An infection, even one as lethal as cancer, often begins with a single wound. Through this wound the pathogen enters the body by way of a single cell, where it pathologically replicates and corrupts those around it until eventually it consumes the entire host.
As goes infection, so goes totalitarianism. And in 2020, totalitarianism found its wound in the free world by way of Lombardy, Italy. More specifically, by way of one Health Minister, Roberto Speranza, on whose order 50,000 Lombardy residents were placed under lockdown on February 21st 2020, the first lockdown in the modern Western world. Within weeks, lockdown had spread to cities across Italy, until the entire nation was placed on lockdown on March 9th. By April 2020, more than half the world’s population – some 3.9 billion people – had been placed under lockdown.
These lockdowns were unprecedented in the Western world and weren’t part of any democratic country’s pandemic plan prior to Xi Jinping’s lockdown of Wuhan, China. They failed to meaningfully slow the spread of the coronavirus and killed an estimated tens of thousands of young people in countries across the world, including Italy.
Worse yet, officials who led the response to Covid in several major countries have testified that Italy’s adoption of China’s lockdown policy was one of the most important events leading to their own imposition of lockdowns. As White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator Deborah Birx wrote in her bizarrely self-incriminating book:
[W]e worked simultaneously to develop the flatten-the-curve guidance I hoped to present to the Vice President at week’s end. Getting buy-in on the simple mitigation measures every American could take was just the first step leading to longer and more aggressive interventions. We had to make these palatable to the administration by avoiding the obvious appearance of a full Italian lockdown. At the same time, we needed the measures to be effective at slowing the spread, which meant matching as closely as possible what Italy had done – a tall order.
Likewise, in the words of Imperial College Professor Neil Ferguson, architect of the wildly-inaccurate Covid models that instigated lockdowns across the free world:
It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… And then Italy did it. And we realised we could.
Ferguson’s assessment is doubly ironic, because it was a study led in part by Ferguson and his team at Imperial College that purported to show Speranza’s lockdown of the town of Vo’, Italy, on February 22nd 2020 had been effective that led to the lockdown of all of Italy on March 9th. His study’s conclusion was, of course, bunk – we now have proof that the rate of Covid infection growth was in decline well before lockdowns began in many countries, including those in Lombardy and Vo’, Italy. Ferguson justified the lockdown of the United Kingdom based on the lockdown of Italy, which had in turn been justified with a false study led in part by Ferguson himself.
Thus, it’s of paramount importance that we understand what led to Speranza’s decision to order those initial lockdowns in Lombardy and Vo’, Italy.
In October 2020, Speranza published a book titled Why We Will Heal: From the Hardest Days to a New Idea of Health. Shortly after being published, the book was hastily pulled from stores. The stated reason was that Italy was experiencing a second wave of Covid, but upon reading the book it’s abundantly clear that Speranza, who’d signed the first lockdown orders in the Western world, betrays an embarrassing lack of concern about Covid itself and a much greater concern for how the response could be used to implement far-Left political reforms across Italy. As he states in one telling passage:
I am convinced that we have a unique opportunity to entrench a new idea of the Left… I believe that, after so many years going against the wind, there is a possibility of reconstructing a cultural hegemony on a new basis.
Likewise, Speranza says that a primary lesson of Covid is that the WHO must be strengthened, and he requested that the United States be prevented from leaving the WHO.
In mid-July I wrote a letter to Jens Spahn, the German Health Minister and President of the Council of Health Ministers, and to Stella Kyriakides, asking for an initiative at European level to prevent the United States from leaving WHO, currently scheduled for July 2nd 2021. WHO is fundamental: it must be defended, improved, strengthened, reformed starting from the principles of transparency and autonomy.
By contrast, throughout the 229-page book, Speranza never once expresses any criticism of China, going only so far as to acknowledge China has “a very different cultural, political and institutional model”, while advocating closer ties with China.
China is a great protagonist of the time we live in and I am convinced that an important political space is opening up for Europe, as a hinge between the new Asian power and the United States.
Speranza is a leader in Italy’s newly-formed political party Article One, founded by former Prime Minister Massimo D’Alema, the first known former member of a Communist Party to become Prime Minister of a NATO country. D’Alema now serves as honorary president of the Silk Road Cities Alliance, a Chinese state organisation.
Speranza makes clear that he was well aware, at the time he ordered the free world’s first lockdown in Lombardy, Italy, that he was copying a policy only China had done, and that it would be a restriction of citizens’ fundamental constitutional rights.
The progression of infections in the Lodi area and also in Veneto requires us to ‘close’ areas that are not small, necessarily preventing over 50,000 people from entering and leaving the confines of their area of residence. This is a measure with worrying implications for the economic and social fabric, but also with a terrible symbolic impact. Restricting citizens’ freedom of movement, sending the army to check that closures are respected. Could the protection of the right to health, recognised by Article 32 of the Constitution, lead us to restrict other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution? And then, will this type of intervention really work, to stop the contagion? No other Western country has yet experienced this virus and the management strategies it requires. The only precedent we can look to is China, with a very different cultural, political and institutional model from ours. In Italy, everyone has been saying for weeks, it would be impossible to do what China has done. But what if it were necessary?
Prior to ordering the Western world’s first lockdowns, Speranza played a role in Italy as an early Covid alarmist similar to that played in the United States by Deputy National Security Advisor Matt Pottinger – the Mandarin-fluent intelligence operative who, beginning in January 2020, unilaterally ratcheted up alarm in the White House, advocated sweeping mandates based on his own sources in China, and appointed Deborah Birx to orchestrate lockdowns across the United States.
Like Pottinger, who organised the first White House meetings on the coronavirus in mid-January 2020, Speranza organised Italy’s first coronavirus task force meetings around that same time – prior to there being any confirmed cases in the Western world. Like Pottinger’s meetings, Speranza’s coronavirus meetings were held on a daily basis. And, like Pottinger, Speranza says that he’d been inspired to do so by the response he saw in China.
Giovanna Botteri keeps the Italian public informed. His updates from Beijing are frequent and punctual. Tens of seconds of news coverage, which however convey a surreal situation. Hospitals stormed, new temporary health facilities organised in a few weeks, temperature checks in every corner of the country. And then the lockdown and quarantine: huge cities, with millions of inhabitants, closed with a total block of activities and a ban on leaving the house. I look at those images and I think that in the West it would not be possible to manage a crisis in this way. But we can’t just hope it won’t be necessary…
And it is with this idea that on January 12th I set up for the first time the task force for the Coronavirus. I immediately consult the main Italian scientists, aware of the privilege of being able to do so. Research, mathematics, for me, are a fundamental part of the strength of humanity. As a staunch rationalist, I have a true faith in science… The task force will meet, in my presence, every day at 9am, sometimes earlier, without exception, until the Technical Scientific Committee (CTS) becomes operational.
Like Pottinger, at the end of January 2020, Speranza began ratcheting up alarm about the coronavirus in Italy’s highest halls of political power.
On January 29th, for the first time, I tell the Parliament that the country must be united in this game. There is no longer a majority or opposition. There are the Italians, there is a huge problem that threatens them and there are the institutions that have to defend their citizens. At the end of my report to Parliament, I take the phone and personally call the three leaders of the opposition: Silvio Berlusconi, Giorgia Meloni and Matteo Salvini.
Around that same time, Speranza also began ratcheting up alarm within the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.
Even if the ECDC considers the risk of the spread of the virus in Europe to be low, after some informal and personal solicitations to European Commissioner Stella Kyriakides and the Minister of Health of Croatia – who holds the rotating presidency of the EU – I decide to formally request, in the name of the Italian Government, the convening of the European Council of all health ministers…
But my feeling is that our cohesion is defective, that the level of alert on the virus is too low and the functioning mechanisms of common institutions are too weak to be activated effectively in an emergency. In these hours an urgent meeting of the ministers of health is needed.
The next day, January 30th 2020, Prime Minister Conte announced Italy’s first two confirmed Covid cases and immediately declared a state of emergency, “allowing the Government to cut through red tape quickly if needed”.
When Speranza ordered the lockdown of Lombardy, he conveyed in a press conference that he knew he was taking an action of consequence not only for Italy, but for the entire world.
It seems to me a fairly clear fact, the measures implemented by Italy are at the highest level in Europe, but probably also globally.
This aligns with an anonymous stock tip posted on January 30th 2020, the same day Italy’s first cases were confirmed, from someone who said they had friends and family at the CDC and WHO and that the WHO was planning to begin recreating China’s response across the Western world, first by locking down Italian cities.
[T]he WHO is already talking about how ‘problematic’ modeling the Chinese response in Western countries is going to be, and the first country they want to try it out in is Italy. If it begins a large outbreak in a major Italian city they want to work through the Italian authorities and world health organisations to begin locking down Italian cities in a vain attempt to slow down the spread at least until they can develop and distribute vaccines, which btw is where you need to start investing.
Despite the fact that lockdowns had no precedent in the Western world, this tip proved to be a near-perfect foretelling of subsequent events.
Indeed, Speranza’s coronavirus task force had already commissioned a study on possible scenarios for the progression of Covid. This study, using China’s data, was provided to Italy’s Technical-Scientific Committee on the coronavirus on February 12th 2020, having been led by Stefano Merler at the Fondazione Bruno Kessler (FBK).
The FBK and Merler were cited positively by Bill Gates, second-largest funder of the WHO, at the World Economic Forum in 2017 after Merler and FBK worked with Gates on the response to Ebola. The fact that Merler’s study even existed was kept confidential and not publicly disclosed until months later. For this reason, it was dubbed the ‘secret study’ by Italy’s opposition parties.
Merler’s ‘secret study’ has never been publicly released, but Merler published two additional journal articles in 2020 with several Chinese co-authors and funding from the Chinese Government, each purporting to show the effectiveness of lockdowns and non-pharmaceutical interventions against the coronavirus in China. The first of Merler’s journal articles with Chinese co-authors, funded in part by the Chinese Government, appeared in April 2020 and claimed to show that “social distancing alone, as implemented in China during the outbreak, is sufficient to control COVID-19”, based on data provided by China from Wuhan. The second of Merler’s journal articles with Chinese co-authors, funded in part by the Chinese Government, appeared in July 2020 and claimed to show that NPIs had been effective in controlling the spread of the coronavirus in Chinese cities outside Wuhan, again based on data provided by China.
A reasonable person would likely recognise that the inputs from China on which Merler based the conclusions in his journal articles, coming from a totalitarian regime with a well-known history of fabrication, were lies.
Whether motivated by directed reasoning, funding, or something worse, Stefano Merler, the lead author of the unreleased ‘secret study’ based on China’s data which led to the free world’s first lockdown in Lombardy, Italy, was effectively running a propaganda laundering operation on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party throughout 2020.
Though Merler’s secret study has never been publicly released, it was later shared privately with la Repubblica, Italy’s center-Left newspaper of record. La Repubblica wrote one article about the study, but in my life I’ve never seen a mainstream article so thoroughly memory holed. Not only does the original link to the article not work, but the web archives don’t work either, and the article doesn’t appear on Google. Fortunately, one website copied the article’s text.
Covid must really be some virus, seeing as it prevented Italy’s newspaper of record from upholding basic standards of online record retention for the one article it wrote on a key Government study shared with it privately. Of course, this is in keeping with a pattern of secrecy and outright dishonesty that we’ve seen from governments across the Western world since the coronavirus appeared.
In fact, in parallel with Merler’s secret study, there was also a more detailed ‘secret plan’, specifically titled the “Operational Plan of Preparation and Response to Different Scenarios of Possible Development of a 2019-nCov Epidemic”, no details of which have ever been released. In December 2020, the opposition party went to court to compel release of the secret Operational Plan, but Speranza still refused to release it on the grounds that it was not a “formally approved pandemic plan”.
Speranza’s refusal to release the secret Operational Plan is interesting, because in early 2020 the Government of Germany likewise commissioned a confidential operational plan, later obtained through a series of whistleblower leaks and FOIA requests, “based on the scientific findings of expert teams from the University of Bonn/University of Nottingham Ningbo China”, at least one of whom had no background in infectious disease or epidemiology, containing a “catalogue of measures” to be implemented by Germany’s CDC. It outlined, in line-item detail, the steps to implement lockdowns, mass testing and quarantine facilities, among other draconian measures. The paper specifically suggested “appeals to the public spirit” including the slogan “together apart”. Of the 210 pages of FOIAed emails leading up to the publication of the German operational plan, 118 were blacked out entirely. The emails contain frequent discussion of China, but nearly all these references are redacted. The stated reason: “May have adverse effects on international relations.”
Of course, because Mr. Speranza has decided that it is not in the interest of the Italian people to know the contents of Italy’s secret Operational Plan, we have no way of knowing whether it resembles Germany’s secret operational plan based on the findings of China lobbyists containing specific line-item instructions on implementing lockdowns, mass testing, quarantine facilities and appeals to the public spirit.
Key findings:
- Neil Ferguson justified the lockdown of the United Kingdom based on the lockdown of Italy, which had in turn been justified with a false study led in part by Ferguson himself claiming to show that the lockdown of the town of Vo’, Italy was successful.
- Prior to ordering the free world’s first lockdown in Lombardy, and prior to any Covid cases being confirmed, Roberto Speranza played a role in Italy as an early Covid alarmist similar to that played in the White House by Matt Pottinger, calling Italy’s first daily meetings on the coronavirus and ratcheting up alarm in Parliament and the ECDC.
- Speranza was well aware, at the time he ordered the free world’s first lockdown in Lombardy, that he was copying a policy only China had ever done and that it would restrict his citizens’ fundamental rights.
- Throughout his book, which was hastily pulled from stores, Speranza never once criticises China, while he expresses a strong desire for the response to Covid to bring about far-Left reforms across Italy and a strengthening of the WHO.
- Speranza’s committee commissioned a secret study on possible Covid scenarios which was produced by Stefano Merler at FBK, an organisation with ties to the Gates Foundation, the WHO’s second-largest funder. This secret study led to the lockdown of Lombardy.
- Stefano Merler, lead author of the secret study commissioned by Speranza’a committee, was effectively running a propaganda laundering operation for the CCP throughout 2020, publishing multiple articles with several Chinese co-authors and funding from the Chinese Government purporting to show lockdowns and NPIs in China succeeded in controlling the virus, using inputs that a reasonable person would likely recognise as lies.
- In parallel with the secret study produced by Merler, there was also a more detailed secret Operational Plan which Speranza refused to produce even when formally requested in court.
Speranza comes across as a far more charismatic person in his book than the eerily totalitarian Deborah Birx in her weird confession of a memoir. He often crosses party lines, fondly recalling his first meeting with former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi:
After exchanging some pleasantries, the former Prime Minister concluded with a smile: “You have such a clean face, like a good boy, but what are you doing with these Communists? Come with us!”
Speranza expresses an earnest desire for far-Left policy reforms, and in multiple places he expresses fond memories working as a young International Socialist:
My first real political commitment, in the Youth Left, was largely dedicated to European and international politics. It makes me smile that today Enzo Amendola is sitting with me in the Council of Ministers as Minister for European Affairs. He is a few years older than me and we have worked together for years on international issues, he as head of the International Young Socialists, I in Italy in the youth Left, up to becoming national president, but always with a mind to what was happening in the world…
I was part of the Socialist International and in that trip I really breathed, in the most popular and human way, the concept of international solidarity. The one from below, that of the boys of my generation, with little budget and a lot of faith in the world. From this point of view I believe I belong to one privileged generation, which was already a European community: boys with enormous backpacks on their shoulders who met, anywhere on the continent, and recognised each other.
It’s possible that Speranza gradually got tangled up in a network of Chinese-style totalitarianism out of an overabundance of zeal and affinity for the traditional, egalitarian propaganda of socialism. This was more common in the Soviet era when the dystopian realities of communism were less well known, but all you have to do is talk to a young person in a liberal city bar to know that the original propaganda of communism still goes a long way on the far Left.
Speranza concludes his book with an epilogue that Karl Marx himself would be proud of, and which I’ve reproduced in full below. As a reminder, this is supposed to be a book about a response to a pandemic. I’ll let it speak for itself.
In the course of these pages I have repeatedly used two terms that are essential to me such as “equality” and “rights.” And they served to chart the course in the storm, like the stars for sailors. Hard times are not those in which values and principles have to be left aside. They are the ones you need.
We have seen how politics is daily management, daily choices, daily effort. But it is also an exciting personal and collective story and a leap towards the future. For this reason I believe that another duty we have towards ourselves and towards the country, another way not to waste the hard lessons of these months and to better face the challenges that await us, is to embrace a political wind that has been needed for a long time.
I am convinced that we have a unique opportunity to entrench a new idea of the Left, based on a commitment that today everyone recognises is needed: to defend and relaunch fundamental public goods, starting from the protection of health, the value of education and the defence of the environment. We have experienced unbridled individualism, we have undergone its economic and social translation: neoliberalism as well so unbridled. We believed in the propaganda that a world organised according to these principles would produce wealth and well-being for all. For over thirty years this ideology has been hegemonic in the conscience of the Western world: it has not only oriented the right, but has also significantly influenced the left, changing it little by little.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the ‘end of history’, all over the world the big parties of the Left have had to accelerate the path they were taking, to update their vision of society. It was a just and necessary development: the world is changing and politics must include the new times. In the post-Cold War period, the goal was to definitively free the progressive and democratic camp from the anti-democratic and illiberal impulses that had characterized real socialism. In truth, the social democracies in Europe, and then the Italian Communist Party itself, had already for years made a pragmatic path of breaking with the Soviet experience.
The ideological revision was legitimate. Leaving the field open to a model of civil and political coexistence determined by the market without rules, on the other hand, was a mistake. Individualism has weakened social networks and fragmented representation. It was thought that the state was no longer needed, that it should be reduced to a minimum. That all his interference was a nuisance because society and the economy were able to regulate themselves. They just had to be left ‘free’.
And so the season of extracting resources began at the expense of social equity. The season of cuts in public spending, of the deconstruction of the two great pillars of welfare: health and education. With very rare exceptions, not only in Italy, the national health services have become weaker and less capable there to respond to people’s needs. And within the downsizing of the welfare state, inequalities have exploded. The rich always get more healthy and poor always get more sick.
We have seen the risks taken when a health, economic and social system weakened by decades of wrong choices found itself facing a real emergency.
The months of Covid, however, have accelerated a rethinking process of which some first signs were already visible. We have rediscovered how important fundamental public goods are, starting with the protection of health. For the first time, after many years, the Left is not going against the wind. We have been in the long phase in which history seemed to go in the direction of neoliberal individualism, and in our going against the wind, looking for the route, fighting against solutions that were a bit messy and that had little to do with values of the left, in Italy we have experienced a painful split in the main centre-Left party. Today things are changing and an idea of the Left can be reaffirmed starting from fundamental public goods and a new role of the state.
During the crisis, people have realised that there is a need for someone to protect and defend their life, their personal safety. Who can guarantee these rights to every citizen? Who can offer the certainty that the protection of the right to health does not depend on the economic and social conditions of each person at a given moment of his or her existence?
The market cannot do it alone. In the face of a life that is put at risk, its rules are not enough, nor is individual initiative enough. Insurance is not enough against a virus that kills, nor is a credit card. It is illusory, we have seen it, to think of saving oneself. There is need for a superordinate protection of fundamental rights, which only public institutions can guarantee. We need a great National Health Service, rooted and organised, capable of taking care of everyone and leaving no one behind. To stop the virus, and to re-establish conditions in which nothing that has happened to us can be repeated, it is essential to cure everyone. And doing it isn’t just convenient: it’s right.
People have understood this. And this awareness has cleared up a very fertile political ground for the Left. As long as it puts the defence of fundamental public goods and work at the center of its agenda. As long as it stops imitating the right and its policies and archives, the season of subordination to neoliberalism.
I believe that, after so many years against the wind, there is a new possibility of reconstructing a cultural hegemony on a new basis. Many trends that we see affirming are going in the same direction, from the beautiful environmentalist events inspired by the young Greta to the spontaneous Italian squares of the ‘Sardinians’. They are shouting the same thing at us: there are fundamental public goods that must be defended and protected. And one can no longer stand by and watch. It is time for a new great collective effort.
Covid has changed everything, it has deeply affected individual lives and social coexistence. It is not possible that everything changes and the political forces remain as they are. We need to question ourselves. With courage. I and the women and men who shared the Article One experience with me are available to do so immediately. The Right is very strong. It cannot be underestimated. It has an extraordinary ability to interpret a feeling of anxiety and insecurity widespread in our society, especially in the weaker segments, where there are fewer certainties and more fears. The response from the Right speaks easy and direct language. It identifies in the different, in the other (perhaps with a darker skin colour), a responsible enemy and raises the flag of national identity as a wall, a fence, with the illusion of leaving danger out.
We must cultivate a new great field that starts from the defence of the values of our Constitution, of work and of fundamental public goods. This political area, beyond the acronyms existing today, which all seem quite obsolete to me, must try to hold together the forces that support our Government today. Now it may seem like a utopia, but I believe that the road is already marked and it is the right one. A new dichotomy will ensue. It is necessary, on this basis, to reestablish the democratic and progressive field. This too is a demanding and fascinating challenge.
Workers of the world, unite.
Michael P. Senger is an attorney and author of Snake Oil: How Xi Jinping Shut Down the World. He blogs at the New Normal, where this article first appeared.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
In short, there are many people in positions of power and authority outside of China who admire China’s authoritarianism and would love to be able to replicate it everywhere.
And as we have all been able to see over the last 2+ years, our institutions have not been robust enough to resist them.
Basically, we thought communism had been defeated when the USSR collapsed. It hadn’t. It had simply retreated and regrouped.
On that topic, there was a good article by Ross Clarke on The Spectator website a few days ago detailing the comments of the chief of British Transport Police fawning over the idea that e-tickets linked to your phone will allow them to track everyone across the entire network.
The NHS tried similar with the original Bluetooth-based track and trace app that would share your identity with the central database – thankfully, and to their credit, both Apple and Google refused to allow it on privacy grounds and thus they had to use the OS level anonymous token method instead.
My point is, that their desire to ape China via tracking and control of your everyday life, appears to be very much alive and well across our public institutions.
The problem I see is that this coronavirus crisis has done a lot to reaffirm the idea that collective good should prevail over individual rights.
It’s an age old idea that keeps respawing in some new form. Marxist, Leninist communism was the 20th century version. And the 21st century version is beginning to take shape; some for of techno health surveillance.
What’s that phrase: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance?
And the biggest irony? Karl Marx himself, their idol, was apparently a “let it rip” kinda guy when it came to infectious disease.
This is why keeping cash is so important it only sounds a small thing but it’s huge.
I agree, Epi. Keeping cash, using cash, getting cash out of the bank is vital. People are becoming so used to the convenience of using their cards or phones to tap these days. I use cash as much as possible. Occasionally I will come across a cashless cafe or shop in which case I withdraw my trade after having a chat to the owner or staff.
Think back. There was never any apology from the western “democratic” left for their support of Communism and never any acceptance that socialism had failed in the one place it had been vigorously tried for almost a century.
The “End of history” rubbish give the authoritarians of the NWO all the excuse they needed to continue a path which the western left had wanted all along and the Covid response demonstrated it well.
We have known for many years that the Conservative Party is a waste of time; worse, it deflects conservatives from supporting conservative politicians. The CP has been an anger sink on the EU, on creeping state control and the big state, on wokery and much else. Too many of them are in favour of just a bit more of all of them so long as they and their friends can be in office from time to time.
The phrase has been used a lot and wrongly but I cannot help thinking we are five minutes to midnight and midnight will be followed by a dark age.
People, armies, can be defeated but ideas, ideology can never be defeated.
Communism wasn’t defeated when the USSR collapsed because it had never been attacked by anyone except the Germans in 1941. It took a concerted effort and a lot of money and material from the two then-leading world powers (Britain and the USA) to save it from being collapsed (it’s estimated that about half of all weapons and other war materials the Red Army consumed were delivered by the USA). The end of the USSR just proved that this system was so unsustainable that it even couldn’t be kept alive with the resources of half of the world deliberately placed at its disposal.
Speranza means hope in Italian.Roberto Speranza left no hope for Italy.
Covid vaccine: Study reveals 40.2% of women experienced menstruation changes as a side effect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQrFhzpQxE0
GBNews
*
Yellow Boards By The Road BUILD BACK FREEDOM …
*
Monday 8th August 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A329 London Road &
Fernbank Rd, Winkfield Row
Ascot SL5 8ED
*
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
*
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
*
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
*
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
These devious people who are unable to reach their goal through the ballot box and democracy, decided to force it through fear and isolation. They are despicable with no guilt about returning us to the lives many of our grandfathers and their families had, of a daily grind of survival with no light at the end of the tunnel, all that matters is their idealistic agenda
People who genuinely experienced the daily grind for survival have absolutely no desire to send anyone back there. These people are nearly always champagne socialists who fancy themselves as the modern feudal barons, living a life of luxury whilst lording it over the impoverished masses.
Bang on.
As I keep repeating, Charlie hug a tree Windsor has visions of a buccolic future where he trundles across his estates in his cheese powered EV landau accepting the bows, scrapes and doffed caps of his peasants, serfs and motley other scraps of humanity.
It’s the Future.
Next Tuesdays the lot of them.
Actually, our parliament ratified all these measures, either explicitly or implicitly.
So in fact the problem is not that everything that was done bypassing the democratic process. The problem is that it was done following a democratic process.
Clearly even people with sceptical outlooks struggle to accept that democracy can lead to terrible outcomes.
True democracy was followed by Parliament during covid and what they thought of as a health threat, but the political agenda ‘window’s’ that some saw, and nudged, were not democratic but opportunistic
I’m not sure “democratic” in the way you are using it here means much more than “to my liking”.
In a democratic system, each is free to pursue and promote their ideas of what is best and then a mechanism determines the majority opinion, whether it be by direct vote, or via elected representatives.
Those who wanted to apply communistic ideas pushed for them by talking up the threat and offering their solutions. Our elected representatives bought it.
Once we elect our representatives we are in their hands. Whether we like it or not, that is the democracy we have. We can’t just claim it isn’t democracy when the outcomes aren’t to our liking.
Once we elect our representatives we are in their hands. Whether we like it or not, that is the democracy we have. We can’t just claim it isn’t democracy when the outcomes aren’t to our liking.
As a matter of fact, this isn’t a democracy. It’s on oligarchy whose members periodically need to get popular approval of an otherwise powerless electorate.
The problem is that everyone uses the word democracy but it is rarely more than some fuzzy concept in their minds.
If voting for elected representatives is not democracy, then that will certainly be news to most people in Europe, North America and a few other places with western style parliaments.
The aristotlean characterisations are
Rule by is here defined as being directly involved in the process of political decision-making, either by holding a public office or by being part of an assembly whose members may both propose decisions and vote on the proposals. Considering this, the parliamentary system is cleary not a democracy as the multitude can neither propose decisions nor vote on proposals.
Traditionally, rule by a selected few would either be rule by the members of some essentially fixed set of noble families or rule by a council somehow selected from the members of a set of rich families. So called representative democracy is obviously rule by a selected few. In theory, everybody could become part of the selected few. In practice, that’s restricted to prominent member of certain parties who are usually professional politicans. The only democractic element in there is that MPs are selected by popular acclaim.
Didn’t Churchill say that democracy was the least worst of all the governing options?
He said it was the worst form of government but so far, no better one had been found. Until 2020, its saving grace was supposed to be that while it very effectively prevented anything positive from ever getting done, it also prevented anything seriously negative from being implemented. But that’s a question which has been settled meanwhile: While so-called democracy will always prevent constructive work from being done, because nobody can ever agree what the proper colour of a bikeshed happens to be, everybody will always agree that the colour of the existing bikeshed is improper and hence, that it urgently needs to be torn down. Consequences of that to be sorted out in the next 50 years of fruitless discussion.
Aristotle would have told you that democracy always ends in tears because the demos will always fall for a demagogue sooner or later. Ours happened to be the president of China and it’s entirely sufficient that our ruling classes fell for him. That’s the modern equivalent of what would have been the demos of a Greek democracy from the classic time: The people who either serve in office or make actual political decisions (as opposed to only voting for proxy decision makers).
Returning us to the lives many of our… forebears and their families gave their lives and much more that we, our children, grandchildren, and beyond should enjoy freedom and quality of life. What short memories we have.
First of all I salute Michael Senger for an excellent, in-depth article. The research undertaken is phenomenal. Many thanks.
Speranza – bloody hell what a very dangerous, self-opiniated firkin windbag. .
Totally agree. Great article, confirms what was obvious to us here from the start, none of what we said was going on was a conspiracy theory, all true.
“Self-opinionated firkin windbag” is the perfect description of almost every person in a position of influence who claims to be concerned with the welfare of the population; across the whole political spectrum.
Empowerment of the State over the individual; central economic power and control are the shared roots of Socialism, Fascism and National Socialism.
The last two are not opposites to Socialism, they grow on the same root.
All so-called Western ‘free’ Countries are so rooted, despite their label.
The surprise isn’t that we ended up with tyranny in 2020, the surprise is it took so long coming.
Well – thank goodness that in the UK we didn’t have any communists on Sage pushing the CCP totalitarian narrative.
Oh, hang on a minute………
Fortunately, and it’s good to know, a certain Susan Michie has left her job with the UK government and moved into a long overdue retirement.
Oh, hang on a minute….
“This aligns with an anonymous stock tip posted on January 30th 2020, the same day Italy’s first cases were confirmed, from someone who said they had friends and family at the CDC and WHO and that the WHO was planning to begin recreating China’s response across the Western world, first by locking down Italian cities.”
No wonder so many Congresscritters in the USA sold their stocks in February just days ahead of the crash. Like the song says, “you get a tip, you follow it, and you make a big killing…..on Wall Street”.
The truth will always get out, in spite of the efforts by the liars to stop it.
So-called ‘leaders’ around the so-called ‘Democratic, Civilised’ world all display the same characteristics.
In the words of Doug MacGregor, a former adviser to the US defense secretary…
“We don’t have anyone who qualifies as a Statesman. Statesmanship involves advancing American interests at the least cost to the American people. None of that is in play here. We’re dealing with a group of posers, people who are posturing. Posturing is not Statesmanship.”
Little hope for us the plebs I fear whilst this continues.
Senger has burrowed into a lot of detail, but do his conclusions fit the facts? Up to 10-Mar-20, the UK government was pursuing a sensible herd immunity policy. On that day, medical GMB members threatened to strike, citing inadequate PPE for NHS workers. Other public sector unions waded in. The RMT threatened a rail strike, UCU threatened university closures. ‘The government was ignoring the coronavirus threat.’ The NEU waved the threat of national withdrawal of labour in schools. Faced with multiple mutiny of public-sector unions, Boris began frantically seeking for pretexts on which to abandon the herd immunity policy. At the 16-Mar-20 press conference, Ferguson’s preposterous forecasts were wheeled out, perhaps with government-requested spicing. On 18-Mar-20, Boris caved in to NEU strike threats by agreeing schools would close. This was the decisive step. Parents cannot go to work if kids are off school. On 20-Mar-20, Boris put the whole economy into lockdown.
I’ve tried to delete this comment, but cannot find how to do it.
Senger has burrowed into a lot of detail, but do his conclusions fit the facts? Up to 10-Mar-20, the UK government was pursuing a sensible herd immunity policy. On that day, medical GMB members threatened to strike, citing inadequate PPE for NHS workers. Other public sector unions waded in. The RMT threatened a rail strike, UCU threatened university closures. ‘The government was ignoring the coronavirus threat.’ The NEU waved the threat of national withdrawal of labour in schools. Faced with multiple mutiny of public-sector unions, Boris began frantically seeking for pretexts on which to abandon the herd immunity policy. At the 16-Mar-20 press conference, Ferguson’s preposterous forecasts were wheeled out, perhaps with government-requested spicing. On 18-Mar-20, Boris caved in to NEU strike threats by agreeing schools would close. This was the decisive step. Parents cannot go to work if kids are off school. On 20-Mar-20, Boris put the whole economy into lockdown.
I’ve tried to delete this comment, but cannot find how to do it.
Senger has burrowed into a lot of detail, but do his conclusions fit the facts? Up to 10-Mar-20, the UK government was pursuing a sensible herd immunity policy. On that day, medical GMB members threatened to strike, citing inadequate PPE for NHS workers. Other public sector unions waded in. The RMT threatened a rail strike, UCU threatened university closures. ‘The government was ignoring the coronavirus threat.’ The NEU waved the threat of national withdrawal of labour in schools. Faced with multiple mutiny, Boris began frantically seeking for pretexts on which to abandon the herd immunity policy. At the 16-Mar-20 press conference, Ferguson’s preposterous forecasts were wheeled out, perhaps with government-requested spicing. On 18-Mar-20, Boris caved in to NEU threats by agreeing schools would close. This was the decisive step. Parents cannot go to work if kids are off school. On 20-Mar-20, Boris put the whole economy into lockdown.
It was public sector trades unions who forced the country into lockdown. They did it again, 8 months later. On 04-Jan-21, the NEU held a zoom meeting with 400,000 of its members at which the decision was taken not to return to work after the Christmas holidays. The government caved in again; this time it lasted 6 months. Both the panics were union-driven and totally unnecessary. Herd immunity was the right policy.
No one strikes anymore except public sector unions, against the public, usually timing their strikes to hurt vulnerable people hardest, so they can then denounce the government for making them do it. The hypocrisy is odious.
Private sector workers have had to get their minds right about striking – it doesn’t achieve anything. It’s time to extend the education point to the public sector. It won’t be easy, but the struggle will be worth it to remove the shadow of coercion by these selfish sectional dinosaur unions.
The starting point must be to repeal the 1906 Trades Disputes Act which gives immunity to public sector unions from civil action for inducing breach of contract.
How do you delete an old comment? Anyone know?
“Covid changed everything”. I disagree. It changed nothing. You forget the attention span of people is that of a gnat.