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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It turns out these were only suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leftists Stick To The Herd

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

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

There are 2 reasons why Leftists are like this:

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

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

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

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

Quotes That Prove There Is Nothing New Under The Sun

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

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

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

Let’s start with Kafka:

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

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

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

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

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

‘When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.‘
G.K. Chesterton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Diligence is the mother of good luck.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Louis Jolyon West, psychiatrist (1924 – 1999)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another great ‘truth’ quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Solzhenitsyn next:

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

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

‘There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.‘

Edward L. Bernays, ‘Propaganda’

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

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

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

Further relevant quotes I have since discovered:

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

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

Assessing My Fundamental Self

Recently the G20 has agreed to adopt vaccine passports for international travel.

https://mailchi.mp/7867d8f83f4b/g20-countries-commit-to-who-global-health-passports?e=ee6c56399f

It’s going to become increasingly hard to participate in the modern world whilst retaining my principles, i.e. not being forced to participate in medical trials whilst holding on to some measure of privacy.

The agreement by the G20 to adopt vaccine passports for international travel means I will either have to abide by the strictures of the rules – keeping myself dosed up with whatever new unlicensed vaxx has been rushed out in response to the latest ‘pandemic’ – or I will have to subject myself to the indignity of unreliable tests that might see myself denied entry to my flight or, possibly even marched off to a Quarantine Camp. The third choice is to no longer travel abroad.

Of course, vaccine passports will quickly evolve into digital ids. Digital IDs will be optional at first. As such, people like me who place liberty before government proscribed safety measures will refuse to use them because we know how Digital IDs will evolve over time: we will become a ‘papers please’ society. Every interaction you have that involves a good or service will involve someone needing to scan your Digital ID.

Gradually over time, the government will find excuses to add more and more data to the ID and more and more companies will rely on the ID as part of their processes. People will gradually find it very difficult to function without a Digital ID. And, of course, Digital IDs are a pre-cursor to CBDCs which means if you don’t have a Digital ID, you won’t have any money.

The government might never make Digital IDs mandatory. Instead, they will ensure life becomes increasingly difficult for those who refuse to submit to serfdom. And, in time, as part of the social credit system, people with certain infringements will be denied certain goods and services.

So, small numbers of people will try to live outside the system. But life for them will be hard. They probably won’t have access to CBDCs so they will have to barter for goods with the other outcasts. The health of the outcasts will probably be much better than those who are taking half a dozen shots a year. However, if they do become injured or ill, they will be denied mainstream medical treatment because of the lack of Digital ID.

For how long will I be prepared to stand by my principles, in the face of increasing difficulty in trying to participate in everyday activities? How far will I take it? Am I prepared to live in the woods and forage? I don’t know. I am going to have to live one day at a time. Each day I will have to re-assess whether the life I have chosen for myself, outside of the system, is viable or whether I need to capitulate to the system. It will depend on the life I am living and how much capitulation would be required to live a better life.

The other consideration is my family. To what extent am I prepared to be ostracised from my family in order to live a life of moral purity? Again, constant re-assessment would be needed to determine the effect my principles are having on my family and my overall quality of life.

It’s certainly not the life I envisaged for myself. My wife and I had dreams of owning a holiday home in Italy and living there for half of each year. That’s not going to happen now. Travel of any sort might not happen. Owning multiple houses is not ‘sustainable’ and so will either be banned or taxed so heavily that people sell up their holiday homes.

I have my own house so I feel I will have some sort of independence from the decrees of the state but even that cannot be guaranteed if things turn really bad. Undesirables have been asset-stripped at points in history. It could happen again.

What are my lines in the sand?

I will never have another vaxx and I will never again wear a mask.

That’s about it. Everything else is up for grabs, albeit unwillingly depending on how tough things become. But even those lines in the sand might need to be re-considered. For example, if the government states that my home will be confiscated, unless I have the vaxx, will I stick to my principles? Will I be prepared to go to prison rather than wear a mask? I don’t know. It would depend on the context at the time. If there is a big resistance movement, I will join it. If not, will I be prepared to stand up to the state on my own? Possibly not.

I will resist Digital ID but, at some point, I may have no choice. However, I will be much closer to the last to succumb, than the first.

I’m starting to accept that I am turning into one of those old curmudgeons that refuses to accept the modern ways that everyone else takes for granted. Younger people, I imagine, will be much more accepting of restriction of freedoms that they had not yet fully appreciated. But us older ones will find the capitulation harder to stomach. This makes me think of all those old people I have encountered over the years who have withdrawn from life by way of silent protest against the way society has diverged from the society they enjoyed in their youth. Result? No one cared and then they died.

How will I get around the strictures of digital id? What will I do if an insurance company demands to see my Digital ID to prove my identity? I will have to do it, albeit grudgingly. Yet, that is how they win: a thousand cuts that we grudgingly accept which makes it harder to draw a line in the sand, beyond which you will not venture, because you will already have ventured so far from where you started. The government knows that lines drawn in sand are easily rubbed out.

I end with these lines written by Kafka:

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

Thank You For This Award, I’d Just Like To Thank…

I don’t do this for awards, I do it to help people

There aren’t many people that are eligible for the Vaxx Achievement Award I have displayed here. As time passes, I am ever more thankful that I didn’t succumb to ‘the jab’. As the meme says, ‘Lots of people regret taking the jab, nobody regrets not taking it’.

But what was it about me that led me to be immune to the fear-mongering and coercion directed at us by the authorities? Us ‘Awake’ people always ask each other about our journeys: how long we’ve been Awake and what prompted us to Wake Up. In this piece I am going to tell my story and, in doing so, I am going to give recognition and thanks to those people that contributed to my Awakening.

For me it all started with Brexit. Before Brexit I was completely trusting of the authorities. However, I saw things during the Brexit campaign and the aftermath of the vote that shocked me into a state of suspicion. Brexit was the first time I saw that all of the Elites in Britain, indeed all of the Global Elites, shared the same position: that Brexit was bad. I had never before witnessed such homogeneity of GroupThink before. I realised that there was a Class War aspect to Brexit where the Elites were absolutely fanatical in their commitment to the EU and didn’t appear to recognise – or weren’t prepared to admit to – any of the downsides of EU membership. It was the Lower Classes that felt that EU membership conferred more disadvantages than advantages. The bitterness, animosity and snobbery of the Elites to the Brexit supporters was shocking to witness. EU commitment was just part of their ideology. They all thought as one. They had never questioned EU Membership and because they had never questioned it, they weren’t very good at arguing in its favour, apart from generic comments about the benefits to the economy. The Establishment really didn’t want Brexit and, as such, they thrashed around in an attempt to escape from their commitment to honour the result of the referendum. At that point my spider senses were tingling that something else was going on but I didn’t know what it was.

In fact, Brexit was the reason I started this blog! I had written an argument in favour of Brexit in the days immediately after the vote. Over the next couple of years I continued to flesh out this document as ever more reasons for leaving the EU became apparent to me. However, I needed an online version of the document so I could send URL links to anyone with whom I was debating Brexit online. As such, in November 2018 I started this blog primarily so I could publish my pro-Brexit document. For my partial Brexit Awakening I need to thank David Cameron for holding the vote and Nigel Farage for his 25 year campaign to leave the EU. Dave, you were a poor PM but your mistake in holding the referendum was a mistake that 52% of us were happy to benefit from! Nigel, you will always have a special place in my thoughts as a man of conviction and principle.

Brexit was a very useful pre-cursor for me. I can’t say I woke up at that point, but I certainly started paying more attention. My increased political engagement led me to subscribe to The Specator in 2017 and The Spectator played a big part in completing my journey to Wakefulness.

The next milestone for me came in 2019 and involved the Climate Change debate.

I was reading an article by James Delingpole in The Spectator in 2019 where he briefly alluded to his Climate Change scepticism and how he had even written a book about it. This was a revelation as I had never encountered a climate sceptic before! I didn’t know there was such a thing! That’s how sheep-like I was. I duly bought and read James’ book – ‘Watermelons’ – and I became a Climate Change sceptic overnight. The book provided me with lots of other aspects of climate change to research. So I must send out a big thank you to James Delingpole. My research into Climate Change made me realise that the Establishment have been lying to us about the effects of carbon dioxide. This was a useful thing to know in 2019! Now I knew that our governments lied to us about Brexit and Climate Change but, even then, I still thought the government mainly told the truth. I still wasn’t Awake but I was certainly rousing from my slumber.

Then 2020 came along and we all know what happened in that fateful year. I was pretty fearful when the prediction of half a million UK deaths was revealed.

However, once again I witnessed the same obvious and total GroupThink about lockdowns in 2020 that I saw during the Brexit furore. GroupThink is never healthy.  Debate is healthy but there was never any debate about lockdowns.

However, the Spectator came to my aid, once again, when I read a couple of articles by Dr John Lee that changed my perspective on covid.

Dr Lee, a cellular pathologist, wrote in the May 30th issue of The Spectator about the ‘national scandal’ of how the UK counted covid deaths that made me realise that the official covid death figures were hugely inflated. I include an excerpt of Dr. Lee’s article here:

‘And nowhere are autopsy studies more important than in the study of new diseases…we are still struggling to understand coronavirus. I can think of no time in my medical career when it has been more important to have accurate diagnosis of a disease, and understanding of precisely why patients have died of it. Yet very early on in the epidemic…guidance was issued which tends to reduce rather than increase referrals for autopsy…so at a time when accurate death statistics are more important than ever, the rules have been changed in ways that make them less reliable than ever.’

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-way-covid-deaths-are-being-counted-is-a-national-scandal/

In the July 11th issue, Dr Lee was even more hard-hitting when he wrote about the poor quality of decision-making throughout the epidemic:

‘Such is the quality of decision-making in the process generating our lockdown narrative. An early maintained but exaggerated belief in the lethality of the virus reinforced by modelling that was almost data-free, then amplified by further modelling with no proven predictive value. All summed up by recommendations from a committee based on qualitative data that hasn’t even been peer-reviewed.’

Through Toby Young at The Spectator I also started following the Lockdown Sceptic website Toby had created in April 2020.(now called the ‘Daily Sceptic’). From there and other sources I quickly learned that the PCR Test was useless. I also learned from the work of Dr John Ioannides that the Infection Fatality Rate – IFR – of covid was about the same as flu. Then I learned that asymptomatic transmission was nonsense. By this time, I was reading A LOT about covid. Ivor Cummins was another great source of information and perspective around this time that I will add to my gratitude list. From these people I learned that none of the government’s actions in response to covid made sense.

From late Spring of 2020 I was no longer fearful of covid. From that point I realised governments all over the world were exaggerating its dangers. In November 2020 I attended an anti-lockdown protest in London. This was my first ever protest march and I spoke to people who were much more Awake than I was, for I was still not fully Awake. I still ascribed the government’s actions down to a combination of poor advice and incompetence. It also seemed that the government was commissioning a lot of polling to keep a close eye on what the public thought of the covid restrictions. The circular logic of this course of action particularly annoyed me as, on the one hand, the government were engaged in a propaganda campaign to ensure people were petrified of covid whilst on the other hand, the government were commissioning polls to discover what the frightened population thought about the covid restrictions. Not surprisingly, the polls always demanded more restrictions which the government duly delivered. Hence, I thought that the government was stuck in a rut of its own devising whereby they couldn’t change tact even if they wanted to. I was desperately trying trying to rationalise the government’s position.

I did not become fully ‘Awake’ until I witnessed the government’s handling of the vaccine roll-out in 2021. Upon realising that the government was intent on pushing the vaxx on everyone and was fully prepared to engage in coercion to do so in addition to stigmatising the unvaxxed, I realised that something was going on that had nothing to do with incompetence.

This was the point at which I became thoroughly disgusted with my own government. This was the point at which I was no longer able to rationalise the government’s actions. I now knew, beyond all doubt that we were being duped. However, even at this point, most people – including me – did not know why our governments were lying to us. The whole Agenda 2030 / Great Reset thing didn’t go viral until late 2021.

So, in summary, I am thanking David Cameron; Nigel Farage; James Delingpole; Dr John Lee; Toby Young; Dr John Ioannides and Ivor Cummins for my Vaxx Achievement Award. You each contributed to me reaching a point where I started applying Critical Thinking to events.

Looking back, I am slightly embarrassed at how long it took me to Wake up. It took the combined efforts of 4 events over 5 years – Brexit; Climate Change; covid lockdowns and covid vaxx roll-out – each coming along in quick succession to Wake me up. Maybe, if the gaps between those events had been longer, I wouldn’t have reached the levels of suspicion and anger needed to engage in critical thinking. In that respect, my Climate Change Awakening came at just the right time because it maintained the momentum between Brexit and covid. With hindsight, I can see that these 4 events are closely related: they are all about furthering global governance and tightening control over the population in order to reduce the avenues open to protest when the loss of democracy becomes apparant.

I can now say that I have taken the red pill and I have a sense of how far the rabbit hole goes.

I took the red one

How I Learnt to Stop Worrying and Love The Great Reset

It seems that everyone wants to overthrow ‘the system’ these days. However, the disagreement lies in what follows the overthrow.

Some people are thinking Schwab’s ‘Great Reset’ is the perfect ‘oven-ready’ replacement to our bloated, corrupt capitalist system. So I thought I’d take a look at what Schwab is promising. After all, it couldn’t be any worse than what we have now.

I will present Schwab’s own words on his Utopia so we can consider the implications of the changes he is proposing.

Let’s start off with the quote from the WEF that most people are familiar with:

‘You will own nothing and you will be happy’

Analysis: This is a WEF prediction for 2030. The obvious question is: who will own everything? If people rent what they need, who will be their landlord? The government? The Banks? Corporations? Are they going to be fair and reasonable landlords? Or are they going to take advantage of their monopoly-status? Human experience tells us that those who own the assets call the shots so I’d be somewhat wary of having to rely on the benevolence of a corporate entity to provide for my needs at a reasonable and fair price.

Owning property confers rights and privileges that I’m not sure I’d want to forfeit. For example, renting comes with terms and conditions that do not apply to ownership. In recent years we’ve all seen how our ability to access goods and services is linked to our conformity: if you say or do something the government doesn’t like, your bank and social media accounts can be closed. It seems to me that the State’s ability to force you into compliance is much greater if you rely on the State for all of your needs. I would like Schwab’s assurances that access to goods and services will never be associated with a social credit score before I could fully support the Great Reset.

I’d also like to bequeath my possessions to my children so that they won’t have to lease quite so many items in the future. Will that no longer be allowed? Also, 2030 isn’t that far away so I wonder how this transition – from owning lots of things to owning nothing – is expected to occur in just 8 years? Will we have to sell our possessions, or will they be taken from us? And how can the WEF be so confident that we will be happy at the end of this transition? All in all, this vision of a WEF future raises more questions than it answers.

Wanna bet?

Here’s a quote from one of Schwab’s books:

Schwab: ‘Put in simple terms, in a post-pandemic world beset by unemployment, insufferable inequalities and angst about the environment, the ostentatious display of wealth will no longer be acceptable.’
Klaus Schwab, COVID-19: The Great Reset

Analysis: Well, that is something I can support! There’s nothing worse than Marie-Antoinette swanning around in her diamonds telling us all to eat cake. Does this mean that there won’t be any wealth, because rich people will also own nothing like the rest of us? Or, does it just mean the rich won’t be displaying their wealth ostentatiously any more? I mean, there’s still going to be a lot of money sloshing around, right? From all that renting? So, there will still be rich people? Or will it be a different set of rich people? And why won’t they be ostentatious? Will there be anti-ostentatious laws? Or will the rich hide their wealth out of shame?

Schwab: ‘My concern, however, is that decision makers are too often caught in traditional, linear (and nondisruptive) thinking or too absorbed by immediate concerns to think strategically about the forces of disruption and innovation shaping our future.’
Klaus Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution

Analysis: Yes, we need a fresh start! A rebuild, from the ground up. A Great Reset. Throw it all away and design a new future. I couldn’t agree more. The only slight quibble I would raise at this point is that no one has asked me for my ideas for decision-making and strategic thinking in the future. In fact, no one I know has been approached. I get the sense that it’s only Schwab and his mates at the WEF who are designing the future. I hope Schwab has tasked someone with ensuring the needs of the working class are represented in the Great Reset.

Schwab: ‘History shows that epidemics have been the great resetter of countries’ economy and social fabric. Why should it be different with COVID-19?’
Klaus Schwab, COVID-19: The Great Reset

Analysis: Yep, epidemics are useful things. Same with wars. And economic collapses. We can use such events to bring about changes for the ‘greater good’. People might not like the changes at first but that’s only because people are resistant to change. They’ll get used to it.

The following quote is from a WEF document on the subject of strengthening international cooperation.

And here’s just a tiny extract from this document:

Schwab / WEF: “The challenge is finding a way to meld this approach with other governance mechanisms. This means designing multistakeholder structures for the institutions that deal with global problems with an online dimension. Thus, the establishment of a multistakeholder institution to address such issues as Internet privacy, copyright, crime and dispute resolution is necessary. The government voice would be one among many, without always being the final arbiter. And as ever more problems come to acquire an online dimension, the
multistakeholder institution would become the default in international cooperation.”

Analysis: The democratically elected government would not be the final arbiter? Who would be? If you suspect that such an undemocratic set-up could be a stitch up by The Cabal to make themselves totally unaccountable to the electorate, you might be on to something.

Schwab: ‘I believe that, if managed well, the Fourth Industrial Revolution can bring a new cultural renaissance, which will make us feel part of something much larger than ourselves: a true global civilization. I believe the changes that will sweep through society can provide a more inclusive, sustainable and harmonious society.’

Analysis: This sounds great. We all know that the original Renaissance led to an explosion in art and knowledge and ultimately led to the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution which transformed our societies from agrarian to industrial and led to a huge rise in our living standards. Will this new Industrial revolution do something similar? Because, watching from a distance, it just seems to be about reducing our living standards, in the name of ‘sustainability’, whilst censoring anyone who notices that our living standards are dropping. I suppose if you prevent everyone from complaining then, by definition, you will have created a more ‘harmonious’ society. More ‘inclusive’? That’s a very subjective word. Does it mean that more of us will be poor?

Schwab: ‘We have too large a disparity in the world; we need more inclusiveness… If we continue to have uninclusive growth and we continue with the unemployment situation, particularly youth unemployment, our global society is not sustainable.’

Analysis: There’s that word ‘inclusive’ again! Schwab truly is the Lord of the Woke! My remedy for reducing unemployment would include stopping mass immigration; returning skilled industrial jobs to the countries that use the products they produce; motivating teenagers to learn useful trades and discouraging most of them from attending university where they seem to learn nothing of much use to anyone. What does Schwab mean by ‘uninclusive growth’? My understanding is that it means growth where the rich get richer but the poor get poorer but, I’m not sure that’s what Klaus means.

Schwab: ‘Free-market fundamentalism has eroded worker rights and economic security, triggered a deregulatory race to the bottom and ruinous tax competition, and enabled the emergence of massive new global monopolies.’

Analysis: Klaus has hit the bullseye with this one! I agree with the effects Schwab lists here. Something must be done! And ‘free-market fundamentalism’ is one of the causes: corporations outsourcing production to cheaper countries, thereby hollowing out the opportunities for working class and lower middle class people. Schwab knows what’s gone wrong. The problem is, I don’t see anything coming from the WEF to fix any of that. The illustrious members of the WEF are the very same people who have overseen this collapse in economic security and have failed to do anything about it. Yet, we are expected to trust that the same group of billionaires, politicians and capitalists can put Humpty together again? How exactly? And what are they waiting for? Do we need digital ids before global monopolies can be tackled? Or is it digital currency that will sort this mess out?

Schwab: ‘Specifically, we will need to reconsider our collective commitment to “capitalism” as we have known it.’

Analysis: Again I must return to one of my previous points: all of the most rapacious capitalists on the planet are members of the WEF. Are they the turkeys voting for Christmas? I don’t think so, which means something else is going on here that we don’t know about. I don’t think that capitalism is in for the chop. Does it come back to the starting point about ‘owning nothing’? Will we, the plebs, own nothing while the rapacious capitalists own everything? Is that the new model that changes our commitment to capitalism? Is this why all products are moving to subscription models? Why own when you can lease your car / house / film / music etc? The billionaires, capitalists and politicians at the WEF are pushing for these drastic changes to our society but I can’t help feeling that maybe, just maybe, these changes are going to benefit them more than us. Or do you think the most elite people in our society are going to all this effort for our benefit?

Schwab: ‘The Great Reset should seek to lend a voice to those who have been left behind, so that everyone who is willing to “co-shape” the future can do so. The reset that we need is not a revolution or a shift to some new ideology. Rather, it should be seen as a pragmatic step toward a more resilient, cohesive, and sustainable world’

Analysis: Schwab is very good at painting a rosy picture of life after his Great Reset. The trouble is, I’m not buying it. As Bret Weinstein – no relation! – once said “The future cannot be designed, it must be discovered”. Every ‘designed’ society has failed: communism; socialism; fascism etc. It’s all very well thinking of how you would fix the faults of modern society, the trouble is that any new ‘design’ always introduces different faults that are much more destructive. Humans do not operate well in designed systems because designed systems do not take account of human behaviour. This is why every designed system tends towards tyranny as the only means for the designers to keep the humans in check.

Schwab: ‘If no one power can enforce order our world will suffer from a “global order deficit.” Unless
individual nations and international organisations succeed in finding soluions to better collaboraye at the global level, we risk entering
an “age of entropy” in which entrenchment, fragmentation, anger and parochialism will
increasingly define our global landiscape, making it less inteligible and more disorderly.
– From COVID-19: The Great Reset’

Analysis: If no one power can enforce order? And who might that one power be? This is obviously a promotion that Global Governance is needed and Klaus pitching for the top job.

Further Observations: Some people are fatally attracted to designed socio-economic systems. They believe that rather than mankind being left to his own devices, man’s activities must instead be ‘managed’ by a technocratic elite. 50 years ago such people would have supported socialism. These days, they support the Great Reset. They believe that the Great Reset will save the planet by vanquishing capitalism and, thereby, leaving a sustainable, fairer, more equitable system in its place.

Schwab often refers to a ‘sustainable’ future as a key feature of the Great Reset. This sounds good, doesn’t it? None of us want to waste the Earth’s resources. The trouble is that ‘sustainable’ does not mean the same thing to the WEF that it means to you and me. Iain Davis is an investigative journalist who has done a lot of work digging into the New Society that the Elites are trying to bring about. Iain has written the following about ‘sustainable development’:

‘Some people seem to think that sustainable development has got something to do with environmentalism, saving the planet or some other vague “green agenda”. Unfortunately, they are way off the mark.
Sustainable development means stakeholder capitalism as the corporate glue holding together a global network of public-private partnerships that are collectively assuming the mantle of global governors.’

https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/the-not-so-great-carbon-reset

But what is ‘stakeholder capitalism’? According to the WEF, Stakeholder Capitalism is…

‘A form of capitalism in which companies do not only optimise short-term profits for shareholders, but seek long term value creation, by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders, and society at large.’

Brandon Smith has a dark take on what SHC means in practise:

‘The SHC concept is deceptive on its very face because it pretends as if corporations will be held accountable by the public within some form of “business democracy,” as if the public will have a vote on what the corporations do. In reality, it will be corporations telling the public what is acceptable to think and do and corporations in conjunction with governments using their power to punish people who do not agree.’

https://alt-market.us/the-wefs-stakeholder-capitalism-is-just-global-fascism-by-another-name/

Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge has another less than flattering take on SHC in light of the FTX collapse:

‘Stakeholder Capitalism becomes a way to trick the public into investing their faith in corporate leadership because these companies are no longer simply “in it for the money,” they are in it for the survival of the world and the species, right? The companies become saviors, not just mercantilists. That kind of blind faith allows people to be taken advantage of in a big way. It’s the same kind of faith once applied to kings and monarchies centuries ago, and it usually leads to various forms of feudalism.’ https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/sam-bankman-fried-bought-stakeholder-capitalism-and-proved-its-disastrous-ideology

The Great Reset is sold as the antidote to capitalism. So the anti-capitalists think that governments and corporations working together in the name of sustainability is the best approach. They like the idea of corporations being under government control. What they don’t realise that it’s the other way round: the governments will be under the control of corporations. The capitalists will be calling the shots.

Here’s a final word from Zero Hedge:

‘The Great Reset — the corporate takeover of property, health, currency, travel, energy, and sustenance. The upshot involves a thorough restructuring of democratic society along neo-medieval lines, an elimination of the middle class, a two-tier political order, and a reduction of the global census.’

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/great-reset-perfect-storm

And with that, I’m out. The current system still needs to be replaced but the Great Reset is not the answer. We need something much more organic and de-centralised that evolves to meet the needs of the people rather than something designed by the vested interests in Davos.

Be careful what you wish for, Greta

Socialism Works And So Do The Vaccines

People often say “Socialism has never worked” but that is just a matter of perspective. Socialism has always worked just fine for those at the top. It’s just always been a disaster for everyone else. When I refer to Socialism you can rest assured that all other systems of centralised government, such as Communism and Fascism, fit under the same umbrella. For the purposes of this article I will use the generic term ‘centralised government’ rather than use any of the 20th century brand-names that sprang up.

The problem is that we, the ordinary citizens, look at systems of centralised government from our own perspectives: we want a good quality of life with a wide range of products abundantly available at competitive prices. And we want the ability to elect the leaders that we think will do the best job / give us the most stuff (delete as applicable). We also want to be able to criticise the government if they are doing a bad job. From that perspective, history has shown us that centralised government doesn’t fit the bill.

But let’s look at it from the perspective of our governments: they are looking for as much power as possible and they want to have a very good standard of living, they don’t want any political opponents and they don’t want to be criticised by either the media or the population at large. For them, centralised government gives them everything they want.

It’s the same for the c19 vaccines: there are different perspectives in play. Us simpletons at the foot of the pyramid naively expect a vaccine that that will stop us from becoming ill and definitely prevent us from dying. Those at the apex have very different objectives for the vaccine. They want the opportunities to implement vaccine passports because that will necessitate digital ids and digital ids are the holy grail of government control. Therefore, from the perspective of our governments, the vaccines ‘work’.

The Power Structures don’t care whether the vaxx is any good, or not.

What about those functionaries in the medical industry and the media who know the truth but are keeping quiet? Well, they have yet other perspectives: they follow orders, either because they want to scale the pyramid to reach the apex, or they want to avoid being cast down to the foot of the pyramid, thereby being denied entry to ‘polite society’. Perspective is everything.

There is a permanent friction between populations and their governments: populations want to maximise their freedom and governments want to maximise their control. The eternal challenge for governments is to find a way to persuade the population that an increase in government control is in the best interests of the population such that the population will concede to the government’s proposals.

Governments are no longer able to convince their populations that socialism or any other form of centralised government will give the populations what they want as the credibility of those systems lay in tatters on the ground. Governments need to find other carrots – or sticks – to achieve the control they want. Hence, the need for governments to engineer a stream of existential threats that will frighten the populace into agreeing to more government control, threats such as wars or pandemics or climate change.

In 2022, however, centralised government is going global: our leaders no longer want control over individual countries, they want control over the whole world. This is where the World Economic Forum, the UN and the WHO come in. Our governments are in the process of handing over control to these global bodies who are now calling the shots. Decisions are being made at a global level in the face of what we are told are “global threats that cannot be resolved by any one country”. Make no mistake: another system of centralised government is being introduced but the collusion of national governments is providing sufficient cover that most people cannot see what is happening.

Instead, a significant proportion of the population are sufficiently scared of these global threats that they support initiatives such as the WEF’s ‘Great Reset’ and the UN’s ‘Agenda 2030’ and the WHO’s ‘Pandemic Preparedness Treaty’. What these useful idiots don’t understand is that these initiatives are merely the latest manifestos for a new form of centralised government. These manifestos are the 21st century equivalent of ‘Das Kapital’. The existential threats are pushed to convince us that adoption of these manifestos is essential to our well-being. If we surrender to these lies, our governments will, once again have gained control and we, the populations, will have to bide our time until we can win back our freedom. In the case of the Soviet Union, that took over 70 years. In China, the CCP is still running the show 74 years later.

Those at the top have very different motivations than us and we need to be very aware of that all of the time.

Once you start looking at issues from the perspectives of the people involved, then everything makes sense. The trouble is our default position is to look at things from our own perspectives because we assume that everyone has the same motivations that we do.

Why Government Discrimination Did Not Work This Time

I’ve written before about the discrimination tactics that were used by the authorities in order to coerce people into ‘volunteering’ for the unlicensed, experimental gene therapy treatment.

I’ve also written about the argument I had with a mate in September 2022 who still felt that the unjabbed should be denied medical treatment and access to public transport (but was still prepared to go out drinking with me).

And we all know about the discrimination of certain demographics that was meted out by the Germans in the 1930s.

In 2021 the authorities set out on a programme to make everyone feel they had no choice but to take the jab. The techniques they used were a more sophisticated version of those employed by the Germans almost 90 years earlier.

In parallel with a massive propaganda campaign, the authorities wanted the jabbed to do their dirty work for them. To that end the authorities directed behavioural psychology techniques at friends and families networks to guilt people into taking the jab.

The main tagline of the campaign was that ‘you need to get the vaccine to protect your loved ones’. The inference being that if you didn’t get pumped full of a batch of unspecified ingredients, you either didn’t love your families or you were so selfish that you were prepared for your loved ones to die rather than do the right thing. ‘Don’t kill Granny’ was another tagline used.

The authorities wanted to leverage the love and loyalty we all feel towards our families to force people to castaway their principles and roll up their sleeves to be injected with an experimental concoction with no long term safety data. However, putting the onus on friends and families to discriminate against the unjabbed served a secondary role in that it presented people with alternative hate figures. Instead of people being angry with the government for the hurt and anguish caused by lockdowns, people were now being directed to focus that anger on the unjabbed. The government were now saying ‘It’s not us stopping you from returning to normal, it’s your unvaccinated friends and family members, that’s who you should be angry with’. ‘No one is safe until we’re all safe’ went another of the government’s propaganda taglines.

Of course the idea was that those remaining hesitant of becoming unpaid medical guinea pigs could be coerced into doing so out of a sense of love or loyalty. Those that remained steadfast could then be shamed by those same loved ones: “What do you mean you’re not going to take the vaccine? Don’t you love us?”

There were already restrictions in place to prevent the unjabbed visiting hospitals or restaurants or certain countries. There were already threats that you would lose your job if you weren’t vaxxed. But ‘the loved ones’ campaign was the most diabolical form of coercion yet: to set friends and families against each other in order to force compliance.

However, it didn’t work. My friends and family knew I wasn’t jabbed yet they did not apply any pressure on me to be jabbed. I was not ostracised from their company.

Why did the strategy of discrimination and stigmatisation of the unjabbed not work in the same way it had worked in Germany back in the day? I think there were 2 reasons:

1) The unjabbed were too integrated with the jabbed for discrimination to take place. The unjabbed were the friends and family of the jabbed. People were not going to start discriminating against their own friends and family. Families, in particular, do not want to introduce tension and hostility, and the division that would foster, into their midsts. I know a family who tried to impose a ‘vaxx only’ guest policy for a wedding that was due to take place in Spring 2022. They were forced to ditch the plan due to the rift it was causing amongst their friends and family.

The difference to the 1930s was that Jews, by definition, were not integrated into the families of non-Jews. Also, most Germans would not have had Jewish friends. This lack of integration made it easier for non-Jews to discriminate against Jews.

My mate who agreed that the unjabbed shouldn’t be allowed in public spaces wasn’t able to discriminate against me. Did he decide to keep his views a dirty secret? Or, maybe, he realised he was in the minority amongst the friendship group. I have wondered if the subject was ever raised for discussion amongst the jabbed of my acquaintance: should we cease contact with Atticus Fox on the basis that he clearly doesn’t love us and wants us to die? Perhaps there was a vote? Perhaps I scraped through?

2) No visible indicator: If friends and family aren’t going to discriminate against the unjabbed, then the government needed strangers to perform the discrimination instead. However, this would have meant the unjabbed would have needed to be easily identifiable. This was not so easy: no Western government was going to make the parallels with the 1930s so obvious by making the unjabbed wear some form of indication of their status. The best the government could get away with were vaxx passports but these did not drive the coercion that the governments hoped for because they had no visibility.

If stage 6 had been more effective, many governnents would have progressed to stage 7.

True, there were some localised instances of discrimination, and clearly there were sizeable numbers of the jabbed who wanted to discriminate against the unjabbed – we know what colour shirts they would have been wearing in 1930s Germany – but the reasons given above meant that the governments were forced to rely on their own propaganda programmes for the heavy lifting of coercion. Their normie army baulked at the task.

Morgan was trying to turn the majority against the minority

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?
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 Blog

News, Tips & Website Tutorials

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started