Remember when Al Gore told us in 2006 that the polar ice caps would be completely melted by 2020? It didn’t happen. Today, more people than ever are questioning climate change. Still, the media continues to remind us that an existential threat looms. In recent years, the media warnings have been more dire.

Too Hot? Too Cold?
If you look at climate predictions historically, they’ve not only been very extreme, but extremely varied. In less than thirty years, the prediction went from a coming ice age to global warming, What can I say? I’m skeptical.

CARBON EMISSIONS AS THE CAUSE
Experts assure us that carbon emissions from our use of fossil fuels are the culprit in this current climate emergency. They tell us that we must switch to “greener” energy sources, and fast! But, finding a viable replacement is a tall order. Fossil fuels provide lots of power quickly and cheaply. They are, by a huge margin, the most efficient energy source on the planet. Plus, they’re easy to store (in drums and tanks) and to transport (via tanker or pipeline). For these reasons, a full eighty percent of all the energy we use in the world today comes from fossil fuels.

Included is the energy we use to heat our homes, to travel to and from work, to produce much of our food, and to power our businesses. Given this fact, how realistic is the plan to switch off the fossil fuel spigot any time soon?

THE ‘CARBON TAX’ AS A SOLUTION
Canada’s Carbon Tax applies to fossil fuels used for essentials such as gasoline and home heating fuels. It’s hefty, and will make using fossil fuels prohibitive for a great number of Canadians. Experts, however, tell us the idea is a good one in that:

• the additional cost at the pumps will nudge consumers away from fossil fuels, and;

• the new tax revenues will be used to fund development of new, greener energies.

Everybody wins, right? Well, not exactly.

THE PROBLEM WITH “GREEN” ENERGY

Does green energy live up to its hype? Take electric cars, for example. One of the biggest challenges in manufacturing electric vehicles is in sourcing the materials used to make batteries. These “rare earth minerals” (including cobalt and lithium) are very difficult to extract from the earth’s crust, making them expensive to produce. A typical battery for a single electric vehicle can cost $15,000. And, like all batteries, they wear out. Typically, the battery expires long before the car itself wears out. As a result, a majority of otherwise useable electric cars wind up discarded in landfills.

Child Labour Is Used To Extract Minerals
Since batteries wear out relatively quickly, they’ll need to be replaced fairly often. The truth is that a future with electric vehicles will require an endless supply of new batteries. Since the materials used are both difficult and expensive to acquire, manufacturers resort to any and all means to reduce costs. This typically includes the use of child labour in places like Congo and other third-world nations.

Fossil Fuels Are Used To Process Minerals
Once extracted from the earth, the cobalt and lithium must be processed. Processing requires exorbitant amounts of energy. Fossil fuels are the only cost-effective option. Will CO2 emissions from battery production offset the benefits of going electric? It’s quite possible. (For more on that, check out this article.)

There are other, more practical, questions too:

Will There Be Enough Batteries?
Is it possible to manufacture a sufficient supply of batteries such that everyone who wants to own an electric vehicle can do so? How will that happen? Is the plan simply to “employ” more third-world children to extract minerals? And then to use fossil fuels to process these minerals? And what about the prohibitive upfront cost to purchase an electric vehicle? Is the plan to limit vehicle ownership? Will only the very rich be able to afford one?

Is It Practical To Re-Charge Car Batteries?
Consider that only eight percent of the world’s energy comes from hydro-electricity and that many large cities each have millions of cars on the road. (New York City alone, for example, has over eleven million.) Is it possible to charge this many car batteries on a regular basis? Will we need to ration electricity? Bear in mind that fully re-charging an electric car battery takes hours. Compare that to a five-minute stop for gas.

Can Wind and Solar Really Power Our Homes?
Remembering that eighty percent of our energy currently comes from fossil fuels, we have to ask: can we realistically rely on solar and wind to replace it? The reality is that, for practical reasons, we simply cannot. Why?

A key issue is that wind and solar technologies are weather dependent; they generate power intermittently, depending on whether or not the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. Hence, batteries will be needed to store the energy for use later on. How many batteries would it take to heat one home in winter? (Answer: Too many!)

There are other issues, too. For example, solar panels tend to lose efficiency quickly, meaning their ability to convert solar energy into electricity fades. These panels are full of toxic materials. And because they’re expensive to recycle, they typically wind up in landfills after just a few years of usage. Wind-powered turbines present similar problems.

The blades used in turbines are huge (sometimes as long as a football field). They’re super-strong, built to withstand hurricanes, and cannot easily be crushed or recycled. At the end of their lifespan, they are usually buried, where they sit indefinitely. Furthermore, wind turbines when operating cause harm to nearby plants and animals due to the electromagnetic frequencies produced.

These are real issues for anyone seriously concerned about the environment. And given that these new technologies provide only a small fraction of the energy we need, something doesn’t quite add up about the “green” agenda.

But, wait! There’s more.

FOOD: THE LATEST CLIMATE THREAT?
Beyond the supposed threat from fossil fuels used in our cars and homes, there’s apparently a new climate challenge: food farming. Government’s response is simple: cut back on food production! You hear very little about it in your nightly news casts. But make no mistake about it, there’s an all-out attack on food production all around the globe. And it’s no longer just about cow farts.

In Canada, the assault on food production is two-fold:

First, there’s the impact of the Carbon Tax on farming operations. This tax hits food production especially hard because farmers use fossil fuels extensively. For example, spraying crops, heating livestock facilities, and drying grain all require the use of fossil fuels; the increased costs of the tax can be significant, adding $50,000 to $100,000 yearly. For many operations, this can mean the difference between continuing to operate or shutting down.

Second, and with an even greater impact, is a proposed ban on the use of nitrogen fertilizers. Nitrogen has been used for years, as it greatly enhances crop yields; without it, many farms would simply not be viable. The Trudeau government asserts that, like fossil fuels, the nitrogen used in farming is a major contributor to climate change. Government’s response has been to severely restrict its use.

In reality, some farming operations have already been forced to shut down. And many more are at risk. While food prices (and even food availability) are already a problem, things are on track to get far worse. But, not just in Canada.

Food Production: A Global Attack
All across Europe, farming operations are experiencing the same kind of coordinated assault. In the Netherlands, farmers have fought back as more than 3,000 farming operations are forcibly being shut down.

And, in Sri Lanka, angry mobs stormed government buildings and even the private residences of both the President and Prime Minister. The protest had an impact, as both officials were forced to resign. Similar uprisings are occurring in Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and beyond.

More Attacks On The Food Supply
Over the last several years, a rash of strange attacks on food production facilities have been taking place throughout the United States. In some cases, businesses were so hard hit they were forced to shut down. The result has been significant increases in the price of pork, beef, chicken and eggs; in some cases, the very supply has been cut. The timing and frequency of these attacks raises questions.

WOOD STOVES: YET ANOTHER CLIMATE THREAT?
In some jurisdictions, the right to use wood (and gas) stoves is being legislated away. Such restrictions are becoming more common around the globe.

TOTAL RELIANCE ON ELECTRICITY?
The conversion away from oil heat, wood stoves, and gas ranges can lead to only one outcome: a complete reliance upon electrical power. This should be a concern for us all. Not only because of potential supply limitations and interruptions, but also because of what it will mean to our freedom in general.

The Smart Electrical Grid
Smart technologies in your household (such as Smart meters and Smart appliances) have become common. Moreover, they enable complete surveillance and remote control of your electrical usage. Will your measured “carbon footprint” determine how much electricity you’ll be allowed to use? If you break the climate rules (or any other rules), will your energy usage be cut back? Will it be turned off altogether?

ARE ALL THESE RESTRICTIONS REALLY ABOUT THE CLIMATE?
As the media work to convince us that the planet is teetering on the edge of catastrophic climate change and that CO2 is the cause, a large and growing number of scientists (including several Nobel prize winners) disagree with that view. Such alternative viewpoints, however, are censored out of mainstream news casts.

It’s abundantly clear that “green” technologies can’t possibly meet our energy needs; and that the push away from fossil fuels will have a detrimental impact on almost everyone on the planet. So, why not have an open debate? Why the censorship? If the future of the planet is really at stake, should we not be considering all options? Getting input from all sides? Something doesn’t seem right.

Who’s Behind The Climate Change Agenda?

The World Economic Forum
A small group of billionaire industrialists collectively known as the World Economic Forum have been busy devising a plan by which the rest of us are to abide. It’s a plan they call “The Great Reset.”

The Great Reset
The stated goal of “The Great Reset” is:

“…to facilitate rebuilding from the global Covid-19 crisis in a way that prioritizes sustainable development” with an emphasis on “social, governmental and environmental issues.”

Here’s the promo video for their Great Reset:

How Could They Possibly Pull Off Such A Thing?
So, how is it that a tiny group of money mongers at the World Economic Forum gets to dictate the rights and freedoms of everybody else on the planet? Perhaps the following audio clip will offer some insight:

It seems odd that the billionaires infiltrating western governments own so much, yet assert that the rest of us will be happy to own nothing. What else do they think we will we be happy with, I wonder?

Consider the following:

“15-Minute Cities”
To reduce our collective “carbon footprint,” the WEF has decided it’s best that our movements be restricted. The Great Reset aims to facilitate this with what Klaus Schwab calls “15-minute cities”.

Click to hear the World Economic Forum’s description of a “15-minute city”:

More Restrictions: Legislation To Limit Access To Natural Areas
If 15-minute cities and restrictions on personal vehicle ownership don’t jar you, then check this out: provincial governments across Canada (and around the globe) have begun to pass legislation to “protect natural areas”. The plan is to make seventy-five percent of all natural areas on the planet off limits to us average folks.

The Plan To “Build Back Better”
Despite their vast wealth, the billionaires have historically been unable to put an end to global hunger. Even today, the problem continues to get worse. But, not to worry: there’s a plan in the works.

The billionaires tell us that Covid has presented us with a unique opportunity to solve everything. They’ve got the perfect plan to accomplish just that (along with a cool slogan. too):

Conspiracy Theory?
Have the billionaires, and the governments they’ve infiltrated, really come up with a plan to make the world a better place? It seems odd that those plans are predicated on the rest of us being poor, hungry, cold and immobilized. That doesn’t sound better to me. It sounds more like The Great Reset.

Did Covid really teach us to build back better? Or did it simply teach us to follow rules? Unquestioningly! Else we lose our rights. Our freedoms. Our jobs. Our bodily autonomy. Will the new pandemic be Climate Change? If so, which freedoms will you be willing to give up this time around?

Subscribe now

Thanks for reading Climate Change and “The Great Reset”
If you enjoyed this article, please SUBSCRIBE!
Also, please check out some of my past articles.

In future articles, I will examine some related topics related to the larger global conspiracy, including: Immigration, LGBTQ+, Central Bank Digital Currencies, the Socialist Agenda, and more.

And who could argue that the impact of the lockdown measures were anything short of devastating. A fact that’s true not only in Canada, but nearly everywhere on the planet. Virtually every single activity we humans enjoy was all but annihilated. Social gatherings. Travel. Sporting events. Recreation. Weddings. Schools shut down. Even Christmas was a bust. It was enough to make a person sick.

The economy, too, was flattened. Okay, so not all of the economy. Just the smaller businesses. Somehow, the megastores managed to rake in record profits. (It’s odd. I seem to recall hearing many years ago that, some day, the middle class would cease to exist.)

And, of course, there were the masks!  Those dehumanizing rags that served little more than as a visible symbol of compliance; and to remind us to be fearful. Here in Canada, we were especially hard hit by Covid rules and restrictions. So bad, in fact, that many from outside now refer to us as a communist country. It’s sad that so many Canadians were duped. But, it’s not surprising, really.

After all, guiding us throughout The Covid Show were all the major news agencies. Brought to you by Pfizer. Keeping us apprised of the latest variants. And beating us over the head with a single message: Covid is deadly! Get injected! And, they repeated that message. Over and over.

Bodily autonomy be damned! Coercion and threats became the order of the day. Thankfully, the media were able to filter out all those pesky “conspiracy theories.” And ensure that the only information we received were the directives from the World Health Organization (the WHO).

And just as we started to see some light at the end of the Covid tunnel, that same WHO warned of the next pandemic: Monkeypox. And with it, of course, another “vaccine” that we all needed in order to save humanity.

Here’s a fun fact: The WHO is currently in the process of granting itself unprecedented authority in dealing with future global health scares. It’ll make it easier for them to impose more severe restrictions. And, here’s the best part: they’re including climate change as a health threat!

I wonder if climate change will be the next pandemic? Oh, well. Not to worry! I’m sure it won’t take long to adjust the Earth’s climate. We’ll have our freedoms back in no time!

The point I’m making is that, whether it be Covid, Monkeypox, climate change, or anything else, these “threats” all net the same result: more rules!

And, just you wait! With the implementation of the Central Bank Digital Currency, Klaus Schwab’s “Great Reset” will begin in earnest!

“You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.” - The Great Reset

Now, there’s a Monkey Virus is a collage of mainstream news images set to music. It mocks all that was (and still is) Covid. And Monkeypox. And, I guess, climate change. And any other crazy, evil scheme unleashed as a means to own and control us.

I hope you get a chuckle!

What is “Cancel Culture”?

The above definition of cancel culture raises an obvious question: Who decides what is objectionable or offensive? Moreover, it tells us that the goal of cancel culture is to encourage conformity. Cancel culture draws from the idea of political correctness, but it is far more staunch since it incorporates two new concepts: wokeness and virtue-signalling. These can be defined as follows:

Wokeness: to agree with the viewpoint that the world is completely racially and socially unjust and that the only solution is a complete overhaul.

Virtue-signalling: to affirm the woke perspective and to speak out against all other perspectives.

The signalling of virtue is key here because it attempts to force wokeness. For, it is not enough for one to simply be woke, but to also correct a lack of wokeness in others. In this regard, virtue-signalling can go beyond withdrawing support; it may even be expressed through aggressive behaviour. An insistence towards woke ideology has led to attacks on culture, politics, religion, and other institutions, particularly in western nations.

In our personal lives, too, woke ideology has become a major theme. Expressing the ‘wrong’ opinion in social settings (including online platforms) can result in one being cancelled. In fact, mainstream media seems eager to encourage such practice.

Is ‘cancel culture’ grassroots or top-down?

Is the notion to cancel really part of a culture? I’m dubious. Culture starts at the grassroots and evolves based on changing tastes, values, and morals. But, is the cancelling phenomenon that we see happening all around the world really coming from a grassroots level?

Indeed, the concepts of grassroots and cancel culture are diametrically opposed: grassroots movements value independent views; cancel culture insists that viewpoints conform. The recent and pervasive push towards cancelling strikes me as very suspicious, as though it is being forced. If that is the case, then what might be driving it?

Cancel Culture in the Media

Celebrities, scientists, podcasters and other well-knowns who speak their minds are often targets of cancel culture. For example, when longtime NHL sports commentator Don Cherry refused to apologize for his comments regarding immigrants not wearing a poppy to honour Canada’s fallen soldiers, he was fired from his position.
But, was he really fired because of what he said?
The incident was highly publicized such that most every Canadian was aware of it.  I can’t help but wonder if the real reason for Don Cherry’s firing was to send a message to other Canadians that fail to comply?

As mentioned, celebrities are not the only targets of cancel culture; make no mistake about it, virtually anyone or even anything can be cancelled.

Mainstream media that see fit to cancel music are also telling us to cancel our loved ones. In fact, over the last three years, we have witnessed unprecedented cancelling of loved ones, friends, music, words, phrases, gestures, books, social interactions, and even ideas.

Cancel Culture: It’s Even Easier Online

As our social interactions are more and more being forced online, it gets easier and easier to monitor and control what we say. And efforts are underway to do just that!

And, just in case the fear of being cancelled doesn’t shut you the hell up, the huge fines surely will! Be careful what you Like on Facebook!

IS SELF-CENSORING THE GOAL OF CANCEL CULTURE?

The spectre of being cancelled has become a real concern for people. There is much to fear: fear of losing your job; fear of being ostracized by family and friends; fear of being attacked on social media. It’s all about the fear.

Is this really for the betterment of society? Fear of sharing our true thoughts will mean many valid viewpoints won’t get heard. But, maybe that’s the whole point of cancel culture.

What can we do, together, to fight cancel culture?

If you willingly participating in cancel culture out of fear, you’re not alone. But know there are things you can do to reassert your freedoms:

• Speak up for what you believe in (especially with friends and loved ones);

• Speak out, respectfully, on social media; don’t alienate people;

• Don’t be fearful of free and open conversations (you’ll be surprised at how many people feel exactly as you do!);

• Recognize what is going on and share what you learn with others

If you don’t (or won’t) see through cancel culture because it offers a brief sense of moral superiority, please consider the long-term costs to freedom. And ask yourself this: Who really runs the ‘cancel culture’ show?

Thank you for reading the Opportunity Mocks newsletter! My next article will be in the form of a video. It will be fun! Thanks for reading. Please SUBSCRIBE to receive all my latest articles! Also, please COMMENT, as I would love to hear your thoughts!

The Trudeau government’s stance on freedom of expression is apparent. Legislative changes proposed over the past number of years are a concern for all of us. They literally dictate which specific words Canadians can, cannot, and in some cases, must utter. A key point here is that many of the proposed legislative changes are brand new. That is to say: Canadians have never before been told what words they can or cannot use.

Let’s take a brief, but discerning, look at a few of the proposed changes:

BILL C-36: This Bill dictates that you cannot use words that offend anyone.

Proposed rules under Bill C-36 offers any individual legal protection against being offended; in other words, offending someone may be deemed a hate crime that is punishable by law.

What are the repercussions of this law? Being found guilty of such a crime could bring you a fine of up to $50,000 (plus reparations payable to the plaintiff). Moreover, those found guilty under C-36 may have their communication and movements restricted; they can have firearms seized; they may be banned from drinking alcohol; and can even be put under house arrest.

Shockingly, these actions may be taken pre-emptively.

In other words, if someone merely thinks you may utter “hate speech,” you could have your rights curtailed.

Furthermore, complaints (for example, against a blogger) may be made anonymously, i.e. the defendant will have no opportunity to face the person making the accusation. This stipulation will make impossible any cross-examination (for example, to discern personal or political motivations for the accusation). No existing Canadian law has ever allowed for this kind of anonymity in the legal process.

Is this law really designed to protect the Canadian people from having our feelings hurt? Or is it simply aimed to instill a fear of speaking out?

Now, too, consider the following “news story” published by Canada’s state broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Note that the CBC is completely funded ($1.3 Billion) by the federal government.

BILL C-16: This Bill dictates words you must use

As if limiting what you are allowed to say isn’t enough, Bill C-16 goes even further by dictating what you must say regarding certain matters. Specifically, the Bill deals with how you must address trans-gendered individuals. It literally puts words in your mouth, requiring you to use the individual’s chosen pronouns. (The pronouns can even be words made up by the individual, or the newly minted ze, zir, zem, and zeir, as replacements for he, her, them and their).

If you refuse to use these words when addressing a trans-gendered person, you may well find yourself charged with harassment. You may even go to jail. Again, this kind of legislation has no precedent in Canada. (This Bill actually passed in the Senate and became law in June, 2022.)

It’s important to note that just 0.3% of Canadians identify as trans-gendered, according to Statistics Canada’s own data. Is Justin Trudeau really so concerned about the rights of the 0.3% of trans-gendered Canadians? Or is he simply using the issue to impose upon the free speech of all Canadians?

BILL C-11: This Bill limits the information you’ll be able to find online

Bill C-11 allows the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) unprecedented regulatory authority over what information shows up in your social media feeds and Internet searches. And while C-11 will have little impact on content provided by larger news outlets (such as CBC, CTV and Global), it will be especially limiting with regard to small-scale Internet content creators (for example, this site: Opportunity Mocks).

Put simply, algorithms will be applied so as to squeeze out of the market many smaller content creators. For Canadians, the range of viewpoints and opinions they have access to will become increasingly fewer and fewer.

What will these new laws mean for our future?

There was a time when people believed the world to be flat; and, to espouse otherwise would result in a charge of blasphemy, with possibly a death sentence. Free expression is the means by which we human beings have advanced our collective knowledge. Sharing ideas is how we learn from the past and move forward.

What will Justin Trudeau’s new laws mean regarding how we share our thoughts and ideas? What speech will be compelled going forward? What words will be outlawed? If we are not free to communicate our true thoughts to one another, how can we debate anything? And, in this context, how are we to defend other rights and freedoms?

Subscribe now

Thanks for stopping by! My next article will look at Cancel Culture and how it operates to stifle freedom of expression. Please SUBSCRIBE TO and SHARE this article. Is there really a conspiracy? You tell me! I’d love to hear your comments!

That an evil cabal is out to enslave humanity is ludicrous, right? That all human beings on the planet are at risk of losing virtually every right and every freedom. That we are all being pushed towards a totalitarian future. A future where a tiny number of “elites” live like kings and queens. While the rest of us eat bugs to survive. Toiling for them, our masters. And serving as biology experiments. For their benefit and amusement. Who could think these things? Only a nutcase, right?

I’ve started this newsletter to explore these seemingly daft assertions. As the world is by most accounts in a crisis, I want to address the question, “Is there really a conspiracy?” In my effort to find the answer, I will not draw upon scientific journals nor elaborate, quantitative studies. I believe the average person is far too busy to find time to pore over those. Besides, I don’t think such a labourious approach is even necessary. In fact, I think the answer to my question is far more easily found. It’s within our purview, all of us, every single day. Specifically, I’m talking about our news feeds.

But, does the nightly news work to merely inform us? Or, does it aim to persuade us?

Over the past several years, I have endeavored to curate a collection of news stories, mainly in the form of computer screenshots. I have thousands of them. In organizing the images, I’ve noted obvious themes. These include climate change, immigration, gender equality, social justice, racism, cancel culture and, everybody’s favorite, Covid-19. In future articles, I will present some of these images and offer my own qualitative analysis, and the stories they represent.

In addition to the screenshot images, I will occasionally incorporate video clips. Some of the videos may be sourced from external platforms (e.g. YouTube, Rumble and Bitchute); others will be produced and uploaded by me personally. I will include some of my own graphic designs and photographs, too. These original creations will be included to inject some humour.

We don’t often see news stories in a collated fashion; hence, many inherent absurdities can slip by, unnoticed. I hope to address this. Please note that the news images I provide represent actual articles from the various mainstream organizations; any added sarcasm will be mine.

Who funds the media?

I should also mention briefly mainstream media financing, since it’s pertinent: Canadian media organizations receive nearly $2 billion in annual funding from the federal government. Our state broadcaster, the CBC, gets $1.3 billion; another $650 million gets divided amongst the other large media organizations such as Global and CTV. Does this funding constitute the media being ‘on the take’? Do you think this money affects how (or if) stories are reported? I think it does. But, don’t take my word for it. Hear what Canada’s own Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has to say. VIDEO

In the context of Covid-19

Covid-19 has made the last three years especially tough on all of us. And, though my concern about a conspiracy is real, I believe it’s necessary to maintain a sense of humor. I think it will not only help us to push through this current crisis, but may even encourage us to think a little more critically about the world. Plus, it’s a great way to stay connected; people love to share a laugh.

In any case, my ultimate goal is to convince (at least a few) people to look beyond the mainstream news media for their information.

A note about the term “Conspiracy Theorist”

Since we hear it so often these days, I thought it would be a good idea to address the concept of the conspiracy theorist. In the context of Covid-19, I seriously doubt there is a person on the planet who’s not heard the term. However, its origin (and purpose) may not be so widely known.

The most reasonable explanation that I could find regarding the term’s origin comes from NYU professor of media studies, Dr. Mark Crispin Miller. Dr. Miller explains how the term came about shortly after the investigation into the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The Warren Commission concluded that the assassination was the work of a single gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald.

In the wake of that ruling, rumours began circulating that the assassination was actually the work of deep state operatives whose goal it was to undermine American freedoms. To dispel this notion, a new term was coined: conspiracy theorist. It’s purpose was to mock any notion that JFK’s murder was part of a broader, more sinister plot; moreover, to assert that anyone espousing such views was simply a nut job.

President Kennedy’s stance on the CIA (and those running it) was clear. But, was JFK’s assassination an inside job? Check out the video below:

FYI: In1979, the US House Committee on Assassinations report confirmed the assassination was, indeed, the result of a larger conspiracy. Nonetheless, the term conspiracy theorist persists. To this day, it continues to be used as a censoring device regarding any subjects deemed off limits to inquiry or debate. I encourage you to do your own research on the subject.

In my next article I will look, briefly, at legislation in Canada. That sounds like fun, right? Specifically, I’ll look at legislation around censorship, and how it limits what we are able to see in the various media. It’s a topic that needs to be included early on in this newsletter because it sets the stage in making my subsequent articles more meaningful.

Subscribe now

Thank you for reading this, my introductory, article. Is there really a conspiracy afoot to enslave humanity? In future articles, I will explore that very question. In the meantime, I’d love to hear your comments. Please SUBSCRIBE to and share this newsletter with anyone you think may enjoy it. See you next Monday here at Opportunity Mocks!

Subscribe now