16 min 1 yr

The stratification of society along COVID lines has not taken long to shore up. The crypto class-system we predicted would evolve from the government handling of COVID-19 has stratified. They are dividing us among the vaccinated and non-vaccinated, the sensible and the foolish, the virtuous and the wicked. 

There will be those granted conditional freedoms while the hold-outs will remain in isolation. Similar responses are occurring in countries around the world (as if from a global script). In France, the issue of vaccine passports has triggered large-scale riots. 

Rather than investigating the efficacy of its strategy, the legacy media is serving as a government agency. People are scared, while many are sceptical. Some are outright COVID atheists, while the agnostics succumb to social pressure and the believers genuflect dutifully.

Likewise, the signs of latent totalitarianism are evident – we have a government assuming the airs of a stern parent admonishing children. Through fear-mongering, the rule of law enforced by the police and the military, via tracking apps and the use of informers, either by accident or design, they have advanced us to a surveillance state. 

Fear is the basis of psychosis. It is the impetus for everyone to be vaccinated. The result is a snowball into a modern-day witch-hunt in which they cast so-called Covid-deniers as heretics. Heretics are the scapegoats of a mentally ill society., 

The lockdown is conditioning menticide. The definition of menticide is a systematic and intentional undermining of our conscious minds to achieve compliance. The government response – calculated or otherwise – has created just such a psychic epidemic. 

We must put our absolute faith in the government lest, at the very least, they deny our freedom. However, government incompetence, hypocrisy and mendaciousness offset our demonstration of trust. We must reconcile this paradox by shutting off our filter and trusting those we otherwise regard with cynicism. In short, if we get vaccinated, we subdue the panic phase. Yet, by accepting the vaccine, we hand over our bodies to the government. 

We are beyond questioning whether the threat is real, convoluted or fabricated since we must do what is required or else suffer a forfeit. We must accept that the virus is as dangerous as they say. In doing so, we ignore the statistics that contradict its severity.

Those who do not succumb to the pressure are the agents of contamination. Their recalcitrance is a threat to society. None of this hysteria is warranted empirically but rather by compulsion.

An example of media coercion in this program of mass manipulation is a headline from the Daily Mail, “Furious NSW Premier blasts Sydneysiders for deliberately breaking lockdown and claiming they don’t know the rules”. The furious Premier broke the rules herself while enjoying coffee unmasked with her boyfriend at a cafe in the Sydney CBD. Her double standard was a source of fury for duped Sydneysiders. But the media criticism was unsustained as those in the higher classes are permitted to live above the rules through tacit acceptance of political class privilege. 

The use of the word furious as an adjective bestows upon the Premier a degree of unaccountability. It infers her power makes all else irrefutable. Elsewhere, they describe the crestfallen (sic) Premier betrayed by her constituents. Gladys is our loving mother while we are disobedient children causing her dismay. 

The media is constructing the narrative at a memetic speed. Sourcing from social media, they have become shameless humiliators of COVID sceptics. They create names for errant persons, covidiots, covid-deniers, anti-vaxxers, a new lexicon just for COVID. Yet, this depends on the demographics of the offenders. The breach that triggered the latest round of lockdowns occurred in eastern Sydney. Yet, those in the southwest and western suburbs bear the brunt of government restrictions and reproaching.

To breach the COVID covenant now means surrendering your privacy and being held up to scorn and public ridicule. The naming and shaming go unchallenged. The only purpose it serves aside from clickbait is to reinforce a two-tier narrative of insiders and outcasts. 

Concurrently, the government and its auxiliaries deem information either factful or misleading. Given that the system is the arbiter of defining misleading information – and the system has as its goal our compliance – we find ourselves beset by confusion. Again, the only way to alleviate our confusion is by acceptance. 

Meanwhile, the failures of the government become instead the failure of the people to obey its directives. We have witnessed this transference of blame for the past 18 months from state to state and internationally. We must never mind, however, because their propaganda drowns out the cool head. 

The government is running a doomsday clock ticking down the number of vaccinated countrywide. Various media host this intrusive presence, which tests your conscience if you are unvaccinated, and warmly pets you if you are one of those who do the right thing.

Another prong in their assault on the national conscience is to play the civic patriot card, with signs in shopping centres depicting patriotic Australians jabbed for their country. The message is that no true Australian would dodge their jab.

Again, no empirical evidence sustains the government line that vaccination either saves lives or COVID-19 is taking them on a scale warranting a national emergency. We shall forego an analysis of the vaccine effectiveness or a descent into a counterargument about the danger the virus poses and concentrate on how the government response is dividing the people. The reader can educate themselves on how the media uses coercive narratives since they are plain as day. 

We are either jabbed or refuse the jab (until it becomes mandatory). By no means does accepting the vaccine make a person docile. Statistics may indicate the threat is not as severe as the government contends, but that does not negate the existence of the virus. People will die. Understandably, nobody wants to be the unlucky person that dies. And while the elderly are the most susceptible, this is no hard and fast rule either. The responsible person does not wish to be the carrier that causes the death of another. To vaccinate to protect others is a laudable quality. As much ignorance resides in the stubborn person who relies solely on cynicism.

The New Australian Bulletin desk divides on the issue. Half of us are vaccinated, but not the other half. We asked Duncan Fair why he chose to be vaccinated. “I cannot afford to get sick,” he said. “It would ruin me to take two weeks off work with COVID. That’s why I get a flu jab. And COVID is supposedly like bad flu. I had bad influenza about 25 years ago. I was so sick that I never want to go through it again. If I lived in a country town, I might think twice about it. But because I live in a city full of imbeciles, contrary migrants and foreign workers who, because they have no interest in our society are less inclined to follow proper hygiene practices or to come forward when they get sick.”

These are persuasive arguments in favour of the jab. But others are not so willing to roll up their sleeve. Ben Copenhagen has no intentions of submitting to the poker.

 “Screw that,” he told us. “They can’t even get the testing right, let alone the vaccine. It has had a six-week trial. Just because the US food and drug administration gave the tick for big pharma to roll it out, our government is satisfied. If I’m interested in preserving myself from the virus, I should be able to be vaccinated. But if the vaccination doesn’t prevent spreading and everyone else is vaccinated, what is the problem?”

“As has been proven, you are rolling the dice either with the virus or the vaccine. The government should not put a gun to my head and demand I die by one or the other,” he added. 

This inconsistency in logic attends wearing masks. If everyone else is wearing a mask, how does an unmasked person pose a threat? Why are the police stopping unmasked citizens who are outdoors away from others? For one reason, it is a legal requirement, because the state government made it mandatory to wear. Do the subsequent fines attest to a new form of revenue raising? 

Confrontations are flaring up between those wearing masks and the unmasked; logic does not enter these showdowns. They are based purely on an officious sense of public order, not medical science. Those who confront mask-dodgers become agents of government policy. 

When citizens act as government agents by upbraiding the unmasked, those singled out have little recourse but to succumb to the pressure or react indignantly. When they respond angrily, the commotion is the basis for traducing these people. Citizen journalists capture these confrontations on camera, upload them to social media, and the legacy media utilizes the footage in their narrative that reinforces public order. 

Such was the case with a story that epitomizes this phenomenon. Again, a Daily Mail COVID lesson with a characteristic wordy headline, “Dramatic row erupts outside a café as a Covid denier refusing to wear a mask while collecting his takeaway coffee threatens to POUR it over a man after he asked him to put one on.”

By not wearing a mask, the unwitting villain in this propagandistic beat-up becomes a COVID denier regardless that this is an assumption on the part of the journalist. The narrative is reinforced by an anecdote from the busybody, “The maskless man then walked away while the customer told those waiting in line his friend had recently lost his 90-year-old mother to the virus and that he was sick of those who flouted the rules.”

Imagine his friend losing his 90-year-old grandmother, robbed of life at such a young age.

Speaking of which, we share a disturbing anecdote from a friend. He lives in the outer suburbs of Sydney. He posted us the following Telegram, “Some young boys on my road were playing Covid Police. Five boys, two were the cops and cycling after them demanding covid tests and if they determined they were infected they’d shoot them (they all had bikes).”

The Chief Health Officer advises the health minister that makes recommendations to the Premier. The World Health Organisation issues guidance material that informs our CHO. The WHO is currently under China’s thumb. The virus originated in China. The WHO was complicit in obfuscating investigations into the origins of the virus. As such, we have the WHO with a loose grasp of ethics issuing uniform advice to a government with an equally dodgy record. Does that negate its advice? Are things ever so black and white as that? We have no data on the subject, but it is probably fair to suggest that trust in the WHO is not universal. Is the mistrust warranted?

We had a look at the relationship between the WHO and the World Economic Forum (WEC). The WHO is involved in the Davos agenda. As stated, Davos has grand and (on the surface) frightening plans for the world. Its objectives range from dictating how much meat we eat to who can own property while it oversees a total economic reordering – the Davos Agenda, aka, the Great Reset. Given how the advent of COVID-19 conveniently dovetailed with the preparations for the Davos Agenda, it is reasonable to ask whether or not there is coordination between the two.

After all, the government’s response to COVID is causing both social and economic fallout.

Never before have we witnessed such willingness for western governments (and especially in Australia a conservative government) to allow those hallowed archetypes of free enterprise to go to the wall. Is it in aid of the Davos Agenda to reorder the world economy with its new Stakeholder Capitalism model?

The government does not offer the citizen the choice of asking their doctor. Politicians are not doctors. The Chief Health Officer deals in volume, not individual cases.

GPs act as government agents by doling out vaccines with indemnity if a patient dies of a blood clot. And why? Because it follows that if everyone has the vaccination, then the threat from COVID ends? Does it? Who says? Judging from what has happened during the last 18 months, the virus mutates and, for all we know, last month’s jabs are useless. We have to start again. Thus, a person’s GP is none wiser than the WHO.

Genetic mutation of the virus is a matter of surveillance. The world is now a vast computer; everyone is a specimen of data in the surveilling and tracing this pesky virus, whether we like it or not.

Vaccination is not a certification of reliability but a flag for an ongoing test subject. As it stands, the nature of the vaccine, which mimics a genetic response to the infection, could potentially aid in the mutation of the virus. Similarly, the WHO is still experimenting with various vaccines while medical opinions divide on whether or not a vaccine is a solution.

After filtering out all else in our quest for understanding, the Premier’s political ambition is all that remains. The same is true of other leaders, but Gladys Berejiklian is our example. If our politicians were not aloof from us, they would not still pay themselves large salaries off the back of our sweat. The people are suffering under the government’s handling of what is, after all, a relatively minor flu outbreak.

The government promised compensation for businesses affected by the lockdown. Those promises have not been honoured. As such, these businesses are hitting the wall. Not the business of politics, and that is what we are dealing with – not a medical emergency but a political crisis of the government’s making.

The Premier’s strategy is to achieve zero COVID infections. Ours is to win the lottery. The odds favour us better. Yet, the cost of the political failure of a government is a state divided by a new class system based on incomplete science. But Gladys still gets paid.