“You can fit in. Or you can change the world. You don’t get to do both.” Robin Sharma
In the spirit of our working hypothesis, which is to take the opposite position to the one we are instructed to take and then test the evidence, and by way of a small diversion from the fine grain detail of the Progressives' dismantling of the western world, let's assume that the pandemic and the climate scare, rather than being legitimate, are actually tools in the totalitarian box.
Wherever you are, you'll have been subjected to a version of the following scenario, which is that you can all get back to normal if you'll just take the damn 'vaccine'. Then, there will have been a gradual retreat from that position and an admission that the 'vaccines' don't actually prevent disease, nor transmission of it. It's tempting to theorize that states are being forced to admit this; I don't think so. After all, if the 'vaccines' worked properly, there would be no need for boosters, would there? No extra profit for Pfizer, Moderna et al. And they would be giving up potential sticks with which to beat us. Who's going to believe that masks, distancing and lock-downs might be necessary again, if the 'vaccine' works as advertised? How are they going to spread their current favorite falsehood, the pandemic of the 'unvaccinated' if there is no possible way the 'vaccinated' can be infected? It's necessary to leave wriggle room
So far, the state is just about holding the line with the continuing lie that the 'vaccines' reduce hospitalization and death. If they manage to persuade everyone to have a jab there will be no control group with which to compare and contrast but, at present, despite all attempts to obscure the truth, there is much evidence to prove that the overwhelming majority of hospitalizations are of the 'vaccinated'.
And we are all by now familiar with the encroaching Green Pass fascism and the distinct possibility that visits to the grocery store may soon be a thing of the past if we allow it to be; 3G spawns 2G which begets 1G. Has anybody given any thought as to the logic of all of this? Or the legality? Wherever you may be, you are not actually in a state of emergency. Even government's heavily doctored statistics demonstrate that. Yes, there are now excess deaths, but these are from other conditions linked to 'vaccines', not Covid. But governments have retained emergency powers, powers they were never entitled to in the first place, they are using these powers to impose mandates and the vast majority of people are doing nothing about it.
Don't believe me? Are people keeling over in the streets? Have they ever? Do you know people who are dying of Covid? Even if you think you do, are you sure it's actually Covid? As we both know, people aren't dying in the streets and they never actually have. As an aside, why did the initial coverage from China show just that? We now know that it's faked footage. Nobody seems to have asked why the Chinese would have done something like that. It's just memory holed.
For those people who have retained a scintilla of their ability to think clearly, a few questions. Why are these mandates being imposed? Where is the evidence to support them? What sense do they make, because if there is really a pressing need for them why are they being done in stages? Why are workers in state facilities more important than others? Because they must be, if they are being 'protected' first. And, while I'm on that topic; why do larger companies deserve 'protection' before smaller companies? Is the progression from 3G to 1G justified by any evidence? Because there is a timetable laid out in most cases. As there is no way of knowing what cases will look like in the future, any timetable is not going to be evidence based. So, it must instead be about control; one measure following another with no actual facts to show that it is necessary.
How is it that a citizen can be compelled to prove 'vaccination' status? For ever other vaccine, that information is considered confidential. That confidentiality is protected by law. For instance, has anybody ever asked you to prove that you've had a flu jab before they'll let you into the post office? I thought not. And yet, Covid is no more deadly that the flu and, in those under the age of 65, considerably less deadly. This is not an Ebola outbreak, or a smallpox pandemic. It is not, and never has been, a public health emergency. You only thought so at the time, because that's what the state was telling you.
Not only that. Without the 'vaccine', there could be no mandate. There is one tiny problem – the 'vaccine' isn't a vaccine. It's an experimental gene therapy and, as such, doesn't qualify for consideration as a vaccine. That, right there, is enough to invalidate everything that comes after. However, as we know, while none of the jabs are approved, they are authorised for emergency use only. Yes, even the Pfizer one that they've told you is now approved. It isn't. Vaccines can only be approved for emergency use if there is no other suitable treatment. As was known at the time of the authorization, and for months before, there are a number of early treatment options that are very effective – much more effective that the jab.
You may have heard vague tell of this, perhaps an echo of the words hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. There are many others besides. And this information is known to doctors; which is why these two drugs were the most prescribed treatments in the first couple of months of the pandemic and it's why they are being used in many different parts of the world with great success. You just don't know that, because the media has no interest in telling you. However, given the fact that effective alternatives exist, there never was a justification for the issuance of an EUA (Emergency Use Authorisation). Therefore, everything that has happened since, including the mandates, is illegal.
That's before getting into any discussion about informed consent (there hasn't been any as that would entail knowledge of ingredients and side effects, among other details), faked trial data, authorization to 'vaccinate' demographic groups who were never included in the trials and the fact that there is no Constitutional basis for mandating any vaccine. All of those elements are downstream from the one that matters most; the original (and continuing) EUAs.
Despite this, we are now in a position where ordinary citizens are, at the very least, required to take a test in order to access services that they are paying taxes for. They shouldn't have to do that and it makes no sense for them to do that, not only for the reasons elucidated above, but because if they don't have symptoms, they can't transmit the disease anyway. If they don't want to constantly undergo uncomfortable testing, they will be obliged to undergo a 'vaccination' that is not only unnecessary, but ineffective and dangerous, too. Or to go to a doctor and obtain an antibody test that will prove nothing of value, because of its lack of rigour. To do any of those things is to participate in the game; the rigged game that governments have set up.
And if you don't want to play? You're a non person. Soon enough, it'll be no library, no police station, no doctor's surgery – and that's just phase one. No cinema, no restaurant, no gym, no beauty salon, no bar. That's phase two. Before long, it'll just be those designated 1G, the 'vaccinated', that have the ability to live a normal life. No other proof will be sufficient. The majority, the unknowing sheople, by playing along with the game from its inception, will get gradually drawn in. That is clearly the plan, which is why it's incremental. To avoid a revolt at the outset, by chipping away until resistance is whittled down.
The standard of proof required in order to go along with this, for most people, is now non-existent. No questions are asked any more; it's as if all the state had to do was get people on the path. After that, they stayed on it willingly without questioning what direction it was taking them in. How else to explain the supine masses? Even though the contrast between what we are being told and what is actually happening, in the real world, is stark. How have we reached a place where we are 'vaccinating' five year olds against a disease that, if it even exists in the form that is claimed, might kill two in a million? And that's without the benefit of early treatment and taking no account of the presence of co-morbidities. But the 'vaccines', even with grossly manipulated data, have caused deaths and adverse events in the hundreds of thousands, in the US alone.
Can you imagine? Last year, when there was a need to manufacture 'cases' and 'deaths', all sorts of dirty tricks were used. Some of them were exposed, such as the 'dying of' rather than 'dying with' scam, which reduced the number of deaths from Covid by 94%. You can bet that some of the manipulations were never exposed, because the evidence of malfeasance is in the hands of the perpetrators of it. The fox guarding the hen house.
We are in the same position now. How much is going on, that we know nothing about? The state has control of the apparatus, they've made it clear that they don't want adverse events recorded, have made the process onerous and complex, have fired doctors and nurses who have defied them, either pay the salaries or control the licence to practice of those that remain and still there are over 20,000 deaths on VAERS, three times the total of deaths recorded for all other vaccines combined for the past thirty years; and we're not even a year into it yet.
There is a marked tendency to misunderstand the game, to focus on the wrong element. What is the point of applying for a 'vaccine' exemption? To argue about the detail is to miss the point. To argue about the accuracy of the VAERS data is (now) to also miss the point. To do that is to participate in the farce. To reiterate, the EUA is illegal; the mandate is illegal. And, in addition to that, even if the EUA was legal, the state cannot mandate a 'vaccine' that is only authorised for emergency use. And that other, inconvenient fact; the 'vaccine' is not a vaccine, it's an experimental gene therapy. It doesn't do what vaccines do and mRNA technology has always been referred to as gene therapy.
The game is rigged from the beginning and participating in it is to give it an unwarranted legitimacy. It's to concede the most important ground before battle is joined. Governments do not have the right to do what they are doing. Period. There is no emergency, there are no grounds for an EUA, they cannot mandate a 'vaccine' on an EUA and it's not a vaccine, anyway. The only suitable response is to not comply. Otherwise, it's the equivalent of being violated and complaining about the lack of foreplay, not the fact of the violation itself.
It's the same argument as the one in favor of compromise, of bi-partisanship, of moving along together, united. Once again, these are ideas that are taken for granted. Discussion starts downstream of them. Remember the working hypothesis? It applies here also. Let's assume that compromise isn't always a good thing. After all, why would it be a good thing to compromise all the time if the other person was always wrong? There are at least some situations where compromise is an openly bad outcome. If you want to randomly kill 100 people and I want to kill none, is killing fifty people a decent compromise? Is it just about two rival positions, with no reference to a moral framework? Or, does compromise mean that sometimes one side gets the nod, sometimes the other side does; there is never any meeting in the middle. Or is compromise a mixture of both? Should it work out to a fifty-fifty split, over time?
Surely, where there is evil, it should be resisted, not accommodated or negotiated with. When the initial premise is already a corruption, there is no basis for compromise. And yet, that is exactly where we are. Complaining about the mandates is to tacitly accept everything that came before them. That would include everything that I have detailed, from the legitimacy of emergency powers to the alleged lack of alternative treatments. Focusing on the issue of free will, declaring that people should not be forced into getting the jab is the equivalent of acknowledging that the Kool-Aid can be provided, sure, but we shouldn't make anyone drink it if they don't want to. How can that be a valid position? How can the resistance, allegedly the Republicans, have ever allowed this to happen? And why are they doing nothing still? Why are the few that are fighting doing so on the wrong hill?
It's because they're afraid, not because they don't know the facts. It's the same reason doctors are still jabbing people, even after doing their morning rounds in the newly designated Juvenile Myocarditis ward. Because they want to keep their jobs, because they are compromised, because they are afraid of being labelled an anti-vaxxer; perm any one or several. And doctors, in particular, are continuing to be agents of suffering, in violation of their oath; they haven't realized that the job isn't worth doing any more. That's if they have allowed reality to intrude upon their state of self delusion. There will still be some who are still successfully convincing themselves that there is no connection between the vaccines and 15% excess deaths in 2021.
It's the same old tactics of divide and conquer. If everybody stood up to be counted, tyrants wouldn't win – couldn't win. But, as we know, most people don't have the courage and, on top of that, don't trust that their fellow citizens will stand on, so they don't either. And the people who do possess the courage of their convictions are the ones who get cut down, inevitably. Because there aren't enough of them to really give pause for thought, the state doesn't hesitate and so the spiral continues. The further down it, the more compromised people are and the more complicit, nearer the point of no return.
It's one thing when people can legitimately view themselves as victims of a higher power, but when they have become involved in the oppression of other victims, by virtue of their silence or active participation, they become part of the apparatus and cannot bring the system down without exposing themselves to retribution. And the more difficult it is to remember how it all started and whether where we are now is where we should be. It's about incremental steps and the state knows it. If we stopped, had a think about things, we might realize how we are being manipulated. So, they don't let us.
There's a constant bombardment of ticker tape along the bottom of your TV screen, cases numbers and death numbers, new variants, new mandates. Another press conference; anything to prevent us from stepping back and getting an overview. By now, of course, many people would not be willing to admit they were wrong anyway. The debate has become so toxic (largely down to the rule followers telling everybody else what they should do, via the medium of social media) that any pro-vaxxer who belatedly sees the light will find it difficult to give the opposition the satisfaction of admitting they were wrong. 'Vaccine' advocates have backed themselves into corners and, what's more, now that they are double jabbed, most of them are committed. Only a minority will balk at the first booster. It's probable that others will as time goes by and it becomes apparent that boosters are a fact of life for them, but many more will stay on the compliance treadmill as they will want to keep their job, their friends, maybe even their marriage.
This is how it always works with human nature; the human nature that progressive lefties who want to tell you how to live your life don't acknowledge the existence of. There is a long way to go before we hit rock bottom, albeit not a lot of time. By this time next year, the Western world will be unrecognizable. Because, where will a savior come from? This is a globalist conspiracy – a well co-ordinated combination of public and private, industry and government. Supranational organisations are facilitators – the likes of the WHO, IMF, World Bank, EU, WEF and UN – but they are the equivalent of shell companies for the elite, that's all. A way of getting business done that affords them a measure of plausible deniability and a degree of anonymity. The Church is doing nothing; the Pope is an active supporter and the Anglican church forfeited their credibility decades ago in their effort to stay 'relevant'.
Government itself is more about uniparty power and controlled opposition than it is about genuine representation and the politics of conviction. There are a handful of Western governments who may conceivably be unsullied by association with the Davos crew, Poland and Hungary among them, but they are treated as pariah states and may not be strong enough to remain outside the fold indefinitely. Other than these few exceptions, the globalists all appear to be on the same page. There is no rallying point at the moment and none on the horizon.
The elites hold all the cards. They have the money and the control and they are annexing more of both, daily. They have enough of the population on board, due to erroneous beliefs embedded by a historically corrupt academy and by their susceptibility to brainwashing, to give them a majority and they control the means of communication. The public/private nexus controls employment and access to welfare and, if they get their digital currency (which they will, because they can and enough people will let them), they will be on the verge of controlling all our lives.
Large parts of the population will become increasingly frail and unhealthy. This is not in dispute, as it is happening before our eyes already. Men and women alike will find that having children is no longer an option. This, too, has already happened; it's just not acknowledged yet, although there is plenty of anecdotal and empirical evidence to hand. There will be (there are) large spikes in 'vaccine' related deaths, across a wide range of illnesses. This phenomenon will only worsen over time as more and more of the side effects become known and more and more booster shots are mandated. This will not be an accident. Graphene does not get into 'vaccines' by accident.
We'll live in cities, in small apartments. We won't have cars, because there won't be fossil fuels any more. Every monetary transaction will be completed by digital means. If we don't do as we're told, we'll be punished by a temporary or permanent ban; no access to resources, QR code disabled. Don't believe me? Check out China, right now. No privacy, very few rights, very few possessions. We'll likely be inundated with fake pandemics, or real ones if our overlords can be assured that they will be far enough removed from them. We won't be having many kids; we probably wouldn't want to bring a child into a world like this, probably couldn't afford to and probably won't be able to, as we are no longer fertile. We'll be trackable 24/7, via a biometric chip under our skin, ostensibly to ensure that we don't become Patient Zero in a new outbreak of whatever.
These outcomes will be primarily targeted at the Western world, but given the nature of supranational organisations and the power they wield, it's difficult to see smaller countries being able to resist the economic costs of non-compliance.
I can say all this and you may think I've taken leave of my senses, even though every single thing I've said refers either to technology that already exists, to programmes already underway (UN Agenda 21) or the pronouncements of our lords and masters, who have a track record of floating ideas that they have already implemented covertly. Not a single word is fantasy. And, at the moment, I can't see a single person capable of stopping it.
It all just seems to be too difficult to believe. But just ask yourself a question or two. Why do biometric chips exist? Why are we going cashless? What is the rationale behind those two initiatives, as an example. Is it altruistic? Because these are the same people who are blighting our world with creeping mandates for a drug that is killing people, that isn't a 'vaccine' anyway. And you're willing to place your trust in those same people, because in all other respects they have our best interests at heart?
Think of it in this way. If you're going to lie, make it an absolute whopper. Not some minor infraction that your friends could believe of you. Something far beyond what anyone would expect. You may have to be sociopathic to pull it off, but it stands a good chance of success if you can remain convincing. People just can't get their heads around something that is outrageous. They convince themselves that you would never do something like that. Of course, if you are genuinely the person that your friends think you to be, you wouldn't be exploiting them in this way. But government isn't your friend. Neither is private industry. You know this. They have not always proven themselves reliable and, even if this current scenario is a stretch, they don't have a huge amount of credibility in the bank. As such, it's at least possible and, in truth, much more than merely that. They've passed legislation, agreed treaties, funded research and written books.
The only way out of it is through non-compliance and even that might not be enough. I don't just mean non-compliance by the 'vaccine hesitant'. I mean non-compliance from anybody, vaxxed or not, who understands what freedom is and knows that it includes the rights of people with whom you do not necessarily agree. It means going back to the basics of the 'vaccination' saga and taking down the specious justifications for the original EUAs because, although there are the other elements planned, they will be much more difficult to implement if we are not first worn down and sickened by compliance with mandates, lock-downs and so forth.
What is much more likely, in the short term at least, is that widespread gullibility will enable tyrants to take advantage of all of us. That what they say they want, such as the phasing out of fossil fuels by 2035 at the latest, is actually what they really want. That Agenda 21 will continue to be implemented without any real opposition, that the minority will become increasingly marginalized and that the majority will not lift a finger to help them. Let's hope that it takes less time to come to our senses than it did the Soviets.