Corporations are increasingly viewing the culture wars as an opportunity to show how noble and pure they are. Why are they doing this? Perhaps they think that attacking men or white people can only benefit them? Well, I’m here to ensure these divisive, racist and misandrist campaigns are publicised and remembered. Here is a list of the companies that I try not to use anymore. (I admit that the social media companies are hard to avoid. However, I have accounts on Gab and Parler etc and I fully intend to stop using FB and Twitter at some point).
Mozzilla: The chairwoman of Mozzilla feels it is perfectly fine to use censorship and deplatforming against fellow citizens that don’t vote the same way as her – “we need more than deplatforming…”
Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube – obvious. No examples needed. I no longer use Google (use ‘Brave’ instead) or FB or Twitter (use Telegram) and I am gradually transitioning to Rumble, in place of YouTube.
Gillette – that man-hating advert made by a far-left feminist.
Paperchase – stopped advertising in Daily Mail as result of pressure from Stop Funding Hate. I won’t support such a lack of conviction. It’s spinelessness like this that encourages the SJWs.
Innocent Drinks – fervent EU supporters (companies should not be using their profiles to promote political political positions). Also, they blocked a pensioner from the Innocent Twitter account for ‘transphobia’.
Burger King – the well known slurry processor pulled its ads from Rumble after Rumble refused to kowtow to the witch-hunt of Russell Brand (a man who, at the time of writing this, has not been charged, let alone convicted of any crime).
Asos and Hello Fresh – same reasons as Burger King.
Arla (dairy products). At the end of 2024 it was revealed that Arla was partnering with many of its dairy farmers to introduce an additive / drug into cows as part of an experimental trial that was thought would reduce methane emissions from cows. The drug is 3-nitro-oxy-propalene, known by its brand name ‘Bovaer’. Bovaer is a known carcinogen.
I’m sure there will be many more to be added to this list in the near future…
The film ‘Team America (World Police)’ features a song with the lyrics:
‘Freedom is not free, There’s a hefty ferkin’ fee’
The message, obviously, is that being free and remaining free involves costs, often in the form of sacrifice. Historically, some people have martyred themselves in the name of freedom. I’m not aware that anyone has ever martyred themselves because they wanted the authorities to remove their freedoms. That is not the way it usually works.
We are told that the carnage of WW2 was necessary for Europe to remain free (even though a lot more of Europe was significantly less free by the war’s end. But that’s a different blog).
Being free comes at the cost of protecting that freedom. The very act of being free comes with heightened risks to your safety. Climbing a mountain is a satisfying expression of freedom but that freedom involves accepting the risk that you could hurt yourself.
You cannot have complete freedom and complete safety. There is a trade off. Free people are able to make the assessment between freedom and safety and decide on their actions accordingly. A mountain climber places a premium on freedom. A health and safety officer places a premium on safety.
So in the same way that freedom is not free, neither is safety. The cost of safety is freedom. Someone who removes all risks to their safety is actually removing all their freedoms. This is why, technically, the safest place you could possibly be is a prison. And this is what Western governments are in the process of doing right now. Governments are introducing ever more legislation ‘for your safety’ and each new law strips us of more freedoms.
The old adage that liberty decreases as government (and government bureaucracy) grows is playing out in front of our eyes.
Lockdowns were initiated to protect us from covid. The government prioritised safety over freedom, on our behalf. Result= Our freedom was removed without our consent.
Vaccine coercion/ mandates were initiated to protect us from covid. Result = freedom to choose which medical treatments you take were removed
Online safety bills are being initiated throughout the West to save us from online harm. The Bill also allows the scanning of private messages. Result = freedom of speech removed; privacy removed.
Misinformation / disinformation regulations are being initiated to protect us from exposure to information that contradicts the authorities. Result = freedom of speech removed. Ability to contradict the government removed.
Clampdown on protests are being initiated to protect us from disruption and angry mobs. Result = freedom of expression removed
Initiatives to protect us from Climate Change are coming down the track (Net Zero; 15 minute cities; EPC’s; Banning of gas boilers; Restrictions on car usage etc). Result = freedom of movement removed: freedom of choice removed
Increased surveillance including facial recognition software will protect us from bad air (ULEZ) and from bad viruses (Lockdowns). Result = loss of privacy; freedom of movement removed.
Digital ids will protect us from identity theft and protect us from financial fraud. Result = loss of privacy
Hate speech laws are designed to protect people from ever being offended. Result: loss of freedom of speech; freedom of debate restricted.
Our governments continue to find new ways to protect us. But know this: every initiative to protect us limits our freedom. Every one.
Unless the initiative is explicitly to protect our freedom, then it will remove our freedom.
Once the government has made us totally safe, we will have zero freedom worth having.
There are plenty of regulatory bodies whose role is to ensure our safety: MHRA; Ofcom; Ofsted; FSA, FCA etc. There are no regulatory bodies designed to protect our freedom.
Regulatory bodies want to regulate. It’s what they do. To keep themselves busy, regulatory bodies will keep finding things to regulate. Regulations restrict freedom
Remember that a totally safe environment is a banal environment, devoid of interest or excitement.
That doesn’t mean we will live forever. We will be pumped full of mRNA, ‘for your safety’.
The same people that wanted the UK to Remain in the EU because of the advantages of free movement across the continent are the same people that support 15 minute cities in the UK whereby people will have no free movement.
The same people that demand UBI because AI will soon lead to mass unemployment also support mass immigration to support the Labour Market.
The same people that say the minimum wage is unlikeable also say that we need to import infinity migrants on minimum wage to do the jobs that the English don’t want to do.
The same people that support Net Zero laws because the lifestyle of British people uses too many resources also support mass immigration into the UK to give people a chance to take part in Western lifestyles.
The same people that delight in falling birth rates in the West as being good for the planet by reducing overconsumption also support mass immigration into the West of people with much higher birth rates than the indigenous population.
The same people that tell us that all humans are essentially the same and that differences are simply the product of nuture and then try to iron out those differences between people by ensuring that everyone is equally poor and equally badly educated and removing meritocracy and inheritances are the same people that insist that immigrants do not beed to assimilate into British culture.
The same people that tell us that gender is a social construct also tell us that some people were assigned the wrong gender at birth.
The same people that tell us that gender is a social construct also tell us that some men feel they are women despite those labels being nothing more than socially constructs.
The same people that tell us that some men feel that they are actually women are unable to explain what a woman is.
The same people that tell us that a man can become woman just by deciding to do so are the same people railing against the spread of disinformation.
The same people that tell us that men and women are the same are the same people that tell us that men display toxic masculinity.
The same people that tell us that women are oppressed by the patriarchy are the same people that cannot define what a woman is.
The same people that tell us that women are oppressed by the patriarchy also support gender self ID whereby men can say they are women and gain access to women’s spaces and sports.
The same people that were morally outraged about some middle class actresses being coerced into sexual activities by Hollywood Producers in 2017 believe that discussing the Muslim rape gangs that have been raping 12 year olds for decades is ‘divisive’.
The same people who believe that men can become women also believe that paper masks can protect you from covid19.
The same people that say that Ethnic minorities have a homeland that belongs to them also say that Europe does not belong to Europeans.
The same people that tell us that all people are the same also tell us that we need more diversity.
The same people that demand equality, also want preferential treatment given to minority groups.
The same people that believe in all people being treated equally believe that this means not treating certain people equally until we can get to the point where all people can be treated equally.
The same people that, during the Covid hysteria, said we must protect children by closing the schools are the same people that demand easy access to abortion services.
The same people that demand we censor the internet to protect the kids are the same people promoting the sexualisation of children.
The same people that tell us we all need to use less carbon to protect the planet, are the ones that use the most carbon.
The same people who declare that white people are racist are the ones that attack white people for being white.
The same people that support collectivism amongst races say it’s racist when white people do the same.
The same people who insist that “race” is a pernicious labelling of superficial human differences that has been refuted by modern science also obsess about racial disparities and injustices and actively promote policies that treat people of different races differently, e.g., affirmative action.
The same people that demand that the government does something to protect people when a pandemic is declared are the same people that remain quiet when the medical treatment promoted by the government leads to statically significant numbers of excess deaths.
The same people that demand that the authorities do something to protect people when a pandemic is declared are the same people that remain quiet when the authorities fail to protect vulnerable British girls from industrial scale gang rapes.
The same people that chant “My body, my choice” when it comes to abortion are the same ones who want to mandate that you take an experimental gene therapy treatment.
The same people that denounce Russia’s invasion of Ukraine remain silent about the US’sinvasion of Syria.
The same people that demanded freedom of speech 30 years ago are the people demanding state censorship now.
The same people promoting individualism which is an ideology promoting self-responsibility also want Big Government to tell us all how to live and punish us of we try to live differently.
The same people that object to the death penalty are the same people supporting Assisted Dying legislation.
The same people that decakre the institutions of The State to be systemically racist also want the institutions of The State to run everything.
The same people that denounce the West’s colonial and imperialist history are the same ones that demand that 2nd and 3rd world countries adopt the cultural values of the West.
The same people that denounce the West’s colonial and imperialist history are the same people that delight in Western countries being colonised by mass immigration.
It is clear that the West is systemically hypocritical.
In 1939 Hitler invaded Poland and Czechoslovakia. In response Great Britain and France declared war on Germany.
Prior to 1939, Stalin had annexed Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Armenia. This was OK with Britain and France.
In 1939 the citizens of Britain and France were told that war was necessary to free Europe from a dangerous dictator, Hitler. By the end of the WW2, 50 million people were dead and most of Eastern Europe (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Albania, Moldova, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, East Germany, Hungary, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) was in the hands of a different dangerous dictator, Stalin. Yet we called that victory.
Perhaps I am missing something.
It seems, with hindsight, like it would have been better not to wage war on Germany. More of Europe would have been free and a destructive war would have been avoided.
Or maybe WW2 was actually a 3-way war that the USA and USSR won (GB and France finishing second with Germany filling the final podium position)? After all, the USSR did change sides during the war, thereby suggesting a certain flexibility of motive.
Perhaps I’m missing something.
Outside of WW2, we estimate that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of 15 to 20 million Russians. This is far higher than Hitler’s extra-curricular murder rate. Yet scroll on 80 years and the worst comparison available is to be compared to Hitler. Meanwhile ‘Stalin’ is hardly ever used as an insult. That seems strange. To my mind Stalin was far worse.
As trust in governments and government institutions collapses amongst those who are alert to the direction of travel, I find that pro-govies are placing ever greater trust in those institutions.
It’s like they have picked a side, the opposite side to the conspiracy theorists – aka those people with anti-establishment opinions – and, having picked a side, they have to fully commit to that side.
I suppose this is another symptom of our binary age where centrist positions are no longer fashionable. Sitting on the fence is not allowed. Everyone must pick a side:
You are either politically acceptable or you are ‘far right’.
You are either tolerant of every aspect of the cultural agenda or you are a bigot.
You either ‘Choose love’ or you are a transphobe.
So it is with critical thinking: you either do it, which makes you a conspiracy theorist, or you don’t, which makes you a moron.
Pro-govies will not entertain any consideration that the government and associated allies such as the UN and the WEF do not have our best interests at heart in everything they do.
Pro-govies have decided to place total faith in The Establishment. They refuse to see any possible downsides in any Globalist initiative. To show doubt is a conspiracy theorist trait. To engage in critical thinking is the behavioural trait of dangerous minds.
The media is relentless in its messaging that conspiracy theorists are spreading misinformation that is harmful to ‘our democracy’. It’s a powerful message that causes the ‘bien pensants’ amongst us to shun any and all non-approved narratives. They do not want to be thought of as conspiracy theorists.
I attended a sceptics event recently in a local pub. The speaker was a female liberal academic – with a Phd! – who sought to understand the mindset of Conspiracy Theorists. She concluded her talk that contemporary conspiracy theorists were right wing and were much more dangerous than conspiracy theorists from previous generations. Her understanding of conspiracy theorists was similar to my understanding of rocket science. An audience member asked her whether there were any conspiracy theories that she didn’t use to believe in which she now believed. Yes, there was, she responded. I can’t remember what the conspiracy theory was that she cited but she had read a book about it that she had found very compelling. She didn’t see the irony in this, that the more you study something the more likely you are to find perspectives that diverge from the official narrative!
This is a recognisable pathway to all conspiracy theorists: we read a lot about many issues. In doing so, we learn that the truth is often not what the authorities would have us believe.
That is how I learnt the truth about Climate Change. I researched the ‘other side’ of the argument and found it a lot more compelling than the authorised version. Same with the other ‘conspiracy theories’ I support.
This is useful information that allows us to better assess what government are telling us. Being well informed is a good thing, despite the ever increasing warning from the authorities not to do your own research.
Knowing that governments regularly lie to us is also a good thing to know.
Pro-govies have decided not to question government motives or whether initiatives such as digital IDs could be abused by future governments. Their trust is absolute. They want to disassociate themselves from conspiracy theorists as much as possible. They’re on the side of the good guys. The conspiracy theorists are clearly the bad guys. If the normies have doubts, they remain silent. Pro-Govies refuse to entertain the entirely reasonable supposition that it is quite possible that Globalists make secret plans – ie ‘conspiracies’ – at the many jamborees that they attend. I find it hard to assess what benefit is obtained from operating in a state of such deliberate ignorance.
The obvious question is where does the greatest downside lie? Which group are most likely to be ignorant? Which group are most likely to be disappointed? Those that are wary of the intentions of Globalists? Or those that refuse to consider the warnings?
The pro-govies are not sheep. They have gone beyond that. Such is their naivity, they are better described as lambs.
20 years ago the 2 main points of concern facing a British adult were:
1) The Budget and…
2) whether the Bank of England was going to raise or lower interest rates.
The budget was the annual accounting ritual performed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which we learnt of what additional duty (tax) we were required to pay on fuel, alcohol and cigarettes in order that the government’s revenue matched its expenditure (notwithstanding a few tens of billions here and there in government borrowing). Would the taxes on these items remain as they were, or would another couple of pence be added? Perhaps a tax loophole relating to inheritance or capital gains would be tightened up? Once upon a time the budget would be Big News in a way that seems bizarre now.
Fast forward to the present day and we are constantly bombarded with details of a large set of problems for which, we are warned, require fundamental changes to our way of life:
Net Zero Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) Digital IDs Pandemic lockdowns mRNA vaccines 15 minute cities Immigration Gender Fluidity Hate speech / Censorship ESG Universal Basic Income White Nationalism
Any one of these issues would suggest a huge impact on our society but, taken together, this set of imminent changes is simple too massive in scope for the average human to comprehend. I would point out that is no coincidence. The Globalists who have set this agenda want us paralysed by incomprehension so they can put these changes into motion with minimal pushback. I would also point out that while each item on this list has, seemingly, nothing in common with the other items, they are all very much connected. Each issue serves a purpose for The Globalists. Each ‘problem’ comes with its own ‘solution’. The Globalists need all of their solutions in place in order to realise their vision. There are no grassroots movements here: these are all top-down control mechanisms.
But to what purpose?
You need to realise that the Globalists have an agenda to impose a social credit system throughout the Western world. However, such a policy must remain secret. The Globalists must, therefore, herd us towards a social credit score without the majority of people being aware of the destination. To this end, the Globalists have embarked on a number of campaigns that serve to confuse, distract and divide us whilst shuffling us towards the holding pen of our enslavement.
The list I provided above is a list of those campaigns. Below I explain how each campaign serves its purpose in the Grand Scheme
Net Zero –
The Globalists are worried about Earth’s finite resources running out as a result of exponential population growth. Thus, the majority of remaining resources must be ring-fenced for the use of the Globalists. To this end our consumer lifestyles must be limited in a controlled manner. Climate Change is the excuse that will allow the Globalists to force the masses to undergo huge regressions in our lifestyles in the form of ‘Net Zero’ whilst admonishing us that such regressions are for the Greater Good.
However, Globalists realise that once Westerners realise the impact Climate Change / Net Zero restrictions will have on their lives they will be angry, particularly when they realise that the Net Zero restrictions do not apply to the Globalists. Politicians and celebrities will still be globetrotting in planes and yachts. They will still have access to all the luxuries life has to offer that will soon be off limits to the proles. An angry population is a dangerous population. Thus, other measures will be needed to control an angry population. This is where the components of a social credit system will be required so that agitated populations can be controlled.
Central Bank Digital Currencies –
CBDC’s are programmable. This will allow the authorities an unprecedented level of control over peoples’ money. The authorities will be able to control how CBDCs are spent. CBDCs will be linked to carbon credits which is how your access to travel, meat and consumerable items will be rationed in order to reach Net Zero. Plus, the authorities will control when CBDC’s are spent because they can be setup with an expiry date. If you don’t use them, you lose them. Therefore, no more saving for a rainy day. No more inheritence left for your children. Globalists do not want you to be able to live a life of self-sufficiency. They want you to be dependent on the authorities. They want you to be dependent on your monthly ration of CBDCs being dropped into your account. If you are dependent on the authorities you can be controlled by the authorities. You criticised the government online? You will pay for that.
The authorities will also be able to control where CBDC’S are spent. This will be evident the first time there is a lockdown after the introduction of CBDCs: your CBDCs can be set to be unusable beyond 10 or even 5 miles from your domicile. Thus, you will have no option but to obey the lockdowns.
The authorities will also have access to all CBDCs meaning that if the authorities wish to fine you for, say, unathorised travel outside of your 15 minute city zone, the monies can be debited from your CBDC account without your approval.
CBDC’s are a very useful tool for social control therefore, they are an important dependency for a social credit system.
Don’t be taken in that CBDCs are convenient. For the masses the downsides of CBDCs massively outweigh the upsides. The convenience lies on the side of the authorities.
Digital IDs –
Digital IDs are a pre-cursor for CBDCs. In order for digital currencies to be correctly allocated to each person, each person will need a unique digital ID. However, you will notice that the authorities are not linking the digital ID and the digital currency in the minds of the public. They don’t want the public to know that these initiatives are inextricably linked. That might be too big of a Red Flag. The government promotes the digital ID as being ‘convenient’ and ‘inclusive’. You see, they are doing this for our benefit!
Before you know it, Digital IDs will be required for you to access the internet. No more anonymity. The government will know everything you looked at and everything you wrote. If you write something the government doesn’t like, you will lose your Internet privileges. This threat will be more than enough to keep 90% of people in line.
Pandemic lockdowns –
Covid was useful both to get people used to their travel being limited and to bring in the mRNA vaccines by the back door. Christine Anderson MEP: “This whole Covid madness, it was really just a test balloon, to see how far they could go… And the next thing we will see is the establishment of so-called 15-minute cities. It has nothing to do with [saving the planet]. It’s about control. It’s about imprisoning people in their assigned area. They’re not starting by building schools or hospitals, or leisure parks or libraries… No, they start by erecting barricades and installing surveillance cameras. That is a big tell.”
Covid was a stepping stone to global governance and social credit systems in that it gave the Globalists the perfect excuse to state that pandemics were a global issue that require management on a global scale. We are told that such issues cannot be resolved by individual nations. As a result of Covid19, the Globalists are pushing for the WHO’s Pandemic Preparedness Treaty that will authorise the WHO to declare pandemics and determine the actions required by member countries. Global Governance takes a big step forward.
Covid was also useful in introducing the ideas of lockdowns which can be deployed in the future in the name of preventing Climate Change. Lockdowns also acclimatise us to the concept of 15 minute cities. Our mindsets have been re-programmed.
mRNA Vaccines –
mRNA vaccines have been worked on for 20 years. However, Big Pharma couldn’t get them through the safety trials. The ‘Emergency Use Authorisation’ of covid19 provided the necessary reduction of safety protocols necessary to get the mRNA into people’s bodies. How convenient. Now that gene therapy has been accepted into the public realm. Big Pharma has Big Plans for mRNA.
The covid vaccine rollout introduced the idea of vaccine passports. Vaccine passports will force people to take certain medical treatments or lose your job, or lose the ability to travel on public transport or, even, lose the ability to receive medical treatments.
The purpose of vaccine passports was to warm people up to the idea of digital IDs. See above. Yes, that covid19 pandemic sure ticked a lot of boxes for the Globalists.
15 Minute Cities –
I hope no one reading this believes that 15 minute cities are merely a traffic management system.
15 minute cities are a big step towards both Net Zero and a Social Credit system.
UK100.org (https://www.uk100.org) is a collaboration of more than 100 British councils that have pledged to reach Net Zero targets ahead of the 2050 target date set by the UK government.
In their own words:
‘What is UK100? UK100 is a cross-party membership organisation that supports the most ambitious councils to go further and faster on their Net Zero and Clean Air targets.’
Any council that wishes to become a member of UK100.org has to undertake the following pledge:
We will continue to lead the UK’s response to climate change, acting sooner than the government’s goal by making substantial progress within the next decade to deliver Net Zero. We will use our experience and achievements to advocate to the UK government in order to accelerate the delivery of ambitious local climate action. With greater powers and funding, we would go further.
We commit to do everything within our power and influence to rapidly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and work with our residents and businesses to bring our wider communities’ emissions in line with Net Zero as soon as possible.
We pledge to understand our impact on climate change, prioritise where action needs to be taken and monitor progress towards our goals. We will reduce our emissions at source and limit the use of carbon offsets as part of the global effort to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
We are closer to the people who live and work in our communities, so we have a better understanding of their needs. This means we can collaborate with them to build consensus for the solutions we need to transition to a Net Zero society that delivers multiple benefits and is fair, just and works for everyone.
Still think that 15 minute cities are all about making cities more liveable by giving people access to everything they need on their doorstep?
15 minute cities are about introducing the restrictions on our lives that will be necessary to ring-fence resources required by the Globalists whilst simultaneously introducing the surveillance superstructure that will be able to monitor and control our movements. Once your movements are monitored, your movements can be controlled, another key component of social credit systems. Good citizens will be rewarded with access to travel. Bad citizens will not.
Immigration –
Immigration serves as a disraction from other issues governments would prefer people not to highlight. It also serves as as a tool to divide the people.
Criticism of immigration can be counted as a Hate Crime. This allows charges to be brought. But, more importantly, rising hate crime figures allow the government to bring in more censorship, like the Online Safety Bill under the guise of protecting people from hate crimes. Censorship is the objective, suppression of Hate is the means by which censorship can be justified.
Furthermore, immigration is flooding the West with millions of people who are used to a much lower standard of living. Such people will not be angry like native Westerners when living standards drop across the West as a result of the Net Zero restrictions. This leads to the further atomisation of the cultures. Classic divide and conquer. Plus, reducing overall competency via diversity initiatives will reduce the ability of Westerners to mount a large scale campaign that targets those who will have gained control over us.
Gender Fluidity –
The government promotes gender fluidity because it is another minority group that can be shielded from criticism via censorship under the guise of fighting ‘Hate’. Also, the government wants to break down normative values. They want people feeling they are individuals with ever narrower ways of differentiating themselves from their compatriots. This destroys the homogeneity of a country and allows us to be controlled more easily. It also furthers the destruction of morality, again underming the cohesivesness of the masses. The Globalist intention is to stop a society sharing a common moral code. Instead, the idea is being seeded that morality is subjective. Morality can be whatever you want it to be. This allows fetishes and sexual predilictions that are highly appealing to those in the upper echelons of our society but repugnant to all right-thinking people to become justifiable. Anything goes. No stigma. No society.
Hate Speech –
The agenda, perfectly expressed by author Michael Shellenberger in a recent Substackpost, is to “manufacture a fake ‘hate’ crisis as [a] pretext for mass spying, blacklists, and censorship.
The “anti-hate” hate industry creates the tribalism it claims to fight, and the only beneficiary of all the hate it creates is the hate industry itself.
We are told that Censorship and surveillance are necessary to protect people from hate. No, no, no. That is the excuse, not the reason. The Globalists want to be able detect and silence those that challenge their narrative. Surveillance and censorship is how they do that.
Surveillance and censorship are vital components of a social credit system.
ESG –
ESG stands for ‘Environmental, Social Governance’. ESG is basically a social credit system for corporations. Corporations will not receive the funding they need to finance their debt / growth unless they show their fealty to the environment and social justice. This explains why so many corporations are going ‘Woke’ these days. That’s why you are seeing so many mixed race couples in adverts. Companies have to keep their ESG scores up.
ESG forces the corporations to adopt and promote the Globalist agenda. ESG is a powerful propaganda tool because it allows the Globalist message to reach us via the organisations that are most adept at selling. Also, whilst government propaganda drives tend to be rather didactic and therefore off-putting, commercial propaganda is much more subtle and insidious. Be aware, ESG is another weapon in the Globalist arsenal to change our behaviour to allow Globalists to bring about policies that we would, otherwise, not agree to.
Universal Basic Income –
I won’t explain UBI. It’s now well documented. Trials are being conducted all over the world. I’ve also written a piece about UBI, previously.
My intention here is to explain how UBI fits into the Globalist agenda. It’s quite simple really: if you are dependent on the government for UBI, paid to you in CBDC, the government has control over you. If the government has control over you, you will do what the government tells you. Hence, UBI is another component of a social credit system.
There is no such thing as a free lunch and no such thing as free CBDCs. There are always obligations.
You are unlikely to protest against the government if you know that doing so will result in your free money being taken away. You will tow the line. You will be a good citizen. Now roll over and beg. You are now the government’s lapdog.
White Nationalism –
Nationalism must be destroyed in order to make way for Globalism. Indigenous people are more likely to support their nation state than immigrants. It’s the people of ‘Somewhere’ vs the people from ‘Anywhere’ idea. This is behind recent efforts to de-legitimise white people.
White people are the only race to which hate speech laws do not apply. White people are the only race that can be called racist. Left wing governments accuse White people of being the perpetrators of most terrorism. White people who criticise the government are ‘far right’. Non-white people who criticise the government are protestors demanding social justice. This is the plan to neutralise the voices of White people who are the most outspoken about the authoritarian direction our countries are moving. Ignore those people, they are bigots. That’s how it works.
So now you know how all these things are related. It’s all part of the New World Order. It’s all been sanctioned by the WEF. Rothschild has signed off on it. Things are going their way. The Globalists must be feeling very confident about the way things are going.
The subtitle to this book is: ‘Vaccine Science and Myth’.
The time had come for me to dive into this subject
I have just read ‘Turtles’. You won’t find it in any bookshops. It’s available online but it’s not cheap. Whilst I recommend that everyone reads it, I realise that time and cash are finite so I have written this short summary that will provide you with the main takeaways from the book. Let’s dive in…
From ‘Foreword’, p.19: ‘Clearly, the main reason no one has been able to refute the book’s arguments, thus far, is that the authors made a very con- scious effort to rely exclusively on publications available from “kosher” sources such as mainstream scientific journals and leading government agencies (CDC, FDA, WHO, etc.). The book contains virtually no references to studies, articles, or even quotes by anyone who has been painted as an “anti-vaxxer” by the media at any time.’
‘There is a powerful truth told in this book, rigorously researched…’
The main points from ‘Turtles’ that made my jaw drop are as follows:
1) During safety trials for new vaccines, the adverse effects in the trial group are compared to the adverse effects in the control group that are given a different vaccine, not a placebo
2) Investigations into whether vaccines cause chronic diseases are beset by vested interests and data tampering
3) No official study has ever compared the health outcomes of vaccinated children to unvaccinated children
4) Mortality rates from infectious diseases had already fallen significantly prior to the introduction of vaccines
5) Most vaccines do not lead to herd immunity
Read on and all will be revealed…
Chapter 1: Vaccine Clinical Trials:
A Clinical Trial is comprised of a Trial Group and a Control Group. The Trial Group is the Group of volunteers taking the new medication. The Control Group is the Group taking the placebo.
However, the ‘placebo’ given to the trial group does not need to be an inert solution (such as a sugar or saline solution) and so very rarely is.
Instead, where a proven treatment already exists, it is not considered ethical to expect the control group to be unprotected during the trial. This is the excuse invoked in order to provide the control group with the current approved treatment. The safety of the new medication is judged by comparing the side effects experienced by the Trial Group to the side effects experienced by the Control Group.
Therefore, the manufacturer needs the safety results for the trial group to be similar to the safety results of the Control Group. As such, the manufacturer does not want to use an inert product on the Control Group. A control product is needed that will produce a similar safety profile to the new vaccine. Luckily, the manufacturers are allowed to use control products that will return similar numbers of adverse effects.
P. 52: ‘Vaccine trials in general and childhood vaccine trials specifically, are purposely designed to obscure the true incidence of adverse events of the vaccine being tested. How do they do this? By using a 2 step scheme [whereby] a new vaccine is always tested in a Phase 3 RCT [randomised control trial] in which the control group receives another vaccine (or a compound very similar to the experimental vaccine)’
P53: ‘A new pediatric vaccine is NEVER tested during its formal approval process against a neutral solution (placebo)’
Atticus: this blew my mind. It should blow your mind.
P. 53: ‘The rate of adverse events of the tested vaccine is said to be similar to the “background rate”, hence it is considered safe. The researchers and the vaccine manufacturers they work for seem to “forget” that the compound they administered to the control group is a bioactive substance, carrying its own risks and side effects and hardly represents the background rate that is essential to a randomised control trial for a new vaccine’.
P. 55: ‘Falsely using the term ‘placebo’ allows researchers to conclude the new compound was ‘proven safe’ because its rate of adverse events was similar to that of a placebo, even though the substance received by the Control Group was not a placebo.’
P. 55: ‘For example, in one of the DTaP [diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis] vaccine trials, the rate of hospital admissions [my emphasis] in the Trial Group was almost 1 in every 22 subjects. The researchers did not consider this alarming, however, because in the Control Groups that received different DTP vaccines, the hospitalisation rate was similar.’
Atticus: So you see, the baseline hospitalisation rate is not based on the hospitalisation rate in the general population. No, no, no! The hospitalisation rate used during an RCT as the baseline for determining if a safety signal appears is based upon another medication. How blatant is that?
P. 55: ‘No logical explanation can be found for the ubiquitous practise of administering bioactive compounds to control groups in trials of new vaccines other than a desire to conceal the true rate of adverse events of the vaccine.’
Atticus: Now the book investigates the vaccines used in the CDC’s childhood vaccination schedule and reveals, in each case, what type of product was given to the control groups in the RCT’s. The book spends 20 pages documenting each vaccine in the CDC schedule.
Atticus: There are a total of 24 vaccines that are eligible for the CDC childhood vaxx schedule. They are used, in various combinations, to protect against 13 diseases – Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis (whooping cough), Polio, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis A, Haemophilia Influenzae Type B, Pneumococcal Disease, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Varicella (chickenpox) & Rotavirus.
I want to stress that no child would receive all 24 of these vaccines. However, ‘According to the CDC, at 15 months a child could receive as many as 9 shots for 13 diseases’ (p.246)
None of the Control Groups used in the RCT’S for these 24 vaccines ever received a placebo. Every control group either received another vaccine or a similar compound to the one being tested.
I want to share some details about the RCT for the Rotavirus vaccine – GSK’s ‘Rotarix’ – in particular as it reveals another trick available to researchers. In the case of Rotarix, there was no existing vaccine for Rotavirus. Hence, what could be given to the control group during RCT? They used the new vaccine without its antigenic component. (The antigen is the active ingredient that provokes an Antibody reaction in the body).
P. 68: ‘However…the vaccine-sans-antigen is a potentially potent compound whose side effects are likely to be quite similar to those of the vaccine being tested.’
P. 68: ‘In the Rotarix trial, about 1 in 30 control group subjects experienced a ‘severe’ medical event (a rate which was even slightly higher than the trial group), and a similar proportion of patients were hospitalised. In addition, 16 infants suffered intussusception and 43 died’.
However, Rotarix was approved for use:
P. 69: ‘The Rotarix package insert states: ‘No increased risk of intussusception was observed in this clinical trial following administration of Rotarix when compared with placebo’.
Atticus: that’s because the ‘placebo’ wasn’t a placebo!
P. 69: ‘In future trials of next-generation Rotavirus vaccines, GSK will be able to give their Control Groups the standard ‘placebo’ – the currently licensed vaccine – whose safety ‘was already proven”
Atticus: Many of the current vaccines have multiple generations of ancestor vaccines that preceeded them. Each generation was able to use the safety profile of the previous version as their baseline. Safety results from 1st generation vaccines were not subject to much in the way of rigour. However, those early results created a safety baseline that has been leveraged by each successive generation which means:
P. 82: ‘This seemingly mighty fortress [the vaccine safety data], carefully constructed over many decades – and fortified by countless officials, researchers and physicians – actually stands on nothing but turtles all the way down.’ Hence, the book title.
Chapter 5 – ‘Epidemiology and Vaccine Safety’
P.158: ‘Vaccine research is funded almost entirely by government bodies and the pharmaceutical industry, both of which have very clear vested interests in the success of the vaccine program.’
Atticus: This chapter looks into 5 ‘major’ studies that have been conducted to investigate the links between vaccines and adverse side effects. The authors provide an overview of the objective of each study together with information on the conflicts of interest in addition to describing the flaws in the study’s methodology or conclusions.
The conflicts of interest include studies that are funded by Big Parma or by the CDC in addition to studies that include CDC employees as co-authors. The flaws cover statistical manipulation amongst other dubious practises. For example, in the ‘Madsen (2002)’ study, which investigated the link between MMR and autism, the raw data – itself flawed in terms of collation methods – showed a 45% higher risk of autism in MMR vaccinated children. However, after making a number of ‘adjustments’ the paper concluded that there was an 8% lower risk of autism in MMR vaccinated children. The study’s authors did not show their workings behind this manipulation.
To adjust the data without providing transparency on the weighted assumptions underlying the adjustment takes us into data tampering territory. There are further examples of tampering with the raw data in other studies featured in this chapter.
Here is the summary of the flaws exhibited by these 5 Vaccine studies:
Chapter 6: The Studies That Will Never Be Done
P.204: ‘Many studies of different types are conducted to test the efficacy and safety of a specific vaccine. But even if a particular vaccine were found to be safe on its own, it could still contribute to a cumulative adverse effect on children…For example, many vaccines contain adjuvants [substance designed to provoke a stronger antibody response than would be provoked solely by the antigen] made of aluminum [sic] salts. Aluminum salts are known to be toxic and…may accumulate in the body and lead to neurological or other injuries’
P.205: ‘No VU [vaccinated vs unvaxxinated] safety study has ever been officially conducted to determine the impact of the entire vaccine program on the overall health of children. In addition, no such study ever examined the effect the program might be having on the rising incidence of chronic health conditions.’
P.206: ‘Similarly, no VU studies have been conducted for cancer, asthma, diabetes, learning disorders, ADHD, epilepsy, Crohn’s disease and many other life-altering conditions, although all of them have become increasingly common in recent decades.’
P.206: ‘Presently, by the time they are two years old, American children receive up to 28 vaccine doses for 14 different diseases…However, the overall health impact of routinely administering an ever increasing number of vaccines to American infants has never been studied.’
P.207: ‘In the absence of a VU study examining vaccines’ impact on overall health, science cannot determine the real net benefit – positive or negative – of the childhood vaccination program. Accordingly, health authorities’ repeated mantra of “vaccines have been extensively and thoroughly investigated and shown to be safe and effective” has not been demonstrated. It is entirely possible that the potential benefits of the vaccine program (lower rates of vaccine-preventable diseases) are outweighed by its costs (higher incidence of chronic and other infectious diseases). Until VU studies are done, we won’t ever know for sure.’
Atticus: This chapter confirms that no official VU study has ever been performed, yet a number of unofficial studies have concluded that rates of chronic disease in unvaccinated children are lower. However, these reports have never been followed up by health regulators. A large part of the chapter is devoted to an Institute Of Medicine report – ‘IOM 2013’ – that was commissioned in 2009 to investigate the science on the safety of the vaccine schedule and the growing concerns raised by parents.
P.217: ‘Firstly, the report [IOM 2013] acknowledges that no studies have ever compared the overall health of fully vaccinated children to that of children who have never been vaccinated. In addition, no VU studies have been conducted on specific health outcomes such as autism or autoimmune diseases. As a rule, the report elaborates, the recommended schedule in its entirety has not been studied.’
Atticus: Despite admitting that VU studies had never been done and should never be done due to ‘reasons’ (expense; too few unvaxxed children; other reasons) the IOM 2013 report gave the vaccine schedule a clean bill of health.
P.229: ‘The report [IOM 1013] notes that between 2002 and 2012, at least 26 studies examined parental concerns with vaccine safety, and 31 additional studies looked into various aspects of vaccine-related communications between health providers and parents.’
Atticus: All these studies yet never the one study that would settle the issue once and for all – a VU study. 🤔.
For context, here are some figures that show the rise in chronic diseases amongst children:
P.294: ‘The United States began conducting periodic health surveys in 1960 that examined various health indicators, including the occurrence of chronic disease in different populations and age groups. The first survey in 1960 found that 1.8% of American children – about one million children were limited in their major activity due to chronic conditions such as asthma, vision and hearing problems, and mental issues. During the 1960s and 1970s, that rate climbed steadily until it reached 3.8% in 1981 (about two million children). In the 1988 survey the rate rose to 4.1%, in the 1994 survey to 6.5% (about four and a half million children) and in 2010 it had reached 8% (about five and a half million children). As disturbing as this rise is, a survey conducted in 2007-2008 reported a shockingly high overall incidence of chronic illness in children. The survey, which collected data on a sample of more than 90,000 children, found that 43% reported at least one chronic condition, and in about half of those (roughly one-fifth of all children surveyed) the condition was categorized as “moderate” or “severe”. Furthermore, about 19% of all American children, almost one in five, were classified as having “special health care needs” and routinely consumed health care services.’
Chapter 8 – The Disappearance of Disease
Atticus: This chapter describes how the mortality rates from infectious diseases had dropped significantly from their high-points prior to the introduction of vaccines. The book’s proposal is that the bulk of the decline in mortality rates from the late 19th century was not due to advances in medicine.
‘General use of the diphtheria vaccine [the first 20th century vaccine] did not start until the late 1940s’ (p.273)
P 269: ‘The most noteworthy decrease in mortality was in tuberculosis, which was the deadliest disease of the era. Tuberculosis mortality decreased by almost 50% in the second half of the 19th century. Other infectious diseases whose mortality declined steeply in this era include typhoid, whose death rate dropped by close to 80%.’
Atticus: Vaccines did contribute to the reduction in mortality from infectious diseases during the latter half of the 20th century. However, much of the heavy lifting had already been done. Here are the reasons the book cites for the declines shown in the graphs above:
P.305: ‘Centralized sewage management systems began to appear in the last third of the [19th] century. Improvements were made to the supply of drinking water, and running water was gradually introduced into homes. At the same time, the nutritional content of the food city residents ate improved dramatically due to new technologies in transportation that enabled delivery of fresh food from afar throughout the year. Following the great discoveries of microbiology in the late 19th century, the role of hygiene in preventing the spread of disease became widely recognized.’
Chapter 9 – ‘Herd Immunity’
Atticus: This chapter explores the available evidence for whether each vaccine confers herd immunity. There is much detail provided that I cannot convey in this short piece. Instead, I will copy this paragraph from the chapter’s summary:
P.366: ‘The societal benefit attributed to vaccines is primarily based on the concept of herd immunity, that is, the assumption that, in addition to themselves, the vaccinated also protect the unvaccinated. A herd immunity effect is achieved when a high proportion of individuals in a population are protected against infection by a particular disease pathogen. Vaccines can potentially provide herd protection, but in order to do so they must provide protection not only from the disease, but also from being infected by the pathogen and transmitting it to others. Health authorities and other stakeholders are promoting the false impression that all vaccines, by virtue of being vaccines, provide herd immunity. The reality, however, is quite different: Of the 14 vaccines on the US childhood routine schedule, only 5 [Hib; Varicella/Chickenpox; Rubella; Mumps; Measles] clear the herd immunity bar by targeting diseases for which herd immunity is relevant for children and being capable of actually delivering it.’
Chapter 10 – ‘The Polio Mysteries’
This chapter of 130 pages comprises one quarter of the book. It goes into a lot of detail about the emergence of Polio in the late 19th century and the investigations into why it had emerged and how it was being spread.
Many of the features of Polio did not match the patterns of other infectious diseases. For example, Polio was not associated with unsanitary conditions; outbreaks tended to emerge in rural areas rather than congested urban areas; the outbreaks always occurred between July to September (Northern hemisphere; Jan to Mar in S hemisphere), nor were the infection and transmission pathways clear.
Nevertheless, a scientific consensus emerged that the paralysis was caused by a virus named ‘Polio’ that was contagious. The ‘contagious’ argument endures ‘despite a conspicuous lack of solid evidence accumulated in the past 100 years to back it up’ (p. 493). However, ‘the scientific theory on which it is based is full of holes, speculations, contradictions, and mysteries which have not been solved to this day.’ (P. 505).
Polio emerged in developed nations in the late 19th century but only took hold in developing nations post-WW2 just as the mortality rates in developed nations were dropping.
‘Turtles’ proposes a theory that attempts to fit better with the evidence. The theory is that the paralysis associated with Polio was the result of toxins, specifically toxins that were heavily adopted in the farming industry, specifically insecticides that first emerged in the later part of the 19th century.
There are significant questions relating to the efficacy of the Polio vaccines.
P.506: ‘While the World Health Organization’s intensive vaccination campaigns in the Third World have supposedly eliminated polio morbidity, the rate of polio-like paralysis has soared to more than three times the paralysis rate reported at the start of the campaign.’
Atticus: Are the WHO now naming paralysis-causing diseases something other than ‘Polio’ in order to show impressive Polio reduction numbers as a result of their Polio vaccination campaign?
I hope you have found this summary useful. You all deserve to have access to this information so that you can make informed decisions about vaccinations for yourselves and your children.
Postscript: I came across this photo which really brings home how many injections an average Anerican kid is expected to have:
This image was not featured in the book. I have included it to provoke thought.
There is no coming back from this journey we’re on.
Even if we were to avoid all the totalitarian traps that have been set for us – the digital ids; the CBDCs; the social credit system; the vaxx mandates; the 15 minutes cities; the censorship that will protect us from ‘disinformation’; the Net Zero; the Stakeholder Capitalism; the ESG and the One World Government – even if we could somehow defeat all of those initiatives, what next? Do we just go back to the way things were? Of course not! There’s no going back. The same oligarchs that are trying hard to enslave us will still be around. They will keep on trying. It’s like that old line the IRA used when their Brighton bomb failed to kill Thatcher: ‘You need to be lucky every time. We only need to be lucky once’.
We can’t live on a perpetual war footing and we can’t ever go back to how things were.
Either us or them must be defeated.
Our enemy – the Globalists – have revealed themselves. They are many and they hold all the power. The fight to protect our freedoms is not just against our governments, it is against all of the organisations that set policy for our governments: the WEF, the UN; the WHO; the Foundations etc. The only way to prevent our descent into a social credit system is to ensure that there is a government that is free from the influence of these Globalist organisations. Good luck with that one.
Any uprising against the government will attract the attention of NATO. NATO is a ‘defensive’ organisation whose raison d’etre is to aid any member that is under attack. Therefore, NATO would relish the opportunity to ‘defend’ any member government that was under attack from its own citizens.
However, let’s assume that the people have managed to implement a government that is free of Globalist influence, how do you ensure that government remains free of Globalist influence? Those Globalists will promise the world. They can give you anything you want: sex money, power, jobs, privileges… How do you ensure that the government ignores those enticing whispers? Good luck with that one.
You would also need a government that promises to uphold the constitution which means you would need a judiciary that upholds the constitution. So now you also have to replace the judiciary. The odds are becoming a bit long on this one. What other alternatives are there?
Maybe, you decide to seceed from government control? You will set up your own autonomous area full of people who share a vision of self-sovereignty. Catalonia tried that and didn’t get very far so good luck with that one.
No government is going to let you do that, unless the numbers of people involved are too huge to ignore. If you have the required numbers, then how can the situation progress to anything except for civil war? That is the point at which NATO mobilises again.
Assuming you win the civil war, and autonomous states are created, you have to ensure those states don’t turn into dictatorships. Freedom is not going to be the highest priority of a fledgling state under threat from Globalist forces.
But, let’s say that you have succeeded in one of the endeavours described above, what happens next?
We live in societies fractured by divisions: Brexit; Trump; lockdowns; vaccines; Russia; gender; race; refugees; climate change; religion…there is nothing we agree on anymore. How do we rid ourselves of the forces that are determined to divide us? I would say that task goes beyond a change of government. It goes to the increasing numbers of minority interests all agitating for their own agendas. It goes to the media and the universities that spew divisive propaganda and attack those that don’t adopt the accepted opinions.
The UK is no longer a homogenous country. Our differences are pulling us apart. This makes the job of returning to a unified society, free of pernicious influences, all the more difficult.
Nothing good can emerge from the cultural cul-de-sac we are heading down.
People say to me that they are hoping for a Christian renaissance that will lead us out of this darkness. Such people feel that the adversities we face provide the right conditions for people to seek solace in God. I can’t see that happening. Christianity has had it’s time. I think the mess we are in is evidence that Christianity is no longer the unifying force it once was. Christian leaders do not have the conviction to lead a moral renaissance. There’s a new religion in town: Wokeness. Wokeness is winning. The only thing that can lead to a spiritual renewal is a total societal collapse.
My view is that either the Globalists win and I see out my days in a George Orwell storyline or, somehow, a mass uprising occurs that overturns the Dark Forces that are aligned against us. However, for that uprising to emerge victorious, our already fractured societies would undoubtedly be smashed to pieces. The forces conspiring against the people are so widespread, so ingrained and so much in charge of running the country that there isn’t a national institution that could survive intact.
The centralised structures that run the country would have to be dismantled for they are the tools of our oppressors. A comprehensive victory of the people against The Establishment would entail a root and branch evisceration of every function of government control.
The media could not be allowed to remain in its current form. Nor the police. Law and order would have to be the first victims of any uprising against those eugenecists who seem to be so commonplace among the elite class.
The normal functioning of supply systems would collapse. I would like to think that agriculture and industry (including energy production) could continue to operate but that may not be possible if supply chains lie in ruins.
Medical systems would collapse. Universities would be metaphorically torn down as they have become a symbol of everything that has gone wrong.
Chaos would reign. How could it be any other way? Every part of the national control structure is infested with the cancer of Globalism. There would be no way to defeat Globalism and still have a functioning society at the end of it. It’s like that old joke that to save something, you had to destroy it. In this case, to save England, England would have to be destroyed.
Once society has been destroyed, could it be rebuilt? People would have to go back to basics. People would have to form decentralised communities of like-minded individuals who would look out for each other. We would have to work out how to feed ourselves and how to obtain energy from whatever remains of the national infrastructure. It seems that our comfortable lifestyles would be over but that would not be much different from what the Globalists have in store for us in their Net Zero dystopia: they envisage us living in cold homes (no gas) without cars (no petrol), scraping together carbon credits so we can buy an occasional lump of meat to eat as a change from our insect based diet. Either way, we have to accept that the comforts we have enjoyed for the last 2 or 3 generations are coming to an end. Personally, I would prefer to be a cold and hungry free man than a slightly less cold and hungry slave.
Only in the embers of a total societal collapse will we find the spirituality that would lead to a new religion. A religion based on caring for your fellow man. A religion where we are thankful for what we have, not bitter about what we don’t have. A religion that reveals the shared moral framework that we will need to succeed. There would not not be any place for religion of Wokeness that is seeding division all around us, founded as it is on bitterness and resentment.
We would have so much to learn and not much time in which to learn it. We would suffer hardships beyond anything in our experience. This is the cycle of history: civilisations collapse under the weight of their own debauchery. Only collapse can lead to renewal and a genuine respect for our fellow man. We would make a fresh start.
The strong will survive and, eventually, thrive. By ‘strong’ I am referring to mental strength, not just physical strength. Anyone who is incapable of suppressing their individual needs in favour of the needs of the group would be cast out. Everyone would need to pull together.
In one version of our future, we are free, living hard lives, possibly at only a subsistence level. In the Globalist version, we live lives of total servitude where we must do whatever we are told to do or be subject to the removal of the limited freedoms still available to us. I would choose the former. However, I still think the Globalists are going to win. I don’t think the people have the necessary fight in them. By the time a critical mass of people realise what is going on, it will be too late. Once the technological trap has been sprung, the fight to free ourselves will be all the more difficult and so will take much longer.
I’m a black pill but I’m not giving up. I will fight all tyranny. I just expect to lose due to lack of numbers.
I told you I was a Black Pill! There are no good outcomes when you are a black pill.
If you want a white pill perspective, I offer this optimistic take from Zed Zelenko who said “We’re going to win. The only variable is the bodycount” (‘Never Again Is Going Global’ documentary, part 5). So, even the optimistic perspective is not going to be a walk in the park.
Our best hope is that the Globalists have misjudged the transition to low energy digital serfdom and things become too hot to handle. Things are going to become increasingly volatile. There are lots of moving parts. Not all outcomes can be perfectly controlled. If events don’t play out in the correct order, the outcomes could be unpredictable. For example, if the financial system collapses before digital ids are in place, it will become all the more difficult to implement CBDC’s. If people experience shortages of food or energy civil unrest will break out. If people realise the true impact of Net Zero too soon, it will become much harder to shuffle them along the pipeline to digital ids and all the other apparatus of the Globalist framework. The Globalists have a very complicated job of trying to corral billions of people into their trap. There’s lots of scope for mistakes to be made. That’s what we have to hope for. Of course, the Globalists will simply re-group and try again so the war won’t be over.
To conclude, do you remember when the Globalists told us, repeatedly, in the first weeks of covid that ‘there is a new normal, there is no going back to the old normal’? At the time, we thought ‘what are they talking about? Of course we’ll go back to normal’. But, the Globalists were right, there is no going back. We have no choice but to continue moving forward until this situation is resolved one way or the other. Let’s see how this plays out.
I was on an anti-lockdown march in London in March 2021. I was on my own and I got talking to a group who had travelled from Gloucestershire. They were much further advanced in their understanding of what was going on than I was at the time. I asked one woman in the group for her view on why the Globalists were doing what they were doing. She answered that she thought it was to do with satanism. This was not the answer I was expecting. This was the first time I had heard satanism paired with the Globalists. I scoffed. It was so preposterous.
However, since then, I have seen many references to satanism with regard to the Globalists. Even Putin is doing it.
There is a school of thought that Globalists are all satanists involved in child sacrifice and all manner of degeneracy, including paedophilia.
I don’t doubt that the top 0.1% are involved in all manner of⁴ degeneracy, including paedophilia but I have a hard time believing in the satanism angle. I just don’t believe the Globalists have enough emotional depth to believe in anything, let alone satan.
Satanism is a religion. It requires a belief in a Supreme Being – satan. I don’t see the Globalists as being religious types. I see them as Secularists: the only things they believe in are power and money.
What is the point in believing in satan? What benefit does satanism bring?
The Globalists are trying to destroy Christianity, without a doubt. However, I don’t believe they are doing that because they are satanists. After all, satan only exists because of Christianity. Satan is the yin to God’s yang. If you have no God, there can be no satan. In the same way there can be no Joker if there is no Batman.
My view is that Globalists are anti-religion. They believe their greatest strength is their rationality. Being anti-God doesn’t mean they are pro-Satan.
Any satanic imagery is simply designed to annoy the Christians. It also serves the purpose of appealing to those who want to distance themselves from Christianity. These people still have religious notions that need feeding but they have turned away from Christianity. Satanism serves a purpose in showing how edgy they are. Globalists love symbolism. To a Globalist, satanic imagery is the equivalent of a student promoting Che Guavara posters. Students want to show everyone how cool they are and so do Globalists.
We need to appreciate how bored Globalists are. They can do and have anything they want. When that is the case, where does your excitement come from? They can do and buy anything that would be a fantasy to normal people like us. Globalists don’t get that thrill from saving up and treating themselves like we do. So what do they do? They play at being satanists, but they are not satanists. They are nerds with too much money and nobody who is prepared to say “no” to them.
I had a conversation about tattoos with a mate recently. I said I would never have one because I’m not a big fan of them. I cited 3 problems I have with tattoos.
If you are a tatt lover, I ask you not to be offended. These are just my opinions on tatts. There’s every possibility that I’m mistaken 😉
1) Most of them are shit
Most tattoos just look plain horrible. Either it was a bad design or the artist wasn’t very good. The main mistake is that they are too busy. Most of the time so much is going on that you cannot tell what they are depicting. Tattoos just look a bunch of smudges, indistinguishable from dirt.
Very few tattoos look good. The ones that look half-way decent belong to the ‘less is more’ ethos: less colours; less content; less complication. Here is an example of a good tattoo:
This ‘Maori’ themed tattoo become very popular after George Clooney’s character sported one in ‘From Dusk Til Dawn’. For the next 10 years every unimaginative pillock in the world had a Maori tattoo. Repeat after me: ‘Yes, we are all individuals!’
Of course, most tattoos only reveal their full impact on those 10 days per year when you are at the beach. The rest of the time you are wearing clothes, so, what’s the point? You see people with bits of tattoos emerging from under clothing which looks crap, imo.
Women, in particular, look terrible covered in ink. Women have the opportunity to wear such a versatile range of clothing: backless dresses; plunging necklines; short or long skirts; short sleeves or sleeveless. Those clothes will all look terrible if there are various tatts poking out from the clothing. The clothes clash with the tatts. The effect is a mess. A very nice dress, such as a ballgown or wedding dress, is ruined by a load of shitty 3rd rate art poking out from underneath.
The most original tattoo design I have seen was on a shop assistant in Rome who had a series of leaves, depicted in different perspectives, down his arm, as though falling. The leaves were all the same type of leaf. It was very effective. The design was simple and uncluttered. It was easy to see that leaves were depicted and the effect of the leaves falling meant that they were suitably spaced out to utilise the whole of the arm without being overwhelming. So that’s one good, original, well-designed tattoo out of thousands.
For the most part, very little thought or design goes into most tattoos. Either the original design was simply bad, or people continue to add to their tattoos until the result is a jumbled mess. A jumbled mess is bad but so are those tattoos that are spaced like islands over someone: one on your shoulder, one on your lower back, one on your calf: no theme, no concept, just isolated random images that appealed to a person at a point in time.
Then there’s the fact that there seem to be a lot of quite average artists out there, which means that a poor design is then poorly executed.
And anyone who has tattoos on their neck, face or hands is a moron.
2) Narcissism
For many people, tattoos seem to be a cry for attention. The holder of the tattoo is saying ‘Look at me!’. Look how cool I am. Or look how edgy I am; or how unique; or how rebellious; or what a good person I am.
Narcissism is the plague of our era. People crave indulgence. I’m not going to contribute to that over-abundance of emotional incontinence. As Peter Griffen once said about ‘The Godfather’ film in an episode of ‘Family Guy’: “It insists upon itself”. Well, I think tatt wearers are doing the same thing: they are insisting upon themselves.
People are using their bodies as billboards to advertise their personalities. People want you to know what is important to them. They carry tattoos of the names of family members, often with dates as a way of telling us how much they love those people. You don’t need to tell us the name and date of birth of your kids. We don’t care. People love their families, I get it. Why do they feel the need to advertise the fact? Are they trying to tell the rest of us that their capability for love is so profound that they are willing to have a permanent indicator added to their bodies? Do I not love my family enough because I am not willing to ink myself? It’s performative virtue signalling.
Or people are advertising their politics. We are surrounded by identity politics at every turn. Tattoos appear to be another facet of that same culture. It’s another opportunity to declare your identity. Therefore, tattoos are increasingly used to signal the in-groups to which you belong like your gang or your gender or sexuality. Sometimes even your politics.
I get the impression that people want to be asked about their tatts which will give them the opportunity to talk about themselves for 10 minutes. No thanks.
Poetry tatts deserve particular scorn. They always make me scoff. No one can read that shit. As far as I can tell, the reason women – it’s always women – have poetry tatts is because the words inspired them at a point in their lives when they were feeling particularly worthless. Nobody gives a shit, love. I like books but I’m not going to wear a billboard listing my favourite books because I am not a pretentious twat.
I get the impression that people are getting tatts to appear more interesting than they are. IMHO, it’s got to the point where it’s more interesting not to have a tatt. Go the other way. Don’t follow the crowd.
3) Regret
You change your clothes every day. You have different looks for different moods or events. Fashions change. You look back on photos from 10 or 20 years ago and wonder what you were thinking. Yet a tattoo lasts forever. You are stuck with it. A tattoo you thought was a great idea when you were 20 will not reflect who you are when you’re 50.
Don’t carry that baggage around with you. Travel light. Snakes shed their skin every so often. Rebirth. A fresh start. There’s no chance of reinventing yourself when you have no opportunity to shed your 20 year old self. Why would you want permanent reminders of your 20 year old self wherever you go?
But that’s just me. I’m probably over-thinking it.
Atticus Fox 