of the apocalypse, to convince them of the falseness of their fears, and that the only end of the world they are facing is that being built on their belief in those fears and obedience to those who have fabricated them. To this end, we need to paint a different image of the future they might one day inhabit if together we defeat the threats we face today. Not since the First Industrial Revolution have there been more profound and far-reaching changes to our world. Not since the Second World War has there been a greater threat to the freedoms of the people of the world. The battle is engaged. For the sake of the future in which all children will live out their lives either in some degree of freedom or in a totalitarian system the like of which has never been seen before, we need to win it.

Finally, there is a positive, hopeful, even happy reason to publish these articles in book form. Unlike an electronic text, a book is an object that enters and moves about in the real world. The author never knows where it will go, who will pick it up and read it, and what effect it may have. No one can monitor what you read in it or punish you for doing so. No one can tell you it’s misinformation or censor the words or thoughts of which they don’t approve. No one can suspend your bank account for what you learn in its pages. The printed word can’t be deleted online, altered to fit woke ideology or fact-checked by corporate liars. Not the least joy of publishing these books independently is that no editor has meddled with them. Every word is as I wrote it, and both volumes are available uncensored by a publisher or the information technology companies handed the authority to adjudicate over our freedom of thought and expression. It’s an inevitability, however, that sometime in the near future the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or some other fundamentalist organisation will declare that, since books are made from carbon dioxide-absorbing trees, they are ‘killing the planet’, and reading them, therefore, is a crime. The spectacle of the virtuous burning books will return — this I prophesy! But while the last days of freedom remain to us, books are freedom.

— January 2023
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 4035
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1503 times
Been thanked: 1772 times

Re: Dr John Campbell vs Triggernometry

Unread post by rachel »

Continuing from part one of Dr John Campbell vs Triggernometry, Alistair Williams has made a part 2, and yes, thinking about it, JC was originally pushing the vaccines as I remember. that's why I didn't watch him.

ARE DR J.C'S MISTAKES, MISTAKES?


JC, that's an interesting set of initials, and maybe chosen for their subliminal value. I wouldn't have thought much of it except for another JC, Jeremy Corbyn, who when first interviewed on BBC as a new MP in the 1980s, the interviewer called Robin. so from RC to JC. Something of a religious theme in that.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 4035
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1503 times
Been thanked: 1772 times

Re: Dr John Campbell vs Triggernometry

Unread post by rachel »

Missed Part 2.
John still advocating for lockdown to save the NHS. Save it for what exactly? It's a broken money pit that governments can give blanket immunity from prosecution for killing people via statute law when they so feels like. (Written into the Coronavirus Act. FACT)

DR SHILL VS T NORMS PART 2


Part 3.
Doctor Campbell. 27:29, he knows why the ventilators were used.

DR SHILL VS T NORMS GRAND FINALE
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 4035
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1503 times
Been thanked: 1772 times

Re: Andrew Bridgen and where the UK narrative is going?

Unread post by rachel »

Some little intrigue, that third video got taken down from Youtube, and...
TRIGGERNOMETRY BANK ACCOUNT SHUT DOWN

Nick Dixon is from GB NEWS.

A11-61.png
Fwf0KR7XgAEYpsC.jpg
Post Reply