Image by Gerd Altmann from http://Pixabay.com

When mass disobedience becomes our only refuge -

OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS, I have watched people I thought I knew buckle under government, academia, Gates Foundation and WHO propaganda, turning overnight from independent, self-assured individuals into trembling reactionaries happy to obey Big Brother government and renounce their freedoms and individual sovereignty for perceived safety. I have seen how a large percentage of the population not only welcome a lockdown but are prepared to enforce it with all the vigour of modern brownshirts, rapidly falling into goose-step for the “good” of all.

What is disappointing is that many of these people are in the alternative community, with supposedly strong spiritual or religious beliefs. These are the people who, if you asked them just a couple of months ago, would have told you that they were unafraid of death. Even deep spiritual belief for many is just a veneer that will fall away when things get “real”.

You see this with chronic diseases like cancer, where those who cheer for alternative approaches on the sidelines reflexively switch to the orthodox side when they are unfortunate enough to be called onto the field.

Nothing wrong with that: we all have choices. Moreover, we all have limits as to how much propaganda we can take. If you are plugged into official propaganda dissemination through the mainstream media (both offline and online), making a habit of reading and watching their news and current affairs presentations, you are wide-open to manipulation by those who own and run such services, and you are very likely to be, consciously or unconsciously, a state pawn and enforcer. It is similar to the film The Matrix: if you are still plugged into the system, you will find yourself defending that system, perhaps even violently.

Youtube and Facebook may appear to present alternative perspectives because their user base is so diverse, but you will only find alternative content if you know exactly what you are looking for. Most of those who rebel against the current system are finding their content demonetised and are being shadow-banned whereby their content is deliberately difficult to find even with searches. And many of them are now being outright banned from these platforms. (That is why you find the more interesting content at pro-free speech platforms such as Bitchute, D-Tube, Minds and Gab.)

The main search engines such as Google have morphed into psyop tracking companies that are no longer trying to help you find what you need, but guiding you towards the “right” answers, platforms and behaviour. “Scary conspiracy stuff” is being buried in favour of the official government-is-good narrative. This filtering is passive enough not to be noticed by the majority, but is active enough to change the majority perceptions of whole nations, which of course changes their voting patterns (if they can vote).

Once again we come to that term “conspiracy” which is synonymous with crazies who spout the most ridiculous theories. The official story is that we live in a world where nobody conspires against anyone else; governments always act in the interest of the people; wars your side starts are invariably just and liberating; your enemy is always bad and must never be trusted or partnered with; food and pharmaceutical companies primarily want you to be healthy and happy; big business puts people above profits because it is so benign and caring; and bankers control the money system for the good of all so we can run an efficient economy. This is the la-la land that society would have you believe over the nutjob conspiracy perspective in which governments often act against the interest of the people who elect them; in which starting wars is to be avoided because of the human cost; in which your enemies are not so easily identifiable; in which food and pharmaceutical companies are focused more on money than health and are quite happy to cut corners for greater profit; in which big business doesn’t give a fuck about you other than as a source of revenue; and in which the bankers are playing a deadly game to sink the whole world into their debt and control.

Two very different perspectives, with the latter dismissed as “conspiracy theory”. A joke to those who have never opened a history book or are foolish enough to believe that conspiracy only happened in our past and would never happen today. History is one long litany of conspiracy after conspiracy after conspiracy — it seems to be central to the human condition. Humans, governments and organisations can be endlessly devious given the opportunity, which is why their powers are generally limited by law. However, governments and multinational organisations (including corporations) are so massive and have such strong state-sanctioned secrecy that it is challenging to hold them to account as they go about conspiring for their own benefit. (Julian Assange found that out to his detriment.) And over time, these conspiracies grow like knotweed, invading every aspect of our society. If you find the term “conspiracy theory” amusing, you have been conditioned to do so by those who have something to hide.

If you are intelligent and relatively unplugged from the mainstream propaganda media machine, the conspiracy perspective is actually a far better fit for the real world in which we live. However, as dependent children of the state, many of us would rather live with the fantasy that our parents love us and look out for us, rather than the reality that they are abusing and exploiting us. And I think that is what it comes down to: those who feel more dependent are more in denial. You have to have strong independence to clearly see the abuses of power.

The “conspiracy theory” dismissal is now joined with the “fake news” dismissal. Fake news is just that news you do not like and wish to dismiss out of hand. It may well be fake but it may also be valid. It really depends on your perspective. In a deeply polarised society, it is far easier to dismiss alternative viewpoints with this label than to counter it with evidence and an argument. What the “fake news” label says about those who use it is that they are unwilling to alter their perspective no matter what. That is why in the mainstream media you are seeing the “fake news” label being used for COVID-19 reporting to dismiss alternative interpretations of the data. It allows an alternative perspective to be dismissed without having to deal with the evidence.

But death is not a matter of perspectives and labels surely? People are dying — that is irrefutable — and we are constantly being shown images of mass coffins and bodies piling up. How can this crisis really be denied as some conspiracy theory when the bodies exist? Can we really label this as a manufactured crisis?

When governments promise transparency, you know they mean the opposite. (A cynical but realistic view.) The data and statistics are being spun in a way that to justify a response that does not fit the situation. It really is as simple as that. But because we put governments, doctors and academia on pedestals, few of us have the confidence to trust our rationality over that of the so-called “experts” who, we must remember, are often in the pockets of big business. These “experts” do not actually have to make a lot of sense because few feel qualified to question them. Take epidemiologist Neil Ferguson.

Ferguson heads a team at Imperial College in London who is advising the British Government on COVID-19 projections, and he uses “sophisticated” mathematical models to predict the outcomes and resources needed. His first estimate regarding the fallout of COVID-19 was that there would be 2.2 million dead in the US and 510,000 in the UK, and it was on this basis that the country was locked down. But just a single day after the lockdown, Ferguson was radically reducing his death estimates, stating that UK deaths were “unlikely to exceed 20,000 and could be much lower.” With that much leeway in outcome you do wonder why one would even bother with his model. Was Ferguson really such a flaky epidemiologist, or could he have been influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by the $79,006,570 donated by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to Imperial College? After all, the higher his estimates, the greater the public panic, and the more likely Gate’s maniacal dream of universal and enforced vaccination will be realised.

The truth is that Ferguson is a serial doomsayer — an academic who seems to exaggerate negative outcomes every time, and who has caused untold suffering and panic in the process. Back in 2000 he predicted up to 136,000 deaths from C.J.D in the “coming decades” and his spurious research led to the mass culling of farm animals. The number of human deaths turned out to be less than 176. Then, in 2005, he estimated the Bird Flu death rate between 21,500 and 709,000 deaths in Britain alone. But the real number turned out to be a damp squib of 455. Embarrassing… criminally embarrassing. You would think he would have crawled away under a rock by now but no, instead, he has scampered out into the sunlight again as the expert of the hour and is once again being used to justify an irrational response that will destroy our economy (and lives) for generations.

Will Ferguson be indicted for ruining the economy, which will have a far heavier death toll than COVID-19 in the long run? No chance… he spreads fear with impunity. Academics are safe behind the walls of academia, focused primarily on selling themselves for funding, which in turn skews their rationality and colours their presentation and cherry-picking of the “facts”.

So going back to COVID-19, where is the irrationality? How are the statistics being manipulated? Here is a rational outline:

When people become infected with a disease, they either end up recovering or dying. So the first important measurements are regarding infection rates and estimates of the total population that will be infected. Some will not be infected at all (by chance or by isolation) and others will be infected but show no symptoms or a mild reaction at worst while their healthy immune systems shrug off the infection. (The only way to really know if someone is in this category is to measure for specific antibodies in their system — the smoking gun that their immune systems were active with this particular infection. But this is not an exact science so will only give a lower estimate as the immune system could have fought it off without producing measurable or identifiable antibodies. Who knows?)

Overall, the virulence of an infection is presented as the mortality rate: the percentage of those infected who go on to die from the infection. So if 100,000 people in a population become infected and 500 die of that infection, the mortality rate of 0.5% is used as indicator of the danger of that infection. As the numbers infected are likely to be higher, the mortality rate is probably lower. The higher the mortality rate, the higher the amount of hospitalisations there are likely to be for those having moderate to acute symptoms. And so the mortality rate is a good indicator of the hospital resources that will be needed to cope with the infection.

Allocation of those hospital and other health care resources require some planning and economic juggling to meet the demand, otherwise the health service system will be strained and people in that system will die from lack of care. This applies to those infected and suffering harsh reactions, and those in hospital for other conditions who will not receive the care they need as resources are being diverted. One way to deal with this hospital demand is to slow the rate of infection with enforced isolation — so called flattening the curve. But this is likely to have other ramifications which need to be taken into consideration (including increased stress and anxiety and so lower immunity and increasing ill health and the chance of dying, as well as trashing the economy that supports mass health care in the first place).

All these considerations require some level of quantification in order to predict outcome and resources needed. But the problem with quantifying an infection is that there are so many difficult-to-measure and unknowns in the equation, making it straightforward to massage the outlook:

The PCR testing method for COVID-19 is flawed and gives spurious results with both false positives, false negatives, and changeable results. (It is possible for someone to test negative one day, positive the next and then negative the day after.) Even the test sensitivity is somewhat arbitrary, set at different levels of sensitivity (amplifications) in different countries. Indeed, even the inventor of the test has stated that it should not be used in the manner it is being used. And because of the false positives, the most testing that is actually done, the higher the perceived infection rate. [You can find an excellent overview of the PCR test in relation to COVID-19 here.]

In most countries, no differentiation is being made between those who die “with” a positive COVID-19 test result, and those who died “of” or primarily from COVID-19. For example, if someone dies of cancer or heart disease in hospital, and incidentally tests positive for COVID-19, that death is likely to be recorded as a COVID-19 death because it is a “notifiable disease”, which, over time, gives a very misleading perspective on COVID-19’s threat.

The more people who are actually infected, the lower the virulence. And as that infection percentage is a guesstimate (until there is blanket testing for antibodies), governments and the media are choosing to only put out vastly deflated infection totals in order to ramp up the mortality rate, panic and justification for draconian measures such as lockdowns.

Could enough COVID-19 genetic sequences be present naturally in the virome of even in healthy people to give a positive COVID-19 response when they have never been infected? Has anyone actually looked into this? After all, we each contain hundreds of trillions of viruses in our bodies, so it might be probable that certain COVID-19 genetic sequences are ubiquitous.

In the UK, deaths can be doubled up because any death involving a positive COVID-19 test is being immediately reported due to emergency procedures, but is then reported again officially a week later.

For some reason the second point is considered “conspiracy theory”, and yet the CDC itself, in its recently revised guidance for certifying COVID-19 deaths, advises: “The underlying cause depends upon what and where conditions are reported on the death certificate. However, the rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID-19 being the underlying cause more often than not.” The outcome sounds alarmingly predetermined. It goes on to say, “If the death certificate reports terms such as ‘probable COVID-19’ or ‘likely COVID-19,’ these terms would be assigned the new ICD code.” In other words, just assuming COVID-19 is responsible is enough for it to be officially assigned as cause of death. Astonishing!

And it is not just America. In Italy, Prof Ricciardi, advisor to Italy’s health minister, stated that: “The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus.” In Germany, the President of the Robert Koch Institute confirmed that Germany counts any deceased person who was infected with coronavirus as a COVID-19 death, whether or not it actually caused death. In Ireland, the HSC Public Health Agency as defined a COVID-19 death as, “Individuals who have died within 28 days of first positive result, whether or not COVID-19 was the cause of death.” [Thank you to the James Corbett of The Corbett Report for this info.]

It is undeniable that the figures are being grossly inflated for whatever reason. Undeniable, and yet you have people calling this a conspiracy theory because they cannot accept being in a world where this sort of thing happens. And because of this “scientific” sleight of hand it really does appear that the bodies really are piling up from this terrible disease. And few are questioning the medical organisations because… well… they are the “experts” and we are not. And those academics and doctors who do question the official COVID-19 narrative are not having their voices heard in the mainstream media.

Fortunately we do have a few controls and boundary conditions by which to assess the above.

Fist, and most importantly, is the overall mortality rate. How much (if at all) has it increased? This will given an indications of the actual danger of COVID-19. If death rates are inflated, then we have an indication that COVID-19 is killing people. But if they are not inflated, then it is an indication that either they died primarily of something else and the death was attributed to COVID-19, or they were ready to die and if it wasn’t COVID-19 that took them it would have been another type of infection. After all, we all have to die of something!

Most of the research I have seen indicates that there is no overall increase in mortality. It is more a case of a modification of what people are reported as dying of (whether real or skewed) rather than an increase in the absolute number of people dying.

Second, we have some interesting populations to study such as the Diamond Princess (a perfect storm of a closed environment and predominantly older and inactive passengers) and countries like Sweden that have refused to implement a lockdown strategy probably for economic reasons. These will give a good assessment of infection rates and whether lockdowns really are as effective as they are touted to be.

The Diamond Princess was a cruise ship that had 2,666 passengers (average age 69) and 1,045 crew members (average age 36) on board when it suffered an outbreak of COVID-19. Of the 3,618 people tested, 696 were confirmed positive (80% passengers and 20% crew). And of those who infected, 14 in total died (some who may have got COVID-19 after disembarking). Apart from one person in her 60s, all other deaths that were disclosed were of people in their 70s and 80s.

So that means that, in a closed environment with a higher percentage of elderly people who are probably pretty unfit from inactivity, along with a large crew crammed on top of each other in crew quarters and constantly interacting with the passengers, only 20% got infected and, perhaps more importantly, 80% seemed immune and did not test positive at all. And with “only” 14 deaths in total all amongst elderly victims, the mortality rate experienced in that perfect storm of an infectious environment was 14/696 or 2%. Yes, just 2% in an incubator scenario. In a non-artificial environment, that mortality rate is likely much lower. Indeed, a recent Stanford study based on actual blood data (which is more accurate) has lowered that mortality rate to 0.14 percent globally and indicated that COVID-19 is no more serious than normal flu. It is also increasingly clear that as many as 85% of those who are infected suffer mild or no symptoms and recover easily.

And if you are wondering why the death rate in Italy was so high from COVID-19 — reported as high as 10%) — you must realise that the average age of those dying in Italy was 78 and only 2% had no comorbidities! (Half, indeed, had 3 or more comorbidities!) The president of the Italian Civil Protect Service himself stated: “I want you to remember those people died with the coronavirus and not from the coronavirus.” Again we hear the same message from those in authority, and yet it is dismissed as a conspiracy theory by the mainstream media. So the anomaly in the Italian mortality rate from COVID-19 is actually entirely and rationally explainable.

As for Swedish death rates from COVID-19, they remain to be seen. So far it appears that infection rates are no greater than other countries in Europe.

A couple of things I did notice when getting some of the data above is that:

Left-wing and Progressive news sites tend to be pro exaggerated COVID-19 claims and pro globalist organisations like WHO whereas more conservative and right-wing sites tend to be more sceptical of “official figures”. It would seem that the Left is busy using the epidemic narrative for its own ends, whereas the Right is questioning the official narrative because of its natural suspicion of big government.

Mainstream search engine and video sites are in full information lockdown mode, so if you search on information on COVID-19, you will be bombarded with the official narrative. Youtube puts an annoying “COVID-19” official information link under each video on COVID-19, a link that only repeats the official narrative.

People are as polarised over this issue as they were in, for example, the presidential elections in the US and BREXIT in the UK. Some see the questioning of the official narrative as grossly irresponsible, just as others regard the blind adoption of the official narrative as equally grossly irresponsible. So if you are looking for a peaceful life, keep your mouth shut.

So where do we go from here? I presume if you have read this far, you are at least prepared to examine the issue, whether or not you come to the same conclusions. That mindset of questioning the views of “experts” and the official story is crucially important in a cultural climate where we are encouraged to leave rational thought and conclusion to “the experts”, and in the process opening ourselves up to tyranny. What do we know? And yet, we many of these “experts” have strong political agendas because they are needing to prostitute themselves for funding. As Upton Sinclair wrote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

We must not be afraid to stand apart from the “experts” and hold them accountable for what they are saying and the consequences of what they are saying. Rationality is not the exclusive domain of academia and doctors. They may know more detail regarding specific medical and scientific topics, but the conclusions that they draw may not be as objective as we might believe, especially when the bigger picture has to be taken into account.

As for the mass media, detailing almost every death attributed to COVID-19, the damage this blatant scaremongering is doing is unfathomable and unforgivable. They represent the legitimately questionable data as absolute fact, and in so doing sow panic and obedience. For the sake of sensationalism and to appease the political aims of their elite owners, they have unashamedly become propaganda outlets for the unconstitutional erosion of civil liberties and the promotion of enforced medical and social agendas which represent the loss of individual and bodily sovereignty. And the more the people listen to their diatribes, the more the people, out of fear, will do the bidding of their perceived masters.

What is going on is nothing less than a power-grab by the bankers and other non-government organisations who are using their financial and political clout to enslave humanity under a mountain of debt and despair, pushing society towards an eminently more profitable totalitarian government, exemplified by the Chinese credit score system. This is where it is going if we do not pull back immediately and reassert out liberties.

But people ARE dying you might counter! Well, not to sound glib, people are always dying. In 2017, for example, 647,457 people in the United States died from heart disease, with the number in the UK being approximately 167,000. That is year in and year out. It dwarfs flu deaths, including COVID-19 deaths, and if the media reported it in the same way they are reporting COVID-19, almost case by case, our supermarkets would look very different as unhealthy foods and drinks are outlawed, including practises deemed on high as unhealthy. But that does not happen because the food industry is owned by those who also own the medical industry and the mass media. It is about profits, not people.

So it is imperative for each of us to be wary of government and any organisation that influences or controls government. These global agendas and erosions of liberty for perceived safety are not in our interest, despite the endless PR. As Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” We must realise that our liberty is more valuable than even our health, and that we cannot let ourselves be bribed with perceived temporary safety to give up that liberty. For freedom is the lifeblood of our societies; it is what keeps us fully human. If we give it up and descend into a totalitarian dystopia, we lose our very humanity and become mere automatons in a giant economic machine. Now to avoid that is worth dying for!

Fortunately, however, we do not need to die as the whole thing is largely a ruse to get us to comply with Big Brother’s wet dream. You only have to see the smirk and duping-delight on the face of Bill Gates to know that this is a play for our very souls. We are being systematically and insidiously fragmented and dissociated, encouraged even to snitch on each other, so that we end up looking to our governments for solutions rather than to each other. Big Brother does not invade our society; he is invited in by the those who have lost touch with their community.

That is why those who flout the lockdowns are not “covidiots” as the media has coined them, putting others at risk. Rather, their mass disobedience is the only thing pushing us back from the brink. They need our support and not our condemnation, for the tyranny of our governments and other global organisations needs to be vigorously opposed.

We are all conditioned when we are young to obey:

obedience = good
disobedience = bad

But now it is our duty as we go through life to undo that conditioning so that we can stop tyranny. And right now, tyranny is demanding that we abandon our rights, our humanity, our social connections, our religious services, our financial security and our rationality, and lock ourselves away so that it can establish its evil reign. Will you obey?

https://realitymaps.com/2020/04-exploding-covid-19.html