Monetising Fear

I have worked in marketing for over 30 years. I know the monster that I, and other marketers, have created. The monster is called FUD: fear, uncertainty and doubt.

To come to my own defence, I’ve only ever worked in the business-to-business end of marketing. It’s trickier to instil fear, uncertainty and doubt into a hard-bitten business decision-maker than Joe Public.  But we try anyway.  But the assault on the buying public, coercing them to take drugs they almost certainly don’t need, has been going on for years. And this has especially been the case in the so-called “developed world”. 

In the United States pharmaceutical companies dominate television advertising. If you’ve visited America (prior to 2020, when you were allowed to) and flicked on the television, you’ll have been bombarded with adverts for every kind of weird and not-so-wonderful drug.  The Americans are among the most medicated people in the world spending, per capita, twice the OECD average on legal drugs. And this expenditure doesn’t do the nation many favours. America is one of the world’s most addicted nations in terms of prescription and illegal drugs. 

Some 75% of TV advertising expenditure in the United States is by drug companies.  In 2020, pharma companies spent a vast $6.58 billion on advertising (source Kantar Media). It was a bumper year because of Covid – with the majority of Americans seeking out remedies for other chronic health conditions – such as asthma and diabetes. America’s a fat nation of addicts, making it fertile ground for drug peddlers offering spurious remedies for morbidities, co-morbidities and Covid. 

Covid, however, has been a Godsend for the FUD-merchants. Now we have visual FUD: masks, social distancing signage, and government-paid-for advertising to encourage the take-up of big pharma’s latest ruse: Covid vaxes.  America, in addition to its other endemic public health afflictions (with associated pharmacology) has a bit of a problem with asthma. Some 25 million American’s suffer with it. And yet the government’s solution to mitigate Covid risk is to mandate the wearing of masks. Although this, no doubt, helps with the sales of asthma medication and inhalers. Indeed, the global asthma drugs market size is predicted to surpass around $37.3 bn by 2030 from $20.6 bn in 2020, growing at an annual rate of 5.2% from 2021 to 2030 (Source: Precedence Research).  Handy that. 

And then, of course, there’s the lobbying. It takes work to put the FUD-words into the mouths of the politicians. But mostly they handily oblige. According to this report, “From 1999 to 2018, the pharmaceutical and health product industry recorded $4.7 billion—an average of $233 million per year—in lobbying expenditures at the federal level, more than any other industry.”  It continued, “The industry spent $414 million on contributions to candidates in presidential and congressional elections, national party committees, and outside spending groups. Of this amount, $22 million went to presidential candidates and $214 million went to congressional candidates.”

We can only surmise the levels of spending in other jurisdictions.  And, of course, it’s not merely direct lobbying that provides the words for policies, legislation and politician virtue signalling – it’s also the NGOs that are effectively in the pockets of the drug companies. And many of the drug companies are in the pockets of the NGOs – with Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust investing heavily in “innovative” pharmaceutical companies making drugs to treat, you-know, Covid and things. 

The extent of public ignorance of the manipulation that’s going on is simply staggering. In the past many of us, myself included, were of the view that Americans were clearly being manipulated. In the land of the free, we concluded, why not let them eat whatever cake was being peddled. It didn’t affect us.

But now it is. Because the same (or same different) pharma companies are now peddling their wares in new ways with the support of bought governments that are mandating their garbage medicants.  But here’s a message for them. Go sell your crazy some place else. 

Together in Manchester

Every year the major political parties hold their conferences in the Autumn.  In 2020 lockdowns and extended Covid regulations disrupted things. But in 2021 in-person conferences are back. But still the spectre of yet more regulations hang over the proceedings. Covid certification is now required for certain critical workers to keep their jobs. There’s a real prospect that vaccine passports may be required to take part in large events, or even to eat in restaurants.

The continued attacks on personal freedoms and liberty has seen the launch of a new campaign called Together.  Launched just a few weeks ago Together has organised events at all the major political conferences. I took the opportunity to see what they were doing at the Reform Party and Conservative Party fringe.  Watch the video in full below – featuring Richard Tice, Leader of the Reform Party; Alan Miller of the Together Campaign; and Francis Hoar, the Barrister and Human Rights Lawyer.

The heart of the campaign is the Together Declaration which, in early October 2021, has had around 100,000 signatories. The conferences provided an opportunity for leading parliamentarians, journalists and business-people to sign the declaration…a declaration that includes the following words. 

“The glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel — ‘15 million jabs to freedom’ to protect the most vulnerable — soon faded as the goalposts kept on moving. When ‘freedom day’ finally arrived, the accompanying announcement of vaccine passports meant the prospect of returning to ‘normal’ had once again slipped away.

“We are human. We know this makes us seek safety above everything else. We seek it for ourselves, we seek to protect those we love, and we strive for a safe world for our children — and sometimes rules and restrictions can help us to feel safer.

“But being ordered to produce medical certification at pubs, clubs, theatres, on public transport, at schools, universities, or anywhere else, is unwarranted and risks deepening the inequalities already present within our society.”

If you like our content please register for our mailing list or consider donating.

Losing my Faith in Secularism

We tend to kick against things when they try to control us. I remember doubting any religious faith I had when I was coerced, forced even, to attend church – or worse, Sunday School – when I was still in my skinned-knees years.  Sunday School was, admittedly, on Sundays but it sure wasn’t school. It involved a surly bunch of kids being talked at by some dour church lay-person who quoted, in monotone, tracts from the bible. It was interminably dull.  My chosen method of relieving the tedium was to ask difficult questions like, “where is heaven in relation to the stratosphere,” or “so who made God prior to him making the universe?”.  The answers were rarely adequate – and so began my journey to worshipping at the altar of secularism.

And so it has been since, until recently. I even got involved in launching the Conservative Humanist Association at the Conservative Party Conference in 2008 – with celebrity atheist Professor Richard Dawkins. The room was packed for the launch. 

Like most secularists I was of the view that society had little need for a moral codex provided by the church. While many in the Conservative Party were still of the view that we needed to respect our Judeo-Christian values, I felt that the church (especially the Anglican Church) had moved so far, politically, to the left that it had lost all credibility.  Society, I thought, and specifically the Conservative Party, would protect our freedoms and would create a political-based set of ethical standards to which we could all adhere.

As it turned out I was both right and wrong. I hadn’t fully bargained on woke, nor the Covid cult.  Nor had I fully appreciated the extent to which most people have become incredibly intellectually lazy. They expect to be told how to think and behave. And they do so readily. In effect, we have infantilised the adult population. There has been no agenda behind this. Rather, the process of ideas being replaced by messages has been happening for decades – and I’m, to some extent, to blame (or people like me). 

Marketing – the process of getting people to desire things and part with money to have those things – is a huge part of the British economy. For a while I even worked with the research division of WPP Group – where we researched the hell out of our target audiences so that we understood, in incredible detail, what messages we needed to use to sell to them. And soon political parties wanted to do this. Marketing messages were boiled down, condensed, tested, re-tested, and put to work.   And even God-squad politicians like Tony Blair realised that it was probably best to keep the messaging generic to keep as many on board as possible – to have an optimum addressable market. Politicians became simply parrots repeating the chosen lines, ignoring interviewer questions, and journalists became ‘gotcha’ merchants who sought aberrations from those chosen lines. 

Aldous Huxley, Author of Brave New World, discusses how people can become hypnotised. But the awake, or partially awake, are our salvation.

Woke emerged from this world. It probably emerged, showed its ugly head, with Cool Britannia – Blair’s revolting pastiche of national pride, consumerism, celebrity and American style schmaltz. He wasn’t one for soundbites, he claimed, while having the hand of history on his shoulder.  Offense was avoided. Electorates were maximised. Ideology was deemed toxic. Diversity was in (to maximise the market).  And to keep costs down it made sense to reuse campaign tools that had been proven in other similar markets. Populism was out, popularity was in.  In short, no one demographic was allowed to define the discourse – because that would mean that the electoral arithmetic wouldn’t work.

And because businesses were using the same techniques, corporatism and government started to look and sound very similar. Corporate-sponsored woke was born.  

In George Walden’s book, The New Elites, he argued that one could barely have squeezed a wafer-thin mint between Blair and Cameron in terms of policy positions or delivery. Both cultured faux common-man parlance, pretended to be interested in football and other common-people things, and built the apparatus of secular campaigning around them.  Cameron started the process of ‘greening’ the Conservatives (the ultimate secular-globalist nonsense) by making the Conservative logo a tree – dumping the Union flag in the process. 

But the secular/globalist golden egg is, without doubt, Covid. The so-called pandemic has allowed Western governments (including the UK government under policy-bereft Johnson) to embrace the version of secular government that is inevitable when the population ceases to realise what ethics are any longer: a command economy. 

Secular command economies can only really emerge when there is an emergency excuse to create them. The virus – handily provided by the Chinese – is anthropomorphised into an enemy that we must attack. The language of war is mustered, so that we can attack the enemy in the air, on the beaches, never surrendering. This requires everyone to rally together, not questioning the corporatist solution that’s mustered. And even when it’s clear that the solution – vaccines, masks, lockdowns and the like – doesn’t actually work (because the emergency is nonsense to begin with), non-compliance can be made to look like repellent anti-social behaviour. In short, a new cultish secular religion has been created that is beginning to look and feel like the command-based People’s Republic of China.  Even normal democratic processes have been suspended, such is the nature of the emergency.  And everyone must be subject to the commands – even children. The King has no clothes, but no-one is prepared to say. 

In short, secularism has turned into a monster religion.  And because some of us, innately, don’t like religions or regulations or to be told to do certain things (because they are counter-intuitive and freedom-suppressing) we end up rejecting them – but only some of us (those who aren’t hypnotised).  Nevertheless, the cultists are everywhere all of a sudden. 

Inevitably people will wake up.  But only a small percentage of our society (probably the best educated – not necessarily academically – and free thinkers) is currently awake. The awake will need to prod the middle group of partially awake, but drowsy.  But in meantime, the ruling elites are drunk on power and are running amok.  We’ll need new leaders to make the changes and restore liberty.  Because there’s every possibility that the Cultists will create too much mayhem for order to be restored.  The government and their cult-members are the problem – not the faux-pandemic. 

And I, for one, may have to embrace those Judeo-Christian traditions out of which our freedoms emerged. Uncomfortable, but true.

If you like our articles and videos you may wish to show your appreciation with a small donation to help with our running costs. Huge thanks in advance.

The Non-Disclosure Pact

Throughout history, oppressors have chosen minority groups to persecute. Oppressors are very skilled at persuading the majority of the population to go along with their plans. African people were officially bought and sold as slaves from the 1500s right up to the late 19th century. Society accepted this.

The Non-Disclosure Pact

In the early part of the 20th century, Jews and Romanis were increasingly persecuted throughout Europe. The lack of widespread challenge to this allowed for genocide to take place during Second World War. In the 1980s, worldwide hysteria over the HIV virus and AIDS epidemic gave rise to homophobia, and vicious attacks on gay men occurred while many turned a blind eye. For all these reasons, we have international laws that protect an individual’s fundamental rights and privacy, and we need to be vigilant for new tactics that could enable oppression. Those who seek to segregate and oppress people, often for financial gain, will always look for new ways to label people and cast them out of society. Recently we have seen this done based on people’s cultural and political beliefs. Cancel culture is a real problem in today’s world. But the creep of biosecurity measures is much more alarming. Do not allow your health to be weaponised.     

Your medical records are YOUR business. Your health history is YOUR business. Whatever physical and mental health issues you have had in the past, you are entitled to keep this information to yourself. There is a very good reason for this. When personal information gets into the wrong hands, you are at risk. You are at risk when your private financial details get into the wrong hands, but any data breach can normally be rectified. If your private medical details get into the wrong hands, they could be used against you to devastating effect.

This is why it is essential that we do not declare private medical information to anyone other than a doctor of our own choosing. We should not be uploading our private medical information to an app that could easily be accessed by anyone. Imagine someone knowing that you attempted suicide when you were 19, or that you caught Chlamydia when you were 25. Should these details be accessible? No, they should be private and well protected. 

A health apartheid, through vaccine passports or vaccine status disclosure, not only threatens the lives and freedoms of a group of people defined today as the “unvaxxed”, it threaten the lives and freedoms of every person on the planet. Today, you might be in a group deemed “fully vaccinated” because you got two injections. Tomorrow, this might be invalid and you might be forced to take any number of injections before you are “allowed” your freedom. This is an egregious new form of slavery and we must stamp it out before it takes hold. 

You are being cajoled into believing it is acceptable to reveal whether you have chosen to have the covid vaccines under the false premise it proves you do not have covid. We know that the “vaccinated” can catch covid and can transmit covid. They are just said to experience fewer symptoms. If true, this suggests the “vaccinated” could be a greater risk as they are less likely to stay at home when they have mild symptoms. Either way, no one should be rewarded or disadvantaged based on their willingness to accept medical treatment. We live in a free society and we must all protect that, for our own sakes and the sakes of our children and future generations. 

Please, if someone encourages you to “prove” your vaccination status – whether you have been jabbed or not – say “I have taken the NON-DISCLOSURE PACT because I do not believe in segregating people based on their medical records. I stand in solidarity with my fellow citizens and will not support any form of apartheid.   

Please do not support businesses or enable employers that discriminate and use methods of apartheid. Ask your local businesses if they are “open for all” and if they have signed the “together declaration”. Even amongst friends and family who casually ask if you are “vaccinated”, say, “I have taken the non-disclosure pact, which means I don’t reveal medical information to anyone but a doctor of my own choosing. I am anti-apartheid and stand in solidarity with those being defined as “vaccinated” and those being labelled as “unvaccinated”.

Always remember, if you allow apartheid and segregation against others when you are part of the designated “in” group, you support a system that could be turned against at any time and cast you into the “out” group. We the people, we have the power, and we must unite against apartheid of any kind.

If you like this video feature perhaps you may like to make a small donation. We’re hoping to make a feature length film about the financial origins of the so-called pandemic but we will need help to pay for specialist resources, expenses and freelance support. You can donate here.

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.

Robin Monotti interview

Robin Monotti is an architect, film producer and polymath. Many of us followed him on Twitter before he was unceremoniously de-platformed. He’s now set up camp on Telegram.

His tweets were always erudite and informed. He was a thorn in the side of the government Covid narrative because he used empirical evidence to challenge.

In this half-hour interview I ask Robin about his ousting from social media, his views on human rights issues in the ‘new era’ and his perspectives on vaccine passports and the vaccination of children.

It’s a fascinating discussion. I hope you agree.

If you like what we’re doing please help us cover some of our costs. Buy us a coffee or two.

We Need more Joes


Professor Ian Young is Northern Ireland’s Chief Scientific Officer.  He also sits on the UK-wide SAGE committee.  On Tuesday he appeared on a local BBC radio programme. It proved to be controversial. I’ll explain the controversy shortly. But it’s worth conveying some context because I believe it’s important that a wider audience knows a little more about Young and why his attendance at SAGE meetings has been patchy.

On Tuesday, Young appeared on the BBC Talkback programme, a lunch-time chat and phone-in format programme that is normally hosted by William Crawley – but on this occasion was hosted by Mark Carruthers. None of these characters will be known much to a UK wide audience. They’re both fixtures on the local BBC.

The Talkback format tends to be confrontational. Typically, two ‘commentators’ will appear to represent two sides of an argument.  Then the phone-line is opened-up.  All hell is let loose. So, the format is like many others on talk radio stations.

However, this format is set aside when Professor Ian Young appears. The questions are soft-ball. They are set-up to provide an opportunity to allow the learned professor to convey key messages: the importance of the Covid-19 vaccination programme, the need for young people to come forward and be vaccinated, the safety of the vaccines, the success emerging from the vaccination programme. Statements of opinion are allowed to be made unchallenged. They hang in the air as fact because the learned professor has conveyed his learnedness from on-high.

But on Tuesday things went slightly awry.  A caller called Joe (we only got his Christian name – only invited guests are identified in full so that the callers can be patronised by Crawley or Carruthers) wanted to ask two questions.  Joe’s first question was to ask if the Covid-19 vaccines had been licensed. The professor answered that, yes indeed, they had been licensed by the MHRA.  But Joe refined his question. “Have they been licensed under emergency use?”  The professor took a while to answer and his answer was vague. Joe pressed him to answer. Carruthers intervened and asked, “I don’t know why it matters.”  Joe made clear to Carruthers that it did matter.  But Carruthers persisted, “but does it actually, really matter?”

Joe seemed incredulous. So was I.  I suspected that even the professor was shifting in his seat, but he’d been let off this one. Carruthers pressed Joe to move on to his second question.  Joe asked, “Are they experimental?”

The professor answered with a generic answer – a slippery answer – that many drugs are subject to ongoing trial even when they are being administered. It didn’t sound very convincing. It didn’t seem to be an adequate answer when he and we know that millions of people are being injected with these ‘vaccines’ – could it possibly be the case that they are all subject to a huge experiment?  Joe pressed on, incredulous that the Professor was answering with stock answers when he just wanted to know were these vaccines being trialled, were they at trial, when was the trial end-date?  And Carruthers interjected again, “we’re not sitting in a court here,” he pointed out.  Joe’s final contribution, on-air, before being ejected from the show was that the professor was a “proven liar”.  Carruthers made clear, after Joe’s exit stage left, that he had no idea what Joe was referring to.

One reason why Northern Ireland had no representation on the SAGE committee for the first few months of the year is that Professor Ian Young was on leave for health reasons – pending a decision by the high court relating to an attempt on his part to block an investigation by the general medical council into evidence he gave at the original inquest relating to the death of nine-year-old Claire Roberts.  Claire Roberts’ death was examined by the Hyponatraemia Inquiry – a public inquiry that was set up to examine the deaths of five children and that reported in 2018. A new inquest into Claire’s death was ordered by the inquiry after the chair of the inquiry said there had been a cover-up to “avoid scrutiny” by the Belfast Health Trust.  The inquest found that Claire’s cause of death was an overdose of fluids administered by the hospital.  The inquiry report made clear that there had been a cover-up by the Trust to avoid scrutiny.  In fact, the report was nothing short of damning.  Young’s attempts to block the inquiry by the GMC failed.

After the inquest, Claire’s father said, “We as Claire’s parents have a clear message for the Belfast Trust, the implicated doctors and the chief medical officer Dr Michael McBride – hang your heads in shame.”  Dr McBride and Professor Young now lead the charge in terms of the Vaccine roll-out in Northern Ireland.

The question, of course, is why Professor Young and Dr McBride (and other public health ‘experts’ in England, Scotland and Wales) are given a clear-run by the media when it comes to Covid response and the vaccination programme? Perhaps the BBC is acting under severe restraint. The BBC provided very detailed coverage – and broadcast time, even nationally – to the Hyponatraemia Inquiry and the second inquest into Claire’s death.  But now we seem to need a member of the public to sneak on to a talk show, providing evasive answers to researchers’ screening questions, to make it on air and ask difficult questions.

And Joe was effective.  But other questions need to be asked. How can Professor Young and Dr McBride still be in positions of power given the extent to which their professional reputations been damaged by the Hyponatraemia Inquiry?  To what extent can we give any credibility to their expert advice when expert advice was used as a tool to cover-up catastrophic failings on the part of NHS hospitals supposedly treating (but killing) children?

In addition, questions also need to be asked about the independence of advice being given by senior UK public health professionals in relation to Covid-19 vaccines.  Professor Young is very keen to stress the importance of the vaccination programme. Since 2008 Professor Young has been a Professor at the Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast. The centre has been a major recipient of funding from the Wellcome Trust.  As has the Wolfson Institute at Queen’s. Wellcome, and the Bill Gates Foundation, are heavily invested into vaccines as the means of ‘escape’ from the ‘pandemic’.  However, the only solution that seems to be on offer is pharmacological and fear driven. The loss of freedom and the loss of our civil society seems to be a price worth paying according to the NHS and its public mouthpieces. It’s a narrative that’s never challenged.

When Young and his peers in the other regions claim that the vaccine is resulting in lower hospitalisations they are referring to a vaccine roll-out that started in December last year (targeting the most vulnerable) but resulted in a pretty sharp spike in excess deaths in January 2021 – many of whom were very elderly in care homes – the first to be vaccinated.  I’m not claiming causality but it’s an odd coincidence.

However, Young has little hesitation in claiming vaccine causality for the sharp drop in Covid hospitalisations this Summer. He fails to mention that respiratory diseases (and hospitalisation resulting from them) always fall off in Summer. It happens every single year.  Meanwhile deaths ‘at home’ with non-Covid conditions have peaked massively – as the NHS waiting lists have reached all-time highs and GPs are still refusing to see patients in-surgery.

There are too many vested interests and boys’ clubs at play in the Covid scandal. Many of our centres of research are essentially owned and funded by big pharma under the guise of Wellcome and Gates. The narrative that a pharma solution is the only solution does not have consensus and must be challenged. The argument that we need to be masked in Northern Ireland while masks have been dumped in England, makes no sense. Many think it’s theatre for the stupid. And many think that vaccine passports are morally repugnant – it’s a valid position, it deserves an airing, despite what Young, Vallance, Johnson, Javid or Gates think.

So we must applaud the Joes of this world. Challenging these narratives is what we must do. This nonsense and these egos have to be challenged, constantly. Because the alternative is too repulsive to contemplate.  The parents of Claire Roberts claimed there were “no alarm bells” when they brought Claire to the Royal Victoria Hospital for what they thought was “just a tummy bug”.  The experts at the hospital left Claire dead. More experts were called in to cover-up the failings. Remember that in future when you hear medical experts on the radio, telling you what’s best.

Stop This


We all know the form by now. The government leaks a new draconian policy position – the next iteration in the progression to towards total control – and there is outrage, especially across Twitter. None of this outrage is reported in the mainstream media. The BBC treats the idea of vaccine passports for young people to gain entry to nightclubs as perfectly common sense – to address the fact that young people seem reticent to get a jab that offers them zero utility and may threaten their health.

But it’s encouraging that our “young people” – or some of them, at least – have enough free-thinking abilities to judge for themselves. Illegal raves are an alternative to nightclubs with overpriced drinks, after all. 

But now our mop-haired Prime Minister is apparently “raging” that the young ones are clearly planning such evasion tactics. Therefore, he’ll mandate double-jabbing to allow university students to return to college. Except, of course, most who have just completed their academic year probably had little opportunity to set foot on campus anyway. Instead, in return for fees of over £10,000 a year, university students got to attend a few Zoom calls to hear a few lectures. Frankly they may have done better on YouTube.

In the 2021 National Student Survey 53% of students were less than content with the quality of learning and teaching through the COVID pandemic.  58% of students felt that the university or college had not taken adequate steps to support their mental wellbeing.  And it’s hardly surprising that their mental health is taking such knocks with such a shockingly poor service from our centres of learning, awful value for money and a perception that university lecturers regard actual physical students as disease vectors. Safeism and scientism now walk the virtual cloisters. 

The government’s pathetic attempts to scare the young into vaccine compliance will not work. People – especially the free thinking – abhor government diktat. The more raging the Prime Minister becomes the more young people (supported by their parents) will dig their heels in. And, frankly, why would anyone in their right mind (never mind highly intelligent university students) be suddenly coerced into taking a vaccine that’s nothing of the sort? Vaccines have been tested. The Covid-19 “clot-shots” are being tested on vast swathes of the population and the adverse reactions (based on the so-called yellow Card system) are significant. According to the government’s own data, “as of 14 July 2021, for the UK, 91,567 Yellow Cards have been reported for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, 222,291 have been reported for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 10,109 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna and 939 have been reported where the brand of the vaccine was not specified.”

It is, of course, the case that people will report adverse reactions and the numbers of reports will be higher when such a very large number of people are receiving the shots. The government lays this point on thick. However, this level of adverse reaction is very high in relative and absolute terms – especially within the relatively young cohorts.  These young people do not face any material threat from the virus yet are exposing themselves to risk from the experimental vaccine. To be mandated to receive a medical procedure in these circumstances – in order to receive an education that they are paying for (often by taking on a debt burden) – is utterly incomprehensible in a supposedly free democratic society. It is fundamentally immoral. 

We know the form. The government rolls out one oppressive measure only to take it a stage further. Lockdown, extended lockdown, lockdown again, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports. Soon, no doubt, they’ll start building social credit systems into vaccine passports and next the passports will be the delivery platform for a central bank digital currency.  We get the drift and we don’t like it. 

The chain of escalation must be broken. The first steps towards a national ID and digital vaccine passport system are unacceptable to us who value freedom. We see through the leaks, we know where this is going. It must stop, now.


Dealing with the Fear Machine

I had the pleasure to meet Gary Sidley, the former NHS Clinical Psychologist, at the Question Everything conference in London on Saturday.

Gary gave both common sense – and psychology underpinned – guidance for returning to normal on Freedom Day (today).

Invest the 8 minutes or so to watch the video in full.

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:

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