To be alive in Britain in the mid-21st century is to constantly be exposed to the half-baked opinions of half-educated people who purport to have expertise; it is to be relentlessly confronted with debased and incoherent ideas. This takes its toll – it has a large, cumulative, demoralising effect on society to be force-fed a diet of intellectual gruel. And it is suggestive that we have a very bleak future in store, because it indicates that we are in the grip of a way of thinking – which psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist recently called “deluded” – that can lead us nowhere but down.
This was brought home to me viscerally by a recent news story concerning Wildlife and Countryside Link (WCL), a “coalition” of conservation and environmental charities and other such organisations, which includes some of the biggest and most familiar names in the charitable sector – Greenpeace, the National Trust, the RSPB, the WWF, etc. WCL submitted a written response to a call for evidence issued back in November 2023 by a group of MPs (the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Race and Community) on the subject of ‘Racism and the Environmental Emergency’. For whatever reason (a slow news day, perhaps), this response was dug up by journalists last week and paraded as being an accusation that the British countryside is a racist, colonial white space, or words to that effect; outrage has, entirely predictably, followed.
You can read the document in question here. It is important to say that the WCL has since issued a statement calling the news reporting a “misrepresentation” and pointing out that the document was only signed by 11 out of a total of 82 organisations represented by the Link. It is hard to know how to interpret this – it could be that the 11 organisations in question genuinely went off on a ‘frolic of their own’ in submitting the evidence, but it could be that they were actually representing the WCL as a whole and are now being thrown under a bus by the bigger member organisations who are embarrassed by the story. Whatever is the truth of the matter, it is I think the case that there is a bit of exaggeration going on in the news reports: the document doesn’t actually label the British countryside “a racist, colonial white space”. But acknowledging that it is an exaggeration shouldn’t cause us to overlook the very important fact that the WCL’s submission is still appalling drivel.
Before explaining why, let me get one major caveat out of the way. I have close family members who are not white. Generally speaking they do not encounter racism in their daily lives. But the main exceptions have always been on visits to the countryside (actually, specifically the Welsh countryside, where on one occasion the family was indeed memorably pelted with rocks by a gang of youths). I also happen to know a black person who was beaten up in rural Cumbria simply for not being white. So I do not want to be read here as denying what to me is plainly evident – there are actually some racists in rural Britain and sometimes they can be violent. It goes without saying that this is bad. And in drawing attention to this issue the WCL does have a point. One shouldn’t allow oneself to be blinded by the fog of the culture war on this.
The problem, then, is not that the WCL suggested – and this is only one of several themes in the document – that non-white people can feel put off from going into the countryside for fear of being the target of racist comments or even violence, and that this in turn can have an impact on their health, because walking in green spaces undoubtedly is good for you physically, mentally and (the WCL don’t use this word, of course) spiritually. This would I think be a huge oversimplification but could, if you squint at it, be considered a justifiable contribution to public debate.
The problem is the utterly bogus theoretical framework within which that contribution is made. Allow me to draw your attention to a quotation taken from section f of the document in question:
Cultural barriers reflect that in the U.K., it is White British cultural values that have been embedded into the design and management of green spaces, and into society’s expectations of how people should be engaging with them. Racist colonial legacies that frame nature as a ‘white space’ create further barriers, suggesting that people of colour are not legitimate users of green spaces.
You can imagine the intended effect of this paragraph. The reader (a Member of Parliament, let’s not forget), clearly, is supposed to furrow his brow, nod sagely, and say to himself, “Ah, yes, the embedding of cultural values, racist colonial legacies – a very important set of issues to deal with”. And, of course, he is then supposed to continue, “It’s a good job the WCL exists and I had better take it and its ideas seriously and perhaps bung some public money its way”.
What he is not supposed to do is to spend any time thinking about it, because if he did, he would quickly realise what bunk it is. What on earth does it mean to say that “white British cultural values” have been “embedded into the design and management of green spaces”? (Doesn’t this just mean that, as it is inescapably the case that the British countryside was created by British people, it is closely entwined with British identity in the same way that the Japanese countryside is closely entwined with Japanese identity and the Indian countryside is closely entwined with Indian identity, and so on and so forth?) What on earth are “white British cultural values” to begin with and what do they have to do with the countryside? (Is the author suggesting that non-white people can’t enjoy or comprehend the understated beauty of the British countryside on the basis of their being the wrong race?) How do “racist colonial legacies” frame nature as a “white space”? (I would have said that if anything it was the complete opposite: wasn’t one of the main themes of colonial discourse that colonial subjects were unsophisticated nature-dwellers who needed educated Europeans to help organise their societies? And more to the point, how is the British countryside beholden to a “colonial legacy” except perhaps in respect of the Anglo-Saxons or Romans, the most recent colonisers of Britain?) It is, in short, a tissue of ill-thought-out and unexplained assertions that the reader is required to take seriously just because the person scrawling them on the page has a tendentious claim to being an ‘expert’ of some kind.
The problem, then, is not that the WCL was calling the countryside “racist” (it wasn’t); and it isn’t that it was drawing attention to the fact that rural racism is actually a problem (it is). It is that it was dressing up its claims in a shroud of – forgive me for using the word, but it really is the most appropriate one to use – bullshit.
That it is bullshit is of course bad enough. And that it is taken at all seriously is worse: no society can have a bright future if its educated classes are this incapable of genuine thought. But it is indicative of a much more profound malaise, and here we need to spend a little bit of time with our friend Iain McGilchrist, whom I earlier mentioned.
In The Master and His Emissary (2009), McGilchrist meticulously lays out for us the case for understanding the human brain – like all animal brains – as being divided between two hemispheres with two different jobs. In doing so, he debunks the old 1960s notion that the left side of the brain was the reliable, dependable, rational one, and that the right side was creative and spiritual and filled with mumbo-jumbo. The actual division concerns two different ways of attending to the world. The right side of the brain’s job is to attend to the whole – to be aware of the surrounding environment. The left side of the brain’s job is to attend to the singular – to manipulating and getting. To use McGilchrist’s example, a bird needs to use the left side of its brain to focus on tasks like grabbing a worm or placing a twig to make a nest. It needs to use the right side of its brain to be aware of the world around it so as to avoid predators and so forth. This is a necessary division of labour present in all multi-cellular life.
Humans of course do more than birds, but McGilchrist explains human thought and ultimately human culture and civilisation as being nonetheless informed by these two different modes of attending. What is important here, above all, is that this means we have two different ways of interfacing, as it were, with the world around us. Our left brains see the world as being composed of objects to be manipulated. Our right brains see it as a continuous whole – the word he often uses in later work is a ‘flow’. It follows that what the left brain likes is abstraction: it likes to break everything down into pieces which it can understand and deal with in the singular. What the right brain likes is to see everything as inter-connected and interrelated. Put simplistically, the former sees the whole as being less than the sum of the parts and vice versa.
McGilchrist’s book is among the most important that I have ever read (and I don’t know anybody who has read it who does not value it as highly as I do), and its signal contribution is in drawing our attention to a fundamental error that is at the heart of our politics and indeed our approach to everything, from dating to architecture to economics to parenthood. This error is our obsession with dealing with abstract ‘re-presentation’ rather than what actually ‘presences’ to us: dealing with the map, and thinking that it is the same thing as the terrain. From an academic paper McGilchrist once published:
The [right hemisphere] is better at seeing things as they are preconceptually — fresh, unique, embodied and as they ‘presence’ (Heidegger, anwesen) to us. The left, then, sees things as they are ‘re-presented’, literally ‘present again’ after the fact, as already familiar abstractions or signs.
This is because it is the right hemisphere that experiences experience first, so to speak (being the one that is paying attention to the surroundings); it then passes what it experiences to the left hemisphere to sift through and identify what it thinks is useful or important, and the left brain does this on the basis of pre-existing categorisation (“Yes, that’s a worm, I’ve eaten one of those before, I’ll grab it again”). Our problem is that our thinking has become dominated by the left hemisphere, so we get stuck at the level of ‘re-presentation’ or “already familiar abstractions or signs”; we’ve lost the habit of re-embedding the ‘re-presentation’ back within the right hemisphere’s much richer and more complete perspective on the world. We are stuck in a web of theory, then, disconnected from reality.
McGilchrist concedes at the end of his book that his account might be wrong and indeed may be entirely metaphorical, but even as metaphor, it is one of great power and insight. And it describes our problem more fully than any other explanatory account I can think of: we, to repeat, increasingly encounter the world in our conscious state as a set of ‘re-presentations’ or “already familiar abstractions or signs”, not as a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. And this leads us to the absolutely crass and stupid theoretical nonsense that characterises our public life, which increasingly resembles a hall of mirrors – all representation, no reality. We fall for absurd, ‘gotcha’ explanations that crumble like dust when exposed to the light: “Ah yes, the reason why non-white people don’t go on country walks is because white British cultural values have been embedded into the design and management of green spaces.” And we convince ourselves not only that these theoretical CliffsNotes are plausible, but they are the actual underlying reality: that it makes sense to think of the British countryside not as a vast, interconnected and interrelated whole, constantly in motion, constantly changing, constantly in a state of ungraspable and irreducible flow, but as something that can simply be understood straightforwardly on the basis of “white British cultural values and racist colonial legacy”.
Michael Oakeshott, in his essay ‘Rationalism in Politics’ (also absolutely critical in understanding our predicament), long ago identified the same problem. When people are poorly educated, disconnected from their traditions and heritage, and put in charge, they lack the ability to make decisions based on the accumulated cultural wisdom of their ancestry. And they therefore, to use his term, have to resort to ‘cribs’ (in the sense of short-hand copies of great works) – they don’t really know or understand anything, so they become particularly vulnerable to the pat answers of charlatans and the debased interpretations of the work of serious thinkers. How to actually introduce, and include, non-white people into the glory and wonder of the British countryside – a true cradle of civilisation if ever there was one – is an important question and a great task, but the answer is utterly beyond those who purport to solve it. Instead all they can do is scrabble about for a ready-made idea that sounds fancy enough to look like expertise. “Blah blah cultural values, blah blah colonial legacy – that’ll do.” To repeat: they live in the map, and mistake it for the terrain. And they are therefore incapable of acting in a sensible or useful way.
A society in the grip of this thinking cannot hope to go on in a civilised form. And in his recent public appearances McGilchrist has begun to sound increasingly apocalyptic, saying indeed that he thinks it “extremely unlikely that this civilisation will survive”. I know what he means. Everywhere around us we see the same set of problems, all deriving from the same fundamental error of dealing with representation and abstraction as though it is the underlying reality. At best this leaves us incapable of wise decision-making; generally it means that decision-making is actively bad.
The recent illustration par excellence is of course the response to COVID-19, in which our decision-makers at all turns seemed to think their mathematical models and theoretical solutions were more real than what was actually happening in society – and in which an obsession with trying to exert control over abstract, stylised ‘facts’ (‘case numbers’, deaths, the ‘R’ number and so on) consistently won out over taking decisions on the basis of what would be best for the whole. But one can see it across the whole piece, whether in the economy, education, culture, sport, crime – everywhere we see badly informed tinkering led by simplistic theory and based on abstract models; very rarely do we see anybody in a position of leadership trying to govern, to repeat, for the whole.
But to close on a more immediate note, the thing that concerns me most is that the problem is becoming so visible and salient even at the level of individual decision-making and in our personal lives. I happen to be writing these words on Valentine’s Day, at a time when the dating scene (thankfully I no longer have to worry about such matters) is surely the least appealing it has ever been. And the problems with it are all identifiably rooted in precisely the issue that I have been describing: the reduction of the whole to the parts; the confusion of understanding with the representation of “already familiar abstractions or signs”; the application of the map or ‘crib’ rather than the comprehension of the reality. Young people, it seems, are increasingly apt to see each other not in terms of the whole but in terms of what they represent – partly just their physical attributes of course, but partly also their character. For women, men seem by default to be presumed to be predatory or misogynistic; for men women by default seem to be presumed to be moneygrabbers or irredeemably ‘woke’. And for both parties, relationships are increasingly defined transactionally, as though a romantic or sexual partner is simply an object to be interacted with in order to gain some fleeting pleasurable sensation (the so-called ‘situationship’) or something even more grubby (money etc.). We do not see people for who they are; we see them schematically on the basis of a pre-existing, abstracted set of categorisations and theories.
Without wishing to be too bleak, it is only a matter of time before this mentality begins to bleed into the family sphere, and one can already see this dark spectre emerging in the form of commercial surrogacy, divorce porn and the growing normalisation of parental resentment towards children. When the family itself becomes subject to left hemisphere thinking, that can only mean its death – and plummeting birth rates and youth anti-natalism are surely at least in part attributable to the phenomenon I am describing. To return to McGilchrist: it is highly unlikely that this civilisation will survive – and this is taking on an increasingly and poignantly literal meaning. How to respond, though, is something that will have to wait for future posts.
Dr. David McGrogan is an Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School. He is the author of the News From Uncibal Substack 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.
Typo?
Cunts.
Useless cunts would be more accurate as these 3rd rate fuckwits can’t even be bothered to proof read their own fucking lies. Give me strength.
I can’t believe they lie. I thought that we could trust them.
SCANDAL NHS Track App Info Given To Police I Warned You Not To Trust Them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBCCHEwxNU
Upcoming peaceful stands other anti lockdown events – and we mean peaceful
Saturday 2nd October 2pm
GRAND STAND IN THE PARK BERKSHIRE
– with a couple of guest speakers and a stroll though the town centre at the end
Reading River Promenade
Reading RG4 8BX
Saturday 16th October 1pm
Combined Berks/Bucks/Oxon/Surrey MEGA Yellow Board-Hold the Line
Stafferton Way
Maidenhead
SL6 1AY
Stand in the Park Make friends – keep sane – talk freedom and have a laugh
Reading River Promenade Sundays 10am
Join our Telegram group https://t.me/standindparkreading
Bracknell South Hill Park Sundays 10am & Wednesdays 2pm
Join our Telegram group http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
This is the level of petty criminality – there was a typo in the passage as I recall but that was not the lie.
Yes the virus is real but the whole Covid thing is a scam rewarding friends of those in high places. There are cheaper alternatives to the so-called vaccines used widely and successfully in third world countries. We need to stop printing money and throwing it into the avaricious black hole that is big Pharma. And what about the £90billion plus spent on testing?
So far as kids are concerned, it’s fairly irrelevant in nearly all cases anyway – they simply won’t get ill so don’t need the “vaccine” or any other treatment.
Don’t think the US is a third world country …yet.
Anybody who has been vaccinated has not been truly informed.
Yes indeed. It is not possible to give informed consent for the Covid-19 vaccines, which are not vaccines, but depopulating agents.
Absolutely correct, I did have jab, at no point did they go through anything with me or mention ADRs or what to do. No one can be truly informed because there isn’t enough data, but the sneaky fuckers can’t even be honest about that. I did consider asking questions but I knew there’d be no point as they all had to stick to a script. My friend had a pretty severe ADR, GP couldn’t have cared less, never told her to report it, nothing.
Too many teen-age kids will start hitting ICUs with Myocarditis…
https://21stcenturywire.com/2021/09/22/new-study-pfizer-vaccine-increases-myocarditis-threefold/
All part of the plan, for the depop/defrag global eugenicists wet dream…
CJ essential reading:
https://consentfactory.org/2021/09/02/the-covidian-cult-part-iii/
And the Hill us anti-COVID-vaxxers will die on:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/wnUuvUqx5dkV
So true. And you cannot be informed, given that Pfizer are not naming all the ingredients in the vaccine, as per the details on the FDA website
I think I should be able to ask exactly what I’m being asked to inject into my body? Trade secrets or IP concerns are not my problem
The video showing German pathologists who have autopsied people who appear to have died from the jab is extremely worrying. On Dr Robert Malone’s twitter feed. Slides showing lymphocytic myocarditis, possibly due to an autoimmune reaction triggered by the spike, what appears to be a possible influence on cancer growth, and vascular damage.
Doesn’t mean this happens to everyone, but people need to know. These were not children. But effects on the heart look as though they are probably spread across all age groups, including the old, where they are more invisible, as Dr Kendrick predicted.
We need a copy of the script they will use to “make sure” they have so called Gillick competence. We will find for sure that consent is not informed.
https://odysee.com/@BannedFromYoutube:d/Pressekonferenz-Tod-durch-Impfung-Undeklarierte-Bestandteile-der-COVID-19-Impfstoffe:a
I will try to get hold of it when they are in the site I work at.
Dr Ryan Cole’s video testimony is equally chilling.
We will soon know as ICAN have abided by a reposes from the FDA for a formal request for an unredacted menu of ingredients having refused their legal application for the same.
I don’t care about trade secrets or IP either – patents reveal more than that.
It will either be a massive game changer or damp squib.
The government is lying to children.
How typical of the government.
It’s no doubt become second nature to lie now as a first response.
Politicians have never been noted as the most truthful bunch, but over the past year and a half they’ve taken it to a new level – and we have never before seen this sort of epidemic of blatant lying from bodies such as PHE and the NHS.
They have to lie, if the truth were known these people and many others, not least government ministers and “advisors” would be lynched
Jean-Claude Juncker profile: ‘When it becomes serious, you have to lie’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10874230/Jean-Claude-Juncker-profile-When-it-becomes-serious-you-have-to-lie.html
This is the only time he told the truth.
Jabeit Macht Frei
Tell me when vaxxoids stop washing their hands.
Uuuuuuuurgh.
What they like doing even more is sploshing around gallons of that nasty sanitiser stuff!
Absolutely – I watched with fascination (and revulsion) as this guy at a hotel I stayed at last week splodged the stuff on, and speedily wrung his hands and lower arms like a professional! He carried his own bottle and splodged it on after every few minutes. It was like a psychological tick, a completely integrated feature to his every day life – as was wearing his face rag and jumping away from anyone who came too close.
Some covidians (I call them the Infected) I despise for being soldiers of this scam, while others like this guy I have terrible pity.
My MIL uses the loo at our place, where there is water, soap and towels, and comes out and splodges stinky hand sanitiser all over her hands, without thinking about it! It’s crazy and just a bit insulting.
Has nobody told these people that soap and water is far more effective than the sanitiser gunk?
Soap and water won’t put right an immune system that has been totally fucked up by “vaccines” that aren’t vaccines and were never meant to prevent anything.
Have you given her a copy of the “risk less than 1 in 10,000 study to her, and explained she needs to be emptying Covid bed pans to be at risk from touch?
Having said that, this is typical MiL behaviour. Mine once came to stay, pre covid, bringing a bottle of anti bacterial washing up liquid in her luggage, which she placed at the sink and then took away with her at the end of the stay.
“It was like a psychological tick”
It is a psychological tick. Deliberately induced.
Saw a woman doing that in the street the other day, took her ages, after she had come out of the pit of germs that was a shop. I bet it was anti bac as well and not anti virus so a complete and utter waste of time.
Me and my partner had a couple in front of us in a restaurant queue a few weeks ago, absolutely drenching their hands in the stuff. They were taking too long with their madness so we jumped their space. I would normally never do something like this but there’s only so much pandering I’m willing to do to play along with the psychosis of someone I don’t know.
Few weeks ago I saw a woman push the button of a pedestrian crossing with her elbow (took several attempts), then get out a bottle of sanitiser and rubbed a load on her elbow with the opposite hand. Do these people not realise how ridiculous this sort of thing looks?
I think it’s a combination of fear and gratefulness that finally we have something obvious we can do to make us look morally good in our own and others’ eyes. Sanitise, mask, distance, jab… So the problem isn’t these poor individuals but the meaningless lives they lived before, stemming from much deeper societal problems… We’ve lost touch with what life is about…
A complete waste of time either way. She really needs to stop breathing while inside shops – like pearl divers in ancient days.
They can use as much sanitiser as they want, but the vaccinated are now just time bombs steadily ticking away. Will they go off tomorrow, next month or if they are really lucky perhaps next year. Dead men and women still walking!
Yeah, I’m sure you will have lots of fun as the lone survivor, just imagine all the ice cream to yourself!
That’s a very weird thing to say. Are you quite alright?
It’s repressed vaccine regret manifesting as petulance.
Yet another significant danger of the vaccines (not) reported widely is the design, to evade the immune system to get inside your cells and make the spike, that changes your innate immune response and makes you more vulnerable in your defence from cancers. A senior oncologist in a US cancer clinic reports that ALL his fully vaccinated patients who we in remission are no longer, with the cancers spreading and affecting other organs at a speed he has not seen before.
Exactly why are we doing this to anyone, especially children.
Depopulation.
You summed it all up in just one word.
I don’t think they are deliberately trying to depopulate the planet. There would be far far simpler ways of doing that. Like letting a nasty virus loose and letting people get on with it, catch it and die.
I think this is more like a WWI situation where a bunch of psychopaths with power to lord it over everyone have an objective in mind and consider any deaths along the way justifiable (not theirs, obviously). We are acceptable collateral damage.
They’re probably trying to take a big leap forward with mRNA technology as a means of radically extending life and with the regulations in place before 2020 they just couldn’t advance quickly enough. Now that they’ve got a green light to rush things out, the technology had been approved and tested on billions. If they get their way they’ll be running tests with “boosters” for as long as they’re allowed to.
I’m pretty sure that’s what is going on. If I had billions and billions, radically extending my life would probably be the only ambition i would consider worth pursuing. I’m sure i could convince myself I’m doing it for the good of humanity.
A friend of mine has been treated for terminal cancer for a couple of years now and, purportedly, the chemotherapy she was on was helping to slow it down. That was until shortly after she had ‘the jab’ earlier this year. Could be just a coincidence but within a few weeks she was told that the chemotherapy was no longer working and as a consequence the cancer was spreading extensively through her spine and liver, precisely where it had previously been kept in check (as best as these things can be). It may be just coincidence but it did cross my mind that there might be a connection.
TLR 7/8
I don’t want to give any false hope, but
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/gcmaf-and-persecution-david-noakes-lyn-thyer-immuno-biotech
https://www.gcmafplus.com/shop?gclid=Cj0KCQjwqKuKBhCxARIsACf4XuFE66mJX_KMPMEZvXNzQncyI2trctOxMXwgltMWlxn0-gJNLqwTjWYaAiJoEALw_wcB
Thanks for sharing this. A very powerful article.
Ooof. I bet Pascal Soriot is pissed. First Pfizer get all the high paying US covid vaccine candidates, then they kill off all his oncology patients he was hoping would be buying his Onc drugs
Was this Sloane Kettering in NYC? I’ve heard from nurses they are witnessing an explosion of cancers.
More than one US medic – cannot remember if it was Fleming, Ryan, McCullough or a n other – has testified to an increase in cancer markers evident post jab.
Would this be the same “vaccine” that would give us so called freedom once the vulnerable had been vaccinated?
Was it only 3 weeks to flatten the curve before getting back to normal.
Was it only 3 lockdowns to save summer, Christmas, whatever.
Of course wearing useless masks have worked so well, haven’t they.
I’m fortunate enough to say that I’ve never voted for a main stream party this century. The last election I was tempted to vote Conservative but voted for the Birthday Party candidate, yes he’s a joke candidate but at least he’s honest about it.
btw re picture, is that Barak jabbing Greta? From one useless prick to another.
Nah. That’s a picture of how the next generation will have intercourae. The exchange will take place via vaccine, because kids will grow up developing a vaccine fetish and they’ll be persuaded that the artificial version is the only way of procreating. And it will all be perfectly sanitised and without any germs exchanged, which is important because they’ll all be germophobes.
I think I’m catching on:
A lie told by the dictatorship that gets called out by their media friends because it embarrasses even them = a typo. (As common as an albino tiger,.one might add)
A lie told by the dictatorship that isn’t called out by their media friends = The Science
A truth that contradicts a lie told by the dictatorship = dangerous misinformation
A general truth about the dictatorship with the odd inaccuracy = a conspiracy theory
You’ve nailed it!
Don’t forget the one for blatant illogical U-turns too – “Growing Evidence” (as in the U-turn over muzzles – said evidence never appears, of course)
We need an encyclopaedia of Covid lies. Plenty of material on this site.
Happy to illustrate!
My default thought whenever I see any information presented by the government these days is “in what way have I been lied to?”
One day the pandemic will be over, but the loss of trust in government, Public Health England, the NHS, the MHRA, the media and in fact any public institution will remain for a long, long time.
The pandemic (which has never really been a pandemic in the classical sense) will NEVER be over.
Just look at the Antipodes.
This trust being lost might not be such a bad thing.
I wonder how they made the risk/benefit analysis easy-read? What’s the betting it says “The vaccine is safe and effective”?
“…. and any side effects are normally mild and go away in a day or two.”
This generation of children are going to be very, very angry and frightened when the reality becomes clear. And some of them will be very angry with their parents too.
Filthy lying evil scumbags!!
Well, and more importantly, it should read:
If you get vaccinated then we, the government, may decide to return to you some fo the freedoms that we despotically stole.”I’m sure that it makes skillful use of the passive voice to hide the fact that the government should just return their freedom no questions asked.
Lying, fucking bastards!
The original version “You don’t have to keep following the Government’s rules if you have been vaccinated” was misleading, but true in context; it’s also true, at least in principle, for the unvaccinated.
It also shows that most people don’t know the status of gov rules. Where I work all but two people wear masks all day long and believe children must be tested for covid if a school asks. Since the gov NEVER clarifies ‘rules’ people accept them at face value. Of course the gov NEVER openly states that all have the right to reject a vaccine.
But they’re not laws.
Whenever challenged they fold (although the MSM do not seem to report this news .
True. So what we have is tacit dictat via ignorance. The language of rights and freedoms has totally evaporated. People are under peer pressure or just too lazy to check and challenge, making assumptions which aren’t actually valid. Yet the gov can claim they ‘didn’t force anyone’ while not being explicit about the truth. This is a brainwashing agenda.
Throughout this shitshow the government (and others) have deliberately conflated laws and guidance into “The Rules” which people ‘have’ to follow. Only the sufficiently-clued-up minority actually read the legislation (which is itself usually a mess due to repeated amendments) so that they know which bits (i.e. the guidance) can be ignored with impunity.
Many kids are actually really confused now. At our Rebels at Roundabouts yesterday, a 16 year old came over to talk to us. He’d been jabbed (taken it for his ill mother!) But was now worried. He thought we were the militant ANTI-Vaxxers he’d heard about in MSM! When we explained we weren’t, we are pro-choice, and just trying to inform people of the risks, especially to younger children, and the lies and duplicity this government is generating, he actually listened. He asked lots of questions which we were happy to answer but we were careful not to frighten him because he’d had the jabs, and we stayed positive. He wasn’t aggressive or rude, and I think we opened his mind to break down some of the negative propaganda he’d heard about people who oppose this vaccine programme. Hopefully this will filter back to his peers and family, who knows?
experimental gene therapy macht frei?
you can’t make this shit up…
I will never be jabbed with this stuff, but its worrying reading the negative long term things about it when my son and other relatives have had it, ‘for work’
For any one with the remotest sense of legality, ethics or common decency the consent forms being sent out will be profoundly offensive: they offer false or improper inducements, the do not outline the doubtful benefits or serious known risks, or the unknown risks of products for which there is no long term data. This is not in good faith: the people doing this are behaving with complete immorality and heaven knows what their real motives are.
I can only imagine what a ‘big typo’ would consist of…
Don’t for a second believe this was an accident, it’s all deliberate.
Utter utter bastards. I am not normally a violent person but I can’t help hoping that retribution for the person who is doing this to our kids will be as nasty and vicious as is possible.
These are people playing the tricks of petty criminals – if you were dealing with a market-stall holder you would back away and not return, and they are running the government.
Sneaky little fuckers.
Obtaining consent via a form that contains lies, however unintentional (???…) has to be a criminal offence.
That was what I thought – any kind of fraud, vitiates everything. Presumably this is the same with the vax manufacturers: they at present appear to have a blanket immunity from prosecution, but if that was based on a false premise, such as for example they knew the products would likely be harmful, then all bets are off.
But the judiciary aren’t likely to do anything about it, even if someone manages to get it to court.
If there is a law against something and that law has patently and incontrovertibly been broken, and a criminal charge is brought, the judiciary has to take notice.
Masks, social distancing etc are not ‘rules’, they are guidance only and they are unenforceable. That’s what they should be telling everybody.
In Germany over 40 persons incarcerated in a special venue under 24h surveillance for breaking quarantine.
I didnt realise we’re living in or ruled by Germany, otherwise I don’t really see the point of your comment.
habits die hard.
It should all have been made clear as optional from day one, instead we had coercion and compulsion and lies and irrationality and propaganda. And it’s still going on.
Just a cock-up?
Evil morons, the lot of them.
‘In June, the U.S., U.K., EU, Mexico and Canada announced they would form a group to study how to safely reopen international travel.’
This will include eligible kids and adults having to be fully vaccinated to get into the US.
They’ve set the age at 12 (for now). Those that don’t get ‘jabbed’ will be discriminated against. They’re just not telling you how yet.
Reminder that they supposedly “debated” the following petition in Parliament:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/575801 – Outlaw discrimination against those who do not get a Covid-19 vaccination
Long story short: It was no debate. All the MPs involved were falling over eachother to praise the vaccines. At no point did they discuss medical discrimination. Maybe it’s time to write to our representatives and let them know that we do not approve of their little hand puppet show. It is clear that they have no plan to stop any such discrimination. On the contrary, I think they are relying on it in order to give people no choice.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-09-20/debates/A52729B6-FB5D-498F-86E4-569024C22623/Covid-19Vaccinations
They did mention misinformation, downright lies, and mad conspiracy theories by people with hidden agendas who are in the pockets of well-funded and well-organised anti-vax movements employed to stop others from getting their potentially life-saving vaccine.
Why some well-funded and well-organised political pressure group would want to stop others from getting life-saving vaccines is anybody’s guess. There’s nothing to be gained by that.
Yes the very words, and in Hansard!
Absolutely despicable and the heights of insolent arrogance gilding what appears as literal ignorance. Are they relying on input from HoC researchers without verifying any of what was given them? Topped with the adulation of the rascal Jenner – because he was a “Brit”!
They would do well to read chapter 6 of Professor E.M. Crookshank’s “History and Pathology of Vaccination” (1889) or Ian Sinclair’s “Vaccination: The “Hidden” Facts” (1992/94). Or any of the modern and authoritative books which impartially review the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
And that would just be a good start – since the COVID-19 “jabs” are not even traditional vaccines anyway but genetic therapy approved on an emergency use basis and without lengthy (in terms of years) human testing.
Write to our representatives?
Good lord, I gave up on that idea months ago. Might as well write to Santa, or the tooth fairy. It’ll do about as much good.
Well, feel free to replace that with whichever activity you find most fitting for getting your MP to do something.
I’m thinking about doing this, provided I can come up with a sensible text. I don’t expect it to do much good. But not doing it certainly won’t do any good and debating a petition by reciting (big pharma) boilerplate propaganda while entirely ignoring its topic is a disgrace.
Sars-CoV2-vaccination should be available to anyone who thinks he needs it. But – just as with mask mandates – people who produce stuff some people don’t want to buy (or have) should not go to the government to force it onto the population.
“While some of the Government’s rules apply differently to adults who have been vaccinated, no such distinctions have been made for children.”
And what *rules* are these exactly?! I’ve been carrying on life just the same and whatever jabbyjabs I’ve had or not haven’t come into it.
Putting the con in consent
Was this a HoC Debate or a group conformity experiment? Doesn’t a Debate require dissentient viewpoints on fundamentals?
I make it all of… 6 MPs in attendance to debate these petitions.
Relevant documents:
e-petition 586017, Do not vaccinate children against COVID-19 until Phase 3 trials are complete,
e-petition 587380, Reform the VDPA 1979 to improve support for those harmed by covid-19 vaccines, and
e-petition 593410, Do not make Covid-19 vaccination a requirement to physically
attend university.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-09-20/debates/A52729B6-FB5D-498F-86E4-569024C22623/Covid-19Vaccinations
12 year olds and up from the U.K. are no longer allowed to enter Germany if they’re unvaccinated.
I’m guessing all EU countries will have the same policy.
Inject your kids or you won’t be going on holiday in the EU or the US.
Children who have faced 0
deaths since schools returned (one of the last to do so) are lied to again so that Pfizer can get their $40/dose. Vaccination is useful for the at risk. For kids, it’s just the cash register ringing. Lies and psychological abuse.
The experimental jabs, with no long-term safety data, are NOT useful for anyone.
“Vaccination is useful for the at risk.”
Perhaps as a talisman, to make them feel safer. But that’s about it.
When I downloaded this leaflet last week I literally wept. I’m a teacher at of the many schools where this crime will be committed and one of my kids is also a student there. I have expressed to them the criminality of what will be occurring and will shortly be meeting governors in a bid to make them accountable. I have no words to describe the evil at work here but I am also certain that it is indefensible and impossible to make a case for. I can’t stop foolish parents sacrificing their own children at the altar of covid; I can protect my own kids though, and ensure that bureaucrats allowing this to happen will one day pay the price for their own stupidity and credulousness.
Should also say that whilst I have been writing my statement, expressing the danger and insanity has become easier and easier. The FDA hearings last week certainly helped and of course the (limp, pathetic, supine but I don’t say that) recommendation of our own JCVI have made it much easier. There is no case for vaccinating children and that’s the end of it.
If the weak and gullible are willing to sacrifice themselves at the alter of the vaccine gods, who are we to stop them.
I can’t include the children of weak and gullible people in that assessment though.
These leaflets – particularly the ‘easy reads’ intended for children and people with learning disabilities – will one day be displayed in museums as examples of early 21st Century war propaganda and visitors will gaze in horror at the depths to which human beings can stoop. ‘Never again’, they will say (until the next time some more humans do it again).
Small typo my arse!
Everything they have done has had the utmost consideration in order to further their aims to get everyone injected. Everything.
How low can these bastards stoop?
Deuteronomy 32:35 “It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them”
Coerced vaccination of children? Watch out perpetrators. Nuremberg Code is coming to get you for Crimes Against Humanity.
What kind of medical information form feels it needs to propagandize about “freedom” that is actually a set of measly prisoners’ privileges.
We need to take note of all this, we need to find the people responsible, we need to put them on trial, and we need to jail them for a very very very long time. And I am not joking at all.
Can’t believe Whitty who has gone from the majority will not be affected (April 2020) to everyone is in mortal danger, wonder what changed him so drastically or is that a daft question?
The question is anything but daft. We can ask him when he’s on trial for crimes against humanity, can’t we?
Brown Envelopes. Or do they transfer bribes electronically?
https://odysee.com/@en:a5/PK_Tot-durch-Impfung_english:a
This is a special conference led by Vivaine Fisher from the Corona Committee.
It goes into proper medical detail on what is in these “vaccines” There are slides which show metallic objects moving in the “vaccines” It suggests to me that the “mad” theories about transhumanism could have merit, as some of these objects are clearly engineered nanobot type objects.
The part on the vaccine contents starts at about 1.19.
There is a good presentation from a German surgeon who is working with a group of international doctors to investigate and publicise this.
Much of the conference is hard to follow because of the translation, which is hurried out, due to the importance and urgency of getting this information out as soon as possible, given the need to protect children from being experimented on with these deadly injections..