A Cardiologist Advises on mRNA Adverse Reactions

In Jan 2022, my son, Max, had an adverse reaction to the Pfizer jab. I have written on this subject previously. My investigations into the nature and consequences of Max’s reaction now led me to an appointment with a private cardiologist on April 28th, 2022.

Let’s just remind ourselves that the cardiologist had previously recommended, via a GP and without personal consultation, that Max would be fine to have 2nd jab. This is why I wanted to meet him – to see how he could offer such advice so glibly.

This blog faithfully conveys all important points from the appointment.

However, the appointment lasted 40 minutes which means this blog is quite long. As such, I will summarise the doctor’s advice into 3 points:

1) Max had a reaction to the gene therapy that may, or may not, have been myocarditis.

2) Max should have further doses of gene therapy if advised by the government to do so.

3) Max could have an Astra Zeneca jab instead of a 2nd Pfizer jab.

Now, let’s see how the Dr. justified such woolly thinking…

The initial part of the appointment related to an exchange of info about Max’s symptoms and general health. Max had a constant pain in his chest for 3 weeks from 2 days after the jab. He also had periodic tingling in the fingers of his left hand and times during the 3 week long episode where he was felt his heart “was beating out of my chest”. We established that Max had no previous history of ill-health and there is no history of heart disease in the family. Max tested positive for c19 twice, once in December 2020 and again in Dec 2021. He recovered from each illness without lingering effects. Then the Dr conducted an examination on Max.

Post-examination…

Dr C: I’m thinking you are after info about futures vaccines and what’s the best approach.

Atticus: Well, yes, specifically, what has he had, what are the long term effects, how we can ameliorate those effects, plus advice for future vaxxes.

Dr C: The textbook of covid has not yet been written so there are some aspects to this that we are a bit uncertain about. There are a few aspects to think about. Firstly, it’s not unusual to have some sort of reaction and to feel unwell after the vaxx. Then there were people who had more specific complaints like pericarditis which is an inflammation of the heart lining. There’s also something we call sub-clinical myocarditis which is inflammation of the heart, a few people have suffered this. With you [Max] it seems like you had some sort of myocarditis type thing. We can’t be 100% categorical about this but that’s how it appears but you’ve made a full recovery and I wouldn’t expect this to have any adverse consequences in the long term.

Atticus: There’s no arrhythmia?

Dr C: No.

Atticus: Are there any tests that can be undertaken to prove there’s no lasting damage?

Dr C: Potentially, yes. A cardiac MRI scan would be the ‘gold standard’ but it depends on whether that’s a road you want to go down.

Dr C explained that if myocarditis were to be diagnosed beyond doubt then it would be a permanent feature of Max’s medical record which could affect Max’s applications for mortgages or life insurance in the future. He stated that myocarditis would be difficult to prove at this stage.

Me: So, having originally diagnosed myocarditis, Dr C is now being slightly more vague and proposing that we shouldn’t confirm the diagnosis.

Dr C also pointed out that although cases are down at moment so things have gone a bit quiet on the vaxx, there may be situations in the future where more vaccines are encouraged, if there’s another outbreak, “so you have to weigh up having the vaxx in relation to the potential hazards of another strain of c19”.

Me: We explore the risk / reward profiles of covid and the vaxx in much more detail later in the appointment.

I then asked the Dr, if, in his experience, 3 weeks of chest pain would count as a mild case of whatever it was. “Yes”. With no long term implications? Dr C repeated his assertation that the covid textbook is not yet written so there are no guarantees.

Me: Dr C’s unwillingness to commit became increasingly frustrating as the appointment progressed. He relied on appeals to authority.

Atticus: It’s true that the textbook for c19 has not been written but the textbook for myocarditis has been written. So, on that basis, would 3 weeks of chest pain, if it was myocarditis, lead to a heart attack 5 or 10 years later?

Dr C: No, no…

Atticus: Do you think Max is likely to have any scarring on his heart?

Dr C: Highly unlikely.

Atticus: Whatever Max developed, do you believe it was brought on by the vaxx?

Dr C: It seems highly likely.

Atticus: And we are seeing a spike in heart conditions amongst the vaxxed, especially with young people…

Dr C: The other side of this is that prior to the vaccine, people were developing heart conditions from c19.

Me: This is untrue. No one was listing heart conditions as a symptom of c19 until after the vaxx came out.

I asked what is it in the vax that is causing heart conditions. Dr C responded “I don’t think anyone knows…but it does seem the mRNA is linked to slightly higher rate of heart conditions.”

Slightly higher?

At that point I pointed out that mRNA is an experimental treatment and we have no idea of the long term health implications. Now Dr C admitted that he had “skin in the game” because he had had 3 vaccine doses. After 2 of the doses he didn’t feel good. “It’s entirely possible that I’ve got what you’ve got.”

Me: The Dr can’t categorically say what affected Max and he’s also not sure what affected he himself but he’s willing to equate his condition with Max’s in order to convince Max that there’s no problem with having more doses even if you had a reaction to the first one. This seemed to be a deliberate belittling of Max’s adverse reaction. Dr C is normalising 3 weeks of chest pain in a 25 year old healthy man.

AF: Bearing in mind that Max had 1 dose and had this reaction, would you advise him to have a 2nd dose?

Dr C: All I’ll say is that if the government advice is for people Max’s age to have another vaxx, then I’d have another vaxx.

Me: this is just fence-sitting. The Dr is delegating responsbility to the government. Be a good boy and do what you’re told.

Dr C continued that the government have gone quiet on the vaxx because Omicron doesn’t seem to be an issue.

Atticus: But it’s gonna flare up again every winter as all respiratory diseases do so there is likely to be another vaxx push next Autumn / Winter and this could be an annual thing…bearing in mind Max hasn’t reacted well to whatever is in the vaxx, how can we have any confidence…? The government won’t consider the numbers of deaths from the vaxx, they’ll simply believe that the vaxx is saving more lives than it’s ending and this [ie Max] is a potential death by vaxx

Dr C: I wouldn’t put it in that category…

Atticus: Whatever’s in the vaxx, he hasn’t reacted well to it.

Dr C: He’s had a reaction to the vaxx, there’s no doubt but all I’d say is that some people had the vaccine and ended up in hospital. The only thing I’d say is Novak Djokovic – they wouldn’t let him into Australia so things could get awkward. What I wouldn’t do is think you had a near death experience from a Pfizer vaccine in Jan 2022 which means that you must never have another vaccine.

Atticus: We know Max didn’t have a near death experience but we don’t know that he won’t have a near death experience after the 2nd vaxx because he could have a more extreme reaction next time. I’ve read that people are likely to have a more severe reaction to a 2nd dose so aren’t we tempting fate?

Dr C: there is a hazard to not being vaccinated if there is another outbreak.

Atticus: A hazard to health? Or a hazard associated with not being able to live a life?

Dr C: both!

Atticus: Let’s park the ‘living a life’ aspect for now. As far as hazard to health is concerned, the stats are fairly clear that the people most at risk are the elderly – the average age of c19 death is 82 – and people with co-morbidities. Max’s age group, without co-morbidities, are at virtually no risk from c19.

Dr C: I’d say it’s extremely low.

Atticus: It’s so low that it’s statistically insignificant.

Dr C: Someone would say that vaccine reactions are statistically insignificant.

Atticus: The number of people of Max’s age who have died from the vaxx is much higher than the number that have died from c19.

Dr C: The numbers in Max’s age group who’ve died from the vaccine is very small

Atticus: Yes, both numbers are small but the number dead from the vaxx is comparably much greater and the number who have suffered debilitating effects from the vaxx is again much greater than without the vaxx.

Dr C: I’m not certain about the numbers…I wouldn’t over…Do you spend a lot of time thinking about this?

Me: the Dr is not disputing that the vaxx is more dangerous than c19 for healthy young men.

Atticus: Well, yes, I do, my son had myocarditis…

Dr C: We’re not sure he suffered from…

Retreat!!! Max may have had myocarditis… or he may not, but we are being advised not to prove it one way or the other. Let’s call it ‘Schroedinger’s Myocarditis’: Max both had it and didn’t have it at the same time. We can let the two states co-exist but we shouldn’t open the box to find the singularity!

Atticus: …He suffered an effect that he wouldn’t have suffered if he hadn’t had the vaxx and he only had the vaxx so he could go on holiday. He didn’t have the vaxx to protect himself from c19. He only had it so he could live a life and this comes back to your earlier point. So, he has had something that has possibly damaged his heart, certainly something to which he could have a more severe reaction next time and, against that, you have something from which he is at no risk anyway – he’s had c19 twice and shrugged it off both times, without any long term impacts…no long covid. So, for Max, the risk – reward ratio seems very heavily weighted against having the vax.

Me: I was getting into my stride at this point!

Dr C: There are variables that could switch it.

Atticus: But based on what we know about Max’s situation, having had c19 twice and had myocarditis after one vaxx…

Dr C: All I’d say is that we do not know you had myocarditis

Me: This is the 3rd time the Dr has pointed out that myocarditis has not been confirmed, yet he is the one advising us not to get the confirmation. This gives him the wriggle room to downplay the risks of a 2nd jab. It’s frustrating. It made me think that the same scenario is playing out up and down the country: people are being told not to investigate adverse effects which leads to massive under-reporting of the vaxx side-effects.

Dr C: My advice would be not to overthink this. Who knows what happens in the future? If there turns out to be an aggressive strain of c19 in the future, then I would not hesitate to say ‘Have the vaccine’. There are 2 aspects to this: 1) weighing up if the vaccine is recommended for your age group and 2) the nuisance factor if they bring in c19 passports. But, for you, I don’t think anything serious happened to you and I don’t think you are at high risk from the vaccine.

Atticus: But he is at risk!

Dr C: Everyone’s at risk.

Atticus: [exasperated] I don’t know what to do with that because it’s terrible that Max is in this situation where he is being coerced into having an experimental gene therapy treatment just so he can live his life and, it seems, being coerced into something that has caused damage – and could cause great damage in the future – is unethical.

Dr C (indicating to me): Did you have the vaccine?

Me: I didn’t want to distract the Dr, nor give him any space in which to indulge in any anti-vaxx prejudices, so I subverted the question.

Atticus: This is about Max. I’m older. My risk profile is different to Max’s. It just seems unfair and unjust that Max is coerced into having an unlicensed experimental treatment just so he can live his life. The treatment is of no benefit to him and seems to be a great risk to him.

Max: I’d have to have the 2nd vaxx in about 5 weeks so I need to make a decision within the next month.

Dr C: There are different types of vaccine. The Astra Zeneca one is completely different.

Atticus: Blood clots! There’s blood clots with that one. They all seem pretty dirty when you start investigating them!

Me: The GP had also suggested mixing and matching different c19 vaxx brands. Refer to linked post. Where is the science that this is safe and effective? There is none. All that seems to matter is that you take the required number of doses. Compliance appears to be the objective, not efficacy. The Dr did not respond on the subject of bloodclots!

Max: I’m pretty nervous about having the 2nd one…I still lived my life with the pain after the first one…I still went to the gym…

Dr C: That makes me think that you didn’t have myocarditis, you had a reaction. We have no objective data on which to base this.

‘No objective data’ – 4th time!

Atticus: Could you issue a medical exemption, exempting Max from subsequent jabs?

Me: I knew the answer to this even before I asked it since the Dr’s entire advice consisted of telling Max to have the 2nd jab, like a good boy, but I thought I’d ask it anyway.

Dr C: I think that’s a ‘no’, you see it probably wasn’t myocarditis [then he brought up, again, the disadvantages that having myocarditis on his medical record could cause Max in future].

Atticus: So, you would advise having 2nd jab?

Dr C: Well, it’s a personal decision but I had it, my family had it, everyone I know…the recommendation is that people have the vaccine…

Me: another appeal to authority.

Max: that’s given me a bit of confidence hearing that.

Me: All the doctor has done throught the entire consultation has been to downplay the risks, despite having no facts to hand, with the result that Max is now beginning to think that 2nd jab might not be so bad after all! It was time to bring out the Big Gun…

Atticus: Would you be prepared to sign a liability letter, saying that Max wouldn’t have any serious long term impacts if he had the 2nd jab?

Me: I had a printed liability letter in my pocket ready to push in front of the Dr. In the end, I didn’t produce the letter as that would have been quite provocative. The Dr wasn’t a bad man: he was just following orders.

Dr C: Why would I sign such a letter?

Atticus: To give us confidence in your medical expertise

Dr C: why would anyone sign such a letter? What would such a letter mean?

Me: the Doc wasn’t at all happy about the letter!

Atticus: It would mean peace of mind. It would mean you are confident in the advice you have given us.

Dr C: I’ll tell you what is important is that I write down that you had a reaction to the vaccine, you were able to go to the gym…[then, for the 3rd time, he raised the subject of mortgage applications and life insurance in the future].

Dr C: “Now, a cheeky question: what do you do?”, indicating me.

Atticus: I’m in IT.

Dr C: Now if I bought a computer system from you, would you write me a letter guaranteeing that it would never break down?

Me: the Doc was still smarting about the liability letter!

Atticus: It’s not an equivalent analogy! But I would give you a letter saying it would work as required but I would recommend against you loading some dodgy software into it, or you will have to accept the consequences. What’s happening here is that you’re recommending that Max loads the dodgy software – the jab – but that it’s entirely his fault if there are consequences.

Me: we said our goodbyes at that point. It was a very unproductive meeting. The Doctor was smart enough to maintain a neutral facade throughout the engagement. He kept repeating that we should follow government advice. We emerged without answers: we still didn’t know what adverse reaction had affected Max. We had reached the end of the road and it was a dead-end.

Postscript: Max decided not to have the 2nd jab. I showed Max information on the Spanish government’s website that showed it was possible to enter Spain if you could prove you had recovered from c19 within the previous 6 months. Since Max had proof of c19 infection in December 2021, he entered Spain on that basis.

Moral Degeneracy? Or Top-Down System of Control?

I hear a lot these days about spirituality. People look at the cultural breakdown erupting all around us and they suggest that a return to spirituality is needed.

I certainly agree that Christianity did a great job for 2,000 years. It provided the moral framework and cultural traditions that drove the success of the Western world. But Christianity crumbled as science and reason took the place of belief and objective morality.

Now we live in a world of individualism where morality is anything you want it to be. You want to murder your unborn child? We have a morality for that. You want to change your gender? We can invent a morality to justify why that is the right thing to do. Hell, we are not far away from finding a morality that allows adults to have sex with children.

Morality has become subjective: if it feels right for you, then it’s right (and anyone who says otherwise is a bigot).

In such an environment, where would a revival of spirtuality come from? We had a spirituality once but we broke it. Do we want to resurrect Christianity? I’m not sure there’s much chance of that with the leadership of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic church being what they are. So what spiritual force could possibly achieve the same meaning that Christianity once delivered?

However, before we invent a new religion to help us out of these God-less times, we have to remember that Christianity was a top-down system of control. Whatever grass-roots following Christianity once had became irrelevant when the nascent religion was co-opted by the rich and powerful. From that point, Christianity became an organisation that quickly diverged from the message spread by Jesus. It became an all-powerful, non-transparent, inflexible and unaccountable system of control that forced lots of rules on a membership that had no alternative. Christianity was what those at the top said it was and the rest of us had no say in the matter. The church authorities even kept the Bible in Latin so that only those that had had the ‘right’ education could read it. The common people had to rely on the acceptable interpretation of the Bible provided to them by their Betters. Parishioners could be fined in medieval England for not attending church. The strait-jacket of social compliance was never far away.

The top echelons of the Christian church showered themselves in gold and silver and lived the most privileged lives all whilst preaching a life of frugality and humility for the rest of us. In some ways, Christianity was toppled by its own hypocrisy. In summary, Christianity provided spirituality and a moral code but there was a hierarchy in place that provided more benefits to those at the apex of the hierarchy than those at the base.

Where are we going to find another powerful belief system like that to keep us all in check? Well, it just so happens that The Elites have another system in mind. It’s ‘oven-ready’, and it’s in the process of being rolled out. It’s called ‘Agenda 2030’. Agenda 2030, or ‘The Great Reset’ as it’s sometimes known, has many similarities to Christianity: it’s another system of top-down control, but this one uses technology to keep us compliant. We will be asked to forego our individualism for the greater good of all people and the planet. As we speak, The Elites are attempting to instill in us a ‘belief’ that the Earth is in mortal danger and she can only be saved if we repent our wasteful sins and live lives of sustainable rectitude. To that end, the Elites will create a series of rules and regulations that we will be forced to live by. We will be required to live our lives in awe and respect for Mother Earth. As such, we won’t be allowed to use much energy, so we’ll often be cold and we’ll need to walk more, once our cars have been banned. Perhaps pilgrimages will make a comeback? Also, we won’t be able to afford meat but these hardships will remind us of the humble lives of the early Christians. But the main way in which the Reset will resemble Christianity is that huge amounts of wealth and power will accrue to those at the top

The Elites will create many rules that will regulate our use of both energy and resources and technology will be used to ensure we abide by those rules. Just like in the middle ages, there will be fines for noncompliance which will come in 2 forms: either CBDCs will be taken from our bank accounts, or points will be debited from our social credit score thereby limiting further our ability to travel or access luxuries. These hardships will prevent us from indulging in individualism. We won’t be able to object to the new religion of sustainability because new laws will impose swingeing punishments on protests. We will once again become good citizens, whether we like it or not. The Elites will be exempt from the rules, as they always are.

 ‘…[The Great Reset] is a blueprint for a global technocratic totalitarian corporativism, one that promises huge unemployment, deindustrialization and economic collapse by design.’ (F. William Engdahl)

There’s no spirituality in the ‘sustainable’ future envisaged by our Superiors, and precious little humanity. Nor will it be structured around a moral code. People are not going to engage with it in the same way they engaged with Christianity. It will not result in any great art or miracles. However, it will produce a compliant populace and that is all the Elites are interested in.

What would you choose: our current path of moral degeneracy or the enslavement of the Great Reset? I cannot see any other options. Personally, I would take my chances with the system we have and see where it leads, organically.

However, for things to improve, we need to accept we have progressed into a cultural cul-de-sac. We need to go backwards before we can go forwards. We need a return to basics. We were happier when we, the West, were poorer. There was more social cohesion 100 years ago than there is now. These days, every politician loves to refer to ‘our communities’. There are no communities, there are only groups of individuals who live near each other or happen to have a similar skin tone or sexual prediliction. How do we engage with a more meaningful way of life? My view is that a collapse of our economic system will be the answer. We keep hearing that our economic system is on the verge of collapse and I think such a collapse could hold the key to a happier future. A collapse from this life of narcissistic luxury and abundant free time might help us reconnect with those things that are really important in life. People who are struggling to make ends meet don’t worry about what pronouns they want to use today. Poor people are more generous with their time and money than rich people. Hardship brings people together. That is why I find myself looking forward to a collapse of this broken system of ours, a system drowning in its own hypocrisy and veering towards totalitarianism.

Such a collapse would certainly unleash devastation but it appears, to me, to be our only chance for renewal. In turn, reconnecting with the simple things in life would, I believe, allow spirituality to flourish once again. People undergoing hardship coalesce around a single moral code in order to create a cohesive unit and, thereby, improve their chances of survival. A single moral code sparks spirituality. That’s how people start believing they are working for the ‘greater good’. Which brings us back to the start of this piece. Something has to happen. We can’t continue as as we are and submit to the tyranny The Elites have planned for us.

We have been led by the weak. Now we are heading into hard times

The Covid Inquiry

The British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has announced that a public inquiry into the government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic will begin in spring 2022.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/uk-prime-minister-johnson-announces-covid-inquiry-in-spring-2022/2239076

I suspect that certain areas will be off-limits to the Inquiry. I’m not optimistic the inquiry will investigate the following:


1) whether the benefits of lockdowns in terms of lives saved outweighed the negative effects in terms of the economy; increased levels of depression and anxiety; increased suicides; lost jobs; family businesses wiped out; the impact of lost education on an entire generation; toddlers with poor cognitive skills; escalating alcoholism; families who were not allowed to visit dying relatives in hospital; families who were not allowed to visit relatives in care homes etc. Studies show that lockdowns have a negligible impact on lives saved. I would expect the Inquiry to utilise those studies in determining how many lives were saved by lockdowns and assess the associated cost of those lives saved in terms of quality adjusted life years (QALY). QALY is a standard metric in the NHS, used to determine whether or not a certain procedure is cost-effective. Since the average age of Covid deaths was the same as the UK life expectancy, it’s hard to assert that lockdowns saved lives. It’s much easier to assert that the Government’s restrictive policies cost a fortune and provided miniscule benefits. An independent assessment is called for.


2) whether reliance on PCR testing was misleading. The PCR test, in particular, has been thoroughly de-bunked in the alternative media as a reliable test (in short because it cannot differentiate between active and inactive viral RNA; it cannot differentiate between flu or the Common Cold or C19; also, it cannot determine how large the active viral load is so it cannot qualify whether someone is infectious). In part, because the usefulness of the PCR test depends to a large degree on how many cycles of amplification it was run at, I would expect a credible Inquiry to confirm how many cycles were used in the UK and to what extent that number would have generated false positive test results.


3) whether mass testing served any purpose. I would expect the Inquiry to look at the reliability of the tests and determine the rate of ‘false positives’. I would then expect the Inquiry to quantify the cost of the mass-testing programme in terms of a) the productivity lost from people isolating after a ‘positive’ test (taking into account the ‘false positive’ rate) and b) the procurement costs incurred by providing unlimited tests, free of charge. Many epidemiologists have stated that mass-testing serves no purpose. As such, I would expect the Inquiry to delve into this issue thoroughly.


4) whether ‘Test and Trace’ had any positive impact on suppressing the spread. This ties back in to the cost of lost productivity associated with mass testing based on ‘pings’ from the T&T app. I would expect the Inquiry to assess the value for money provided by the app. The cost of the app should include the cost of lost productivity caused by people receiving T&T notifications to isolate based on false positive test results.


5) whether Govt propaganda programme was justified. Never before has a so-called ‘Liberal Democracy’ waged a campaign of fear on its population. Laura Dodsworth explores this in great detail in her book, ‘State Of Fear’. I would expect the Inquiry to study the rates of excess deaths caused by C19 and also investigate the studies that estimate the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR). This information should inform the inquiry that the C19 was not a highly fatal disease and that the propaganda war was completely disproportionate.

6) whether the Inquiry will determine an accurate figure for the number of deaths ‘from’ Covid19 , rather than ‘with’ Covid19. I’ve seen various figures that suggest that the true number of Covid19 deaths is possibly not much more than 10% of the reported figure. However, since the rules for death certification were changed and twisted to encourage death by association with Covid19, we have lots of deaths where doctors took a subjective approach to certification. The UK mortality rates for 2020 confirm that the year was unexceptional in terms of mortality. This information will contribute to the cost/benefit debate in relation to the Government’s restrictions.

7) whether the legacy media maintained a level of impartiality, or did they simply become a government mouthpiece? I saw no questioning of the Government’s unprecedented lockdown strategy. In fact, the media appeared to be the biggest champions of lockdowns. There was something of the WW2 strapline that ‘Careless talk costs lives’ to the media coverage in that anyone who did express any mild criticism was quickly accused of putting lives at risk through ‘misinformation’. We all saw that expert voices that dissented from the government’s narrative on Covid19 were not given exposure in the legacy media. Or, when they were, there was an agenda to expose them as dangerous nutjobs. ‘Follow the science’ used to mean follow it no matter where it takes you. In 2020, it became ‘Obey what your government and a handful of modellers and behavioural scientists say is the science’. I wonder if the huge amount of government advertising underpinning the C19 propaganda war had any influence on the editorial lines taken by various legacy media outlets?


8) whether the Inquiry will investigate how many lives would have been saved via adoption of early-treatment pharmaceuticals. We’ve all heard of anti-viral medications such as Ivor McTin (name changed). India kept its death rate low by embracing such anti-virals. We, in the West, are not allowed to know that. However, it’s the truth and it should be investigated by any truly independent inquiry.

9) whether there was an over-reliance on the mRNA gene therapy treatments as the only way to defeat C19. From an early stage of the outbreak we were being told to sit tight – in our homes! – and wait for the vaccines. Vaccines were our only hope. All other solutions were suppressed. This indicates the power of Big Pharma. Does Big Pharma have undue influence on the British government? I believe the Inquiry should investigate whether we erred when we put all our eggs in the vaccine basket and, if so, how that came about.


10) whether asymptomatic transmission is a thing. Fauci said in early 2020 that asymptomatic transmission ‘has never been a driver of disease’. Dr. Mike Yeadon has said the same. His simple explanation is that to be capable of transmitting a virus, you need a high viral load. If you have a high viral load, you will have symptoms because your body will fight the virus. Yet Government messaging was adamant that up to one third of us could be transmitting C19 asymptomatically. I hope an independent Inquiry will get to the bottom of this matter, once and for all.

11) whether it was correct to rely so heavily on the predictions of computer models rather than the advice of epidemiologists. When the ‘pandemic’ broke, there were no epidemiologists or virologists or immunologists among the members of SAGE. SAGE was instead comprised of computer modellers and behavioural scientists. As such, we can’t be entirely surprised that government’s C19 strategy was determined by scary data from dodgy models backed up by a ‘nudge’ campaign designed to ensure high compliance. Think how different the response could have been if suitable experts had been part of SAGE. Or, perhaps, that wasn’t accidental? I think the Inquiry should point out this level of unsuitability. Yet, I suspect it won’t.


12) whether any of the UK health regulators are fit for purpose. The regulators include the MHRA and the HSE (formerly Public Health England). There are additional regulators that are specific to each country in the Union, such as the Care Quality Commission in England and Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS). Then there are many professional bodies that regulate the standards of healthcare professionals, such as the General Medical Council (GMC) which regulates doctors. I would expect any Covid19 Inquiry to apportion responsibility for the decision to return patients from the hospitals to their care homes thereby, sparking an explosion of Covid19 deaths in care homes caused by infectious people from hospitals being placed among them. None of our Regulators resisted that decision. I would like to know why not? Isn’t it the job of a Regulator to resist government decisions that jeopardise health amongst the most vulnerable? Or are our Health Regulators run by people who are on the Civil Service gravy train to Peerages and cushy positions in the House of Lords as honours bestowed by a grateful nation to those who selflessly guided us through the darkest days of the pandemic? And that’s before we even talk about the role of Regulators in waving through the mRNA vaccines. That’s another investigation for another Inquiry at another time.


13) whether the UK should ensure there are no conflicts of interest amongst those people providing pandemic advice. People like Bill Gates used the C19 outbreak as an opportunity to further his agenda for digital identies and global vaccinations. He wanted lockdowns in place so that people would be more inclined to take the experimental vaccines that were being prepared. The WEF used the outbreak to push their agenda for a ‘global reset’ to capitalism. Climate change activists called for more lockdowns because they liked the fact people were not travelling as much. As such, many influential groups had an interest in promoting lockdowns that had nothing to do with suppressing C19. Was the Government influenced by these groups? Then there’s the fact that Patrick Vallance and many members of SAGE had close ties to the pharmaceutical industry. The same industry that was busy telling everyone that the vaccines they were expediting were the only way out of lockdowns.

https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2020/11/sage-conflicts-of-interest/

14) whether any of it was legal. The UK has a Constitution. Were lockdowns Constitutional? Or can the Constitution be interpreted in any way that suits the needs of The Establishment?

15) whether any of it was ethical. Was it ethical to subject the British population to a propaganda campaign intended to achieve compliance by making us fearful? Should the same strategy be used in the next pandemic? Is the UK still a democracy where the government represents the people? Or are we a technochcracy where the government rules the people?

My guess is the Inquiry will conclude the lockdowns should have been sooner and harder but, apart from that, everyone did a great job. Promotions and Peerages all round. We shall see.

Everyone Who Is Uncomfortable About The Direction The West Is Heading Is Anti-Government

There are increasing numbers of people, from across the political spectrum who are increasingly bewildered, if not furious, at the direction taken by Western Governments in recent years. What do we have in common? A complete and absolute disillusionment in our governments.

The ‘classical liberals’, who vote for Right Wing parties, want to be left alone to get on with their lives without government interference. They have been disappointed by Government overreach that has now decided to take responsibility for our health. They realise that even notionally ‘Right Wing’ governments now support government encroachment in the form of lockdown policies; vaccine coercion; censorship and technocracy.

The people who voted for Left Wing parties because they thought such parties provided the best protection against the exploitation of the working classes have realised that left wing parties no longer care about the working class. They realise that even notionally ‘Left Wing’ governments have gleefully introduced policies such as lockdowns and mass immigration that have had a disproportionate impact on the working classes.

Every time working-class people have revolted against The Establishment in recent years the Left has denounced them as fascists and/or racists. The Brexit vote? Racists! The Trump vote? Fascists and racists! The gilets jaunes? French fascists! The trucker convoy…fascists.

‘ …This shows that the Left despises a large section of its population. The true nature of the Left has been exposed by the ‘pandemic’. They love power and control and they detest freedom and anyone who calls for freedom…We’ve known for some time that the left is morally lost, intellectually spent and in bed with the very elites it claims to rail against. But the truckers’ revolt could well be the final nail in the coffin – for any claim contemporary leftists might once have had to be on the side of workers. The left as we knew it is gone, and it isn’t coming back.’

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/02/17/the-truckers-revolt-has-exposed-the-lefts-class-hatred/

So we see that right wing parties no longer support what is expected of them by Right Wingers and left wing parties no longer support what is expected of them by Left Wingers.

Left and Right wing people are coming together, united by a common distrust of Government. We have realised that many problems in the world are caused by Governments: war; inflation; famine; lockdowns; loss of freedom; inflation; energy shortages. Take the current situations, for example:

If Governments hadn’t seized Covid19 as an opportunity for a Great Reset, then we wouldn’t have had lockdowns.

If we hadn’t had lockdowns then Governments wouldn’t have printed the hundreds of billions of extra money that is now causing inflation.

If the Governments were not seizing on Climate Change as another opportunity for the Great Reset then we wouldn’t be in the energy crisis we are currently in.

If Governments were not intent on introducing a Great Reset then we wouldn’t be facing the prospect of a Bio-security technocracy within the next 10 years in which our inalienable rights are removed and we are not allowed to buy a petrol car or a gas boiler.

If Governments – via NATO – hadn’t provoked Russia then Russia wouldn’t have needed to invade Ukraine which will cause further energy shortages and food shortages, leading to famine.

If Governments were not busy sending billions of dollars worth of armaments to Ukraine then we wouldn’t be at risk of World War 3.

We all see that governments are becoming ever bigger and more authoritarian. The truth is that Western Governments are controlled by vested interests.

Governments interfere in the free market for political purposes which cause problems where problems did not exist. Economies are very complex things yet our governments feel that they can control economies. Our governments feel they can win against covid-19 by introducing ‘zero covid’ policies. The power, arrogance and ignorance of governments is leading to ‘King Canute syndrome’ but instead of ordering back the tide, governments now believe they can manage economies and vanquish viruses. History tells us that the more a government tries to manage the economy, the greater the disaster. Think of Stalin’s 5 year plans. Or Mao’s Great Step Forward.

Let’s not forget that Governments murdered hundreds of millions of their own citizens during the 20th century.

Only 3 roles on this chart are elected: The President, Congress, The Senate. Everything is bureaucracy.

Ever since countries overthrew, or sidelined, Monarchies and became self-governing, the size and scope of Governments has continued to grow. Now we are at the stage where Governments see it as their responsibility to decide when we can leave our homes and also subject us to a massive propaganda campaign to coerce us into having 4 shots of an experimental gene therapy treatment.

As the historian A. J. P. Taylor once wrote:

“Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman“.

In 2022, you would be hard pressed to think of any activity over which Government, either local or national, does not exert some control.

Wars only became ‘World Wars’ once governments were in charge of forign policy and military spending and were able to create conscription laws. There were no World Wars before the 20th century.

Societies only became totalitarian once governments became big enough to impose total control. There was no totalitarianism before the 20th century!

The threat to our Freedom always comes from our Governments and the bigger the government, the more they impinge on our ability to go about our business without interference.

Traditionally, it was Left wing political parties that felt that governments could provide the solutions to all of societies problems. The Left intended to leverage Keynesian economics in the form of big money social projects and a generous welfare state to provide economic security for all.

The Left also wanted to create a new society, free from the shackles of bourgeois tradition. By contrast, Right wing parties, true to their intent of largely leaving people alone, preached fiscal responsibility (to protect people’s savings), tradition (to protect people’s culture and history) and law and order (to protect people’s property).

As we look around us in 2022, it is easy to see which philosophy has the upper hand. The Left’s position is now so dominant that Right wing parties are mirroring it. But it is not the traditional post-war Leftist vision of dedication to the working class: what we are seeing is something new. There is still the ambition to spend lots of money but the level of intervention in every aspect of social activity is now turbo-charged, as is the determination to create a new form of society. However, that new society no longer has any place for the working class. It is Leftism on steroids. It’s part socialism, part fascism and part technocracy.

And, lo, it came to pass.

And the Right wing parties have the same objective in mind.

Net zero; stakeholder capitalism; digital ids; central bank digital currencies (CBDC’s); online safety bills; anti-protesting bills: these policies are being lined up by all Western governments – Left and Right – to destroy our individual freedom to communicate, travel and spend as we see fit.

These are classic statist initiatives. We are experiencing the ‘managed economies’ that socialist and fascist governments tried in the 20th century. Managed economies always fail, imposing huge burdens on the citizens along the way.

As government expands, liberty contracts.
Ronald Reagan

When Agenda 2030 and / or The Great Reset become a reality, the resistance will be comprised of people from the Left and Right who value freedom over government control. People who realise that our governments have now become a serious threat to our way of life. People who realise that governments no longer serve the people they represent.

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
Gerald R. Ford

The Left will be totally on board with all the structures the coming authoritarianism will bring because they are agitating for those structures now: they are agitating for lockdowns and vaccine passports and masks. They take pride in their compliance. As Morgoth says “the Left are just gatekeepers for the power structures”. There are still some classical Liberals on the Right but these have very little influence. The influence now comes from supranational organisations like the UN; the WHO; the WEF, the Think Tanks and the many Foundations run by Billionaires that use their money to bring about the world that exists in their eugenical imaginations.

‘Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms. No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class – whether that class be hereditary royalty, oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy.‘
– Politics as Repeat Phenomenon: Bene Gesserit Training Manual

Some of us are pushing back against this blatant Government overreach. Some of us don’t look to the government to tell us what to do in every situation (and for that government to pass laws to force us to comply). Some of us are capable of looking after ourselves and we want to exercise that capability. But we are let down by huge part of the population that simply want the government to tell them what to do. The bigger government gets, the more that people expect the government to look after them. We are becoming infantilised!

“We are inclined to believe that people want to be free, but most people don’t. Most people are scared of freedom. Freedom brings with it responsibility; it brings challenges. It makes it so that you need to think. You need to do a certain mental labor; you need to think about your life and you need to think about decisions you have to make… Most people prefer not to do it and prefer to look for someone who tells them what to do.”
Professor Mattias Desmet

‘Fear is the foundation of most governments’ John Adams (US Founding Father and President).

If you feel the government has overreached its remit, then good but it’s not going to stop. As we’ve seen over the last 100 years, Governments just get bigger and bigger with ever more say over our actions. Governments are not going to shrink of their own accord. Quite the reverse: governments have become giddy with the exciting new opportunities that Covid19 has revealed. We will see a lot more examples in the near future where governments limit our freedoms for some reason. After all, UN Agenda 2030 won’t implement itself!

‘Freedom’ is now a dirty word

We’ve tried big government and we have first hand experience of where it leads. Governments are seriously affecting the ability of people to live freely. Governments should represent the people. They no longer do that. They represent other, more powerful interests. It is a top-down system of control. Our elected representatives do not even represent us: they are not our constituency’s representative in Parliament, they are the Government’s representative in our constituency.

We need to massively roll back the power of the state. I don’t know how we are going to do that but it seems that not voting for any of the established parties is the obvious first step. We need to resist the increasing centralisation of power by our governments. We need decentralised governments. We need a lot more control at the local level. ‘Awake’ voters need to stop voting for the political parties you have traditionally voted for. You might feel that, despite ‘your’ party being bad, things will be much worse under the ‘other’ party. No! They are all as bad as each other. All of them will introduce Social Credit systems as soon as they get the chance. All political parties are taking us to the same destination: Communism under a One World Government.

I believe the national government should have minimal responsibility. That seems to be the only rational political belief available these days as we look around and see the unmitigated mess being created by Governments and the direction they are taking us in.

‘For all his virtue-signaling about diversity, Trudeau doesn’t really believe in Canada as a pluralistic society where people of different views and ways of life can live together in peace. He believes in a society where the little people, the people with the wrong views, do as they’re told.’

https://thefederalist.com/2022/02/17/trudeau-does-not-want-to-end-the-protests-peacefully-he-wants-violence/

Local communities need to govern themselves. In that way, the influence of each member of the electorate is increased and the influence of organisations like the WEF; UN; WHO and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are reduced. Furthermore, we need to boycott multinational firms as much as possible: we should buy from local, independent businesses.

It’s no longer enough to simply not support governments. We have to be anti-government. If you are not anti-government then you are explicitly supporting governments! We need to adopt Critical Government Theory.

Myocarditis Assessment from a Normie GP

This is the breakdown of a recorded consultation I had with a GP who I had engaged in an attempt to diagnose my son’s gene therapy adverse reaction.

In January 2022, my son, Max, had his first Covid19 gene therapy shot (Pfizer). He hadn’t  wanted to take the shot but felt he had no choice as he wanted to travel to Spain in June 2022 for a stag weekend. At that time, he was of the understanding that he would have to take the shot in order to travel.

Two days after taking the shot he suffered from uncomfortable side effects. I knew he was worried because he immediately arranged an appointment with his NHS GP in order to receive treatment. The NHS GP conducted an ECG test and also conducted blood tests. Everything came back negative. At that point, Max had still not received a diagnosis as to what condition had been caused by the vaccine. Max also felt he had no choice but to take a second shot in a few weeks.

I was so worried about the prospect of further injury to Max when taking a second shot that I booked an appointment with a Private GP in order to receive more answers. My intention was to have a D-dimer test – a test for bloodclots – conducted on Max but also to receive medical advice in relation to the 2nd jab. I attended the appointment with my son and I recorded the ensuing conversation with the Doctor. This is the transcript of that recording. I will refer to the Doctor as ‘Dr A’.

Max explained that chest pains had started 2 days after his first Pfizer dose. It was uncomfortable – rather than painful – but he felt his heart was beating louder than normal. He also experienced some tingling in the fingers of his left hand and some fleeting / shooting pains in his chest.

Max confirmed that he felt fine now (7 weeks later) and recounted the tests conducted by the NHS GP. I explained that we were trying to get to the bottom of what adverse reaction Max had experienced.

The chest discomfort had lasted 3 weeks and was constant during this time. On a scale of 1 to 10 for the discomfort, Max responded ‘7’. Asked if he was out of breath during this time, he said that, yes, he had been unexpectedly out of breath a couple of times.

Dr A diagnosed Max’s condition as “probably mild myocarditis”. She explained that this is “an inflation of the heart wall and is a very common side effect of the Covid19 vaccines, especially among young people”. She said she would have to ask a cardiologist colleague for advice about having the 2nd jab.

Dr A asked if Max was otherwise fit and healthy. Yes. She asked whether he had any medical issues she should be aware of. No.

I asked Dr A why she was so sure that it wasn’t bloodclots. Dr A responded that bloodclots don’t present like that. She said that bloodclots mainly appear in legs and lungs and would cause much more breathlessness. Dr A said she would bet money on myocarditis for Max.

I stated that myocarditis leaves permanent scarring on the heart to which Dr A’s tone changed. She mumbled very quietly “No, not really” and became, for a moment, non-committal. I insisted that scarring on the heart was definitely a thing and should not be overlooked. Dr A finally responded:

“I wouldn’t have thought that with his symptoms being so mild that it would have caused any long term effects at all”

Me: Dr A was quite shocked when I mentioned permanent scarring. Her demeanour and body language changed. I felt that she was not being honest with me in her next words.

Dr A then ran some checks on Max: she checked his blood pressure; heart rate; blood oxygen levels and listened to his heart. Nothing untoward found.

Dr A then asked Max why he had had the vaccine so late. Max responded that he didn’t feel he needed it plus he had already had Covid19 so had immunity.

Dr A then stated we had 2 options available to us: 1) she could refer us to a Cardiologist or 2) she could write to cardiologist colleague and ask for advice re 2nd jab. I said we would take the 2nd option and then proceed on the basis of the advice received.

I then stated that, since Max’s adverse reaction, I’d been reading a lot about the dangers of the vaxx. Dr A warned me that there were “lots of doctors spreading misinformation. Sometimes it’s very difficult to interpret what is true”. I acknowledged this but said that “you have the internet on one side and what the Government are saying on the other side and the truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle.”

Me: I was surprised that Dr A was so quick to blame her medical colleagues for spreading misinformation. I would have liked to have found out what misinformation she was referring to and how much she has researched the subject. Dr A’s later comments informed me that she knows very little about the subject. PS: I don’t feel the truth is “somewhere in the middle”. I just didn’t want Dr A to know that I was one of those crazy anti-vaxxers. Not yet, anyway!

Dr A then went on to describe a concerning anecdote about her husband: he was 39 when he had his first dose in December 2020 (Me: that sounds like he jumped the queue!) and just after the vaxx his ankle “blew up” and he was diagnosed with ‘Reactive arthritis’. At this point he didn’t want to have the 2nd jab but Dr A persuaded him that the death rate from Covid19 was so high that he needed to have 2nd jab. So he had it and the same thing happened again! Dr A said we are now in 2022 and his ankle is still not right ( but he had still had his booster!)

Me: So it sounds like Dr A’s husband is still having problems with his ankle that is affecting his quality of life. Perhaps it’s stiff? Perhaps it feels uncomfortable when he walks? Perhaps he can no longer run? More fool him. And he went back for more. Twice!

Dr A started referring to all the 20 and 30 and 40 year olds who had died frim Covid19. I responded that it was only people with co-morbidities who had died in these age groups. I also pointed out that ONS data shows that only about 17,000 people without co-morbidities have died from Covid19. “No”, said Dr A “we have doctor colleagues – triathletes – very healthy people, absolutely no co-mordities, who have died”.

Me: I didn’t believe Dr A when she said this. Her comments were very non-specific. The only specific piece of information was in relation to the triathlete who then surfaced again later in a different anecdote.

Dr A then came out with another anecdote: a man in his early 30s who had massive chest pains after the 1st vaxx but went on to have the 2nd and 3rd jabs with no problem.

Me: I wonder if that man is still alive. If he is, I wonder what his life expectancy will be. I don’t believe he will live to be an old man.

We were 19 minutes into a 36 minute consultation. At this point I was getting fed up of listening to Dr A’s anecdotes stripped, as they were, of context and corroboration so I decided to drop a little factual zinger into the mix...

I pointed out that the vaxx has killed more young people than Covid19. Dr A: “Really?”. “Yes”, I said, “look at all of the collapsing footballers for evidence of the effects of the vaxx on the young”. To which Dr A responded “But that was because they had underlying cardio-myopathies”. “No, it was definitely the vaxx”. “Like who? Erikksen?”, “Not just Erikksen. There’s been hundreds” I said, looking at Max who nodded in confirmation. “There has been a huge toll on the health of young people from the vaxx that we haven’t seen from Covid.”

Me: At this point Dr A finally twigged that I was one of those crazy anti-vaxxers that she’d heard so much about…

Dr A asked me if I’d had the vaxx. I responded (No). Then Dr A said the following: “Honestly, I wouldn’t worry about any sort of long term damage at all. Take my word.” To which I said “I’m not going to take your word for it. I’m going to read the internet.”

Dr A: “Please be careful what you read on the internet. There are vast amounts of.. how do you sort the wheat from the chaff?”

I said “I go with doctors, epidemiologists…”

Dr A: “There are doctors and there are doctors. Max could call himself a doctor and write things on Wikipedia and the internet. I can say I’m Stephen Hawking…Have you watched ‘The Swindler’?”. I haven’t but Max had. Then: “If there were lasting side-effects you would be breathless when walking”.

Then came another anecdote from Dr A: a 43 year old patient, a triathlete. He caught Covid19. He can now barely speak because he gets so breathless. He has to stop for breath 3 times when he walks up the stairs

Me: At this point I wanted to point out that anecdotes are the lowest form of argument but I managed to restrain myself. However, this is the 2nd of Dr A’s anecdotes that involve a triathlete: in the first anecdote the triathlete was a doctor colleague who died. In the second outing, he was transformed into a patient who is now breathless. I believe both anecdotes are referencing the same person. If the triathlete was a patient, what was he being treated for?

I responded “It’s just an anecdote though, isn’t it?” to which Dr A made a further reference to “misinformation on the internet and anti-vaxxers spreading bullshit”.

I pointed out that Max could have an even worse reaction to the 2nd jab. At which point Dr A suggested that Max could have the Moderna vaxx for his 2nd jab. I said that it seems strange that we are now being encouraged to mix and match vaccines when at the start there was so much emphasis on ensuring both jabs were the same. What changed? To which Dr A pointed out that all doctors have to have Hepatitis C jab and those are mix and matched all the time. “But” I said “those are tried and tested vaccines, they are not experimental vaccines like these ones using new technology and they’re not vaccines, are they? They’re gene therapy. MRNA. It’s not a vaccine”

Me: I was getting into the flow now.

Dr A said the following: “They are not experimental. They have been expedited. It has gone through every single stage of trial”. So I had to correct her: “They haven’t been through stage 3 trials”. She hesitated before insisting they had. “No, they haven’t” I said, “they are not due to complete stage 3 trials until next year.”

Me: Dr A clearly didn’t know this. She is a doctor advocating the vaxx and she had no idea that the stage 3 trials were still ongoing.

Dr A: “Well, stage 1 and 2 are the most important!”

Me: quick pivot!

I said “And they skipped animal trials”.

Me: Dr A was learning to change direction quickly if it wasn’t going her way…

Dr A: “what if we hadn’t expedited it? There would be millions more deaths”

“You don’t know that” Me: I was quite gobsmacked that the doctor had pulled out such a ridiculous defence.

Then Dr A resorted to more anecdotes about a 10 year old, healthy, unvaxxed boy that she had to resuscitate after he caught Covid19 and he survived but now he has Type 1 diabetes.

Me: first time I’ve heard of diabetes being caused by Covid. Could it be that he had an undiagnosed condition of diabetes before catching Covid19 and that is why he reacted so badly to Covid19?

Dr A then stated that covid is causing long covid and long term lung damage and auto-immune responses. She also stated that Covid19 is triggering myocarditis. I said “not as commonly as the vaxx” but the doctor insisted on this point so I pointed out that it was strange that since the vaxx side effects became well known that people are now ascribing those same side effects to Covid19.

Me: no one was saying in 2020 that Covid19 triggers myocarditis. That has only happened since the vaxx emerged.

We both realised that we were getting nowhere so we wrapped things up. Dr A acknowledged that the vaxx had to be a personal choice. I responded: “Yes, made freely and without coercion and without being sacked if you don’t have it”

Then she laughed and rolled her eyes at Max and we said our goodbyes. Dr A confirmed that she would be in touch.

Me: I was unimpressed with Dr A: she knew only what she’d learnt through the MSM. She had done no research of her own. She had heard that Covid19 was dangerous and that had coloured her experiences thereafter. She chronicled many anecdotes about patients who had had negative experiences with Covid19 but there was not a single anecdote about anyone she knew who had died from it. She had referred, loosely, to healthy colleagues who had died from the virus but this doesn’t ring true: Dr A would have told anecdotes about the deaths, if she had experienced any. Dr A sure loved an anecdote!

Postscript #1: after 4 weeks we hadn’t heard back from either Dr A or the cardiologist so I chased the GP clinic. I was informed that Dr A had only just returned to work having been ill with Covid19, despite being fully-vaxxed!

Dr A had 3 jabs, none of which were effective at protecting her from Covid19

Postscript #2: It turns out Dr A had sent Max the advice from the cardiologist on the day after our consultation. The email was in Max’s junk folder. Here it is:

A cardiologist is prepared to offer medical advice regarding an experimental medical treatment to someone he hasn’t personally examined

This Many Red Flags Is Not A Coincidence

A ‘red flag’ is anything that arouses suspicions in you that something isn’t quite right. It suggests a disconnect between what you know and what you are being told. If you spot a logical inconsistency or something that conflicts with your real world experience, that’s likely to be a red flag. The presence of vested interests at the heart of an issue is also a red flag that some scepticism is required. Red flags are not proof that something untoward is happening, rather they are an indication that something untoward could be happening and that further scrutiny is required. The more red flags, the more liklihood that an alternative agenda is in motion.

In this post I’m going to list a bunch of those ‘red flags’ that were spotted as part of the authorities’ anti-Covid policies. These red flags, often planted in plain sight, should have raised suspicions that, maybe, something else was going on under the surface.

Some of these flags will not be understood by everyone so I’m going to split the list into 2 parts: First, I will ease you in with the set of ‘Red Flags For Beginners’. These are red flags that should have been noticed by any adult with any interest in what’s going on around them.

After that I will present the Advanced List of Red Flags for the benefit of experienced sceptics. These red flags will only have been spotted by people who decided to look into what was going on, having been alerted by the beginner red flags.

Covid Red Flags for Beginners

• The Government identifying a crisis that requires the removal  of your civil liberties is always a red flag that should be carefully scrutinised.

• The mortality rate in the UK for 2020 was the 9th highest of the 21st century. This fact is incompatible with the emergence of a deadly pandemic and, thus, is a red flag. FYI, every year since 2020 has had a higher mortality rate than 2020. Red Flag.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsintheukfrom1990to2020

• The average age of Covid death in the UK in 2020  was 82 with at least one co-morbidity, on average. This is higher than the UK’s average life expectancy. This is not consistent with a pandemic of a deadly disease and is, therefore, a Red Flag.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/averageageofthosewhohaddiedwithcovid19

• A pandemic tabletop exercise that simulated a Global response to the emergence of a novel coronavirus was held on 18 October 2019. The exercise, called ‘Event 201’, was billed as a teaching and training resource for public health and government officials. The event was held in partnership with the WEF and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Coincidences are a Red Flag.

• The origins of covid are as follows: in mid-Dec 2019, 4 people are admitted to a Wuhan hospital with pneumonia. By the end of Dec the number of pneumonia patients was 27. One unnamed doctor at the hospital  felt the pneumonia was ‘mysterious’ so he sent one sample from one patient to Dr Zhang of the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center for analysis. Dr Zhang toiled through two nights on this single sample, from just one of 27 alleged patients with pneumonia, immediately found a “new coronavirus”, and at once decided it must be the cause of this “mystery”. This narrative is a Red Flag. Why were they looking for something? We never discovered what was mysterious about the pneumonia. We know that there is nothing atypical regarding the pneumonia associated with covid-19.

https://time.com/5882918/zhang-yongzhen-interview-china-coronavirus-genome/

• On 7th of January 2020, Chinese authorities confirmed that they had identified a novel  coronavirus as the cause of a small cluster of pneumonia cases. WHO characterized COVID-19 infection as a pandemic on 11 March. Yet on 22 January John Hopkins University in the US created a dashboard to record coronavirus cases and deaths in real time. At this point, no deaths were attributed to covid and only a small number of cases had been detected in Wuhan. It seems strange that JHU would go to the effort of setting up a dashboard so promptly. JHU had never previously set up a pandemic dashboard  This is a Red Flag.

• A wall-to-wall Government safety campaign constantly promoting the dangers of Covid19 that doesn’t correlate with your own experiences of the dangers of Covid19 is a red flag. When does a campaign become propaganda?

• It’s a red flag is when you find out the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) for Covid19 is similar to flu yet the Government is behaving like the bubonic plague has returned.

• There was a large drop in the number of people dying from influenza in 2020. That is a red flag.

• Film footage from China in early 2020 showed people walking along before dropping dead from covid. This is not how people die from covid so why were these fake videos given such widespread promotion by the mainstream media around the world? Red flag.

• On 19 March 2020, the UK Government downgraded Covid19 from a ‘High Consequence Infectious Disease’ (HCID). This was the day before Johnson announced a national lockdown to start on 23 March. Red flag.

Yet the propaganda continued as though Covid19 was an HCID

• In March 2020, changes were made to the UK Death Certification process whereby c19 could be added to the death certificate if the doctor involved felt that in their judgement c19 was ‘probably’ a factor, even in the absence of a positive c19 test. Also, the changes also meant that only 1 doctor, instead of 2, were now required to sign the death certificate and the doctor did not have to have seen the patient (as long as the Dr had read the patient’s notes). Also, c19 deaths did not have to be reported to the coroner. Furthermore, the family of a victim were no longer allowed to ask for an inquest by jury, (as is usual with deaths from disease). These changes guaranteed that covid would be recorded against a large number of deaths. The removal of checks and balances is a red flag.

• When deciding how to manage the ‘pandemic’, the UK govt decided to ignore the Civil Contingencies Act (2004) written for just such an occasion and, instead draft new legislation. The CCA required regular thirty-day parliamentary scrutiny of permitted plenary power. The Coronavirus Act (2020) included much less regular Parliamentary oversight. Red flag.

• The Coronavirus Act 2020 received Royal Assent on Narch 25, 2020. This 340 page document was fast-tracked through Parliament in just 4 days. How was such a long document written so quickly? Red Flag.

• In 2020, the WHO amended the definition of ‘herd immunity’ to remove any references to natural immunity. The new definition indicates that only vaccines can provide herd immunity. Amendment of definitions is a red flag.

• For long periods during lockdowns only ‘key workers’ were allowed to go to work yet the mortality rate for key workers was no higher than those under house arrest. This logical inconsistency is a red flag.

No one would abuse the rule changes, would they?

• It is a red flag that in early 2020, existing ‘Pandemic Preparation Plans’ were abandoned in all Western nations and replaced by lockdowns.

• 23 Jan 2020 – a paper describing a validated PCR test (developed without access to patient material) is published, having been “peer-reviewed” within 24 hours of submission. This timeframe for peer-review is without precedent and is, therefore,  a Red Flag.

• Kary Mullis was the inventor of Polychromase Reaction (PCR) testing. He won a Nobel Prize for this achievement. Kary stated that PCR was NOT a diagnostic tool: ‘…Anyone can test positive for practically anything with a PCR test, if you run it long enough…with PCR if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody…it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick.”. Yet the UN announced Drosten’s PCR test as the ‘Gold Standard’ for diagnosing covid19. Red flag.

• Did you think it strange that, at the start of the pandemic, all of our Health Advisors plus Fauci, Witty and others, were saying there was no point in mask mandates because ‘masks don’t work’ yet, a few months later they brought in mask mandates to ‘save lives’? This logical inconsistency is a red flag.

• Normally, new experimental medical treatments are only offered to people who are in a critical condition. Yet, the experimental mRNA Covid19 vaccines were offered to everyone, even children and pregnant women, despite the evidence overwhelmingly showing that only certain immuno-compromised people are in danger from Covid19. That is a red flag.

https://brownstone.org/articles/more-than-150-comparative-studies-and-articles-on-mask-ineffectiveness-and-harms/

• A red flag is when known, but out of patent, anti-viral treatments like Ivermectin and hydroxylchoroquine are banned because, we are told, they don’t work but the drug companies then rush out their updated, patented versions of antivirals.

• Shortly after the Covid19 mRNA gene therapy treatments emerged the WHO amended their definition of ‘vaccine’ so that mRNA gene therapy treatments could be classified as vaccines. Changing definitions is a red flag.

• It is a red flag that Covid19 deaths were counted as ‘with’ rather than ‘from’ Covid19, which made it impossible to directly compare Covid19 deaths with flu deaths. This approach produced a much higher number of Covid19 deaths.

150,000 deaths of people who were already ill. 6,183 deaths of healthy people.

• If you thought it was odd that the Govt was counting ANY death – including from car crashes – within 28 days of a positive test as a Covid19 death, then well done: you’ve spotted a red flag.

• People believe real-world evidence. If people see deaths all around them, they will modify their behaviour very quickly. Behavioural psychology ‘Nudge Units’ are only necessary to direct people’s behaviour in the absence of real world evidence. The use of Nudge Units by the UK government is, therefore, a Red Flag.

• It’s in the interests of the WHO to identify global health issues that can be leveraged to promote itself as the only organisation with the remit to co-ordinate a global response thereby increasing its profile and its grip on centralised global health initiatives. Vested interests are a red flag.

• Censorship of experts in their fields who are critical of government Covid19 policy is a red flag. You will always hear resounding support for the government agenda if all dissenters have been censored.

• When the authorities tell you that you can be asymptomatic yet carry a viral load large enough to transmit the disease, despite this never having been a feature of any other disease ever, you might sense that this is a red flag.

https://www.thelibertybeacon.com/there-is-no-asymptomatic-spread-mass-testing-can-stop-study/

• A red flag is liability waivers provided by Governments to Big Pharma.

• The contracts between big pharma and our governments have been kept secret. That is a red flag.

• In the USA, the FDA went to court seeking to delay the release of documentation they had received from Pfizer prior to FDA approval of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine for Covid19. They wanted this information to be kept secret for 55 years (later increased to 75 years). This isn’t Pfizer themselves trying to bury documentation – although that would be bad enough – this is a US Regulatory body trying to suppress the evidence that they used to approve this medical treatment. You won’t be surprised to learn that this is a red flag.

https://thevaccinereaction.org/2021/11/fda-asks-court-for-55-years-to-fully-release-documents-on-pfizer-covid-biologic/

• Isn’t it odd that there has been no investigation into the adverse health effects linked to the vaccines by any of the national health agencies? That is a red flag. Particularly since this is an experimental treatment that has yet to complete safety trials. One would think that health agencies would be monitoring health outcomes very, very closely ready to intervene should the danger signals become pronounced. Independent Doctors have performed autopsies of vaxx deaths and reported concerning results; miscarriages have shot up; cancer rates are escalating; heart attacks are off the scale. Yet, the MHRA have not initiated any inquiry into the very high numbers of deaths and other adverse effects from the vaxx. They still say the vaxx is safe. Red flag.

https://off-guardian.org/2021/07/05/new-normal-newspeak-1-herd-immunity/

• A red flag is being told by the manufacturers and the national health agencies that the vaxx has 95% efficacy only to find out some time later that it doesn’t stop you catching or transmitting Covid19 and you need a booster. And then you need another booster.

• A red flag is the government telling you that you can return to normal if you give up some of your civil liberties such as accepting regular testing; vaxx passports and the sacking of unjabbed healthcare workers.

• Good ideas don’t require force which is why Western countries using police forces with batons to break up small groups of people during lockdowns is a Red Flag.

• I find it odd that footballers and athletes are collapsing in record numbers but the MSM doesn’t mention it or, when they do mention it, they do not pose the question that we are all asking: are these collapses linked to the vaxx? We are making the connection but MSM avoids it. They are going out of their way to ignore it. They are looking so hard in the other direction, they have neck-ache. That is a red flag. We are also seeing in explosion in numbers of heart attacks amongst non-athletes. Yet the authorities are pushing the line that heart attacks are becoming more common due to other reasons.

They left something out

https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/12/02/how-does-pfizers-paxlovid-compare-ivermectin-15967

The Architect gets it

• A small percentage of new drugs make it to market. More commonly, new drugs under development fail at one of the safety trial stages and they have to go back to the drawing board. Yet, we have experienced a situation where all 4 of the companies – Pfizer; Astra Zeneca; Moderna; Johnson & Johnson – developing gene therapy treatments for Covid19 were approved. No problems with any of them, despite the short timeframes in which they were developed. The chances of that happening in the normal course of events when safety protocols are being adhered to are extremely low and that is why it is a red flag.

• Within weeks of the c19 outbreak politicians around the Western world were declaring that there was now a ‘new normal’ and we could never return to the ‘old normal’. This sounds like an agenda being put into action and is a red flag.

https://www.bapio.co.uk/bapio-sends-letter-to-nhs-employers-regarding-covid-19-disproportionate-high-mortality-rates-in-bame-health-and-social-care-hscw-workers/

• In April 2020 the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO) issued a letter to their members pointing out that being Vitamin D deficient increased the risks of c19 and recommending all of their members to take vitamin D supplements. Yet at no point in all those addresses to the nation by Whitty and Vallance was vitamin D ever mentioned as a method of mitigating against c19. Red flag.

• If c19 was as dangerous as we were being told, we would have seen the evidence for ourselves and gladly followed government safety advice. Yet the Government deployed ‘Nudge Units’ to use behavioural psychology techniques to influence our adherence to lockdowns and openness to c19 vaccines. This is a red flag.

• Pregnant women were told the vaxx was safe for them despite no evidence of this whatsoever. There had not been any safety trials on pregnant women prior to them being told the vaxx was totally safe. Why were safeguards built up over decades to protect pregnant woman and, more importantly, their unborn babies, cast aside for these experimental, unlicensed medical treatments. That’s a red flag. It’s not surprising that miscarriages and stillbirths have rocketed. That’s what happens when you ignore red flags.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/horrifying-hidden-pfizer-data-show-unborn-babies-newborns-dying/

https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/02/23/covid-jabs-increase-risk-of-miscarriage-by-1517-percent/

• Being told to take vaccines to protect your loved ones – this is behavioural psychology at work. It is a red flag that the Government rolled out behavioural psychology techniques to make us fearful and, therefore, compliant.

https://evidencenotfear.com/how-sage-and-uk-media-created-fear-in-the-british-public/

• The fact that people were told to try a different brand for their booster shot is a red flag. Some people did some research before deciding which brand of vaxx to take. Then they are told a different brand may be more effective as the booster. There is no trial data for this. It is muddying the waters and making it difficult to create a safety trail for each manufacturer. If it feels like they are making it up as they go along, that is a red flag.

• When you see politicians and celebrities endorsing Covid19 restrictions in public but then ignoring those restrictions when they think they are out of the public’s sight, that is a red flag that, maybe, you’re being lied to.

Advanced List of Red Flags

If you’ve come with me this far, perhaps you’ll come a little further…

• Why did Pfizer and Moderna unblind their entire placebo control group shortly after Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) was granted? By vaxxing the placebo group, there was no longer a control group to compare long term health data against. Red flag.

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1244

• Existing research on efficacy of masks was ignored. When Governments introduced masks, that was further evidence that policy was diverging from the science. When Governments doubled down on masks by mandating them for outdoors, that was a red flag.

• Existing research on efficacy of lockdowns was ignored. Instead, we followed China’s example. We seem to be following China’s example a lot these days. Red flag.

• I wonder if it’s a conflict of interest that CDC has shares/patents in Moderna. It is and that’s a red flag.

Conflicts of interest are a Red Flag

• Big Parma had been working on mRNA vaccines for more than 20 years but had never been able to progress past the safety trials. Animal trials had gone badly. Then, Covid-19 came along and the nature of the ’emergency’ meant that safety trials were curtailed and data from animal trials was scratched altogether. That is a pretty big red flag.

More conflicts of interest. More red flags

• A red flag is anti-viral treatments such as Ivermecten and Hydroxychloroquine banned / suppressed in the West yet used covertly and to great effect in poor countries with low vaccine supplies, such as India.

• Discovering that FDA is not allowed to permit ’emergency use’ licenses to new treatments if an effective treatment already exists is a red flag because that sheds light on the moves to suppress and defame proven antiviral treatments like ivermectin and hydroxylchoroquine.

https://undercurrents723949620.wordpress.com/2021/03/22/the-definition-of-pandemic-has-been-altered/

• Wuhan Institute of Virology scientist, Dr. Zhou Yusen, filed for a patent for a COVID vaccine on February 24, 2020 – less than two months after a virus was supposedly first discovered. The early timing of his filing raises concerns that the unnamed vaccine was in development months before the COVID-19 pandemic became public. Red flag

• Midazolam is an opioid that suppresses respiratory functions in old people. The govt had a 1 year supply of midazolam when, in March 2020, they ordered another 2 years’ worth. Yet by October 2020, the government’s supply of midazolam had run out. Evidence exists that midazolan prescriptions more than double during the first lockdown. Midazolam offers no anti-viral benefits so why had so much been used? The evidence suggests that end of life Pathways were in effect. Red Flag

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2020-10-01/98182

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8514081/Number-prescriptions-drug-midazolam-doubled-height-pandemic.html

• On 14 Feb. 2020 Moderna announced that it had developed its Covid vaccine and was poised to begin clinical trials on humans. Even more bizarrely, Moderna developed their product without having any viral samples on hand; working solely from the genetic sequence (of SARS-CoV-2) that China had published online only 34 days earlier. 

• Preceeding even Moderna, INOVIO developed their shot only “3 hours” after the sequence was published online, and by 23 January were already engaging in clinical trials of the product. Was there a lab leak in Plymouth Pennsylvania (the home of INOVIO)? Red flag.

Just move the goalposts so anything can be whatever you want it to be

https://undercurrents723949620.wordpress.com/2021/03/22/the-definition-of-pandemic-has-been-altered/

• It is a red flag that all Western leaders started repeating the same messages as each other: ‘We need a reset’; ‘Build back better’; ‘The new normal’. Almost like the messaging was co-ordinated. Almost like there was another agenda in play.

• Why weren’t the Covid19 gene therapy treatments put through the more stringent safety trials used for gene treatments, rather than the more basic trials used for vaccines? This is strange since they are gene treatments. This is a red flag.

https://dailysceptic.org/why-werent-these-vaccines-put-through-the-proper-safety-trials-for-gene-technology-asks-a-former-pharmaceutical-research-scientist/

• A red flag is UK announcing that vaxx suppresses your immune system permanently yet still continuing with vaxx coercion and vaxx mandates for healthcare workers.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1027511/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-42.pdf

• A red flag is when a government is imposing vaxx mandates on its citizens but government members are exempt from the mandate.

• A red flag is when global figures like Bill Gates and Tony Blair who have pushed digital identity schemes for years try to use Covid19 to introduce vaxx passports.

• In December 2021, Graham Medley, the Head of the SAGE modelling Committee, admitted to the editor of The Spectator that the modelling Committee only present scary Covid mortality scenarios to the Government that can be used to drive policy. It wont surprise you to know that it is a Red Flag when govts are seeking to push fear rather than present a composed assessment of the risks.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/my-twitter-conversation-with-the-chairman-of-the-sage-covid-modelling-committee

• A red flag is when you realise that different vaxx batches have different toxicity levels.

https://tapnewswire.com/2021/12/vaccine-batches-vary-in-toxicity-and-are-distributed-to-unsuspecting-americans-in-coordination-by-three-companies-researcher/?amp=1

• A red flag is when you find out that Pfizer manipulated their trial results.

https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/media-resources/the-pfizer-inoculations-for-covid-19-more-harm-than-good-2/

• On Dec 1, 2019, China’s new vaccination law – The Vaccine Administration Law – came into effect.  According to the Law, China implemented a state immunization program, and citizens were legally obligated to be vaccinated with immunization program vaccines, which are provided by the government free of charge. The roll out of the mandatory vaccines started in Wuhan. By the end of December, some Wuhan residents were hosoitalised with a ‘mysterious’ pneumonia and they rest is history. Significant coincidences are a Red Flag.

• c19 virus has never been isolated in the sense that a intact virus particle was identified in a patient believed to be suffering from symptoms caused by the virus. The claims that c19 has been isolated are the result of a fragment of genetic material- an exosome –  having been extracted from a patient and labelled as a fragment of the virus. Computer modelling was then used to produce an ‘In silico’ – ie computer generated – model of what the complete virus particle looked like. Because the virus only exists on a computer, it has not been possible to expose a healthy person to the virus extracted from the sick person, and bring about the same symptoms in the healthy person. Red Flag.

• The c19 variants come about because different Labs came up with slightly different In Silico representations of the virus, all based on same original fragment of genetic material that someone said belonged to the virus. Red Flag.

• Isolation makes people much more susceptible to propaganda. In 2020, governnents enforced isolation and bombarded us with propaganda. Red Flag.

• The approach of Western governments to covid was effectively the same as China’s. I hope you realise that’s a Red Flag.

• It’s a red flag when patents are issued for Covid19, years before Covid19 is ‘discovered’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10542309/Fresh-lab-leak-fears-study-finds-genetic-code-Covids-spike-protein-linked-Moderna-patent.html

https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/03/29/confidential-moderna-created-virus-and-vaccine-before-pandemic/

I have listed 50 or so Red Flags here. This isn’t intended to be a comprehensive list. Many of you will know of many more alarming examples of conflicts of interest or misdirection than I have listed here. Yet I hope this list is enough to shock people into participating in some critical thinking.

The point of this piece is that it is possible to realise that we’ve been lied to, without knowing why we’ve been lied to. The two things are separate and can exist in separation. You might not know why you’ve been lied to, but it doesn’t change the fact that you have been lied to.

On too many occasions, I have pointed out to someone all of the lies and inconsistencies in the official Covid19 narrative and my co-debator has fallen into agreement with me. However, then they ask why the authorities have lied, and when they haven’t liked the response I’ve given them, they switch off.

It’s too much for such people to handle in one hit. It’s information overload. Plus, any reasons you present are too complicated to be able to adequately convey in a 30 second window. You risk sounding like a nutcase. Instead, you must urge the person to carry out their own research.

Do not present conspiracy theories to people who are just waking up!

Instead, I suggest you use the words that I heard Alex Thomson (UK Column) employ by way of recognising the lies that have been peddled without offering a reason:

“I am not convinced that the official narrative makes sense, from first principles, and I am not persuaded of the veracity of the people telling me to believe it” – Alex Thomson

They Had Their Chance And They Blew It

If rumours, conjecture and evidence are anything to go by, the plan to use a pandemic to enslave humanity wasn’t supposed to happen for another 5 to 10 years. I have linked to another blog piece – not mine! – that provides an excellent summary of the many occasions in which the opportunities provided by a pandemic had been considered – and prepared for – by The Elites:

https://hinditraveltips.wordpress.com/2020/10/06/proof-that-the-covid19-pandemic-was-planned-with-purpose/

But, Covid19 appeared in 2020 and The Elites thought it was too good an opportunity to go to waste. So, they brought their plan forward.

Yet it has failed.

Why did it fail? There were two big reasons:

1) Covid19 wasn’t nearly deadly enough.

2) The vaxx was useless.

Nevertheless, things looked very bleak for long periods of time. We were totally on the back foot when restrictions were first put in place in March 2020. Very few people were immediately alert to the dangers of Government authoritarianism. But anyone who had doubts found it hard to raise those doubts:

Firstly, for the obvious reason that we weren’t allowed to socialise.

Secondly, because like minded people were very few and far between in the early days.

And thirdly, because you would come across as a psycho nutcase who wanted to destroy the NHS and let millions die.

Sometimes, you have to read the room and, in 2020, people were too busy banging their pots and pans in support of the NHS to listen to any science that diverged from the ‘one true science’ that the authorities were telling them. It was too soon.

Plus, for a long time, the biggest point was trying to understand why we were being lied to. Nothing made sense. It was Kafka-esque. Many of us could see that the Covid19 policies were a huge overreaction that would cause a great deal more harm than good, yet it was impossible to explain why these undemocratic, authoritarian policies had been put in place in liberal democracies. In a typical discussion, I would explain to someone that the Government were lying and that everyone was in on it: SAGE; The Media; Big Tech; the Civil Service etc and then would come the killer question: ‘Why are they doing it?’ And I would have no answer…or I would lamely respond ‘it’s about control’ without any real understanding of what was going on.

Gradually though, more and more of us realised that something wasn’t right. And we found forums where we could discuss our concerns with other like-minded individuals.

Then, little by little, we worked out the plan. We found things: like the WEF video telling us that the time had come for a ‘Great Reset’ in which we will own nothing and be happy. And we weren’t too sure we liked the sound of that. And then, the vaccines were released together with soundbites from Global Policy Influencers like Bill Gates that we were going to need to adopt vaccine passports if we ever wanted to return to normal. Steady on, Bill, where did that come from? And then you discover that Bill is one of a number of people who, for a number of years, have been lobbying for the introduction of digital identities for everyone. Plus, Bill had billions of dollars invested in vaccines. Bill likes vaccines.

As such, it started becoming obvious that there was more to the Covid19 hysteria than an exaggerated expression of ‘safety-ism’ by incompetent Governments. Something else was going on.

We searched around, we found new sources of information. We shared what we found. We pieced the puzzle together.

The problem for the Elites now is that we are wise to their plans. We are Awake. The Awake are in contact with each other. We are organised and prepared. We know where to find alternative sources of information. We have found the few remaining investigative journalists. We are highly attuned to lies and propaganda. Our spider senses tingle at any hint of digital IDs or CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currencies) or any type of ‘Reset’ or Social Credit system. We no longer trust what we are told by the authorities. They have destroyed their credibility.

The Establishment’s attempt to introduce the framework of a Social Credit system has failed. It has certainly failed in England and parts of the US. The fight continues in most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Canada but the narrative has collapsed and it is only a matter of time before these wannabe fascist states work out a way to retreat gracefully, without accepting they were wrong.

Governments and their Globalist handlers are now going to have to re-group and re-plan their next steps. I doubt they will be able to utilise the cover of a pandemic next time. (Although, there is certainly a pandemic early warning system being put in place that will be used in an attempt to normalise future lockdowns and rushed vaccines. But I doubt people will accept the same bitter pill quite so readily next time).

The Elites will need to find a new approach. Maybe it will relate to Climate Change. Maybe it will be an economic collapse. Or a cyber attack. Maybe it will be a war. Maybe a series of terrorist acts will be used to unleash another wave of propaganda and suppression of our inalienable rights. Maybe they will stoke up civil unrest – using supply chain shortages? – and that will become the excuse to place everyone into a digital lockdown. Who knows what those psychopaths are capable of? Whatever it is, you can be assured that it will be sold to us in one of two ways: either we will be told that we will be helping our loved ones (as we saw when the vaccines were used as an opportunity to roll out vaxx passports) or, we will be told that the Govt is doing this for our benefit.

Whatever it is, they will have to go back to the drawing board. This attempt has failed. This was their chance and they blew it. They made too many mistakes. They went too hard, too soon. There were too many inconsistencies in their stories. There were too many lies. The pandemic wasn’t deadly enough and the vaccine wasn’t efficacious enough. If the real plan was intended for 5 years time, then we have all benefitted from the mistakes that prematurity induced.

However, before we get too excited, there is a long way to go. We have won a battle but the war, in many ways, has only just started. It’s only just started because we have only just realised that we are at war. We have only just realised that The Elites loathe us. Now the war is official.

Now we know who Klaus Schwab is and what his plans are.

Now we will be paying more attention to what comes out of Davos each year.

Now we know that Bill Gates sees himself as unofficial President of the World.

Billionaire expresses amazement that people didn’t agree to his plan for World Domination

Now we know the extent to which the legacy media are prepared to lie and suppress the truth.

Now we know the extent to which social media are prepared to shut down debate and dissent.

Now we now that there is a system of Global Governance in place that sets policy for national Governments to follow.

Now we know that Governments will only listen to those experts that tell them what they want to hear, irrespective of their track records, and will ignore all other experts with better models, knowledge and facts.

Stay frosty, people.

Confessions Of A Church Crawler

I visit churches whenever I get the chance. It’s got to the point where, if my wife and I are travelling somewhere in the UK, I will identify notable churches along the route that I can stop at, to ‘break up the journey’.

People ask me what is the appeal of churches. This post is my response.

Antiquity

Firstly, and most superficially, I like old buildings. I get a thrill from a building that is so old that I can see the wear and tear caused by hundreds of years of use and British weather. The more worn the better. I like stone steps that are ‘sagging’ from hundreds of years of footfall. Then there’s the damage to churches caused by political upheavals: there have been periods in our history where iconoclasts have visited churches and destroyed artifacts that fell foul of the dominant religious and/or political views of the time. For example, Henry VIII’s Reformation left its mark on many religious buildings. Many abbeys were destroyed but the abbey churches were often allowed to survive – often in some sort of truncated form – for the use of the local population. More than 100 years later, Cromwell’s puritans, such as William Dowsing, embarked on another programme to de-Catholicise churches: chiseling the faces from statues; oblitering animal imagery and removing the wings from angels as part of a programme to remove ‘catholic’ iconography from churches. I don’t like to see vandalised artwork but I appreciate that history is a rich tapestry that bears repeated consideration.

Artifacts

Despite the state-sponsored destruction over the centuries, churches still possess a wealth of beautiful artifacts. There are Norman fonts and medieval fonts in all manner of designs. I’ve even seen Saxon fonts.

Norman font at Bodmin

Sometimes the fonts have covers (originally so that the Holy Water could not be stolen for use in witchcraft). Some churches went to the effort of commissioning elaborate, decorative covers that sometimes require a pulley to lift them.

Font cover at Salle, Norfolk

Many churches have murals on the walls. Lots of these murals have only been uncovered in the last 150 years from the layers of whitewash that were used by the iconoclasts to cover them. Once you discover that, you learn that, before religious strife, most churches featured biblical stories painted on the walls as inspirational reminders to illiterate parishioners. Sometimes even the ceilings were painted. Sometimes, it is possible to see a smidge of colour on the fonts or on the columns of the arcade and you realise that, once, churches were an awe-inspiring blaze of colour. This is another example by which churches tell the story of our history.

A Doom painting at St Thomas’, Salisbury

Superb wood-carvings can often be seen in churches whether in the form of delicate wooden screens or angel-roofs; rood statues; bench-ends or pulpits or doors.

A 16th century bench-end at Alternun, Cornwall

Interestingly, there is quite a lot of pagan imagery in churches from the ‘Green Man’ to mythical beasts. I often wonder why. I know that Christianity leveraged many of the myths of the pre-Christian era in order to gain acceptance. Why do you think the dates for Easter move every year? Easter was a pre-Christian festival relating to Spring and renewal that was co-opted into Christianity. Same with December 25th. The new religion of Christianity would have been more tolerable to adopt if the people could still celebrate and venerate existing festivals and imagery. I suspect that this explains much of the pagan symbolism: paganism and Christianity entwined to the point where most did not realise where one ended and the other started.

Did you know it is possible to date churches from their architectural style? Can I do this? Not really. I can recognise Norman stonework (1070 – 1180) but that’s about it. However, I look forward to the time when I can accurately recognise the ‘Early English’ style (1180 – 1280), or the ‘Decorated’ (1280 – 1380) or ‘Perpendicular’ (1380 – early c16) styles.

There is often decorative stone sculpturework evident in the arcade columns or the door surrounds, the tombs and memorials. This took both time and skill to achieve. I regret that we don’t put the same effort into buildings these days.

Churches vs museums

I find it amazing that churches are packed with all of these incredible features and yet, during most of my church visits, I have the place to myself. By way of contrast, if I visit a museum, it will be packed with people. Chances are, in a museum, I may have to wait my turn to view some ancient artifact held in a glass case, ripped from its original location and purpose. Treasures from ancient churches are often scattered across multiple museums: the reredos and the screens might be in the Victoria and Albert (in different rooms!); the alterpieces might be in the National Gallery (or abroad); and the silverware and font in the British Museum. However, when I visit a church, everything is in context in a single location. Here you can see 1,000 years of history in a single location – tombs, memorials, screens, pews, pulpits, altarpieces – rather than distributed across the world, or sold to private collectors, or destroyed with the building. This opportunity to enjoy such a wide range of artifacts, on my own, at leisure, in a single location, is why I believe that churches are better than museums.

History

I’ve touched on the history of churches in relation to the national upheavals that erupted from time to time. However, there is also the local historical story particular to each individual church. Each church was the centre of community life. I often wonder what religion meant to people hundreds of years ago. Were all parishioners religious? Or was going to church services done more for social reasons? Was religion an early form of virtue-signaling? Did they believe what their priest preached to them on Sundays? Did they listen? Did people attend church because conformity left them with no choice? Would people have suffered social consequences if they had professed scepticism at what they were told on Sundays? Or if they had stopped attending services? How many people went along with the theatre of church because it was the socially accepted thing to do? I’m sure historians must have answered these questions. I’m not in any desperate rush to find the answers but I think of the situations in contemporary society where certain opinions are deemed unacceptable and I realise that there is nothing new about humans imposing conformity on each other. It will have undoubtedly applied to the church. In a small village, I realise it must have been very difficult to do something that went against the consensus view. There would probably have been consequences. Perhaps, you might have been accused of witchcraft? It would have been easier to suppress your awkward views and go with the flow. Was this coercion applied by your fellow villagers or by the Lord of the Manor, who may have seen it as his duty to ensure those under his remit received moral guidance via the scriptures?

The positive aspect of this approach is that a heterogeneous population that is all pulling in the same direction by abiding with the same cultural norms explains much of the success of the UK over the last 1,000 years. The negative aspect is that individual automony was suppressed for the benefit of community harmony. This is contrary to the ethos of ‘individualism’ that is espoused today.

Rich vs poor

We can see the marks left on churches by individual parishioners in the form of the tombstones or memorial tablets or tombs. These are often works of art by themselves.

Tombstone at Cley Next The Sea, Norfolk

Of course, only the richest parishioners could afford to leave a legacy of their existence. Sometimes a church will have a number of memorials to a single family and then, at a certain point, no more. Either that family line died out or the wealth was dissipated to the extent that surviving members could no longer justify expensive memorials. I think that’s a good thing. It shows that wealth is churned. My cousin worked on our family tree during which he discovered that generations of our family had lived for more than 200 years in a village less than 50 miles from me. I visited the village church and realised there is no trace of my family at this church. They were too poor. This shows me that family wealth doesn’t last forever and neither does family poverty. Rich families can become poor and poor families can become rich. That is how it should be.

Chewton Mendip, Somerset. These people were very rich. Now they are dead.

A treat for me is when a church exceeds my expectations. Sometimes, a small church in the middle of nowhere can be an absolute joy: old, worn, yet full of beauty and serenity. Churches in the middle of nowhere are sometimes fortunate for this reason: they were spared from later ‘improvements’ and remain much as originally built. (Ofcourse, the downside to a remote church is that it was often allowed to fall into ruins).

Then there are often huge, impressive churches full of beauty in small villages and I wonder at the incongruity between the size of the church and the size of the village. A bit of research either reveals that the settlement was once fantastically wealthy but later fell on hard times or that local benefactors paid for a House of God to be built that reflected their piety and/or self-importance. This latter category sometimes contain family chapels filled with the tombs of these dignatories. Such tombs are always a treat because they were only created during a 300 year period between the 14th and 17th centuries. Even so, the designs of these monuments went through a great deal of evolution.

I like the fact that no two churches are the same. Each church is an adventure of its own and, for that reason, I don’t research too much about a church before I visit. The thrill of discovery is all part of the hobby. For me, there is a huge amount of excitement when I attempt to enter a church: quite often, especially in urban areas, the church is locked and I must content myself with trying to peer in through the windows. However, if the door is not locked and the latch lifts then the excitement courses through me. I often have no idea what I am about to discover. Will the church exceed my expectations? Will it disappoint? For that 1 or 2 seconds while I open the door, I have no idea. Once the door is open, I can absorb the scene that confronts me. Normally, I can tell immediately whether the visit is going to be pleasurable or functional: whether I’m going to be in and out in less than 10 minutes or whether it’s going to take as long as it takes, to appreciate the wonders within. The right church sends a surge of emotion through me. I experience that surge a lot more often than I don’t. That feeling is why I pursue this hobby.

People ask me if I visit churches because I’m religious. That’s not the reason as I cannot call myself religious. I would call myself either a ‘Christian atheist’ or a ‘cultural Christian’. However, church-crawling has made me appreciate Christianity all the more. I like to think I share the same moral code as Christians and I want Christianity to thrive. I respect the Christian beliefs that people hold. However, I don’t share those beliefs and, unlike long ago, I am under no compulsion to do so. I realise such secular attitudes undermine the Christianity specifically, and Western culture in general but I cannot find belief within me where none exists. The best I can do is appreciate what has been lost.

In short, UK churches are a time capsule of the last 1,000 years of British history and British architecture and religous upheaval and decorative art and British culture. The fact that there are so many of these historical buildings available to us is an absolute privilege that each of us should take advantage of.

Quotes on Democracy

‘Britain’s Populist Revolt’ by Matthew Goodwin in Quillette 3rd August 2018

Between 1964 and 2015, the percentage of politicians in Westminster who had worked in manual jobs crashed from 37 to just 3 percent, while more recent research has shown how the rise of ‘careerist’ politicians, particularly in the Labour Party, lowered the amount of attention going to working-class interests. Meanwhile, the numbers that had been elected after working in politics or in London reached record heights. Such findings leant credibility to the perception of a political class that had become increasingly insular and detached from ordinary voters. Before the referendum even got underway, nearly 40 percent of working-class voters agreed that “people like me have no say in government.”

https://quillette.com/2018/08/03/britains-populist-revolt/

Comment from ‘David’ on DavidThompson.typepad.com

March 22nd

It’s odd how so much talk about rights has shifted from a notion of individual rights (meant to restrict the power of the state or king) to group rights and entitlements, which give the state greater power over individuals and what they may say, how much they may earn, whose lifestyle they have to subsidise, etc.

https://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/

Uri Harris

‘Patreon Games’

9th January 2019
Quillette.com

Women are traditionally are more conservative than men, but modern progressivism seems to have gradually developed into a movement that is extremely appealing to women, especially younger, more secular women. And part of the reason for this, perhaps, is that it has shifted away from the freedom-oriented attitude of the 1970s and towards safety and rigid norms. It has essentially adopted values traditionally associated with conservatism, thus making it something of a hybrid.(This refers to mainstream progressivism, not the radical fringe.)

[Corporate censorship] seems like something progressives should be concerned about, but as their goals have shifted from freedom to safety this can no longer be taken for granted.

https://quillette.com/2019/01/09/patreon-games/

Konstantin Kisin

‘The New War on Comedy’

3rd January 2019 Quillette.com

The underlying assumptions of social justice censorship are that words are a form of violence, that a subjective interpretation matters more than the speaker’s intent and that safety is contingent on not being teased or challenged. The mainstreaming of these ideas is an existential threat to comedy (and freedom of speech in general). Comedians use lies to tell the truth—the notion that the exaggerations, stories and carefully crafted falsehoods we deliver on stage should be taken literally will be the death knell of comedy. The idea that your safety depends on me never challenging you is the end of any sort of useful communication.

https://quillette.com/2019/01/03/the-new-war-on-comedy/

Dominic Cummings

‘How The Referendum Was Won’

9th Jan 2017
The Spectator

Swing voters who decide elections – both those who swing between Conservative/Labour and those who swing between IN/OUT – do not think like this [thinking in terms of the ‘centre ground’]. They support much tougher policies on violent crime than most Tory MPs AND much higher taxes on the rich than Blair, Brown, and Miliband. They support much tougher anti-terrorism laws than most Tory MPs AND they support much tougher action on white collar criminals and executive pay than Blair, Brown, and Miliband.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/dominic-cummings-brexit-referendum-won/

Wagner Clemente Soto:

‘Effete men turn to the left because there they find fashionable and self-righteous justifications for their lack of manhood’

Allister Heath

‘Will any political party be able to survive the second act of Brexit?’

The Telegraph

February 20th, 2019

‘The emergence of a distinct political class at the turn of the century – a back-scratching, culturally homogenous, post-ideological, self-interested coterie whose members have more in common with each other than their constituents – is a central reason why so many voters are attracted to populism of Left and Right.’

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/20/will-political-party-able-survive-second-act-brexit/

Ben Pile

‘It’s The End of The World…As They Know It’

Climate-resistance.org

12th Feb 2016

The more detached from ordinary people and ordinary life politicians and political parties become, so the more they seek legitimacy in ideas that are beyond the senses of ordinary people, and the more they locate power above democratic control on the basis of seemingly ‘global’ risks.

http://www.climate-resistance.org/2016/02/its-the-end-of-the-world-as-they-know-it.html

The Rise of The Absurd

The Z Man

We have arrived at the monstrous end of the liberal project. What started as a reasoned assault on superstition is now a collection of increasingly bizarre superstitions, in service to a war on observable reality

https://www.takimag.com/article/rise-of-the-absurd/

Lord Hailsham from the Sunday Times, 19 July 1970:

‘It is the Parliamentary majority which has the potential for tyranny. The thing that Courts cannot protect you against is Parliament, the traditional protector of our liberties. But Parliament is constantly making mistakes and could in theory become the most oppressive
instrument in the world’.

Alex Thomson, taken from his Telegram account. 22 Feb 2022.

‘Woke liberalism is quite literally the most gut wrenching political view point I have ever known.

It means you can foster beliefs such as :-

▪️Everyone deserves freedom, except those we say can’t be free
▪️Everyone is equal, except those we say are not equal
▪️Everyone should be treated the same, except those we say shouldn’t be treated the same

It applies twisted logic to reach these conclusions which its followers parrot in unwavering belief.

It is the most segregating and divisive political ideology I have ever known, and there is nothing remotely truly liberal about it.’

Nick Cave, July 2020:

‘I tend to become uncomfortable around all ideologies that brand themselves as “the truth” or “the way”. This not only includes most religions, but also atheism, radical bi-partisan politics or any system of thought, including “woke” culture, that finds its energy in self-righteous belief and the suppression of contrary systems of thought. Regardless of the virtuous intentions of many woke issues, it is its lack of humility and the paternalistic and doctrinal sureness of its claims that repel me.’

Daniel Greenfield, via the Gatestone Institute:

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/end-debate

‘The establishment designates experts to establish a manufactured consensus, and denounces those who disagree as pawns of some larger conspiracy whose ideas endanger us all. When everything is either a public health crisis (COVID-19, racism, transgender mutilation) or a threat to the survival of the human race (war, global warming) the threat is too serious for democratic norms. The only thing to be done is to expose the conspiracy and silence its perpetrators.’

Martyr-In-Waiting

I have made my decision whether or not to ever have the Covid19 jab.

At the start of the vaxx roll-out, I told my wife I wasn’t going to be coerced into having it. I was going to bide my time and wait for the safety trials to complete. I was at low risk from Covid-19 so I certainly wasn’t scared of a virus with a mortality profile that exactly matched the normal mortality profile.

However, parallel with the roll-out of the vaxx in Dec 2020, the media ramped up the promotion of vaxx passports as part of ‘the new normal’. Airlines started hinting that they would only allow the vaxxed to fly. It quickly started looking like life was going to be made much harder for the unvaxxed. However, I interpreted this as a blatant coercive tactic designed to nudge the gullible into taking the vaccine. I found such coercion to be dispicable but I didn’t take these threats particularly seriously.

Nevertheless, my wife started asking me if I was prepared to never go abroad on holiday again. I grudgingly responded that I would consider taking the jab if my life was being made so difficult that I felt the benefits of the jab (freedom) outweighed the risks of the jab (adverse effects and long-term medical conditions).

Since then I have seen the wave of horrible adverse effects, including death, caused by the vaccines. I have read a great deal about the long-term health risks of the jab: risks of a permanently damaged immune system; of cancer; of dementia; of strokes and heart-attacks caused by micro-clots in the bloodstream; of Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE). I have also seen the myopic promotion of the jabs by all Governments and Health organisations. The focus on defeating Covid19 has become an obsession, out of all proportion to the risks it presents to national health. Routine medical treatment has been pushed to one side in a mono-maniacal focus on ensuring no one ever dies from Covid19. So, we see that the NHS waiting list in the UK has mushroomed to 12 million people. There was a story last week that upto 740,000 less people than expected have been referred for cancer treatment than would have been expected since the start of the pandemic. Covid is the only game in town.

My wife was given the impression that she would not be able to visit her 93-yo father in the Care Home unless she was vaxxed. She had already been unable to see him for just over a year due to lockdowns. Her father was a captive of a care system that cared about him so much that it had kept him in social isolation for a year, depriving him of access to the only things that still had any importance to him: his two daughters. At this point, my wife was prepared to do anything to ensure she could see him. As such, she had the vaxx (despite my fairly weak attempts to persuade her to wait). And then she had the second jab (despite my stronger attempts this time in the light of growing evidence of the dangers). She argued that there was no point in having the first one if she didn’t have the second one. I could see the conundrum she was in with her father. I didn’t have the same difficult decision to make so my principles remained untested.

What was becoming clear was that everything was about the vaccine. As time has passed, more and more governments are introducing vaccine passports that supposedly restore freedoms for those that are double-jabbed…and then had the booster…and then had the fourth shot. The goalposts for the definition of ‘vaccinated’ keep moving in response to the ever waning efficacy of the gene therapy treatments. More and more governments are introducing vaccine mandates where everyone has to take the unlicensed, experimental vaxx or lose their job and/or be fined and/or go to prison. This obsession with the vaccine gets my spider senses tingling. The vaxx was supposed to be just for the vulnerable. Now it is being rolled out to children. Pregnant women are being told it’s safe even though pregnant women were not included in the 2020 safety trials (and the number of miscarriages and stillbirths are rocketing). Governments seem to have lost all sense of proportion and reason. They have embarked on a mass programme of fear-mongering and propaganda designed to push vaccines. But why? It made no sense. What was it all about?

I had been unable to prevent my wife from being double-jabbed, but I still have a vital duty of care to ensure my two sons – in their early twenties – do not succumb to the vaxx in what has become an intolerable programme of coercion through threats and shaming. I have to be a role-model for them. I have to show them that vaccination is not inevitable, that they are not selfish or stupid for not being vaxxed. I point out to them that, at their age, they are prime candidates for myocarditis / pericarditis. They must be allowed to weigh up the risks and benefits as they relate to them as individuals and not try to consider some immaginary duty of care to society as a whole.

Meanwhile, my search for explanations for what I was witnessing became ever more important.

And then, gradually, I started putting the pieces together. Everything I needed to know was already available in the public domain. I just hadn’t connected the dots. As I read more, it became clear this was a power grab. Vaccine passports were a precursor to digital ids and digital ids will facilitate CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currencies). Then there’s the whole Global net zero thing with UN’s ‘Agenda 2030’; sustainable development; stakeholder capitalism, GFANZ; Smart Cities; Stonger Cities Network and ‘Going Direct’. I’ve written about these things recently. I was vaguely aware of many of these things before but I wasn’t able to see how they related to measures implemented to protect us from a respiratory virus. Over time, I read more and the connection became clear. Fascism is at the door: Governments and Corporations are working together to gain total control of global assets and populations under the guise of ‘sustainable development’ and the ‘fourth industrial revolution’.

So, where has my journey brought me? What is my attitude to the the vaccines now? Well, my attitude has hardened.

Initially, I knew the Covid-related actions of the authorities were wrong but I didn’t understand why they were pursuing them. Now I do and I realise it has nothing to do with health.

I am now certain that I will never take these vaccines. Not now, not even after the inevitable licensing following the completion of the phase 4 trials. I won’t take the vaccines for two reasons:

Firstly, I am more scared of the vaccine than I am of Covid19 (although that relationship might change, for better or worse, as time passes and more information becomes available). This is purely a self-centred consideration of personal safety.

The second, and much more important anti-vax reason, is due to what the Covid19 vaccine represents: it represents an attempt to medically and digitally enslave every person on the planet. This is a fight for freedom. This is the altruistic reason for not taking the jab. It’s about the bigger picture. It’s not just about me, it’s about everyone: my family and friends and everyone who has yet to be born into this world. I’m not going comply with the means by which freedom will be taken from us.

In response to my wife’s questioning about my future holiday plans, I now state that freedom will not be achieved by taking the vaccine. Taking the vaccine will perpetuate additional vaccines and vaxx passports and the other authoritarian tools that are being lined up. Freedom can only be won by not taking the vaccine.

I now know there are no advantages to taking the vaccines (apart from some very short term conveniences that are very negligible in the general scheme of things), whilst the disadvantages are so huge in scale as to be almost beyond comprehension: loss of freedom and destroyed health. People find it hard to imagine ‘loss of freedom’ as they insist, despite 2 years of lockdowns, that the Government would never remove our freedoms!

I can confirm, I’m never going to wave around a vaccine passport.

If I lose my job because of my vaccination status, I will resort to legal action.

If I am fined for being in the wrong place without the relevant paperwork, I will not pay the fines.

If I am sent to prison, so be it. I will be a martyr to the cause.

What is going on is wrong. Our governments have crossed a rubicon. We need to push back. And we need to find out just how far our governments are prepared to go down this path. Are they bluffing? Are they really prepared to jail people who refuse the vaccine? Forcing governments into more extreme measures might be the only way to wake people up to the threats we are facing. If Governments pull back in the face of mass opposition, then that is good. Either way, it’s a fight worth having. Unfortunately, from time to time, Governments need reminding that they serve the people, not vice verse.

I will be on the right side of history. And I will be a role model to my sons so they learn that immoral, authoritarian behaviour must never be ignored for the sake of convenience.

‘The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.’ (Attributed to Edmund Burke, although he did not ever express this sentiment in so concise a form).

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