Death and taxes are no longer the only two certainties in life – we can add two others. Firstly, the ongoing attempt to remake the world to fit the globalists' vision is not going to stop and, secondly, at some point there is going to be a huge rupture between the authorities and a significant proportion of the people. This second outcome is unavoidable for the simple reason that those who seek to cement their own status as the elites are on a trajectory that must be maintained lest they crash and face retribution. This gradual subjugation of the the majority and simultaneous elevation of the tiny minority has been ongoing for decades while exciting little comment or any significant opposition. We either haven't noticed it or we have been programmed to accept that it's just the way the world works.
Progress has been steady and building blocks have been constructed. Finance, Big Business and the academy have all been on board with the project for decades. The cultural and educational battle has also been won over the past fifty years – organised religion has been bullied and traduced and the nuclear family has been reduced to irrelevance. The new mantra is that there must be 'progress' in all things. Conservation is bunk.
It's really only in the past six years that the mask has slipped from the collective face of the 'developed' world's regimes. 2016 was the year of Brexit and Trump and suddenly we started to see our elites for who they are. In the UK, it was the political class and the media who revealed themselves first. The Remainers in parliament (a good two thirds majority) could not accept the result of the referendum. They thought the people misguided at best, stupid at worst. This attitude swiftly morphed into one which held that Leave voters were xenophobic bigots.
Recalcitrant Remainers mounted a sustained campaign, explicitly targeted at nullifying the result of the referendum. They favored a second ballot so that the populace could come to the 'right' decision (as the Irish did when voting on both the Treaty of Nice and the Treaty of Lisbon, as the French and Dutch did in 2005 when voting on whether to ratify the draft EU constitution; or the Danes when voting on whether to ratify Maastricht... you get the picture). According to them, the people didn't really understand what they were voting for because the question – should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? - was too opaque. They couldn't accept that the people were smart enough to see through the BS and that they had worked out (long ago) that the country was ruled by Brussels. The majority wanted their independence back and they wanted their politicians to be accountable to them rather than the unelected mandarins at the EU.
The failed Remainer assault was the first major glitch in the matrix. It showed us how entrenched the political class was and that they believed that, far from being the representatives of the people, they were, in fact, our rulers. It also threw the previously sotto voce alliance between Big Business (of the international variety), supranational organisations and the media into sharp relief. We were treated to the sight of the CEO of Siemens - a German company – and the BBC jointly telling us that we didn't know what was good for us, but they did.
It took yet another palace coup and a general election to finally exit the EU, four and a half years after the vote, although the jury is still out on whether the UK has truly left the building or whether it is still lingering in the lobby or circling in the revolving doors. The recent revelation that the EU still retains primacy over the UK's immigration policy suggests that it's the latter.
In any event, the saga was a giant wake-up call for those of us laboring under the misapprehension that the UK was still a fully functioning democracy. The immediate onset of the 'pandemic' and the government response to it provided further evidence of its totalitarian tendencies and nothing that has happened since has served to refute the obvious – that the UK is rapidly transforming into a security state composed of an elite and an underclass, with very little in between.
Trump's election, later that same year, prompted another outbreak of apoplexy. My own theory on the 2016 election is that the Democrats believed their own spin (rather like David Cameron, who had champagne on ice on the eve of the referendum result) and that of its house trained pollsters and mistakenly concluded that Hillary would win going away. Consequently, they didn't cheat enough. It's one of the downsides of a tactic of continually demonizing the other candidate, to the extent that he is effectively banished from polite society – when the pollsters rock up and ask people who they will vote for (or who they have voted for), they will lie because they don't want the same treatment their candidate has been getting. By the way, I appreciate that asserting that fraud is endemic in US elections may seem controversial. It isn't. It's a matter of record.(1)
Trump's triumph was a hammer blow to the globalists. Their echo chamber existence had not provided them with an accurate intelligence assessment of the people's political views. The elites were shocked to discover that, like their British counterparts, a large proportion of American voters disapproved of the globalist agenda and wanted to reclaim a national identity. However, the elites were in no mood to capitulate. Subsequently, as discussed elsewhere, they waged an incessant campaign against Trump and anybody else who was disobedient enough to evince any views that did not accord with their own.
This resulted, eventually, in a color revolution (of 'mostly peaceful' protests resulting in at least 25 deaths), followed by election fraud on an epic scale which, in combination, removed Orange Man Bad from office. The fake 'pandemic' that was the icing on the cake revealed the alliances between the public and private sectors and the assault on the red half of the country is still ongoing.
The elites in western Europe, the Antipodes and Canada (especially Canada) have been shown to be marching in lock-step. Free speech is being obliterated and government overreach is endemic. So, where does this end? Will the globalists win? If they do, we will be forced into an existence where we own nothing and, in addition, we'll have to pretend to be happy about it.
Opinion is divided on the matter and frequently ill informed. Alternative media nourishes the resistance and is there for existing believers and for those who walk away from the progressive Left, but it is constrained, frequently plays safe and is often simply controlled opposition. Additionally, those of us who comprise the opposition to the totalitarian takeover that is being attempted may form too broad a church. In my experience, it's still rare to find people willing to connect all the dots, not just some of the more obvious ones. Asking the difficult questions and following things to their logical conclusion is not widespread practice. Navel gazing is popular, but extrapolation is not.
Taking on the climate change cult is almost always a step too far for 'conservatives', but unless that canard is demolished, any opposition will simply end up nibbling around the edges of the progressive monolith. Our current generation of politicians are a collective waste of skin. I cannot think of a single politician of significance who has had the courage to take on the regime about its 'green' policies and challenge it to provide the receipts, rather that simply repeat the mantra that the 'science is settled' and that '97% of climate scientists agree'. It isn't and they don't.(2) No politician of note has challenged the 'vaccine' cultists, either. At least, not when it mattered, which is any time in the past three years.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that they care more about their careers than they do about their constituents' lives. Some will now start chirping about the safety of the experimental gene therapies (EGT) or the alleged deception practiced on them by Big Pharma, but the recent revelations wheedled out of the likes of Pfizer were public knowledge at least eighteen months ago.
The disclosures being aired now are, therefore, not truly revelatory; there isn't a sudden tsunami of counter-narrative information that absolutely must be addressed. Yes, the ongoing Pfizer document dump has further exposed the sins of commission (and omission) of both the FDA and Pfizer, but there were plentiful academic studies detailing the problems with mRNA and with coronavirus vaccines that were available prior to 2019. There were also numerous whistle-blowers who had been intimately involved in the 2020 clinical trials. The dangers of mRNA technology, in general, and Big Pharma's versions, in particular, were not a secret.
A person of courage and integrity would have been making waves at least two years ago, not now when jumping on the bandwagon is about to become risk-free. Such a person should also have been smart enough to question why this jab was the first inoculation to be de facto mandatory. And to challenge the efficacy of lock-downs and masks. But no politician had the cojones and, for that reason alone, none can be trusted to lead the charge into what will still be extremely heavy fire. Anybody seeking to lead the resistance must denounce the empire of lies. Illuminating obviously corrupt constructs shouldn't be difficult, but it has been made to seem so. In short, it would be deeply unwise to wait for political salvation.
It isn't difficult to see where we are headed at present. The regimes and their partners in private business are coordinating across national boundaries. They have demonstrated no compassion for their population; doling out our own tax money to us because of actions that they themselves have taken does not equate to compassion. Lock-downs, DNR notices imposed upon the healthy without consultation, the wholly predictable consequences of suspending treatments and procedures for cancer and other serious illnesses and a raft of other actions that are harmful to our mental and physical well-being, do not betoken governments that care about their citizens.
On the contrary, they clearly speak of regimes that don't care in the slightest and, given the character of the progressives who are their cheerleaders, there is no chance that they are going to ease up until they get what they want. They haven't dialed back their green agenda or stepped back from the brink in Ukraine, a war that is none of our concern, so that the cost of living crisis can be ameliorated. All they ever do is press on regardless, heedless of the damage that they are causing, because the whole point of it all is to break everything and Build Back Better; for them.
Given that scenario, given that they have achieved hegemony over all three branches of government – and this must be so, as there has been no foot dragging by the administrative state who have, instead, carried out their orders with alacrity, nor has there been substantial push-back from the courts who have devoted themselves to avoiding having to make judgements that might affect the status quo – what options are available to the people? Vote the politicians out and replace them with the clones in the opposition? That's not likely to be a successful strategy. In most European countries, coalitions are the norm and nearly all exclude right wing parties from government. Plus, of course, even the right cannot be trusted; it's an allegedly conservative party that is doing all the damage in the UK.
What other options are there? Peaceful protests, perhaps? If we are in an optimistic frame of mind, we might contend that the jury is still out on their effectiveness. We might make the case that the UK protests were instrumental in persuading the PM to abandon the majority of the Covid restrictions. If we were a little more realistic, we would recognize that the more likely reason is that Boris was flailing around trying to recover from Partygate and was therefore in need of a popularity boost.
The fate of the Canadian truckers is also instructive. They were targeted financially and physically and dispersed forcibly. The government wasn't remotely interested in communicating with them, badmouthed them from the very beginning and then invoked emergency legislation extra-legally. This is what happens when regimes become authoritarian; it should be recalled that the truckers were protesting 'vaccine' mandates for jabs that don't prevent disease or the spread of it, so they were right and the government was wrong. But that didn't matter and the same government is still in situ.
Protests only work if someone is listening. It could be the media, it could be regime or it could be the political opposition. But if none of them are listening and the media pretends that there are no protests anyway, protests cannot and will not work. They will simply be ignored or crushed. And, in the final analysis, it's all a bit limp wristed. Asking the enemy whether you're allowed to complain publicly about them (and also accepting where and when that can happen) is, in reality, a textbook example of controlled opposition.
What about working to rule or similar? A withdrawal of the goodwill factor? In some situations it may be effective, but it won't do us any good in the here and now. We would simply be further undermining our own prospects and making their job all the easier. They want us to own nothing, remember? They want the state to be the provider for the masses; any action that we take that threatens our individual economic stability is the equivalent of an own goal.
Where does that leave us? There is a further option, but it's one that few acknowledge. We can be coy and call it the kinetic option, if we like. However, the resistance, at least the official conservative resistance, has one belief that unites all factions – that the kinetic option is always wrong. There can never be a circumstance in which it is justified. In cleaving to this assertion, they are making three obvious logical errors. Firstly, what was formerly the greatest arsenal of democracy, the United States, wouldn't exist were it not for political violence. They fought a War of Independence against the British. If that isn't political violence, I'm at a loss to explain what is.
Secondly, privately vowing never to deploy violence in pursuit of one's ends is one thing. Telling your potential enemies is quite another. It's masochistic and allows those who would subjugate you to make an accurate assessment of the cost involved in that endeavor. And thirdly, by abjuring even the possibility of violence, conservatives are explicitly declaring that it is better to submit to tyranny than to resist it. They will say that this is not what they mean, but it is clearly where we end up.
We don't have to look far to see it in practice. We saw it in Sri Lanka recently and there's an ongoing revolution in Iran right now. One succeeded and the other is likely to fail for two simple reasons – firstly, it doesn't appear as though a majority of the population is in support of the insurgency and, secondly, the security apparatus is clearly all in on the side of the regime. The police and state security are going to find it extremely difficult to backtrack now, as it's unlikely that the revolutionaries would be well disposed to a collection of thugs who have made a habit of killing young, unarmed female protesters.
In the West, so far, that level of state sponsored brutality has been largely absent (although the Dutch and the Canadians have come close) and it is difficult to perceive that it would ever be tolerated. But here is the nub of the matter. Even in Iran, the authorities must ultimately have the consent of the governed. In countries where life is cheaper and passions are inflamed by religious fervor, matters can go seriously awry, particularly when the security apparatus is large and well-armed and the populace is disarmed. But if the revolution is well organised and tenacious, the people will vastly outnumber the state apparatchiks. There is, after all, a limit to just how ruthless a regime can be, although that limit may take some time to reach. In the end, having the guns is one thing – using them on civilians is quite another.
However, if the state has the guns and the people do not, it inevitably emboldens the state. Not necessarily in a toxic way; at least not to begin with and maybe never. But even regimes with good intentions may be tempted to push their luck if the downside is negligible. Most states in the western world have gone to some lengths to disarm their populations, often after a mass shooting. This sledgehammer to crack a nut approach has resulted in the disarming of overwhelmingly law abiding populations – New Zealand in 1992 and 2020, Australia in 1996 and the UK in 1997. Canada is currently in the throes of a similar confiscation.
There is still much celebration over the fact that there have been no more school shootings in the UK. What isn't mentioned is the fact that there'd only ever been the one. What these laws all have in common is the scapegoating of the law abiding. In New Zealand, it is probable that there has been widespread non-compliance with most recent laws requiring the surrender of previously legally held firearms.
There are several factors in play and the issue of state violence against the people is nuanced. When civil unrest is limited to protests and the police response involves batons, tear gas, tasers or perhaps even water cannons. Even plastic bullets are still within relatively normal bounds and law enforcement is unlikely to feel many pangs of regret.
They will also willingly deploy while armed and, as we know, are not averse to firing upon those that believe to be engaging in criminal activity. If martial law is to be imposed, it seems likely that they would enforce it regardless of whether it was done legitimately or lawfully. Witness police action during the 'pandemic'. And it's likely that further attempts to erode our freedoms will be incremental, rather than suddenly permanent.
It's a game of brinkmanship. The threat of violence, on the one hand, as against a belief (or disbelief) that violence may be used, on the other. But, eventually, there is going to come a sticking point. It may be that an incident such as a police shooting that's unjustified, not because of the usual reasons, but because it was in the service of some new law or restriction that is widely viewed as overwrought or illegitimate.
The police (and the military) will find themselves at something of a crossroads; at least, the rank and file will. They are likely the least enthusiastic about the current direction of travel. They live in the community, they have civilian friends and they have children at school. They will left in no doubt as to what people think of them if they become the enforcers of illegitimacy. The cracks were visible in Ottawa, when the truckers protested. Many of the cops were simpatico. But I think it likely that the leadership will toe the line all the way through.
There will inevitably come a time when some people refuse to go quietly. In the Netherlands, for instance, when the state tries to forcibly seize farms, which they have said they will do. Then what? Conventional wisdom holds that we must simply take our medicine and submit. Not everyone will be willing to do that. If we're honest, isn't it our duty to not submit? Not just for own sakes, but for others, too. Like our children and their children.
It was been clear for some considerable time that this can only end in one of two ways. The people can accept that they have lost the struggle for democracy or they can fight to keep it. Realistically, any plan to fight for it must involve the recruitment of the state security apparatus, either by stealth or by facing them down. Otherwise, the forces that exist to protect democracy and the rule of law will be co-opted as co-conspirators in the destruction of them.
However, openly advocating for a kinetic response would clearly be a mistake. The state always views itself as legitimate and would never allow that the opposite is, in fact, the truth and that an uprising is therefore necessary in order to restore democracy and fealty to a constitution. Regimes believe in their right to rule, first and foremost, and constitutional democracy is downstream of that belief.
They would have no use for the niceties of any debate on the subject of their legitimacy. Therefore, explicitly taking an option off the table – the one that made many democracies possible – is clearly illogical. It would be better to leave well alone. It would be better still if the one non-negotiable outcome was the commitment to resist tyranny instead and then settle on how that should be done.
The speed of escalation will also be a significant factor. If the slide into authoritarianism takes some time, it may be that the populace becomes habituated to it. On the other hand, it may be that there is more time for reflection, which is then followed by resistance. If the change is abrupt – which I think is far more likely, given the events of the past three years – the odds of conflict increase. It may be that the initial excuse, perhaps martial law due to a shooting war with Russia or because of riots due to food and energy shortages, has to be accepted initially, but as soon as it becomes apparent that, once again, the temporary is intended to be permanent, matters are likely to deteriorate rapidly.
The longer the period of attrition, the less resources will be available to the resistance. Further shortages of food and energy, a financial collapse, the imposition of a programmable digital currency linked to a personal social credit score and also dependent on a personal carbon footprint, a demand for mandatory 'vaccinations' and digital ID's – it'll be death by a thousand cuts.
Perhaps, if they adopt the wrong order (which is quite likely), they will push the Covid shots first and meet some serious resistance. At present, booster take-up is almost non-existent and the percentage of kids getting the jab is also miniscule and yet the FDA are on the verge of adding the jab to the Childhood Vaccination Schedule in the US, to join the MMR and all the others.
Once again, this is an illegal act as an unapproved drug which is still undergoing clinical trials cannot be so treated. It will also give the 'vaccine' companies permanent protection form liability for any injury caused by the EGTs. Any compensation will instead have to be obtained from a federal fund that hardly ever pays out and which has every incentive to pretend that causation cannot be proven.
At present, they have us completely boxed in. Ultimately, the only way to force people to accept something that they don't want to accept is to leave them no other choice, which is what the elites are engineering. But that's also a dangerous tactic – people with nothing to lose might chose to create an option of their own.
If they keep pushing (and they will), it's going to come down to the age old choice; do the people stand up to bullies or give in to them? If they exercise their right to choose the latter option, the majority will need to be on board with it and the police (and the military) will need to be supportive, or at the very least neutral. Then, any kinetic response to the regime will be muted. It's that or the WEF way and it's about time people realized it.
Citations
(1) https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud-print/search
(2) https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565