At Every Level, Government Has Botched the Covid Response

One day, even Democrats will realize that government has not only botched the response to Covid-19 at every level, and at every step of the way, but that it's generated more harm for more Americans than virtually any other policy in modern American history. That’s not hyperbole.

How and why was the response so poor, and what can we do to halt this fiasco from happening again?

The “how” emanates from the “why,” and the “why” in entirely rooted in fear.  In the early days of the virus, we simply didn’t have enough information about what we were dealing with.  It was all rumor, stoked by the media to generate fear to generate clicks and eyeballs.

With fear as the root cause, and the media as its ally, politicians became terrified.

Because the top priority for any politician is to remain in office (power), their decisions are inexorably tied to that priority, with the exception of those relatively few conservatives and libertarians who actually have integrity.  No politician wants to be the one who's known for killing thousands of people, so it was much easier to take a draconian approach and kill everyone slowly over a number of months and years than risk killing them with the virus.  This kicks the can down the road.

That approach also protects them because, should scads of people die from the virus, it would generate a fierce emotional response from everyone, including Democrats.

CDC, meet NIH, meet NIAID...

Moreover, explaining how and why lockdowns had terrible systemic effects is an intellectual and complicated argument.  Because Democrats don’t understand economics in the first place, the chance of blowback was far less.  Indeed, just look at how Democrats focus on the emotional elements of everything about Covid and paid no attention at all to the collateral damage.

Some of the more skeptical citizens believe all of this to have been intentional on the part of policymakers.  That gives Democrats too much credit.  It overlooks a simpler and more elegant explanation: politicians are nothing special.  They are normal people who don't have any expertise in anything.  They relied on “experts,” who offered narrow perspectives that didn’t take holistic public health policy into account when providing parochial advice.

To an epidemiologist, every virus looks like a nuclear bomb.  To a public health doctor, every virus is a situation to be managed effectively and efficiently.  You see the distinction.

This, by the way, is all the more reason why governors Kristi Noem of South Dakota and Ron DeSantis of Florida are to be commended.  They have integrity.  They used their own minds and stuck to their principles and have been proven right.  As the studies over collateral damage are eventually concluded, expect to find far less drug and alcohol abuse, spousal and child abuse, anxiety, depression, and suicide in those states.

That’s the “why.”  The “how” derived directly from this ever-present foundation of fear, which has undergirded every single Covid-19 policy decision at every level of government. The politicians need to show everyone that they are on top of the crisis, so they grasp at straws, and grasp the worst possible choice for a “test” to determine who has the virus and who doesn’t.

Another mask or two might have helped.

PCR testing was never intended as a diagnostic tool, according to its Nobel Prize-winning inventor.  The test shoves a swab up your nose and scrapes around for everything, and then the PCR procedure amplifies what’s in the background. As inventor Kary Mullis says, “It allows you to take a miniscule amount of anything and make it measureable and then talk about it.”

If the sample results are amplified 35 times, everyone would test negative.  If the sample results are amplified 60 times, everyone would test positive.

Thus, what nobody really knows or understands is that the number of positive cases are likely vastly over-reported.  Yet because the government proclaimed it the gold standard, it became the gold standard, because the government was so terrified of Covid that it had to lock onto something that gave it the feeling of control.  “Here’s a test!  Let’s go with it!” The result was an unreliable test that produced unreliable data that was presented as gospel.

Indeed, the data provided has never had any context.  All we get is raw "case" and death counts.  One must dig (a lot) to find how those cases distribute across age, location, comorbidity, and economic status.  Even then, we are not provided information regarding how many cases were asymptomatic or non-serious.

Suddenly, the news is all about “rising case and death counts,” not that 80 percent of deaths were in the elderly and 94 percent had at least one co-morbidity.

Without that context, the politicians decided that the entire country must be locked down, regardless of consequences.  Even worse, fearful politicians like Gov. Cuomo shoved the elderly who were sick right into nursing homes, turning them into death camps.

The terror prevented these politicians from making rational public health decisions, and the ignorant media took their lead.   There was never any public health campaign, and there is still not , to push the simple preventative measures that we know enhance immunity:  vitamin D, zinc, and quercetin.

We still don’t have clear answers as to why HCQ and ivermectin – cheap and widely available therapies – were demonized and thrown out instead of letting people making their own choices. Heck, they could have at least done the same clinical trials that the vaccines went through.

Why not?  Because government is reactionary, not pro-active.  Just as none of the pols wanted to be the guys who let millions die of Covid on their watch, none of them wanted to take the risk by advocating other measures, just in case they don’t work.

Government by its nature can only react with a one-size-fits-all approach, because government never considers the individual.  It sees a herd.

Our grand mistake as conservative Americans is that we gave them a herd.  Nobody stepped up to disobey.  Nobody chose to keep their business open.  Nobody chose to defy mask mandates, even in areas where law enforcement said it would not enforce such stupid mandates.

As a new round of mask mandates looms, we can’t let that happen again.

Does Anthony Fauci Even Exist?

Dr. Anthony Fauci is likely the most celebrated, or most notorious, public figure currently claiming the lion’s share of national attention. He rose to the heights of prominence as President Trump’s ubiquitous medical advisor, preening for the camera during Trump’s press briefings detailing the progress of the COVID pandemic and the means to combat it. Fauci’s dictates and pronouncements were regarded as gospel and came to be a major determinant of the nation’s COVID preventive policies. He seemed infallible—until now.

Recently a tranche of Fauci’s emails as well as articles and letters were released via the FOIA and through open records requests calling his bona fides into question. We learn there, among other things, that masks are ineffective, that people should wear multiple masks, that the virus has a natural origin, that the virus may have come from a lab leak, that the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research, that the NIH funded through EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak a team of Chinese scientists who may have worked on gain-of-function experiments, and so on. (Chinese virologist Dr. Li Meng-Yan has added further weight to the lab-leak revelations.) 

The bordereau of planned evasions and collusive misdirections—as witness a “spectrum of correspondence” with such influential figures as Scripps Research professor Dr. Kristian Andersen (January 1, 2020), NIH Deputy Director Dr. Hugh Auchincloss (February 1, 2020), and others—is striking. The controversy is assuming epic proportions as Fauci’s presence and calendar of activities and decisions have polarized the country. 

Do I contradict myself?

In my opinion, all the fuss and bother about Anthony Fauci is nothing but a tempest in a beam-splitter. For Anthony Fauci does not exist. Rather, he is a gaseous exhalation of the Swamp, in effect a computer-generated hologram projected onto the public stage to advance the insidious project of the political left and the class of billionaire scavengers seeking to profit from the national malaise while advancing an agenda of oligarchic social control. 

Why this elaborate charade or pneumatic figment should have been created is another question and invites some speculation. Tom Woods asks: “Can it be that for some in the Establishment Fauci has finally worn out his welcome? Some 64 percent of independents say it's time to resume normal life. That's a big, big chunk of people for the Democrats to alienate. So are they pushing back on Fauci?”

Was the Fauci construct, then, a defensive artifice? If things went sideways and Fauci was exposed as a false prophet speaking from both sides of his mouth, he could be made to disappear, alleging fatigue, family responsibilities, or even COVID itself. Perhaps the virus will have taken its toll or the vaccine misfired, thus provoking a trickle of memorial sympathy among his detractors? Perhaps, weary of the fray and having done his duty, the apparition will have retired to the Pitcairn Islands—0 new cases, 0 confirmed cases, 0 deaths—never to be heard of again?

I think his credibility is entirely shot," Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya told Fox News. “And I think it's really unfortunate that we have this person who just didn't really have the expertise to lead the response, and yet we somehow venerated him.” Bhattacharya cited Fauci for a rookie mistake, conflating “the case mortality rate with the infection mortality rate.” Fauci’s 2 percent fatality number should have been 0.2 percent, an order of magnitude lower. “It wasn't the science changing,” Bhattacharya said; rather, “Something else happened where he just changed.” 

I am large, I contain multitudes.

What might that “something else” have been? For all we know, it may be that the real Fauci, if he existed, was surreptitiously replaced by a chimerical substitute, a creature of light and air. Or, more likely, that the “program” was changed in medias res, once the hologram had inspired public confidence, and so could begin to implement the larger scheme of tactical disinformation. Holograms are easily manipulated and impervious to attack, at least for an interim period.

Commenting on the doctor’s woefully mediocre and indeed pernicious track record, which has resisted scrutiny up to the present, Stephen Kruiser at PJM believes that Fauci has “proven himself to be a petty, small, pathetic man,” but Kruiser seems not to understand that Fauci is not a “man,” as we commonly understand the term, but a kind of wraith, an illusion, a three-dimensional photonic transmission serving to distract attention from the ulterior purposes of the real plotters. Which is why it is irrelevant to fulminate against him. There’s nothing there. 

It is interesting to note that the compromising email dump came at the instigation of collaborating hard-left news organizations, BuzzFeed and The Washington Post. Tom Woods may have had a point. Once “Fauci” begins feeling the heat, he can made to simply vanish, as we have seen, on any of various excuses, including personal resentment at suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous slander. The possibility must be entertained. He was never a material Fauci but the Schwabian emanation of a shadowy cabal of political manipulators conspiring to impose a Great Reset upon an unsuspecting people. 

Very well then, I contradict myself.

As Steve Deace and Todd Erzen write in their definitive Faucian Bargain, Fauci’s “name may be on the marquee, but the truth is he’s not really the main villain. Fauci is not some sinister figure who cynically manipulated… events in order to rise to power… he contradicts himself way too much, and is too easily exposed… Fauci is not the disease but the symptom [of the] federal leviathan,” a mere figurehead. And we have fallen for this meretricious fiction. “Fauci has only sold much of America what it wanted to buy. Our fear has gifted such authority to Fauci.” And not only fear, but our passion for entertainment and the marvels of medical technology.

The cabal knows this. And it knows that should the operation grow counterproductive, it could then insist it had been misled by Fauci’s ostensible credentials and suave persona, proceed to diffuse public indignation, and devise other means to carry out its intentions. Meanwhile, an “exit strategy” would be put in place, the hologram would evaporate and Fauci would just fade away, exempt from interrogation and exposure. No one would really know what happened to him or where he is. Eventually he would be forgotten. After all, the virtue of non-existence is immunity. 

Caveat profluvium.

Actually, the Earth Didn't 'Heal' Itself

Early on in the pandemic, former Greek finance minister (and current lefty activist) Yanis Varoufakis posted the following now-infamous  tweet:

It was a perfect example of what the very online call "saying the quiet part loud," an admirable tendency of Varoufakis. The idea was that the δῆμος (or the plebs for us descendants of western Europe) were responding pretty well to the unprecedented government intrusion into their everyday lives, and that post-Covid we should extend the state of emergency in order to put an end to "climate change."

It was essentially the opening salvo of the Build Back Better/Great Reset discourse, and also anticipated the  "Earth is Healing Itself" trope which emerged shortly thereafter. Since the Earth is doing such much better with us behind closed doors, went this line of thinking, perhaps we should stay there.

Well, unfortunately for Varoufakis and other likeminded leftists, the lockdowns don't seem to have effectively laid the groundwork for their green utopia. Jim Geraghty points out that climatologists are now saying that "carbon dioxide emissions fell by [only] 5.8 percent" due to the Covid-related lockdowns, which "merely amounts to a short-lived 'blip'" on the scale of global CO2 emissions. Geraghty explains the significance of this finding:

The global impact of COVID-19 is difficult to overstate. The earth literally grew quieter for several months, causing human-caused vibrations around the globe to be cut in half. At least 3 million excess deaths in 2020, a global working-hours impact four times worse than the 2008-2009 financial crisis, about $4 trillion in lost productivity, a huge drop in global gross domestic product, school closures for roughly 1.5 billion children around the world. This is about as big and bad as anyone could imagine, short of World War Three or the apocalypse. And if this kind of a halt to all kind of human activity wasn’t enough to have a significant impact on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, then no change in human behavior is going to make a significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

In point of fact, it's hard to conceive of a more illustrative and visceral argument for our side of this debate. "You want to use the power of the government to massively reduce carbon emissions? Well, remember how awful the Covid lockdowns were? You'll have to do a lot more than that."

Great Reset hardest hit.

Lucky for all of us, higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere seem to have some real benefits, most especially for plant life and global crop yields. And then there's the fact that technological innovations like the improvements in fracking techniques, have enabled America's transition away from high-carbon coal to low-carbon natural gas, contributing to our leading the world in total emissions decline since 2000.

So maybe true lovers of the planet should consider leaning into the American energy revolution and embracing their ancient enemies, fracking and nuclear power, and stop lobbying for western nations to heavily invest in China's toxic waste generating solar panels, which are, by the way, built using coal-fired power plants.

A man can dream.

Enemies of the People: Bill Gates

Enemies of the People: Klaus Schwab

Talking the Talk on 'Climate Change'

What are we to make of an article by William Hague, a former U.K. Foreign Secretary from 2010 to 2014, that predicts Britain’s armed forces may one day be sent into action abroad to safeguard the natural environment from such predators as oil companies and loggers? Quoted by the Daily Mail from an article in the journal Environmental Affairs, Lord Hague writes:

In the past the UK has been willing to use armies to secure and extract fossil fuels. But in the future, armies will be sent to ensure oil is not drilled and to protect natural environments.

That prediction is startling from several standpoints. To begin with, it could be read as confirming a frequent left-wing allegation—hitherto hotly denied by the British and other Western governments—that in the two Gulf Wars the West intervened not to prevent Iraqi aggression or to stabilize the Middle East but to get its hands on Arab oil. I don’t think that’s true, as a matter of fact, but if it is, it’s a big admission and a big news story. And it was merely the first of several startling predictions.

The Mail’s succinct report was a paraphrase of a 6000-word article, “The Great Convergence,” by the former foreign secretary in a new journal, Environmental Affairs, in London. I don’t suppose Mr. Hague thinks the paper’s summary did any favors to his long and detailed argument which seeks to show how Britain (and by extension the West) should bring about a convergence between its policies on climate, foreign affairs, and towards China to ensure their all-round success.

He may be wrong about the Mail, as I shall argue below, but there’s little doubt that Hague’s article kicks off a serious attempt by the U.K. and international establishments to explain how their policy of Net-Zero carbon emissions by 2050 fits comfortably, even necessarily, into their other principal foreign policies like a missing jigsaw piece.

Go on, give it a try!

The signs of a political influence operation are all there. Policy Exchange is one of three influential conservative think tanks close to the government. Environmental Affairs is an impressive new venture. Its contributors include leading figures from the global climate change establishment and the U.S. foreign policy establishment, notably General David Petraeus. And its first publication arrives at just the point when governments are suddenly nervous of two fundamental political problems with Net-Zero:

For already there are growing symptoms of domestic and international resistance to Net-Zero—as Hague himself points out. His “Great Convergence,” rather like the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset,” is a rhetorical device to shore it up by combining it with policies supported by other influential constituencies such as the defense establishment and China hawks. Hague’s opening gambit therefore is to establish that climate change is a threat not only to the prosperity of nations but also to their national security and thus to global security as a whole.

That’s a theme increasingly heard from Western governments—and I’ve expressed skepticism about it before. But the former Foreign Secretary said it first in 2010, and he thinks his forecast has been borne out by events:

In Iraq, farmers were driven to join ISIS once opportunities to provide for their families dried up along with local water sources. In Somalia, jihadists have cut off water supplies to punish areas of the country outside of their control. And in Syria, social unrest, exacerbated by droughts driving Syrian farmers into cities, spilled over into civil war just a few short months after my remarks, leaving hundreds of thousands dead and millions scattered across the world.

But the problem with these examples is that they are the effects of civil war, terrorism, and oppressive government rather than of "climate change." It’s possible that climate change may have played a part in making them worse—as the Russian winter complicated Napoleon’s invasion of Russia—but it would never have caused them in the absence of war, terrorism, and oppression. Most of Syria’s neighbors, after all, have helped refugees rather than persecuting and robbing them. And there are far easier and less dangerous ways of adapting to small rises in temperature than press-ganging your neighbors or ethnically cleansing them.

One way to stop climate change.

Not that Hague, a prudent statesman aiming at pacific solutions, is anxious to send in gunboats. His main stress is on diplomacy and trade which he would send in ahead of the troops:

[A]s climate change climbs the hierarchy of important political issues, it will be increasingly difficult to square our climate change policy with agreeing to a free trade deal with a country that clears a football pitch-sized area of the Amazon rainforest every minute.

He's talking here about Brazil, but he could equally be talking about China and coal-powered stations, or Saudi Arabia and oil, or Russia and pipelines. So let’s not underestimate the boldness of Hague’s statement here. It overturns something very important.

Free trade is a central element in the kind of liberal conservatism that Hague, Cameron, and Boris all represent—and that global economic institutions have upheld in practice since the end of the Cold War. It’s how they believe mankind makes progress—by developing and trading new ideas and products in peaceful competition between nations. Hague’s willingness to subordinate that method of human progress to the stern sacrifices of Net-Zero shows the extent to which climate policy has become an dogma overriding all other considerations in Western policy. It’s now an unquestionable article of faith.

Yet if we are to base military, diplomatic, and even trade policy on the economic and security consequences of climate change, shouldn’t we also take into account the consequences of the policy of combatting climate change? Governments candidly admit that Net-Zero is likely to impose heavy costs on the economy and to require seriously unwelcome life-style changes from their populations.

But it seems shortsighted and rash to ignore the likelihood that these consequences would create tensions--tensions at least as serious as those Hague predicts from climate change—between different social, ethnic, and religious groups within countries. And that goes double for international tensions between countries.

Welcome to Syria.

After all, the potential international conflicts that Net-Zero seems likely to foster include: angry demands from the developing world for decarbonization subsidies from the West; broken Net-Zero promises from a China surging ahead on cheap, reliable fossil fuels; and attempts by a declining West to compel the rest of the world to implement Net-Zero targets—attempts that fail and prompt airy talk of intervention.

Hence the value of popular journalism—seen here in the Daily Mail’s selective compression of Hague’s 6000 words into one simple conclusion: “In the future, armies will be sent to ensure oil is not drilled and to protect natural environments.” It brings us hard up against reality.

Under whose authority would these troops be sent abroad? Obviously, Hague was not proposing a Western coalition of the willing to halt Brazilian logging or shut down Bahrain. That would be too much like a re-run of the Iraq War for comfort’s sake. There would have to be a U.N. force of some kind under the authority of the Security Council. Consider, then, the following three points:

  1. Russia and China are among the world’s largest energy-producing and energy-consuming countries respectively.
  2. Both countries are also two of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and enjoy the right of veto on any U.N. use of force.
  3. And there is zero chance that either country would allow any U.N. use of force that threatened its vital economic interests.

Indeed, only last month a Security Council debate on whether climate change should be treated as a threat to international security revealed (not surprisingly) that there was support from India and other energy-rich and energy-hungry countries for Chinese-Russian skepticism on the point. Only a very small country is at risk of being invaded by British or other Western troops for crimes against the climate.

Lord Hague makes a fair point when he says about climate policy that Britain "cannot get away with talking the talk without walking the walk" indefinitely. Since we can’t walk the walk in reality, however, maybe we should be a little more careful about talking the talk.

After Masks and Lockdowns, Here Come the 'Vaccines'

We have been wearing masks for over a year. We have been quarantined in government facilities and in our homes. We have been rigorously locked-down in a futile attempt to control a virus that is clearly unimpressed by our efforts. The latest installment in the Covid frenzy is the love affair with the various vaccines, a mammoth suite of pharmaceutical interventions, that have flooded the market, promising eventual salvation from the ravages of the pandemic. Yet the negative side of these disparate vaccines has gone largely unreported.

While assuring us that pharmaceutical tests have been professionally run on the whole, New York Times reporter Alex Berenson writes in Unreported Truths about COVID-19 that “the companies failed to test the vaccine on the ‘right’ people—the people at high risk of dying from Covid. They failed to prove that it actually reduced deaths, leaving a tragic hole in our medical and scientific knowledge.” Berenson mentions “realistic theories about possible long-run harms from the vaccines, such as the risk that they can lead to a dangerous rebound effect on people who later become infected with COVID.” 

In Berenson’s judgment, “regulators failed at every point in the development of these vaccines—the preclinical work, the major clinical trials, and the approval process”—though he gives them the benefit of the doubt, owing to the pressures they were under and still recommends that people be vaccinated. Nonetheless, all the vaccines accomplished was to “reduce moderate illnesses in people who were at low risk from COVID anyway.”

A little jab'll do ya.

The ramifications of the vaccines are far worse than that. Symptomatic reactogenicity is not uncommon. In just a few months, a spectrum of concerning side-effects have appeared, ranging from blood clots, erythema, cardiovascular ailments and Bell’s Palsy to anaphylactic reactions, swollen lymph nodes, chronic pain and untimely deaths. It should be no surprise that the general population will be constantly assured by a complicit network of authorities and pseudo-authorities that adverse reactions are statistically insignificant and should not be heeded. The incurious will be easily persuaded, especially as countervailing reports will be duly censored.

A typical example of what is really happening comes from British Columbia doctor Charles Hoffe who, in a letter to the Ministry of Health, reports “numerous concerning allergic reactions and neurological side effects from the vaccine,” and observes that “In stark contrast to the deleterious effects of this vaccine in our community, we have not had to give any medical care what-so-ever, to anyone with COVID-19.” He concludes that “this vaccine is quite clearly more dangerous than COVID-19.” 

Equally worrying, mysterious problems of contagion from vaccinated to unvaccinated women have also arisen, causing serious and perhaps lifelong menstrual irregularities and reproductive dysfunctions following Covid vaccines. Dr Christiane Northrup, a leading authority in women’s health, argues that the vaccines do not entail a normal immunization program but create harmful synthetic proteins within the body, whose effects are transmissible. Naturally, she has been accused by the mainstream media of spreading disinformation, but the evidence for this newest pathology is compelling.

The effect on pregnant women is also very much in question. Children’s Health Defense (CHC) refers to Dr. Sherry Tenpenny, “a triple-board certified osteopathic medical doctor and an expert on the potential adverse impact of vaccines on health, who… brings up a most critical point, that we simply have no idea what the potential effects of these warp-speed developed, Emergency Use Authorized, experimental mRNA vaccines might have on a developing fetus.”

What potential effects these injections might have on the population at large is no less moot. The CHC editorial concludes with the rider:

This article contains a growing list of deaths that occurred after the experimental COVID vaccine was administered. The death reports are culled from the media and from social media, as well as from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and reporting systems outside the US.

A Freudian slip by a newscaster reporting on a growing trend of vaccine refusal may have some truth to it. People are unwilling to be “euthanized,” he said, before correcting to “immunized.” The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) considers the vaccines “safe and effective,” yet reports 2,794 dead, 56,869 injured following experimental Covid injections through April 5, 2021. Even CNN uncharacteristically reports that “5,800 fully vaccinated people have caught Covid anyway in US.”

The results from the U.K. are distressing, as they are from Norway and India. The news from Israel is no less disturbing. The mortality rates recorded in many sites are truly alarming. Other sites and fact-checkers downplay or scoff at these numbers as inflated, remarking instead on an infinitesimal percentage of adverse consequences. Sometimes the statistical accounts are so complex as to be difficult to assess. Obviously, the warnings will be contentious and the numbers disputed.

No thanks, I'll take my chances.

The truth is that reliable vaccines require ten or more years to develop and test, moving from the (1) exploratory to the (2) pre-clinical to the (3) trial and (4) post-licensure stages before they can be approved as safe for public distribution. Otherwise, not only their immediate efficacy but their future impact remains uncharted.

This fact is so glaringly obvious, it boggles the mind that it is rarely mentioned and commented on, or that it remains inadmissible in debate and discussion. A vaccine that arrives in just a few months when a decade or more is needed to create a reliable product cannot be trustworthy. They may, quite plausibly, be hazardous. What is known as “Operation Warp Speed” may pertain to the Starship Enterprise but is contraindicated in vaccine production. Slow and careful are the watchwords.

One can see the problems. We know the vaccines are clinically precarious for an undetermined number of recipients, but we do not know, regardless of what we are told, whether the vaccines are, on the whole and for a majority, actually effective, or merely placebos. Plainly, there are no means for ascertaining their effectiveness in the present moment—one takes it on faith.

Because someone may not or does not contract the disease following receipt of the vaccine is no proof of its potency; one may be already immune or resistant, or may suffer from the virus weeks or months later. And in the absence of longitudinal studies several years in duration, future side effects linger in a region of empty speculation and deferred research. People could find themselves suffering from any number of unexpected maladies—anemia, cognitive decline, clinical depression, or physical disorders as yet unspecified. Vaccines released years too early will likely have unpredictable pathogenic effects. Given their all-too-rapid and kluge-like development, the current rush to COVID-preventive jabs and boosters is a fools’ errand.

This fact has not prevented Big Pharma from scaling up its profit margin. Former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Scientist Dr. Michael Yeadon claims that new, top-off dosages designed to fight viral variants will be released without “clinical safety studies” and that these variants are in any case incapable of “immune escape,” that is, they are so similar to the original virus—“samients,” Yeadon calls them—that they are easily recognizable and controllable by a healthy immune system. Moreover, current “vaccines” consist of “superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification” while the ultimate purpose of these superfluous top-offs, Yeadon believes, is to surreptitiously give every person “a unique digital ID” in concert with the plans behind the Great Reset for global hegemony.

You'll take it and you'll like it.

Even Merriam-Webster has joined the quasi-medical cult, newly defining the word “vaccine” as “a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein).” In reality, this is not a vaccine, which introduces antigens into the system to activate antibodies, but an invasion of one’s genomic substance in order to generate an alien protein.  Adding a layer of vexatiousness to the issue is the question involving the Nuremburg Laws. The informed consent principle was defined as a human right and was intended to prevent forced medical interventions in any form, including vaccines. The first principle in the Nuremberg Code reads in part:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should…be able to exercise free power of choice, without…any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.

The code’s application in the current circumstances is debated by many “fact-checking” venues, unconvincingly in my opinion. The fact-checkers need to be checked for their facts; when one considers that accounts critical of the vaccines are regularly suppressed by Big Tech and generally unreported or massaged in “the Marxist Mainstream Media” (the phrase is Dr. Steve Turley’s), one must be skeptical of unrestrained vaccine advocacy. The central fact remains that the efficacy of these drugs comes without proof, as should be obvious considering the conditions under which they have been fabricated: as noted, neither immediate nor long-term confirmation of their outcomes is realistically possible. Ignorance may be bliss, but only temporarily. 

A historic court judgment in Weimar, Germany illuminates the overall dilemma. The vast majority of studies rely on “a purely mathematical estimation or modeling study based on theoretical assumptions without real contact follow-up.” We are proceeding without valid epidemiological knowledge. We do not know the precise extent to which our governments and their salaried health officials and media collaborators are lying to us or are simply incompetent and cowardly. We have no idea what may be coming down the pike. We do not even know if the vaccines work as they are advertised. One does not need statistics, only common sense, to be doubtful and even suspicious of their viability. 

Caveat vaccinator.

Awaiting the Future, Erasing the Past

He determined that the world would do better if he involved himself less. So wrote Amity Shlaes of President Coolidge in her history of the Great Depression. Here was a leader broadly content with the prevailing lot of his nation and I suggest, at the time, in sync with the feelings of most Americans. We now live in more disgruntled times. Still, sane nations and sane people are not systematically malcontent.

This brings me to those leaders and powerbrokers who almost entirely live for the future. They tend to despise the present and perforce the past. The future is all. Unlike the present and past it can be moulded; and, potentially, into a shape they desire. Malcontentedly, they lust after their own version of a better future. Take a couple of well-known dictators.

Hitler aspired to a Third Reich reaching across vast swathes of Eastern Europe. Xi Jinping aspires to ever-expanding Chinese hegemony. Dictators like these operate in plain sight. There is no mystery. But we have now in our midst another ilk of autocrats. Less obvious; just as real. Not dictators but, all the same, like dictators, they want power to mould the future. Their ambitions don’t go to territory or to national power. They want to change the way people think, work and live; they want to reset the agenda.

The coming Fourth Reich?

Pretexts presage power grabs. One or more are required. Climate change, the so-called third or fourth (depending on who’s counting) industrial revolution and, most recently, the response of governments to Covid have come together to provide a once-in-a-life-time confluence of pretexts.

The prime movers? Prominent is the World Economic Forum, whose executive chairman Klaus Schwab is a proponent of ‘The Great Reset’ and ‘stakeholder capitalism’. The Council for Inclusive Capitalism is a fellow traveller. Among many of the great and good, Bill Gates, George Soros with his misnamed Open Society Foundations, and Pope Francis are clearly engaged. Again, as with autocrats generally, they are deluded. But that doesn’t make them less dangerous to our prosperity and freedom.

It’s important to understand (though they might not) that they have not invented a third way. There is capitalism and individual freedom on the one hand and socialism and collectivism on the other. They are plumping for the latter whether they admit it, or see it, or not. They will likely, hopefully, fail in undoing our way of life; though, as I will suggest, the response of governments to Covid-19 is most worrying.

I will take each of the trio of pretexts in turn.

Tackling climate change offers the alluring prospect of undermining national governance in favour of global governance, run by elites, like them. This is very far from benign but, lucky for us, they have hitched their wagon to a crock. Renewable energy in the form of wind and solar is hopeless. You can only get away with it when you have dispatchable power at the ready.

Wind and solar now account for about 3 percent of the world’s energy generation. Already blackouts have occurred from Europe to South Australia to California. Exactly what will happen if that 3 percent becomes just 10 percent? Those hot or cold still nights will cause havoc. Quite simply it’s unworkable and will collide with real life. Its supporters would know that if they were not delusional.

Second to today’s industrial revolution. Schwab identified this revolution as the fourth in an article some years ago in the magazine Foreign Affairs. According to Schwab, it is characterised by “artificial intelligence, robotics, the internet of things, autonomous vehicles, 3-D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, materials science, energy storage, and quantum computing.” He, along with others, sees this revolution bringing profound and pacy breakthroughs; giving rise to production outstripping needs; to dislocation and unemployment. Dependency on government will soar. Just what is wanted to reset the agenda.

Good-bye to all that, right?

Troubling for them -- and fortunately for us -- it won’t unfold as they think. After three industrial revolutions have already played out, the labour force participation rate in the United States, in the U.K. and in Australia is higher now than in the buoyant 1950s. And there is no reason to believe things will be different this time. Those machine breakers of yore got it wrong as have current pundits. Market forces and human nature tell the story.

Businesses can’t produce products (including by using robots) and sell them at profit without customers who are inclined to own them and have sufficient wherewithal to buy them. A rising stream of production and falling employment do not gel.

As for human nature, ascetics and billionaires aside, men and women always want more goods and services than they are able to afford. Classical economists such as John Stuart Mill understood this. If Keynes had understood it, he would not have based his economics around scarcity of demand. If Schwab and company understood it, they would not pin their hopes on the fourth industrial revolution creating a superabundance of products and a needy mass of the unemployed.

Third to Covid, and arguably, the most threatening of the pretexts underpinning the Great Reset agenda. The response to Covid has been unparalleled in the history of plagues. A mild disease in terms of its lethality has led nearly all governments into upturning economic and social life. Even with vaccines normal life seems a distance away. As sapping as it has already been, it would be disastrous if it were a preview of the future.

New strains, ‘double mutants’ and novel viruses will regularly arise. In recent times we’ve had Asian Flu, Hong Kong Flu, Ebola, HIV, SARS, MERS, Swine Flu. And governments and their media cheerleaders are now practised in their hypersensitive response to germs. They seem to believe they’ve absolutely done the right thing by humankind. Even Donald Trump claimed he’d saved millions of American lives. Capitalism is adaptable and fleet of foot but continual lockdowns to fight viruses are not sustainable. The uncertainty created would cripple businesses, small businesses particularly, and inexorably increase dependency on government.

Leave aside the fluff about the industrial revolution, which will unravel of its own accord. Combatting climate alarmism and the attendant ineffective and costly counter measures remains core business. However, what needs to be combatted most right now is the overwrought response to Covid setting a debilitating template for the future.

A Royal With Some Sense

In response to the death of Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, The Global Warming Policy Forum reposted a piece from a few years ago by the (now deceased) British climate skeptic Christopher Booker, entitled "The time Prince Philip wrote to me in praise of my views on global warming."

Written on the occasion of the prince's retirement from public life in 2017, Booker mentioned that he'd been very touched to receive a "long, thoughtful and sympathetic letter" from Philip after the publication of his best-selling book The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'Climate Change' Turning Out to Be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History? The prince had wanted to correct one minor error in the book which pertained to himself;

I had said he was still a supporter of the World Wildlife Fund, which he co-founded in 1961. In fact, he said, he had withdrawn from the WWF after it switched from its original focus on saving endangered species to relentless campaigning against global warming.

Booker didn't spell out Philip's position on global warming any further than that -- to do so would likely have been to betray a confidence -- but that anecdote, along with a few others (several obituaries have mentioned his recently describing the wind farms popping up all over England as “disgraceful” and “absolutely useless”) paint a pretty clear picture.

Unfortunately, Prince Philp's progeny don't seem to have inherited his good sense. The green enthusiasms of the Prince of Wales are well known. Booker even mentioned that Charles was rather disturbed by his "views on global warming," and that he'd been immediately cut from the heir apparent's Christmas Card list after the publication of his book. We've previously had occasion to comment on the vacuity of Prince Charles's younger son, Harry, and his American bride, la Markle. And his elder son, William, is in on the act as well, recently tacitly endorsing Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset in a recent speech, saying:

All of us, across all sectors of society, and in every corner of the globe must come together to fundamentally reset our relationship with nature and our trajectory as a species.

This generation of royals are clearly grasping at celebrity, which is why they've embraced the self-righteous environmentalism so common among the glitterati. What they seem to have missed is that celebrity and royalty are diametrically opposed concepts, the one obsessed with self-assertion, with proclaiming "my truth," and the other  concerned with duty, honor, and self-abnegation. You don't have to be a monarchist -- I am not -- to appreciate that Philip was a man who embodied these latter qualities.

Britain would be better off if his children and grandchildren took after him.

Diary of an Acclimatised Beauty: Shooting Stars

I love when life just works out as it should. I’m meeting Daddy in Copenhagen where he’s chairing a big (and important) meeting on best practices for oil exploration and extraction in the region.  It seems Denmark's issued a moratorium on new permits for fracking but is still honoring the ones they’ve already issued, and which I assume includes his company. 

This trip should be so much fun, it reminds me of when I was a little girl—Judith and I would tag along and I’d go to the lobby and drink cocoa on my own.  Mummy never joins these days, but the reason I got to join is Daddy’s aide is afraid to travel under “the dreaded Covid”. 

We (of course) had to arrive three days in advance and receive special dispensation which we were able to do as he’s conducting necessary business. And of course we flew private… Daddy from London City Centre and I caught a ride with my friend Anna, whom I know from dressage, when she represented the Danish national team and I from Britain of course.

All this and Covid-19 tests too!

Along with Anna… I got a CV test three days prior to leaving Lyford in the Bahamas, and one on the day we left, and just for fun (not!) we did them again on the plane as a courtesy to her purser or something, and then filled out forms upon forms. I felt as though I’d already completed a project when I arrived… prepared to impress even the sternest immigration official only to find no one had the least interest.

We simply stepped off the plane, cars pulled up, and in minutes... each of us going in different directions. Gosh. Anna was craving something called a shooting star sandwich—something “divine” she said, with fish and shrimp and caviar— kissed me on the cheek,  and away she went. I was the last to find my driver who held a sign “Mrs. Kennedy”. Somewhat flustered I answered, “Yes.” Did he think my father was in possession of a rather young new wife? Apparently. 

In a few minutes I arrived at the Hotel D’Angleterre, not because we're English but because it’s the place where Daddy's conference is, and well… where else would one stay in Copenhagen? I mean, for Copenhagen it’s basically Annabels and The Connaught and The Ledbury all in one. I found Daddy in the bar and not up in his room under quarantine at all. 

The testing did release us from quarantine, as did the special dispensation but that didn’t stop the hotel from reading us guidelines which apparently state… if we were to quarantine we were expected to stay within the hotel -- meaning in the heart of all the action.  I couldn’t believe I’d had my nose probed three times for nothing.  Daddy suggested I not look so shocked and order some lunch. 

Oui, oui, messieurs.

I overheard a conversation in French. Clearly they recognized my father and clearly didn’t imagine I could understand them. I motioned with my eyes and said,

“That table over there is talking about you.”

“Just when we think we can underestimate the French” he replied.

“I’m serious.” I insisted, “they seem to oppose all future drilling in Denmark.” 

“Ah well, they are in the majority. So very un-French of them.” Typical Daddy. 

“Should I try to listen?” I continued. 

“I don’t think so. We’ve already concluded they are French.” he said.

I started into my yellow lentil soup and asked if he was familiar with a shooting star sandwich. 

“Delicious, but a damned waste of good caviar” was all he had to say. 

I looked through his papers for the schedule, and so that I could figure out when to meet Anna.  “I have to ask…” I said. "Denmark seems to be on track to being free from using fossil fuels by 2050 and hopes to make Copenhagen a carbon-neutral city…why promote exploration here?” 

 “Well I hope I’m not in the business of promotion as you put it, but there is drilling and fracking and not everyone wishes to put all of their eggs in one basket. Even if the DEA does.” 

“Meaning?”

“Meaning…there is still money to be made, contracts to be honoured, and it’s a fantasy to believe they can eliminate fossil fuel consumption in such a short time. AND…you are meant to be here to help me!” 

Yes, of course, Daddy” I said, “I just want to understand if you are working against my beloved planet and if so…how much—it’s just for me to know.”

“Yes of course.” he said. "And how was your trip to the modest Cay in the Bahamas anyway?”

“Air-conditioned” I said knowing I’d been beaten and changed the subject. “So…on some future day… if I take my vitamins and live long enough… what must we overcome to achieve a carbon-neutral Copenhagen in my lifetime?”

“Well, for starters, offshore wind is lagging well behind the oil and gas industry in safety. They had several hundred high-potential incidents—only luck prevented a fatality and risks are growing as this ‘independence’ madness pushes the boundaries.”

“I see. That can’t be good. And what if they run out of wind?”

“NO. The danger is that too high winds can cause turbines to topple, and of course, hurricanes and cable failures are always a problem, but it’s really the fossil independence MADNESS, creating the danger, pushing them to go deeper into the ocean, cut corners, cut costs…” 

“And birds?” I asked.

“Twenty-two million a year. I just didn’t want to mention it since our eavesdropping friends are having… LE POULET!” Daddy did a quick turn of his head and it broke their gaze. So busted. “…but the independence we should be talking about is Greenland. They want independence from Denmark, Lord knows why, but it seems to be a trait of the Inuit wherever they go. When we find the sweet spot in Greenland, and find it we will...there are going to be some very independent Inuit for the first time in history. It's just a matter of how much resource we put into Greenland and how soon. It's easy to make them wait when other areas of the world are currently more profitable."

It's all for the Inuits.

“Aha!” I said, “So partially we are here for Greenland?” 

“Perhaps,” he said, smirking. 

“But, wait -- how much of Greenland is Inuit?” 

“Most.”

“And are these the same Inuit as in Canada?” 

“The very same.”

“So as I understand, the offshore industry has only thrived due to people like me… who want a green planet, not because renewables are more economically viable.”

“That is correct," he said.

“So if an initiative is sufficient grounds to pursue a form of energy...why couldn’t a different initiative...a humanitarian initiative, launched to help the Inuit thrive—be a reason to conduct even more drilling in Greenland?” 

“Well…that’s an excellent question,” he said after some consideration. "And one I’ll ask you not to bring up at my conference, but you may well have earned your lunch my dear.” 

Ha! Bravo me. But since I'm ahead, probably best not to tell him I'm on my way to the Great Reset later this month in Davos...