Thursday, July 23, 2020


When a mainstream media outlet like Good Morning Britain asks “Should vaccinations be mandatory?” the public should experience the deepest alarm. Time and again, government policy has been presaged by one of these propagandist media sensations which attempt to elicit the support of, or influence,  public opinion. Sanctimonious editorials appear in national newspapers and on television news stations demanding changes in law. We’ve seen it all before with calls for carbon-neutral industries, banning coal, banning cars that run on petrol, demanding everyone wear a mask in public. This is accompanied by cherry-picked references to dubious and questionable bits of “science” in order to further bamboozle the already befuddled audience.  The great British public then does what it always does, takes to social media and rails against any dissenting voices often before they appear,  labelling them “anti-vaxxers,” “deniers” and enemies of humanity without a speck of human decency, with the support of national newspapers like the Guardian agitating for extreme measures to be taken. Shortly after, the law is changed often without consultation either in or out of Parliament, as we have seen with forced face-mask wearing.


Make no mistake: at present forced vaccination cannot be permitted in law. There has been no new amendment to British law permitting this: expect that to change as soon as the public has been softened up by clarion calls from the media and the gullible, whose capacity for being fooled or wilfully blind is matched only by their obnoxious self-righteousness. These measures do not even seem to be debated: the silence from the House of Lords at this time is deafening.


Hitler’s “Enabling Act” originally passed in 1933, and revised in 1937 and 1941, implicitly legalised the Holocaust: in other words this monstrous process was technically permissible in the law of the land at that time. It is no defence against anything that is self-evidently wrong for anyone to protest: “But it’s the law!” Leave aside for the moment the proposition that for a Covid-19 vaccine to have been developed in less than six months, when past vaccines have taken years or decades to produce, is intellectually preposterous. Leave aside the fact that there is no possible way in which the safety of such a product can be meaningfully tested in anything short of  a long span of time. Being forced to submit your person to being invaded with an unfamiliar substance by injection is a prospect so horrible that any sane person must naturally recoil from it: yet the British public is, I fear all too ready to submit to this, as we have seen with masks.  One can already hear the voices of the righteous denouncing anyone who feels like this as a sociopathic threat to humanity and a criminal for whom no fate could be too bad. Is there nothing the British public won’t accept?


The Nuremberg Code of 1947, accepted worldwide as an ethical blueprint for medical experimentation, states:


“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, overreaching, 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.”


It is important to note that this document is not binding in law: however at present British law does not allow forced vaccination. Yet how much longer we can expect to be protected in this fashion cannot be known. And if we accept this as I’ve no doubt we will because the great British public is essentially, weak, gullible and compliant, what’s next? Euthanasia?


The entire “vaccine” narrative is deeply suspect with a number of media claims that society cannot return to normal without a vaccine. This presupposes that a vaccine is possible, which cannot be known. It also implies a perpetual lockdown unless the masses agree to be forcibly injected with an unknown agent. And how many times have we heard the “eighteen month” timeline for such a thing to be developed? These messages do not inspire confidence.


I may be wrong. I hope I am. But it is possible that we are witnessing the beginning of the greatest crime against humanity since the Holocaust. And by the time it happens, it will be legal.




Nuremberg Code:


Enabling Act 1933


Law regarding forced vaccines.

Thursday, July 16, 2020


Julius Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon River in 49 BC  in defiance of Roman law placed  him and his army on a direct collision course with Rome,  leading to the Civil War which established him as Roman dictator. It is a well-established metaphor for a point at which there is no going back and at which things will never be the same.


I predicted a few weeks ago that the UK Government would in the near future try to force everyone to wear facemasks in public. Leave aside the plethora of information that makes it clear face masks are of practically zero benefit in everyday circumstances, and may in fact be dangerous, the forced wearing of facemasks is a transgression so fundamental and of such significance that it is difficult to adequately express. It implicitly hands your body over to state control, and renders one of your most basic existential freedoms subject to state interference. For the first time, the right to exercise a choice of whether you should inhibit your respiratory faculties and hide your face in public is taken out of your hands. If you doubt the significance of this, try to remember the public outcry that followed a debate regarding banning the wearing of burkhas and hijabs in the face of Islamic terrorism, and the connotations this had for civil liberties at the time. Facemask wearing is the visible hallmark of Asian states perceived in the West as repressive and authoritarian. It is a badge of serfdom, akin to the yellow star that Jews were forced to wear in Nazi Germany. There is no greater invasion of your person possible short of tattooing you with a number.


This astonishing about-turn in policy has not happened overnight or without preparation. It has been preceded by a cleverly-orchestrated media campaign which seeks to bizarrely turn established professional and scientific research on its head, making virologists, infection-control bodies and academics who have published papers for the medical profession into liars and charlatans. This campaign has included editorials and blogs which talk in disapproving and accusatory tones of “mask-shirkers” and “mask-deniers” allegedly “refusing” to wear face masks. Leave aside the obvious fact that refusal cannot take place without a demand: in other words someone has to give you an instruction to which you reply, “No, thanks.” Absent such a demand, you are not refusing anything, merely making a choice. And until now there has been no such demand. But those making this choice are now psychopaths and enemies of humanity without a shred of integrity, respect or regard for their fellow human beings. When I returned from Asia early this year the advice was clear: face masks do not protect you from infection and it is not advised that you wear them. What is more, face mask wearing was actively discouraged because of limited supplies required for hospital environments, where infection control is king and every precaution makes sense. Above all the only situation in which it is appropriate to wear a facemask in public is if you are unwell and have a cough, in which case why not stay at home?


But this piece of simple logic has been covered by the mask-advocates whose logic runs like this: “You may have coronavirus without knowing it, and may infect others with your breath even at unlimited distances so you need to wear a mask.” This covers all bases despite the evidence for this being at best negligible and at worst  manipulated and dishonest.  It is part of the greater logic that renders every societal value worthless unless it contributes to the impossible task of making sure that not one single individual anywhere, ever,  is infected with Covid-19.  None of this means I think we should do nothing about this pandemic. But there is now a growing awareness that the cure proposed is not indefinitely sustainable and may in fact be worse than the disease.


The virtue-signalling of face-mask advocates is easily refuted. Facemasks have been available for decades for use in industry and ideas generally considered good are taken up by the public. Nobody needed the government to tell them to go out and buy a car or a television set. So if you’re so convinced face masks are a good idea why has it taken the State to tell you before you came to this Eureka moment? And for how many years or decades have you been going around disrespectfully infecting your fellow human beings by going out without a mask when you had a cold or the flu?


However, apparently all the established research is now wrong and face mask wearing is essential. It is a vast game of “Simon Says,” in which we only do anything when Simon says. And it won’t stop there. Expect newspapers like the Guardian to run sanctimonious editorials demanding that face-mask wearing be extended to pubs and restaurants, and eventually to every departure from your home. Following this such a move will become policy: indeed, the  British public will do what they are already doing, gleefully embracing this perverse doctrine, boasting of buying colourful face masks for their children, and showering anyone who has a different point of view with disapproval.


I’m forced now to doubt that we,  the British people value our freedom as much as we profess to. We take to the streets in droves to embrace new forms of repression, such as an anarchistic movement that seeks to rewrite history and dismantle our police forces, or an anti-human death cult that seeks to suppress all human activity by frightening us all into believing we are destroying the Earth by existing. But in the face of mounting attacks on our liberty and our freedom, we are silent. We have had our liberty taken away from us. Our movements are monitored. Our discussions are censored via social media. We are no longer free even to make fundamental choices about our bodies. A public that will silently accept these things has learned nothing from history, will accept anything and deserves its fate if that is a dystopian world-state.


We are no longer entitled to lecture other nations about being repressive states. Their representatives, quite rightly in my view would laugh in our faces. There is a growing fear in the minds of many of us that Western lockdowns may be permanent. The spectres of identity cards, martial law and forced vaccination now hover over us. Dismissing this as “conspiracy theory” and accusing those who feel this way of an inhuman disregard for life is the rhetoric of fascism, a force that always thrives in the face of a perceived threat. I believe forced face-mask wearing in British streets is a brutal act that crosses the Rubicon, and finally signifies our descent into a de facto repressive state.

Tuesday, July 7, 2020


“Help stop the spread of coronavirus.”


Think about what that means for a moment. The most casual examination of this phrase reveals that these six words add up to the most futile proposition conceivable in the current times. A virus that in six weeks has paralysed the entire human race, has spread to every imaginable corner of the globe, has affected, directly or indirectly, every single living human being on earth. This is an event unparalleled in human history which has shut down civilisation to an extent that until now has existed only in science-fiction novels. And there is a distinct possibility, at least in the minds of the public, that this “emergency” may never end and that everyone now living, at least over the age of 40, will reach the end of their lives in the shadow of coronavirus.


And yet we are still being told there is something we can do to “help stop the spread of coronavirus.” This expression has now replaced “Save the planet,” as the only, entire, complete and overarching purpose of human existence in the propaganda machines of the state, big government and big business. It is quite clear that nothing on earth can stop the spread of coronavirus, just as nothing on earth could appease climate alarmists’ empty and impossible demands. “Help stop the spread of coronavirus” actually means something quite other than it seems to, just as “Save the planet” did. There may be something we can do to slow the spread of the virus  down, but we are rapidly reaching the point at which further attempts to do this must be balanced against the damage we are doing to the civilisation and society we have, for better or worse, created.


In fact both expressions amount to the same thing. Stop humanity. Close down every aspect of human behaviour, endeavour, commerce, culture and interaction. Centralise all wealth creation and redistribute it in a manner that stifles human creativity. Track and monitor every single living human being on earth, which every liberal thinker has protested about for decades when practiced only by regimes perceived as authoritarian.  Create a climate of introverted fear and societal loathing that convinces everyone that all natural human behaviour is an implicitly sociopathic, disrespectful, criminal act worthy of the deepest opprobrium and contempt. There is no doubt in my mind that climate alarmists will try to exploit this “crisis” in order to suggest lockdowns are made either permanent or lead to ongoing and irreversible societal changes that end for all time, normal social and creative human behaviour, sacrificing every natural inbuilt instinct to a kind of utilitarian world view in which the only perceived values we have are “Save the Planet” and “Help stop the spread of coronavirus.” The first is a meaningless and deeply dishonest anti-human crusade. The second is simply impossible and has already failed. Articles for the American Council on Science and Health, and the Lancet, both powerfully argue that continuing as we have been so far may not work.

I believe that  “Help stop the spread of coronavirus” is a failed tactic that needs to be abandoned if we are to have any hope whatever of avoiding the alternative: the emergence of a monstrously dystopian world state, a thing that could conceivably be upon us in less than ten years.

Monday, June 8, 2020


It is only a matter of time, probably about three weeks, before wearing a face mask will become compulsory in the UK for anyone leaving their home, with journalists, medical practitioners and politicians demanding that everyone do so. This development is also accompanied by a media campaign that attempts to demonise anyone uncomfortable with this, or who chooses not to wear a face mask, as “anti-maskers”, “mask mockers” and inevitably, “mask deniers” with articles suggesting that one’s freedom not to wear a face mask is somehow compromising someone else’s health. Anyone not wearing a face mask is now a selfish idiot who has no regard whatever for his fellow man.  All this has been, until now, advised against, on the grounds that it does not work, see Public Health England’s former statement: During normal day-to-day activities facemasks do not provide protection from respiratory viruses, such as COVID-19 and do not need to be worn by staff in any of these settings.

Facemasks are only recommended to be worn by infected individuals when advised by a healthcare worker, to reduce the risk of transmitting the infection to other people.”


Here are a few things researchers have had to say responding to mandatory face mask wearing on public transport:


“Although a medical mask can offer some protection, the use of masks in a community setting is not supported.” Prof Nicola Stonehouse, Professor of Molecular Virology, University of Leeds.


“The issue of face coverings in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic is very controversial. While no ad-hoc studies with a correct design have been carried out, it is now commonly accepted that face coverings provide very little protection, if any.” Dr Antonio Lazzarino, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, UCL


“Wearing a basic face mask does little or very little to prevent the wearer from getting infected by others, but there is some limited evidence that wearing one can prevent others from being infected by the wearer. I have seen no new evidence to suggest why the government is reversing its previous policy, and ignoring its previous scientific guidance and the guidance of the WHO. I’m left wondering if this is a political decision, rather than one based on science.” Dr Simon Clarke, Associate Professor in Cellular Microbiology, University of Reading.


An article on which is aimed at dental practitioners concludes: “The primary reason for mandating the wearing of face masks is to protect dental personnel from airborne pathogens. This review has established that face masks are incapable of providing such a level of protection. For the full sources quoted and to see everything in context please see the links at the end of this article. There are also many concerns that face mask wearing can endanger the wearer by breeding bacteria, that people don’t know how to use them, that face-mask culture, once here, will never go away.



I lived in Asia for three years and was there when COVID-19 first appeared. Face mask culture is endemic in Asian countries especially those with a poor human rights record at least from a Western point of view. When I was there, I was continually stopped and had my temperature taken with a gadget that looks like a gun pointed at my head. I wore a face mask whenever I went out: now was this because I thought it would protect me from being infected?  Of course not. I did it because if I didn’t I risked being detained or not allowed into my apartment. One thing I can tell you is that it is hideously uncomfortable and makes breathing difficult.  I became consumed with worry, paranoid about going out which I  only did to buy food, and I lived in fear. Finally, unable to stand it any longer, I got out and only made it by the skin of my teeth.

And this is the most important point to be made about this entire development. Mask wearing is a symptom of fear. It is the hallmark of repression, of invasion of your most fundamental existential liberties. The best case made for wearing masks seems to be a lack of evidence that they don’t work at all, in other words it’s hard to say one way or another. The best case against has to be the same as for every other government intervention in the name of “stopping the spread of coronavirus”. It may not be worth it. We have reached the point in which anything is now justified in the name of “stopping the spread of coronavirus”. There is already a deep suspicion in the minds of the British and many Western people that lockdown will never, in any meaningful sense, come to an end and that we will spend the rest of our lives in a state of semi-incarceration all over the world. Far from easing the lockdown, introducing Asian face-mask culture to the UK will only deepen it, especially in the minds of the public. There can be little doubt that following this media campaign   (“WEAR A MASK, YOU DUMMY! NOW!” ) face mask wearing will become endemic and our streets will be filled with mask-wearing, glowering, frightened-looking people  standing outside shops because they don’t know whether to go in or not. We will be reduced to living in fear, of regarding each other with suspicion and hate, depending on whether we are or are not wearing a virtue-signalling, mark-of –the-beast face covering. The general consensus that anyone who thinks they may have symptoms should be wearing a mask is self-defeating because in this case why in the world would you be going out anyway?

I’ve seen face-mask culture first-hand and it’s deeply dehumanising effects. I escaped. Now it’s here in my homeland. It is ugly, frightening and has practically zero potential to make any difference. You must make up your own mind but I personally will not be wearing one any time soon. I’ll get my shopping delivered. I’ll get people to do it for me. I’d rather avoid going out. I’ve decided to leave the last comment to someone who is not a doctor, politician or journalist but a great actor, sadly no longer with us. At the end of the film Blade Runner, Rutger Hauer, who plays the android Roy, says to Harrison Ford: “Quite an experience to live in fear, isn’t it? That’s what it is to be a slave.”


Saturday, June 6, 2020

Climate Alarmism is a dangerous dogma: we need to wake up to this before it’s too late.

Climate Alarmism is a dangerous dogma: we need to wake up to this before it’s too late.

Imagine  a future in something like 2094, 75 years hence. Energy, water and food are  rationed, private transport and flying are virtually banned, meat is outlawed, there are no livestock farms, industry no longer exists, homes are collective, and population reduction policies have led to euthanasia being legal and encouraged whilst childbirth is limited. Government is regional across the globe with regional co-ordinators of Asia, America, Europe and the Eastern Bloc. Even this may be optimistic.

This of course is possibly a bad imitation of George Orwell’s 1984 and other dystopian futures. And yet whilst it can never be used as a definitive model, I contend that many of these scenarios could possibly become reality if we continue along the path of unfettered climate alarmism, now espoused by government and media around the world. According to the IPCC, a body set up to promote climate change advocacy, “unprecedented changes in all aspects of society to deal with climate change” are required. One of the foremost of these is an insistence that we abandon the use of fossil fuels, and even nuclear power to rely entirely on so-called “renewable” forms of energy.  Everything promulgated by global warming advocates points to nothing less than a project to destroy our entire technological civilisation for some sort of pastoral fantasy which essentially means returning to medieval times.  It’s worth looking at some tactics and arguments used by climate change advocates to try to force this agenda.

Firstly, the mendacious attempt to portray the climate change agenda as scientific. Very few people are equipped to use the scientific method to analyse and evaluate the claims of the climate advocates. Climatology is a highly complex and unpredictable field of science, requiring the assimilation of vast amounts of data. To expect most people to look at the evidence and draw their own conclusions is unrealistic and so what actually happens is the mass media regularly peddles the unverifiable narrative of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” as fact, making the public unable to question it. It’s far easier to accept it. In  reality, there exists an enormous body of research that calls the co2 narrative of climate advocates into question. It points out that there has been no significant planetary warming since 1998,  that evidence exists that co2 levels rise after temperature changes and not before, that changes in the activity of the sun can cause changes in the atmosphere, that the earth has been warmer before now, that there was an argument in the 1970s that the earth was getting cooler, that even if the earth were getting  warmer there isn’t enough evidence to suggest human activity is responsible,  that there is evidence the polar ice-caps especially Antarctica are growing or at least remaining stable, not shrinking, that the hole in the ozone layer is closing. The list goes on and on, and using the scientific method would mean looking into all of this information  Added to this are the numerous predictions of climate disaster that failed to materialise, , such as the Ice Age predicted in the 1970s and the complete  loss of  Arctic ice by 2013.

Secondly, the admission by many climate advocates that their agenda is not motivated by concern for the environment at all but a wish to impose a radical political agenda,  manifest in statements from UN climate guru  Christiana Figueres postulating “a complete transformation of the economic structure of the world,” and  Dr. Ottmar Edenhoefer, stating that  “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Thirdly, the emotive and misleading language used by the climate advocates. They claim that “the planet is in danger.”  This is rubbish. An ecosystem that can recreate itself after ice ages, asteroid impacts, periods of high temperature and humidity, all of which have happened in the past is not in imminent danger from human activity. Even if we blew ourselves to smithereens in a nuclear war the planet itself would reform as an ecosystem within a few hundred thousand years. We may be in danger ourselves but the advocates prefer for us to think about “the planet”, spouting the usual tosh about how we borrow it from our children. This is a meaningless use of language that avoids the need to stand closer scrutiny. Anyone with the courage to question the global warming narrative is now called a “denier”, being compared to those who claim the Holocaust didn’t happen. This is a tool designed to close down debate. Research scientists whose work questions this narrative lose their funding and are ridiculed by the media. The expression “climate change” is itself misleading. It derives from the original  speculation of AGW, anthropogenic global warming, and was changed once it became evident that first there was not enough compelling evidence for AGW and second that most people didn’t believe in it. Calling it “climate change” justifies anything. Warmer, cooler, windier, wetter, drier etc.etc weather can now all be attributed to human activity.

No sane person would willingly vote for a government that proposed to remove highly efficient and inexpensive energy sources to replace them with inefficient, woefully expensive and environmentally damaging alternatives, ban flying, ban automated transport, ban meat eating, restrict reproduction, create unemployment on a scale never before seen, levy unsustainable tax levels, dismantle industry and censor academic research. Yet all of these are policies being considered and postulated in the name of climate change and young people in particular are seemingly accepting this totally.  Many economists point out that you simply can’t maintain a technological civilisation at the present level using wind and solar power. Don’t take my word for it; there’s plenty of information out there. Tellingly, internet searches by those interested in questioning this entire hypothesis yield results pointing towards censorship. Browsing “climate change scepticism” led me immediately to climate alarmist websites like, and numerous blogs that informed one how to refute “climate change deniers.” Finding data, research and argument that facilitates debate is much harder than looking for articles that promote climate alarmism. One of the most sinister developments in this entire narrative is the emergence of a movement led by schoolchildren staging school walkouts and demanding urgent action: this is a shameful exploitation worthy of Nazism.. As an educator I know that children’s logic is impenetrable: they will argue that the sky is green and there’s often no way you can persuade them otherwise. What is more, they cannot possibly have examined all the data at hand and drawn their own conclusions. They are simply parroting propaganda learned on social media, news outlets and in schools. Again, this shuts down debate because how can you  engage kids in this kind of complex discussion? The only historic precedents I know of for the kind of far-reaching changes demanded by these teenage turkeys voting for Christmas happen to be in Maoist China during the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward, and Stalinist Russia during the purges and Five Year Plans. One wonders if they’ve read their history?

Peaceful public protest is the cornerstone of democracy and of Western civilisation. Yet now we begin to see a fundamental difference in that public protest is rapidly becoming something it has never been before: a tool of the state. Those agitating for climate change alarmism are actually pursuing the state’s agenda: if such protests were staged to defend our economic well-being and our technological civilisation, would they be as well attended, organised or even permitted?  An analogue exists in the fact that the only mass demonstrations following the 2016 British Brexit referendum are by those opposing the result. It is clear that that the majority who voted to leave the EU are too confident in the common- sense of humanity. Public protest is the stuff of  offended and vigorous minorities, and historically challenged the state. The offended minorities remain but  we live in an age where true dissent  is censored by placard-waving virtue-signallers, defenders of the state and where true debate is stifled by mob fear.

The consequences of this unprecedented acceptance of a political dogma should be obvious: economic implosion, environmental damage on a huge scale (mining for magnets to use in wind farms, pollution caused by wind farm manufacture, landscape and wildlife destruction to name but a few). These threaten the economic well-being of ordinary people in developed nations and actually have genocidal implications for those in poor and developing nations.  It is staggering to contemplate the draconian measures people seem willing to accept in the name of this colossal non-solution to a non-existent emergency.

I can’t prove that anthropogenic global warming caused by human-produced carbon dioxide doesn’t exist, any more than I can prove the non-existence of  God. It may possibly exist, however in light of the conflicting data available I think it’s very unlikely. There is too much evidence of manipulated and manufactured data which doesn’t suit the scientific method, too much evidence of censorship and dissent. When a scientist of the calibre of James Lovelock, arguably the godfather of modern environmentalism, says “It’s a religion  really, it’s totally unscientific,” this should give grounds for pause. However climate alarmism is all too  real, and poses a far greater threat than the problem it purports to solve. It’s also not the same as caring for natural resources. Most people would agree with having cleaner power stations and vehicles, less rubbish that can’t be disposed of and better food hygiene among other things. This isn’t the same as saying we should kill off  the meat and livestock industry because of an imminent danger from  fart gas created by cattle.

Important questions need to be asked. Perhaps the most pressing is this: In light of conflicting data available, is there enough compelling  evidence for anthropogenic global warming to justify dismantling our current industrial civilisation? The answer to this for every thinking person who doesn’t choose to employ impenetrable child’s logic that permits anything, has to be, no.


When a mainstream media outlet like Good Morning Britain asks “Should vaccinations be mandatory?” the public should experience the deepest a...