"When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty." - Thomas Jefferson
Do you feel satisfied with the world as it is? Are you optimistic about the future or do you have a feeling of dread? I'll wager that it's a version of the latter and there's a reason for that; the same people that inflicted the Covid indignities are still in situ. Because they have not been dealt with and because the fundamental lies that they have peddled have not been repudiated, both stand ready to service another round of measures that will be at least as draconian as the first. That's not the only feather in their cap, either. Their talents stretch to fixing elections and ruining our standard of living, too. This is what these people are willing to do, have done and will do again if they are not actively prevented from doing so.
Elections
Figure 1
You may or may not have seen that graphic. The Trump numbers are from 2020, not 2016. It's actually a little worse because, of the 22 House seats that were allegedly toss ups, Trump and the Republicans won every one. So, without knowing anything more, there are some serious anomalies right there that are worthy of further scrutiny, you might think.
There are examples everywhere, in at least half the states in the union, including some that the Republicans still managed to win despite widespread Democrat vote fraud. I don't propose to go further down that path, evidentially, as that is not the purpose of this article. But it's safe to say that 2020 wasn't the first presidential election to suffer in this way, exclusively from the Democrat side. So much so, that's it difficult if not impossible to establish a true baseline of Democrat support. How far back would we have to go?
Any attempt to quantify the actual number of genuine Democrat votes for the 2020 election will, in the absence of full forensic audits, have to be an educated guess taking in population growth, party registration and consequential trends. Using these techniques, a figure of just over 8 million excess fraudulent votes is probable. Bear in mind that this does not include any algorithmic trickery, which may have added millions more. Nor does it include the practice of vote swapping, which was seen to occur on several occasions during live coverage. The point is that the Democrat machine cheats on a massive scale. They are willing and they are able.
But this has largely been ignored and not just by the Democrats. The Republican leadership was never interested in challenging these results, in spite of the existence of documentary evidence – in addition to the circumstantial. Which begs the question; why wouldn't a political party stick up for itself? I suspect that at least part of the answer lies in the perception that they were glad to be shot of Trump, even to the extent that losing the presidency to fraud was a lesser evil. This strategy necessarily involves willful blindness, which would not be capable of being maintained in the face of a proper investigation into the 2020 election. Thus, neither side of the aisle has pushed for one.
Some red states have seized the initiative and closed what loopholes they can, but the systemic problems have not been eliminated. It appears that the election infrastructure, even in Republican states, is usually run by left leaning bureaucrats who have not been brought to heel. Incredible though it may seem – largely because the realization happened upon us suddenly – the land of the free was the victim of a coup two years two years ago and the means that were used to effect that outcome are still largely in place.
All of which that the political elites have fixed the system so that it provides the outcomes they want. Because they have been allowed to do so, they will do it again if needed. And it will definitely be needed. What else have they inflicted on us without any comeback?
Lock-downs
The original idea comes from two sources in the US from around 2006. Two government non experts and a 14 year old school girl combined to submit a pseudo academic paper to the Bush White House.(1)
Lacking, as it did, any consideration of ethics, constitutional rights, economics or countervailing views from actual experts in viral pandemics (and relying on computer simulations), the high school paper naturally became the template for future outbreaks. Whilst it ostensibly sought to address mitigation against an influenza pandemic, it's recommendations included this gem:
“Implementation of social distancing strategies is challenging. They likely must be imposed for the duration of the local epidemic and possibly until a strain-specific vaccine is developed and distributed. If compliance with the strategy is high over this period, an epidemic within a community can be averted.”(2)
Note the phrase 'must be imposed'. Mandatory social distancing had never previously been proposed and not because the Constitutional framers couldn't have foreseen a challenge of this magnitude. Between 1776 and 1787, when the Constitution was implemented, pandemic after pandemic swept the 13 states and 30% of the population was lost. Then there was the Spanish Flu in 1918-20. And yet the US Constitution does not provide federal or state authority for the imposition of long duration lock-downs and no-one deemed it necessary to amend it to ensure that it did. At best, state governors and local authorities have the ability to issue 14-60 day executive orders. That's it.
In that light, it would seem that somebody at federal level blanched at the prospect of committing the word 'mandatory' to paper and instead put together a 90 page guide which explicitly states that isolation for sick people is voluntary (even in circumstances much more impactive than Covid 19). The maximum duration of any such isolation would be 12 weeks, but more likely 6-8.
There is no mention of widespread business closures, merely suggestions for mitigation efforts within work environments and strategies for coping with absenteeism through actual illness. No mask mandates, even though this guidance document was issued with viral pandemics in mind. Instead, it places a responsibility on authorities, stating that
“federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial officials should review laws, regulations, and policies to identify ways to help mitigate the economic impact of a severe pandemic and implementation of the pandemic mitigation measures on employers, individuals, and families, especially vulnerable populations.”(3)
However, a gentleman named Dr Donald Henderson, the driving force behind the eradication of smallpox and a man who, you would think, might be worth listening to, completely refuted even this watered down plan on the grounds of efficacy (there being no scientific data to support the hypotheses), ethics – as in quarantining healthy people with sick people, among other matters – economic and social costs:
“Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal,a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.”(4)
The federal policy was, nonetheless, adopted. And there it rested until March 2020 and Covid. Somehow, state governors implemented orders that replicated the study paper. However, instead of an order recommending voluntary compliance with measures proposed, they defaulted immediately to mandatory orders and nobody challenged them. How did that happen? And under what authority? On its face – and it really isn't as complicated as some would want you to believe –
“the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency”(5)
and that includes the right to free assembly (First Amendment) and the guarantee of due process and equal protection under the law, plus the guarantee that no state can pass any law which “abridge(s) the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” (Fourteenth Amendment). These rights have been obliterated. But nobody has paid for it. You might think that a descent into authoritarianism (there is no other way to characterize it) might attract opprobrium. You might expect political opposition from libertarians or anybody vaguely in favor of small government. You'd be wrong.
In the UK, the lock-down was equally sudden and all pervasive and government mandated. The government's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) weighed in with its considered opinion, which was that there was
“clear evidence to support additional social distancing measures be introduced as soon as possible.”(6)
Coronavirus laws were passed, which were absent any detail (due to the urgency of the pandemic, you understand), but which relied upon a 1984 law for their legitimacy, provisions to be announced in due course.(7) There is, however, clear evidence, even to a lay person, that the law relied upon does not provide the authority required to mandate nation wide lock-downs, neither domestic nor commercial.(8)
In a democracy, with a separation of judicial and executive powers, the coronavirus regulations are ultra vires, or acts that require legal authority but they have imposed without it. Not that a court in the land will find it so. And, incidentally, there is a 2004 Act relating to civil contingencies which is more suited to pandemic-like scenarios, but it has an element of parliamentary oversight that the 1984 Act lacks. But by using the older law (and provided parliament is not sitting), the government can simply leave the Covid regulations in place; which is exactly what it did.
So, there is a huge problem with the legitimacy of the UK lock-down, as there is with the US version. This is not unexpected, if you think about it. Firstly, lock-downs have never happened before, which might lead you to check whether, instead of there being long dormant laws never previously invoked, but brought to life now in the face of this once in a lifetime pandemic, maybe there were, in fact, no laws at all. Which would be correct.
This is important because without a rejection of the supposed legality and the effect of lock-downs and an equally robust take-down of those that imposed them, they will come again. Witness the stirrings that will lead to the next round of 'measures' in the People's Republic of New Zealand.
It isn't just an argument about legality, either. It's also about efficacy. Lock-downs are disproportionate and lead to medical outcomes that they are allegedly supposed to prevent. As we have seen, the economic consequences are astronomic, both in terms of jobs lost and supply chain fubars.
Asymptomatic spread
Once again, we need to venture back to TBC (Time Before Covid), the era when it was scientifically accepted that there was very little chance of any viral spread by anyone who was asymptomatic. It had never previously been acknowledged as a phenomenon. This is intuitive to non boffins, as well. If I'm not coughing and spluttering over people, I'm unlikely to be passing on whatever ails me.
Of course, that all changed when Covid came around and enough pliant doctors could be convinced that they were doing the public a favor by lying to them and taking advantage of the public's ignorance on matters scientific and their trust in 'experts'. A noble lie, in their eyes no doubt, but a lie nonetheless and a token of arrogance and we-know-best-itis. Either that, or they were corrupt, because there is no scientific basis for alleging that asymptomatic spread is anything but a rarity with Covid and plenty to show otherwise.
And how did asymptomatic persons, on the one hand, transform into asymptomatic spread, on the other? They are two different things and the existence of one does not provide any evidence as to the existence of the other. As examined elsewhere, a virus may initially have a relatively high sickness/mortality rate before it becomes less virulent and a greater proportion of the population present as asymptomatic. There is nothing in that hypothesis to suggest that asymptomatic people spread the virus (although it may be taken as a sign that the virus is losing steam if a person is genuinely infected and suffering no symptoms). In fact, there are numerous studies demonstrating that people without symptoms do not spread disease.
A meta analysis, a study of studies, published in December 2020 (and therefore analyzing studies of earlier provenance) found that, among individual households, symptomatic transmission ran at around 18%. Asymptomatic transmission, on the other hand, was pegged at 0.7%.(9)
Now, the rationale for masking, distancing and stay at home orders is the alleged significant transmission from asymptomatic people. If that isn't the case, which it clearly isn't, then that provides yet another reason why none of the restrictions that have been imposed and which continue to be imposed are legitimate. Voluntary self isolation if sick, okay. Anything else, not okay. Nonetheless, the notion persists. It has never been debunked and, because of that, it is likely to be resuscitated.
Masks/Social Distancing
“In addition to hypoxia and hypercapnia, breathing through facemask residues bacterial and germs components on the inner and outside layer of the facemask. These toxic components are repeatedly rebreathed back into the body, causing self-contamination. Breathing through facemasks also increases temperature and humidity in the space between the mouth and the mask, resulting in a release of toxic particles from the mask’s materials. Rebreathing contaminated air with high bacterial and toxic particle concentrations along with low O2 and high CO2 levels continuously challenge the body homeostasis, causing self-toxicity and immunosuppression.”(10)
Given all that, there would need to be some very compelling evidence to show that the benefits of masking up outweighed the risk, would there not? And that the benefits would be applicable in a real life situation, not just in a pristine laboratory environment. By benefits, I'm not referring to them being a visible sign of compliance, a guarantee of fealty, a reminder that we have given up our rights. I'm talking about objective facts that prove that masks work.
The message began as 'masks protect other people'. It must have been felt that such an exhortation didn't appeal sufficiently to our selfish instinct for self preservation, so it soon changed to
“Masks are primarily intended to reduce the emission of virus-laden droplets… Masks also help reduce inhalation of these droplets by the wearer.”(11)
However, before masks were good, masks were bad and with good reason. To begin with, the authorities were telling us that wearing one might make us feel better, but it didn't have any practical effect. So, what changed? A slew of studies to contradict the established science? Incontrovertible evidence that lives would be spared, if only we could be responsible citizens? No. Nothing changed, except the messaging:
“You wear your mask to protect me… I wear my mask to protect you.”(12)
Later studies demonstrated what that what should have been the working hypothesis all along (based on accrued knowledge on the efficacy of mask wearing in general); that masks make disease worse. Counties in Kansas that had mask mandates had a significantly higher case fatality rates than those without.(13)
Let's dispense with the other potential issues. Will social distancing help? No. Studies have shown that viral particles remain, floating in the air, long after the person who expressed them has left the scene of the crime. Real life examples of cruise ships etc serve to confirm this finding; very high rates of infection, despite distancing and masking.(14)
Sometimes, a step back and the introduction of a little common sense can be of benefit. Has anybody stopped and looked at the evidence? How many alleged waves of Covid have there been? Four, maybe five at the last count? Mask wearing has been de rigeur for over two years now, so it doesn't seem to be doing very much, does it? Could that possibly be because they don't work, which is what the real science has said from the beginning?
Masking has never really gone away, despite being patently useless (at best) or harmful at worst. I imagine at least part of the phenomenon has been an exercise in virtue signalling, in ensuring that the wearer is given the credit that is due to a mindless rule follower devoid of the ability to think critically. Some of it is probably due to illogical fears, for a feeling of comfort or because some people prioritize somebody else's paranoia over their own health and sanity. Ultimately, if somebody wants to wander about the place inviting ridicule, that's their choice. However, yet once more, the fact that the deleterious effects and utter uselessness of mask wearing have not been exposed makes it all the easier to reintroduce a mandate. Watch this space – it'll be the southern hemisphere first.
Vaccines
There has been a gradual admission that the 'vaccines' don't actually prevent disease, nor transmission of it. It's tempting to theorize that regimes 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? Who's going to believe that masks, distancing and lock-downs might be necessary again, if the 'vaccine' works as advertised?
So far, the state is holding the line with the continuing lie that the 'vaccines' reduce hospitalization and death, despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary. And these hospitalizations aren't necessarily for Covid. The powers-that-be will only give this pretense up if it suits them to; they aren't being forced into anything, nor have they been. They will ignore anything inconvenient and the media will do likewise.
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 authorized for emergency use only. Furthermore, 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 than the jab.
They were not designed to prevent you from getting Covid. Even if you wish to dispute this statement by using a wider definition of 'vaccine', these drugs cannot be labelled vaccines until clinical trials have been completed. Which they haven't. This is not semantics. Calling them vaccines confers on them a legitimacy that they have not earned. It also serves to disguise the truth as Stage III clinical trials were not concluded prior to authorization, no matter how hard the state obfuscates.
Don't believe me? From the FDA itself, referencing when the 'vaccines' would be given an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA):
“When the phase 3 portion of the human clinical trials reaches a predetermined point that informs how well a vaccine prevents Covid 19....”(15)
Even the FDA has had to acknowledge that Phase III trials had not been completed. This makes the drugs experimental, by definition. And that is a very important distinction. Because if they're experimental, they are bound by the Nuremberg Code. More on that in a moment.
Vaccine Effectiveness
The 'vaccines' and their effect is a huge subject in its own right, one that I have done to death on numerous occasions. For the sake of this article, I shall confine myself to the following observations. The pharmaceutical companies and regulatory authorities have conspired to kill and maim millions of citizens worldwide. The evidence for this is indisputable and, unlike the 'science is settled' mantra that the climate change apologists hide behind, those who make this claim are prepared for an open debate – that will never take place.
In my view, it is impossible to conclude that there is anything accidental about it. Regimes are reduced to inventing new syndromes (Sudden Adult Death Syndrome being one of the more egregious) when even they are sometimes obliged to acknowledge inconvenient truths, but most of the time they are allowed to ignore what anybody with family and a circle of friends already knows. The jabs kill people and it could never be any other way – they are designed to do so, as the synthetic spike protein they contain is a pathogen.
And yet, the designers of these bio-weapons, plus the regimes that cajoled and coerced, the media that censored any dissenting opinions and the entire scientific community (almost, anyway) that either marched in lock-step or kept their mouths firmly shut have faced no repercussions. They has been no reckoning. Anybody that could have said something to expose the Big Lie has ben cowed into silence or kneecapped. Most lacked the courage to state the patently obvious from the beginning. And so there will be more boosters and more mandates and more people will die, including thousands of young children.
Not that young children aren't dying already. In the US, makers of children's coffins are manufacturing them in bulk now; not something that has ever been necessary before. One company has sold 5 years worth of stock in seven months.(16) This is in addition to the sharp up-tick in adults deaths and the increasing incidence of other serious conditions such as myocarditis, which is running at at least 3.7% of all those 'vaccinated'.(17)
Informed Consent
That's before getting into any discussion about informed consent (there hasn't been any, as that would entail full disclosure 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) Emergency Use Authorization (EUAs).
The Nuremberg Code sets out what is, and what is not, acceptable in the field of medical experiments on 'human subjects' and, although rarely explicitly referenced or widely known (probably because what it states is so uncontroversial), it has formed part of the bedrock of medical ethics for the past seventy years.
The problem, for the regimes that reject any talk of the Code (and the Helsinki Declaration and other treaties and laws that followed in its wake) is that they cannot believe that their actions are in any way comparable to the actions of hated demagogues of the past. They cannot see that the same certainty in the righteousness of their cause animates all of them. They can't see that, even if they claim to be motivated by the prospect of 'saving' people rather than killing them, their methods for doing so still fall foul of the the same strictures on informed consent. This is why they view the Code as outdated or ill informed. They never stop to consider that their pathological commitment to 'care' needs to be balanced with fairness and proportionality. They don't recognize the fact that the concepts espoused in the Code are bigger than their cause, not smaller.
Within the Code's preamble, there is a recognition of the risk/reward equation, a nod to proponents of medical experimentation who believe it is necessary for the overall good of society, an undertaking that doctors are to avoid actions that cause unnecessary pain and suffering or injure patients. The Code goes on to say that that voluntary consent was non-negotiable and had to be granted without so much as a hint of coercion, fraud or bribery.
Among other stipulations, there should be no experiment (or further experiment) if there is good reason to believe that it causes death or serious injury and
“the experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.”(18)
Trials of Covid 'vaccines' in animals and Phase I trials in humans overlapped. They did not run sequentially.(19) That is a breach of the Code. And in light of that breach, there was no way to judge whether prospective results justified the human trials. We have been repeatedly told that this is a 'novel' coronavirus; what historical knowledge has guided us then, if we had no data to begin with? Further, if you, as a subject, have no way of knowing what the long term effects may be, how can an enlightened decision be made? Isn't it clear that the introduction of vaccine passports and the uses to which they will be put is overreach, a form of blackmail – take this jab so that you may retain the full rights of citizenship? Governments generally don't accept that citizens have innate rights, not ones that are granted by the state; they are not subjects.
Other Treatments
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. Therefore, everything that has happened since, including the mandates, is illegal.
Re-purposing of existing drugs has not happened to any great extent, at least not in the West. In other parts of the world, several drugs and vitamins have been used to great effect, but efforts to draw attention to the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin or even the more humble minerals, Vitamin D and Zinc, have met with much resistance and claims of insufficient clinical evidence; which is richly ironic when one examines the paucity of evidence accumulated during the 'vaccine' clinical trials.
For an EUA to be granted, there needs to be no viable alternative treatment, either as a prophylactic or as a cure. And the vaccines themselves have to be shown to be effective. Neither of these conditions have been met. It was apparent from an early stage that other treatments were available and the evidence has been steadily stacking up ever since. And, just to remind you once more, these aren't vaccines.
But in the developed world, these cheap and simple treatments were banned. It's worth digesting the significance of this. It's not enough that the 'vaccines' are injectable pathogens that kill and maim; it's also necessary to outlaw early treatments that would have stopped the original disease in its tracks. What sort of people would do that? What sort of people would kill people in that way? Answer – the ones who still rule over us because, once more, nobody has been confronted with the receipts. In turn, this will allow the lie to continue and it makes further attempts to mandate the 'vaccines' almost inevitable.
Other Fallacies
What do we know to be objectively false? Things that we have been told that were actually never true to begin with or which turned out to be false, but which were never corrected. This is a long list; in no particular order:
(a) Covid 19 is a serious, worldwide pandemic. It isn't; even without efficacious treatment, for the most part, the virus has at least a 99.8% survival rate.
(b) Covid 19 is a novel coronavirus; therefore, we have no pre-existing immunity. Wrong. Between 20-50% of people have natural immunity, due to antibodies created when they suffered from previous coronaviruses such as the common cold.
(c) Herd immunity is unachievable, or maybe it is but the cost is too high, or 70/80/90% of people need to be infected before it can be achieved. All falsehoods. If the Spanish flu only needed an infection rate of 30%, why would Covid need three times that number? Herd immunity may well have been achieved last summer and, given pre existing immunity, only 10-20% of the population needed to be infected.
(d) We had no option but to wait for 'vaccines'. A huge lie.
(e) 'Vaccines' have been tested on animals. This one is more of a half truth rather than an outright lie, but the effect is the same; you'll still believe something you shouldn't. These 'vaccines' were trialed on animals, but these trials were contemporaneous with the first human trials. They are supposed to be done before the progression to trials in humans, for obvious reasons, but they weren't.
(f) It is necessary, for public health, to prove that you are 'vaccinated'. It isn't. The 'vaccines' have only been designed to try and prevent a mild disease from becoming serious in healthy adults. 'Vaccinated' people can probably still transmit the virus. 'Vaccine' passports are an obvious Trojan Horse.
(g) Covid 19 definitely came from nature, with no human intervention. It's impossible to make that claim and no proof has been found, probably because the preponderance of evidence is that it was manufactured in the Wuhan lab, a facility that was working on gain of function research on bat coronaviruses and which claims to be the repository of Covid's nearest genetic relative.
(h) Even if it didn't come from nature, and came from the Wuhan lab itself, it was an accident. This cannot be asserted; to peddle this contention as reality is to mislead. We don't know if it was an accident or deliberate.
(i) You can believe the numbers. Not even close to true. We know that deaths were recorded with a methodology that had never been used before. We know that the figures were measuring people who died 'with Covid', not of Covid. And, even with that caveat, we know that some of these deaths were certified without any tests for Covid. And, most obvious of all, we know that it's impossible to test all the people all the time, so there are vastly more 'cases' out there than have ever been recorded, which means that the case fatality rate is even smaller than 0.2%.
All of this information has been gleaned from reputable academic studies or government sources. It is all verifiable. Almost every part of the Covid experience is a sham. We have been comprehensively lied to and the veil has still not been lifted for the vast majority of people who still believe all or some of these falsehoods.
Climate Change
I have elsewhere mentioned the Netherlands in passing, but it may be worth dwelling on the current situation in that benighted country. Holland is an agricultural powerhouse, the second biggest exporter in the world. Given its limited land mass, this requires its farmers to be extremely efficient. This involves the use of fertilizer. So far, so good.
Enter the government of Mark Rutte, yet one of the more coalition mish-mashes that despoil the continent. This means that voters are even less well served than usual. Firstly, they must deal with the truism that their own domestic parties can only ever fulfill part of their mandate in a coalition. Then they must contend with the fact that the EU has hegemony over the nation states of Europe. It is a little known fact that MEPs are effectively rubber stamps in human form; their existence provides a veneer of democracy, but they propose no legislation themselves. They are not lawmakers in a parliamentary system. They have no executive power. It's the EU bureaucracy that proposes law and enacts it.
In this instance, the EU is trumped by yet one more supranational, unelected organisation – the equally unaccountable United Nations. The European Union rules that the Dutch cabal are committed to implementing form part of UN Agenda 21; yet another malign outcome of this execrable, authoritarian power grab of a document.
There may be some uncertainty as to the use to which the government wants to put the farmer's land, but no ambivalence about the fact that they plan to seize large tracts of it. Ostensibly, the premise is that the farmers (and their animals) produce too much ammonia and cuts must be made so that we may prevent the Earth from transforming into a fiery ball. This is just the usual baloney. Farmers are independent minded and important cogs in the societal wheel. That is reason enough for the elites to go after them. Plus, of course, control of scarce food supplies translates into control of people.
It's as well to know this because it is tempting to derive comfort from the fact that the UK and the US are not in the EU. But nearly every country is in the UN and, just because these restrictions haven't landed yet, doesn't mean they won't. They will. Belgium and Germany are planning to implement similar measures targeting farmers, Britain is encouraging dairy and meat farmers to leave the market and American farmers are also being paid to leave their land fallow.(20) The alleged end game of these strictures and bribes is 'sustainable organic farming', which is to be fully implemented by 2030. The exact form of farming that has, within around three years, led to the fall of Sri Lanka.
Agenda 21 is the master document for all the green policies that claim to be about preventing global warming, but are instead designed to strip the general population of choice in most areas of life; the ability to own a house in a location you desire, to travel, to eat what you want and much else besides. So carbon copies of the Dutch policies will be required everywhere in the end.
It is emblematic of Western democracies that the entire climate change agenda has been visited upon us by stealth. At no point in the past thirty years (until Biden's campaign and excepting Germany's Green Party) have I been aware of any major political party campaigning on a platform of climate change activism and yet both the Left and the Right have enacted policies – for decades - that reflect the extremist nature of Agenda 21. There has never been a frank discussion of the global warming data, largely because any examination of the facts would immediately reveal the bankrupt nature of the activists' position. We have simply been informed that 97% of the world's scientists agree that it's all our fault. Anybody who dares to dissent is labelled a 'denier'. It's therefore easy to miss the following:
CO2 makes up around 0.03% of the earth's atmosphere. The human contribution to that figure is estimated to be perhaps 3%, although no-one actually knows for sure.
We are currently in an interglacial – in other words, we are still in an Ice Age. Ice Ages are when there is ice at the poles. The next lurch in temperature is almost certainly going to be downwards. We're overdue.
Between 1945 and 1975, when coal fired industrialization really took off, global temperature fell. The predecessors of today's perennially screechy extremists were hyperventilating about global cooling instead.
It was warmer than now in the Medieval Warming and the Roman Warming. Neither of these periods were characterized by rampant industrialization. Settlers farmed in Greenland, hence the name.
Temperature rises first, followed by atmospheric CO2, not the other way round. It is believed that the primary mechanism responsible for this effect is the release if huge quantities of CO2 from the oceans; huge quantities of carbon dioxide are sequestered in cold salt water and, as it warms, some is released into the atmosphere.
Global temperatures in the upper atmosphere have been static for at least 18 years.
There is much other evidence besides. The science has never been settled and 97% of the world's climate scientists (an important distinction) have never agreed that a man made disaster is looming. The entire edifice of the global warming ideology is fake.
Where we are heading
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. How could it be otherwise with 100 plus countries planning digital currencies and many others about to enact zero carbon policies? All at the same time?
Government itself is more about uniparty power and controlled opposition than it is about genuine representation and the politics of conviction. There is no rallying point at the moment and none on the horizon. The elites hold all the cards.
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.
We may sense what is coming – in the short term it will be back to the future with Covid, fuelled by the uncomfortable reality of repeat infections of the 'vaccinated'. There will be food shortages, skyrocketing energy bills and, in the end, social unrest but I suspect that the plan calls for lock-downs, which will make anyone out and about an immediate target for arrest.
And so
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. But that isn't what's happened.
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. It applies here also. Let's assume, for a moment, 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?
Surely, where there is evil, it should be resisted, not accommodated nor negotiated. 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, for example, 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.
It's because the dissenters are afraid, not because they don't know their facts. It's the same reason doctors are still jabbing people; 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.
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, they don't trust that their fellow citizens will stand on, so they don't either. And, inevitably, 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, the nearer the point of no return.
It is certain that, as with the protests, those with the equivalent of a Green Pass will likely remain uninvolved (until their Green Pass expires, anyway). The belief in fighting for a principle is not widely held today. This is grist to the mill for the globalists – the last thing they want is a cohesive society made up of citizens who look out for each other. They want weak and divided populations who think of themselves first and foremost- it's much easier to dominate people like that.
Regimes made the pandemic the worst thing ever, so that the majority vehemently believed it. Make them afraid and keep them afraid. Make it so that any measure you introduce can't be morally opposed. Make it so that only the most courageous will speak up and question you. Pick them off, so that others can see their fate. Then let the zealots police everyone else.
And, in the resultant panic, the majority don't mind having their fundamental rights ripped away because, well, it's necessary and we're halfway conditioned to it already. The government told us so. And, when it's happened once, it's much easier to do it again...and again. The precedent is all important.
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.
These are regimes made up of the same people who blighted 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?
The Art of Protest
Traditional avenues of resistance are closed to us. The courts will only occasionally come to our rescue and cannot be relied upon. Other entities which should be worthy of trust – such as the police, the medical profession, the media and the regulatory bodies – are active participants in the attempt to subjugate us. I suspect that the only way that they can be neutralized or converted would be if they could see that the writing was on the wall for the cabal; otherwise, they will follow the path of least resistance. If we are to reject our status as subjects and regain citizenry, we are going to have to get bold, creative and courageous. Anything less won't be enough.
As such, the only way out of it is through non-compliance and even that might not be enough'. By that I mean non-compliance from anybody 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. It means rejecting climate change policies that nobody agreed to and it means investigating fraudulent elections.
It involves calling out the cabal and revealing them for what they are. They started with Covid and exploited the 'pandemic' for all it was worth. Because they got away with those excesses, the second part of the plan was activated and we are now being gaslit as to the causes of the cost of living crisis too. When an impediment to their progress was identified (Trump), they staged a successful coup, having spent four years inveighing against the duly elected President and victimizing him with bogus investigations and impeachments. The evidence of elite culpability in these incidents is overwhelming.
The globalists have fraudulently obtained political power in the most powerful 'democracy' in the world (to supplement their existing dominance in the bureaucracy). In all Western democracies they have coerced hundreds of millions of people into taking a bio-weapon, having first suppressed any effective early treatments. They have knowingly created a cost of living crisis which will result in yet more misery and death. And what has been the penalty for all that? Nothing. Zip. Nada.
And so, inevitably, they will continue to Build Back Better because, collectively, we have done the square root of bugger all to stop them. Protest marches are all well and good, but they are generally aimed at resisting 'vaccine' mandates. They don't focus on the illegitimacy of the 'vaccines' themselves and, once Boris broke the seal and declared that we'd have to live with Covid and other countries eventually followed suit, the marches disappeared, having resolved nothing.
Participating in such a protest is, of course, of value but it will never be enough to make a difference. How can it be when the state decides where, when and how you can oppose them? Regimes would prefer that nobody protested, but they are enough of this world to realize that this outcome is fantasy. So their best case scenario is that protests occur when and where they want them to. They then mostly ignore them, persuade the media to do likewise (not a difficult task), wait the protesters out and then go ahead and do what they were going to do in the first place. This allows governments to burnish their free speech credentials at zero cost to themselves.
Given that the protests are always about issues that are downstream from the crucial fundamental premise (e.g. contentions such as 'man made climate change exists' or 'the vaccines are safe and effective'), there is no pressing need to confront matters head on. It's a waiting game and, when it becomes apparent that regimes are not going to listen, protests lose steam.
We know that regimes are on a mission to impose their will upon us, so we should also know that any orderly attempt to divert them from achieving that end will necessarily fail. The only way that any of this will be resisted is by disobeying the rules, not by following them. There is a legitimate basis for this approach.
Governments are routinely ignoring their own constitutions, breaching human rights treaties and implementing draconian policies for which they have no mandate; they are then invoking that very same constitution (and the legislation it has spawned) as a means of punishing those that oppose them. As such, they are functionally illegitimate as governments. Additionally, in the case of the United States, the regime was illegitimate from the outset and if a government is illegitimate, opposing their diktats is an obligation rather than a crime. Clearly, the regime won't see it like that, but it's nonetheless true.
There is also a sound tactical basis for active resistance. Military doctrine dictates that, wherever possible, the defense should absorb an attack and then counter-attack. In similar vein, if we are forever responding to each new depredation, we are always on the defensive – either evens or behind. This is not a recipe for success. I believe the only way to preserve our freedom is to match and raise instead.
What else do they have to do to elicit an effective response from us? Thus far, dissent has been piecemeal, too easily ignored and too polite. The regimes are organisational bullies who do what they want and pay no heed to our protests. We are not represented by political elites. They behave as if the ballot box doesn't exist, both in terms of the wishes of those that elected them and with respect to the next go-around, which raises the possibility that public mandates will be surplus to requirements at some point soon.
Bullies only respect one thing and that is active resistance, otherwise they will just keep doing what they're doing. It's always been that way. They need to be held to account and punished but our anaemic, lily livered response has simply emboldened them. And so, in short order, we are going to be left with a binary choice – resist or succumb. The Dutch farmers and the Sri Lankan people are already at that point; they are the canaries in the coal mine. Their mistake (and ours, if we don't learn from them) is that they didn't engage with the enemy until they absolutely had to. They should have been bold enough to call out the bullshit much earlier at the time that the green agenda was proposed.
Certainly, for the rest of us, any attempt to complain about the fairness or otherwise of specific Covid or climate change policies will founder. We should have more respect for both ourselves and for the truth. Covid and climate change are Trojan horses that conceal the cabal's true agenda. Likewise, the 2020 election was stolen and, because it hasn't been fixed, others will be too. These things need to be said and they need to form the foundation of our resistance. We should revel in the chorus of disapproval from the ideologues and chancers. So far we have flinched and in doing so we have played their game. Doing so is a tacit admission of our weakness. We need to play our game, call out and punish those that have wronged us and regain our freedom. We must become proactive in our defense. There really isn't much of a choice any more.
Citations
(1) Glass, R. J., Glass, L. M., Beyeler, W. E., & Min, H. J. (2006). Targeted Social Distancing Designs for Pandemic Influenza. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 12(11), 1671-1681. https://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1211.060255.
(2) Ditto
(3) www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/pdf/community_mitigation-sm.pdf
(4) Henderson D.A., et al Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza BIOSECURITY AND BIOTERRORISM: BIODEFENSE STRATEGY, PRACTICE, AND SCIENCE Volume 4, Number 4, 2006
(5) www.nypost.com/2020/10/06/courts-say-extreme-lockdowns-dont-pass-constitution-sniff-test
(6) www.gov.uk/government/publications/sage-minutes-coronavirus-covid19-response-16-march-2020
(7) www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/introduction
(8) www.ukhumanrightsblog.com/2020/04/06/lockdown-a-response-to-professor-king-robert-craig
(9) Zachary J Madewell, et al Household Transmission of Sars Cov 2. A Systematic Review & Meta Analysis 2020
(10) Baruch Vainshelboim Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110411
(11) Berenson, Alex. Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns: Part 3: Masks (pp. 2-3). Blue Deep, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
(12) (www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-30/)Berenson, Alex. Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns: Part 3: Masks (p. 4). Blue Deep, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
(13) (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7357397/) Berenson, Alex. Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns: Part 3: Masks (p. 12). Blue Deep, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
(17) https://expose-news.com/2022/06/30/survey-3-7-rate-of-myocarditis-in-vaccinated-americans/
(18) www.history.nih.gov/display/history/Nuremberg+Code
(19) www.apnews.com/article/fact-checking-9792931264
(20) https://compactmag.com/article/the-elite-war-on-farmers
Figure 1
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/