In retreat over pandemic treaty, WHO claims conspiracy theories blocking progress


World health and political leaders hellbent on establishing an international treaty giving them the authority to dictate a global response to future pandemics are on the back foot after facing massive pushback.

A two-day window for public comment in April generated more than 36,000 written submissions, most questioning the very need for such an instrument rather than offering input on its eventual contents.

The World Health Alliance founded by Tess Lawrie mounted a #stopthetreaty campaign that reached some 420 million people, and the WHO website was overwhelmed with public input, reportedly crashing on the second day.

Then in May the annual World Health Assembly — the WHO’s governing forum — met to vote on US-proposed changes to the International Health Regulations, the existing rules empowering the WHO to act as a global disease surveillance system.

The exercise was doomed to failure because of the opposition notably of all 47 African member states as well as Brazil, Russia, India, China and others. Brazil even said it would sooner leave the WHO than be subjected to the proposed changes.

Speaking for the AFRO bloc, the delegate from Botswana said: ‘The process must be transparent, inclusive, credible and consensual, and with full respect for the sovereignty of member states … the African region shares the view that the process should not be fast-tracked.’

A set of watered-down ‘replacement amendments’ were adopted under dubious conditions in an apparent face-saving move.

Perhaps seeing the handwriting on the wall, the WHO decided to postpone a second round of public comment on the planned pandemic treaty that had been set for June 16-17.

Announcing the postponement on the website of its Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, the WHO Secretariat said it wanted to ‘ensure that the input to be gathered in that second round supports the continued work of the INB’. To be clear, it wants to be sure that the world is totally on board with the plan before it seeks further public comment.

Standing in the way, according to WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, is ‘a small minority of groups making misleading statements and purposefully distorting fact.’

In a tweet on May 17, he added: ‘I want to be crystal clear. WHO’s agenda is public, open and transparent. WHO stands strongly for individual rights.’

‘Barrage of disinformation’

The mainstream media got right behind Tedros with handwringing over ‘disinformation’ hindering progress towards the treaty.

‘The World Health Organization is battling a barrage of disinformation alleging it is scheming to take over health policy in sovereign nations, as it tries to chart a way forward towards averting future pandemics,’ wrote the French news agency AFP.

Washington Post foreign affairs reporter Adam Taylor described a ‘visceral, passionate online backlash that falsely accuses the World Health Organization of conspiring to take power from national governments.’

Reuters ran a fact check dismissing ‘claims’ that an eventual treaty would empower the WHO to dictate a global response to a future pandemic, overriding individual states’ sovereignty.

The British news agency quoted WHO spokeswoman Sara Davies as saying: ‘As with all international instruments, any accord, if and when agreed, would be determined by governments themselves, who would take any action while considering their own national laws and regulations.’

Well, is it a treaty or something else? Tedros, in his May 17 tweet, used the hashtag #PandemicAccord as if to say don’t worry, it’s not really a treaty, even if its formal name is International Treaty on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response and it requires ratification by national parliaments. It would be legally binding, mandating the compliance of sovereign nations.

As a result, the unelected WHO hierarchy would enjoy unprecedented power over global biosecurity, such as the power to implement digital identities and vaccine passports, travel restrictions and even mandatory vaccinations — in what independent journalist James Corbett describes as ‘the hard-wiring of a global biosecurity state’.

If implemented as planned in 2024, the treaty would swing into action once the WHO proclaims a pandemic, practically at will, under a broadened definition.


And who better than Bill Gates to shepherd the operation? The top WHO funder says he is setting up a pandemic response team complete with a catchy name, GERM (Global Epidemic Response and Mobilization), right in the spirit of the fear-mongering that has informed the entire Covid saga.

In a programme that would cost $1 billion per year, some 3,000 experts would fan out across the world to monitor for disease outbreaks.

‘The work would be coordinated by the WHO, the only group that can give it global credibility, and it needs to be accountable to the public,’ Gates said on his blog GatesNotes.

That credibility is increasingly in tatters, though. Even Gates has had to admit that the vaccines he championed have fallen far short of the mark.

At the recent World Economic Forum, he said: ‘They don’t have much in the way of duration, and they’re not good at infection blocking.’

He has also said vaccine passports are pointless because the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission.

Should the Government compensate the vaccine injured and families of the deceased?

By Rusere Shoniwa

You can find more of Rusere’s work at

No. To qualify – not the Government. But obviously someone should. In this piece I’ll set out why the Government should not be the party to pay compensation; why the Government won’t, in any case, at least not in any meaningful way, and; who should pay. The answer to this last question is a no-brainer, but the real issue is whether and how the legal hurdles can be surmounted.

It’s distressing to read first person accounts of how lives have been smashed by what are indisputably the most unsafe government-sponsored medications in modern history – the Covid injections. Under an avalanche of media, NHS and ministerial pressure, most people caved in and did as they were told. For some, the price has been horrific. Those who have paid the ultimate price may number in the tens of thousands. A scientist leading a study in Germany says the actual number of serious adverse effects there is likely to be 40 times higher than the officially recorded number. Is our medical establishment any more diligent than the German one?

Reading the above-linked first-person account triggers both sadness and rage at the callous treatment meted out to those who have suffered. This account conveys how some of these people succumbed to the pressure to get jabbed. There is no doubt that the pressure was immense, but that pressure was expedited by a trusting naivety that it was applied in good faith. One expression that sticks out for me from that piece was they “took [their] jab as told to do so”. Without any loss of sympathy for the victims, it prompted me to ask how we can all claim to live in democracies premised on us telling our governments what to do and that public servants…well… serve us, and yet many did as they were told, instead of making up their own minds?

The answer to that is as complex as the whole Covid deception itself. You can trace the origins of the Covid deception back to global pandemic simulation wargames held over many years, which were critical in priming public health systems across the world to fall like dominoes and propagate Covid hysteria. Mattias Desmet’s mass formation theory, the Government’s disgraceful weaponization of fear and military grade psyops to induce widespread compliance, the craven corporate mass media machine – all fed into a perfect storm that reduced entire populations across the Western world to a quivering mass of obedient jelly. But there is something else in this mix that aided and abetted the Government’s tyrannical mass lockdown, mass masking and mass coerced vaccination; something that will be reinforced by suing the wrong party for compensation.

The sham bargain of health and emotional harm statism

That something else is a creeping statism which, over the last 40 years, has played a role in the insidious degradation of personal responsibility. The unholy bargain at the core of statism is that you surrender to the state your responsibility for managing certain risks. The state reciprocates, not by rescuing you from the peril of these risks but by pledging to rescue you from them, knowing that it can’t. It’s a sham bargain. Government ministers know that, but most voters don’t. I’m going to restrict the discussion to two forms of statism most relevant to this piece because adopting a sweeping view of statism (positive or negative) doesn’t help in analysing specific problems. These two forms of statism are health statism and a closely related offshoot, which I will call ‘emotional harm’ statism.

The struggle for human rights, individual liberty and dignity has brought us, or so we thought, to the position where we believe that health is a private matter between the individual and their doctor. If health matters are not between an individual and their doctor, why do we constantly fight for the right to protect the privacy of our individual health records? And what was the point of hanging Nazi doctors in 1946 if not to make a very clear statement about the individual’s right to voluntary informed consent? Yes, I know – under the planned biosecurity state, nothing will be private or voluntary, but that aspiration is a criminal one so let’s put it aside for now when discussing self-evident principles of individual rights and human dignity.

Under the health statist contract, we collectively begged the Government to make good on an impossible promise – to rescue us from the peril of a virus. This deception was fostered on the statist premise that if a virus is sweeping the land, it’s the state’s job to halt it. Which brings us to the apparent contradiction between a National Health Service and the position that personal health is a private matter to be managed by the individual as they see fit. But there is no contradiction. 

My health is none of the state’s business. The existence of a National Health Service touted as being “free at the point of delivery” does not change that: not least for reasons of individual rights and dignity but also crucially because, in the final analysis, it is not “free”. It is paid for by the individual and collective taxpayer. The Government is not an entity separate from us. It cannot open and abuse your private health ledger on the grounds that it pays for your health. It is our government and any service it provides is paid for by us. So, the provision of a “national” health service does not give the Government the right to manage my health risks, and I have certainly not abdicated that responsibility. This all seems like stating the obvious, but if over the last two years the entire nation handed over its responsibility for staying healthy, including the responsibility to decide for itself whether or not to get jabbed, then maybe the obvious needs stating.

Common sense and proper science, as opposed to The Science™, told us that you cannot stop a respiratory virus from circulating, but health statism is the compound that alchemised the impossible into the possible. Health statism was a key ingredient in the heady mix of reasons why people did as they were told on everything from lockdowns to masking to coerced jabs, as well as being open to the prospect of flashing a revolting ‘vaccine passport’ when Government ministers were doing their best to introduce them.

All these things had a government “good health” stamp on them and all of them have been inimical to the collective health of the nation. We should not be surprised by this perversion. A government can’t roll out tailor-made health solutions to 65 million people, even when there is good faith in the effort, and there was no good faith in Covid policies.

65 million potential abdicators of personal health responsibility imploring the Government to manage their health risks is an unhealthy contract doomed to fail. If you need proof that health is a private matter between you and your doctor, you will find it in the incontrovertible fact that there is no one-size-fits-all health solution. Sadly, if you ask the Government to insure your health risk, don’t be surprised if everyone gets locked down, everyone gets told to wear a mask and everyone gets told to take a jab.

In stressing the unfeasibility of one-size-fits-all health solutions, it would be remiss not to mention the WHO’s efforts to forcibly impose pandemic response measures on the entire world. This is the madness of one-size-fits-all on steroids. It also converts the global elitist aspiration of a One World Government from a ‘conspiracy theory’ to reality. The WHO is a demonstrably and grossly incompetent international organisation, captured by Big Pharma with the Gates Foundation as its second largest donor, fully on board with the pandemic industry’s goal of endless pandemics, followed by an endless erosion of liberty, followed by endlessly pumping humanity with ‘vaccines’. And it wants the right to impose its universal ‘health’ solution on 193 countries and 7.5 billion people. Happy with that?

The Government had a pandemic preparedness plan, and it didn’t need the WHO to rubber stamp it. That original plan, hastily abandoned, wisely embraced the proper science that acknowledged you can’t stop the spread of a respiratory virus. In a nutshell, the plan was to keep calm and carry on. Not to lock down or impose any of the other humiliations that we ended up enduring. The abandonment of a perfectly good plan for no good reason is one of many things reinforcing my belief that it was always the intention of the Government to lock down and mass vaccinate – this scenario had been carefully rehearsed – but that this was made a lot easier by the clamour from statists on all sides to do far more than simply keep calm and carry on.

As far as this unhealthy health statism goes, it is no accident that this clamour was far louder from the faux left than the right. The corporate right-wing Labour left miscalculated that it could embarrass the Conservatives into engaging the state on a massive scale to deal with a health scare, when all along Johnson’s cabal had decided on the health statist course of action and was grateful to have Labour as its lapdogs to cheer it on.

The outcomes of health statism are far worse than just bad health. A public clamouring for the Government to do more was like a lamb expecting a wolf to look after it. Willingly accepting the power granted to it, the Covid state zeroed in on the thing that it does exceptionally well – it went for second and third helpings of power by enacting legislation to rule under the state-of-emergency paradigm when, in reality, no state of emergency existed.

A government cannot save me from the plague and nor would I ever invite it to. The price of freedom is personal responsibility. The cost of asking the Government to underwrite total safety is Government tyranny. That’s why the tragedy of Covid ‘vaccine’ injuries should not be used to reinforce a responsibility that no state should ever have been granted in the first place – the responsibility to manage individuals’ health risk.

At any rate, we have come so far down the road of health statism that the government is confident that it has been given a licence to pretend to manage not just our physical health risks but our emotional health risks as well. This is emotional harm statism, evidenced by the fact that many people take as given the supremely infantilising proposition that the state has a duty to protect adults of ‘ordinary sensibilities’ from psychological harm caused by exposure to the written online word. The public signals that it needs protection from ‘online harms’ and the state, once again, exploits this by using it as a pretext to grab power.

The online ‘protection’ proposition now seeks legal endorsement in the free-speech-crushing Orwellian Online Safety Bill, a fig leaf for legalised censorship, which is of course a key pillar of the New World Order power grab. The idea that the Government, of all institutions, can or should protect adults from written content is preposterous. The failure to comprehend that the Government would use this power chiefly for narrative management of its own policies and objectives stems from a naivety which I can only attribute to Western populations having had it too good for too long. But this is where we are. Infantilising statism is now a cancer that cuts across the political divide.

Working hand in glove with the health statism at the heart of the Covid deception, emotional harm statism has exploited another societal cancer – wokery. To be sure, wokery is a complex phenomenon. It is many things, but one of the qualities it encapsulates is the desire to be agreeable even if it means being stupid and often paradoxically downright mean. Wear a mask to protect others (when masks don’t protect the wearer), don’t kill granny, and so on.

I want to stress that I’m not arguing that the Government, under the NHS umbrella, should not provide health services: the issue is that, under health and emotional harm statism, it is not providing the health service that we’ve paid for. Instead, it’s stepping into people’s private lives on the pretext that it will prevent bad things from happening to them. It is saying in loud totalitarian overtones, “I will stop the virus reaching you even if I must lock you up and force vaccinate you. I will protect you from unpleasant words even if I must censor your online content.” The only response from any self-respecting adult to HMG’s proposition should be: “Turn around and take a running jump.”

The government won’t pay out so let’s go after the Godfather

Returning to the question of compensation, I don’t deny there is a very strong case for holding the Government to account through a proper compensation scheme given that it used the full weight of its power to coerce people into vaccination. But there is another party to this crime: Big Pharma. If we go after the hand that ultimately pulls the strings, we stand a chance of killing two birds with one stone. This might initiate a move away from health statism that poisons personal responsibility. And we would be targeting the Godfather of vaccine failure before going on to deal with its government puppet enforcers. We should marvel at how Big Pharma has, so far, succeeded in heaping insult on injury by getting its government puppets to open the taxpayer money taps for the ‘vaccines’ and then getting us to pay, albeit in token fashion, for the injury caused by them.

Big Pharma knew the dangerous nature of the experiment it was conducting, which is why it got governments everywhere to underwrite the risk. To make matters worse, most governments have miserly and meaningless vaccine compensation schemes. These pathetic compensation schemes are the direct consequence of successful Big Pharma lobbying to shift liability onto the Government, which in turn has abdicated its role to compensate properly by enacting inadequate legislation. The truth is that both parties think they are being quite clever in letting the liability for damage fall between two stools, pun intended.

A big part of the reason why the Government simply won’t do the right thing by compensating people fairly and squarely is because an even-handed compensation scheme might attract the sort of publicity that could severely dent the New World Order agenda of its corporate masters. Part of that agenda involves coercing humanity into a never-ending ‘vaccine’ regimen that will have your doctor examining the results of your blood tests and being pleasantly surprised that some blood has been detected in your polyethylene glycol. So, the ‘vaccine’ juggernaut is not to be impeded by minor considerations of safety. Government pay-outs of huge damage claims for Covid injections might alert the public to the possibility that the whole ‘vaccine’ industry has less stringent quality control than a Columbian cocaine lab – somewhat of a narrative management problem for the Great Reset project.

Evidence of the Government’s determination to evade responsibility for vaccine injury is provided by the UK Column’s harrowing account of a vaccine injured claimant’s attempt to get compensation. For starters, the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme’s (VDPS) capped amount of £120,000 for each claim is appallingly scant redress for the devastating injuries that too many people have suffered. Inordinate delays in replying to claimants seems to be standard operating procedure for the VDPS and, when the automatons deign to respond to the victim’s case letters, they do so not with care and compassion, but with a callousness and indifference to rival Kafka’s most absurd visions of bureaucratic despotism.

Some hard facts about VDPS performance:

  • 2,347 claims were submitted to the VDPS in the 21 years up to June 2021. The scheme paid out on just 41 of those claims. That’s a payment rate of 1.75%.
  • Since the roll-out of Covid ‘vaccines’ up to 18 February 2022 (roughly a year), 920 claims have been made, which is a 720% increase on the previous annual average. Based on the historical payment rate of 1.75%, we can expect just 16 of those 920 claims to be paid. 

Be in no doubt about the Government’s strategy on Covid vaccine damage – erect an impenetrable stone wall guaranteed to condemn already traumatised victims to deeper despair. Applying the historical payment rate to the 920 Covid vaccine claims received thus far would see a maximum pay-out of £1.9m. That’s the price the Government would place on damaged lives, many of whom would arguably not have been damaged had it not been for the industrial scale coercion and propaganda to which the Government subjected them in its effort to ensure that mass vaccination was the only way out of its manufactured ‘health crisis’. Compare that to the £37 billion it splurged on consultants for the Test and Trace surveillance project, to track and trace you like animals, and which a parliamentary committee concluded made no “measurable difference to the progress of the pandemic.” It has of course made a measurable difference to the pockets of the corporate masters the Government serves.

Proving contract fraud – do we still have rule of law?

Evidence of fraud in the clinical trials, if you can even call them that, is mounting as investigative reporters and scientists who care about real science pore over the releases of the Pfizer trial data. Surely what we need now is a serious legal project in the UK to prove contract fraud, thus paving the way for legal action which would in effect nullify the indemnities granted to Big Pharma companies like Pfizer.

Citing the case of a vaccine injured Argentinian lawyer whose trial medical records appear to have been doctored to obfuscate the true cause of his injury, The Daily Sceptic claims:

“The evidence of malpractice and possible fraud in the Pfizer Covid vaccine trials is certainly stacking up now. But very few people are aware of it as it is mostly only being reported in alternative media.”

Ventavia is a large Texan CRO (contract research organisation) contracted by Pfizer to conduct Covid-19 vaccine clinical trials. In January 2021, Brook Jackson, a whistleblower who worked briefly in 2020 for Ventavia, filed a lawsuit against Pfizer alleging that it made false and fraudulent claims. The case was placed under seal, preventing the evidence from entering the public domain at the very time that it should have – when the ‘vaccines’ were rolled out. A sinister move to say the least. In February 2022, the case was unsealed but Pfizer has filed a motion for dismissal on a US contract technicality – namely that the contract was executed by the Department of Defence and not the civilian Department of Health.

And of course, your head would be firmly screwed on if you asked some basic questions like: Why would a pharmaceutical company contract with the government’s military instead of the civilian health department for the domestic supply of drugs for the civilian population? Was this a cynical ruse to shield the US Government from any accountability?

We cannot overestimate what is at stake here. If Pfizer succeeds in dismissing the case, then American citizens, and indeed everyone in the West, will have to accept that the ‘rule of law’ is a fig leaf for dictatorships ruling for the benefit of powerful corporations. But if Pfizer fails, it would signal a turning in the tide of global corporate totalitarianism.

You can find more of Rusere’s work at

Media myth-making: time to take a long hard look in the mirror

If the media doesn’t check itself, it’s likely to censor itself out of existence.


I’ve been reflecting on the Parliament protest and the media coverage of it, and how strained the relationship between reporters and editors and that portion of society that have lost faith in the current Government – the whole system, really – has become.

I listened to an episode of The Fold, a Spinoff podcast, in which Dominion Post editor Anna Fifield was interviewed about her personal campaign to reform the Official Information Act, and to address the breakdown in communication between journalists and Government PR staff. She also spoke for some time about the Dominion Post’s coverage of the anti-mandate protest that occupied Parliament for three weeks, and how ‘dangerous’ it was for reporters to cover.

While I’m deeply cynical about the last point, one of the few areas of reporting I still think the press are doing a good job on is calling out the Government’s bloated public relations machinery.

Andrea Vance wrote this scathing piece about it in June last year: The Government promised to be open and transparent, but it is an artfully-crafted mirage.

She describes how the number of communications specialists for Ministers and Ministries has risen exponentially since Labour came to power in 2017 – Ardern has four press secretaries for example, while the Ministry of Transport’s comms team has grown to 72 staff, up from 26 in five years.

“In my 20-year-plus time as a journalist, this Government is one of the most thin-skinned and secretive I have experienced.”

And it’s not just the numbers, it’s the tactics, she says. Journalists can’t just pick up the phone and get a simple answer to a simple question anymore. Much of the communication is funneled through email, and responses come back without a name for attribution. Vague responses which manage to both use lots of words and at the same time say nothing, are the norm. Transparency is not a priority.

A campaign called ‘Redacted: how many state secrets are being hidden from you?” looks to be putting pressure on the Government for Official Information Act (OIA) reform. Of course, the OIA is one of the most important tools in a reporter’s tool box. Also for the public. It lays out this simple fact – that if you ask the government for information, it has to give it to you.

It’s curious then, that being fully aware of how deeply the Ardern government’s image is massaged – a major production – and of the sheer speed and scale of its law-making, that our media are not more suspicious of its motives. There are plenty of dubious things the Government is doing in plain site that the public is unaware of because they are not reported, at least not in the way they should be.

The vast majority of legislation and decision making that has been introduced by this government completely up-ends the social contract, re-engineering the rules of society and the power balance further and further away from serving citizens and closer and closer to a highly surveilled, centralised, and in some cases even globalised centre of gravity. Consider the proposed WHO Treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations. According to Guy Hatchard, the country is in the midst of a full blown constitutional crisis, a crisis of truth. It’s hard to disagree.

“It is an honor to welcome the Honourable Nanaia Mahuta to WHO and to express my deep gratitude to New Zealand for its leadership in public health and invaluable support to WHO, including the pandemic treaty and increase in assessed contributions,” said Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General on 28 February.

They are hardly ever preceded by a public conversation, and though they go through the motions of consultation, these merely pay lip service to democratic process. However strongly civil society objects to various new pieces of legislation vis-à-vis submissions, the Government marches on regardless, fully set on implementing its agenda.

Ardern’s public image, around which a cult of personality has grown up, is used to placate and distract a clueless public from looking into the dark corners of Government and demanding to know what the hell is going on.

The irony is the press are as in love with her and her policies as her supporters, despite their protestations about a lack of government transparency.

The press and the public

In the Spinoff interview, Fifield and her interviewer discuss the difficulties in covering the protest, due to the levels of hostility directed at news reporters. Reporters were sent in pairs for ‘safety’.

But there is a strange distance in the way protesters are spoken about in the conversation – as if they were creatures from the swamp, their humanity stripped away. The core reasons for the protest go unaddressed.

Just as legacy media were – and are – cheerleaders for the Covid response, the vaccine rollout, and the crackdown on free speech and the bogus danger of ‘mis- and disinformation’, they also led the charge against the backlash from civil society, having planted their feet firmly on the side of the Government on all the issues related to its abuse of emergency powers.

Credit: Bob Moran

They avidly demonised the unvaccinated and showed not an ounce of compassion for the professionals losing their jobs due to mandates, embraced the discriminatory measures used to ‘fight Covid’ and ‘save lives’ – abandoning any pretence of balance, inclusion and kindness. They refused to ask basic journalistic questions of the Government about its extreme actions, constitutional abuses or their statistical shenanigans. They ran hit piece after hit piece on dissenting voices, while the press gallery played a sycophantic game with the Prime Minister and Director General of Health at the daily propaganda stand-ups.

They ignored the deep social fractures taking place – the public supported restrictions, and those against them were just a tiny, unimportant minority who could safely be ignored; they did not tell the stories of people who were unceremoniously kicked out of their own lives, the impact of mandates on mental health, family life and finances; they ignored and denied vaccine injury despite it being everywhere you look, and when they finally did acknowledge it, downplayed it. Overall, the media gave the message loud and clear – these people were acceptable collateral damage, and nobody needed to hear what they had to say.

I don’t believe in violence and will never condone it, however, I’m hardly surprised reporters faced hostile attitudes from protesters at the camp – it became immediately evident that any coverage was set on framing these everyday people as far right loonies, radicalised by disinformation, and gathered at Parliament with violent treasonous intent. In reality, all they bloody wanted was for their government representatives to talk to them and face the destruction they had caused in the lives of so many.

“The threat was very real for us … I always said to the reporters ‘safety first, story second’,” Fifield commented.

Graffiti at Camp Freedom, Parliament, February 2022. People who attended described the incredible atmosphere of love and togetherness that was generated. Media reports repeatedly described the environment as menacing and threatening.

Personally, I think the perception of threat was at least partially self-generated. The media had spent so long stabbing these folk in the back, they had come to believe their own stories about them. One clear example, ironically, was Andrea Vance claiming she saw nooses hanging from the trees at the camp. Knowing as I did that nothing of the sort would have been permitted by the camp security, I asked someone there to scour the camp in search of a noose. I was sent back multiple pictures of ropes hanging from trees – clearly used to secure tents and structures in the face of the cyclone that ripped through Wellington – and which the protesters stoicly endured – early on.

How about the now famous example of the media reporting that protesters were emptying sewage into the harbour, when in reality the police had blocked access to the portaloos to use as a bargaining tool, creating a health and safety issue. Later protesters plumbed the toilets directly into the sewers to solve the problem. This went unreported in legacy media.

Reporters were simply too willing to see the worst in the protesters. There are too many examples of misreporting about them to list here. They were legion.

I have no doubt that if a reporter had approached with a genuine desire to hear their stories and report their views without bias, people would have opened up to them with warmth and honesty. Sure, they would have had to work to earn trust but that is only fair. The only time I ever saw that come close to happening was in Melanie Reid’s report for Newsroom.

By mid-next year, the media will be even more closely tied to the government through its announced merger of TVNZ and RNZ, and massively increased budget. How can the public be reassured by that?

I have no sympathy for the media playing the victim – it is sickening. A dereliction of duty as huge as the one they have been responsible for cannot be easily forgiven.

Unless they wish to censor themselves right out of existence, and they are doing a very good job at that presently, editors and reporters need to face themselves and stop hiding behind fairy tales about a long suffering heroine saving us from a terrible plague while under attack from the lunatic fringe.

The myth-making has to stop. Legacy media admittedly know the depths of this government’s opaqueness, its level of spin. They must understand the scale of reform taking place without public mandate. They bury the biggest stories of the century to protect Wellington from accountability. Where other public institutions – the watchdogs, the courts, the professional associations, the school boards, still have an opportunity to redeem their woeful performance – I can’t see media ever regaining the public’s trust.

This is the latest post from the excellent New Zealand website

You can sign up for alerts from The Looking Glass here:

Call for a MILLION people to help avert ambulance failure death toll

The People’s Health Alliance yesterday launched a crisis fundraising appeal days after an ambulance service revealed it could no longer stop people dying from avoidable causes.

WATCH: HTL’s Roger Guttridge interviews PHA’s Katherine Macbean

Just a month after the official launch of PHA, West Midlands Ambulance Service announced in late May that by August it could be too busy to respond to 999 calls.

Mark Docherty, Director of Nursing and Clinical Commissioning at West Midlands Ambulance Service, said patients were already “dying every day” from avoidable causes created by ambulance delays.

Now PHA is launching its crisis Power of the Pound appeal to help local communities to fund emergency first aid training and equipment.

Its goal is to appeal to ONE MILLION supporters to each donate £1 per month.

PHA says its emergency appeal is vital if it is to try and stem the avalanche of deaths that will result if ambulance services break down.

The bold plan will enable one million people to play a small part in funding emergency back-up when ambulance services fail to respond.

Created in February and officially launched a month ago, PHA has already helped communities across the UK to form more than 60 local health hubs.

Its goal is to bring together conventional and alternative health practitioners and empower people in local communities to take charge of their own health. 

However, its plan to focus on primary care has been reworked to include its emergency Power of the Pound appeal following news that 999 calls could soon go unanswered.

PHA’s Katherine Macbean says: “This has been described in recent days as a ‘Titanic moment’ and, although our initial plans did not include support of emergency care so soon, we have no choice but to respond immediately to this cataclysmic threat to life.

“People are already dying because of ambulance delays. Just imagine how bad things will get if ambulance services stop answering 999 calls altogether. This is a crisis that could impact any of us at any moment. We cannot stand by and do nothing.”

The answer, says PHA, is its Power of the Pound appeal, which will enable everyone to play a small part in attempting to prevent huge numbers of needless deaths.

“We understand the enormity of the goal we have set,” says Katherine. “How many millions does this message need to reach for one million people to donate £1 per month?

“We also understand the economic pressures that many of us face. The point is that £1 is affordable for almost everybody and there isn’t any time to lose. We are in an emergency and one of those unanswered 999 calls this summer could be for us or for somebody we love.

“We need to join together to take action and we need to do it now.”

PHA has pledged to be fully publicly accountable and transparent when it comes to allocation of all funds. Its Power of the Pound appeal is one its most ambitious projects to date and, as part of the campaign, PHA is also urgently appealing for trained first aiders and for medical equipment suppliers to step forward and help. 

“If a million of us each contributes the price of a can of baked beans each month, we will be in a position to take emergency action,” says Katherine.

“It is down to the People now and we can do this if each of us simply contributes £1.

“We cannot leave it to others to solve this crisis,” she says. “We should all know by now that this isn’t going to happen. So, what have we got to lose by responding to this appeal? More importantly, what have we got to lose if we don’t?”

Please donate now by clicking the link

WATCH: HTL’s Roger Guttridge interviews PHA’s Katherine Macbean

Believe Nothing – Instalment #1: Kicking Bishop Brennan up the Arse

By Rusere Shoniwa

You can read more of Rusere’s work at

The title of this essay seems, on the face of it, nihilistic. But it’s not. The message is the advised starting point for how to treat any narrative generated by powerful institutions that determine public policy and shape society – the Government, mainstream media, the medical establishment, the UN, the WHO, and the EU, to name a few, not to mention all their hangers-on lower down the food chain.

Far from being nihilistic, there is a hidden promise in this simple message. It is the first step in the rebirth of the mind. But there is a painful corollary to rebirth – if a new mind is to be born, then an old one must die. That is what the past two years have felt like – the death of the mind, but not the menticide that has been imposed on the majority by way of induction into a death cult. In a piece I co-authored with Amy Willows, we argued that the vast majority who have done the Covid zombie dance did not have much of a mind left to kill. By ‘mind’ I mean the mind as observer, not the brain as machine. For many, the machine is in pristine condition. There’s just no observer to guide it.

We woke up one day and realised we didn’t know anything – Bob Moran

For those to whom Covid was revealed as the most complex deception in the history of mass deceptions, there has been a painful letting of go of an old mind, a falling of the scales from the eyes and the destruction of false paradigms to make way for harsh revelations about how the world really works. It has been mind boggling to realise that old friends have morphed into new enemies and old enemies have the potential to be new friends; to find yourself understanding some of the things you once hated, and hating some of the things you once loved.

This process is not a eureka moment. It is slow, painful and confusing. If the past is not what you thought it was, if it can’t be trusted, then how do you find the bridge to the future? Bob Moran articulates what being awake really means in this interview with Geopolitics and Empire:

“When you talk about being awake … a lot of people on the other side [those who subscribe to the official Covid narrative] misinterpret that as if we woke up one day and knew the answers to everything. And it’s the exact opposite. It’s as if we woke up one day and realised we didn’t know anything. That’s the point. And so we embark on this journey to work out what the hell is actually going on. And through that, you gradually gain an impression that it’s not just about the past couple of years. There’s a whole history of deception and humanity having truth withheld from the common people.”

In addition to trying to keep up with the whirlwind of deception in the present, I think it’s important to revisit the past to explore whether truths once thought to be concrete may turn out to be as tenuous as a shadow touching a shadow’s hand. This essay, the first in a series titled “Believe Nothing”, explains why.

A key reason why it’s so hard for people to acknowledge that things once accepted as truth may be lies is because it feels, at some level, like staring death in the face. We are hard-wired to fear deception because we have evolved to interpret it as an existential threat. That’s why deception can elicit the same emotional response as the miscalculation of a serious physical threat.

Of course, lies told to us don’t always bear the same cost as a misjudged red light, but the brain often can’t make this distinction. And actually, some whoppers (“safe and effective”) have cost lives and will continue to do so.

A choice is presented to you at the point a lie is revealed: acknowledge that you were fooled, get angry and deal with it, or; suppress this death-like experience and put up mental defences to deny it is happening. The propensity for the latter choice was understood only too well by the first director of the FBI, an institution that trades in the currency of lies. These words are attributed to J Edgar Hoover:

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous that he cannot believe it exists.”

And this is precisely why we should make time to rummage through the closet of historical lies, even while there is so much deception and criminality to wrap our minds around in the present. Revealing past lies is an essential aid to seeing the present for what it really is – an ocean of deception fed by the rivers and streams of lies past.

The war being waged on humanity did not begin in March 2020. It has been a long time in the making. But the deceivers’ masks are finally off and the illusion of democracy is being laid bare for those who dare to acknowledge that we have indeed been fooled on a grand scale. Revealing historical fabrications is akin to experiencing a glitch in the matrix or noticing a continuity error in a movie scene. A glitch once seen must be acknowledged and so offers a pathway for overcoming the handicap of denying the present bombardment.

Daily life takes on a surreal quality if you’ve chosen to be red-pilled in the matrix. The most outlandish, indeed nightmarish things are unfolding in front of our eyes, and screaming about them does not make them stop. We are living through a phantasmagorical Indie car pile-up. Up until 2020, we watched these car crashes in some other part of the world on TV, from the safety of our armchairs. But now we’re being ‘invited’ to participate in a crash specially designed for us. And perhaps weirdest of all is that most people either don’t know it (the Covid cult) or know it but can’t bring themselves to confront it. Plenty of astute explanations exist to explain the former. What about the latter?

Global Capital, The System, whatever you want to call it, is now at the pinnacle of its power and, by definition, also the point at which it is collapsing. In recognition of the latter, it has embarked on its boldest and most desperate project yet – the neo-feudal subjugation of humanity to its oligarchic overlords. It is of course a highly abnormal proposition to put to societies that have called themselves ‘liberal’ and ‘democratic’, which is why, in baring its teeth to reveal this proposition, it must succeed in normalising the abnormal.

This abnormality, in the form of manufactured crises responded to with horrendous absurdity, was sold as the ‘New Normal’ until that phrase lost its PR appeal. In any event, we are just coming out of the first phase of this project in which shocks are delivered to pave the way for total control – the removal of bodily autonomy and the introduction of medical dictatorship; the scrapping of human rights; cancelling free speech; the control and censorship of information; digital ID systems and digital currencies to enable social credit systems, behavioural control and financial enslavement.

The one thing the controllers cannot be accused of is lacking ambition. All told, these manufactured crises and their bold aims signify that we’re in that phase of the project which I refer to as the Kicking-Bishop-Brennan-up-the-Arse phase.

We’re all Bishop Brennan now

In what is arguably the funniest of all the Father Ted episodes, Ted loses a bet with his nemesis, Father Dick Byrne. Under the “forfeit system” they use for settling bets, the loser must perform some ridiculously humiliating act dictated by the winner. In the most dastardly of forfeits ever handed to Ted by his rival, Ted finds himself committing to the career-ending act of kicking his boss, Bishop Brennan, up the arse.

The solution to the conundrum of how Ted can kick Bishop Brennan up the arse and live to tell the tale is solved, counterintuitively, by his simple-minded sidekick, Father Dougal, who, in one of his extremely rare moments of genius, comes to the rescue with a truth so devastatingly simple that it could only be conjured by someone as simple as Dougal.

Dougal’s reasoning goes like this: Both Bishop Brennan and Ted know that Ted is “very scared” of Bishop Brennan. The probability that Ted would suddenly find the courage to kick him up the arse is slim to none. Dougal’s concluding stratagem? “So when you kick him up the arse, just carry on like nothing happened. He’d never believe that you’d be brave enough to kick him up the arse. He’d think he’d just imagined it.”

The priceless look of bewilderment on Bishop Brennan’s face following the spirited placement of Ted’s boot on the bishop’s arse is testimony to Dougal’s psyops genius. Ted’s poker-faced persistence with banal conversation – as if nothing had happened – is enough to keep Bishop Brennan stupefied and unable to process, in the words of J Edgar Hoover, “a conspiracy so monstrous”.

A dazed Bishop Brennan post kick up the arse: Dailymotion

Having escorted the dazed Bishop out of the parish house, Ted himself cannot believe he has pulled it off and begins to question whether he really did kick Bishop Brennan up the arse. Dougal assures him that, oh yes, it happened alright, and provides the evidence to prove that the forfeit has been honoured – a photo of the very act. Drunk on the sheer scale and implausibility of his success, Ted instructs Dougal to order a 10-foot cardboard blow-up of the photo to celebrate his ingeniously deceitful exoneration from the crime of the century.

In the nail-biting final scene, Bishop Brennan can’t deny it any longer and returns to confront Ted in a fit of rage. Remaining steadfast, a terrified Ted points out that he may be many things, but suicidal is not one of them: “Why would I do that?! You’d kill me … Are you sure you’re not making a terrible, terrible mistake?”

Beaten again by Ted’s psyops, Bishop Brennan falls back on the logic that it couldn’t have happened because it is just “too unbelievable”.

But, as is always the case for the hapless Father Ted, the idiot savant Dougal snatches defeat from the jaws of victory by innocently leaving the 10-foot cardboard blow-up of the photo for Bishop Brennan to see on his way out. Bishop Brennan wastes no time in celebrating his awakening by giving Ted an even bigger kick up the arse than Ted gave him.

How do they hate thee? Let me count the ways

Here are just a few of the numerous metaphorical kicks up the arse that have been delivered to us over the last 26 months:

Big Pharma, in a civilian peacetime medical operation mysteriously led by the US military, took a mere six months to develop and roll out to the entire planet an experimental vaccine that, in a normal world, would take 5-10 years to deliver safely to a defined population group in a single country. On the other hand, they asked for 75 years to release the already existing paperwork documenting the trials for the same experimental injections. So, they needed a mere six months for the hard part and 75 years for the easy part that would theoretically take, in today’s digital world, a few clicks of the mouse.

Most public health authorities in the West have advised against or banned the use of ivermectin to treat Covid. This is a medication that has an unbeatable safety profile and whose astounding efficacy has been proven in scientific studies and by doctors in the field[1]. The same authorities continue to push Covid ‘vaccines’ that have racked up more adverse reactions in a single year than all previous vaccines (for all pathogens) combined over the past 20 years. The official, and underreported, associated ‘vaccine’ deaths are in the tens of thousands. Compare this with a 1976 US vaccine campaign being halted in nine states following three linked deaths and a nationwide halt being called following 51 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome. Today, they’re pushing the Covid ‘vaccines’ on children, the group whose risk is so low it can’t be measured – a group for which the vaccines offer zero benefits and plenty of risk.

Back in April 2020, CJ Hopkins tweeted a meme depicting an imaginary crazed government bureaucrat vowing to eradicate Covid, even if it meant killing all the citizenry. Satire works because there is a gap between actual events and the ridiculously exaggerated end-point conjured up for humour. That gap is fast disappearing and in some places it has gone. Hopkins’ meme now appears to be the official, straight-faced policy of the Chinese government in Shanghai as it starves the population to death in a brutal lockdown supposedly intended to achieve zero cases outside of its Covid concentration camps, euphemistically called ‘quarantine centres’. China in theory already has total control of its population so the question to ask is: what is really behind the pretext for this brutality?

The WHO aided and abetted the criminality of global lockdowns, mandated masking, suppression of early treatments and vaccine mandates. But rather than withering away from embarrassment, it is doubling down on its criminality by strong-arming the global populace, through its bought and paid-for World Economic Forum puppets in governments the world over, to surrender local autonomy in the handling of future ‘pandemics’. If that isn’t One World Government in action, then what is?

Boris Johnson, not satisfied with seeing the WHO’s right foot up your arse, has decided to add his left foot for good measure. How so? Johnson, who was elected in 2019 to deliver on the Brexit referendum result to take Britain out of the EU as part of the project to ‘Take Back Control’, is quite keen on the idea of surrendering British sovereignty to the WHO, and has made statements in support of this. Then of course there’s the Ukraine kick up the arse, which has seen the Covid fascists at the Guardian declare that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has transformed the image of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi Azov battalion into one in which “many now view them as heroes”. In case that hasn’t sunk in, let me repeat: The Guardian says that the neo-Nazis of the Azov battalion are heroes. You should ignore the Guardian’s underhanded, disingenuous attempt to distance itself from this statement by claiming that it’s some amorphous grouping of “many” who hold this view – it’s really the Guardian, not “many”, that views neo-Nazis as heroes. I challenge you to find large swathes of people in the UK, the “many”, who would agree that neo-Nazis are heroes.

But wait, there’s more

While both sides of the US political system compete with each other to burn ever larger sacks of taxpayer money to fund the neo-Nazis in a proxy war against Russia ($40 billion at the latest count, and rising), US citizens are struggling to find baby formula on supermarket shelves. In case that hasn’t sunk in, let me put it this way: why is the US prioritising financial support to defend a non-NATO country of no geopolitical strategic significance to the US, over the health of US newborn babies? And how much baby formula could $40 billion buy?

German politicians are actively creating pandemonium by telling their citizens to hoard foodstuffs. In the space of a couple of months, the sociopaths at the helm have gone from applying forced lockdowns, masking and injections in the name of health and safety to telling citizens to look to their own defences as Rome, Berlin and Paris collapse, supposedly under the weight of a US/NATO proxy war for which the bloodthirsty narcissists in the US, EU and UK establishments are content to use Ukrainians as cannon fodder.

Not to mention the slight contradiction between pushing for a nuclear confrontation and spending the last two years trashing lives, economies and civil liberty to enforce a health and safety regimen to combat an illness approximating seasonal flu. Nuclear war? We can handle that! But seasonal flu with a new name? Press pause on civilisation, lock down the entire world, force mask, force jab, cancel free speech. No doubt when it comes to nuclear war, their duties under the applicable health and safety legislation will be fulfilled by resurrecting the four-minute warning.

The Covid ‘pandemic’ began shortly after a coronavirus pandemic simulation, Event 201, held in September 2019. The first ever global monkeypox outbreak being whipped up in the media has kicked off in the exact week predicted in another one of those prophetic biosecurity simulations held last year. For those who have eyes to see, it is blindingly obvious that the goal of the pandemic industry’s monkey business is to pump the entire planet on a weekly basis with ‘vaccines’ for every imaginable ailment from flatulence to necrotising fasciitis.

Make no mistake – we are all Bishop Brennan now, and global capital and its carefully installed puppet politicians all over the world are going to need to replace their worn-out boots fairly frequently given the ferocity and frequency of the kicks being delivered. And with each kick, they’re carrying on, poker-faced, like nothing ever happened, confident that the sheer monstrosity of the kick will paradoxically induce us to accept that it couldn’t have happened because it is just too unbelievable.

‘Pandemics’, ‘vaccines’, proxy wars, manufactured food crises, government censorship under Orwellian names such as ‘The Online Safety Bill’ and ‘Disinformation Governance Board’, digital ID programs that will restrict essential services unless you agree to have your behaviour and health status recorded and tracked like livestock. We did not arrive at this point overnight. If it feels as though we arrived here without warning, it’s because we have not been paying enough attention to what came before. The question is: what will it take for humanity to wake up and reciprocate the ruling cabal’s kick up the arse?

You can read more of Rusere’s work at

[1] Robert F. Kennedy Jr., The Real Anthony Fauci, Skyhorse Publishing, 2021, Ch 1, Part III – Ivermectin

People’s Health Alliance launches We Hear You campaign for long-Covid and vax injury sufferers

By Roger Guttridge

The brand-new People’s Health Alliance this week launched a unique initiative aimed at helping the estimated 1.2 million people suffering from long-Covid or vaccine injury.

The campaign, called We Hear You, includes a new Telegram group enabling victims to meet up virtually, receive emotional support and practical advice and guidance, and to find practitioners who may be able to help.

The PHA, which launched on April 23 to present a new and unique approach to healthcare in a primary care setting, has developed a Health Optimisation Programme which it describes as a “distinctive protocol to assist in strengthening the immune system, whilst taking the ‘whole healing’ approach to assist the mind, body and soul”.

A PHA spokesperson said: “We are seeing a huge influx of people suffering with adverse reactions to the jab or from the effects of long-Covid.

“The majority of reports we receive claim people are either struggling to get an appointment with their GP or that NHS teams have no idea how to recognise or treat these injuries.

“It appears that these very poorly people are completely pushed aside, which we feel is disgusting.

“They’re often told it’s in their minds or are made to feel like they are either going mad or not worth the hassle.

“PHA is taking a stance today. We will not neglect our fellow man, we will not ignore these immense issues and we will not turn people away.

“Now is the time for unity and support. We want to offer a safe and welcoming place where people can receive emotional support as well as potentially reap the benefits of our Health Optimisation Programme.”

The spokesperson added: “PHA intends to be loud and proud in our support and to help bring conversation to the fore.

“We won’t shy away from raising awareness with the NHS and government.

“The time for ignorance is over, the time to be vocal has arrived.”

To find out more, keep an eye on all PHA social media or check out the health group’s website:

Doctor vows to take allegations of criminal conduct against the Government to the High Court


A doctor taking legal action against the Government over alleged crimes – in relation to lockdowns and Covid injection harm – has taken his battle to the police complaints authority.

Dr Sam White and his PJH Law legal team have made the move after the Metropolitan Police informed him there was no evidence of a crime taking place, despite the submission to the police of 1,100 pages of evidence which included expert witness testimony.

If unsuccessful at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, Dr White plans to take his case to the High Court so the evidence he has gathered can be heard.

In a shocking interview with Holding the Line, Dr White is calling on doctors still administering the experimental Covid injections to stop what they are doing and to speak out about the dangers involved.

Watch the full interview on HTL’s Odysee platform

Dr White said: “You will find that as soon as you speak out you are incredibly well supported. On the flip side of that, if you’re still injecting people, if you are still part of this, history will not judge you well because you only need to take a cursory look at the Yellow Card system to understand the harm and death.”

Speaking to HTL, Dr White revealed:

  • He had been hounded by medicine regulators since speaking out about the dangers of the Covid injections and was branded by colleagues as being mentally ill
  • The Covid injections are the deadliest pharmaceutical product ever marketed. In the UK alone, more than 2,000 Covid injection associated deaths have been recorded in the Government’s own Yellow Card reporting scheme – with the real figure likely to be in excess of 20,000 owing to the scheme’s acknowledged underreporting factor
  • The Office of National Statistics stopped reporting on stillbirths in early 2021 despite known fears for pregnant women in relation to the injections
  • The NHS still officially has no official treatment for Covid and doctors were barred from recommending or prescribing Vitamin D as a preventive nutrient that he claimed could massively reduce Covid mortality rates
  • Treatments like ivermectin that he said would have saved tens of thousands of lives in the UK alone were blocked to ensure the emergency authorisation of the Covid injections would be granted
  • A study into the contents of the vaccines revealed the presence of highly toxic substances including graphene oxide
  • Spike proteins generated by the injections were leading to catastrophic neurological illnesses and heart disease for young women and men, as well sudden death from strokes and heart attacks
  • The Covid injections have “negative efficacy” meaning those receiving the treatment were more likely to become ill with the disease

Addressing doctors who might be thinking about expressing concerns about government policy, Dr White said: “When the government acted unlawfully it was duty bound on the doctors to do something about it, not to be the pawns in their game to subvert the rights and liberty of every man, woman and child in this country. Come forward, stop what you are doing and speak out. You will be more than amply supported.”

Watch the full interview on HTL’s Odysee platform

Dr White was expressing his own opinions in this interview that are not necessarily shared by Holding the Line: Journalists Against Covid Censorship as a collective.

The People’s Health Alliance – a health-care revolution in the making

Holding the Line exclusive

By Roger Guttridge

Watch the interview at HTL’s Odysee channel

Helping people with vaccine injuries will be an early focus of the People’s Health Alliance (PHA), which launches on April 23 in response to the crisis in the NHS.

Katherine Macbean, who is spearheading the nationwide PHA initiative, said they were aware of an urgent need to support and treat people adversely affected by the Covid-19 jabs.

‘It wasn’t in our original plan but we have so many reports of people going to their GP with a vaccine injury and being fobbed off or the GP doesn’t really know what to do with them or doesn’t have anywhere they can reach out to in order to get support for these victims,’ Ms Macbean told Holding the Line: Journalists Against Covid Censorship.

‘We were very blessed to be able to connect with doctors and scientists in labs across the UK who were looking at various protocols as to how they could help these vaccine-injured.

‘Someone joined our team who was heavily involved with that and that’s allowed us to connect with healing practitioners – and I don’t just mean conventional here.

‘We are reaching out to holistic practitioners who are having some successes in treating vaccine injuries.

‘We are pulling together all this knowledge, this expertise, to create a protocol which won’t just be a protocol of tablets or supplements.

‘We are looking at a whole healing approach and we expect that protocol to be ready by April 23 when we launch – and we’re quite excited about it.

‘We understand it’s not a cure. With those with very low-level injuries, we might be able to eradicate the issues they are having.

‘The more severe ones, possibly not. But we are looking at sustaining life long enough for cures to be found.

‘It is a major problem. We do need to accept that there are vaccine-injured out there whether we want to see it or not.’

Vaccine-injured doctors

Ms Macbean said the vaccine-injured included a growing number of GPs themselves who ‘don’t know what to do about it’.

‘At PHA we are looking to connect practitioners having some success with vaccine injuries with the patients,’ she said.

‘If we can support these people who are going through a horrific time, we are doing our job.

‘It’s not just the physical healing that needs to take place – there’s the emotional and mental healing as well.

‘We won’t turn anyone away because of their vaccine status. We are looking to heal people whether they are vaccinated or not.’

Children and teenagers affected by lockdowns, mask-wearing and jabs will be another early PHA target for help.

‘The problem is massive,’ said mum-of-three Ms Macbean. ‘We’re becoming aware of major anxiety issues, problems due to lack of physical exercise during lockdowns, and parents struggling with how to address emotional issues.

‘We are fortunate to have some paediatric and teenage healthcare specialists in the team and we are building support mechanisms for parents and carers who are struggling to know how to deal with these issues.

‘We are also looking at the physical side and nutrition.

‘With every approach the PHA makes, we are looking at a whole healing system.

‘We don’t believe that just sticking a plaster on something or sticking a pill in someone is the answer.

‘We want to inform teenagers as well that they can take more responsibility for their own health in a way that works for them.

‘One of our first major fund-raising projects will be to support, facilitate and subsidise mental health support and care for young people because we can see there’s a pandemic of mental health issues out there.

‘We are very fortunate to be working with a number of partners and affiliates who are experts in this field.

‘We are pulling together to work alongside each other and be more productive in swiftly bringing forward these solutions.’

Meeting needs the NHS cannot fulfil

In the interview, Ms Macbean also outlines plans to:

• adopt an ‘integrative’ approach by using both allopathic and holistic medicine and giving patients a choice

• publish a blueprint for the creation of community health hubs across the country

• help adults with mental health problems

• launch a ‘social care pot’ to ensure health care is available to all

• mentor medical professionals to help them make the transition from the NHS

• organise an online dispensary as a ‘one-stop shop’ for prescribed or recommended treatments with any profits going to the social care pot.

A website, due to go live on April 23, will include a database that will enable patients to search for practitioners in their area and practitioners to connect with each other, the vaccine injury protocol, a database of volunteers, information about different types of treatments and guidance on fundraising and donations.

Ms Macbean told Holding the Line: ‘The PHA was born because of what we have seen over the last couple of years and the realisation that the NHS primary care system isn’t in a position to support patients.

‘People aren’t able to get an appointment with their GP, very important diagnoses were missed from the start of the covid shutdown and there’s a huge rise in diseases as a result.

‘We are paying for a service and we can’t access it.

‘We are hearing of NHS staff becoming disgruntled with what they are seeing and looking for other options.

‘We’re not going to be a complete picture for some time yet but we’re putting these foundations in place now to start alleviating some of the pressure from the primary care system.’

Ms Macbean added that the PHA could never be competition for the NHS and that was not the intention.

‘We are not in a position to take on secondary or acute care,’ she said.

‘I’ve had great passion for the NHS – they’ve saved my life a couple of times and my mother was an NHS nurse for 35 years.

‘We would love to see a better service from the NHS and if we can support that, we will.

‘We are looking to create something new and I have faith we will pull it off because we have to.’

Watch the interview at HTL’s Odysee channel

Contact the People’s Health Alliance at

‘Vaccines’, flawed Covid data, injury and denial


Two years after Covid hysteria hit we must come to terms with the sleight of hand used to buy our compliance, and face up to the devastating harm the injection has caused.

As commentator and scientist Guy Hatchard has often said, the fact that the manufacturers got away with calling the Pfizer and Moderna injections ‘vaccines’, is a coup that has made them very rich, and provided them with legal cover that means there will be little-to-no blowback on any of the, by now, blatant problems with the products.

Liz Gunn interviews Guy Hatchard in December 2021. Credit: FreeNZ

“It was a very deliberate masterstroke to call this vaccination and it goes right back to 2017 when Tal Zaks the chief executive of Moderna gave a Ted Talk in which he said mRNA vaccination was going to cure virtually all diseases. When what it really was, was repurposed gene therapy,” Hatchard told me in February.

Moderna chief executive Tal Zaks introduces the term mMRNA ‘vaccination’ in 2017 at a Ted Talk

However, it’s been known since 2003 that RNA is active genetic material that can be integrated into a person’s genome, Hatchard explains.

“That immediately raises the possibility of mutagenesis, which means cancer. [Along with vaccine injury] that is another thing that we are not looking for, and can develop quickly. I have two friends who developed leukemia quite quickly after having taken the vaccination. That is a known side effect of gene therapy, yet there is no suggestion from their doctors that that is due to vaccination.”

The experiment in question was done in France and found that two out of nine subjects – a very high number – developed leukemia and was halted immediately.

“So, it is a real sleight of hand that companies have taken these techniques out of largely discredited gene therapy and then said they are perfectly safe. And we are not monitoring what is happening and they are not monitoring. And these are known as secondary effects.”

And then earlier this year a study showed that genetic sequences from mRNA vaccines can integrate into human liver cells in-vitro. What has been the response from the public health officials, ethicists and academics? Crickets.

Professor Norman Fenton has been analysing Covid data since March 2020

How data manipulation has driven the Covid fear narrative

Queen Mary University of London Professor of Risk Management, Norman Fenton has been analysing this issue since March 2020. A mathematician whose work focuses on critical decision making and quantifying uncertainty using Bayesian networks, Fenton analyses Covid data and exposes problems with the way they are presented to the general public.

In January, he put together a presentation for PANDA (Pandemics, Data and Analytics) in which he goes into the flawed data in detail.

“I have been motivated by a concern about the way that statistics were being used to drive the Covid narrative and about the lack of evidence to justify lockdowns and vaccine mandates,” he says.

Fenton describes going from being respected in his field, to being censored, to getting cancelled, as a result of his work, a now very familiar story.

And yet he says it doesn’t take much to show that Covid was not as lethal as claimed or the jab as safe and effective as claimed. The fundamental problems with Covid data in the United Kingdom start with definitions. He provides some hypothetical case studies to illustrate this:

  1. Fred, who has no Covid symptoms, tests positive in a PCR test for work. He doesn’t go on to develop any symptoms, but 13 days later is critically injured in a car crash and dies two weeks after being taken to hospital. Fred is classified as a Covid case, a Covid hospital admission and a Covid death.
  2. Jane gets a Covid vaccine and 13 days later tests PCR positive with symptomatic Covid. Jane is classified as an unvaccinated Covid case, because she is within the 14 days post-jab.
  3. Peter gets a Covid vaccine and dies the next day from an adverse reaction to it. Peter is classified as an unvaccinated Covid death.

All of the key metrics are driven by the definition of a Covid case – the number of Covid cases, the number of hospitalisations, the number of deaths.

Fenton then points out that even if the definition of a ‘case’ was something that everybody agreed on, the fact that we are not told these additional definitions means that the core data are fundamentally misleading.

New Zealand Ministry of Health Definitions. In the Covid era, these have often moved away from common understandings to something counterintuitive.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests

But we can’t ignore the flawed PCR test, because it is essentially how a Covid case is defined. Not by clinical analysis based on symptoms, but by a test. Fenton says because of that, and because of the high levels of false positives thrown up by PCR testing, ‘cases’ include all of these different classes of people.

  1. Has the virus with symptoms (true positive)
  2. Has the virus but is pre-symptomatic and develops symptoms some days later (true positive)
  3. Has virus but never develops symptoms (many doubt these people should even be included)
  4. No virus but has symptoms (false positive)
  5. No virus and no symptoms (false positive)

The vast majority of asymptomatic cases are false positives, he says.

It’s not surprising then that many people call the Covid situation a ‘case-demic’ or a ‘pandemic of testing’. The more you test, the more cases you will find. Dr Sam Bailey does a great job at explaining this here.

It’s also no wonder we are seeing a huge increase in the number of ‘cases’ recorded in New Zealand, as Sam Bailey’s husband Mark Bailey points out in this article, given that Rapid Antigen Tests are now widely available.

“On 1 February, the government announced that ‘along with the 5.1 million tests already in the country, New Zealanders will have access to over 55 million rapid antigen tests in the coming two months.’  Two weeks later, ‘cases’ of the meaningless entity covid-19 went parabolic. In early March, RAT was said to be detecting 97 percent of these cases. By that stage, Rapid Antigen Tests were being provided for ‘free’ for all and sundry, with many feeling the need to test themselves or their children several times a day.”

NB: The Baileys are prominent critics of virology, and challenge the claim that viruses have been proven to exist. Dr Sam Bailey is a co-author of the book Virusmania: How the medical industry continually invents epidemics, making billion dollar profits at our expense.

New Zealand’s misrepresentation of Covid data

Hatchard has concluded that the Ministry of Health’s (MOH) statistics are also being used to try and show that unvaccinated people are more likely to be hospitalised than the boosted and more likely to die. Covid deaths are deliberately overcounted, he says.

MOH death figures covering the two years of the pandemic from Hatchard’s 29th March article. For up to date figures go here.

“When addressing the public, both the Ministry and the media repeatedly use the largely irrelevant figure of all 223 deaths temporally related to Covid, and almost never use the more accurate subset number of deaths caused by Covid.” (emphasis mine).

Rather than clear categories identifying how many shots a recipient has had, if any, MOH data puts the unvaccinated and the single dose people into the same group in the death charts, which means we don’t have the data to show how many deaths have occurred in the unvaccinated, he says.

New Zealand doesn’t count a recipient as vaccinated until a week after their jab, but Hatchard says there is evidence suggesting that people may be at greater risk of contracting Covid in that first week. While if someone catches Covid in the first week after having their booster they are counted as a two dose Covid case, or death if they die.

“This will lead to the booster having fewer cases/deaths, and the two doses having more [in the charts], thus creating an impression of greater booster efficacy.”

video just released by Grant Dixon using MOH data published at the end of March demonstrates hospitalisations in vaccinated and boosted groups exceeded those from unvaccinated groups.

Dying ‘with’ and ‘of’ Covid

The news reading public may have noticed a change in the way the New Zealand media reports Covid deaths lately. I don’t know when the change began exactly, but you will see headlines now such as “X number of people died with Covid-19 yesterday”.

The key being the word ‘with’, meaning that is not the primary cause of death, which if it were, would be recorded as dying ‘of’ Covid. This was not a differentiation made for a very long time and I’m guessing enough people got wise to it they had to begin differentiating. I’m not sure they have explained this particular piece of context to the public, however.

So, without further information on each individual death cited as ‘dying with Covid’, we can assume they were in hospital for something else but tested positive for Covid while there, miraculously becoming a ‘Covid death’.

CDC recently updated its website to notify the removal of 72,000 deaths previously reported as Covid deaths, but which were misclassified.

US Covid statistics were overcounted all along

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with individual US states are backtracking on Covid death statistics. On 14 March, 72,277 Covid deaths were removed from the official tally, including 24% of deaths attributed to children under 18. This was noted quietly in its Footnotes and Additional Information section, rather than by press release.

A faulty algorithm that counted deaths from drowning and drug overdoses as Covid was blamed. Remember the New Zealand case of a man shot in the head last year being classified as a Covid death? This has happened all over the world. The UK has been through its own reckoning of data.

Columbia University researcher Spiro Pantazatos says there is a correlation between vaccination and all-cause mortality.

New data on the Vaccine Fatality Rate from Columbia University

Columbia University researcher Spiro Pantazatos was interviewed for the excellent video series Perspectives on the Pandemic, by Journeyman Pictures last week.

In the shocking interview, Pantazatos reveals that in a six-month period last year, Covid injections killed between 150,000 and 180,000 Americans, which is consistent with data released by the insurance industry reporting a 40% rise in mortality among people aged 18-to-64, relative to the pre-Covid era in the US.

The paper is called Covid vaccination and age-stratified all-cause mortality risk.

“There does appear to be a positive correlation between vaccine doses and all-cause mortality. The more doses you have the more likely it appears that you are going to have an adverse effect.

“And so, this was seen with the first two doses. Most people had their severest reaction on the second dose and it appears that it’s not going to be any different with the third dose.”

Unsurprisingly, Pantazatos has come in for criticism for undertaking the analysis from his peers, and scientific journals appear uninterested in publishing his research.

“I’ve been submitting it to a lot of journals and it has been desk-rejected by most all of the medical journals that I have submitted it to. Desk-rejected meaning they don’t send it out for peer review … Typically, the reasons they give are not that substantive.”

Pantazatos explains that the job of an editor alongside validating work, is to take into consideration its importance for the public interest. He believes many editors are failing in this duty. He points out well documented corruption in medical journals, essentially acting as advertisers for pharmaceutical companies.

MedRxiv (pronounced MedArchive) says work that challenges public health measures around vaccination will not be published.

He also notes that publishing policies are also problematic. At MedRxiv, it’s explicitly stated that work that challenges or could compromise accepted public health measures on infectious health measures, immunisations and therapies would be screened out.

“In my view the editors are not doing what they are supposed to be doing,“ he says.

Pantazatos says the politicisation of science publishing in this respect is a strategy to stigmatise inconvenient science.

The position that anything that undermines confidence in vaccination, or causes ‘vaccine hesitancy’ can’t be given a public airing – either in journals, or in the media, is now widespread. Most legacy media outlets for example, will not open comments on stories about vaccination as it invites unpopular views to be expressed, which could be considered giving oxygen to ‘dangerous ideas’.

Hatchard himself has recounted how a prominent radio personality in New Zealand told him this exact thing – any views or information that could lead to vaccine hesitancy was absolutely off-limits.

Australian health practitioners are warned not post or author papers that go against public health messaging, even when evidence-based.

In Australia health practitioners have been explicitly warned that views expressed on social media, or even when authoring papers, must be consistent with public health messaging.

“Views expressed which may be consistent with evidence-based material may not necessarily be consistent with public health messaging.” (emphasis mine).

In New Zealand the Medical Council similarly gagged doctors and censured and de-registered those who dissented.

The problem with this is that it is essentially anti-journalistic and anti-scientific and anti-democratic. So that even in the face of overwhelming evidence of harm from vaccination – see the most recent VAERS data – whether it be the Covid injection or any other, the public will not be informed about it, lest it cause people to not trust vaccines.

Bureaucratic propaganda now holds more weight than the opinion of practicing clinicians and researchers. They can put public relations material on the homepage of their websites while practitioners are gagged. This ideological stance belongs in the Soviet era and is far more ‘dangerous’ than allowing science to be publicly debated. People are being harmed and dying and nothing is being done about it because it has been made taboo.

Perhaps in a sign the cultural mood might be shifting, last week Judge Stephen Harrop ruled the Medical Council wrongly suspended Dr Matt Shelton and Dr Peter Canaday for expressing concern about the safety of the Pfizer injections. The suspension must be reversed.

This article was first published at The Looking Glass

Seamless continuity editing in the Emergency Capitalism movie

By Rusere Shoniwa

To try to understand the economics underpinning the never-ending stream of crises, Holding the Line: Journalists Against Covid Censorship spokesperson Rusere Shoniwa caught up with Professor Fabio Vighi who teaches critical theory and film at Cardiff University. His current research focuses on ’emergency capitalism’ and his recent books include Unworkable: Delusions of an Imploding Civilization (State University of New York Press, 2022); and Critical Theory and the Crisis of Contemporary Capitalism (Bloomsbury, 2015; co-authored with Heiko Feldner). You can watch the interview with Professor Vighi here on Odysee. This article extracts the pith of it and includes some perspectives that weren’t discussed.

You can read more of Rusere’s work at

As we glide smoothly from two years of authoritarian Covid containment diktat into the theatre of war, the image to hold in mind, by courtesy of Professor Fabio Vighi, is of continuity editing in a movie: as one crisis begins to lose its momentum, a new one is seamlessly edited into the movie to keep you in a febrile state, free from the tedious constraints of critical analysis.

Be afraid, be very afraid: of virus apocalypse, nuclear apocalypse, economic apocalypse, cyber apocalypse. Be enraged: first at the unvaccinated, then at the evil Dr Strange-Putin. Clap and cheer: for the NHS, for plucky little Ukraine. Pick a side, goddammit! Root for the actual Ukrainian neo-Nazi Azov Battalion as it repels the make-believePutin-Nazi’ invaders from Russia. (Disclaimer: previous sentence not to be construed as an endorsement of Putin, who is just as dangerous to humanity as nearly all Western political leaders have proven themselves to be over the past two years.)

For those in need of guidance on who and how to hate, Facebook has relaxed its rules on hate speech, generously giving you a free pass to call for violence against Russians so long as you make clear in your post that you are referring to the invasion of Ukraine. Always check the small print! Tip – begin every hate-filled post directed at Russians with, “In reference to the invasion of Ukraine …” and then proceed carefully, perhaps along the lines of: “It’s remotely possible that the Russians might love their children too, but that Putin chap is asking for a bullet in his head and if I were a crack marksman … I’m not saying I am … but if I were, I might be minded to go to Davos next January to see what could be done.”

Whatever you do, just don’t think too hard about it because thinking will inevitably spoil the drama of endless crises in the movie called Emergency Capitalism.

Covid lockdowns … it’s the economy, stupid

When the Covid crisis hit in Spring 2020, a badly wounded global monetary system had been limping for 10 years through an unresolved debt crisis. In September 2019, the credit markets began seizing up again with junk debt and, having kicked the can down the road for as long as possible, there is compelling evidence that, by the end of 2019, the spectre of a far more dire replay of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis was stalking the markets.

The immediate and desperate response of the Federal Reserve in the US was to create liquidity with a repeat of the money-printing of 2008. 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. That extraordinary move triggered threats and opportunities that required extraordinary management.

While throwing that amount of money at the financial markets was necessary to prevent a repeat of the 2008 panic and contagion, that mass of money could not be allowed to reach the real economy (‘Main Street’) through retail lending, because it would trigger overheating and hyperinflation.

Professor Vighi posits that the global lockdowns of Spring 2020 provided an economic shutdown which played the vital role of an ‘induced economic coma’, allowing the US Fed, under a programme of government bond purchases managed by BlackRock, to temporarily plug holes in the interbank lending market and avert hyperinflation. This was known to be a case of more kicking of cans down the road, but global financiers don’t have anything else in their playbook on debt and liquidity management.

This theory completely reverses the role of the economy in the Covid drama and demands a paradigm shift from one where we tend to view the economy as simply another victim of pandemic measures to one in which the severely ailing economy and monetary system are in fact the driving force for pandemic measures.

The opium of debt

Critiques of global capitalism almost always refer to a ‘financialised economy’. This is a simplistic term to describe the departure from capitalism’s traditional MO which centres on creating profit or ‘surplus value’ by leveraging labour, goods, and services in the productive process to using the inflation of debt as a means to make fictitious profits. Exciting while it lasts but painful when the Ponzi scheme collapses, as it did in 2008.

The creation of surplus value in the ‘old fashioned’ way hit a ceiling in the late 1970s and early 1980s when real wages in the West peaked and it became harder for corporations to extract profits through wage exploitation. So global capitalism, an extremist ideology par excellence, did what it does best through the extreme exploitation of the economic concept of competitive price advantage: it ‘offshored’ huge swathes of Western manufacturing to economies with cheaper labour in the developing world.

What happened to blue collar workers in the West? They were effectively handed a copy of global capital’s staff handbook – Adapt or Die. Transplanting real jobs and factories and transitioning to ‘service’ economies (which, let’s face it, is a euphemism for bureaucracy on steroids) was sold as something that ‘mature’ economies did. Immature Germany didn’t get the memo and remained a net exporter of manufactured goods, which may have something to do with why it is Europe’s powerhouse economy.

This tectonic shift in global finance created a flow of cheap goods from Chinese and other sweatshops into the West but the demand for those goods, previously fuelled by a real productive economy, would now be fuelled by debt. Credit and money markets were revamped to feed the new addiction to debt.

Traditionally, banking used to be an appendage, albeit a vital one, to the real economy. It provided a key ingredient in the profit leverage process – capital, either to get a leg up at the start of a venture or to expand existing operations. Leon Wansleben of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies explains that, under the old model, banks used to issue loans to businesses in order to hold those loans on their books. Now, they turn these loans into ‘securitised assets’ that can be transacted with other banks and non-bank firms. This is a form of credit expansion on which financialisaton rests as a driving force.

Professor Vighi explains that “the more the financial market grows, paradoxically … the more the real economy free falls. The two things are not connected anymore as they were before.” Using the Apple corporation as an example, he points out that “there’s no correlation with the value that is produced by Apple as an industry and the market capitalisation of Apple”, which is “astronomical in relation to the real value of Apple”. Inflating debt in order to make money from money is a compensating mechanism for the shrinking real economy.

Having arrived at a position in March 2020 where it was clear to monetary authorities and governments that the debt crisis of 2008 was very much unresolved – the pumping of $9 trillion by the US Federal Reserve into the banking system in the lead-up to lockdown is very clear proof of that – why would all Western governments be content to make a bad public debt situation far worse by drastically inflating the public debt through the Covid support programmes and bank lending schemes that were supposedly intended to keep individuals and businesses afloat?

I accept that it is by now tedious for most readers to see writers pre-emptively batting away the naïve answer which claims that governments didn’t know how bad Covid was going to be and therefore had to prioritise saving lives above all else, but it must be done to avoid accusations of preaching to the converted.

Firstly, no government in the West bothered to do a cost/benefit analysis vis-à-vis saving lives. There is no escaping such analyses because throttling economies and cutting off access to health care can kill as effectively as a virus. Governments knew that even the most rudimentary cost/benefit analysis would have shown that their lockdown pill was worse than the ill. So, they didn’t dare do one. The UK Government itself implicitly acknowledged before the first lockdown that Covid could be dealt with in a conventional way because it downgraded the seriousness of Covid on the eve of lockdowns, taking it off the list of High Consequence Infectious Diseases, citing low mortality rates among other things as the key factor.

So, the refusal to do a cost/benefit study combined with the knowledge acquired before lockdown that Covid was not the Black Death are clear signposts that lockdowns, along with the huge increase in public debt that they would entail, were a foAlregone conclusion with not the slightest regard shown for social or economic cost.

With that out of the way, we can return to Professor Vighi’s answer to the question of why governments across the West decided to double down on the public debt Ponzi scheme:

“Because they don’t have any other strategy … They have no plan B … There’s no other way of dealing with the problem except kicking the can down the road a bit further and pretending that the problem is not there [by] inflating the financial sectors. And at the same time, yes, creating a public debt situation which is very problematic, which is even as [Jerome] Powell, the chairman of the Fed, said that the US public national debt is unsustainable … I don’t think they are endowed with an intelligence large enough to consider a plan B to this situation. They continue with plan A because they are part of a mechanism which is blind … The mechanism is about profit making.”

In the UK, debt as a percentage of GDP has nearly quadrupled from 27% in the early 90s to 104% post Covid in 2021. In the US, over the same period, it has jumped from 54% of GDP to 124% of GDP ($3.2 trillion to $29.6 trillion). The pre- to post-Covid rise in the UK is 83% to 104% (£1.87 trillion to £2.2 trillion). In the US it’s 107% to 124% ($ 22.7 trillion to $29.6 trillion). That’s a hell of a price to pay for something the authorities knew would be on a par with a bad flu season.

Ukraine – an entirely avoidable war is by definition a war of choice

To appreciate that the engine of global capital, of which the war machine is an integral and vital part, is fuelled by crises, we must appreciate that the Ukrainian conflict is as much a choice as it is a tragedy. We can then question who is choosing it and what they have to gain from it. And crucially, who will lose?

How avoidable was this state of emergency emanating in Ukraine? The short answer is entirely avoidable. NATO and the US (really one and the same thing) have spent a great deal of time, energy and money inviting war … and then denouncing it. If you’re looking for a lucid explanation by one of the most accomplished and distinguished political scientists in the world as to why the situation in the Ukraine is almost entirely the fault of the West, a really good starting point would be two lectures by Professor John Mearsheimer. The first pre-dates the invasion by about seven years and can be viewed as an accurate prediction of what would eventually happen if NATO continued to push unreasonably for Ukraine to become a NATO bulwark on Russia’s borders. The second is confirmation of Professor Mearsheimer’s theory in a talk he gave to Cambridge University two weeks before the invasion in February 2022.

The inescapable conclusion is that Ukraine is being used as a pawn or proxy in a NATO/Russia superpower play in which only ordinary Ukrainian citizens and the economically weakest global citizens will be the losers.

These lectures don’t delve too deeply into the interesting side story of Ukraine’s love affair with neo-Nazis and the role they’ve played in Ukrainian politics since the Maidan coup in 2014. The Nation reported in 2019 that “post-Maidan Ukraine is the world’s only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces.” Is Ukraine’s flirtation with the far-right just a storm in a little Nazi teacup? Probably not. The corridors of power in Ukraine might just be so littered with copies of Mein Kampf that there is speculation that Mr Zelensky’s hands may be tied in peace negotiations by the country’s Neo-Nazi militia.

This is not some minor detail in the backdrop to the Ukraine conflict. It’s part of the important story of how the US has backed two coups in Ukraine to help install NATO/US friendly regimes, how those coups have strengthened the hand of neo-Nazi and far-right forces in the country and why its president may be powerless to intervene against those forces who have alienated Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine to further their own divisive nationalist and NATO agenda. Something is seriously wrong with the official BBC narrative if your so-called pro-democracy and anti-racist governments in the West are backing neo-Nazi forces in a conflict that could spark a nuclear exchange between Russia and NATO.

Here’s the key takeaway from the linked analysis:

“Like any other US puppet regime, Ukraine doesn’t have any real independence. Kiev has been actively pushed to confront Russia by every US administration, against the will of the majority of Ukrainian people. The fact that most Ukrainians wanted peace with Russia was reflected by the fact that they voted for the peace candidate Zelensky in such overwhelming numbers, 73%. And the fact that Zelensky did a total 180° [turn] on that promise shows how little political power he actually has.”

So, if this conflict was entirely avoidable and if Ukraine “has emerged as a new hub for the far right across the world”, as this Al Jazeera report claims, shouldn’t NATO actually be joining forces with Russia to stamp out the threat of Nazism?

Facebook doesn’t think so. It has come down on the side of Neo-Nazis by making “a narrow exception for the praise of the [Neo-Nazi led] Azov regiment strictly in the context of defending Ukraine”. That’s alright then. The Azov soldiers may be SOBs but they’re Facebook’s SOBs. The System is constantly telling you what its true values are. Facebook, owned and operated by global capital, a major cog in the Big Tech machine with its monopoly on the online public square, is a proxy for global capital’s values – it censors doctors (and anyone else) who express concerns about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and it backs neo-Nazis.

How Cold War II will pan out for global capital’s serfs – the 99%

In recent piece Professor Vighi wrote for Philosophical Salon titled “From Covid-19 to Putin-22: Who needs friends with enemies like these?”, he described Putin’s war as “the ideal continuation of the war on Covid.” It’s a continuation of emergency capitalism with all the same monetary policies employed to keep the house of cards afloat. For example, Germany will be giving the equivalent of €300 per taxpayer to soften the blow of surging energy costs.

Meanwhile, citizens across the West are now being told that inflation, food shortages, and supply chain disruptions are unavoidable and arch villain Putin is the scapegoat. Italy has just transmuted its virus state of emergency to a war state of emergency … for a war in Ukraine. ‘State of emergency’ is a euphemism for dictatorship and, for one of the EU’s largest member states, the exacting threshold for a ‘state of emergency’ is some kind of problem, anywhere on the planet.

The fact that this conflict was entirely avoidable implies that it was a choice. Therefore, by extension, everything that flows from it is a choice: sanctions on Russian energy supplies making energy prices unaffordable for the most economically vulnerable; supply chain disruptions creating food shortages; declaring economic warfare on Russia, which will only immiserate working class Russians. All squeezing the mass of humanity in an ever-tightening vice and enriching elites who run the machine. More disaster capitalism.

If sanctions are intended to bring Russia to heel by halting its military venture and/or toppling its government, will they work? As Professor Vighi points out, sanctions are in many ways a fig leaf from a global corporate perspective because Russia is part of an inextricably connected international finance system and trying to hurt it could backfire in a number of ways. Firstly, there is significant exposure to Russian debt among US and EU banks so hurting Russia too much comes with serious financial risks.

JP Morgan has recommended that clients take buy positions on Russian corporate debt, which implies a bet on a quick Russian recovery. Cutting raw material supplies from Russia will worsen inflation. Kicking Russia out of the SWIFT banking system will likely push it to trade in other markets and currencies, which damages the USD. Russia has announced that payments for its energy exports must now be made in rubles, which has just boosted the exchange rate for the ruble and has given further impetus to something the US fears – de-dollarisation of the energy market.

That is not to say that Russia will not be hurt by sanctions. However, the primary outcome will be economic shocks to the weakest which, in turn, will be used to justify greater control to purportedly administer and ‘ameliorate’ these shocks. If food shortages result in rationing, then digital IDs combined with programmable Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) could be pushed as the most efficient way to administer control over and spending on rationed goods. But don’t take my word for it. BlackRock’s CEO says the invasion of Ukraine could be used to accelerate the use of CBDCs.

Meanwhile, the UK government is powering ahead with its nationwide digital ID plans, despite half of the responses to its public consultation on digital identity opposing the idea.

Professor Vighi summed up the link between the freefalling real economy and measures like Central Bank Digital Currencies:

“The only way in which this crazy situation can be sustained is by making sure that, whilst the real economy free falls, there are ways of controlling that free fall … it’s a kind of controlled demolition of the real economy. That’s the way I define it. So, some kind of state control … to make sure that either people don’t realise it or, when they realise it, their reaction is somewhat contained by some form of authoritarianism. We should be quite honest here. We are moving towards a kind of authoritarian type of capitalism, more and more explicit, which I think whose purpose is precisely to try and make sure that the controlled demolition of the real economy takes place in the way they want it to take place. I think central bank digital currencies, insofar as they would enable some kind of monetary slavery, are precisely a step in that direction, although we don’t know yet when or even if it will actually happen. But certainly, they are thinking about eliminating physical cash and replacing it with digital currencies which would allow them to control the monetary flow from top to bottom.”

Geopolitics and the economy

If the unipolar US-led world that was ushered in by the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 is now fracturing, which dynamic will drive societal and economic developments – the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset or the Cold War II Great Fracture? And does a Cold War II play into the hands of global capital’s elites? Professor Vighi believes that:

“the geopolitical chess board is related to the economic cause of everything. So, Cold War II could play into the hands of global capitalist interests, because once again, you have an ongoing emergency, maybe with some hot wars as well here and there to keep the tension high and to keep all the emergency precautions in place, to justify, again, more restrictive measures on societies and populations around the world. And, of course, the monetary system going the same way. So, I see this playing into the hands of the big financial elites and what the central banks are trying to do. It kind of makes sense, irrespective of the real geopolitical frictions that, of course, are there. There are also real geopolitical problems and antagonisms, but I think they are, in a sense, part of the bigger game that is being played here, the theatre of war remains a theatre. It’s a tragic theatre, no doubt, because people are dying … but it’s still a theatre that is part of a wider agenda, which fundamentally has to do with keeping this kind of economic system, which is hyper indebted and hyper financialised, going. Making sure that those wheels don’t come off the global capitalist bus, which is the main concern. And that’s why I see politicians … don’t really have a role to play. They play the roles that they are told to play. Those really in control of big government are elsewhere. Big government is where you don’t see it. It doesn’t have the face of the politicians that we know. It has faces that we don’t probably know either. And those are running the show from above, from up there, we don’t see them. They give orders, politicians execute the orders, and things happen.”

From the perspective of geopolitical rivalry, isolating Russia certainly increases the likelihood of strengthening ties between Russia and China, creating a formidable China/Russia bloc against the West. However, Professor Vighi emphasised that:

“a Cold War could be beneficial to everyone because that would justify certain measures … like the nuclear threat would come back … and that would create, again, justification for more and more authoritarian measures … It’s all baked into the same cake, and the cake is the economy, I’m afraid … The US probably has some interest in trying to divide Europe from Russia, for example, to create a division and to prevent the EU from being part of that bloc, which would be a threat to the US as such. So definitely, this is something that might have justified what we’re seeing now. But I think overall, the concern is the logic I’ve been talking about earlier. The concern is to keep that system going in the way in which it is reproducing itself now in these extreme circumstances.”

The system cannot afford not to have an emergency

Rounding off the discussion, Professor Vighi emphasised the continuity editing image with these powerful words:

“We know that as soon as this emergency loses some of its appeal, as it were, we will see immediately another one coming in. I don’t know from where yet, but there will be another one taking over again. Remember that idea of continuity editing. Something will be edited into the film and pretty quickly. We won’t even realise it. We won’t have time to because the system cannot afford not to have an emergency.”

You can watch the interview with Professor Vighi here on Odysee

You can read more of Rusere’s work at