FIRAS MODAD on LITTLE RED RIDING HOOD WANDERING IN THE FOREST: What that means is that when you engage in perversity, it becomes unsatisfying and therefore you must go further and further down the path of perversity and degeneracy. Eventually you realize that it's a pointless path.

Firas Modad.

James Delingpole.

16:05.  For example, Little Red Riding Hood.  It's the story about the viciousness of female degeneracy and the consequences of it and how it can only be fixed by a man with an ax.  That's how you read that story. 

Female degeneracy where women become corrupted. 

Is Red Riding Hood the example of female degeneracy?

Yes, so if you look at the story.  

What's the story?  She's given a task.  She's told to fulfill her duty toward the elderly by caring for past Generations and her elderly grandmother lives just at the entrance of the Woods under three oak trees, a trinity.  Tradition.  

“A little farther into the woods—under the three great oak trees, near the hazel bushes. You must know it,” she said.

And instead of obeying and staying on the straight and narrow she listens to a Whisperer, the devil.  The snake, the wolf, (Jews).  He tells her to go and have fun go and enjoy yourself and there's this beautiful line in the story where she's going to find the prettiest flowers but the prettiest flowers are always furthest away (Hedonic treadmill).  

So she stepped off the path to gather flowers. Each time she picked one, she saw another even prettier farther away, and she wandered deeper and deeper into the forest.

What does that mean?  What that means is that when you engage in perversity, it becomes unsatisfying and therefore you must go further and further down the path of perversity and degeneracy.  Eventually you realize that it's a pointless path.  Your conscience torments you.  

"As long as I live, I will never leave the path and run off into the woods by myself if mother tells me not to."

She remembers her grandmother and . . .

And she ended up lost in the wilderness.

She decides to go back down that route, but she finds that the snake, the wolf, the Whisperer, (the Jew) the one who invites you to evil, has consumed tradition: the wolf ate her grandmother . . .

18:11.  Right, and then [the wolf] mimics her grandmother.

And then he eats her, because that's the purpose of people who try to lead you astray to destroy your path and destroy your future.  That's why . . .

18:23.  Yeah and so it's so simple.  But the reason a kid or an adult . . . the reason why Little Red Riding Hood has survived time is that it's true, it's a true story [that condenses weakness and Evil and its consequences over the trajectory of years.  This story helps you avoid 10 years of tragedy or more].  What Wednesday with the story Little Red Riding Hood is that it's true if you look at the dramatics and symbolisms that the truth is condensed into recognizable drama and conflict.

18:55.  Murr is attacking the Lords and he's attacking the farmers because they are in a very real sense the heirs tradition . . . 

[DELINGPOLE] And the fox Hunters that's let's not forget the fox hunting people.  (James fox hunts).

19:06.  And the fox hunting. the attack on tradition is a conscious attack.  It aims to erase your past so that they, or it, can control your future.  And the answer to that the solution is the man with the ax he lives in a village on the edge of the Woods.  He's a Woodsman so he's engaged in both the violence of Nature and in Civilization, meaning that he understands the difference between the two and can navigate both.

19:37.  Like you don't want just a savage with an axe.  You want a civilized man with an ax that understands violence.

19:43.  He's tender to his daughter and wife and family.  But for the wolf, the axe.  

19:55.  That is brilliant I never expected that this podcast was going to be discussing the significance of Little Red Riding Hood.

20:05.  But it's also about when a girl first gets her period . . .

This version of the end is more satisfying in line with the threat of loss of tradition. 

The huntsman skinned the wolf and went on his way. The grandmother ate her cake and drank her wine and soon felt much better. As for Little Red Riding Hood, she thought to herself, *From now on, I’ll never wander from the path again when Mother tells me not to.*

Some say that later, when she was again walking to her grandmother’s with cakes, another wolf tried to tempt her off the path. But this time, Little Red Riding Hood was wiser. She walked straight ahead and told her grandmother about the wicked creature she’d met. They locked the door tight, and when the wolf tried to sneak down the chimney, he fell into a great trough of boiling sausage water—and that was the end of him.

And from that day forward, Little Red Riding Hood never strayed from the path, and she lived happily ever after.  

LATYPOVA: And [Francis Collins] just did not care. And again, this is...depraved indifference he demonstrated.

‼️"I am pretty sure members of [the] royal family in the U.K. are being disposed of [via C19 jabs]. And that's easy to explain, because the communists, when they come to power, they always get rid of the royalty."‼️

Retired pharma R&D executive Sasha Latypova (@sasha_latypova)… pic.twitter.com/iUkAsyeb5u

— Sense Receptor (@SenseReceptor) May 11, 2024

"I am pretty sure members of [the] royal family in the U.K. are being disposed of [via C19 jabs]. And that's easy to explain, because the communists, when they come to power, they always get rid of the royalty." 

Retired pharma R&D executive Sasha Latypova (@sasha_latypova) describes for James Delingpole (@JMCDelingpole) how the communists currently taking power around the globe are disposing of problematic elites, including the royal family in the U.K. Latypova, who notes she has an intimate familiarity with the history of communism, says the elites are in the midst of the "ultimate power grab" and are aiming to exterminate each other. 

"It's notable that a bunch of high-level people did get injected. Lloyd Austin, for example, head of the military in the U.S., definitely got the real deal...he has prostate cancer now. Francis Collins, also [has] prostate cancer [and] got the real deal. He was the head of NIH, and behind this whole scheme," Latypova says toward the beginning of this clip, highlighting the fact that many high-level officials did really get injected with the poisonous COVID injections. 

Latypova goes on to note that "While he was still there, I know Senator Ron Johnson confronted at some point, fairly early on in Congress, privately—it wasn't in a public hearing—...he said, 'Look, we have 3,000 deaths reported to VAERS.' That was very early on, we have now, 40,000-something. And he said, 'We have 3,000 deaths reported to VAERS, this is very dangerous, what is going on?' And Francis Collins said, 'Well, you know, people die.'" 

"So he [Francis Collins] knew that they were going to kill and injure lots and lots of people," the pharma insider adds. "And he just did not care. And again, this is...depraved indifference he demonstrated. This is their position—they knew it was going to happen. So there are some examples of politicians getting injuries, I know one FDA person died [who was] on the vaccine approval committee. So she just died and...they [were] like, 'OK.' [And she was a] young person." 

Most notably, Latypova says, "members of royal family in the U.K. are being disposed of [via the C19 jabs], and that's easy to explain, because the communists, when they come to power, they always get rid of the royalty. They cannot have monarchs—that's an alternative leadership structure...And I'm not a supporter of royalty, but this is what's going on. When the global communism is getting established, they're going to get rid of the royal families, and they are doing it as we speak."

Furthermore, the pharma insider says that the royal family in the U.K. "may be on board with this, but...the people who commit genocide, and, again, this is coming from history of communism, I'm very familiar with...the elites also dispose of different factions. Because it's an ultimate power grab. And, often times, they see each other as bigger problem[s] than little people, because they always think, 'Oh, we'll get to little people,' but the power struggles lead them to exterminate each other also." 

They're just making weapons but to get people on board they say it's defensive and that you will take them to protect yourself from this external, invisible threat.   --Katherine Watt

 

11:00. Good case in Pennsylvania, called County of Butler vs. Wolf.  It was a bunch of business owners and County governments who sued the governor at the time was Tom Wolf about the executive orders that had shut down schools and then had put capacity limits on businesses and government offices changing how they had to do business so they sued the governor say that this is not okay constitutionally is not okay for the governor to have these executive orders that sees property without due process and obstruct people's right to go to school and go to work and all this stuff and then there was a really, really good order.  William S. Stickman, IV, a federal judge in September 2020, so 3 months later, agreed with the plaintiffs, the business owners, and the county, and said sure, there's an emergency, but the Constitution is strong enough to withstand an emergency and people still have all these constitutional rights, civil liberties, and so you must, I, the judge, was saying, I'm halting these executive orders and taking them off the of the table." And I thought hooray.  And then 3 weeks later, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the level above him, reversed his order and left all of the executive orders in play, and I couldn't figure out what was going on there either.  Why did the Third Circuit come in and do this strange thing?  And so that case was playing out through 2020, through 2021 I think that's when they tried to appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court just wouldn't hear it and that was happening with tons and tons of cases like this all over the country.  They were just like nope, we're not even going to entertain discussion about these things.  And so by the end of 2021, I was still following the stuff while I was dealing with stuff in my own family, my husband, and my kids like their schools and work places, and then it was in January 2022 that I heard the podcast by Todd Calendar who is a US attorney, where he talked about the World Health Organization's Health regulation 2005 amendments and how that connected to what was happening in the domestic law in each country, and the relationship between the treaties and the domestic laws.  So that was the point in which I did the deep dive and found the timeline of how it came into play in the United States.  13:49

15:00.  So what I found was starting roughly in World War II and you can trace it back a little farther than that but I tend to start there when I'm talking about it because it seems clear that during World War II "they," the globalists, "the monster," whatever you want to call it, came up with the idea to shift their worldwide war programs and depopulation programs enslavement programs from the overt, like bombs and tanks and armed invasions, to the public health system and the medical system and the pharmaceutical industry.  And they did some of . . . as pilot projects.  It's what Auschwitz and the other concentration camps and the Aktion T4 (1940) for the Eugenics programs and then there was pushback and they did the Nuremberg trials that seemed to send a message to the world that this was not okay but at the same time they were just embedding those programs more covertly into the laws and the public health programs especially in the United States but I think it happened in countries all over the world you can probably track the laws back to the mid 40s in most countries as well also the United States is like the model version of it so it was the 1944 Public Health Service Act and then another milestone in it was the 1969 transfer of the Biological and Chemical Warfare Program, which again, they had the surface level thing going on that "we don't think the biological warfare is good," "we don't think chemical warfare is good," "we're going to have these UN conventions," and then we're going to have the countries comply, but they just moved it over gradually into the public health program and they called what had previously been "The Biological and Chemical Weapons Stockpiles and Production Systems," the "Strategic National Stockpile for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing and Pharmaceutical Storage and Pharmaceutical Distribution Systems."

17:50. They're really good at reframing they are very good at presenting the argument that there are these terrible threats, there are these terrible communicable diseases, there are these terrible people who might come up with chemical and biological weapons and we need to have these things as defensive, prophylactics or treatments in case these terrible things actually happen, when, in fact, those are pretextual.  They're just making weapons but to get people on board they say it's defensive and that you will take them to protect yourself from this external, invisible threat. 

18:36. They cannot but be defensive weapons by Nature they are offensive.

Right, because of the complexity of the human body, because of all the things about how chemical and biological things interact with living organisms and the uniqueness, mostly the complexity, the fact that the human body is understood on some level after thousands of years of doctors and people trying to understand how it works but we don't understand it in any complete way as far as all of the ways signaling pathways and everything.

So in the 1960s they passed the legislation turning by weapons into pharmaceutical product what was the next stage?

19:30.  The next milestone was 1983 they added the public health emergency suction to the Public Health Service Act in 1986 was when they did the national vaccine program vaccine injury compensation Program and that's where they first separated out the pharmaceutical industry from most other Industries as far as you don't have any product liability anymore for the products that you put into people's bodies they cannot sue you the pharmaceutical company they can only go through this vaccine injury compensation Program which is very small controlled directly by the federal government and the standards for getting compensation and proving causality between a vaccine and an injury is incredibly high so very few people get money out of that system and that later became the model for the countermeasures injury Compensation Program which is where their Channel all the people from these products