Your suffering is baked into the Ukraine war plan

By Rusere Shoniwa

You can find more of Rusere’s work at 

Apotheosis (Wikimedia Commons)

In Should we care about the cognitive dissonance of criminals? (Holding the Line, 19th September 2022) I argued that the pattern of one failed gamble after another by senior decision-makers in government was not a series of blunders but part of a mosaic of deliberate destruction. Since March 2020, ‘experts’ and senior civil servants have hoodwinked the public with bad science, dodgy data, specious arguments, industrial-scale censorship and wartime propaganda, as they continue to plunge the West into economic collapse and hurtle towards direct (as opposed to the current proxy) military confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. Never in the field of government incompetence have so many catastrophic policies been packaged and delivered so cackhandedly as to guarantee such widespread misery. 

If the incompetence theory is not supportable, then there must be some method to the madness. The Ukraine conflict has precipitated a sanctions war with Russia in which the EU has cut itself off from Russian gas to teach Putin a lesson. Can we attribute the damage from this decision to stupendous incompetence or is there some evidence of psychopathy and, by implication, a method behind the madness? 

First, let’s recap on how teaching Putin a lesson is progressing. In Russia, the rouble is holding up well, food prices are down and energy prices are a fraction of what they are in the UK and EU. Meanwhile, in the UK, soaring energy bills are threatening to put six in 10 British manufacturers out of business amid the very real prospect of civil unrest as consumers are plunged into poverty by a more than doubling of household energy bills.

So, what drove the West to draw two revolvers, take careful aim at both feet and pull both triggers with gay abandon? The Daily Sceptic offers two explanations which invoke the maxim frequently applied to assessment of government failure – don’t attribute to malice that which can easily be explained by incompetence. One explanation put forward by The Daily Sceptic is that our politicians are simply stupid – they weren’t “thinking through the consequences of their actions”. The other is that the sanctions were expected to be so effective that they would quickly bring the Russians to the negotiating table and then be used as leverage in negotiations to roll back whatever territorial gains the Russians may have made in what was presumed to be a short-lived military excursion. 

The problem with these explanations is that they involve mind-reading. The Daily Sceptic imposes on itself a strict requirement for evidence to support a malign conspiracy. Fair enough. But why waive the requirement when arguing for benign causality? The explanations also ignore the overwhelming evidence that NATO wanted a proxy war with Russia and remains fully committed to drawing out the conflict regardless of the cost to either Ukraine or ordinary citizens in the West. How can we know this? Because NATO’s Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, said so:

“We must prepare for the fact that it could take years …We must not let up in supporting Ukraine, even if the costs are high, not only for military support but also because of rising energy and food prices.” [emphasis added]

That was NATO’s position in early April, repeated in June and again at the end of August. As far as political positions go these days, it’s remarkable for its consistency. Nor are these the words of a warring party that believes it has miscalculated. In his own words, NATO’s chief has stated that the suffering of millions is not a ‘mistake’; it’s baked into the planIf NATO allies miscalculated the length of the war and therefore its cost to Western citizens, then they are now doubling down on their error, and to hell with the flattening of Ukraine or fuel poverty across the West. 

Repeatedly doubling down on errors isn’t necessarily psychopathic per se, but it is psychopathic if you’re well aware that doubling down is inconsequential to you but harmful to everyone around you. And here we see an unequivocal statement from NATO’s chief that rising energy and food prices, which must necessarily impoverish a huge number of people in the West, must not be allowed to interfere with NATO’s proxy war against Russia. The kindest thing you can say about his stance is that it’s psychopathic in nature.

Proxy wars are, by definition, dirty wars: NATO doesn’t have sufficient justification for direct conflict with Russia so it’s using Ukraine as cannon fodder to inflict damage on Russia. 

The huge cost to ordinary citizens is totally unjustified because this is not a war of self-defence. Gambling with people’s lives by fanning the flames of a conflict that could have been averted by negotiations, the terms of which were both well understood and reasonable for both sides, is sickening enough. But the determination of leaders, who aren’t going to suffer the consequences of their decision, to commit their electorates to hardship in the name of an unnecessary proxy war ought to be regarded as criminal.

As bad as soaring energy bills and food prices are for those already on the margins, these consequences don’t properly convey the full potential horror of the energy squeeze that NATO allies have chosen to inflict on the populace. To get a sense of the terrifying implications, listen to this conversation between Dr Jordan Peterson and Michael Yon. Yon is America’s most experienced combat correspondent, having travelled and lived over half of his life abroad in more than 80 countries. He is a self-taught scholar of war and famine.

Yon theorises, not implausibly, that we are heading towards a global famine, in no small part due to the disruption to the supply of Ukrainian wheat and fertilizer. Peterson cites estimates of 150 million people coming under food pressure this winter. This could place a mass migration pressure on Europe that would dwarf anything that has come before it. Peterson summarised the relationship between energy prices and poverty:

“I’m going to lay down a proposition here … if you are a friend to the poor, the oppressed and the hungry, the number one thing you want to do is drive the energy prices as low as they can possibly be on every front … That bloody well includes coal, petroleum and natural gas and we could add nuclear to that. And if you want to throw in renewables for the tiny percentage they account for, you could do that too. But because energy is equivalent to work and because work is equivalent to food and shelter, if you make energy expensive you starve the poor and you don’t have to starve them very much before they become desperate, and things fall apart.”

Of course, the globalist utopians are doing precisely the opposite, with the Canadian Finance minister “quasi-demonically”, as Peterson bluntly put it, actually celebrating the high cost of fuel. 

How do you solve a problem like urea … and skyrocketing energy bills? 

An article in The Conversation provides a useful explainer of fertiliser economics and the pressure that the conflict in Ukraine is putting on the food supply:

  • Fertiliser inputs (such as urea and ammonium nitrate) are one of the largest single variable costs in crop production, and good crop yields rely heavily on nitrogen fertiliser inputs.
  • The process of producing fertiliser is extremely energy intensive and thus directly linked to the cost of fuel. In March alone, the price of UK ammonium nitrate rose from £650/tonne to £1,000/tonne.
  • To break even under these conditions, crop production must increase by 67% just to cover the additional cost of fertiliser inputs.
  • Russia and Ukraine together export 28% of fertilizers made from nitrogen and phosphorous, as well as potassium.
  • Not only will the price of food skyrocket, but the conflict will exacerbate already existing supply chain disruptions caused by the global shutdown of the economy through lockdowns. This will create shortages that in turn drive up prices even further.

Now, the article is useful for its presentation of these facts. However, The Conversation is founded and funded by universities which are fully bought and paid-for peddlers of the Net Zero agenda, itself a well-oiled vehicle of global corporatism. So, what are the solutions proposed by the wise academic authors of The Conversation’s article? They half-heartedly moot the idea of “an immediate government intervention to the market” but write it off as highly unlikely because “government budgets are severely stretched after COVID, leaving little room for direct monetary support”. After hastily abandoning any serious consideration of this short-term pain mitigation strategy – why fuss over all this disgusting pain and suffering in the here-and-now? – the authors swiftly gaze into the future for their medium-term strategy:

“to transform our food system, using more green energy [and] … encouraging more sustainable diets, which contain fewer grain fed animal products”.

No surprises here. Absolutely nothing can be done about the suffering that has already begun, but at least we can hope for a better world in the future!

What’s really surprising are the remarkable similarities between this thin gruel from the world of academia and another source of commentary that I thought would be grounded in real-world pragmatism. The Daily Sceptic, positioned on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, is no less ridiculous in its display of scant consideration for maintaining a decent quality of life for those on the margins – the majority of the planet. It’s crucial to understand the starting point on which the pillar of its simple proposition is predicated – the root cause of the crisis is scarcity, and “Europe will simply have to use less gas.”

They reject Truss’s proposal to cap energy prices at £2,500 per annum for the next two years. Recall that the academics also rejected immediate government intervention in the market, and they both have similar reasons – it’s fiscally unsound. The Daily Sceptic can’t stomach the idea of the taxpayer having to foot the estimated £170 billion bill for a bailout of consumers, which they eschew as a form of unwanted pain-sharing – they helpfully point out that consumers and taxpayers are one and the same thing. No kidding? And they’re not in favour of burdening younger Britons, who will end up footing the bill for the older ones. This is a specious argument because all taxation – whether it’s for the £179 billion lifetime cost of Trident nuclear defence or energy price caps to bail out the poor from the decisions of warmongers – is predicated on the young working age population shouldering the burden of that taxation. That’s what the state pension is predicated on too. So, what’s their solution:

“…leave the energy market intact, while providing financial support to households and businesses. This way, there’d still be a strong incentive to economise.” [emphasis added].

Allow me to paraphrase. Just let the price wander as far north as the totally fair and unrigged market will permit it to, and if people can’t pay the price, then they can’t expect to warm their houses or cook food – that’s your “incentive to economise”. Recall, we will “simply have to use less gas.” To be fair to our Daily Sceptic pals, they did suggest “providing financial support to households and businesses”, but this only indicates confusion on their part – isn’t that fiscal support and isn’t that what a price cap would do? The answer is, not quite, because you have to read between the lines to understand what they’re really saying.

Providing support” is code for setting up a hellishly difficult scheme that will require the resilience and fortitude of a well-fed academic, bureaucrat or well-to-do entrepreneur to get to grips with, and that in itself will ration the ‘support’ down to an amount that our Daily Sceptic pals can live with. But the implication seems to be that the poorest and most needy should just do the decent thing and quietly die. 

These two approaches from opposite ends of the cultural and economic spectrum actually share a lot more similarities than differences:

  • They both reject immediate fiscal intervention aimed at alleviating pain to consumers and small businesses on the margins.
  • They both implicitly accept that restoring normal gas supplies by brokering a peace settlement is a non-starter.
  • They both implicitly accept the lie that there is “less gas”. The total global supply of gas has not decreased. Russia has simply re-routed it because the EU sanctioned itself from Russian gas in the hopes that it would hurt Russia more than it hurt the EU. The gas is definitely there if you want it.

Are The Daily Sceptic and woke academia two sides of the same coin? Discuss!

Seeing as both sides have offered simple one-sentence solutions to this colossal problem, I feel perfectly entitled to throw my own pragmatic and shoot-from-the-hip offering into the mix. I’m pretty sure it would be backed by most builders, plumbers and farmers because, as Jordan Peterson says, “they have a sense about how the world works that’s practical … that the pin-headed academic globalists lack entirely and are often incredibly jealous of”. And, I would add, they can see through this entire energy scam partly because it will affect them more than the Zoomocracy but also because they aren’t morons whose IQs have been drained by years of staring at meaningless PowerPoint slides and spreadsheets. So, here’s my 10p’s worth: what if NATO were to negotiate for peace, end the war and turn the spigots on the gas pipes back on? In a half-sane and semi-principled world, that’s what would happen. But it won’t, for reasons I will speculate on shortly.

You see, the omission of this option by both The Daily Sceptic and woke academia blinds you to the fact that there is another obvious choice that can be made – peace negotiations and ending the conflict. To be clear, ranking the choices from best to worst:

  1. End the war and resume normal supply and prices.
  2. Carry on with the war and introduce price caps.
  3. Carry on with the war and invite consumers to be “incentivised” by the market.

One final point to make about the effect of this global energy shock: it’s just another wealth transfer in the long list since time immemorial. Covid lockdowns alone sucked $5.1 trillion into the coffers of 2,755 billionaires, taking their total net worth from $8 trillion to $13.1 trillion, a 64% increase. While Big Pharma and Big Tech made out like bandits, the global shutdown meant that demand for oil tanked and Big Oil sullenly stood by wondering when they would get to play catch-up. The cost to the taxpayer of the price cap is estimated to be £170 billion, but with or without the price cap, that money is going into Big Oil’s pockets. And it’s all thanks to Ukraine, which has miraculously come to the rescue of the impoverished oil oligarchs who are now making up for lost time and money. 

In addition, as Big Oil rings the till from obscene energy prices, more small businesses will go under and their patronage will be transferred to corporate behemoths. So, you get yet more wealth consolidation by the corporate oligarchy. When energy rationing becomes a fact of life, I somehow can’t imagine the lights going out in Amazon warehouses. The thing to keep in mind is that these sorts of crises simply would not happen if they were inimical to the interests of the global conglomerates that call the shots. 

Many people naïvely assume that the hardship and suffering of ordinary voters couldn’t possibly be an integral part of a political strategy because political leaders are supposed to do their best to maximise the welfare of the people that vote them into power. To the extent that suffering happens, it must surely be a ‘mistake’, right? Well, the NATO chief has made it clear that European and UK elites want war and that your suffering is baked into that objective. Peace is in fact the furthest thing from their minds as the NATO chief warns you to be prepared to hunker down for years.  If you’ve been thinking that ‘blunder’ after ‘blunder’ since March 2020 has all been a series of terrible mistakes, don’t you think it’s time to reconsider this naïve stance?

WWII propaganda poster from the US Office of War Information

What’s really going on and who are the winners and losers?

If we take Stoltenberg at his word and accept that NATO’s strategy is to prolong the Ukraine conflict regardless of the pain inflicted on European electorates, then we must go a step further and question what the end goal of NATO’s sadistic strategy is. Remember that Russia posed no threat to Western security before the invasion of Ukraine. On the contrary, it was Russia’s security that was threatened by NATO’s encirclement of Russia through its insistence on extending NATO membership to Ukraine. Crossing that red line was the trigger for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and NATO knew full well that those were the stakes. 

Does NATO believe it could win a proxy war against Russia? If, in Stoltenberg’s words, “it could take years”, what does winning mean at the end of years of blood-letting and hardship? In broad terms, it must mean that more pain is inflicted on Russia than is borne by NATO as a bloc. But this is precisely where we encounter a problem. Neither NATO nor any Western leader has articulated what a relative ‘win’ actually means – what benefit will accrue to NATO states in the wake of all this suffering to be endured through the death and destruction of war, fuel poverty, food shortages and possible blowback from the pressure of migration caused by global famine? What’s more, given the comparative scorecard to date – heavy losses borne by EU, UK and US taxpayers in military support and economic impoverishment (and we haven’t even begun to see the worst of that) compared with the relative absence of any significant cost to the Russian economy thus far – why are NATO and Western leaders doubling down on behalf of their beleaguered citizens?

The situation is patently hopeless for the West, and any rational actor would now be looking to cut their losses while working out how to save face in the process. Unless of course the losses listed are deemed to be a price worth paying for achieving the real objective of the whole Ukraine war charade. That’s the only way to make any sense of the apparent madness – to find some ‘method’ in it. If ‘winning’ against Russia is not the goal (it hasn’t even been defined), then what is? As I’ve speculated in a recent piece, the West’s debt ponzi scheme was entering its final death throes in the autumn of 2019. Everything that has followed, including covid, is a controlled demolition of the existing financial order combined with an attempt to impose a sinister social order that will ensure impunity for mismanagement forever. 

BBC New Normal propaganda: Angelina Jolie helps BBC to brainwash people into eating spiders

The global financial oligarchy’s mouthpiece and policy coordinator, the World Economic Forum (WEF), has informed us in no uncertain terms that a Great Reset began in March 2020 and that it is quite proud of the role its “penetrated cabinets” in governments across the West and beyond have been playing in helping it to ‘build back better’. Lockdowns, mass coerced ‘vaccination’, fuel poverty, food shortages, replacing real meat with fake meatbrainwashing us to accept a diet of bugs and exotic Brazilian tarantulas, even putting cannibalism on the table – this is all really just a more sophisticated version of the Shock-and-Awe treatment that was meted out to Iraqi citizens during the invasion of 2003. But the aim is the same – you are being broken and brought to heel. This time they’re playing for keeps. They want to make sure there’s no going back and 2030 is the deadline they’ve set for the reset to be substantially irreversible. The endgame is neo-feudalism; a top-down technocratic dystopia run by AI, digital ID, QR codes and a global oligarchy writing the rule book.

The strategy of laying the blame for economic collapse at the feet of Russia and the Ukraine conflict is not without its risks. Chaos is being created in the belief that it can be controlled, but as the conflict escalates following the recent successful Kharkov offensive by Ukrainian forces, the war will increasingly take on a life of its own. Will escalations spiral out of control? Undeterred by this incalculable risk and operating under the maxim to never let a good crisis go to waste, the masters of the universe intend to use the fog of war to press ahead with garnering more power for elites. And another long Cold War has much utility in providing a further pretext for tighter social and monetary controls over the population; for resetting the currency and tethering new shiny digital coins to digital ID’s that can track and trace you like livestock.

But it should be plainly clear that all the key actors driving events right now – NATO, the global oligarchy and Russia – are getting exactly what they want out of this energy squeeze catalysed by the Ukraine conflict. Russia stops Ukraine from entering the NATO alliance. The West knew this entry couldn’t happen, but it was a useful pretext for goading Russia into invading. Russia’s economy is holding up well, and Putin now enjoys an approval rating of over 80%. The military industrial complex and Big Oil are making a killing. NATO gets Cold War II to enhance its raison d’être and funding. Western elites get to use Cold War II, economic collapse, climate hysteria and virus hysteria to rule by permanent state of emergency. Governments in the West get to use the energy crisis and economic collapse to reset the broken financial system while simultaneously throttling democracy.

I despair at commentators who see Russia and China as knights in shining armour riding in to forestall the Great Reset. China has huge problems. It has built up a real estate ponzi scheme whose implosion is threatening to derail its banking system. The continuing brutal lockdowns there are probably being used to stifle a mass run on its banks. Whatever the real reason for them, you can’t possibly think the CCP believes in the efficacy of lockdowns as an NPI any more than the West’s WEF puppets? China is in deep trouble and so might relish a standoff over Taiwan as much as the West does. War is always a good distraction from gross economic mismanagement.

It’s looking increasingly as though both the Western and BRICS blocs are pursuing parallel Great Resets. The Ukraine war heralded a fracturing of the global reset into a race in which both believe that they must have their populations in the grip of totalitarian control to maintain an uneasy equilibrium. Cold War II is the perfect alibi for both blocs to get what they want, with each perceiving that a relative loss of control over its population will concede power to the other bloc. I welcome a multipolar world because, in theory, it ought to decentralise power but I’m under no illusions about the beneficence of Russia and China. A Great Reset arms race could simply give humanity two nooses to choose from – NATO or BRICS.

So far, they’re all winning except us – NATO, global oligarchs and their puppets in government want us to travel less, eat less, wear more jumpers to stay warm, get more toxic ‘vaccines’ during the annual ‘pandemics’, show a QR code to leave the front door and censor our thoughts and words to conform to the official narrative. What do we get in return? The privilege of eating bugs and fake meat. Bon appetit!

You can find more of Rusere’s work at 

PayPal’s war on free speech

By Rusere Shoniwa

You can find more of Rusere’s work at 

On 8th September, PayPal cancelled its service to Left Lockdown Sceptics (LLS) citing the “nature of [its] activities”. In a similar move on 15th September, it shut down the accounts of The Daily Sceptic (DS), the Free Speech Union (FSU) and the personal account of Toby Young, founder of both.

This is nothing new but, in targeting the Free Speech Union, it’s a step change and a clear statement by a key financial services player of its intent to expand its role in the censorship of dissent from the prevailing official narrative. In protesting PayPal’s censorship move, Toby Young has analysed its policy of disallowing services to users engaged in “activities that promote hate, violence or racial intolerance” and concluded that there is no way he could possibly be in breach of this policy. Of course, neither LLS, DS, FSU nor Toby Young are guilty of the stated sins, the policing of which is well outside the bailiwick of a financial service provider. Their sin is to express disagreement with, to varying degrees, the official lockdown, ‘vaccine’, climate change and other orthodoxies, the policing of which should also be well outside the remit of a financial service provider.

Toby Young explained to GB News that he asked PayPal to set out exactly how he or his organisations had violated its rules. This is a futile request whose intended effect is to extract an act of supplication to reinforce PayPal’s humiliating display of brute force. PayPal is not an exemplar of democracy and nor is it operating in a democracy any longer, so it doesn’t think that it is obliged to explain its actions. Nor does it need to waste time and money on a Kafkaesque trial in which you are subjected to prolonged humiliation that will inevitably end in your head being placed on the chopping block.

The argument that a private corporation is free to provide services on whatever opaque anti-free speech terms it sees fit simply because it’s private doesn’t hold up to scrutiny on social ethics, legal grounds, or plain common decency. It especially doesn’t wash because financial services are a form of public utility. Banking, an essential service, is now governed by the whims of sociopaths who provide their services on condition that the public subserviently follows arbitrary rules designed to put duct-tape over our mouths.

They provide a service that we rely on to put bread on the table, so they wield enormous power – power that’s being abused with impunity to censure us for engaging in legal speech that threatens The System they manage and protect. And like all imbecilic bullies who think they are beyond challenge, they relish adding insult to injury by quipping that this thuggery is part of their “mission of building an economy that works for everyone.”

PayPal’s move is a precursor to the totalitarian endgame – total control of every single individual through the enforced provision of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) linked to Digital IDs. At the moment, it is engaging in an inefficient form of censorship whereby it must waste resources to identify numerous organisations and individuals who offend The System’s sensitivities to the prevailing orthodoxy and then flick the service switch off for each offender. So the race is on for the The System to drag us all into a CBDC hell managed by artificial intelligence with an efficiency the previous century’s Nazis could only have dreamt of.

I deliberately refer to ‘The System’ and not PayPal because it should be clear to all of us that this action is not quirky behaviour limited to a few authoritarians occupying Board seats at PayPal. PayPal is merely an extension of the entire system being rolled out. Financial services behemoths are above the law, more so now than ever before. PayPal’s extrajudicial financial services sword is swung all around the globe. For example, there are 5.4 million Palestinians cut off from PayPal who would like the same opportunities to transact as are afforded to Israeli settlers. PayPal operates in Israeli settlements which are considered illegal under international law so its preferential treatment of illegal settlers over Palestinians is The System casting its powerful and illegitimate political vote.

I posted two tweets – one in support of LLS and one in support of The Daily Sceptic. In each tweet I stated that I had closed my PayPal account and encouraged those who value free speech to do the same. However, my support for Toby Young does not prevent me from airing my disagreement with a position he appears to have taken which suggests that the founder of the Free Speech Union might not wholeheartedly support free speech. It’s an important point, since how can we win the battle for free speech if those who claim to value it make statements that appear to suggest they are content for it to be parcelled out to some but not others?

Toby Young spoke publicly to several media outlets about this assault on free speech. In an interview he did with Mark Dolan of GB News, the free speech debate starts to go slightly awry when Mark Dolan compliments Toby on his publication’s thoroughness in always citing government approved data or peer reviewed science. To which Toby responds:

“That’s right. It’s not a conspiracy theory website. We bend over backwards not to publish any misinformation or disinformation. But as you know Mark, if you say something … that challenges progressive orthodoxy, it’s often described as a conspiracy theory or misinformation or disinformation because those have become euphemisms for ‘an opinion I disagree with.’ But you’re right we always cite sources; we link to the papers … we’re being treated as though we’re Alex Jones. Paypal has just redrawn the Overton Window.”

Mark Dolan wraps up the interview by emphasising Toby’s credentials as a former editor of the Spectator – one of the oldest political periodicals in the world. The message coming through loud and clear from this part of the exchange is that Toby has been a good scholar, not some rag tag “conspiracy theorist”. Why didn’t PayPal give him any marks for sticking to the old-school rule book in trying his best to be right? This really shouldn’t be happening to him. Well yes, clearly it shouldn’t, but not for the reasons they’re strongly hinting at – his status and his eschewing of ‘conspiracy theory’.

A free speech purist would also not seek to defend themselves by denying that they were peddling ‘misinformation or disinformation’. There can never be a universally accepted definition of ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ for the simple reason that these terms are defined by those in power seeking to silence opposition. A defence of free speech under the banner of avoiding ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ is actually a defence of some degree of censorship.

Small point on a misapplied analogy: totalitarians don’t need to climb through resized Overton Windows to get you. As far as they’re concerned, they own you and the house. They can smash through the front door, or they can just take the whole house if needs be.

Again, in an interview he did with Laura Dodsworth, Toby implies that the de-platforming of “other websites” had washed over him until it happened to him – a strange stance for the founder of the Free Speech Union to take:

“I have to admit, I was shocked. I’ve heard of other websites and individuals being de-platformed by PayPal, but the Daily Sceptic is, I thought, a lot more mainstream than them…”

Again, of course he is underserving of censorship but not for the reasons he’s hinting at – being respectably ‘mainstream’.

Toby makes another odd comment implying that he’s playing by some unspoken rules and is therefore undeserving of bad treatment. In reference to the demonetisation of some ‘left wing’ sites for their opposition to the war in Ukraine, he speculates on whether DS has been cancelled for similar reasons. If so, he complains:

“Seems a bit harsh, given that we’ve also published several articles defending Ukraine and its war effort and debunking some of the criticisms of the current Ukrainian regime.”

In other words, DS has been quite clever in playing a double game by both attacking and defending the war. He seems to be asking why he hasn’t been bullet-proofed against censorship for this artful approach. Putting aside the fact that there is really no way to defend the utter depravity of NATO’s position in this conflict, it’s not clear why he thinks his dual-play editorial line on the war deserves preferential treatment from the totalitarian censorship machine. In dealing with totalitarianism, the clue’s in the name – you’re either totally in line or you’re out of line.

The key point I’m trying to hammer home is that, in the battle between censorship and free speech, these arguments shouldn’t matter, so why play this odd game of pleading for clemency from unlawful censorship on the grounds that your material is somehow more respectable than the other guff that’s getting censored? This totally misses the fundamental point about free speech – being right, however that might be defined, is not supposed to be the ticket to free speech. The conclusion I can’t help reaching is that Toby thinks censorship is not something that should happen to him because he’s doing all the right things in playing by some unspoken rulebook.

Within the limits permitted by law, unless free speech fully incorporates the right of everyone to be wrong, it isn’t free speech. There are two main reasons for this. First, almost no debate terminates at a truth that remains immutable for all time. We edge closer to truth by discovering that yesterday’s assumptions were wrong. That’s why the essence of real science is about coming up with a hypothesis and then trying to disprove it. Second, the definition of right and wrong – ‘misinformation’ – is determined by whoever wields the most power at that time and in accordance with their capricious whims.

We’ve seen this played out in the totalitarianism of covid with its constantly shifting definitions and goalposts, not to mention the wholesale abuse of science to produce industrial-scale disinformation and misinformation while dishonestly pleading for the need to curb it.

As for Toby asserting that DS is “a lot more mainstream”, this might be a deliberate attempt to conflate mainstream with popular on the grounds that what is popular ought to be exempt from censorship. We all know that DS is not mainstream and being popular doesn’t grant you the ability to run the totalitarian censorship gauntlet and come out unscathed. A key take-home should be that tonight you may go to bed a proud radical mainstreamer but in the morning you may wake up to see the New Normal Reich dangling a guillotine above your head because you haven’t kept up with changing rules.

If Toby is genuinely surprised by this, then it might be because he hasn’t figured out how to reconcile his desire to be back in the mainstream fold with his new status as a member of the anti-totalitarian resistance movement. That’s because he may not yet be able to acknowledge that we are actually hurtling towards full-blown totalitarianism. And that’s because his establishment credentials require him to reflexively dismiss that prospect as ‘conspiracy’.   

PayPal has clearly demonstrated that any resistance to The System is not just heretical – it is an insurgency to be met with brute force. This ought to be a key realisation for Toby Young in the wake of his run-in with The System. PayPal’s censorship by demonetisation is as old as covid, but it feels like it’s only just become important because it’s happened to someone ‘important’. Toby has MPs who will speak up for him, and that’s very welcome. Bringing the matter to Parliament’s attention is long overdue. But free speech is properly protected only if we all have the right to be wrong. And like all human rights, the ultimate test of our sincerity is to apply it to those we dislike or disparage and not just those we believe are deserving of it. Would Toby Young defend the ‘conspiracy theorists’ he so often derides? If not, then the founder of the Free Speech Union doesn’t really understand free speech.

You can find more of Rusere’s work at 

How a university, its major funders and a newspaper killed research into the toxicity of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines

First published at

Sign up to the Looking Glass newsletter here

The strangling of Professor Christopher Exley’s work on aluminium toxicity is emblematic of how scientific institutions have been captured by private interests – at the expense of the public.

This is a story about how a British university stifled ground-breaking public interest science, ostensibly to satisfy powerful interests – and save their own bacon.

As far as the general public is concerned universities, those hallowed halls, remain places where academics can pursue knowledge unhindered. But many universities and higher education institutions are compromised by the interests of their funders and an increasingly narrow and corporate view of science.

Professor Christopher Exley, the world’s pre-eminent expert on aluminium and a fellow of the Royal Society of Biology – a recognition few scientists achieve – last year lost research funding for his longstanding work on aluminium toxicity in diseases like Alzheimer’s and autism, and its role as an adjuvant in vaccines.

It took place through a series of politically motivated moves that ultimately ended with his funding being completely cut off.

Aluminium is toxic

If you take the time to listen to one of Exley’s many lectures you will learn that aluminium is ubiquitous. It is everywhere in the environment, and it is highly toxic to human beings.

In the 1980s Exley was doing research into why fish were dying in acidified lakes and rivers. He came to understand they were dying of aluminium toxicity. Aluminium, previously locked up in rocks and clays or recycled in the environment by silicic acid, through the process of acidification due to acid rain, had become bioavailable and entered into biological life cycles.

Today, we ingest aluminium through processed foods, drink it in water, cook in aluminium pots and pans (many pans are now made of anodised aluminium). It is found in baby formula, cosmetics and is a key ingredient in many vaccines.

The important public health implications of Exley’s work

A tenured professor at Keele University in Staffordshire for nearly 30 years, with more than 200 papers under his belt, Exley and his team of research scientists had in 2017 established what he describes as an “unequivocal” connection between aluminium toxicity and Alzheimer’s disease.

 “Without aluminium, there would be no Alzheimer’s,” he says in his book, Imagine you are an Aluminium Atom.

A few years later, in 2020, Exley’s group published their seminal paper comparing aluminium content in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis and autism in Nature’s Scientific Reports.

The team had developed a protocol to measure the aluminium content of brains, which had shown that the brains of people with Alzheimer’s, autism and multiple sclerosis had elevated levels of aluminium. Importantly, access to the samples from a brain bank used in the research had been funded by charitable donations rather than more traditional funding sources.

Answering questions from The Looking Glass, Exley says that by the time this paper was published the focus of their research had already turned to aluminium adjuvants and vaccines, a field of study they had pursued for many years.

2021 paper measured the aluminium content of 13 infant vaccines and compared it with the manufacturer’s data. Only three vaccines contained the amount of aluminium indicated by the manufacturer, while six contained a statistically significant greater quantity, and four a statistically significant lower quantity.

Exley’s work is ground breaking, and has obvious implications for public health. He and his team were the last research group left in Britain studying the impact of toxic exposure to aluminium, a field of study that just twenty years earlier was active.

Aluminium research quietly suffocated

Exley explains that in the early 1990s the aluminium industry stepped up its efforts to influence government, charities and various industries to make it increasingly difficult for scientists to obtain funding to do research into aluminium toxicity.

“Hence, group by group moved their attention from aluminium to other areas where funding was available. I have said this many times but I did not become a scientist for science’s sake. I took up science to solve the paradox of aluminium and human life.

“I was undeterred and worked harder and harder to win research funding from as wide a funding base as possible. I doubt that any scientist has worked as hard as I did in keeping research funding coming to my lab,” he says.

While Exley had been able to be conclusive about the connection between Alzheimer’s and aluminium toxicity, sadly his work was scuppered before he was able be as conclusive about the link between aluminium toxicity and autism, and nor could he continue his work on aluminium in vaccines.

In this 2020 interview, Exley talks about his research into aluminium and brain toxicity.

A less-than-luke-warm response

Autism and Alzheimer’s rates continue to climb decade after decade.

In 2021, the Centres for Disease Control reported that approximately 1 in 44 children age eight, in the US is diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder, according to 2018 data. An increase from the one in 54 number reported in 2020 and an enormous increase from the first known US autism prevalence study in 1970, that established a rate of less than 1 in 10,000.

Rates of Alzheimer’s increased by more than 145 per cent between 2000 and 2019.

Despite the rising incidence of these diseases, his research on Alzheimer’s and autism had elicited nothing but silence from the major charities dedicated to these diseases. And the university he worked for, Keele, appeared only to tolerate him, he says, never promoting his findings or issuing press releases.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Exley had also been saddled with the label of anti-vaxxer. The slur was pinned on him by internet trolls immediately following the publication of research on aluminium in brain tissue in autism in 2017, he says.

“Scrutiny of the paper in question and all of our published works provides no support for this label. Though, in truth, I do not understand why one cannot be against vaccination in the same way as one might oppose anything else. Anti-vaxxer seems akin to being labelled an atheist in a predominantly Christian world.”

Exley says he is agnostic, in the tradition of one of his science heroes, TH Huxley – reluctant to claim certainty about things he cannot know or demonstrate. And yet, inconveniently, he has demonstrated that elevated levels of aluminium are found in the brains of people who died with autism.

A 2020 paper called ‘An aluminium adjuvant in a vaccine is an acute exposure to aluminium’, attempted to explain why the so called “teeny weeny” amounts of aluminium in infant vaccines were significant.

Exposure to aluminium through a vaccine is, in comparison to diet, an acute exposure and an infant’s physiology will respond differently to exposure to a high concentration of aluminium over a very short time period. The latter, acute versus chronic exposure, while not yet being taken into account in infant vaccination programmes, must now be considered to help to ensure that future vaccination schedules are safe,” the paper concludes.

Can science be ‘anti-vaccine’?

Exley’s work broadly examined the impact of aluminium on human biology, and was certainly not limited to exposure via vaccines, but his work was attracting negative attention. Later it became clear the attention was unwanted as far as the university was concerned.

Through a series of bizzare and drawn out interactions with the university administration, and what eventually became clear was an attack on his funding sources, Exley’s longstanding position at Keele began to unravel.

Exley told The Looking Glass that during his last few years at Keele, on more than one occasion senior management attempted “spuriously-founded disciplinary action” against him.

“Only my use of world-class and expensive employment lawyers protected me from being ousted. Needless to say these events did have a negative impact upon my health but I did not give in, at least not while I had the funding to continue to do good science.

“I am sure that if I had remained at Keele as a lame duck professor they would have continued to hunt me down until I left.“

But he was not pushed out – in the end, Exley resigned. Without the ability to continue his research, he had no enthusiasm to stick around.

“For over twenty years, I had the full and unconditional support of the University,” Exley wrote in his tell-all leaving statement.

So, what happened?

The beginning of the end

In 2016 the university set up a simplified portal for Exley’s team to receive donations, which he says worked well for a couple of years.

But in 2018, senior management began to interfere. Excuses were made that the online portal was unsuitable and an alternative system should be set up.

Exley had been very successful at attracting independent and unsolicited funding for his research from traditional sources as well as from the public and philanthropists. He had brought in about £6 million over his 30 year term at Keele, most of it from traditional funders (corporate, government and large charities).

This was unusual, at least at Keele, he says.

“You need a profile to be able to obtain funding from, for example, philanthropic services, and you need to be prepared to work extremely hard in bringing in sponsors. For example, being prepared to travel the world giving talks in a wide variety of situations.”

The role of the media

In 2019, the Guardian published an article scrutinising his funding via Keele’s online funding portal and drawing attention to his work on aluminium in vaccines and their potential link to autism. The article was clearly aimed at discrediting his work and casting doubt on the validity of its funding.

Exley told The Looking Glass he believes that someone from Keele almost certainly initiated the Guardian article and provided the financial information. He made numerous enquiries through his lawyers to the university asking for evidence of the reporter’s FOI request, but this has not been forthcoming.

“The Guardian is clearly an arm of a ‘greater’ body and is not averse to telling lies. Other mainstream media in the UK, such as the Times, are no better. Since 2016 I have only received negative publicity about our research. This was not always the case.”

What triggered the change was probably the publication of this paper on the toxicity of aluminium adjuvants in clinically approved vaccines, he says.

At the end of 2019 a new portal was set up, now managed by the alumni office. This worked for around six months. But donors once again contacted Exley, this time to say his name did not appear in the drop down menu on the donations portal.

“Senior management at Keele seemed determined to make donations towards my research as difficult as possible for potential donors. This included refusing to inform me when a donation had been made.

“I had to rely upon donors contacting me to inform me that they had made a donation. However, donations continued to be received and this unconditional support of our research by individual donors was only brought to an end in February 2021 when Keele’s senior management acted to prevent all donations to my group,’’ his says in his leaving statement.

The Guardian article had led to internal discussion among senior management at Keele that labelled Exley an anti-vaxxer, despite an email dated 25 February to Exley stating they took a neutral view:

“As you are aware, from time to time, concerns have been raised by both our external and internal communities, as a result of press stories, about research undertaken at the University by you and its use to question vaccine safety in a manner which may undermine public health initiatives. On this we make no judgment.“

The research group’s website, which compiled all of its research and housed the funding portal, was suspended. Funding would only be permitted from industry or government sources, prohibiting him from receiving funding from philanthropists, charities and personal donations, a rule that applied only to Exley.

Robert Kennedy and the politicisation of vaccine safety science

In 2021 this new rule led to a US$15,000 donation from Robert F. Kennedy being rejected by Keele. Robert F. Kennedy is the founder Children’s Health Defense, an organisation working to shed light on vaccine injury and corruption in the pharmaceutical industry and its regulators.

Kennedy commented in an article in CHD:

“Exley’s research efforts have documented grave toxic effects of aluminum exposures on human health. Towards the end of last year, I learned that future research in Dr Exley’s laboratory was in jeopardy if he was unable to raise further research funding. Fearing that his critical research would wither, I sent a personal check for $15,000 to Exley via Keele.

“I never expected that my donation would be rejected. I’ve never heard of any university returning a donation from a private individual with no corporate conflicts. Keele’s decision to return my donation was therefore somewhat baffling. I am an environmental and public health advocate and attorney who has spent years successfully suing the world’s biggest polluters and pharmaceutical companies in the public interest.”

The rejection of Kennedy’s 2021 donation triggered another article in the Guardian by the same reporter, Patrick Greenfield, with the headline ‘Keele University accepting funds for researcher who shared vaccine misinformation’.

It contained this statement from Keele: “The university emphatically supports public health vaccination programmes and recognises the importance that current vaccines play in protecting health both in the UK and globally.”

Exley told The Looking Glass that a clue to whoever may have pulled the strings at Keele came from a letter written to Kennedy by Keele, explaining why his donation was being turned down.

“Mention is made of major funding partners. The obvious ones are the NHS – no more than an adjunct to the global pharmaceutical industry – Astra Zeneca who have a considerable presence on campus, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”

An internal email between two university administrators that Exley was able to get hold of also indicated the university was trying to stay on the right side of another major funder.

“I think it is clear that the decision is in the best interests of the charity: accepting donations solicited by an individual supporting anti-vaccine misinformation risks a £9m research income per annum from NIHR being lost. The Guardian headline is spot on: Keele facilitates money flowing to a prominent anti-vaccine academic,” the email said.

The chief executive of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), a government agency which funds research into health and social care is Chris Whitty, who was also the chief medical advisor to the British government at the height of the covid response.

Following The Science

In the last decade ‘following the science’ has come to be something of a mantra in public discourse. A naïve public might suppose that would mean Exley’s findings would end up being reflected in public health policy, or that the public would at a minimum be made aware of the risks and sources of aluminium exposures. But Exley’s work has been largely ignored.

“There was no science-based backlash, no one refuted our findings. However, the internet trolls seem to have the support of search engines such as Google and so their attacks on our work are always on the first page of any search.”

His work has also involved figuring out how to rid the body of the toxin, with rather startling results. Could it be that the solution is as simple as consuming mineral water rich in silicic acid? That and avoiding it to begin with?

Exley says the aluminium lobby goes largely unacknowledged, unlike big pharma, big ag and big tech, but is arguably the most powerful of all.

“It is a silent ‘big brother’ that while rarely commenting at all on aluminium toxicity in humans is always there to support the myriad industries that depend upon its product.”

The science stands

Credulous members of the public who uncritically accept reporting in the Guardian or any other legacy media outlet, is likely to perceive Exley as a charlatan. That is the point of such stories.

But despite his employer’s capitulation to powerful industry forces, Exley wasn’t openly ostracised by the scientific community

“Our research, over 200 peer-reviewed papers, is accepted as sound and, for example, led to an invitation to be a fellow of the Royal Society of Biology. It is probably true to say that my fellow scientists have not rushed to support me at this time but they have not been at the forefront of any criticism either.

“I might add that a letter was sent to the vice chancellor at Keele signed by over 100 scientists asking for the reinstatement of myself and my funding at Keele. It was ignored. Other eminent scientists have written to the VC as individuals and received no reply.”

The public remains largely unaware of the dynamics gripping science institutions (and science reporting), that it is controlled by money and that certain narratives are promoted, often through far reaching, sophisticated public relations campaigns that have included capturing media.

What happened to Exley is a high-profile example of it, but we could equally point to the character assassination of epidemiologist Dr Simon Thornley in New Zealand or the widespread censorship of doctors and scientist speaking out against the covid response that is taking place globally.

There is in fact, a long history of censoring inconvenient science and defaming those who insist on doing it. Biochemist Árpád Pusztai, gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield and geneticist Gilles Eric Séralini are just three others who come to mind. All of them had highly successful careers before reputational smear campaigns, media hit pieces and institutional pressure was brought to bear on them.

The degree to which money has sullied the waters of public interest science is also evidenced by the fact that most funding is now channeled towards applied science, with commercial imperatives. Science like Exley’s that explores environmental and human toxicity does not generally lead to lucrative patents.

I asked him how this broken system might be fixed.

“Science cannot flourish when funding comes from industry, government and major charities all of which have significant vested interests and cannot be trusted. Perhaps institutions supported solely by philanthropy could bring back some of the integrity that has been lost.”

Exley is now retired, although should a willing philanthropist emerge, he says he would resume his research.

First published at

Sign up to the Looking Glass newsletter here

Should we care about the cognitive dissonance of criminals?

By Rusere Shoniwa

You can find more of Rusere’s work at 


In a recent piece for The Daily Sceptic, Dr David McGrogan, Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School, explains why he believes there will never be a reckoning for lockdown. Before I attempt to unpick the pillars of his argument, which are simple and – on the face of it – powerful, let me first summarise them. 

According to Professor McGrogan, the phenomenon impeding a reckoning for lockdown is cognitive dissonance. For the purposes of his analysis, he defines this as the intense psychological discomfort caused by the conflict in the individual’s mind between the overestimation of one’s intellectual capacity and real-world evidence that has a nasty habit of reminding us that we are not as smart as we think we are. The mental gymnastics that we engage in to deny the shortcomings in our critical faculties will be what fuels a societal avoidance of coming to terms with the failure of lockdowns.

Society will thus be the victim of its own wholesale psychological conspiracy of denial involving everyone from the decision-makers in public office unable to admit that they are “not half as clever as they purport to be”, to the “hoi polloi” (McGrogan’s choice of words, not mine) unable to admit “that they were gullible and foolish, and in a moment of crisis simply decided to follow the herd.” The primary manifestation of this denial in the vast majority of people will be forgetfulness. McGrogan cites as evidence a “collective amnesia” about lockdowns even as its effects (such as skyrocketing inflation) are now plainly evident. He also cites the scant mention of covid now in daily life – a memory-holing of the entire event.

The upshot of it all is that far too few will even admit to themselves, let alone anyone else, “that they made a mistake in 2020”. [emphasis added] 

It’s a thought-provoking piece that got me asking a number of questions: 

  • Were lockdowns criminally negligent?
  • If we want a reckoning, why should we even care about the cognitive dissonance of those who were responsible for criminally negligent lockdowns?
  • Why do we need anyone to admit that they made a mistake? Assuming the reckoning we are after is one grounded in law and justice – frankly anything less will not do – I am puzzled that a professor of law would argue implicitly that a confession of guilt is a prerequisite for such reckoning.
  • Is cognitive dissonance really at play in both elite decision-making circles and the public at large?

Were lockdowns criminally negligent, as opposed to a ‘mistake’?

If we agree that lockdowns were criminally negligent, then the reckoning we want is a legal one. A truth and reconciliation commission would be fine and dandy for the perpetrators, but woefully inadequate for those whose lives have been destroyed in myriad cruel ways. It’s important to knock any doubts on the head about whether criminal negligence was involved considering the lie being pedalled by the likes of Grant Shapps that “there was of course no instruction manual for dealing with the first pandemic of modern times”. 

We know that there most definitely was an instruction manual because the Government had a pandemic preparedness plan. The Government’s own plan on lockdown mirrored the WHO’s October 2019 plan, which not only ruled out societal lockdowns but actually listed the quarantining of exposed individuals as “not recommended in any circumstances”. What’s more, a Parliamentary report that ended up being a whitewash of lockdowns admitted that:

“…as of October 2019, the Johns Hopkins Global Health Security Index, the most comprehensive global study into pandemic preparedness, had the UK and the US as the best prepared in the world.” [emphasis added]

That plan eschewed lockdowns because there was no scientific evidence for them in dealing with the spread of respiratory viruses.

Sweden had a similar plan. The difference between Sweden and the UK was that Sweden recognised that if you’ve planned for a disaster, then you should implement the plan when you think the disaster is unfolding. As far as criminal negligence is concerned, the taxpayer does not pay its civil servants to plan for disasters only to then recklessly abandon the plan when confronted by the disaster event. Why bother to plan? The only justification for abandoning a plan for rare disasters is if the plan has been tried and proven not to work

The thing which makes the abandonment of a scientifically sound plan all the more appalling is that its alternative was not subjected to even the most cursory cost-benefit analysis. Of course, had a cost-benefit analysis been done before throwing caution to the wind, it would have highlighted in stark terms what lockdown meant – severe damage to our social and economic fabric in all the ways that are now unfolding, far outweighing any claimed benefit. 

So public health officials were duty-bound to follow sound established principles governing respiratory illness pandemics, but they chose instead to trash their own rule book. And the Government was duty-bound to weigh up whether its shotgun course of action would yield a net benefit to society, but Government bureaucrats didn’t even get as far as scribbling on the back of a cigarette packet. Had they done so, the scribbles would have shown a bright red deficit symbolising the innocents to be killed by lockdowns and lives to be destroyed for years to come. 

And that’s the only plausible reason for not doing a cost-benefit analysis. If you’ve decided to bankrupt the nation and ruin lives in pursuit of a political aim, it’s probably best not to prepare calculations setting out in minute detail the devastating brutality of your actions. If you’re subsequently put in the dock, it would be bad enough that you hadn’t bothered to weigh up the pros and cons of your actions, but it would be suicidal to have done the analysis and still opted to press the destruct button. With an eyes-wide-open cost-benefit analysis, the jury would have clear evidence of psychopathy as opposed to the slightly lesser evil of recklessness. Either way, criminal negligence is writ large over the entire fiasco.

Are the elite rule-makers really suffering from cognitive dissonance and does it matter? 

Cognitive dissonance has two strands to it: the sincere belief that one is right in the chosen course of action and the subsequent emergence of evidence that jars with that sincerely held belief. The first bit never happened and therefore nor could the second. I’ve written at length about why every single pillar of the Covid narrative from lockdowns, masking and testing to mass vaccination was nothing short of voodoo garbage. The point I made in that argument was that the Government, using its medical bureaucrats as cover, acted in opposition to truths they either publicly stated or demonstrably knew. They knew there was no scientific basis for lockdowns, but they decreed them anyway. They knew masks didn’t work, but they decreed them with no new evidence for a u-turn. They knew that the jabs didn’t prevent transmission and infection, but they coerced the entire country into taking them and they mandated them for care workers. They knew there was absolutely no rational basis on a simple risk/benefit assessment for advising covid jabs for children, but they did it anyway. 

The science was politicised by scientists like Whitty and Vallance at the behest of their masters. The politicians and bureaucrats who analysed and understood all the information about covid did not believe in the medical efficacy of the policies they enforced. There is a world of difference between advocating for a position that you sincerely, albeit erroneously, believe in, versus advocating corrupt policies that you know have no rational or scientific basis. Confirmation of the latter was provided by the Cabinet Office 2020 Christmas party scandal.

The only kernel to grasp from that fiasco is that they never believed in the restrictions and rules they made for the “hoi polloi” and that’s why they didn’t follow them. They knew that the threat from the virus was exaggerated and that all the restrictions, including lockdowns, had no impact on that threat, exaggerated or not. They acted in accordance with this belief, and not a belief that lockdowns were the right thing to do. The point is: there is no cognitive dissonance there because cognitive dissonance describes the conflict that arises when a sincerely held belief clashes with contradictory evidence for holding that belief. All we have here is outright dishonesty. In short, the experts were never ‘wrong’; they were always lying. Big difference.

Dominic Cummings accused Rishi Sunak of having a “melted brain” for suggesting that the decision to lock society down was wrong. Professor McGrogan sees the rantings of Johnson’s Rasputin as evidence of cognitive dissonance. I see a rumbled psychopath telling his co-conspirators to keep schtum.

A brilliant investigative report by German journalist Paul Schreyer shows that the 2020 lockdowns were the culmination of 20 years of pandemic simulation wargaming involving collaborations between the most prestigious medical scientific institutions, the mainstream media, senior military and defence officials and, crucially, government intelligence agencies. The base assumptions used in all event simulations were that management of all ‘pandemics’ would entail a severe curtailment of civil liberties and media psyops to condition the public into accepting this as necessary. The only exit strategy envisaged was vaccination combined with bio-surveillance tracking technology. 

In the light of this compelling narrative, it’s not hard to view lockdowns as an instrument of deep state strategies to use pandemics as vehicles for fulfilling population control agendas, and that senior government officials and influential academics (think here of modellers producing vastly inflated casualty estimates for no-lockdown scenarios) who were deeply embedded in this ideology were simply acting on years, if not decades, of priming. Contrary to being a panic reaction, lockdown can be seen as a consequence of years of careful preparation.

Why is it so hard for some to accept that politicians not only prevaricate but outright lie? A successful reckoning for lockdown entails criminal proceedings to show that those on whom the public relies to enact ethical, evidence-based public health policies that pass the do-no-harm test were criminally negligent in rolling out policies that they knew were not evidence-based and would cause great harm – harm that they callously did not think needed to be assessed before they pulled the trigger. Criminals are convicted on the evidence put before the court, not on whether they confess to the crime. If there is evidence of criminal negligence, then we don’t need the alleged criminals to admit that they made a mistake.

Is the public suffering from cognitive dissonance?

Undoubtedly some members of the public are realising that they fell for the lockdown lie and are now engaged in avoiding the psychological discomfort of coming to terms with being deceived. Using Professor McGrogan’s definition, they are “hold[ing] two mutually contradictory ideas in [their] minds.” The psychological discomfort arises when the individual is forced to confront the contradiction between the overestimation of their intellectual resources and real-world evidence that contradicts this self-flattering position. The important thing to recognise is that there is still a degree of rationality involved here, which means we have to acknowledge that, even if the thinking was erroneous, there is some thinking involved in entertaining a theory, subsequently rejecting it and then coming to terms with the error.

However, the problem I have in looking at Joe Public as a bloc is that there is much evidence that a huge swathe of the public was not doing any thinking at all and still isn’t. Contrary to the idea that they are wrestling with contradiction, they aren’t wrestling with anything at allMattias Desmet’s compelling theory of mass formation points to a state of hypnosis in which the public not only refused to engage mentally with the absurdity of lockdowns but that the more absurd the measures, the more likely they were to go along with them. This is not cognitive dissonance

Professor McGrogan says the public has forgotten lockdowns and that covid has been ‘memory-holed’. I’m not so sure. It’s tempting to see the near-absence of masking in summer as evidence that covid madness is behind us, but it’s possible that a great many people have been conditioned into accepting that this is a seasonal ritual – masks in winter, bare faces in summer. Can we be sure that a similar regimen won’t be applied for targeted lockdowns? The fact that people aren’t talking about covid anymore doesn’t necessarily signify a conscious or even unconscious rejection of the covid theatre. It could signify a subconscious internalising of the theatre – a sort of Pavlovian conditioning in which all that is required is a dog-whistle about ‘rising cases’ and another ‘deadly wave’ combined with the changing of the seasons to cause the crowd to gravitate towards masking and lockdowns.

Lockdowns were just the first tool in the ongoing war on humanity.

The minority who were spared from the orgiastic stupidity of mass formation knew lockdowns couldn’t contain a virus. Now, we don’t know if we’ll ever be able to accurately quantify the devastation that lockdowns  have caused to people’s lives. As if that wasn’t bad enough, we also have to accept that the lockdown fire will smoulder for years to come. One thing we can be sure of is that no future government will voluntarily quantify the damage to physical and mental health, businesses, access to healthcare and education, and so much more – this is because virtually all the useful idiots (aka MPs) on both sides of the aisle voted for the calamity. It will be up to us to force them to come to terms with what they did.

As destructive as they are, lockdowns are just part of the unfolding train smash. Useless and dehumanising masks are still a ubiquitous feature of life in many countries and could still make a comeback in the UK this winter. Despite the covid injection horror show growing grimmer by the day, those behind the wheel of the ‘vaccine’ juggernaut still have their foot flat down on the accelerator. To appreciate the value now placed on human life by the Big Pharma and Government ‘health’ regulatory nexus, simply reflect on the fact that the next generation of covid boosters being dished out to millions has not been tested on humans – all it took to approve the rollout was 8 mice

Meanwhile, the Russia/Ukraine manufactured energy crisis is set to plunge people across the West into fuel poverty and could cause many to die of cold this winter. Constantly playing in the background is the funereal music of the Net Zero scam in which the only outcomes that can be guaranteed are an indeterminate period of impoverishment for the bulk of humanity and cushy jobs for the same class of genius modellers who predicted covid would reduce all the major cities of the world to morgues if they didn’t lock down. One word – Sweden. 

Rather than theorise about the ‘psychological discomfort’ of the psychopaths doing all this, let’s acknowledge the psychological discomfort of facing up to the fact that all of these past, present and future blast craters are actually part of a mosaic of deliberate destruction. It’s vital to correctly interpret this consistent pattern of one failed reckless gamble after another. Repeatedly doubling down on the errors isn’t necessarily psychopathic per se, but it is psychopathic if you’re well aware that doubling down is inconsequential to you but harmful to everyone around you. The masters of the universe have decided that the old world has outlived its usefulness to them, and their solution is to put humanity through a mincer in the deluded expectation that something tamed and completely controllable will emerge at the other end. 

Rather than shrug our shoulders in resignation at the presumed cognitive dissonance of the masters of the universe, let’s ask ourselves how much psychological discomfort we might be experiencing as we realise how little regard those masters of the universe must have for us; for their fellow human beings at the sharp end of their inhumane policies.

The perpetrators of lockdowns, and all that has followed, are not experiencing cognitive dissonance. Paradoxically, those who deny the real reason for the perpetrators’ denials of wrongdoing might be the ones plagued by cognitive dissonance. Why? Because they refuse to come to terms with the stark truth pointed out by Mark Crispin Miller: the lockdown perpetrators are free to keep killing us as long as we keep thinking that they couldn’t be that evil; that they’re only suffering from cognitive dissonance.

There is a very simple binary choice ahead of us: either the perpetrators of lockdowns and other covid crimes serve jail time, or democracy in the West, such as it was, is dead. The Blair and Bush regimes were not put in the dock for the Iraq invasion war crime. Emboldened by the scale of that impunity, elites have brought us to the point where they are confident that they can lock us up in our homes and take away our sovereignty over our bodies, with impunity. Are we really prepared to find out where the arc of impunity ends, or do we end it now by restoring justice?

You can find more of Rusere’s work at 

It’s no use going back to yesterday: a news digest from the new normal #2

The second in a regular series courtesy of the estimable New Zealand site, The Looking Glass

‘I could tell you my adventures—beginning from this morning,’ said Alice a little timidly: ‘but it’s no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.’  Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll.

Tit bits

  • Listen to the always excellent sociologist Jodie Bruning talk covid, governance, science and its relationship to policy, institutional power and the public good in an interview with Rick Munn on TNT radio.
  • The Privacy Commission (OPC) and the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) launched an investigation into police conduct after RNZ reported that police were illegally photographing Māori youth. The report states that there is a “widespread practice” of police taking photos of people in public with little cause, sometimes for simply looking “suspicious” or “out of place.”
  • The Dutch city of Haarlem is set to become the first in the world to ban meat advertising in public, with the aim of getting people to eat less meat to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The rule will come into force from 2024. This week Auckland Mayoral candidate Efeso Collins was asked whether he would consider doing the same. Collins said that while it was an interesting idea it wasn’t something he was thinking about and his focus was currently on transport emissions. Listen here.
  • Five eyes spies gathered in Queenstown this week, Andrew Little, Minister for the Government Communications Security Bureau and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, confirmed. “As the public would expect, New Zealand’s national security and intelligence officials meet with their Five Eyes counterparts as part of their regular engagement. There are some engagements happening at official level in New Zealand at the moment,” he said. He said it was not in the country’s national security interests to provide further details.
  • The US Department for Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, on the anniversary of 9/11 said the new enemy was the individual, not foreign terrorists. “We are seeing an emerging threat over the last several years of the domestic violent extremist,” he said. “The individual here in the United States radicalised to violence by a foreign terrorist ideology, but also an ideology of hate, anti-government sentiment, false narratives propagated on online platforms, even personal grievances.” Who isn’t a terrorist under this definition? The Looking Glass has written about this extensively. See here and here and here and here.
  • A creepy new add for New York Presbyterian Hospital appears to be attempting to normalise myocarditis in children, one of the most common injuries resulting from the covid jab.

Government scraps traffic light system

Never say people power doesn’t work! The end of the traffic light system, including medical mandates and masking requirements, was announced and we are now told by the Prime Minister that “we just need to respect people’s individual choices”.

We can all pause to appreciate the massive hypocrisy of the Prime Minister, who smugly confirmed she was imposing two sets of rights on the citizens of New Zealand when she introduced vaccine passes to segregate the clean from the unclean last year.

This is a complete turnaround from the heavily coerced social engineering that has been going on under the covid protection framework. But while this is something to be celebrated, the Covid-19 Public Health Response Act is still in place, and just this week the Epidemic Preparedness Notice 2020 was renewed for a further three months until 20 October.

It first came into effect in March 2020, and is one of the ways in which powers under the Health Act were activated, and is a prerequisite for making Covid-19 orders under Covid-19 Public Health Response Act. It activates a range of statutory powers and consequences, including the ability to adjourn voting.

Under the principal notice, the Prime Minister declared that she was satisfied that the effects of the outbreak of Covid-19 were likely to disrupt or continue to disrupt essential governmental and business activity in New Zealand significantly.

Where is reference to public health, one wonders?

So, we are not off the hook yet. The Prime Minister is keeping her emergency powers in the back pocket, just in case, it appears. Not that anyone could have predicted that …

Mandates for nurses and health care workers effectively still in place

Despite government mandates dropping, Te Whatu Ora, the newly created health authority, is in the process of putting an internal mandate for workers in place, timed to come into effect exactly as the Government mandates expire.

Activist groups Nurses for Freedom and the NZ Nurses Collective put a statement out on Thursday saying they were concerned that once again the public have been mislead with respect to the cessation of health mandates.

Spokeswoman Deborah Cunliffe said despite systemic under-staffing, gaps in access to timely services and the continued risk to the public this brings, public health workers are still subject to vaccination requirements and may not be allowed back to work.

Te Whatu Ora Capital Coast, Hutt Valley and Wairarapa amongst others, have been quick to confirm that all new contracts will require two primary doses of the covid vaccine and at least one booster, citing health and safety legislation. Te Whatu Ora (Health NZ) is currently working on a draft national policy expected to be completed by 26 September to coincide with the end of the mandates.

This means that about 1,500 unvaccinated doctors, nurses, midwives and other public healthcare workers are still potentially subject to discrimination. Workers in the private healthcare sector are also in limbo.

Cunliffe said international and independent ‘gold standard’ evidence is needed to prove unvaccinated healthcare workers are a greater risk to vulnerable populations as compared to vaccinated workers.

“This is especially relevant considering the real and known risk that exists from reduced health service provision, an overstretched workforce and waning vaccine efficacy.

“It is clear our patients and the public want us back. Preventing us from doing so adds to the general perception that dropping the mandates is purely about votes and has never been about science, health or transparency,” she said.

Read an account of one nurses horrific experience of the mandates here.

Sign up to receive our newsletter

Will we see a covid inquiry?

AM Show host Ryan Bridges questioned Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern this week about what lessons could be learned from the covid response and whether the country would get an inquiry ahead of next year’s general election.

Ryan Bridges presses Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern about a potential covid inquiry on the AM Show this week.

Ardern said was “getting a bit of advice on that”.

Bridges then pressed her on what its scope might be. “Will it look at Minister’s decisions, your decisions? Will it look at vaccine rollout, you know, the Reserve Bank and the money printing that went on and the inequality that was created? Will all of those things be canvassed by an inquiry?

Ardern said she wanted to “keep learning for the future” but that she couldn’t answer specific questions at this point.

Denmark bans covid vaccines for under-50s

Denmark previously halted covid jabs for the under-18s but this week moved to widen the age range to the under-50s.

Screenshot from Danish Health Authority website

The Danish Health Authority says “the purpose of vaccination is not to prevent infection with covid-19 and people under age 50 are therefore currently not being offered booster vaccinations.”

Their explanation for the ban is that due to widespread immunity and low risk from covid, the benefits from vaccination are too low. Now, only those considered in high-risk groups or those who work with people in high-risk groups under 50 will be allowed to get it. Otherwise, they are banned.

As we saw last week with the UK’s decision to ban the covid jab for under-12s, however, the authorities are not coming out to explicitly state this or provide an explanation. If something is banned, it implies that it’s harmful. But the public are not hearing this from authorities.

One can only assume there is obfuscation at play. VAERS data shows that covid-19 injections are the most dangerous ‘vaccines’ ever produced. ‘Died suddenly’ notices are through the roof globally. Excess death has spiked in highly vaccinated countries, including New Zealand. How long before they are removed from the market and how many people will have been maimed or killed by then?

International medical crisis declared by consortium of doctors and scientists

Over 400 doctors, scientists and professionals from more than 34 countries this morning declared an international medical crisis due to “diseases and death associated with the ‘covid-19 vaccines’ ”.

“We, the medical doctors and scientists from all over the world, declare that there is an international medical crisis due to the diseases and deaths co-related to the administration of products known as “Covid-19 vaccines”.
“We are currently witnessing an excess in mortality in those countries where the majority of the population has received the so called “Covid-19 vaccines”. To date, this excess mortality has neither been sufficiently investigated nor studied by national and international health institutions.

“The large number of sudden deaths in previously healthy young people who were inoculated with these “vaccines”, is particularly worrying, as is the high incidence of miscarriages and perinatal deaths which have not been investigated.,” it begins.

The signatories are demanding that regulatory agencies and related health institutions globally, as well as international bodies like WHO, EMA, FDA, UK-MHRA, respond to a series of demands, starting with halting covid vaccination programmes. Read more here.

Psychiatrist Emmanuel Garcia takes physicians to task for abandoning medical ethics

US-born, New Zealand-based psychiatrist Emmanuel Garcia, has taken Kiwi medical professionals to task in an op-ed published in Global Research. Garcia was one of dozens of physicians who refused to parrot government covid narratives in 2020. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 as a result after working in the public sector since 2006.

He ponders how differently things may have gone in New Zealand if medical professionals had collectively spoken out against government overreach.

“Yes, I understand, they would have come under attack by a corrupt Medical Council (under the thumb of the Federation of State Medical Boards) and Ministry of Health; yes, they would have had their licences to practice suspended; yes, they would have been fired from their jobs for exercising common sense and their right to choose what to allow into their bodies – at least initially.

“But imagine if they simply stood up en masse for what was right. Would a totalitarian Government have dared to persecute us all? Would even a quisling organisation like the Medical Council have tried to investigate thousands instead of the dozens of doctors who spoke out? Would the Prime Minister of New Zealand have insisted on a sweetheart deal with a disreputable and unscrupulous pharmaceutical outfit like Pfizer and suppressed inexpensive and effective treatments for a trumped-up illness? Would the government have had the audacity NOT to mandate autopsies for those who died after having received the jab, and NOT to account for and fully investigate adverse events?  Would, in fact, this entire manufactured nightmare scenario have been allowed to unfold as it has, with its concomitant destruction of livelihoods, businesses, and societal fabric?”

US President Joe Biden unleashes biotech regime on Americans: are humans just computers to be hacked?

The Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy states that:  “For biotechnology and biomanufacturing to help us achieve our societal goals, the United States needs to invest in foundational scientific capabilities. We need to develop genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers; unlock the power of biological data, including through computing tools and artificial intelligence; and advance the science of scale‑up production while reducing the obstacles for commercialization so that innovative technologies and products can reach markets faster.”

This insane order seeks to vastly expand the failed gene modifying public health strategy of the last two years, and makes no reference to the Nuremberg Code which outlaws medical experiments on humans without informed consent.

As Professor of Globalization Studies at University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada, Anthony Hall notes in a critique of the order, “The Biden administration simply looked the other way as Pfizer and other companies well known for their criminal records pushed ahead a totally experimental process of genetic modification through mRNA injections. The current custodians of the White House have no intention, it seems, of initiating much-needed federal investigations and studies to understand what went wrong and who is responsible?” he said.

Stay curious …

Sign up to receive The Looking Glass newsletter

Don’t hate mainstream journalists – feel sorry for them

By a UK journalist

wrote an article for UK Column a year ago which accused legacy media newspaper proprietors of being criminally negligent for allowing covid disinformation and fear-based propaganda in their titles.

Since that time, levels of hatred have increased against journalists who operate in this industry that I myself have been part of for a quarter of a century.

In this second anonymous whistleblower account of what it is like to work in UK newspapers during the covid era, I hope to direct some of that hatred away from the journalists and to refocus it on the newspaper industry chiefs who serve Big Pharma before truth.

Censorship? What censorship?

Nearly all of the journalists I know are completely unaware of global censorship; they are often new in their roles and are thrust into a working world of increasingly aggressive public relations officers.

One community reporter, whom I class as a friend, listened to my concerns about tech giants censoring scientists and health professionals who went against World Health Organisation guidelines for the alleged pandemic. This reporter’s wages are paid for by Facebook, so I was expecting they would be aware of this, but they responded with: “Oh, I didn’t know.”

Add to this ignorance the chronic levels of understaffing we endure, with redundancies being announced most years across all editorial departments, and we have an industry where press releases are pumped out without challenge.

As an example of this, I had one editor ask me to upload directly onto our newspaper website an NHS press release urging pregnant women to take the covid injection, as it was “safe and effective”. This same editor was too fearful to return to the office early this year, even though others were coming back in, so I genuinely believe the editor thought the press release was nothing more than legitimate public health advice.

In sum, the entire backbone has been ripped out of the news industry – and that happened more than a decade ago.

And we are dealing with clueless individuals who work within it, many of them programmed to be “woke” by their “trusted” news sources like the BBC and the Guardian. But do they deserve our hate and scorn?

At the time of writing my last whistleblower account, I was angry, frustrated and scared about where the world was heading and how my industry was pushing it there. I hated my colleagues for their ignorance and their blind faith in authority.

But after another year of continuing to take pay cheques from what I still believe is the PR unit for globalist billionaires, I have become sorry for these foot soldiers who have caused so much harm by failing to challenge authority. And I fear for them as well.


It won’t be long before a British journalist is physically hurt (if it hasn’t happened already) for their role in what has happened in the covid era, and I have experienced some of this public hatred towards journalists myself.

During a recent public meeting highlighting the documented life-changing harm and death caused by the Pfizer covid injections, I had some audience members turn on me, shouting that I was a disgrace and that I should quit my job when I announced that I worked in the mainstream media.

If it had not been for a senior local politician, who knows me, speaking up for my integrity, I would have had to have made a sharp exit for my own safety.

The mainstream news has become one of the country’s most hated professions during the last two years, especially among those who have either recently learned or already knew not to trust authority on global issues.

Having now returned to the office on a sporadic basis, I have had the chance to speak face-to-face with colleagues for the first time in more than a year – and it has dawned on me how ignorant they are. They are not stupid, they are not controlled opposition, they are not just being told what to write, they are just completely unaware of any counter-narratives about covid.

They are under a spell, a spell of remarkable simplicity that has just two elements – censorship and propaganda – which brings about the end product of fear.

Most of my colleagues are fairly low down in the editorial structure of the global mainstream behemoth, but they represent a microcosm of what is happening further along the corridors of power. This hierarchical consideration goes some way to explain the absolute ignorance among those reporting the news.

There is a handful of my colleagues who are aware that the human race is being railroaded into a new world order controlled by technocrats. A few others are starting to realise that politicians have no problems lying to us about the most important global issues.

This second group, although aware of something bad happening around them, recoil at the thought of a global plan to enslave humanity. When discussing covid, especially, they make it clear they do not subscribe to conspiracy theories and are not conspiracy theorists.

These comments are made because they are fearful their reputations could be harmed by discussing covid through the lens of holding authority to account, following the money, and asking who benefits. I have noticed that mainstream media managers are far more fearful of being branded a “conspiracy theorist” than a reporter. And I know of one reporter who was branded the “office conspiracy theorist” for writing an article detailing a woman’s covid injection harm.

Some of my colleagues I also count as friends, and many of them I still have not seen since our offices were shut down across the country more than two years ago.

But recently we have been returning to our desks – which we have to book online beforehand – and this has allowed me to be able to speak to some of them and to look them in the eye as I hear their thoughts about what has been going on.

It has been a shocking experience, and disheartening. The propaganda pumped out by the Government, and regurgitated by the national newspapers and television news networks, has done a good job of scaring them – to such an extent that real psychological trauma has been caused to some of them. Several colleagues have admitted to me they are “pro-vax” and are worried about any “messaging” that could reduce covid injection uptake. Another just felt it was their “civic duty” to receive all their injections, and thought no more about it. One colleague even messaged me to urge me to be injected, as they were so worried for my wellbeing.

Some months later, I provided that colleague with evidence from the Office for National Statistics of the increased levels of death among those who did get injected, and I urged them not to continue taking any covid boosters offered. I received no response.

Cloud of unknowing

More shocking examples of ignorance came from a colleague who told me how fortunate it was that a reporter we worked with had been triple injected, as they had become seriously ill with covid. No connection between the injections and becoming ill was made.

This same colleague had written an opinion piece some months earlier, pleading with people to continue taking their covid injections, despite referencing a report of a woman dying in agony from blood clots – after being injected – which featured in that same day’s newspaper. Is this cognitive dissonance? Mass formation? I don’t pretend to know, but it is isolating and lonely to be working among these people who are so programmed by the television news. And they certainly do not like be challenged about their beliefs. I have done it, and have been victimised for it.

One seasoned reporter who prided themselves on knowing the ways of the world was talking to me about the alleged pandemic. I asked them what they knew about midazolam, and they replied they had never heard of it.

This censorship in the legacy media has left my colleagues and former colleagues blissfully unaware of covid counter-narratives. Some truly believe in Bill Gates as a charitable benefactor for humanity and Chris Whitty as a responsible scientist looking to help guide the UK out of troubled waters.

They are living in a different reality to myself and do not want to dip their toes in the information streams of those who disagree with them so fundamentally. As one colleague recently told me, they only get their information on global affairs from the mainstream media. I told her I didn’t get any of my information on global affairs from the mainstream media.

The conversation ended there. We were both so wrapped up in our own worlds that to even engage in debate with someone who thought so differently would be too uncomfortable.

These types of people who build their understanding of the world from the television, radio and mainstream newspapers do not just work in the mainstream media. They exist in health, education, politics, councils, entertainment, sport, church, you name it. Whatever the sector of employment, there are people who trust those with the loudest microphones.

But in the mainstream news, there are more of these people; a lot more. Careers in this industry depend on consuming other mainstream outlets: especially so at a local level, where “news sense” is guided by what the national news is saying.


So here I am, a journalist of 25 years who has worked only in the mainstream news arena. I have been unable to wake up the vast majority of colleagues and have withdrawn into my shell, apart from occasional spats with them over e-mail or, on rare occasions, in person.

I know what is going on in the world and they don’t. I have been restricted from writing about what I know about, or even to ask questions of authority that my editor does not want asked.

I am not giving up, though; I am not walking away. I am staying at my post, as I know things are very likely to get worse; and when things get worse, more of my colleagues will start waking up, and I’ll be here to guide them and point them towards official documents that they will know nothing about, since the national newspapers and the broadcast news have chosen to ignore them. Ask a journalist about what they know about PCR test cycle rates or a SPI-B Government document recommending the use fear-based propaganda in the media to turn civilians against each other, and you will just get a blank stare.

A friend consoled me recently that the way to bring down an edifice of unchecked control that operates under the power of censorship and propaganda is to set just one mouse gnawing away at the foundations.

Eventually, that one mouse becomes two, and then four, then eight, and so on. That is how we get out of this mess, from the bottom of whatever corporate pyramid we operate in. There is no point in hoping for change from above: as I can tell you with absolute certainty, and experience, it is not coming. Journalists whom I work with, trust, and respect, and have known for years are just as clueless about covid now as they were at the start of 2020.

Don’t hate them; feel sorry for them. They are victims in all this.

I concluded my last UK Column article with a plea: a plea to those who made the editorial decisions, to allow for debate. That plea was never answered, but I make another plea now, to the reporters, to those venturing out of the office to speak to those in authority, building contacts and getting the stories. (And above all else, keep an open mind.) My plea is this:

Please, please, do not be afraid of asking difficult questions, and make it your business to seek out information that is being censored and then to decide for yourself whether that information has any validity.

The fight against tyranny has to come from the bottom, not the top. Don’t wait for a knight in shining armour; there isn’t one coming. It is up to you – the coalface journalist – to get out there and hold authority to account. And then, perhaps, our industry will become less hated than it is today; it could even become a profession again.

This article was first published by UK Column

It’s no use going back to yesterday: a news digest from the new normal


Sign up to the Looking Glass newsletter here.

‘I could tell you my adventures—beginning from this morning,’ said Alice a little timidly: ‘but it’s no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.’ Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll.

Wowsers, there are a lot of updates this week – I could have gone on and on.

Canada, oh Canada

A Canadian court has ruled that it’s not unconstitutional to refuse a life-saving organ transplant to a woman who refused to get the covid-19 injection.

Sudden deaths

NZ Doctors Speaking Out with Science (NZDSOS) is continuing to draw attention to the new trend of sudden deaths in people of all ages, and the country’s rising all-cause mortality. The trend is now seen in all heavily vaccinated countries. Statistics taken from StatzNZ and visualised at the Human Mortality Database, show that New Zealand’s excess mortality trend has been consistently above the average throughout 2022.

Eight mice

New bi-valent covid mRNA boosters have been approved for use in a number of countries after being tested on only eight mice. There won’t be any liability for the vaccinators, manufacturers or regulators, who approved it under emergency authorisation. Canada, the European Union and Switzerland approved them all on the same day, but they are also approved in the US and UK. The booster will have been given to millions of people by the time Moderna’s trial on 512 people is completed.

Parental rights

In California, a bill that would have allowed children ages 15 and older to be vaccinated without parental consent was defeated by community activists. The bill originally targeted children as young as 12. In New Zealand, the Government already gave kids 12 and up the right to get vaccinated without parental consent, using the Gillick competency test, but did so quietly and with little media attention. Such laws increasingly put parental rights at risk.

Indoctrinating children

The Ministry of Education has published guidance for educators about relationships and sexuality education, which targets children as young as year 1.

“Relationships and sexuality education cannot be left to chance in schools. When this education begins from early childhood and builds consistently, year after year, it prepares young people for navigating a range of relationships throughout their childhood, teen years, and adult life,” it states.

The document codifies ‘woke’ values and ensures school aged children will be steeped in gender ideology from day one. This includes requiring the formal use of preferred pronouns and removing biological sex from sports divisions. Whatever happened to just letting kids be kids? Is this social engineering without parental consent?

Protesting could get you in trouble at work

A man who took part at a recent Freedom and Rights coalition protest in Wellington is now under review from his employer, Whānau Ora Community Clinic. The man presided as a ‘judge’ in a mock trial of the Government over its jab mandates. Despite the right to protest in New Zealand, it appears exercising basic civil liberties is now beginning to result in concerning consequences.

Political interference in journalism

The saga of Australian journalist Avi Yemini has continued to unfold. Leaked Interpol documents show there is now no doubt the decision to bar him from New Zealand was a political one.

He was intending to report on the Freedom and Right’s Coalition protest last week and growing anti-government sentiment. Interpol Wellington approached Australian counterparts to dig for dirt on Yemini, ostensibly to legitimise a decision to bar him from entering the country.

A round of finger pointing ensued, with the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and NZ Police both blaming Immigration, which blames Interpol, which accuses the Police. Yemini is fighting the decision in court and has plans to return and pursue his reporting in future.

Assange appeals extradition

Imprisoned journalist and publisher Julian Assange has submitted Perfected Grounds of Appeal, challenging UK Home Secretary Priti Patel’s decision to extradite him to the US. The appeal is based on the fact that the request violates Article 4 of the US-UK Extradition Treaty.

Consensus on climate emergency challenged

More than 1000 scientists have signed a declaration asserting that there is no climate emergency, and that natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming. The list is headed up by Norwegian Nobel laureate professor Ivar Giaever.

“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures,” the declaration states.

It questions the ‘rubbish in, rubbish out’ nature of climate modelling as a basis for climate policy.

Could the right to travel come under threat?

Flying freely may soon be a thing of the past. A clear narrative is emerging that questions whether people should travel internationally due to climate change. One Otago University academic is questioning whether Kiwis should be taking trans-Tasman trips.

UK conservative pundit Katie Hopkins made the salient observation that airlines and airports are now working to reduce flight numbers and predicts that in the next five-to-10-years, people will have lost the right and ability to freely travel, with climate change being used as the excuse.

U-turn on mRNA for pregnant and lactating women, after millions have taken it

From the Summary of the Public Assessment Report for Covid-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech

The UK government has changed its recommendations for mRNA injections for pregnant and breastfeeding women, after millions of them were injected.

Section 4 of the recently updated Public Assessment Report states that no studies for toxicokinetic, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, prenatal and postnatal development, general toxicity studies, or studies in which offspring are further evaluated have been done. Why?

Because the World Health Organisation said this was fine in 2005.  

“The absence of reproductive toxicity data is a reflection of the speed of development to first identify and select covid-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 for clinical testing and its rapid development to meet the ongoing urgent health need … it is considered that sufficient reassurance of safe use of the vaccine in pregnant women cannot be provided at the present time … Women who are breastfeeding should also not be vaccinated. These judgements reflect the absence of data at the present time and do not reflect a specific finding of concern.”

New Zealand’s Ministry of Health continues to recommend the covid injection for pregnant women.

New Zealand’s covid-19 website still states that the Pfizer injection can be taken at any stage during pregnancy.

“The vaccine protects you as you are far less likely to fall seriously ill, and can also protect your baby. Evidence shows that babies can get antibodies through the placenta.”

US journalist and author Naomi Wolf has reported widely on the Pfizer data dump that the FDA wanted to keep under wraps for 75 years. In this gut wrenching report on her Substack in May, Wolf wrote:

“The Volunteers have drilled deep into the Pfizer documents’ reports about pregnancy and found that the assurance that the vaccine is ‘safe and effective’ for pregnant women, was based on a study of 44 French rats, followed for 42 days (the scientists who ran the study are shareholders or employees of BioNTech). []

“The Volunteers found that while pregnant women were excluded from the internal studies, and thus from the EUA on which basis all pregnant women were assured the vaccine was ‘safe and effective’, nonetheless about 270 women got pregnant during the study. More than 230 of them were lost somehow to history. But of the 36 pregnant women whose outcomes were followed – 28 lost their babies.

“The Volunteers found that a baby died after nursing from a vaccinated lactating mother, and was found to have had an inflamed liver. Many babies nursing from vaccinated mothers showed agitation, gastrointestinal distress, and failure to thrive (to grow), and were inconsolable.”

It’s a harrowing read. But read it we must. Because Pfizer and the regulators knew this stuff before they recommended it to the entire world.

Government throws vaccinator under the bus for death of Rory Nairn

The Ministry of Health is placing the blame for the death of a 26-year-old man from the vaccine, on the vaccinator. Rory Nairn was affected by myocarditis after his first jab. Guidance from the MOH to medical professionals about the safety signal came out in August, and an urgent update was sent directly from former Director General of Health Ashley Bloomfield in December.

“We need to ensure that consumers are well informed of this rare side effect and know when to seek help. We also want to ensure that the health system is poised to diagnose and clinically manage consumers with this condition appropriately,” it said.

It outlined the most common symptomatology: 
* Chest heaviness, discomfort, tightness or pain 
* Difficulty breathing, shortness of breath 
* Feeling dizzy, light-headed or faint 
* Racing or fluttering heart, or a feeling of ‘skipped beats

There was no media attention.

Journalists were alerted to the risk of myocarditis from the covid injection in June 2021. No reports followed.

In fact, the messaging about the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis was kept very low key from the outset. In late June last year, journalists were alerted to two studies showing inflammation of the heart muscle could develop within days of mRNA injections. It went unreported.

The Government has consistently told the public the jab is ‘safe and effective’, and has not at any point given the pubic the opportunity for true informed consent. Instead, it gagged doctors, preventing them from sharing the real risks of the jab with patients. Many of them have lost their license for speaking up.

The MOH continues to advise that the benefits of the jab outweigh the risk, and maintains these are rare side effects. I personally know three people with post jab myocarditis. What is the statistical probability of that?

Labour infiltrates local government with ‘independent’ candidates, while LGNZ scares voters with ‘extremist’ propaganda

Election meddling is now overtly taking place, as LGNZ, the body that represents the interests of local government, warns voters about who not to vote for.

A campaign has been launched to identify people standing for local body elections who might be ‘conspiracy theorists’ and ‘extremists’. It identified 170 ‘candidates of concern’ and said many were trying to hide their extreme views, whatever that means.

And yet, Labour is informally providing campaign support to independent candidates all around the country, as long as they vote with the party line. This means these ‘independent’ candidates are not able to represent the will of their constituents if it deviates from Labour party policy – scandalous.

LGNZ also signed an agreement with Labour to promote Three Waters, worth $2.2 million. This change in direction away from representing local councils to becoming an agent for Labour, has raised alarm bells. Read an excellent expose here.

And as for those ‘extremists’, listen to Alia Bland from Voice for Freedom speak to Rodney Hide on The Platform recently. They discuss how the group’s encouragement for freedom minded individuals to run in council elections was misreported in the legacy media.

They were accused of trying to hide their association to candidates and make the country ‘ungovernable’. But nobody is being asked to run on a VFF ticket or run on VFF ‘policies’. Bland gives a good explanation of what was meant by the term ‘ungovernable’ in the interview.

“They are bandying that around like it’s some sort of awful thing … but it’s basically about looking at how dependent we’ve all become and seeking to change that. It’s about looking at the overreach of the Government and working on ways that we can become more resilient, so that we are not vulnerable to the next mandate or government law that seeks to remove our freedom in one way or another.”

The media coverage on this issue is particularly Orwellian, because it is working overtime to scare people about grassroots candidates who care about basic rights and freedoms (extremists), while the Labour party is actually infiltrating local government with bought-off candidates – a true subversion of democracy.

Stay curious …


Sign up to the Looking Glass newsletter here.

The Great Unvaxxed – Lies, Damned Lies and the BBC

By Rusere Shoniwa

You can find more of Rusere’s work at 

“I am alone, I thought, and they are everybody.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Reliable data analysis of vaccine efficacy is highly dependent on reliable estimates of the population of vaccinated versus unvaccinated people. Professor Norman Fenton, a mathematician by training and Professor of Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London, has been looking into this for some time now. On 12th August, he released a short bombshell of a video that puts yet another nail in the coffin of the UK Government’s vaccine data analysis.

In the UK, Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures claim that the proportion of unvaccinated people in the adult population is a mere 8%. However, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) figures show the proportion of unvaccinated adults to be around 20%. That’s a large discrepancy, and it matters because any understatement of the unvaccinated population has the effect of overstating the mortality and illness stats in that group when compared with the vaccinated. And that, in turn, has fuelled reckless statements by government officials, amplified in the media, about ‘pandemics of the unvaccinated’. We now know the opposite to be true.

Unsurprisingly, the 8% claim is the accepted figure for all propagators of the official narrative. With its unfavourable distorting effect on the statistics for the unvaccinated, it sharpens the blade wielded by the Covidian cult to hack away at those who have decided to opt out of the global mRNA experiment. The UK’s chief propagandist, the BBC, ran with the 8% figure in its promotion of a TV programme aired in July about ‘the unvaccinated’ — those miscreants who have been causing the puritanical inquisitors at the Beeb to rend their garments in anguish. 

Fronted by Professor Hannah Fry, this hit piece disguised as ‘documentary’ was premised on the BBC inviting seven unvaccinated adults to a hotel to condescendingly “help them see the light”, as a programme reviewer put it.

To understand the BBC’s trademark blend of professional-managerial-class arrogance and stupidity you only have to read one sentence about the programme from its Science Commissioning editor, no less:

“With Covid infections on the rise again, there couldn’t be a more important time to examine the reasons why so many are still not getting the vaccine.” – Tom Coveney, BBC Commissioning Editor, Science.

Does Mr Coveney detect no irony in covid infections being on the rise in a highly vaccinated population? Has he not unwittingly hinted at the utter uselessness of the ‘vaccine’ and therefore answered his own question? Is the Commissioning Editor of Science unaware that the covid ‘vaccines’ do not prevent infection or that the vaccine trials were not designed to find out if they would prevent transmission, a fundamental endpoint for any vaccine? Might this minor detail represent but one of many factors that contributed to the decision of ‘so many’ to give these ‘vaccines’ a wide berth?

Is Mr Coveney aware that there is a mountain of evidence that ‘vaccines’ are not just useless, but predispose you to getting covid, with rates of infection highest in the triple vaccinated who are dutifully following Government and BBC advice to get boosted? That’s before we take account of the evidence that these ‘vaccines’ increase the risk of conditions such as heart damage (see also here and here). Why would I subject myself to BBC re-education when a group of doctors in the UK have concluded that the “latest data [on potential heart damage in young people] brings the decision to continue with this [covid vaccine] program into the more serious realm of malfeasance”?

Why would I do anything other than laugh scornfully at BBC brainwashing when there is now compelling evidence from research in the US and Sweden confirming what I instinctively knew from a cursory risk-benefit analysis before the ‘vaccines’ were rolled out – that the ‘vaccines’ are more likely to put you in hospital with a serious adverse event than keep you out of hospital by protecting you from Covid?

How do you get to be a commissioning editor of science at the august BBC and remain blissfully ignorant of these salient facts? I actually don’t have the slightest problem with Mr Coveney swimming gleefully in his cesspool of ignorance. All I ask is that the Gollums at the BBC refrain from crawling out of the dark cave they have made for themselves with the express purpose of dragging me into it to satisfy their need for false safety in numbers. In the same way that I respect the pious BBC cult’s right to enthusiastically offer up their bodies to pharmaceutical experimentation to further the cause of The Science™ and profits, I wish they would quietly respect my right not to. 

Again, I want to stress that I don’t object to Mr Coveney’s and Ms Fry’s ignorance about the dangers of the covid ‘vaccines’. To be human is to be ignorant about something or other. But I do object to the most dangerous form of ignorance displayed by the BBC – that which insists that others must join in, by force if necessary. 

In any event, while trying to “gently educate” the great unvaxxed, the BBC has inadvertently revealed the true proportion of unvaccinated to be at least 20%. Professor Fenton explains how the BBC was hoist with its own petard.

In the propaganda hit-piece, the BBC’s Hannah Fry boasts of having “commissioned the largest UK-wide survey since the vaccine roll-out including over 2,500 people of which more than 600 are unvaccinated”. Whoops, let’s just rewind that … yep, 24% unvaccinated. And this is the UK adult population, not the total population, which would return a much higher percentage of unvaccinated. Okay, so maybe the survey is not representative of the UK adult population. Professor Fenton kicked the tyres on this by looking at the dataset published on the website of the company that conducted the survey. (The survey itself was carried out between 27 April and 2 May 2022.) And it turns out the survey demographics are very much in line with the national demographic profile reflected in the ONS data. Moreover, the precise survey numbers are 664 unvaccinated out of a sample total of 2,570 – 26% unvaccinated.

It gets even more interesting because the survey results get adjusted to bring the demographic composition into line with the national ONS demographic profile. This is not problematic because the survey demographic is already very well aligned to the ONS national profile. So, adjustments to the survey results for things like age, sex and social grouping don’t end up having a material effect on the result of the survey demographic composition. All good so far. 

Here’s where we enter the grey zone. In the final cut of the survey report numbers, the one figure from the sample that should have been left untouched – the total unvaccinated number of 664 – gets whacked down to 216 (8% of the total sample of 2,570) in order to align it with the ONS estimated percentage of 8%. This is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, the survey sample is highly representative of the UK demographic. This suggests that the unvaccinated survey result of 664 is a reliable proxy for estimating the proportion of unvaccinated people in the wider population. Secondly, the ONS number is contested, not least because it conflicts with other UK government data, namely that from the UKHSA, which reflects a proportion of 20% unvaccinated.

So, it looks as though the survey sample has acted as an audit of the dubious ONS 8% unvaccinated proportion, with the result that the ONS figure has been found wanting. The question then is: why would the BBC just scrub out the 26% unvaccinated figure from its survey sample and pretend it never happened? The answer of course is that The Science™ (or more precisely, The Statistics™) is simply a means to a political end. Other inconvenient survey components also get mysteriously scaled down in the production of the final cut for the report. For example, the actual number of people who reported either never having been vaccinated or having decided to never get another dose is 825, or 32% of the total. That number is mysteriously halved in the weighting process.

Professor Fenton’s conclusion:

“I think that we can now safely conclude that the ONS claim of 8% of UK adult population of unvaccinated is a massive underestimate. I’m pretty sure now that it is at least 20%. What this means is that all of the analyses which claims effectiveness and safety of the vaccine based on the ONS estimates of the proportion of unvaccinated to vaccinated are biased. They are massively overestimating the covid rate and the fatality rate of the unvaccinated compared to the vaccinated.” [emphasis added]  

Science, statistics, propaganda and technocracy

For me, one key take-home from Professor Fenton’s exposé of the BBC’s latest propaganda stunt is that science and statistics are simply tools. Like all tools they are subject to good-faith use and bad-faith abuse. A hammer in the hands of a reliable builder will dependably drive nails into floorboards. But hammers are also used by thieves to smash car windows. The BBC is a propaganda machine, and a statistic placed anywhere in a BBC narrative is guilty until proven innocent.

Vaccinated versus unvaccinated statistics have been wielded as a tool in an information war where the unvaccinated have been comprehensively dehumanised as a tiny minority of deviant ignoramuses and scapegoated as a threat to society greater than Al Qaeda and Isis. Statistics have been abused in bad faith to gaslight the unvaccinated into believing that they are part of a triflingly small band of idiots, trifling enough that no-one would miss them if the majority decided to dispense with them. At the height of the spittle-flecked fury directed at the unvaxxed, the message of Fleet Street Fox and other hateful demagogues was clear – it would be wise for the unvaccinated to wave a white flag in the battle to retain sovereignty over their bodies. And, paradoxically, science under the banner of progressivism was enlisted for this hate campaign.

It is quite conceivable that a society in thrall to a data-driven technocracy could dispense with 25% of its population on the grounds that this ‘backward’ segment refuses to bow to the diktats of biomedical technocracy and is therefore impeding society’s Great Leap Forward to technocratic utopia. It’s been done before, and we don’t appear to have learned many lessons.

From a moral standpoint, it doesn’t matter how small a group is in any determination, science-based or otherwise, to commit crimes against it. If killing is wrong, then a single murder cannot be swept under the rug on the grounds that one is a small number. We know this to be true because that’s how our criminal justice system works. And yet perversely, if the crowd goes mad as it did recently, killing or severe marginalisation of huge numbers could be overlooked as a mere expediency on the journey to AI/technocratic/biomedical utopia.

It is this perversity that has in fact come to characterise the atrocities committed under the pretence of saving lives. Whether through destructive lockdowns, a global mountain of vaccine injuries and deaths or through the concerted efforts of the mass media to dehumanise and marginalise huge numbers of unvaccinated people, the Western world now seems hell-bent on resurrecting Stalin as its lodestar. For it was Stalin who pointed out that one death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is a statistic. Not only does there seem to be a direct relationship between the enormity of crimes and the tolerance for them, but the science, or more accurately the art, of statistics has been recruited to launder these crimes.

The West has replaced God with Science as the moral determinant of all things good and pure. But science is a slave to human ideology, and the ideology of technocracy is gaining ascendancy. This is the idea that the entire universe, including humanity itself, is mechanistic and should be ruthlessly controlled by data-augmented technology. Thus, statistical rules can be written to decree that if a group of troublesome people comprising less than [insert an arbitrary percentage that the public will accept as trifling … like … oh, I don’t know, 8%], then that group can be dispensed with for the greater good of the remaining [insert the percentage of the majority in the ‘right’]. There’s just one small problem for the technocratic ideologues suffering from narcissistic control-freakery – neither nature nor humanity are machines to be controlled, and to treat them as such is opening the door to our destruction.

There is another important message from Professor Fenton’s debunking of the BBC’s claims and the message is this: to those who stood firm and refused to be swept up in the madness of the crowd – you are not alone; the crowd is not everybody.

You can find more of Rusere’s work at 

This article was updated on 23rd September 2022.

Winter and beyond – Part II: The Pivot to Financial Armageddon

By Rusere Shoniwa

You can find more of Rusere’s work at 

This two-part piece stitches together commentary on different facets of the totalitarian Great Reset agenda to illustrate how a worst-case scenario might unfold this winter and beyond. Although in some respects this piece is UK specific, most of the cabal’s strategies apply globally, and any differences can be put down to cultural specificity and local politics. Part I dealt with the implications of the puppet switch taking place in the UK; whether covid as a tool of oppression is now a spent force, and; how virus mania and the pandemic industry might evolve.

In part II, I’ll look at the economics underpinning everything. Economics is not the only reason for the current diabolical situation, but it’s the main one, and it will be the predominant tool of oppression, as indeed it always has been. I’ll then synthesise part I and the economics of part II to shine a light into the darkened recesses of the minds of those who have perpetrated the atrocities so far. We know the endgame: it’s total control. Unless we know how they plan to get there and how bumpy the ride will be, we might not be able to resist when events unfold.

The 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC) heralded the destruction of the global financial system. The entire decade that followed was about keeping it on life support while the world’s real policy makers at the Bank of International Settlements formulated a plan to reset it. They’ve had at least 10 years to formulate a reset that not only ensures financial institutions and global corporates retain and consolidate power, but also that the serfs are more tightly controlled than ever, giving global oligarchs even more freedom to do pretty much anything they want with impunity.

It’s no coincidence that here in the UK, the fabulously minted ex-banker and hedge fund partner Rishi Sunak is in the final pick for the leader of the Conservative Party and the premiership. Who better to market a financial snake-oil cure than a financial snake-oil salesman? He’s probably the WEF’s first pick but Truss, currently the front-runner, will do just as well with a bit of extra coaching. The loser will more than likely have a cabinet post anyway so they’ll be working together to keep the Good Ship Reset firmly afloat. 

The new leader’s job will be to get his or her prefects in cabinet and Westminster to line up behind the narrative of how ‘the pandemic’ and evil Dr StrangePutin have put us in dire straits. The good school pupils (aka the British public) will be required to continue footing the bill for the controlled demolition of the economy that began with covid lockdowns, and, crucially, we will be presented with a ‘solution’ that entails surrendering our autonomy as self-governing human beings.

The debt balloon is about to get popped

Since the 2008 GFC, the US Fed, Bank of Japan, ECB and Bank of England have injected a combined $25 trillion into the banking system via “quantitative easing” purchase of bonds, as well as buying back the worthless assets that were created by the banksters in the lead-up to the GFC. Sowing this empty money is now reaping a whirlwind of inflation. 

A significant chunk of this money put into the banking system was then lent to major corporates, which used the money not to finance the real economy – there isn’t one, because the West offshored its real economy a long time ago – but to inflate the value of their company stock. How does this happen and why is it done? When shares are bought back from shareholders, the total number of shares in the market is reduced. This raises the relative ownership stake of each investor, which in turn increases the market value of the shares that remain in their portfolio. 

It effectively consolidates the ownership stake of each shareholder into a smaller bundle of shares that, barring other market factors, retains the total value that was held before the buyback. It’s a win-win – they effectively get a cash ‘dividend’ pay-out from the buyback while retaining the total value of their stock in the remaining shares still held. It gets even more win-win because distributing cash to shareholders in this way is often more tax effective than through a straightforward dividend.

GFC II actually ignited in September 2019 when the credit markets began seizing up again with junk debt. Between September 2019 and March 2020, the Fed injected more than $9 trillion into the banking system, equivalent to more than 40% of US GDP. Essentially this was another bailout, only much bigger than the first one but silent and virtually unreported.

All told, we’re now sitting on a $303 trillion balloon of post-2008 debt, according to William Engdahl of Global Research, or $305 trillion according to the Institute of International Finance. Global debt is approximately 3.5 times greater than global GDP. There’s only so much air you can blow into a balloon before it bursts, and the question now is not if but when it will burst. Engdahl’s theory of how this balloon might soon pop is worth sharing because it explains the interplay between the bond market, inflation and central bank rate hikes. Crucially, he maintains that central bank policies are deliberately intended to cause a disorderly debt implosion. 

This makes sense if you believe, as I do, that the additional debt expansion generated by covid lockdowns was a primary monetary objective of the lockdowns and not a second order action taken reluctantly by governments out of concern for people’s welfare. If they had been truly concerned about people’s welfare, they would have simply protected the small minority of people at risk instead of ripping apart the entire economic and social fabric with brutal lockdowns. Had they kept calm and carried on, it’s obvious that covid wouldn’t have registered on most people’s radar. So yes, one objective of lockdowns was to pile more debt on top of the funny money they were forced to print in the lead-up to lockdowns to prevent a seize-up of markets that they were not yet prepared for in 2019.

The central bank rate hikes currently underway purport to target inflation but will not have any effect on inflation given the root cause of it – the debt bubble caused by central bank money-printing, euphemistically called ‘quantitative easing’. The intended effect of rate hikes is to seriously deflate the bond market, which is the heart of the financial system.

The global value of the government, corporate and agency bond market is, according to Engdahl, in the region of $250 trillion. The value of a bond instrument is determined quite differently to, say, stock market shares. Because they have a fixed face value and interest payments, their market price at any given point is determined by discounting the expected future cash flows from the bond back to a present value. This discounted value is hugely influenced by inflation and current interest rates. Counterintuitively, the bond market loses value as inflation and interest rates rise. That’s because inflation combined with a fixed bond interest rate that is declining relative to the market rate of interest results in a lower discounted valuation of the bond.

Here’s the clincher – to the extent that banks hold bonds, as bond prices fall, the value of bank capital falls and the nearer we get to another banking collapse. When that happens, the old go-to formula of zero interest rates and continual money printing will be over. The new solution put forward will be a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) system in which all money is centrally issued and controlled. And of course, the CBDC will control you. A banking collapse is a false pretext for introducing CBDCs, but this could be a collapse like no other, and it’s possible that there will be no limit to what the public will agree to as a ‘solution’ when confronted with such a complex and far-reaching financial disaster. Most people have no idea that mouse-click money printing has continued unabated since 2009, and that it is the primary reason for the impending implosion. Quantitative easing, aka money printing, will not even be mentioned in the mainstream press as the house of cards collapses.

To be sure, the bond market isn’t the only potential source of collapse. Central bank monetary tightening is putting pressure on the stock and housing markets too. It’s likely to be some combination of all three, but there’s no certainty as to which domino will fall first. There are two key things to remember about the coming recession: first, it is driven by a debt crisis and, second, the tool being used to address it – rate hikes – is debt unfriendly. This combination of events means the debt reckoning is probably around the corner. The policies will expose worthless debt that was not issued to generate productivity and, let’s face it, that is a key characteristic of Western debt exemplified by corporates borrowing from banks in order to pay out dividends in the form of share buy-backs. The central banks themselves can’t predict precisely how the massive deleveraging will pan out, but they know it’s going to be ugly; and they need that ugliness to move the reset agenda forward.

A tale of two inflations

There is another source of inflation, and that of course is energy, fuel and food. This is not caused by a fundamental supply source problem. Its cause is a supply chain disruption and a manufactured one at that. A spanner has been thrown into the supply chain. The inflation is real in the sense that the prices of these commodities are going through the roof. But it is manufactured in the sense that its trumpeted cause – the Ukraine crisis – was unnecessarily driven by NATO allies who had absolutely no business using Ukrainians as cannon fodder in a proxy war with Russia aimed at, among other things, bringing about regime change in Russia.

In the same way that Russia was obliged to back down from using Cuba as a nuclear missile staging post in 1962, NATO and the US had no business expanding NATO right up to Russia’s border by pushing for Ukraine to become a member of NATO. When Russia responded in similar bellicose fashion as the US did when the shoe was on the other foot in 1962, the EU churlishly cut off its nose to spite its face by boycotting Russian gas, on which it relies heavily. Rather than facilitate the peaceful negotiation that all sides knew would have rendered the current conflict a hypothetical debate in a history lesson, Germany’s politicians chose instead to invite their citizens to burn wood this winter, possibly including furniture, to stay warm.   

The Ukrainian supply chain inflation must be seen for what it is – decoy inflation. It’s a smokescreen to hide the elephantine inflation in the room caused by the biggest money-printing spree in modern history. It gives Western governments cover for the pain that ordinary people will be made to feel and the rationing that will likely follow. When the debt ponzi scheme collapses, the public will be sold a host of fairy tales, none of which will make any mention of the small matter of $303 trillion of central bank funny money, 3.5 times greater than global GDP. Putin, Ukraine and whatever other bogeyman can be mustered on the day will be the spoonful of sugar to make the CBDCs go down.

The job of the UK’s incoming premier in September will be to steer the coming financial Armageddon towards digital and financial enslavement. The well-meaning but naïve Martin Lewis, the money saving expert, breathlessly issued his warning that “we are sitting on a financial timebomb that’s due to explode in September”. Energy bills are expected to rise 65% in October on the back of a 54% rise that has already happened in April. Energy bills alone will consume a third of the income of those on the new state pension and more than a third of the income from the old state pension. The Government support programmes offered in May to offset the previous increases will do nothing to ease this impending assault in September. These rises are unaffordable for all but the most affluent.

I say Lewis is ‘naïve’ for two reasons. Firstly, because he believes that the incoming Prime Minister will be trying to ameliorate the impact of this explosion on poor people when in fact they will be operating in accordance with a key sociopathic principle governing the Great Reset – never let a good crisis go to waste. Under this maxim, the pain of ordinary people is not just a by-product of the policies; it is one of the most important ingredients in the Great Reset formula.

Secondly, Lewis makes no mention of the $303 trillion post-2008 ponzi scheme debt that is, as the nice people in the banking industry would say, about to be “deleveraged”. Inflation, interest rate hikes and therefore the whole cost of living crisis, are not simply unfortunate by-products of central bank policies – they are just some of the wrecking balls being used to demolish the old system.. People are simply the eggs to be broken in the making of their new omelette.  

Another important direct consequence of rate hikes is making home loans and mortgages unaffordable, which in turn may see a collapse of the housing market and repossessions. In 2021, banks were already making plans to become huge landlords: all part of the plan for us to own nothing and be happy. It’s diabolically ingenious. First make money from creating junk debt to fuel the housing market and then, when it all comes crashing down, seize the houses and rent them back. Credit card debt and consumer loans will take a similar beating as consumers default. 

The big picture

The looming financial crisis combined with the impact so far from lockdowns, virus mania and the broken economy could dovetail into this worst-case scenario for totalitarian enslavement, which includes some lucid points made recently by Mike Yeadon

  • A controlled demolition of the broken financial system is underway. It began with covid lockdowns whose objectives were to: expand debt even further to accelerate the collapse; accelerate reliance on digital technology and introduce more control and surveillance applications like health passes; decimate independent small and medium-sized businesses to increase the reliance of individuals on the state for a Universal Basic Income and to transfer business from independents to corporates; transfer taxpayer wealth to Big Tech, Big Pharma and other large corporate sectors that benefitted from lockdowns, and; condition the populace to accept maximum control by the state through the state-of-emergency governance paradigm.
  • Supply chain disruptions that began with lockdowns have been accelerated with the manufactured Ukraine/Russia crisis. The resultant crippling food and gas price increases will be used as strawmen to deflect attention from the deflation of the debt balloon created by bankers and central banks.
  • The supply chain disruptions are creating food and energy shortages that may spark huge unrest. This unrest will be met with further authoritarian control measures like martial law, or some variant of it, and rationing using QR code digital ID systems. This is already happening in Sri Lanka. The digital ID system is effectively already in place with the various health passes that have been issued around the world and, for rationing purposes, will be extended to those who have so far resisted coerced vaccination and the accompanying digital ID.
  • As people rise in anger, they may succeed in deposing paid puppets of their invisible paymasters who determine global policy. But if they are not ready to reject the control systems that will be put forward as ‘solutions’, the global cabal will welcome these uprisings as vehicles to advance their authoritarian agenda. Conflict is in fact the dialectic through which the changes they seek are accelerated. Nearly all revolutions are followed by counterrevolutions.
  • Once digital ID applications are widespread, they can be used as levers by the biomedical security state to make access to food and fuel conditional on taking up all the latest ‘vaccinations’. The obsession with compulsory ‘vaccination’ is emblematic of the 21st century totalitarianism. There must be no room for manoeuvre, and control over you is not total until resistance to bodily autonomy has been broken down, until the human body can be ‘hacked’ without your permission and without you understanding what is really going on once they’re under your skin.
  • As the debt bubble is rapidly deflated, there is likely to be some sort of banking crisis to signal another monetary system collapse. Recall the predicted bond market turmoil and its potential effect on banks’ capital. This time, the rescue mechanism served up will be CBDCs – a false pretext since the real problem is debt with no underlying assets with value to support it.
  • The endgame is mandatory digital ID combined with CBDCs. The two interact with each other like a socket and plug. The mandatory digital ID creates an individual record of everything you do and who you are. The CBDC platform will then punish or reward you based on the digital ID information fed to the CBDC platform about what you do and who you are.
  • Because your digital footprint will be linked to your finances, permission to transact on your CBDC account will be conditional on ‘good’ behaviour in all spheres of your digital ID.
  • Access to your funds will be limited if: you’ve been downloading ‘misinformation’ like this article; you’ve finished your quota of 90 grams of meat per month (why aren’t you enjoying the exotic tarantulas Sainsbury’s has imported from Brazil?); you’re not up to date with your covid, monkeypox, smallpox, HIV, and flatulence boosters. The possibilities for behavioural management are endless. You won’t need to be ‘nudged’ anymore. You simply won’t eat if you don’t get vaccinated or if you dare to entertain theories about climate change that contradict the orthodoxy issued by Big Brother.
  • That CBDC platform will be administered on a supranational centralised platform run by a tech giant like Amazon cloud services. In time it will come to serve as a complete and centralised record of your entire financial and digital footprint. You will be a node in the matrix. A data point in a data set. A thing in the internet of things. You will exist at the mercy of a ruthless machine governed by AI designed to recognise and crush dissent.
  • CBDC controls can also be geographically determined. Trying to have a good time 10 miles out of your carbon permitted radius? Sorry but combatting global warming will require the serfs to be on a tight leash.
  • The concept of an enforced carbon rationing and personal carbon trading system linked to your bank account has been around since at least 2006. Under a personal carbon trading system, it is now proposed that less well-off people who need money to, say, to pay their rent to the landlord bank that repossessed their home could sell carbon credits to wealthier people to use for travel abroad on holiday. That’s the global cabal’s idea of an ‘equitable’ world – poor people scraping up enough money for subsistence by selling ‘carbon emission rights’ to wealthy people, guaranteeing that the latter can jet off every two months for their Bali break without stressing about having to share aircraft cabin space with the hoi polloi.
  • Extra mileage will be gained from energy cost inflation by using it as an incentive to guilt people into eating bugs, wearing an extra jumper in winter instead of turning up the heating and gifting their cars to scrap metal dealers, all to appease the carbon emission gods.

It doesn’t have to be this way

This is a worst-case scenario, and things never pan out exactly the way we or our adversaries think they will. But this is what the global oligarchy wants. There have been more than enough statements from WEF mouthpieces and their army of dead-eyed puppets in government to confirm it. You wouldn’t have read this far if you didn’t think there was half a chance this scenario could be plausible. This means that, unlike many, you now have a choice ahead of you.

It’s vital to understand that they are determined to follow through on their planned agenda. This is because serious crimes have been committed, and to halt the agenda now would invite prosecution. It is unquestionably criminal for governments to shut down societies and destroy livelihoods, education and access to health without any scientific basis or evidence and with no cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate that a net benefit to society would accrue. Even before taking into account the trail of death and injury covid ‘vaccines’ have left in their wake, it is criminal in and of itself to coerce people into taking unwanted medical treatments. And yet it was done. Repeatedly. Across the entire planet. The only reason people are refusing to acknowledge these and other crimes is because their scale is so huge that it beggars belief.

For those who have planned these crimes or willingly complied with absurdly degenerate policies, there is no going back. For their own survival, they are operating in coup d’état mode: the only way to avoid prosecution for their crimes is to successfully normalise them and institute a sick society in which people come to accept their loss of autonomy and freedom as a normal state of affairs driven by pandemic hysteria, climate change hysteria, Russia/Ukraine hysteria, Cold War II hysteria or whatever nightmares are conjured to justify despotism under ceaseless states of emergency. While a coup d’état is in progress, it is illegal. If the coup plotters succeed, they become the de facto rulers and are recognised as the new government. So, they will not blink until they are defeated, and it is not politicians or billionaires like Musk who are going to defeat them either. It is ordinary people who need to say no.

If you take pride in being a self-respecting, autonomous and sovereign human being, then just say No to CBDCs and digital IDs that force you to sacrifice your freedom of thought and action. Freedom may well come with responsibility, but that responsibility does not include a circular and self-defeating right or responsibility to curtail the freedom of others. Say No to high-tech feudalism being planned by technocratic governments taking orders from the corporate oligarchy of billionaires. Say No with the confidence that any alternative we choose for ourselves will be infinitely better than that chosen for us by billionaires and their cronies like Sunak. Say No in the confidence that those who caused the unfolding economic chaos cannot possibly be trusted to offer a good faith solution to the mess they have created. Say No in the confidence that doing so will result in the bill for this mess being picked up by those who caused it – the banking, tech, pharma, energy and media oligarchy. 

They will tell you that if we don’t do as we’re told, the whole ship will sink. Don’t fall for it. We were successfully held to ransom in 2008 and they’ll try it on again. When they’ve paid the price for their arrogance and stupidity, they will have lost their power to rule over the world with fear, propaganda, lies and psychological manipulation. This is our time not to blink.

Winter and beyond – Part 1: Tone at the Top and New Virus Mania

By Rusere Shoniwa

You can find more of Rusere’s work at 

This two-part piece stitches together commentary on different facets of the totalitarian agenda to illustrate how a worst-case scenario might unfold this winter and beyond. Although in some respects this piece is UK specific, most of the cabal’s strategies apply globally, and any differences can be put down to cultural specificity and local politics. In part I, I’ll look at the implications of the puppet switch taking place in the UK; whether covid as a tool of oppression is now a spent force; and, how virus mania and the pandemic industry might evolve.

In part II, I’ll look at the economics underpinning everything. Economics is not the only reason for the current diabolical situation, but it’s the main one, and it will be the predominant tool of oppression, as indeed it always has been. I’ll then synthesise part I and the economics of part II to shine a light into the darkened recesses of the minds of those who have perpetrated the atrocities so far. We know the endgame: it’s total control. Unless we know how they plan to get there and how bumpy the ride will be, we might not be able to resist when events unfold.

The past two winters have been the seasons of the Covidian cult, although its power began to wane early this year. In the UK, a beleaguered PM responded to the Partygate scandal by dropping restrictions at the end of January, and the resistance movement started to feel as though the flame of covid hysteria was burning itself out. Even in those parts of the Western world where addiction to covid fear porn persists among a significant section of the population, totalitarian governments are being forced to come to terms with growing covid fatigue. 

Germany, Europe’s largest economy, seems to be seeking a compromise between sanity and the psychotic Covidian cult by legislating to police its citizens’ bodies through ritual mask humiliation and coerced vaccination for six months of the year. Germany’s new brand of fascism will replicate the scapegoating and public shaming that initiated its last descent down the slippery slope by making non-compliers identify themselves as unvaccinated in public. If German citizens have the temerity to decide that their bodies are their own and not the state’s by refusing vaccination, they will be publicly humiliated with enforced public mask wearing. As C J Hopkins points out, all Germans “will have to present their ‘vaccination papers’ (or their ‘recovery papers’) to enter a restaurant, or a bar, or go to the cinema or the theatre, and basically to do anything else in society”.

By the Spring of this year, the UK had officially dropped pretty much all of its totalitarian covid containment architecture; but that must not be misconstrued as deviation from the Great Reset agenda. The UK Covid cult is, as we’ll see, alive and well and there is no guarantee that we won’t witness a resurgence of UK Covidianism this winter.

Tone at the top

On Sunday 17th July, we learnt that Kemi Badenoch was the surprise non-World Economic Forum (WEF) front-runner in the Conservative Party membership polls. This might have been problematic for the puppeteers but, luckily for them, the Tories elect their leaders using the Iranian method of leadership selection – the MPs do the hard work by putting forward suitable candidates and the membership then rubber stamp the MPs’ choices by choosing between two very similar products with different packaging. On Tuesday 19th July, a little over 24 hours after the surprise polling results became known, order was restored with Badenoch’s expeditious removal from the MPs’ ballot. You’ve got to admire the efficiency with which that paroxysm of populism was so swiftly nipped in the bud. Badenoch’s flirtation with Tory leadership came and went so quickly, I got whiplash watching her enter and exit the stage.

Badenoch seemed to be the country’s best bet for a WEF rebuttal, but that doesn’t mean Schwab wouldn’t have made her an offer she couldn’t refuse. She’s a politician after all. But her speedy removal from the leadership race probably saved the WEF chairman a bothersome phone call to Tory HQ. Things were put back on track in the blink of an eye and, with the choice now between Truss and Sunak, a safe pair of globalist hands is guaranteed to continue steering the UK ship through Great Reset waters.

So, what kind of tools might the globalists pull out of their Torquemada’s  toolbox? The covid trojan horse, though not yet dead, has been flogged to within an inch of its life. One part of its deadly payload – ‘vaccines’ and vaccine passports – will require a new pandemic, a new fear, to deliver more of the control agenda. And boy, have they been pulling out all the stops to supply one (more of which later). 

Both candidates have made veiled promises to rule out a repeat of lockdowns, which suggests a pivot away from covid containment policies. But it’s important to understand that u-turns are no longer a political embarrassment; they’re part of the normal landscape. 

While lying has always been a core element of the politician’s job description, it used to be something they tried hard not to get caught at. Under covid, however, shameless, in-your-face lying with impunity has evolved into standard operating procedure. It’s a deliberate part of normalising the abnormal – to make confusion and 180-degree turns so normal that the public accepts broken promises as simply part of the landscape of turbulent times. The idea behind it is that politicians are no longer lying; they’re just adapting to fast-changing circumstances and the public needs to cut them some slack! Stability for any reasonable length of time is now a thing of the past. 

Under an onslaught of u-turns and lies, you are meant to not only stop trying to compare yesterday’s and today’s political statements, but also to no longer care what happened yesterday, just so long as you know what orders to follow today. The global cabal are trying to remake the world in 10 years; working in this cauldron of turmoil requires the public to accept that what was said yesterday will, 50% or more of the time, be ancient history today. 

The medical bureaucracy

If we are pivoting away from covid, the UK’s medical bureaucracy doesn’t appear to have got the memo yet. This is understandable since, under covid control, we witnessed one of the greatest ever bureaucratic power grabs by the medical establishment and, unsurprisingly, they’re not ready to call time on destructive lockdowns, forced masking and forced ‘vaccination’ simply because the public is tired of it.

They want it to continue, not for a little while longer but, in the words of one of their communist supremos, and without a hint of exaggeration, “forever”. The Editors of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the Health Service Journal (HSJ) recently told the Government that, in their humble opinion, there should be an immediate return to all the destructive restrictions which have flattened society and not “the curve”. Why? To save the “dying” NHS. Like all addicts, the NHS wants more of the bad medicine that is killing it – restrictions. Restrictions caused care backlogs to balloon to unmanageable levels. And yet what does the NHS want? More restrictions, which will only inflate a care backlog bubble already at bursting point.

Given the changing tone at the top, it’s not likely that the NHS will get its fix of renewed restrictions other than token gestures to keep it from throwing a complete fit. It looks as though extreme covid containment as a tool of oppression has exhausted its usefulness in the UK, and our dictators are pivoting to new strategies and tactics in their quest for total control under the Great Reset/Building Back Better/Sustainable Development/Green agenda.

There are similar signs in the US, where, on 11th August, the CDC dropped several covid containment pillars, indicating a channelling of its bureaucratic energy elsewhere. Among other changes, the requirement to quarantine has been dropped regardless of vaccination status, and social distancing is no longer recommended. However, the trend of waning covid hysteria is not uniform across the US, as blue states like California continue to pay homage to the covid death cult by abusing children in school with masks and insisting on masking in general indoor settings.

As for the pandemic industry, it seems its near-term goal is to wring covid dry with ridiculous variant-specific boosters and its new treatment pills like Paxlovid, for which the medical establishment has decided to cut out the middle-man (your doctor) so you can get it direct from your pharmacy. Needless to say, the search for a new virus nightmare is well underway, as we shall see.

Virus mania gets more manic – planting the HIV vaccine seeds

Joseph Mercola points out that as far back as January 2020, Indian researchers published a paper claiming segments of the SARS-COV-2 viral RNA appeared more closely related to HIV than other coronaviruses. The researchers also claimed that SARS-CoV-2 responded to HIV medications. The researchers came under pressure to retract the paper but not before Luc Montagnier, the Nobel prize winning discoverer of HIV, agreed with their assessment.

Also recall that in December 2020, an Australian vaccine was abandoned after trial participants returned false HIV positive results. The linked article is a classic MSM covid ‘science’ report. The most hilarious paragraph in the report is this one:

“But it also generated HIV antibodies in some recipients – which meant it showed false positives for HIV. Further testing proved the HIV wasn’t there.”

The first sentence says in plain English that “generat[ing] HIV antibodies…meant it showed false positives for HIV”. Then you read an explainer on HIV tests and false positives, and it starts off by explaining the basis of the HIV test:

“HIV tests are based on the detection of antibodies to HIV.”

After you’re done scratching your head over the BBC statement, you realise it looks like an out-and-out lie, and not a particularly clever one at that. The explainer (not the BBC article) on false positives gets equally hilarious, by the way, as it states:

“The main cause of false positive results is that the test has detected antibodies, but they are not antibodies to HIV – they are antibodies to another substance or infection. Tests are not meant to react to other types of antibodies, but it sometimes happens.” [emphasis added]

And there is no further explanation on why “it sometimes happens”. Translation: the HIV test, designed to test for HIV antibodies, sometimes detects other unrelated antibodies. Why? Because, in virology, shit happens.

Now, I’ve deliberately side-tracked into this false positive saga partly because it relates to the main point about the possible link between covid vaccines and HIV, partly for the sheer entertainment value of illustrating the risible quality of MSM science reporting, but also to make the point that, to put it mildly, all is not what it seems in virology. But I recommend reading the explainer I’ve linked, if only the bits I’ve highlighted plus the bit under the heading “Reactive results and follow-up testing”. Then ask yourself how much crazier an HIV test-driven pandemic would look than even the raging insanity of covid.

Let’s return to the tree-trunk of this argument. 

Wind the clock forward to 2022, when sceptical scientists and doctors are recognising that the covid jab, which instructs the body to make part of the viral RNA closely related to HIV, is causing AIDS-like immunodepression – VAIDS (vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). Because of its immune suppressive action, the covid jab may well be increasing susceptibility to AIDS.  In July, Chinese officials granted conditional approval for Azvudine, an HIV drug, to be used as a covid treatment.

Note that in December 2021, both the Biden administration and the UK Health Security Agency announced their commitment to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic by 2030. Dutifully on cue, the hyenas in the mainstream media launched an AIDS awareness campaign in February 2022.

In 2022, the NHS stated that it will “expand opt-out testing in emergency departments in the highest prevalence local authority areas”. In other words, HIV blood screening will be a default setting in emergency care unless you explicitly opt-out. The UK’s leading HIV charity is fully on board, stating: “HIV testing must become mainstream in the NHS.” Will all people be properly informed of the opt-out? The medical bureaucracy was pretty blasé about ditching informed consent for covid vaccination so I can’t see them suddenly rediscovering ethics and principles on opt-out testing. 

So, we may be witnessing the beginnings of another test-propelled casedemic being deployed with HIV/AIDS and, with a highly vaxxed population carrying a protein produced in their blood with remarkable similarities to HIV, it might not be that long before we have an HIV/AIDS ‘pandemic’ that, fortuitously for Big Pharma, coincides with its AIDS vaccine development.

AIDS vaccine research has drawn a blank for over 30 years, but human trials for an mRNA HIV vaccine are now underway. With the Overton window on length of time and quality of clinical trials for vaccines completely smashed by the Wild West covid vaccine show, it would seem foolish to bet against a ‘safe and effective’ AIDS vaccine hitting the market in the next 6 to 18 months.  

So, that’s HIV and its strange link to covid. 

Virus mania gets more manic – monkeypox and the smallpox vaccines

By May 2022, the focus had switched to the first ever global monkeypox outbreak following another one of those prophetic biosecurity simulations held last year that amazingly predicted the exact week in which a monkeypox ‘pandemic’ would take off. Continuing with the never-ending series of strange coincidences, this particular outbreak of monkeypox is the first in which gay and bisexual men are at highest risk of infection. This has prompted a vaccination drive directed at this cohort.

Despite the best efforts of the pandemic industry to get people to lose their minds over monkeypox, it appears there’s only so much plague-iarism the public can take in a given time span. The population’s capacity for virus hysteria, though vast, has been entirely spent on covid for now, leaving a deficit of mass psychotic energy for new-fangled poxes. So, we’ve been given another summer off. The summer breaks are integral to the ebb and flow of the control game. To respond constructively to pain, you must have some respite from it. It will return.

The failure of monkeypox to capture the public’s imagination has caused undisguised consternation for the vaccine pushers. In the manner of a school master reprimanding his prefects, the Pfizer member of the pharma cartel has registered its disappointment with public health authorities’ failure to get the monkeypox ‘pandemic’ off the ground. Illustrating the revolving door corruption that is integral to the incestuous relationship between the pharma cartel and its ‘regulators’, this frustration was expressed by Scott Gottlieb, a former FDA commissioner and now Pfizer board member.

It is not a lack of effort that explains the failure of the pharma cartel’s regulatory enforcers to get monkeypox to deliver the next vault of vax cash. The head goon at the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, demonstrated why he was the WEF’s and Bill Gate’s favourite pick for the job by unilaterally overruling a WHO advisory panel to declare monkeypox a “public health emergency of international concern”. The panel had voted against this by a majority of nine to six. Displaying a creative interpretation of elementary school mathematics, Ghebreyesus called this a tie and claimed that, in overruling of the panel, he was acting as a “tie-breaker”. I wrote about ever changing definitions as a feature of the pandemic industry’s smoke and mirrors goalpost shifting. To this, they have now added the Orwellian bending of simple mathematics. In the darkened corners of Ghebreyesus’ mind, 2 + 2 can indeed sometimes equal 5. 

Some perspective on monkeypox – as of 11th August, there are 26,000 recorded cases worldwide (0.0003 percent of the global population) and a total of 10 deaths, all occurring in Africa, where monkeypox is endemic. Ghebreyesus’ dictatorial overruling of the WHO’s monkeypox advisory panel is proof, if proof were needed, of how the WHO intends to enforce the pandemic industry’s will over the entire planet should it succeed in getting the nations of the world to relinquish their sovereignty to full-blown medical dictatorship under its proposed Pandemic Treaty.

At any rate, virus mania would not be complete without vaccine hysteria and two vaccines have been lined up for use against monkeypox: Jynneos, which is licensed for use against monkeypox, and ACAM2000, which is approved for use against smallpox but has also been made available for use against monkeypox. Both are actually smallpox vaccines developed some 20 years ago and have not been tested in the context of this monkeypox outbreak so there is no clinical data on how they would be expected to fare against the monkeypox currently circulating. And yet oddly they were licenced for use against monkeypox in 2019, two years before this monkeypox outbreak.

Interestingly, HIV-positive subjects who participated in clinical trials for Jynneos actually saw a rise in HIV virus counts. That’s an interesting safety signal. In the case of ACAM2000, for up to 21 days after vaccination, vaccinees are at risk of being infectious carriers of the vaccinia virus, one of the poxvirus family, because this vaccine is administered as live vaccinia virus, which gives rise to an infection at the vaccination site. This can result in spread of the infection to other parts of the vaccinee’s body through touch. It can also result in spread of infection to other people through contact with the infected vaccinee. If you’re wondering at this point whether it makes sense to be vaccinated with ACAM2000, you are not alone.

But wait: there’s more. The ACAM2000 vaccine causes myopericarditis at the rate of 1 per 175 people, which is a 10-12 times greater rate than the 1 in 2000 rate for myocarditis caused by covid vaccines in young men. That’s a stunning claim, so I dipped into the CDC paper to confirm this statistic and, sure enough, there it is: “myopericarditis also occurs with ACAM2000 (estimated rate of 5.7 per 1,000 primary vaccinees based on clinical trial data), but the underlying mechanism is unknown.”

Virus mayhem and the vaccine smorgasbord … and don’t forget polio 

Let’s see if we can synthesise this witch’s brew of viruses and vaccines disguised as science. 

There is an evidence trail suggesting that SARS-COV-2 viral RNA might be more closely related to HIV than other coronaviruses. This might explain why covid jabs are causing some recipients to experience AIDS-like immunodepression or VAIDS (vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). Whatever you do, don’t you dare put on your conspiracy theorist thinking caps and try to link any of that to the simultaneous announcement of policies in the US and the UK at the end of December 2021 to eradicate HIV by 2030. And for heaven’s sake, let’s not be cynical by insisting that the approval of mRNA HIV vaccines currently in clinical trials is a done deal just because covid and monkeypox vaccines were rubberstamped with minimum fuss about due scientific process. I’m sure it’ll be different with HIV vaccines. 

As for monkeypox, thank heavens that can be knocked on the head with smallpox vaccines. Okay, so the smallpox vaccines haven’t been clinically tested for efficacy in this monkeypox outbreak, but the rules of the science and vaccine game have changed. You can’t keep up with viruses if you’re going to insist on testing the vaccines properly against them. You’ve just got to go with the flow and see what works. 

Funny how they’re allowed to go with the flow on vaccines, but ivermectin, which was robustly proven in the field by doctors and in clinical trials, is a no-no.

Sorry, have I mentioned polio yet? No? Well, take a look at this article, which says in one sentence “there have been no cases of polio detected directly in the U.K.” [emphasis added] but, in the very next sentence, it claims there is an “outbreak”. That’s the word it uses. Outbreak. The article claims that “scientists have discovered the outbreak through an indirect route” – sewage. [emphasis added]. One lesson you might draw from this is that there are no lows the pandemic industry will not stoop to, including sewage, to find what it’s looking for.

It also makes you wonder about the meaning of the word “outbreak”. In a previous piece, I looked at how fluidity in the glossary of pandemic terms has become a critical feature of the pandemic industry, giving it generous latitude to interpret events and facts in expedient, if not irrational, ways. Can you have an outbreak with no cases reported? If polio is being, ahem, deposited into the sewage but no one is visiting the doctor with polio symptoms, then do you have a polio outbreak? Sounds like the polio version of: “if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it falling, did it make a sound?” Any takers for asymptomatic polio? The precedent for humans being disease vectors without being sick was set two years ago so maybe people aren’t going to question the outbreak-of-polio-in-the-sewage theory. But I think we should question it. Covid has taught me two lessons about official government narratives and mainstream reporting: believe nothing and question everything.

At any rate, you are now all walking, talking polio threats and the key takeaway at the end of the polio-sewage article is the advice of the expert virologist: “If you’re not up to date on your polio vaccine, now’s the time to go out and get up to date”. Why am I not surprised to see that nudge?

Another question you may be asking about the polio “outbreak” is, why on earth are we even talking about it when the last confirmed case in the UK was in 1984? Fear not – the polio ‘outbreak’ article explains the mysterious return of polio with no cases. The blame – if indeed it is possible to assign blame for something you’re not quite sure has really happened – is being placed squarely at the feet of the covid ‘pandemic’ because it has “disrupted childhood vaccination programs around the world”. Was the UK programme disrupted? I suppose if covid could stop the minds of 90% of the population from working, then it probably had the power to stop childhood vaccinations. At any rate, this seems like a strong argument for not declaring pandemics in the first place since they only lead to knock-on pandemics.

Finally, if I were one of those dreadful depopulation ‘conspiracy theorists’, I’d be wondering how the men in white coats might seek to ramp up the toxicity of already toxic vaccines. Could they just dish them out all at once in a vaccine smorgasbord, with each reacting with the other in exponentially harmful ways? In August in the UK, there was a period of two weeks in which a desperate push for polio, monkeypox and covid booster vaccines was all crammed into the same radio news broadcast. They didn’t mention the HIV vaccine, soon to be added to the list. I will not be at all surprised if a flatulence vaccine comes to market in 2030 to celebrate Zero Emissions Day.

In part II, I’ll discuss the pivot to financial Armageddon and how virus and vaccine mania might dovetail with the financial chains that are being wrought for us.

You can find more of Rusere’s work at