Ever since we first learnt about the cruel tutelage of the Nazi’s at school, each of us has wondered how it happened. How did an upstart political party – the National Socialist German Workers’ Party – come to power so quickly in Germany during the 1930s despite its toxic agenda and its cult of violence?
The second question that usually arises is: Would I have been complicit in the Nazi’s agenda of discriminating against Jews and gypsies and homosexuals? And we always tell ourselves – and anyone else who’ll listen – that we would never have supported the Nazi’s agenda:
We would have stood up for what is right.
We would have resisted.
Yet, the vast majority of Germans in the 1930s didn’t resist. The vast majority not only allowed the Nazi’s to come to power but also supported them once they were in power. The majority assisted in the persecution of ‘undesirables’ and even went to war to defend Nazi ideology.
Clearly, the numbers don’t stack up. How were so many Germans persuaded to support the Nazi’s? Were the Germans inherently evil? Or were other factors in play?
I’ve never been able to answer these questions, until now. Of course, I had been taught at school (in the 1980s) that Nazi propaganda had highlighted Jews as a minority that could be legitimately discriminated against, but I didn’t understand how this would work in practise. I didn’t understand how the majority could be manipulated so easily. I couldn’t see how the theory could become established in reality.
The response of the Government and the public to Covid19 has shown the way. The Government has responded with propaganda and authoritarianism and the public has responded with eager compliance.
“Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.” ~ Joseph Goebbels
I now understand how Nazi-ism was able to succeed. Only now, as I witness the propaganda and authoritarianism being deployed by Western Liberal Democracies, fully supported by the bulk of the population, in order to sell a vaccine and tighten control, do I realise how it’s done. The secret to imposing a toxic ideology with the support of the population is to ensure that the imposition takes the form of a series of steps.
Each step must be presented, by experts, acting in concert with the media, as the only logical course of action in light of the circumstances.
Each step away from ‘normal’ must be presented as vitally important. But, also, each step away from normal must be sold as being the only way to return to normal. As in ‘only by giving up our freedoms can we win back our freedoms’. Genius!
Each step must be accompanied by a heavy programme of propaganda and behavioural psychology. Dissenting opinion must be suppressed.
Each step must be spun in such a way that the action is required not for our own benefit but for the benefit of others, i.e. our ‘loved ones’, or the country or ‘the vulnerable’. This plays on our innate need be helpful and to display selflessness.
Each step must be presented as the only way to make things better.
“If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth.” ~ Joseph Goebbels
Once a step has been implemented, the ground must be prepared for the next step. All of the time, we are teased with the prospect that we are on a journey to salvation whilst not dwelling on how far we have been taken from ‘normal’.
The Government has been greatly assisted in all of this by the fact that the field of journalism has been hollowed out to such a degree in recent years that all that remains is a monolithic husk that merely parrots fashionable lines about Globalism. The journalism industry now universally supports Big State intervention because, since Brexit, journalists no longer trust the public to be left to make decisions for themselves.
“Not every item of news should be published. Rather must those who control news policies endeavor to make every item of news serve a certain purpose.” ~ Joseph Goebbels
However, authoritarianism and propaganda, whilst deeply claustrophobic to those who value freedom over safety, are not harmful on their own. No, the most potentially harmful parallel with the Nazi’s is the ongoing demonisation of those who have weighed up the risks and benefits and decided not to take the vaccine. Demonisation of a minority group is how authoritarianism turns fascist.
Specifically, the Nazi’s used 4 steps to demonise the Jews and we see those same 4 steps being used today to mobilise public opinion against the unvaccinated:
1)Prejudice:
The Nazi’s portrayed the Jews as inferior to Aryan Germans. Jews were also portrayed as being vectors for diseases such as TB and syphilis.
Today Liberal Democracies are fomenting prejudice against the unvaccinated. The propaganda states that everyone must be jabbed so that we are protected. ‘No one is safe until we’re all safe’. The messaging states that the unjabbed are selfish for not submitting to the vaccine.
2) Scapegoating
The Nazis started blaming every societal problem in Germany on the Jews. People were prepared to believe the scapegoating because they had already been trained to be prejudiced against Jews.
Liberal Democracies are scapegoating the unvaccinated by claiming the unvaccinated are vectors for spreading new variants of the virus. There’s always a new variant that can be used to demonise us. Another favourite trope is that the unjabbed comprise the vast majority of hospitalisations (unsupported by evidence). Also, we are told that the unvaccinated are stopping us from returning to ‘normal’. In this way, the government hopes to re-direct anger away from them and on to the unjabbed: ‘It’s not us [the government] preventing things from returning to normal, it’s them, the unjabbed. You should be angry with them’.
3) Discrimination
The Nazis implemented discriminatory laws against the Jews, such as forcing them to wear a yellow star. Such discrimination naturally led to citizens indulging in violent acts against Jews with impunity.
Liberal Democracies are implementing ‘vaccine passports’ whereby those who haven’t agreed to undergo the unlicensed, experimental vaccine will be denied access to certain services (eg nightclubs; football matches; flights). France has decided the unjabbed cannot even visit restaurants or shopping malls. Thankfully, we are not yet seeing violence enacted against the unjabbed but this is probably only because a vaccine passport does not have the visibility of a yellow star on your arm.
4) Persecution
The Nazis made life ever harder for Jews. They conviscated businesses and other assets. Then they sent them to concentration camps. Then they murdered them.
Liberal Democracies haven’t reached this point yet. However, the direction of travel teaches us that this is the next step. Already, there are ‘opinions’ appearing in the MSM that the unvaxxed should be denied free medical treatment and that they shouldn’t be allowed to use public transport. The ground is being prepared. The Governments are totally committed to vaccinations. There are no signs that Liberal Democracies will ease up on their obsession with Covid19 vaccines.
Nazi-ism flourished because the Nazi’s demonised an ‘out-class’ of people. At that point, the rest of the population were so relieved to be part of the ‘in-class’ that they turned on the out-class thereby cementing the power of the Nazi’s. I fear that our authorities have found a new out-class to scapegoat: the unvaxxed. And, once again, the in-class are jumping on the bandwagon to show what good people they are. The Germans were not inherently evil. They were just manipulated by a small coterie of people with bad intentions and effective propaganda. The same is happening now: it is the puppet-masters that are evil, not the puppets.
Many people feel it is sacrilegious to make comparisons with the treatment of the Jews in 1930s Germany. In treating that episode with such reverence they miss the point that we must ALWAYS make comparisons with 1930s Germany if we are to prevent it happening again. The time to make comparisons is not after the death count reaches 7 figures or even 4 figures, by then it’s far too late to stop. The time to make comparisons is before the first person has died. The only way to truly respect the treatment handed out in the 1930s is to pay close attention to the warning indicators that signal a dark turn is imminent and prevent that turn from being made. The time to make comparisons is when old ladies are being pepper-sprayed by the police for protesting covid restrictions.
Once this is normalised, what comes next?
The time to make comparisons is when people are sent to ‘Quarantine Camps’ against their will.
I declared myself as an atheist at quite an early age. Certainly, prior to secondary school. I remember because I prayed to God to get me into the secondary school I wanted to attend. I promised, in my prayer, that if He got me in, I would never disbelieve in Him again. Anyway, I gained a place at my dream school and went back to telling everyone I was an atheist.
I was very proud of my atheism. I felt that atheism, and my willingness to be loud and proud about my atheism suggested to people that I was rational and intelligent with strength of character and independence of thought.
However, in recent years, I have come to realise that a widespread turning away from organised religion has not led to the moderate, secular society I expected. Instead, society seems to be coming more fractured. This quote from G. K. Chesterton seems to explain what is going on:
‘When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.’ G. K. Chesterton (1874 – 1936)
I see evidence of this thought all around. The age of enlightenment has led to the collapse of organised religion. This in turn is leading to chaos. We have new religions springing up. The orthodoxies of Covid19 are one such religion. Social Justice is another one. Climate change yet another. We are showing that we are capable of believing in anything and believing in it passionately.
These new belief systems are all jostling for power and devotees. In doing so, they are creating chaos and division. Over time, they will weaken the bonds of our societies. In an attempt to retain control, our Governments are clamping down on free speech by labelling it ‘hate speech’. Disruption and mayhem will ensue as our society becomes more fragmented. A fractured society is much easier to control. The Establishment can play off different groups against each other. Divide and rule. We no longer have a common purpose and a shared moral code.
Consequently, I now find myself viewing Christianity in a more favourable light. Let’s not forget that Chistianity is the foundation stone of our culture. The homogeneity of purpose instilled in our society by Christianity has driven the success of Western Civilisation over the last 2000 years. Christian ethics of hard work; personal responsibility; humility; delayed gratification; charity; serving your Community; a strong moral code and many others were the very character traits that brought about the achievements of Christian societies.
I have also come to appreciate that I dream Christian dreams. By that I mean that Christianity is built into my DNA as a result of imbibing Christian thought throughout my life. My own core values strongly overlap with Christian values. How can I laud my own character without acknowledging my gratitude to Christianity for its contribution to my character?
Yet now we think we can turn away from Christianity without considering the implications. If we cast aside a foundation stone of our culture, we make that culture unstable. We make that culture more susceptible to collapse.
But how do we, as a culture, re-embrace Christianity? I don’t know. As much as I appreciate the impulse control and singularity of focus that Christianity has inspired in European societies, I don’t find myself believing in Him. I respect the religion but I don’t believe the tenets.
Perhaps respecting Christianity as part of our cultural heritage might be all we can hope for. Will it be enough to save our Civilisation? Probably not but it might slow down our descent into a new Dark Age. I don’t believe the new culture that is emerging will be an improvement over what came before. The new age will be marked by volatility. A state of flux will reign for a long time before order returns. It will be a dangerous time, possibly largely lawless.
For the record, I no longer think of myself as an atheist: I refer to myself as a ‘Christian atheist’ out of respect for the culture that raised me. And I no longer shout my religious status from the rooftops. I have learnt Humility. Amen.
Early this year, I saw the above image as part of a post on Social Media. It caught my attention because I live within the jurisdiction of Chelmsford City Council. I had not heard of Averil Price before, but then I don’t closely follow local news. I asked some friends about it but they hadn’t heard of it either. I mulled it over for a few days before deciding to investigate further. The simplest thing to do was to raise a Freedom Of Information (FOI) request to Chelmsford Council. Below, I have copied my original FOI request. I submitted my request in mid-March:
To Whom It May Concern, My FOI request relates to the departure from Chelmsford City Council (CCC) of Ms. Averil Price. Could you provide the following information to me:
1) Can you confirm that Ms. Price was a full-time employee of CCC? If not, please could you provide details on the nature of Ms. Price’s relationship with CCC?
2) Assuming Ms. Price was a full-time employee of CCC, on what date did Ms. Price leave the employment of CCC?
3) Assuming Ms. Price was a full-time employee of CCC, what was her annual remuneration at the time she left full-time employment with CCC (as per the date provided to question #2)?
4) Was Ms. Price’s departure from CCC voluntary (i.e. she gave notice prior to her departure)? Or was it involuntary (e.g. Ms. Price was sacked; made redundant; contract terminated; contract not renewed or other)? If ‘Other’, please provide details.
5) Did Ms. Price receive any compensation – financial or otherwise – from CCC in relation to her departure (e.g. ‘golden goodbye’ or redundancy package)?
6) If the answer to question #5 is ‘Yes’, please can you provide information on the size of the compensation, the form of the compensation and the reasons that the compensation was awarded?
7) Has CCC employed the services of Ms. Price in any capacity since her departure from full-time employment of CCC on the date provided in answer to question #2 (this includes paid services provided by Ms. Price’s Consultancy Firm)?
Having submitted my FOI in mid-March, i had to wait until 9th April when i received a response that my request had been received and that i would receive a further response within a couple of days.
By 2nd June, i had heard nothing more so i raised another FOI referencing my initial FOI and demanding answers within 7 days. This did the trick because on 8th June I received (most of) the answers. Unfortunately, the question about Averil’s severance package was the one question they refused to answer:
Response
I can confirm that the Council does hold the information you requested. A response to each of your questions as follows:
Can you confirm that Ms. Price was a full-time employee of CCC? If not, please could you provide details on the nature of Ms. Price’s relationship with CCC?
Yes, Averil Price was a full-time employee at the Council.
Assuming Ms. Price was a full-time employee of CCC, on what date did Ms. Price leave the employment of CCC?
Averil left on 15th April 2018.
Assuming Ms. Price was a full-time employee of CCC, what was her annual remuneration at the time she left full-time employment with CCC (as per the date provided to question #2)?
Averil’s salary at the time of departure was £118,728.
Was Ms. Price’s departure from CCC voluntary (i.e. she gave notice prior to her departure)? Or was it involuntary (e.g. Ms. Price was sacked; made redundant; contract terminated; contract not renewed or other)? If ‘Other’, please provide details.
At the time, the Council was making the service more efficient and therefore Averil’s post was no longer required.
Did Ms. Price receive any compensation – financial or otherwise – from CCC in relation to her departure (e.g. ‘golden goodbye’ or redundancy package)?
Yes, Averil received a financial settlement.
If the answer to question #5 is ‘Yes’, please can you provide information on the size of the compensation, the form of the compensation and the reasons that the compensation was awarded?
Details of the financial settlement are being withheld under Section 40(2) of the FOI Act which provides for the protection of personal information. Section 40 prohibits a public body from disclosing personal information as doing so would contravene data protection principles under the Data Protection Act 2018. The first data protection principle states that disclosure should not be made in cases where it would “prejudice the rights and freedoms of the data subject”. In this situation, we consider that disclosure would prejudice the rights and freedoms of a former Director. The Council considers the termination package information is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA because:
the severance did not relate to conduct or performance issues;
even though this case involved a senior employee in a public-facing role, without any apparent wrongdoing a public interest argument could not be justified in this case; and
the individual’s expectation of privacy outweighed the need for transparency in the use of public funds.
Please note, the Council has also looked at historic cases including Trago Mills(South Devon) Ltd v Information Commissioner (case ref: EA/2012/0028) to ensure the exemption is applied consistently with FOI law. Details of this case, along with similar cases, can be found on the Information commissioner’s website.
7) Has CCC employed the services of Ms. Price in any capacity since her departure from full-time employment of CCC on the date provided in answer to question #2 (this includes paid services provided by Ms. Price’s Consultancy Firm)?
No, the Council has not employed the services of Averil since her departure.
I find I am crosser with the ‘compliant awake’ people than I am with the ‘compliant sheep’. The ‘compliant awake’ people are those that are aware our Government are lying to us about Covid19 in order to manipulate us into doing what they wanted but still went ahead and had the jab ‘for convenience’. The ‘compliant sheep’ are those that had the jab without ever being aware there was a choice.
The ‘compliant sheep’ didn’t know any better. They believe what they’re told. They genuinely believe they are doing the right thing for the right reasons. The ‘compliant awake’ should know better. They showed how easily they can be bought.
It was brought home to me just how many ‘compliant awake’ people there are that are prepared to have their DNA re-engineered for the sake of convenience when I attended a garden party recently. I saw many friends that I hadn’t seen for months. Among the attendees were 4 other people that I knew shared the same views as me on lockdowns: that lockdowns are an over-reaction and that our Government have been lying to us.
I discovered that night that 3 of these 4 people had opted to have the experimental gene therapy jab. All three gave ‘overseas travel’ as their reason for ditching their principles. They had revealed themselves as ‘compliant awake’. They had also revealed themselves as selfish and short-sighted.
To say I was hugely disappointed would be an understatement. To my mind, it was very important that as many people as possible stood firm and refused to have the jab. The vaccine passport wouldn’t get off the ground if a significant percentage of the population weren’t eligible. Businesses would be commiting financial suicide to turn away customers without the passport. Would companies really be prepared to do that (having been ordered to remain closed for most of the year)? Or would they be glad of any and every customer?
I trusted my friends were going to ‘hold the line’ and refuse the jab. By standing firm as a group, we had a chance of thwarting this egregious assault on our civil liberties. Each person who breaks ranks to have the jab for their own short-term needs are selfish. They are putting themselves ahead of the good of the country. I want to point out that none of my 3 friends are ‘vulnerable’: they are healthy people for whom Covid19 is not a risk.
Not only are they selfish but they are incredibly short-sighted: each and every person that has the jab increases the liklihood of a vaccine passport (VP) being introduced. Which means they are locked into all of the implications that come with that: having to carry proof of your status and showing it to whoever asks. They will have to shoulder the burden of other sensitive data being included. We will have no control what data is included but the proposals are concerning:
How is ‘Occupation’ relevant to whether or not you’ve had the jab?How are ‘Criminal Convictions’ relevant to whether or not you’ve had the jab?
This will not be a temporary imposition. This will be for the long term. It will be very hard to overturn VPs once the Government are happy with the level of control it gives them. It is also clear that regular testing for Covid19 is going to be a permanent feature for everyone, vaccinated and unvaccinated. I guarantee that ‘date of last Covid19 test’ will be added to the VP.
But the passports are just one part of this: once you have your VP, you will have to have the regular booster jabs to keep your passport valid. You are now locked into having Covid19 jabs forever. None of the boosters will undergo any huge amount of testing because they will be classified as mere ‘tweaks’ to the original jab (which will not be fully licensed until 2023 at the earliest).
Another implication that these self-serving fools haven’t considered is that they make it all the more likely that children will be given the jab. You have no credibility to argue against giving the jab to children when you, a healthy adult, have had the jab. Hypocrisy is the descriptor we use when people in group A say that people in group B shouldn’t do what people in group A have already done.
All three of my friends who capitulated to convenience are parents to adolescent children. They haven’t got a leg to stand on. The one woman of the three stressed to me that she wouldn’t want her two daughters – aged 17 and 15 – to have the jab. How are you going to stop that? You have increased the pressure that will be leveraged against your daughters to ensure they have the jab. You will find that you having had the jab will make it more likely your girls will be jabbed. Children are going to come under huge amounts of indoctrination and peer-pressure to accept the jab. How will your daughters find the strength of character to refuse the jab when they know their parents have had it? To paraphrase The Manic Street Preachers: ‘If you tolerate this then your children will be next, you bloody idiots!’
The irony about all of this is that, so far, the vaccinated have not won any benefits in return for their oneupmanship: they are still in lockdown; they are still obliged to wear masks and socially distance. Nor is there any guarantee that the ‘compliant awake’ can go on holiday anyway. There is a traffic-light system in operation whereby each country is assigned green, amber or red status. Your vaccination status makes no difference to your ability to travel to these countries. Australia is on the ‘green’ list but that is irrelevant because Australia are not accepting any travelers from the UK – vaccinated or not! Will that be the same next year? Who knows? The goalposts keep moving. Perhaps the internationally accepted VP scheme will be in place by next year. Perhaps you should have waited a year to see what is real and what is merely behavioural psychology to ‘nudge’ you into doing what the government wants you to do?
By accepting one piece of the Government’s agenda, you make the next piece more likely. After the lies the Government have told over the last 14 months, anyone who is aware of those lies but is still prepared to obey the Government over the jab, is suffering from a deficit of critical thinking.
All of the above are consequences of healthy people having an unnecessary jab before even mentioning the long-term health consequences of the jab itself. I will be amazed if there is no spike in cancers or auto-immune diseases over the next few years.
These are dark days, even darker when you discover people you thought were allies, have caved in for so cheap a reason as ‘convenience’. The Government has won.
I met a woman recently who was against all of The Establishment figures associated with Globalism – George Soros, Bill Gates, Tony Blair, Klaus Schwab etc – but was also totally against Brexit. I couldn’t understand her inconsistency. To me, all Globalists are evil psychopaths, intent on World Domination. You can’t support Globalists on one issue and then be against them on another point of their agenda. Can you?
The full story is as follows: I was in London in November 2020 to join with a march protesting against Covid19 restrictions. (For anyone reading this in the distant future, Covid19 was a minor coronavirus over which the world lost all sense of reason and proportion and resorted to ever more desperate acts of restriction in an insane attempt to stop anyone becoming ill with it. DuckDuckGo it, you will be amazed at what went on).
Back to the story: I was at Kings Cross station where I was awaiting further instructions. This was my first ever march/protest/demo. I had travelled from my home town alone. I felt a bit out on a limb but I also knew I had to lend my voice to those who were brave enough to organise a mass reaction to the fascist lunecy that had been imposed upon us since March 2020. (The bravery included risking a £10,000 fine for any organisers of mass gatherings).
There wasn’t much going on at Kings Cross. There were clearly other people there for the same reason as me but there were nearly as many police. After shuffling around for half an hour or more – during which time I was twice challenged by a pair of police – a different pair each time – on why I was there and could I please move along, people started moving. I caught up with one group and asked what was going on. They replied that they had received word that the ‘real’ meet-up was at Marble Arch. Kings Cross was just a decoy to confuse the ‘filth’. ‘Golly’, I thought to myself, ‘this is really quite exciting’.
No action at Kings Cross
So, off we headed, on foot, to Marble Arch. I soon fell into conversation with a woman in the group. She had also travelled to Kings Cross alone. Her name was ‘Beth’. As we walked the 2 or 3 miles to Marble Arch, we discussed our perspectives on what was going on. Neither of us thought that Covid19 was the health scare it was being made out to be. We talked about the dodgy PCR test that was underpinning our loss of freedoms. This was the first opportunity I had had all year to discuss Covid19 with someone outside my circle of family and friends. I soon realised that this was someone with a fresh perspective on the issue. Beth told me anecdotes and theories that I hadn’t heard before.
We explained our theories to each other. Beth was further down the ‘rabbit hole’ of conspiracies than I was. She was convinced that the vaccine for Covid19, imminent but not yet available at that point, was all about reducing the population of the planet. She spoke with passion about the New World Order that was going to be imposed. She referenced the World Economic Forum and their Davos shindigs. She was scathing about Globalists, such as the four I mentioned in the opening paragraph. I explained to Beth that I couldn’t accept that Covid19 ‘crisis’ had been deliberately engineered. Too many people would had to have been involved. My theory – explained in more detail here – was that this was a case of incompetence mixed with following opinion polls.
But it was all good. The two of us were getting on just fine when a strange disconnect interjected itself between us: Brexit! As we were arriving at Marble Arch, and we could hear the noise coming from the crowds already there, Beth made a perjorative comment about Brexit voters. In a way this shouldn’t have surprised me but it did: it shouldn’t have surprised me because Beth presented herself as a ‘Bohemian’ in her clothes and make-up and her footwear. Beth looked like an archetype of a left-wing EU supporter. However, Beth’s words surprised me because she had previously revealed to me such a strong animus towards Globalists. What is the EU but a part of the Globalists’ agenda for a One World undemocratic government separating us all from our histories, cultures, and traditions? I replied to Beth something along the lines of “But, don’t you see, Brexit was a kick in the teeth for The Establishment that’s why it was a good thing”
Beth didn’t really respomd. She paused and appeared to be searching for words. Her expression hovered somewhere between confusion and anger. But, by then, we had reached the crowds and were swept up in the euphoria and noise of far more people than I expected to see. A couple of minutes later the crowd exited Hyde Park and the march had begun. I never had the chance to question Beth on her support for the EU. We marched together for an hour or so but eventually we were separated by one of the many attempts by the police to break up the crowd into smaller, more manageable groups. However, I like to think I planted a seed. The very same people pulling the strings in relation to Covid19 restrictions are exactly the same people who tried to stop Brexit. These people must be defeated at all costs. Our freedom depends on it.
Thousands of people who had all independently realised that our Government were lying to us.
Oh, and in case you haven’t figured it out, the ‘Climate Change’ scam is part of the same agenda by Globalists to control us and make a shed load of money.
I thought now would be a good time to summarise what we have learnt since those frightening days from early 2020 when we were told that 1 in 100 of us were going to die:
1. The Government official death figure is highly inflated
This is because the Government is including in the figures anyone who died ‘with’ Covid19, not ‘from’ Covid19. This means that anyone who died within 28 days of testing positive for Covid19 is counted as a Covid19 death. So, if you have terminal cancer and you are in the final stages and your immune system is on life support and you test positive for Covid19 and you die then it is chalked up to Covid19. Insane. There is no UK precedent for counting viral deaths in this way. Plus, in the early days of the spread, anyone dying with Covid19 symptoms was also labelled as Covid19 death, irrespective of no Covid19 test having taken place. There are also a number of publicised cases whereby Covid19 was added to death certificate by the Doctor even without the presence of a positive test result. I have heard estimates that the number of genuine deaths ‘from’ Covid19 is about 20,000 (compared to official figure of approx. 128,000 as at mid-May). Dr Clare Craig is starting a project to investigate every Covid19 death in the UK. She intends to discover the number of deaths directly attributable to Covid19. It will be interesting to study Dr Craig’s findings.
2. The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) for Covid19 is similar to that of the flu
The IFR for flu is approximately 0.1%. Dr John Ioannides of Stanford University conducted a study of Covid19 IFR across 51 locations in July 2020 and deduced that the IFR for Covid19 was 0.23%. Refer to first link below. However, he also pointed out that: “If one could sample equally from all locations globally, the median infection fatality rate might even be substantially lower than the 0.23% observed in my analysis.”. However, the figures are not directly comparable because flu deaths are not inflated in the same way as Covid19 deaths. Also, there are flu vaccines around which mean that many of the most vulnerable, particularly in Western countries, are protected each year (which made these same people more susceptible to Covid19).
Dr Ioannides performed a further study in March 2021 – refer to second link below – in which he deduced that the IFR was now 0.15%. As such, Covid19 is roughly equivalent to flu on terms of fatalities so can we stop over-reacting now?
3. More people will die from preventable, non-Covid deaths than will die from Covid19
The benchmark for this observation is the genuine number of deaths attributable to Covid19, not the inflated Government figure. Already we have witnessed ‘excess deaths’ in the home in 2020. These were deaths resulting from people who were having medical issues such as heart attacks or strokes who ignored the early signs because they didn’t want to burden the NHS (because Government propaganda tells us we must Protect The NHS). Some of these excess deaths could also have been suicides caused by the anti-social effects of lockdown.
These will not be the only deaths directly attributable to lockdowns: over 4 million cancer screenings were cancelled in 2020. This will result in a number of cancers not being found until it is too late.
And, of course there will be more suicides from the mental health havoc that has been unleashed on the country. Overall, the costs of lockdown will prove to be much greater than the benefits.
It is likely that ‘Addition’ refers to ‘Addiction’
4 . Lockdowns don’t work
Lockdowns were implemented in the UK because the Government panicked: cases were rising fast, the media were on their case and so they decided they had to do something. Plus, it feels, intuitively, that lockdowns ‘should’ work so the public lapped it up (and have done ever since). Yet, there are over 30 peer-reviewed, published papers – see link below – that conclude that lockdowns are ineffective. Lockdowns can slow the spread if you lockdown early but the lockdown would have to be much more severe than it was (with a much greater cost to the economy). Importantly, travel into the country would also need to be halted early on. However, by the time the UK implemented lockdown, it was already too late: the virus was close to being endemic. The epidemiological curve did not change shape in any country that implemented lockdown: if the death rate was increasing, it continued to increase and if it was falling, it continued to fall. It would not be possible to look at the epidemiological curves for any country that implemented lockdown and correctly determine at what point on the curve the lockdown was implemented.
As for lockdowns, masks don’t work and everyone knows they don’t work.. Health organisations used to know the truth about masks:
Masks are purely Political Theatre, introduced to make the Government look good. Masks are usefula to the authorities by serving as a visual reminder to everyone that we are in the midsts of a ‘dangerous pandemic’. They make no difference to the spread of infection.
Do these curves look like the masks made any difference at all to infection numbers?
6. Antibodies are a rubbish method of determining immunity. Most healthy people use T-cells for immunity
This is information I learned from Dr. Mike Yeadon. I’m sure you’ve come across Mike: he’s been all over the alternative news media pointing out the many ways that Government actions have failed to ‘follow the science’. Dr Yeadon spoke up again when the UK government published, in late 2020, results of their studies into the percentage of the UK population that were now protected from Covid19. Dr Mike pointed out that the Govt were basing their analysis purely on the numbers of people with antibodies and ignoring the T-cell aspect of immunity.
Here are Dr Yeadon’s opinion on the matter:
Viruses are really tiny, and their business is to get as quickly as they can inside your cells. So, they bind to a receptor on the surface and inject themselves into your cell. So, they’re inside. Antibodies are big molecules and they’re generally outside your cells.
So just think about that for a moment. Antibodies and viruses are in separate compartments. The virus is inside the cell, the antibodies outside the cell. I’m not saying antibodies have no role, but they’re really not very important. This has been proven. There are some people in whom a natural experiment has occurred.
They have a defect and they actually don’t make antibodies, but they’re able to fight off COVID-19, the virus SARS-CoV-2, quite well. The way they do that is, they have T-cell immunity, cellular immunity. [T-cells] are cells that are trained to detect virus-infected cells and to kill those cells. That’s how you defend yourself against a virus.
So, all of these mentions of antibody levels, it’s just bunk. It is not a good measure of whether or not you’re immune. It does give evidence that you’ve been infected, but their persistence is not important as to whether you’ve got immunity …
We’ve known this for decades. We’ve known about T-cells for decades. They were clearly in my undergraduate textbooks. And we’ve known about their importance in defending you against respiratory viruses since probably the 1970s, certainly the 1980s. So, don’t believe anything where people suggest to you that their role is uncertain. We’ve known for a very long time that they are absolutely central.”
I have greatly appreciated Dr. Yeadon’s contributions throughout this disaster. He has brought home to me, time and again that the Government is not giving us all of the information. Every time, there is a new aspect to the Covid19 story, the Government present it in the worst possible light every time. It’s almost like they are deliberately trying to keep us fearful, for some reason.
7. The average age of covid deaths is the same as life expectancy
This should tell you something. It tells me that these are people at the end of their life expectancy. They have weak immune systems. If it wasn’t Covid19 that finished them off, it would have been something else. We, as a country, have not lost a lot of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) to Covid19. However, we will lose a much greater number of QALY as a result of the avoidable devastation forced upon younger people as a result of lockdowns (refer to point 3, above).
8. Soft number of flu deaths in 2019 have led to more ‘dry tinder’ that were susceptible to Covid19 this year
‘Dry Tinder’ is an unfortunate term but it’s not my term. It is a term I came across to describe those people that were ripe for death ‘from’ Covid19. Pre-Covid19, if there were one or two ‘soft’ flu years, Medical Professionals would recognise that a reckoning was in the pipeline: a ‘hard’ flu year would be imminent that would take those people that ‘escaped’ previously. ‘Dry tinder’ is the term used to describe those people that will most readily be consumed by a severe flu. 2018 and 2019 were soft flu years. It’s like the film ‘Final Destination’: you cannot cheat death, it will find you eventually (and so will respiratory viruses).
9. The epidemic was over by end of May 2020
We then entered the ‘endemic’ phase which means that the virus had spread throughout the population. Like flu, the Covid19 virus is with us now. It’s not going away.
According to the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the following animals can be infected with the virus: cats, dogs, voles, ferrets, fruit bats, hamsters, mink, pigs, rabbits, raccoon dogs, tree shrews and white-tailed deer.
A disease that affects both humans and animals can never be eradicated.
People who think that Covid19 can be controlled are arrogant fools. People advocating for ‘zero covid’ are clowns. These people know nothing about respiratory viruses. Or, maybe they are pretending not to know?
By the way, you may be interested to know that on 19th March 2020, the UK Government downgraded Covid19 from its classification of ‘High Consequence Infectious Disease’ (HCID) because of Covids ‘low overall mortality rates’. 3 days later, the same Government announced the country was being placed into lockdown. Ever feel you’ve been played?
10. Covid19 is seasonal like all respiratory diseases
As such, it will be more prevalent during Winter and fade away during Spring. Yet that didn’t stop SAGE from predicting, in early 2021, that a third wave of Covid19 deaths would likely hit during Summer 2021 – ie. once the UK emerged from current restrictions – that would rival the hospitalisations witnessed during the peak of the second wave in January 2021.
It’s this sort of blatant scaremongering that has made me mistrust everything we are being told about Covid19 from official sources. If you are going to lie, your lie needs to lay on a foundation of credibility. SAGE’s ‘prediction’ fooled no one and they quickly performed a U-turn:
This is due to the sensitivity of the tests and their inability to differentiate between active and inactive viruses.
The PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) test was invented by Kary Mullis in 1993. Mullis died in August 2019.
PCR was designed to detect genetic mutations in order to identify genetic diseases such as sickle cell anaemia. It was never designed to diagnose infectious diseases.
The PCR test for Covid19 was created by Christian Drosten. The test was first shipped on Jan 10th, 2020 before the viral genome sequence for Covid19 was known. Drosten then managed to get the WHO to endorse the test and the rest is history.
Read the investigation by Sonia Elijah – link below – into the Drosten PCR test. It’s unbelievable how this test that has no credibility became the international gold standard for tracking Covid19:
Kary Mullis is rumoured to have said that PCR was not suitable for mass testing. However, this is disputed. Nevertheless, I found this article that explains why PCR method is unsuitable for mass testing (spoiler alert: it’s because samples are easily contaminated):
The other issue with PCR is that the number of cycles used for analysing the results are critical. Cycles refer to the orders of amplification that the test sample is subjected to in order to detect the viral RNA. Each additional ‘cycle’ is an additional order of amplification. The expert opinion is that any number of cycles above the low 30s delivers useless results (even if contamination can be prevented). I have not been able to find out how many cycles the UK is using but it is rumoured to be 45 which would be ridiculous, if true. Last year I saw a Freedom of Information (FOI) request – shared on social media – directed to the UK government that asked for transparency on the number of cycles being run. I have attached a link to the response below (spoiler alert: they don’t know!)
Throughout the Covid19 crisis, the Government has repeatedly told the public that they were ‘following the science’. The scientific advice was provided by SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies). Yet, at the start, membership of SAGE was top secret. The Government was in thrall to a group of people and we had no idea who they were. By the end of April 2020, the Government was forced to reveal the SAGE membership and we immediately discovered that the group billed as ‘the very best of the best’ for handling the response to the virus did not contain any epidemiologists or molecular virologists or immunologists or intensive care experts. SAGE was chiefly comprised of civil servants, computer modellers, academics and behavioural scientists. The group that recommended lockdowns to the Government were not qualified to provide that advice.
13. Every prediction of fatalities made by SAGE have been way off
Not much to add to this. We all know that Neil Ferguson from Imperial College (and also a member of SAGE until he had to resign for breaking lockdown rules) had a computer model that predicted 500,000 UK deaths if the Government did nothing. So the Government did something that was useless and we’ve had nowhere near the number of deaths or hospitalisations that have been predicted by SAGE at any point of the process. SAGE would point to the low numbers as evidence that their good advice has saved thousands of lives. I would say that, as per lockdown studies, some deaths may have been delayed but no lives were saved. I would also point out that SAGE have been delivering Project Fear for over a year now without providing any of the context provided by viral experts like Dr. Mike Yeadon, Dr. John Ioannides, Dr.John Lee, Dr. Dolores Cahill, Sunetra Gupta, Martin Kulldorff, Nick Hudson and many, many others that we have turned to in order to learn the truth. If you are interested, you may like to read this devastating critique of Neil Ferguson’s computer model:
14. Vaccines typically take 10 years to come to market
But this one took just 10 months. In fact, you wait 40 years for a coronavirus vaccine and 6 come along at once (if we include the Russian and Chinese Covid ‘vaccines’). These vaccines have been licensed for ’emergency use only’ because their clinical trials have not yet completed and will not complete for at least another 2 years. We are the test subjects (and we are not even being paid for it!)
We have already seen from the UK Government’s ‘Yellow Card’ card scheme that there are already high numbers of immediate adverse reactions. (More than expected? Only the vaccine companies will be able to answer that and they are keeping very quiet). It will amaze me if there are not found to long-term unintended health consequences from the vaccine. Time will tell. Taking a vaccine always comes with a cost to your immune system. Here is an explanation of that cost written by Dr David Carmen of PANDA (Pandemics Data and Analytics):
‘The Covid vaccine comes at a cost to our immune systems. Is it worth it? When we are born, our T-cells are ‘naïve’ and capable of reacting to a wide range of non-self signals. Throughout life, we are exposed to various infections and those T-cells that recognise the infection are amplified, and some of those T-cells become memory T-cells. We are also developing cancer every day, and our T-cells are dealing with it. We have a finite number of T-cells in our body. Over time, our naive T-cells are replaced by T-cells with memory of infections and cancers that we have experienced. This leaves us with less and less ability to respond to new infections and cancers. This is the reason why old people die of Covid, pneumonias and cancers. Their cause of death is actually immune system failure. So what happens when we inject a massive signal of non-self, packaged to elicit an immune response large enough to generate antibodies, into our arms in the form of a vaccination? Naive T-cells that recognise it will react and multiply, and then some of them will remain as memory T-cells. This means that our naive T-cell population became a little smaller, and we got a little closer to death. So there must be good reasons to give vaccines, and there are two very good reasons to give them. Firstly, we have eradicated smallpox and polio, and are on our way to eradicating measles. Eradication of a human disease is wonderful, and we have vaccination programmes to thank, but this is not going to happen with Covid. Covid is here to stay forever, vaccine or not, because it also infects animals. If an infectious agent can infect animals, it can never be eradicated by vaccine. Secondly, we save lives with vaccines against debilitating diseases like diptheria, pertussis and tetanus. These cause severe disease in whoever gets them. Any negative effect on the immune system is far less severe than the disease itself. So what about Covid? The majority of people who are infected don’t experience any symptoms and the vast majority experience less than a bout of flu. We know exactly who has a high probability of getting very sick and dying, and we know that children have next to a zero percent chance of getting very sick and dying. The infection fatality rate for age 0-19 is just 0.0003% and age 20-29 is just 0.0016%, and that is the majority of the world’s population right there. For the old and infirm, the risks from Covid are much higher and vaccine risk equation shifts. Remember, we cannot eradicate Covid because it infects animals – we are vaccinating purely for the sake of the patient. We know that every vaccine recipient pays a small price in the form of naive T-cells. Who should get the vaccine, and who should get the Covid cold? If you have followed the basic science and logic above, you should know.’
So, only those that are confident the upsides of the vaccine will outweigh the (unknown) downsides should be taking the vaccine. There is no need for the entire population to take the vaccine, despite the Government’s intentions.
15. There is no evidence of asymptomatic transmission
Fauci himself has previously dismissed the concept of asymptomatic transmission:
“asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks” and that “an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.”
Yet Government Covid19 propaganda that, like all good propaganda, is run as never ending cycles on all forms of communication insists that asymptomatic transmission is a key spreader of the virus. This conclusion seems to be based on the number of asymptomatic people who are testing positive with the dodgy PCR test. Rather than recognising that the PCR test may be delivering high numbers of false positives, the Government has found another interpretation: tens of thousands of people who only took the test because they were made to – and consequently failed it – must be spreading the virus. There is no evidence for this. In the link to point 6, above, Dr Yeadon says the following about asymptomatic transmission:
‘Asymptomatic spread is a fallacy capitalized upon to spread fear and induce compliance. Only people who have discernible symptoms of a respiratory infection pose any health risk to others, because to be an efficient source of infection, you need a high viral load. If you have a high viral load, your immune system will fight back, which always induces symptoms.’
16. Brief, casual encounters do not transmit Covid19
The CDC in US (Centers for Disease Control) state that 15 minutes of close contact are required to transmit Covid19. Which means that walking past someone in the supermarket is not going to lead to infection. Which means that social distancing is a waste of time for transitory encounters.
17. The Government have not promoted non-vaccine Preventatives and/or treatments for Covid19
The reason for the seasonality of respiratory viruses – refer to point 10 – is that our immune system is at its weakest during the Winter. Vitamin D helps boost our immune systems. How do we receive most vitamin D? From the Sun, i.e. in the summer. As such, we should all be taking vitamin D during the Winter and any time there is a major outbreak of a respiratory virus.
Dark skinned people living at Northern latitudes have difficulties synthesising sufficient vitamin D from the reduced amount of available sunshine, hence the high numbers of BAME people adversely affected by Covid19 in Western countries. Recognising this fact, the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO) sent a letter to its members in April 2020 advising them to take supplements of Vitamin D to help protect them against Covid19. I have attached a link to this letter below. I am not aware of any similar messages from the UK Government to the UK population. Why ever not? Here was a Government that was so concerned about hospital admissions running out of control that they placed the country into lockdown but they did not think to advise us of simple, cheap steps we could take at home to protect ourselves. Is this incompetence?
Zinc is also known to aid our immune systems yet has also received no promotion from the Government.
There are also a number of possible treatments that can be provided to patients who have contracted Covid19 to alleviate their symptoms: Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are two that have received the most attention on alternative news media.
However, there are others: Remdesivir; Lopinavir/retonivir (also marketed as Kaletra); Interferons; Naproxen (marketed as Aleve); and Convalescent blood plasma. I do not know to what extent these treatments have been used on Covid19 patients. However, I know that these treatments have been consistently downplayed by the Government and the Media. All the hype has been about the vaccines. Vaccines are the only game in town.
18. Our governments have massively under funded the NHS for years.
The UK has the lowest number of hospital beds in Western Europe. That should be a source of deep shame to us all. This shortage was possibly responsible for the Government’s decision to impose lockdown since they knew that the NHS could be easily overrun. I sometimes wonder about all that money spent on the Nightingale hospitals that were never used. It seems that the country would not have had the staff to run the Nightingale’s even if they had been full of patients so perhaps that was all just for show.
19. Mainstream and Social Media are not questioning the official Government narrative
This is particularly true of the television media. I only became aware of the homogeneous views of the TV news media in 2016 in the run up to the Brexit referendum. Every TV channel shared the same editorial line that Brexit was bad. Once the UK voted for Brexit, the TV media put every effort into undermining the result. We are seeing exactly the same homogeneity now, except this time the TV media is entirely supportive of the Government’s position. No one is challenging the Government position. No one is raising the issues that are being raised on alternative media by credible experts in the fields.
Here is an article the describes how the investigation into the origins of Covid19 was delayed for a year because the media were happy to listen to small selection of politicised experts and smear as ‘conspiracy theorists’ any experts with a different opinion:
Social Media companies are censoring posts that criticise ‘official’ narratives about Covid19 (even though official narratives have changed repeatedly throughout the last 15 months). The media are not interested in scepticism because they have all bought into the lockdown propaganda. I don’t think this uniformity of opinion is healthy for the country.
Here is link from Project Veritas who have unveiled systemic efforts by Facebook to suppress Vaccine Hesitancy posts:
Here is a link that contains just a small number of the many examples of censorship of unacceptable Covid19 opinions that have been applied by the Social Media companies:
People used to look out for their neighbours. People did favours for each other. People protected the vulnerable within their communities. Communities were small and close-knit. Then the Government introduced The Welfare State which destroyed that culture of looking out for your friends and neighbours. People now look to the Government to look after them. As a result, communities have been atomised. Who amongst you knows the names of your neighbours? All of your neighbours, not just the ones living either side of you? Why would you, you have nothing in common. Your lives are lived in parallel. Your work and social lives never intersect. You have no need of each other. If you were to need anything, chances are you would investigate if the State could provide it for you.
As more responsibilities are assumed by the State, the more that people will look to the State to help in times of need. This explains the hysterical ‘Save Me’ calls made to the government when Covid19 arrived.
The historian AJP Taylor once wrote the following:
“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”.
That is not the case anymore.
In olden days a man’s first line of defence was himself. The second line of defence was his community, although a man would need to be fairly desperate to turn to his community as it was a source of shame to not be able to look after yourself. The State did not figure.
Nowadays, a man’s first line of defence is himself and the State is his second line. However, this ordering is debatable. Certainly, the level at which a man decides that external help from the State is required is much, much lower than in days of yore. And why wouldn’t it be? The government is giving stuff away for free. You don’t have to be indebted to anyone if you take government money. It’s not as thought the government’s money belongs to anyone: it’s just a pool of money lying around waiting to be claimed (and if you don’t claim it, someone else will). There’s an old Eastern European saying – dating from the Communist days – that ‘if you aren’t stealing from the Government, you are stealing from your family’. There is a similar ethos creeping into Western mindsets due to the largesse of the State: Take what you can.
The other consequence of The Welfare State, as Provider is that marriage is undermined. If the State will look after you, why do you need a Husband – or a Wife? I’m not saying that unsuitable couples must be be locked together out of financial necessity but knowing the State will provide you with accommodation and spending money rather neutralises any requirement to work through things together “for better or worse”. The bonds are weaker when alternative options are so readily available.
Margaret Thatcher famously once said “There is no such thing as society” which caused a huge uproar from the sort of people that like to separate words from their context. Here is the context of Thatcher’s words:
‘I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation.’
Thatcher was lamenting the negative influence the Welfare State has had on Communities. The Welfare State leads to apathy, and waste, marital breakdown and loss of freedom.
Why loss of freedom? Because the organ grinder calls the tune. If the State is paying for the services that you are using, the State can apply conditions to that usage. The State can choose to restrict those services. We saw that with Covid19: lots of routine medical treatments were cancelled because the State owns the hospitals and the State decided that Covid19 was a higher priority. And the State shut down the schools because the State owns the Schools and the State decided that children were going to spread Covid19 if they went to school.
The State introduces ever more rules and regulations that restrict our ability to act with autonomy. The State reaches into every area of our lives in a way that is best exemplified by the Covid19 situation.
Covid19 signalled just how much power the State has accumulated since 1914. In 2020 the State took on the responsibility of deciding how much risk we would accept. All personal autonomy was stripped from us. We, the people, were no longer able to study the information about Covid19 and decide for ourselves whether we wanted to shield or go to about our lives. We were not able to judge for ourselves how strong our immune systems were, nor could we decide if we were in the demographic vulnerable to Covid19. Nor could the healthy amongst us deliberately catch Covid19 in order to take the community as a whole towards herd immunity. Nor could the elderly weigh up longevity versus love and affection from their friends and families when making the decisions about what lifestyle changes they would incorporate in the face of Covid19. None of that autonomy was allowed. The State made the decision for all of us – young and old, healthy and infirm – that everyone would be subject to lockdown: a one-size-fits-all policy. The State could do that because the State owns the National Health Service which gives them the right to make decisions based on everyone’s health. Monopolies are never good things and the UK Government runs too many of them and, consequently, has the power to dictate how we live.
The State decided, on our behalf, that none of us could be exposed to Covid19. This situation is without precedent but it sets an alarming precedent: Any future public health risk will now be measured against the benchmark of the State’s handling of Covid19. Lockdowns will now become a default tool in the armoury of the State to protect us. The politicians that were lauded by the media for their handling of the early days of the Covid19 outbreak were those that went authoritarian soonest and hardest. This lesson will not have been lost on politicians. The scope of the State has just taken a big leap forward. Lockdowns, and other population control measures, will be used much more liberally going forward. A new rubicon of government intervention has been crossed, the boundaries of which will be explored by future governments.
The State introduced lockdowns to keep us away from our friends and family. In effect the State, having atomised our wider support group – our communities – now atomised our close support groups – our friends and family. Grandparents were told they couldn’t see their grandchildren (and, in case they thought about flouting the rules, a stream of fear-inducing propaganda was put into action by the Government to make the threats of the virus much more serious than they were). Support bubbles were allowed but these were highly restrictive in that you could just about leave a loaf of bread and a pint of milk on the doorstep of a vulnerable person in your support bubble, but that was about it. We certainly weren’t allowed to see aunts and uncles and cousins or siblings or nieces or nephews or friends. The choice had been removed from us by Big Government. Who do we poor atoms look to support us when we have been split asunder from our support groups? Why, the State, of course! The more the State grows, the more we need the State.
It’s classic divide and conquer: the communitarian strength of the masses is weakened if you can separate them, or, even better, if you can get them to attack each other. That’s why the recent growth in Identity Politics has been so useful for governments: If you can pit race against race, gender against gender and religion against religion, all of those groups are much easier to ignore than one unified group with common objectives.
And so the long arm of the state grows ever longer. And our personal agency grows ever less.
Is this what Democratic Socialism feels like? A pretence of being free because you can vote but, actually, the government is in full control of your life choices? The State is only ever going to continue growing. I dread to think what aspects of our lives will come under State control in the future.
Big Government is a pernicious influence. It grows on our misery and its growth makes us miserable. It seeks to replace a support network of family, friends and neighbours with anonymous civil servants. People say “We need the The Welfare State as a safety net for those that fall through the cracks”. Yes, Big Government comes carrying gifts. But not everything you like is good for you. Big Government is like white bread or sugar: it is comforting but it is not going to do you any good in the long run. We need to ween ourselves away from our addiction to Big Government.
The Left is riddled with hypocrisy. Their views are entirely subjective, based as they are on the context of the political ideologies of those involved. It is often the case that the subjective ‘truth’ that is the foundation of Leftist ideology conflicts with objective truth. When such conflicts occur, Leftist hypocrisy is readily exposed in their efforts to reconcile the two. If you consider any contemporary talking point in society, I guarantee that the Left will have inconsistent views. Let’s go through some of them..
Science: Leftists disparage science. They say there are ‘other ways of knowing’. Yet when it came to Covid19 they insisted we follow the science.
Transgenderism: Leftists insist that gender is a social construct. Yet when it comes to transgenderism they support the idea of binary genders where a woman has been born into a man’s body, or vice verse. In these situations Leftists demand that the binary is sacrosanct.
Defund the police: Leftists spent the 2010s attacking Tories for austerity cuts, including the police. Yet as soon as the BLM protests happened they issued calls to ‘defund the police’
Racism: Self-confessed ‘anti-racists’ are always from the hard left. Yet anti-racists are very comfortable in being racist to white people. But they justify white racism with the weak argument that you cannot be racist to white people, only brown people, thereby being racist to both to both white and brown people within the space of a single sentence.
Sexual Assault:
When Hollywood women were offered the opportunity to ‘do things’ to get that million dollar role, Leftist women created the ‘MeToo’ hashtag to highlight how oppressed they are. When thousands of working class British girls were exploited by Asian grooming gangs, Leftist women did not say a word. That’s hypocrisy.
This is how we learn of relative values on the totem pole of intersectionality: women are worth more than men, unless the men are brown. And middle class women are worth more than working class girls (because middle class women are very good at painting themselves as victims).
Homophobia and misogyny:
Leftists are always on high alert for any instances of homophobia and misogyny except….it rather depends on who – or which group – is being homophobic and misogynistic. If a white man commits either of these sins, Leftists will engage hyperactive hyperdrive in an effort to destroy the man’s life. However, Islamic homophobia and misogyny are never challenged. That’s not very consistent. What’s that word for when different races receive different treatments for the same offence based on their race? 🤔🤔🤔
Big State:
The Left state that government institutions are systemically racist. But the Left also say that the State should run everything.
Free speech:
The Left say they believe in free speech…except when people disagree with them and then they say there must be limits to free speech and that certain things are hate speech and need to be outlawed. Or, that certain statements constitute ‘microaggressions’. Such confused thinking is never going to lead to consistent policy.
Fascism:
The Left say that the Right is fascist yet it is the left that are:
Pulling down statues; Re-writing history; Attacking police; Pursuing censorship of the media; Pursuing censorship of the people by the (social) media; Trying to overturn democratic mandates (ie Brexit and Trump election); Trying to get transgressors fired (Cancel Culture).
Promotion of BAME people:
Leftists say the UK is systemically racist yet when Johnson appoints the most ethnically diverse cabinet in history, the Left attack these BAME politicians for being shills and uncle toms.
Terrorism:
When a white man goes on a murder spree, the Leftist media – particularly the US media is quick to highlight his race and to exaggerate the frequency of white terrorism. They conclude that white terrorism is out of control and steps need to be taken to abolish whiteness. Whiteness is the problem and we are all equally guilty!
However….if the suspect is ethnic, the editorial line is very different! Then, the ethnicity is downplayed by the media. If the ethnicity cannot be avoided – typically because he screamed ‘alla’s snack bar’ just prior to detonating his dirty bomb then the media solemnly intones that we mustn’t paint all [insert minority group here] with the same brush just because of one bad apple. Then everyone sings ‘Don’t Look Back In Anger’ and we all carry on as though nothing had happened.
Look how Amy Siskind’s tone changed once she found out the Boulder shooter was non-white…
The Western response to Covid19 has been bewildering to everyone of a rational disposition: lockdowns; mask mandates; social distancing; ever-changing rules on when and where you can meet people (that sometimes depend on the time of day); creation of ‘social bubbles’; no-fly mandates; vaccination coercion; Government sponsored propaganda; Claims of protecting the vulnerable (even though the vulnerable in care homes weren’t protected) etc etc. A lot of people have observed all of this and decided that this doesn’t add up. Something’s missing.
Here is photo of a sticker put up by anti-lockdown activists
This post isn’t going to discuss the merits or inconsistencies of any of these authoritarian measures.
The intent of this post is to explore the Conspiracy Theories that have emerged to filling in that missing piece that would make sense of the over-zealous overreaction by Western Governments.
Here are some of the conspiracy theories I have heard over the last year, that seek to explain either the cause of the pandemic or the reaction to the pandemic: New World Order (aka ‘The Great Reset’); Depopulation (via the vaccine); Implant of tracking devices (via the vaccine); Corruption (ie politicians making money from PPE, vaccines etc); Satanic (Satan and His worshippers seeking an opportunity in these Godless times); Virus was made and released deliberately; the virus doesn’t exist; 5G signals are causing the symptoms we are blaming on Covid19..
These theories have emerged because people are unable to rationalise the gap between their perceived risk from Covid 19 and their Governments’ reaction to Covid 19. When faced with a Government narrative that seems inconsistent with the evidence, people look for plausible explanations to fill in the gaps. And as ‘three weeks to flatten the curve’ now, 13 months later, has no end in sight, the ‘plausible explanations’ that are spreading are not only becoming less plausible but increasing numbers of people are subscribing to them. The mistrust of government is tangible and growing.
I’m one of those people struggling to find a motive for what I am witnessing. I’ve always viewed myself as a rational being. As such, I have always steered clear of conspiracy theories. I believe that most conspiracy theories would have needed to involve so many people that the secret could not have been kept: the truth would have emerged. ‘9/11’, for example, would have needed hundreds of people to set up. It’s just not a credible theory, in my opinion. In such cases I apply the rule of ‘Occam’s Razor’: after you have ruled out the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth. I apply the same approach to the Covid19 actions: it would be impossible for hundreds of Western Politicians, all fired up from the January 2020 Davos shindig, to have deliberately set about putting in place authoritarian controls and organising an economic collapse in order to bring about ‘The Great Reset’. Politicians are neither competent enough, nor trustworthy enough to bring about such a collaborative venture. A more credible alternative theory is that most Western politicians are incompetent. This doesn’t even seem improbable. On the contrary, it seems more than probable! Furthermore, there is very little political cost to Western Governments to being over-cautious but huge downsides to being seen as overly risky.
Yet, I can fully understand why people are embracing conspiracy theories like never before. I have been forced to question my own conclusions numerous times over the last few months, each time some new, clunky, authoritarian regulation to ‘save us’ comes into force. And I will continue to keep a close eye on developments. I don’t want to take anything for granted, right now, as the stakes are too high for complacency.
It’s a strange time, unlike anything that any of us have ever experienced and we are all trying to make sense of it, as best we can. Each time the government moves the goalposts further into the distance, we find it unnerving. Each time Tony Blair or George Soros or Bill Gates pops up on our timelines telling us to get ready for ‘the new normal’, we are entitled to fondly recollect ‘the old normal’ and wonder why can’t we return to that.
The thing is, once people buy into covid19 conspiracy theories, all of a sudden the entire shopfront of historical conspiracy theories become available to them. The moon landings were faked? 9/11 was an inside job? The Royal Family had Diana bumped off? Once people become suspicious of the motives of the authorities, everything is viewed as ‘PsyOps’ (Pyschological Operations), i.e. non-military methods designed to manipulate a group of people in order to achieve a political objective. Once you have this mindset, I imagine you are never going to lose it.
So, in summary, the government is probably incompetent, although there is a slight risk that something much worse is unfolding behind the scenes: we will find out in due course. In the meantime distrust of authorities is on the rise. It will be interesting to see how that unfolds over the coming years.
Distrust is yet another consequence of the lockdowns that our governments did not consider when they started down this road. Let’s add it to the rest of the pile: unemployment; depression; suicides; fractured education; preventable deaths of healthy individuals through suspended routine medical procedures; anxiety; the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in history etc etc.
Lena Dunham, the American actress and feminist is a classic example of the modern progressive: hypocritical; devious; manipulative; mendacious; sexist and racist.
I’m going to report on just one incident from Lena’s back-catalogue that highlights all of these traits and, thereby, exposes her as the toxic individual she truly is.
The incident in question relates to accusations of sexual assault made by an actress by the name of Aurora Perrineau against Murray Miller, a Producer and co-writer on Dunham’s show ‘Girls’ (which ran from 2012-2017).
In November 2017, at the height of the #MeToo movement, Aurora accused Murray of raping her in 2012, when she was 17 (Aurora was staying at Miller’s house with friends and awoke to find Miller having sex with her).
The #MeToo movement blew up in early October 2017, following the publicisation of allegations against Harvey Weinstein. #MeToo was accompanied by another hashtag to #BelieveAllWomen
Dunham was a forceful promoter of both hashtags:
‘Things women do lie about: what they ate for lunch. Things women don’t lie about: rape.’— 💎 Lena Dunham 💎 (@lenadunham) August 4, 2017
However, when Aurora’s accusation against Dunham’s friend and colleague surfaced, Dunham proved that she didn’t ‘believe all women’ if the alleged rapist was a friend of hers. She and ‘Girls’ colleague Jenni Kenner issued the following statement on 18th Nov, 2017:
The particular part of this craven message that requires special focus is this bit…
‘Our insider knowledge of Miller’s situation makes us confident that sadly this accusation is one of the 3% of assault cases that are misreported every year. We stand by Murray and this is all we’ll be saying about this issue.’
Unsurprisingly, everyone rushed to point out Dunham’s hypocrisy. Plus, it was pointed out that Dunham had a pattern of only supporting the claims of sexual assault made by white women (#BelieveAllWhiteWomen?) So, one day later, Dunham was forced to row back on her unequivocal support for Miller:
So, Dunham has thus far shown herself to be a hypocrite, a racist and devoid of any principles whatsoever. But, there was to be one final turn in this delightful saga.
In Dec 2018, Dunham admitted that she had lied when her original statement, supporting Miller, claimed she had “insider information on Miller’s situation”. This admission was made in an open letter in The Hollywood Reporter
‘I didn’t have the “insider information” I claimed but rather blind faith in a story that kept slipping and changing and revealed itself to mean nothing at all. I wanted to feel my workplace and my world were safe, untouched by the outside world‘.
But, it gets even better: Dunham managed to re-direct the blame for her treatment of Perrineau. You see, Dunham was a victim of misogynistic forces beyond her control:
‘It’s painful to realize that, while I thought I was self-aware, I had actually internalized the dominant male agenda that asks us to defend it no matter what, protect it no matter what, baby it no matter what…
And in a speech Dunham made to accompany the letter, she only went and blamed The Patriarchy for her behaviour:
Can you believe the gall of this woman? She is saying that it is men’s fault when she behaves like a lying piece of shit. This is increasingly the position adopted by radical feminists these days: women are noble and pure who never do anything wrong (but if they do, it’s men’s fault)! (Ever notice that progressives claim that gender is just a social construct, except for when they want to blame men for something, in which case they make the case that men are inherently evil? Pick the bones out of that conundrum).
So now we can conclude that Dunham is also sexist, mendacious, devious and manipulative.
Dunham truly is the product of our age: a repellent, toxic, hypocrite grifting under the guise of oppressed noble social justice warrior.
Atticus Fox 