💉☠️☑️ mRNA Nanotech Injections Resulted In Excess Mortality; Now Verified

✖️ https://x.com/NotOpCue/status/1713019826061369352?s=20

As of September 17, 2023 The Correlation "Research In The Public Interest" Report published "COVID-19 Vaccine-Associated Mortality In The Southern Hemisphere" authored by Denis G. Rancourt, Marine Baudin, Joseph Hickey and Jérémie Mercier.

The concluding remarks from the 180 page report verified the causality of mRNA nanotech injections resulting in excess mortality. The 17 countries studied (Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Malaysia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Suriname, Thailand, Uruguay) comprise 9.10 % of worldwide population, 10.3 % of worldwide COVID-19 injections (vaccination rate of 1.91 injections per person, all ages).

The scientific tests for causality were amply satisfied, as extensively demonstrated in these sections of the paper:

💉☠️ COVID-19 vaccines can cause death
💉☠️ Absence of excess mortality until the COVID-19 vaccines are rolled out
💉☠️ The COVID-19 vaccines did not save lives and appear to be lethal toxic agents
💉☠️ Strong evidence for a causal association and vaccine lethal toxicity
💉☠️ Causality in excess mortality is amply demonstrated

↙️↙️Read & Share The Full Article↘️↘️
🔍 "The Adverse Effects of Experimental Messenger RNA (mRNA) "Vaccines" a.k.a. Injections For COVID-19"
💊 https://humorousmathematics.com/post/the-adverse-effects-of-experimental-messenger-rna-mrna-vaccines-a-k-a-injections-for-covid-19
💊 https://giveit.link/OperationQ

No Borders, No Bureaucrats, No BULLSHIT!

So there are two arguments for border enforcement and both are worthless.

1. Economic

1.a.
Tariffs

Some people think or want others to believe that the borders can be a source of wealth with tariffs, but tariffs aren't beneficial if the goal is general economic prosperity. Tariffs are ultimately taxes imposed on businesses that are passed onto the consumer as much as possible as are all overhead factors. The thought of protecting domestic interests from foreign competitors also reduces incentives for domestic firms to increase their economic efficiency in order compete.

1.b.
Foreigners "stealing our jobs"

American workers, in particular, have artificially propped up wages. This is theoretically sustainable ONLY if the state can prevent competition from "illegals", but an apparently unaccounted for ramification would be the detriment to the ability for domestic firms to compete on the global market. If foreigners can produce more cheaply than domestic businesses because they'll accept lower wages, what incentive do consumers have to buy domestically manufactured products that are more expensive? If firms cannot sell their wares, how can they maintain their level of employment? They'll lay off workers. It's only sustainable in theory because the theory is flawed.

The fact is that borders CAN ONLY IMPEDE ECONOMIC PROGRESS.

Labor travels from areas of oversaturation to undersaturation. Labor goes from areas with too much competition and not enough work to areas with an insufficient amount of laborers and excessive work opportunities. Borders ONLY IMPEDE THIS. Simple.

2. Protection from terrorism or criminals.

This is a ridiculous argument that is properly addressed by highlighting false flags and their causality in regards to the monopolization of security includung arbitration or judgement.

False flag terrorism is functional because of the lack of recourse citizens have concerning security. It is widely believed that the Nazis burned down their own Reichstag building and then blamed a mentally handicapped person for the arson claiming that it was part of a larger conspiracy. Thus, the Nazis demanded that the German people relinquish their civil liberties against government encroachment. They were successful at this means of empowering the state because the people either supported it when government actors posed as the saviors claiming to need more power or the citizens couldn't conceive of a way to stop it AND HAD NO OBVIOUS ALTERNATIVE. Then the government murdered millions of people.

We need to get at the root of the problem.

The issue isn't open borders or incompetent leadership as much as it is the sanctioning of state aggression as a means to achieve order.The State is the largest and most effective violator of private property. The force used to secure payment for services that aren't desired is the ultimate problem.

Libertarian Restoration Theory proposes a system where it's unacceptable to rob people in the form of taxation for services rendered in favor of a system where entities claiming to provide justice must compete for their income. When disputes in the justice that is rendered inevitably arise, they would continue to compete for income by looking to arbitration rather than war. Arbitration is less costly than war, therefore the market provides an impetus to avoid it. Governments have no incentive to avoid war because they don't compete for income. Rather, they rob people for their income and capitalize off of war. Competition for the provision of security with disputes handled through third party arbitration is the answer. The state claims a territorial monopoly on justice but doesn't supply justice universally; it shows favoritism and holds some above the law to which others are subject.

When Assange showed that members of the military murdered journalists and children, the state imprisoned the people that helped to expose the injustice. The government demands tribute in the form of taxation and pretends to be the ultimate authority when it comes to justice while simultaneously bombing children and calling them collateral damage. What recourse do we have without a competitive impetus for the provision of justice and security? Begging the same entity for protection of private property will provide the same results it always has: perpetuation of injustice.

Law Without Government
https://youtu.be/fZ0Qkhnt6bQ

https://agorism.eu.org/

Agora! Anarchy! Action!
Ⓐ³ ⚑

Is Inflation caused by the Government "Printing" Money?

Well this admits that money is "printed." Which suggests that if it weren't printed it wouldn't exist. Which suggests that when you went to buy something with non-existent money, you'd be in a quandry. If money is important at all, one needs to consider this question.

Yesterday, though, I gave some prefatory remarks to the topic. Let me summarize those.

1. I read somewhere that eighty percent of circulating dollars is created by lending. If you want to discuss the quantity of money theory, we have to define the quantity of money. As the quantity of credit money is an ephemeral figure, I suggest we count only twenty percent of what we think the amount of money is.

Now, since whenever Federal Departments spend, current law requires this to trigger the pay-for of Treasury Bond auctions, the selling of bonds only to private entities mostly non-bank entities with non-banking sector customers, auctions in which the central bank is forbidden to make bids, forbidden to purchase, spending is not, to appearance, directly "printing money."

As the Federal Reserve's goal in subsequently purchasing some, not all, Treasury Bonds from their private owners is open market operations: an attempt to stabilize the general level of prices via guiding interest rates in the economy, and their goal is not "printing money," they have opportunity, but don't confess to a motive. Why then do we think they are printing money?" Suppose actually, then, that they are not. During the gold standard, the government allowed itself to print money whenever it purchased gold bullion; now, when has the government ever allowed itself to print money? And if we were printing money, whence comes the eighty percent of money that is not money but only credit, and whence comes our rolling, ever-worsening deflationary credit bubbles and busts, leading finally, now, to this worldwide political crisis.

2. Major inflation vs. two percent "target" inflation
Two percent inflation
Does the Federal Reserve cause inflation and deflation (price changes and price stability (hovering over their two percent target) by their actions, or are they just following the two percent price change with their actions? Causing by or following with. Since he Federal Reserve generally seems to not be looking at overall sectoral balances nor seems interested in providing long-term money supply, but instead seems only to be looking at interest rates with an eye to affecting prices (I hear a collective "Ah, hah!" from youn's, as you believe prices equals money supply), why would we think the central bank is, significantly, "printing money?" It doesn't appear to be their goal, so why would we think it? Now youn's will jump in and shout, "QE!" But that induces you to create the round about theory, the time-lag theory of money-supply inflation causality, to suggest that this year's transitive inflation is actually long term and created by the QEs which went on for years during a mildly deflationary period in American history with no apparent, upwards, price effect.

Major inflation (doubling of prices over a decade)
This is confined to people will say four, I say, three very specific time periods in the last hundred years. As these are specific, one can hardly build a general theory of inflation out of them. But since I've peaked your interest: World War I, followed by a stable-priced Roaring Twenties, followed by a halving of prices during the Great Depression to pre-World War I levels. In World War II, prices doubled again back to the price level at the end of World War I. Then, we have the nineteen-seventies. And I hear a collective, "Ah, hah!" And, "Amen!"

August 19, 2022
"Vascular and organ damage induced by mRNA vaccines: irrefutable proof of causality."

Amazing photos of slides showing tissue damage from the shots.
Take the time to look carefully at all the images. Look and learn.

https://doctors4covidethics.org/vascular-and-organ-damage-induced-by-mrna-vaccines-irrefutable-proof-of-causality/

NATIONAL
Posted: Jun 11, 2022 / 09:18 AM EDT
Military veterans make bulletproof bookcases to protect students from school shootings by: Andrew Ramos, Nexstar Media Wire

NEW JERSEY (WPIX) — As mass shootings continue to plague American life, whether it be inside schools or workplace, military veteran Jake Ahle said he isn’t waiting around for the next mass causality.

He and Pete Facchini, both New Jersey natives, have created a line of bulletproof bookcases that can serve as a last line of defense when a mass shooter enters the premises.

“The bookcase itself weighs 480 pounds, the exoskeleton is made of steel and it’s lined with Kevlar,” Ahle told Nexstar’s WPIX. “Hidden underneath the bottom of the steel skirt are four wheels and those wheels make it a very mobile.”

If an active shooter enters the school, the bookcase can be wheeled in front of any classroom entrances. Once the bookcaseis secured and locked in place, which takes a matter of seconds, the would-be shooter would not have any access inside the room, and would only be met with a mounted mirror on the back of the

School shootings have dramatically spiked this decade, data shows
A mass shooting at Virginia Tech in 2007 was the initial catalyst that prompted Ahle and Facchini to create the product. Their Georgia-based company ProtectED saw a recent surge in sales following the tragedy in Uvalde that left 19 children and two teachers dead.

“In the event that our product was there in the classroom, we could have prevented that active shooter from being able to actually gain access into the classroom,” he said.

“The mirror on the back is our way of trying to communicate to the active shooter to cause pause and delay,” Ahle said.

Sadly, this modern-day line of defense could become essential in the United States — but its founders hope it never needs to be used.

“We are just focused on making sure that we are providing protection for the children in schools,” Ahle said.

https://www.wfla.com/news/national/military-veterans-make-bulletproof-bookcases-to-protect-students-from-school-shootings/