I visit churches whenever I get the chance. It’s got to the point where, if my wife and I are travelling somewhere in England, I will identify notable churches along the route that I can stop at, to ‘break up the journey’.
People ask me what is the appeal of churches. This post is my response.
Antiquity
Firstly, and most superficially, I like old buildings. I get a thrill from a building that is so old that I can see the wear and tear caused by hundreds of years of use and British weather. The more worn the better. I like stone steps that are ‘sagging’ from hundreds of years of footfall. Then there’s the damage to churches caused by political upheavals: there have been periods in our history where iconoclasts have visited churches and destroyed artifacts that fell foul of the dominant religious and/or political views of the time. For example, Henry VIII’s Reformation left its mark on many religious buildings. Many abbeys were destroyed but the abbey churches were often allowed to survive – often in some sort of truncated form – for the use of the local population. More than 100 years later, Cromwell’s puritans, such as William Dowsing, embarked on another programme to de-Catholicise churches: chiseling the faces from statues; oblitering animal imagery and removing the wings from angels as part of a programme to remove ‘catholic’ iconography from churches. I don’t like to see vandalised artwork but I appreciate that history is a rich tapestry that bears repeated consideration.
Defaced – literally! – figures on the font at Laxfield, Suffolk
Artifacts
Despite the state-sponsored destruction over the centuries, churches still possess a wealth of beautiful artifacts. There are Norman fonts and medieval fonts in all manner of designs. I’ve even seen Saxon fonts.
Norman font at Bodmin
Sometimes the fonts have covers (originally so that the Holy Water could not be stolen for use in witchcraft). Some churches went to the effort of commissioning elaborate, decorative covers that sometimes require a pulley to lift them.
Font cover at Salle, Norfolk
Many churches have murals on the walls. Lots of these murals have only been uncovered in the last 150 years from the layers of whitewash that were used by the iconoclasts to cover them. Once you discover that, you learn that, before religious strife, most churches featured biblical stories painted on the walls as inspirational reminders to illiterate parishioners. Sometimes even the ceilings were painted. Sometimes, it is possible to see a smidge of colour on the fonts or on the columns of the arcade and you realise that, once, churches were an awe-inspiring blaze of colour. This is another example by which churches tell the story of our history.
A Doom painting at St Thomas’, Salisbury
Superb wood-carvings can often be seen in churches whether in the form of delicate wooden screens or angel-roofs; rood statues; bench-ends or pulpits or doors.
A 16th century bench-end at Alternun, Cornwall
Interestingly, there is quite a lot of pagan imagery in churches from the ‘Green Man’ to mythical beasts. I often wonder why. I know that Christianity leveraged many of the myths of the pre-Christian era in order to gain acceptance. Why do you think the dates for Easter move every year? Easter was a pre-Christian festival relating to Spring and renewal that was co-opted into Christianity. Same with December 25th. The new religion of Christianity would have been more tolerable to adopt if the people could still celebrate and venerate existing festivals and imagery. I suspect that this explains much of the pagan symbolism: paganism and Christianity entwined to the point where most did not realise where one ended and the other started.
Did you know it is possible to date churches from their architectural style? Can I do this? A bit. I can recognise Norman stonework (1070 – 1180) but that’s about it. However, I look forward to the time when I can accurately recognise the ‘Early English’ style (1180 – 1280), or the ‘Decorated’ (1280 – 1380) or ‘Perpendicular’ (1380 – early c16) styles.
There is often decorative stone sculpturework evident in the arcade columns or the door surrounds, the tombs and memorials. This took both time and skill to achieve. I regret that we don’t put the same effort into buildings these days.
Churches vs museums
I find it amazing that churches are packed with all of these incredible features and yet, during most of my church visits, I have the place to myself. By way of contrast, if I visit a museum, it will be packed with people. Chances are, in a museum, I may have to wait my turn to view some ancient artifact held in a glass case, ripped from its original location and purpose. Treasures from ancient churches are often scattered across multiple museums: the reredos and the screens might be in the Victoria and Albert (in different rooms!); the alterpieces might be in the National Gallery (or abroad); and the silverware and font in the British Museum. However, when I visit a church, everything is in context in a single location. Here you can see 1,000 years of history in a single location – tombs, memorials, screens, pews, pulpits, altarpieces – rather than distributed across the world, or sold to private collectors, or destroyed with the building. This opportunity to enjoy such a wide range of artifacts, on my own, at leisure, in a single location, is why I believe that churches are better than museums.
History
I’ve touched on the history of churches in relation to the national upheavals that erupted from time to time. However, there is also the local historical story particular to each individual church. Each church was the centre of community life. I often wonder what religion meant to people hundreds of years ago. Were all parishioners religious? Or was going to church services done more for social reasons? Was religion an early form of virtue-signaling? Did they believe what their priest preached to them on Sundays? Did they listen? Did people attend church because conformity left them with no choice? Would people have suffered social consequences if they had professed scepticism at what they were told on Sundays? Or if they had stopped attending services? How many people went along with the theatre of church because it was the socially accepted thing to do? I’m sure historians must have answered these questions. I think of the situations in contemporary society where certain opinions are deemed unacceptable and I realise that there is nothing new about humans imposing conformity on each other. It will have undoubtedly applied to the church. In a small village, I realise it must have been very difficult to do something that went against the consensus view. There would probably have been consequences. Perhaps, you might have been accused of witchcraft? It would have been easier to suppress your awkward views and go with the flow. Was this coercion applied by your fellow villagers or by the Lord of the Manor, who may have seen it as his duty to ensure those under his remit received moral guidance via the scriptures?
The positive aspect of this approach is that a heterogeneous population that is all pulling in the same direction by abiding with the same cultural norms explains much of the success of the UK over the last 1,000 years. The negative aspect is that individual automony was suppressed for the benefit of community harmony. This is contrary to the ethos of ‘individualism’ that is espoused today.
Rich vs poor
We can see the marks left on churches by individual parishioners in the form of the tombstones or memorial tablets or tombs. These are often works of art by themselves.
Tombstone at Cley Next The Sea, Norfolk
Of course, only the richest parishioners could afford to leave a legacy of their existence. Sometimes a church will have a number of memorials to a single family and then, at a certain point, no more. Either that family line died out or the wealth was dissipated to the extent that surviving members could no longer justify expensive memorials. I think that’s a good thing. It shows that wealth is churned. My cousin worked on our family tree during which he discovered that generations of our family had lived for more than 200 years in a village less than 50 miles from me. I visited the village church and realised there is no trace of my family at this church. They were too poor. This shows me that family wealth doesn’t last forever and neither does family poverty. Rich families can become poor and poor families can become rich. That is how it should be.
Chewton Mendip, Somerset. These people were very rich. Now they are very dead.
A treat for me is when a church exceeds my expectations. Sometimes, a small church in the middle of nowhere can be an absolute joy: old, worn, yet full of beauty and serenity. Churches in the middle of nowhere are sometimes fortunate for this reason: they were spared from later ‘improvements’ and remain much as originally built. (Ofcourse, the downside to a remote church is that it was often allowed to fall into ruins).
Then there are often huge, impressive churches full of beauty in small villages and I wonder at the incongruity between the size of the church and the size of the village. A bit of research either reveals that the settlement was once fantastically wealthy but later fell on hard times or that local wealthy benefactors paid for a House of God to be built that reflected their piety and/or self-importance. This latter category sometimes contain family chapels filled with the tombs of these dignatories. Such tombs are always a treat because they were only created during a 300 year period between the 14th and 17th centuries. Even so, the designs of these monuments went through a great deal of evolution.
I like the fact that no two churches are the same. Each church is an adventure of its own and, for that reason, I don’t research too much about a church before I visit. The thrill of discovery is all part of the hobby. For me, there is a huge amount of excitement when I attempt to enter a church: quite often, especially in urban areas, the church is locked and I must content myself with trying to peer in through the windows. However, if the door is not locked and the latch lifts then the excitement courses through me. I often have no idea what I am about to discover. Will the church exceed my expectations? Will it disappoint? For that 1 or 2 seconds while I open the door, I have no idea. Once the door is open, I can absorb the scene that confronts me. Normally, I can tell immediately whether the visit is going to be pleasurable or functional: whether I’m going to be in and out in less than 10 minutes or whether it’s going to take as long as it takes to appreciate the wonders within. The right church sends a surge of emotion through me. I experience that surge a lot more often than I don’t. That feeling is why I pursue this hobby.
People ask me if I visit churches because I’m religious. That’s not the reason as I cannot call myself religious. I would call myself either a ‘Christian atheist’ or a ‘cultural Christian’. However, church-crawling has made me appreciate Christianity all the more. I like to think I share the same moral code as Christians and I want Christianity to thrive. I respect the Christian beliefs that people hold. However, I don’t share those beliefs and, unlike long ago, I am under no compulsion to do so. I realise such secular attitudes undermine the Christianity specifically, and Western culture in general but I cannot find belief within me where none exists. The best I can do is appreciate what has been lost.
In short, UK churches are a time capsule of the last 1,000 years of British history and British architecture and religous upheaval and decorative art and British culture. The fact that there are so many of these historical buildings available to us is an absolute privilege that each of us should take advantage of.
‘Britain’s Populist Revolt’ by Matthew Goodwin in Quillette 3rd August 2018
Between 1964 and 2015, the percentage of politicians in Westminster who had worked in manual jobs crashed from 37 to just 3 percent, while more recent research has shown how the rise of ‘careerist’ politicians, particularly in the Labour Party, lowered the amount of attention going to working-class interests. Meanwhile, the numbers that had been elected after working in politics or in London reached record heights. Such findings leant credibility to the perception of a political class that had become increasingly insular and detached from ordinary voters. Before the referendum even got underway, nearly 40 percent of working-class voters agreed that “people like me have no say in government.”
It’s odd how so much talk about rights has shifted from a notion of individual rights (meant to restrict the power of the state or king) to group rights and entitlements, which give the state greater power over individuals and what they may say, how much they may earn, whose lifestyle they have to subsidise, etc.
Women are traditionally are more conservative than men, but modern progressivism seems to have gradually developed into a movement that is extremely appealing to women, especially younger, more secular women. And part of the reason for this, perhaps, is that it has shifted away from the freedom-oriented attitude of the 1970s and towards safety and rigid norms. It has essentially adopted values traditionally associated with conservatism, thus making it something of a hybrid.(This refers to mainstream progressivism, not the radical fringe.)
[Corporate censorship] seems like something progressives should be concerned about, but as their goals have shifted from freedom to safety this can no longer be taken for granted.
The underlying assumptions of social justice censorship are that words are a form of violence, that a subjective interpretation matters more than the speaker’s intent and that safety is contingent on not being teased or challenged. The mainstreaming of these ideas is an existential threat to comedy (and freedom of speech in general). Comedians use lies to tell the truth—the notion that the exaggerations, stories and carefully crafted falsehoods we deliver on stage should be taken literally will be the death knell of comedy. The idea that your safety depends on me never challenging you is the end of any sort of useful communication.
Swing voters who decide elections – both those who swing between Conservative/Labour and those who swing between IN/OUT – do not think like this [thinking in terms of the ‘centre ground’]. They support much tougher policies on violent crime than most Tory MPs AND much higher taxes on the rich than Blair, Brown, and Miliband. They support much tougher anti-terrorism laws than most Tory MPs AND they support much tougher action on white collar criminals and executive pay than Blair, Brown, and Miliband.
‘Effete men turn to the left because there they find fashionable and self-righteous justifications for their lack of manhood’
Allister Heath
‘Will any political party be able to survive the second act of Brexit?’
The Telegraph
February 20th, 2019
‘The emergence of a distinct political class at the turn of the century – a back-scratching, culturally homogenous, post-ideological, self-interested coterie whose members have more in common with each other than their constituents – is a central reason why so many voters are attracted to populism of Left and Right.’
The more detached from ordinary people and ordinary life politicians and political parties become, so the more they seek legitimacy in ideas that are beyond the senses of ordinary people, and the more they locate power above democratic control on the basis of seemingly ‘global’ risks.
We have arrived at the monstrous end of the liberal project. What started as a reasoned assault on superstition is now a collection of increasingly bizarre superstitions, in service to a war on observable reality
Lord Hailsham from the Sunday Times, 19 July 1970:
‘It is the Parliamentary majority which has the potential for tyranny. The thing that Courts cannot protect you against is Parliament, the traditional protector of our liberties. But Parliament is constantly making mistakes and could in theory become the most oppressive instrument in the world’.
Alex Thomson, taken from his Telegram account. 22 Feb 2022.
‘Woke liberalism is quite literally the most gut wrenching political view point I have ever known.
It means you can foster beliefs such as :-
▪️Everyone deserves freedom, except those we say can’t be free ▪️Everyone is equal, except those we say are not equal ▪️Everyone should be treated the same, except those we say shouldn’t be treated the same
It applies twisted logic to reach these conclusions which its followers parrot in unwavering belief.
It is the most segregating and divisive political ideology I have ever known, and there is nothing remotely truly liberal about it.’
Nick Cave, July 2020:
‘I tend to become uncomfortable around all ideologies that brand themselves as “the truth” or “the way”. This not only includes most religions, but also atheism, radical bi-partisan politics or any system of thought, including “woke” culture, that finds its energy in self-righteous belief and the suppression of contrary systems of thought. Regardless of the virtuous intentions of many woke issues, it is its lack of humility and the paternalistic and doctrinal sureness of its claims that repel me.’
‘The establishment designates experts to establish a manufactured consensus, and denounces those who disagree as pawns of some larger conspiracy whose ideas endanger us all. When everything is either a public health crisis (COVID-19, racism, transgender mutilation) or a threat to the survival of the human race (war, global warming) the threat is too serious for democratic norms. The only thing to be done is to expose the conspiracy and silence its perpetrators.’
I have made my decision whether or not to ever have the Covid19 jab.
At the start of the vaxx roll-out, I told my wife I wasn’t going to be coerced into having it. I was going to bide my time and wait for the safety trials to complete. I was at low risk from Covid-19 so I certainly wasn’t scared of a virus with a mortality profile that exactly matched the normal mortality profile.
However, parallel with the roll-out of the vaxx in Dec 2020, the media ramped up the promotion of vaxx passports as part of ‘the new normal’. Airlines started hinting that they would only allow the vaxxed to fly. It quickly started looking like life was going to be made much harder for the unvaxxed. However, I interpreted this as a blatant coercive tactic designed to nudge the gullible into taking the vaccine. I found such coercion to be dispicable but I didn’t take these threats particularly seriously.
Nevertheless, my wife started asking me if I was prepared to never go abroad on holiday again. I grudgingly responded that I would consider taking the jab if my life was being made so difficult that I felt the benefits of the jab (freedom) outweighed the risks of the jab (adverse effects and long-term medical conditions).
Since then I have seen the wave of horrible adverse effects, including death, caused by the vaccines. I have read a great deal about the long-term health risks of the jab: risks of a permanently damaged immune system; of cancer; of dementia; of strokes and heart-attacks caused by micro-clots in the bloodstream; of Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE). I have also seen the myopic promotion of the jabs by all Governments and Health organisations. The focus on defeating Covid19 has become an obsession, out of all proportion to the risks it presents to national health. Routine medical treatment has been pushed to one side in a mono-maniacal focus on ensuring no one ever dies from Covid19. So, we see that the NHS waiting list in the UK has mushroomed to 12 million people. There was a story last week that upto 740,000 less people than expected have been referred for cancer treatment than would have been expected since the start of the pandemic. Covid is the only game in town.
My wife was given the impression that she would not be able to visit her 93-yo father in the Care Home unless she was vaxxed. She had already been unable to see him for just over a year due to lockdowns. Her father was a captive of a care system that cared about him so much that it had kept him in social isolation for a year, depriving him of access to the only things that still had any importance to him: his two daughters. At this point, my wife was prepared to do anything to ensure she could see him. As such, she had the vaxx (despite my fairly weak attempts to persuade her to wait). And then she had the second jab (despite my stronger attempts this time in the light of growing evidence of the dangers). She argued that there was no point in having the first one if she didn’t have the second one. I could see the conundrum she was in with her father. I didn’t have the same difficult decision to make so my principles remained untested.
What was becoming clear was that everything was about the vaccine. As time has passed, more and more governments are introducing vaccine passports that supposedly restore freedoms for those that are double-jabbed…and then had the booster…and then had the fourth shot. The goalposts for the definition of ‘vaccinated’ keep moving in response to the ever waning efficacy of the gene therapy treatments. More and more governments are introducing vaccine mandates where everyone has to take the unlicensed, experimental vaxx or lose their job and/or be fined and/or go to prison. This obsession with the vaccine gets my spider senses tingling. The vaxx was supposed to be just for the vulnerable. Now it is being rolled out to children. Pregnant women are being told it’s safe even though pregnant women were not included in the 2020 safety trials (and the number of miscarriages and stillbirths are rocketing). Governments seem to have lost all sense of proportion and reason. They have embarked on a mass programme of fear-mongering and propaganda designed to push vaccines. But why? It made no sense. What was it all about?
I had been unable to prevent my wife from being double-jabbed, but I still have a vital duty of care to ensure my two sons – in their early twenties – do not succumb to the vaxx in what has become an intolerable programme of coercion through threats and shaming. I have to be a role-model for them. I have to show them that vaccination is not inevitable, that they are not selfish or stupid for not being vaxxed. I point out to them that, at their age, they are prime candidates for myocarditis / pericarditis. They must be allowed to weigh up the risks and benefits as they relate to them as individuals and not try to consider some immaginary duty of care to society as a whole.
Meanwhile, my search for explanations for what I was witnessing became ever more important.
And then, gradually, I started putting the pieces together. Everything I needed to know was already available in the public domain. I just hadn’t connected the dots. As I read more, it became clear this was a power grab. Vaccine passports were a precursor to digital ids and digital ids will facilitate CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currencies). Then there’s the whole Global net zero thing with UN’s ‘Agenda 2030’; sustainable development; stakeholder capitalism, GFANZ; Smart Cities; Stonger Cities Network and ‘Going Direct’. I’ve written about these things recently. I was vaguely aware of many of these things before but I wasn’t able to see how they related to measures implemented to protect us from a respiratory virus. Over time, I read more and the connection became clear. Fascism is at the door: Governments and Corporations are working together to gain total control of global assets and populations under the guise of ‘sustainable development’ and the ‘fourth industrial revolution’.
So, where has my journey brought me? What is my attitude to the the vaccines now? Well, my attitude has hardened.
Initially, I knew the Covid-related actions of the authorities were wrong but I didn’t understand why they were pursuing them. Now I do and I realise it has nothing to do with health.
I am now certain that I will never take these vaccines. Not now, not even after the inevitable licensing following the completion of the phase 4 trials. I won’t take the vaccines for two reasons:
Firstly, I am more scared of the vaccine than I am of Covid19 (although that relationship might change, for better or worse, as time passes and more information becomes available). This is purely a self-centred consideration of personal safety.
The second, and much more important anti-vax reason, is due to what the Covid19 vaccine represents: it represents an attempt to medically and digitally enslave every person on the planet. This is a fight for freedom. This is the altruistic reason for not taking the jab. It’s about the bigger picture. It’s not just about me, it’s about everyone: my family and friends and everyone who has yet to be born into this world. I’m not going comply with the means by which freedom will be taken from us.
In response to my wife’s questioning about my future holiday plans, I now state that freedom will not be achieved by taking the vaccine. Taking the vaccine will perpetuate additional vaccines and vaxx passports and the other authoritarian tools that are being lined up. Freedom can only be won by not taking the vaccine.
I now know there are no advantages to taking the vaccines (apart from some very short term conveniences that are very negligible in the general scheme of things), whilst the disadvantages are so huge in scale as to be almost beyond comprehension: loss of freedom and destroyed health. People find it hard to imagine ‘loss of freedom’ as they insist, despite 2 years of lockdowns, that the Government would never remove our freedoms!
I can confirm, I’m never going to wave around a vaccine passport.
If I lose my job because of my vaccination status, I will resort to legal action.
If I am fined for being in the wrong place without the relevant paperwork, I will not pay the fines.
If I am sent to prison, so be it. I will be a martyr to the cause.
What is going on is wrong. Our governments have crossed a rubicon. We need to push back. And we need to find out just how far our governments are prepared to go down this path. Are they bluffing? Are they really prepared to jail people who refuse the vaccine? Forcing governments into more extreme measures might be the only way to wake people up to the threats we are facing. If Governments pull back in the face of mass opposition, then that is good. Either way, it’s a fight worth having. Unfortunately, from time to time, Governments need reminding that they serve the people, not vice verse.
I will be on the right side of history. And I will be a role model to my sons so they learn that immoral, authoritarian behaviour must never be ignored for the sake of convenience.
‘The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.’ (Attributed to Edmund Burke, although he did not ever express this sentiment in so concise a form).
Have you ever wondered why most of the world adopted the same tools to combat the Covid19 pandemic in 2020? Surely, different countries should have adopted different strategies based on their own senses of democracy and justice, their histories and their constitutions. Yet, instead, we saw them all – except Sweden – throwing out their Pandemic Response Plans and reaching for the same tools: lockdowns and mass testing and masks. Now they are all in various stages of bringing in vaccine mandates – including Sweden. Why? It’s because our governments are not making their own decisions.
Our governments take their orders from unelected, undemocratic supranational organisations like the UN; the EU; the Council of Europe; WHO; IMF; World Bank; IPCC and World Trade Organisation. The WHO, for example, recommended that Covid19 deaths be recorded as anyone who died within 28 days of a positive Covid test. As a result the Covid19 death figures for every country are grossly inflated by double counting terminal conditions such as cancer and car crashes as Covid19 deaths. Countries have shown no independence in their Covid19 death counts. The fake death counts have driven everything else: the lockdowns and vaccine mandates. Did you notice that so many politicians in 2020 started referring to ‘Build Back Better’ and ‘the new normal’? We were being softened up to accept that Global plans were being put into motion. Plans like the UN’s ‘Agenda 2030’, for example. Plans like the WEF’s ‘Great Reset’.
Bodies like the UN and the IPCC are setting the Global agenda with regard to Climate Change. The Conference of the Parties on Climate Change – ie COP26 in 2021 – is organised by the UN. National politicians turn up to pay fealty to the climate change narrative. At COP, the UN hot-houses a bunch of politicians for 2 weeks in order to work them into a delirium of belief in the coming climate apocolypse. They leave COP as Climate Cultists ready to do the UN’s bidding.
These organisations love to use the term ‘sustainable’ as in ‘sustainable development’ or ‘sustainable capitalism’ to describe their objectives. These terms are designed to appeal to the public so that scrutiny is minimal. Don’t be fooled: the planned changes being cloaked by these fluffy terms have the potential to be hugely damaging for large numbers of the world’s population. Judged on their own merits, plans for sustainable development will never win popular consent. Therefore, International organisations habitually ride the coat tails of International crises in order to further their agendas. For example, Climate Change propaganda has been ramped up in recent years purely so that International Organisations can use the resulting fear to further their cause. ‘Sustainability’ is a word that will be used ‘gain centralized control over earth’s resources and populations under a one world government.’
Covid19 has also presented huge opportunities for the fingers of Global Governance to spread. The UN’s ‘Agenda 2030’ had been on the back-burner for years. The emergence of Covid19 has been seized as an opportunity to bring in a New World Order. However, they may have over-played their hand as people like me are beginning to realise what’s going on behind the curtain.
The goal of UN Agenda 2030 is to transform global society into a technocracy under the guise of sustainable development by 2030:
The next piece of the Globalist pie to scrutinise are the Foundations, like The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF); Open Society Foundations (George Soros’ advocacy group); The Ford Foundation; The Rockefeller Foundation; Guggenheim Foundation and many more. The Foundations have huge amounts of money at their disposal, usually bequeathed by the richest people in the world, which enables them to wield huge amounts of influence. The Gates Foundation, for example, has been all over Covid19, working with WHO and GAVI (Global Vaccine Alliance) to promote vaccines. The tax exempt Foundations specialise in wielding soft power. If a billionaire wants to wield political influence, he doesn’t need to go through the unpredictable, debasing ordeal of being elected. These days he just needs to set up a Foundation, call himself a ‘philanthropist’ and he’ll be invited to parlay with with all of the Global Elites that are calling the shots. Trump was an idiot for running for President, that’s not how it’s done anymore. Why put up with that abuse when you can work virtually unnoticed behind the scenes?
Another example of Foundations manoeuvring behind the scenes can be found in ‘ID2020’, which was launched in 2016 by none other than Bill Gates’ Gavi, Microsoft, the Rockefeller Foundation, Accenture, and Ideo.org. ID2020 is described as follows on its own website:
ID2020 is building a new global model for the design, funding, and implementation of digital ID solutions and technologies.
ID2020 proposes moves to develop a “persistent digital identity from birth,” with “cutting-edge infant biometric technologies.”
I’m sure it was just a coincidence that they identified 2020 as a target date for a “digital ID solution”.
Take a look at the ‘Our Partners’ section of the website for any Foundation or NGO: you’ll see the same organisations popping up everywhere: organisations like the UN and the WHO and others. There is a circle of interconnectivity.
Also, take a look through the (long) list of organisations that fund the CDC. Notice how many Foundations and Charitable Trusts are listed. What benefit do they derive from funding the CDC?:
Gavi, the Global Vaccine Alliance at the centre of a circle of interconnectivity
Foundations are using their money to lobby governments but unlike corporate lobbying whose purpose is explicitly linked to profits, the objective of the Foundations is ‘social change’. For example, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation admits this objective, stating on their website that they are ‘an independent funder of research for social change in the UK’. ‘Social change’ sounds nice but what do they mean by this term? Any organisation that is trying to change society without a mandate from the electorate needs to be watched. Social changes can be negative as well as positive. We cannot assume all ‘social change’ is a good thing.
These organisations are engaged in charitable lobbying but like all lobbying the objective is to influence the Government to assist in the furthering of their agenda but there is no scrutiny as to what that agenda is. Nor is there any transparency on the influence Foundations have on our Governments. Bill Gates met with Boris Johnson, the UK Prime Minister, 3 times in 2020. Do you think our Governments are focused on meeting the needs of their electorates? Or are they focused on delivering what their billionaire friends would like them to deliver? Scrutiny is required.
As part of my research on Foundations, I came across an interview of Norman Dodd by Ed Griffin, recorded in 1982. In the 1950s Norman Dodd was a staff director of the Congressional Special Committee to Investigate Tax-exempt Foundations. Dodd discovered that Foundations he was investigating – Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie and Guggenheim Foundations are explicitly mentioned during the interview – were working towards changing the culture of the United States. Dodd found evidence from as early as 1908 that Foundations were agitating for war as a way of introducing social change. The Foundations also targeted education as something they could influence to bring about social change. I recommend you watch the full 50′ interview:
Then there’s the countless Think Tanks like the World Economic Forum (WEF), Council on Foreign Relations; the Trilateral Commission; the Bilderberg Group; The Club of Rome, The Rand Corporation and many, many more.
All of these organisations have the ears of our Governments. Hell, most of the time Government figures are members of groups like the WEF; The Bilderberg Group etc.. All of these bodies have the same viewpoint on the world: Globalism is good; nationalism is bad. And that is why most liberal democracies follow the same path on all of the big issues of the day, such as Covid19 and Climate Change: they are being told what policies to adopt.
Why do you think the politics of Boris Johnson have completely changed since he became PM? BoJo used to revel in his liberal instincts. Once upon a time he railed against government overreach and sneered at climate change apocalyptism. Since he became PM, he has adopted the biggest government overreach in living memory: he imposed one-size-fits-all lockdowns; he is supportive of vaccine mandates and, most hypocritical of all, he has become a zealot for net zero and plans to impose the restrictions that will keep us cold and hungry in 20 years time. Johnson has been bought and paid for.
Now the Elites have discovered a new tool that will allow them to consolidate their power and control: Stakeholder capitalism. This term describes the new coalition between governments and corporations that is being leveraged to supposedly tackle issues of Global concern.
What is stakeholder capitalism? It’s a form of centralised capitalism whereby companies are not motivated by maximising value for their shareholders, instead they seek to reward society at large. It sounds very hippy-esque but it offers very large companies the prospect of partnerships with Governments and the monopoly position that comes with that:
Today’s shareholders are increasingly seeking social approval, power, and political favors and they’re using the businesses they own as the vehicle to achieve those desires.
Instead of on-brand activism, we’re seeing a new age where corporations at the highest level merge with the political establishment. They offer control over their customers in exchange for political access.
Guess who came up with the term ‘stakeholder capitalism’? Klaus ‘Davos’ Schwab of World Economic Forum fame! Yet the concept has been enthusiasistically embraced. It is now being used to tackle Climate Change.
Look at the latest development in co-ordinated global banking, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ):
‘Today, through the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), over $130 trillion of private capital is committed to transforming the economy for net zero. These commitments, from over 450 firms across 45 countries, can deliver the estimated $100 trillion of finance needed for net zero over the next three decades.’
GFANZ is an example of stakeholder capitalism.
The investigative journalist Whitney Webb explains GFANZ in the following terms:
‘The most powerful private financial interests in the world, under the cover of COP26, have developed a plan to transform the global financial system by fusing with institutions like the World Bank and using them to further erode national sovereignty in the developing world.’
GFANZ provides a forum for leading financial institutions to accelerate the transition to a net-zero global economy.
GFANZ is an agglomeration of banks and other financial institutions set up by the former Bank of England governor Mark Carney in April 2021 to try to push for stricter climate regulation. One of its central demands is that governments introduce ‘mandatory net zero transition plans and carbon reporting’ from all private and state-owned enterprises by 2024.
Ask yourself why the Bankers and Fund managers are suddenly so keen to get involved in fighting carbon change. It’s because they’ve worked out how to make a load of money from it. Part of the reason for that is that they will be able to impose restrictions that will push their competitors out of business. Measuring carbon use and meeting carbon limits is much easier for bigger firms. Plus, they can outsource their carbon footprints to other countries, if necessary. Forget the Greenies, the Bankers have now taken control of the Green Agenda. That is why there has been a significant uplift in Climate Change propaganda over the last year. The final piece of the puzzle needed to consolidate Global control is ‘stakeholder capitalism’…
…these “stakeholder capitalism” mechanism models, despite being presented as offering a “more responsible” form of capitalism, allow corporations and private entities to participate in forming the regulations that govern their own markets and giving them a greatly increased role in political decision making by placing them on an equal footing with national governments. It is essentially a creative way of marketing “corporatism”…
Mussolini defined fascism as “corporatism”: governments and corporates working together. That is the model that is now re-emerging as ‘stakeholder capitalism’. Governments and corporates should not be forming alliances!
Do not be under any illusion: fascism is what we’re up against here. In order to put in place the ‘sustainable’ goals such as the UN’s ‘Agenda 2030’, the lives of everyone in the Western world will be changed for the worse. This is why scientific and medical doubts about first lockdowns and then C19 vaccines have been censored: it was soon realised that the pandemic could be leveraged to introduce the biosecurity state. This is why all national governments are moving towards vaccine passports: vaccine passports are a pre-cursor to the real objective which is Digital ID’s (which, in turn, will facilitate Central Bank Digital Currencies). Attempts at digital id’s have failed before but it will be much easier to transition to digital id’s if you have convinced the population to adopt vaccine passports ‘to protect your loved ones’. If you are registering your movements with ‘Track and trace’, you are effectively building your own prison. This isn’t about health, it’s about control. The biosecurity state will provide authorities with the level of control needed to suppress the citizenry once they wake up to what Agenda 2030, ‘stakeholder capitalism’ and The Great Reset mean in practise. You will own nothing and you will be happy. We can’t say we weren’t warned.
“It’s important to realize that net zero demands a transformation of the entire economy.” – Larry Fink, Chief Executive Officer, BlackRock
Iain Davis, a researcher and investigative journalist who often writes for UK Column describes the stitch up that is underway:
The new global IMFS [International Monetary and Financial System] is built upon carbon trading and a $120 trillion carbon bond market is currently under construction. Assets are being defined in terms of their Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics which rate investments depending upon their environmental, social and governance (ESG) score.
These metrics have been established by the World Economic Forum working in partnership with the central banks, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and other stakeholder capitalists, such as the investment firm BlackRock.
In this way, the global technocracy will facilitate the continuation of crony capitalism, as only the right stakeholders will receive the approved ESG rating. Those who don’t will not be able to raise the investment capital they need and will be forced out of business.
This is governments and corporations working very closely in order to deliver a monopolistic closed shop. Governments and corporations working together towards a common goal is never a good idea.
Global elites like to say that ‘National solutions to international problems don’t work’. This maxim allows them to neatly sidestep electoral accountability by placing themselves above national politics. They have a seat at the table that their fortunes have paid for. Global politics has no transparency and no accountability. These things are not needed: the elites have national governments that are prepared to take responsibility for the globalist agenda. Look at Boris Johnson trying to glean as much personal credit as he possibly could after COP26. The reality is that Johnson is the UN’s useful idiot. Johnson – and other leaders – provide the wafer-thin veneer of democracy that is allowing the whole shit-show to put in place the controls that will remove our final freedoms.
This diagram from Iain Davis shows how the International Organisations, Foundations and Think-Tanks work with National governments to create a system of Global Governance:
Nobody voted for this
So now everything is classed as an international problem. Like Covid19, like climate change, like security against terror, like corporate tax rates. We can see what ‘International Solutions’ mean for the rest of us: lockdowns; vaxx passports (precusor to Digital ID’s) restrictions on travel; more expensive energy; eating insects and ‘whole economy transitions’ meaning cold homes (heat pumps) and expensive electric vehicles. Yet no one has voted for stakeholder capitalism and no one has voted for these organisations. And no one has voted for the people who run these organisations. Democracy has been usurped without most of us being aware of it.
Mark Carney is one of the prime movers behind ‘GFANZ’
The ultimate goal is to introduce something that is deeply authoritarian but wrapped in social justice and climate change so that people cannot protest. In this way, there will be a significant percentage of the population who will attempt to justify their poorer lifestyle and the limitations placed on their freedoms by claiming ‘it’s necessary for Climate Change’; or ‘it’s the only way to fight the pandemic’. We can all think of such people in our lives. They are people who always believe whatever they are told by Authorities without application of any Critical Thinking on their part. Such people will take the Blue Pill every time.
Klaus Schwab wrote the following in 2010:
The Global Redesign process has provided an informal working laboratory or marketplace for a number of good policy ideas and partnership opportunities.. We have sought to expand international governance discussions.. to take more pre-emptive and coordinated action on the full range of risks that have been accumulating in the international system.
Imagine how much international governance has progressed since 2010. Note that the term used is ‘governance’, not ‘government’. These organisations are not able to create legislation – they rely on Prime Ministers for their dirty work – but that is their strength: a Global Government would attract attention. There would be demands for transparency and accountability and democracy. That was the weakness of the EU: it was painfully obvious how undemocratic it was. EU leaders were not elected! Whereas Global Governance is operating without 99% of the population being aware of it. Here is a reminder of the alliance made between the WEF and the UN in June 2019:
The Davos crowd working with the UN to deliver Agenda 2030. What could possibly go wrong?
Our votes don’t count. Vote for who you like, it won’t make any difference. Labour and Tories have the same policies. They report to the same masters.
All of the above may be a lot to take in. It’s taken me 18 months to reach the understanding that I have documented in this piece. It’s been a gradual process of incremental discovery for me. By all means, do your own research. Read up on ‘stakeholder capitalism’. I would also recommend you look into ‘Global Public Private Partnerships’ (GPPPs) and ‘Stronger Cities Network’ for further context to the ideas I have raised here. Also look into ‘Agenda 2030’: Rosa Koire is a good starting point here. You would also do well to read more of the research by Iain Davis and Whitney Webb. Corey Lynn is another writer I have recently discovered. Here is a link to one of his pieces that describes how our digital identities will be used against us:
Let me end with a quote by Edward Bernays. Bernays (1891-1995) is described on Wikipedia as ‘an American pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda’. This quote is taken from his book ‘Propaganda’, published in 1928:
There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.
In May 2021, I wrote of 19 things people didn’t know about Covid19. Now, it is time to write a similar article about the vaccines. However, just to manage your expectations, I will state upfront that I will not dwell on the fact that these are experimental gene therapy treatments that are licensed for emergency use only because their medical trials are not due to complete until 2023 (if you don’t know that by now, you are beyond help). This piece will also not discuss alternative treatments, such as Ivor McTin as I discussed these previously. We all know they work and we all know why they are being suppressed.
1. Isolation of Virus
The Covid19 virus – aka SARS-COV-2 – has never been isolated. For a virus, successful isolation is measured against ‘River’s Postulates’. These postulates were proposed by Thomas M. River to establish the role of a specific virus as the cause of a specific disease. Sometimes, the postulates referenced for Covid19 are ‘Koch’s Postulates’ which pre- date River’s Postulates, although, strictly speaking, relate to the isolation of bacteria, not viruses. However, the Postulates are largely similar and so the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. They are as follows:
A number of studies have declared they have isolated SARS-COV-2. However, Dr. Andrew Kaufman has investigated these studies and shown in this video – https://www.bitchute.com/video/dX0wqs2xbM05/ – that none of them of them have isolated the virus according to Koch’s Postulates.
“Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoVwere available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/μL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.” (pg.43)
Researcher Christine Massey has used Freedom Of Information requests to Governments and Agencies all over the world asking for evidence Covid19 has been isolated. You can read her complete record of responses in the link below but I have copied, below, the latest summary of her progress:
‘As of September 16, 2021: 104 institutions and offices in well over 20 countries have responded thus far, as well as some “SARS-COV-2 isolation” study authors, and none have provided or cited any record describing actual “SARS-COV-2” isolation/purification.’
Christian Drosten is credited with creating the PCR test for Covid19. His 2020 paper (Corman-Drosten paper) that launched the PCR test as the ‘gold standard’ for Covid19 detection confirmed the new virus had not been isolated:
‘In the present case of 2019-nCoV, virus isolates or samples from infected patients have so far not become available to the international public health community.’
We will re-visit the Corman-Drosten paper in a subsequent point.
‘The WHO were claiming that the SARS-CoV-2 virus had been isolated and they gave the impression that genetic sequences were identified from the isolated sample. Diagnostic kits were subsequently calibrated to test for this virus and distributed globally. However, the WHO also stated:
Working directly from sequence information, the team developed a series of genetic amplification (PCR) assays used by laboratories.
The Wuhan scientists developed their genetic amplification assays from “sequence information” not from an isolated sample of any virus. The WHO cited their work as proof of isolation. Yet it was the Wuhan research scientists themselves who stated:
The association between 2019-nCoV and the disease has not been verified by animal experiments to fulfil the Koch’s postulates to establish a causative relationship between a microorganism and a disease. We do not yet know the transmission routine of this virus among hosts.
Did you get that? There is no evidence that the disease called ‘Covid19’ comes from the virus called ‘SARS-COV-2’. It’s just guesswork.
This article describes statements confirming lack of isolation from the Governments of the UK; Canada; Australia and New Zealand:
If the virus has never been isolated, how come we have tests and vaccines specifically for this virus? Well, that is where we enter the world of computer modelling…
2. In silico models
‘In silico’ is latin meaning ‘theoretical’. The virus exists only as a theoretical model on a computer:
“In other words, it is a Frankenstein virus which has been concocted and stitched together using genomic database sequences (some viral, some not). It has never been properly purified and isolated so that it could be sequenced from end-to-end once derived from living tissue; instead, it’s just digitally assembled from a computer database. In this paper, the CDC scientists state they took just 37 base pairs from a genome of 30,000 base pairs which means that about 0.001% of the viral sequence is derived from actual living samples or real bodily tissue. In other words, they took these 37 segments and put them into a computer program, which filled in the rest of the base pairs. This computer-generation step constitutes scientific fraud.” (Makia Freeman: https://thefreedomarticles.com/10-reasons-sars-cov-2-imaginary-digital-theoretical-virus/)
Dr Andrew Kaufman also uses the Frankenstein analogy in this interview:
‘What that [PCR] tests for is a sequence of RNA, which is genetic material. And the way they obtain that, is also they take the impure sample, basically like the lung fluid in this case from some people who are sick…and they look for specific sequences that they’ve pre-identified as being viral in nature, from this database. And then what they’re doing is amplifying these short little sequences, maybe 150-250 base pairs, and they’re splicing them together into this one long strand of 30,000, which they say is the viral genome, but it’s actually just this Frankenstein type of assembly of all these little pieces, that we don’t even have any proof [are] related. They could even come from different types of cells or different creatures. And when there’s gaps, they’re basically using sequences that they get from that database of other viruses that are also put together in this Frankenstein-type way, and they sew all those together and say that this is the genome sequence of this virus. And that’s the procedure.’
Here’s another report of genome-splicing:
They [Wuhan] had pieced the SARS-CoV-2 genome together by matching fragments (nucleotide sequences) with other, previously discovered, genetic sequences.
Let’s mention Christian Drosten again. His 2020 paper that introduced the Covid19 PCR test stated:
‘The genome sequences [provided by Wuhan] suggest presence of a virus closely related to the members of a viral species termed severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-related CoV, a species defined by the agent of the 2002/03 outbreak of SARS in humans…We report hereon the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation, designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV.’
So, Drosten is saying that available genome sequencing, provided by China, via in silico modelling, ‘suggested’ the new virus was related to the virus involved in the 2003 SARS-COV-1 outbreak. Drosten then created a PCR test – based on SARS1 – that would serve as a diagnostic tool for the new pathogen, despite the fact he knew the virus had not been isolated and the genomic sequence was guesswork.
Drosten’s PCR paper was subject to an external peer-review that pointed out 10 major scientific flaws. Here are some relevant comments from that review:
‘The first and major issue is that the novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (in the publication named 2019-nCoV and in February 2020 named SARS-CoV-2 by an international consortium of virus experts) is based on in silico (theoretical) sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China, because at the time neither control material of infectious (“live”) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 nor isolated genomic RNA of the virus was available to the authors. To date no validation has been performed by the authorship based on isolated SARS-CoV-2 viruses or full length RNA thereof…
…Nevertheless these in silico sequences were used to develop a RT-PCR test methodology to identify the aforesaid virus. This model was based on the assumption that the novel virus is very similar to SARS-CoV from 2003 (Hereafter named SARS-CoV-1) as both are beta-coronaviruses … in short, a design relying merely on close genetic relatives does not fulfill the aim for a “robust diagnostic test” [i.e. failure of Rivers Postulates] as cross reactivity and therefore false-positive results will inevitably occur. Validation was only done in regards to in silico (theoretical) sequences and within the laboratory-setting, and not as required for in-vitro diagnostics with isolated genomic viral RNA.’
Also, the genome sequences used by the PCR test occur naturally in humans…
The genetic sequences used in PCRs to detect suspected SARS-CoV-2 and to diagnose cases of illness and death attributed to Covid-19 are present in dozens of sequences of the human genome itself and in those of about a hundred microbes. And that includes the initiators or primers, the most extensive fragments taken at random from their supposed “genome” and even the so-called “target genes” allegedly specific to the “new coronavirus”. The test is worthless…
You can can read more about the flaws in the Drosten PCR test here:
It is very hard to prove a variant exists when you have not isolated the complete virus. If you only have fragments of SARS-COV-2 and you find another fragment, how do you know whether you are looking at a fragment of the original virus or a fragment of a variant?
Dr David Martin has explained why the highly publicised variants have not been proven to exist. Check out this interview with Reiner Fuellmich from approx. the 56′ mark where he talks about variants:
Of course, a variant is something that is only very slightly different to the original and because of this, there is no reason for a variant not to be covered by existing immunity – either naturally or artificially acquired. If it was significantly different, it would be classified as a new ‘strain’. As Dr Mike Yeadon has said:
“No variant has shown sufficient antigenic drift to even have a theoretical chance of immune escape.”
When the original virus exists only as a theoretical model then there is no evidence of variants. Then there is no evidence that variants are more transmittable than the original.
Therefore, Govt fearmongering over new variants are exactly that. They are instilling fear deliberately in order to encourage compliance and vaccine uptake.
4. Patents
73 patents on Covid19 were issued between 2008 and 2019.
This information is revealed by Dr David Martin in the following interview with the German lawyer, Reiner Fuellmich (between the 15′ and 30′ marks):
If this video has been removed search for the two names I have provided above. The interview is approximately 82′ in length. However, it’s a long video, here is an article that provides a good overview of the points made by Dr. Martin:
Dr Martin explains that these 73 patents covered all of the elements of the allegedly ‘novel’ SARS-COV-2 virus that emerged at the end of 2019: i) the ACE2 binding domain ii) the spike protein and iii) the polybasic cleavage site.
Thus, David Martin states “there was no ‘outbreak’ of SARS because it already existed. It had all been engineered.” Dr. Martin provides the patent numbers of some of the relevant patents.
Here is an article that also discusses the patents evidence:
I’m wondering how genomes can have been predicted years in advance of their appearance. The obvious answer is that ‘they’ created a genome sequence, patented it, then released it (having first ensured a ‘vaccine’ was on the way).
I hope none of you believed that story about the world’s first coronavirus vaccine being rushed out in 10 months. The truth is they had been working, unsuccessfully, on such a vaccine for 20 years. The problem was, it wasn’t very good: either it was too weak to have any effect or it was too strong and all the test animals died upon exposure to the wild virus. They were unlikely to obtain a license for such vaccines. Peter Daszak identified the hurdle in their path and how to surmount it in this quote from 2015, reported in the National Academies of Press publication February 12th, 2016:
“We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage, to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.”
You may have heard the name ‘Peter Daszak’ elsewhere recently: Peter Daszak ran the ‘EcoHealth Alliance’ NGO that funnelled funding from Fauci’s CDC to fund ‘Gain of Function’ research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
Daszak has also served on the Committee of the WHO and was also chosen by the WHO to visit the WIV as part of an investigation into the origins of Covid19 in January 2021. This, despite the fact that Daszak had been working closely with Dr Shi, the Director at WIV for a number of years. Conflicts of interest no longer appear to have any moral weight these days. Daszak’s group, unsurprisingly, reported the the virus definitely didn’t come from the Wuhan lab. “No, definitely a bat, we reckon!” they were heard shouting as they disappeared back into the middle of the tight-knit circle of vaccine influencers.
5. Immunity
Natural immunity is better at protecting against c19 than vaccine immunity.
‘SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees [vaccinated people who had not previously caught Covid19] had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well.’
However, even ‘vaccine’ induced immunity doesn’t last that long. Israel was one of the first countries to vaccinate a significant portion of its population. More than 78 per cent of those eligible for vaccination have had two shots and more than ten per cent of the population has now received a third inoculation. And yet Israel is seeing a surge in cases and deaths. At the time of writing, it has the highest number of per capita Covid cases in the world. Why is that?
In early July, Israel reported that Covid vaccine efficacy against infection and symptomatic disease, fell to 64 per cent. By late July it had fallen to 39 per cent. Vaccines are not eligible for approval by the Food and Drug Administration if efficacy is less than 50 per cent. Clearly, we need a ‘booster’!
Pfizer’s claim of 95 per cent effectiveness of its Covid vaccine was measured only two months after administration. Waning vaccine immunity is a known problem for influenza shots and certain studies have shown near zero effectiveness after only three months. A similar situation seems to apply for coronavirus vaccines. Maybe that helps to explain why Big Pharma has struggled for over 20 years to make a coronavirus vaccine. 🤔🤔🤔
The story is similar in the US. Recently, the CDC issued a report confirming a decline in vaccine effectiveness observable in its data.
Pfizer initially promised vaccine efficacy for up to six months and the CDC is now recommending a booster shot starting eight months after the second dose of an mRNA vaccine (either Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna).
The Isreali Health Minister, Nitzan Horowitz, said recently: “In terms of effectiveness, the vaccine is valid only for a period of 5 or 6 months. After about half a year, you need a third dose.”
Looks like 2 doses of Clotshot per year for you Normies. You lucky, lucky people!
Finally, the British government has spilled the beans about that fact that once you get double jabbed, you will never again be able to acquire full natural immunity.
In its Week 42 “COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report,” the U.K. Health Security Agency admitted on page 23 that “N antibody levels appear to be lower in people who acquire infection following two doses of vaccination.” It goes on to explain that this antibody drop is basically permanent.
What the UK Govt is saying is they are now finding the vaccine interferes with your body’s innate ability after infection to produce antibodies against not just the spike protein but other pieces of the virus. Specifically, vaccinated people don’t seem to be producing antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, the shell of the virus, which are a crucial part of the response in unvaccinated people.
In the long term, people who take the vaccine will be far more vulnerable to any mutations in the spike protein that might come along, even if they have already been infected and recovered once, or more than once.
What exactly is the benefit of this treatment?
6. Recovered people are less likely to transmit C19 than vaxxed people
Viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases [ie viral loads in vaxxed people] were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains [ie natural immunity] detected between March-April 2020:
Furthermore, the vaxxed are just as likely transmit c19 as the unvaxxed as they carry a similar viral load.
‘We find no difference in viral loads when comparing unvaccinated individuals to those who have vaccine “breakthrough” infections. Furthermore, individuals with vaccine breakthrough infections frequently test positive with viral loads consistent with the ability to shed infectious viruses.’
Therefore, vaccinated people carry viral loads similar to those of unvaccinated people and these viral loads are 251 times higher than recovered people. This means that recovered people are far less likely to transmit the virus than vaccinated people. There is no sound argument in science for requiring recovered people to be vaccinated.
In summary: the vaccine doesn’t stop you catching Covid19, nor does it stop you transmitting Covid19. All it does is reduce the symptoms (but it doesn’t even do that very well for very long). Strictly speaking, this isn’t a vaccine, it’s a gene-therapy treatment and it’s not even very good at that.
7. Those Efficacy Stats
Citizens in most countries are taking the vaccine on the basis that they will be subjected to two shots at most. In fact, countries that mandate Covid vaccines will be committing their populations to vaccination every six months. This is because of waning immunity, although it will be blamed on new variants.
Yet, we were promised sky-high efficacy rates when these vaccines launched. 90%…95%…98%…every few days a new vaccine was launched and each one promised an efficacy rate that was higher than the previous ones. Do you remember Pfizer originally having to be stored at sub-zero temperatures:
‘All three solutions must be stored at low temperatures: 40 degrees Fahrenheit for the AstraZeneca product, minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit for the Moderna product and minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit for the Pfizer product. Exposure to warmer conditions, such as in transit from production facilities to storage sites, could compromise their potency.’
But they changed their minds as soon as they realised they were now at a huge competitive disadvantage. And the gap between shots was supposed to be sacrosanct: between 25 to 32 days (although upto 42 days was still OK, if unavoidable). However, the UK Govt decided that it was more important to administer as many first doses as possible before they moved on to the second dose so they announced that 84 days (12 weeks) was just as effective. Now, we are at the stage where vaccines can be mixed and matched: if you’ve had a first shot of AZ, but are now wary of the safety record, no problem, you can switch to another brand for your second shot. The important thing is you TAKE THE VACCINE!
Do you get the impression they are making this up as they go along?
As pointed out in the BMJ, something about the Pfizer and Moderna efficacy claims smells really funny.
There were “3,410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1,594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1,816 in the placebo group.”
Could they not test those “suspected but unconfirmed” cases to find out if they had covid?
Can we only guess they didn’t test because it would mess up their “90-95% effective” claims?
The trial designs also exhibit numerous manipulations, including the problem that they were selected from healthy young people who are at negligible risk from Covid. Not only did the trials fail to confirm whether or not ill people were suffering from Covid19 but they also took steps to suppress side effects:
Whilst on the subject of efficacy, a piece in The Lancet states that absolute efficacy rates should be used over relative efficacy rates:
‘…(my) colleagues suggest that reporting relative risk reduction (RRR) for vaccination does not reflect entirely its therapeutic performance and consider the sole use of RRR a reporting bias. In addition, they propose that absolute risk reduction (ARR) should be reported as a measure of the vaccine’s effectiveness.’
So, let’s have a look at those ‘relative’ and ‘absolute’ rates…
Once it became clear that vaxxed people could still catch and transmit Covid19 the narrative transmuted into ‘although you can still catch Covid19, you’re symptons will be greatly reduced’. As a result, we are now treated to recovered vaxxed people regailing us with how ill they were but finishing off with how “thank God I was vaxxed or it would have been much worse”. It would have been less than 1% worse.
As a final point, does anyone think it’s interesting that cases and deaths are higher this summer, post-vaccine, than they were last summer, pre-vaccine?
Let’s look at the numbers:
UK Summer Covid19 deaths 2021 (5,943) were 5.5 times the Summer Covid19 deaths in 2020 (1,097)
Just in the last week there were 1,003 UK deaths with Covid19. In the week of 23-29 September 2020 there were 228 deaths with Covid19:
This year’s figure is over 4 times the size of last year’s figure even though we did not have access to a vaccine last year. The authorities would blame the Delta variant but we know, from above, that ‘variants’ are not sufficiently different for ‘immune escape’. Perhaps ADE is the reason? Maybe. What’s fairly evident to those who are awake is that the vaccine seems to be making the problem worse.
8. Big Pharma
Do you think it might be possible that Big Pharma would lie to us?
Between 1991 and 2017 Big Parma firms have been fined $38.6b. However, this is an insignificant amount compared to Big Parma profits:
‘Financial penalties continued to pale in comparison to company profits, with the $38.6 billion in penalties from 1991 through 2017 amounting to only 5% of the $711 billion in net profits made by the 11 largest global drug companies during just 10 of those 27 years (2003-2012).’
Does anyone think it possible that, in light of a) the desperation for a Covid19 vaccine shown by Western Governments and b) the amount of profits that could be made from a global vaccination programme…that *maybe* Big Pharma firms would have been inclined to cut corners during their trials? Possibly exaggerate the efficacy rates for their products? Keep quiet about adverse reactions? Keep quiet about possible medium and long-term side effects? Could there be a reason that Big Pharma skipped animal trials for these experimental vaccines? Could there be a reason why all of the vaccine manufacturers have negotiated non-liability clauses in their Govt contacts? That’s a smoking gun, if ever there was one!
Given the free pass from liability, and the checkered past of these companies, why would we assume that all their vaccines are safe and made completely above board?
Nothing to see here…
Ofcourse, this isn’t the first time that Big Pharma has come to the rescue upon an outbreak of a respiratory virus. Let’s have a look at what happened during the other 2 occasions:
Swine flu appeared in 2009 swiftly followed by a vaccine that was soon accused of causing narcolepsy:
‘The last time the UK rushed a vaccine into use it ended up costing taxpayers millions of pounds in compensation because of a rare complication linked to the Pandemrix vaccine, developed by pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) to protect against swine flu.’
[In June 2009] the World Health Organization had declared H1N1 influenza a pandemic, and by October 2009 the new vaccines were being rolled out across the world. A similar story was playing out in the UK, with prominent organisations, including the Department of Health, British Medical Association, and Royal Colleges of General Practitioners, working hard to convince a reluctant NHS workforce to get vaccinated. “We fully support the swine flu vaccination programme … The vaccine has been thoroughly tested,” they declared in a joint statement. Except, it hadn’t.’
A swine flu outbreak in 1976 also led to a hasty vaccine which, this time caused Guillain Barre syndrome:
‘By December 1976, vaccinations came to an abrupt halt. About 45 million Americans had received the “swine flu” vaccine against an H1N1 influenza strain known to circulate in pigs. About 450 of them developed a rare neurological condition called Guillain-Barré syndrome.’
And then there’s the curious case of the FDA asking a court to award them a 55 year moratorium on having to release their documents relating to their approval of the Pfizer mRNA gene therapy. 55 years? What are they hiding?
The lesson here is that when Governments signal their desperation to vaccine manufacturers, the result is not good outcomes. Why is this? Well, strong checks and balances are needed in these situations yet they always appear to be absent when Governments display very strong buying signals. Could it be that a comfortable cosiness exists in the corridors of power that circumvents checks and balances? Here is an article that highlights the close connectivity that exists between Big Money and Big Pharma and the MSM:
‘According to ‘Simply Wall Street’, in February 2020, BlackRock and Vanguard were the two largest shareholders of GlaxoSmithKline, at 7% and 3.5% of shares respectively. At Pfizer, the ownership is reversed, with Vanguard being the top investor and BlackRock the second-largest stockholder.’
Maybe the future prospect of a plumb job in Big Pharma might lead to checks and balances being ‘softened’ on occasion?
Plus, a FOI request has revealed the UK regulator – MHRA – did not inspect the data from the Pfizer vaccine study before authorising the vaccine:
‘A second Freedom of Information request seeking regulatory transparency has revealed that the UK medical regulator never inspected Pfizer’s COVID-19 clinical trial data, joining the Australian regulator in rubber-stamping Pfizer’s vaccine.’
The rigorous checks and balances that we were always led to believe were in place for new pharmaceuticuls have been suspended for the mRNA treatments: no animal trials; no safety data released; no long term health impacts known; no independent inspection; etc etc. All this from an industry that has an appalling track record for honesty.
Finally, let’s take a look at the history of coronavirus vaccines. It’s been a long road beset by many difficulties. Yet we are supposed to believe they finally resolved all of the problems during an intense 9 month rush to production last year?
There have been 1,645 UK deaths directly attributable to the c19 vaccines as of 8th September, 2021. Plus, well over 1 million adverse reactions in the UK. Here are the stats, as taken from UK Column’s Yellow Card page:
Yet most people are not aware of these stats because the Govt does not publicise them. The MSM does not report them. Nothing must detract from the wonderful vaccine programme. It’s all about the vaccines.
This is highest number of adverse reactions for a vaccine programme in history.
In 6 months, deaths as direct result of C19 vaccines are 407% higher than total from all other vaccines in the previous 11 years:
Hundreds of different adverse reactions have been reported: paralysis, strokes, blindness, deafness, heart attacks, Bell’s palsy, miscarriages, allergic reactions, migraines, Guillain Barre syndrome etc etc.
And the worst thing is no one in authority cares. The adverse affects are not mentioned. Any other vaccine in history has been pulled long before they reached the number of adverse effects. Refer to point #8 for details of the aborted vaccine programnes in 1976 and 2009. But not in 2021. Different rules apply in 2021.
Here’s an article where a Canadian Doctor explains that he vaccinated 900 patients and then discovered through testing that 62% of them had micro-blood clots in their capillaries.
But the worst may be yet to come in terms of long term health impacts which are likely to include infertility; cancer; dementia and ADE. The inventor of mRNA gene therapies, Dr. Robert Malone, has warned of the dangers but The Establishment do not want to listen. We already know from studies that lipid nanoparticles from the vaccine did not stay in the deltoid muscle where they were injected – as the vaccine’s developers claimed would happen – but circulated throughout the body and accumulated in large concentrations in organs and tissues, including the spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands and — in “quite high concentrations” — in the ovaries. What are the long-term implications of that? No one knows.
So, if I were to summarise, it would have to be as follows: the vaccines come with many dangerous immediate side effects that, for many, outweigh the risks of Covid19 itself. Plus, the medium and long term impacts of the vaccines on our immune systems and organs are completely unknown. Plus, the vaccines are not very effective anyway, and what little effectiveness they come with quickly wears off.
I can kind of understand why the vaccines *might* be worth offering to those with severely compromised immune systems in the same way that any last-chance, it’s-this-or-nothing, experimental medical treatment would be offered. But to force this treatment on everyone is beyond the pale. I am confident that the grim truth of this gene therapy will become too big to ignore in the near future. At that point everyone in The Establishment – from the Government to the public health agencies to the Media – will start making emotional appeals for clemency. They will say that they didn’t know the truth. They will say that they thought they were doing the best thing under the circumstances. However, I will remain unmoved. These people will deserve no clemency. This article, and thousands like it show that the truth was out there. People were screaming the truth but our Dear Leaders were happy to ignore them.
I want to raise the subject of how legal subjugation is limiting our personal responsibility by reference to a speech made by Lord Moulton, a noted English judge, more than 100 years ago.
John Fletcher Moulton, was a first Baron, Minister of Munitions for Great Britain at the outbreak of the war, a noted Judge, a great Parliamentarian and administrator.
In July 1924, The Atlantic magazine published a speech Lord Moulton had given at the Authors’ Club in London a few years prior to his death (Moulton died on 9th March, 1921). The speech was entitled ‘Law and Manners.’ In the speech, Lord Moulton makes a wonderful observation that human behaviour could be divided into three domains.
At one extreme is the Domain of Law, ‘where our actions are prescribed by laws binding upon us which must be obeyed.’
At the other extreme is the Domain of Free Choice, ‘which,’ he said, ‘includes all those actions as to which we claim and enjoy complete freedom.’
Between these two, Lord Moulton said, lies a Domain of Manners in which our actions are not determined by law but in which we are not free to behave in any way we choose. Lord Moulton considered the area of action lying between law and free choice to be the ‘Domain of Obedience to the Unenforceable.’ In this domain, he said, ‘Obedience is the obedience of a man to that which he cannot be forced to obey. He is the enforcer of the law upon himself.’ This domain between law and free choice he called that of ‘manners.’ While it may include moral duty, social responsibility, and proper behavior, it extends beyond them to cover ‘all cases of doing right where there is no one to make you do it but yourself.’
Lord Moulton referred to the sinking of the Titanic as an example of the Domain of Manners:
‘The men were gentlemen to the edge of death. “Ladies first.” Why was that? Law did not require it. Force could not have compelled it in the face of almost certain death. It was merely a piece of good manners in the sense in which I have used the phrase. The feeling of obedience to the unenforceable was so strong that at that terrible moment all behaved as, if they could look back, they would wish to have behaved.’
Lord Moulton felt that ‘The tendency of modern legislation is to extend the area ruled by Positive Law, and to diminish the area of action which is determined by the decision of the individual himself.’
Moulton’s central point was that ‘the real greatness of a nation, its true civilization, is measured by the extent of this land of obedience to the unenforceable. It measures the extent to which the nation trusts its citizens, and its area testifies to the way they behave in response to that trust.’
Lord Moulton also raised the concern that undue appreciation of the Domain of Manners within democracies could come with a risk…‘lest in the future the worst tyranny will be found in democracies.’ Moulton’s argument here is that: ‘Interests which are not strongly represented in parliament may be treated as though they had no rights by Governments who think that the power and the will to legislate amount to a justification of that legislation.’
My contention is that successive UK Governments have impinged on the Domain of Manners. Looking at examples from just the last 3 or 4 years, we have witnessed multiple instances where the Domain of Law has expanded to the detriment of the Domain of Manners. Free Speech is the main example. Speech is the ultimate area where the Domain of Manners used to have free reign. You could say whatever you wanted as long as you recognised that you ran the risk of being thumped if you offended anyone. However, that risk was entirely yours to assess and speak accordingly. Free Speech was held as sacrocanct, subject only to the manners of the individual. Now we see the proliferation of ‘Hate Speech Laws’ whereby the Government is encoding into Law what cannot be said so as offence is avoided. The legislation extends to all of the most important subjects in our society: race; gender; sexuality; and religion, thereby constraining how we express ourselves on these issues. Speech can be interpreted as Hate Speech if any one person reports it as such. This has a chilling effect of self-censorship on all members of society. Our manners are now subject to Government dictat.
Personal pronouns are another example. How we address each other has never been codified into law. There is no law that says a person must address me as ‘Mister’. If someone has been knighted, there is no law that compels that person must be addressed as ‘Sir’ or ‘Dame’. Titles are a form of etiquette directed by manners. Yet there are now moves by Governments to implement legislation that mandates that people are addressed by their preferred pronouns. This is now the case in Canada and it appears that other countries will follow. The Domain of Law is once again encroaching on the Domain of Manners.
The Covid19 ‘crisis’ is another big example where our ability to do the right thing was stripped by our Governments. We were not given the chance to look after the vulnerable using our own assessments of need and commonsense, in conjunction with Government advice. Instead, the Government decided they were better able than us to look after our health and so implemented a crude ‘one-size-fits-all’ lockdown policy that stripped us of our personal agency.
As Lord Moulton alluded to in his speech, these examples indicate that our Government doesn’t trust us. Lord Moulton raised these concerns 100 years ago. Imagine how much the Domain of Manners has been eroded since then. As the State grows, our personal agency is reduced.
This sentiment is also reflected in the following quote from the historian AJP Taylor:
“Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman”.
These interventions by our Governments have made the UK a lesser nation.
Biden has announced that domestic terrorism fuelled by white supremacism is the greatest threat to the security of the US. As a result his administration has created a National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.
This is code for ‘we are coming after Trump voters’.
This aligns perfectly with the Woke agenda of attacking white people. Particularly right wing white people.
Merrick Garland, the US Attorney General has provided further elaboration on the new strategy:
“Our current effort comes on the heels of another large and heinous attack – this time, the January 6th assault on our nation’s Capitol,” said Garland in remarks Tuesday. “We have now – as we have then – an enormous task ahead: to move forward as a country; to punish the perpetrators; to do everything possible to prevent similar attacks; and to do so in a manner that affirms the values on which our justice system is founded and upon which our democracy depends.”
Garland uses the high jinx at the Capitol as justification for this clampdown. This isn’t the first time that an event has been used by a Government as justification to attack people they don’t like. Now, I’m not saying this policy is as bad as Kristalnacht but the policies are certainly related: both policies use a flimsy pretext as an opportunity for purging those citizens the Government don’t like.
This sentence from Unherd sums things up:
By positioning itself as the last line of defence against phantasmic threats of “fascism” and “white nationalism” coming from the Right, the ruling class is able to legitimise its own power and conceal the domination on which that power rests.
Garland listed several examples of domestic terrorism and violent extremism in the US’s recent history. I shall list these below, together with the race of the perpetrator:
• Charleston, South Carolina, church shooting (white), 9 dead, 1 injured.
• Mass shooting at a Walmart store in El Paso, Texas (white), 23 dead, 23 injured.
There is no mention of the violent BLM protests of 2020 that claimed tens of lives and injured hundreds more. Nor the Orlando nightclub shooting (49 dead, 53 injured). Nor other attacks with higher death counts perpetuated by other races.
Garland is focusing solely on white terrorism. This cannot be a coincidence, especially when one views this list in conjunction with the profiles of the US mass shooters from 2020:
It also cannot be a coincidence that this targeting of white killers comes at a time when the political Left have embarked on a full-scale slander of white people.
It seems that Biden and Garland are planning to enact a discriminatory policy whereby white people will be significantly more likely to be charged with domestic terrorism, particularly if they hold right wing views. This seems to be designed to appease Social Justice Warriors. Perhaps it’s a kind of reparations: we won’t give you money in compensation for slavery but we will sacrifice white people to appease you.
Here’s Garland doing it again. This time he has sent the FBI to investigate parents who have been reported by the National School Boards Association (NSBA).
Parents who are unhappy that a 13 year old girl was sodomised by a transgender student or that ideologies like Critical Race Theory being pressed on their children are being targeted by tgeur Government.
This is yet another example whereby Governments select an ‘enemy’ that can be used to distract and manipulate a fearful populace. Since WW2, there have been many such enemies: Communists (specifically Russians); International Terrorists; Climate Change; Covid19 and now, Domestic White Terrorists posing as concerned parents. You see, there arent that many domestic white terrorists so concerned parents are the next best thing.
By targeting white terrorists, the Biden / Garland policy also subtly changes how Americans will view terrorists. Americans will be conditioned to equate white supremicism with other forms of terrorism. Americans will be conditioned to equate a white man running over a Leftist at a protest in Charlottesville with >3,000 deaths on 9/11. All terrorism is equally bad, you see?
Justice is supposed to be blind. Yet this is more evidence that justice is being politicised.
Wokism and Left wing politics are aligned. It won’t end well.
House Republicans in the Judiciary Committee have sent a Tuesday letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland after an FBI whistleblower provided ‘a protected disclosure’ revealing that “the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division is compiling and categorizing threat assessments related to parents…’
Someone I know who is ‘awake’ with regard to Covid19 and vaccines asked me to email the Director of Public Health at Essex County Council, Dr. Mike Gogarty. I wasn’t keen on the idea as I expected nothing more than ‘boilerplate’ in response. I knew it would be a waste of my time. However, I was eventually persuaded. Gogarty’s response was even worse than I expected.
Gogarty earns £194k per annum
This blog is comprised of 3 emails: my email to Gogarty; Gogarty’s response; my follow-up.
Here we go:
Email #1: Atticus to Gogarty, 16th Aug –
Hi Dr Gogarty, I am an Essex resident and I would like to raise some questions with you about the C19 vaccines.
I started investigating the vaccines in December 2020, mainly in order to decide which brand of vaccine I should take. However, the more I read, the more concerned I became about the negative aspects of the vaccines. Even more concerning is that these negative aspects are being swept aside in a general ‘vaccine euphoria’. I have no problems with any vaccine but there MUST BE informed consent. I’m sure as a Doctor, you would agree. ‘Do no harm’, as the medical tenet stipulates. As such, I would like to know what steps ECC are taking to ensure that each and every Essex resident is fully informed of the risks as well as the benefits of the C19 vaccines, before they are jabbed. Here are my questions:
1) What advice and information is being given to Essex residents by ECC to allow us to make informed choices about the vaccines?
2) What rigour and scrutiny are ECC applying to the adverse reactions from the vaccines for Essex residents?
3) What rigour and scrutiny are ECC applying to the possible long term health effects of the vaccines on Essex residents?
4) As you know, the very elderly and those with co-morbidities are at high risk from C19 while the young and healthy are at negligible risk. At what point of the demographics does ECC believe the benefits of the jabs (in relation to reduced symptoms from c19) are outweighed by the risk of adverse reactions to the jabs themselves?
5) Is ECC providing vaccine guidance that considers the risk / reward ratio?
6) Is ECC aware that PHE recently admitted that the vaccinated are just as likely to transmit C19 as the unvaccinated as they carry a similar viral load? Has this information been incorporated into ECC’s vaccine policy in any way so as to ensure Essex residents are fully informed of all information that may affect their decision to take the vaccine?
7) Is ECC aware that Public Health England recently admitted the efficacy of the vaccines are just 17% for the over 50s. This is a long way from the 90%+ efficacy rates the pharmceutical companies were lauding when the vaccines were launched last year. Are you concerned that the vaccines have not been subjected to sufficient independent scrutiny?
8) I have read a great deal about the vaccine spike proteins getting into the bloodstream – where they are not intended to be – and collecting in our organs. Is this issue of concern to ECC? If so, what steps are ECC taking to mitigate this issue and notify Essex residents?
9) Has ECC sought independent medical advice to help ensure Essex’s vaccine policy optimises the health of Essex residents?
10) I assume that you have heard of Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE). What are your thoughts on this? What steps are ECC taking to ensure Essex residents are aware of this risk before they take the vaccine?
11) I assume your department at ECC are monitoring the stats of adverse reactions to the vaccines collated as part of the Yellow Card scheme. How are these reactions influencing ECC’s vaccine policy?
12) Is ECC ensuring that these possible side effects – Myocarditis; Guillain Barre Syndrome; Death; stroke etc – are communicated to Essex residents before they are jabbed in order to ensure that informed consent applies?
13) I notice that the FAQ re vaccines on the ECC website refers only to ‘soreness or redness at the injection site and some have reported a headache’. This is very out of date information. There are hundreds of different adverse reactions reported under the government’s Yellow Card scheme. Will you ensure that the information on the ECC website is updated to reflect the many serious side effects that have been reported on the Yellow Card site so that Essex residents can make informed decisions? Better still, carry a link to the Yellow Card scheme so that Essex residents always have access to the latest data.
14) The vaccine FAQs on the ECC website includes the following information about anaphylaxis: ‘Since the vaccination programme began in early December, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has been notified of two reports of anaphylaxis, and a further possible allergic reaction, shortly after receiving the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine’. This information is hugely out of date. The yellow card scheme is currently reporting almost 1,500 anaphylatic reactions to the vaccines. Please will you commit to updating this information or, better yet, carry a link to the Yellow Card scheme so that Essex residents always have access to the latest data?
15) The guidance on the ECC website (Vaccines FAQ) for those with allergies is that the vaccines are safe ‘ ..as long as they are not known to be allergic to any component (excipient) of the COVID vaccines.’. Yet, why is there no list of the vaccine components on the ECC website? I happen to know an Essex resident with a severe allergy to apples. Apples are comprised of many chemicals. Is she expected to reconcile the constituent parts of an apple to the components of a vaccine? She doesn’t know what is the ‘active ingredient’ in apples to which she is allergic. What is she to do? This information does not allow allow Essex residents to make informed choices.
16) Are residents informed of the components of the vaccines at any point of the vaccination process?
17) Under FAQs for vaccines on ECC website, ECC advises that those with C19 antibodies still have the jab since… ‘it is unclear how long antibodies produced following infection may provide protection and whether the protection is as effective as that provided by vaccination. It is therefore recommended you have a vaccine if offered one.’ We also don’t know how long vaccine protection lasts. In the vast majority of cases, wouldn’t it be better to discover more about the limits of natural immunity before ECC’s advocates a one-size-fits-all policy of universal vaccines?
18) As you know the mRNA vaccines have been approved for Emergency use only. Are Essex residents being notified of this fact before having the jab in order to ensure that any consent is fully informed?
I realise I am asking many questions but, as a Doctor, I am sure you will appreciate the rigour I am bringing to the issue of ‘Informed Consent’. I wish to minimise the number of people who take the vaccine but later come to regret that decision. I’m sure you do too.
Regards,
Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx
Email #2: Gogarty responds to Atticus, 18th Aug –
Dear Mr Xxxxxxxx
I am very sorry but I simply do not have the time to answer all this
If you have a specific genuine concern that is impacting on your decision to personally receive the vaccine I am happy to help address this.
Yours sincerely
M Gogarty
Email #3: Atticus hints at what he thinks of Gogarty, 22nd August –
Dear Mr Gogarty,
Answering my questions should not take you long as these are the exactly the questions you should be asking yourself every day as part of your job. I, therefore, conclude you are not up to the job and Essex residents will have to look elsewhere for the independent advice they deserve. Regards,
Ever since we first learnt about the cruel tutelage of the Nazi’s at school, each of us has wondered how it happened. How did an upstart political party – the National Socialist German Workers’ Party – come to power so quickly in Germany during the 1930s despite its toxic agenda and its cult of violence?
The second question that usually arises is: Would I have been complicit in the Nazi’s agenda of discriminating against Jews and gypsies and homosexuals? And we always tell ourselves – and anyone else who’ll listen – that we would never have supported the Nazi’s agenda:
We would have stood up for what is right.
We would have resisted.
Yet, the vast majority of Germans in the 1930s didn’t resist. The vast majority not only allowed the Nazi’s to come to power but also supported them once they were in power. The majority assisted in the persecution of ‘undesirables’ and even went to war to defend Nazi ideology.
Clearly, the numbers don’t stack up. How were so many Germans persuaded to support the Nazi’s? Were the Germans inherently evil? Or were other factors in play?
I’ve never been able to answer these questions, until now. Of course, I had been taught at school (in the 1980s) that Nazi propaganda had highlighted Jews as a minority that could be legitimately discriminated against, but I didn’t understand how this would work in practise. I didn’t understand how the majority could be manipulated so easily. I couldn’t see how the theory could become established in reality.
The response of the Government and the public to Covid19 has shown the way. The Government has responded with propaganda and authoritarianism and the public has responded with eager compliance.
“Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.” ~ Joseph Goebbels
I now understand how Nazi-ism was able to succeed. Only now, as I witness the propaganda and authoritarianism being deployed by Western Liberal Democracies, fully supported by the bulk of the population, in order to sell a vaccine and tighten control, do I realise how it’s done. The secret to imposing a toxic ideology with the support of the population is to ensure that the imposition takes the form of a series of steps.
Each step must be presented, by experts, acting in concert with the media, as the only logical course of action in light of the circumstances.
Each step away from ‘normal’ must be presented as vitally important. But, also, each step away from normal must be sold as being the only way to return to normal. As in ‘only by giving up our freedoms can we win back our freedoms’. Genius!
Each step must be accompanied by a heavy programme of propaganda and behavioural psychology. Dissenting opinion must be suppressed.
Each step must be spun in such a way that the action is required not for our own benefit but for the benefit of others, i.e. our ‘loved ones’, or the country or ‘the vulnerable’. This plays on our innate need be helpful and to display selflessness.
Each step must be presented as the only way to make things better.
“If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth.” ~ Joseph Goebbels
Once a step has been implemented, the ground must be prepared for the next step. All of the time, we are teased with the prospect that we are on a journey to salvation whilst not dwelling on how far we have been taken from ‘normal’.
The Government has been greatly assisted in all of this by the fact that the field of journalism has been hollowed out to such a degree in recent years that all that remains is a monolithic husk that merely parrots fashionable lines about Globalism. The journalism industry now universally supports Big State intervention because, since Brexit, journalists no longer trust the public to be left to make decisions for themselves.
“Not every item of news should be published. Rather must those who control news policies endeavor to make every item of news serve a certain purpose.” ~ Joseph Goebbels
However, authoritarianism and propaganda, whilst deeply claustrophobic to those who value freedom over safety, are not harmful on their own. No, the most potentially harmful parallel with the Nazi’s is the ongoing demonisation of those who have weighed up the risks and benefits and decided not to take the vaccine. Demonisation of a minority group is how authoritarianism turns fascist.
Specifically, the Nazi’s used 4 steps to demonise the Jews and we see those same 4 steps being used today to mobilise public opinion against the unvaccinated:
1)Prejudice:
The Nazi’s portrayed the Jews as inferior to Aryan Germans. Jews were also portrayed as being vectors for diseases such as TB and syphilis.
Today Liberal Democracies are fomenting prejudice against the unvaccinated. The propaganda states that everyone must be jabbed so that we are protected. ‘No one is safe until we’re all safe’. The messaging states that the unjabbed are selfish for not submitting to the vaccine.
2) Scapegoating
The Nazis started blaming every societal problem in Germany on the Jews. People were prepared to believe the scapegoating because they had already been trained to be prejudiced against Jews.
Liberal Democracies are scapegoating the unvaccinated by claiming the unvaccinated are vectors for spreading new variants of the virus. There’s always a new variant that can be used to demonise us. Another favourite trope is that the unjabbed comprise the vast majority of hospitalisations (unsupported by evidence). Also, we are told that the unvaccinated are stopping us from returning to ‘normal’. In this way, the government hopes to re-direct anger away from them and on to the unjabbed: ‘It’s not us [the government] preventing things from returning to normal, it’s them, the unjabbed. You should be angry with them’.
3) Discrimination
The Nazis implemented discriminatory laws against the Jews, such as forcing them to wear a yellow star. Such discrimination naturally led to citizens indulging in violent acts against Jews with impunity.
Liberal Democracies are implementing ‘vaccine passports’ whereby those who haven’t agreed to undergo the unlicensed, experimental vaccine will be denied access to certain services (eg nightclubs; football matches; flights). France has decided the unjabbed cannot even visit restaurants or shopping malls. Thankfully, we are not yet seeing violence enacted against the unjabbed but this is probably only because a vaccine passport does not have the visibility of a yellow star on your arm.
4) Persecution
The Nazis made life ever harder for Jews. They conviscated businesses and other assets. Then they sent them to concentration camps. Then they murdered them.
Liberal Democracies haven’t reached this point yet. However, the direction of travel teaches us that this is the next step. Already, there are ‘opinions’ appearing in the MSM that the unvaxxed should be denied free medical treatment and that they shouldn’t be allowed to use public transport. The ground is being prepared. The Governments are totally committed to vaccinations. There are no signs that Liberal Democracies will ease up on their obsession with Covid19 vaccines.
Nazi-ism flourished because the Nazi’s demonised an ‘out-class’ of people. At that point, the rest of the population were so relieved to be part of the ‘in-class’ that they turned on the out-class thereby cementing the power of the Nazi’s. I fear that our authorities have found a new out-class to scapegoat: the unvaxxed. And, once again, the in-class are jumping on the bandwagon to show what good people they are. The Germans were not inherently evil. They were just manipulated by a small coterie of people with bad intentions and effective propaganda. The same is happening now: it is the puppet-masters that are evil, not the puppets.
Many people feel it is sacrilegious to make comparisons with the treatment of the Jews in 1930s Germany. In treating that episode with such reverence they miss the point that we must ALWAYS make comparisons with 1930s Germany if we are to prevent it happening again. The time to make comparisons is not after the death count reaches 7 figures or even 4 figures, by then it’s far too late to stop. The time to make comparisons is before the first person has died. The only way to truly respect the treatment handed out in the 1930s is to pay close attention to the warning indicators that signal a dark turn is imminent and prevent that turn from being made. The time to make comparisons is when old ladies are being pepper-sprayed by the police for protesting covid restrictions.
Once this is normalised, what comes next?
The time to make comparisons is when people are sent to ‘Quarantine Camps’ against their will.
I declared myself as an atheist at quite an early age. Certainly, prior to secondary school. I remember because I prayed to God to get me into the secondary school I wanted to attend. I promised, in my prayer, that if He got me in, I would never disbelieve in Him again. Anyway, I gained a place at my dream school and went back to telling everyone I was an atheist.
I was very proud of my atheism. I felt that atheism, and my willingness to be loud and proud about my atheism suggested to people that I was rational and intelligent with strength of character and independence of thought.
However, in recent years, I have come to realise that a widespread turning away from organised religion has not led to the moderate, secular society I expected. Instead, society seems to be coming more fractured. This quote from G. K. Chesterton seems to explain what is going on:
‘When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.’ G. K. Chesterton (1874 – 1936)
I see evidence of this thought all around. The age of enlightenment has led to the collapse of organised religion. This in turn is leading to chaos. We have new religions springing up. The orthodoxies of Covid19 are one such religion. Social Justice is another one. Climate change yet another. We are showing that we are capable of believing in anything and believing in it passionately.
These new belief systems are all jostling for power and devotees. In doing so, they are creating chaos and division. Over time, they will weaken the bonds of our societies. In an attempt to retain control, our Governments are clamping down on free speech by labelling it ‘hate speech’. Disruption and mayhem will ensue as our society becomes more fragmented. A fractured society is much easier to control. The Establishment can play off different groups against each other. Divide and rule. We no longer have a common purpose and a shared moral code.
Consequently, I now find myself viewing Christianity in a more favourable light. Let’s not forget that Chistianity is the foundation stone of our culture. The homogeneity of purpose instilled in our society by Christianity has driven the success of Western Civilisation over the last 2000 years. Christian ethics of hard work; personal responsibility; humility; delayed gratification; charity; serving your Community; a strong moral code and many others were the very character traits that brought about the achievements of Christian societies.
I have also come to appreciate that I dream Christian dreams. By that I mean that Christianity is built into my DNA as a result of imbibing Christian thought throughout my life. My own core values strongly overlap with Christian values. How can I laud my own character without acknowledging my gratitude to Christianity for its contribution to my character?
Yet now we think we can turn away from Christianity without considering the implications. If we cast aside a foundation stone of our culture, we make that culture unstable. We make that culture more susceptible to collapse.
But how do we, as a culture, re-embrace Christianity? I don’t know. As much as I appreciate the impulse control and singularity of focus that Christianity has inspired in European societies, I don’t find myself believing in Him. I respect the religion but I don’t believe the tenets.
Perhaps respecting Christianity as part of our cultural heritage might be all we can hope for. Will it be enough to save our Civilisation? Probably not but it might slow down our descent into a new Dark Age. I don’t believe the new culture that is emerging will be an improvement over what came before. The new age will be marked by volatility. A state of flux will reign for a long time before order returns. It will be a dangerous time, possibly largely lawless.
For the record, I no longer think of myself as an atheist: I refer to myself as a ‘Christian atheist’ out of respect for the culture that raised me. And I no longer shout my religious status from the rooftops. I have learnt Humility. Amen.
Atticus Fox 