The Myth of Government Incompetence: Part 1 – Imperialism

Introduction

Many supporters of the current powers-that-be often talk about the idea of ‘government incompetence’ when it comes to certain policies. This first part of the article will discuss the idea of imperialist war as an incompetent mistake rather than a criminal act.

Imperialism as an Incompetent Mistake: The Case Of Vietnam

Whenever there is an imperialist conflict, such as in Vietnam or Iraq, liberal pundits write the government actions off as a ‘mistake’. This most often tends to happen after it has become obvious to the general public that the war effort was based on lies. The benevolence of the powers-that-be needs salvaging from the radical critique that their actions were based upon malice, and so the ‘incompetence’ narrative comes into play.

This article will focus on the Vietnam war as an example of this strategy. This war was waged in order to preferably keep the puppet state elites in power in South Vietnam so that the country could be exploited for natural resources, to destroy the capacity to build an independent, anti-colonial socialist government, and to deter other countries from taking an anti-imperialist path.

However, this conflict has been framed by many as a mistake, an unwinnable quagmire that the US leaders plunged into despite the fact that they knew they could not win. They were simply blinded by ideology or sunk cost fallacy.

One book that discusses government incompetence as a topic is The March of Folly by Barbara Tuchman. The definition of ‘folly’ in the book is as follows:

The pursuit of policy contrary to the self-interest of the constituency of the state involved. Self interest is whatever conduces to the to the welfare or the advantage of the body being governed, folly is a policy that in these terms is counter-productive.

The March of Folly, p. 5

Furthermore, the book states that to be perceived as folly the policy must have been pointed out as bad for the state or constituency’s self interest at the time by actors that were there and not just viewed as bad in hindsight.

The book discusses four examples, but this article is only going to address the Vietnam war.

The book discusses the doubts behind the scenes that the Americans could ‘win’ in Vietnam due to the unviability of the South Vietnamese puppet state. Instead, the book argues, they wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives on trying to prop up this puppet state.

Tuchman states that the reasons that American policy makers continued to pursue this policy despite the costs are as follows:

American policy makers took it for granted that on a given aim , especially in Asia, American will could be made to prevail. […] Enemy motivation was a missing element in American calculations[.] […] [R]efusal to credit the evidence and, more fundamentally, refusal to grant stature and fixed purpose to a “fourth rate” Asiatic country were determining factors[.] […] Underestimation was matched by overestimation of South Vietnam, […] Western verbiage equated any non-Communist group with the “free” nations, fostering the delusion that its people were prepared to fight for their “freedom”…

The March of Folly pp. 375-6.

The Reality of Vietnam: Calculated Mass Destruction

We can now return to the question of how we are classifying ‘irrational’ behaviour. The truth is that whether behaviour is rational or irrational is defined by the goal of that behaviour. As outlined above, there were several goals of the Vietnam war. While the goal of propping up the South Vietnamese puppet state failed, the goal of the destruction of Vietnam to prevent the building of an alternative society clearly succeeded to a significant extent.

If we assume malice on the part of the government, the behaviour in Vietnam – of launching constant bombing campaigns, using chemical weapons, and assassination programs such as Phoenix make perfect sense as a measure to attempt to destroy a society.

A few examples.

The defoliation campaign was a devastating crusade against the Vietnamese people. This was achieved through the use of the chemical weapon Agent Orange.

According to Monthly Review:

During the ten years (1961-1971) of aerial chemical warfare in Vietnam, US warplanes sprayed more than 20 million gallons of herbicide defoliants in an operation code-named Ranch Hand.

This had a horrific effect on the environment in Vietnam and thus also upon the population of the country. It destroyed forests and farming land, and ensured the chemical got into the food chain, meaning mass exposure to the toxin. The chemical itself produces birth defects and disabilities and has been demonstrated to do so among both the citizens of Vietnam and US fighters in the imperialist conflict.

The CIA also ran a program in Vietnam called Phoenix.

Phoenix was a systemic attempt to find and kill Vietnamese fighting against the US and its designs. It did this through terror, torture, intelligence-gathering and the relocation (and murder) of the insurgency’s civilian supporters.

This involved the murder of people who supported the National Liberation Front in South Vietnam (known as the ‘Vietcong’ by the Americans). This is still euphemistically termed ‘counterinsurgency’ by supporters of the establishment.

The policy murdered a large number of people in South Vietnam:

By 1971, a US House Operations Subcommittee investigation heard the CIA’s William Colby acknowledge that in three years from 1968, Phoenix killed 20,587 Vietnamese civilians — though the New York Times independently estimated the figure at more like 60,000.

The destabilisation of neighbouring countries also negatively affected Vietnam. Massive bombing campaigns in Cambodia by Richard Nixon helped to lead to the rise of the Khmer Rouge. The Vietnamese government militarily intervened in Cambodia in 1978 and removed Pol Pot from power. The US government started funding Pol Pot after the Vietnamese removed his government from power.

[T]he US had been secretly funding Pol Pot in exile since January 1980. The extent of this support – $85m from 1980 to 1986 – was revealed in correspondence to a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. On the Thai border with Cambodia, the CIA and other intelligence agencies set up the Kampuchea Emergency Group, which ensured that humanitarian aid went to Khmer Rouge enclaves in the refugee camps and across the border.

The effects of all of this destruction on the Vietnamese society was to destroy traditional structures, to kill and maim many Vietnamese fighters and citizens, to force the Vietnamese to use their resources for war rather than peaceful construction, and to devastate much of the environment and farming land. This was not an ‘incompetent mistake’ or a ‘quagmire’ but a policy of mass murder.

Conclusion

The concept of government incompetence is not a valid explanation of major policy decisions such as the war in Vietnam. The idea of government incompetence is a shield used by people who defend the powers-that-be in order to cover up their mass murder.

The Sacraments of the Covid Cult and Their Connection to Transhumanism

Introduction

One of the main aims of the Covid Narrative is to normalise a transhumanist agenda. This is evident from several aspects of the official Covid narrative, including the mRNA nature of the Covid jabs and the promotion of ‘biosensors’ (as discussed in my previous 2 part series on The Covid Narrative destroying our links to the natural world). This article will focus more specifically on the cult sacraments as practised by ordinary adherents and how they feed into the transhumanist logic being relentlessly pushed by individuals such as Klaus Schwab.

The Target of Worship: ‘The Science’

Every cult needs an object of worship in order to function, and the Covid Cult is no exception. In this case, the object of worship is known as ‘The Science’.

While cults can have a belief in a deity, the object of worship is generally a leader who is said to represent that deity, or a noble sounding construct that is channeled through a leader. In the Covid Cult, the object of veneration is the concept of ‘The Science’ itself, rather than specific leaders that represent the concept of ‘The Science’ through their utterings. As Covid is a political cult, the elites want to keep individual actors within the system disposable and so cannot encourage them as objects of veneration in themselves (for example, Matt Hancock was removed from the British Health Secretary position as soon as he became too unpopular, and some American observers think Anthony Fauci is being prepared for ‘sacrifice’ in a similar way).

‘The Science’ is a very convenient object of worship for those who desire to push transhumanist ideologies. As an object of cult worship, it cannot be questioned. Any scientific evidence – even peer reviewed studies – that go against ‘The Science’ are dismissed, as it is not the point of ‘The Science’ to be questioned, but to be obeyed.

Transhumanists can use this unquestioning view of ‘science’. Transhumanism itself is an anti-biology cult that embraces science as the solution to human problems and the path to ‘utopia’: the complete destruction of the human in favour of the transhuman. This means that, while worshipping ‘The Science’ in the context of Covid, adherents are being psychologically prepared to accept scientific advances that the would not have done before – ones that bolster a transhumanist agenda.

The Cult Symbology: The Mask

The mask plays a vital role in the entire Covid Narrative. From the point of view of the government imposing the mask on its citizens, it serves the purpose of reinforcing the narrative: invoking the image of a disease ward where everyone is at risk.

The mask also serves an important psychological function for those who wear it. It serves as a clear visual symbol distinguishing cult believers from non-believers and makes cult believers clearly identifiable to each other. It allows believers to signal their belief publically and easily.

It also serves important functions in the normalisation of transhumanism. Firstly, the presence of masks across human faces has the effect of reducing their humanity. I have talked about how covering the mouth of an individual indicates silence or submission, and inculcating these is certainly one aim of masking. However, they also serve to make us look less human by covering our faces and removing from view the natural range of human expression. This by extension helps to normalise sleek AI robots and other aspects of the transhumanist agenda, who are beyond aspects of human expression.

The mask also helps to inclucate and normalise the fear of nature and biology – a key precursor for the success of transhumanist ideology. Masks send the message that all other human beings are diseased and need to be avoided, in case they cause the other person to get sick. It normalises the idea that our biology cannot be trusted and that our immune system is not sufficient to protect us from disease, lumped in with a large amount of death denial: ‘if I wear my mask I’ll be safe from death’. All this lays the groundwork for the new ‘improved’ human being of the transhumanist project.

The Baptism: The Injection

The sign of full commitment to the Covid Cult is the reciept of the Covid 19 vaccine: the holy baptism of the injection.

Recievers of the Covid injections are able to signal their virtue and belief in the cult through receiving the injection. They also serve an out group function, allowing the believer to demonise non recipients as the evil Unvaccinated who are the reason that we have not ascended to Covid Zero Utopia.

The injections serve some of the same purposes as the mask in terms of normalising the transhumanist agenda. Again, the human body is not considered to be sufficient, but defective, and it needs to be ‘improved’ by mRNA injections, which involve genetic engineering. This genetic engineering is promoted by certain scientists as an inherently positive thing, and once normalised, will allow for more genetic engineering and AI integration.

Conclusion

The Covid Cult sacraments, while also being designed to promote authoritarian control, help to normalise transhumanism in themselves.

The ‘Case’ Against Julian Assange is Still a Fraud

In the midst of all the insanity we are seeing with the Covid narrative, it is easy to neglect other aspects of the current authoritarian push. The persecution of Julian Assange is continuing with the US appeal to have him extradited having taken place on the 27th and 28th October at the Royal Courts of Justice.

Security State Terror

The official narrative of the incidents that happened on 9/11 was used to usher in a full scale American security state and to ramp up the military industrial complex. A new rationale was needed for military spending after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that same collapse also gave America a free hand acting in the world as there was no major power to support anti-imperialist governments in the South. Enter the 9/11 narrative of Islamic terrorists – which justified military campaigns for profit in the name of ‘preventing terrorism’.

This led to the destruction of large parts of the Middle East and the murder of millions of people along with millions more displaced. This destruction is still going on with the US and Israel expanding warfare into Syria.

The persecution of Julian Assange is a crucial part of the continuation of this imperialist project, which is still ongoing despite the alleged ‘withdrawal’ from Afghanistan. The conflicts – including the Israeli targeting of Syria and the continuing starvation of people in Yemen – have continued despite the new narrative being pushed on the world – that we are ‘in the middle of a deadly pandemic’.

The persecution of Assange is also essential to prevent any journalists in the future coming forward. Any actual journalist could expose the Covid narrative or any other future official narrative that may emerge as we head further into biosecurity state transhumanism – a parallel of the 9/11 security state except now the elites have declared war on our biology itself.

The ‘Case’ for Extradition

Due to the ruling made by District Judge Vanessa Baraitser in January 2021, which stated that Julian Assange could not be extradited to the US because of his poor health, the US ‘case’ consisted of arguing that Assange is a malingerer and that he won’t be treated badly in the US.

The idea that a torture victim that looked severely ill in court (via videolink) is a malingerer is self evidently absurd, and this is just another in a long list of lies stated by the prosecution (including using a convicted pedophile to commit perjury).

More importantly, it seems (as I suspected in January, though perhaps did not articulate in the best way) that the original ruling was a ploy. A ploy forced by opposition to Assange’s extradition, perhaps, but a ploy nevertheless. It set up the appeal to be about the issue of mistreatment in the US. The US can always deny that it will torture Julian Assange, giving the British authorities an excuse to take them at their word and send him over there to die.

There has been no verdict in this case yet and I would guess that there will not be until after Christmas. Meanwhile Assange continues to endure hellish torture in Belmarsh. We must not forget that it doesn’t matter to the establishment where he suffers and dies, just so long as he does.

Zombie Russians Part 2: Steele Beats a Dead Steed

Many people have observed that every other narrative in the world just got dropped as soon as Covid came along. ISIS terrorists and Russian spies magically disappeared the moment the deadliest pandemic in a century narrative became the most convienent one.

However, this doesn’t seem to stop the occassional half hearted flaying of a dead narrative. As I pointed out in my previous piece, Zombie Russians, our old friends Petrov and Boshirov were (briefly) brought out of retirement when the government needed a distraction from the US attempt to have anti-lockdown Belarussian president Alexander Lukashenko murdered.

Christopher Steele, the infamous author of the ‘Trump pee tape’ dossier, is back and being given uncritical coverage by Sky News. A 13 minute video put out by the news corporation asks Steele to defend his dossier and how he feels about the current situation with Russia. I couldn’t think of someone less qualified to talk about Russia than this muppet, but whatever.

If you’d like to laugh at it for yourself, it’s embedded below.

Sky News, of course, jazzes up the interview with some dramatic music and shots of Steele’s safe where he supposedly kept all his ‘research’. This is to make it seem like something out of James Bond when it’s really something out of Steele’s fever dreams.

The interview starts with the dramatic. “There are serious people at the top of Russia who regard themselves at war with us.” At the top of Russia? So there’s people standing on Mount Elbrus screaming about how we really need to bomb the Brits? It’s also rather funny how this ‘war’ with Russia has been on hold for 18 months because of ‘Covid’. You’d think if those pesky Russians were so dangerous the mainstream media would have stopped talking about the flu for more than two minutes over the past 18 months.

The next clip shows Steele agreeing to the idea that Russia has done hostile intelligence ops against the UK (after taking an extremely dramatic sip of tea.) Yeah, because Russia is like every other country in the world and has spies. They always act so shocked at the fact that Russia has spies, it’s hilarious.

The footage then flips to Steele’s Orbis Business Intelligence office, Steele’s hand on a chair, all very dramatic. (Pablo Miller, the guy who worked at Orbis Business Intelligence and just happened by some coincidence to be Sergei Skripal’s handler is not mentioned).

The ‘investigation’ by Steele into Trump and Russia is then launched into. “It was in this safe here that the bomb ticked,” Steele claims, bigging himself up as though the idea of Trump having sex with prostitutes is the most shocking and unexpected claim in the universe. Interestingly though, he implicitly distances himself from his work, talking about how ‘it was produced’ rather than ‘I produced it’. Probably because deep down he knows its bollocks.

Our sycophant for hire ‘journalist’ then asks him how much of his nonsense is true. Of course he says he ‘thinks’ it’s mostly true (allowing me to think it’s a load of nonsense). She then asks him about the reliability of his sources and he says ‘we were pretty confident that the majority of the sources were highly reliable’. (Who’s ‘we’ Mr. Steele? She asked you for your opinion.)

The narrator then says that Russia was accused of hacking the Clinton emails by the US government. One thing is not mentioned though is the name of the journalist (Julian Assange) or publisher (Wikileaks) which printed the emails. Can’t have our viewers searching ‘Julian Assange’ and inadvertently getting a bit of truth, now can we? (Or the protest footage from the march for Assange that happened in London yesterday for that matter.)

It then says that no evidence was found to corroborate the pee claim (although it doesn’t call it that, just calls it Trump with prostitutes and ‘sex tapes’ without mentioning any urination). Then Steele is asked his level of confidence in the ‘sex tape’ claim. He says it’s ‘pretty high’.

She then asks him if he is a fraud. He says ‘no’ but then adds ‘of course I’m not.’ He them talks about all the security clearances he’s been issued over the years as if that somehow proves something.

He then comes up with a bizarre claim that the Russians put some wedding rings in his wife’s sponge bag. Apparently this is the new Novichok.

We’re informed a Putin spokesperson declined to comment. Probably because he was too busy laughing.

The interview then moves on to the Brexit referendum, saying there was ‘potential attempts to fund parts of the Brexit campaign.’ So Russia didn’t fund the Brexit campaign, they only ‘attempted’ to? (There’s a serious point here; lingustically, the use of the words ‘potential attempts’ shows Steele is not committed to his own words. If he was, he would have just said ‘Russia funded the Leave campaign’.)

She then asks for evidence and he says that he doesn’t have it to hand. No shit. A lot of other things aimed at Russia are mentioned including that they tried to hack the Covid vaccine research, so if you thought we were gonna get through a mainstream media piece without them mentioning the scamdemic, well, you were wrong.

According to Steele, Russia also threatens unity among EU member states. Because the vast historical, lingustic, cultural and political differences between 27 separate countries are obviously caused by Putin.

Right at the end of the interview, Steele quotes Putin in the original Russian. I always find it so amusing that they think it somehow improves their argument if they are a capable of using a Russian word.

I probably know at least 2000 Russian words so my argument has got to be pretty good.

I’ve had enough of Steele now, so do svidaniya!

Youth March for Jobs 9th October 2021

I attended this event primarily as a leafleting opportunity for Julian Assange and the upcoming American appeal this month. I knew about it from leafleting by the Socialist Party, the organisers of the event.

As I was attending anyway I thought I would take a few pictures and videos for the website.

Apparently there were events organised all over the country as well.

This event had primarily left wing activists known to each other. The Stop the War coalition was also there as well as the Socialist Party. It was a small crowd of maybe 30 people.

None of the attendees were bothered that we had turned up to leaflet for Assange. In fact they were probably pleased that someone outside of the usual suspects had turned up.

The event consisted of a few speeches followed by a relatively short march through Birmingham City Centre, down New Street and back around to Victoria Square via St Philip’s Cathedral.

Unfortunately, the speakers did not seem too comfortable with the megaphone and so you had to be quite close to them to hear what they were saying. I doubt passersby could hear that much of the speeches. The man introducing the speakers and leading the chants later on was the exception but he didn’t give a speech.

I took some footage of the speakers but most of it was compromised by a mixture of the limited sound systems and the limitations of my device. Here is a couple of the ones that are comprehensible.

First one speech by a student:

Watch on Bitchute.

Another speech by an older worker:

Watch on Bitchute.

The complaints and demands made by the activists were the usual kinds of demands that you would expect from a Socialist event. Various speakers talked about apprenticeships, universities, pensions, zero hours contracts and poor wages.

Their list of demands is shown below.

The protesters then went on the short march around the city centre.

Watch on Bitchute.

Government Not Scrapping Vaccine Passports: New ‘Plan B’ for ‘Mandatory COVID Certification’

Introduction

A few weeks ago the government announced that they would not be going ahead with a plan for vaccine passports over the winter period. As vaccine passports are the most important aspect of this whole Covid agenda (in the short term at least) this was a setback for the government. However, they are now planning another way to get ‘COVID Certification’ through the door – the idea of the ‘winter emergency’.

A New Government Consultation

I said the following in my previous article:

[V]accine passports will be back, perhaps in October or November when the flu season hits. When the issue of antibody dependent enhancement – vaccination worsening clinical disease due to non neutralising antibodies – hits the vaccinated (or simply (un)known side effects from MRNA jabs), this will be the next opportunity for another vaccine passport push. Lockdowns will inevitably be introduced to combat the ‘new variant’ of vaccine induced disease, with Johnson stating that the only way out is vaccine passports.

Lo and behold, the government has announced a new consultation called “Proposal for mandatory COVID certification in a Plan B scenario: call for evidence”. This outlines an alleged ’emergency’ scenario implemented if ‘the NHS is likely to come under unsustainable pressure’. Of course, being as the NHS comes under significant pressure every flu season, combined with the massive backlog of medical issues the NHS refused to treat because they aren’t Covid, the NHS will be under ‘unsustainable pressure’ by definition. As previously mentioned, antibody dependent enhancement and vaccine side effects will come into play as well, meaning a much worse flu season than normal.

This will give them their excuse to ‘reluctantly’ introduce ‘temporary’ ‘Covid Certification’ to ‘protect the NHS’ from patients.

This Plan B means that:

Under Plan B, in certain settings:

mandatory vaccine-only certification could be introduced for all visitors aged 18 or over

members of the workforce aged 18 or over in these settings could then be required to test regularly, if they are not fully vaccinated

This document specifies what precisely the government plan is. In this document, the government is trying to sell the vaccine passport via blackmail, essentially telling buisness owners that their choices are to accept vaccine passports or be plunged back into lockdown.

These are the venues that the government wishes to force the vaccine passport upon:

all nightclubs and other venues open after 1am with alcohol, music and dancing

indoor events with 500 or more attendees where those attendees are likely to stand and mix to a significant degree, or move around during the event, such as music venues or large receptions

outdoor, crowded settings with 4,000 or more attendees where those attendees are likely to stand, or move around during the event, such as outdoor festivals

any settings with 10,000 or more attendees, such as large sports and music stadia

In other words, this is essentially the same plan that Sajid Javid said was not going to be introduced over the winter, repackaged as a new ’emergency’ plan. Of course the government then adds that it may be expanded beyond these settings.

They also add this further comment which is worthy of note:

At present, the NHS COVID Pass displays an individual’s COVID status on the basis of vaccine, test or natural immunity status. If mandatory certification were introduced, the NHS COVID Pass would switch so that it certified individuals based on vaccine status only.

In other words, natural immunity is irrelevant according to this government. This scientifically illiterate argument is basically stating that Sars-Cov-2 is a unique virus where natural immunity does not apply – obviously demonstrating that this plan is not about ‘the science’ but about ‘the politics’.

Filling out the Consultation

If you want to fill out the consultation, you only have until the 11th October to do so.

The consultation asks for information about you and who you are including age, ‘gender’ (in a biology denial sense) etc.

It then asks if you think the list of settings is too broad or too narrow. If you click ‘too broad’ it then asks you which settings should be excluded (150 words). Obviously just say all of them and bring up the usual arguments against vaccine passports:

  • Authoritarian
  • Abrogate informed consent by applying coercion
  • create a two tier society
  • are scientifically illiterate as ‘the vaccinated’ can still spread Covid

Then it asks you if you would prefer if people going to events are vaccinated or not, similar to the question on the forced jabs for NHS staff consultation.

The questions then ask whether you think people (first visitors and then staff) should be forced to take an injection. Obviously you can tick strongly disagree to both. However the next two questions assume that you already support the policy in their framing, and are ridiculously biased. The first asks whether ‘unvaccinated’ staff members should be supervised while taking Covid tests, and the second asks whether only customer facing roles should be forced to jab/test or all roles. There’s no option for ‘no-one should be forced to jab/test’. The last bit on the page then asks for your further comments.

  • Staff would be pressured by bosses to get the jabs to avoid testing and having to self-isolate/not being able to work at these events. This means they would not be taking a vaccine under free and informed consent should they get vaccinated to stop the pressure
  • Side effects of the jab & liability for these side effects
  • Increased chance of workplace harassment due to jabbed staff having to deal with unjabbed staff not being able to work due to false positives.
  • Jab status would have to be disclosed to the employer
  • Do not work as you can get Covid off a fully vaccinated person
  • Ignore natural immunity

It then asks you if you think more groups should be exempt. According to their list children and people with a relevant medical conditions are exempt. I mean technically, yes, as I think everyone should be exempt. I stated as such and also that the policy breaches the Equality Act 2010 by ignoring religion, belief, and pregnancy protected classes.

The consultation then asks if any protected classes will benefit and if any will be disadvantaged.

  • No-one will benefit from an authoritarian ‘papers please’ dystopia.
  • You can still get Sars-Cov-2 from the ‘fully vaccinated’ so claiming that this policy benefits elderly or disabled people by decreasing their risk is wrong.
  • It will disadvantage disabled people due to forcing them to prove a medical exemption that may not be granted due to the climate of ‘vaccine good no matter what’.
  • It will disadvantage pregnant women who may not want the vaccine due to effect on the child.
  • It will disadvantage those with a religion/belief exemption.
  • All these groups will be treated as second class employees/citizens.

It then asks for any final thoughts on the consultation, and following this, how you felt about the consultation process and how they could improve, so I told them to ditch the loaded questions.

Conclusion

As predicted, the government is not scrapping the idea of vaccine passports, but merely attempting to bring them in via the inevitable ‘NHS winter emergency’ and they have already created the basis for this with a new consultation on the policy.

Vaccine Passports ‘Scrapped’ and Forced Jab for NHS Staff Consultation – Outlining the Plan

Introduction

The UK Government announced on the 12 September that vaccine passports will not currently be going ahead, contradicting previous statements that they would be introduced for nightclubs and big events this month. Instead, on the 9th September, a consultation was launched regarding forcing frontline NHS staff to have the Covid injection. This article will discuss both aspects, and possible linkages between the two.

The Vaccine Passport

Let’s begin with the vaccine passport. I have put a lot of emphasis on the vaccine passport in previous articles, arguing that the vaccine passport is the key short term aim of the entire Covid Narrative. On the surface, the decision to scrap vaccine passports disproves my arguments. In reality, however, it does not contradict my argument for a couple of reasons.

The first reason is that the government has been forced to backtrack. Vaccine passports are extremely unpopular with the British public. While polling organisations such as Yougov claim that a large percentage of the public support vaccine passports, these polls are more about manufacturing consent for the policy than recording facts. All indications, both in my personal life and on social media, as well as among many affected business owners, indicate vaccine passports are unpopular. The issue of vaccine passports has also angered many people who supported or were neutral towards lockdowns, and/or have had the jabs.

There have also been large demonstrations against vaccine passports. The monthly events in London – although focusing on all aspects of the Covid Narrative – have recently been advertised primarily as anti vaccine passport. There have also been massive demonstrations in countries that have already introduced the vaccine passport, such as France. Australia – one of the most draconian countries when it comes to restrictions allegedly to ‘control the pandemic’ – is also starting to kick off.

All of this makes it much harder for the British government to introduce the passport.

The second point demonstrating that passports are still essential to the government’s thinking is that the policy is not being abandoned. They have been forced into retreat by resistance to the policy but have explicitly said that it is not being ruled out. Sajid Javid stated that:

We’ve looked at it properly and, whilst we should keep it in reserve as a potential option, I’m pleased to say that we will not be going ahead with plans for vaccine passports.

To translate from government speak, this means that vaccine passports will be back, perhaps in October or November when the flu season hits. When the issue of antibody dependent enhancement – vaccination worsening clinical disease due to non neutralising antibodies – hits the vaccinated (or simply (un)known side effects from MRNA jabs), this will be the next opportunity for another vaccine passport push. Lockdowns will inevitably be introduced to combat the ‘new variant’ of vaccine induced disease, with Johnson stating that the only way out is vaccine passports.

Forcing NHS Staff to Get ‘Vaccinated’: The Next Step

A few months ago, the government announced that people working in care homes have to be ‘fully vaccinated’ (both shots of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccine) or face being sacked. Staff have to have had their first vaccine by September 16. The next step for the government is to try and force NHS staff to have the jab, but this will be a harder nut to crack than care home staff, which explians why care home staff were forced first.

According to the Skills for Care website, care home staff were paid an average of £8.50 an hour during 2019/20 and 73% were paid below the Living Wage. The gross income of this wage (assuming a 37.5 hour work week) is £16,575. However, even the lowest ranked NHS staff (a Band 2 member of staff who has worked in the NHS for less than 2 years) recieved a gross income of £17,652 in 2019/20 for the 37.5 hours a week. When you start to get into the higher pay bands you start seeing people who have significant economic resources to oppose forced vaccines. Again using the 2019/20 data for comparison, experienced Band 7 staff take home £43,772, whereas Band 8 staff take home between £44,606 and £86,687 depending on whether they are in subgroup a, b, c or d and their level of experience.

Relatively high unionisation in the NHS may also be a factor in the government’s thinking, although I would not trust the unions to fight the forced vaccines given their complicity in the Covid Narrative.

There are still a non-negligible number of staff that haven’t been jabbed:

According to the DHSC, around 92% of NHS trust staff have received one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, with 88% of staff having received both doses.

However, the DHSC says new data shows uptake rates between NHS trusts can vary from around 78% to 94% for both doses.

Gievn how many people the NHS employs this is a lot of people and statistically some of them are likely to have economic resources. NHS staff can also serve as a test case for future vaccine mandates for this reason.

There is currently a degree of ambiguity about the government’s plan, as to whether it will be just for frontline staff, or for all NHS staff including clerical and management. The consultation on forced jabs seems to imply the plan is only for clinical staff (if this is the case, I believe that the plan will be for two stages, perhaps to avoid taking on too many staff at once) but the media seem to imply that the jabs will be forced on all staff.

Forced jabs will help the government achieve its vaccine passport goals. While some people who are injected oppose vaccine passports, every person who gets jabbed makes it easier for the government to introduce the policy. ‘The unvaccinated’ have no choice but to resist a vaccine passport policy through boycotting and subversion, but ‘the vaccinated’ can choose to comply. Many people – even if formally opposed to vaccine passports – may buckle if they are actually introduced.

Conclusion

The government cannot tolerate more than a very small number opting out of the vaccine passport digital control matrix. Some people will buckle and get the injection if they are threatened with not being able to feed their family. This increases the percentage of the population who are injected. Some people will hold the line and lose their jobs, becoming the excluded in the new medical apartheid.

Appendix: Filling out the Consultation

If you want to fill out the government consultation it can be found here. It closes on the 22nd of October 2021. As you cannot see the questions in advance as it is a click through consultation rather than one where all the questions are up front. I will outline the questions that are asked and the parameters of the responses.

The consultation asks if you would prefer if a doctor or nurse treating you has the Covid 19 and flu vaccines. Then it asks if you think healthcare staff should be forced to have the vaccines for Covid and flu and to justify your answers. You are limited to 500 words for the justification which makes it a bit difficult as there isn’t enough words to quote from scientific studies on the dangers of the jabs. The same question is then asked for those under 18 in the sector. The study asks about possible negative effects on protected classes and then how the government can encourage uptake in non regulated roles.

Here are some key points you could raise if you decide to fill in the consultation:

In terms of staff being forced:

  • The jabs don’t stop people catching or spreading Sars-Cov-2 (according to the manufacturers themselves), so staff having the jab cannot protect patients. Patients can still catch the virus from a ‘fully vaccinated’ member of staff.
  • Sacking NHS staff for not taking the jab will put patients more at risk through causing/increasing understaffing, meaning overworked doctors and nurses making preventable errors and patients not being seen.
  • Forced jabs ignore the issue of natural immunity. Many NHS staff will have had the virus and recovered giving them extremely potent antibodies against Sars-Cov-2 and these antibodies protect against ‘variants’ according to the scientific evidence. Making them have a vaccine is medically irrational.
  • The horrific side effects of the jab. I personally cited the titles of two articles on myocarditis due to space limitations, as well as the massive amount of reports to Yellow Card and VAERS.
  • It’s still in clinical trials.
  • It violates already existing NHS contracts.

In terms of protected classes:

  • This refers to the Equality Act 2010. There are three protected classes negatively affected.
  • Disability: although the consultation allows medical exemptions, forced jabs will cause unnecessary stress for disabled staff. Due to the obsession with jabbing the entire population and GPs being entirely focused on Covid, it will likely be extremely difficult for those with even a legitimate reason for exemption (such as someone with a history of blood clots when they admit the jabs can cause blood clots) to obtain an exemption in practise.
  • Pregnancy and Maternity: Women will be concerned about the lack of studies on pregnancy and the jab, especially given that the Yellow Card system and VAERS have multiple miscarriages reported after the injections.
  • Religion and Belief: There is no provision made in the proposals for religious exemptions. This is discrimination based on religion if someone declined the vaccine due to religious beliefs, for example a belief that genetic engineering is morally wrong due to ‘playing God’. THere may be other beliefs that could be protected, for example, some have argued that ethical vegans would have to be classed as exempt due to the fact that the vaccine has had some animal trials.

Edited to add: Lo and Behold, the government have proven me correct once again. They have just launched a new consultation on “Proposal for mandatory COVID certification in a Plan B scenario: call for evidence”.

The document says:

We are asking for responses by 11 October, although we encourage stakeholders to submit views as quickly as possible in case there is need to introduce certification, as part of Plan B, at short notice.

The COVID-19 Response: Autumn and Winter Plan 2021, published on 14 September, sets out the government’s aims to sustain the progress made and prepare the country for future challenges, while ensuring the National Health Service (NHS) does not come under unsustainable pressure during this period. If the data suggests the NHS is likely to come under unsustainable pressure, the government has prepared a Plan B for England.

So, in other words, they will cook up some nonsense Neil Ferguson model as an excuse to bring this in.

World Wide Rally For Freedom 4.0: Birmingham

The World Wide Rally for Freedom event returned this weekend for the fourth time. While the big monthly protests are in London only (there is another ‘Medical Freedom March’ on the 25th September) the World Wide Rallies focus more on regional events, including London. This time, events were advertised on the Stand Up X website as occurring in Birmingham, Cardiff, Dublin, Leeds, London, Manchester and Norwich.

The Birmingham event took place at 12 o’clock at Centenary Square. Apparently some people thought it was 1pm at Victoria Square, as the organisers mentioned to people there to get the correct location out on social media, so I’m assuming there was some confusion. (For those who don’t know the geography, these two places are only a couple of minutes away from each other.)

Here is the advertisement with the list of speakers that were present.

Here is a photo of the square early on in the event:

I would say about 500-600 people total at the event – the crowd got a bit bigger after this photo was taken.

Unfortunately during the second speaker a man collapsed on the floor. I didn’t see what went on exactly. One of the protesters got the police officers to come over and call an ambulance for the man. The protest was delayed until the ambulance arrived. Hopefully the man was okay though I haven’t heard anything else regarding the situation.

The speakers at the protest were a bit scattergun in their approach and I don’t think the message felt that focused. A couple of themes did seem to run through all of the speakers though. One was the idea of what could broadly be called ‘spiritual warfare’: the idea of good versus evil and the divine being on the side of the protesters. The second one was protecting the children from the vaccine and making sure your children do not get injected.

Other than that the speakers seemed to have some conflicting opinions regarding the police and other issues, with some praising the West Midlands police for being restrained and helping with the collapse of the man in the crowd while others seeming to be more anarchistic. There also seemed to be some criticism of previous actions from the speakers as well. One speaker was insistent that attendees exchange numbers and liaise outside of the protests and criticising Telegram, while others gave out Telegram links.

The signs people had tended to focus on the vaccine – such as ‘Say No to the Sajid JABid variant’ and listing the deaths and adverse events reported to Yellow Card and VAERS. There was one person in a Grim Reaper costume with a large needle milling around the protest.

A few of the people near the back seemed to have a decent success rate engaging with members of the public. Several copies of ‘The Light’ paper were given out. There was one man who yelled ‘Bullshit’ at one of the speeches (interestingly, not wearing a mask).

I have uploaded some clips of the event to my Youtube channel and Bitchute channel. I will embed the clips on Youtube below but will also link to the Bitchute video for anyone avoiding Youtube due to YT censorship.

Firstly, a man speaking about opposing the Primark jab program:

Bitchute alternative.

Secondly, about the importance of Sovereignty:

Bitchute Alternative.

Charlotte Wright speaks out about her husband’s death from vaccine induced thrombocytopenia.

[Bitchute seems to not want to process this – I’m guessing because of the length, will add link later]

Jacelyn Dunn – Homeschool your children, schools are not safe:

Bitchute equivalent

I think Charlotte Wright deserves credit for speaking out in particular given the vilification people receive if they even mildly criticise these injections.

I feel better about the protest after the fact than I did while I was there. I do think it is important to have regional actions and not just London.

The big test (as one of the speakers said in the context of the police) will be in a month or two when the inevitable return to lockdown happens, as well as the inevitable vaccine passport. How we get out of this mess is a very difficult question to answer.

A Critical Assessment of the Feminist Case for Occupying Afghanistan

Introduction

Official narratives coming from the White House and media are stating that American president Joe Biden is fully withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and ending the 20 year war on the country. Many neoconservative pundits are condemning this decision and essentially arguing for permanent occupation. However, another group not associated with neoconservative ideology have also been advancing an argument for the essentially permanent occupation of Afghanistan: feminists. This article will offer a critical assessment of the feminist case for the occupation of Afghanistan.

What is the Feminist Case for Occupation?

Many feminists are making the case that Afghanistan needs to continue to be occupied by Western military forces in order ‘to protect women and girls from the Taliban’. While this commentary is common among war hawks, some individuals who are critical of the mainstream (at least in some respects) are also making this argument.

One example is Marianne Williamson, a critic of some elements of the establishment who nevertheless ran in the Democratic Party Primary in 2019-2020. She posted the following on Twitter, referring to the situation in Afghanistan.

Tolerance of systemic violence against women can’t be justified in the name of anti-imperialism, helping other human beings isn’t “a savior complex,” and leaving the most powerless & desperate people to fend for themselves in the hour of their agony isn’t political sophistication

This kind of sentiment is common among feminist and gender critical accounts, many of whom are anonymous. I am going to discuss three key problems with this argument: historical ignorance, whitewashing war crimes, and reinforcing misleading official narratives.

Problem #1: Historical Ignorance

The first problem with this argument is that it ignores historical context, and particularly the role the West has played in undermining women’s rights in Afghanistan.

On the 27th April 1978, there was a political change of power in Afghanistan, known as the Saur Revolution. This brought left wing groups to power, and they sought sweeping changes to the way Afghan society functioned. One of the ways in which they did this was to get rid of misogynistic laws and to create a more equal legal basis for women.

However, the West opposed the Saur Revolution, because it was a leftist government that would prevent future imperialist exploitation of the country. They sought to destroy this government. They also wanted to bait the Soviet Union into military intervention there and thus create the ‘Soviet Vietnam’ – which would squander Soviet resources and bog them down in an unwinnable conflict.

The US decided to do this by funding reactionary Islamist fighters called the Mujahideen. This CIA operation was known as ‘Operation Cyclone’. The Mujahideen has the same ideology as the Taliban – reactionary, misogynistic, homophobic, and demanding compliance to Islamic law. Not only do they have the same ideology, but some of the same individuals:

Notably, the Taliban’s own top negotiator of this new [Trump] “peace” deal, Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanekzai, was among those trained and armed as part of the Mujahideen force created during Operation Cyclone.

The fact that Western countries were more than willing to support Islamic fundamentalism when it suited them geopolitically demonstrates that the idea of promoting women’s rights is a Western fraud.

Problem #2: Whitewashing Western War Crimes

The feminist case for occupation of Afghanistan also has has an (implicit) tenet that Western intervention is basically benign. This ignores the reality of war crimes committed in Afghanistan. This narrative essentially erases the war crimes from existence.

We know about the multitude of offenses committed by Western troops and companies in Afghanistan due to the Afghan war logs and US diplomatic cables, material leaked by whistleblower Chelsea Manning to Wikileaks journalist Julian Assange.

This information showed the reality of the war, and its unwelcome disclosure led to the imprisonment and torture of Manning and Assange.

Let’s look at some examples. One crime that was discovered thanks to the disclosure of these documents involved the Dyncorp corporation. The business had helped arrange ‘dancing boys’ for Afghan warlords – meaning underage boys to be raped by these warlords as part of Afghan traditional practices.

The Afghan puppet government was concerned about the exposure of this fact, as the cable refers to the ‘Kunduz Dyncorp problem’.

On the Kunduz Regional Training Center (RTC) DynCorp event of April 11 (reftel), Atmar reiterated his insistence that the U.S. try to quash any news article on the incident or circulation of a video connected with it. He continued to predict that publicity would “endanger lives.” He disclosed that he has arrested two Afghan police and nine other Afghans as part of an MoI investigation into Afghans who facilitated this crime of “purchasing a service from a child.” 

This is far from the only crime perpetrated in Afghanistan. Here is one example that involved the Polish contingent:

The day centered around consequence management plans and actions regarding the PBG [Polish Battle Group] mortar incident in Waza Kwah (Naghar Khel village) yesterday evening which killed 6 LN [Local Nationals] and wounded 3 LN. A detailed report is in the Political section.

The detailed report goes on to clarify that 4 of the people killed were children. When addressed, the village said:

The crowd was flabbergasted at how the CF [Coalition Forces] could fire on a village with women, children and old men without cause (i.e. no fire coming from the village) using mortars in an attempt to hit Taliban insurgents instead of coming up to the village and questioning the owners on the presence of insurgents.

This is just one example of civilians being killed during this conflict.

Problem #3: Failing to Question the Official Narrative

Uncritically believing what the mainstream media reports is a terrible idea, given that they twist the truth on any and every topic.

The first point that can be raised regarding official narratives is that the argument that ‘we need to remain in Afghanistan to protect the women and girls’ is itself an official narrative. A CIA document, leaked to Wikileaks, about shoring up support for war in France and Germany states that:

Afghan women could serve as ideal messengers in humanizing the ISAF role in combating the Taliban because of women’s ability to speak personally and credibly about their experiences under the Taliban, their aspirations for the future, and their fears of a Taliban victory. Outreach initiatives that create media opportunities for Afghan women to share their stories with French, German, and other European women could help to overcome pervasive skepticism among women in Western Europe toward the ISAF mission.

Furthermore, the way that the media presents the Afghanistan withdrawal itself is highly misleading. In an article for OffGuardian, Kit Knightly points out the continuing presence of mercenary forces in Afghanistan, and the fact that air strikes will continue. Knightly concludes:

“Private security firms” will carry out “targeted anti-terrorist operations”, or “precision strikes” will take out “known international criminals”…but no one will use the word “war”.

The US troops might be leaving the borders of Afghanistan, but the Imperial influence will remain, the corporate exploitation will continue, the fire will still fall from the sky, and there will be no peace.

Conclusion

The war in Afghanistan is a conflict that has always been about geopolitical and economic motivations, for example, the profits to be made from rare earth metals and opium. The framing of human rights is merely a shield for these fundamental interests. To argue that we need to remain in Afghanistan ‘to protect women and girls’ ignores those killed in Western war crimes and how the West sought to undermine women’s rights in Afghanistan, as well as uncritically affirming misleading narratives about reality on the ground.

Unite for Freedom March 28th August 2021

So I finally, after months of saying I was going to go to one of the big anti-medical tyranny protests in London, actually went to one.

I arrived at Hyde Park about 1 o’clock, so most of the crowd had already gathered at this point. I don’t want to hazard a guess as to the size. Later on, I filmed some of it walking past but I don’t think I got close to the actual size.

The approach taken by the organisers this time was a march throughout London (a long one at that). There was criticism of the last event for having speakers not likely to appeal to ordinary people (such as Gareth Icke) and having the same line up as a year ago. It was also criticised for bringing up issues that don’t seem obviously related to medical tyranny to the ordinary person.

I don’t know the organisers, but I would guess that they took this criticism into account when organising this protest. There were no speakers this time, just a march that lasted from 1.15 until 4.00. The advertising also seemed a bit more focussed on specifically vaccine passports and medical tyranny. Before the march, there were also people handing out free t-shirts stating ‘Against Vaccine Passports’ (this is the website). Quite a few people had them on. It did make the message a bit more focussed, although the signs still varied.

I ended up near the front of the march because I arrived near dead last.

The walking route from Hyde Park to Clapham Common is quite long anyway, over an hour apparently. The route taken by the march was not the most direct one, as it went via The Oval and Brixton.

The march started off going through Wellington Arch.

I don’t exactly know what route the march took, all I can say is that I wasn’t familiar with the landmarks. Which doesn’t mean much as I’m not a Londoner.

Instead I will offer some reflections on the march.

The mainstream media like to portray people who are sceptical of the Official Covid Narrative as fitting into a particular box – generally middle-aged white people sympathetic to Brexit (or ‘Gammons’ as they are mocked by the woke brigade). Having attended this march, and other previous anti-lockdown events in Birmingham, this is not true. The mix of people was pretty broad, including all ages and races and different religions.

As far as I could tell there were also different political ideologies at the march – though of course you cannot tell political ideologies by looking at people. Right wing people were more prominent in the symbols displayed. There were a couple of pro-Trump flags and the Heritage Party – led by David Kurten – were also in attendance. There were also a few signs referring to medical tyranny as ‘communism’ – though also some (more accurately) analogising medical tyranny to Nazism.* The established left wing groups – as I have pointed out in previous articles – are supporters of medical tyranny making any left wing presence there much less obvious. But there were a few indications of anarchist presense there as well. Independent media – such as UK Column and 21 Wire – were also represented in the tshirts. Most people did not seem to be promoting a specific ideology.

The second impression that mainstream media likes to give of people sceptical of the Official Covid Narrative is that they are a crazy mob of people that are full of hatred and want people to die. Again, this is not true. I saw no examples of violence or any aggression towards police or bystanders. There were a few examples of a random person from the march telling people to take off the mask, that is the most ‘aggressive’ that it got.

The third impression the mainstream media likes to give is that people who question the narrative are an extreme lunatic fringe. Again, this is not true. Of course there were people there who believe in ‘conspiracy theories’ that the general public reject (or even that I personally reject).

However, most passersby seemed either neutral towards the march or supportive of it. There were several examples of bystanders cheering the march that I saw, however I saw no examples of hostility such as people calling us covidiots, anti-vaxxers, or any other slurs used by the mainstream media. Now, of course, individuals could have thought that privately and not expressed that view.

In terms of the approach to the protest, I think that a march may have helped to get the anti-vaccine passport message out to more people. It would have been helpful, however, for the organisers to have announced where the march was going to end up beforehand. I did not know where I was going, which is why I stayed relatively near the front, and the only plan I had to get home was hoping that I ended up by a Tube station. Fortunately Clapham Common is on the Northern Charing Cross route so it was okay in the end, but it would have been much more convienient to know, especially for people with disabilities.

To close I will state that footage of the march is available on my Bitchute account.

[*End note: I know that someone will try to strawman this argument and claim that I am saying that Boris Johnson is Hitler, or disrespecting the Holocaust by stating this opinion. What I mean specifically by stating that this analogy is more accurate is that both Nazi Germany and modern medical tyranny demonise a group of people as unclean disease spreaders that infect the body politic with their mere presense.]