It’s All Connected

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 Substack post, 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.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/hate-industry

‘Turtles All The Way Down’ – A Book Review

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.

A Black Pill Predicts

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.

A Look At Satanism

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.

Reflections on Tattoos

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.

Eloi and Morlocks

In this piece, I’m going to draw parallels between H. G. Wells’ ‘The Time Machine’ and our current society.

‘The Time Machine’ featured the Eloi and the Morlocks as 2 fictional species of humans existing on Earth in the distant future. The premise of the book is that humanity has evolved into these 2 very different species. The Eloi group live a charmed life of plenty above ground. The Morlocks live underground, tending machinery and providing food, clothing, and inventory for the Eloi. As such, the Eloi do not perform much work. Their only activities are to feed, play, and mate

With all their needs and desires perfectly fulfilled, the Eloi have slowly become dissolute and naive. They are a peaceful, childlike group possessing no inherent sense of danger. The Eloi are unable to protect themselves. The Morlocks are bigger, stronger and more aggressive than the Eloi. Periodically, the Morlocks capture individual Eloi for food.

In short, the Eloi are a high trust group, and the Morlocks are a low trust group.

I sometimes feel that what is happening to Europe has parallels with The Time Machine. A high trust group of people is being asked to co-exist with a low trust group of people. This is causing the high trust group – us, the Europeans – to start being more distrustful as we react to the changing environment in which we now live.

The groups being imported into Europe, in ever increasing numbers, come from low trust societies. The low trust levels are linked to the cultures of the countries from which they arrive, countries with high corruption levels; high crime rates and the high levels of sexual violence, mainly against women. As a result of these cultural traits, levels of social trust is low in these countries. . People in low trust societies do not care about their neighbours or communities. They are much more likely to put themselves first. Litter and vandalism run rampant in such communities. Voluntary work is unheard of (unless performed by ‘white saviours’). People believe that Governments and those associated with government institutions are simply feathering their own nests. Bribery is rife. Such people grow up expecting to be ripped off by their fellow countrymen. They tend to think in terms of gaining an advantage over their fellow man. They witness high levels of crime and corruption and feel they would be naive not to join in since everyone else us on the take. It’s a dog-eat-dog life.

Knowing that an un-chaperoned woman is fair game, the men in such societies keep a much tighter rein on their sisters and wives. The women, particularly sought-after women in their prime, must be protected. As such, women’s opportunities for going out on their own becomes greatly limited in low trust societies.

In contrast, many European countries have developed into high trust societies. The Scandinavian countries used to be particularly famous for their high trust levels. This is partly why these countries were perceived as being highly civilised. People looked after their neighbours and communities. Community groups existed and people looked out for each other. Crime levels were low. Women enjoyed high levels of autonomy. Corruption was perceived as something rare. People felt that governments were looking after the best interests of the people. Europeans were surrounded by positive role models in the form of philanthropists and Christians. We didn’t grow up feeling that everyone was trying to rip us off.

However, 30 years ago, European politicians started importing high numbers of people from low-trust countries into Europe. The effect of this has been escalating levels of crime, violence and sexual assault of women in Europe over this timeframe.

Despite the attempts of the European governments and media to hide these unpalatable truths, the facts are becoming impossible to avoid. Individual rapes are easy to cover up but large scale sexual assaults are harder to hide. In the UK, Asian grooming gangs have operated with impunity across the length and breadth of the country, with the authorities feeling it would be impolite to draw attention to it. In Germany over 1,200 women were sexually assaulted in a single night.

Gradually, Europeans are waking up to the fact that their countries have changed. Europeans now need to take more precautions to protect themselves from people who do not share the same cultural background. Europeans can see that their countries are changing and not for the better. Europeans are slowly changing from high trust to low trust.

It is in this context that protests against the ever increasing numbers of illegal migrant males coming from the global south have erupted in Liverpool. The spark for this overflow of anger was a circulated video that showed an adult Asian migrant propositioning a 15 year old school girl. Liverpool is just one place where people have had enough of the sexual threat that women and girls now face.

And how did the liberal left respond to anger from British people about the dangers that we now face? These tweets from Owen Jones reveal the Left:

Owen is desperately trying to pretend we still live in a high-trust society.

Jones acknowledges that male violence against women is increasing. However, he refuses to accept there is a race aspect to such attacks. In fact, he implies this increase is coming from white men. Jones’s position is that certain ‘right wing’ groups are using the increasing vulnerability of women as an excuse to attack migrants. The wilfull blindness here is off the scale. Jones’ left wing ideology is that all people, wherever they come from, are just like us and anyone who says otherwise is simply causing trouble.

Jones continues to ignore the realities crashing all around him. However, most Europeans have woken up to the increased risks they face. I am sure that, today, most European women are taking more robust precautions to protect themselves when they go out than they would have done 10 years ago. European men also appreciate that their wives and sisters are more at risk than they were.

Europeans were turning into Eloi. We were too trusting to exist as we were amongst people who were easily able to take advantage of us. Thanks to heavy doses of shock therapy, we are fast turning into Morlocks. We won’t be as happy, or as caring, as we used to be, but we have no choice if we want to survive in a globalised world.

Social Scientists Who Know Nothing About Social Science

For all their humanities and social science degrees, I am always amazed that Leftists seem to have no understanding of human behaviour. They never seek to understand human behaviour, only to change it.

Everyday life shows us that you cannot change fundamental aspects of the people such as their political views.

It fits in with the whole nature vs nurture debate in which Leftists always side with nurture. To an over-educated Leftist, people’s ‘faults’ – I.e. non- Leftist opinions – are only ever the result of how they were raised. A Leftist will then think that such people need a good deal more nurturing to finish the job that their parents left incomplete. And Leftists are always happy to take on the job of re-education.

Sure, in the short term, people can be won over by an intensive propaganda campaign but sooner or later they return to their senses once they realise the inconsistency between what they are being told and what they witness around them.

Despite all the evidence that people cannot have their fundamental characteristics changed by blue-haired lunatics shouting in their face, Leftists continue to refuse to consider that ‘nature’ might have some role to play.

Instead, the average Leftist – and let’s face it, they are all very average – will decide that the nurturing needs to start much younger. As a result, huge numbers of them became teachers and so are exchanged in one of the biggest social experiments of all time to see if they can nurture an inferior race of socialist transgender people to bring about the Utopia they long for: a world in which they don’t have spend all day shouting in people’s faces about their transgressions of DIE ideology.

Of course, Leftists will never reach this Utopia because their whole understanding of human behaviour is flawed. However, Leftists will never accept this and never realise the inconsistencies between what they have been taught and what they witness around them.

In the meantime, Leftists will continue to confuse little children about what gender they are and how the world works.

The ‘Greater Good’ Is The Psychopath’s Fever-Dream

There is more and more talk being filtered down from the higher echelons of the Power Structures about projects initiated for ‘the Greater Good’. They are referring to ‘utilitarianism’. Rosa Koire refers to it as ‘Communitarianism’. Utilitarianism is defined as follows:

‘Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. It is the only moral framework that can be used to justify military force or war. It is also the most common approach to moral reasoning used in business because of the way in which it accounts for costs and benefits.’

Bill is very selfless: everything he does is for our benefit.

In the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one’s own good. However, utilitarianism does not account for things like feelings and emotions, culture, or justice. And the ‘moral framework’ is open to subjective interpretation.

This piece will explain that while utilitarianism started as a rational way to assess difficult choices, the concept has become twisted over time. Arguments for the Greater Good are rarely rational and rarely transparent. They are often very selective as to what costs and benefits are being assessed. Very often the costs are much, much bigger than we were ever warned about and the benefits are nowhere near worth the pain and suffering experienced.

Here’s an example of the morality paradox of utilitarianism: if 5 people can be saved from death by killing one healthy person and using that person’s organs for life-saving transplants, then that is worth doing. A utilitarian would make that choice because utilitarianism is removed from morality. Individuals are expendable. Utilitarianism serves the wider group or the strategic objective.

Politicians don’t use the term ‘utilitarianism’. It sounds too cold so they use warm, fuzzy terms like ‘the Greater Good’ or they say ‘this will deliver benefits for our communities’. This is because we are accustomed to think positively when we are told that something is good for us. When we are told to “eat your sprouts, they’re good for you” we make the link that something that is good for us isn’t always easy or nice but we learn that it is the right thing to do.

The Greater Good sounds warm and fuzzy. It appeals to our sense of altruism, that a bit of pain now will deliver benefits down the line. However, many atrocities have been committed in pursuit of The Greater Good.

Look what Hitler did in pursuit of the Greater Good for Germany. Or look what Stalin and Mao did for The Greater Good of Communism. Or what Torquemada did for the Greater Good of the Catholic Church. The Greater Good usually weighs up a concept or an ideology on one side against people on the other side. At some point, a moment is reached where for the ideology to triumph lots of people have to die. Individuals don’t count in utilitarian thought. Higher concepts are at work. For utilitarianists the benefit is usually an ideology but they will always say the benefit will accrue to the people. This is how they sell their vision.

Leaders (sometimes) come to power on their vision for The Greater Good. The people buy into their vision. The people are glad a visionary has come along who not only has identified the problem but is also single-minded in their determination to solve it. The Leader is given a mandate to make their vision a reality.

However, once in power, decisions relating to the reality of The Greater Good are not so democratic in nature. At most, a small group of people will decide what actions are required for The Greater Good. What is likely to be a threat to their vision for The Greater Good? People. Yet people aren’t as important as the Greater Good, therefore, a minority of people will have to be removed so that the benefit can be delivered.

History tells us that people are usually sent to prison, the gulag, the battlefield or the executioner in order to deliver the Greater Good. This is a small price to pay if it benefits the majority or achieves the strategic objective.

This is how it goes. By its very definition, some individuals are going to pay the price of something that delivers a net benefit to a group. Whether it’s a new motorway at the end of your garden or dying on a battlefield to protect the 3rd Reich, individuals are never going to be as important as the ‘Big Concept’ for which the benefits will greatly outweigh the costs.

Of course, the problem is always that the definition of ‘costs’ and ‘benefits’ isn’t very democratic either. The power structures decide what are the benefits and what are the costs. When one person decides that the benefits of the concept are infinite then the costs only have to be one less than infinite for the concept to be for The Greater Good.

We saw arguments for The Greater Good surface during the whole covid kerfuffle:

Covid was the problem that required a response. The objective (benefit) was to minimise deaths and protect the NHS. Lockdowns were implemented as the cost of realising those benefits. However, these costs were massively under-represented. The cost of lockdowns were presented as merely inconvenience whereas the true costs were extensive and long-lasting: job losses; increased depression and suicide; collapse of small businesses; elevated anxiety levels; social division and atomisation; lost education; loss of language development for small children; routine medical scans and tests suspended. All of these ‘costs’ were ignored in favour of a single focus on reducing the numbers of people killed by covid. Not to mention the implications this policy had for our individual rights and the constitutions of our nations. A rubicon was crossed and a precedent was set. Nothing will ever be the same again. We all now live in the shadow of future lockdowns which are never far from the headlines whenever another illness appears somewhere in the world. The costs of the covid response were truly enormous.

In contrast, the benefits of lockdowns were negligible: most studies show that lockdowns don’t prevent viral deaths and this was well understood by the relevant authorities before covid emerged. Yes, the NHS was protected but only at the cost of removing health protection from the populace.

So we can see that calculations for the greater good can be very subjective in nature. Costs are ignored and benefits are exaggerated.

There have also been many appeals to The Greater Good during the vaccine roll-out where the argument has been made that you should have the vaccine for the benefit of your friends, family and community. Again, the benefit of rushing the vaxx into production was to be reduced deaths. The government felt the costs were so small as to be insignificant. The real costs of this process came in the form of the following: the side-effects of the vaccines experienced by healthy people who are at no risk from covid; brushing aside the Nuremberg Code in favour of vaxx mandates for an unlicensed experimental medical treatment; the consequences of centralised medicine; the destruction of years of individual rights and civil liberties; growing distrust of our authorities when it became clear the vaccines were not effective and the consequent re-appraisal of the effectiveness other medical treatments. Again, the costs were huge. And the benefits? Well, the fact that deaths are much higher in all highly vaccinated countries since the vaccines were issued tells us that the benefits are a mirage that only ideologues and grifters insist are real. The much-promised benefits actually turned into additional costs.

It turns out these were only suggestions

Here, I have expressed lockdowns and vaccines as 2 separate issues, each with their own costs and benefits. In reality, the lockdowns and the vaccines are linked: they were both costs of an ideology for which the benefit – or objective – is digital ID’s / a bio-security state / global governance / Agenda 21. Lockdowns and the vaccines were merely stepping stones to this end goal. The real benefits (objectives) were not what we were told they were.

This kind of manipulation of the costs and benefits of a situation is why the Greater Good is also known as the politician’s dodge, the murderer’s solace and the culprits excuse. I would also call it the psychopath’s fever-dream.

You could also say that the philosophy of utilitarianism is that the end justifies the means.

Utilitarianism reduces the importance of the individual. We become just numbers. Groups, not people. We are nothing but pawns who can be sacrificed if necessary.

The King decides how much collateral damage is acceptable to increase his power

We observe, ever more frequently, that individual rights are being overridden in favour of group considerations. We are being trained by government propaganda to think in terms of the group: think of the old / the young / the vulnerable / the minorities / the oppressed / the community. Think of others, don’t think of yourself. Don’t be selfish.

If we can be convinced to ignore our own rights in favour of some benefit to an amorphous group that we don’t really understand or relate to, we can be much more easily influenced.

And so we come to today where the Big Concept is ‘Saving The Planet’. Saving The Earth is the biggest Big Concept there has ever been.

For the owners of the Planet Earth concept, the benefits are huge, which means the costs can also be huge. The cost of saving the planet involves Net Zero; carbon credits; hugely reduced car ownership; huge changes to our food consumption due to restrictions on meat supply; colder homes due to restrictions on access to efficient energy sources; a social credit system to penalise those who don’t adhere to carbon usage limits and much more.

Huge levels of sacrifice will be tolerated. We will be told it is for The Greater Good.

And then we realise that those costs listed above will only apply to the plebs. The lifestyles of the rich and famous will be unaffected: they will buy whatever carbon credits they need that allows them to fly around in private jets eating fillet steak. Those costs I listed are actually benefits for the Power Structures. Those are the objectives of the climate change narrative, it’s nothing to do with saving the planet. It’s about saving resources for the exclusive use of the power structures. To the elites the benefits of the climate change scam are a subjugated populace.

The globalists have performed a clever sleight of hand: they want to bring in all those restrictions to our lifestyles in order to increase their control over us (whilst also ensuring more resources are available for them) so they have backwards engineered the problem to find a scenario – climate change – where they have no choice but to bring in those restrictions. In such a way, they can present those restrictions as being for our own good. They can persuade us that they are trying to protect us. That’s not the case at all. They are putting in place the framework of control to protect themselves from an increasingly numerous, malcontent and volatile citizenry.

You’ve got to hand it to those globalists: they may be psychopaths, but they are clever psychopaths.

A utilitarian would say that the Earth’s population needs to be reduced if we are to save Earth. They wouldn’t do that though, would they? Plenty of people are saying that they would.

Leftists Stick To The Herd

I was thinking recently about how effective the Left is at moving the Overton window to frame their latest belief system. How do they manage this? Then it hit me: the Left always move as a herd which gives them the power of a block vote.

By this I mean that virtually all Leftists fully embrace all aspects of Leftist ideology. And, when Leftist ideology changes, Leftists move quickly to adapt to the changes. We have seen many examples of this recently. For example, the gender identity issue came out of nowhere in the last 5 years yet all Leftists quickly adopted the same position. Another example concerns the working class. The main raison d’etre of the Left used to be to fight for the interests of the working class. These days, Leftists pay no mind to the working class as new interests have caught their attention.

There are 2 reasons why Leftists are like this:

1) Leftists like the safety and protection that the herd provides. They don’t want to be an outlier, they feel most comfortable when they share the exact same views on all of the major issues of left-wing ideology as other Leftists. Why don’t Leftists want to have different views? That takes us to reason #2…

2) Leftists will vilify and ostracise any Leftist that does not hold the acceptable views on points of Leftist ideology. We have all seen the vicious way that Leftists will turn on each other. For example, J K Rowling was a high-profile Leftist during the Brexit years but then she didn’t adopt the Left’s mantra that a transwoman is a woman so the Left turned on her. The Left will turn on their own with a viciousness that belies the ‘tolerance’ with which they like to associate themselves. Leftists will be far nastier to other Leftists who aren’t totally on board with the latest thinking on Leftist ideology than they will be to Rightists. As such, there is a huge pressure on Leftists to conform.

This conformity explains why Leftism is such a strong force. They are much more united than the Right. Rightists act as individuals, they do not move as a pack. Rightists will make their own minds up on how they feel about each social issue of the day. Rightists are not influenced by the latest Right-wing ideology. In fact, Rightist ideology does not change. Rightists follow a philosophy of ‘live and let live’ whereby the Rightist is happy to let other people live their lives as they see fit as long as that behaviour isn’t detrimental to others. Such diversity of thought is an anathema to the Left who much prefer everyone to think and behave in lockstep with each other.

The Left moves as a herd and that gives them a lot of influence.

Quotes That Prove There Is Nothing New Under The Sun

During this time of fear, mistrust, uncertainty and authoritarianism I am finding historical quotes to be both revealing and comforting. Reading the words of bygone figures reminds us that there is nothing new under the sun: any tension we are experiencing now has been experienced before. We can take comfort in that.

Human history move in cycles, from freedom to tyranny and back again. From economic boom to economic bust. From religion to sacrelige. Currently, we are transitioning to tyranny, economic bust and sacrelige. It’s a triple header.

Here are the quotes that I have found most helpful in coming to terms with what is happening. I have included some context as to what each quote means to me and why.

Let’s start with Kafka:

‘I am essentially a man of principle. That is unpleasant and depressing not only to those who come in contact with me, but also to myself as well. Yet it is my principles that have made me what I am, and no one can ask me to deny my fundamental self.‘ – Franz Kafka from ‘Amerika’

Kafka’s quote – or writing, in this case – about principles sums up my personal development. In recent years I have adopted principles in place of the moral flexibility I adopted in my younger years. I like the inference of being a martyr to your principles in this quote. My wife sometimes references the effect my unbending principles have on other people, to which I reference Kafka by pointing out that my principles are hard on me also! Then I’ll say something like ‘I don’t have principles because they are easy but because they are hard’, thereby emphasising the martyr aspect as well as paraphrasing Kennedy. Then we both laugh hysterically. As such, this quote always makes me smile.

‘People’s opinions are mainly designed to make them feel comfortable; truth, for most people is a secondary consideration.‘

― Bertrand Russell, The Art of Philosophizing and other Essays (1942)

I wouldn’t have dwelled on Russell’s words 5 years ago but today the truth revealed by his words is undeniable. Today we would call the phenomenon Russell is referring to ‘virtue-signaling’, i.e., adopting a position because of how it makes you look and feel rather than because you believe it is the truth. People do not seek the truth. They will adopt a perspective that suits their lifestyle and reflects the mores of their social group. People may believe such opinions are the truth but they will not seek to confirm that fact. The truth is often awkward and unpleasant. As such, subjective truth is preferable to objective truth.

‘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

Maybe we haven’t forgotten obvious things, maybe we are simply insisting they are no longer true?

In parallel with the breaking down of Christianity, we witness the rise of ‘Woke’ which, as I’ve written before, is a new religion that doesn’t require a God. Would we have freaked out quite so much over covid if we still possessed the strength of religious conviction? Would the authorities have tried to impose a bio-security state if we were still a religious country? Probably, as those people are psychopaths, but I contend they would have not have found it so easy.

Here are 5 Voltaire quotes. During lockdown I started posting Voltaire on a particular WhatsApp group shared by friends to discuss the lockdowns. I found Voltaire’s anti-establishment perspective was very relevant to the situation we were dealing with in 2020:

‘It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.’

‘Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.‘

‘It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.‘

‘The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease.‘

‘Doctors put drugs of which they know little into bodies of which they know less for diseases of which they know nothing at all.‘

Reading Voltaire, it is hard to believe that he died almost 250 years ago. We tend to think that Doctors were revered back then yet it seems not.

Now, a couple of Benjamin Franklin quotes. The first one about liberty and safety was very pivotal for me during lockdown. The quote made me realise that there are 2 distinct mindsets that are intrinsic to the population: some people value liberty over safety whilst some value safety over liberty. I belong to the former group. The realisation helped me understand why I was unable to convince anyone of the latter group that lockdowns were wrong: because they valued their safety much more than their liberty.

‘They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.‘

‘Diligence is the mother of good luck.’

The 2nd quote is the earliest version of ‘The more I practise, the luckier I get’ line that was said, I believe, by a golfer. It’s a line I use, often as a joke, on those occasions when I’ve been incredibly lucky.

Here’s another quote that became very relevant during the lockdown / vaccine madness:

‘The masses go mad as a herd, but only regain their senses slowly, and one by one.’ – Charles Mackay

Writing this in December 2022, I see that it is gradually being accepted in the mainstream consensus that neither lockdowns nor masks work and that the mRNA gene therapy ‘vaccines’ might not be as safe and effective as we were told they were. In March 2020, only herd-like behaviour was acceptable. Now, gradually, diversity of thought is becoming acceptable again. This shows that whilst humans are capable of reason, we are also easily frightened and, when frightened, we seek the safety of the herd.

And why did the masses go mad over covid? Because, it was the latest hobgoblin, designed to keep them alarmed.

‘The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.’ – H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)

This set of quotes would not be complete without something from Aldous Huxley:

‘The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. That he is not free is apparent only to other people.’ – Aldous Huxley

During lockdowns there was an unbelievable amount of hostility directed at anyone who questioned whether lockdowns were the best policy. Even though there were studies showing that lockdowns and masks didn’t work, people were angry if you told them that and that’s why Plato’s quote is important:

Most people are not just comfortable in their ignorance, but hostile to anyone who points it out. ― Plato, The Allegory of the Cave

The hostility that certain people – covidiots? – displayed to people that did not adhere to the catechisms of covid – the masks, social distancing, isolation etc – suggests that they were displaying signs of having joined a cult:

Louis Jolyon West, psychiatrist (1924 – 1999)

However, it’s not so easy to persuade people that they were manipulated:

‘It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.’ – sometimes attributed to Mark Twain

Here is another quote that I wouldn’t have understood 10 years ago:

‘A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.‘ – Edward Abbey

Now I understand what a threat governments can be. Now I realise how many people have been murdered by their own governments. Now I have witnessed how ‘liberal democracies’ couldn’t wait to imprison their people when covid emerged. Now I realise that we need to keep a very close eye on our governments.

Here is a quote that sums up the vested interests that are contributing to the breakdown of our societies:

‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.‘ – Upton Sinclair

Much of the truth about covid is only now reaching the 3rd stage

Another great ‘truth’ quote:

Ayn Rand is someone I only discovered recently. These 5 quotes certainly show that she was no-one’s fool:

‘The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.‘
-Ayn Rand

‘If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.‘ -Ayn Rand. I didn’t understand what Rand meant when I first encountered this quote, so I did some research. This article explains it beautifully and includes the following: ‘An omnipresent duty of self-sacrifice also makes people vulnerable to manipulation by those who disguise power over others as “really” a means to attain some noble goal. The desire to sacrifice for the good of others can thereby be transformed into the requirement to sacrifice to the desires of leaders.’ Isn’t that what we witnessed in the behavioural psychology techniques deployed during the covid restrictions: the authorities manipulated our feelings of altruism to make sacrifices that delivered what the leaders wanted. Altruism can be used against you. Look after your self-interests.

‘There are no evil thoughts except one: the refusal to think.’ – Ayn Rand

‘The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.‘ – Ayn Rand

‘Freedom (n.): To ask nothing. To expect nothing. To depend on nothing.’ – Ayn Rand

Solzhenitsyn next:

‘The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie.’ – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

DO NOT TAKE PART IN THE LIE! Taking part gives the lie credibility. Taking part destroys your self-esteem whilst emboldening your enemy. We were told that obeying the covid restrictions would bring a quicker return to normal. No! Obeying restrictions delayed the return to normal. Do not take part in the lie!

‘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.‘

Edward L. Bernays, ‘Propaganda’

The good thing about covid is that many people – myself included – woke up to the realisation that there are shrewd people operating behind the scenes. We’ve all seen how influential Bill Gates is. Now think about all those other rich people that run or fund Foundations and Think Tanks that do not court publicity like Bill does.

Finally, one more quote from Huxley that beautifully reveals a truth. Here’s an example if you need one: the Nuremburg Code was devised in 1947 to stop people being forced to take experimental medication. 74 years later vaccine mandates were introduced into many Western countries to force people to take an experimental medication.

‘That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.‘ – Aldous Huxley

Further relevant quotes I have since discovered:

‘Civilisations begin with religion and stoicism: they end with scepticism and unbelief, and the undisciplined pursuit of individual pleasure. A civilization is born stoic and dies epicurean.’
– Will Durant, author of the 11 volume ‘The Story of Civilisation’

‘The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.’
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870 – 1924)

The Libertarian Alliance

For Life, Liberty and Property

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

Watts Up With That?

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

True Masculine Value

Being a man of value in a world increasingly hostile to authentic masculinity: Redpill, Marriage, Fatherhood, Counter-Feminism.

Adam Piggott

Atticus Fox

PJ O'Rourke meets Bill Hicks

Discover WordPress

A daily selection of the best content published on WordPress, collected for you by humans who love to read.

The Atavist Magazine

PJ O'Rourke meets Bill Hicks

Longreads

Longreads : The best longform stories on the web

WordPress.com News

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started