Bokelskere.no

US Hvite Hus: KRIGSTOG mot alle Uvaksinertes Hjem!

Har du dører som kan stå imot militær STRIKE Force?

Offisielt fra folkets Ikke-valgte statsledelse:

..to coerce people into taking “kill shots” of spike protein
bioweapons, which are deliberately mislabeled “vaccines.”

Very quickly, this program will be ramped up to full mandatory
status, which means gunpoint enforcement of deadly shots,
essentially meaning the U.S. government is unleashing
death squads across America.

And they aren’t even hiding it anymore.

My best advice on how to handle this is:

If they come to your door, don’t answer it.
If they keep knocking, call the police.
If they break in your door, defend yourself.

At all times, video record whatever is happening.
And upload your video to Brighteon.com or other free speech
platforms.
Every human being has the right to self-defense.

An assault with an experimental vaccine that has already
killed at least 9,000 Americans (according to VAERS.HHS.gov)
is, of course, an assault with a deadly weapon.

Anyone attempting to assault you with a deadly weapon is
committing a criminal act and should be arrested.

"“Our work doesn’t stop there and we are going to continue to
press to get 12-18-year olds vaccinated…
that’s one of the reasons why we initiated these strike forces

to go into communities…” (! Offisiell taktisk Håndbok her !)

Kjøp og les :

“Strike forces” is a military term that refers to armed squads
who intend to destroy their target.
In this case, the target is every American who refuses to be
injected with spike protein bioweapons.
The government has declared war on the American people.

Dette meldes av erfaren ekspert på bioteknikk og pers. helsevern
mot truselbildet i bio-farlige tider.

Her et lag fagmedisinere som deler alarmerende vurderinger, 'SOS' :

"Reminding authorities of the Nuremberg Code.

[ Fullt Informert frivillighet - uavsettelig grunnlovskrav! ] -
Standing up for our rights, those of our families, patients
and general public."

Eier Kongeligheten all jordisk eiendom etter 'eldgammel rett'?

The economic concept of private property refers to the rights owners have to the exclusive use and disposal of a physical object.
Property is not a table, a chair, or an acre of land.
It is the bundle of rights under which the owner is entitled to employ those objects.

The alternative (collectivist) view is that private property consists merely of a legal deed to an object
with the use and disposal of the object subject to the whims and mercies of the state.

Under this latter view, the state retains ownership and may at any time regulate or even repossess the property it temporarily cedes to individuals.

The Founding Fathers upheld the economic view of property.
They believed that private property ownership, as defined under common law, pre-existed government.
The state and federal governments were the mere contractual agents of the people, not sovereign lords over them.
All rights, not specifically delegated to the government, remained with the people– including the common-law provisions of private property.
Consequently, the constitutional rights regarding free speech,
freedom of religion, the right of assembly,
and private property rights are all claims that individuals may hold and exercise against government itself.

In brief, private property refers to the rights of owners to use their possessions which are enforceable against all non owners–even the government.

Our American forefathers did not develop their political theories in an intellectual vacuum.
More than a century before the American Revolution, a Civil War raged in Britain. It pitted the Monarchy against Parliament.
Among the opponents of the Monarchy were the seventeenth-century English Whigs.
Over the course of a few decades, English Whig intellectuals expounded their theories about property and government.
These thinkers, including John Locke, Algernon Sidney, and Thomas Gordon, taught America’s founders much about property and government.

Prior to the rise of the English Whigs, the “divine right of kings” had held that all rights, liberties, and properties actually belonged to the king.
The king merely permitted his subjects to use their possessions.
The king, however, might regulate the use or even seize these possessions outright at his whim.
The people had no claims or rights which could be exercised against the sovereign.
Their possessions were at the mercy of the government.

By contrast, the English Whigs believed that the fountainhead for all rights was the sanctity of the individual,
not the divinity of the state.

John Locke contended that human rights were “natural rights” which pre-
existed government. The original owners of the land were the real sovereigns,
not the king.
Remember the old English saying, “A man’s house is his castle and every man is king.”
Legitimate government is formed by contract and may never acquire more rights than delegated by the property owners who institute it.
The authorities must never exceed their narrow constitutionally delegated authority– lest they become despotic.

According to the Whig view, legitimate government is an agent, a servant, a mere convenience charged with certain specific tasks.
Moreover, even elected governments tend to become despotic as the British Parliamentary experience illustrated.
Most of the descriptions of political power during colonial times were negative.
Power was often shown as a “clutching grasping hand” or described as a “cancer that eats away at the body public.”

It is also relevant that the Whigs expressed all rights in terms of property.
Each man owned his own person and labor.
Slaveholders were condemned as “man-stealers”, the lowest sort of thief who stole the whole person, not merely part of his labor.

Whenever the Whigs argued for freedom of religion, the teachers of our forefathers referred to “property in one’s conscience.”
When they opposed Sabbatarian laws, prohibiting certain activities on Sunday, they referred to “property in one’s time.”
The Whig view equated property and liberty, once again reflecting the economic concept that property refers primarily to freedoms to act.

The best way to examine the importance of private property to our forefathers and its place under the law is to study the words of the founders and framers themselves:
men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.
Jefferson argued that the colonial landholdings had always been held free and clear of the British crown.

Throughout American colonial experience, the British crown exacted a small fee called a quit-rent upon all landholders.
The quit-rent often went uncollected and never raised much revenue, but it remained on the books as a legal assertion that all land titles were held subject to the crown.

In 1774, Jefferson disputed this kingly claim.
Jefferson’s reasoning gave historical teeth to the Whig view that sovereignty belongs to individuals and that property pre-exists government.
Therefore, the United States government, formed two years later, would be established by free men, not serfs.
Neither could the new government claim to be the recipient of any superior monarchial rights or claims to private landholdings.

Six of the ten amendments pertain either directly or indirectly to private property rights.
The most explicit recognition of private property comes in the Fifth Amendment which states “Nor shall [anyone] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law;
Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

Read full article at FEE.org by Gary Pecquet.
(funnet via thewashingtonstandard.com )

Knock Here :

/ /

De nye tidene på frammarsj?

1600000 vaksineskader i Europa (immunologi-professor) :

Tungvæpnet soldat:
"I am from the government, have you been vaccinated yet?"

Del 1 var veldig bra, men synns del 2 skw veldig ut i uvenstliigheter. Kunne med hell vært strammet betydelig inn, men fo all del en helt grei krim.

Her; jeg tilbyr deg
mine hender

slik at de gangene
hvor du føler
at dagene blir for tunge

trenger du ikke lenger
bære av vekten av de
alene

Stein-Roger Olsen

"Helt normalt at mange dør av Vaksinen --
det viser bare At den Virker!"

Står idag på theguardian.com , Offisiell beskjed

"Why most people who now die with Covid in England
have had a vaccination:

Dont think of this as a bad sign, it is exactly what
is expected from an effective but imperfect jab"

'effektiv' - for å avfolke kloden.

This “vaccine” propaganda isn’t going to stop: in fact,
it is likely to speed up as they run out of willing guinea pigs.

( Guardian ) ( Nat.news ) ( shtfplan )

..The vast majority of people who are dying from the so-called
“delta variant” are people who have received at least one dose of
a Trump Vaccine.
Only a very small few who have never been injected are testing
“positive” for it.

The website CovidVaccineReactions.com is loaded with cases of
people who are now permanently injured or dead
as a result of “doing their part” to help “stop the spread.”
Does The Guardian think that the shots worked on them?

If the goal is to massively depopulate the world, then the answer
to that question is yes.
Suggesting such a thing even just a year ago would have been
considered a wild conspiracy theory, and yet here
we are having the mainstream media all-out admit it in plain sight.

Over hele verden er det tro på en Gud eller noe overnaturlig. Indianerne tror på store ånd, muslimene tror på Allah, og de kristne og jødene tror på samme Gud. At mange i verden ikke tror og har trodd på Bibelenes skyldes vel at de ikke har hørt det kristne budskapet og om jødedommen.

Ikke noen omarbeidelse av 1931-romanen:

Here, ..Aldous Huxley uses his knowledge of human relations
to compare the modern-day world
with his prophetic fantasy.
He scrutinizes threats to humanity, such as overpopulation,
propaganda, and chemical persuasion, and explains
why we have found it virtually impossible to avoid them.

Brave New World Revisited is a trenchant plea that humankind
should educate itself for freedom before it is too late.

Brave New World Revisited (first published in 1958) is not a
reissue or revision of 0060850523 'Brave New World'.
Brave New World is a novel, whereas 'Brave New World Revisited'
is a nonfiction exploration of the themes in Brave New World.

/

This book is a small political essay that is just as relevant
today as it was at the time of its writing (1958),
some twenty-five years after the publication of Huxley’s
masterpiece. What the author is trying to do here is to assess
the validity of his novel’s predictions,
about the socio-political situation of the 1950s and forward.

Interestingly, Huxley also compares his predictions with that of
Orwell’s 1984.

Huxley mainly focuses on two significant problems of our
present time: overpopulation, and over-organization or
“Will to Order”, i.e. the control — and even despotism —
of “Big Business” and “Big Government”
over the whole of society,

and the subsequent waning of individual freedom, creativity
and happiness.
But how these big controlling powers are expressed in Brave
New World is almost the opposite of that of 1984:
“In 1984 the lust for power is satisfied by inflicting pain,
in Brave New World, by inflicting a hardly less humiliating
pleasure.”

Essentially, Brave New World depicts a society where power is
exerted in the most despotic way, by feeding the people an
evolved version of the Romans’ panis et circenses
(feelies and orgy-porgy).
This is an entirely accurate description of our occidental
civilisation, ruled under the vast mass communication networks
(TV and the Internet),
manipulated in many ways as instruments of conditioning
and as social intoxicants.

Huxley provides a few — sometimes humorous — insights into
our present political situation, by analysing the use of
propaganda technology under the Nazi regime,
in part inspired by the indoctrination machinery of the
Holy Office, and in part inherited by the advertisement
industry in later times.

Today’s popularist politicians use the same tactics
and have the same disdain for honesty and objectivity.

In this regard, Huxley’s essay would help understand a
widespread, mostly non-violent, yet totalitarian, style
of government.
“A dictatorship, says Huxley, maintains itself by censoring
or distorting the facts,

and by appealing, not to reason, not to enlightened self-
interest, but to passion and prejudice,
to the powerful ‘hidden forces’, as Hitler called them,
present in the unconscious depth of every human mind.”

( fra goodreads )
( tekst av Huxley >

'Folkefiender':   er smitteforskere 'Statsfiendtlige krefter'
når de vitner redelig om elementære biter av faget ??

Nabintu Herland værer Mao-taktikk :
Legemiddelverket advarer nå om farlige hjerteskader på
vaksine-flakongene, men skeptikere må svertes ut?

Samhällsnytt: Individer kritiske til Covid-politikk kan bli
'anmeldt' til krise-regiverket MSB som fiendemakt-agenter?

-- De har signalementet på Folkefienden! --

"Desinformation och konspirationsteorier kan underblåsa hat,
bidrar till polarisering av samhället och utnyttjas
av grupper som vill hota och störa samhällets funktionalitet.
(fagfolk som Ibsens Dr.Stockmann)

När det gäller vaccinet kan vilseledande information öka misstron
mot vetenskaplig och medicinsk information
som för individen kan vara en fråga om liv och hälsa.
TRUST US, WE are THE EXPERTS!
(Du kommer aldri til å skjønne noe real Scientiology)

• Heart inflammations all over the world --

Visst nedstammer du fra firfisloidene,

det er nå 'Faktisk' populærvitenskapelig bevisført

av en kunnskapsbedrift som lever av å spå folk i
halsslim-prøver
for å fast slå hva blanding av 'primære rasetrekk'
som er din plass i arvelighets-bildet,
nemlig familietreet som også i prinsipp må fiksere
din relasjon til ur-primater slimåler og firfiksler-
( slik ledende universiteter og lærsteder ennå ser det )

det ble mer detaljert forklart her -
"Kan Ann-tro-på Ida"?

De nyoppdagede nyhetene overbevisende forklart her under,
så langt dette lar seg gjøre...

en menigmann sendte nemlig inn en halsprøve fra sitt
eget kjæledyr og hus-reptil,
og dyret var litt asiat og dertil stamtavlerett jøde,
ble det (etter noe intern debatt?) rapportert tilbake .

btw Nyttig ellers:
Løvetann-salat kan kunne avhjelpe virulente vaksine-skader --
på oppriktig alvor. her >

Virus Mania

"Courageously evaluating the medical establishment, the corporate
elites and the powerful government funding institutions."
[Wolfgang Weuffen, MD, Professor of Microbiology
and Infectious Epidemiology]

The population is terrified by reports of so-called COVID-19,
measles, swine flu, SARS, BSE, AIDS or polio.
However, the authors of "Virus Mania," investigative journalist
Torsten Engelbrecht, Dr. Claus Kũhnlein, MD,
Dr. Samantha Bailey, MD, and Dr. Stefano Scoglio, BSc PhD,
show that this fearmongering is unfounded
and that virus mayhem ignores basic scientific facts:

The existence, the pathogenicity and the deadly effects of
these agents have never been proven.
The book "Virus Mania" will also outline how modern medicine uses
indirect lab tools such as antibody tests and the polymerase chain
reaction (PCR) that are in fact worthless to detect viruses.

The alleged viruses may in fact, also be seen as particles produced
by the cells themselves as a consequence of certain stress factors
such as drugs.
These particles are then "picked up" by antibody and PCR tests and
mistakenly interpreted as epidemic-causing viruses.
That the public is misled about such things is also largely due to
the fact-free reporting of the media
(the coverage of the "New York Times" and "Der Spiegel" are
specifically analyzed).
The authors of "Virus Mania" analyze all real causes of the illnesses
named COVID-19, avian flu, AIDS or Spanish flu,
among them pharmaceuticals, lifestyle drugs, pesticides, heavy metals,
pollution, malnutrition and stress.
To substantiate it, they cite dozens of renowned scientists,
among them the Nobel laureates Kary Mullis, Barbara McClintock,
Walter Gilbert and Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
as well as microbiologist and Pulitzer Prize winner Ren Dubos,
and it presents more than 1,400 solid scientific references.

(notatsøk på forfatter Bailey) -   - (video kanalside)
("Excess Mortality"?)

fra andre kilder:

"People are dying from the covid 'vaccine', and those who are not,
are told to take 2 or 3 more shots."

Side Effects of Covid Shot – VERY DANGEROUS

Det TOTALITÆRE viruset ?

"Google finansierte viruset, sensurerte informasjon"

Google har finansiert denne forskningen i ti år.

Google ga penger til Peter Daszak som betalte laboratoriet i Wuhan
for å drive forskning på coronavirus
for å gjøre dem mer smittsomme og dødelige.

Da pandemien brøt ut sensurerte Google informasjon om at viruset
kom fra laboratoriet.

Dette viser Daszaks dokumenter.
"So if he gets caught, Google gets caught.”

(se Document , mer i deres høyremarg)

Nå har Carl Schiøtz Wibye nettopp skrevet ferdig ei ny bok, som kommer ut i disse dager: Et vaklende Europa.
Schiøtz Wibye skriver uten filter basert på sine erfaringer fra utenriks­tjenesten.
Den kan forhåndsbestilles her og den tror jeg kan bli interessant å få med seg ...

Forresten ble det gitt litt ytterligere belysning av
hva Jan Guillou godt kan regnes å ha ment med å avsløre
denne listigfalske kultguruens tanker :

Som falskmynt er han ikke akkurat slått i bare ett eksemplar,
men bra årgangs-Guillou i det 'vare' portrettet.

Røper kanskje ørlite mer av handlingen her, be my guest.. >
( og dertil litt kritikk av absurdtenker François le Voltaire )

"Man kan faktiskt hitta bevis för vadsomhelst, bara man lärt sig
allt utantill"

sitatet her