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.

 

BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE: CAN REASON AND LOGIC SAVE OUR MINDS IN AN ISLAND PRISON?

 

ON THE evening of October 30, 1938, American radio listeners heard a series of announcements describing attacks by beings from another world and eventually a full-scale invasion that repelled every attempt to contain it. Thousands fled their homes to escape. They had missed the introduction to a radio play, Orson Welles’ celebrated dramatisation of H G Wells’ The War of the Worlds, and taken it for a news broadcast. It suits modern journalists to debunk the ‘panic’ story as a media myth, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that a significant number of people were worried despite the fact that they hadn’t seen or heard any Martians, nor did they have any other reason to believe they were under attack than the radio. It is evident that people will react with alarm to a sensational news story without clear evidence of its basis in reality. Now, with the media more powerful than ever, we are living through a terror based on the premise of a deadly plague that cannot be treated, constantly mutates, spreads without symptoms and to which there is only one answer: total global human atrophy.

 I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the ‘pandemic’ in any meaningful and practical sense does not exist. It has been measured by a PCR test that its inventor declared unfit for diagnostic purposes with a false positive rate that renders it virtually useless. It is based on computer models that time and time again have been proved to be wildly inaccurate. It is unclear where the UK Government gets its figures from. The nucleotide chain of Covid-19 cannot be positively identified. It has not been isolated according to the Koch postulates. Koch postulates - Google Search I know no one, nor does anybody in my extended circle know anyone, who has been admitted to hospital with Covid. In our daily reality, there is no evidence for a pandemic. None whatsoever.

The pandemic narrative does not require evidence. Like all "science-based" fear narratives, this one tries to intimidate us all into thinking the burden of evidence is on those of us convinced something is wrong to prove it.   It isn't. No more facts and figures. The fallacy is exposing itself. Enough!

 

 

Koch postulates - Google Search

 

 

One thing I am certain of is that we can no longer afford to go on listening to the British Government. Look at their record: in March 2020, we were told to ‘stay home, protect the NHS, save lives.’ It’s only going to be for three weeks, they said, to ‘flatten the curve.’ Ten months later: ‘Now there’s a vaccine, we can look at easing restrictions by Easter.’ A third lockdown is here, a fourth looms and the Easter promise just isn’t going to happen. You can bet your bottom dollar that by then this Government will be making more empty promises about being out of this by 2022.   Broken word after broken word. Excuse after excuse. A husband in a divorce case with a record this dire would be called ‘abusive’.  There is only one word for it: lies.

 

With dreary predictability, the UK Government has pursued the same path, more lockdowns, more restrictions. Whatever we do, however much we go along with the game, however many times we change our behaviour to follow the rules, the result is the same: more lockdowns. There is now no escape from Devil’s Island Britain.

 

The logical fallacies of this entire narrative are so glaringly self-evident that to explain them is a daunting task. For example: ‘Help Stop the Spread of Coronavirus’. You might as well instruct the public to ‘Help Stop Death’. Meaningless and impossible. ‘No return to normal without a vaccine.’ This is preposterous. At no time in history has anyone ever postulated a vaccine as the only way out of a health emergency, especially at the beginning of it. How in the world has a ‘vaccine’ managed to emerge in six months? This has never been achieved in history.  ‘This can’t go on for ever.’ I see no reason whatsoever to believe this. Governments can keep this up for as long as they like. And it is all too clear that that is precisely what they intend to do. Whether this is all a conspiracy or not is irrelevant:  the only logical way for us to react to it is as though it were. Otherwise we'll just keep hoping in vain to be released.

 

What is coming next? If you’ve read this far you know as well as I do. A war on humanity that will simply go on and on with all the might and violence of the state.  Forced incarceration. More censorship. More rules. Face-masks made compulsory outdoors. More ‘mutations’ and ‘waves’. More ‘pandemics’. Elections suspended.  Forced or coercive ‘vaccination’.  Martial law. Almost total unemployment. Mass homelessness. The end of money. The end of international travel. The disappearance of the High Street. The end of pubs and restaurants. Business, education and entertainment permanently relegated online. Finally, a population of robots who think they are free. And if you think all of that is fantastic and paranoid, what would you have said a year ago to the idea of endless lockdowns, media censorship, forced or coercive mass testing, forced face mask wearing and forced isolation, all of which has happened and is not going away?

 

 As I tried to explain at the beginning of this essay, it is beyond question that people will believe without evidence. If this were not so, belief in God would not exist. The existence of religious belief is concrete testimony of the capacity of humanity to believe something without evidence.

 

The way out, if there is one, is not clear. Mass resistance to clog up the courts. General strikes. Mass removal of students from schools. Petitions. Debates. Barter economies. But this is almost certainly a fantasy. I cannot find hope in ‘the people’. Just maybe with lateral-flow-testing replacing PCR, with commercial interests eventually becoming more urgent than ‘safety’, with elections making this all a political football, governments can be persuaded to dig themselves out of this mess.

But we can’t rely on hope alone. The truth is, we’ve lost. You can’t fight the state, and the idea that we can has been exposed for the empty myth it is. Britain is now one of the world’s worst dictatorships and we are going to have to learn how to survive and adapt to life in a totalitarian state.