First Do No Harm – Ethics Challenge – Solution

First Do No Harm – Ethics Challenge – Solution

I wrote the following in a discussion on reddit on criticism of Canada’s response to the presumed pandemic. I post it here because I think it’s a strong candidate for a solution to what I think is a common ethics challenge.

I’m not a medical doctor nor a surgeon. I’m just some guy on the internet.

Consider the following. A man is dying. To save his life, his leg must be amputated. What’s the correct choice?

Answer given was “first do no harm, therefore first do not amputate” (paraphrased, see link to full discussion at the end of this post).

Incorrect, but it’s complicated to explain why. The correct choice is:

We ask the dying man what he wants.

By deciding not to amputate of our own initiative, we destroy the man’s right to choose to amputate, and take this right as our own instead. Since we now have this right, we amputate the dying man’s leg to save his life, regardless of what this man wants.

The right to choose is not ours, it’s his. So we ask him what he wants. First do no harm is the acknowledgement that we do not have the right to choose.

In the event the dying man is unable to choose, unconscious or something, now it’s the obligation to act according to the principle of the lesser of two evils. We amputate his leg to save his life. He lost a leg, but lives. The alternative is that he keeps his leg, but dies.

Once we amputate his leg in that way, it gets more complicated. Rights and responsibility cannot be dissociated. They always go together. This means since we took upon ourselves the right to choose, because the dying man was unable to choose, we also took upon ourselves the personal responsibility of that choice. The dying man, now alive minus one leg, can sue us on that basis. However, it’s unlikely that we get punished, if we’ve done our due dilligence to determine if indeed the dying man would certainly die if the leg was not amputated.

That ethics challenge is a true pickle. Also, it’s a very unlikely scenario. We can save a dying man’s life and leg, more often than not. The point of this ethics challenge is to illustrate where our right to amputate comes from – not from us, but from the dying man. It also illustrates that personal responsibility, in spite of that obligation to act according to the principle of the lesser of two evils, does not disappear simply because we’re now under that obligation to act. Accordingly, it also illustrates that we must indeed do our due dilligence.

Extend this challenge to an elected representative, who is deemed to speak in our name with our consent – we voted for him. Even if we didn’t vote for this particular representative, he still speaks in our name with our consent. This is an integral part of fundamental democratic principles. The true pickle here is whether we consented to be compelled by this representative to do things we don’t want for our own good – lockdown, etc. It’s similar to a dying man who is unable to choose, unconscious or something, but with one difference – we are fully able to choose what we want for ourselves.

That pickle can be solved in a couple ways. One, he decrees that we’re all incompetent, meaning that he can now act under the obligation to act according to the principle of the lesser of two evils. However, doing this also disqualifies him, so the decree must include an exemption for him so that he retains the right to choose. This creates a wholly undesirable situation. It’s called rules for thee but not for me.

Or two, he declares a popular vote so that each and all decide for themselves. While this sounds sensible, it’s still not optimal. Those who oppose being compelled, if they lose that popular vote, will be compelled, thereby breaching the principle of a priori competence. Those who agree with being compelled, aren’t in fact compelled – they choose willfully. Again, rules for thee but not for me.

Or three, neither of the above. Instead, ask each and all what each and all needs to get through this as they each and all see fit. This is optimal. We don’t get into a rules for thee but not for me situation. We don’t breach the principle of a priori competence. Resources are distributed according to need, and this need is determined by each and all, not by some central authority. It can be made into a robust plan, rather than some half-assed corner-of-the-table hopeful-wishful maybe-it-will-work kinda thing (as is obviously the case here and now). We do not invoke the greater good (some die so that others live), we invoke the common good (each and all benefit more than they are harmed). It mirrors what each and all already do normally, so there’s little or no disruption of everyday life.

In other words, we ask the dying man what he wants.

Martin Levac 11:53 1/22/2021

Personal Responsibility

Personal Responsibility

Is the act of taking on the burden of the consequences of one’s actions, regardless of the reason for these actions, be it from one’s own desire and wish, or from another’s desire and wish such as by an order given by a superior or by a privilege given by way of one’s station and duty.

It is also the act of taking on the burden of righting a wrong, of repairing the broken, of building anew, of using one’s skill and means to do, as per the principle of the lesser of two evils or the common good (not the greater good, that’s a different principle altogether, see link* at bottom, Master of My Own Thoughts – 2 “Second Principle”).

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is what gives us this personal responsibility, in both the above definitions. It does this through an opposition between freedoms and self-preservation. Each of us can do (or not do, as per express exceptions) as we please so long as self-preservation (of all parties) is not infringed or destroyed. Self-preservation is a question of fact, therefore freedoms must also be a question of fact and not merely some belief or ideal. Otherwise this opposition is unjust a priori.

The Canadian Charter begins with:

“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:”

And immediately sets forth the following principle in article 1:

“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

Today and for several months almost a year Quebec and other Canadian provinces are under a state of public health emergency as per the Public Health Act article 118 in Quebec for example. Article 123 of that same law is what defines the powers that can be given, to “prescribe reasonable limits by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Article 123 sets forth the following (reasonable?) limits:

“Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary…” “(8) Order any other measure necessary to protect the health of the population.”

(8) is the only line that need be cited here because it effectively includes all other measures allowed in (1) to (7) and beyond. “Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary” means exactly that, all provisions to the contrary, including those in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including article 1 of that same Charter, including the preamble of this same Charter. Article 123 of the Public Health Act stands as the law above all other law.

There’s a paradoxical logic to this. If, by democratic principles, we adopt a law such as the Public Health Act which contains this article 123 which makes it stand as the law above all other law, does that still adhere to those same democratic principles?

The Sniff Test

If a law destroys its foundation by way of its application, it is intrinsically inapplicable, null and void. What is the foundation of the Public Health Act? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the foundation of all other law. And the Public Health Act is explicitly intrinsically inapplicable by its article 123. As a side note, any and all other law which contains a similar provision as article 123 is also intrinsically inapplicable, null and void.

To The Main Point of This Post

What rules the actions of those who obey the orders given? There’s a hierarchy to democracy, I wrote about that a while ago in another post**. The Judiciary is subordinate to the Legislature, the Legislature is subordinate to the people, the people are sovereign (subordinate to themselves). The Judiciary and the Legislature are the means by which the people subordinate themselves. For the purpose of this main point, the Legislature rules over the Judiciary by way of lawmaking, not by direct control. Lawmaking is the act of “prescribing reasonable limits by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Also for the purpose of this main point, the police is the force branch (i.e. law enforcement) of both the Legislature and the Judiciary, subordinate to both accordingly, again not directly but by way of lawmaking and jurisprudence. While exceptions are possible, they must still adhere to the Canadian Charter.

So, what rules the actions of a police officer in the performance of his duty? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, those “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Not the order given by a superior, especially not one given by an elected representative acting through direct control of the Judiciary or of the police force.

You are a police officer. You enforce the law. Do you obey the rule of law, therefore the orders of your immediate superior who are presumed to obey the rule of law? Or do you obey the order given by a person who, by way of the application of a law which destroys its foundation, destroys any pretense to his authority to give such order? Do you obey the order given by one who has given himself the absolute authority to give any and all orders as per article 123(8) of the Public Health Act “notwithstanding any provision to the contrary”? Do you obey the order which states that you must disregard the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Do you obey the order given by a person who, by all measures, has shown the only skill of getting elected, i.e. he’s more popular?

If you obey the order given by such a person, then you do not obey the rule of law, you do not enforce the law, you are not a police officer. Though you may still dress like one, you may still believe you are a police officer, you no longer abide by the fundamental principle from which is derived your authority to enforce the law.

“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”

“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

Show me where it says that Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of Quebec prime minister Francois Legault, the minister or the director of health and the rule of their decrees.

Show me.

See the bit at the end of article 123 of the Public Health Act:

“The Government, the Minister or another person may not be prosecuted by reason of an act performed in good faith in or in relation to the exercise of those powers.”

As a police officer, you are this “another person”. You may not be prosecuted by reason of an act performed in good faith in or in relation to the exercise of those powers. Effectively, you now act strictly on the basis of your capacity to use as much force as you are able, so long as you do so in good faith, so long as you merely say “I thought I was doing the right thing”. So long as you say “I was just following orders”. Or at least, that’s the idea of that provision. Or would you care to imagine that this provision means something else?

You are a police officer. You enforce the rule of law. But, as I’ve outlined well enough in this post, the rule of law no longer exists, thus you now act on the basis of your own moral compass, and only on your own moral compass. I pray, for all of our sake, that your own moral compass is robust indeed.

Ordinary Men:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Quebec Public Health Act:

*Master of My Own Thoughts – 2:

**Legislature – Judiciary:

This is my prayer:

This Is My Prayer

I’m not religious. I don’t believe in God. I believe in this. This is my prayer.

Universe. Listen. Hear me.

Remind us that we are brothers.


Martin Levac 21:52 1/10/2021

Presumption of Healthy or Sick?

Presumption of Healthy or Sick?

Presumption of healthy is what we used to have. We presumed that everybody who walked about, got together for dinner or to go see a movie, went to work, to school, played at the park, traveled abroad, etc, were healthy. This can be summarized as a principle:

Presumption of healthy, until proven otherwise.

When proven otherwise, this means we tell others not to get too close because “I think I’m coming down with something”, we call our boss and tell him “I can’t come to work this morning”, we established a robust system where when an employee is sick he takes sick days, we set up an entire industry which we call medicine. When proven otherwise, medicine takes all its value. Otherwise, medicine serves little or no purpose.

What we have now is the opposite principle:

Presumption of sick, until proven otherwise.

We wear a mask, keep our distance, isolate, confine, lock down, all because we presume that we’re sick regardless of evidence to the contrary. We feel good, we’re able and willing to go to work, we can play at the park or go to the beach, we can travel abroad just fine, we can get together for dinner without risk of making each other sick. None of that matters. In fact, the presumption of sick is precisely the idea that when we feel good and can do all those things, that’s when we’re sick, that’s when we’re a danger to others, that’s when others who feel good and can do all those things are a danger to ourselves.


This is the phenonemon where we model the world worse than it actually is, and often model it as the worst version of it. With presumption of healthy, that’s not much of a problem although it is a serious problem nonetheless. But with presumption of sick, catastrophization becomes the worst form of itself since everybody is presumed sick, presumed to be more sick than they actually are, presumed to be as sick as they possibly can be, but most importantly, presumed to be the most dangerous to ourselves as is possible.

When we meet somebody who’s healthy and feels good, it’s obvious – he’s the one not wearing a mask, not keeping his distance, not isolating, not being confined, not being locked down, not abiding by the emergency orders. He’s the most dangerous of all. He’s dangerous to ourselves. He must be stopped. He must be compelled to do all those things which make us safe. He must be forced to wear a mask, forced to keep his distance, forced to isolate, forced to stay home, forced to force his kids to do the same, forced to do all that even when he’s in his own home. He’s too dangerous, he must be stopped for our sake. We can’t let him wander around like that, he’s typhoid Mary, the worst kind of that.

That is what catastrophization does when combined with presumption of sick.

On a side note, presumption of sick does two other things. First, it causes medicine to become more valuable (by everybody who would otherwise not need, or sell, any of that) and in turn allows medicine to become more profitable than would be otherwise warranted. With presumption of healthy, medicine has any value only when proven otherwise. Second, it causes the truly sick to be ignored and neglected in favor of all those oh-so dangerous, walking, talking, working, and playing healthy people.

Professor Jonathan Haidt speaks at UCCS about catastrophization:

The problem of observation as I interpret it, to explain the model of world vs the real world:

The statins scam, a precedent for medicating the healthy:

Professor Denis Rancourt paper, which includes analysis of neglect of truly sick people:

Dr Vladimir Zelenko and the Zelenko protocol which he developed to treat Covid-19 effectively:

I was inspired to write this post after watching Alexandra Henrion-Caude talking in a short video-conference clip I found on a Twitter feed, about the presumption of sick and its effect on both big pharma and the neglect of the truly sick. I can’t find that short clip again so if anybody knows what clip I’m refering to here, please post it in the comments. Thank you. It simply occurred to me that we’re dealing with catastrophization on a grand scale, precipitated by presumption of sick.

A question to begin understanding what’s happening:

Where are all the dead bodies and what did they actually die of?

Martin Levac 19:05 1/3/2021


Informed Consent – Medical Experiment

Informed Consent – Medical Experiment

Read this in full:

It is the 3rd December 2020 decree by Québec Minister of Health, Christian Dubé, enacted under the Public Health Act s2.2, article 123 here:

After you’ve read fully, you will understand that the decree stipulates in no uncertain terms that the actions authorized by the decree constitute a medical experiment. This is demonstrated by the fact that the substance authorized to be administered is, and for a time yet, being actively studied and is therefore not validated to be administered in the normal setting of medicine as practiced by medical professionals, let alone all other professionals also authorized by this decree.

The administration of this medication is an experiment by all definitions of that word. Accordingly, the test subject must provide informed consent, without any undue action by anybody to obtain said informed consent, be it force, coercion, deceit or otherwise, before an authorized person (listed in the above decree) administers the experimental medication unto the human test subject. It behooves then all persons so authorized to inform themselves first as to their personal responsibility, professional responsibility and liabity in the failure of obtaining such informed consent from the human test subject before proceeding with administration of the experimental medication and/or experimental medical treatment.

Informed Consent:

Take special care as it concerns age of consent, and age of assent for persons under the age of majority, particularly since the decree authorizes the administration unto human test subjects “at least 6 years of age”.

While the decree merely authorizes and does not explicitly compels nor mandates administration, it makes appear as if this authorization stands as legal support for actions that are otherwise prohibited in the context of absence of informed consent, or that even this is not in fact a medical experiment. It is a medical experiment, and informed consent cannot be circumvented, and personal and professional responsibility and liability apply to the full extent of the civil code and criminal code.

Furthermore, an idea began circulating about the possibility to mandate some proof of vaccination (or other similar obligation) in order to be allowed access to facilities or services. This constitutes coercion in light of the facilities or services being deemed essential such as medical care for example or even a grocerie store or basically any facility or service of any sort without exception (because all facilities and services are de facto essential in light of the right to earn a living and where such facilities and services are provided by one who exercises his right to earn a living). One may not be compelled to submit oneself to a medical treatment or medical experiment for any reason whatsoever. As I said, informed consent cannot be circumvented.

A look back at a recent attempt to do exactly that. Adamson Barbecue, where Adam Skelly was compelled to undergo a medical test as a condition for bail. That’s coercion to undergo a medical experiment – a viral/RT-PCR test. In this case, in my humble opinion, the judge himself is personally responsible and professionally responsible for, and liable for all damages from, this act by signing the court order for such. However, correct me if I’m wrong, the test so ordered was not in fact administered. It’s likely that only a court/judge can so order a medical test, but this likely has such a high evidentiary and legal and constitutional bar that a lower court/judge just can’t do it, no matter the Public Health Act authorizes a lower court/judge to do it.

Finally, a particular provision in the Public Health Act makes appear as if persons authorized in that manner cannot be prosecuted for acts done in good faith. That’s patently false because good faith is not a provision, it’s a principle of Law. Principles of Law cannot be codified in that manner, nor could they subsequently be abrogated by repealing the provision in question for example. Good faith is a matter of fact, not a matter of Law, is what I’m saying. The matter of fact in this instance are the acts themselves, and the consequences thereof, and the a priori knowledge of these acts and potential consequences such as the knowledge concerning informed consent and medical experiment and so forth.

Above all else, there’s the principle of Law which says that “none are presumed to ignore the Law”, or phrased differently “ignorance of the Law is not a defense”.

I am not a lawyer, but I can still advise earnestly in this manner.

Don’t be an idiot.

Martin Levac 21:26 12/4/2020

Skin In The Game

Skin In The Game

I don’t know how to write this. Take ownership of your local business as if it was your own. Because it is. Because you have skin in the game. Without this local business, you don’t eat, you don’t get dressed, you don’t fix your pipes and other stuff. That’s your skin in the game.

It’s obvious now that Adamson Barbecue is made an example to instill fear in others who would also resist.

Imagine a thousand Adamson Barbecues. A million. Game, set and match.

Martin Levac

Negation Of Self

Negation Of Self


Empathy – The Great Con

Based on this post:

Read that first so you get a more appropriate primer for what follows here.

I’ve read so many times that the wearing of a mask or face covering is not for oneself, but for somebody else. The premise is selfishness and its opposite, empathy. Never mind that these two aren’t opposed but complementary, I’ll address empathy and negation of self specifically and how this is perverted and abused to, namely, signal some non-existent virtue and compel submission.

Empathy works in two directions, at different periods in one’s life. First, it works as observation, from the thing observed to the observer. This is essential to build the model of self in the early years of life (0-4 yrs or just about). Then it’s done as projection, from that fully built model of self to the thing empathized. When a child is empathetic, he’s building his model of self by observing other humans. When an adult is empathetic, he’s projecting his (previously built) model of self unto another human. The specifics aren’t so relevant for our purpose here.

Negation of self usurps empathy in either direction and replaces it with some perverted version of projection to effectively render the self selfless, or more appropriately a weak or non-existent model of self (the self and the model of self are not the same, they are distinct). It’s even more perverted in that the demonstration of empathy has for only goal the reward of this act. This is not altruism, it’s narcissism. This is now what passes for empathy.

Maybe I should explain what the self is at this point. The self is, for lack of a better word, insane. Without memory, without the model of self, without the decision engine and other systems not part of the self proper, the self cannot manifest except in the simplistic and constant act of looking for those other things. The self is always “on”, and can only be turned off or calmed down by finding those other things accordingly. When the self finds memory for example, it lingers for a while, then looks for other things besides what is found there. Same for the other systems, except perhaps the decision engine, where the self could instead become apathetic for lack of some output which would stand as a goal for present and future behavior. Thus, for the self to manifest appropriately (i.e. not insane), it must have a properly built model of self, on top of all the other systems.

That’s where the usurpation occurs, at the model of self. The model of self is built from the obervation of some perverted version of the self, of some weaker version of it, of some less-than-adequate version, of some inept and fearful version. We’ve had several versions of this usurpation over the years and decades. The modern man, l’homme rose, the feminine side of man, metrosexual, and more recently a much more blatant admission of this perverted model of self: Toxic masculinity. It’s not so ironic that I’m talking about man and men here. Indeed, men are the primary actors of violence, the ultimate response to some attempt at submission. I think it’s not for naught that martial combat has become more and more popular, in parallel to this diminution of man in all other ways. Still, women aren’t spared, they too have been diminished in various ways, namely on the aspects of motherhood and homemaker.

It has become virtuous to be weak, powerless, entitled, and rewarded for preaching same to others, especially to those who otherwise abide by a much different set of tenets that instead attempt to elevate the self and make it stronger and self-sufficient. This is the self attempting, in a perverted manner, to project some semblance of empathy.

The real irony occurs when a savior, a strong and self-sufficient father figure offers safe harbor to all those who have built a weak and entitled model of self. But it’s a lie, all a lie, on both sides of the exchange. Neither is he a savior, nor are they virtuous. All are merely liars, thieves and frauds. The savior uses what he is given (or more appropriately, what he has taken) to then give back, but that’s not generosity, it’s theft. It’s the classic Robin Hood complex. The helpless accept readily what is given (back) because they deserve it, they’re entitled to it: They’re weak, powerless, dependent, and oh so empathetic.

From there, The Great Con. The savior now demands submission of the helpless. The helpless readily accept: They’re oh so empathetic to the savior’s plight, which he demonstrates constantly in his speech and presence. In all human hierachies, a superior is so only by consent of the subordinates. This is true here and true of a different hierachy where all are neither saviors nor helpless, but instead men and women who are strong and capable and self-sufficient, and rather than submit, they collaborate to a common goal and for mutual individual benefit (There’s no altruism here, it’s all selfishness of the highest order, yet with consent of all involved). If this doesn’t develop into a solution yet, I’ll put it plainly below.

Without the consent of the subordinates, the superior is no longer so.

Without the consent of the subordinates, the superior is no longer so.

Without the consent of the subordinates, the superior is no longer so.

But there’s still negation of self to deal with first. How? Simple.

Ask: Am I dimished or elevated by my action, as measured by my own observation?

Once you have solved negation of self, you can now retract your consent. But I suspect you won’t need me, or anybody else for that matter, to explain at that point.

Martin Levac 23:32 10/17/2020


Servant Of Two Masters

Servant Of Two Masters

Horacio Arruda, M.D., FRCPC
The National Director of Public Health and Assistant Deputy Minister
Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec

Horacio Arruda, M.D., FRCPC
Chairperson, Global Network for Health in All Policies

Horacio Arruda, M.D., FRCPC
The person most directly responsible for the current and ongoing emergency measures and the recent past, current and ongoing, real, measured and measurable detrimental consequences thereof in the territory of Quebec, Canada.


The emergency measures:

Closures of all non-essential businesses, including restaurants, bars, all types of shops, churches, sports/fitness facilities, public parks and facilities, and the list goes on.

Ceasing of normal medical and other care to the elderly and sick in CHSLDs, abandonment, prohibition to visits by relatives and friends.

Prohibition to autopsy when death recorded as COVID-19.

Mandatory testing for presumed SARS-Cov-2 when entering medical premises, forced when refused.

Quebec wide campaign to encourage massive testing.

Prohibition of effective treatments (hydroxychlodoquine, Zelenko protocol, etc) for presumed viral cause of presumed pandemic.

Mandatory face covering for all, including for children at school, for both the healthy and the sick, for closed public premises such as those businesses above (once they were allowed to reopen subsequently).

Social distance for all, everywhere particularly in closed public places.

Population-wide confinement at home.

Prohibited or limited group gatherings, both inside and outside.

Arbitrary detention and isolation at undisclosed facilities of unnamed persons who do not submit to quarantine orders.

Issuing of tickets for failing to obey the rule-du-jour by local police force.

Shut down of the courts and the national Assembly.


The consequences:

Bankruptcy, unemployment, loss of property, depression, divorce, spouse abuse and violence, suicide, homeless.

Premature deaths of the elderly and sick in CHSLDs, starvation, dehydration, shitting and pissing themselves, and then they die alone, abandoned.

Inability to determine actual cause of death, prevents accountability of persons who ordered emergency measures (i.e. Horacio Arruda, M.D., FRCPC, namely), is in breach of several articles of Loi sur la Santé Publique (s 2.2) and Loi sur la Sécurité Publique (s 2.3) (i.e. the “good faith” provisions).

Inflation of perceived severity of presumed pandemic, such inflated perception subsequently used to maintain and increase emergency measures.

Allows and causes actual disease and symptoms to get worse, allows and causes otherwise preventable deaths.

Fear, resentment, suspicion, hate, division, inability to recognize known persons including one’s own family, child and parents.

Depression, neurosis, cabin fever, suicide, spouse abuse and violence, divorce.

Reduction or outright elimination of social interaction, discussion, intimacy, all otherwise normal social activity, dehumanization.

Massive rights and freedoms violation, namely sections 2, 6(2)(b), 7, 8, 9, 10(b), 12, and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all persons, nobody is spared.

Division. Those who submit. Those who question, oppose, resist.


GNHiAP financing, see page 30:


Rocco Galati, constitutional lawyer, statement of claim to the superior court of Ontario, via Vaccine Choice Canada’s website, one of the plaintiffs in the claim:

Rocco Galati, Constitutional Rights Centre:


Consequences, some of them, COVIDENCES, Par Appel à la Liberté:

Mario Dumont, “quitte à couper les liens dans la famille”, divider:

Denis Rancourt, research on the detrimental consequences of the emergency measures:

Denis Rancourt’s website:


Hydroxychloroquine, Zelenko protocol:

Collège Des Médecins Du Quebec:

Studies on efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in treatment of COVID-19:


Considering the detrimental consequences, considering the dual allegiance of Horacio Arruda, M.D., FRCPC, considering the stipulated goals of the laws and the GNHiAP, therefore one of those allegiances is fraudulent, therefore all those stipulated goals are fraudulent.

Horacio Arruda, M.D., FRCPC
Servant of Two Masters



Martin Levac 06:18 10/13/2020


Divide And Control

Divide And Control


We’re being divided. Those who submit. Those who question, oppose, resist.


The presumed pandemic is a diversion. It’s meant to occupy all our thoughts, perceptions and discussions while the true goal is being worked behind the curtain. Once it’s ready, if we allow it, it comes forth. And once that happens, there’s only one way out of that.

Over a decade ago I made a decision. The most difficult decision I’ve ever made. I made this decision in a different context and for a different purpose. I make it again for this purpose now.

Do nothing and then die.
Do something and then die.

I choose the latter.



I’ve been questioning early once I figured out it was more detrimental than the harm it was meant to cure. Then I decided it’s a scam. Now, every time I see anything about the presumed pandemic, I tell myself “this is a diversion”. From now on, I look for Cui Bono, nothing else.

Do you benefit from mandatory mask? But somebody does.
Do you benefit from mandatory mask for your children? But somebody does.
Do you benefit from mandatory social distance? But somebody does.
Do you benefit from world-wide business closures? But somebody does.
Do you benefit from tickets for not obeying the rule-du-jour? But somebody does.
Do you benefit from mandatory mask in restaurants? But somebody does.
Do you benefit from the obligation to demand, and give, your personal information to restaurants? But somebody does.
Do you benefit from the closures of all group premises and activities? But somebody does.
Do you benefit from mandatory vaccine, for you and your children? But somebody does.
Do you benefit from tracking apps on your phone? But somebody does.
Do you benefit from massive rights and freedoms violations and abrogations? But somebody does.

Cui Bono?

Yes, that’s an important question. I have yet to figure that out. There’s another question I have figured out. What is benefitted from?

From our submission.

Do nothing and then die.
Do something and then die.

Choose wisely.

Martin Levac 03:21 10/13/2020