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:

Protesters in Chamberlain Square, Birmingham. War Memorial is in the background.

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.

Man dressed up as the Grim Reaper holding an oversized syringe.

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.

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.

Protesters in Hyde Park, London. The image is framed by foliage.

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.

Man in front wearing a blue 'Against Vaccine Passports' T shirt, Sikh man wearing a turban waves a flag. Union Jack is present in the background.

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.

Wellington Arch, London, with protesters walking through it. Police vans are on the left.

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).

Large crowd of protesters. Yellow and Union Jack flags are present.

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 19^th 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 75^th 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.

Free Palestine Birmingham (Plus a little bit of Anti-Lockdown protests)

It looks like there have been protests all over Europe in support of Palestine, from Dublin, to Amsterdam, to France. There have also been protests in the UK as well, including in London.

The actions in the UK happened to be on the same date as anti-lockdown protests. I was not aware of any organised anti-lockdown protests in Birmingham, because although the weekend of the 15th May was the regional protests as well as London, there was no Birmingham protest mentioned on the list I saw.

I went into town because I wanted to pick up some stuff, though I was on the lookout for any protest actions. At 2:30pm I started hearing a lot of noise and had a look outside, there was a reasonably large group of anti-lockdown protesters near the Waterstones bookshop.

Protesters were holding banners and signs saying ‘No More Lockdown’, signs defending children and one woman with a sign reading ‘There’s nothing more unattractive than a muzzled up obedient man’. There was also someone with one of those smiley face flags that I saw in the London protest imagery.

Woman holding sign "Wake Up! Don't be a mug. You don't need permission to have a hug." in a crowd of protesters

I assume the protest took place earlier in the day and dispersed after this because I did not see them about afterwards. I finished what I was doing in town and then decided to look around to see if there were any protest actions still going on, I started walking towards Victoria Square. I could see a large number of Palestinian flags so I moved in that direction.

As I walked towards the square, the crowd began to walk in my direction. The crowd was way larger than I expected.

Large crowd of Palestine protesters marching through the city centre. Many in the front are wearing blue masks. Sign in the background says "Stop Funding Israel". — Crowd of protesters leaving Victoria Square

The march route. I believe it was this. Marked on the Wikimedia commons (ancient) Birmingham City Centre map:

Complex image showing the route of march from Victoria Square, round the back of Victoria Magistrates' Court near the Children's Hospital and back to Victoria Square.

The crowd must have been made up of a few thousand people. This was surprising to me because when I have been to or seen Free Palestine events in the past they have been small.

It took about an hour for the crowd to get round that route and back to Victoria Square. Here are a few more photos.

Large crowd of protesters coming into Colmore Row. Signs saying Freedom for Palestine. Barclays bank is in the distance. — Colmore Row.

Protesters holding Palestine flags opposite Lloyds Bank in Birmingham City Centre — Near Station entrance (old Pallisades)

Crowd approaching Victoria square with Palestine flags. Protesters are facing the camera. — Approaching Victoria Square.

The crowd reached Victoria Square and there was chanting but there wasn’t any speeches or anything like that. There is thus not much to comment on in that regard.

Here’s Victoria Square.

Protesters in Victoria Square with Palestine Flags.

It was good to see such large protest events in support of Palestine around the country and the world. The size of such protests compared to in the past perhaps warrants further examination as to why but would require further research.

Belarus: Regime Change Target

[A note on names. People did not like the Belarusian spelling Lukashenka that I used in my previous article. I did not use this spelling for any other reason than that I am used to spelling it that particular way. I have used the Russian spelling, Lukashenko, in this article to take this into account.]

[Another note on flags. For those who aren’t aware the opposition uses a different flag of Belarus to the government, referenced in the drawing above. The actual Belorussian flag is the one on the left (green and red). The flag used by the opposition is white-red-white.]

On the 17^th April 2021, news broke of a planned coup against the leader of Belarus, Aleksandr Lukashenko. Russian intelligence released videos of the plotters discussing plans to eliminate the Belorussian leader during the 9^th May Victory Parade. This failed coup, however, is far from the first attempt to have Lukashenko replaced. There has been more than one attempt to remove Lukashenko through the Colour Revolution method due to his rejection of privatisation and neoliberal economics. The 2020 presidential election created another opportunity for regime change operators to cultivate a protest movement against the result. However, it appears that this movement has failed, leaving only the possibility of a coup to remove Lukashenko.

The History of ‘Colour Revolutions’ In Belarus: A Story of Failure

Due to Aleksandr Lukashenko’s overwhelming election victory in 1994, Belarus maintained a quasi-Soviet economy despite the collapse of the USSR. The ‘commanding heights’ of the economy, such as large industrial plants, remained under state ownership. The Belorussian system maintained high levels of employment, stable jobs, and comparative income equality. Lukashenko’s policy contrasts with countries such as Ukraine, where neoliberal privatisation led to the creation of a class of oligarchs. Furthermore, Belarus has aligned more with Russia than the West geopolitically, although there is more nuance to Russian-Belorussian relations than portrayed in Western media. Thus, the West has long been hostile to Lukashenko’s government.

The Colour Revolution model has been employed by Western leaders to remove governments that resist their ideology and demands, particularly in the post-Soviet space. This model ensured pro-Western leaders came to power in neighbouring Ukraine in 2004 (the Orange Revolution) and 2014 (The EuroMaidan). This model has also been attempted in Belarus. The approach has been simple: back a particular candidate against Lukashenko in elections, claim that that candidate lost due to fraud, and attempt to use the ensuing street protests as a means by which to get rid of Lukashenko.

Prior to 2020, the clearest example of a Western regime change operation in Belarus took place in 2006, that is, shortly after the successes of other colour revolutions in the post-Soviet space. The 2006 elections were contested between Lukashenko and Aleksandr Milinkevich, a pro-Western, pro-economic liberalisation candidate. The West gave some backing to Milinkevich, both in terms of funding for ‘democracy promotion’ in the country and working with Milinkevich’s election team. The New York Times reported that:

The Bush administration, which has labeled Belarus the only “outpost of tyranny” left in Europe, spent $11.8 million last year on democracy promotion and plans to spend $12 million in 2006. The National Endowment for Democracy, the Congressionally financed nonprofit organization that promotes freedom overseas, is spending $2.2 million more on 49 grants related to the Belarus election.
The leaders of the democratic opposition of Belarus were there to discuss politics with Terry Nelson, the national political director of Bush-Cheney 2004. In that campaign, Nelson oversaw the president’s strategy of creating a vast get-out-the-vote network by organizing volunteers. “We have neighbors talking to neighbors, and that’s the way to win a close race,” he said at the time.

The official results of the election gave Lukashenko 84.4% of the vote whereas Milinkevich received only 6.2%. The opposition immediately called the election rigged. There is no evidence that Milinkevich won the election, though the margin of victory may have been exaggerated. For example, in this poll after the election 58.2% stated they voted for Lukashenko.

The protests after the election were dubbed the ‘Jeans’ or ‘Denim’ revolution, the term deriving from one person using denim as a flag. This term was not only designed to invoke other Colour Revolutions, such as the Orange Revolution and the Rose Revolution, but also the idea of Westernisation (denim is often associated with the West in post-Soviet countries). These protests took place between March 19-25, 2006. US funded pro-regime change outlet Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFERL) estimated the protests as being between 20,000-30,000 at the largest. These protests were able to be successfully dealt with by the government, including the use of arrests, and they did not at any point create a real threat to Lukashenko’s rule.

The 2020 Election: The Latest Attempt at Regime Change

The 2020 Belorussian election provided another opportunity to try to have Lukashenko removed through the colour revolution method. Lukashenko has broadly continued the same economic and geostrategic policies that caused the West to be hostile to his leadership.

However, 2020 also offered another compelling reason to be rid of Lukashenko. As outlined in my previous article on Belarus, Lukashenko employed a limited response to Sars-Cov-2, rejecting lockdown policies as a solution. Furthermore, Lukashenko claimed in July 2020 that the International Monetary Fund demanded he carry out these policies, and he made clear that these terms for any loans were unacceptable to him.

Lukashenko stated:

The IMF continued to demand from us: bring forward quarantine, isolation and a curfew. What is this stupidity? We will not dance to anyone’s tune. The demands appear: you, they say, should do in Belarus what Italy did in the struggle with the coronavirus. God forbid, I do not want Belarus to repeat what happened in Italy. We have our own country and our own situation.

In terms of the reasons for his removal, Lukashenko is most analogous to President John Magufuli of Tanzania. Magufuli rejected the privatisation of mineral wealth as well as the Official Covid Narrative. Magufuli disappeared and then was pronounced dead several weeks later. He was replaced by Samia Suluhu Hassan, who seems to have the approval of Western capital and global institutions such as the World Economic Forum.

The mechanism for attempted regime change remained the ‘contested election’ model. The West’s candidate in the race was Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, celebrated in the media as the ‘housewife taking on Lukashenko’. Tikhanovkaya claimed to have limited aims. The BBC stated that:

The women have no political programme, just one plea: vote for Svetlana to oust Mr Lukashenko then she’ll call fresh, fair elections and free all the political prisoners.

Now deleted webpages seem to show, however, that economic privatisation and joining the EU and NATO was part of the opposition’s agenda. It is also worthy of note that although Tikhanovskaya became a candidate due to the arrest or exile of other figures, she speaks excellent English, making her well positioned to deliver press conferences to a foreign audience.

The election took place on August 9, 2020. The official results showed a landslide win for Lukashenko, with 80% of the vote, Tikhanovskaya receiving 10%. The opposition claimed that the election was rigged, and that Belorussians should get out in the street to overturn the fraudulent result. The actual truth of the result is not the main concern of this article, although the Russian opposition outlet Golos states that in the 1310 polling places available for analysis, Lukashenko received 61.7% and Tikhanovskaya 25.4% (though they still believe this to be doubtful, they do not present any further evidence on the question).

Regardless of the truth, there were significant protests after the election result. Looking to US regime change publication RFERL again, it refers to more than 20,000 people on August 14, ‘tens of thousands’ on August 13, but referred to the protests on the night of the election as ‘difficult to estimate’. The opposition also created a ‘co-ordinating council’ as a government in waiting. There were calls from Western leaders for Lukashenko to step down.

What is the evidence of Western involvement in Belarus? USAID, one of the key operators of the American regime change complex, has given funding to several ‘partners’ in 2019-2020 in order to undermine the Belorussian government. These include many organisations that are interconnected with the US state. For example, Freedom House was one of the organisations that received the most funding. This money went towards things such as ‘supporting a free media’ and ‘developing political parties’. Another key member of the regime change complex, the National Endowment for Democracy, gave out multiple grants in Belarus during 2019. This included, for example, $16,000 to ‘sponsor an independent periodical’ and $50,400 for ‘strengthening independent online media’. The EU has also announced funding for Belorussian activists. The EU announced back in November that they were going to be spending money on bloggers, ‘independent’ media, and students.

US ally Poland is also playing an important role in undermining the Belorussian government. According to Covert Action magazine, Poland “became the base for two popular Belarusian-language news channels which have been leading a propaganda onslaught on the government in Belarus.” One outlet, Nexta, appears to have some financial backing as it is able to produce a large amount of content despite allegedly being a grassroots operation run by four people. Some of the individuals involved in these media outlets have links to the far right. One individual, Roman Protosevich, has significant connections to the Ukrainian fascist movement, including personally taking part in the Maidan protests. There have also been allegations that Ukraine has been involved in promoting disorder in Belarus made by the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Lavrov claims that 200 far right extremists from Ukraine have been carrying out provocations in Belarus, and that these individuals have been part of training camps for such purposes in Ukraine.

The West is also seeking to assert leverage over the country through the mechanism of sanctions. For example, the European Union has placed sanctions on Belorussian officials, putting a travel ban and freezing their economic resources. The UK and US also have sanctions regimes in place against Belarus. As of yet, it seems these sanctions have been largely focused on officials, but Biden recently announced he would be putting sanctions on 9 Belorussian firms, indicating a possible ramping up of pressure on the government.

The End of the Colour Revolution and Plans for Murder

This regime change effort initially looked superficially promising for the West, due to the significant turnout at protests and persistence in the presence of protest events. However, the regime change effort has not been successful.

Lukashenko was able to deal with the protests through some use of repression. The members of the ‘Co-ordinating Council’, designed to transfer power from the Belorussian authorities to itself, were either arrested or fled abroad. There was never a point where the government was significantly weak to be at risk of collapse or overthrow. Nor have there been any divisions within the Belorussian authorities that could have benefited the protesters. The far right – vital in the success of the EuroMaidan coup – is less prominent in Belarus than Ukraine. There have also been some protest events in support of Lukashenko. Significant numbers of Belorussians are aware that Lukashenko’s replacement with a pro-Western candidate will likely lead to huge economic problems for their country, mass unemployment and the creation of a class of wealthy oligarchs.

Opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya admitted that the protesters had ‘lost the streets’ after a decline in events in the beginning of 2021.

However, on the 17^th April, there was a new development. Russian and Belorussian intelligence claimed to have foiled a coup planned for Victory Day, and Russian intelligence released video evidence of the plotters discussing having Lukashenko eliminated.

One of the videos, presumably recorded by a Russian bug, shows a meeting in Moscow, involving oppositionists Zyankovich and Feduta, along with figures believed to be Belorussian generals by Russian intelligence (an English transcript is available here).

In the clip, Zyankovich does most of the talking, outlining in detail what needs to be done to cause regime change:

Task number one is to eliminate the main leader [it is clarified later this means physical elimination]. Task number two is to block internal troops, to block OMON [riot police/anti-terrorist police]. Task number three is to occupy several symbolic locations in the city centre, in particular, radio station, television station, so that we can read out our address…and preferably – to block Minsk in order to prevent the bringing in of foreign troops.

How many people would need to be quickly interned is discussed, as well as the possibility of disrupting the power grid. They want to use their power to carry out reforms, such as judicial, constitutional, and within local government.

The plotters also show contempt for ordinary Belorussians, as Zyankovich states:

Our task is to transform society and the state. Because if now we were to hold an election, instead of Lukashenko, they will elect [another] Lukashenko, and we will still be in the same position in twenty-five years.

They even discuss possible ill-gotten gains belonging to ‘Our Sasha [Lukashenko]’ that they could ‘quietly take’ if available, and where they might be stored.

Other videos show Zoom meetings, where a possible transfer of power in Belarus is compared to the case of Anwar Sadat in Egypt (implying assassination). One of the alleged plotters in the Zoom meeting footage, Pavel Kulazhenko, stated that it was not a coup plan and it was simply a discussion about “the same things that are discussed every evening in every Belarusian family – how to speed up Lukashenko’s retirement.”

Lukashenko claims that the US Government is behind the attempted coup. While this claim is not proven, it does fit with past US behaviour of removing leaders that resist American hegemony. It is beyond doubt that the US would have immediately backed any post-Lukashenko regime that pivoted to the West.

It is also worthy of note that on the same date the coup plot was discovered by the Russians, the Czech government attempted to revive the Skripal narrative by bringing back Boshirov and Petrov, claiming that they were responsible for an ammunition dump explosion in 2014. The sheer ridiculousness of this story – for example, the idea that the Russian secret services just happened to deploy the same two agents for two completely different ‘missions’ – suggests that it was invented at short notice as a distraction from the coup story.

Conclusion

There is a concerted effort to have Aleksandr Lukashenko removed from power and replaced with a leader more pliant to capital. While claims from any leader and intelligence service cannot be taken at face value, and this applies as much to Russia and Belarus as it does the West, the evidence in this case makes it likely that the West is involved in fomenting discord against Lukashenko and possibly even in plotting his liquidation.