Autopsy of an Argument Between An Extremist And A Moderate

On a Friday night in late September I had a fierce argument with a mate. I use the term ‘mate’ deliberately: he is not a friend. He is not someone I’ve ever phoned for a chat. We’ve never gone for a drink, just the two of us. Instead, this man is part of a wider circle of friends. For the purposes of this article, I’m going to my mate as ‘F’. I will also point that F is Belgian. I point this out not to introduce xenophobia into the conversation, nor to invoke stereotypes but because F’s European background is relevant to where the argument went.

It was an argument that has been brewing for a while. We first noticed we had very different political views during Brexit – F voted Remain so that his children would find it easier to work in EU countries – and, since then, it has become clear that we have polar opposite views on each and every issue of the day: Russia; Climate Change; Covid…There seems to be nothing we agree on. We even once had an argument over which was the best country in Europe. F thinks I hold extremist views.

It’s strange that our views should be so different as we are similar in many ways. We both went to university. We both work in respectable professions. We mix in the same circles. We’re both opinionated yet our opinions couldn’t be more different. It’s not as though we are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, I don’t think we are. I am right wing and if I were to hazard a guess, I would suggest that F is somewhere very near the centre-ground, politically, probably a Social Democrat in European terms which is the political position of every urbane, moderate European who considers themselves civilised and seeks a peaceful, inclusive Europe. In UK terms, it is harder to guess which political party F supports since UK mainstream parties are indistinguishable from each other.

So, arguments are never far away but, recently, we’ve stayed away from controversial topics and have been getting on better as a result. I will point out that F is good company. He is convivial and never short of something to say. Yes, the arrogance of success is never far away but it is quite enjoyable to observe his arrogance. Yet, it seems that failing to conduct regular ‘targeted burns’ may have led to an overabundance of combustible material that allowed a wildfire to erupt. Maybe too many words had been left unsaid for too long.

The context of the argument was all of the above plus, probably more significantly, a WhatsApp group that was set up by a mutual friend, during lockdown in 2020, to discuss the views on lockdowns and other covid restrictions, for the wider circle of local friends. One by one, those friends who supported the government’s policies for tackling covid left the group in the face of anti-narrative covid facts that were being shared by a hardcore group of us who read and shared everything the alternative media was publishing. F was one of the last defendents of the government position remaining on the group but, one day, even he left the group under the bombardment of information he no longer wished to confront. F always holds the mainstream view on any big issues of the day. He is an Establishment man. I referred to F’s leaving of the WhatsApp group during the argument.

The argument went as follows:

One Friday evening, 6 of us were huddled around the outdoor heater of a pub’s beer garden. We had just finished a conversation about class in which F and I were again on opposite sides of the debate. (F thought that class was based solely on how much money you have, whereas I felt that class is a factor of your origins, not your whereabouts: If a taxi driver wins the lottery he is still working class, even if he now lives in the biggest house in town). This was the spark for the conflagration that followed.

Below, I have documented my memory of the argument as best as I can. I cannot guarantee that this is an accurate and complete transcript of what was said – too much beer prevents that – but it captures the main points of escalation and, I believe, it captures the spirit of the incident. In short, this was an argument between 2 people who have no respect for each other’s positions and who each took the opportunity to unload all the animosity that had built up, going back to Brexit disagreements 5 years ago.

We were talking about the vaccines (I can’t remember how we got onto the subject). I asked F if he still thought the vaccines were safe and effective. He said ‘Yes, absolutely’ . I was flabbergasted. It would have been a surprising answer at the end of 2021 but to maintain that position at the end of 2022 was ridiculous. I then tried to point out all of the excess deaths that were occurring in all of the most vaxxed countries. To which F responded ”I’m not interested”. I answered that I was trying to share facts, these aren’t my opinions. To which F responded “I don’t give a fuck about facts.” I should have walked away at that point as F was clearly being deliberately provocative. There is no chance of rational debate with someone who has taken the position that facts are irrelevant. Instead, I ploughed on. I attacked him for what he had just said about facts. I also blasted him for leaving the WhatsApp group. I told him that he left the group because all he had were his opinions whereas the rest of us had facts and his opinions couldn’t compete with our facts and so he ran away. The next thing I remember was F criticising me for wearing my ‘Unvaccinated’ yellow wristband. He said something like “You think you are so clever wearing that band. You only hold these positions because you think it makes you look edgy and different from everyone else. You think you are more intelligent than everyone so you hold these views so you can show off.”

This wristband is like kryptonite to some


I asked him if he thought I didn’t really believe what I stood for
I think he responded ‘no, I don’t think you do’.
I asked him if Wendy and Jon, [two other anti-lockdown activists on the WhatsApp group] also held their positions for the same reason. F dodged the question. Somewhere around this time I told F that he always holds the positions that the authorities want him to hold. I said that I think critically to make my mind up on issues and that he should do the same thing. I also said something about him coming from “that Grand-Ecole background where you simply trust the experts because you think they are the same as you”. This was a reference to F’s Belgian educational background. F responded “Come on…” and rolled his eyes.


The next thing I remember was explaining why I wore the wristband. I said “I wear it to remind myself how there was an attempt by the authorities to stigmatise the unvaxxed”. I pointed out that during 2021 there were regular articles in the MSM suggesting that the unvaxxed shouldn’t receive NHS treatment nor should we be allowed on public transport to which F interjected with “I agree with those things. You shouldn’t be allowed.” Again, with hindsight, it’s hard to know if F genuinely believes that or whether he was being deliberately provocative.
At the time, I took F at his word and I expressed my incredulity at his hardline position. I asked F why he was in a pub with me if he felt that way. He shrugged and mumbled something that I didn’t catch. Things became very ‘shouty’ from this point. I told F that he’d been hypnotised by government propaganda and he needed to widen his reading material and stop watching TV. I told him that I wear the yellow band to remind myself how there was an attempt to stigmatise the unvaxxed, just like Nazis stigmatised the jews in 1930s Germany.
At this point F blew up. He demanded to know if I was comparing myself to Jews during WW2. I said “No, I’m comparing myself with Jews in 1930s Germany”. We were both really shouting by now. F said if I continued to compare my treatment with that of Jews in WW2, he would never talk to me again. I repeated that I wasn’t comparing myself with Jews during WW2, I was comparing myself with Jews in 1930s Germany. (I don’t know why F distorted my words several times). I pointed out that in the 1930s Jews were called ‘vectors of disease’ and so were the unvaxxed in 2021. I said there were many parallels. I tried to say that government plans to stigmatise the unvaxxed didn’t catch on but that the intention was straight out of 1930s Germany. F was absolutely furious about the comparison and I remember screaming that he couldn’t comment because he didn’t see it from the perspective of an unvaxxed person. I remember shouting “Don’t deny my lived experience”. My lived experience? I never expected to say that!

Anyway, that was my memory of events, written the following day. F thinks I hold my positions to be provocative and I think his positions are provocative in a different way. I cannot believe that he adopts such a one-dimensional, mainstream view on everything and he cannot believe that I adopt such extremist, minority views, seemingly to be deliberately contrary. I am not proud of the encounter however, in some ways it was good to get things in the open.

Afterwards, I considered F’s comments about me being deliberately contrary. I have asked myself if there is any truth to that. There isn’t. I follow the facts to find the truth and I am prepared to endorse the truth no matter how unpopular the truth is at the time. Not many people are prepared to do the same which is why my views are minority views. I find that my positions become more popular over time as the truth reveals itself. That happened with lockdowns and its happening with the vaxx. It’s also happening with Ukraine. I will continue to search for the truth, and see through the Establishment propaganda. F adopts The Establishment position and clings on to it regardless of how much that position is later undermined by the evidence. F is a supporter of ideology over facts. I value freedom over safety.

F thinks of himself as the very model of European reasonableness: He obeys the authorities in every situation. He always defers to the experts put forward by the authorities. He doesn’t like to hear about inconsistencies in official logic. He refuses to consider counter-arguments. Yet he doesn’t see that his blind adherence to government propaganda could lead him down some dark roads. He has already rationalised extreme positions such as agreeing that the unvaxxed should not receive NHS medical treatment or travel on public transport. And those were just the examples I raised. What else does he agree with? Quarantine camps, such as those set up in Australia? We’ve all asked ourselves what we would have done if we were a gentile in 1930s Germany. The last 30 months have answered that question: F would have been an enforcer for the regime.

F thinks it is the height of bad taste to draw analogies with another minority group who were persecuted 90 years ago. Yet he doesn’t see that analogies need to be made to prevent history repeating itself

“Never forget” was the refrain in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Yet F is forgetting already. Worse than that, he doesn’t want to be reminded. It’s like we can’t even talk about the possibility that history might repeat itself until the death count is in the 7 figures, little realising that by then it’s too late. If we truly want to #NeverForget then we need to understand how the situation came to pass that the first person was killed for being different, and prevent that first person from being killed. Because it doesn’t start off with people being killed in camps, it starts off with people being denied access to public transport. It starts off with moderate, well-educated, reasonable Belgians thinking it is perfectly acceptable to remove rights from a minority of the population because they won’t take an unlicensed, experimental medical intervention.

The argument was between a rationalist and an ideologue; between a truth-seeker and a propagandist; between a critical thinker and an adherent of groupthink; between someone who prioritises freedom and someone who prioritises control; between someone willing to risk his reputation to call out illegal, immoral behaviour and a coward; between an extremist and a moderate.

But Things Would Be Worse Under Labour…

I keep hearing right wingers defending the miserable track record of the Tories by saying “But things would be worse under Labour”.

No, things wouldn’t be worse. How could things be any worse? The country is barrelling towards the black hole of the New World Order. Don’t think for a minute that Labour has any intention of preventing that any more than the Tories.

There is no distinction between Labour and the Tories and there hasn’t been since 1997. What changed when the Tories took over from Labour on 2010? Nothing. The transition was seamless. Since then we have had one liberal Tory PM after another and nothing has changed. We have continued on the same trajectory set by Tony Blair.

Labour and Tories are now so closely related that Labour is a support act rather than an opposition party.

During the covid pandemic, for every policy restriction implemented by Boris, Labour called for ‘more’…there should be more restrictions and they should have started sooner and they should have lasted longer. The only difference was of severity, not policy. Not once did Labour question whether the Tories covid policies were ill-founded. Now we see that the parties are in lockstep on Ukraine. They are in lockstep on the Climate Crisis. And immigration. On every big issue of the day, you couldn’t pass a cigarette paper between them.

The only difference between Labour and Tories during the last 25 years was Brexit and that only came about because the Tories had no choice but to carry out their promises or face annihilation. They didn’t want Brexit!

There used to be many reasons to vote Tory:

They stood for law and order; And traditional values; And education; And small government; And low taxation, And low immigration; And good economic management. The Tories no longer support any of that.

Nowadays, there are 2 only thing the Tories are committed to:

1) Ensuring that property prices continue to rise.

2) Globalism.

If your only requirement from your government is to keep the value of your property rising, then vote Tory but you’re going to have to accept Globalism as the price you pay. And it looks like the Tories are fast running out of tricks to keep property prices rising which leaves the Tories as being of no use at all.

If you still believe that the Tories are somehow delivering us from the chaos of Labour, you haven’t been paying attention. Liz Truss is a member of the World Economic Forum. Kier Starmer is a member of the Trilateral Commission. They are both bought and paid for. They will do whatever their handlers tell them to do.

I can understand that you might feel a sense of loyalty to the Tories. Perhaps you feel they are just going through a bad spell? Perhaps you feel that you have no alternative? I’m afraid that is not the thinking of a critical thinker. You cannot reward bad behaviour.

I’m not telling you to vote Labour. I’m telling you to stop believing the Tories are the salvation.

Thinking that you have to vote for a political party that are destroying the country because Labour would destroy the country more is evidence of a mindset rooted in fear. At this point the only difference is one of honesty: Labour would be unashamed of their Globalist objectives, whereas the Tories are still desperately trying to hide their Globalist intentions behind a thin veneer of Nationalism. Only now, after 12 years of Tory rule and 4 General elections, have the majority of people realised they’ve been had. They kept believing the Tory promises to be a right-wing party. They believed that only the Tories could save us from the cultural mess that Labour had instigated. We all now realise those were promises that the Tories had no intention of honouring. They knew all they had to do was to pretend to be ever so slightly more right wing than Labour and people would keep voting for them. How many Tory plans for reducing immigration have we heard over the last 12 years? They were laughing at us but now the game is up. We see through the deceipt.

“The first and fiercest punishment ought to fall first on the traitor, second on the enemy. If I had but one bullet and I were faced by both an enemy and a traitor, I would let the traitor have it.” Corneliu Zelea Codreanu (1899 – 1938)

Personally, I’d rather be led by a party who are not hiding their intentions. That way I know what I am up against. But, I assure you: I won’t be voting for any mainstream party.

However, I’d rather face a brazen enemy than a devious enemy.

Maybe you think Sunak will make Britain Great again?

Gone Are The Days

Gone are days when I trust every word a doctor tells me. From now on I will research all advice I receive from doctors and I will not take any medication that I have not similarly researched.

Gone are the days when I used to take the flu vaxx every year. I did it because I was really ill with ‘flu’ or something in 2011 and thought the flu vaxx would prevent it happening again. Now I know better.

Gone are the days when I watch mainstream news.

Gone are the days when I read mainstream newspapers.

Gone are the days when I have unquestioned respect for policemen. From now on I will approach each encounter with a policeman from a position of distrust and each policeman will have to prove they can be trusted.

Gone are the days when I take pride in my country as a bastion of integrity. Now I realise that corruption runs rampant and the checks and balances that were built up over decades to protect us, the people, from malpractice and abuses of power are nothing more than minor obstacles to be navigated.

Gone are the days when I vote Tory.

Gone are days when I make a purchase or use a product without questioning what I know of the political position of the company that provides that product.

Gone are the days when I would use the services / products of PayPal; Google; Meta (Facebook); Twitter; BBC; Coca Cola; Gillette; Ben & Jerry’s… Many others will be added to this list.

Gone are the days where I can listen to a politician without assuming they are a Globalist.

Gone are the days where I can listen to a politician without wondering whether they belong to the WEF or Trilateral Commission or any of the other shadowy groups that influence national politics.

Gone are the days where I can choose to watch a film without thinking about how much ‘woke’ nonsense I will be subjected to.

Gone are the days where I can watch a football match without being subjected to ‘the taking of the knee’.

Gone are the days where I can watch a football match without noticing how many women commentators there are now and how it just used to be men until just a handful of years ago.

Gone are the days when I can watch the TV adverts without noticing that the number of black people featured is not at all reflective of the demographics of the country.

Gone are the days where I can look forward to the future. Now I wonder if the plans of the Globalists will succeed or fail and how horrendous the takeover will become once the attempt becomes too obvious for the majority to ignore any more.

Gone are days when my wife and I discuss buying a holiday home in Italy. Now we realise that future lockdowns and travel restrictions in the name of sustainability will make such plans a waste of money.

Gone are the days when I assume that I will spend my retirement driving around the UK visiting places. The ban on combustion engines means I probably won’t have a car plus the intended travel restrictions linked to carbon credits will make such journeys an unaffordable indulgance.

Gone are the days when I look forward to my sons marrying. Now I think they would be naive to marry as the downsides of a failed marriage are so much worse for men.

Gone are the days when I have to check whether an establishment will accept cash payment.

Thanks Globalists. This is all on you.

Left is Right And Right Is Left

As a right-wing person, I have always supported the institutions of the UK: the police; the judiciary; the government and the royal family. I felt that these instiutions were part of what made our country Great. These institutions have a legacy dating back hundreds of years which meant that they were ‘fit for purpose’. I grew up with the understanding that these institutions were the envy of the world.

However, I now find myself to be a member of the ‘Dissident Right’ – those right-wingers who are not represented by the mainstream political parties. The reasons for my transition away from the mainstream can be found spread across every piece I have written for this Blog. In short: government that is no longer sovereign; growing authoritarianism in our institutions; increasing corruption; growing intolerance of alternative opinions; ever increasing levels of deceipt, dishonesty and hypocrisy. I haven’t changed: my principles remain the same. If I have changed in any way it is only that I can now perceive the contempt the authorities have for us.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/intolerance-remain-silent-or-be-branded-extremist

As a member of the Dissident Right, I wasn’t sure how to react when the Queen died last week. Yes, I no longer have any faith in the institutions that govern us but was that any fault of the Queen? Could the Queen have done anything to prevent the collapse of our culture and our democracy? Maybe, that would have been outside of her remit. However, my suspicions about the royal family were raised in 2020 when I became aware of Charles’ involvement with the WEF.

Was Charles’ support of The Great Reset shared by the Queen? Total control of the masses via either Biosecurity or the Green Agenda is going to benefit all of The Elites so it could be argued that the Queen would support something that would benefit her. Alternatively, it could be argued that the Queen is a traditionalist and would never support something that would overthrow hundreds of years of tradition. It’s hard to glean the motives of the enigma that was QE2.

I certainly wasn’t going to gloat about her death – I leave that kind of crassness to the Left – but I couldn’t find it within me to be terribly sad.

In the end I felt the right reaction was to treat the Queen’s death as I would the death of an old Film Star whose films I had enjoyed back in the day. Both the Film Star and the Monarch are symbols of a bygone era. The Queen was a link to a better time when the country did not suffer from the failings that I have listed and, for that reason, I can understand why some people would be upset about her passing. In some ways, the death of the Queen is an analogy for the death of Britain. There will never be another QE2 and Britain will never be what it was in 1952.

In this context of what I have described above, I saw this meme:

I preferred the 2012 Left

I had seen versions of this meme before but this time, struggling as I was to feel any emotion for the Queen’s passing, it struck a deeper chord. We all know that those on the Left have performed a 180 degree about-turn in their thinking in recent years and are now slavish followers of The Establishment. However, this time it occurred to me that, in recent years, I had made a similar journey in the opposite direction. I am now an anti-establishmentist: I no longer trust Big Pharma; I am vehemently against the West’s elongation of the Ukraine war via financial and military aid; and I abhore the impact that Mega Corporations are having on our society.

I have effectively changed places with those crazy Leftists that I have despised all my life. How weird is that? And the other weird thing is that I still despise those crazy Leftists that now adhere to everything I once adhered to: getting your experimental jabs; trusting that we – The West – are always the good guys in wars and accepting that the ‘survival of the fittest’ ethos of a free market economy would lead to a small number of big companies riding roughshod over their smaller competitors.

I have lost faith in the institutions of this country. What I haven’t lost faith in are marriage; family; morality; fairness, ethics and free speech. And these principles continue to differentiate me from crazed Leftists. (In fact, free speech is another issue that crazy Leftists have changed position on in recent years: they used to pride themselves on speaking ‘truth to power’, now they do everything they can to stop anyone with an opposing opinion from doing the same thing).

It seems that the lurch to authoritarianism by our institutions – and those unelected bodies that guide our institutions – that has appalled me so much over the last 5 years has been very appealing to Leftists since Leftists have always been attracted to ‘Big Government’, hence, their ever-present flirtations with tyrannical forms of government such as Socialism, Communism and Fascism.

We are a society in flux. The Left and the Right have changed places. The Left are now thoroughly aligned with The Establishment and The Right are now the anti-establishmentists. Maybe that is why the Joe Biden and many other US Leftists have been going to such lengths, in recent weeks, to demonise MAGA Republicans.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington/joe-bidens-this-is-not-normal-speech

The Left are used to those on the Right doing what they are told because the Right tend to be quite compliant. I suspect there are large sections of the Right that are no longer so compliant in the face of repeated assaults on liberties won over the course of hundreds of years.

We have a situation where those people of a conservative, or freedom seeking, mindset are increasingly horrified by the anti-democratic actions of their governments. And how are those governments responding to such criticism? By doubling down on their authoritarianism: we’ve seen it in the US where anyone espousing traditional values is labelled by the authorities as ‘white supremicists‘

I love the environment but not in an Agenda 2030 kind of way.

We saw Trudeau’s Canada seizing the assets of the truckers who had the temerity to protest Trudeau’s vaxx mandates (and imprisoning, without bail, the organisers of the protest). We’ve seen Dutch authorities take steps to put Dutch farmers out of business and then shoot at those farmers who object.

We can see that fascism comes slowly, then very suddenly. We’re at the ‘suddenly’ stage and I believe that the friction between governments and their peoples is only going to get worse and the Freedom Fighters will be comprised of those who object to the tyranny that is being forced on us by shadowy figures who have subverted the institutions of many Western countries. The Left, meanwhile, will support the whole thing: censorship; digital IDs; CBDCs; carbon credits and Social Credit system.

It’s Stuff Like This That Will Bring This Situation To A Head

We see unfairness and hypocrisy all around. We see The Elites telling us to do one thing, whilst they do another. We see incompetence and corruption. Yet, it becomes ever more clear that it is not incompetance, it is malicious and deliberate sabotage.

People are noticing and they are becoming increasingly disgruntled, exasperated and angry.

As Morgoth wrote recently, people are living ‘…in a permanent state of low-grade panic and expectation of the next calamity to be inflicted upon them by their rulers.’

I hope to increase that disgruntlement further by reminding everyone who reads this of the injustices that beset us on all sides, injustices that are becoming intolerable.

1) The Economy

We all know how messed up the economy is right now. Inflation is shooting up. Petrol prices are at record highs. Food and gas and electricity prices are spiralling out of control. Life is going to be difficult for the forseeable future. Many small businesses will fail. This is all directly related to actions taken by our governments. They admit it: the economy is undergoing ‘transition’. We didn’t ask for this transition and we don’t want it. We just want to be able to pay our energy bills without selling a kidney. How many revolutions came about because people were worried how they were going to make ends meet? All of them! Yet, The Elites respond by telling us to buy electric cars and install solar panels. Bozo Johnson even had the gaul to tell us that a new kettle was the solution to our problems. It seems The Elites have forgotten the lesson of Marie-Antionette. We haven’t.

We know that inflation is not Putin’s fault. We know that inflation was soaring before Ukraine. We know that huge increases in the money supply cause inflation. We know that sanctions against Russia have hurt European countries more than Russia. Don’t insult our intelligence that you think you can fool us that this is nothing to do with destructive decisions by Western leaders. We know that the rich are becoming ever richer and the poor are becoming ever poorer and that seems to be the objective.

2) Covid Restrictions

The government’s response to covid-19 permanently changed our economy by transfering huge amounts of wealth to the very richest whilst putting lots of small businesses out of business; increased anxiety and depression levels; severely damaged the education of a generation of children; caused IQ and speech issues in toddlers; saw people die alone in hospitals and care homes; saw the overreach of the State; put in place the foundations of a bio-security state; coerced millions of people into being injected with an unlicensed experimental gene therapy they didn’t need.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction and that reaction is building. People are emerging from the shock of the last 2 years and they are angry. They are angry that the government took 2 years of their lives for a virus that is no more deadly than flu. The people who took the injection are going to be even more angry as the long term health implications emerge.

3) Grooming Gangs

There is a lot of anger about the Asian grooming gangs that sexually abused thousands of young girls across the UK. People don’t feel that justice was done: it was allowed to continue long after it was known about because of fears around the racial aspect of the abuse; not many of the perpetrators were ever brought to justice; there was no sympathy for the girls involved from the media; there was nothing like the ‘#MeToo’ outrage we saw in the media when middle-class women felt they were being treated poorly by the film industry. There was nothing like the media attention that would have ensued if gangs of white men had been grooming Asian girls. People feel that there is nothing to stop systematic sexual abuse by gangs of Asian men happening again in the future. There is simmering resentment about these events and what they they reveal about race and justice in modern Britain. This is an open wound that the Establishment do not want to treat. Open wounds fester.

https://mobile.twitter.com/toryboypierce/status/1547116255756304384?s=21

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/calls-public-inquiry-child-sexual-24491366

4) Clown Police

The police force is no longer there to protect us. It’s there to protect ‘Them’ and their ideology. Hence, the Police spend their time rooting out Hate Crimes.

https://www.faircop.org.uk/case-studies/harry-miller/

During lockdowns, the Police went to great lengths to find people who had covertly met up with loved ones yet they feigned total ignorance of parties being held outside the Downing Street house at which they stand guard.

We see the videos of police dancing in the street. A society that loses respect for its police force is not a healthy society. The police have a long, hard journey back to respectability and I don’t think they have the stomach for it.

https://summit.news/2022/07/13/car-theft-is-effectively-decriminalized-in-london/

5) Climate Change

Most people don’t believe the narrative of a ‘Climate Crisis’ that we are continually spoonfed. We don’t see a climate that is spinning out of control. We see all of the deadlines to save the planet coming and going. The predictions never come true. Rather than apologise for worrying us unnecessarily, The Elites just set a new deadline and tell us that this time really is the last chance. We can tell they are lying. But push us too far, and we might push back on this, especially now The Elites’ attempt to transition away from fossil fuels has left us dangerously vulnerable to energy shortages. For the first time in 2 generations, we fear energy shortages and we know the fragility of our energy production is entirely due to the blinkered, misguided, unscientific and hypocritical energy policies of our governments. ‘Net zero’ will take the population to levels of deprivation that are beyond our living memory. Once it dawns on people what we are expected to forego, things will become very messy, all the more so when we see that the lives of The Elites are continuing as normal.

6) Climate Change Hypocrisy

Elites fly around in private jets to deliver speeches – aka ‘lectures’ – about how we need to drastically reduce our reliance on fossil fuels to protect the environment…

This. Has. Got. To. Stop.

It’s unbelievably irritating. We are reminded that there is High Caste of humans whose main job seems to to mold us heathens into better, more enlightened people who behave as the High Caste would have us behave. And that we need to eat bugs. And we need to buy Teslas. And we need to shower less. And holiday less. I don’t get the impression that the High Castes are intending to change their lifestyles in any way. This shows a massive disconnect between the High Castes and the people. I remember the ending of ‘The Man Who Would be King’. I remember what happened to the Romanovs. That’s how this disconnect usually plays out.

It’s OK when we do it.

7) Trust in Media

We once had an expectation that the Media would expose government inconsistancy and hypocrisy. That is no longer the case. These days, the legacy media is fully on board with the government message. Another institution that is no longer looking after our interests. At some point we will start looking after our own interests.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/media-confidence-ratings-drop-fresh-record-lows

8) Democracy Usurped

Lord Hailsham wrote in his book ‘The Dilemma Of Democracy’ that:

‘The four central ideas upon which a government of the Western type may be said to rest are law, liberty, representative governnent and an impartial administration of justice’

Who would testify that these 4 tenets of democracy are in good health?

We thought that Brexit would mark a return to the UK of true democracy: a government carrying out the wishes of its electorate. Yet that is not what is happening at all. Instead, the UK government has exploited one situation after another to rule from a state of emergency. First, it was covid, swiftly followed by Ukraine. These ’emergencies’ have permitted Western governments to operate in a state that avoids democratic accountability to the electorate. With covid the government ceded authority to technocrats and Big Pharma, with Ukraine the government is taking orders from the US. Plus, it is made clear that we are all expected to share the government narratives on these emergencies. We are bombarded with propaganda that the government’s chosen course of action is the only rational approach and so debate and calls for democratic accountability are unnecessary in such ‘special situations’. It is clear that the democratic benefits of Brexit have not materialised. There’s a lot of frustration about that.

People are beginning to realise there is a secretive elite class and their middle-class, Establishment henchmen who manipulate national governments. Groups like the WEF and the Bildergroup Group seem to have a lot of influence over Western governments. Then there’s Chatham House and The Trilateral Commission. And The Freemasons. There’s also the Foundations run by the likes of Bill Gates and George Soros. Our governments now appear to represent these groups, not the electorates. Our governments have made a subtle pivot where they no longer look after the interests of their electorates, instead they look to protect humanity and the planet so they enact legislation for ‘the greater good’. This is not Democracy.

9) Food Shortages

We see that food shortages are predicted yet the government is offering to help UK farmers retire so that they – the government – can take their land. In The Netherlands the government are trying to force livestock farmers out of business in the name of environmentalism. In New Zealand, livestock farmers are now being taxed for the greenhouse gases emitted by their herds. Everything is being done to make meat more expensive. The critical thinkers amongst us realise this is all part of the UN’s ‘Agenda 2030’ whereby the Power Structures will impose authoritarinism for ‘the greater good’, i.e. for their own good.

If we reach a point where swathes of the population have to reduce their meat consumption because of the cost, those people will be angry. Simultaneously, there are more and more articles and references to bugs as the food source of the future. We can see, very clearly, the intention amongst our governments: most people will be eating bugs as a food staple. However, the Elites will still be eating meat. Let’s see how this pans out.

10) Forced Wokeness

Progressive thinking from the margins of Academia is now being agressively promoted by The Power Structures: Transgenderism; Critical Race Theory; Sexualisation of Children; Diversity, Inclusion, Equity. They know we don’t like it. In fact, the more we don’t like it, the more they do it. They want us to know the power they have over us. They want us to know that resistance is futile. They want us to yield to the new thinking. At some point the people will decide that enough is enough.

They aim to demoralise us

https://youtu.be/7bRhMLhc8wQ

One of the mantras that the Elites recite, ad nauseum, is ‘Diversity is Our Strength’. Yet, we are not allowed to practise diversity of opinion. We are corralled by the authorities to think as they would have us think. If we do not believe that a transwoman is a woman, we must keep it to ourselves.

We feel more constrained with every passing year: if we say the wrong thing we might be accused of being a bigot. So we watch what we say. A social credit system is just round the corner and we don’t want to drop points already. We need to start practising how to police our speech. This is how things operate in totalitarian states. We lived our lives in a Democracy and one day we woke up and discovered we were living in a totalitarian state that controlled what we could say, write and think and whether we can leave our homes. It’s all happened so quickly that we can’t quite believe it. No one seems to say anything about it and it wasn’t announced on the 6 o’clock news so we keep quiet so that no one thinks were one of those ‘conspiracy theorists’ that The State warns us is undermining the very foundations of our Democracy.

It’s a pressure cooker situation.

11) Two Tier Justice

The idea of thinking of ourselves as citizens first, co-equal before the law with our fellow citizens, is the foundation upon which our whole civilisation has been built. But we now live in a country where the law is applied differently depending on the identity of people breaking it. A multi-tiered legal system based on a fluid hierarchy of fashionable victim groups. Decades of mass-immigration has shattered a once homogenous society and instead balkanised it into individual, competing tribes.

People are starting to feel that there is a political aspect to justice. Hence, we see climate change activists treated much more leniently than anti-lockdown activists or anti-grooming gang activists. We see that race activists are given more leeway than Brexit activists.

People are noticing that as long as you are promoting something the government wants to promote, it doesn’t matter how much damage you cause. We see that people at The Top are protected from justice: eg Hunter Biden; Hillary Clinton; Jeffrey Epstein’s Clients etc. We also see that some people are being unfairly persecuted, eg Donald Trump; the 6th Jan protestors; Julian Assange; conservatives; Christians. A lot of people are cross about that. A lot of us are realising we don’t live in the kind of country we thought we did.

12) Energy Fragility

We see that our energy system is very vulnerable. We also see that the government has deliberately allowed energy to become vulnerable as they have pursued expensive and ineffective renewable energy projects. Instead of investing in tried and tested, secure energy such as nuclear, they have been building wind farms. Are wind farms environmentally friendly? No. Are they sustainable? Not when they are buried in landfill at the end of their operational life. Same with solar panels. Same with batteries for electric vehicles. The UK government will not allow us to buy a petrol car after 2030. The UK government is not going to allow new homes to have gas boilers after 2025. Not only that, the government are busy closing down sources of ‘dirty’ energy with all coal fired power stations due to be closed by 2025.

The government tells us that renewable energy will come to the rescue. We don’t believe that. We believe that we will be cold in the future and that we won’t have our own car so we will have to use public transport. And so, we fear the future. A group of people that fear the future are unpredictable.

13) Corporatism

Corporatism is when governments and corporations work hand in hand. This is not a good thing. In fact, Mussolini famously said:

‘Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.’ (Benito Mussolini)

Governments and corporations should be working in opposition to each other, they should not be allies. How can governments effectively regulate corporations when they are working together? This scenario leads to the kind of revolving door of recruitment that we have seen in the US between the FDA and Big Pharma. It’s a recipe for corruption. It annoys the hell out of people. Who do you think suffers when governments and Big Business are in cohoots with each other? Us!

Entities like Facebook and Twitter, “no longer qualify as meaningfully ‘private’ and have instead simply become appendages of the state.”

https://brownstone.org/articles/faucis-red-guards-the-mass-censoring-of-social-media/

I’m seeing more and more stories where companies are banning customers whose politics don’t fit ‘the narrative’. Here’s a story about PayPal banning customers:

https://betanews.com/2022/09/22/paypal-cancels-customers-it-doesnt-like/

14) Our Governments Lie

We know our governments are lying to us. Ok, we’ve always known, but the scale and boldness of the lying these days is quite something to behold. A lot of people are seeing that the narrative pressed by our government and the major news outlets simply doesn’t match up with what we encounter in our day-to-day lives. This makes people angry. Blatant lying by government is the sign of a Banana Republic. Blatant lying is the sign that government has no respect for us.

Yet the more The Establishment lies to us, the more they want to control sources of information, just like totalitarian authorities have always done. That is why most Western nations are introducing some form of censorship, such as the UK’s Online Safety Bill so they can memory-hole any content they don’t like by labelling it as ‘harmful’. Do you think such large-scale censorship will impel governments to be more honest? Or is it a free pass to allow governments to lie even more but suppress any challenges to their narrative?

15) Immigration

It’s deliberate. As the meme says: ‘If you’re blood isn’t clotting by now, it’s boiling’.

16) Representation

We no longer feel that our politicians represent us or identify with our issues. Hell, we don’t feel that our politicians even like us. They, and rest of The Elite are like Cloud people: our concerns are not their concerns. They float above the minutiae of day to day life. Their concerns are of a loftier nature. That is why you will not hear a single member of The Establishment give a rational and logical answer to the question: ‘What is a woman?’. It’s infuriating to know that the people we elect to represent us, believe they have been elected as some kind of Cargo God to show us little people the correct opinions.

A small elite was allowed to accrue immense wealth and power, while laying waste to our societies’ workforce, industrial capacity, public services and vital infrastructures, leaving our countries poorer, weaker and dependent on foreign (and increasingly hostile) nations for the supply of everything from energy to food to basic medical supplies.

Thomas Fazi

Now, I’m not an expert on the conditions that spark civil unrest. I’ve only witnessed civil unrest 3 times during my adult life: the Poll Tax riots in 1990; the London riots in 2011 & the BLM riots in 2020. The latter two events were triggered by the death of black men – Mark Duggan in 2011 and George Floyd in 2020. The other was caused by taxation that was perceived as unfair by an electorate who had had enough of Thatcher.

Clearly, the events that triggered these outbreaks of anger and violence were the culmination of pre-existing tensions. I can point out that all 3 series of riots had socio-economic aspects to them where the majority of rioters were among the lowest socio-economic groups. Social inequality hasn’t gone away, it’s only becoming ever more obvious that there is a growing gap between rich and poor. So, that’s a fracture line right there that hasn’t been dealt with. Also, it’s interesting to note that all 3 uprisings occurred under Tory governments.

My feeling is that the 16 points I listed above that are causing anger in the UK today seem to be more than than enough fuel for the fire. The question then becomes: what will be the spark that causes the fuel to ignite? Unrest comes first gradually, then suddenly. Pressure is building but no one will be able to predict if that pressure will spillover into civil unrest, or ebb away.

However, an unsettled population that fears what the future has in store for them is a volatile population. The UK Government used fear as a means to enforce covid-19 lockdowns because a fearful population is a compliant population. I’d suggest that widespread fear is not always an easy emotion to control. Fear can often manifest as anger. An angry population is an unpredictable population.

My prediction is that a combination of food shortages during winter 2022/3 combined with continued very high energy costs will be more than enough to cause many angry people to take to the streets. What happens then cannot be known but the government and / or police could easily respond in a clumsy manner that would drastically escalate the situation. It wouldn’t be the first time, in fact clumsy responses are almost guaranteed from an Establishment that is actively hostile to its own citizens. It’s gonna get tasty, people.

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
Bailiwick News Archives

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