The pandemic has shown us that research outputs can be statistical artefacts, made to order for an agenda. The most blatant example of this is the claim that the vaccines are 95 percent effective, which continues to be made even though 95 percent of people in the US have been infected. Both these facts cannot be true. If this fundamental brick turns out not to be objective truth, what else can we rely on?
If it turns out that the population is not so vulnerable after all, and men, women and families can improve themselves and their communities without the aid of the state, then the entire structure upon which the edifice of raison d’État rests becomes radically unstable. This is at least part of the reason why these movements are so frequently smeared and traduced by the chattering classes which are so reliant themselves upon the state and its largesse.
Machiavelli and the Globalists: Why the Elites Despise Independent Thought Read More
There was never any data suggesting that young healthy children should receive the COVID vaccine. But agencies and advisors like Fauci likely caved to political pressure from terrified liberal parents and media outlets, who demanded the ability to vaccinate their children.
The final common element is the subordination of state-based decision-making to international technocrats. This is best exemplified in the proliferation of the global climate change bureaucracies and the promise—threat?—of a new global pandemic treaty whose custodian will be a mighty World Health Organisation. In both cases, the dedicated international bureaucracy will have a powerful vested interest in ongoing climate crises and serially repeating pandemics.
Beware Catastrophizing Climate Models and Activists Read More
The WHO’s funding arrangements, its track record, and the perverse nature of its proposed pandemic response should be enough to render these proposed agreements anathema in democratic States. If implemented, they should make WHO unfit to receive public funding or provide health advice. The international community can benefit from coordination in health, but it would be reckless to entrust that role to an organization clearly serving other interests.
Why Legislators Should Reject the WHO’s Proposals for Pandemics Read More
The proposed new powers would cut across not only the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. They would signal a new watershed in our understanding of cornerstone human rights: an express amendment to the IHR deletes language currently reading “[t]he implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons” to replace it with a nebulous confirmation that “[t]he implementation of these Regulations shall be based on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence…”.
The Most Dangerous International Treaty Ever Proposed Read More
Lest the crowd that has long been properly anti-lockdown forgets, pathogens are as old as mankind is. Since they are, the accenting of where they come from is to completely miss the point. Instead, the always and everywhere expressed view should be that reality should not be used by the political, expert and medical classes as a pretext for taking our freedom. Freedom is precious, and authoritarians can’t have it regardless of a pathogen’s origin or its presumed lethality.
Regardless of Virus Origins, Freedom Is the Answer Read More
Let us hope that the lockdown years were aberrant but it would be wiser to see them as a possible template for what some sectors of elite society truly do have in store. And with Covid, the key to compliance is always and everywhere the same: fear.
The most important lesson of the pandemic: Don’t trust politicians with boundless power. Exposing the profound bipartisan failure on COVID is the best vaccine that Americans can receive against being mercilessly plundered the next time pols proclaim a national emergency.
Not only was evidence of failure deliberately ignored; prospective testing methodologies were altered mid-trial to favor a positive outcome when it became apparent that the Paxlovid trial results would not meet their original endpoints. In fact, Pfizer had already opted to halt its Paxlovid trial when it saw that it didn’t work.
The precautionary principle uses the worst-case scenario, rather than the most probable scenario, as a basis for creating policies. And as we’ve seen with Covid, people often end up confusing the two. Such policies are blunt and brutish. They require extreme societal disruptions that, over time, may cause more harm than they prevent.
Danger, Caution Ahead: Zeb Jamrozik and Mark Changizi Read More
So much needs to be rebuilt after the last three years, but among the needs are serious intellectual communities. The colleges and universities have, for the most part, been taken over or smashed. The major media is captured. Our companies are forced into an obsequious stance. Our previous networks have been shattered. For lovers of freedom, we’ve experienced something of a diaspora.
