The trouble with conspiracies is that those behind them won’t admit what they’re doing, you have to guess for yourself. You must apply Sherlock Holmes’s maxim that ‘when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.’

And so it was that thousands of Sydneysiders, many of them from non-Australian backgrounds, ignored public health orders on Saturday 24 to protest the oppressive restrictions being imposed on their freedoms, the government says, are needed to contain the spread of the Covid-19 Delta Strain. This is the second such ‘strain’ of the virus,  engineered in a Chinese lab, that the NSW government has used to justify curtailing civic freedoms; it is the second lockdown in as many years.


The Great Reset Begins

Public health orders hinge upon the rollout of two vaccines, AstraZeneca and Pfizer, both largely unknown quantities, which are connected to two big pharmaceutical companies. Those, in turn, are absorbed by the three companies in which corporate ownership is concentrated: BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street.

Capital Group Companies holds shares in AstraZeneca, while above them is the Vanguard Group. Above Pfizer is BlackRock. Let’s look at who runs BlackRock.

Brian Deese is Global Head of Sustainable Investing at BlackRock, one of its eight CEOs. Deese is also the 13th Director for the National Economic Council under President Joe Biden.

Before now, Deese worked as a senior policy advisor for the Centre for American Progress (CAP), a “public policy research and advocacy organisation which presents a liberal viewpoint on economic and social issues.” Deese left that to become economic policy director for Hillary Clinton during her failed 2008 Presidential Campaign. He then joined Barack Obama as an economic advisor. During Obama’s second term, he was promoted to Senior Advisor to the President in which he played a pivotal role in 2013 negotiating the contentious Paris Climate Agreement.

Deese is currently engaged in the ominous pursuit of “identifying drivers of long-term return associated with environmental, social and governance issues.” Is Pfizer is one of those ‘returns’? Bear in mind the duality of BlackRock’s social ethos, as it also invests heavily in the fossil fuel industry.

Deese provides BlackRock with a major link to the Biden Government. Another BlackRock corporate warrior is its chief CEO Larry Fink who is leading the charge for net-zero emissions and green industry; despite interests in fossil fuels.

We conflate the Great Reset, the agenda for the elite of the World Economic Forum in Davos, now known as The Davos Agenda, with the ‘Pandemic’. It’s the pivot of its agenda; knowing so, and given the pall of misinformation confected around its origins then Sherlock would be pondering the significance. Bear in mind that BlackRock is a key member of the WEF as is the Vanguard Group which, in 2020, set at the table in Switzerland to discuss the ‘resetting’ of capitalism.

The Great Reset was the moniker it previously went by when the agenda involved telling the ‘proles’ that “you’ll own nothing and be happy.” But it was one of many alarming dictates in its infamous PR video, such as we’ll eat less meat, feast on bugs, shoulder mass immigration and that the world will be divided up among key nations.

This video [since withdrawn] was a testament to the tone-deafness of the world’s elites that they could straight-facedly tell us what they have in mind expecting us to gulp like dumb fish and swallow it with ne’er a thought. Their public relations team pointed this out and they’ve created a new video in which they address the ‘misunderstanding’ of the first. They freely admit that the ‘pandemic’ has provided a great opportunity to reset the world economy. They’ve already decided it’s a global project and the existence of independent nation-states is excluded as a matter of tacitness.

The new video pronounces ‘capitalism as we know it is dead,’ and that a fairer solution to its disadvantages has to be reached.

We are expected to be obedient in this nebulous change that is devoid of detail, as ‘Nobody can do this alone.’ Apparently, ‘diverse voices work best.’ Again, this is a statement without clarification. What diverse voices? Do they mean they’re inviting homeless people on an all-expenses-paid trip to Davos to powwow with the bigwigs? To have one of the CEOs at Johnson & Johnson fold his hands above the table, gaze sincerely into a bum’s eyes, and ask, “Tell us, how would YOU fix the world economy?” Somehow, we think not. By diverse are they referring to coloured people? Does it mean ‘voices’ from ideological factions opposed to capitalism? Who knows?

But the humdinger of the Davos Agenda is that it will “shift business away from profit,” which is like saying, we’ll shift the fish away from the ocean. Once more, no qualification for the uninitiated, no terms of reference, no explanation, just catchphrases. And thus the paranoia engendered with the first video that they attempt to allay with the second is only heightened, and for a good reason, they’re up to something diabolical; so diabolical they can only speak in generalities.

It just so happened that the ‘pandemic’, which is milder than what the Spanish Flu was, has provoked what, when all is said and done, is a uniform response around the world: authoritarian lockdowns and the assuming of a paternal role by elected governments. The talk from Davos conspicuously avoids the words democracy and democratic which hitherto have been synonymous with capitalism. Their new terms disguise their meaning, those disenfranchised they speak of are racial groups that their agenda intends to ‘lift’ at the expense of the incumbent race. In other words, white people will be absorbed by ‘other races,’ on an environmental basis and new fairness that is to replace capitalism.

Already, the old economic neoliberal model of the past four decades has been binned. We can’t mind economists speak but we ascertain enough to know that they use coded language when discussing the new cycles and economic models.

So, a “pandemic” that originated under suspicious circumstances in a Chinese lab, with the US (and Australia) funding the research, just happened to provide the opportunity for an economic reset. But, given that economic theory is like science in that it has staunch proponents and opponents who seldom agree it’s fair to say those economists pushing this have done so with a ‘progressive’ cabal. An economy serves a society but in the new world order, the global economy prescribes to every society.

Here, the word ‘economic’ denotes major social remodelling; indicating a shift away from notions of freedom, individual rights and suffrage; in essence, the abandonment of the age of the self.

The pandemic model has forced us to surrender our liberty. At a basic state level in Australia, the response by Premiers has been to opportunistically assert power. Their own medical ‘experts’ are in disagreement about a strategy to prevent the spread of Covid’s new Delta strain, and in a fundamental area, whether or not lockdowns work. Naturally, power-seeking Premiers opted for advice affording them control. The hypocrisy has been laid bare in numerous incidents; the NSW Premier caught not wearing a mask or social distancing while enjoying a coffee with her new boyfriend; special dispensations for sportspeople, celebrities and international VIPs; as well as their selective criteria for enforcing restrictions. The rich and powerful enjoy themselves without the collar of a mask while the government’s stern finger wags at the rest of us.

Hasidic Jews in Sydney’s eastern suburbs were given a pass last year after violating social distancing rules while the police instead raided ‘Covid-deniers’. It’s one thing to flout health orders and another to deny Covid. Likewise, BLM sympathisers in Victoria were allowed to rally unmolested by police while anti-lockdown protestors were arrested. Hypocritically, some who acted as apologists for those ‘breachers’ condemned anti-lockdown protesters, such as Greens’ senator Sarah Hanson Young did.

Exactly how the vaccine figures in this we can’t be sure. They may believe that this requires it, after all, we have vaccinations for a host of deadly diseases and it’s all but wiped them out. That’s reasonable. The only one who can advise you on the vaccine is your doctor, not the politicians, not the girl on the media. We don’t possess the medical expertise to instruct readers on vaccination, we’re merely tracing a suspicious map of dots to major players. Given they all connect, it is wise to consider the implications, even if we don’t understand them. We have to, as Sherlock says, dismiss the impossible and rely on the improbable.

Yet, some are insisting on a vaccine passport; determining who can travel, who can run a business, and whether or not a person can walk freely into a café and order a coffee. If that’s consistent then the vaccine figures as a social divider; a new system based upon the rights of the vaccinated and the despised underclass of those who refuse it.

Consider, too, the vaccines are being rolled out for free by the same governments that wouldn’t dream of dispensing cancer drugs freely. Additionally, they wish to make vaccination mandatory, although there is no concrete evidence it will prevent the spread or immunise the vaccinated against any but the harsher symptoms; or indeed provide protection against the mutating of the virus.

Furthermore, the statistics of those infected and immunised against the population doesn’t bear out the threat that’s being touted. Road fatalities continue to outstrip the numbers of those who’ve died from Covid-19, and even then (in Australia) those are elderly people not long for this world. Again, we’re not implying that the vaccines are not required or that it is wise to allow the coronavirus to circulate unchallenged; but by all accounts, this is just another flu. Russia has a vaccine that has proved highly effective according to reports. Is Russia also part of this Great Reset? Is China? We don’t know.

What’s truly risible is their stoic chutzpah — how the most pathological capitalists can boldly speak of their master plan in egalitarian terms when there isn’t a name among their corporations that hasn’t put profits over humanity.

Take DuPont for instance. DuPont is a member of the WEF and sits at the Davos table. It’s involved with the Great Reset based on establishing a fairer model of capitalism and a cleaner planet. And what’s it done for the human race and the planet? As a byproduct of testing a chemical for military application in the 1950s, it produced Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) or C-8, which was used instead to make Teflon. In doing so they contaminated the world. C-8 causes cancer, birth defects, and travels via the air, water, and the food we grow. Every living creature on the planet has C-8 in its bloodstream; it cannot be destroyed. For years they tried to stall payments to those affected, and litigation, begun in 2000, continues. So much for their social responsibilities, and yet, we’re to trust a company that has poisoned the people and the earth.

Meanwhile, the same banks, who caused the 2008 financial crisis were bailed out by the people after unethical lending practices ballooned until they finally burst, leaving those same people homeless and without jobs. Now, they decide according to your politics, whether or not you can possess a bank account. Life’s difficult without one.

The insidious think tank the Rand Corporation, an advisor to the WEF, has already decreed the end to the beginning of the Great Reset. It’s all happened, and now they’re laying tracks to the ‘future.’ The engineered virus has crippled industries, altered how we live, from streaming movies at home instead of visiting the movie theatre, shopping online, to donning sartorially abhorrent facemasks. Businesses have closed, tourism is decimated, the aviation industry is mothballed and haemorrhaging billions, while the service industry is also struggling to survive. In America, the model of policing has been under concerted attack from the Democrats and their street auxiliaries in the Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa. Funding has been cut back in many key states, and this, it seems, was the desire all along; not out of a social agenda, but to remodel policing on a renewed economic plane.

All of these are the elements required for the great reset, and which the Davos elite is relishing taking advantage of.

These global reapers have the gall at the start of the second PR video to speak of the inequity of how 1% of the world’s population controls all of its wealth. Would they consider liquidating their assets and sharing around the scratch? No, their solution is to make everyone poor (or poorer). Or to create a new class structure, and by their actions so far, that’s almost undoubtedly based on race and ‘identity.’ Take a look at what’s been taken up by corporations: transsexuality, historical revisionism, demasculinising, critical race theory, fanatic veganism, paedophilia, the abolition of Christianity, ginocracy and miscegenation; all are properties of the Davos Agenda.

The abolition of masculinity (and through it traditional conservatism) is important to this agenda, as we’ve seen in the US with the push to fill the armed services with females, and the destruction of gender roles. Flick on the boob tube to see how this reflects. A skimming of content on three major streaming platforms indicates a strong inclination of producers to now feature women and blacks in preference to previous hierarchical racial models. Every advertisement baulks at us with a grinning alpha negro and his doting white whore; a quintessential taboo not only broken but propagated as a virtue. Film and TV have traditionally reflected societal values and ideations. Now, they project new ones as a matter of course. Coupled with the surfeit of unreality promoted, such as the superhero genre, zombies, the supernatural and suchlike, it provides a junk diet for viewing.

But it’s not only masculinity being proscribed, femininity is copping it too. Women are losing the right to be women, as transsexuality trumps even feminism with ‘breastfeeding human’ and other terms articulating the dire newspeak of a synthetic age – a vocabulary fanatically policed in universities by students, demonstrating a reverse model where the tutors et all tread eggshells for fear of incurring student wrath.

Women’s (and children’s) spaces are invaded by the ‘transsexual.’ Women’s bodies are being contested, and once again, by men; only these men identify as women. Their women’s rights (sic) carry more cache than an actual woman’s. And so much for all that. We know there is an agenda — they advance it — and we know it’s being played out. To facilitate its passing, they’ve singled out the ‘far-right’ as a catch-all for any who’d defend traditionalism, masculinity, femininity, race, and family values. Covid has been used as the opportunity to enact this global agenda so it’s hardly surprising that this has generated ‘conspiracy theories.’

If one were to establish a party named The Family Party, the phonetics alone would mark it as right-wing. A word like ‘family,’ is now considered to be on the wrong side of social progress. Anti-vaxxers and ‘Covid-deniers’ are being lumped in with the mythical ‘extreme right.’ The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has played a role in creating honey pots to sucker in would-be white revolutionaries. National agencies are doing it here. Are they behind ‘anti-vaxxers’ too?

Big tech censors dissenting opinion surrounding the vaccines and Covid-19. The mere mention of these issues has flagged YouTubers and you wouldn’t dream of discussing them on Facebook, or Twitter. Facebook has been approached by the American Government to act as its censor on this and other propriety issues shaping obedience to the Davos Agenda.

If this virus has so conveniently merged with a preset plot to change the global order, the inference has to be, given the US funding of the research that purportedly went awry, was it deliberate? Were they in cahoots with China, and did they spread the contagion to justify implementing the Great Reset. In a nutshell, would Western governments seriously use their citizens as guinea pigs?

They would, do, and have for a long time. Following the war, ‘germ warfare’ experiments were enacted on the public by Britain’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) without its knowledge. The experiments were various and occurred between 1940 and 1979, involving hazardous chemicals and micro-organisms being released on the unsuspecting population. The British Government has downplayed the severity of the experiments, conducted by government scientists at Porton Down.

In the US, chemical experiments, such as the administering of LSD, were conducted on civilians, servicemen and the impoverished. Often, these happened without the subject’s knowledge; leading to deaths. Virologists also subjected human guinea pigs to contagious diseases. Between 1950 and 1972 mentally disabled children interned at a facility in New York’s Staten Island were infected with hepatitis in ongoing experiments. Unwanted children have provided American scientists with test subjects galore for a variety of human experimentation projects. They routinely conducted human radiation experiments on the poor and sick.

In the early 1950s, nonconsensual tests were conducted by the US military which sprayed American and Canadian cities to test the dispersal pattern of chemicals. Experiments were carried out on 320 inmates of an American prison between 1964 and 1968 using mind-altering drugs to test how much would be needed to disable a population. Nuclear testing in the Pacific, particularly at the Marshall Islands (both the US and French) has had a lasting environmental impact as well as displacing islanders. In Australia, British nuclear testing at Maralinga in the 1950s and early 1960s left the site contaminated. Just to list a few examples.

We shall now look at the Sydney leg of the worldwide freedom rallies and how the media expresses the government narrative and the Davos Agenda. We’ll note what terminology they use, and how the protests are described. This is all feeds into a social paradigm.


Jab Dodgers Are The Davos Folk Devils

On Saturday 24, July 2021 pro-freedom anti-lockdown protests were held in several countries. While the turnout for the Sydney and Melbourne legs were numerically smaller, the Sydney event was huge. Bearing in mind, the numbers cannot reflect those who could not or did not join in the marches but who supported them in spirit.

In short, anywhere between 5000 and 10,000 protesters attended, although media figures deliberately under-reported the numbers. There is no reliable estimate although images taken on the day shows a human chain stretching from Central Station up George Street to Town Hall and beyond.

Many of those hailed from Sydney’s Western Suburbs, the hardest hit by the lockdown. Much of the outbreak justifying the Greater Sydney lockdown has been attributed to those from western Sydney.

Various factors are cited as causes for this recalcitrance or difficulty in adhering to public health orders, the demographics for one. Western Sydney is the greatest multiracial melting pot in Sydney (bearing in mind multiracialism caused the virus to spread here to whatever degree). Split between vast communities of Indians, Asians, Arabs, Islanders, Africans and working-class Australians, it is a foreign land on our shores. Therefore ‘cultural reasons’ have figured heavily either because communities don’t understand or outright reject the measures taken to contain the virus and their very basis.

However, a strong contingent opposes the government’s response, and are understandably suspicious of its motives. Some are susceptible to wild conspiracy theories, others are cognitively deficient and belligerent, but a small element of cranks on an online forum does not explain the numbers on the day. Western Sydneysiders as a group looked to the disparities in how those from the wealthy eastern suburbs were being treated, to the communicable class disdain they felt directed at them. The absence of a common standard in any layer of the social stratosphere will incite indignation. Given the marginality of those communities and the impact the draconian government measures have had upon their livelihoods it’s little wonder they were angry. Western Sydney accounts for much of greater Sydney’s service staff, its tradies, taxi drivers, hospital workers, couriers, warehouse and factory workers and contract workers labour that can’t be sustained by orders preventing them from travelling to work outside of their local government area. Unlike the brainwashed rabble that broke lockdown in Melbourne in the name of Black Lives Matter, these are legitimate grievances; although it should be stated that even the BLM rally did not generate a super spreader situation.

Much more is suffered during these relentless lockdowns: loneliness and isolation, especially for the elderly; while others are penned in together with cabin fever. Children undergo lessons via remote learning, yet are surely under their parents’, or parent’s feet. The mental illness impact, especially on the young, is negative.

Many dispute the need for facemasks and point to the statistics that support their arguments; figures manipulated in a counter-narrative by the government. Some believe Covid-19 is a conspiracy, that it’s a government plot to suppress their liberty, and it’s not half as dangerous as is made out. If a common purpose united them it was to protest for their freedoms. A banner unfurled by some protesters from the awning of Woolworths at Sydney’s Town Hall summed up the attitude, it read “Western Sydney Lives Matter.”

Minor clashes with police occurred, but it was nothing to the degree that the media reported. And that brings us to the crucial question, what was achieved?

In terms of securing freedoms, and relief from the hard strain of the lockdown, nothing. But as an exercise that blew the lid on the government and media treatment of the virus and revealed its social force, it was an exemplary catalyst. In wartime, the government propaganda department holds the media to strict rules. Is this a time of war? Is the media being censored? A concerted independent report on the virus, with a balanced critique of medical opinion, in regards to the government’s measures would be not only desirable in an open society but considered vital. However, we’re not getting objectivity from 90 per cent of journalists.

Gladys Berejiklian’s cabinet is leaking their lack of confidence in her Premiership. Others, whose constituents are in areas unaffected by Coronavirus are furious on behalf of their locked-down constituents. Of major concern is her exclusion of any but select voices. Virtually none are privy to her decision-making process; she only heeds the counsel of favoured personnel, notably chief health officer Kerry Chant and Brad Hazzard, Minister for Health. Together, the cabal hosts daily press conferences. Their rhetoric, language and tone are grim, alarmist, and more often than not didactic.

Those same demagogues berating the protesters, many of whom have lost their income indefinitely, and who pontificate about ‘unity’, still allow themselves the handsome salaries paid for by those who they’ve put out of work and whose freedoms they’ve taken away. Yet, the media obediently reports from the perspective of the leader’s bias rather than deigning to fathom that attitude of the people they report down to, and not for.

Consequently, following the protests, those involved were mocked, derided, and demonised. Bear in mind, these protests occurred on the same day worldwide, and in Europe hundreds of thousands took part. Note the intensity of the combined rebuke hints at more than reprimand, it’s further in key with blasting nonbelievers.

While the NSW’s Premier’s “heart” was reportedly broken, responding to the Victorian protesters, Premier Daniel Andrews scolded, “If you are not persuaded by me on the issue of the protest being, frankly, evil, then go and have a talk to the family of that poor woman who died … struck down in the prime of her life.”

Protesters are actually “evil.” Keep in mind, Andrews is nationally despised as a Premier who compromised national security by cutting deals with China. He is an avowed Sinophile and tyrant who has subjected his citizens to gruelling lockdowns while at the same time mismanaging the response to the virus outbreak, his poor handling doing more to spread Coronavirus than any single person or group. His nickname is Dictator Dan.

“We can’t vaccinate against selfishness,” he added, “and these people should be ashamed, absolutely ashamed, it’s just wrong.”

Berejiklian was equally as censorious, telling a news conference, “It broke my heart … Millions and millions of people across our state are doing the right thing, and it just broke my heart that people had such a disregard for their fellow citizens.”

Having employed the matriarchal disappointment, expressing her sense of personal injury, as though she was entitled to, she then amplified the reproach. She stopped short of sending the protesters to bed without any supper.

“I’m just so utterly disgusted, disappointed and heartbroken that people don’t consider the safety and wellbeing of their fellow citizens.

“Each of those people who illegally protested, I’m sure, have significant loved ones. How would they feel if they went home in their day-to-day life and gave the disease to their loved ones? … Don’t give those you love the most a death sentence.”

Invoking a vulnerable loved one is an irresponsible shaming tactic of the Premiers, but Berejiklian habitually utilises it for Covid scaremongering, warning that breaking lockdown by, say, visiting an elderly relative might “kill” them.

Meanwhile, her health minister and chief health officer chimed in with remonstrations befitting the clergy. Kerry Chant played the woke card by reproving talk of a further demonstration, “I’m sure Aboriginal communities would not appreciate having COVID introduced through their communities.” Brad Hazzard (referred to by the Daily Telegraph as “Health Hazard”) barked, “You have to be crackers to go to that demonstration tomorrow because there will be a lot of people there with a deadly weapon, the Delta virus.”

Over the week, the recriminations snowballed into a full-grown moral panic, with celebrities joining in, and a concerted backlash from the establishment. Media used words like “Covidiots … super spreaders … selfish … evil …  clowns … loons … grubs … illegal activity … cowards … shady … conspiracy theorists … un-Australian … hoodlums … anarchists … extremists … entitled.” A comparison was made with the Cronulla Riots (sic).

Headlines, such as in the egregious Daily Mail declared, Anti-lockdown Loons Protest Disgracing Australia, while former Labor minister Graham Richardson wrote in The Australian, Vietnam Protesters would Damn These Clowns.

Just as with protesters at Capitol Hill in the USA on January 6, the police set about in a publicised operation to identify and charge those who attended the rally. Australians were urged to dob in anyone they know who was there. Students from Sydney’s Kings School did just that, shopping in teachers who admitted on social media to have attended. Yet, think about that, teachers at an exclusive school felt deeply enough about the issue to protest. The campaign to catch protesters involved a ‘Wanted’ type approach with public shaming.

Police are doorknocking homes in southwest Sydney seeking information about any protest or anyone involved in last week’s rally.

A story that highlighted the level of hysteria accused one protester of punching a police horse on the strength of an indistinct media image. The protester has denied he hit the horse and was instead pushing its head away before it collected him. But the optics were bad and a narrative trumps the truth every time.

How many protesters tested positive following the protests: just one. While the number of infected were up statewide, nothing indicated the protesters caused the minor spike.

By the same token, the government has admitted that it has no idea whether or not its strategy has done the least bit of good. Berejiklian avoided direct questioning by a journalist at a press conference, while Deputy Premier, John Barilaro was lost for words.

In the week since the protest, Berejiklian has taken up the Prime Minister’s offer and brought in the army to secure local government areas under lockdown. Meanwhile, in leaked audio of Scott Morrison being grilled by “voters from the Cook electorate in Sydney’s south” the PM admits that “the time will come” when only the vaccinated will be allowed into restaurants and bars. The Daily Mail quotes him saying, “When we get to those vaccination levels … I think there should be advantages to those who have done that [vaccinated] and taken the opportunity.”

Consider the Covid world in which the unvaccinated are subject to cancellation. Where waiters and waitresses and Maitre-d-s are recruited as unpaid government workers by checking the vaccination status of patrons. Of course, every vaccinated person will need a number, and it will be incumbent on them to travel everywhere with that identification. It won’t stop at bars and restaurants either but will extend to travel, jobs, healthcare, and every area of life. Finally, fines and jail sentences will apply to nonconformists. While it isn’t a factor now, almost certainly the unemployed will lose benefits if they refuse the jab.

Having smashed the economy to replace it with a new model, the people have been cajoled into obedience. While we in Australia could’ve resisted, the political elites are too embedded in the global system to contest the new order. In a world like this, the protesters are heroes. One Sydney law firm certainly thinks so: G&B Lawyers are sourcing funding for a High Court challenge to compulsory vaccination. They’ve come under fire from the regulator for their controversial support from anti-lockdown protesters both in Sydney and Victoria.

Posting to their Facebook page, the firm described the protesters as “awesome”, and claimed that “Covid-19 jabs just don’t work,” basing their opinion on the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which is encouraging doctors to change to a testing method that distinguishes between influenza and Covid-19.

Doctors interviewed by the Sydney Morning Herald dismiss the firm’s conclusions, citing them as irresponsible. But doctors are not lawyers or civil rights activists either. While they’re immersed in the science, the social consequences around the politicization of the virus and its vaccine are outside the ken of all but their opinion.

But what of the vaccine? What’s in it? The vaccine contains the nucleic acid-encoded drug mRNA that mimics DNA to prompt cells to express proteins which then carry out functions on the body: in layman’s terms (and we are laymen) it fools with your genes. We don’t know enough to understand whether that is a good thing or potentially hazardous (or if we expressed that accurately), but it certainly sounds ominous. The medical advice that’s being provided, usually in relation to concerns about the vaccine, stresses that genes cannot be altered and that the RNAs are delicate and short-lived in the body. That’s what they say; yet sources indicate that those with drug abuse issues can suffer affected genetic conditions, which throws us back to the original question about just how certain they are that RNAs don’t cause genetic – or perhaps cellular – mutation. Still, the literature is firm that RNAs only cause ‘expressions’ of genes that perform cellular functions that aid in combatting disease but do not alter DNA, just influence cell activity. In Australia, six have died from vaccine complications out of an estimated 6.1 administered doses, so while it isn’t 100% safe, the percentage of those who’ve died is negligible. Nevertheless, nobody wants to be one of those unlucky percentages. Also, it’s a recent development.

RNA research began in 1989 and was developed from 2005 onwards. In 2020, due to the Covid-19 crisis, the drug was approved in the US and the UK following the mandatory eight-week trial. If you have confidence in big pharma and the UK and US regulators, which have been historically complicit in approving harmful drugs, then put your faith in our leaders and do what they tell you. If you’re on the sceptical end of the spectrum, can you be blamed for being hesitant: especially given both the virus and its vaccines were manmade?

Ponder the meaning of the Covid-19 scare. We are so scared of illness in this day and age we are in danger of the cure causing more harm than what it’s fighting; such is the case with the over-prescription of antibiotics. Bacterial infections are becoming immune to antibiotics as a result. Sometimes it’s better to just suffer through infection and let the body sort itself out. Is that the case with Covid-19? The doctors who slated G&B lawyers were arguing the semantics of the testing procedure, not discussing the morality or efficacy of enforced vaccination.

The mentality behind this can be viewed either as a desire for society to protect itself or as contempt for the impure. Wherever authoritarianism resides so does that contempt for the tainted and imperfect. Is wiping out disease altogether a utopian idea, or revulsion at the prospect of imperfection? Philosophical questions like these surely have a place in the ponderance of this huge step towards authoritarianism. In the meantime, what we are experiencing is the manufacture of consent.

By Nathan Sykes

Nathan Sykes is a former magazine editor, journalist and writer. He once performed with an Avant-Garde group and produced a CD album and two videos. He has written two books, I, Snorticus and The Australian Nationalist White Book. He is a loyal member of the Australia First Party and a leading voice in the Australian nationalist movement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

error: Content is protected !!