A Truth Crusade?

Anna Wright offers a Christian’s perspective on ‘truth’.

Everyone is exhausted. I’d hazard a guess even the psychopaths are exhausted. There must be a limit to how much tyranny you can dish out without hitting a wall. The time has surely come for us all to switch off the TV (and indeed every device we own), disconnect from the EDC (Evil Digital Construct) and engage in some good old human pastimes like talking, hugging, laughing, smiling, kissing, going for long muddy walks and taking mid-afternoon naps.

How about a bit of Monopoly? It might help your kids understand what’s going on in the world. Scrabble? Because, God knows they aren’t being taught how to spell at school. Operation is also an excellent game for teaching them about the human body, and the consequences of messing around with it too much. You could read some real books, too. Maybe flip open the Bible and remind yourself about the story of Jesus, about how he stood up to his would-be persecutors but ultimately let them kill him, assuming it would teach the human race never to tolerate fascism again. Hmmm…    

If you’re feeling particularly adventurous, you could organise your sock drawer, or clean the kitchen cupboards. A bit of cleaning and organising is very grounding. How about some music? You could learn the lyrics to a couple of songs. I recommend “Think” by Aretha Franklin, which contains the lines: People walking around every day, playing games, taking scores, trying to make other people lose their minds… ah, be careful you don’t lose yours. “Uprising” by Muse is also good, especially the bit that goes: If you could flick the switch and open your third eye, you’d see that we should never be afraid to die. Or how about that traditional ditty, “Rule Britannia”. Verses two and four are probably the easiest to commit to memory:

The nations, not so blest as thee,

Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall;

While thou shalt flourish great and free,

The dread and envy of them all.

“Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:

“Britons never will be slaves.”

Thee haughty tyrants ne’er shall tame:

All their attempts to bend thee down,

Will but arouse thy generous flame;

But work their woe, and thy renown.

“Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:

“Britons never will be slaves.”

And then, when you’ve had a nice rest, a good break, and your spirits are restored, it’ll be time to get back on the horse, because there’s work to be done. We need a crusade, folks; a truth crusade. The truth has been attacked. The truth has been broken. The truth has been inverted. But the truth can never be destroyed. As George Orwell wrote in 1946, “We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.” Perhaps Orwell’s most significant words, though, are contained in his letter to Noel Willmett, a fan who had written to ask why Orwell was getting his knickers in a twist about the threat of totalitarianism. Was Orwell a paranoid, deluded conspiracy theorist? Or a political commentator disguising his prophecies as fiction. (The text of this letter is reproduced as a footnote below.)    

The most important part of this mission is understanding your audience. As a population we are now more divided than ever in terms of awareness level on the one hand, and degree of mRNA / DNA-vector drug dependency on the other. With respect to the latter, we now have four distinct groups: 1) no jab, 2) one jab, 3) two jabs, 4) three jabs. You should be able to identify members of these groups by their general level of health. Despite what you are told by politicians and media outlets, observational evidence will inform you that their general level of health is inversely proportional to the number of jabs they’ve taken (oh look, there’s that inversion of truth starting to show up). Regarding awareness level, let’s pop your potential audience into categories based on their potential appetite for a curated selection of podcasts as follows:

a) For newbies who are recovering from their boosters and finally thinking, “medicine should make me well not sick” (inversion of truth again, see) I recommend Bret Weinstein’s recent interview with Peter McCullough on The Dark Horse podcast. The stats on vax harms might frighten them, but it stays on topic and is broadly bipartisan, pointing only to systemic failures in our political institutions. Hopefully this will encourage them to dive into some of Brett’s other episodes; they are all fascinating. Sonia Elijah’s interview with James Delingpole is a somewhat softer introduction to the failures of our medical regulators, and if they warm to her (and who wouldn’t) they can tune in to all her interviews with the brave medical professionals and eminent academics who are being censored for speaking out and sharing their narrative-bucking clinical evidence. If you think those in this category are still not quite ready to question the jabs, you could go even softer and show them Nick Hudson’s crystal clear analysis of how the covid story lost its way in The Ugly Truth About the Covid-19 Lockdowns. A more poignant discussion on the fatal harms of lockdowns are discussed at greater length and in heart-breaking detail on the Irreverend with Christine Padgham.     

b) For the “double vaxxed” who are waking up to the fact that “two jabs to freedom” was a big fat lie because their Christmas skiing holiday in the French Alps ain’t happening, as well as for all those poor “rare-but-real” jab casualties who are facing permanent disability as a result of serious adverse events, there might be a window of opportunity in which you could bring to their attention the government’s plans for digital IDs. If they are beginning to see the light regarding “vaccine passports” and are open to the suggestion that these are the gateway to total digital control over our lives, encourage them to listen to Jeffrey Peel’s interview on the Corona Stories podcast and the inimitable Bob Moran’s opening address to The New Era’s debate on digital IDs.

c) For those who eschewed these experimental drugs off the bat, or had such a bad reaction to their first shot they vowed never to touch them again and cannot fathom why others are not using their rational judgement to say no, encourage them to watch Matthias Desmet interviewed by Dan Astin-Gregory on The Pandemic Podcast. If they are able to process the steps to mass formation without hiding under the bed, and they begin to understand why people seem gripped by a common psychosis, and almost hypnotically possessed, then the natural next stop is the brilliant Kate Wand’s most chilling video to date: Lockdown, the Line Dividing Good and Evil, which centres around what Hannah Arendt called, “the banality of evil.” This viewing requires a strong stomach.

d) For those who have been wide awake from the start but seem to be missing a few pieces of the jigsaw, the most comprehensive and grounded piece has to be Iain Davis on the Delingpod. He explains how everything we need to know about what is currently going on is in the public domain. It’s all there for the taking; only our inner fears and cowardice prevent us from engaging with it. In so many ways, it is a truth too terrible to confront.   

This was a hard shortlist to curate; it contains a mere sprinkling of the rich and valuable content floating around in cyberspace at the moment. These people will be among the many who are eventually awarded Nobel Prizes for their services to humanity. If nothing else, for soldiering on against the juggernaut of defamation and censorship they have been subjected to. (The song that goes, I get knocked down, but I get up again, you are never gonna keep me down,always plays in my head when I think of these defenders of the truth.)

The ethos of what is being said in these interviews is also reflected in books on the shelves of libraries the world over. Fortunately, no one has ever managed to burn them all. Our past and recent history contains a tsunami of truth that is hovering over us, moments away from crashing down over the baseless lies and the dodgy data designed to push drugs.  

One critical factor distinguishes people who tell the truth from people who tell lies. People who tell lies always claim to know everything there is to know, to be omniscient. People who tell the truth know there is always more to discover, but also that we can never deny evidence, no matter how uncomfortable and challenging it is. People who tell the truth know that there is only one omnipotent, omniscient oracle. Most of them call this “God”.    

Sadly, of course, there will always be those you cannot reach, no matter how many times you try. Those who will not wake up, who will get every single injection they are ever told to take, who will mask and jab their kids, stay home, refuse to hug loved ones and close their businesses, and who would – literally – stop breathing if commanded to do so by their government, cannot be saved by us. Do not think ill of these poor souls, they simply do not have the strength and courage to look evil in the face, let alone stand up to it. Pray for them. God will forgive them and help them in the end.    

Most people believe we are in an epidemiological crisis. We are not. Some people believe we are in an existential crisis. We are not. We are in an epistemological crisis. The story of the enlightenment is cracking. The story that human beings can have perfect knowledge, that human beings can have total control over nature, that human beings can even have ultimate power over their own mortality, is falling apart. The idea that the existence of God is simply a whimsical spiritual belief no longer holds. Even if you conclude, by way of intellectual argument, that God exists, as C.S. Lewis did, it’s still not the whole story. The whole story is that God – and all that God means, i.e. the human condition, the agreement to die on condition of being awarded life – is the only logical truth. The reverend in my church said in his sermon last Sunday that God was evident on earth only once, in the form of Jesus. Since then, because we cannot see him, we can only feel him and that is why we call it “faith”. I challenged him afterwards. I said, “What you say is not true, of course we can see God on earth. We see God every day. God is humanity. God is not simply a belief, he is a truth. I am; therefore, God is. I see God in every human face I set eyes on. And when you cover your face in a large black mask, you cut off my connection to God. You deny me God. God made you in his image to share his truth with the world. Do you not see how you are suffocating that truth, you are diminishing God, every time you cover your face?” He did not answer. But God did, in the warmth he created in my heart after I spoke those words.

Whether you signed up or not, simply by knowing the truth, you are a member of God’s Army, and to be leading this truth crusade is your purpose and your duty. This is not a war that can be fought with weapons, it is a war that will be fought and won with words. You must live and breathe the truth every day, and in every way, no matter how much you suffer as a result. You must speak to people anywhere and everywhere, whenever you can. Speak to your delivery drivers, speak to people on trains, speak to people in shops and in bars, and in taxis. Speak to people at work, at home and in passing on the street. Speak to the dogs, and the birds and the horses. Speak to the wall. Just don’t stop speaking. Don’t stop speaking truth. Truth is all we have and all we have is truth, because all we are… is truth.



Letter from George Orwell to Noel Willnett in 1944

To Noel Willmett

18 May 1944

10a Mortimer Crescent NW6

Dear Mr Willmett,

Many thanks for your letter. You ask whether totalitarianism, leader-worship etc. are really on the up-grade and instance the fact that they are not apparently growing in this country and the USA.

I must say I believe, or fear, that taking the world as a whole these things are on the increase. Hitler, no doubt, will soon disappear, but only at the expense of strengthening (a) Stalin, (b) the Anglo-American millionaires and (c) all sorts of petty fuhrers° of the type of de Gaulle. All the national movements everywhere, even those that originate in resistance to German domination, seem to take non-democratic forms, to group themselves round some superhuman fuhrer (Hitler, Stalin, Salazar, Franco, Gandhi, De Valera are all varying examples) and to adopt the theory that the end justifies the means. Everywhere the world movement seems to be in the direction of centralised economies which can be made to ‘work’ in an economic sense but which are not democratically organised and which tend to establish a caste system. With this go the horrors of emotional nationalism and a tendency to disbelieve in the existence of objective truth because all the facts have to fit in with the words and prophecies of some infallible fuhrer. Already history has in a sense ceased to exist, ie. there is no such thing as a history of our own times which could be universally accepted, and the exact sciences are endangered as soon as military necessity ceases to keep people up to the mark. Hitler can say that the Jews started the war, and if he survives that will become official history. He can’t say that two and two are five, because for the purposes of, say, ballistics they have to make four. But if the sort of world that I am afraid of arrives, a world of two or three great superstates which are unable to conquer one another, two and two could become five if the fuhrer wished it. That, so far as I can see, is the direction in which we are actually moving, though, of course, the process is reversible.

As to the comparative immunity of Britain and the USA. Whatever the pacifists etc. may say, we have not gone totalitarian yet and this is a very hopeful symptom. I believe very deeply, as I explained in my book The Lion and the Unicorn, in the English people and in their capacity to centralise their economy without destroying freedom in doing so. But one must remember that Britain and the USA haven’t been really tried, they haven’t known defeat or severe suffering, and there are some bad symptoms to balance the good ones. To begin with there is the general indifference to the decay of democracy. Do you realise, for instance, that no one in England under 26 now has a vote and that so far as one can see the great mass of people of that age don’t give a damn for this? Secondly there is the fact that the intellectuals are more totalitarian in outlook than the common people. On the whole the English intelligentsia have opposed Hitler, but only at the price of accepting Stalin. Most of them are perfectly ready for dictatorial methods, secret police, systematic falsification of history etc. so long as they feel that it is on ‘our’ side. Indeed the statement that we haven’t a Fascist movement in England largely means that the young, at this moment, look for their fuhrer elsewhere. One can’t be sure that that won’t change, nor can one be sure that the common people won’t think ten years hence as the intellectuals do now. I hope they won’t, I even trust they won’t, but if so it will be at the cost of a struggle. If one simply proclaims that all is for the best and doesn’t point to the sinister symptoms, one is merely helping to bring totalitarianism nearer.

You also ask, if I think the world tendency is towards Fascism, why do I support the war. It is a choice of evils—I fancy nearly every war is that. I know enough of British imperialism not to like it, but I would support it against Nazism or Japanese imperialism, as the lesser evil. Similarly I would support the USSR against Germany because I think the USSR cannot altogether escape its past and retains enough of the original ideas of the Revolution to make it a more hopeful phenomenon than Nazi Germany. I think, and have thought ever since the war began, in 1936 or thereabouts, that our cause is the better, but we have to keep on making it the better, which involves constant criticism.

Yours sincerely,

Geo. Orwell

We Are Human

Last week, my friend’s 15-year-old daughter was cornered by her “friends” and called a “Nazi” because she is “anti-vax”. I wrote her a letter of support. After sharing that letter with a number of concerned parents, I’ve been asked to publish it here, as it may help other children experiencing similar abuse.  

I was very sorry to hear that you experienced some nasty bullying the other day. I was bullied when I was your age, so I wanted to tell you a bit about my experiences, and also address the ignorance and spitefulness of those weak-minded people who were so unkind to you.  

When people say nasty things, it usually means they are scared. The majority of human beings fear pain and death, but some people are especially afraid of being ridiculed, of being embarrassed in front of others. The more insecure someone is, the more scared they are of being judged by their peers and potentially being excluded from their gang. Seeing others suffer makes them feel better because they are relieved it is happening to someone else and not them. People who purposely hurt others and get a feeling of satisfaction from it are called “psychopaths”. Deep down, these people often hate something about themselves, or are ashamed of something they’ve done, but instead of taking personal responsibility for this, they project their self-hatred onto someone else.

I once had a very cruel and disturbed boyfriend. I could see he was in deep emotional pain because he’d had a rough life. I thought I could help him by showing him love. Unfortunately, he couldn’t accept my love and the more I loved him, the more aggressive he got; he said and did awful things to me. Fortunately, I found some supportive people who helped me leave him and keep him away from me forever.

Maybe I got into a relationship with a bully because I was used to my so-called friends treating me badly at school. You don’t need to agree with your friends all the time, but your friends should always listen to you and show you respect. Ultimately, friendship should be about sharing good times and bad times, enjoying each other’s company in the good times and supporting each other through the bad times.

If I could turn back time and go back to being 15, the one thing I would change would be my friends. I chose the wrong friends. I desperately wanted to be in the popular “group”. I had a miserable home life because my parents were going through a bad divorce, so I craved love. Maybe I was trying to find a replacement family. I was sent to boarding school, which is a pretty unnatural place to be. I do not believe boarding school is a healthy environment for most children because they can easily feel deprived of love. Deprivation of healthy love is often the first step on the road to becoming a psychopath.

People are particularly scared of the things they can’t control. We are living through very disturbing and disruptive times; so much seems to be changing rapidly, without warning or discussion. When people are frightened, they cling to what appear to be popular beliefs and “go with the crowd”. They don’t want to stand out or challenge anyone for fear of being singled out and persecuted. This is what happened in Germany in the 1930s. Hitler and the Nazis started persecuting Jewish people. They made up all kinds of disgusting lies. They told people that Jews “spread disease” and that Jews had “stolen” the German people’s money. They said the same about anyone who didn’t “fit in”, such as gypsies and very outspoken, artistic people. Basically, you were only safe in Nazi Germany if you agreed with the Nazi propaganda and supported the persecution of people who had been targeted by the hate campaign.

We are now witnessing a new hate campaign. Nasty lies are being told about people who are described as “unvaccinated” or “anti-vax”. The people who believe this propaganda are very confused because these terms are meaningless. We do not yet have a vaccine that is 100% effective, guaranteeing you will never catch covid, so an “unvaccinated” person cannot pose more risk to others. The “covid-19 vaccines” (sometimes referred to as “coronavirus vaccines”, which is misleading as it incorrectly suggests efficacy against all coronaviruses when we know they have only been manufactured to fight against SARS-CoV-2) cannot technically be classified as vaccines. A “vaccine” is a drug that more or less guarantees full immunity, but loads of “vaccinated” people are developing covid. It has now been confirmed that these drugs do not stop you catching or transmitting covid, they only “reduce symptoms”, so they are not vaccines in the traditional sense, they are a kind of pre-emptive medicine for people who are scared of feeling too ill (people who are scared of suffering, see!) Most healthy people catch covid and other respiratory diseases naturally. They might feel ill for a few days but their natural immunity to those viruses (and any emerging variants) is likely to be more robust than any partial immunity given through synthetic drugs.

There has always been debate over the pros and cons of medication in general. Some people will argue that we should medicate people for absolutely every ailment they experience: a kind of “avoid any suffering” attitude. But many drugs have side effects that will make people more unwell than they would have been without them. So we allow people to make their own choices as to what medicines and drugs they want to put into their bodies. Of course, it’s hard to know what the long-term side effects of drugs will be unless we conduct ongoing experiments. And that brings us back to the Nazis.  

Once the Nazis had brainwashed people into believing that Jews were “disease spreaders”, they felt justified in experimenting on them against their will with novel medicines and psychological treatments. Many Jews were harmed and died. Eventually huge numbers were murdered. This led to the Nuremberg trials and the writing of the Nuremberg Code that sets out strict rules about whether you can force people, or even put pressure on people, to take part in a medical experiment or accept medicines if they don’t want to.

Everything we have been put through since March 2020 is a medical experiment with potential far-reaching physical and psychological impacts on individuals and on wider society. We have been denied access to our friends and family members, we have been told to wear masks on our faces, we have been forced to look at a sea of masked faces and denied the sight of human smiles, we have been made to take tests, and we have been coerced into taking novel drugs for which we have no long-term safety data. Some people have been threatened with losing their jobs if they do not consent to taking these drugs. To have done all this to us without the express, individual consent of every person impacted is clearly a breach of the Nuremberg Code. We have never lived like this before; it is an experiment. Those promoting covid “vaccines” deny we are conducting an experiment – they have even set up websites that claim to “fact check” and refute it, using semantics to wriggle around the definition of “experiment”, just as they’ve tried to change the definition of “vaccine” and “vaccinated”. They must be terrified of being implicated and found guilty of collaborating with actions that breach human rights and ethical boundaries like the Nazis were in the Nuremberg trials.   

If anyone is behaving like a “Nazi” right now, it is any person putting pressure on someone to accept an injection of a drug against their will, or suggesting they are selfish or stupid for declining it. Even if the offered drugs were true, effective and safe vaccines (of which we supposedly have many), to coerce someone into taking any drug against their will is abusive and criminal. Remember, one of the key tactics of an abuser is to deny any abuse is taking place.

Some people argue that if everyone doesn’t take “vaccines” we will be overrun by disease. This is ridiculous. Most diseases are eradicated by improved living conditions, such as adequate sanitation (working toilets and safe sewer systems), and good nutrition. You would likely save more lives in a poverty-stricken African village by giving them clean running water and a toilet in every home than by sticking drugs in them all. But there would be less profit for the drug companies if you did that.

Ultimately, vaccines are not an issue you can be absolute about. Most rational people are not “pro” all vaccines or “anti” all vaccines. Historically, some vaccines have been proven to be extremely safe and effective, others less so. And there is debate over how and when we should administer vaccines to people. The one thing we know for sure is that while many vaccines do confer immunity, none confer immortality. To suggest, for one moment, that an “unvaccinated” person is a mortal threat to others is the most appalling lie, and to bully and punish people who do not consent to taking vaccines is completely unacceptable. We must never make hard and fast rules about all vaccines; we should always keep the conversation about vaccines open and transparent to avoid making terrible mistakes. 

People in large companies are often very good at manipulating facts and telling lies in order to sell more products and ‘get on’ in the company. Have you been told recently that we need to “vaccinate” 80% of the population in order to achieve “herd immunity” and eradicate “the virus”? This is a big, fat LIE! This is propaganda pushed by the people who will benefit, financially, from more people taking the injection. In the 1980s, people were told, “If you don’t drink cow’s milk, your bones won’t grow strong.” This was a big fat LIE pushed by the dairy industry to increase sales. In the 1950s people were told it was perfectly safe to smoke cigarettes to soothe their “nerves”… a big fat LIE made up by the tobacco industry to sell more cigarettes. They managed to hide the truth for years and now we have millions dying of cancer and lung disease.

Lies about people who have legitimate concerns about these new “vaccines” are being spread by people just like the Nazis. They are trying to turn the words “unvaccinated” and “anti-vaxer” into terms that mean a person who is “spreading disease” and doesn’t deserve the same rights as others. Words mean nothing until they are given meaning. The word “dog” means nothing until we all agree it means a specific animal we identify, genetically, as a dog. In Nazi Germany, the word “Jew” was given new meaning; it meant someone who was “a spreader of disease and a thief”. Eventually the propagandists made people believe that Jews were “subhuman” and did not have the same rights as all human beings. These actions were deemed “crimes against humanity”. People spreading such lies about the status of others are anti-human; they are trying to redefine what it is to be “human” because they want to feel superior over other groups. They want to be “elite”. They want more power, more money and more status than other people… usually because they feel very insecure and frightened.    

Throughout history the same kind of status-craving propagandists have attempted to attach “subhuman” status to words such as “homosexual” and “negro” and even “Irish” and “Catholic”, and more recently “Islamist”; telling horrific lies about people they put in those categories to try and oppress them and make others hate them. Eventually people fight back and we mount campaigns to support those who have been marginalised and persecuted. We must stand against all hate campaigns. Distance yourself from anyone using discriminatory terms such as “unvaccinated” and “anti-vax” to oppress others.  

I hope you now see how confused your friends are. When they try to hurt you by diminishing your human rights they are behaving just like the Nazis did. Do you see the incongruous irony of them calling you a “Nazi” when it is their behaviour that most closely resembles what the Nazis did?

And here’s something else to think about.

What was behind Hitler’s lies about the Jews? Well, Germany was broke. The German economy was crashing because they had messed around with the prices of goods so much and Hitler was scared that he’d be blamed for people’s savings disappearing and the country falling on hard times. To deflect the blame, he made people hate the Jews and blame them.

What we are experiencing across the world right now is similar to what happened in Germany in the 1930s but on a global scale. The economic systems of most countries are so closely intertwined we are now all part of a “global economy”, and that “global economy” is in serious trouble. Governments have been creating too much money out of thin air, and borrowing vast amounts from each other – secured on nothing. The “global economy” is in a debt spiral it can’t get out of. There is hardly any real money any more, it is mostly electronic… just figures on a balance sheet. The people in charge of all the money must be very scared; maybe they are thinking to themselves, “something must be done”.

When Hitler was in trouble and scared of the country falling into economic collapse, he decided, “something must be done” and started telling lies to deflect the blame away from himself and the leaders of Germany. Do you think it’s possible that our “leaders” might be telling lies to deflect the blame away from the fact they’ve run up debts they cannot pay? If you had a company and you’d spent all the money in it, and got lots of loans, and spent them, and you had no money left to buy supplies or pay people’s wages and pensions, you’d probably try to hide it and blame other people for your actions. Well, I’m talking about the generic “you” here because I am sure you, specifically, would hold your hand up and take responsibility, because you are a person with courage and integrity!

People who call you names have no moral courage. They have lost their way. They know they are spreading untruths but they are too scared to stand up to the authorities and call them out for lying. Sadly the world is now full of these people, thinking it is acceptable to go that way… to discriminate and judge, and perpetuate lies.

Don’t worry, though, the name-calling bullies always lose in the end, even if they make our lives hell for a while. We seem outnumbered by them at the moment but this will soon change. In the 1990s, one of my friends became a vegan. There were hardly any vegans then. People laughed at her and told her she would become unwell, as she couldn’t get all her “nutrients”. She was ridiculed and called “difficult”. There wasn’t a single restaurant where she could get a meal. Now? Loads of people want to be vegan. There are vegan menus and vegan options everywhere. It’s cool to be vegan. You see, in the end human beings always want to follow the people who are strong, humble and brave, not those who are weak, scared and nasty.

Today, people are racing to get injected with something that is essentially a gene-editing drug that sends “instructions” to the body’s cells in a similar way to how a genetic modification drug sends “instructions” to a carrot seed to make it grow more orange. This is the first frontier in genetic engineering of human beings. What could go wrong? A LOT! People are not carrots; the human body is a very complex machine and each one of us is unique.

At the moment, you are witnessing the hysterical behaviour of a lot of frightened people. Some are scared of dying but most are scared of standing up to authority and not going along with the herd mentality. No doubt in 20 years from now it will be seen as a huge weakness to have pumped your body full of genetic engineering drugs; it will be cool to be an original, organic human being!  

You may feel a bit hopeless right now, but take heart… many great leaders started out as lone pioneers. You are one of our future leaders, one of the pioneers. It’s hard to stand up to bullies, especially when you are young, but you have so much support from your family, and from their friends, like me and my family. Anyone who treats you unkindly is not a friend. Choose your friends wisely. I eventually learnt to be better at choosing friends as I got older but I wish I’d learnt sooner. You are experiencing a harsh lesson very early on in life and that is tough, but it is also valuable; hold on tight and you will get through it. All the best people face human suffering head on and emerge as stronger and more powerful individuals; only the weak avoid pain and suffering. I know it hurts to be treated with such contempt by the people you thought were your friends, but you’re going to be okay. You are loved.

The Great Reveal


If you thought Monday 19th July 2021 was “Freedom Day”, you were mistaken. But you were only off by a week. The real “Freedom Day” was Monday 26th July 2021 because this was the “great reveal” day – the day when the majority of us discovered the whole truth about why we are where we are. And now that we have that information, we can take the right action to change how the future unfolds.

This is the first day of our new path to freedom.   

The specific mechanisms that brought us to this point – the lies, the propaganda, the twisted facts and cleverly altered definitions that were employed to nudge and corral us into our current unreality – will all be stuff for the historians to elaborate on, and for the judges and juries to use to convict those responsible. But at least we now know what it was all designed for, and what it was leading to. In this revelation there is clarity, and clarity brings relief, even in the face of danger.

For a long time we have known that we are not here because there was a deadly pandemic of an incurable disease that swept the globe, so serious that it was necessary to divert funds set aside for medical research and innovation for all other illnesses in the pursuit of a vaccine that could save us and become a silver bullet offering rock solid, lifelong immunity from the disease, so that our kind and caring leaders could buy this “safe and effective” elixir for every person on the planet in order to save humanity from extinction.

We are not even here because the opposite of this end point was desired and nefarious forces reverse engineered it. In other words, in order to drive humanity to the brink of extinction, our (not so) kind and caring leaders trashed the already declining economy and ordered excessive quantities of dodgy life-threatening gene therapy drugs from companies they held shares in by convincing everyone they were likely to die from catching a virus that, in reality, any healthy person would shake off (as they do any other respiratory virus), and even the weak and elderly could recover from if given early treatment.

We can now see that the truth lies somewhere between those two theories. It took a while to see it because it was muddied by the convergence of numerous opportunists: interest groups cashing in on a period in time when the majority of the world’s population had been hypnotised into a state of utter hysteria by pushing the narrative in certain directions in order to achieve their aims. Big tech, big pharma, the communists, the fascists, the globalists, the eco-warriors, the disgruntled Millennial/Gen-Z cuspers all saw where they could capitalise on the instability caused by the reaction to an amplified respiratory virus; anyone looking to seize profit or control weighed in. Once you get the majority of people to believe that the sky is falling, it’s not too hard to persuade them that you and only you have the tools to stop it collapsing. This is less about “virtue” or “status” signalling than it is about “cause” and “saviour” signalling. Although how anyone can claim to care about the environment whilst promoting the use of facemasks, plastic screens and chemical hand sanitizer beggars belief.

Standing apart from the chief instigators (power holders and power grabbers) of this mess, and the corralled sheep that became their disciples, were the people whose lifelong natural immunity to bullshit and brainwashing tactics kept them sceptical. Many in this group had never encountered each other before and thus a fresh and ingenious hive mind was born, comprised of right-wing libertarians, left-wing liberal democrats (small “l”, small “d”), spiritualists, atheists, natural health practitioners, registered nurses, artists, academics, the young and the old, straddling all sectors of society; a group that harnessed what Matthew Syed describes as “the power of diverse thinking”.

This multi-faceted and grounded group of hyper-aware realists knew one thing for sure: things simply did not add up. They poked and prodded the facts, puzzling over why rational reason and common sense were falling on deaf ears at every hurdle; and they remained in the dark, grasping at clues. That is, until Monday 26th July, when all the pieces fell into place (Boris raging in full-throttle vaccine passport mania, Rishi announcing his centrally-controlled digital currencies and Macron pushing his French “health pass” through parliament) and the picture became crystal clear. Global leaders were not pushing “vaccines” because we needed inoculating from a disease or because they wanted to cull us (although this was probably a welcome by-product for those yearning for depopulation); they were pushing them to get us on “vaccine passports”. But these aren’t really vaccine passports; they are “digital IDs” and they aren’t for the purpose of identifying us in order to monitor our movements, they are for the purpose of controlling us. And they will control us by issuing centrally controlled digital currencies and telling us how and when we can spend our allowance.

That’s right, folks, the government is going to give you an allowance, pocket money if you will. But the government will also tell you when you are allowed to go to the shops, which shops you have permission to go to, and which items you are allowed to buy. (You’re okay with that, right? You’re happy to scan QR codes wherever you go, yes?) If you do not comply, your money will disappear. Ultimately, remember it’s the government’s money, not your money. You will own nothing. And you will be happy. Okay?

Because if you’re not happy about it, well, you just won’t be here, it’s as simple as that. You will be told if you can work, when you can work and what work you can do. You will be told if you can travel, when you can travel and where you can travel. You will be told if you can go out, when you can go out and where you can go. Individual independence, personal freedom and human agency will all be things of the past. People who desired such things will be phased out, excluded from society, and eventually eradicated. You will be given money – enough to exist on – but you will do exactly as you are told or your privileges will be curtailed. Sound familiar to anyone who’s lived through the past 16 months in most former Western democracies?

This is all to “rescue” us from complete economic collapse. Because when people realise their governments have run out of money, run out of credit lines, gambled away our reserves and are on the brink of hyperinflation, they will get angry. Governments hope they can segregate the “angry and aware” from the “hypnotised and compliant” (this is going well so far), then cancel the former and enslave the latter.

For anyone who doesn’t understand economic cycles, the dangers of hyperinflation, the value of purpose and economic production, and the ultimate unsustainability of quantitative easing (the endless printing of money), here it is in parenting terms. When you reward children with pocket money for completing age-appropriate tasks, you empower them. When you let them buy what they want and they regret forgoing the nice jacket in favour of a week’s supply of crisps and snacks, you teach them about value. Conversely, when you let children believe that they are entitled to their pocket money, they become listless and uninspired. When you dictate what they are allowed to spend their money on, you rob them of their human agency, of learning through experience, of growing.

What was the biggest clue to the dawning of this dystopian reality? Furlough. Paying healthy, creative, energetic young people to stay at home and do nothing but stare at screens and order junk food did them a disastrous disservice; it was dis-incentivising, destructive and demoralising. We have told the young, bright and creative minds of tomorrow – the entrepreneurs, the actors, the musicians, the artists, the dancers, the restaurateurs, the bar staff – your services are not needed; you are surplus to requirements. We will pay you to fester in your homes.

A good parent encourages their child to create and be productive; helps them understand that we each have a unique purpose in life; shows them that we all have intrinsic value in our ability to contribute to human evolution and progress. A good government understands that people don’t just want to be paid to exist, that all attempts to coerce and control the populace end badly, and that the only means to recover any economy is by stimulating production and human activity without too many restrictions and pressures. The greatest threat to humanity always comes when there is too much imbalance between those who hold all the wealth and power on the one hand, and those who have power in numbers and physical strength on the other hand. This is because those in power – through their political position, celebrity status, or wealth (or all three) – are completely out of touch with humanity. When you gain too much power through money or status, you dehumanise yourself and think yourself invincible and godlike. When you have a jackboot stamping on your face you have nothing to lose and become fearless in your defiance. There will always be more of us than there are of them. They seem to have forgotten this lately.

The economists and political strategists are not going to fix this. Most of them understand numbers but not human nature. The same goes for epidemiologists, geneticists and bioengineers. Many of them have a blind belief that the automation of services, artificial intelligence and dehumanisation will solve our economic crisis. They’ve got all the models to “prove” it. But if you apply theoretical models to living beings you don’t understand, you will fail. When you try to engineer utopia, you will inevitably build a dystopia. When we fight dystopia we inadvertently and unconsciously create utopia.  

If you have the smallest shred of sanity left in your brain, an iota of responsibility in your bones, a whisper of truth in your heart, one last breath of hope for humanity… you must resist and fight all attempts to issue “vaccine passports” via coercive measures with every fibre of your being. No excuses.

We will win. The only question is when.

BBC: déjà vu?


In the words of His Royal Highness Prince William, speaking to camera in May 2020, “BBC employees lied and… made lurid and false claims… which played on… fears and fuelled paranoia (and) displayed woeful incompetence when investigating complaints and concerns.”

Prince William went on to state, “They were evasive in their reporting to the media and covered up what they knew….  It is my view that the deceitful way [this was done] substantially influenced what [was] said. [It] has since hurt countless others. It brings indescribable sadness to know the BBC’s failures contributed significantly to… fear, paranoia and isolation… But what saddens me most is that if the BBC had properly investigated the complaints and concerns first raised [that year]… [we] would have known that [we] had been deceived. [We were] failed not just by a rogue reporter, but by leaders of the BBC who looked the other way rather than asking the tough questions. It is my firm view that this Panorama programme holds no legitimacy and should never be aired again. It effectively established a false narrative, which for over a quarter of a century has been commercialised by the BBC and others. This settled narrative now needs to be addressed by the BBC and anyone else who has written or intends to write about these events. In an era of fake news, public service broadcasting and a free press have never been more important. These failings, identified by investigative journalists, not only let… my family down; they let the public down, too.” (Emphasis mine, and certain singular pronouns pluralised out of context for effect).  

He was, of course, speaking of the Lord Dyson report, which found that the BBC had lied, covered up its lies, and conspired to keep those lies covered up, with respect to Martin Bashir’s 1995 interview with Princess Diana for Panorama. You can watch Prince Williams’s emotional speech, which was reported by almost every mainstream media channel worldwide, here.

While the speech was in direct response to the cruel and unjust way in which Princess Diana was treated, William could just as easily have been speaking of the despicable way in which the BBC turned a blind eye to Jimmy Savile’s unbroken reign as Director General of Paedophilia. When speaking about those who were damaged by the BBC’s actions, he could have been referring to all those victims of Savile’s, who were bullied by police, disbelieved and shunned. We now know that the BBC enabled Savile’s abuse; it is all described in lurid detail in Dame Janet Smith’s report published in February 2016. 

But what should chill us all to the bone is the very real possibility that, at some point down the line, our future monarch could be saying these words about the current crisis… calling the Covid pandemic a complete scam and the Covid vaccines a deadly mistake. The Panorama programme he would then be able to refer to, without changing his speech much, will be Marianna Spring’s investigation into so-called “anti-vaxxers” – a vile, discriminatory slur cast at anyone who has the intelligence and wherewithal to ask a few questions about a novel biotechnology, and take it upon themselves to alert the public if they discover inaccurate information is being peddled by the authorities. Anti vaxxers are definitely telling lies, we’ve been told; just as Jimmy Savile’s victims definitely told lies. See how it goes?

A free mainstream press is our best means of speaking truth to power and holding authorities to account. When the “free” press takes money from anyone other than those who pay for it (the taxpayer), it is no longer “free”. And let us not forget that we also pay to employ Her Majesty’s Government – no doubt soon to become His Majesty’s Government. This Guardian editorial had some sage advice for the young Prince William on his 18th birthday in June 2000. Suggesting that, “an actuary would give Charles favourable odds of making it to 85 at least”, the editor made some recommendations as to what William might do with his life during the intervening years until he comes to the throne; “…always assuming that the monarchical system still finds favour in this country in 2035, which is another interesting actuarial challenge,” he added.  

If William does hope to keep favour with the British public, he might start by not taking political or ideological sides. He might start by listening to the growing number of disquieted but silenced voices calling for an investigation into the Covid story, because their number is growing every single day. If they could reach him, they would probably say, “William, we, the people, want to ask some serious questions. Who does the BBC protect? Who does the BBC answer to? They lied about your mother and your family; they lied about Jimmy Savile. Why on earth should we assume they are telling the truth about the ‘pandemic’, or the offered vaccines? Where is the other side of the story? Why is there only one narrative (again) and no counter argument?”

Should we wait 20 years for yet another shocking report on BBC lies and cover-ups? Or should we ask “the tough questions” – as His Highness puts it – now? Let’s start with this question: why are OfCom-regulated broadcasters not “allowed” to give airtime to those who question the narrative around covid, lockdowns or vaccines? If there was a dangerous entity pushing a tyrannical agenda, how would we know? And since most of the independent news platforms that are not regulated/influenced by OfCom or Big Tech are reaching a consensus that suggests we are being controlled by a tyrannical agenda, isn’t it time we talked about it openly? I recently put the following question to a journalist I know who works in mainstream broadcast media and was refusing to acknowledge the seriousness of censorship: “Throughout the whole of history, give me one example of a time when decent, respectable leaders censored the press. And, while you are at it, make me a list of all the times when oppressors did.” The good guys don’t censor; the bad guys do. See how it goes?      

There are now so many elephants in the room you can barely get into the room. And they increase in number and size every day. They’re not going anywhere. Remember: elephants never forget. So let’s deal with them before they breach the walls and the room is smashed to pieces.  

The BBC is not, inherently, a bad idea. A monarchy is not, inherently, a bad idea. But they must work for the people they serve and represent, or there is no point to them. And they must “find favour” with the people, or they will become hated, and nothing good has ever come out of a nation feeling at odds with its established institutions. We have been lied to. Public trust in our institutions is broken. The country has been divided as never before. Someone needs to step up, urgently, and consult with representatives of every faction in our society, not just those deemed popular on social media. We need a truth and reconciliation commission. We cannot wait 25 years for a solemn speech by (then) King William condemning every institution for their lies.      

If you are a BBC employee, and you have any doubts about the one-sided narrative that is being peddled about covid and about covid vaccines, it is your moral, national and professional duty to stand up and speak out now. At the very least, join the Lockdowns Summit this Saturday, suspend your unconscious bias, and pay close attention: https://www.questioneverything.io/

Please use the following letter to write to your MP if you are concerned about the freedom of the press:

Postscript: Last night MPs voted to make it mandatory for care workers to be vaccinated to keep their jobs. Many of these care staff are low-paid and care for MPs’ own elderly parents. Now these vital workers may lose their jobs if they fail to get jabbed. The BBC did not cover the Commons vote in their 10 O’Clock news programme last night and, at time of writing, there was no prominent coverage on the BBC website.

talkRadio covering an issue that the BBC ignores

Face Liberation

As a writer, watching what has unfolded in the world over the past 15 months and trying to comment in real time and diarise for posterity, has been exhausting. At every turn, aghast at what has been done to people, I’ve wanted to scream from the rooftops. But it takes time to formulate one’s thoughts. It takes patience. Some pieces are ready quickly; some pieces take months to gestate. The urge is always there… to record, analyse and share. No matter what I’m experiencing, in real time, I’m also thinking about how it relates to something I’m writing.

As someone who has been deeply, relentlessly and systematically traumatised by the sight of masks and by the bullying of mask zealots (including by a member of the British Transport Police who saw fit to torment me and challenge me on my exemption despite knowing I was committing no offense), I wanted to comment on the horrific outpouring of mask worshipping by certain voices in the media in the wake of Monday 5th July’s announcement that they will no longer be mandated by any law. But I cannot express my feelings any better than Professor Robert Dingwall, who has tirelessly fought to protect our human rights, via his presence on government advisory bodies, against what can only be described as a complete coup by the combined interests of communists, biotechfascists and ecofascists.

Please put aside any preconceived ideas and beliefs you have around mask wearing, and read his words. Please encourage others – especially those who believe they are wearing masks for virtuous reasons – to read his words. Then please, for the sake of humanity, stop wearing masks. If nothing else, do it for the babies. They have been starved of human faces, and their development will have suffered if they’re surrounded by the masked. Take off your masks for the babies and smile at every one you see. There may yet be hope for the human race.

And thank you, Professor Dingwall, for your thoughtful, profound and courageous words. They are deeply moving.  

“As a member of government advisory bodies, I have always felt it would be incompatible with that status not to wear a face covering where legally required to. However, I shall cease to do so from 19 July when these requirements lapse.

I shall do this as an act of solidarity with all the people who have been exempt because of respiratory and neurodiverse conditions.

I shall do this as an act of solidarity with all the people who have been exempt because of trauma induced by previous assaults or abuse.

Both of these groups have often had a hard time over the last 15 months from police officers, street marshals, security guards, door staff and self-appointed busybodies.

I shall do this as an act of solidarity with all the people with communication difficulties, whether auditory and unable to lip-read, or visual and unable to use sound for reliable interaction and navigation.

I shall do this as an act of solidarity with all the small children whose education has been disrupted by the lack of visual clues, especially in language development.

I shall do this because, as SAGE, ECDC, WHO, CDC, CEBM, etc. have pointed out, the evidence of benefit in interrupting transmission from face covering is weak and ambiguous, allowing any partisan to cherry pick studies that suit their case.

I shall do this because, as the highly charged responses to the UK government’s announcement have shown, the main reasons for covering faces are now about fear and anxiety which will not be eased by clinging any longer to these comfort blankets.

I shall do this because I, too, am a moral person who cares about those with disabilities who are potential victims of discrimination, about small children whose development is disrupted, and about respect for scientific evidence.

If others take a different view, that is their prerogative. However, I will not allow them to suggest that I am less moral or caring and I will expect them to respect my choices as I respect theirs.”

Be More Bev

A couple of days ago a friend sent me a clip from the Jeremy Vine show; I believe it was filmed a few weeks ago. Jeremy is someone I once enjoyed listening to, and even spoke to as a phone-in guest on his BBC 2 radio show a couple of times. He has always been acerbic but I remember appreciating his non-partisan stance. In particular, I recall, he encouraged fair debate on Brexit and on the issue of extreme environmental activism. But if the incident that occurred on his TV show did not horrify him, I can only assume he has completely lost his mind.  

In the clip, I saw a journalist I have come to know as Bev Turner being harassed by a fellow panellist whose name I do not know (and do not think I wish to know). That a grown woman in the UK in 2021 felt justified in speaking to another grown woman with such vulgar contempt and ignorance, on live television, shocked me to the core. I have not watched mainstream broadcast television since March 2020. Is this what it has come to? Please watch the clip before reading on.


If you were unable to watch the link for any reason, let me describe the moment. The fellow panellist demands to know which make of “Covid vaccine” Bev has taken. She goads, aggressively and not so passively, “Did you have the Pfizer or the Oxford AstraZeneca? I have a right to know, Bev. It affects me. I’m sitting here within feet of you, I have a right to know.” There follows some childish rant, after Bev offers some scientific insight, in which this woman suggests that, since Bev doesn’t have a medical degree she has no right to question any medicine the government dictates she takes. Wow. When Bev exercises her right not to discuss her medical history with this woman (or the general viewing public), the woman says, “The fact that she refuses to say, means to me that she hasn’t had it.” And?

One would assume that most rational adults watching this would be disgusted by it, but upon further research it appears that OfCom received thousands of complaints. But not about the abuse. People were furious that Bev dared to tell the truth, which is that all the medicines currently offered as “Covid vaccines” are still in clinical trials. Well if the public is not aware that all “Covid vaccines” are still in clinical trials until at least 2023, then, Houston, we have a serious problem. Every person who has received, or is going to receive, a “Covid vaccine” should have been clearly informed by the “vaccinator” that these drugs are still in clinical trials. The UK regulator has approved these drugs on the understanding that a) we are in a serious public health emergency, and b) there is no other available treatment. If either of those factors were found to be incorrect, at any time in what is an ever-evolving situation, the “emergency approval” would have no basis; the drugs would have to be withdrawn immediately. You can whistle any tune you like to avoid them but these are the indisputable facts. In addition, while government officials are very keen to claim that it is the roll out of “Covid vaccines” (and no other factor) that has “broken the link” between infections and death, no one – I repeat, no one – has ever suggested that these drugs a) prevent infection (as the rapid rise of the not-too-serious “delta variant” in “vaccinated” folk has proved) or b) prevent transmission (see also, “vaccinated” carriers of the “delta variant” infecting family members).  

Watching this altercation, I was reminded of being hounded by schoolgirls over whether or not I’d lost my virginity. They demanded to know my sexual experience status; they silenced me for a week to try to make me tell them. It reminded me of being harassed by a former boss who demanded I tell him whether or not I had a boyfriend and froze me out of meetings until I admitted that I didn’t have one, which he took as a cue to attempt sexual assault. It reminded me of my elderly relative who lived in terror of people finding out she was Jewish in the 1940s… because she knew it would mean death. 

I ask you to sit down and ask yourself a serious question: what have we become? 

This incident, broadcast on national television, has nothing to do with viruses or politics or health or medicines or even fear. The situation I witnessed was one of pure oppression and discrimination. On live television, one woman berated another woman because she felt entitled to a “better” status. The implication of this woman’s interrogation was, “I have a status that deems me an acceptable human being and unless you reveal you have equal status, I will deem you an unacceptable human being.” The belief upon which this statement was made is completely unscientific; the statement is simply a vicious verbal attack that seeks to undermine Bev’s rights as a human being. It is an attempt to dehumanise her. 

Moreover, a full understanding of the medical facts (cases currently being far more prevalent in people who are medicated than people who are not medicated) would suggest that Bev – if she had not chosen to be medicated – would be at greater risk of contamination from the other woman. But Bev does not seek to ostracise that woman, or claim a higher status. This woman must understand her responsibility. She is on national television. People will model her behaviour. Young people will model her behaviour. And unless she makes a full apology to Bev, this kind of behaviour will lead to chaos. Perhaps even death… as it eventually did in Germany in the 1940s. 

Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. Pictures from the G7 Summit showed guests were maskless whilst catering staff were all masked. A photo taken at Wimbledon recently depicts the smiling faces of the Duchess of Cambridge and her friends having a wonderful time, laughing joyfully. But we cannot see the smiles of the ball boys and ball girls as they have all been forced to wear masks. Last I heard, we were engaged in uniting against discrimination, not creating new ways to impose it. None of this is okay. It is uncivilised, unBritish and unacceptable.

But there is a silver lining.

Bev Turner is a survivor. Bev Turner is a warrior. Bev Turner showed viewers that, when you are being bullied you must stand up for yourself and defend your human rights. Bev Turner’s behaviour will also be modelled.

Do the right thing, kids. Bev is fierce. Be more Bev.


We Are Civilians


The First World War was not known, at the time, as the First World War, of course; it came to be known as the “Great War” – a description as peculiarly paradoxical as “perfect storm” – because H.G. Wells declared it would be “The War That Will End War” (the title of his book of collected articles from the time). Alas, he was overly optimistic.

War is a very lucrative business and integrity holds little value on the balance sheet. History has shown that some corporations are willing to profiteer indiscriminately, happily making deals with both sides, calling themselves “neutral” rather than “unscrupulous”. Nation states can be equally duplicitous. During the American Civil War, despite Queen Victoria giving an official “Proclamation of Neutrality” in 1861, the British government endorsed Liverpool shipbuilders supplying the Confederate states with battleships.

War is also cruel and merciless as it destroys innocent lives. The first two British civilians killed by aerial bombardment when the German Zeppelin airships attacked Great Yarmouth on 19th January 1915, were reported to be 53-year-old shoemaker Samuel Smith and 72-year-old widow Martha Taylor. Many more civilians would subsequently lose their lives as a result of air raids over Britain during the First and Second World Wars. The sight and sound of bombs dropping from the skies onto our towns and cities is, thankfully, an experience that is barely still in living memory in the UK, although we now live under the threat of terrorist attacks that periodically maim and kill civilians. Acts of “terror” is how we have come to define acts of war committed by self-appointed leaders and proponents of extreme ideologies that we oppose.

The Council of Europe’s “Manual for Human Rights Education With Young People” poses complex and ethical questions about what constitutes an act of war and what constitutes an act of terrorism. ‘Both involve acts of extreme violence, both are motivated by political, ideological or strategic ends, and both are inflicted by one group of individuals against another. The consequences of each are terrible for members of the population – whether intended or not.’ In other words, both objectively violate human rights. ‘Wars and national emergencies,’ the manual explains, ‘allow for states to “derogate” from – or temporarily put aside – some of their human rights commitments. However, certain human rights, such as the right to life or the right to be free from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment can never be put aside. These are regarded as so important and so fundamental that they should be observed even when a state’s security is at risk.’ 

We will return to what constitutes “torture, inhuman and degrading treatment” another day.

War is justified, by those who wage it, as being necessary in the pursuit of protecting the land, people and status quo of their nation or society. So in the absence of worldwide universal agreement on how land, people and status quo should be structured and run, war is always inevitable. And in the pursuit of what the instigators of war seek to achieve, there will always be civilian casualties. But what differentiates the British civilians killed by a suicide bomber on the London Underground from the Iraqi civilians or Syrian civilians killed by airstrikes performed by HM Armed Forces, other than the chance location of their birth? Amnesty International estimates over 1,600 civilians in Raqqa, Syria, lost their lives in air strikes by the British, US and French coalition in 2017. The civilian death toll from the various wars waged in Iraq is well documented. The killing of any civilian in any war is the most atrocious waste of life.     

“Civilian” apparently comes from old French, the word “civilien”, meaning to being ruled by “civil law”.  What underpins civil law is “natural law”, which states that all persons are born free and have the right to live without fear of unjust oppression. Natural law also states that killing a person is always wrong, and that punishing someone who kills another person with intent is always right.

We come up against a stark oxymoron in the term “civil war”. We agree that “war” refers to an attack by one side upon another, but civilians, by definition, are persons not engaged in combat, so how can they fight to defend their civilian rights without employing actions that would deem them combatants and not civilians? The only true way for civilians to “fight” in a civil war is to do so without engaging in any direct combat, by mounting a peaceful resistance to the war waged on them. If they maintain their civilian status they will be protected under the “Fourth Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”, which states that all persons “in enemy hands” not covered by the conventions on – for example – prisoners of war (captured and imprisoned combatants) and medical personnel, must have a specific status: civilian status. No one can be unprotected by the law or fall outside of the categories of the conventions.

Civilians are also protected under the International Humanitarian Law, which is particularly applicable in the case of so-called “civil war” because it sets out what a regime can and cannot do to its own people if it is attempting to assert power in an oppressive and unethical manner.

The flaw in the ointment, with regard to our current global situation, is that these conventions are predicated on the assumption that war, by definition, is waged by physical force, that you can only attack people with physical weapons (such as guns and bombs) and physical acts (such as rape and torture). For a long time, we assumed that domestic abuse could only be classified as such if it involved physical abuse. It took years to establish, by law, that pure psychological abuse is abuse. Any physical abuse is also, by its very nature, psychologically abusive, but the added cruelty of pure psychological abuse is that the victim has no scars to show as evidence. The most cunning abusers know this, and take great pains to cover their tracks and ensure there is no direct proof of their crimes.

If pure psychological abuse absent physical assault on an individual can legally constitute domestic abuse, then it follows that pure psychological abuse absent physical attack on entire societies constitutes an act of war. Just because you can’t see bruises doesn’t mean someone hasn’t been abused. Just because you can’t see bomb wreckage, doesn’t mean civilians haven’t been attacked. If a hostile entity attacks the minds of huge swathes of the civilian population, turning them into self-harming, propaganda-spouting ideologues, who will even go to unimaginable lengths to defend the harms they perpetrate on themselves, it is clear that a war has been waged, that we are witnessing psychological warfare. Any techniques used to psychologically abuse civilians should be classified as weapons; these can be just as deadly as physical and biological weapons. In fact, perhaps more so, since the victim will often remain oblivious to the fact that they have been attacked, making them increasingly vulnerable to further abuse down the line.

Cunning psychopaths don’t throw punches; they lie, they manipulate, they gaslight, they deceive, they falsify, and they play psychological games with their victims. One of the most egregious tactics of all is to frame the “good guys” as the “bad guys” and vice versa. Causing confusion is a particularly effective method of psychological control. Everything is perception, and distortion is a powerful and manipulative tool. 

That we are living through World War Three is indisputable, even if the true face of our “enemy” is not entirely evident yet. Efforts to unmask the identities of those who constructed and coordinated the attacks on us will presumably continue far into the future. No doubt a hugely complex picture will eventually emerge. Heavy is the pathogen that wears the false crown.

But when human beings assume authority over others, and grab power by force and stealth, they become weak and trapped by their own machinations of mendacity. Every tyrant eventually discovers this. Succession without authenticity is destined to fail. To be truly powerful you must humbly offer yourself as a sacrificial lamb to your disciples. You must sit so squarely in your purity and unshakeable integrity that the brave and broken flock to you, seeking out your light in the darkness. Only then will you freely, almost accidentally, attract the respect of those you lead. This is why the story of Jesus of Nazareth has endured for so many years. Gandhi had this inherent power, as did Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. Which leader, today, could hold a candle to any of these people? Perhaps, when the leaders become pathologically weak, the flock have to become lions.

The final civilian death count from World War Three is likely to exceed, by far, all civilian deaths ever recorded in all the wars that human beings have ever waged combined. This is because the definition will come to include any death that can be traced back to the harm caused by any measure deliberately imposed upon the civilian population in the name of “controlling” a virus. The argument will be made that those imposing such measures knew that viruses cannot be “controlled”. Even if they could be, all control measures would have to have passed strict safety standards and a cost-benefit analysis proving they did not do more harm than good; you can’t just experiment on people with measures that have never been tried and tested before. None of this happened, of course. So we will be looking at deaths due to the withdrawal of health services, deaths due to fear-induced stress causing heart disease, deaths due to social neglect, deaths due to fear of contacting emergency services, deaths due to fear of leaving the home, deaths due to stress-induced domestic abuse, deaths due to increased drug and alcohol abuse, deaths due to malnutrition from loss of livelihood, deaths due to compromised human immune systems, deaths due to medical malpractice, deaths due to the politicisation of medical interventions and the hasty authorisation of novel drugs, deaths due to ADE, deaths due to failed medical experimentation, deaths due to lung disease caused by mask wearing, and deaths due to suicide as a direct result of isolation and the loss of hope. Deaths that will not be recorded as civilian deaths during World War Three will be those triggered by an upper respiratory virus. You cannot hold a virus responsible for intentionally inflicting harm on people.

That the UK government, with full knowledge of how many actual deaths are caused by these life-threatening measures, is still attempting to impose them, still justifying them using flawed models of predicted deaths from covid, is unconscionable. The use of an unknowable counter-factual in their argument is deceitful and cruel. To say, “this person would definitely have died of covid if this child had been allowed to attend school, therefore denying children education is justified and in future all children must not attend school,” is like saying, “this particular person would definitely have died of covid if they hadn’t had this vaccine, therefore the vaccine saved their life, therefore everyone must take this vaccine,” or, “We’ve vaccinated all these people and fewer people are getting infected therefore it must be the vaccine, it cannot possibly be seasonality or natural herd immunity,” or, “The rains came today because I finally sacrificed my sheep this morning; if I hadn’t sacrificed my sheep there would have been no rain.”. These are arguments built on sand, which simply have no meaningful validity, and it is blatantly clear that those in positions of power are cognisant of this nonsense.

Reading this report published in July 2020 in which the government tries to balance the death and devastation caused by lockdowns with upsides such as cleaner air, is mentally excruciating. As is trying to follow public addresses made by England’s Chief Medical Officer. His crowning moment, though, was this Royal Society of Medicine interview with Professor Simon Wessely, in which he repeatedly contradicts himself and seems to lose track of where he is in the false narrative. Ultimately they are all trying to squeeze square pegs into round holes – in other words trying to justify killing and harming a lot of young and healthy people who had their whole lives ahead of them in order to save a small number of very old, poorly people who have led full and interesting lives but are close to death. Are we saying that it is acceptable to let people die of anything but covid? That cancer deaths are acceptable, fatal heart attacks are acceptable and suicides are acceptable, but covid deaths are unacceptable deaths? That covid must be contained at any and all cost because it would be a crime to “allow” anyone to Die of Covid. This is an unacceptable, deadly doctrine.    

World War Three will come to be known as the War on Humanity. In the name of covid, an unmitigated attack on everything that makes us human was launched. We can see now that this was never about a virus; it was only ever about control. Specifically, there appears to be a sinister attempt to strip us of our individual human idiosyncrasies and natural rights. We have systematically and cruelly been denied the most fundamental aspects of human life: the sight of human faces, the tenderness of human touch, the joy of social interaction, in-person healthcare, sunlight on our skin, the freedom to breathe unimpeded, the freedom to speak uncensored, the ability to earn a living, the right to protest, and – by the far the cruellest infringement of our natural human rights – the right to hold the hand of a loved one as they take their last breath, and the right to witness our precious offspring take their first. 

The wheels are slowly coming off the “war on covid” as the “R” of truth overtakes the “R” of lies. This is because lies will always eat themselves and end up diminishing into a sticky black hole that is both easy to recognise and to avoid. Truth, conversely, is a self-regenerating light that burns with the same eternal and omnipotent power as the life-giving sun itself. A tsunami of truth is about to come crashing down on the heads of all those who have followed the flawed playbook of other despots (specifically “if you get caught lying, keep lying, only ever lie, and make the lies so big no one will dare question you.”). Anyone who imposes and upholds restrictions, who administers various measures, who participates in the “control covid” culture – as we have seen many people do with disturbing levels of fanaticism in some cases, are the henchmen of this war. History will not look kindly upon them; at best they will be pitied because – after all – they were subjected to unprecedented and unimaginable levels of propaganda. In that respect, perhaps we may come to view them as indirect casualties of war, attacked by the very psychological weapons they, in turn, used against others.

So now what to do? Well, it doesn’t seem as though anyone is coming to save us. And perhaps that is how it has to be. Survivors of physical and psychological abuse know that opportunity follows crisis, and that there is a transition period during which you must transform from victim to survivor. This journey involves taking back your individual power, coming to terms with your own role in the situation, forgiving yourself for being deceived, soothing your fears and tending your reopened wounds. The experience is life changing, and allows you to move forward, fearlessly, with a sense of peace; it is nothing short of an enlightened spiritual awakening. 

An oppressive and deliberately discriminatory regime will only ever create the means to destroy itself. The one thing that machines – and the madmen governed by machines – will never understand is that the individual human mind, truly liberated and free from fear, is the most powerful force on earth. So-called “slaves” who have refused to kneel down at the feet of their oppressors, who have died on their feet, fearless and free in their minds, have always understood this.

If we are to survive this psychological war, this war on humanity, we must not focus on who or what is driving it. We must band together, globally, as peaceful civilians. We must – in our hearts – pledge our allegiance to a Global Civilian Movement and become engaged in nothing more and nothing less than protecting the basic and natural human rights of all people, through the promotion of nonviolent resistance to regimes intent on suspending them.

Your duty, as a civilian, is to stop engaging with the psychological manipulation machine. You must recognise that every aspect of it is part of the whole; you must comply with none of it, ever again. You must refuse to be tortured by it. Your enduring purpose now, as a civilian, is to educate others. Tell people about their rights and status as a civilian during a time of war. Teach them how to protect themselves. Remember that great Charles MacKay quote, “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.” Be patient as, one by one, your fellow civilians recover. Identify yourself to others as a civilian, through your online personal profile, your business and to your authorities. Engage with other civilians. There is strength and sanity in numbers.

It would be fitting to declare Monday 21st June 2021, the day when the British government will break their agreement with the British people by continuing to impose unreasonable restrictive measures on them, as the first and annual Global Civilian Day

There is no telling how long this war will last, but global civil resistance starts now and will last forever. Because we, the people, are free, will always be free, and will uphold the natural rights of all civilians of all nations for all of time. 

We will not participate in this war.

I am a civilian.

You are a civilian.

We are civilians.

By Anna Wright. Anna is a regular columnist for TNE.

Anna’s March

by Anna Wright

I was born and grew up, on and off, in London. Throughout my teenage years I was aware of an annual event called “The Notting Hill Carnival” that took place on the last weekend of August. I knew it to be a very dangerous event. People got stabbed there. There were violent riots. No one was safe. I knew this because the BBC told me so. I saw images of police being attacked and arrests being made. So I was astonished when, at the age of 21, my first serious boyfriend announced that he was “excited” about us going to “Carnival” together. I questioned his sanity. He laughed at my irrational fears and assured me that it was the safest event on earth, full of love and joy. Holding his hand tightly, I embarked on my first Carnival. He was right. It was incredible. I danced, I laughed, I loved and I felt loved. It was the greatest celebration of humanity I had ever known… until recently.

The other live events I avoided, growing up, having been warned, by the BBC and the majority of national newspapers, that my life would undoubtedly be at risk, were live football matches. Hooligans dominated these events, I was told. Fighting always broke out between fans. I would probably get crushed to death. The worst fans were Liverpool FC supporters because… Hillsborough. But I loved Liverpool. I had a schoolgirl crush on Michael Owen and always felt a great sense of pride when – as was so often the case in the 1990s and 2000s – our lads played for England. When I was first invited to a game at Anfield, I was nervous. I had sleepless nights worrying about being caught in the crossfire of raging thugs. I almost lost my bottle. Well, you could have knocked me down with a feather any minute of that beautiful day. It was magical. I had never felt surrounded by such love and passion and solidarity… until recently.  

Since March 2020, my personal views on the UK government’s response to the Covid pandemic have not only been unrepresented, they have been co-opted as signifying a nasty, selfish, brainless attitude. I am not nasty, selfish or brainless. I have a huge heart, I think about others all the time, and I consider myself well educated and worldly, having travelled extensively and lived in many countries. I approach everything in life with an open mind and a generous spirit. When people started obsessively distancing, chemically sanitizing their hands and wearing masks, I was deeply alarmed. When they accepted enforced isolation and quarantining, I was horrified. Distancing is not healthy in any way, shape or form. I did not need any “scientific proof” to tell me that wearing masks was unhygienic and damaging on many levels. I had been raging about the ill-advised practice of using hand sanitizer in place of hand washing for years. Then it got worse. The government passed legislation that gave them the power to force businesses to close, to forbid people from seeing their loved ones, and to stop children going to school. I was enraged. But I was a lone voice. I felt as though a hypnotic spell had been cast over the whole world and I had been left alone, yelling at people to wake up and stop acting in such an inhumane way. However, my voice was silenced.

As the weeks and months rolled on, I eventually found a few courageous voices echoing my thoughts. The relief I felt when I read Dr John Lee’s first article questioning lockdown policy in the Spectator was palpable. When I read Mike Yeadon’s brilliant, meticulous, astute explanation of how we’d made a huge mistake in our assumptions about SARS-CoV-2, first published on Lockdown Sceptics, I felt the tide would turn. When he urgently appealed to be connected to Keir Starmer, and to be given a chance to explain the errors that had been made, I assumed we would soon be home and dry. But nothing changed. And soon I began to suspect that something deeper was amiss. It got harder and harder to believe that this was all a big “fuck up”. Slowly, I found friends and family who agreed with me. But we were confused and scared. The BBC told us that only Trump supporters (which we were not) and people from something called QAnon (I still don’t know what this is) questioned the official Covid response. These people were so dangerous that, when they gathered to protest in London, in the summer of 2020, riot police had to be called in. I saw some disturbing pictures of people being restrained and arrested.

As things seemed to go back to normal in September, I tried to put the worst experiences (like being denied entry to a shop because I refused to use sanitizer and being told by a café they would only serve me outside because I was mask exempt) behind me. The November lockdown was a bit of a joke. Shops were open for “call and collect” and no one paid much attention to the “rules”. But then the MHRA gave emergency use approval for a couple of “vaccines” and my blood ran cold. Firstly, because I had dismissed hysterical cries for “vaccines before Christmas” as I knew no vaccine could be given to the general public without several years of trials (I confirmed this on the NHS website) so what on earth was going on, secondly because I had just read that the pharmaceutical companies making these drugs (the very companies that have historically paid the largest fines, sometimes amounting to billions of dollars, for criminal activity, most notably defrauding the population over safety data for drugs) had been indemnified against legal liability by the government, and thirdly because we knew – by then – that medications such as HCQ and Ivermectin were being successfully used to treat Covid in other countries, meaning that no emergency approval should ever have been given to these “vaccines”. (Emergency use approval for a new drug can only be given if there is no other known treatment available.)

Nothing could have prepared me for the hysteria that then ensued.

Cut to April 2021 and suddenly we had celebrities posting live “vaxies” (photographing and filming themselves being “vaccinated”) on Instagram, manic “vaccinators” trawling residential areas looking for likely targets to stick needles into, MPs calling for “vaccine passports” and half the general public calling for the “unvaxxed” to be rounded up and cast aside, having been goaded by the mainstream media into calling these people “antis” (short for anti-vaxxers – the new untouchables). The pinnacle of this pantomime was Edwina Currie, a woman raised as an Orthodox Jew, saying she wanted to be sure she never had to “sit next to an unvaccinated person on a bus”. The irony of a Jewish person demanding the segregation of people based on a delusional completely false and twisted belief that they were somehow diseased and unclean is astounding, and should never be forgotten.

And the BBC lapped it all up. Young reporter Marianna Spring was hired to investigate the mad conspiracy theorists who were warning young healthy people not to be coerced into taking these hastily approved, experimental “vaccines”. More pictures were circulated in March of the crazy “alt right” protesters endangering everyone’s lives (unlike the kind and caring mourners at the vigil for Sarah Everard, or the Black Lives Matter protesters, or the XR campaigners). This was getting weird. Okay, if some really anxious elderly people wanted an emergency-approved experimental drug being offered as a “vaccine”, let them have it, but why this frenzy? Why the desperation to be jabbed as if it was baptism into a cult? Why this hysterical coercion by the NHS, and manic threats of “no jab, no job” and “no jab, no travel” and… and… what the hell is Tony Blair doing on our TV screens telling everyone they MUST GET VACCINATED?!

When I heard there was another protest planned for 24April 2021, where people fighting for the full restoration of civil liberties and the right to bodily autonomy were coming together to voice their objections to lockdowns and restrictions and coerced “vaccines” and “health passports”, I knew I had no choice. I was more scared of not speaking out than I was of any angry “alt right” mob.

And what do you know? The BBC – through the trembling tones of a terrified Marianna Spring – had done it again! They’d tried to dupe me, and millions of others, into believing anyone who challenged the Covidian ideology – of lockdowns and masks and mandatory jabs for all – was somehow dangerous. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can attest to this because… I was there. I waited in Hyde Park enveloped by hoards of peace-loving, passionate, humane, joyous people. I set off up Park Lane… one in half a million people. Don’t believe any report to the contrary. This was undoubtedly a crowd larger than a 200,000-strong Glastonbury (another event I was scared off attending for years before I discovered it was not a cesspit of thieves) and close to the size of Notting Hill Carnival, which attracts around a million per day. To give you an idea of the size of this protest, I stopped at a pub just off the route to spend a penny and have a rest. When I re-joined the march, half an hour later, the crowd was still going strong and I couldn’t see the back of it. A few police officers walked amongst us – some of them chatting pleasantly with protestors – but for the most part we were left to police ourselves. I didn’t see any heavy drinking, there was less littering than any music festival I’ve attended, and there was not even much swearing. I spoke to many people who’d never been on a march before but shared my feelings of exasperation at being silenced. We were united in our need to be heard and our desire to preserve humanity. There were children. There was dancing. There was singing. There was love. There was joy. I felt safe. I felt happy. I felt heard. This was no angry mob, this was no “alt right” rally. I doubt the majority of people in that crowd had any clearer idea of what “QAnon” is than I do. (Note to Marianna Spring who sounds obsessed with this organisation. Perhaps she could enlighten us.)

As we came down Victoria Embankment, approaching Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament, I wept.    

None of us choose to be born. None of us choose to be born within a particular country. But by virtue of being born we have a birthright to live on the land of our unintended nation. We have the right to breathe freely and work honestly. We have the right to assemble in public spaces and we have the right to speak. We have the right to learn, the right to love, and the right to liberty. No man or machine has the right to take those rights away from us. We have the right to life until God, or whatever you want to call the power of nature, calls time on our existence.

The “Coronavirus Act” should be revoked immediately. Every politician who enabled this totalitarian nightmare we are living in should be given an amnesty period to come forward and speak the truth to a reconciliation commission. Because they know; they know what they have done is wrong. No matter what they have been told or bullied into believing about things that are necessary for “the greater good”, they know what they are enabling is wrong. If they do not speak up now, if they do not use their right to speak up now, there may come a time when they find they no longer have the power to determine people’s liberties, but the people will have the power to determine theirs.

Anna Wright is a guest writer for The New EraNote: all TNE guest posts represent the views of the authors.

Grown-up Children and Lockdown


By Anna Wright

Every parent is aware that the moment will come when they will have to destroy their child’s fantasy. They will have to admit that Santa Claus is not “real”.

For my friend, it was a particularly painful ordeal. You see, she allowed her 13-year-old daughter to believe in the fantasy for a little too long. A 7-year-old or 8-year old will forgive you and move on, but a 13-year-old has too much invested. My friend didn’t intend to keep the lie going so long. It was far more a case of her headstrong, imaginative daughter being unwilling to give up the magic.

As she grew older, friends at school – presumably a little bemused by her devout belief – would hint at the fact that the Santa story wasn’t real, but she refused to succumb to their bubble bursting tactics. She would come home and roll her eyes at her mother, telling tales about the nonsense her heretic friends were spreading. But this past Christmas, my friend decided enough was enough. She sat her daughter down and explained that Santa was just a made up story, partly upheld to make children behave themselves in the run up to Christmas, because – as we all know – only the good and obedient children get their gifts.

There followed two days of hysterical tantrums. There were tears; doors were slammed. But the upshot was this: Santa would not be defiled. Another Christmas came and went; the fantasy remained untarnished with the truth.

I was reminded of this story when I saw Keir Starmer come up against a desperate, angry, frustrated former Labour voter and exasperated publican on Monday 19th April. Rod Humphris confronted the Labour Party leader, exclaiming that he had failed the country. Rod pointed out that the average age of someone dying with or from Covid is around 82, which is in line with the country’s average age of death in most preceding years, and on that basis there was absolutely no justification for the abhorrent and abusive lockdowns that have devastated lives, left many locked out of any health care and decimated the educational experience of a whole generation of children (my choice of words in describing harms of lockdown restrictions).

Starmer’s response was, “I am not going to be lectured by you!” He sounded like a petulant teenager. Interviewed on camera later, he stated that Rod was entitled to his “opinion” but that he, Keir, “profoundly disagreed” with it. I was reminded of my friend’s daughter who effectively said to her mother, on hearing Santa did not exist, “You are entitled to your opinion but I profoundly disagree with it.” The Labour Press office (sounding like Keir’s playground gang) later Tweeted that their leader had been accosted by a man “spreading dangerous misinformation.” It may well have been dangerous to the Labour Leader’s fantasy, but it was not misinformation since it was taken straight from the ONS website.

I had a similar experience recently when I tried to explain, over the phone, to the operations manager at my gym, that their request for people to wear masks was unwise since they admitted they had done no risk assessment on the harms of mask wearing. When I suggested sources they might refer to, he retorted, “I am not going to have a conversation with a conspiracy theorist!” And hung up on me.

We clearly have some deeply disturbed and disgruntled grown-up children in the world, throwing tantrums over the fact that people are ceasing to believe in their fantasy. I am reminded of a powerful and poignant quote by George Orwell (significantly written in 1946 as the true horrors of the Nazi regime were coming to light). He said, “We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.”

I confess that it was with some relief that I watched Starmer stamp his feet. I have found his actions over the past 12-13 months so absurd, I was almost beginning to believe the insane conspiracy theories circulating about him. I have read that he is a member of some elite organisation called the “Trilateral Commission” and is in cahoots with Tony Blair to usher in a digital ID that would create a health apartheid and end civil rights forever. That is clearly utter tosh. Now I know he is just a scared child, juvenile and embarrassed, desperate not to be caught out having made the most horrific mistakes. He could take a leaf out of Justin Welby’s book. Our current Archbishop of Canterbury, a man who has seen and experienced more human suffering than most, recently apologised for “getting quite a few things wrong” when he did not push harder for churches to be kept open during lockdowns. He acknowledged that we now have a national case of PTSD and sounds fully committed to getting the country back on its feet.     

Perhaps Starmer should be reminded that the purpose of the privilege of education, which he has been privy to, is not to make and hoard money, or to seek omnipotence over the human race, but to lead and inspire. Those more fortunate have a duty of care to those less fortunate. And the duty of leadership itself is to have the humility to say, “I was wrong, I made mistakes, I will do everything I can to put things right.”

Lockdowns are profoundly wrong; they are inhumane. Everyone in their right mind knows this. Nothing will ever change that fact. All our leaders need to find the courage to stop digging their destructive rabbit holes, apologise for telling lies, and find the compassion to help people heal.   

Anna Wright is a guest writer for The New Era. Note: all TNE guest posts represent the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of TNE.