“It's far easier to fool someone than to convince them they've been fooled.” Mark Twain
Some days, today being one of them, all I can do is shake my head in wonderment at the things governments do and reflect on how it is that we have departed so far from what the state is supposed to be and, yet despite that, so many of my erstwhile fellow citizens are prepared to go along with it. In the Netherlands on November 12, 2021, the government actually thought it had the power to place limits on the number of people allowed in each home. I kid you not. Why? Where do they think they derive that power from? How are they going to enforce it? Cops knocking on your door to check who's hiding in the bathroom? They also mandated that bars, restaurants, cafes and supermarkets must close at 8 p.m. and “non essential” shops had to close at 6 p.m. Because, as we all know by now, Covid is much more deadly later in the day.
Also in the news, although almost certainly not in the news that you routinely consume, is the revelation that the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) in the US granted itself some extra powers in January 2017. I'll let the New York Times report it:
“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued new regulations this month that give it broad authority to quarantine Americans. The rules outline for the first time how the federal government can restrict interstate travel during a health crisis, and they establish in-house oversight of whether someone should be detained, without providing a clear and direct path to challenge a quarantine order in federal court....it’s imperative that whenever the next outbreak hits, emergency health measures are grounded in scientific evidence and guided by clear, fair rules to protect people from wrongful deprivation of their liberties.”(1)
Well, yes; I guess it is imperative. What seems to be of rather more import, and a concern which the Progressive types almost always skate over, is to ask where the CDC thinks it's obtained the power to issue guidelines such as these in the first place? An unelected bunch of bureaucrats, accountable to no-one, think they can tell the public and the states what is going to happen from now on, without reference to the Constitution or the three co-equal branches of government. Really? Why on earth would anybody listen to them? Unless, of course, it suits that party's own agenda. This is in addition to OHSA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) also trying to circumvent the law and the Constitution by issuing mandate guidance in the first place, when they have no right to do so.
In Austria, initially at least, the 'unvaccinated' were to be confined to their abodes, only allowed out to work and shop for essential items plus a short period of exercise. It seems that, as well as awarding themselves the power to tell you where to be, they have also assumed the mantle of personal trainers. Of course, come February, there won't be any more 'unvaccinated' if the government has its way, as 'vaccines' will become mandatory at that point. So far, the recalcitrant will be subject to fines from then on. I'm sure that'll do it. Shouldn't be any need to institute any other measures. After all, by then they may well be unemployed, confined to quarters and non-persons. Fines will work just fine. Perhaps, when they can't pay them, they will be sent away to prison, or possibly a camp. They'll see the light in the end.
Interestingly, a journalist ventured onto the streets of the capital and asked citizens how they felt about the unvaccinated being singled out (this was before the government backtracked again and locked everyone down; that damned delta variant and now Omnicron – carnage). Anyway, a sharp class divide was revealed. The high end store browsers approved, the message being that the unvaxxed deserved it for not doing what they were told. When it was put to them that both groups spread the virus, they brushed it off. They were uneasy, a little scared and content that these people should be removed from society. The yellow tabard wearing delivery men and store guards, on the other hand, have a different view of it, one more rooted in facts.(2)
This may seem shocking; it may be that the Austrians are rather more like that than others, although the support of the 'vaccinated' for the right of the 'unvaccinated' to exercise their freedom of choice (in any country) has hardly been deafening, has it? Could it be that the moneyed classes are programmed to obey their similarly well heeled governments, whereas those further down the social ladder are automatically less trustful and compliant? Could it even be that that's why they're not the moneyed classes? In any event, if the 'vaccinated' aren't banging on about the efficacy of the 'vaccine' (but instead emphasizing the lack of compliance), mandates and lock-downs are revealed to be more about control than science, which was clear from the beginning, anyway.
Across the pond, in the UK, the Health Secretary announced that booster shots would now be needed every three months. I'm sorry; they advise it, or maybe let you know that you're 'eligible' for it, rather like a prize draw. He actually made the announcement while keeping a straight face.(3)
Of course, that's with the original 'vaccine' from January 2020, the one that doesn't work any more and didn't work properly as soon as it was introduced. Why? Well, rather like the annual flu vaccine which is around 29% effective, it was drawn from the virus twelve months before it was introduced. If the flu vaccine mutates enough to make 71% of vaccines ineffective (without lock-downs) and it targets a bigger portion of the virus than merely a spike protein, can you imagine how much less effective these 'vaccines' will be? When the virus has been subjected to that sort of selection pressure and the only part of the virus that is targeted is the part that mutates the most? But, obviously, the best policy would be to give people a third dose of a 'vaccine' that has failed twice already. And remove their 'vaccinated' status if they don't take it. That may not yet be a condition where you are, but for how much longer? Do you really think that won't happen everywhere, and soon?
And, proving once more that governments are pathological liars and vast tracts of the population hopelessly gullible, how are these vaccines going to combat the new variants that there is so much fake hysteria over? How about asking another couple of logical questions? I know it's gone out of fashion, but bear with me. Why won't the new, 'highly transmissible', vaccine resistant variant take over, like delta allegedly did? And, even though the 'vaccine' is useless now, why won't it be even more useless against Omicron? But, rather like the well heeled Austrian shoppers, the majority of the population in the UK don't seem to have time for logic, being far more interested in telling the 'unvaccinated' what to do and looking down on them as truculent, disobedient souls.
In Australia, the state furthest along the road to fascism, the military have been visiting the aboriginal communities to dispense social services, probably because the actual social services are doing something else; that must be it. Nothing to do with vaccinating them without informed consent. And definitely not intimidation. Back in the US, on the same day that another judge ruled the federal vaccine mandates unconstitutional, saying:
“In other words, even if you are fully vaccinated, you still may become infected with the COVID-19 virus... when infection and hospitalizations rates are dropping, millions of people have already been infected, developing some form of natural immunity, and when people who have been fully vaccinated still become infected, mandatory vaccines as the only method of prevention make no sense”(4)
the CDC published a paper showing that there is no statistically significant difference between transmission of the 'delta' variant between the 'vaccinated' and the 'unvaccinated'.(5) This is the same CDC that continually fulminated about booster shots (and other assorted non-scientific nonsense). Am I missing something or does that not, with one tiny logical step, demolish the argument for vaccine passports? How can it not? And who is stopping to think? Who is not on compliance autopilot? But it's not just the Americans; this idiocy is everywhere. Let's pop back over to Europe, first stop Switzerland.
“Europe (is) the global epicenter of the pandemic. The continent enjoys relatively high rates of vaccination compared with countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, but has been nearly alone in facing a surge in cases in recent weeks.”(6)
That quotation comes from a story about the famously neutral burghers in the Alps and I know; astonishing, isn't it? I wonder what factors may play a part in that, other than the two contained in that sentence – high vaccination rates and a surge in cases? How is that nobody seems able (or, more likely, willing) to reach for Occam's Razor?
The Swiss, flying mostly under the radar, have a system whereby a law may be subject to a referendum, if sufficient signatures are obtained. This duly occurred when the government passed their Covid law, mandating 'vaccine' passports. The law was confirmed, by roughly 60%-40%, leading to much unwarranted cheer-leading on behalf of the 'vaccine' zealots. The bill was a combination of mandate and vast social payments, comprising billions of Swiss francs, doled out to those in need due to Covid. A few points of interest:
The law had already been passed. The referendum was to repeal it.
Payments would then end, payments which have been deemed necessary due to the government's handling of the 'pandemic'.
The referendum wording makes no mention of the 'vaccine' passport.
The government scare-mongered about a fifth wave; 'cases' have allegedly risen from 30,000 at the end of October to 116,000 at the end of November, although daily deaths have only gone from 8 to 14.(7)
The protests that begat the referendum were against the increasing 'vaccine' mandates and the creation of 'vaccine' passports. Why would a government pass a law which contains a 'vaccine' passport provision that is unconstitutional and then have a referendum, which it was forced into by a petition? A government that truly wanted to know the public mind on these issues would have made those parts of the law separate referendum questions, rather than also including the ongoing payments. So, the Swiss now have a law on the books that discriminates against their own citizens and, because they are also signed up to the same international human rights agreements as the rest of the Western world, is also contrary to their constitution. But, no matter. A constitution is only as good as the will of those who defend it and, as we shall discover elsewhere, political opposition to mandates and passports is almost non-existent.
We've already seen what the Netherlands are capable of. In truth, this shouldn't have been much of a surprise. The Rutte governments, allegedly centre right politically, have formed various coalitions to remain in power. The most recent one was with three parties of the left or centre left. The result was policies such as being pro-EU, liberalism on the legalization of drugs, the expansion of euthanasia, universal health care and internationalism; none of which are centre right policies. This is a consistent theme throughout Europe. Political definitions have shifted sharply and what are now termed centrist parties are, in fact, liberal or socialist whereas parties which espouse traditional conservative views are categorized as far right.
The Dutch political elites, rather like the British at the same time, were busy demonstrating their contempt for the populace in equally stark fashion. In 2015, the government passed a referendum bill that worked much as the Swiss one does. It wasn't long before it was put to the test. The next year over 400,000 signatories demanded a vote on the ratification of the EU agreement on Ukraine (more than double the number of signatures required). The law was voted down, 60-40. No matter; the government decided that they could interpret the reasons for this, altered some wording and then passed the law again.
In 2018 there was a further referendum on the Intelligence and Security Act, a law (already passed, remember) which granted security agencies sweeping surveillance powers. Once again, the referendum voted against the law. This time the response was to ignore the vote and repeal the Referendum Act on the grounds that it was not delivering what had been expected; presumably, that was to rubber stamp laws passed by the government in defiance of popular sentiment, rather than object to them.
It's like leaving your dog outside when you go to work; you know your dog barks constantly, you know it's going to aggravate people because you know it would aggravate you, but you do it anyway, banking on the fact that no-one will complain. That's what referendums after the fact are. It's not as if politicians couldn't utilize focus groups, polling and other measures to gauge the public view ahead of time, if they wanted to. But, they don't and, instead, hope to get away with it. And, even if they don't initially, they still can eventually. A government that behaves in that fashion isn't going to be too bothered about passing a law that sets a limit on the number of people allowed in your house.
Political opposition in Holland is limited to the PVV, a right wing Eurosceptic party which favors small government and a policy on immigration which emphasizes a degree of control, as opposed to open borders. They will need to win 51% of the vote on their own in order to serve in government as all the other political parties have refused to work with them. As will be seen, this is a common thread throughout Europe.
Italy, and the now familiar litany of lies, repeated far and wide and unchallenged by anybody in a position of power:
“The Italian government on Wednesday decided to exclude unvaccinated people from certain leisure activities in a bid to contain rising coronavirus infections and stave off financially crippling lockdowns just as the economy is starting to grow again. Starting Dec. 6, only people with proof of vaccination or of having recovered from COVID-19 can eat at indoor restaurants, and go to the movies or sporting events, excluding the ability to access such venues with just a negative test.
A new government decree also made vaccinations mandatory for law enforcement, military and all school employees, among others. Previously, vaccines were only required for health care workers and anyone who worked in eldercare homes.”(8)
And Germany, not be outdone by Austria, immediately signaled that they will be pushing for mandatory vaccinations by February,(9) as well as immediately imposing a nationwide lock-down on the 'unvaccinated'.(10)
It's a little known fact that the constitution of the German Reich remained intact from 1933 to 1945, the entire duration of Hitler's reign. There was no need to repeal it; the solution was to ignore it. The modus operandi was a familiar one; false flag operations, fear mongering about an impending Communist revolution and then a solution to an invented problem that would never have been accepted otherwise. In this case, the assumption of emergency powers had a name; the Enabling Act of 1933, renewed every four years, which granted government plenary powers, complete and absolute authority over the populace. The constitution becomes meaningless very quickly.(11)
As we can see from Portugal. In a Court of Appeal decision in November 2020, it was held that a single PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.(12) The constitution of Portugal recognizes the authority of the court. And what's happened instead? A year later and Portugal is still using the PCR test as the sole determining measure for Covid infection and any policy that is then predicated upon it. The government simply ignored the ruling. The same government that works within a long standing legal tradition, set up to administer justice for the people; they just pretended it didn't happen.
Greece is making vaccination mandatory for the over 60s, upon pain of a monthly hundred euro fine. In Finland, bars and restaurants who won't impose bans on those without Covid passports can't serve alcohol after 5pm. In Spain, UK travelers are banned unless fully vaccinated, which feels somewhat limp-wristed compared to others; such as Hungary, where employers are allowed to make 'vaccinations' and grant unpaid leave to the recalcitrant. Or Singapore, where you get to pay your own medical bills if you are 'unvaccinated' and are then hospitalised with Covid (an average of $25,000). Naturally, the hospitalised 'vaccinated' are given a free pass. In Lithuania, anybody over 12 will have to show a pass to gain access to any public indoor premises. Croatia, the same. And in democratic Ukraine, it's unpaid leave for those government employees who resist 'vaccination' mandates. And other businesses may only stay open if 100% of the staff are 'vaccinated'. Plus, public transport is now just for those foolish enough to get jabbed. Doesn't sound much different to authoritarian Russia, does it?
It isn't just individual nations that are ignoring laws and treaties. It's the European Union itself. The European Commission President gave us the benefit of her expert analysis:
“How we can encourage and potentially think about mandatory vaccination within the European Union. This needs discussion. This needs a common approach, but it is a discussion that I think has to be led.“(13)
This would necessarily involve throwing the Nuremberg Code on the bonfire of citizens rights, as well as every other treaty or protocol (including the EU's own Human Rights Act) that EU countries are signed up to. And for what, exactly? Contrast Von der Leyen's sentiment with the preamble to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.
To recap once more; international law recognizes, through a range of human rights treaties, that governments may suspend ordinary rule of law provisions in times of emergency. What it does not do is allow the suspension of what are referred to as non-derogable rights. The following is from the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
“No state party shall, even in time of emergency threatening the life of the nation, derogate from the Covenant’s guarantees of the right to life; freedom from ... medical or scientific experimentation without free consent; freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude… the right to recognition as a person before the law...”
I know we've been down this road before and I appreciate that it might be getting a little boring, but I'm only going to highlight one part of this nonsense; if it has been known since January and acknowledged since August (at the latest) that 'vaccines' don't prevent transmission, how are 'vaccine' passports justified? It is blatantly ineffectual as well as being unconstitutional, even with emergency powers. Remember all countries in the EU are signed up to the same international law requirements as the rest of the world. Interestingly,
“Officially declaring a state of emergency allows exceptional powers in exceptional circumstances, which means the mechanism is also supposed to prevent such powers from being enacted in a time of “normalcy”.(14)
One would, therefore, naturally assume that the EU countries would have declared a state of emergency under the European Court of Human Rights provisions (Article 15). After all, they are signed up to it, it's a foundational commitment and they've all utilized emergency powers, so that's what must have happened, yes? Well, six countries in Europe did; Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Estonia, Romania and Latvia. None of them are renowned as cradles of democracy and only the last three are in the EU, yet they, at least, have played by the rules. The others have preferred to operate under their own constitutions. And why would that be?
If a state of emergency is not declared, this “quarantining effect” of the special powers is lost. Instead, states can pretend that the exceptional measures they have invoked are perfectly compatible with the normal legal framework....Declaring a state of emergency under Article 15 of the ECHR and expressly acknowledging the unpalatable and temporary nature of these measures is best practice. It ensures that other states and international human rights organisations can monitor and even police how powers are being implemented.”(15)
Ah, that's why. The question is, of course, not whether a state of emergency should have been declared under ECHR; if all the countries in Europe have utilized emergency powers and this is the worst pandemic for a century, then they obviously should have honored their treaty obligations, rather than regarding them as optional. Had they done so, they would have made themselves subject to other provisions in the ECHR and, perhaps more importantly, subject to scrutiny from organisations outside their national boundaries. It is, nonetheless, worth remembering that the mere fact of ignoring a treaty doesn't invalidate it.
And, as a matter of common sense, even if one is gullible enough to ignore basic rules of virology and cast aside all previously acquired knowledge as to the efficacy of coronavirus vaccines, how could a state of emergency in any country be sustained once the 'vaccines' came on line? And it's no use countering with some argument about the crisis still being active until the mythical herd immunity is reached. It's already well known that natural immunity confers far superior protection, that between 20-50% of the population of western countries were already immune prior to the 'pandemic' and that it is extremely unlikely that an 'unvaccinated' person can be infected more than once. So, by the time winter 2020 rolled around and the 'vaccines', the panacea to cure all ills, was being distributed, what possible justification was there for continuing with emergency measures? And further, in case you've forgotten, governments didn't divest themselves of these powers during the summer months. Most retained them.
If a country signs up to a treaty and then avoids the responsibilities of said agreement, where does that leave us? How could countries claim that the 'pandemic' wasn't serious enough to warrant notification, when they were spending every waking hour (and large amounts of tax revenue) convincing us that we were in mortal danger? No. They have deliberately breached the treaty, a treaty that was supposed to protect citizens' rights. And now they are reaping the harvest in massive and widespread dissent.
The epicentre of world protests against the mandates must be Australia. On one Saturday in November, there were over 700,000 protesters on the streets, with 300,000 of them in Sydney alone. Europe is far from immune to the contagion – there have been large protests in France and Italy, in particular, for many months now and, contrary to the usual legacy media lies and misrepresentations, there is no end in sight. There are reasons for this and they go to the heart of Europe's problem with democracy.
Of the thirty seven governments, thirty four of them are coalition. Not only that but, as alluded to earlier with the Netherlands, there has been a marked shift leftwards, politically. Merkel's party in Germany is referred to as centre right. Christian Democrats, allegedly representing a middle way may demonstrate a lukewarm resistance to same sex marriage and abortion and are allegedly pro law and order and against Communism. On the other hand, this is also a party that is fully paid up to the Green agenda,phasing out nuclear power stations, reducing greenhouse gases and so on, and which favors almost unrestricted immigration, illegal and otherwise. They are pro EU, anti nationalist and pro globalization, support a social market economy, which is characterized by an artificial distribution of assets and market interference; otherwise known as socialism. Whatever they are, they are not centre right.
Then we have something called liberal conservatism, a moniker that seeks to define yet one more staging post on the political spectrum or, as it turns out, fraudulently utilities the word 'conservative'. These parties favor 'conservative policies with liberal stances', which is another way of saying liberal or socialist, both economically and socially, as conservative policies are conservative policies, not policies that can be liberal instead. The central tenet seems to be that individuals cannot be relied upon to act responsibly, so there needs to be a strong state. Okay, not liberal either, then. Once again, as so often with the Left, language is repurposed, to meanings that bear no relation to the original.
For example, in Italy Forze Italia are liberal conservatives and the other two parties that apparently make up the Far Right are the Five Star Movement and Lega Nord. The former, billed as populist and anti-establishment is collectivist, Green, in favor of 'social justice' and a 'sustainable' market economy – all leftist policies. The latter are opportunists; while they are anti illegal immigration (astonishingly) and Eurosceptic, they were previously in coalition with Five Star and supported the election of Mario Draghi, an arch EU apparatchik. They have also been in coalition with the Democrats. All the other parties in Italy are liberals or leftists.
It cannot be that parties that support the expansion of the welfare state, intervention in markets and the continuation of the EU's hegemony are centre right conservatives. Those are socialist policies. Genuine right wing parties would be pro small government, low taxes, market capitalism, home ownership, free speech, law and order, family, Church, secure borders and regulated immigration. They would oppose the EU as a supranational, undemocratic institution and they would probably be pro nationalist, which tends to go along with a desire for secure borders. However, according to Big Media and the liberal establishment, these policies make a party fascist, not just conservative.
These ideas are found in the type of policies promulgated by the likes of the National Rally in France (formerly the National Front), the AfD in Germany and Orban's Fidesz Party in Hungary. What little you may have heard of these parties will have been exclusively negative. In addition the much maligned Polish Law & Justice Coalition, allegedly another refuge for neo-Nazis, are actually turning into the Greens, reducing coal production and stopping the construction of power plants. In yet one more example of deliberate mis-labelling, they are opposed by the Civil Platform, another allegedly centre right coalition, which was previously led by Donald Tusk; the same globalist who went on to be President of the European Council, who was last seen trying to shaft the UK Conservative Party over Brexit.
But, I hear you say, the National Rally are racists – everybody knows that. Well, everybody's been told that, yes, but bear in mind that those doing the telling are the same people that are selling us the narrative on the pandemic; if they're lying through their teeth about one topic, it seems sensible to check their version of another. And, lo and behold, what do we find? The National Rally has a zero tolerance policy on law and order and is in favor of a reduction in immigration (not a ban) – they also state that they are anti-globalist but, as always, that's a position that should be earned by virtue of policies, not proclamation. Economically, they are centre left and not in favor of leaving the EU, but rather 'reforming from within', a well worn phrase that excuses inaction and means next to nothing. Overall, they don't have a conservative platform; they are right of centre socially and left of centre economically. What they are emphatically not is Far Right.
The AfD have probably got the worst press of all. They, at least, are opposed to the EU and want to protect sovereignty and some semblance of a Western European identity. They oppose globalization and don't believe in multiculturalism, a view shared by Comrade Merkel of all people.(16) They are not a fan of the Islamisation of Germany and are pro traditions and cultural homogeneity. They prefer civil unions to same sex marriage, are against the climate change alarmists, pro Nato and pro USA and are becoming more Eurosceptic. This programme is at least conservative but, once again, it is not what used to be categorized as Far Right.
Anybody that thinks that opposition to unrestricted immigration and a desire to retain a cultural identity is fascist has fallen for Leftist propaganda hook, line and sinker. The Left, by redefining political labels and moving what they regard as politically acceptable philosophies leftwards, have managed to strand mainstream political conservatism on the far right of the political spectrum. In reality, Christian Democrats are centrist, liberals and liberal conservatives are centre left, not centre right and almost all of the rest occupy the same territories. Those on the right are ostracized, kept from political power because other parties refuse to work with them, even when they are the party with the most votes. On the rare occasions when they allegedly form a government, all is not what it seems.
In Austria, the 'conservative' Austrian Peoples Party formed a coalition with the Greens (worth 51.36% of the total vote), rather than ally with another right wing party, the FPO. The FPO opposes same sex marriage (preferring civil unions), is all for destroying nuclear weapons, wants to reduce taxes, retain cash rather than go all in on a digital currency and guarantee a minimum income. Once again, a mish-mash of conservative and socialist policies, but fascist enough to have left them the victim of an agreement between the other parties which states that no-one will work with them.
In the Netherlands, France and Germany, right wing parties would need to get 51% of the vote on their own in order to govern but, as we have seen, virtually every European country is governed by a coalition. (Interestingly, Hungary isn't). But the reason for all these coalitions is, almost overwhelmingly, Proportional Representation (PR). In contrast to the US and the UK, who operate a first past the post system, Europe is dominated by various versions of PR. The weakness with the UK system is that, in theory, one party can win every seat by 100 votes to 99 and the unfortunate party with 99 votes gets no representation at all.
However, a strength of the system is that it encourages 'big tent' parties, rather than a hotch-potch of small, often single issue parties. In Europe, it is quite possible to get less than 20% of the vote (which can equate to 12-15% of the actual electorate) and yet be the senior partner in a coalition government. The more parties, the more the vote is split and it's not unusual for ten to fifteen parties to contest national elections, for five or more to form a government and for a very minor party to play king-maker, holding the balance of power. The PR system can lead to some unlikely alliances and prolonged hiatus'. The Netherlands and Belgium, in particular, have real problems forming governments, a circumstance that is exacerbated by the boycott of any party that is vaguely right of centre.
And so, the centre left and the left circumvent democracy. They band three to five parties together and form a government, sometimes even a minority one, with parties which gather perhaps 5% of the total vote, while a right wing party with 20% stays in opposition.
Governments in Europe are all doing the same thing. As noted, the vast majority of them are left or centre left politically and coalitions of parties of similar ilk, with the exception of Fidesz in Hungary, which forms a majority right wing government. Other right wing parties throughout Europe are barred, either officially or unofficially, from participating in government, which leaves a bunch of interventionist, authoritarian meddlers in power; the ones who know what's best for you, regardless. And the few parties that might oppose them politically are on the margins of power. There is, therefore, no downside to ignoring the protests.
And constitutions, international treaties and the rule of law? That kind of rule following hasn't happened, isn't happening and won't happen. And we don't have to go very far into the past to see how ineffective these safeguards are if a government is hellbent on ignoring them. What is the permanent usurpation of emergency powers but another Enabling Act in a different guise? The ability for the state to do pretty much what it wants with impunity? You may quibble with the characterization of 'permanent', but how else are we to interpret mandates that stretch into the future? How are boosters going to be enforced (as they will be, as they are being) without the exercise of emergency powers?
They've lied to us comprehensively and they are still doing it. They've prevented early treatments, foisted 'vaccines' that aren't vaccines upon us and are now making explicit what they dismissed as conspiracy theories mere months ago. As for the 'vaccinated'; did they still expect to be wearing masks? Did they think that they could still transmit disease? Did they think the 'vaccine' would make them more susceptible (which is does, if only by virtue of the fact that they can contract Covid multiple times)? Did they think that they'd be flooding the hospitals, that excess deaths would be up all over the Western world? And that's just their short term fate. Who knows what it looks like long term, except that with a known pathogen waiting to be activated by any number of colds, as well as pregnancy in all probability, they are a time bomb. That's what they get for doing as they're told, without checking for themselves.
And is there any sense that is an oppositional party system any more? That there is any political entity that is looking after the rights of citizens? A multi party system can still become authoritarian if they are all reading from the same hymn sheet and, in any event, who is it we hear from the most? Elected officials, or the like of Fauci and co telling us what to do. Unelected officials with no authority to mandate anything.
It seems that there are three possible escape routes from tyranny. One has always been possible and is showing signs of activation; the possibility that the elites/regime will overstep, move too quickly and alert the slumbering majority to what they are doing or, more likely, depart too far from what is logically sustainable and lose the support of influential professionals who start causing ructions. If that process doesn't achieve sufficient momentum, there is a possibility that those charged with physically enforcing the orthodoxy, doctors, police and the military, may defect. There is some evidence of this already occurring; vaccine mandates on these professionals may well accelerate that process. Lastly, in conjunction with non-compliance, there will eventually be active resistance.
The latter will be the last resort but, before the controlled opposition starts mouthing the usual platitudes, let us once again return to basics. We may all be able to agree with the proposition that violence is rarely (not never) the preferred option. However, we may wish to mull over one further proposition before performing the usual, instinctive knee jerk; is active resistance always a no-no, or are there some circumstances when it is not only justified, but the only viable response? When it is the lesser of two evils. Like when a government is tyrannical, when it is enslaving its people, allowing them no representation in the direction of their own futures, all while demanding fealty? Does that sound familiar to anyone of an American persuasion? Because revolutions, those overwhelmingly viewed are being just causes, have been fought over the exact same principles. And the only other alternative might be to submit to tyranny, which isn't an alternative at all.
Citations
(1) https://archive.md/EOX9V#selection-479.254-479.466
(2) https://unherd.com/thepost/inside-austrias-lockdown-for-the-unvaccinated/
(3)
(5) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.12.21265796v1
(6) https://www.voanews.com/a/cases-soar-but-swiss-reject-lockdown-as-covid-law-vote-looms/6328774.html
(7) https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/62-swiss-voters-chose-keep-covid-vaccine-passports
(9) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/germany-imposes-nationwide-lockdown-unvaxxed/
(10) https://www.politico.eu/article/scholz-wants-mandatory-vaccination-for-germans-by-february/
(11) http://constitutionnet.org/country/constitutional-history-germany
(12) http://cognitive-liberty.online/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-test-as-unreliable/
(16) BBC News. 17 October 2010.