They are the stewards
Of the whole universe
Masters by force
Commanders without laws.
[…]
They eat everything
They eat everything
They eat everything
And leave nothing.
José “Zeca” Afonso, “Os Vampiros” (1963)
Fifteen years ago, a good Uruguayan friend said to me, “Tom, we are at the end of an era, not just any historical period, but an era. I don’t know what will come next, but I’m sure that almost all the structures that regulate our world today are no longer valid.”
Although I was well into the process of radically questioning the fantasies pumped out daily in my country about the culminating timelessness of the “liberal” order erected by the United States at the end of World War II, the flat, confident tone of my friend from down under still managed to disturb me.
And it set in motion a very long series of reflections about the enormous blindness that people, even so-called “thinking” people, who live and work at the heart of the world system of economic power and cultural production, often suffer.
It has been stated on more than one occasion that the modern novel, defined among other things by its extraordinary diversity of voices, and the constant dialogue between them, was born with the publication of Cervantes’ Don Quixote.
And within this same critical framework, many have seen its protagonist’s famous shout of “I know who I am” as a statement of principles for the emergence of modern man, a being who, in contrast to his medieval predecessor, placed much greater value on his own perceptions of reality and demonstrated an increased confidence in his own ability to successfully navigate the multiple contingencies of life.
It was not so much that the role played by God in the previous age was excluded from the mental framework of man. It was rather that man appropriated a much larger parcel of the responsibilities and privileges that social pedagogies had said belonged exclusively to God or his “chosen” representatives on earth.
We can say that, in a sense, the modern man or, rather, the small educated class that adhered to the new principles of modernity, began the process that continues to this day of progressively deifying themselves while systematically ignoring and denigrating the accumulated “natural” wisdom of those who could not, or did not want to share the new vision of reality.
The first sustained dissent against this radical change of criteria from within the bourgeois class came from the romantics of central Europe, followed by thinkers such as Nietzsche, Bergson and Ortega who warned, each in his own way, about the very harmful secondary effects of the process, at first sight so laudable, of separating man from his most primary instincts and customs.
But, surprisingly for many, the vigorous resurrection of Western culture (1945-1975) after its two clear attempts at self-immolation (1914-1918 and 1939-1945) invalidated the pessimistic views of these thinkers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Or perhaps not.
As Pasolini tried to convince us in the 1960s, and even more fervently in the early 1970s before his death, in all likelihood, at the hands of the Italian deep state, we should not and cannot place our faith in cultural recovery based on the propagation of consumerism.
This, for a very simple reason: consumerism, with its absolute contempt for the past, is nothing more and nothing less than anti-culture, a force, as noted by his contemporary Debord, that devours everything, including the idea, so essential for the growth and maintenance of modernity, of the willful person disposed to challenge the orthodoxies propagated by the great centers of political and social power.
If there is a master trope in the discourse of consumerism, it is this: “You are defective and we, only we, can repair you.” Listening to this repeatedly in advertising on a day-to-day basis, works, in time, and in the effective absence of any other attractive model of the good life, like the waves that wear down the sharp edges the stones located near the tide line at the beach.
Looking at our covidophobic, or perhaps more accurately, covidophilic world of 2021, it seems clearer and clearer that the long agony of modernity is finally over. Westerners are very tired, so tired that they are not even interested in minimally investigating the very questionable logics and findings of the oracles of the new church of biosafety.
The signs of what Unamuno called “the reason of unreason” are everywhere.
Like the peasants of yesteryear with their garlic necklaces, people now devotedly wear masks that, no matter what the public health authorities and their media lackeys say and repeat, have no clear cut, scientifically proven efficacy against the transmission of the virus.
And they accept as unquestionably legitimate methods for the containment of the virus freedom-robbing lockdowns that, when studied rigorously in comparative framework, show no clear sign of having positively affected infection curves or death rates in the places where they have been employed
In effect, consumerism has done what none of the reactionary movements of the past or the many self-inflicted wounds of the Enlightenment were able to do: empty the modern being of his desire to manage life along rational lines and in the expectation of ever greater freedoms. After sixty years of being bombarded by images designed to make us constantly doubt the often miraculous self-sufficiency of our bodies and our individual powers of discernment, we have surrendered to the law of “experts” paid by, and loyal to, big business.
Returning to Cervantes, it could be said that we no longer “know who we are” and it seems that, for most people, this loss of will and prerogative is not the slight bit problematic.
Why worry? Why look at the previously essential question of how to manage both risk and our own libidinal forces, they say, when we have well-credentialed sages, working hand-in-glove with power who, like the princes of the church in days past, clearly know how so much more about our defective lives than do we ourselves.
Thomas S. Harrington is an essayist, photographer and Professor of Hispanic Studies at Trinity College in Hartford (USA). In addition to his academic work, he is a frequent commentator on politics and culture in the US press and a number of international media outlets, especially the Catalan-language press. You can find much of his public writing, photography and press interviews on his website. A selection of his academic writings can be found at Academia.edu
On 1 April, Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced another 28-day province-wide COVID “shutdown”. Some observers claim that the officials need the restrictions in order to introduce vaccination passports.
According to human rights advocate Chris Sky, local government representatives and their medical advisers also don’t want to end the string of lockdowns because it will undermine the vaccination campaign.
Sputnik: Your province is currently in “shutdown mode”, with restrictions on retail and with a stay-at-home order in place. How are the people of Ontario reacting to all that?
Chris Sky: People like me saw the shutdown coming a mile away. I was on shows like Alex Jones’ “Infowars” and others, and I literally warned about the exact state of the shutdown. I even gave people the headline they were going to use. I told everyone they are going to pretend to open then they are going to tell you they are “pulling the emergency brake” because this shutdown has been planned well in advance.
The entire “plandemic” has been planned in advance, and the goal at the moment is to close down as many businesses as possible, so they can push universal basic income through parliament, and make Canadians accept it as a good thing.
And the second part of this whole lockdown is trying to make it so Canadians can’t leave their homes until they agree to be vaccinated so then they can get enough compliance with the vaccine, which they are not getting right now – nobody wants it, even with all the coercion going on.
They want to get enough compliance with the vaccine, so they can implement the vaccine passport like we’ve seen them do in Israel, like we’ve seen them do in New York State, and like we’ve seen them try to do in Texas, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, who have blocked it. And Canadians are still in denial that vaccine passports are even a reality. It’s insane.
Sputnik: But the disease is still there, isn’t it?
Chris Sky: No one is saying there is no disease, but that doesn’t mean that you need to submit to a forced vaccination multiple times a year for the rest of your life in order for the pretense to be free to live your life and to travel. That’s medical tyranny. And the vaccine passport has been the goal since the start of this. The vaccine passport has been on the books in European law from 2018 before the pandemic.
And the European internal documents show that they planned to have the vaccine passport implemented worldwide by 2021. And what are we seeing? Just like the documents stated, it’s 2021 and we’re seeing vaccine passports being implemented.
Sputnik: Recently you were placed on Canada’s no-fly list. Why did it happen?
Chris Sky: Well, I can only speculate, but it’s seems pretty obvious – because of my activism, and because of me trying to inform Canadians of their rights and their ability to “#JustSayNo”. That’s my international hashtagging campaign to get people aware, to ask questions, and not just blindly comply with rules that are against their own best interests.
It ended up with a no-fly list, but it was a build-up of things from that – I’ve been getting charged by the police, I’ve been getting fined by the police, I had the police show up at my house at one o’clock in the morning without a warrant, and basically trying to get at me with about 40 police using 20 cruisers to block off both sides of the street around my house. And they didn’t even have a warrant to be there. So, basically they are just trying to silence me.
What they did to me – putting me on the no-fly list, was nothing short of lawless, communist-style dictatorship, political targeting of dissident. Our no-fly list explicitly states that it cannot be used against political activists or people utilising their free speech rights. And that’s exactly what they did, and it’s 100 percent illegal.
Sputnik: But formally they could have placed you on the list just because you are refusing to wear a mask, couldn’t they?
Chris Sky: It has nothing to do with the mask. If they pretend that it has to do with the mask – they are lying even further. Just like they did when they showed up at my house with 40 policemen to try to arrest me at one in the morning for not wearing a mask. I don’t wear a mask anywhere I go.
Sputnik: During the past year Ontario officials frequently used numbers of COVID cases as a pretext to shut down the province. At least in 2020, these numbers were overblown, since even suicides of persons with coronavirus were counted as COVID deaths – a practice which Toronto Public Health refused to comment on when asked by Sputnik last week. Do you think there is a chance that the authorities will impose further restrictions in Ontario beyond the current 28-day-long shutdown?
Chris Sky: Of course. What do you think they’ve done so far? Before it was about “flatten the curve”. We heard it a million times a day. And that mean don’t “overwhelm our hospitals”. Well, now the gig is up and everybody knows that there is nobody in the hospitals. So, now they lie and talk about “cases” and “new variants”. And they just make anything they want up.
If they want to raise cases – just test an extra 10 or 20 thousand people that week and – surprise, you’re going to have more cases. So, it’s all complete bull. Anybody that knows anything knows that they have no intention of relinquishing the lockdown, no intention of cancelling the emergency. The moment they cancel the emergency, they can no longer force the vaccine on people, because it only has emergency approval. So, they have absolutely zero intention of ever relinquishing this emergency until their agenda is complete.
This seems crazy, but as this rolls out, you will begin to see more and more influencers that you may want to unfollow and have nothing to do with anymore. Over the past year (and much longer for many people), people all around the world have realized that the celebrities they idolize… the doctors, nurses and “medical professionals” that they thought were honest and cared about their health… the politicians who they thought had the public’s best interest at heart… ARE LYING TO THEM!
The Canadian Government has announced they will pay ‘influencers’ to promote Covid vaccines.
We really are separating the wheat from the chaff.
(Entrepreneurs might want to consider creating a better alternative to ANY of the companies mentioned in that above article. MILLIONS of Patriots would likely support it, if they knew about it. Don’t make excuses. Make things better)
We now know more than ever how many politicians, news anchors, media outlets and on and on and on are actually corrupt.
So use this as an opportunity to become more aware of how “their” system of control works. Knowing how it works is a big part of winning!
We can’t change something if we’re not aware of it.
The mouthpieces of the scientific establishment have identified the latest global security threat: antiscience. So what does that mean, exactly? Whatever they want it to mean, of course! This week on The Corbett Report podcast, James explores the game of Science Says that the self-appointed experts are playing with the public and outlines how that game is about to get a whole lot darker.
“Like a magnetic field that pulls iron filings into alignment, a powerful cultural belief is aligning multiple sources of scientific bias in the same direction.” – policy scientist Daniel Sarewitz
Statistician Regina Nuzzo summarizes the problem:
“This is the big problem in science that no one is talking about: even an honest person is a master of self-deception. In today’s environment, our talent for jumping to conclusions makes it all too easy to find false patterns in randomness, to ignore alternative explanations for a result or to accept ‘reasonable’ outcomes without question — that is, to ceaselessly lead ourselves astray without realizing it.”
Psychologists Richard Simmons et al. find that researcher bias can have a profound influence on the outcome of a study. Such ‘researcher degrees of freedom’ include choices about which variables to include, which data to include, which comparisons to make, and which analysis methods to use. Each of these choices may be reasonable, but when added together they allow for researchers to extract statistical significance or other meaningful information out of almost any data set. Researchers making necessary choices about data collection and analysis believe that they are making the correct, or at least reasonable, choices. But their bias will influence those choices in ways that researchers may not be aware of. Further, researchers may simply be using the techniques that work – meaning they give the results the researcher wants.
The objective of scientific research is to find out what is really true, not just verify our biases. If a community of scientists has a diversity of perspectives and different biases, then the checks and balances in the scientific process including peer review will eventually counter the biases of individuals. Sometimes this is true—but often this does not happen quickly or smoothly. Not only can poor data and wrong ideas survive, but good ideas can be suppressed.
However, when biases caused by motivated reasoning and career pressures become entrenched in the institutions that support science – the professional societies, scientific journals, universities and funding agencies – then that subfield of science may be led astray for decades.
Biases caused by a consensus building process
Consensus is viewed as a proxy for truth in many discussions of science. A consensus formed by the independent and free deliberations of many is a strong indicator of truth. However, a consensus can only be trusted to the extent that individuals are free to disagree with it.
A scientific argument can evolve prematurely into a ruling theory if cultural forces are sufficiently strong and aligned in the same direction. Premature theories enforced by an explicit consensus building process harm scientific progress because of the questions that don’t get asked and the investigations that aren’t undertaken. Nuzzio (2015) refers to this as ‘hypothesis myopia.’
If the objective of scientific research is to obtain truth and avoid error, how might a consensus seeking process introduce bias into the science and increase the chances for error?
‘Confirmation bias’ is a well-known psychological principle that connotes the seeking or interpretation of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs, expectations, or an existing hypothesis. Confirmation bias usually refers to unwitting selectivity in the acquisition and interpretation of evidence.
Philosopher Thomas Kelly (2005) provides the following insight into confirmation bias. As more and more peers weigh in on a given issue, the proportion of the total evidence which consists of higher order psychological evidence of what other people believe increases, and the proportion of the total evidence which consists of first order evidence decreases. Kelly concludes that over time, this invisible hand process tends to bestow a certain competitive advantage to our prior beliefs with respect to confirmation and disconfirmation.
Allen et al. (2020) demonstrate how dependence, pressure, and polarization can force a consensus, making reliance on consensus as an indicator of truth unreliable. As a result, a consensus can only be trusted to the extent that individuals are free to disagree with it, without repression or reprisal. Similarly, when strong incentives favor affirmation of a position, a consensus affirming it becomes almost inevitable, and therefore all but meaningless.
Communication theorist Jean Goodwin argues that once the consensus claim was made, scientists involved in the ongoing IPCC process had reasons not just to consider the scientific evidence, but also to consider the possible effect of their statements on their ability to defend the consensus claim.
The IPCC’s consensus-building process arguably promotes groupthink. ‘Groupthink’ is a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values. Janis (1972) describes eight symptoms of groupthink:
illusion of invulnerability
collective rationalization
belief in inherent morality
stereotyped views of out-groups
direct pressure on dissenters
self-censorship
illusion of unanimity
self-appointed mind guards
Many defenders of the IPCC consensus − both scientists and consensus entrepreneurs − show many if not all of these symptoms.
Thomas Gold (1989) discussed the dangers that ‘herd behavior’ poses for scientists, potentially leading to an inertia-driven persistence of false consensus opinion within the sciences. While herd instinct has value in sociological behavior, it has been a disaster in science − in science what we generally want is diversity. When people pursue the same avenue all together, they tend to shut out other avenues, and they are not always on the right ones.
It is not just the herd instinct in the individuals that is of concern. If support from peers and moral and financial consequences are at stake, then staying with the herd is the successful policy for the individual; however, it is not the successful policy for the pursuit of science. Mental herd behavior, even if it does not actually put a clamp upon free thinking, insidiously applies pressure to follow the fashion. The institutions that support science − financial support, the journals, the judgment of referees, the invitations to conferences, professional recognition − are all influenced by herd behavior.
Economist William Butos (2015) characterizes the IPCC as a ‘Big Player’ in science in that it possesses all of the attributes characteristic of Big Players in markets: bigness in terms of influence, insensitivity to the usual constraints, and discretion in its ability to promote a favored direction of research. This characterization of the IPCC as ‘Big Player’ is similar to economist Richard Tol’s characterization of the IPCC as a knowledge monopoly. The IPCC’s influence in climate science is pervasive, allowing it to largely ignore the usual scientific constraints on the acceptance of hypotheses. Professional success in climate science has become more tied to the acceptance of the IPCC’s pronouncements than with the exploration of contrary possibilities.
The existence of the IPCC as a ‘big player’ and a ‘knowledge monopoly’ on climate change can lead to premature canonization of IPCC conclusions. Premature canonization refers to widespread scientific belief in a false or incomplete conclusion, which leads to suppression masquerading as rejection. Suppression occurs when the fear of social sanctions prevents ideas from being explored or empirical findings from being presented in scientific or public forums. In science, rejection occurs when an idea has been explored and the evidence has been found wanting. A classic, relatively recent case of premature canonization involves the scientific identification of causes of ulcers.
So what are the implications of these concerns for the IPCC’s consensus on human-caused climate change? Cognitive biases in the context of an institutionalized consensus building process have arguably resulted in the consensus becoming increasingly confirmed, and even canonized, in a self-reinforcing way. An extended group of scientists derive their confidence in the consensus in a second-hand manner from the institutional authority of the IPCC and the emphatic nature in which the consensus is portrayed. This ‘invisible hand’ marginalizes skeptical perspectives. Overconfident assertions by the ‘Big Player’ take away the motivation for scientists to challenge the consensus, particularly when they can expect to be called a ‘denier’ for their efforts and see their chances diminish for professional recognition and research funding.
The consensus building process acts to amplify personal biases, and marginalizes disagreement from either a majority opinion or the opinion of the loudest or most motivated person in the room. One can only speculate on the magnitude and importance of the biases introduced into climate science by the IPCC’s consensus seeking process.
Going to the grocery store in Massachusetts in 2020 guaranteed you would breathe heaps of sanitizer. A full-time employee scrubbed down shopping carts between customers. Conveyor belts at the checkout counter were blasted and wiped between every sale. Glass surfaces were sprayed as often as possible. The plastic keypads on credit machines were not only covered in plastic – why putting plastic on plastic stopped Covid was never clear – but also sprayed between uses.
Employees would carefully watch your hands to see what you touched, and as you exited the space would cover the area with cleaning spray.
It was the same at offices and schools. If a single person turned in a positive PCR test, the entire place had to be evacuated for a 48-hour fumigation. Everything had to be wiped, sprayed, and scrubbed, to get rid of the Covid that surely must be present in the bad place. The ritualistic cleaning took on a religious element, as if the temple must be purified of the devil before God could or would come back.
All of this stemmed from the belief that the germ lived on surfaces and in spaces, which in turn stemmed from a primitive intuition. You can’t see the virus so it really could be anywhere. The human imagination took over the rest.
I was in Hudson, New York, at a fancy breakfast house that had imposed random Covid protocols. It was cold outside but they wouldn’t let me sit inside, even though there were no government restrictions on doing so. I asked that masked-up twenty-something why. She said “Covid.”
“Do you really believe that there’s Covid inside that room?”
“Yes.”
Subway cars were cleaned daily. Facebook routinely shut its offices for a full scrub. Mail was left to disinfect for days before being opened. Things went crazy: playgrounds removed nets from basketball hoops for fear that they carried Covid.
During the whole pathetic episode of last year, people turned wildly against physical things. No sharing of pencils at the schools that would open. No salt and pepper shakers at tables because surely that’s where Covid lives. No more physical menus. They were replaced by QR codes. Your phone probably has Covid too but at least only you touched it.
“Touchless”’ became the new goal. All physical things became the untouchables, again reminiscent of ancient religions that considered the physical world to be a force of darkness while the spiritual/digital world points to the light. The followers of the Prophet Mani would be pleased.
The demonization of surfaces and rooms stemmed not just from active imaginations; it was also recommended and even mandated by the CDC. It offered a huge page of instructions on the need constantly to fear, scrub, and fumigate.
On April 5, however, the CDC page was replaced by a much-simplified set of instructions, which includes now this discreet note: “In most situations, the risk of infection from touching a surface is low.” Oh is that so?
The link goes to the following:
Quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) studies have been conducted to understand and characterize the relative risk of SARS-CoV-2 fomite transmission and evaluate the need for and effectiveness of prevention measures to reduce risk. Findings of these studies suggest that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection via the fomite transmission route is low, and generally less than 1 in 10,000, which means that each contact with a contaminated surface has less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of causing an infection.
Whoops.
So much for the many billions spent on cleaning products, the employees and the time, and hysteria and frenzy, the rise of touchlessness, and gloves, the dousing of the whole world. The science apparently changed. Still it will be years before people get the news and act on it. Once the myths of surface transmission of a respiratory virus are unleashed, it will be hard to go back to normal.
Fortunately the New York Times did some accurate reporting on the CDC update, quoting all kinds of experts who claim to have known this all along.
“Finally,” said Linsey Marr, an expert on airborne viruses at Virginia Tech. “We’ve known this for a long time and yet people are still focusing so much on surface cleaning.” She added, “There’s really no evidence that anyone has ever gotten Covid-19 by touching a contaminated surface.”
Still, I’m willing to bet that if right now I headed to a WalMart or some other large chain store, there will be several employees dedicated to disinfecting everything they can, and there will be customers there who demand it to be so.
How many years will it take before people can come to terms with the embarrassing and scandalous reality that much of what posed as Science last year was made up on the fly and turns out to be wholly false?
IN THE early stages of the ongoing ‘war on terror’, which started twenty years ago, a nebulous conception of the enemy, non-existent victory conditions and the consistent dishonesty of warmongering politicians such as Blair led some to wonder if the threat of the global ‘Axis of Evil’ had been exaggerated to achieve some other set of goals.
Today, in similar circumstances of unanswered questions and ambiguous realities underpinned by systematic deception, reinforced by Boris Johnson on Monday as he launched the new phase of the psychological and economic war he is waging on the British people – vaccine passports (and after that?) – this question is being asked:
Is there a pandemic? Was there ever a pandemic?
Perhaps the most important point to grasp is that a pandemic is a construct, not an object. There is nothing you can point at which is the pandemic, only various data points indicating that one exists.
The World Health Organisation changed its definition in 2008 to exclude the criterion of ‘enormous numbers of deaths and illness’. In other words, the definition of a pandemic is ultimately a matter of interpretation. There is no data that currently supports the claim there is a pandemic in Britain at this moment, and whether any data ever did is doubtful..
The scientific process has happened in reverse. Starting in January last year, the existence of a deadly new pandemic, unlike anything previously confronted, was conjectured on the basis of terrifying rumours and unreliable reports from China, not scientifically established facts.
Once the existence of an extraordinary pandemic was assumed, extraordinary measures were justified to fight it, including the rapid deployment of highly unreliable PCR protocols developed by the Gates Foundation-funded Christian Drosten, shock propaganda messaging, a massive and drastic reduction in health care provision (which has functionally destroyed the NHS in order to ‘protect’ it) and de facto euthanasia policies in care homes, based on Neil Ferguson’s Gates Foundation-funded models.
Compromised administrative procedures recorded deaths as lives lost to the pandemic, providing further evidence for its existence.
As is now well known, an overwhelming majority of pandemic casualties also suffered from other conditions and the average age of victims tracks life expectancy in every country.
If the pandemic had not been assumed to exist, and the reckless and cynical interventions against it had not taken place, how would anyone know there was one?
Data clearly demonstrates that lockdowns and related policies were never necessary or effective. Experimental therapies have been deployed which are unreliable and potentially dangerous. Vaccination may or may not prevent contagion or transmission. The fact that governments and their paid experts are unable or unwilling to incorporate these matters into their thinking testifies either to their sinister intentions or the extent to which their mental processes have been corrupted.
Either they believe that some clandestine end justifies repressive and deceptive means, or else they are insane, or mindless through conformism: there is no other explanation.
Phenomenologically, the most important evidence for the existence of the pandemic is its external signifiers, especially face masks, this mass psychological theatre.
Here again, the conjecture of the pandemic itself justified the imposition of the mandate, and nothing else: no evidence supports the thesis that masks have any positive medical effect and the more plausible scenario is their medical effect is negative. Nonetheless the Gates Foundation-funded behavioural psychologists of Sage and their equivalents in other countries argued that mandating them was necessary (‘because most people still did not feel sufficiently threatened’).
The vague objective of an incomprehensible ambition, opposed against a nightmare, discloses a more concrete aim: control.
Why the authors of this initiative want control presents a complex question. Either they just want it without even knowing why, or they want it for another reason. Perhaps they have a broader plan which demands dramatically upgraded repression.
Either way, what they seem to desire is control over the bodies of their populations. In the idea of vaccine passports, what is being implemented is a political and legal climate in which experimental genetic therapies on human populations are normalised and inescapable. Armed with vaccine passports, global governments and their corporate allies would be able to establish the foundations of a global surveillance state, with the power to monitor every social interaction.
Vaccine passports are the gateway to the most radical slavery the world has ever seen. It now seems likely that creating a psychological and social climate in which to impose them was always the aim behind the engineered pandemic. The pandemic was needed to impose the vaccinations, and the vaccinations are needed to impose the passport.
This transformation of one part of the population into the vaccinated simultaneously invents the unvaccinated, a problem which could eventually be resolved through liquidation, but meanwhile offering opportunity for politically profitable stigmatisation. The vaccinated (via vaccine passports) are granted ‘privileges’ that the unvaccinated are denied in order to compel compliance.
Like accepting being forced to wear a government mandated gimp mask, for no reason whatsoever, a person accepting vaccination implicitly accepts the terms of the new normal. At the same time, vaccination is a ritual, substantiating membership in a psychological community.
Anyone who supposes the vaccine passport could lead to discrimination fails to grasp that this is the whole purpose of this document. The entire point is to divide society, to rule it. By creating checkpoints everywhere, power flows to the authority controlling access, in this case Johnson and his faction: a criminal cartel.
Accepting vaccination does not automatically imply a happy ending. The privilege to resume the semblance of a normal life (a ’new normal’ life) is linked to vaccination status now, but the reasoning behind this privilege is contingent on the existence of the non-vaccinated. Once non-vaxxers vanish, the reason for continuing to offer privileges is also gone. At this point a new status category can be introduced, and the same selective sequence played again. In this way, it would be possible progressively to eliminate a significant percentage of the population.
So far the theatre of the pandemic has been organised as a campaign of psychological manipulation with policies conceived to ‘nudge’ compliance by alternately dangling rewards (which are usually snatched away) and making threats. This campaign has also featured systematic censorship and intimidation directed against some of the most accomplished scientists in the world.
Although these tactics make a mockery of the principle of informed consent, they are of the ‘softer’ variety. Ultimately, more aggressive tactics will be deployed. The intensifying lawlessness of the police now points in this direction.
What can be done? The government is ruling via a threadbare fraud. When that disintegrates what will remain is force, but the real command authority of Johnson and his collaborators over the monopoly of violence that defines the British state has barely been tested.
Would British police or soldiers open fire on peaceful protesters on Johnson’s, Gove’s or Starmer’s orders? The question may arise. So far, the Territorial Support Group have been used by Johnson to attack protesters, and a strategy of tension is being used to increase antagonism between the people and the police, but further escalation would be risky.
What is needed in the meantime is urgently to unwind the cycle of compliance, beginning with the mass removal of the mask, extending to the deconstruction of the narrative, and culminating in total disobedience against the tyranny now represented by this illegitimate and shameful government.
The WEF’s promotion of a Chinese ‘smart face mask’ that tracks every breath its wearer takes is further evidence that the changes to Western society over the last 12 months of Covid are intended to be permanent.
“It’s only for when you pop into Tesco’s to do your weekly shop, what‘s your problem with that, you selfish ‘right-wing’ libertarian?” That’s how the introduction of mandatory face-masks was sold to us in Britain last summer, by its virtue-signalling, “Look at me, I’m such a good citizen” supporters.
Masks would be temporary – restricted to shops – and as soon as the Covid threat had passed they would be dispensed with, like social distancing. Anyone who said these measures were designed to be permanent – and were part of the global elite’s plan to keep the plebs muzzled up forever – was dismissed as a ‘crank’ and ‘a conspiracy theorist’.
Well, nine months on, and where are we?
The UK government has issued a ‘road map’ for taking us – with the speed of a 150-year-old Galapagos Island tortoise on sleeping tablets – out of lockdown. But there’s no mention of when masks and social distancing will be dispensed with.
Could that be because there’s no intention of masks and social distancing ever being dispensed with? It certainly appears that way.
Since last July, we’ve seen the mask mandate expanded. You are now asked to wear them not just in shops, but in all indoor areas, unless exempt. Even school children have to wear them in class. That decision was supposed to be reviewed at Easter, and, guess what, the government has just extended the school mask mandate until the summer. In addition, football fans will be expected to wear masks when they’re finally allowed back into grounds this spring at ‘trial’ events.
‘Following the science’? Hardly. We shouldn’t forget that in the week that masks were first introduced last summer, deaths with Covid literally reached zero.
The BBC’s Health Correspondent Deborah Cohen asked the World Health Organisation if their change of advice on masks had been due to political lobbying, and they did not deny.
Why, if masks were so important in preventing transmission, weren’t we told to wear them last March and April? In fact, government scientists advised us not to wear them.
Now, it seems not only must we wear them, but we need to get used to them being a permanent part of daily life in the ‘New Abnormal’. In their recent paper, ‘Evaluating England’s Road Map out of Lockdown‘, published on the UK government’s website, the Imperial College Covid-19 Response team state: “Whilst the impact of Test Trace Isolate, mask wearing, hand hygiene and COVID security on ‘R‘ is difficult to quantify it will be vital to emphasise the importance of normalising and ensuring adherence to all measures even after ‘full lifting’ is achieved.” Got that? Masks need to stay even after Boris Johnson says ‘Lockdown is over‘.
It’s in this context that the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) enthusiastic promotion of the Chinese ‘smart face mask’ needs to be seen. It apparently reminds users when to wash it and checks if they’re wearing it properly. If too much carbon dioxide builds up inside, a phone alert reminds the wearer to catch a few breaths of fresh air. If the user forgets to put it on, the same phone app sends them a reminder to mask up.
This is not about public health, but all about making sure that measures introduced ostensibly to stop the spread of Covid-19 become permanent. Yes, once again the much-derided ‘crackpot conspiracy theorists’ of 2020 have been proved right.
Remember how last summer, the WEF was promoting a ‘Common Pass‘ health passport scheme, not just for international travel but for access to domestic events too? It would never happen, we were told. That’s ‘David Icke stuff’, was the condescending brush-off. Well, that too has come to pass – no pun intended.
To find out why all this is happening, all we have to do is to follow the money trail. All the way to Davos. What does the pro-permanent mask Imperial College have in common with the pro-permanent mask WEF? Answer: the pro-permanent mask Bill Gates.
Last month, Gates himself likened putting on a face mask to putting on a pair of trousers. “I just don’t think wearing a mask is such a deep inconvenience. I mean we ask people to wear pants. You know, why was this politicised?” Back in November, he made the same comparison. “We ask you to wear pants and, you know, no American says — or very few Americans say — that that’s, like, some terrible thing.”
But is masking up whenever we go out really the same as putting on a pair of trousers, to use the English term?
Of course it isn’t. Unless you’re Batman or The Lone Ranger, or another Saturday morning cinema superhero, or indeed a bank-robber, wearing a mask in public isn’t normal, and no amount of WEF-spin makes it so. But what walking about with pieces of black cloth over our mouths and noses does do, is maintain the levels of fear in the community.
If cases and deaths with Covid have plummeted to zero, but we want to make people live as if there is a permanent pandemic, to keep control over them, and to introduce ‘Covid-certification’ to restrict where they can and cannot go, how else can we keep Project Fear going without masks? It’s the only way we’d know that these were not ‘normal’ times. Which is, of course, precisely why they were introduced when deaths had dwindled to very low numbers.
Smart masks? The really smart thing is to get wise to the WEF’s dystopian agenda.
We would not need a COVID19 vaccine if there is already a safe and effective treatment. Imagine that: No lockdowns, no masks, no destruction of jobs and livelihoods. Are there treatments for Covid-19 that are safe, cheap, and effective?
The Case for Ivermectin is Part 1 of an investigative series exploring the ever increasing fight against censorship, health freedom, and the medical professionals and researchers who dare to question the official narrative.
Please SHARE, DOWNLOAD, and FOLLOW @TheSAQproject on the following platforms:
It’s April 2021 and we’re still being fed the same “stay home, save lives” line of 2020. But lockdowns are based on dodgy data and exaggerations, as well as causing more harm than they supposedly prevent.
As of today, Ontario is once again locked down. The last lockdown of two months was lifted only a month ago.
The province has endured the longest lockdowns in the country, thanks to politicians and medical officers pushing selective statistics.
The “Stay-at-Home” order (sounds so much nicer than lockdown!) requires people to imprison themselves again, except for “essential purposes” (exempt, of course, are Canadian politicians, who have repeatedly violated their own exhortations).
This latest draconian lockdown again impacts nearly every aspect of Ontarians’ ability to live their lives
It means: closed businesses; increasing poverty, loneliness, and depression; increased domestic abuse, a rise in suicides and self-harm; and utter media hysteria (actually, the media hysteria and fear mongering has not ceased since the announcement of a pandemic one year ago).
A petition to end Ontario’s lockdown of small businesses notes:
“There are over 440,000 small businesses in Ontario.
“Less than a week ago [state premier] Doug Ford told restaurants they would be allowed to operate outdoor dining even in grey zones; this caused restaurant owners to spend thousands of dollars on these spaces only to find out that this would not be the case in this current closure.
This level of carelessness and lack of foresight could be the demise of many locally owned restaurants.”
Alarmism and exaggerated ICU data
Premier Doug Ford, in his address yesterday, spoke of case rates, hospitalizations, and ICU occupancy “increasing rapidly, threatening to overwhelm the healthcare system.”
But, as I’ve written before, the whole concept of “cases rising” is meaningless: “Cases are determined by Covid-19 tests, which have proved to be unreliable and inaccurate, giving false positives and creating a false picture of reality. This faulty testing is exacerbating the media hype over ‘rising cases.’”
And according to a long-time employee at the Ottawa General hospital I corresponded with: “I work in a large hospital and I pass through the Covid-19 ICU unit every day. And it’s never been overflowing or too busy.”
Or, as a columnist for the Toronto Sun noted: “Toronto’s top doc said that data was showing younger people in ICUs. Asked about the data, she changed her tweet to say she was ‘hearing’ of younger Toronto ICU patients. Big difference between data showing and you hearing anecdotally.”
Or, as an Ontario MPP noted: “The @OntHospitalAssn keeps fear mongering about ICU capacity. But Critical Care Services Ontario ICU data for Apr 3 reveals: Toronto 375 of 496 beds taken (76%) Central: 398 of 513 (78%) Ontario: 1852 of 2418 (77%) The question to the OHA is why?”
In fact, every year in flu season, we’ve had reports of overcrowding in hospitals, hospitals bursting at seams. This never caused us to shut down our economy and lock down our citizens.
Finally, more and more journalists are asking for proof of the claims bandied about by the Fords and media.
Even Naomi Wolf, not your average “conspiracy theorist” or “right winger” (as those opposed to brutal lockdowns are often described by dinosaur media) tweeted, “How are Canadians still being told such gigantic lies? The whole ‘lockdown equals public safety’ mythology is fully deceased.”
Vested interests in vaccines?
While ordinary Canadians suffer tremendously under lockdowns, Canada’s unelected medical tyrants, the Medical Officers of Health (MOH) are doing quite well, earning $200,000 – $300,000, and more.
In addition to pushing for this latest lockdown, Ontario MOHs went the extra mile and called for “fewer businesses to be deemed essential and more operations shut down.”
Because a year-plus of lockdowns destroying small businesses’ ability to survive just wasn’t enough…
Some of these MOHs may even have financial links to the rollout of vaccines.
In his press conference yesterday, much of Premier Ford’s focus was on pushing jabs.
Ford promised, “better days are ahead of us,” followed by more calls for Ontarians to get jabbed with vaccines made faster than ever before which, technically, will not even be out of the clinical trials stage till next year at the earliest.
The AstraZeneca vaccine is being suspended by countries around the world for causing blood clotting, which could lead to death.
In spite of this, Ontario continues to push it. As of April first, Canada has bought around 24 million doses. In addition to its AstraZeneca purchases, Canada agreed to purchase at least 20 million doses of Pfizer’s hurried vaccine.
In March, the media reported that Toronto’s MOH, Eileen de Villa, is married to Dr Richard Choi, a cardiologist and lecturer at Unity Health Toronto, who lists Pfizer and AstraZeneca among his ‘Relationships with financial interests.’ Under de Villa’s leadership, “Toronto Public Health has been used as a tool to counter any ‘misinformation’ about vaccination,” and was allegedly “behind a call to ban vaccine exemptions because of religious or philosophical beliefs.”
Another article on the de Villa-Choi conflict of interest noted: “It’s not a good look when you lock down your city when you don’t have to and your husband has financial interests with AstraZeneca and Pfizer.”
In mid-March, Premier Ford said he isn’t making the decisions, the chief medical officers are. He also said it would essentially be political suicide to go against them.
“To be frank, there’s no politician in the country who’s going to disagree with their chief medical officer. They’re just not going to do it. They might as well throw a rope around their neck and jump off a bridge.”
Last December, Toronto’s Associate MOH, Dr. Barbara Yaffe, and Chief MOH, Dr. David Williams, admitted they are just reading a script, “I just say what they write down for me.” And laughed about it.
So, we have unelected medical officers running the show, essentially forcing government decisions on lockdowns and related issues. And as a Toronto lawyer opposed to lockdowns noted,“local Councils are legally powerless to stop” these unaccountable MOHs. How wonderfully democratic.
There is definitely a will and momentum to resist the brutal lockdown measures affecting all but the fat cats flouting them. With a new round of bullying by unelected medical officers, I hope the resistance to tyranny grows.
Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine (where she lived for nearly four years).
Diabolical events rolled out early last year took detailed long term planning.
Plans for the mother of all scams was hatched by US and complicit Western dark forces long before garden variety flu outbreaks were renamed covid.
Millions of unwitting Americans and others abroad were conned to believe what shows up annually requires draconian measures to protect against what for the great majority of people is a few days of illness that pass with no adverse side effects.
Readily available safe, effective, inexpensive drugs are needed at most for relief, for many people none at all.
Yet most people in the West have been brainwashed to self-inflict short and longer-term harm from hazardous covid jabs and other draconian policies on the phony pretext of self-protection not gotten.
Notably in the West, virtually all politicians lie. So do their complicit bureaucrats, public health handmaidens, and press agent media.
Renaming flu covid and draconian measures instituted were planned many months in advance, including vaccine passports for unrestricted access to public places.
In April 2018, the European Commission (EC) — the EU’s executive branch — proposed health passports in a document titled ‘Strengthened Cooperation against Vaccine Preventable Diseases.”
Months later, plans to implement the EC’s proposal “examine(d) the feasibility of developing a common vaccination card/passport” for European countries that’s “compatible with electronic immunization information systems and recognized for use across borders.”
Unmentioned in the West is that vaccines cause outbreaks of illnesses they’re supposed to protect against.
They’re hazardous to health, not the other way around.
Bioweaponized covid mass-jabbing to the rescue risks widespread harm, not protection.
What’s been going on since early last year has nothing to do with protecting and preserving health, just the opposite.
Growing numbers of covid jabbed individuals are falling ill from the virus.
Numbers of adverse events and deaths are suppressed, the tip of the iceberg alone reported.
Throughout the West alone, millions of unwitting guinea pigs were harmed, many seriously.
As long as mass-jabbing continues unchecked, numbers of harmed individuals will increase exponentially.
Unreported by major media, a September 2019 mass-jabbing summit was held in Brussels — Western nations and the complicit WHO involved, supporting the scam instead of exposing and debunking it.
Weeks before seasonal flu-renamed covid outbreaks began, a global pandemic exercise was held.
So-called Event 201 “simulated a series of dramatic, scenario-based facilitated discussions, confronting difficult, true-to-life dilemmas associated with response to a hypothetical, but scientifically plausible, pandemic.”
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, WHO, and Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security supported the diabolical scheme.
Political leaders, senior UN officials, scientific, public health, and medical experts, Pharma, other private sector figures, and NGO’s attended summit discussions.
They were titled “In Vaccines We Trust” “The Magic Of Science,” and ‘Vaccines Protecting Everyone, Everywhere” — knowing they afford no protection and risk great harm when used as directed.
Plans were laid in Europe and the US for what was unleashed at year-end 2019.
Seasonal flu-renamed covid was planned as part of the diabolical Great Reset New World Order plot.
It’s all about transforming the world community of nations into ruler-serf societies — ruling class interests owning everything, ordinary people nothing.
Events rolled out in early 2020 took months of detailed planning.
What’s going on is the most diabolical ever plot against public health, free and open societies, and fundamental freedoms too precious to lose.
A new abnormal in the West and elsewhere is eliminating what just societies hold dear.
Protecting public health and fundamental freedoms demands mass resistance against ongoing horrors no one should tolerate.
If eliminated, they’ll likely be lost for good in our lifetimes — dystopian hell replacing them, much of it already in place.
On February 13, 1960, France carried out its first nuclear test in Algeria’s southern Reggane region. According to official statistics, 17 nuclear tests were carried out in total over the next 6 years. The area remains affected, and local scientists say that radioactive contamination has caused genetic mutations and irreversibly changed the region.
There are no official statistics on the number of victims. The only figures can be found in the records kept by the French representative of the local church, which lists 42,000 victims of nuclear tests. Three years ago, the French Ministry of Defense issued a statement, putting the number at 27,000 people. The victims include French soldiers as well as local Algerians who lived in the surrounding areas. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
