It's happening! Santa Claus arrested in Stralsund / Germany.

Quote (Translation):
"Buuu... buuut, I'm Santa Claus..."

When reality insta-merges with the memetic realm.

[thx 2 @ systemanalysen on twitter 4 pointing out]

Connected:
- https://news.1rj.ru/str/bobbynetwork/934
- https://news.1rj.ru/str/bobbynetwork/935
- https://news.1rj.ru/str/bobbynetwork/1025

More memetic perspectives. Santa Claus seems pissed.

Connected:
- https://news.1rj.ru/str/bobbynetwork/933
- https://news.1rj.ru/str/bobbynetwork/935
- https://news.1rj.ru/str/bobbynetwork/1025

People are asking for a Quick Run Down (QRD): Well, it started with the Green Party in the 70s in many places in Mid Europe...

... It ended up in a Global Big Pharma Health Security Control Grid supported by Agenda 2030 stoogies around the globe.

[thx 2 Alem Šabić 4 pointing out]

Connected:
- https://news.1rj.ru/str/bobbynetwork/933
- https://news.1rj.ru/str/bobbynetwork/934

Give Dr. Dilbert some love…

He’s already triggered by the Rogan, McCullough interview
https://twitter.com/scottadamssays/status/1470740333851930624?s=21

Joe Rogan Experience - #1747 - Dr. Peter A. McCullough

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0aZte37vtFTkYT7b0b04Qz?context=spotify%3Ashow%3A4rOoJ6Egrf8K2IrywzwOMk&si=FxaYnAceRkirjX-6iV6nkA&nd=1

Poll:
https://news.1rj.ru/str/bobbynetwork/938

Case Closed:

The editor of The Lancet today admitting to UK Parliament that US-China politics influenced their decision to publish a 2020 letter dismissing the lab leak theory as a “conspiracy theory” — despite there being “[no] evidence one way or the other”.

The letter was initiated by Peter Daszak in the background and involved the "who is who" of the Global "One Health" Virologists-Cartel.

The following series of screenshots are full conversation snapshots between Corona Ausschuss (a primary protagonist) and investigative journalist Aya Velázquez, translated by Aya into English for folks outside Germany being interested into the corruption patterns happening in the epicenter of the current Global Pandemic-Agenda-PsyOp & especially the very distinct behavioural patterns of Controlled OP - in Germany.

Background:

⤷ Besides the already known BMI Panic Paper Scandal in Germany, another bombshell strategy paper was making the rounds inside the Interior Ministry of Germany (BMI), noscriptd "Massnahmenpapier 4" (translated "Measurement Paper 4").

⤷ Aya was contacted by a whistleblower inside the BMI, he wanted to show her the "Paper 4" and discuss it. Aya met the whistleblower and he showed her the strategy paper without handing it over to her.

⤷ After a thorough thought process: Aya, and also me thought that establishing a connection to the Corona Ausschuss would be the "way to go" (at that time we weren't aware of their Controlled OP status, this incident revealed it to us).

⤷ The whistleblower gave the "Paper 4" personally to Reiner Fuellmich & Viviane Fischer in a meeting (this information came directly from the whistleblower). We were expecting them to release it immediately to the public. The said strategy paper included various highly alarming measurements planned for Germany as rather advanced pandemic-phase "solutions", for instance internment camps for quarantine crushers - or in other words - lockdown sceptics being locked up.

⤷ But the Corona Ausschuss didn't release the Strategy Paper 4 immediately, it was gatekeeped away for 3 weeks and following screenshots exactly show this timeframe - when all of a sudden the Corona Ausschuss protagonists became all hostile towards us.

⤷ Nowadays we know that Corona Ausschuss was never interested into releasing the said "Massnahmenpapier 4", instead they even let vanish "Point Number 7", edited the overall doc, got rid of meta data, and then buried the story in a C-Class 2020 News article. The Cherry On Top: Up2Date Corona Ausschuss has never discussed the actual paper ever once in their weekly hours long podcasts so far, which underlines and shows their "controlled status". Moreover they even came up with a lie that "Point Number 7" vanished due to connection problems via their laughable "whistleblower portal" honeypot. This is technically not possible, either your PDF is complete, or your file is corrupted - besides the fact that it was given to them personally.

⤷ In the following screenshots you can spot the behavioural and interrogative patterns of a primary Corona Ausschuss protagonist, the primary goal was to find out: "Have Aya and in direct consequence also Bobby read the actual paper (?), do they own a copy or did they obtain even more strategy papers commissioned by the BMI (?), and could they spill any more beans (?)".

⤷ Meanwhile I for instance - besides Aya were already trolling the primary collaborateurs of said strategy paper on Twitter - spilling the beans (the actual whistleblower from BMI knew about our proceedings and also approved them, we didn't risk to spill the beans in a manner that could be endangering his identity protection) . Remarkably "Crowdhelix" and "Ningbo University" contributed to the paper, which are basically CCP / 4IR think tanks for instance.

⤷ The screenshots also reveal, how the primary protagonist of the Corona Ausschuss immediately switched to "playing dumb", while being exposed as "gatekeepers", after weeks of sparse communication concerning the matter - Corona Ausschuss switched over to dumb questions like "which paper 4 muuuh ?" - laughable.

⤷ One of the redacted names in the conversation-screenshots is me.

⤷ TL;DR: Corona Committee is controlled opposition at its best: sabotage, gatekeeping, obfuscation and laughable self-mutilation are observed patterns.

Screenshots 1:
https://news.1rj.ru/str/bobbynetwork/942

Screenshots 2:
https://news.1rj.ru/str/bobbynetwork/943

Screenshots 3:
https://news.1rj.ru/str/bobbynetwork/944

A: Okay, I understand! Gladly when it fits times.
Short questions acute:

I unfortunately only have the Festnr of our mutual acquaintance, but would prefer to contact him via Threema. The last time I visited him, we forgot to exchange mobile numbers. Could you send them to me?

My second question would be about this NZZ story, is there still a publication regarding the catalog of measures? I was informed that there should be an article about it on Sunday, but then nothing came. Did they get cold feet?

My last, most important question would be: will you publish the original document in the context of the committee?

C: Do you have the paper?

A: No, I asked him to give it to you.

C: Where did the info with the NZZ come from?

A: From him.

C: Did you read through it?

Aya: Neither, he just showed me the cover page and summarized what was roughly in it. Then from the info on the cover sheet I did further research on Mayer and Crowdhelix.

Maximilian Mayer of the University of Nottingham Ningbo, the second China lobbyist on the BMI panic paper, was also involved in the second paper. I was able to find out via Twitter.

CA: Why did you mention the NZZ in the first place? Something like that can give you cold feet, if you don't already have them, or pressure from above.

Aya: I meant that a publication is firmly planned. In Germany, Austria and Switzerland, whistleblowing is not a punishable offense.

C: Sure, but why say that beforehand?

A: So that the newspaper will be bought.

C: Oops, and risk that something like that won't be printed in the end, because the journalist could be influenced beforehand. Hm

A: Is that what happened?

C: No, why? But you always have to expect something like that. I would never mention a magazine before publication.

A: Officially, we have freedom of the press and no journalist may be hindered in his work or put under pressure. If that were to happen, it would be the next scandal to be dealt with.

C: ???

Aya: The world has also announced all its articles beforehand so that they will be read. That's all I wanted to do.

C: But you are not the NZZ or do you have a close connection with them?

C: Friends had seen your clip and said that it sounded like you were the whistleblower of the paper and had sent it to us. Is that true, is that how it came across?

A: No, but I wanted the article to be noted, on Sunday. It is the only access we have to this document.

I also think, analogous to this WamS story, this is too big to put in the hands of a single newspaper. It has to go out to everybody.

Above all, I think the original doc needs to go out.

On your last question, the first info on this did indeed go out to you via me, xxx and xxx. At the same time, I made it clear that I do not have the paper, so I am not the whistleblower. You had already mentioned in the committee that there is a whistleblower.

C: What was the first information you sent to us?
By mail?

A: Telegram. Me - xxx - xxx - you.

C: Do we have a group there?

A: A forwarding.

In this specific case.

xxx passed that through.

C: xxx forwarded that to me?
I hadn't seen that at all.

A: Or to xxx.

C: I'll ask xxx.

A: I don't know that part of the chain.

C: Will you send me the info again?

A: When the initial info went to you? I'd love to.
Have xxxxx lunch and I'll look it up for you.

C: No stress, don't be in a hurry

A: Why are you hesitating to publish? Is it for the safety of the whistleblower?

https://news.1rj.ru/str/ayawasgeht/1321

Quote from quoted conversation "from here on only an informant who wants to remain anonymous" The [first meeting with him] was on February 16.

C: Why are you sharing your source with xxx? I think he would find that very unhip.
Why do you share information like the idea about China with xxx? I would have considered that confidential if someone had told me something like that, if you had really been told that.

A: xxx and I work together, I also informed our informant about this fact and he did not mind. I knew that xxx has the dedicated line to you, so I turned to him. As far as I know, he passed all the info concerning the paper to xxx. Everyone else will stay between us.

The informant got me involved in the first place because he specifically wanted something to happen with that document. The thought that he would probably have to publish it had probably just ripened in him. That was a big step for him.

Why he told me first of all - I can only speculate. He had probably seen me at Gunnar Kaiser and knew that I knew about the China Psyop. Since this coincided with his own observations, he probably wanted to discuss it with me.

I would like to add that he really celebrated our Twitter troll war against Mayer and the BMI, where we burst the info about the background paper with a network of different accounts. XXXX I then confronted Mayer. This allowed us to prove Mayer's cooperation. Perhaps the ambiguities could best be resolved if we all sat down together in a safe setting?

C: What is the action paper number 4?

A: Supposedly the document in question, which you now have. I don't know what it is actually noscriptd, but it supposedly contains a catalog of "measures" and is noscriptd No. 4 (in the version of 24.03.2020). I don't know any more than that, I just took a look at the cover page.

C: That sounds exciting.

A: Why are you asking me this? You have it.

C: I don't know any No. 4. That would be very interesting to see the No. 4.

A: xxx, I'm starting to worry about you. Are you a bot or has your signal been hacked?

C: What are you talking about? I just saw that you leaked the hardening stuff. I'm curious about that.

(2 weeks later, action paper has been "released").

A: Where is point 7?
It talks about a 7 point plan for Germany, not a six point plan.
I have SEEN 7 points.
He gave you everything.
So, where is point 7?

C: Is it customary for you to tweet publicly before first asking the person you are insinuating something? Do you think that leads to a good relationship with each other? Especially given the closeness connection of all of us from xxxx and me and xxx? I don't have a point 7. Maybe it's another document that you claim to have seen. We did not receive the document from anyone, it came to us through our whistleblower tool. It seemed incomplete to us, as you can read from the last paragraph in our article.

A: I know that you received it completely and personally, on Feb. 25, 2021, the day before I was with him.

What exactly do you actually do with a doc like that, XXX, for three weeks before you leak it? Twiddling your thumbs? Or maybe quickly remove the metadata of the PDF, create an _online-file in addition to the original file, remove point no. 7, clarify whether XXX and XXXX have it, no, they don't, well, then sell it 3 weeks later as a side note under a poorly presented article picture?

https://news.1rj.ru/str/ayawasgeht/1330

Are you pulling my leg, XXX?

And what was the point of all your cryptic communication with me the weeks before? Real allies in the movement deal with me differently. That's why I don't know how close we should be to each other.

And the fairy tales from your whistleblowing portal

- you can tell Christian Drosten.

C: Of course we create a file without metadata of documents that are transmitted via our portal. That goes without saying. You are welcome to send us a better article picture, if you have one at hand. That would make our work a lot easier. Like you, we are working hard around the clock for the recovery of our democracy. I did not mean that we both have a close relationship, but that XXX and XXX cooperate, you with XXX and I with XXX. Against the background it disconcerts me to carry things into the public, which one can clarify first of all internally. At any rate, that's how we handle it. And it is quite clear, I do not have point 7. It would be great if we did. If it comes up for you, let me know. I have a hope that it might be leaked after it's published.

A: Save your hope.
I don't believe a word you say after you keep lying to me here about your whistleblower access.
Why are you lying to me, XXX?
Why isn't anything happening in the committee?
XXX?
Why did it take three weeks with the leak?

Why did you remove item 7?

Why didn't you make a request to the BMI or RKI under the Freedom of Information Act to release the 210 pages of BMI emails that accompanied the development process of the BMI strategy paper of 23.03.2020 (note: it was 22.03.2020) AND the just published leak of 24.03.2020? You guys are lawyers, this would have been easy for you!
I got my material from a layman who made a simple request to the BMI via the portal FragdenStaaT, and he was successful.
Meanwhile, if you too have requested these papers (because you really can't be any stupider than a layman), why didn't you leak them immediately, and share them with everyone?
Why did I have to do that first, and then all you can think of later is:
"I'm curious about that!"
Excuse me?
Instead, you'd rather talk about XXXX and who else lost their grandma to the evil, evil vaccination. Once crying out education citizens, every Friday anew. You don't clear up anything at all.
You could have taken apart the most explosive papers of the FRG in the committee, XXX, and that already for weeks.
I'll tell you how it is:
Either you are complete failures as "Corona investigators
or controlled opposition.

https://news.1rj.ru/str/ayawasgeht/1339

Non sterilizing mRNA transfections with Spike-Only-Focus have been an indescribable success story so far, not?

"Muuuh Superimmunity":

→ https://bit.ly/3J0BUzI (LOL)

Answer: Nope:

→ https://bit.ly/3nxr1Nl
(Many LOLs in here, but the other way around)

I extended it a little 😄 (for our group, cause i don't know if this is legally ok)