Jump to content

GroundskeeperWillie

Member
  • Posts

    117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

GroundskeeperWillie's Achievements

Enthusiast

Enthusiast (6/14)

  • One Month Later
  • Week One Done
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Reacting Well Rare

Recent Badges

26

Reputation

  1. This article from Druthers really opened my eyes as to who are really behind the gender ideology cult. I will post an except below to try and get the discussion rolling. You can find the original article here: https://druthers.ca/big-pharma-and-the-billionaires-invested-in-the-gender-industry/ ____ There is no “transgender” community that pushes an ideology of body dissociation around the world—at lightning speed—into language, law, institutions, and the media simultaneously. We are governed by oligarchs at the highest echelons of finance, and they have a vested interest in the gender industry. “Gender identity” ideology is not politically separate from business. Business is no longer separate from politics. We in Western cultures are governed by billionaires in finance who drive policy through our political institutions. A façade of democracy shrouds the oligarchy we live in, just like the gender performances in gender ideology shroud the capitalist profiteering from the colonization of human sex. Many people view the gender industry as solely or predominantly a political issue, one that sets the rights of one group above or against another’s. While antagonized factions do fight with each other, business reigns. Jon Stryker is one of the billionaires driving “gender identity” globally. He finances his LGBT non-governmental organization, Arcus Foundation, from his stock in medical multinational Stryker Corporation, to which he is the heir. Vanguard Group, one of the world’s biggest investment companies, holds the largest share of stock in Stryker Corporation. BlackRock, the most significant investment company in the world (global assets total $20 trillion), is the third-largest holder of Stryker Corporation stock and the biggest holder of Vanguard Group stock. The fourth is Greenleaf Trust, the financial management company Jon Stryker left to create Arcus Foundation. Cumulatively, these investment houses own Stryker Medical and would hold influence over its operations. Those at the pinnacle of the global LGBT corporate juggernaut come from banking and investment, not human rights. BlackRock employs a former Federal Reserve vice chairman and a former head of the Swiss National Bank. BlackRock recently rolled out a “queer” credit card through MetaBank, part of Meta Financial Group. Meta Financial Group’s largest shareholder is BlackRock. BlackRock states that LGBT diversity is “in their DNA” in their LGBT outreach to Asia. MetaBank was one of the banks that sent our stimulus checks to America during the COVID crisis. A CNN report claims, “BlackRock is so powerful that the federal government has asked for its help during each of the past two recessions. In March, the Fed tapped BlackRock to manage the first-of-its-kind vehicle to buy corporate debt, including junk bonds.” Authentic Brands Group was on the receiving end of an $875 million investment by BlackRock in 2019. Authentic Brands Group owns 50 brands, including Sports Illustrated, which has now featured on its covers not just one, but four men claiming womanhood for themselves. Its Aeropostale brand donates money to LGBT causes from its “gender-neutral” collection. Black Rock owns the lion’s share of stock in 38 companies donating to Planned Parenthood, which has become the largest provider of cross-sex hormones to young people. They are also among, or the largest shareholders, along with Vanguard Group, of Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical giant, Pfizer, United Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie (the makers of Lupron), Merck, and Novartis. It would be easier to list the Pharma giants not owned by BlackRock. They also own most of our media conglomerates, such as Comcast and Disney, our payment platforms and banks, and our food corporations. They own banks such as Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan Chase, all of whom have shown a keen interest in “gender identity.” They own our textile companies, and they own Big Tech. BlackRock, along with the Vanguard Group (which they own as well), nearly own the world, and it’s obvious they have an investment in the ideology of “gender identity.” What exactly are they investing in when they financially support this new ideology being driven across the globe? We must look at what “gender identity” accomplishes in the world to understand this and why the largest banks and investment houses in the world have any interest in a tiny minorities’ identity issues. “Gender identity” does double duty. First, it opens markets in sexual identity. Without it, the already massively profitable corporate identities created out of same-sex attraction could not be expanded. Without violating the boundaries of male and female, all that exists are lesbian, bisexual, gay, and straight people as a marketing constituency. Add “gender identity,” which provides an illusion of changing sex, placing it on a spectrum, and the marketing constituency expands infinitely. As “gender” ideologists are fond of reporting, there are as many genders as there are people. Any marketing graduate can tell you that honing your message to smaller and smaller, more distinct groups is a recipe for success. Not only are medical identities profitable in this equation, but profits soar for everyone. Make-up lines, like Crayola’s new Boing Boing, for so-called “gender fluid” individuals, Jecca, a London-based unisex brand of make-up that launched in 2012, Sephora’s Phluid non-binary fragrance line, clothing lines like TomBoyX which market traditional men’s boxer shorts shaped for women’s bodies, are just a few small examples of the marketing opportunities that occur when the boundary between male and female is blurred, and sex has been pronounced as existing on a spectrum. These product lines help to make the illusion more real that we are not a sexually dimorphic species and that there is some other way to be human while supporting new markets. The cosmetic industry is worth a staggering $532. Billion dollars. Until recently, males wearing cosmetics were limited primarily to the music industry. “Gender identity” changes all that. It builds a bridge for men to accept hair, fashion, and cosmetic enhancements that were traditionally the sole territory of women. The 2021 catwalks were ablaze with a so-called feminine menswear trend, which the fashion industry calls “male femininity.” The men’s personal-care market is expected to hit $166 billion in 2022. Vogue reported two years ago that high fashion houses like Chanel, Tom Ford, and Marc Jacobs were unveiling make-up lines for men. _______ If the link above doesn't work, kindly go to Druthers.ca, then go to "Read" at the top, then go to "By Subject", then go to "LBGT", then search for the article titled "Big Pharma and the Billionaires Invested in the Gender Industry". I would like to know what you guys think of the article. Does it really speak the truth?
  2. I found this article on Druthers.ca, you can see the original article here: https://druthers.net/who-will-eventually-own-everything-including-you/ This article goes into details about who really controls society's most important industries and most valuable assets. And it's speaking in global terms, so it's globally relevant. You can easily share the article with your American or European friends. So have a read through at the article and then maybe explore the site Druthers itself, they have many other hard-hitting pieces. If the link above doesn't work, just go to Druthers.ca, then go to "Read" at the top, then "By Subject", then you will see a bunch of tags touching upon various topics. Feel free to browse and look around to see what you will find. I will include an excerpt below. Let me know what you think. ********** BlackRock Is Buying Up Homes By now you may be familiar with the World Economic Forum slogan, “By 2030, you will own nothing.” (www.youtu.be/VmOJEPVLUlQ) To that end, BlackRock and other investment firms are currently buying up every single-family home they can find, making cash offers of 20% to 50% above-asking price. Depending on where you live, you may have noticed that homes are selling within hours of being listed, making house hunting nearly impossible. Home buyers in my home state of Florida are certainly experiencing this phenomenon. Investment firms are also buying up entire neighborhoods. As just one example, a 124-home neighborhood in Conroe, Texas, was bought for $32 million — 20% above listing — by Fundrise LLC, a real estate crowdfunding company, which then turned around and made all the homes into single-family rentals (SFRs). According to investment experts, SFRs are “exceptionally attractive investment assets,” and this is one aspect driving the trend. Demographic changes such as millennials starting families and affordability constraints are also said to be driving factors. But that really does not fully explain what’s happening. The War Against Private Property Buying a home has been part of the American dream since the founding of this country. It’s been a significant part of financial success and security. Now, lower to middle class Americans are being intentionally positioned to become permanent renters, which means they cannot build equity. Their ability to purchase a home, even if they can afford it, is being stripped from them by companies that can outbid them with cash offers. In a recent episode of “60 Minutes”, (www.youtu.be/ZEwxYvQVU5g) Lesley Stahl actually did a good job exposing why home prices are going through the roof. It’s not just that these investment companies can snap up homes with the click of a button, but they’re also artificially driving up prices of both homes and rents. For example, rents in Jacksonville, Florida, rose an average of 31% in 2021, and Austin, Texas, saw rents jump by 40%. The reason appears to be twofold: We’re not building enough housing, and what is being built is being bought by corporate landlords at above-market prices. Corporate real estate investors don’t even look at the homes they’re bidding on, and typically waive inspections. The home can be in any shape and sell within hours. As Stahl notes, “this puts first-time home buyers at a serious disadvantage,” as they have many hoops to jump through before they can secure a loan and close the deal. Government estimates we’re currently 4 million homes short, and that shortage continues to grow. One real estate investment firm interviewed by Stahl states that they list, on average, 200 to 300 homes for rent each week, and receive 10,000 leasing inquiries weekly. Not-So-Hidden Wealth Redistribution As noted in a tweet by Cultural Husbandry: “This is wealth redistribution, and it ain’t rich people’s wealth that is getting redistributed. It’s the normal American middle class, salt of the earth wealth heading into the hands of the world’s most powerful entities and individuals. The traditional financial vehicle [is] gone forever. Home equity is the main financial element that middle class families use to build wealth, and BlackRock, a federal reserve funded financial institution is buying up all the houses to make sure that young families can’t build wealth … This is a fundamental reorganization of society.” Indeed, and it’s right in line with plans for societal reorganization described under banners such as The Great Reset, Build Back Better, Agenda 21 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (www.youtu.be/VxqXf6gDPmI). These agendas all work together toward the same goal, which is a global monopoly on ownership and wealth, with a clear separation of the haves and have nots; the owners and the owned; the rulers and the ruled; the elite and the serfs. ‘Sustainable Development’ Agenda Is a Plan to Enslave You The war against private property goes back decades. In 1976, during the first United Nations’ Conference on Human Settlements, called Habitat 1, the U.N. stated, in Item 10: “Land … cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Public control of land use Is therefore indispensable.” The idea, apparently, is that private investment firms like Vanguard and BlackRock can prevent social injustice by buying up all private property and renting it out. This way, no one (except their investors) can build wealth. (www./youtu.be/rTE-3Fl7wgg) “Private Property and freedom are inseparable.” ~ George Washington This is what “equity” is all about, and it has nothing to do with equality. “Social equity” is incredibly unfair, as it strips those with talent and drive of the ability to make something out of themselves. Private Property and Freedom Are Inseparable The UN’s Human Settlements agenda, Agenda 21 and the 2030 Sustainable Development agenda are in direct conflict with the U.S. Bill of Rights and the founding principles of this country. George Washington declared, “Private Property and freedom are inseparable.” Similarly, John Adams stated that “Property must be secure, or liberty cannot exist.”
  3. If I understand correctly, mere words that people say or type online can send them to jail for life. It would give tyrannical powers to the government. https://theccf.ca/tell-your-mp-to-stop-bill-c-63/ Have a read, and tell me what you think of this bill. Do you think it needs to be stopped?
  4. Hello, I came across an article on Druthers.ca, that talks about a letter sent from the Surgeon General of Florida to the CDC and FDA. It's in regards to the Covid vaccines. I think it's highly relevant to today's world, especially for Americans. I will post an excerpt of it to give you guys a rough idea. And then I will provide the link to the letter in its entirety so you can read it for yourself. Kindly let me know what you think. ******* In February this year, Florida’s Surgeon-General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo sent a letter to the heads of the FDA and CDC, questioning the safety and efficacy of the Covid shots. He referenced a recent study, noted the drastic uptick in reports to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and asked for an honest and transparent answer to his concerns. The federal agencies responded to the top health official with a four-page “word salad of pandering and gaslighting”, accusing him of spreading dangerous misinformation and disinformation — the canned allegation to anyone that doesn’t embrace the gene-therapy injections as safe, effective and the only way to combat an illness with a ~99% recovery rate. So, on May 10, 2023, Dr. Ladapo blew the whistle, big time! In a powerful letter citing more than a dozen studies, Dr. Ladapo exenterates the “health” agencies, accusing the unelected officials — FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf and CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky — of knowingly forcing dangerous injections into not only the arms of the American public, but the world. Dr. Ladapo posted the letter to Twitter saying: “When I asked the feds for more honesty and transparency around COVID-19 vaccine data, they replied with a word salad of pandering and gaslighting. Here’s my response. Let’s try again.” Here is Dr. Ladapo’s letter: Drs. Califf and Walensky, Your ongoing decision to ignore many of the risks associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, alongside your efforts to manipulate the public into thinking they are harmless, have resulted in deep distrust in the American health care system. Beginning with Operation Warp Speed, and possibly to be continued with an additional $5 billion investment in Project NextGen, the federal Government has relentlessly forced a premature vaccine into the arms of the American people with little to no concern for the serious adverse ramifications. It is critical to acknowledge and address the negative global impact caused by the emergence of COVID-19. Nonetheless, after two years, your collective decisions to deny that natural immunity confers comparable or superior protection to COVID-19 vaccination, push mRNA COVID-19 boosters for the young and healthy and delay acknowledging the risks of vaccine-induced myocarditis have only sowed doubt between the American people and the public health community. Data are unequivocal: after the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) reporting increased by 1,700%, including a 4,400% increase in life-threatening conditions. We are not the first to observe such a trend. Dismissing this pronounced increase as being solely due to reporting trends is a callous denial of corroborating scientific evidence also pointing to increased risk and a poor safety profile. It also fails to explain the disproportionate increase in life-threatening adverse events for the mRNA vaccines compared to all adverse events. Based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own data, rates of incapacitation after mRNA vaccination far surpass other vaccines. This is illustrated in a recent Lancet publication (Rosenblum H. et al.Lancet 2022 – pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35271805) that reports up to one third of individuals being “unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, or [receiving] care from a medical professional” in the days following mRNA vaccination. The study, (Fraiman J. et al. Vaccine 2022 – pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877) also found an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest for 1 in 550 after mRNA vaccination. As you are aware, this is extraordinarily high for a vaccine. In comparison, the risk of serious adverse events after influenza vaccination is much lower (Lusignan S. Lancet Regional Health – Europe 2021 – thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanepe/PIIS2666-7762(21)00006-5.pdf). For you to claim that serious adverse events such as these are “rare” when Pfizer and Moderna’s clinical trial data indicate they are not, is a startling exercise in disinformation. I want to reemphasise that these questions could have been answered if you had required vaccine manufacturers to perform and report adequate clinical trials. Although Project NextGen has been launched under another administration, I anticipate with regret, that you will repeat past mistakes and prematurely promote new therapies to Americans without accurately and truthfully weighing data on risks and benefits. In light of your stated commitment to transparency and the communication of the risks and benefits associated with these therapies, I am asking that you publicly: Report why randomised clinical trials were not required prior to the approval of mRNA COVID-19 boosters, including the new bivalent booster. Explain why adverse events first detected in the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) safety surveillance system in 2021 were not published in scientific literature until December of 2022. (Hui-LeeWong et al.Vaccine 2023-pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36496287) Report the FDA and CDC’s interpretations of the study (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36006288) performed in Thailand, which showed a 3% incidence of myocardial injury in young boys, and the Swiss study (unibas.ch/en/News-Events/News/Uni-Research/Temporary-mild-damage-to-heart-muscle-cells-after-Covid-19-booster-vaccination.html), which also showed a 3% incidence of myocardial injury in adults after receiving the bivalent booster. (MansanguanS,Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease 2022-pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36006288) & (NCT05438472-clincosm.com/trial/incidence-patient-characteristics-outcome-myocarditis-after-covid-19) Explain why the Pfizer deadline for reporting its subclinical myocarditis study was delayed until December of 2022, despite the CDC promoting vaccination to millions of young people, and then postponed again until June of 2023 (fda.gov/media/151710/download). Report the results of the VAERS proportionality analyses that you performed. Explain why 26 of the 31 published studies using the V-Safe (cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/v-safe/index.html) system only report symptoms within the first seven days of vaccination when it is recognised that most serious events occur after this time. ***** The rest of the article and letter can be found here: https://druthers.ca/surgeon-general-of-florida-unsafe-vaccines-were-forced-into-arms-of-the-american-people/ If the link doesn't work, go to Druthers.ca, then go to Read, then go to By Subject, then CDC. Then search for the article titled: Surgeon General of Florida: "unsafe vaccines" were forced into arms of the American people
  5. I came across this hard-hitting article on Druthers.ca. Druthers is an independent, people-powered newspaper in Canada. Basically, this article talks about Moderna's "misinformation department" run by a former FBI employee, and how they use artificial intelligence to scour websites looking for vaccine resistant narratives. Apparently they don't care about truth, they just flag anything that encourages vaccine hesitancy as "misinformation". I have to say this article really opened my eyes to what these huge organizations are up to. I will post an excerpt below, and will also include the link to the full article below. Kindly let me know what you think. ***** Moderna’s “disinformation department” partnered with an industry-backed nonprofit, the Public Good Projects (PGP), to monitor and suppress dissenting voices on COVID-19 vaccine policy, according to a new report by investigative journalists Lee Fang and Jack Poulson published Monday in UnHerd. Over the last year, the “Twitter Files,” two lawsuits against the Biden administration and other investigations have exposed instances of collusion among government, social media and universities to suppress dissenting speech about COVID-19 policies, election fraud allegations and other topics. This new report sheds light on Moderna’s behind-the-scenes strategy within this new media landscape. It exposes key actors and how they worked to monitor 150 million websites for the purpose of censoring speech that undermines the company’s COVID-19 vaccine narrative and actively shaping public discourse to benefit Moderna’s bottom line. Great Barrington Declaration co-author and Stanford University professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who was blacklisted by Twitter, praised the new report in a tweet: Moderna had never successfully advanced any product to market prior to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine and was teetering on the edge of collapse when the pandemic was announced. Its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine transformed the drugmaker into a $100 billion company almost overnight and turned its CEO, chairman and cofounders into billionaires. Today, as public interest in taking yet another booster shot tanks and federal subsidies for the shot are disappearing, so are profits, leading the company to invest in new strategies — like a flashy marketing campaign — to stay afloat, Fang and Poulson reported. Moderna also is doubling down on work started during the pandemic to attack dissent about vaccines and to direct vaccination policy, they found. In fact, Moderna today employs former law enforcement agents, like Nikki Rutman, a 20-year FBI veteran who worked for the agency in Boston during Operation Warp Speed where her job was to conduct weekly cybersecurity meetings with Moderna. Now she runs Moderna’s global intelligence division — part of the department spearheading Moderna’s work to stop “disinformation” — producing reports that flag “anti-vaccine narratives” online and recommending whether and how to address them, they wrote. The department works with the PGP, largely funded through a $1.27 million donation from the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a biotech lobbying group that represents Pfizer and Moderna. Through PGP and Talkwalker, a “social listening” company, Moderna’s team monitors everything from mainstream news outlets to gaming sites, deploying artificial intelligence to monitor 150 million websites across the world for vaccine-related conversation. The team issues reports to Moderna staff that colour-code the “anti-vaccine narratives” by level of risk. Lowrisk narratives “don’t currently warrant any action.” For the higher-risk narratives, the team “will notify the appropriate stakeholders with recommendations,” Lee and Poulson wrote. Analyzing sample reports, the journalists discovered that examples of “high-risk” posts included a video posted by Elon Musk mocking myriad claims that the vaccines were “100% effective” along with a number of posts made by comedian and political commentator Russell Brand, whom they flagged in September for his “anti-vaccine” beliefs. The Moderna team also raised concerns over the optics when tennis star Novak Djokovic, who refused the COVID-19 vaccine, won the Moderna-sponsored US Open. **** Here's the article: Moderna’s “Disinformation Department” Monitors 150 Million Websites for “Anti-Vaccine” Narratives If the link doesn't work, go to Druthers.ca, then go to Read, then go to By Subject, then Censorship. Then search for the article titled: Moderna's "disinformation department" monitors 150 million websites for 'anti-vaccine" narratives".
  6. Hello. My brother just purchased a duplex very recently. This is in British Columbia. My mother and I have been actively assisting him with various things. One email that we received from our notary public, which was about the title registration, reads: "I attach the registered Form A Freehold Transfer for your records and will provide you with a State of Title Certificate in about three months' time once the vendor's mortgage is removed." Does this mean that the property will be my brother's property only if the seller has taken the money from us and used it to pay off the mortgage on said property? It doesn't sound fair to me. We have already shelled out the money for the entire price of the duplex. We should be the rightful owner of the property the minute that our money goes out. Why do we have to have such a condition placed on our title? What if the seller gets the money but doesn't use it to pay off his mortgage? Does that mean we lose our duplex? I am confused and a little disturbed. Please help.
  7. I did not ask you for a lesson in jurisprudence. Should people take responsibility for their own actions, yes or no. That would not be incitement. I am starting to think you don't know what incitement is. If I told my boyfriend someone at work was bothering me, and I said, you'd better do something about it and go to my work place to do it now, otherwise I will lose my job. So he went and murdered that coworker. Have I incited him? Maybe all I wanted him to do was to confront that coworker and give her a good scolding. I didn't tell my boyfriend to kill her. But under your incitement laws, somehow I am responsible for the murder even though I never told anybody to murder the coworker. The problem I have with incitement is that it's too loosely defined. Its application and interpretation are entirely subjective. It can be used to cover a lot of activities and has potential to be abused by legal authorities.
  8. So, if I told you that a massive crime was in progress. That your country was being stolen and that you had to fight and take action now. And I told you where to stop it. And I told you when you needed to stop it. And would you go and storm the capitol? No, I am sure you wouldn't. And why is that? That's right, it's because you have agency. And you can and do decide not to listen to me. The same thing applies to the protestors. They are adults who have agency, so they should be the only ones responsible for the attack, not Trump. By the way, you didn't define incitement. So I am still waiting on this one.
  9. So under what circumstances is incitement a crime? And further, how do you define incitement? Quote me the exact words from Trump himself that you think made him responsible for the attack. And no, don't quote me statements or charges from a court. I want to hear from you. I don't know what Trump said exactly, but if he merely said, "you need to do something about the stolen election or your country will be gone forever", that is NOT incitement.
  10. No sir, you need to learn to read. I didn't say people weren't sent to jail. I also didn't say people weren't being held accountable. Rather, I said, Trump should not be held responsible for other people's actions. I know that reading is hard, but with enough practice, you might get to the level of a 3rd grader.
  11. Well, I know that incitement is a crime, but I really think that people have to take responsibility for their own actions. They can't just say, "Trump made us storm the capitol". In a similar vein, the courts should punish the actual actors who committed a crime, they shouldn't blame it on someone else for inciting them, because, like I said, people are adults, they should take responsibility for their own actions. If I told my boyfriend that someone at work had been bothering me, and that he should do something about it or I would lose my job, and he then went and murdered that coworker, this is entirely his fault. I did not incite him to murder that person. I did not abet him to do anything. He needed to take responsibility for what he did. I did not commit any crime at all.
  12. If your father did something wrong, and people want to punish you for it, how would you feel?
  13. Your "rectification" means current white males, who did not discriminate against anybody, are discriminated against. You seem to think contemporary white males are the same as white males from the past. You are punishing living white males for what white males of prior generations did.
  14. Stop trying to make it about me. I never said anything about accident of chance or systemic anything. I am asking you to prove that when a minority or a woman is passed up, it must be due to discrimination. This is the claim you made, so you need to back it up. Maybe many years ago, there was systemic racism. But in today's world, I'd say there is little to none, at least officially. If you want to allege racism or discriminatory hiring practice, which is today's political climate is a very serious accusation, you better be prepared to corroborate it. You can't just point to something like, "oh, a white guy is hired even though there were minority applicants" and claim that discrimination has happened.
×
×
  • Create New...