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.