Stop the 'Ministry of Truth' (Again)

Too few understand the scale of the Left’s attack on America. This lack of understanding stems from a rejection of what our senses are telling us and our refusal to think critically about our nation and the future liberty of our children. The now-renamed federal “Disinformation Governance Board” (more accurately, Orwell’s 1984 Ministry of Truth) the Covid “vaccine,” “climate change,” “transgenderism,” have nothing to do with truth, health, climate or one’s sex.

The Ministry of Truth… is concerned with erasing the truth of the past and present and replacing it with whatever the Party deems “correct.” Those in charge of the ministry decide what “truth” is.

What the Mis-Dis-Mal-information gang does have to do with includes spying on Americans and monitoring elections to ensure removal of any information that might be found in an abandoned laptop, for example, and preventing the investigation of voter fraud.

Federal authorities searched the suburban Virginia home of former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark Wednesday... Clark features heavily in the House Select Committee hearing today that focuses on former President Donald Trump's efforts to push the Justice Department to do his bidding in the weeks before the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

His crime seems to have been believing that the 2020 election had irregularities that might be worth investigating.

Forgotten, but not gone.

In March, President Biden issued an executive order to federalize the mid-terms that all polls show Democrats losing badly. You didn’t think Progressives were going to allow their accelerating fundamental transformation of America to be stopped by a silly mid-term, did you? As the reach of this column by Mollie Hemingway broadens, be assured it will be labelled MDM: Mis-Dis-Malinformation.

Executive Order 14019 ignores that the Constitution does not give the executive branch authority over elections. That power is reserved for the states, with a smaller role for Congress. With H.R. 1 and other Democrat Party efforts to grab more control over elections have thus far failed, Congress hasn’t authorized such an expansion.

Did the labeling of Hunter Biden’s laptop as "disinformation" alter the election outcome? We will never know. What we do know is that 48 percent of Americans believe it did and 16 percent of Biden voters would not have voted for him had they known about it. This is what happens by design when the government monitors and is allowed to label information rather than letting speech and thought survive, or not, in a free marketplace of ideas.

Having told the American people that this attack on speech and thought had been “paused” and Minister of Truth Nina Jankowicz fired, the administration gave the task of  truth assignment to the ever-vacuous Kamala Harris, and now, quietly, the Ministry of Truth is back in action.

Why was this clear violation of the primary right of all humans, to use our unique gift of speech to speak our unique thoughts freely – reinstated so quickly?  Because the truth of the costs of going green must be hidden until those paying these costs have already been impoverished.

White House national climate adviser Gina McCarthy wants them to censor content on the costs of a force-fed green energy transition, and "We need the tech companies to really jump in,” she said, because highlighting the costs of green energy is “equally dangerous to denial because we have to move fast."

"Highlighting," not lying about, "the costs" is disinformation. It is axiomatic that if free speech and thought enabled rather than hindered the goals of this Administration, censorship would not be on the table. The idea of censoring speech in America is a blatant and unconstitutional attempt to force the public to “choose truth over fact,” raising the questions, “Whose ‘truth’?” and, more importantly, "Who gets to decide?"

Those familiar with the totalitarian movements of the last century will see the demand to accept a "vaccine" (which does not prevent infection, does not prevent re-infection, does not prevent transmission, and so fits no previously-known definition of the word, “vaccine”), the acceptance of the "climate change" fiction, and the required approval and celebration of the sexual mutilation fantasy of "transgenderism," as exactly what they are: Party membership. Refuse Party membership by speaking against the Klimate Kult, refusing the “vaccine,” rejecting gender “re-assignment,” and be removed from school or your career and excluded from professional, social and economic life by the Party.

You will be made to care.

In 1945, General Eisenhower, the WW2 Supreme Allied Commander, European Forces, on finding the infamous death camps, marched the local townspeople through the camps to force the them to understand the evil to which they had turned a blind eye as millions were murdered and incinerated. No moral or ethical difference, only a difference of scale, exists between those German townspeople and those continuing to demand the “vaccine” be forced on others regardless of Pfizer's own documentation, “Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports,” that at least 1,223 recipients of their vaccine died and another 42,000 experienced “serious” adverse events in the first 90 days of injections. In the world of professional athletes, FIFA has noted the 420 percent increase in athlete deaths in 2021That the FDA accepted this “vaccine” as “safe and effective,” is indicative of a government that "choose[s] truth over fact.”

We are ruled by those not interested in freedom, liberty or truth. This is what former president Trump meant when, in his inauguration speech, he said,

Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning because, today, we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the people.

It was that giving back power to those to whom it belongs that got him run out of town on a rail.

For those not yet connecting the dots, here is Obama campaigning in 2008:

We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

A straight line connects that speech to our new Truth Ministry. From here on, things will only get worse unless our own national socialists are stopped, now.

Against the Great Reset: 'Introduction'

Starting today, and continuing for the next 17 weeks, The Pipeline will present excerpts from each of the essays contained in Against the Great Reset: 18 Theses Contra the New World Order, to be published on October 18 by Bombardier Books and distributed by Simon and Schuster, and available now for pre-order at the links. 

 

Part I: the Problem

Excerpt from the Introduction: "Reset This," by Michael Walsh

What is the Great Reset and why should we care? In the midst of a tumultuous medical-societal breakdown, likely engineered by the Chinese Communist Party and abetted by America’s National Institutes of Health “gain of function” financial assistance to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, why is the Swiss-based World Economic Forum (WEF) advocating a complete “re-imagining” of the Western world’s social, economic, and moral structures? And why now? What are its aspirations, prescriptions, and proscriptions, and how will it prospectively affect us? It’s a question that the men and women of the WEF are hoping you won’t ask.

This book seeks to supply the answers. It has ample historical precedents, from Demosthenes’s fulminations against Philip II of Macedon (Alexander’s father), Cicero’s Philippics denouncing Mark Antony, the heretic-hunting Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem¸ and the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s Nietzsche contra Wagner. Weighty historical issues are often best debated promptly, when something can yet be done about them; in the meantime, historians of the future can at least understand the issues as the participants themselves saw and experienced them. Whether the formerly free world of the Western democracies will succumb to the paternalistic totalitarianism of the oligarchical Resetters remains to be seen. But this is our attempt to stop it.

So great is mankind’s perpetual dissatisfaction with its present circumstances, whatever they may be, that the urge to make the world anew is as old as recorded history. Eve fell under the Serpent’s spell, and with the plucking of an apple, sought to improve her life in the Garden of Eden by becoming, in Milton’s words, “as Gods, Knowing both Good and Evil as they know.” The forbidden fruit was a gift she shared with Adam; how well that turned out has been the history of the human race ever since. High aspirations, disastrous results.

The expulsion from the Garden, however, has not discouraged others from trying. Indeed, the entire chronicle of Western civilization is best regarded as a never-ending and ineluctable struggle for cultural and political superiority, most often expressed militarily (since that is how humans generally decide matters) but extending to all things both spiritual and physical. Dissatisfaction with the status quo may not be universal—timeless and static Asian cultures, such as China’s, have had it imposed upon them by external Western forces, including the British and the Marxist-Leninists—but it has been a hallmark of the occident and its steady civilizational churn that dates back at least to Homer, Plato, Aeschylus, Herodotus, Pericles, and Alexander the Great, with whom Western history properly begins.

The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, assaying the inelegant Koine, or demotic, Greek of the New Testament in Beyond Good and Evil, observed: “Es ist eine Feinheit, daß Gott griechisch lernte, als er Schriftsteller werden wollte—und daß er es nicht besser lernte”: “It’s a particular refinement that God learned Greek when he wanted to become a writer—and that he didn’t learn it better.” Nietzsche, the preacher’s son who became through sheer willpower a dedicated atheist, was poking fun at the fundamentalist belief that the Christian scriptures were the literal words of God himself (Muslims, of course, believe the same thing about the Koran, except more so). If something as elemental, as essential to Western thought as the authenticity of the Bible, not to mention God’s linguistic ability, could be questioned and even mocked, then everything was on the table—including, in Nietzsche’s case, God Himself.

With the death of God—or of a god—Nietzsche sought liberation from the moral jiu-jitsu of Jesus: that weakness was strength; that victimhood was noble; that renunciation—of love, sex, power, ambition—was the highest form of attainment. That Nietzsche’s rejection of God was accompanied by his rejection of Richard Wagner, whose music dramas are based on the moral elevation of rejection, is not coincidental; the great figures of the nineteenth century, including Darwin and Marx, all born within a few years of each other, were not only revolutionaries, but embodied within themselves antithetical forces that somehow evolved into great Hegelian syntheses of human striving with which we still grapple today.

Wagner, the Schopenhauerian atheist who staggered back to Christianity and the anti-Semite who engaged the Jew Hermann Levi as the only man who could conduct his final ode to Christian transfiguration, Parsifal. Charles Darwin, ticketed for an Anglican parsonage but mutating into the author of On the Origin of Species, The Descent of Man, and all the way to The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms. Karl Marx, the scion of rabbis who father converted to Lutheranism and, like Wagner for a time, a stateless rebel who preached that the withering away of the state itself was “inevitable”—and yet the state endures, however battered it may be at the moment.

It’s fitting that the “Great Reset of capitalism” is the brainchild of the WEF, which hosts an annual conference in the Alpine village of Davos—the site of the tuberculosis sanatorium to which the naïf Hans Castorp reports at the beginning of Thomas Mann’s masterpiece, The Magic Mountain. Planning to visit a sick cousin for three weeks, he ends up staying for seven years, “progressing” from healthy individual to patient himself as his perception of time slows and nearly stops. Castorp’s personal purgatory ends only when he rouses himself to leave—his Bildungsreise complete—upon the outbreak of World War I, in which we assume he will meet the death, random and senseless, that he has been so studiously avoiding yet simultaneously courting at the Berghof.

Central Europe, it seems, is where the internal contradictions of Western civilization are both born and, like Martin Luther at Eisleben, go home to die. And this is where the latest synthetic attempt to replace God with his conqueror, Man, has emerged: in the village of Davos, in the canton of Graubünden, Switzerland: the site of the annual meeting of the WEF led by the German-born engineer and economist Klaus Schwab, born in Ravensburg in 1938, the year before Hitler and Stalin began carving up Poland and the Baltics.

On sale Oct. 18; pre-order now.

Once more into the breach, then: behold the present volume. In commissioning sixteen of the best, most persuasive, and most potent thinkers and writers from around the world to contribute to our joint venture, my principal concern has been to offer multiple analyses of the WEF’s nostrums and in so doing to go poet Wallace Stevens’s “Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird” a few better. Then again, given the surname of the WEF’s chief, perhaps a better, more potent literary citation might be Margret’s little ditty from the Büchner/Alban Berg expressionist opera, Wozzeck (1925): In’s Schwabenland, da mag ich nit—"I don’t want to go to Schwab-land.” Nor, as Hans Castorp’s journey illustrates, should anyone wish to visit Davos-land if he prizes his freedom, his possessions, and his sanity. To the Great Resetters, we are all ill, all future patients-in-waiting, all in dire need of a drastic corrective regimen to cure what ails us.

In these pages, we shall examine the Great Reset from the top down. The eminent American historian Victor Davis Hanson begins our survey with “The Great Regression,” locating Schwab’s vision within its proper historical context. He is followed by Canada’s Conrad Black and America’s Michael Anton and their views of capitalism and socialism, with not a few attacks on conventional, osmotic wisdom that will both surprise and enthrall. Britain’s Martin Hutchinson outlines the contours of the Reset’s “Anti-Industrial Revolution,” even as the American economist David Goldman confronts both Schwab’s notion of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” and China’s immanentizing its eschaton in real time, along with the Red Dragon’s commitment to the upending of Western civilization and its own Sino-forming of a post-Western world.

American writer, editor, and publisher Roger Kimball tackles the implications of a neofascist Reset in his essay, “Sovereignty and the Nation-State,” both of which concepts are under attack in the name of “equality,” its totalitarian successor “equity,” and the political consequences of our re-embrace of Rousseauvian concepts as applied to governments. British historian Jeremy Black discusses the misuses toward which the study of history has been and will be put to by the Resetters. The late Angelo Codevilla contributes what alas became his final essay, “Resetting the Educational Reset,” to sound the tocsin about the dangerous left turn of the once-vaunted American educational system, now reduced to a shrill, sinistral shell of its former dispassionate glory.

From Down Under, the Philippines-born Richard Fernandez twins two eternally competing faiths, religion and science; the American-born, Australian-based political sociologist Salvatore Babones contributes a remarkably clear explication of the kinds of transportation feasible under the “green energy” regimen the Reset seeks to impose upon us, and its practical and social implications. Writing from Milan, Alberto Mingardi, the director-general of the Istituto Bruno Leoni, gets to the heart of the Great Reset’s deceptive economic program with an essay concerning faux-capitalist “stakeholder capitalism” and its surreptitious replacement of shareholder capitalism in the name of “social justice.”

The Great Reset, however, is not strictly limited to matters financial, pecuniary, or macroeconomic. Social and cultural spheres are of equal importance. James Poulos looks at the Reset’s unholy relationship with the predatory Big Tech companies that currently abrogate the First Amendment by acting as governmental censors without actually being commanded by an act of Congress or, increasingly, an arbitrary presidential mandate. From British Columbia, noted Canadian author and academic Janice Fiamengo weighs in on the destructive effects of feminism upon our shared Western culture while, on the lighter side, Harry Stein examines the history of American humor—which in effect means worldwide humor—and how the leftist takeover of our shared laugh tracks has resulted in a stern, Stalinist view of what is and what is not allowed to be funny.

The British writer Douglas Murray has a go at the permissible future of Realpolitik under the panopticonic supervision of the Reset, the Chinese Communist Party, and the Covid hysterics, while the American journalist John Tierney lays out the road to civilizational serfdom that the unwarranted panic over the Covid-19 “pandemic” has triggered during its media-fueled run between 2019 and 2022. My contribution, in addition to this Introduction, is an examination of the Reset’s—and, historically, elitist tyranny’s—deleterious effects on Western culture: the very thing that gave birth to our notions of morality and freedom.

At its heart, the Great Reset is a conceited and self-loathing central-European blitzkrieg against the cultural, intellectual, religious, artistic, physical, and, most of all, moral inheritance we have received from our Greco-Roman forebears. This has been latterly shorthanded, with the rise of “wokeness,” to “white” culture. Typically racialist, if not outright racist, the cultural Marxists behind wokeness insist on reducing humanity to its shades of skin color and then claiming that although all skin colors should achieve in exact same proportions to their share in a given population, some skin colors are better than others and any skin color is preferable to white. It’s a deeply repellent principle that masquerades as a perversion of Judeo-Christianity but is in fact a simultaneous attack on individuality and merit that seeks to roll back the scientific and cultural advances of the past two millennia, wielding both science and culture as weapons against our shared technological and moral heritage.

The goal, as always, is power—the eternal fixation of the socialist Left...

Next week: an excerpt from "The Great Regression," by Victor Davis Hanson.

Canada Was Just the Beginning

Prior to the Ukraine war much of the “free” world has been focused on the Covid totalitarianism of the Boy Dictator and “representative government” to America's north. but the Covid-19 scare is now winding down both in America and across much of the world. Much of Europe has called it quits, and most American states and cities are done with it, though Covidiots remain with us, as evidenced by the continuing sight of masked drivers, alone in their cars, even in the maskless, free state of Arizona.

We need to be looking ahead and preparing for the next lockdown. And the one after that. If they can control and contain us over a fantasy weather prediction 100 years in the future, we need a similar time horizon. By putting up with this, what are we bequeathing our children and theirs – down to five generations hence: Liberty or totalitarianism?

Our time horizon must be about America and Western civilization, not about ourselves. The West has been increasing human liberty and accomplishment for thousands of years. Are we going to squander it all in just two?

The good old days: will they ever come again?

Ice ages come and go. Sea levels rise and fall. People are displaced from their lands for reasons of weather, war, crop failure, or just a desire to move on. The idea that these common historical occurrences that, in fact, drove the migration of man out of Africa,  are anyone’s "fault" is childish. But we are talking about those sixty-five percenters who demand to be controlled, told what to do, what to wear, what to think and say, where to live, by others.

Is the earth warming? Maybe. After all, we still may be coming out of the last “mini” Ice Age. (And into the next?) Is our planet warming due to man’s activity? No. Can this be proven in a world of government grants to research colleges and think tanks, and careers based on this pernicious hoax? No more than the WuFlu origin will be found by questioning those who created it or those who funded that creation because “the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.” The risks with our lives, of which they have taken millions and destroyed millions more.

The constant “adjustment” of global temperature data sets to “prove” their hoax, the many climate scientists still rejecting it, all indicate that "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) cannot be proven, as does the greenhouse model failure similar to the Covid model failure used to put the West under house arrest.

The greenhouse model on which all of this is based has, itself, been shown to be false (and here, and here). CO2 has been rising for years without the predicted accompanying rise in temperature. If the models used to constrain our liberty, prosperity and behavior, if the most basic prediction driving all else – that increased atmospheric carbon will heat us into oblivion – is false, how can “the science” standing on that foundation not also be false? Global warming has been a hoax since the very start.

Not going to happen for the next few zillion years.

Is this warming, natural or otherwise, “bad” for humankind? Is it something we should wish to control, even if we can? No.

In fact, a warmer planet is what those searching-out an extraterrestrial home for mankind are looking for. Why? Because, contra the Klimate Kult, a warmer planet is safer, greener, more fruitful, and less prone to extreme weather.

The Davoisie already are talking about a “Climate Lockdown.” Are you ready? Shutting down inexpensive energy, the foundation of all progress is occurring across the West. Putting kill switches on our cars will lock us down to where they want us to be, not where we want to be. These will be “for the greater good,” to “reduce our carbon footprint.”

Increasing farmland ownership by the elite and not by farmers, decreasing items on supermarket shelves, and forcing us to eat fake meat and blaming it all on a “need” to farm less land, raise less beef, create less packaging waste, stop fossil-fueled trucks from delivering goods, will destroy nutrition, health, jobs, lives, families and liberty. Liberty is what life – not existence – is all about. Will our rulers reduce their carbon footprint of their private jets? Will they cease to eat real food so they can eat bugs?

The totalitarian rulers in Canada have shown how easy it is to destroy a man or his family with digital financial penalties in our cashless society. Are you ready for a Food Lockdown? How easy would this be? If your credit card won’t work at the supermarket, very easy, indeed. Through what possible rationale could the ruling class execute this? Again, easy: Covid attacked the obese more than anyone else. America is vastly overweight.  Davos Man could put us all on a diet of their choosing. For “the greater good,” doubtless to be echoed by their media stenographers. To ensure a society “more protected from the next pandemic.”

If the shoes fits...

The Canadian truckers started a good thing: The People pushing back on the rulers hired and paid to represent them. Unquestionably, our rulers have forgotten their place as our servants.  Will we be able to continue what the Canadian truckers started? Having tasted tyranny, the fascist Left of course loved it and will now find more ways in which to exercise it.

The media-driven hoax of the CCP virus is just as false as the media-driven hoax of AGW, that “we’re all gonna die” in twelve years. Both have one goal: To destroy the liberty of the middle class and indeed the middle class itself right along with it. Their policies are not "mistakes," or the result of "incompetence." They know exactly what they are doing; their destruction is intentional.

They must be resisted, starting with the complete rejection of any politician and all media supporting either of these unscientific hoaxes destructive of our liberty, and that of all future generations. What are we waiting for?

What Price 'Compliance'?

We are witnessing a radical change in the ethos of law enforcement. It is not a good one. I joined the Los Angeles Police Department in the early 1980s, which of course makes me a dinosaur to my younger peers. So be it. I would sooner face extinction than silently accept the degradation of an honorable profession.

There was a time when police work was at least somewhat insulated from the whims of fashionable opinion. When called to the scene of an alleged violation of the law, a cop had to answer a few simple questions before taking action: 1) Has the law in fact been broken? 2) If so, can I identify and locate the lawbreaker? 3) Is the public best served by an immediate arrest? If the answer to all three questions was yes, the lawbreaker would be taken in to stand before the bar of justice. If he resisted that effort, it was understood that reasonable force could and should be used to achieve the end.

Today, the decision process is much more complicated. If a cop answers the three questions in the affirmative, he must then ask himself others: 1) What is the ethnicity, political affiliation, or special victim status of the person who has broken the law? 2) What exemptions to the law, official or unofficial, have been granted to persons of this ethnicity, political affiliation, or special victim status? 3) What is the likelihood the lawbreaker will resist arrest? 4) What will be the consequences for me should the lawbreaker resist and I use force against him?

But is the suspect "special"?

To no one’s surprise, these added considerations have inhibited the police and emboldened criminals, with the expected result of an increase in crime across the country. But this doesn’t mean the police today are spending their time idly. The Covid pandemic has offered some of them opportunities to take risk-free action against people uncloaked with any special "protected" status and the immunities attached thereto, namely, those who resist or even dare to question the state-approved measures concocted to deal with the virus.

Witness the extent to which the authorities in Australia and New Zealand went in their naïve attempt to isolate themselves from Covid. They barred all foreign visitors, repeatedly locked down their largest cities for extended periods, and forcibly quarantined people even suspected of having Covid. Reflecting Australia’s origins as a British penal colony, both it and New Zealand have at times resembled vast prisons. New Zealand commandeered dozens of hotels for use as “Managed Isolation and Quarantine” facilities, while Australia built a network of quarantine camps and gave them a name even George Orwell might have envied for its veiled, bureaucratic menace: the “Centres for National Resilience.” Pressed into service to enforce these rules were the police, and woe to those who resisted.

Closer to home, we haven’t seen people forcibly confined to Covid camps, at least not yet, but we have seen countless examples of the police acting absurdly while enforcing anti-Covid measures. In the early days of the pandemic I wrote about some of the more egregious examples from Southern California alone: San Diego County sheriff’s deputies ticketing people for watching a sunset from their cars, police in Manhattan Beach ticketing a surfer on an otherwise deserted beach, and in perhaps the most farcical display of all, Los Angeles County lifeguards and sheriff’s deputies using two boats to chase down and arrest a lone paddle boarder near the Malibu pier.

We are told the Covid pandemic is now subsiding. Welcome news, certainly, but what is not subsiding, and what may prove to be more pernicious in the long run than the virus itself, is the arrogation of power to government functionaries—both elected and unelected—who see themselves as qualified to direct our daily lives (for our own good, of course).

What can we make of Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau’s invocation this week of the Emergencies Act in his effort to crush that country’s truckers’ protest? Canadian regulations have demanded Covid vaccines for those entering the country, including truckers, some significant number of whom have objected and noisily brought their grievances to the seat of government in Ottawa. Their protest would seem to be protected speech under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but Trudeau would have it otherwise. The protesters’ views, he says, are “unacceptable.”

One can see the danger here. When a head of state pronounces a given opinion as anathema, there may be an expectation, either implicit or explicit, that his subordinates in the apparatus of that state exert themselves to extinguish any outward displays of the heretical opinion. For police officers, vested with the authority to deny freedom to their fellow citizens, and indeed under certain circumstances to take their very lives, the need for a finely calibrated moral compass cannot be overstated.

Or go to jail, as the case may be.

One need not be an actual participant in the protest to bring down the heel of the government boot. On Feb. 8, police in Ottawa detained and manhandled a diminutive, pajama-clad great grandfather for the crime of beeping his horn in support of the truckers’ protest.

In any Western democracy where freedom of speech is guaranteed, a challenge for the police confronting protesters is deciding when—or if—to act when legitimate protest crosses the line into illegality. A police officer may witness a technical violation of the law, but before taking enforcement action he must ask himself, “Then what?”

In a sane world, the “what” that would follow a disgrace like the public abuse of a harmless pensioner would be discipline for the offending police officers and an apology to the victim accompanied by a settlement check. As this is not a sane world, Trudeau’s invocation of the Emergencies Act is a warning to the protesting truckers and their sympathizers: You’re next, and you can’t stop us.

It has been reported that the late actor Ron Silver, while attending Bill Clinton’s first inauguration, was at first displeased at the sight of military jets flying in salute over Washington, D.C. Still a liberal at the time (9/11 would change that), he found the display offensive. Reflecting on the fact that Bill Clinton was now in charge, Silver is said to have remarked, “Those are our planes now.”

So it is with the police. For many years leftists have made no secret of their loathing for the police, but now they relish the chance to sic the cops on those whose views are “unacceptable.” If Trudeau gets away with crushing dissent through his fabricated “emergency,” how long before his tactics are emulated on this side of the border? Covid cases may be decreasing and restrictions loosening across much of America, but there are those among us who will not willingly relinquish the power Covid has allowed them to seize. The next pandemic, the next emergency, the next “crisis” that calls for immediate if not necessarily legally grounded action is as near as Justin Trudeau or someone of his ilk can conjure it. When that happens, where will the police stand?

Fauci—and the World—Agonistes

What are we doing? Policies that we continue to accept from those we hire to represent us and keep us free:

Yet we show no sign of terminating our acceptance of these policies. People refuse to listen to doctors using successful treatments, instead still listening to Dr. Anthony Fauci, who said in 2012 in answer to a question about the risk of a pandemic resulting from his gain-of-function research,

In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic? Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario – however remote – should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision?

Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.

Dr. Monte in the house.

While the risk to him was and remains near-zero, millions around the world paid the ultimate price for a risk he took with their lives without their knowledge or permission. His policies are still killing us.

And still we listen to him as he not only changes his mind daily on the virus but demands vaccinating all of humanity against the very pandemic his use of our tax dollars created, using vaccinations from which his organization may profit, all the while refusing and rejecting proven, safe, FDA-approved drugs doctors are using successfully to treat it all over the world, but are prohibited from using here. Meanwhile...

NIH, on rejecting therapeutics:  "The NIH COVID Treatment Guidelines Panel reviews available information with an emphasis given to adequately-powered, well-conducted, peer-reviewed clinical trials;"

None of which was done for these "vaccines" that have killed thousands, have killed or permanently sidelined professional athletes in top shape here and across Europe, and of which we have zero knowledge of long-term effects.

Among the complaints about therapeutic drugs is that they are “off-label.” Yet, "an estimated 12 percent to 38 percent of prescriptions are written for FDA-approved drugs used "off-label" (including Botox and Viagra)." Viagra, due to its function of dilating blood vessels, recently is credited with saving the life of a dying Covid patient in England. One might ask, why is Viagra off-label okay, but doctors are losing their license for other FDA-approved drugs being prescribed off-label? And, why? One doctor reasonably asks,

If I'm wrong with the treatment I'm giving, people are still going to die. If I'm right, how many lives have we saved? How many can be saved? Why are we erring on the side of death instead of treatment?

In November 2020, nine months into the pandemic, Dr. Fauci co-authored an article in the authoritative Journal of the American Medical Association titled "Therapy for Early COVID-19: A Critical Need," in which he asserted that "interventions that can be administered early during the course of infection to prevent disease progression and longer-term complications are urgently needed." Treatments, he wrote, "must be safe with few adverse effects, easy to administer, and scalable."

Yet the NIAID, FDA, pharmacies and many doctors dismissed the efficacy of a number of drugs used around the globe for the interventions he requested, causing one doctor to note:

We could have prevented this tragedy for $1. Dexamethasone, 5 cents. Ivermectin, 1 cent. Colchicine, 50 cents. Aspirin, 100 pills for four bucks," he said. "If we had given people aspirin, ivermectin, colchicine, and if they get complicated, a little dexamethasone, we could have saved the world with one dollar.

One dollar.

Do the vaccines even work? Alex Berenson notes:

This absolutely brutal preprint from Denmark shows zero vaccine effectiveness against Omicron beginning two months after “peak” protection, and sharply negative protection three months out. In other words, vaccinated people were much MORE likely to get Omicron beginning about 100 days after the second dose.

A study from Canada is similar.

Other studies are showing the Omicron may be a good thing for the less-vulnerable. Its symptoms resemble the common cold and the recovered wind up with immunity to the full range of Covid-19 variants, rather than just the one part of the spike of the “vaccine.”

Our elites have done all this to us for money & power. By August, we had minted nine new billionaires in healthcare. By November it was 44. We have added billions of dollars to the accounts of already-billionaires Gates, Zuckerberg, Dorsey, and Bezos for doing nothing but keeping businesses closed and conversations censored.  (Windfall profits tax, anyone?). We have spent on this pandemic more than we spent to win World War II, a war fought for, rather than against, our liberties, a war costing Americans fewer lives than have resulted from this gain-of-function (virus weaponization) research.

The public enemy.

Even knowing as we do now that natural immunity (get it, treat it, get over it = immunity) is broader and stronger than these "vaccines," we still demand “vaccines” that raise the viral load of the vaxxed and turn them into spreaders and have, without exception spiked infections (the most-vaxxed countries are seeing the highest spikes in infections). Many still also demand masks that have been shown useless (and worse) in study after study, and allow politicians hired to protect our liberties instead to destroy them rather than adapt policies to the body of Covid science that has grown rapidly with the pandemic.

It is unconscionable to allow people to die in hospitals when one hundred percent of those “at death's door” receiving ivermectin on the order of a judge have recovered against the will of hospitals whose reason for existence is treatment. Once the first judge ordered the first hospital to provide ivermectin to a dying patient on whom all other treatments had been tried, and that patient recovered to live another day, all future in-hospital deaths of covid patients are on the hospitals refusing therapeutics - not the virus. One day soon this will be recognized by class-action lawyers and hospitals will find that the Nuremberg Defense won’t work for them, either.

Ask yourself why. Why no therapeutics? Why a mandated vaccine? Obviously, something is in play here, and it isn’t our health.

The Constitution vs. the Oligarchs

To “save the lives” of Americans, Uncle Joe Biden’s CCCP junta (Covid-CriticalRaceTheory-Climate Party) mandated that all of us with whom they have lost patience must do what we are told. Now.

Federal Court: No.

To “save the planet,” the CCCP cancelled new exploitation of oil resources on federal lands. Because who cares about the economy, jobs, prosperity, families, the future … or the law … when in conflict with the opinion of a guy whose only domestic job is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” at which he is epically failing (immigration, anyone?).

Federal Court: No.

And not a drop for us.

As oil prices skyrocket in tune with the demands of Democrats, it’s good to know that America began storing oil in a Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the 1970s when the OPEC cartel stopped shipping the stuff to us. And now that Uncle Joe has terminated new production and has gone hat-in-hand to the cartel begging them for more (OPEC: “No”) at least we’ll have the SPR to help offset the economic hit. Well, we would have if the CCCP weren’t selling off our strategic oil reserves to Asia.

The Davos elite, led by Klaus Schwab, would have us all believe that freezing to death this winter in the absence of real energy (for which wind and solar are only imaginary substitutes) will be remembered in the coming 2-3-5-degree increase they forecast as the good old days.

In fact, quite a few real scientists are processing actual data (not long-ridiculed “Hockey stick” that started this entire hoax, or ever-re-manipulated global temperature readings). What are these scientists seeing?

Earth is also currently experiencing a surprisingly long period with very low sunspot activity. That is associated with the earth's history with even lower, colder temperatures. The pattern was seen during a period known as the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, which saw temperature readings decline by two degrees in a 20-year period.

The Maunder Minimum, 1645–1715, also preceded by fewer sunspots (and the lengthening solar cycles we may be seeing now), was both colder and longer. If you think being a bit warmer with more food and fewer deaths from extreme weather is a problem, try growing food and living beneath a mile of ice… Snowball earth will be far worse than temperate earth.

Come to think about it, if the interpretation by scientists of the real data is accurate (and history suggests that it is), a colder-than-average winter may, indeed, be the good old days. If we are approaching another mini-ice age only a century or two since exiting the last, “freezing” may be remembered as “a balmy day.” In the 18th and 19th centuries, Londoners were ice skating the Thames and Hans Christian Anderson was writing about Silver Skates on the Zuiderzee. And who's to say the next Ice Age will be "mini"?

O where O where have the sunspots gone?

Consider: food plants (and humans) thrive in warmer temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations, which is why those searching outer space for habitable planets are looking for warmer ones. But Bill Gates, the individual owning the largest amount of farmland in America (and who is polluting enormously while buying more, globally) wants lower temperatures and lower CO2 concentrations. Let us ask Mr. Gates about his plans to own all the farmland yet be unable to feed the global population as the earth cools, shall we?

It is important to remember that the same Davos oligarchs who gamed the pandemic in advance, demand the CCP Virus “vaccine” mandate and passports, and insist we reduce/eliminate energy usage and thereby our standard of living are not in the least negatively affected by the policies they apply -- not to themselves but only to us.

It also is important to remember that the intent of this crowd is to do away with self-rule globally and to place the planet’s population under their dictatorship. This is why their policies on Covid, Climate, CRT are destroying the middle class. They are not stupid and these are not “mistakes” resulting in “failure.” This is all part and parcel of their Great Reset.

This is not a game. With their enlistment of global media, education, healthcare, bioweapons labs (what could one call “gain of function” other than a "bioweapon"?), supply chains and manufacturing, it’s a war. But only one side is fighting.

America has the advantage of a written Constitution limiting the power and reach of its federal government. Occasionally a federal court will grasp that it means what it says, as in the two examples with which this column began. Other Western nations lack this – but are more competent at filling the streets with people, trucks and tractors in protest. We are growing tired of these parasites we feed, clothe, house, enrich, and transport deciding and acting against us, our children and our future.

In Schwab we don't trust.

The rule of law will survive – or Davos and the CCCP will destroy it. There are millions of us on the side of law. Against a few dozen oligarchs polluting the planet “to save it.” If the nascent dictators don’t pull-back and adhere to law and the traditions of Western Civilization, sooner or later a spark will ignite a conflagration.

When “disobedience” starts, it will remain civil only for so long. BLM, Antifa and the oligarchs taught that civil disobedience is punishable; but burning down cities is not. Somewhere in Switzerland, the international oligarchs are weighing their next moves.

The Constitution Still Matters, Right?

So purple Arizona filed the first State lawsuit against President Biden’s federal vaccine requirement. Interestingly, the filing is not based on federal government overreach, or the emanations from a Constitutionally-unstated privacy penumbra for Americans (popularly: “My Body My Choice”), or the violation of the ADA that prohibits Americans being asked about their health and medical status:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has found, for example, that an employer may not release an employee's medical records even if they are subpoenaed in a lawsuit, unless the employee consents.

Which law are we supposed to obey, and which violate? I’m confused.

States being superior in our form of government, superior Arizona is suing the inferior federal government based on the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution  through which the States created – and limited the powers of – the federal government.

It can perhaps be said that the Equal Protection Clause is at the core of the 14th Amendment. After all, this amendment was passed in the wake of the Civil War in attempts to remedy some of injustices that led up to that war, like racial inequality and slavery. While slavery is specifically dealt with in the 13th Amendment, inequality is dealt with here. Though race and racial discrimination are still at the heart of the Equal Protection Clause, any unjust government classification – the singling out of one group or another – can be a violation of the Constitution.

The clock is ticking...

By exempting illegal aliens and Afghan immigrants from a mandate for the rest of us, Biden’s diktat “singl[es] out of one group or another” of the population and treats these groups differently. (You may recall we once had a war over this.) This mandate and the exemptions are pretty much the opposite of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, (and the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment) and inarguably violate the Constitution. Arizona noticed and is suing to put the feds back in their Constitutional box where they belong, saying, “Yes, the Constitution does matter.”

Perhaps one of the SCOTUS precedents Democrats always demand never be overturned (“stare decisis”) has been un-overturned and reinstated and the Plessy-Ferguson “Separate but Equal” doctrine is again in force? I must have missed that memo.

If Biden’s marionette team wants to grant exemptions to employees of the Executive branch, well, that is indicative of this not being about healthcare. These employees are in every State and nearly every city in the nation spreading their unvaccinated covid viral load among the vaccinated (obviously unprotected by the “vaccine” or why worry?). Mandating the behavior of their employees is completely within the authority of the Executive branch.

Perhaps you noticed other groups exempted from the mandate, namely the Legislative branch and its staffs and the Judicial branch and its staffs. Why? Separation of Powers: The Executive cannot mandate behavior among separate, co-equal branches. The Executive can mandate behavior only to employees of the Executive Branch.

And, guess what? I’m not an employee of the Executive Branch. Separation of Powers and non-Enumerated Powers. Zero Constitutional authority was granted to the federal executive to mandate my behavior. Since I am not their employee, they can’t police my behavior. The states did not grant that authority to the feds.

We're from the FBI and we're here to help.

Why? The superior states also did not grant to the inferior federal government “general police powers;” these were reserved by the states. What does that mean? It means the feds can’t “police” me. States reserved police powers, as well as all powers not specifically granted to the feds. See Article 1, Section 8 for a listing of those specific enumerated powers. Healthcare is not among these, nor is any power over what to inject into your body.

See the Ninth and Tenth Amendments – the final two amendments of the Bill of Rights, without which the Constitution would not have been ratified, nor the nation created – for all powers not granted to the feds.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. [Ninth]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. [Tenth]

But, wait, you say? The Executive Branch, via “rule making,” creates arbitrary rules governing individual behavior all the time. True. And yet, the very first sentence of the Constitution reads:

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.

Let me repeat that: “All…”

What is the difference between legislation ("laws") that can deprive Americans of life, liberty or property and “rules” that can deprive Americans of life, liberty or property? Spelling.

The honorable gentlelady: Congress at work.

Congress loves to dispose of its accountability by tossing too-hot-to-touch issues over to the Executive branch. Say, like a mandate for an injection you may not want to take. Nothing in the Constitution (to which they must take an oath to support in order to be seated in Congress – and should be expelled for violating) authorizes their doing so.

So the feds lack the power to police the behavior of individuals, and the feds must treat all Americans equally, and the president cannot make law. All of these are violated by the vaccine mandate; only Equal Protection is being tested by Arizona.

Now we shall see, again, whether the Supreme Court, also a creature of the federal government and also limited by that same Constitution to the powers and authority that limit the Executive and Legislative branches, is going to find a way to interpret a power the inferior federal government lacks (i.e. “invent” or “usurp”) to the detriment of the states that created the feds as their creature, and to the citizens of those superior states...

… and whether the Constitution and Rule of Law still exist in America.

A Nation of Lions, Led by a Goat

My last piece on the CCP virus included this observation:  “It seems odd that the more research and information we have on Covid-19 and its treatments, the worse the story gets.” Stepping up to the challenge, the media and their “experts” just made everything, well, “worse.” (What would we do without experts?)

CNN Medical Analyst, Dr Leana Wen, had this to say:

“And those who are vaccinated, we now know based on the CDC, they are now able, with the Delta variant, because they carry so much more virus, they could transmit it to their unvaccinated family members.”

I’m not a doctor, but I am pretty sure this is the opposite of how vaccines are supposed to work. Dr. Wen notes that her own vaccination now is a threat to her children as they are too young to be vaccinated. I am a parent, and I am quite sure becoming a threat to your children via a non-medically-necessary choice, is the opposite of how parenthood is supposed to work.

Uncle Joe’s demand/threat that we all get vaccinated or lose our homes and jobs, starve to death, become unable to travel, cash a check, use a credit card, etc., now seems designed to, what? Get everyone sick?

Remain calm! All is well!

I’ve been trying since we all were scolded by the president for being adults and making our own decisions in what once was a free country (but at least not (yet) a prison colony), to figure out the Kafkaesque nature of his demand. (It’s so good to have an adult of whom we can be proud back in the Oval Office.) I am pretty sure his tirade can be summarized as below:

The vaccinated demand the unvaccinated get vaccinated to protect the vaccinated from the virus against which the vaccinated were vaccinated.

Do I have that right?

But if we “follow the science,” at least according to CNN’s Medical Analyst, quoting the CDC, Joe has it exactly backward: It’s the vaccinated who are a risk to the unvaccinated. But that’s par for the course with Joe; he’s always been wrong.

But I guess the Powers That Be experimenting on children will fix that, seeing that they now are testing these gene-altering inoculations (I think we’re past the idea these are “vaccines”) on kids whose IFR is about 0.001, so we can do – what… make kids superspreaders, too? And the teacher unions are demanding we turn every child into a superspreader in order to get our children back in school… where they can… infect everyone? Is that what the most powerful Democrat-supporting union in America sees as our way forward? OK. I’ll admit it. I’m confused.

But at least BigPharma will make bank, and that’s the goal, right? Just like the Military-Industrial-Intelligence-Congressional-Complex making bank in our un-won / refuse-to-win “wars.” It’s been a long time since I was in the military, but nowadays it costs $768,000,000,000 – annually – to prepare for wars we plan to lose? (Plus, of courses, the $10,000,000,000 we used to fund the Taliban military effort.)

What, me worry?

Meanwhile, back in the state-whose-governor-just-got-fired-for-molesting-women, hospitals are closing departments; (irony alert) maternity, for instance (pretty sure maternity is a non-optional event once labor begins, but I’m not a “body with a vagina,” so maybe I have that wrong? Perhaps a birthing person can enlighten me?), or are just closing entirely.

President Biden’s vaccine mandate for healthcare workers may have “devastating” effects on rural hospitals, as a fully vaccinated staff will become a requirement for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. Jerry Jasper, CEO at Brownfield Regional Medical Center in Texas, said that while most of his staff are vaccinated, there are about “20 to 25 percent” who are not. Losing those employees may be the end of the hospital, he told KCBD.

Not sure how forcing hospitals to close in the midst of a pandemic is good for the people in the area, but I’m not a Democrat policy maker or voter.

The new governor of New York, on the other hand, has a solution in two parts:

  1. Bring in the NY Guard to staff the hospitals, and,
  2. Bring in foreigners to staff the hospitals.

Maybe she can get some of the illegals crossing the Rio Grande to staff her hospitals. They don’t have to be vaccinated so easily can replace the American workers who have been on the front lines of Covid for 18 months and know the dangers better than any and so are rejecting the jab at high rates across the country -- and so getting fired. The thousands under the bridge must include at least a few nurses. Bonus: they work at a lower cost than American medical staff and can help the Late Great State of New York recover some of the costs incurred by killing about 12,000 elderly. (Or was that a reduction in healthcare costs by killing about 12,000 elderly? Again, I am confused…)

Plus you get free ice cream!

My gosh, it’s good to have competent government again. Wide-open borders, a rout of our military, energy re-dependendence, a virus that is being treated to excellent results in non-Western countries but is killing people in America because those treatments are essentially outlawed, massive spikes of the WuFlu in the countries most-vaccinated (and here), hospitals closing because the medical professionals are rejecting a vaccination, and the vaccinated being the biggest risk to the unvaccinated our president is demanding get vaccinated.

Or else.

Meanwhile, Down Under...

Things are going from bad to worse in Melbourne and in wider Victoria state in Australia. I haven’t done the survey but it is credibly reported that as of 23 September, Melbourne has suffered more days of lockdown than has any other city on earth. In a marvelous piece of theatre construction workers were informed that vaccination was to become a ticket to work.  Objecting to the weakness of their own union (the CFMEU) in the face of this unconscionable mandate some hundreds demonstrated and wreaked damage on the CFMEU’s Melbourne office front.

In a fit of pique, El Duce Dan Andrews, the Victoria premier, closed down the whole construction industry in Victoria for two weeks. The result: tens of thousands of building workers unemployed with nothing to do but demonstrate. Proof positive of what has become widely known. Dan is not only a communist but a very stupid one.

On 22 September building workers occupied the steps of a shrine in Melbourne dedicated to soldiers who lost their lives in WWI. The press was onto this. “Absolutely disgusting” read the headline in The Australian, the only not-so-left newspaper in the land. Only one or two conservative voices pointed out that demanding freedom on the steps of a shrine commemorating those who fought and died for freedom was not so inappropriate.

Notice the tone of most media reporting. When what the press should focus on is the brutality of Victorian police charging up the steps firing rubber bullets at building workers (not neo-Nazis by the way) who were simply standing there calling for freedom. You may have seen the same in Venezuela. Truly we are seeing how tenuous is freedom.

In echoes of the ban on drones filming Haitian illegal aliens gathering under the International Bridge in Texas, the Victorian police banned news-gathering helicopters flying above the demonstrations. The aptly black-shirted police commissioner relented under pressure; yet still demands that approval for flights be sought and any videos obtained be delayed for an hour before being broadcast. A police state has arrived; though its extent depends on where you live, now that Australia has been Balkanised.

Effectively, Australia has reverted to its pre-1901 colonial status, where each state formed a self-governing colony under the British Crown. Over the past eighteen months states, particularly Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia, have mostly closed their borders to both international  and domestic travellers; and, also, even to returning citizens of their own states from other parts of Australia, unless they are sharpish before the gates shut at twelve-hours’ notice.

Depressingly, according polls, Dan still seems to have the majority support of Victorians. Those old 1930s films of dictators being cheered on by adoring crowds don’t seem forced, do they. Better not pin our hopes on the sanity of crowds.

Viral Vaccines and the Jabberwock

As one contemplates—and experiences—the mad, topsy-turvy, inconsistent and patently absurd atmosphere of pandemia, one may be forgiven for thinking we are living inside a Lewis Carroll world of snarks, boojums, borogoves, Jubjub birds, Bandersnatches and Jabberwocks. It is becoming increasingly difficult to negotiate a blizzard of often conflicting reports, statistical findings and public recommendations emanating from the political and medical establishments. 

We were initially told that the viral curve would be “flattened” in two weeks. Eighteen months later, in many places around the world, we are still wearing masks and enduring punitive lockdowns or restrictions. Most recently, New Zealand has gone into national lockdown after a single case was detected. One “jab” should have sufficed, then two were required, and now three, with perhaps more to come.

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
 Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
 And the mome raths outgrabe.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”

  -- Lewis Carroll, Jabberwocky

We know that medical protocol requires a minimum five-year trial period to validate a vaccine, perhaps more. After less than a year, the product is still in the experimental stage, yet it has been approved for emergency use and may soon be ratified by the FDA.

PCR testing of the asymptomatic population was supposed to be failproof, yet the Ct (Cycle threshold) rates are generally so high as to produce enormous numbers of false positives. Even The New York Times is quizzical. High amplification cycles are too sensitive to be definitive. Curiously, the CDC and the FDA are suddenly re-evaluating their advocacy.

Many state authorities and health officials believe in a “Zero Covid” recovery scenario before mandates and restrictions will be lifted. Yet it now widely known that the virus will be with us indefinitely, like the flu and the common cold. Covid is here to stay. Herd immunity may be the best option.

We were assured that the vaccines would render us immune to the disease. It now turns out that the vaccinated are suffering “breakthrough” cases.  The numbers will vary according to the source, but “leakage” or “waning effectiveness” is a fact. The recent “Covid cluster” in a strict-entry, health-pass nightclub in Bordeaux (as well as in a Dutch club) is just another sign that vaccination is not a ticket to pharmaceutical heaven. But the blame will inevitably be placed on lax security.

The toves do slythe...

We know that viral/respiratory infections diminish significantly during the warm season; yet as Dr. Daniel Stock, who is a trained immunologist, asks: “Why is a vaccine that is supposedly so effective have a breakout in the middle of the summer when respiratory viral syndromes don’t do that?” As we have come to expect, Dr. Stock’s six-minute video has been taken down by YouTube and his claims “factchecked” to death by an innumerable host of politically complicit Internet sites and media shills. Open debate and informed argument are obviously not tolerated in the current repressive milieu. Dissenting views are ritually dismissed as junk, myth or “misinformation”—or simply suppressed.

We are informed that the recent spike in cases occurs among the unvaccinated, yet it is now known that the vaccines may not reliably block transmission. As Peter Smith writes in The Pipeline, “According to a CDC study and Public Health England, the viral load of those vaccinated who catch the virus is about equal to those unvaccinated…Those vaccinated can still catch the virus and pass it on.” Similarly, Harvard epidemiologist Dr. Michael Mina bluntly states that there will be “unabated transmission among the vaccinated.” Despite such occasional admissions, this worrisome trend will be downplayed or routinely debunked by the array of “interested parties”—the mainstream press, the Internet self-appointed watchdogs, and government-aligned medical practitioners—while the unvaccinated will continue to be scapegoated. 

Distinguished virologists and epidemiologists, such as Nobel Laureate Dr. Luc Montagnier and the inventor of the mRNA vaccine himself, Dr. Robert Malone, have deposed, with considerable evidence, that a condition called Antibody dependent enhancement, which allows the pathogen to invade cells, will render the vaccinated prone to the proliferating emergence of variants. Indeed, the vaccine itself is understood to be a variant amplifier, that is, it trains new variants to escape immune systems. And sure enough, we now confront Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta, with doubtless more to come. Dr. Malone has further warned against the spurious way in which the vaccines have been tested and clinical data manipulated—and he should know.

The word “jab” has taken on a new valence and entered the common lexicon to signify an injection of the aforementioned gene therapy substance, an mRNA delivery system that is by no means what is popularly understood as a regular antibody vaccine.  Nevertheless, we are assured that that these elixirs are effective and safe, despite the fact that adverse reactions continue to be reported (or massively underreported). An Open Letter from Doctors for COVID Ethics records a total for the EU/UK/USA of 34,052 vaccine deaths and 5.46 million injuries as of August 1, 2021. Those who administer the jabs are highly reluctant to consider or even question these figures. 

Come to my arms, my beamish boy!

My own GP will not hear of countervailing data and, to all intents and purposes, has banished me from his office, despite the Hippocratic oath he has sworn. He resolutely refuses to discuss the issue. The vaccines work, they are necessary, they are no different in their effect and function from previous vaccines, and all reports to the contrary are merely anecdotal and not to be credited. That’s the long and the short of it. The world’s best virologists (apart from the aforementioned)—authorities in their field like Sucharit BhakdiPeter McCulloughByram BridlePeter Doshi, Geert Vanden Bossche, Christian Perronne and others who have warned against the vaccines are of no account to him. Perhaps he has not even heard of them, given that many “contrarian” scientists with advanced degrees, professional renown and extensive clinical experience have not only been attacked for trafficking in falsehoods and misdiagnostics but have also been summarily deplatformed.

I have come to regard my physician—and the many others like him—as Carrollian Jabberwocks, primed and determined to accept the government and Big Pharma line at all costs and ply the needled jab without let or hindrance. It makes some sense, I submit, to take Carroll’s advice, to rest by the meditative Tumtum tree and stand awhile in thought. There will be trouble, of course, for: 

as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

It’s high time to unsheathe the “vorpal blade” and fight the burble back. I firmly believe that the vaccines should not be mandated, whether by government or corporate enterprises, but remain the personal decision of the individual — moreover, an individual who is privy to full disclosure regarding both sides of the debate, a task admittedly growing more and more mercurial under the prevailing rule of media and Internet censorship. Censorship almost always means there is a valid or important argument across the polemical meridian that the authorities and their journalist enablers do not want people to hear. Anything that challenges unexamined beliefs and rattles unsifted confidence must be cancelled.

Trust the science, said the Mad Hatter.

I have performed my own risk-benefit analysis and have decided to resist my Jabberwock’s dogmatic insistence. I take a modicum of comfort in the penultimate verse of Carroll’s poem.

And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
He chortled in his joy.

I neither chortle nor am beamish with joy, but am convinced that the right to exercise one’s own decision regarding one’s bodily integrity and independence of judgment is fundamental and lawful in a functioning democracy. The data-welter is disorienting but does not excuse mental laziness and the refusal to pursue discovery as best one can. Otherwise, we are on the route to a state of social, political or medical apartheid as the saved and the damned, the elect and the disenfranchised, the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, are rigorously segregated from one another, to the exclusion of the latter who will become social pariahs and cultural outcasts.

Mixed messages from the official sources will continue to ramify to add to our confusion. Celebrity medicos and opinion leaders will reverse themselves time and again. But the fact remains. The momes may rath outgrabe all they like, the slithy toves gimble, and the Jabberwocks flourish their implements, but a skeptical mind is a civil prerequisite, responsible inquiry is a moral and intellectual virtue, and a principle is a principle.