SURVIVING THE NEW NORMAL: OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

 

At the end of his monumental biography of Adolf Hitler Ian Kershaw described Hitler as the main author of “the most profound collapse of civilisation in modern times.” We are gazing into the same darkness now and this warning from history should be the most urgent thought in our minds today. The parallels of the New Normal with the Third Reich, dismissed by the mainstream media, are accurate and appropriate. The Third Reich with all its horrors, and the Holocaust happened because ordinary people did nothing to stop it. The same thing is happening today. Everything that is happening today has a parallel in the history of the Third Reich, and we have only to look at that history to see where we are going. Perhaps not in literal form, but certainly in identifiable ways comparable with the aims of the Third Reich.

As far as I have been able to tell, there seems to be no  empirical evidence whatever for the existence of a virus called Sars-Cov 2.  There is a wealth of thoroughly referenced material available to support this view. (for examples see links below) If true,  this makes belief in COVID-19 essentially an act of faith and renders any assertion that it is no more dangerous than seasonal flu, originated in a Wuhan lab, can or cannot be treated with experimental “vaccines,” can or cannot be treated with Ivermectin, does or does not have “deadly variants”, does or doesn’t warrant extreme “measures,” or can or cannot be mitigated by mask-wearing and “social distancing,” utterly redundant. There is a theme running throughout our dialogue that is predicated on the existence of this “virus”. We cannot afford to be so far in acceptance of this. There may or may not be a “virus”. I personally doubt it and would need a heck of a lot of evidence to change my mind.

One problem one has is this: a phenomenon that is experienced only through media is indistinguishable from an illusion. Yet people will react to such an illusion as though it were reality. You only have to remember Orson Welles’ 1938 radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds to find an example. Far more sinister examples of course include the demonisation of the Jews in Nazi Germany. There is no way to awaken the wilfully deluded. And that is what we are dealing with. I know from experience that facts, reasoned argument, or even an exhortation to do some research does not work. I believe that those who have now been programmed by a vast propaganda campaign that has permeated every aspect of our lives are wilfully deluded. They may know, deep inside, that something is profoundly wrong. But they will never admit it to themselves, much less to anyone else. I wish people would stop using this tiresome phrase “cognitive dissonance”, which is to be found everywhere in the New Normal discourse. We are dealing with wilful delusion, and that is the same wilful delusion that characterised the people of Germany in 1933-1945, cult members, religious or political fanatics. We’ve used all sorts of expressions to describe them, “New Normals,” “Zombies” etc. They are quite simply, living a lie. There’s no way of reasoning with such people.

I have a deeply-rooted feeling that the United Kingdom is essentially central in some way to the New Normal project. I can’t prove this: it is centred on the facts that we have been “foremost” in developing “vaccines” throughout this narrative and “at the cutting edge” of research essential to the maintenance of this programme. However, I am sure that the evidence is there, I’ve seen some of it myself provided by Reiner Fuellmich in his investigations but there is simply too much of it to cite here and now. Yet as the darkness gathers, I feel we may be  powerless. The reality of this situation, which has become painfully evident in the last months, is that governments possess enormous power and can do whatever they like. Anyone who thinks another lockdown is impossible in the UK is again, wilfully deluded. Of course it’s possible, even probable. So is forced “vaccination,” “vaccine passports” and ultimately, the camps, or some equivalent  version of social segregation and slavery.  The “camps”, in whatever form they may take, are coming, make no mistake.

I harbour the feeling that this narrative has a finite time to run. Yet history teaches us that dictatorships, totalitarianisms and despotic regimes are never defeated by their oppressed peoples. They eventually implode under the pressure of their own corruption. I believe this one will do the same in about four years. But by that time there may be very little left of the world as we know it. Yet we do not need more dire warnings. We need to know what to do. The most important question to be asked is; what is to be done?  It is to be hoped that the entire narrative is beginning to collapse under the weight of its own absurdity, and there is some evidence for this, as more and more people seem to be questioning it, giving further rise to an increased hysteria among the wilfully deluded as they cling ever more assiduously to their belief in a deadly, global pandemic.

Is there anything we can do? I believe there is, and it’s been pointed out many times by others. The answer is simple, but very difficult. It is a mass refusal to participate in the New Normal. It is peaceful non-compliance. This is not a quick fix. It is a long-haul project and it is worth remembering that it took Gandhi something like thirty-three years to achieve Indian independence. I do not believe I am saying anything new: but I do know that if we are to survive, we must be endlessly creative in our methods. For those of us that survive, if there is anybody left, we must think about building another world and, for myself, I have no wish to live in another version of the hierarchic society we have made, in a group or commune dominated by whoever has power granted to them by force, or force of personality, or money.

At any rate, at least one quote from the past remains in my mind. We will never surrender.

www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017?articleTools=true

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2020/212/10/isolation-and-rapid-sharing-2019-novel-coronavirus-sars-cov-2-first-patient?fbclid=IwAR0WnExythGHPpqzxiLKXLUUcOwOARrhvpZsOiRxXik5FbwckGszjZdgKtU

https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

https://corona-transition.org/die-coronavirus-wette-100-000-eur-fur-virusbeweis

https://off-guardian.org/2021/01/31/phantom-virus-in-search-of-sars-cov-2/

http://philosophers-stone.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The-scam-has-been-confirmed-Dsalud-November-2020.pdf

https://www.medicinenet.com/kochs_postulates/definition.htm

https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/17/covid19-evidence-of-global-fraud/

WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE, WHO NEEDS ENEMIES?

 On June 2nd the Telegraph published this article

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/wont-have-vaccine-no-friend-mine/

in which some upper-middle-class woman boasts of “ditching” her “unvaccinated” chums, who, she goes on to say, won’t be invited to any more of her no doubt scintillating “dinner parties.” It makes demoralising reading. Dripping the language of privilege and with breathtaking absurdity this utterly repellent op-ed talks of “vaccine-dodging idiocy” and describes the act of taking an unlicensed, experimental medical product already known to be dangerous and unethical, as a “social responsibility.”

Was this written as a wind-up? One could be forgiven for thinking so. Only in the dark days of Nazi Germany could I imagine anyone thinking like this. What does it tell us about the author?

I would suggest the first thing this reveals is that this lady is the sort of person who, if the “vaccine” question didn’t arise, would easily find some other self-serving, narcissistic reason to pass arbitrary judgement on her “friends,” clearly seeing herself as so charismatic and well-connected as to have the luxury of practising this kind of social apartheid whenever it suits her. It’s the kind of superior attitude one associates with the good-looking girl at school from a wealthy background who bestows her “friendship” on one classmate today, and another tomorrow, casually rejecting her “friends” of yesterday. This is common childish behaviour and most children grow out of it.

I myself lost a good friend to the “vaccine question”, albeit indirectly. I was, and remain, deeply unhappy about it.  The loss of a good friend is always a sad thing. What sort of person regards it as good, or something to boast about?

Nobody needs people like this in their lives. Nobody has the right to instruct someone to accept invasive medical treatment against their will, and to do so as a condition of continued association is a perfectly disgusting act. It is the act of someone with no regard whatever for your well-being or best interests.  “Have the vaccine or you’re no friend of mine,” deserves the retort, “well, p*** off then.” It is a price well worth paying to protect your most basic human integrity.

SCEPTICISM HAS FAILED: IS HERESY THE ANSWER?

 

I love courtroom dramas. They’re gripping and compelling. I’m a great fan of Judge John Deed, Rumpole of the Bailey and Cavanagh QC. So imagine yourself, dear reader, on  a jury in a courtroom. The accused has pleaded “Not Guilty.” The prosecuting attorney states toward the end of his opening address, “The Crown will prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt!”

The defence rises, the court listens with baited breath.

“Well I admit the accused did the deed,” he loftily proclaims. “But I’m  not sure he ought to go to jail!”

The case for the defence collapses, the prosecution rests, the poor chap goes off to chokey. This unfortunately, is the ongoing position of “lockdown sceptics”.

“Scepticism is the only intelligent option,” proclaims an article in The Conservative Woman, https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/scepticism-the-only-intelligent-option/

regarding the “pandemic” narrative. Indeed, one can see the point, although it would be just as appropriate to substitute “logical” or “rational”, certainly in the context of modern events. True, we should be constantly questioning and challenging, and one thing we shouldn’t be doing is drawing conclusions without evidence.

But scepticism isn’t working, and it isn’t enough. There are two reasons for this. The first, I contend, is that scepticism is only a means to an  end, not an end in itself. Pursued endlessly with regard to any particular precept, scepticism by its very nature, eventually becomes agnosticism, the doctrine that something can never be known. This is not a luxury we can at present, afford. Secondly, the “sceptic” camp has largely formed a certain conclusion around which its argument centres. It goes something like this: “We all know there is a pandemic, we all know it’s serious, nobody is denying this. But we think the response to it is disastrous and needs to be re-thought.”

That’s the position at present, which unfortunately doesn’t sufficiently challenge government and media in their continued commitment to the “New Normal.” Once scepticism has exhausted its resources, which are considerable, there is another alternative: heresy.

Peter Hitchens in one of his interviews https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2021/03/an-interview-on-the-anti-shutdown-struggle-and-its-failure-with-laura-dodsworth-of-unlocked.html

 asserts that “Covid is real!” Mr. Hitchens has no authority to make this statement. The evidence for this alleged disease is shaky and does not stand up to scrutiny. “It’s not a conspiracy!” the “sceptics” wail in face of overwhelming evidence that what we are witnessing is, in reality, a project with specific aims and phases, underpinned by political, media and financial support. Whether the word “conspiracy” is an accurate description is now a vague semantic question I am no longer interested in thinking about. The truth is, we may as well call it that since everything that is now happening does not make sense in any other context. “Nobody is denying there is a pandemic,” they also claim when the opposite is true. You can see for yourself with a quick internet trawl. Whether you believe the heretics is up to you. But they are out there and are emphatically stating that COVID-19 is a flat-out lie. For the “sceptics” to keep saying otherwise is nonsense.

 

By stating that the basis for the COVID-19 narrative is real, the “sceptics” lose the argument before starting. As long as we keep positively asserting the existence of a “pandemic” based on shaky evidence, the case is lost.

In considering alternative arguments it’s important to bear in mind certain realities, and the first of these is the necessity of establishing the burden of proof. Let’s be clear. We do not need to prove the non-existence of an alleged “virus.” We do not need to prove that lockdowns don’t work. We do not need to prove that the “vaccine” is unsafe and useless. We are the defence in a trial and to continue saying “We all know the pandemic is real but....” is the same as a defence advocate in a trial where the accused has not been found guilty, standing  up and saying in court, “Well I admit he did the deed, but...” at which point the prosecution would smugly rest its case.

 

No, it is the job of the prosecution to stand up to cross-examination by the defence and at every stage it has failed. The existence of SARS-COV 2  has never been scientifically verified. https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/sovi/

 

https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/FOI-replies-SARS-COV-2-isolation-existence-causation-47-institutions-Feb-12-2021-chrono-part-1.pdf

Its nature cannot be identified.

http://philosophers-stone.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The-scam-has-been-confirmed-Dsalud-November-2020.pdf

 

 There is no clear reference for government “death” figures. PCR tests are an inadequate diagnostic tool,

https://bpa-pathology.com/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/

 

but great for justifying “infection” figures.

https://off-guardian.org/2020/12/18/who-finally-admits-pcr-tests-create-false-positives/

 

 The practical efficacy of the “vaccine” cannot be verified. The “vaccine” is also de facto experimental, since it is still in Phase 3  trial status, which, if rendered mandatory or coerced, contravenes the Nuremberg Code. The reported survival rate for this alleged “disease” is 99.97%  and the UK Government website openly states that as of March 19^th 2020 COVID-19 is “no longer considered a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID) in the UK.”

It isn’t necessary for the defence to do any more than state that there is insufficient evidence for a “global, deadly pandemic” to justify the ongoing state of international affairs. To demand that government prove its case in a certain timeline or revise its policies, is completely within reason.

It is also reasonable to remind witnesses that they are under oath when giving evidence and to demand clear answers. The government has failed to provide these. It is reasonable to conclude, given the events of the past year, that lockdowns, social distancing, forced face-mask wearing, the consigning of pubs to the dustbin of history, unprecedented mass unemployment, censorship and the rationing of healthcare are not temporary measures in response to a health crisis. They  are tools of government and seem to represent the way we are intended to live, not just for now, not for the foreseeable future, but permanently. It’s also reasonable to demand evidence this is not so from our public servants.

One salient point is something we overlook, the inherent preposterousness of the entire Covid-19 story. A virus uniquely dangerous to human life,  that kills inordinate numbers of people, mutates all the time, is unpredictable, completely unprecedented and transmitted without symptoms. And for which the only possible solution is a vaccine. Yet within six months we’ve developed a vaccine for it. The lockdown-luvvies like to point out the preposterousness of the idea that Bill  Gates/China/Klaus Schwab etc. have engineered the entire “crisis” to manipulate humanity. In reality, both proposals sound equally bizarre and invite the same level of disbelief, yet the former is now accepted as fact and the latter dismissed as insane.

To assert this is to be called a “denier,” the favourite epithet of hack journalists at the Guardian and Independent, although I prefer “heretic,” because heresy is the vanguard of ultimate truth. We can’t be sceptics forever in order to have any hope of ending this. So, if stating this makes me a heretic, then I plead guilty. And if Guardian and Independent writers and readers want to call people like me  “deniers,” then I suppose I’ll have to live with it. I suppose I’ve split from the “sceptics.” They still assert  there’s a  dangerous disease out there, moreover they assert that everyone agrees with them. I’m far from convinced.

BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE: GOD AND THE VIRUS

 Some weeks ago I argued  that it was a human trait to believe without evidence. With the proper stimuli, people can, in the right circumstances, be made to believe practically anything. I also said that if this were not so, belief in God would not exist.

This comment drew a surprising number of responses from people who felt themselves to have had their faith derided and who seemed to feel that it was their duty to assert that I was wrong. They made the usual arguments for the existence of God that we have heard numerous times over the years, with the usual expectation of “educating” the “godless,” and of course the usual results, no meaningful change in anybody’s belief system. This is the essence of “faith”, the human capacity for asserting a belief based on an internal system of logic that cannot be adjusted or effectively challenged. It is this capacity for a kind of mental inertia that makes the COVID-19 project possible by exploiting the human tendency towards “faith,” a belief system that engenders hope in the face of hopelessness.

I decided at the age of ten that there was, quite simply, no evidence for the existence of God. I have never found a good reason to change that belief: I’ve examined it thoroughly and had it challenged albeit indirectly by many voices and sources. Yet, I remain convinced that this basic assertion is correct. I have, over time, struggled with expressions like “atheist,” or “agnostic,” and finally have settled for “humanist,” the epithet I feel most comfortable with. None of this means I think there is anything wrong with believing in God. Some of my friends are devout Christians, or Buddhists. They are incandescently intelligent, often humble people whom I admire beyond measure. Nor would I attempt to convince a believer in God that their “faith” is a mistake. Why should I? Of what possible benefit could this be? All I can do is to assert my own understanding of the universe in its own terms, and my own “faith” in the capacity of humanity to grow beyond the kind of thinking and reasoning that ends up with a cycle of self-referential logic. Quite possibly, the end result of such thinking is only endless questioning. Stephen Hawking, toward the end of his life, was questioning the “Big Bang” theory of the universe which he had supported when younger, as Hoyle’s “Steady State” theory is being re-examined having previously been consigned to the dustbin of scientific history.

It’s often asserted  that belief in God has been at the root of atrocities throughout history, such as religious wars or  “Islamic terrorism.” I don’t altogether agree with this. I contend that bad people will always find compelling reasons to do and justify doing bad things. It’s also said that “secularism,” a society not founded on religious belief, is harmful and pernicious, denying us our basic humanity. Again, I disagree. A belief system founded on essentially decent values cannot be used as a justification for doing bad things. It is true that “secularism” has, for many of us, forced us to see the world through a confusing lens and to build entire political constructs out of our insecurities, grudges, fears and hatreds. But religious belief permitted the same things. Both religion and secularism can be corrupted for bad ends.

There is a need for faith in all of us, a point at which we no longer feel impelled to provide evidence for our fundamental view of the world. The alternative, endless scepticism, is the privilege only of a few with the discipline to embrace this.

My point is that belief in a religious faith, even one that atheists like myself reject, does not make one a fool. But if the same mental processes lead us to believe absolutely in the goodness of those in power as we are continually programmed to embrace life-destroying measures in the names of “health,” or “the environment,” then I’m afraid, it is time we grew up.

History teaches us, only too well, that powerful people will do bad things and find good reasons for doing them. To ignore this is to embrace mindless reflexes as a way of life. As the evidence becomes overwhelming that the COVID-19 project is a monstrous disaster for which those responsible are continually  finding good reasons to justify, we must understand that to find hope, we must challenge ourselves to ask each other some difficult questions. As I’ve tried to explain, it’s only by asking questions that our understanding grows. I cannot understand what it must be like to be someone who thinks that if we all wear masks, get the jab, keep following the rules, everything is somehow going to be all right. Perhaps this makes them happy. I don’t know. But it’s time we claimed, as part of our growing up, the right to be unhappy.

Faith in government is a fallacy proven again and again throughout history. The truth, whether you want to believe it or not, is that the COVID project is something that is being done to us by powerful people, for reasons which are becoming increasingly difficult to understand unless we assume that it’s a “good” reason for bad people to do bad things. If your faith lies in government and the powerful, take the time to question it, just as I questioned my atheism over the years. Many people who believe in God do not seem to believe in the “virus.” This is a good thing, because it means that there is a difference between faith and the capacity to believe without evidence when your own experience tells you something is wrong. Maybe that’s what we should all be thinking about.

COVID-status certification

 

Question 1

Which of the following best describes the capacity in which you are responding to this call for evidence?

I am an individual.

Question 2

In your view, what are the key considerations, including opportunities and risks, associated with a potential COVID-status certification scheme? We would welcome specific reference to:

a) clinical / medical considerations

·         I quote from the website of the UK Government:

·         “As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK.”

 

·         The vaccines have not completed Phase 3 trials and are therefore de facto experimental. (see below)

·         The vaccines use unprecedented gene therapy technology for which long-term adverse effects cannot possibly have been assessed.

·         The survival rate of this alleged disease is known to be roughly 99.97%. It is difficult to understand why it is still regarded as a significant health threat.

·         There is considerable concern among the British public that the vaccines are harmful, and considerable evidence of adverse effects.

·         There are many people with justifiable concerns about the vaccines or who may not be able to take them. These include pregnant women, individuals with allergies, people with long-term health issues, or individuals with neurological, psychological, emotional or cognitive disabilities which mean they are unable to make informed choices.

b) legal considerations

You will be aware that the Nuremberg Code 1947, created after World War II with regard to medical experimentation, states that:

 

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.

 

You will be aware that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, of which the UK remains a member, passed Resolution 2361 on 27 January 2021, Paragraph 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 in which it was stated that member stages are urged to:

“Ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves.

Ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated. “

 

You will also be aware that UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005) Article 3 states: 

‘1. Human  dignity,  human  rights  and  fundamental freedoms  are  to  be  fully respected. 

2. The  interests  and  welfare  of  the  individual should have  priority over  the  sole interest of science or society.’

You will be aware, or should be aware, that an analogous scheme being rolled out in Israel has apparently been referred to the International Criminal Court of the Hague. Significantly, mainstream media outlets are attempting to cast doubt on the veracity of this, however I see no reason to regard the story as false. That such a discussion exists at all is significant and informative.

There are several articles in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights that may be infringed by this proposed development.

The Equalities Act 2010 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of disability. There are many categories of this that would render a “vaccination passport” illegal on the grounds that an individual cannot be vaccinated owing to a health condition.

c) operational / delivery considerations

It is worrying that this question is being asked. There is a clear implication contained therein of technological developments being considered to facilitate such a scheme. By their very nature, such technologies constitute a surveillance mechanism with the potential to be extended into every aspect of the daily lives of UK citizens. It also implies an exponential and unrealistic expansion of automated technologies and mechanisms to restrict access to public services and spaces. Such developments may take decades and the implications for these on society are profound.

d) considerations relating to the operation of venues that could use a potential COVID-status certification scheme

The UK Government, the NHS and the developers of the vaccines have stated in public that the vaccines do not prevent contraction or spread of Sars-Cov-2. Therefore in light of this, and the answer to Part C of Question 2, this is an entirely irrelevant question. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the question is intended to encourage businesses to consider policing such a scheme. To do so  could impact negatively on their costs and footfall to an unacceptable degree.

e) considerations relating to the responsibilities or actions of employers under a potential COVID-status certification scheme

The implications of this question are profound. In law, at present, there is no requirement for an employer to demand medical treatment as a condition of employment. The Public Health (Control of Disease Act) 1984 provides that any individual cannot be required to undergo medical treatment, including vaccination. This alone renders employers liable to discrimination claims under the Act and the Equalities Act.

f) ethical considerations

This proposal represents a fundamental shift in the relationship between the citizen and the state. It also renders every aspect of the lives of UK citizens subject to medical intervention. The implications of this for future developments in medical ethics and for future generations cannot be overstated. It seeks to override the fundamental existential right of anyone to make choices regarding their own bodies and persons. This is the beginning of a medically based apartheid and in considering this, one is reminded of the practices in Germany during the regime of National Socialism, of stamping Jewish passports with a “J”, forcing Jewish people to register their identities as Jewish, and to wear a yellow star identifying themselves as Jewish. This was based on their immutable biological and ethnic origins, and this development would have virtually identical implications for those who have for whatever reason, declined the “vaccines.” It is not too great an exaggeration in my view,  to draw a direct parallel between this development and the beginnings of the Holocaust.

g) equalities considerations

As stated in Question 2(a), a “vaccination passport” is in direct contravention of all previous policies regarding discrimination. It is also in direct contravention of the Equalities Act. There can be no doubt that it violates every principle of a society based on equal treatment for all.

h) privacy considerations

One’s medical status and history is entirely confidential. It is not the business of employers, shopkeepers, police officers or anyone aside from a medical practitioner to enquire into this.

Question 3

Are there any other comments you would like to make to inform the COVID-status certification review?

 

It is highly significant that previous enquiries regarding the worrying possibility of “vaccination passports” met with the response that the UK Government had “no plans” to introduce them. Clearly, this was a disingenuous statement that cannot be regarded as providing confidence for the future. It is worrying that the Prime Minister has been on broadcast media stating quite clearly that he expects these to become a factor of public life, for example to gain access to public houses.

In historic terms, the present Government has already presided over the most illiberal state policies since the time of Cromwell. Further developments of this nature can only exacerbate this now-entrenched historic position. “Vaccination passports” violate every humanitarian, liberal, ethical, theological, legal and social precept on which our society is founded. There is no place in a civilised society for such unmitigated barbarism in the name of an alleged disease which the UK Government has already declared to be “no longer a high consequence infectious disease.”

THE FINAL SOLUTION: STOP FORCED VACCINATION BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.

 

So here we are: the “vaccine passports” the British Government, with characteristic disingenuousness told us it had “no plans to introduce”(1) will soon be a reality. This of course should come as no surprise, arriving as it does on the back of a plethora of demands from politicians and mainstream media for a policy of coercive “vaccination.”  You may remember Piers Morgan’s infamous tweets: “Love the idea of covid vaccine passports for everywhere: flights, restaurants, clubs, football, gyms, shops etc. It’s time covid-denying, anti-vaxxer loonies had their bullsh*t bluff called & bar themselves from going anywhere that responsible citizens go.”, (2) and from 2020, “To all the anti-vaxxer Covidiots predictably now screaming that they won’t have the jab, let me say this: a) If it’s approved then I will have it done live on TV. b) If you refuse to have it then no more flying for you, and no using the NHS if you get covid. Deal?”(3) plus Tony Blair’s call in the Mail on February 13^th for Britain to “lead the way” in developing “some sort of Covid passport.” (4) “We should plan for an agreed passport now,” he insisted. “The arguments against it really don’t add up.” Somewhat rich, you may feel coming from a man who led Britain into a probably illegal war in Iraq on questionable evidence. Even the Telegraph shamelessly published an article calling for changes in law to facilitate a “no jab, no job” policy (5) for employers.We can now expect, in the not-too-distant future, for the “vaccine” to be declared mandatory, after the British Government has told us it has “no plans to make vaccination compulsory.” (6). In law at present, compulsory vaccination doesn’t exist, as explained in an article by Louise Hooper of Garden Court Chambers  who states, “social media concerns that changes to the law mean that the government has the power to force vaccines or other medication on you are wrong and unfounded.”(7) One suspects Ms. Hooper may soon be forced to eat her words.It is impossible to overstate the enormity of such a monstrous development. We must be clear on what this implies: removal of the right to make informed choices about invasions into our living bodies, removal of the right to refuse to be the subject of medical experimentation. This is what the “vaccine” amounts to, simply because nothing like it has ever been developed before, as admitted by Horizon, the EU Research and Innovation Magazine which stated in April 2020,  “If an mRNA vaccine was approved for coronavirus, it would be the first of its type.” (8) This seems to be at odds with the claim in The Conversation made on 18th February  that, “The mRNA technology that was used in the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines has existed for more than a decade and is not new in the vaccine development field.” (9) One would have to stretch a point to reconcile these two statements.  There can be no doubt that its provenance is extraordinary given the fact that vaccines normally take more than ten years to develop and go through several stages of rigorous testing, (10) which in this case, has not been done. (11) It also functions in a manner never tried before, gene manipulation (see 8) This alone renders the “vaccine” de facto experimental. There are several incontestable references to international and historic protocol which make it clear that forced or coercive medical procedures, especially of an experimental nature, are unacceptable, for example, the Nuremberg Code, which  contains as its first principle “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” (12), possibly unlawful given Hooper’s advice above, and in view of Article 7.3.2 of the declaration by the Council of Europe of which we are still a member, that member states should  “ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated” (13) unethical, violating Article 6 of UNESCO’S Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, (14) and utterly monstrous. Vaccine passports were previously dismissed as “conspiracy theory”. They now threaten to become a reality very soon.

The United Kingdom, has, throughout this “crisis,” been at the “forefront” in showing Europe, if not the world, how to turn a free democracy into a brutal totalitarian state almost overnight. The entire Covid-19 narrative has been characterised by fearmongering and censorship, unprecedented cancellation of our everyday liberties, a visual stigma (forced face-mask wearing) and enforced detention, such as the “quarantine” measures put in place for UK arrivals.  It has also encompassed a campaign of demonisation aimed at lockdown opponents and Covid-sceptics as “deniers,” “conspiracy theorists” and “anti-vaxxers”, all meaningless, etymologically unsound epithets intended to render anyone questioning what’s going on as subhuman in the public’s eyes, in preparation for the next phase.

Forced or coercive vaccination has a horrible feeling about it of being the beginning of the Final Solution, and its implementation is now imminent. Those going online celebrating having been “vaccinated”, would quite possibly, in 1942,  have walked into the gas chamber telling themselves it was a shower.

You don’t have to be opposed to vaccines as such to see that this is profoundly wicked, profoundly wrong. You don’t even have to be opposed to this particular vaccine. But you should, and indeed, it is your duty as a free citizen and a defender of democracy, to oppose forced or coercive vaccination. If you are tempted to respond by saying, “Why should you have the same privileges as me, such as flying, going to the theatre etc when you haven’t had the vaccine?” may I remind you that these are not “privileges” at all but our fundamental rights in a free democracy. They are non-negotiable. They are not codicils dependent on invasive medical procedures that may be unsafe. Furthermore, if we allow this, inevitably, our freedoms will further become circumvented by technocratic doctrines like “carbon footprints.” You may in time, be asked to submit to some other procedure that worries you, for example  in the case of  yourself  or a loved one contracting a debilitating and incurable  illness, to a presumption of consent to euthanasia. Granted, I have no real evidence for such a statement and offer it as an illustration of the basic precept which underpins forced vaccines. But then again, only a year ago, forced quarantines, endless lockdowns, forced face-masks, hate campaigns against sceptics and vaccination passports did not exist.

The game is up. We can no longer focus on the question of whether current policies are appropriate or proportionate, whether lockdowns work, how deadly SARS-COV-2 is or which “science” to believe in. We, the people, whatever our views on all of the above, now have a duty to stop forced and coercive vaccination because it’s coming, and it’s coming soon. It isn’t enough for the government to say it has no plans to make “vaccination” compulsory. It also needs to take positive steps to make sure that it does not become either coercive or forced. If you accept that, what is coming next?

If  you are ready for this battle, here’s how you can help. Sign the open letter by Save our Rights calling for a Health Freedom Bill. (15) Write to your MP with this as a template. Sign a petition that calls for a Freedom Bill. If you can’t find one, start one. Tell your friends and ask some questions: a good starting point is OffGuardian’sFive Questions to ask your Friends who plan to get the Covid Vaccine,(16) if only to  encourage them to make informed choices. I’d be the last to try and stop them after all. But most of all, ask yourself and your family and friends Should medical experimentation be conducted only with your express consent? If the answer to that is “yes,” the case for coercive vaccination instantly vanishes. Demonstrate if you have to. The hangman is now at the gate. Don’t listen to the democracy and freedom-deniers in the MSM, the baiters like Morgan, or the vaccine press-gangs.

Time is running out. Coercive “vaccination” is already here, the logical outcome of this project is mandatory vaccination. Stop it. Before it’s too late. We cannot afford to lose this battle.

(1) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/covid-vaccine-passport-nadhim-zahawi-b1798785.html

(2) https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1360933501739159552

(3)https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1326182423588196353?lang=en

(4) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9257783/TONY-BLAIR-world-needs-agree-form-Covid-passport-Britain-lead-way.html

(5) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/01/28/no-jab-no-job-policy-should-law/

(6) https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/13155808/vaccine-matt-hancock-not-compulsary/

(7) https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/coronavirus-legal-news-views/coronavirus-act-2020-does-it-permit-mandatory-vaccinations

(8) https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/five-things-you-need-know-about-mrna-vaccines.html

(9) https://theconversation.com/6-important-truths-about-covid-19-vaccines-154341

 (10) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/vaccine-development-barriers-coronavirus/

(11) https://off-guardian.org/2021/01/03/what-vaccine-trials/

(12) -1 https://www.bmj.com/content/313/7070/1448.1

(13) https://pace.coe.int/en/files/29004/html

14)http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

 

JOIN THE BORG: RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

 

So Lord Sumption has apparently backed “vaccination passports,” at least according to Piers Morgan. Peter Hitchens and Sir Desmond Swayne have now taken the “vaccine”, Sir Desmond urging us to “make sure you get yours so we can all  get  back to normal life,” and Mr. Hitchens saying he feels “defeated.”

When three such passionate, ardent and compelling spokesmen against the illiberal policies being pursued by the UK government so publicly capitulate to this extent, the message is loud and clear. The “resistance” is over. Don’t fight it any more. For figures of this stature to cave in so completely is the final nail in the coffin for any meaningful opposition to these policies.

Effective resistance to the COVID-19 project in the UK is dead. In fact, it never really existed in the first place. The truth is, the British people are psychologically and culturally incapable of rebellion, “except when it comes to football”  in the words of Simon Elmer on  Architects for Social Housing.

The reader may feel I’m peddling a narrative of despair and point to the heroic efforts of Save Our Rights, Simon Dolan, Piers Corbyn and  James Delingpole, The White Rose ,investigative journalists and editors on The Conservative Woman, Lockdown Sceptics, Off Guardian and Spiked, not to mention the voices of Sir Desmond, Mr. Hitchens and Lord Sumption. Yet many of these agencies are hampered in some way from being really effective. Save Our Rights, though gallant and indefatigable, lacks sufficient articulateness to be persuasive or effective in recruiting others to its cause. Spiked, though it campaigns against most of the UK government’s policies, has a pro-vaccination stance and has tacitly endorsed “vaccine passports” for international travel, as evidenced in Fraser Myers’ piece The Tyranny of Vaccine Passports.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/17/the-tyranny-of-vaccine-passports/

He asserts:  “The issue has become confused by two separate demands being dubbed ‘vaccine passports’. For some, this refers to passports for international travel. The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, for instance, has ominously asserted that ‘proving Covid-19 health status will become a fact of life’ in its call for vaccine passports. But its proposals are focused on opening up borders. In many ways, this is less contentious. It’s not unusual to need a whole host of jabs to travel to certain places”.

 Lockdown Sceptics is, I’m afraid, strongly pro-vaccine and a casual trawl through its fora reveals a significant preponderance of coercive vaccination and lockdown advocates. Simon Elmer writes brilliantly and provides evidence to back up his arguments, but is unfortunately very long-winded and too fond of quoting obscure “philosophers” like Georgio Agamben, a figure virtually unknown outside the arena of COVID scepticism. A number of op-eds seem to be written by people with Ph.Ds, and this would seem to be a good thing. Yet such people have  a tendency to parade their intellectual superiority by writing in a vernacular of convoluted sentences and words which have little meaning for the majority of readers. I’ve come across several such pieces that could have made exactly the same point without recourse to this level of verbosity.

Wherever I go in the “real world,” all I hear from others is the official narrative. It’s clear that very few people actually believe there is anything wrong with it and most cannot seem to see anything absurd about the “virus” and this preposterous “vaccine.” It’s been suggested that many are more frightened of the coming dystopia than the “virus” and simply do not want to think about it.

If only we had been able to somehow combine the erudition of those like Sumption and Hitchens with the passion of Sir Desmond and the grass roots appeal of Save Our Rights, along with a flair for organisation we may have been able to make a difference. In fact, we could have made a difference last year by simply failing to comply with the Government’s useless and unenforceable “mask” diktat. But as usual, the British public did what it does best, it grinned and bore it.

I wish I didn’t feel like this, but it’s clear that there is no effective opposition to the COVID project in this country. There never was. For those of us who are left, there will soon arrive the “vaccine” moment, when we are forced to decide whether to join the Borg collective, because resistance is futile.