Roe vs Wade & Abortion Rights Protest 26th June 2022

There was a protest called at short notice after the overturning of the Roe vs. Wade ruling in the US. For clarity, the overturning of Roe vs. Wade doesn’t make abortion illegal, it means it isn’t a constitutional right. It will be banned in all the hardcore conservative states but will remain legal in the liberal states.

Bad Takes from Right Wing Men

In the wake of this ruling there have been a billion bad takes on Twitter from pro-life men, quite a few of whom I follow due to their anti-lockdown and anti-forced jab stance. Most of them are making the argument that it’s people’s fault (primarily women, obviously) for having constant promiscuous sex with a bunch of unknown partners.

This of course completely ignores the reality of rapists and abusive men who will use sabotaging birth control as a means of coercive control over their partners. It also ignores the fact that the ‘young people are going around shagging lots of different people’ is more of a media constructed reality than actual fact. The highly sexualised culture and 24/7 access to violent, misogynist pornography makes the current generations such as millennials look as if they are having loads of sex. Surveys however do not back up that contention, instead they show that millennials have less sex than previous generations. Of course I’m not claiming there is nobody doing this before someone steams in with the strawman.

Then of course, there is the classic of men going around calling pregnancy an inconvenience. Note guys: if it can literally kill you, it doesn’t qualify as an inconvenience.

Supporting or Opposing ‘The Great Reset’?

People are arguing whether this supports the current agenda which we could broadly called ‘The Great Reset’. I use this term for convenience, broadly meaning the pushing of digital identity and transhumanism. Some people are arguing that the ruling is against the great reset because it opposes the depopulation agenda, others because it leads to more decentralisation (as it allows states to decide on abortion and not the federal government).

I’m not really convinced by such arguments for a few reasons. I acknowledge that depopulation is a goal of some members of the elite and that there is elite interest in the topic. For example, Bill Gates’ famous claims:

If we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could perhaps lower [projected population growth] by 10-15%…

Bill Gates

[Note: contrary to ‘fact checker’ claims, I am not making any claim in this particular argument other than that Bill Gates wants population growth to decrease and that he has an interest in these kinds of topics].

There are of course also examples of deliberate sterilisation policies that have been carried out by certain governments, examples of which are too numerous to list. However these efforts have generally been targeted at certain groups especially racial minorities and disabled people so they would not qualify as a full on depopulation plan.

There is also the new evidence coming out about sperm quality and the Covid 19 jabs which has been widely publicised on outlets such as Children’s Health Defense and Substack. Igor Chudov has also highlighted declines in birth rates after the jab rollout. However whether this is a depopulation plan is not proven. There are other explanations – for example that they were determined to push this product obsessively for other reasons (vaccine passports and other control measures) and because it wasn’t tested properly it had this effect.

The downsides to any depopulation argument occur when we look at things from a country based level. A country will be in a weak position if it has a low military/working age population compared to its elderly population. This has been a significant problem in countries such as Russia. Despite some claims to the contrary which completely dismiss the idea of geopolitics, different countries do have different interests despite agreement on the Covid Narrative. This can be seen in the current situation in Ukraine. This would provide an incentive for any country to avoid going along with a deliberate plan. (Depopulation arguments probably deserve their own post).

I can understand a ruling towards decentralisation being seen as a positive but there are difficulties here as well. I don’t know why we would consider state governments any less corrupt than federal to be honest.

It seems much more likely that this ruling will fit in well with what the psychopaths want to achieve. The actual original ruling in Roe vs. Wade used logic that is not intuitive:

the Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Overturning a privacy rights based ruling doesn’t seem like a good thing.

I am not a lawyer and I don’t have a particular expertise in assessing legal arguments but this article seems worthy of note.

The state in which Jessica lives prohibits and criminalizes abortion for any reason, defining a fertilized egg as a person. Jessica tells her friends and family that she had a miscarriage at 11 weeks of pregnancy. One of her roommates doesn’t believe her and reports her to the local police for having had an abortion.

The local police investigate Jessica for what they believe is a possible violation of the state’s law criminalizing abortion. Based on the initial investigation, police officers determine that Jessica wanted to terminate her pregnancy and was trying to find the “abortion drug.” They obtain a warrant to search her phone. On her phone, they discover evidence that she searched for information about abortion and purchased mifepristone and misoprostol. These drugs can cause an abortion, but they are also used to help women complete the process of miscarriage. They also find evidence of when she had her last period on a period-tracking app, which further substantiates that she was pregnant for 11 weeks. The evidence obtained from Jessica’s phone is used to prosecute her for violating the state’s law criminalizing abortion.

There is also the question of creating divisions within the country and trying to undermine any possible unity, which could be a motive. As well as a further pile on to the Covid/Ukraine/Monkeypox/God-knows-what narrative mixer we are currently part of in 2022.

Protest Footage

Footage is available from this protest on my Youtube and Bitchute accounts. The protest was a short event, about 45 minutes long, with a pretty good turnout for a short notice protest. I have footage of a few of the speeches on the channel about abortion rights in Latin America, disability and abortion and the strategy being pursued by anti-abortion activists.

Postscript: An Actual Solution

Youtube content producer A Slightly Twisted Female posted the below on her channel for a new project that she will be producing:

Roe v. Wade has been overturned.

As such, I will now turn my attention towards developing a menstrual extraction protocol which would allow women to safely, and inexpensively, extract menstrual contents of their uterus. This is an old midwifery technique that has been used to traditional caregivers since time immemorial, and it’s time to return this wisdom back to women, where it belongs.

I will be reaching out to my contacts of traditional midwives, particularly midwives who serve the Amish and Mennonite communities local to my area in order to develop a protocol for menstrual extraction that can be shared with women across the globe.

Please please consider helping to support my mission by sending a donation so I can develop this protocol for vulnerable women.

I am posting this here to give this project more amplification as it is the kind of solution that we should be supporting – reliance on ourselves and not big pharma and returning to these forms of traditional knowledge that have been taken away from women. In fact we need this kind of knowledge to spread for things other than just this one issue.

The Snobbery of the Covid Narrative and Its Functions

Introduction

The Official Covid Narrative, the idea that Covid-19 is an extremely dangerous disease that requires severe mitigation strategies such as lockdown, views human beings as simply disease carriers. However, some categories of people are viewed more as disease carriers than others by the official narrative, and specifically by the believers in that narrative. The narrative itself is inherently linked to certain middle and upper class attitudes about the working classes and their beliefs and pursuits. This is seen through the demonisation of working class people for carrying out ordinary everyday activities and for being sceptical of big pharma.

The Great Unwashed

From 23 March 2020, near the entirety of the country was compliant with Boris Johnson’s draconian lockdowns. As someone who was a sceptic of the narrative from the beginning, it was depressing and almost hopeless to see the state of the country at that time.

The first possible signs of actual social life came about through the suggestion of V.E. Day anniversary celebrations. 8th May 2020 marked the 75th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, so at that point the British people had endured about 6 weeks of lockdown. This was the first sign of life in the country since the beginning of the tyranny.

This is when the middle class handwringing started. The idea of celebrating V.E. Day does not suit middle class Remainer sensibilities, as they consider it to be too nationalistic. They already had a negative conception of the ‘insular’ working class who largely voted for Brexit, so they were already psychologically primed for mass demonisation. And now the working class were to commit the mortal sin in the minds of middle class hypochondriacs: going outside to celebrate a holiday.

Furthermore, there were images of packed beaches from the late spring and summer of 2020. The media salivated over these images, mocking and cursing those who went to the beach. This article provides an example of such strategies, entitled ‘Bournemouth raises alarm as huge crowds ignore COVID advice and flock to the coast’. People having a good time in good weather is now considered to be a ‘major incident’.

The Great Unjabbed

Since the rollout of the Covid 19 injections to the population at large, the demonisation has been squarely aimed at the unjabbed. The official narrative had divided the population into two halves: the virtuous ‘fully vaccinated’ (and now ‘boosted’) populations, and the selfish, evil ‘unvaccinated’ who are subhuman vectors of disease.

Leaving the irrationality of this narrative aside for a moment, here is a large dose of snobbery behind the demonisation of the ‘unvaccinated’. The reality is, people from poorer communities and racial minorities are much less likely to have taken the jabs than middle class white people.

Official government data is contested when it comes to how many people have actually taken the jabs. The government likes to cite a figure of 5m ‘unvaccinated’, making the uninjected quite a small minority. The Expose has used another government document to contest this, claiming this document shows that in fact 15.3m eligible people have not taken a single dose.

Even according to the more official data, however, take up is lower in poorer and ethnic minority communities. The website OpenSafely.org gives data on vaccine coverage in the UK (and is linked and used as a source by the BBC, so it’s establishment approved). Their charts clearly show that ethnic minorities and more deprived areas have a lower vaccination take up. Even if the numbers themselves are overshot per The Expose above, I doubt that the trends themselves are inaccurate.

The demonisation of the ‘unvaccinated’ thus has a clear class element.

There is also another aspect to this which we saw strongly during the Brexit argument and that is the ‘working class are stupid’ aspect. The Guardian published an article called ‘Understanding, not judgment, should shape our response to those who remain unjabbed’ which is full of the kind of talking down beloved of middle class British liberals.

By way of getting to the heart of it all, a PowerPoint presentation she sent me made mention of “historic lack of trust in public institutions including health services within some groups and communities”. In some black communities, she said, people’s relationships with authority are so poor that that some have chosen to be vaccinated well away from where they live and work, “because they’re almost embarrassed to be vaccinated, thinking their community isn’t behind them.” She paused. “There’s no easy fix. We just keep on talking.”

The implication of this article is that we need some nice middle class liberals to go and talk to these ‘stupid’ black people who don’t trust authority. There’s no consideration here that people may have actually said no and mean no and have the agency to do so.

This is the flipside to the demonisation of the ‘unvaccinated’ as subhuman – they can either be maliciously subhuman, in that they are purposeful granny killers, or they can be stupidly subhuman, in that they require enlightenment by the evangelists of the Covid Cult.

Alongside this narrative, the traditional ‘working class activity’ snobbery continued, with people attending the Euro 2020(1) football tournament being demonised for their attendance. Meanwhile, Wimbledon – of more middle class interest happening at the same time – did not cause the same demonisation from the middle class dominated media.

The Covid Scam Is An Attack on Working People

There is a more serious point to all of this snobbery, which is that the Covid narrative is an attack on ordinary working people in a multitude of ways. This attack is justified through this snobbery in the minds of the petty middle class, who are already inclined to view the working class as ignorant Brexit voters who ruined their nice holidays in Marbella.

Lockdown is a war on the working class. Firstly, it is an attack on the rights of the working class to congregate and organise politically in order to represent their interests, as well as to protest against the governments and corporations imposing poor working conditions and wages on them.

Lockdown is also an economic war against the working class and a massive transfer of wealth upwards from ordinary people. Multiple sources have highlighted this massive growth in wealth, including many that are supporters of the Official Covid Narrative. According to inequality.org:

The world’s billionaires have seen their wealth surge by over $5.5 trillion since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, a gain of over 68 percent. The world’s 2,690 global billionaires saw their combined wealth rise from $8 trillion on March 20, 2020 to $13.5 trillion as of July 31, 2021, drawing on data from Forbes.

Global billionaire total wealth has increased more over the past 17 months of the pandemic than it did in the 15 years prior to the pandemic. Between 2006 and 2020, global billionaire wealth increased from $2.65 trillion to $8 trillion, a gain of $5.35 trillion.

Whereas Oxfam reports:

With unprecedented support from governments for their economies, the stock market has been booming, driving up billionaire wealth, even while the real economy faces the deepest recession in a century. In contrast, after the financial crisis in 2008, it took five years for billionaire wealth to return to its pre-crisis highs.

Worldwide, billionaires’ wealth increased by a staggering $3.9tn (trillion)
between 18 March and 31 December 2020.28 Their total wealth now stands
at $11.95tn, which is equivalent to what G20 governments have spent
in response to the pandemic. The world’s 10 richest billionaires have
collectively seen their wealth increase by $540bn over this period.

Working class wealth has nosedived due to the lockdowns. Workers have been forced to work from home and this has increased their exploitation according to Ted Reese:

Much of the workplace has been moved to the home, saving capital costs on office space; pushing running costs such as electricity and water bills onto workers; and making them work longer hours, all combining to deepen the rate of their exploitation. About 30% of remote workers in a UK survey said they were working more unpaid hours than before lockdown, with 18% reporting at least four additional unpaid hours a week. According to an ADP Research Institute study, employees globally are now working 9.2 hours per week of unpaid overtime on average, up from 7.3 hours in a year.

The terrible inflation we are currently observing – at least partially caused by the lockdowns – is another aspect of war on the working class. The middle classes can weather this inflation through higher wages and the money they accrued while getting paid free cash on furlough. This isn’t an option for the working class.

The mandatory Covid injections implemented by the establishment are also an attack on the bodily integrity of the working class. The government forced care home workers to take these injections or they would be fired. Care home workers are poorly paid members of the working class, with an average wage of £8.50 an hour. They are also primarily women. Care home workers were fired from their jobs for not taking these injections in December 2021, or were forced to leave and find other work. Although the mandate was later repealed the damage was done in terms of lost wages and jobs. Other countries are still implementing such policies.

Snobbery also allows for the demonisation of resistance to the authoritarian project launched in the name of ‘fighting Covid’. This has been seen most notably in the case of the ‘Freedom Convoy’. The Convoy emerged in Canada in response to Justin Trudeau’s particularly authoritarian Covid measures. In response other convoys have taken inspiration for their own movements including in the UK. Due to the fact that this movement is founded by working class people, it has been demonised by people in the media and their woke left allies. The movement has been smeared as ‘white supremacist’ (despite the clear participation of people of all races).

The portion of the left that hates the working classes has also been brought in to smear the convoys as ‘right wing’. One example is previously respected anti-imperialist commentator Ben Norton, who has been demonising people opposed to the injection mandates:

The same line is being parroted by the liberal media that the likes of Norton claim to oppose. The Conversation ran a hit piece on the truckers, claiming that because they aren’t virtue signalling about ‘transphobia’ they don’t care about freedom and that they want the freedom to kill people because they reject mandating an experimental injection. This demonisation helps to keep the middle classes in the Covid propaganda bubble.

Conclusion

One function of lockdowns was a massive transfer of wealth to the rich from the poor and working class. The political acceptability of such a project – in the UK in particular – was maintained through the demonisation of the working classes.

Human Rights Act Reform Consultation

Introduction

The British government, while currently appearing less authoritarian than some other Western governments due to the removal of many ‘Covid restrictions’, is seeking other ways to create a punishing authoritarian regime. Some of these I have already discussed, such as the Police Bill and the Nationality Bill, and others I have not, such as the Online Harms Bill (which seeks to ban ‘Covid misinformation’). One of the most important authoritarian moves is the reform of the Human Rights Act which has now been put out to consultation by the government. This article will look at the consultation and what is in it.

The Consultation Document

The Government has provided a document to read alongside the consultation. This document is extremely long and goes in to a lot of random detail. My guess is that the idea is to make the entire thing as intimidating as possible, so that people do not bother to respond. The questions (also listed on the page) on are also very technical and legalistic and so hard to understand. I’ve got to admit that I am not the best with legal jargon myself.

Fortunately there are already a couple of guides out there to help with filling in the consultation. It can be done via email or through an online link. The guides I have found so far for filling this in:

Here are the questions copied and pasted from the UK consultation document. You’ll see what I mean about obtuse when you have a look:

  • Question 1: We believe that the domestic courts should be able to draw on a wide range of law when reaching decisions on human rights issues. We would welcome your thoughts on the illustrative draft clauses found after paragraph 4 of Appendix 2, as a means of achieving this.
  • Question 2: The Bill of Rights will make clear that the UK Supreme Court is the ultimate judicial arbiter of our laws in the implementation of human rights. How can the Bill of Rights best achieve this with greater certainty and authority than the current position?
  • Question 3: Should the qualified right to jury trial be recognised in the Bill of Rights? Please provide reasons.
  • Question 4: How could the current position under section 12 of the Human Rights Act be amended to limit interference with the press and other publishers through injunctions or other relief?
  • Question 5: The government is considering how it might confine the scope for interference with Article 10 to limited and exceptional circumstances, taking into account the considerations above. To this end, how could clearer guidance be given to the courts about the utmost importance attached to Article 10? What guidance could we derive from other international models for protecting freedom of speech?
  • Question 6: What further steps could be taken in the Bill of Rights to provide stronger protection for journalists’ sources?
  • Question 7: Are there any other steps that the Bill of Rights could take to strengthen the protection for freedom of expression?
  • Question 8: Do you consider that a condition that individuals must have suffered a ‘significant disadvantage’ to bring a claim under the Bill of Rights, as part of a permission stage for such claims, would be an effective way of making sure that courts focus on genuine human rights matters? Please provide reasons.
  • Question 9: Should the permission stage include an ‘overriding public importance’ second limb for exceptional cases that fail to meet the ‘significant disadvantage’ threshold, but where there is a highly compelling reason for the case to be heard nonetheless? Please provide reasons.
  • Question 10: How else could the government best ensure that the courts can focus on genuine human rights abuses?
  • Question 11: How can the Bill of Rights address the imposition and expansion of positive obligations to prevent public service priorities from being impacted by costly human rights litigation? Please provide reasons.
  • Question 12: We would welcome your views on the options for section 3: Option 1: Repeal section 3 and do not replace it; Option 2: Repeal section 3 and replace it with a provision that where there is ambiguity, legislation should be construed compatibly with the rights in the Bill of Rights, but only where such interpretation can be done in a manner that is consistent with the wording and overriding purpose of the legislation. We would welcome comments on the above options, and the illustrative clauses in Appendix 2.
  • Question 13: How could Parliament’s role in engaging with, and scrutinising, section 3 judgments be enhanced?
  • Question 14: Should a new database be created to record all judgments that rely on section 3 in interpreting legislation?
  • Question 15: Should the courts be able to make a declaration of incompatibility for all secondary legislation, as they can currently do for Acts of Parliament?
  • Question 16: Should the proposals for suspended and prospective quashing orders put forward in the Judicial Review and Courts Bill be extended to all proceedings under the Bill of Rights where secondary legislation is found to be incompatible with the Convention rights? Please provide reasons.
  • Question 17: Should the Bill of Rights contain a remedial order power? In particular, should it be: a. similar to that contained in section 10 of the Human Rights Act; b. similar to that in the Human Rights Act, but not able to be used to amend the Bill of Rights itself; c. limited only to remedial orders made under the ‘urgent’ procedure; or d. abolished altogether? Please provide reasons.
  • Question 18: We would welcome your views on how you consider section 19 is operating in practice, and whether there is a case for change.
  • Question 19: How can the Bill of Rights best reflect the different interests, histories and legal traditions of all parts of the UK, while retaining the key principles that underlie a Bill of Rights for the whole UK?
  • Question 20: Should the existing definition of public authorities be maintained, or can more certainty be provided as to which bodies or functions are covered? Please provide reasons.
  • Question 21: The government would like to give public authorities greater confidence to perform their functions within the bounds of human rights law. Which of the following replacement options for section 6(2) would you prefer? Please explain your reasons. Option 1: Provide that wherever public authorities are clearly giving effect to primary legislation, then they are not acting unlawfully; or Option 2: Retain the current exception, but in a way which mirrors the changes to how legislation can be interpreted discussed above for section 3.
  • Question 22: Given the above, we would welcome your views on the most appropriate approach for addressing the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction, including the tension between the law of armed conflict and the Convention in relation to extraterritorial armed conflict.
  • Question 23: To what extent has the application of the principle of ‘proportionality’ given rise to problems, in practice, under the Human Rights Act? We wish to provide more guidance to the courts on how to balance qualified and limited rights. Which of the below options do you believe is the best way to achieve this? Please provide reasons. Option 1: Clarify that when the courts are deciding whether an interference with a qualified right is ‘necessary’ in a ‘democratic society’, legislation enacted by Parliament should be given great weight, in determining what is deemed to be ‘necessary’. Option 2: Require the courts to give great weight to the expressed view of Parliament, when assessing the public interest, for the purposes of determining the compatibility of legislation, or actions by public authorities in discharging their statutory or other duties, with any right. We would welcome your views on the above options, and the draft clauses after paragraph 10 of Appendix 2.
  • Question 24: How can we make sure deportations that are in the public interest are not frustrated by human rights claims? Which of the options, below, do you believe would be the best way to achieve this objective? Please provide reasons. Option 1: Provide that certain rights in the Bill of Rights cannot prevent the deportation of a certain category of individual, for example, based on a certain threshold such as length of imprisonment; Option 2: Provide that certain rights can only prevent deportation where provided for in a legislative scheme expressly designed to balance the strong public interest in deportation against such rights; and/or Option 3: provide that a deportation decision cannot be overturned, unless it is obviously flawed, preventing the courts from substituting their view for that of the Secretary of State.
  • Question 25: While respecting our international obligations, how could we more effectively address, at both the domestic and international levels, the impediments arising from the Convention and the Human Rights Act to tackling the challenges posed by illegal and irregular migration?
  • Question 26: We think the Bill of Rights could set out a number of factors in considering when damages are awarded and how much. These include: a. the impact on the provision of public services; b. the extent to which the statutory obligation had been discharged; c. the extent of the breach; and d. where the public authority was trying to give effect to the express provisions, or clear purpose, of legislation. Which of the above considerations do you think should be included? Please provide reasons.
  • Question 27: We believe that the Bill of Rights should include some mention of responsibilities and/or the conduct of claimants, and that the remedies system could be used in this respect. Which of the following options could best achieve this? Please provide reasons. Option 1: Provide that damages may be reduced or removed on account of the applicant’s conduct specifically confined to the circumstances of the claim; or Option 2: Provide that damages may be reduced in part or in full on account of the applicant’s wider conduct, and whether there should be any limits, temporal or otherwise, as to the conduct to be considered.
  • Question 28: We would welcome comments on the options, above, for responding to adverse Strasbourg judgments, in light of the illustrative draft clause at paragraph 11 of Appendix 2.
  • Question 29: We would like your views and any evidence or data you might hold on any potential impacts that could arise as a result of the proposed Bill of Rights. In particular: a. What do you consider to be the likely costs and benefits of the proposed Bill of Rights? Please give reasons and supply evidence as appropriate. b. What do you consider to be the equalities impacts on individuals with particular protected characteristics of each of the proposed options for reform? Please give reasons and supply evidence as appropriate. c. How might any negative impacts be mitigated? Please give reasons and supply evidence as appropriate.

The consultation allows you to only answer some of these questions and ignore others. To he honest I am going to ignore most of them and only focus on a few. I used the email method because I didn’t want to make arguments on the uber technical questions.

Questions 4/5/6/7: Free Expression

I looked at two bits that they mentioned in their consultation:

The government is committed to ensuring that the biggest social media companies protect users from abuse and harm, and in doing so ensuring that everyone can enjoy their right to freedom of expression free from the fear of abuse.

The government wishes to explore ways of strengthening the protection for freedom of expression in the Human Rights Act, mindful as always of the government’s primary duty to protect national security and keep its citizens safe.

Basically, ‘harm’ and ‘abuse’ can mean anything and ‘national security’ can also mean anything.

Question 8/9: Preliminary stages

  • These will be abused by the government to prevent cases they don’t like coming to court.
  • The examples that they gave on the consultation are very small uses of public money
  • Problematic to introduce this over a few frivolous cases, even if those cases lead to slight waste of public funds.

Question 22: Extraterritoriality

  • Concerns that they government will try to change this to prevent their soldiers being prosecuted for war crimes

Questions 26/27: Compensation

  • Deflects attention from the abuse and towards the individual making the claim
  • Divides the population into ‘good’ citizens worthy of rights and ‘bad’ citizens who are unworthy
  • Behaviour could mean anything such as attending a protest the government doesn’t like
  • May be used to discriminate against certain races, religions, etc. or against people who don’t agree with a state narrative e.g. the unvaxxed

General comments on the concept of a ‘rights culture’ and the public interest

See Naked Emperor’s post above on this one. Basically they are trying to put more emphasis on obligations to society. In other words another possible means to attempt forced injections in the ‘public interest’.

Wolverhampton Anti-Vax Mandate Protest 29 Jan 2022

Stand Up Wolverhampton organised a protest outside New Cross Hospital against the NHS jab mandate. As of the time of the protest the deadline for the first dose of the jab for NHS staff was February 3. (Since the protest took place the mandate has been paused, and so unvaccinated staff will not be getting the sack after 3rd February.)

I haven’t been to Wolverhampton in years and I ended up being late for this protest because the bus takes way longer to get there than it says it does.

I ended up being there between 1:40-3.

I didn’t know what to expect. Both sides of the street were lined with people when I arrived and they had the yellow flash cards on display. Apparently there had been previous actions in the Wolverhampton/Black Country area involving the placards. I know that the yellow placards have been used in other areas as well through the Rebels on Roundabouts activist group who have been asking questions about the jabs.

There was a really nice vibe to this protest. The artist Jaigo K was there doing some songs for the crowd.

I turned up in the middle of a song. I will post the clip of Jaigo K performing a song about the jabs below:

There is further footage on my Bitchute channel. If you want to look into Jaigo K’s music here is his youtube channel.

The speeches given focused on the jabs and the mandate and advice on the Yellow Card system:

There was also discussion about the Workers of England Union who are opposing the jab mandate. There was also a couple who stood up and talked about an example of poor care in the NHS. The event took place near the beginning of lockdowns and involved the daughter of this couple being treated with inappropriate drugs after going to hospital for an asthma attack.

This is a video of the crowd after the speeches took place with ‘Get Up Stand Up’ playing in the background to give you an idea of attendances at the protest:

Anti-Vax Mandate/Covid Tyranny Protest Birmingham 22nd January 2022

I had a prior appointment so unfortunately was not able to stay to hear all the speakers at the rally but I did want to attend anyway to show my support for the opposition to vaccine mandates etc. I was thus only there between 12.10 and 1.10 so anything that happened outside of those times I didn’t get to see. I still got some pictures and footage to share though from the protest.

The protest was in Chamberlain Square this time and I must say the vibe of the protest was great. I felt a lot of positive energy from the protest in general. Here was the crowd at the time of arrival 12.10:

The crowd did get quite a bit bigger than this.

Around 12.25 a group of NHS workers supporting #NHS100K walked into the rally and you can see the footage below:

Here’s some footage showing the crowd around 12.35 to give an indication of how many were at the protest. While it’s difficult to compare due to the fact that previous protests have taken place in different squares, I think this one was bigger than the previous ones I have attended in Birmingham.

The crowd can be seen in this photo, obviously there were also some people behind me and to the side on the square:

I stayed for the first few speeches. There was quite a few mentions of this Mark Sexton legal case that is being heavily discussed in covid sceptic circles. There was also a press release regarding the case handed out, which said that:

Hugely significant allegations have been made of serious crimes being committed by a number of UK government ministers, civil servants, heads of news networks etc.

[…] The UK’s biggest criminal investigation is now live.

Personally I am a bit sceptical of this, although I will say I have not done a lot of research into the case itself. I am not convinced by the idea that the police, who are part of the corrupt system enforcing the lockdown etc. measures would be willing to investigate that corrupt system.

There was also discussion of NHS100K and the jab mandates. There was also a member of NHS staff who spoke out opposing the mandate:

Interestingly unlike previous anti-lockdown protests there were a few traditional left winger types there. There were two blokes with some Workers’ Party of Britain flags. Previously their party has claimed to attend anti-lockdown actions – I did question this but the tweet seems to have disappeared. Anyway I never saw any of their flags etc. at any previous events I attended. There was also one guy with a placard saying ‘Pro-vaccine, anti-mandatory vaccine’ with a Unison logo.

There is more footage of this event on my Bitchute channel.

2022 So Far: The Collapse of the Official Covid Narrative in the UK?

Introduction

The Official Covid Narrative – the idea that Covid-19 is such a deadly disease that we all need to change our lives – has always been absurd to anyone who has been paying attention. However, a large number of people in Britain have agreed with the Covid Narrative (to differing degrees), supporting mandatory masks, lockdowns and (voluntary) Covid injections. This article will discuss to what degree the Official Covid Narrative has been stretched to breaking point in the UK and whether the idea of a ‘collapsing narrative’ is realistic.

The Boris Johnson Party Story

The first news story worthy of our attention in this discussion is the ‘scandal’ of Boris Johnson having a party during lockdown restrictions. This story has been simmering since December 2021. Mainstream coverage has put a lot of emphasis on this story over the past two months. For example, we can examine the coverage of the lockdown-loving middle class rag The Guardian on this issue.

In December 2021 they reported that:

Johnson’s appearance at PMQs on Wednesday was his first response to the video, uncovered by ITV, in which his then-press secretary, Allegra Stratton, and other No 10 staff talked jokingly on 22 December last year about a staff party four days earlier, and how media questions about it could be countered.

Another party later emerged, that took place on the eve of the funeral of Prince Philip. Boris Johnson has come out and ‘apologised’ for that party as well. Meanwhile the Guardian is running articles with analysis by “a member of the Sage subcommittee advising on behavioural science”. No, seriously.

Unfortunately, I don’t think it can be convincingly argued that is Boris Johnson incident heralds the collapse of the Covid Narrative. We have already seen this before, first with Dominic Cummings and Neil Ferguson and then with Matt Hancock. Furthermore, the media is still focusing on the same discredited angle with the Johnson story as they were with the Cummings story from over 18 months ago:

The press divided between the lockdown enthusiasts defending him, or the anti-lockdowners eagerly calling him a hypocrite.

Both, again, were missing the point.

[…]

We’re all meant to be “sheltering in place” and “protecting the NHS” and “saving lives” because there is a “deadly virus”. We’re being told this is for our own safety. Because the virus is allegedly dangerous.

When the people giving us these orders do not follow them themselves, they are not showing themselves to be “hypocrites”. They are showing themselves to be liars. They are admitting they don’t really believe what they’re saying.

This particularly vile example from the Labour Party is a good example of this mentality. I have screenshotted it below in case they try to backtrack later:

Labour is trying to portray this inhumane ‘NHS Nurse’ (whether the story is real or not is beside the point) as virtuous because she ‘followed the rules’ and this is meant to rebuke Boris Johnson for not ‘following the rules’. They didn’t get the response they were looking for in the comments, with multiple tweets calling them out for being even more fanatical lockdowners than the Tories.

We must not forget the moral of the ‘Matt Hancock affair’ story when discussing this case. Matt Hancock had become unpopular with the public and so it conveniently came out that he had been having an affair, with photos of him snogging his mistress being slapped all over The Sun. Hancock was a ‘sacrifice’ from within the narrative to save the narrative, by projecting all of the narrative failures on to him as designated scapegoat. Meanwhile his successor, Sajid Javid, has amped up the ‘vaccine’ program with the roll out of jabs to children and the forcing of jabs onto NHS staff.

Just because Boris Johnson is the Prime Minister does not mean that the same forces cannot be at work here, and indeed, this is the most plausible explanation for the ‘Party Scandal’.

The Dr. Steve James/Sajid Javid Story

But what about more substantive issues relating to the Official Covid Narrative? In particular, the forced jabs for NHS staff?

The government passed legislation in December 2021, and published it this month, stating that ‘frontline’ NHS staff (frontline being defined extremely broadly) have to have 2 Covid-19 jabs by April. There has been a campaign opposing this legislation from NHS100K, the Together Campaign and the Workers of England Union.

However, recently a video was released of a doctor, Steve James, directly challenging Sajid Javid on the jab mandate. The doctor himself is unvaccinated and has natural immunity against Sars-Cov-2 according to his own account:

Furthermore, he has been invited on to other news channels to discuss the reasons why he won’t be vaccinated in more depth:

I do find this story quite interesting, I must say. The initial video was released by Sky News, i.e. the mainstream media. Not some random undercover phone video. If the mainstream media released this video, rather than pretending none of the doctors challenged Javid, there must be some sort of function within the mainstream narrative for that to happen. (We could further ask why Javid was even in the earshot of an unvaccinated doctor as HR, etc. in the NHS know who is vaccinated).

So why has this video been released to the public?

I don’t have all the answers on this question. The most favourable interpretation for the anti-lockdown/vaxpass/mandate people is that the government knows that they cannot get away with the NHS mandate. On this interpretation, this is a soft walk back in the narrative, priming the public for when the mandate is dropped.

Personally I think they are more likely to try and go through with the mandate although I don’t think them dropping it is impossible if a large number of NHS staff remain uninjected (more likely some sort of fudge option will be taken rather than outright dropping it).

If they are not going to drop the mandate there are other possible reasons that could be considered for the release of this clip to the public. For example, the creation of a hate figure, represented by James himself as the ‘selfish unjabbed doctor’. The aim in this scenario (regardless of whether this strategy is effective) is to target the public’s ire at James to distract from the likely devastation to NHS services that will be inflicted by the mandate.

The Daily Mail, which is highly schizophrenic when it comes to the Covid Narrative, has published an article attacking Dr. Steve James. After having a dig at James’s religious beliefs, the article spouts claims about how he is ‘enabling anti-vaxxers’ (none of the media ever define the term ‘anti-vaxxer’). The article then goes on to attack him for mentioning NHS100K, with the usual assertions that James is citing a ‘conspiracy theorist’ organisation. This is achieved through the notion that both right wingers and NHS100K use Telegram.

They also state that the mandate is popular, without providing any evidence of that claim (not even a manipulated YouGov poll!) There is a bunch of other nonsense in the article that to address it all would get off topic.

The Scrapping Vaccine Passports Story

The UK government introduced vaccine passports at the same time that they passed the vote forcing NHS staff to be jabbed. The vaccine passport applies to (in England):

  • nightclubs
  • indoor unseated venues with more than 500 people
  • unseated outdoor venues with more than 4,000 people
  • any venue with more than 10,000 people

There has been speculation that Boris Johnson is to drop the requirement for vaccine passports from January 26th in the mainstream media. The original passports had a ‘review’ built in to them on this date where the extension can be rubber stamped – now the media is saying it will not be.

I am very sceptical of such a narrative for a number of reasons. The government now have the infrastructure for such a scheme in place. Even if it is scrapped due to the unpopularity of the passport, it can be brought back in at any time with the reactivation of the NHS Covid pass. Any event – such as a ‘spike in cases’ caused by false positives – can be used to either not scrap the legislation or bring it back in at any time.

We must also bear in mind that there have been multiple other times where the narrative has been temporarily weakened in order to drive it forward, such as the ‘scrapping’ of vaccine passports in September only to bring them back via ‘Plan B’.

Conclusion

Narrative weaknesses in the official Covid-19 account are becoming more obvious to the British public. Because of this, the government and media have been soft pedalling the narrative, but these are not unequivocal signs of victory. The Covid Narrative is far from defeated – and we must not forget that Covid itself is just the means to the end of digital identity and transhumanism.

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.