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.]

Dr. Fauci, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Big Pharma

Introduction

In a previous article, entitled ‘Big Pharma is no different from any other capitalist corporation’, I discussed the realities of Big Pharma in relation to the Official Covid Narrative. Pharmaceutical corporations have a vested interest in pushing the idea that we all need a Sars-Cov-2 vaccination, as that makes them more profits. The left, however, has fallen for the Official Covid Narrative – believing that what Big Pharma says is true. Some people who I considered critics of mainstream narratives – such as Graham Elwood – are now promoting vaccine passports. This article hopes to explore the reasons why the left now promotes ‘the science’ that is advocated by the establishment that they claim to oppose.

Kto Kogo?

The fundamental problem is that the left has failed to ask the question: ‘Science for what class?’

The category of ‘science’ can only exist within a particular society. Therefore, the way that the term science is perceived, interpreted, and promoted varies based upon the values of that society.

This is not to claim that science is entirely subjective or none of it is based in reality. It is not to take the position that gravity is not real, the extreme position mocked by Alan Sokal in his famous 1996 parody article in Social Text.

My argument is that what is considered ‘science’ is to varying degrees subject to the effects of the class structure. On a topic that is non political and not subject to profit motives and ideology, such as the topic of gravity, science is much more objective. On issues where profit motives and the ideologies bolstering the profit motives are in play, science is affected by these and often becomes a justification for the social order rather than objective.

This is seen in the racist and sexist ‘science’ of 19th century Britain. Studies of humanity were used to bolster capitalism and imperialism. Racist ‘science’ sought to argue for the inferiority of the African and Native American man as compared to the white man. The skulls of African and Native American men were said to ‘prove’ their inferiority to white men. Sexist arguments posited that women were incapable of studying due to menstruation.

People today – or most of them at least – can recognise this racist and sexist nonsense as pseudoscientific, merely designed to prop up a racist imperial state and to justify sexist laws such as coverture. To see our modern concepts of science as magically immune to similar biases is naïve, especially given the development of the medical industrial complex.

Medical science is an area that is especially vulnerable to societal biases, due to the profit motive and the aftereffects of its origins. Modern medical science evolved out of patriarchal institutions and ideologies. To secure the dominance of the male doctor, traditional female healers were denigrated as ‘witches’ and violently oppressed. Women’s bodies were – and still are – belittled by medical science, who see men as the default kind of human being and women as an ‘extra’. Modern capitalism was able to pick up on the developments within science and turn it into a billions-dollar industry known as Big Pharma.

The Left’s Failure to See This Reality

The left has utterly failed to consider this aspect of the Covid 19 Narrative. Instead they parrot the phrase ‘follow the science’. Why has the left failed to see the reality of ‘the science’ as a weapon wielded in a class war against the working class?

I argued in a previous article that the UK Modern Left has been duped by the Covid Narrative for a few reasons: Boris Johnson’s effective reverse psychology, the conceit of compassion, and the lack of connection to material reality (being from privileged backgrounds, they act as if lockdowns are consequence-free).

This analysis is still relevant, although there are further points to consider when assessing why the left sees the ‘science’ as an inherently objective phenomenon. One reason for this is that the left likes to see itself as the rational ones, who support science as against the right wing who are science deniers. This has manifested on the atheist left (though also among some on the anti-woke right such as Sargon of Akkad). This aspect is more notable in American politics due to the religious nature of much of the American right, where a sharp contrast is drawn between the ‘rational’ left/liberals and the ‘irrational, God-fearing’ right. This distinction has continued into the Trump era despite the undermining of religion (to a degree) as the basis of the culture wars.

There are other issues in which the ‘science-based’ rational left contrasts itself with the ‘science denier’ right wing, in particular the issue of climate change. The left talks about the scientific consensus that climate change is real, whereas the right that are more sceptical of climate change are dismissed as irrational science deniers.

While relevant, however, I do not believe that this is the main factor in driving the leftist obsession with ‘the science’ as some sort of inherently objective bulwark that needs to be followed without question.

In order to assess this question, we need to return to the issue of the denial of material reality.

The weaknesses in analysis on material issues affect the UK Modern left, as discussed in my articles on their support for lockdowns and transgender ideology, and the US left, as outlined in my article about their ignoring of the censorship of women for stating biological reality.

The fact that the modern left is weak on class analysis means that they are more likely to see science as an objective endeavour. A grounding in class analysis would give a multitude of examples of science being used as a weapon, that many of these people would acknowledge when they are historical. This weakness on the issue of class analysis is also linked to the fact that people from these media outlets are in a relatively privelged position economically, which can also skew perspectives in a more pro-establishment direction.

The cult of the science also puts a psedo-materialist gloss on the failings of these left wing groups to successfully analyse material reality. Because ‘science’ as an endeavour is meant to be based upon material reality, uncritical belief in the science shields the lack of effective material analysis from scrutiny.

Conclusion

The modern left’s detachment from material reality helps to drive forward their uncritical belief in ‘the science’ as an objective tool of analysis. This means that they fail to condier the relevance of the question ‘science for what class’?

The Unmooring of Identity and Klaus Schwab’s Promotion of Transhumanism

Introduction

Martine Rothblatt, a transsexual-transhumanist planted the seeds to foster a legal construct of disembodiment as identity, forged out of his paraphilia of owning female biology for himself, in the 1980’s. The advancement of his ideology that seeks to deconstruct sexual dimorphism in effort to cultivate the social and legal groundwork for melding humanity to AI, is too big a leap for many people to make.  “Gender Identity” is a bridge to get you there.

Jennifer Bilek

The word ‘identity’ and the phrase ‘I identify as…’ have become buzzwords in the West due to gender identity ideology, the idea that we all have an innate gender identity. This ideology has glamourised the idea of individual identity in society. Critics of transgender ideology, particularly Jennifer Bilek, have demonstrated that gender identity is being promoted in order to normalise transhumanism. This article connects the notion of gender identity as a transhumanist trojan horse with the ideas of Klaus Schwab, one of the main players using the Covid-19 narrative as a means to push transhumanism.

What is an ‘identity’?

We can start this analysis by looking at what the word identity actually means. There are several dictionary definitions which reflect the different aspects of this word.

The Free Dictionary gives the following (relevant) definitions of the word ‘identity’:

1. a. The condition of being a certain person or thing: What is the identity of the author of the manuscript?

b. The set of characteristics by which a person or thing is definitively recognizable or known: “The identity of the nation had … been keenly contested in the period of nationalist opposition to Imperial rule” (Judith M. Brown).

c. The awareness that an individual or group has of being a distinct, persisting entity: “He felt more at home thousands of miles from Britain than he did in an English village four miles from his home … Was he losing his identity?” (Robert Fallon).

The first definition is an objective definition. In the question ‘What is the identity of the author of the manuscript?’ the answer must be a specific person(s). This question would generally be answered with something like ‘Plato is the author of the manuscript.’

The second definition can be objective or subjective. For example, when talking about an object being ‘definitively recognisable or known’ through a set of characteristics, the set of characteristics are observable objectively. If we are talking about a concept such as ‘the identity of the nation’ however, that is somewhat subjective. No doubt several different individuals could give differing answers to a question about the ‘identity of the nation’.

The third definition is even more subjective, as it involves an individual awareness or a ‘group awareness’. The individual awareness of being a ‘distinct, persisting entity’ can start with the Descartes phrase ‘I Think, Therefore I Am.’ (at least if we believe in ego!). Once we get beyond that, however, the term ‘identity’ gets more subjective. Further conceptions of ‘identity’ based on our enduring characteristics can be real, delusional, or a mixture of the two.

The Subjectification of Identity

The key plank of transgender ideology is the idea of gender identity. The idea of gender identity (in theory) is based upon our third definition of identity: having a distinct and persisting feeling of being a particular gender.

NSPCC defines Gender Identity as:

Gender identity is a way to describe how someone feels about their gender. For example, some people may identify as a boy or a girl, while others may find neither of these terms feel right for them, and identify as neither or somewhere in the middle.

In their conception, a ‘trans’ person is someone who does not ‘identify with their gender assigned at birth’ and a ‘cis’ person is someone who does ‘identify with their gender assigned at birth’.

This concept means nothing. Every even hypothetically coherent defining factor of gender identity is rejected by transgender activists.

The most obvious possible definition of gender identity is the performance of masculine and feminine stereotypes. This is admitted by some transgender-identified people, for example, Blaire White in this interview with Benjamin Boyce, states explicitly that his ‘transition’ was about not fitting into a stereotypical masculine role.

This definition is also implicitly used by transgender activists. For example, the ACLU, an organisation that has morphed from defending free speech to being obsessed with transgenderism due to a particularly loopy trans-identified female, Chase Strangio, promotes ‘trans kids’. These ‘trans kids’ are defined by gender stereotypes. For example, the ACLU posted a video from the father of a ‘trans girl’ who states that his son is a girl because of his like for stereotypically feminine toys, etc. There are lots more examples of this, see this article by Lily Maynard.

However, if you were to ask a trans activist, they would deny it is about gender stereotypes. This is seen in memes such as ‘Non-Binary people don’t owe you androgyny’ – the idea that being non-binary is not about presentation but an inner essence. This article from Everyday Feminism also explicitly denies the connection between expression and identity. (Of course, gender stereotypes/expression cannot lead to an objective and unchangeable ‘gender identity’ definition since stereotypes and modes of dress are changeable).

Once this is rejected as a definition, we could fall back on the idea of gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is the feeling that one is in the ‘wrong body’, the desire to ‘live as the opposite sex’. Whether or not someone has gender dysphoria, however, is rejected by transgender activists and ideology as a basis for gender identity. They claim that gender dysphoria is not necessary to have a trans identity. Even if they did attempt to argue that gender dysphoria means a different gender identity, this logic would not follow, as the existence of discomfort with a sexed body does not prove that gender identity is a valid construct.

The only criteria that trans activists have for being transgender, non-binary or any other gender identity is simply to claim that gender identity. Essentially, we have a ‘distinct, persistent’ feeling that is based on absolutely nothing objective – by their own arguments. This is different from my ‘feeling’ that I am a woman because of biological fact, as this is grounded is reality.  We have identity unmoored, identity as entirely, completely abstract.

The Promotion of Transhumanism

Klaus Schwab is the leader of an organisation called the World Economic Forum. The WEF is a powerful global organisation, that has been put under a large amount of scrutiny during the alleged Covid-19 pandemic for its promotion of vaccine passports. The WEF also promotes Smart Cities – cities where every device is hooked up to a massive Internet of Things and where everything is managed and surveilled by AI. At first glance, Klaus Schwab appears to have nothing to do with the discussion regarding transgender identity.

However, Schwab is also attempting to reconstruct the word ‘identity’ to unmoor it from biological reality. There is one line from Schwab which is very interesting, that has been reposted and replayed multiple times on sites critical of the WEF:

What the the fourth industrial revolution will lead to is a fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities.

Of course, this quote is advocating transhumanism, a position Schwab is passionate about.

The interesting point here is how this sentence is constructed. He does not say ‘The fourth industrial revolution will be a fusion between ourselves and technology’ which would be the most obvious expression of this idea. No, he specifically chooses the word ‘identity’, as if human beings are not actually biological beings based in the natural world but a collection of identities.

Like in the transgender construction, our bodies are merely a ‘physical identity’. In the same way as a transgender identified person takes hormones and has surgeries to change their physical identity, we will all fuse our biology with our online personas, our abstract unmoored selves that can be reinvented at will. (Online I can be a man, woman, black, white, gay, straight, anything I say I am. I am an anonymous identity, amorphous, changeable at will.)

The higher self, found through surgery and hormones in the transgender conception, is found by our ‘fusion’ in Schwab’s conception. Schwab attempts to make butchery and blasphemy benign, a mere expression of identification rather than an attack on human nature. It abstracts the concept of identity from any mooring in human nature, cut it loose, make it a name that can be placed at will. Man and woman have no meaning, neither does natural and unnatural. All is merely a matter of identification.

Conclusion

Transhumanism is a wet dream of the elite. They normalise this concept through simple tricks such as using the word ‘identity’ as an empowering term. This applies to the transgender ideologists – such as Martine Rothblatt – as well as the Official Covid Narrative promoters such as Klaus Schwab.

It’s About The Vaccine Passport

Introduction

The Official Covid Narrative – the idea that Sars-Cov-2 is a uniquely deadly virus that requires lockdowns, mandatory masks and everyone in the population to take a vaccine – has no scientific credibility. Multiple sources of evidence demonstrate that Sars-Cov-2 is not deadly to most people, that masks are not effective in preventing transmission of viruses, that lockdowns do not prevent deaths, and that the Covid-19 vaccine has a significant risk of severe side effects. Therefore, it follows that there must be another reason for the continued promotion of the Covid Narrative. This article will demonstrate that the main short-term aim of psychopathic governments is to implement a vaccine passport, even if only in a limited capacity.

The ‘Solution’ for Whom?

The vaccine passport – that is, only allowing people into venues and events if they have had the Covid-19 vaccine – has been put forward as a ‘solution’ to the ‘pandemic’. The idea of a vaccine passport has been floated in multiple countries – including the UK and US as well as Israel.

Boris Johnson announced on the alleged ‘freedom day’ of 19th July that a vaccine passport will be required to enter nightclubs. This is just one example of vaccine passport coercion being pushed by the government. Passports have also been floated for Premier League football matches and other mass gatherings.

Despite claims to the contrary, a vaccine passport cannot be about health or protection of people from Sars-Cov-2 infection. The studies done on these products only purported to show that the vaccines reduce symptoms of Covid 19, not that they actually prevent infection. The studies themselves were not designed to show a reduction in transmission. Tal Zaks, the Chief Medical Officer at Moderna – who produced one of the vaccines – stated that:

Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission, because in order to do that you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable.

It follows that one can still catch and transmit the virus if one is ‘fully vaccinated’. For example, the mainstream media has claimed that one Australian man infected 60 people with the virus despite having two doses of the Moderna vaccine. The idea of ‘breakthrough cases’ – where vaccinated people get the virus – shows that the narrative that vaccine passports would protect people from catching Sars-Cov-2 is thus false.

(There are of course questions about the isolation of Sars-Cov-2 and the reliability of the PCR test to detect the virus accurately if it does exist. However, the idea of breakthrough cases shows their own narrative is false within the logic of their own narrative, which is all that is necessary to demonstrate for the sake of this article.)

It is much more convincing to argue that the vaccine passport is the touchstone of the new authoritarian system that is being built around us under the pretext of a virus.

There have been many different agendas that the elite have been advancing through the mechanism of the purported Covid 19 ‘response’. For example, one of these is economic. The lockdowns have had the effect of impoverishing the poor. This applies both in Western and non Western countries. Meanwhile, wealth has been transferred to billionaires like Bezos. These lockdowns are tied into a failing capitalist system, that needs to maintain the rate of profit to survive. Further impoverishment of the poor and the destruction of small businesses will help to prop up the capitalist system through a partially manufactured economic crisis on a grand scale.

The destruction of the economy has already been fairly comprehensive however, so why doesn’t the government declare ‘victory’ over the virus and get us ‘back to normal’? The truth is that the elite are gunning for more than a redistribution of wealth upwards. They want to create a technocratic, transhumanist control system, and the vaccine passport is the first real step in creating that goal.

The vaccine passport being in play has massive benefits in terms of control over a population. It allows them to create a system of inclusion and exclusion that is comprehensive and can be rolled out to every sphere of life.

The first benefit of a vaccine passport scheme is that Western populations are strong believers in vaccination. The fact that most people in the West consider vaccines to be proven science guarantees a significant uptake of vaccination off the bat. This gives them something that they can work with, as society can only function with a vaccine passport with a large uptake.

The second benefit is the fact that populations are known to become more authoritarian in response to pandemics (whether or not the pandemic is genuine). This is called Parasite Stress Theory. This makes the populace more willing to accept vaccine passports for their safety despite the lack of scientific rationale.

Thirdly, they have the benefit that they can be introduced in a step by step manner, beginning with international travel or large gatherings and ending with supermarkets and public services. People will then rationalise each step as not being that bad, whereas an immediate full spectrum passport would be more likely to create resistance.

The fourth benefit that they have for the elite is that they can be switched off at any time. Anyone who dissents from the narrative can simply have their digital passport made invalid. This prevents resistance to the government.

The more people get the vaccine, the easier it is for the government to create vaccine passports. As such, we are seeing a massive campaign on a scale never before seen to get people – particularly young people, who according to their own data are at extremely low risk from Covid 19 – to get the vaccine.

This spreads from celebrities encouraging take up, such as England manager Gareth Southgate, to bribes to take the jab – such as the offer of free food. A vaccine centre was set up in fast fashion outlet Primark, presumably because the elite assume that this is where young people shop.

If it was purely about health, this would not be happening. For a start, even if we granted that the vaccine is effective, people at minuscule risk do not need a vaccine. We also have absurdities such as offers of cheaper unhealthy junk food to get a vaccine supposedly for your health.

Then, of course, there are the side effects which the government and media refuse to discuss honestly, instead repeating the mantra safe and effective. The long term side effects of these mRNA/adenovirus vector vaccines are also unknown. This applies even more strongly given that this is not just a new vaccine but whole new technologies that differ from traditional vaccines.

If you assume that the push for everyone to get a jab and the billions spent on marketing the jab is about making a vaccine passport viable, then it all makes sense.

Conclusion

The immediate short term priority of the freedom movement needs to be to demand vaccine passports are never introduced. We need to boycott any business still demanding any form of corona restrictions and making clear a vaccine passport will not be tolerated.

‘Wait Two Weeks’: The Reasons Behind this Constant Refrain

Believers in the Official Covid Narrative – the idea that Sars-Cov-2 is a uniquely deadly virus that means lockdowns, mandatory masks, and mass vaccinations are necessary to prevent mass death – often revel in predictions of doom and gloom. We can call this the ‘Wait Two Weeks’ phenomena, as any time that a mass gathering has happened in the UK, a Covid Narrative believer pops up in the comments making the argument that in two weeks there will be a massive spike in Covid-19 cases.

The Argument

This argument began to emerge around 9 May 2020, with the celebrations of the 75th Anniversary of V.E. Day. It increased in frequency near the end of May and beginning of June 2020, with people flocking to beaches to enjoy the warm weather and the Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd. (Though, of course, the big dollop of hypocrisy from many on the BLM issue should be noted, as some defended BLM protests while condemning everyone else as ‘spreading Covid’.)

The argument has continued to be posted underneath every Twitter image that showed people ‘breaking the Covid rules’. It has particularly been employed as an argument against every single anti-lockdown protest, with narrative supporters claiming that this would lead to a huge spike in Covid cases and probably another lockdown.

The Reasons Behind The Argument

Needless to say, none of the people who make this claim have provided any evidence of a Covid spike caused by these events. Indeed, the very large anti-lockdown protest in London in April was a month ago, but zero evidence exists that this event caused a spike in Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations, or deaths. So why do people keep making this argument, when the argument has failed every single time to be substantiated by evidence two weeks later?

The first reason for the continuing repetition of this argument is that it has become a mantra of faith in the Covid Cult. Similarly to all other mantras, such as ‘Stay Safe’, it is repeated as a sign of loyalty to the cult.

Secondly, there is a sense of superiority when it comes to this mantra. The author of the post saying ‘wait two weeks’ is signalling that they would never be so devoid of virtue as to break the government’s regulations. There is also a large element of snobbery to this argument as well. It isn’t the virtuous middle class – who the author is part of – that is breaking the rules, it is those nationalist, Brexit-voting proles that want to celebrate V.E. Day. It is those ignorant working-class people who flood the beaches when there is nice weather, rather than staying at home in their non-existent garden.

We also see a perverse craving for the prediction to come true in these statements. They almost want the mass deaths from Covid to happen in order to validate their narrative. They long to say ‘I told you so’ to narrative critics, even though it would be much better for people if the narrative critics are correct. This desire comes from the denial of death. According to the Official Covid Narrative, death is preventable so long as we all follow ‘the rules’. This is what Covid narrative believers want: death to be preventable.  If death is contingent on the rules, it allows the speaker to deny their own death (as they do not ‘break the rules’) while at the same time perversely obsessing over the deaths of other people. This ‘death denial while obsessing over death’ phenomena is at the heart of the contradictory nature of the Official Covid Narrative.

Conclusion

It has never been demonstrated by Covid Narrative believers that Covid spikes occur after outdoor mass gatherings. However, they repeat the claim that mass gatherings mean mass death constantly. This is because they have other psychological reasons to believe in this claim rather than its truth.

Big Pharma Is No Different From Any Other Capitalist Corporation

A left-wing perspective offers a structural critique of capitalist firms, arguing that they are focused only on profit, and not issues such as safety or the common good. In reality, however, the modern left has failed to sufficiently apply this critique to Big Pharma and their operations in creating medications – although they will sometimes acknowledge it in a haphazard way. What is not taken into account is the way that Big Pharma – in allegiance with the state – creates new medical ‘needs’ and new markets based on these needs, particularly in relation to the Covid-19 vaccinations.

The General Anti-Capitalist Viewpoint

The concern of any business is to make profit. The only way for any corporation to make profit is to effectively exploit their workers and extract excess labour from them (or to extract excess labour from other people’s workers – for example, banks). Other concerns must be subordinated to the need for profit. For example, product safety is not in itself a concern for a business. It would only become a concern to the extent that it affected profit – for example if people refused to buy a such a product, or if a government fined the company more than the profits made on the product for producing something unsafe.

In order to keep making profits, capitalist companies must create new markets. It is in the inherent nature of capitalism that it must keep expanding. The entire history of capitalism demonstrates this, as it expanded from Western Europe to the whole world. This is also why the capitalist world was locked in a death struggle with the USSR: not only because the socialist USSR offered a viable alternative to capitalism but also because the USSR and its allies represented untapped markets and resources. New inventions and the creation of new ‘needs’ can also be seen in the history of capitalism. Items like automobiles and mobile phones have become ‘necessary’ to human life in the West despite not actually being necessary in the technical sense.

Big Pharma and Capitalism

This logic applies as much to Big Pharma as any other corporation. One of the most important points to make specifically regarding Big Pharma is that the main market in Western countries is the state rather than individuals or private companies, due to state run healthcare services. This is different in the US due to their health insurance system. The relationship between the state and Big Pharma means that the attempt to sell more products will be centralised rather than dispersed, as it is with consumer products (this is similar to the arms industry).

There is a certain amount of genuine health issues within a population, whether caused by genetic factors or environmental factors. These health issues create demands for medications and other products sold by Big Pharma. While on the surface, the idea of a health issue is objective, in reality there is an element of subjectivity. This allows for the creation of new medications to treat these issues. If one wants to get more cynical, we can consider the idea of iatrogenic conditions, i.e. those that are created by medical treatment. This can create a market for more medical interventions to correct these iatrogenic conditions.  

The construction of the deadly disease ‘Covid-19’ has multiple uses, as I have discussed in previous articles. It is without doubt that this narrative massively benefits Big Pharma. Capitalist companies have ‘developed’ Covid-19 vaccines as quickly as possible in order to cash in on the market of selling these vaccines to the state for mass distribution. The Covid-19 narrative also promotes the idea that every single person in the country needs the vaccine which creates a massive market.

However, the Covid 19 narrative is more than just opportunistic. One function of the construction of this narrative – along with the pushing of transhumanist totalitarianism – is the transfer of wealth upward from ordinary people to capitalists. As has been known since the days of the early bourgeois economists such as David Ricardo, the rate of profit declines over time under a capitalist system. As capitalism has existed for centuries at this point this tendency has become significantly advanced. The recovery from the 2008 crisis was weak.

The ‘pandemic’ narrative was used to justify lockdowns, which have been an absolute disaster for the working class in terms of lost income. Importantly, lockdowns have helped to destroy small businesses, which has increased wealth centralisation. Under capitalism, capital becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer companies, banks, etc. as more successful firms drive weaker competition out of business. Lockdowns accelerate this process in several ways: closing small firms’ premises so forcing people to buy online, channeling purchases through a small number of businesses; causing small businesses to go bust so their assets can be bought on the cheap; and encouraging small businesses to take loans to ‘weather the pandemic’ which will mean their assets will be appropriated by banks.

The Covid-19 vaccinations then are just one part of transference of wealth into the pockets of a few large firms created by this narrative. Some might question this argument by saying that the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine was not developed for profit. However, as explained by Whitney Webb, AstraZeneca plans to make their profit further down the line through boosters given to people who received the original AstraZeneca jab. Their hope for profit was based on getting a wider spread of the vaccine due to the initial lack of profit, then doubling up on profit later – just another means to the same end.

Isn’t This Obvious?

Yes, I would consider the points raised about Big Pharma profiteering to be rather obvious. However, it seems that the Left needs a reminder of the realities of Big Pharma, and that they do not care about individuals’ health, only profit.

This is because many on the Left have fallen hook, line and sinker for the Official Covid Narrative, advocating any and all forms of capitalist ‘health’ authoritarianism so long as the government justifies it as ‘protecting us from a deadly virus’. Furthermore, the left has mocked anyone who questioned this narrative as a ‘conspiracy theorist’.

This puts the left in awkward position in terms of the profit motive behind the vaccines. The left has really pushed the idea of endless lockdowns, to the extent that it is difficult to see what would satisfy them (welding us in our homes, maybe?) This puts them in a position of having to support the vaccine because they are going to look ridiculous if they advocate for 50-year lockdowns until there is no more Covid (though of course, that doesn’t stop some of them – see the ‘Zero Covid’ fanatics).

People who question the vaccine, according to the left, are thus put in a bucket of being ‘Conspiracy theorists’, despite the obvious point that there is a certain motivation behind these vaccines that the left would have to admit: profit.

The left resolves this by unconsciously/cynically (take your pick) recognising the fact that profit is important for Big Pharma but only in terms of denying people the vaccine if they do not have the money to pay for it. The narrative involves criticism of Big Pharma in the sense that they have patented these vaccines and will not let generic versions of the vaccines be marketed because of their profit margins. The idea that the vaccine itself could be contaminated by profit motives is not considered.

Conclusion

The Covid-19 Narrative has created a windfall for Big Pharma, which is minimised by the left because they have fallen for the Covid Narrative. Although this minimisation is required given the support for the Covid narrative, it also warrants further explanation.

Let the Bodies Pile High

A new claim has been leaked to the British media about alleged comments made by Boris Johnson about lockdowns. The Daily Mail reports that:

Boris Johnson said he would rather see ‘bodies pile high in their thousands’ than order a third lockdown, it was claimed last night.

The explosive remark is said to have come after he reluctantly imposed the second lockdown, sources told the Mail.

Covid-19 Psychological Warfare

The Official Covid Narrative – that is, the idea that Sars-Cov-2 is a uniquely deadly virus that means that lockdowns, mandatory masks, social distancing, and vaccines are necessary to avoid mass death – has been a narrative that has been sold to the British public through the use of mass psychological manipulation.

Obviously, one significant part of that is the media. The media ran non-stop scare stories about the ‘deadly virus’, the idea that ‘the hospitals will be overrun’ was spouted endlessly, and in general, we were just all going to drop dead.

However, Boris Johnson delayed the implementation of the first lockdown in order to get the left and liberals, who hated him because of Brexit, to support it. This was exposed in an excellent article by Neil Clark:

Why did they [pretend they didn’t want a lockdown]? Well, put yourself in the shoes of Johnson and his top aide Dominic Cummings. If a Conservative government, and one which has already been denounced as by the liberal-left for being pro-Brexit, and anti-free movement, had said openly in February that they were planning to lock Britain down there would have been an outcry. The big question for the government was: how can we lock the country down, without stirring the liberal-left still further and provoking mass public opposition. What if the answer then was: pretend that we don’t want a lockdown? Then the binary, groupthink ‘culture warriors’ would be sure to press for one! They would end up calling for the government to do exactly what the government had planned to do all along! High-fives all round at Number 10.

I also pointed out in a previous article about the Modern Left’s support of the Covid Narrative that Johnson deliberately made himself look unsympathetic and callous:

The Left generally likes to think of itself as a compassionate group of people, caring about the rights of minorities and the working class, as compared to conservatives, who are apparently racist and homophobic. The idea that ‘lockdown is the compassionate position to save lives’ made the left buy into it, especially as Johnson made it appear as if he was ‘uncompassionate’ (for example, stating that some people would lose loved ones to the virus – assuming the virus exists, a simple statement of fact) which made the left get up in arms about how he wanted to ‘kill people’.

Johnson’s Comments Assessed

Johnson, of course, has stated that he did not say this. However, the argument about whether he actually made this comment is really beside the point. The actual discussion is about the purpose of this leak and what it is meant to achieve in terms of the continued psychological warfare on the British public in relation to the Official Covid Narrative.

We can already begin to see the strategy behind this leak from the quotes above. It seeks to portray the second lockdown in the same light as the first – that is, Boris Johnson as the reluctant, lagging lockdowner who is willing to cause deaths rather than save his country from a deadly virus. It portrays Johnson as callous and heartless, not caring about death.

Why would this be necessary? Other evidence, such as Chris Whitty openly talking about a new wave in late summer 2021, or the India narrative, suggests that Britain is being psychologically primed for another lockdown. This leak supports that contention, by showing that the government still has a need for further psychological manipulation on this issue.

Firstly, the ‘incompetent and callous Boris who locked down too late’ imagery can be used in order to justify more lockdown. Johnson did not do a ‘proper’ job on lockdowns so we need more of them because of his incompetence. Some people have suggested that Johnson is now ‘tainted’ and will be moved out of the way for another leader (who will then be able to do even harsher lockdowns by using this evidence of Johnson as a ‘weak lockdowner’). I make no predictions on that score, but it is possible.

Secondly, liberals, left-wingers, Labour MPs, etc are outraged by Johnson’s alleged comments. This is more psychological priming by the Tories in order to get left-wing people to accept more and more lockdown, exactly as the government did in March 2020. If Johnson is for less lockdown, well, we better be for more lockdown.

This leak was intentional in order to justify more murderous lockdowns, with Johnson at the helm or not.

The Covid 19 Narrative is About Destroying Our Links With the Natural World (Part 2)

Introduction

In the first part of this article, I discussed the Covid-19 narrative in the context of nature. The article concluded that there were significant signs of an agenda to detach human beings from nature: firstly, in the denial of the reality of death, and secondly, through the normalisation of mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccinations.

However, the discussion of the connection between devaluing nature and the Official Covid Narrative does not end there. There are further significant links which are helping to make Klaus Schwab’s “fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities” a reality. This part of the article will discuss the normalisation of nanotechnology through use of the Covid Narrative, as well as the coming ‘Smart Cities’ being pushed by the World Economic Forum.

The NanoTech New Normal

A 2004 report from the British Royal Society can serve as an introduction to the concept of nanotechnology. This report states that:

A nanometre (nm) is one thousand millionth of a metre. For comparison, a single human hair is about 80,000 nm wide, a red blood cell is approximately 7,000 nm wide and a water molecule is almost 0.3nm across. People are interested in the nanoscale (which we define to be from 100nm down to the size of atoms (approximately 0.2nm)) because it is at this scale that the properties of materials can be very different from those at a larger scale. We define nanoscience as the study of phenomena and manipulation of materials at atomic, molecular and macromolecular scales, where properties differ significantly from those at a larger scale; and nanotechnologies as the design, characterisation, production and application of structures, devices and systems by controlling shape and size at the nanometre scale. In some senses, nanoscience and nanotechnologies are not new. Chemists have been making polymers, which are large molecules made up of nanoscale subunits, for many decades and nanotechnologies have been used to create the tiny features on computer chips for the past 20 years. However, advances in the tools that now allow atoms and molecules to be examined and probed with great precision have enabled the expansion and development of nanoscience and nanotechnologies.

Institutions such as the US Government have been interested in nanotechnology for several years. The National Nanotechnology Initiative was launched by Bill Clinton and the organisation has received funding from Congress.

The cumulative NNI investment since fiscal year 2001, including the 2018 request, now totals more than $25 billion. In addition, more than $1.1 billion has been invested cumulatively since 2004 in funding for nanotechnology-based small businesses through the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs of the participating Federal agencies. 

At first, the kinds of technologies that are being advocated for seem benign or positive developments, such as to improve the functioning of computers. The benign uses of such technologies can mean that they become more accepted in society.

However, certain uses of nanotechnology that are desired by the elite are considered to be taboo by ordinary people. In particular, the integration of nanotechnology within the human body. Much like concepts such as Genetically Modified foods, many people consider interfering with nature in this way to be immoral and playing god. A lot of people still maintain some connection with nature and do not desire nanotechnology to be used within the human body. The inculcation of mass fear around the Sars-Cov-2 virus, and the idea introduced through this fear that nature is the enemy, is a way to get around this problem.

The Covid-19 narrative is being used to slowly normalise the idea of ‘implantable biosensors’ that will monitor your health. Back in 2018, a company known as Profusa claimed to have developed these small injectable sensors that can be used to monitor all aspects of body chemistry, marketing them as a step up from fitness trackers and other wearable watch like products. Their sensors overcome issues with the body rejecting such interventions as foreign and causing inflammation in response. These sensors – injected at the surface of the skin – can be scanned via smartphone devices in order to retrieve the data they have collected. The research carried out by Profusa is supported by the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), one of the main institutions pushing techno-tyranny as a ‘solution’ to Covid-19. DARPA have been interested in the notion of ‘predictive health’ for a long time and have been examining the issue since at least 2006.

The link between these technologies and Covid-19 is made explicit in this article. Profusa has developed another sensor that allegedly detects sickness with a particular virus before the person shows symptoms, a concept that Ryan Cristian has usefully called ‘Medical Precrime’. The article acknowledges that some people might be wary of the idea because of privacy concerns but brushes that aside, claiming that the sensors can only transmit information when they are scanned.

The idea of Medical Precrime ties into the War on Death, discussed in the first part of this article. Accepting the need for these sensors to tell you that you are sick involves rejecting the truth of your own body. This is a step up from the focus on RT-PCR testing to see whether or not somebody has Sars-Cov-2, even if they have no symptoms, and the whole narrative around ‘asymptomatic transmission’.

Dissociation from your own body is required to get you to accept transhumanism. If you accept your body as part of nature that you are in touch with and related to, you will not want a transhumanist future. The elite, however, want this transhumanist future whether you like it or not, so they have to develop bridging ideologies and constructs to get ordinary people to accept that future, and The Official Covid Narrative is one of these.

Endgame: The Totalitarian Smart Cities

According to the Smart Cities Readiness Guide, a smart city can be defined as such:

A smart city uses information and communications technology (ICT) to enhance its livability, workability and sustainability. First, a smart city collects information about itself through sensors, other devices and existing systems. Next, it communicates that data using wired or wireless networks. Third, it analyzes that data to understand what’s happening now and what’s likely to happen next.

Another key aspect of the Smart City is the Internet of Things, which connects all devices – from kettles and fridges to computers and mobile phones – to the internet. This kind of system would require 5G to function because otherwise there would be far too much latency within the system.

Searching online for ‘Smart Cities Covid 19’ brings up a multitude of links relating to the issue. For example, this article states that:

Density – it’s part of what makes cities bustling cosmopolitan hubs for transnational commerce and mobility. It is also what makes them particularly vulnerable to the risks of outbreaks such as COVID-19, with some experts arguing it will force a significant rethink of urban planning if we are to achieve long-term survival in a pandemic world.

This article portrays the Smart City approach as a positive way to ‘control the pandemic’ by using the ‘collective intelligence’ of people in relation to the high level of data collected by the sensors embedded within the smart city.

Another article links Covid to Smart Cities through a false ‘green’ agenda, stating that the lockdowns have reduced road traffic and that smart city technology can be used to continue this reduction in pollution and carbon emissions. For example, they claim that AI can be used to reduce congestion through steering traffic. The article then uses this idea as a lead into normalising alarms going off if people are not ‘social distancing’.

The World Economic Forum, and other elites, are deeply invested in promoting this smart city vision, and using whatever concerns of the public – from pollution to pandemics – that they feel will get people to accept this agenda. While we are allegedly living in the ‘deadliest pandemic in a century’ the elite are concerned about pushing this technology more than anything else. In November 2020, The World Economic Forum selected 36 cities to pioneer these kinds of technologies:

Cities are facing urgent challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic and other major disruptions, which are expected to culminate in a budget crisis that could reach $1 trillion in the United States alone. They need data and innovation to become more resilient, responsive and efficient. Yet there is no global framework for how cities should use these technologies, or the data they collect, in a way that protects the public interest.

In reality, despite the PR lavished on Smart Cities, such a system would be a heavily controlled one, where there would be no ability to dissent from what the elite want. Every move and every possible piece of data would be tracked. AI would begin to control more and more of people’s lives through the processing and analysis of the endless data collected from the multitude of sensors. There would be no privacy, and the elite could make rebellion essentially impossible, by cutting off every single device that an attempted rebel owns – even their heating or fridge. And there would be no room for things that the elite are not able to control in this new dystopia – including the natural world.

Conclusion

We must defend the value of nature and the natural, as well as our own connections with nature and the cycles of life, in order to fight the Covid-19 Narrative. This narrative begins with the denial of death as a natural process but ends with everything in our lives being controlled through the mechanism of technology. In a smart city where everything is controlled through sensors, monitoring, and artificial intelligence, there is no room for nature and the natural. Even humanity itself will become modified by mRNA gene therapy and concepts like Elon Musk’s Neuralink which will connect people to computers and thus into the Smart Cities themselves. Here we end up at Klaus Schwab’s dreaded “fusion of our physical, our digital and our biological identities.”

The Covid 19 Narrative is about Destroying Our Links With the Natural World (Part 1)

Introduction

One of the main functions of the Official Covid Narrative – the idea that Covid 19 is a uniquely deadly virus that requires the use of lockdowns, masks, and social distancing as well as vaccines being given to the vast majority of the human population – is to destroy the connections that human beings have with nature.

Human beings are inherently reliant upon nature to survive and traditional societies had a clear awareness of the cycles of nature and had spiritual beliefs based on natural processes. Modern industrial societies, that exist in the Western world, have reduced the connection with nature to a large extent. For example, human beings used to act within the natural light provided by the sun and divide up their days based on that, whereas nowadays we use times more suited to regimented industrial production.

However, even in our world with a large number of unnatural features, there are certain ideas that human beings naturally baulk at and consider to be immoral or disturbing. There are certain uses of technology that people consider to be going ‘too far’ and that many people who practice a faith consider to be ‘playing God’. Even if they cannot articulate a clear objection when asked, they feel in their gut that it is wrong. These aspects involve issues related to genetic engineering (including genetically modified foods), and anything related to transhumanism: from implantable sensors to becoming cyborgs.

Individuals such as Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, want to completely sever the linkages humans have to nature in order to create a techno-dystopia. Schwab has openly referred to the Fourth Industrial Revolution as “a fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities.” Most people are deeply uncomfortable with this idea and will need to be softened up to accept it and not put up mass resistance to it. Schwab has been open about the fact that he hopes to use the Covid-19 narrative as a means to completely reshape the world, in order to create his techno dystopia.

Here are the techniques that the mainstream media, the government, and psychopaths like Schwab are using to get people to reject their nature and accept transhumanist control. This article will discuss the first two aspects of this: ‘The War on Death’ and the nature of the Covid 19 vaccinations.

“The War on Death”

As has been pointed out by CJ Hopkins, the Official Covid Narrative essentially amounts to declaring a War on Death. This is self-evidently absurd:

We can’t let these […] coronavirus-sympathizers confuse us. They want to convince us that Death is, yes, scary, and sad, but inevitable, and natural. How utterly heartless and insane is that?!

No, we need to close our minds to that nonsense. People are dying! This is not normal! Death is our enemy! We have to defeat it! We need to hunt down and neutralize Death! Root it out if its hidey hole and hang it like we did with Saddam!

The Covid Narrative talks endlessly about death, death figures, and how many have died after a positive test. Yet, perversely, while the Covid Narrative obsesses over the reality of death – it also seeks to deny it. Every death is blamed on some sort of violation of the ‘pandemic restrictions’: ‘The Government didn’t lockdown early enough’, ‘people didn’t wear their masks’ and so on. The unspoken implication of this is that death is preventable so long as people obey the government. This is obvious nonsense, and magical thinking to the highest degree. This monomania is seen at its height in the ‘Zero Covid’ movement – a bunch of fanatics who want to completely eliminate Covid-19 from the earth without caring about the cost of the endless lockdowns they demand.

The fear of death is something that is present in all human societies and there have traditionally been societal means of managing this fear. Historically, religion has been one of the key ways of doing this, but there are also others that do not depend on faith in a deity (such as the idea of leaving a contribution to society behind). However, the global elite are more than aware of the psychological weaknesses that make human beings vulnerable to manipulation on this issue. For example, the UK Government has a ‘Scientific Pandemic Insights on Behaviours’ group specifically designed to manipulate the public so that they will obey the government. These individuals are aware that people’s fear of death can be used to get them to accept authoritarian governance and desire conformity. Psychologically, people are soothed by the idea that they can prevent death by following orders. The structure gives them something to focus upon: a way to avoid having to think about and accept the inevitable.

The government are attempting to detach people from the nature of life and death with this narrative. However, so far as this goes, this could still just be a form of authoritarian opportunism designed to get people to accept more government control. In order to see that this ‘war on death’ is part of a broader narrative to detach people from nature we must go deeper into the heart of the narrative and explore the vaccines.

The Nature of the Vaccine Saviour

From the beginning of the alleged pandemic, the idea of a vaccination was promoted as the solution and the only way to return to normal. This is despite the fact that natural solutions were and are available to mitigate the ‘pandemic’, even according to their own narrative.

According to the Official Narrative, Covid 19 is an upper tract respiratory virus, similar to influenza and the common cold. We already know the most important ways to lower risk of getting sick with such diseases. One of the most important of these is Vitamin D, which improves natural immunity. Rather than encouraging its citizens to help their immune system fight off the virus by getting Vitamin D, the government did not mention such solutions. Instead in fact, governments in the Western world locked down their populations in March and April 2020 – likely reducing Vitamin D intake when people could have been going outside in (at least here in the UK) glorious weather.

Of course, there are reasons why the government and pharmaceutical companies may downplay natural solutions that do not relate to the idea of attempting to disconnect us from the natural world and promoting transhumanism.

The first one is the profit motive. Vitamin D does not provide large amounts of profits for pharmaceutical companies as it can be got through diet, exercise, and cheap supplements. On the other hand, a vaccination has the potential to create billions in profit for these companies. We have already seen significant corruption of this type during the alleged 2009 ‘Swine Flu’ pandemic that turned out to be essentially completely fabricated as Swine Flu proved to be much less deadly than ordinary influenza. The World Health Organisation declared a pandemic because of this virus, but it turned out that many people declaring this ‘pandemic’ had connections to pharmaceutical companies that were producing a vaccination. This question was even investigated by the Council of Europe. The GlaxoSmithKline vaccine for Swine Flu, Pandemrix, turned out to be very harmful, causing a large number of narcolepsy cases.

The second reason is that the vaccination can be used as a mechanism for control. From the beginning of this narrative, the idea of vaccine passports has been floated by the elite. The World Economic Forum have been positively portraying vaccine passports and more recently the British government have launched a consultation on vaccination passports, showing that they are seriously considering them.

Both of these arguments are entirely valid and correct. However, I believe the aims of the vaccination go beyond these two goals and are designed to promote the transhumanist agenda. Both the profit motive goal and the control goal can be achieved by traditional vaccination. Traditional vaccination can be defined as interventions that inject a dead or attenuated virus into the body to prime the immune response. These new vaccines do not fit this category, and in fact fit into an ideal that allow the normalisation of changing humanity and bring us one step closer to transhumanism.

There are two different types of Covid-19 vaccination. The first type is the mRNA vaccination, and this type is the one that has generated the most discussion and criticism among alternative media circles. The vaccines that fall in this category are the Pfizer and Moderna injections. These jabs contain a piece of mRNA, messenger RNA that will enter into your cells. The mRNA will then get these cells to produce a ‘spike protein’: the protein that is (supposedly) on the surface of the virus Sars-Cov-2. After the cells at the injection site have created the spike protein, the immune system will produce antibodies to this protein. Theoretically these antibodies will then be able to fight off the virus if they come into contact with it.

What about the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccination? This does not use the mRNA technology. However, the vaccination cannot be considered traditional, either. This is because it does not contain dead or attenuated Sars-Cov-2 virus. Rather, it contains a chimpanzee adenovirus, which has been genetically modified in order to have the Sars-Cov-2 spike protein on the surface.

There is an interesting article published on the ‘Alliance for Science’ (whose “primary source of support is a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation”) called ‘Yes, Some Covid Vaccines use Genetic Engineering. Get Over It.’ This article promotes the creation of hybrid viruses and reprogramming some of your cells as ‘way cool’, as if it’s just a special effect in a science fiction film. Of course, according to the article, everyone who is a bit sceptical of this is a lunatic anti-vaxxer. The article also links this scepticism to anti-GMO views – explicitly criticising those who prefer natural approaches.

The classification of such interventions as vaccination means, to quote Dr. Andrew Wakefield, “we now have genetic engineering put in the category with vaccines”. This is obviously a very concerning development. The creation of these vaccines also show us what these scientists really think about nature and natural processes. They view natural processes in a completely instrumental way, rather than as complicated and interlinked processes that can be heavily affected by changes in one part: they think problems can be solved in a mechanistic manner. This also demonstrates the extreme hubris of these scientists – and their backers such as Bill Gates.

There may be one final argument against my position, and that is that many if not most people are not aware of the real nature of these injections, thus the vaccine cannot be said to normalise transhumanism. It is true that many people are not currently aware of the nature of these injections. However, as these people have already accepted their vaccination there will be a powerful incentive for them to rationalise that choice when the reality of the injection becomes more clear. This rationalisation, of course, will end up amounting to the idea that this sort of messing with nature is actually good, or fine, or ‘nothing really went wrong and the scientists know what they are doing’.

Conclusion

The story so far has demonstrated that there is an agenda to declare war on the nature of our humanity and to promote genetic engineering when it comes to vaccination. The next part of the story will take up the issue of nanotechnology and its relation to the Covid-19 ‘pandemic’.