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/
Its nature cannot be
identified.
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 19th 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.
