new

Democrats Then	Democrats Now
Burns down historic churches	Burns down historic churches
Wore masks to hide their shame	Wore masks to hide their shame
Destroyed black-owned businesses	Destroys black-owned businesses

Is It Time for Civil Disobedience Against The Covid19 Cult of Failed Advice?

This is today. It is not 1933. But the global mob rule we are witnessing is as old as the hills. As old, in fact, as the ancient Greeks who warned that the Herd Instinct, when married to Herd Ignorance, would inevitably lead to the Führerprinzip.

Plato predicted this earlier than most, but latterly George Orwell offered us a more exact description. For some forty years now, the Internationalist bourgeois Left has treated Nineteen Eighty-Four as a blueprint. Bizarrely, the globalist/blocist Corporate State builders have been doing exactly the same.

So for example, the Guardian’s Executive Editor instructed her journalists in 2016 to call Climate Change doubters deniers. This same collective noun is now being extended to Covid19 empiricists. But at the same time, unelected bureaucracies have promoted those like top UK civil servant Sir Mark Sedwill and US Global Pharma creature Dr Fauci to positions of enormous power and influence….using completely unregulated censorship at will to dub contrarian Covid19 commentators ‘Science deniers‘.

In recent years, one socio-political issue after another has been treated to the same formula of rigid ‘framing’. Those with doubts about the multicultural model of society are diversity deniers. Supporters of Brexit are Little Engander globalism deniers….and racists to boot. Those noting the spread of Islamic Jihadism and Pakistani rape gangs are Islamophobes. Critics of some elements of male homosexual lifestyles are homophobes. Attacks on the radical feminist creed are the work of sexists lasciviously obsessed with male rape.

Over time, such framing has trickled down in an even more simplistic form to the mass electorate, creating a knee jerk mode of acceptance I call ‘Estuary pc’….such that, in 2012 I employed a plumber who actually said, “In terdayzz mult-culchural-siety, that is a totelee hunacceptable dibollikal libe’ee”.

The link back to the shot of Hitler Youth at the head of the post is extremely pertinent: for acceptance is now turning into not just unquestioning obedience, but also demands that contrarians be told to shut up ‘for the Common Good’.

During the development of the official coronavirus narrative, we have all been treated to the Holier than Thou fascist who begins with “It’s people like you that…”. Who has not coughed in a queue for shopping and been greeted by glares from others? During the 2016 Brexit referendum, the day after Jo Cox’s assassination Leave supporters were treated to threats, and screams of “murderers” – Nigel Farage (not even remotely connected to the alleged assassin) was accused of being responsible for inciting the attack.

The metamorphosis of ideology into creed is rapidly creating a self-styled mob of Spanish Inquisitors – precisely the sort of bullying that led to the furious Groupthink of Krystallnacht eighty-five years ago. Whether that mob be Momentum, The London Times, Antifa, the New York Times, Channel Four, Common Purpose, Black Lives Matter or the BBC, there is an enthusiasm for – an asumption, in fact – that the Bertold Brecht Weltanschauung of The Good Lie is not only acceptable, it is essential. The naysayers must be silenced.

So much for diversity.

Such does not exactly provide rich soil for the discernment of lies and promotion of more effective (as in, less tunnel-vision) policy. 84% of Brits now see Lockdown and the wearing of masks as ‘necessary to control the virus’, even though the masks on offer are close to useless and lockdown has been shown to achieve little beyond approaching national bankruptcy.

Nor is the climate of ignorant fear a good one in which to put forward obvious contradictions between policies in use and the “science” they are supposedly led by.

And finally, the construction of informed conjecture about the real purposes of whipped-up Covid19 fears is so far beyond the closed mind, it is dismissed at Twitter – the ancestral home of bullying – with insults like “you thick c**t”.

All this darkness accepted, here and there one sees some signs that the largely silent Thinkers – estimated at around 16% of the adult population – are beginning to wonder whether this virus has rather more to do with globalist finance, multinational Pharma profits and surveillance permissions than anything remotely approaching “science”.

This therefore seems to me like a good opportunity to take one overriding element of the majority approach to Covid19 – a fairly easy one to understand – and leave both the Mob and the Establishment with a question they will surely find it impossible to fend off.

From Day 1 of the Covid19 saga, we have been watching a tug-of-war between two sets of medical interests.

The highly regarded French newspaper France Soir has been creating a Covid19 drug-trials niche for itself by raising all kinds of methodological anomalies in relation to the Recovery trials being headed up by Peter Horby. The articles are compelling because the paper’s director of publications Xavier Azalbert is that rare thing, a distinguished scientist who then switched to journalism. But although the telling findings fly over the heads of most of the population, Azalbert’s overview about who the politicians listen to in the field of virology is a fascinating one that, for me, represents a genuine insight.

Neil Ferguson (the man of multi-billion Pound mistakes) is an epidemiologist, and professor of mathematical biology. He has never been a medical practitioner in his life.

Peter Horby is an epidemiologist, and Professor of Emerging Infectious Diseases and Global Health. He has never been a medical practitioner in his life.

Anthony Fauci’s first degree was in classics. He went on to medical school later. The sum total of his clinical experience was a two-year hospital internship from 1966-68. He has never been a general practitioner in his life.

Chris Whitty, UK Chief Medical Officer, worked as a doctor and researcher in Africa and Asia and is a practising NHS consultant. He has never worked in general practice, and his total experience in the current century has been as a Professor, administrator and public sector office holder at Gresham College and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). In 2008, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded the LSHTM £31 million for malaria research in Africa. At the time, Whitty was the principal investigator for the ACT Consortium, which conducted the research programme. I probably don’t need to remind you of the lingering ethical doubts relating to that “vaccination” programme.

Ferguson, Horby and Fauci also have a long history of being funded by Big Pharma.

In short, the front line of Anglo-Saxon advice to government are all people Low in clinical experience and High in Big Pharma funding. They are model builders, theorists and fund-attracters laden with multivariate conflicts of interest, and little or no depth in the vital process of patient obervation. Their careers, needless to say, are all littered with groundless alarmism, major mistakes in counsel and the belief that vaccination is the answer to every problem….even a virus which, many practising medics contend, is highly unlikely to ever work on a mutating coronavirus – let alone within two years to include drug trials.

This is the tug-of-war team that has a monopoly on access to government. The other team – the practical, experienced medical practitioners – are variously depicted as minority nutjobs, eccentrics, headline-chasers, small-time and narrow deniers – there’s that word again – who are a constant risk to millions of human lives, and must be ignored. In fact, never mind ignored – for the good of the cause, they must be smeared, censored and refused access to the debate.

In fact, it is the Horbys and Faucis that are the tiny minority infecting genuine medical science with their corrupted ideological creeds and flakey models.

So now, here is the $64 trillion question that the Establishment war-tuggers and the hopelessly general political class they blind with science can’t avoid: why are you listening only to atypical academic twaddle-theorists with conflicts of interest who have at best been hopelessly wrong and at worst lied about Covid death stats and ruthlessly manipulated drug test trials?

This is in no way an unfair framing of the question. Ferguson’s death toll estimate was wrong, Horby’s drug trial of HCQ was fiddled, the entire process of lockdown was unaffordably broad, economically unaffordable and incompetent in the area of protecting the vulnerable, there is an inquiry going on into PHE’s massively overestimated UK death toll, and the Horby trials are being redone at yet more public cost. Dr Fauci has deliberately misled the American People about HCQ, and his conduct has been the subject of some excoriating criticisms by the practitioners’ supporter, the American Medical Association.

As I said, for the time being – until such time as the public mood changes – keep it simple. To those who are awake, the reasons why all these dubious activities – the Bigging Up of Covid19 – have been undertaken are clear. Nevertheless, park the power, money, geopolitical and Alt State hegemony madness and focus on this one question: why are you still taking the advice of the folks who’ve fucked up?

Yesterday, Chris Whitty flatly stated that “Coronavirus cases are rising in the UK because ministers pushed lockdown easing measures to their limits”. He openly rubbished Boris Johnson’s plan to get the UK back to normal by Christmas, insisting that “relaxing rules further will absolutely, inevitably lead to a resurgence of the virus.”

Whitty put his foot down: lockdown loosening measures had to be ‘stopped now’ and maybe even ‘pulled back a bit’ because they risk allowing another large-scale outbreak in the future.

This was based on a daily death toll figure of 38. Out of 76 million. In the US on the same day, the light use of lockdown produced 5 deaths. Out of 330 million. Lockdown has been at the very best a questionable policy, and a certain gdp disaster for a Britain that can ill afford one.

Whitty is not interested in even considering that his strategy (which, let’s face it, not a single government anywhere knows how to emerge from) is flawed, that the dangers are wildly overstated, and that Britain must move on or collapse. And Boris Johnson’s Cabinet shows no sign of even considering that Whitty is a Pharma tool and, economically, a dangerous fool.

Medical Marxism

If we have learned nothing else from COVID19, we finally understand the outrageous authority that “Public Health’s” quacks wield.

Though these bureaucrats now hog the limelight while destroying our country and liberty, they formerly scurried on the fringes of government. There they spewed advice (“Quit smoking: it causes cancer!” “Seat belts save lives, so buckle up!”) that we were free to reject until they could persuade legislatures to codify their opinions as law. That itch to control, to force everyone to heed them, should have warned us of “Public Health’s” threat.

Most Americans are subject to three or four “Public Health” bureaus: a “Department of Public Health” often infests cities and counties, and one curses each state as well as the Feds. The latter’s Department of Health and Human Services harbors such agencies as the CDC, the FDA, the Indian Health Service, and the Surgeon General as well as “an elite group of over 6,000 uniformed officers who are public health professionals.” Just what criminals want in a cop: temperature-guns.

At whatever level of government they lurk, each outpost of “Public Health” boasts an atomic bomb’s power: they can and will raze everything in their path, as they’ve proved since March. Collaborating with politicians, they crushed life as we knew it. They bankrupted companies and kicked employees off payrolls with the ruthless abandon of Mr. Potter; the list of institutions and businesses they thereby destroyed is too lengthy and notorious to recite here. As if such crimes weren’t enough, they ordered us to imperil ourselves with masks and “anti-social distancing.” No wonder rates of suicide and addiction have skyrocketed.

And we haven’t even mentioned their enthusiasm for the rioting that’s ravaged American streets. These authoritarians obligingly declared “racism” a “public health” crisis when BLM threw its tantrum.

Unfortunately, most victims of “public health” don’t realize its menace, either because they have only a dim idea of its evil (“They issue birth certificates, don’t they?”) or because they buy “public health’s” lie, that its “mission is to protect, promote, and advance the health of our nation.” Actually, its mission is to protect, promote and advance Marxism.

That hellish philosophy permeates “public health”: it weaves itself into not only its warp and woof but its foundation and all its biases, too. Unlike communism’s more dramatic barbarities (genocide, mass murder, torture), “public health” allows its perpetrators to feel good about themselves. They are “professionals” trying to save us germy, diseased subjects from ourselves (though only “public health doctors” have medical degrees. The rest are mere bureaucrats—and dishonest ones at that). Unlike the Cheka, these hygienic busybodies go home at night without their prey’s screams ringing in their ears. Rather, they congratulate themselves on their compassion, foresight, and superiority. C.S. Lewis damned such relentless despotism: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” Who would dispute that after the last five months?

“Public health’s” Marxism—and logical fallacies—begin with the term itself. There is no “Public,” healthy or otherwise, but only individuals. These folks may share a neighborhood, true. But from that innocent fact “Public Health” leaps to many conclusions, none of them good.

Which brings us to “Principles of the Ethical Practice of Public Health,” a brochure the “Public Health Leadership Society” published in 2002. It lists “Key Principles of the Ethical Practice of Public Health” as well as the “Values and Beliefs Underlying the Code.” The latter begins, “Humans have a right to the resources necessary for health. The Public Health Code of Ethics affirms Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states in part ‘Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family…’”

Any document that quotes from the Orwellian “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” should automatically raise our hackles. And yep, the “right to resources” is a positive one that all lovers of liberty excoriate. You have no right to “resources” of any kind, even those “necessary for health.” You do have the right to earn those resources without masks and anti-social distancing and all of COVIDiocy’s other nonsense–in short, free from “public health’s” coercion.

The second “Value and Belief” prates, “Humans are inherently social and interdependent. Humans look to each other for companionship in friendships, families, and community; and rely upon one another for safety and survival. Positive relationships among individuals and positive collaborations among institutions are signs of a healthy community.”

Not as frontal an assault as No. 1, though that word “community” is suspect…

“The rightful concern for the physical individuality of humans and one’s right to make decisions for oneself must be balanced against the fact that each person’s actions affect other people.”

Whoa! And nooooo, most emphatically. We never “balance” the fundamental and essential right “to make decisions for oneself” against anything else—and those who suggest such an atrocity are almost always totalitarians.

I’ll spare you a blow-by-blow of the ten additional “principles.” Suffice to say that each degrades personal autonomy on behalf of the collective, some more blatantly than others.

Underlying the whole of “public health” is another supremely offensive premise: that human society is an organized “structure” rather than an organic web of relationships arising spontaneously from our interactions with one another. And that edifice must be managed: after all, these are Marxists. “Managing” necessarily involves decisions. Someone must determine all issues, large or small, for our controlled “society.” Will that “society” permit smoking indoors—or at all? Will it require seat belts in cars? And, in COVIDiocy, will it compel the wearing of masks and anti-social distancing? “Public health’s” bureaucrats assume we are too bestial to settle these questions ourselves, so they do it for us. Their literature and training reek of this arrogance. I browsed a cache of “Public Health’s” texts on an empty stomach one day; I suggest that if you brave this library, you, too, delay lunch or keep a barf-bag handy.

Departments of “Public Health” first plagued cities in the nineteenth century. Their coercion and cruelty completely broke with the mores of private, voluntary medicine. They are as much creatures of government as prisons and taxation are.

For example, when Sam Serf falls ill, he solicits a doctor’s services. And he expects to pay for them. The doctor advises his patient based on Sam’s peculiar history, physical idiosyncrasies and circumstances. He addresses the problem that brought Sam to him without intruding into other areas of Sam’s life.

But “Public Health” doesn’t wait for the sick to find it. Rather, its busybodies inflict themselves on everyone within a specified area—even those who are healthy. Nor does it even pretend to understand every person as an individual. Via data, it “examines” the group as a whole and prescribes for it that way, too—regardless of whether Sam’s situation renders its commands harmful or irrelevant to him: witness the “mandates” for masks. Because our taxes pay them regardless of results, the bureaucrats blithely pry into the neighborhood’s affairs, without their guinea pigs’ knowledge or consent, for as long and as deeply as they please.

“Public Health’s” diktats (exercise more, avoid eggs, wear masks, etc.) weren’t as overwhelming a problem when Americans could ignore them. But COVIDiocy has obliterated that freedom. These bullies have imposed their values on us, declaring life and health to be the supreme goods and ordering us to sacrifice everything to them.

Now certainly, life and health are blessings everyone prizes—but more than satisfying work or family or travel or freedom? Some folks would rather die than lose their autonomy; others prize a beloved spouse or child above their own well-being; many choose to spend their health and lives on a career. Those of us who cherish liberty consider existence worthless without it. And Christians should love the Lord their God with all their minds and souls and strength—far more than they love health or even life itself. Ergo, when bureaucrats command us to stay home from worship for our health’s sake, we inexcusably bow the knee to Baal if we obey.

Speaking of Jezebel, Shrillary Clinton once warned, “We need to be as well prepared to defend ourselves against public health dangers as we should be to defend ourselves against any foreign dangers of any kind.”

Especially when the danger is “Public Health” itself.