In this article, regarding the 15-minute city concept from Peterborough Ontario, we see government promising the public a utopian future that's green and also booming with equality and equity.
Do these words reflect what the government truly intends or are these the modern preprogrammed trigger words that are designed to make the public stand down, in regards to questioning something that doesn't appear entirely right?
The way the article is written, if you're against the 15 minute city, you're also against saving the planet, equality and equity. You can hear the psychological pressure to stand down and self censor any questions you may want to ask about these extremely large infringements of basic human rights and freedoms.
Is the government using psychological manipulation that pressures citizens to comply and self-censor?
The government would never do that...or would they?
The public would obviously like to know and if equality and equity means everyone is equally happy, miserable, healthy or sick, wealthy or poor, disempowered or empowered, depressed or joyful, dependent or independent, etc?
Can the pubic ask any questions about the 15-minute cities and reject the concept if they don't like the idea?
Can there be an open debate on the issue?
Can the public get involved and have their voices heard?
The politicians say absolutely not. But let's ask a few basic questions to make sure we're using critical thinking:
When has an unchecked government, who's removing basic human rights and ignoring the will of the people ever been on the right side of history?
Could this be the first time in history when the removal of the basic human rights will end in a utopian society?
What are the chances this benefits the public and where would you like to place your bet?
What's the government's track record for success when they get involved in anything?
If you read the articles like the one from Peterborough or the one from Edmonton, it sounds wonderful, but what's the government's track record regarding telling the public the truth about what's really happening behind the scenes which is motivating the government policies?
One of the first cities to get exposed to the 15-minute city concept was Oxford England.
This is what some of the citizens of Oxford had to say about the city council being involved in these large restrictions of basic human rights and freedoms, without the approval of the very public the council is charged to serve.
If the council is no longer serving or listening to the public, who are these councils serving and why?
Critical thinking question time again:
Again, what's the general track record regarding the government delivering positive utopian results to the public?
Is there ever a difference between what the public is told by the government and what actually happens after the government promises to deliver "a benefit" to the people?
If the government gets something wrong, can we chalk up the discrepancy to a slight miscalculation or is the government known for telling some whooper bold faced lies that have absolutely zero benefit for the people?
We'll be looking at a few examples in a series of articles.
Let's disucss the matter of fluoride.
We see Calgary (another town in the province of Alberta, along with Edmonton) being told by the government that fluoride needs to go back into the drinking water because it will deliver a utopia of dental health.
We see again that the public didn't vote themselves on the issue.
Only councilors voted.
The councilors obviously educated themselves deeply on the fluoride Issue and they would never ever place the public's health at risk, right?
If there was any risk to the health of the people, the councilors would stand up strong against it because they represent the people, right?
If we look at the study by Dr. Dean Burke below, we see that fluoride was conclusively proven to cause cancer growth and spread.
Which Calgary councilors reviewed the cancer rates during the previous timelines when Calgary was already adding fluoride to their water supply in the past?
Dr. Burke above was heavily questioned about his findings at the time he released his research.
Due to the questioning of his findings he was forced to repeat his research, using much larger population sample sizes.
The skeptics didn't like what happened because the results of his second and even larger study proved an even firmer connection between fluoride and cancer.
This cancer link was also proven at very low concentrations, the same concentrations commonly used in fluoridated municipal water supplies today, somewhere in the range of 1-5 PPM (parts per million).
It's interesting to note that fluoride concentrations in fluoridated toothpastes are 1500 PPM. There's new toothpastes for seniors at 5000 PPM and direct to tooth dental applications routinely given after dental cleanings fall in the range of 15,000-25,000 PPM.
I thought the government was there to protect us and make our lives better? This doesn't make sense. What's going on here?
If fluoride is proven to cause cancer growth and spread, why would the councilors in Calgary vote 13-2, to place a cancer-causing compound in the drinking water of all people in Calgary?
Why should the people be forced to pay for a water system upgrade plus staffing plus administration plus the cost of the fluoride itself, when fluoride is proven to cause cancer?
Does paying to give yourself cancer and give your own family cancer appear logical, just because 13 people said it should be so? Should such a decision, to add a known carcinogen into the water supply of Calgary, be decided on by only 13 people?
Where's the debate and can the pubic present any evidence to the contrary, to help educate the councilors?
The government says absolutely not, no debate, they know best. Does this appear to be another case of taxation without representation?
Are sick people easier to rule and does a general weakening of the public have anything to do with adding fluoride to the water supply?
What about other government policies that weaken the public?
Are these "weaken the public policies" all by accident or is something else going on?
Something to think about. Below we have a complete documentary with even greater and more extensive details regarding fluoride.
Why can't the public be permitted to vote for the laws that govern them since they're already permitted to vote for the people who govern them?
Surely if we can order a pizza with our phone, we can certainly push a button on our phones and register a strong NO in a couple minutes, in relation to adding a known cancer-causing compound to our own drinking water.
Why can't we use our phones to vote on all issues that affect us in anyway?
Why can't we vote if we want 15-minute cities or not?
Does government make our lives better or worse overall?
What about the dental utopia that's promised by the government and their associated science institutions, at least that has to be true?
Fluoride must be good for cavities and dental health right?
It has to be or surely it wouldn't be added to the water supply?
As for the utopian promise of better dental health, when investigated, this also falls into a larger category of government promises that do exactly the opposite of what's delivered.
Fluoride is proven to not only cause dental decay (through a process called dental fluorosis) but adding fluoride to the water supply isn't proven to decrease cavities compared to non-fluoridated areas.
On top of that the fluoride concentrations routinely added to municipal water supplies are concretely proven to cause brain damage in children and to lower IQ.
If government can only grow and become stronger based on failures (and not success) is government directly motivated on all levels to increase failure, chaos and crisis in the populations they govern, given successful implementation of administrative structures would see a decrease in government power and government employment?
Government could easily work themselves out of a job if they succeed. What sort of motivation does this provide for perpetual failure, crisis and chaos regarding the policies governments implement and force on the public?
Is this just one example of government falling short on their utopian promises?
Has government earned our trust? Has government earned our trust to the point where we should simply comply with our cities being cut up into 15 minute districts, from which we're not permitted to leave without first gaining permission from the government?
Have governments ever turned on their own people as a source of energy, money and power, with no regard for how such a self-centered effort impacts the people?
Part 1 of a good documentary answering that question is below.
More articles are coming in relation to these 15-minute cities because a very important line in the sand has been crossed.
An ancient wolf is now inside the proverbial hen house. It's time to pay attention.
Information provided by truth teller and self sabotage coach, Jason Christoff. Find him online at JChristoff.com