But the virus and its interactions with human hosts constitute a complex system. In such systems, it is very unlikely that any effect can be put down to a single cause. The Public Health England data provide powerful reasons to suspect that the vaccines may be compromising immunity to SARS-2 via Original Antigenic Sin. This is not a crazy internet fantasy, but a well-observed limitation of human immunity. It is the primary reason that respiratory viruses like influenza return again and again. Despite multiple reinfections across the whole population, we are never quite immune to the flu, because its strategy is to exploit the way our immune systems learn.

The mechanisms of Original Antigenic Sin are not fully understood, but we have a rough idea of what might be happening. When a virus infects your body for the first time, your naive memory B cells imprint on specific virus proteins, or antigens, presented to them. These B cells then become either memory B cells or plasma cells. Forever after, they specialise in producing antibodies against those specific antigens. When a slightly mutated form of the virus arrives, these memory B-cells begin pouring forth the antibodies they learned to produce during the first infection. These antibodies bind to multiple epitopes on the virus particles, and in the process they give the slower-moving naive B-cells little chance to learn about any new, mutant virus features.

Original Antigenic Sin was most influentially described by Thomas Francis in 1960. He noted that, regardless of whatever influenza A strains were in circulation, subjects tended to have dominant antibody responses to the strains that were current in their early childhood:

The antibody of childhood is largely a response to … the virus causing the first Type A influenza infection of the lifetime. As the group grows older and subsequent infections take place, antibodies to additional families of virus are acquired. But … the antibody which is first established continues to characterize that cohort of the population throughout its life. The antibody forming mechanisms have been highly conditioned by the first stimulus, so that later infections with strains of the same type successively enhance the original antibody to maintain it at the highest level at all times in that age group. The imprint established by the original virus infection governs the antibody response thereafter. This we have called the doctrine of original antigenic sin.

An important consequence of this childhood conditioning, is that different age cohorts within the population have overlapping or layered immunity to different influenza strains. This is an important if subtle aspect of our population-wide immunity to influenza A. It looks like this:

As older cohorts die, their immunity to older strains dies with them. These old strains, long suppressed, are then positioned to return, for very few human immune systems remember them any longer. Francis believed this was the mechanism underlying periodic cycles of pandemic influenza. The 1957 influenza pandemic, for example, featured a strain of flu against which only the oldest cohorts – those in their 70s – had specific antibodies. As these “immunological veterans” disappeared, this older, long-suppressed type of influenza was free to return and cause another pandemic event.

In conclusion, Francis proposed that optimised influenza vaccines might be administered to children before their first infection. He envisioned vaccines designed to confer immunity against “known or anticipated recurrent strains” and hoped that “In this manner the original sin of infection could be replaced by an initial blessing of induced immunity.”

Strategic vaccination conferring immunity against likely future strains is of course exactly the opposite of our current efforts to give every last living human multiple vaccinations against an extinct strain of SARS-2.

*

The existence of Original Antigenic Sin has been confirmed by generations of research, and the literature is full of curious findings. A major reason flu shots don’t work, for example, is that they are powerless to redirect adult immune systems against novel influenza strains. Most people who get flu shots are adults, with immune systems long since primed by childhood infection. Hence this old Lancet case study of influenza outbreaks among boys at Christ’s Hospital in Sussex in the 1970s:

In each outbreak, the protective effect of inactivated influenza-A vaccine was limited to those boys, not already immune, who were vaccinated for the first time with the most up-to-date strain. Revaccination with the same strain did not increase the degree of protection, and revaccination with a later strain did not afford protection against subsequent challenge.

The flu vaccines, in other words, work great if you’ve never had the flu before. Otherwise they don’t do anything.

And consider these remarks, from a 2005 article in Nature Medicine:

It is often difficult to further increase antibody levels, specificity and the quality of the immune response in individuals who have been repeatedly immunized through either vaccination or recurrent exposure to infectious agents or cross-reacting microbial antigens. This has been a particular concern for aging adults in the context of the antigenic drift of influenza virus, in view of their annual exposure to antigens of new but related influenza variants through either infection or vaccination. After exposure to a new but cross-reacting antigenic variant, such individuals may respond by producing antibodies that are primarily directed at antigens characterizing influenza viruses encountered during earlier epidemics.

The authors go on to write that the “impact” of Original Antigenic Sin “on protection is far from established,” noting earlier research showing substantial all-cause mortality reductions from flu shots. Later work, though, has shown that the mortality reduction of influenza vaccines is largely an illusion of selection effects. For a variety of reasons, those most likely to die of influenza are far less likely than healthier groups to be vaccinated.

Original Antigenic Sin has been famously implicated in dengue fever. This is considered to be an extreme case of the phenomenon, with “considerable bearing on vaccine strategies.” Here the conclusions are ominous and full of implications for our own situation:

Once a response has been established, it is unlikely that repeat boosting will be able to change its scope, meaning that balanced responses against the four virus serotypes will need to be established with the first vaccine dose.

The danger is that immunity to one strain alone may lead to permanently impaired immune response to the three other serotypes, causing worse and longer illness.

*

Influenza had been infecting humans for generations before anybody came up with the notion of influenza vaccines. Despite the efforts of public health authorities everywhere, most people catch the flu before they are ever vaccinated, and so flu shots have little opportunity to undermine population-wide immunity to influenza A.

The complex system constituted by SARS-CoV-2 and its interactions with the human immune system, on the other hand, remains barely understood. In chasing an empty fantasy of herd immunity, authorities are denying human populations everywhere the opportunity to develop the layered, population-wide resistance against successive SARS-2 strains that is the foundation of our immunity against other respiratory viruses. Aside from the minority that have managed to recover from natural infection before the vaccinators got to them, most humans will have their crucial, primary immune response conditioned by the spike protein of SARS-2 in its vintage 2020 configuration.

It is a near certainty that this immunity will attenuate antibody responses to the spike protein of current and future variants, forever. Mutant spike proteins will increasingly escape vaccine-conferred immunity, and breakthrough infections will elicit only partial response to the new epitopes. Insofar as the data also suggest that our vaccines will attenuate immunity to other virus proteins beyond spike, mass vaccination will lead to ever more volatile waves of infection – in exchange for limited and fading protection against severe outcomes.

The most dangerous thing to do, at this point, would be to vaccinate children. The virus is not a threat to them, and if they are infected by the new forms of SARS-2 that are sure to emerge every winter, we will begin to establish – through them and the as yet unvaccinated – the layered immunity that is the only way of coming to terms with SARS-2 in the longer term. As long as the vaccinators are permitted to continue their radical and increasingly insane campaign, though, nothing will improve. Indeed, their policies threaten to bring about a semi-permanent pandemic state for generations to come. (read more)

As noted in this AP article about the FDA presumably deliberating today whether to approve the Pfizer vaccine for kids aged 5 to 11, note this tell-tale sign showing this ‘deliberation’ itself is a ruse:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Kid-size doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine may be getting closer as government advisers on Tuesday began deliberating whether there’s enough evidence that the shots are safe and effective for 5- to 11-year-olds.

[…] States are getting ready to roll out shots for little arms — in special orange-capped vials to distinguish them from adult vaccine — as soon as the government gives the OK.  (read more)

The pharmaceutical industry has already secured the special packaging, modified the kiddie materials, shipped the specialized doses, and done everything to stage the kids vaccine in the supply chain – BEFORE the FDA has approved the vaccine.    This level of proactive expense by Pfizer tells us the FDA deliberation is a complete farce.  Pfizer knows the vaccine approval is a foregone conclusion.

What we are talking about here is another level of evil entirely.

Obviously the political operatives within the FDA and CDC will approve the vaccine for kids, BigRx is paying them big money to push it.

It will not be long before schools will require it and parents will be forced to decide between homeschooling their kids or giving them an untested medical procedure they do not need.  Everything about this is nuts, and infuriating.

Yes, private schools for unvaccinated kids are likely to eventually surface; but the premise behind the entire system creating the need for them is abject fraud. (read more)

Abstract

COVID-19 mortality is not the same for all ages and the average age of someone dying from COVID-19 is 79 years old. For ages 0-19, the survival rate is 99.9973%. This means that for age 0-19 there will be one death for every 37,000 infections. Sweden, population 10 million, chose not to use masks, had no lockdowns, and did not close schools and had a low rate of infection for children and no deaths.  A widely circulated article in the NY Times last month claimed falsely that 900,000 children have been hospitalized since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The actual number was 63,000, and even this number comes into question as the FDA/CDC have admitted we have a faulty PCR test for COVID-19 that has many false positives. Dr. Marty Makary and FAIRHealth analyzed health insurance claims and found that all the deaths of children at the time (about 335) were children who had chronic medical conditions and no healthy children had died from COVID-19. A rare post COVID-19 illness of excessive inflammation including myocarditis called MIS-C has affected 5,000 mostly healthy children with a mortality rate of less than 1% (46 children died)

Not long ago, firearm instructor Karl Rehn of KR Training and I discussed why some people attend defensive firearm classes for little reason beyond recreation. In addition to having taught thousands of students, Karl’s an engineer, thus analytical by nature, and he hit the nail on the head. He said people do what they want or need to do, and while many gun owners want to shoot guns for fun, most don’t think they’ll need to defend themselves, so they don’t take defensive training seriously.

I’ve also heard conservatives say they don’t have time to train, because they have jobs and families, the kids have to be taken to baseball practice, and so on. Some, being first-time gun owners, say they don’t know where to begin.

Those things may be true. However, just as cemeteries are full of people who—thinking “it won’t happen to me”—smoked, drank alcoholic and sugary drinks, ate junk food, and never exercised or got their blood pressure, blood sugar, cholesterol, and body fat numbers under control, they’re also occupied by people who weren’t prepared when a criminal attacked. And unmarked graves around the world are full of people who thought the mass murders that always accompany leftist dictatorships wouldn’t happen to them either.

If you’re a gun owner thinking “Okay, point made. Now what?,” here are some suggestions for getting your defensive act together.

Start With Safety

Know and be able to apply the National Rifle Association’s (NRA’s), Jeff Cooper’s, and the military’s basic firearm safety rules. If you have semi-automatic rifles and pistols—the most generally useful firearms for defensive purposes—know their eight-step firing cycle (p. 4-2) and Cooper’s sequence of Weapon Conditions for loading and unloading them.

Know The Laws

Don’t assume that you know the laws on using guns for self-defense and carrying them in public. To be issued a handgun carrying license in Texas, you must take, from a Department of Public Safety-certified instructor, a class covering such laws. If you’re in Texas, even if you don’t want a license (Texas, a constitutional-carry state, doesn’t require a license to carry), take the class. If you aren’t in Texas, take a comparable class in your state.

On a related point, your clothing, vehicle, and home exterior should bear no references to guns or self-defense, and don’t carry a handgun openly. Be low profile. Don’t let criminals know you have guns and don’t give an overzealous Democrat prosecutor anything with which to portray you as an overzealous gun owner in court.

Select An Instructor Carefully

Owning a gun isn’t the same as knowing how to use it. Train with someone certified as an instructor by the NRA, Rangemaster, the military, a law enforcement agency, or another recognized authority.

For the defensive use of guns, you’ll probably have the best result with someone who, in addition to having those credentials, has a military or law enforcement background, or has trained with people who have those backgrounds, and whose intermediate and advanced classes explain how to apply firearm skills in defensive situations, rather than in shooting sports. Before attending a class, determine if your dominant eye and dominant hand are on the same side of your body. If they aren’t, tell your instructor.

Have your instructor explain, demonstrate, and coach you on safely handling, loading, and unloading a gun; assuming a proper shooting stance; shouldering and gripping a rifle; unholstering, assembling a two-handed grip with, and reholstering a handgun; and firing a handgun with one hand only. Also to be covered are sight alignment, sight picture, trigger press and reset, “calling” your shots, dry-firing safety protocols, rifle and pistol positions, and basic shooting and other gun-handling drills.

More advanced topics include “speed” (empty gun) and “tactical” (not empty gun) reloading, malfunction clearing, moving with a gun safely and tactically indoors and outdoors around objects and people, firing positions other than standing, and shooting while walking. If the instructor can’t cover everything mentioned above, find another instructor.

Don’t Think of Firearms As a Hobby

The Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights understood the right to arms to encompass everything within the scope of the right during the founding era. Examples included defense against violent criminals, hunting, target practice, shooting competitions, and gun collecting.

No one in those days—not even the Revolutionary War British—opposed keeping and bearing arms for those purposes, so if there had been no other purpose for the right, there would have been no need for the Second Amendment. Instead, the right to arms could have been left to the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Lots of gun owners invoke the Second Amendment to justify having guns for self-defense or various hobbies. A few do it even for carrying rifles and shotguns to send a message to politicians at a protest when doing so is premature. But bring up the purpose for which the amendment was adopted, and they give you a deer-in-the-headlights gaze or start squirming like a cat that doesn’t want to be picked up.

Hobby-obsessed and other self-absorbed gun owners don’t like hearing it any more than anti-gun activists, Democrat politicians, and their allies in the mainstream media, but the Second Amendment was adopted because the keeping and bearing of arms for defense against tyranny was considered essential to a free society. In that way, it’s like the rights and freedoms protected by the first, third, and fourth amendments. If you’re serious about defending life and liberty, focus on keeping and bearing arms for its core purpose.

Dry-Fire

Ammunition wasn’t cheap before the increased prices brought on by the Chi-Com virus, Democrat calls for gun confiscation, Democrat-encouraged leftist riots, the refusal of Democrat district attorneys to prosecute rioters, and Democrat defunding of police departments. That’s one of the reasons to sometimes practice without ammunition, at home, by “dry-firing.” As noted, have your instructor explain how to do so safely.

Download a “shot timer” app to your smartphone and refer to the rifle and pistol positions link, above. Attend a dry-fire clinic, such as those conducted in Northern Virginia and South-Central Texas by Green Ops. Spend ten minutes dry-firing a couple of times per week, and you’ll probably improve quickly.

Don’t Waste Time and Ammunition

At a range, know what you’re going to practice in advance. You’ll need ballistic eye glasses (see the Army’s Authorized Protective Eyewear List) and hearing protection. Foam earplugs can work, but you’ll benefit from adding electronic muffs (e.g., Howard Leight/Impact, Peltor, Ops-Core, and MSA/Sordin) that amplify normal sounds while dampening loud ones.

Perform shooting and other gun-handling drills slowly at first. When you’re ready to gradually increase your speed, use a live-fire shot timer, such as the Competition Electronics Pocket Pro.

AR-15s and 9mm Pistols

AR-15s are the most versatile fighting rifles available. They’re relatively lightweight, ergonomic, and accurate, and don’t kick very much. The Biden administration is threatening to restrict AR pistols, which generally have barrels no longer than 11.5 inches. However, an AR rifle with a longer barrel (16-20 inches) and handguard is easier to wield, produces greater velocity (thus a flatter trajectory) and less muzzle flash, and with a mid-length gas system is more mechanically reliable.

How to outfit your AR is discussed here and, along with other useful information, in former Army Special Forces soldier Kyle Lamb’s “Green Eyes And Black Rifles.” Lastly, not all ARs are alike in terms of metallurgy and quality controls. Some of the more highly-regarded brands are Knight Armament, Bravo Company USA, Daniel Defense, Lewis Machine Tool (LMT), Midwest Industries, and Colt’s.

Compared to larger-caliber pistols, 9mms hold more rounds, recoil less, are generally more mechanically reliable, and with top-quality defensive hollowpoint ammunition (Hornady Critical Defense, Federal HST, Speer Gold Dot, etc.) perform well for defensive purposes.

While there are other pistols, more people have fired more rounds with more 9mm Glocks than with any other handgun. It’s a proven design. When the Supreme Court recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home,” it was largely because of Glocks. Glocks are also particularly easy to service without special tools, with a small number of inexpensive, widely available factory-original parts.

Whatever handgun you have, make sure its grip is thin enough that you can wield the gun efficiently with one hand, in case your other hand is injured or occupied with another task. Also note that the length of a handgun’s grip is usually what determines whether you can conceal the gun underneath clothing without its shape showing. For safety and security, have a top-quality Kydex holster (JM Custom Kydex, Blade-Tech, Priority 1, Eclipse, etc.) and belt-mounted pouches for extra magazines.

Things Besides Guns

Paper targets don’t shoot at you or move. Don’t count on that in the real world. With your doctor’s permission, get on a physical fitness program for things such as being able to quickly move away from an attacker’s “kill zone.” A certified trainer (Gold’s Gym, Crossfit, etc.) who specializes in functional fitness rather than body building can help in this regard.

Find an Army combat medic like Caleb Causey of Lone Star Medics, Navy corpsman, or civilian emergency medical technician who conducts training in applying tourniquets and packing wounds, or take a Stop The Bleed class.

Build A Team?

If a situation for which the Second Amendment was adopted comes about, some people advocate going it alone, because you’re the only one you can trust. After all, millions of Americans expose their personal details on social media platforms, and if they won’t keep their secrets, they won’t keep yours.

However, others advise having people on whom you can count. If you go that route, keep things informal and vet folks carefully. Maybe meet with friends at the shooting range once or twice a month.

Noor will receive credit for the 908 days he's already served, the judge said Thursday. According to Minnesota law, he is required to serve two-thirds of his sentence before he will be eligible for supervised release. Noor has been incarcerated since his conviction in 2019, according to records from the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

In handing down the sentence, Judge Kathryn Quaintance pointed to the fact Noor shot "across the nose" of his partner and also endangered residents in the surrounding community.

"These factors of endangering the public make your crime of manslaughter appropriate for a high-end" of the sentencing guidelines, she said.

Noor's lawyer argued at trial that a "perfect storm" of events led to the officer opening fire on Ruszczyk, who had called 911 the night of July 15, 2017, to report a possible assault in progress in an alley behind her home.

Noor feared for his partner's life, he testified, as Ruszczyk approached their squad car in an alley. But Hennepin County prosecutors argued Noor overreacted and failed to properly assess the situation before firing a gunshot into Ruszczyk's abdomen.

The death of Ruszczyk, who moved to Minneapolis from her native Australia to live with her fiancé, attracted widespread attention in both the United States and Australia. (read more)

In recent weeks, the European continent has also suffered blackouts, near-blackouts, and skyrocketing electricity prices triggered by a massive lull in nature’s windiness. Grid operators across Europe rushed to buy fuel and fire up old gas- and coal-fired plants. Europe petitioned Russia for more natural gas, and German coal plants ran out of fuel, causing a scramble (including in China) to get more (doubling global prices). Even long-forgotten oil-fired powerplants were pressed into emergency service on grids from Sweden to Asia.

The issue that’s now front and center is whether all these disruptions to electricity supply and price are, to use Silicon Valley language, a “feature” or a temporary “bug” of the new energy infrastructure favored by advocates of renewables: one dominated by power from the wind and sun. Proponents of this so-called energy transition admit that the road to a post-hydrocarbon world might be rough. But the solution, they say, is to accelerate construction of far more wind and solar machines. Thus, the key question now is not whether we need such a transition, or even what it would cost, but whether it’s even possible in the time frames now being bandied about (“carbon free by 2035”).

We can thank California for leading the way in helping us answer that question. In late August, in pursuit of that “transition” vision and while skirting the edge of widespread blackouts, California brought online the world’s biggest-ever grid-scale battery, located at Moss Landing, just 60 miles south of Silicon Valley. Proponents of an all-wind/solar grid seem to be saying that all we need to do to get past the volatility of conventional fuels for electricity is to build enough such batteries—the sooner, the better.

The Moss Landing battery is about ten times the size of the previous world-record-holder: the grid-scale battery that Elon Musk built, to global fanfare, for the South Australia grid in 2017. States and countries everywhere are in hot pursuit of grid-scale storage, including New York City, where the state Public Service Commission recently approved construction of a battery “plant” in Queens roughly the size of Tesla’s Australian project.

Three basic constraints work against building enough batteries to solve the intermittency of wind and solar power, however. First, there’s the time it takes to conquer the inevitable engineering challenges in building anything new at industrial scales. Second, there’s the scale issue itself and the deeply naïve reluctance to consider the utterly staggering quantity of batteries that would be required to keep society powered if most electricity is supplied at nature’s convenience. And finally, directly derived from the scale issues, are the difficulties involved in obtaining sufficient primary minerals to build as many batteries as the green dreamers want. (read more)

Microbes discovered the joys of socialism long before Marx did, and in matters of health, they made communists of us all. Since the dawn of civilization, infectious disease has been the great equalizer, with the city serving as septic womb, colony, and mortuary. Epidemic—“upon the people”—is the democracy of rich and poor incinerated indiscriminately by the same fever, or dying indistinguishably in puddles of their own excrement.

The Mao of microbes was smallpox, which killed 300 million people in the twentieth century alone. Sometimes called the first urban virus, it probably jumped from animals to humans in Egypt, Mesopotamia, or the Indus River Valley, at about the same time that the rise of agriculture began drawing people together in towns and cities. Smallpox has also been called nature’s cruelest antidote to human vanity. Princes broke out in the same pustules as paupers, reeked as foully of rotting flesh, and oozed the same black blood from all their orifices. Alongside millions of nameless dead lie kings of France and Spain, queens of England and Sweden, one Austrian and two Japanese emperors, and a czar of Russia.

While the germs reigned, there wasn’t much rest-of-medicine to speak of: infections eclipsed every other cause of illness but malnutrition. And when monarchs were dying, too, language and politics honestly tracked medical reality. The “social” in “social disease” reflected an epidemiological fact. It also pointed to a practical, collective solution. Disease arose and spread when people converged to create societies. It was caused by invisible agents that individuals could not control on their own. It could be eradicated only by social means—public sanitation, slum clearance, education, and, above all, a robust, germ-hating culture. It took a city to erase a cholera.

This was the overarching insight that crystallized in the public consciousness in the first half of the nineteenth century. “In the Victorian version of the Puritan ethic,” Himmelfarb writes, “cleanliness was, if not next to godliness, at least next to industriousness and temperance.” For Dickens, as Himmelfarb and others have observed, the filth in the Thames symbolized the city’s insidious taint, its ubiquitous, effluvial corruption. What social historians often fail to note, however, is that by the time Dickens was placing the Thames at the center of London’s many ills, a new science had emerged to move the river far beyond metaphor.

Epidemiology—the rigorous science of public health—was born with physician William Farr’s appointment as controller of London’s General Register Office in 1838. Directed to do something about the cholera epidemic, Farr began systematically recording who was dying and where. The most important things he discovered were negative. Wealth didn’t protect you from cholera. Neither did occupation, or residing close to the sea. What mattered was how high above the Thames you lived. Farr concluded that the river’s horrendous stench caused the disease. Another English doctor, John Snow, made the right connection in 1853: London’s sewers emptied into the Thames, so the farther down-sewer you lived, the more likely you were to drink foul water. A year later, Snow saved countless lives by persuading parish authorities to remove the handle from the Broad Street pump in Soho.

The rest is history. By pinning down the waterborne pathway of contagion, Farr and Snow had transformed a devastating public disease into a routine exercise in civil engineering. In 1858, Parliament passed legislation, proposed by then-chancellor of the exchequer Benjamin Disraeli, to finance new drains. Charles Dickens published his last novel—Our Mutual Friend, in which the main character is the pestilential Thames—in 1864. London suffered its last cholera epidemic in 1866.

This wasn’t the end of great plagues in the city, or even the beginning of the end, but it was the end of the beginning. In 1872, Disraeli rallied his Tory Party around what his Liberal opponents derided as a “policy of sewage”—reforms involving housing, sanitation, factory conditions, food, and the water supply—and while he served as prime minister, these policies became law. For the next 50 years or so, in the United States as in Britain, public health depended on city bureaucrats above all. They wasted little time with sick patients, other than sometimes ordering them to lock their doors and die alone. They focused instead on eradicating germs before they reached the patient, and that meant attending to the water, sewage, trash, and rats.

In a recent British Medical Journal survey, public sanitation was voted the most important medical advance since the journal was established in 1840. If we don’t think of public sanitation as “medical” any more, it’s only because the municipal bureaucrats who followed Farr cleaned things up so well. (read more)

Fortunately, the Washington Post has access (and cachet) that the average American lacks, and thus reported on leaked numbers Wednesday. I analyzed what I could based on that reporting the same day, and sure enough, the border is exactly the national security, humanitarian, and law enforcement disaster that the Post had suggested it was.

As I noted then, Border Patrol provides statistics on Southwest border apprehensions stretching back to the Eisenhower administration, in FY 1960. The previous high in that 61-year period was set in FY 2000, when Border Patrol agents caught 1,643,679 aliens who had entered illegally at the Southwest border.

That record didn’t stand a chance given the Biden administration’s policies of non-border-enforcement: In FY 2021, agents apprehended 1,659,206 illegal migrants, 15,000 more than the previous record at the Southwest border.

Reminiscent of Pravda, the old Soviet news organ, CBP usually follows up with an “Operational Update”, to spin the bad news. The apparatchiks in the Ronald Reagan Building (CBP’s D.C. HQ) must be working overtime to spit-shine this news, because no update has been forthcoming thus far.

I will note that Border Patrol’s total apprehensions exceeded 1.676 million in FY 2000 and 1.692 million in FY 1986 (total apprehension records date back to FY 1925, when there were 22,199), but that included all border sectors: Northern, Coastal, and Southwest. As noted, Southwest border apprehensions were fewer than 1.644 million in FY 2000, and totaled fewer than 1.616 million in FY 1986.

Total Border Patrol apprehensions at all borders in FY 2021 fell below those two previous records, but just barely: 1,662,167. That means that the Coastal and Canadian borders were relatively quiet last year (the Northern sectors accounted for just 916 apprehensions in all of FY 2021, and the coastal Miami, New Orleans, and Ramey sectors accounted for 2,045 more) — the real action was at the Southwest border.

Those Southwest Border Patrol apprehensions were on top of an additional 75,480 aliens who were deemed inadmissible at the Southwestern ports of entry in FY 2021 and stopped by officers in CBP’s Office of Field Operations.

In other words, these apprehension numbers at the Southwest border are as bad as they have ever been. Ever.

These apprehension statistics should be a wake-up call to the Biden administration that border policy changes are needed, stat. Of course, that assumes that operational control of the Southwest border — to halt the apprehension of drugs, contraband, terrorists, and illegal migrants into the United States — was their goal to begin with. (read more)

‘If the masses wake up, they start to realise what has happened.’

Then what?

‘Then they kill their leaders.’

Dr. Mattias Desmet begs to differ with such perilous smugness. He is a professor of Clinical Psychology at Ghent University in Belgium. He lectures on Individual psycho-analytics psychotherapy, and the psychology of the crowd. He holds a master’s degree and PhD in clinical psychology, and a master’s in statistics.

As the Covid subterfuge shifts from the manufacture of mass terror concerning a dubious virus — and a related indoctrination with spurious medical data — to the mass mobilisation of mesmerised populations in silencing voices threatening to expose these crimes, Dr Desmet has emerged as the clearest and most meticulous voice describing the dangers and intimating what we need to do to offset them.

Dr. Desmet’s observations over the past 18 months have led him to conclude that the overwhelming majority of the world’s population has indeed fallen under a kind of spell. It is not literally a spell, he stresses, but a ‘mass formation’, a term first used by Gustave Le Bon, the French philosopher who 126 years ago in The Psychology of Crowds, was the first thinker systematically to outline how herd psychology differs from that of the individual. Le Bon it was who observed that the consciousness bestowed by membership of a crowd can be transformative, possessing individual members with ‘a sort of collective mind which makes them feel, think and act in a manner quite differently from that in which each individual would feel, think and act were that person in a state of isolation.’ In such a ‘psychological crowd’, individual personality disappears, brain activity is replaced by reflex activity: a lowering of intelligence, provoking a complete transformation of sentiments, which collectively may manifest as better and worse than those of the crowd’s constituent members. A crowd may just as easily become heroic or criminal, but is generally disposed towards destruction.

‘The ascendancy of crowds,’ wrote Le Bon, ‘indicates the death throes of a civilisation.’ The upward climb to civilisation is an intellectual process driven by individuals; the descent is a herd in stampede. ‘Crowds are only useful for destruction.’

These symptoms are manifesting now, perhaps as never before, in our once free Western world, in a process substantively resembling mass hypnosis, as a collective psychological response to the unrelenting, single-focus campaign of fear to which we have all been subjected for a year and a half. Indeed, we may now have reached a stage in this process that even Le Bon did not anticipate, for now the mesmerisers have available to them tech and techniques he could scarcely have envisaged. Using electronic means, it is infinitely easier to convert the individual to the collective mindset than if he were a member of an actual physical crowd. The advent of social media has made the present situation not merely possible, but possibly inevitable.

In his own time, approaching the end of the nineteenth century, Le Bon perceived a shifting in the nature of human reflection and attention. In an odd way, his words read to us now as quasi-contemporaneous: They might have been uttered just a handful of years ago. 

‘The present epoch is one of these critical moments in which the thought of mankind is undergoing a process of transformation. Two fundamental factors are at the base of this transformation. The first is the destruction of those religious, political, and social beliefs in which all the elements of our civilisation are rooted. The second is the creation of entirely new conditions of existence and thought as the result of modern scientific and industrial discoveries.’

What is called progress comes at a cost, sometimes a great cost, and that cost is rarely visible until considerably after the fact of its causation, which then becomes prone to the phenomena of historical disconnectedness and plausible deniability.

‘Nature has recourse at times to radical measures, but never after our fashion, which explains how it is that nothing is more fatal to a people than the mania for great reforms, however excellent these reforms may appear theoretically. They would only be useful were it possible to change instantaneously the genius of nations.’

The effects of such changes, mediated via the psyches of human beings, may in time provoke consequences that not only were unforeseen to begin with but may perhaps undo and outweigh any beneficial aspects. Societies craving change for its own sake are especially vulnerable. A society in tumult is ripe for destruction. But the crowd always seek to justify that which it has been told is good, and demonise that which it has been warned to eschew.

‘The masses have never thirsted after truth,’ wrote Le Bon. ‘They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim. An individual in a crowd is a grain of sand amid other grains of sand, which the wind stirs up at will.’

Facts are as nothing to crowds, which function via a kind of collectivised imagination, operating off images and the slogans which evoke them.

‘A crowd,’ Le Bon elaborates, ‘thinks in images, and the image itself calls up a series of other images, having no logical connection with the first. . . . A crowd scarcely distinguishes between the subjective and the objective. It accepts as real the images invoked in its mind, though they most often have only a very distant relation with the observed facts.’

Le Bon’s is one of the names most frequently dropped by Dr Mattias Desmet in the course of the interviews he has been giving in recent months, having spent some time reflecting on the situation facing the world in the light of what history and its sages has to tell it, and what he himself knows of the modern world.  His interviews can be mixed in quality, but this is usually to do with the quality and interventions of interviewers, some of whom do not play to his remarkable strengths, which reside in exploring the granular nature of psychological processes as they play out in reality, and especially in collective reality. He is excellent on the way people’s projection of their own free-floating personal anxieties, frustration and aggression on to the Covid/lockdown sagas enables the 'mass formation' process.

Mass formation, he explains, is a form of hypnosis imposed on a crowd, a factor which we have explored in previous articles here. He is in no doubt that we speak of a literal hypnosis, with all the potential effects and symptoms of same.

He explains many aspects of what we have been witnessing, including the strange phenomenon of people’s apparent indifference to their own deprivations, hurts and incurred damage arising from the lockdowns of the past 18 months: loss of freedoms, loss of work, income, education, human contact, leisure et cetera. During mass formation, he describes, there is 'a narrowing of the field of attention’, which allows the crowd’s constituent members to close out everything but that which the hypnotist tells them is important, which results in insensitivity to personal losses, and a willingness to sacrifice everything — education, jobs, homes, romance, health — and to disregard the losses and griefs of others. By offering a strategy to deal with the anxieties imposed by the crisis, the would-be totalitarians are able to create a bogus solidarity in a society that has destroyed true solidarity.

He is remarkably open about his own history of engagement with the Covid ‘pandemic’, acknowledging his early doubts about some of his own pronouncements. In the very early days, he briefly bought into the idea of a pandemic, but his suspicions were soon aroused by the disproportionality he observed between the measures being introduced and what he understood about the visible levels of risk from the virus. In those early weeks of the crisis, he wrote a paper titled The Fear of the Virus is More Dangerous than the Virus Itself.

Occasionally, in the early weeks, (April/May 2020) he worried that he might have been wrong to publish this paper, but by the end of May was satisfied that his thesis was entirely correct. Looking at the data from a statistical perspective, he rapidly came to the conclusion that the danger was overestimated. He believed the psychological aspects were more threatening than any biological danger. Yet, he observes, ‘the narrative continued as if the initial models were correct.’

‘From the beginning I was afraid of the societal dynamics that were going on,’ he says, and this fear appears to have been the prime motivation for his recent interventions.

By August 2020, he had come to see that he could describe how this process occurred. ‘We were dealing with a massive phenomenon of mass formation.’

He also, interestingly, speaks of how, in December 2019, some weeks before the crisis erupted in China, he had some kind of premonition of impending menace. He went to his bank and paid back his mortgage — because he felt ‘the society was moving towards a tipping point.’

‘I wanted to be as free as possible,’ he says. He remembers telling the bank manager: ‘All the negative parameters of society have started to rise exponentially.’ He believed that a major catastrophe was on the way, but is not entirely sure why he knew this.

He says there are four conditions that need to be in place to enable mass formation to occur in a society. The first is the presence of large numbers of socially isolated, atomised, people. The social bonds between people need to have been weakened. This is the most important, and the other conditions follow from it. Secondly, there will be large numbers of people who experience lack of sense-making in their lives and work — people who feel that their jobs are senseless, meaningless. Thirdly, there requires to be ‘a lot of free-floating anxiety’ — i.e. anxiety that is not connected to a mental representation so that the sufferer doesn’t know why he is anxious and afraid. And fourthly, there needs to be a lot of ‘free-floating psychological discontent’ — anger and frustration at, again, apparently nothing in particular.

And you also need mass media — without which mass formation would be impossible. Desmet does not explicitly say so, but of course it is also essential that these media be biddable and readily prone to corruption.

These conditions, he says, existed in Western societies long before the Covid crisis. There was, he says, ‘an epidemic of burnout’. He says something between 40 and 70 per cent of people in modern societies experience their jobs as senseless. He points also to the escalating use of psycho-pharmaceutical medicines to treat anxiety and depression.

As evidence of the presence of these conditions in Western society prior to the pandemic, he instances the consumption of anti-depressants n Belgium, his own country. There, a population of 11 million was using 300 million doses of anti-depressants per annum.

According to Desmet, the key root mechanism of mass formation, free-floating anxiety, is the most painful psychological phenomenon a human being can experience. It refers to anxieties that have no clear focus: The sufferer does not know why he feels anxious.

‘Free-floating anxiety is very serious. It leads to panic. When a society is saturated with it, sufferers are desperate to connect it to a representation, and if someone presents a narrative in the mainstream media that offers an object of anxiety, and at the same time presents a strategy to deal with this anxiety, there is a good chance that all this free-floating anxiety in the society will connect to this object of anxiety indicated by this narrative presented by the mainstream media, and that there will be a huge willingness to go along with the strategy.’

The orchestrators of the mass formation are able to appropriate these variegated anxieties and direct them in their entirety at a single point of focus, in this case a virus. By then offering a strategy to deal with the virus crisis, the mass formation process also offers sufferers relief from their anxieties. The same happens with frustration and aggression, all of which were, in a sense, piled on to the Covid basket.

This is where the ‘narrowing of the field of attention’ enters in. The members of the hypnotised mass are enabled to close out everything but that which the hypnotist tells them is important. They acquire not just an indifference to the losses of others, but an insensitivity to losses of their own. They become willing to sacrifice everything under the attrition of the collective injunction — in this case, at least initially, the project of ‘saving lives’. People do not see the consequences of the lockdown, nor feel empathy for the victims.  Their relief at being relieved of their free-floating anxieties is enough to have them cleave to the newly-formed mob. It’s similar, he says, to when a person is under hypnosis: It is possible to use the hypnosis as an anaesthetic to cut into the person’s flesh, having thus made the patient completely insensitive to pain.

In these circumstances, the mesmerised acquire meaning and purpose they previously lacked. In a society in which solidarity has already been destroyed, a new bogus solidarity is formed. Once the solution/strategy is offered, he says, ‘people start a collective and heroic battle with this object of anxiety.’ This results in what he calls a ‘mental intoxication’ and it is this that makes mass formation indistinguishable from hypnosis.

Arising from this combination of factors, people acquire an intense interest in believing the dominant narrative. ‘It doesn’t matter whether the narrative is wrong. It’s all about that they don’t want to go back to this painful state of free-floating anxiety.’

‘The more absurd a narrative is the better it functions as a ritual,’ says Desmet. ‘Whether the narrative is correct or incorrect doesn’t make any difference.’

As part of the same process, he says, politicians who may have lost their grip on the people, now have a way of becoming ‘true leaders’ again. There is, therefore, at this stage of the totalitarian process, a symbiosis of motivation between the leaders and the led; or, more correctly, the rulers and the ruled.

These circumstances combine to ensure that people don’t want to go back to the ‘old normal’. This is important: Many among the mesmerised do not want their prior meaningless lives back.‘We need to avoid giving people the impression that we want them to go back to the old normal,’ cautions Desmet. We need instead to  ‘show them there are other ways to change this “old normal”. We need to tell people that we don’t need a crisis like this to create a new social bond.’

In such a crucible of explosive feeling and foreboding, some unsettling dynamics soon become visible. People begin to regard each other as either friends or foes. The ‘friends’ are to be cherished and cleaved to; the foes are to be excoriated and, where possible or necessary, banished or destroyed.

There are, in situations of mass formation, says Desmet, three distinct groups that manifest themselves. Only 30 per cent, he says, are really hypnotised, and cannot be reached in any way. In addition, however, there are about 40 per cent who usually follow the crowd, and from the outset go along with that 30 per cent of total believers. There is another cohort of about 30 per cent who are not hypnotised, who try to speak out and resist. This group, he says, is extremely heterogeneous and disunited. If these people could unite, he says, they could bring the whole thing quickly to an end, but this seldom proves possible.

The reason some people appear to be immune to the hypnoidal power of the mass formation, he says, has to do with underlying ideological outlook. In this present situation, he says, the ultimate destination-point of the totalitarianism is to effect the total acquiescence of the global population in a transhumanist project in which, in substance and effect, man will be absorbed into the world of the machine. He thinks that essentially the objectors are people with an aversion to this unnatural way of seeing the human person. This is an interesting theory, and may help to explain why so many religious-minded people are opposed to the lockdown, vaccines et cetera: Many of them, having had a deeper inculcation in fundamental anthropological understandings, instinctively or reasonably object to the unknowable and unnatural dimensions of what is proposed. Desmet may be on to something important here: that, although not yet explicit, the transhumanist agenda is already visible as the distant destination-point, with its meanings already saturating the playing area in the context of mandatory vaccines, biometric ID, social credit schemes and the accompanying surveillence regimes, restrictions, penalties, et cetera.

Intelligence, he says, is no guarantee of resistance to the hypnoidal attack. ‘In mass formation, highly intelligent, highly educated people become exactly as intelligent as everybody else in the masses — everybody becomes equally intelligent, which usually means extremely stupid, in the masses.’  At the start of the lockdown, many people said to him, ‘Yes, it is terrible, but we can stop the rat-race for a while.’ This was mainly the well-off, who had less concerns about the economic destruction threatened by the lockdowns. The anxiety of the educated become fixated on different things, perhaps on the possibility of ‘populists’ taking advantage of the crisis. This is how the ludicrous ‘far right’ trope, stoked by cynical media, gained ground.

He speaks, too, about the dynamics of totalitarianism and what makes the present episode different to, for example, the totalitarianisms of the twentieth century. In this, and much else, he draws on the writings of the brilliant German philosopher Hannah Arendt, whose book The Origins of Totalitarianism remains the definitive deconstruction of the totalitarian process, which she characterises as an entirely new phenomenon of the twentieth century.

He reiterates Arendt’s core point about the radical differences between totalitarianism and ‘traditional’ forms of dictatorship. Classical dictatorships are primitive and simple — a single dictator using uncomplicated fear. But in a totalitarian state, the psychological and societal basis of the tyranny is mass formation.

In a totalitarian state, a large part of the population believes in the narrative and is psychologically convinced that the proffered object of anxiety is the cause of all their concerns.

These beliefs, he says, are related to the penetrative effects of mass media but also the image of man as a machine — in part a consequence of industrialism, in part due to an ‘obsession with science’, another core theme of Arendt’s, who emphasises also the key role of ideology as a nutrient of totalitarianism.

He is not convinced of the ‘psychopathy’ thesis of totalitarianism, with particular reference to the Covid despotisms. The people who organise and impose this tyranny, he says, ‘often do not believe in the things they say, but they do really believe in the ideology they promote, and they really believe that the best way to organise society is to treat people like cows on a large farm. They really do believe in this mechanistic, materialist, biological, reductionist ideology.’

Again, Desmet is citing Arendt, who did much to uncover and describe the ugly underbelly of Nazi machinations, in particular the propaganda and psychological elements. Totalitarianism, she believed, has specific characteristics that are constructed to appear random, arbitrary and senseless, when really they amount to a complex interworking of manipulations designed to break and isolate the human person, to lead him methodically out of his ‘ordinary’ life of hoping, working, thinking, loving, into a world where his every moment is dominated by the imposed irrationality that leads to a new, dehumanised existence for others and himself, and to a new, irrational form of ‘sense-making’.

Arendt wrote: ‘While the totalitarian regimes are thus resolutely and cynically emptying the world of the only thing that makes sense to the utilitarian expectations of common sense, they impose upon it at the same time a kind of supersense which the ideologies actually always meant when they pretended to have found the key to history or the solution to the riddles of the universe. Over and above the senselessness of totalitarian society is enthroned the ridiculous supersense of its ideological superstition. Ideologies are harmless, uncritical, and arbitrary opinions only as long as they are not believed in seriously. Once their claim to total validity is taken literally they become the nuclei of logical systems in which, as in the systems of paranoiacs, everything follows comprehensibly and even compulsorily once the first premise is accepted. The insanity of such systems lies not only in their first premise but in the very logicality with which they are constructed. The curious logicality of all isms, their simple-minded trust in the salvation value of stubborn devotion without regard for specific, varying factors, already harbors the first germs of totalitarian contempt for reality and factuality.’

Ideologies are always dangerous reductions of reality, in many instances comprising pseudo-science masquerading as the real thing, rendering them exceptionally well-adapted to totalitarian rule. For the sake of justifying and validating the ‘supersense’ — the final triumph of the ideology — Arendt declared, it is necessary for totalitarianism to completely destroy human dignity. This is because the recognition of their dignity implies an acceptance of our fellow men as co-builders of a world held in common on the basis of individual and consensual choice. This, to the totalitarian, is out of the question. An ideology which lays claim to interpreting all events of the past, and setting in train all events of the future, can have no place for the plans and choices of mere citizens. The danger lies in the very creativity of the human, which may seek to introduce something that is not foreseen in the ideology, and therefore likely to undermine it. Thus, totalitarianism requires the complete transformation of the individual and the collective, so as to align the minds of men with the perspectives and objectives set down in the ideology. Once the supersense is installed, men will think only what the ideology allows.

Before Hitler and Stalin, wrote Arendt, such things were not imagined. Ideology is, literally, ‘the logic of an idea’, a schema of pseudo-thinking that creates a web of delusion. ‘Its subject matter is history, to which the “idea” is applied; the result of this application is not a body of statements about something that is, but the unfolding of a process which is in constant change. The ideology treats the course of events as though it followed the same “law” as the logical exposition of its “idea”. Ideologies pretend to know the mysteries of the whole historical process — the secrets of the past, the intricacies of the present, the uncertainties of the future — because of the logic inherent in their respective ideas.

‘Ideologies are never interested in the miracle of being. They are historical, concerned with becoming and perishing, with the rise and fall of cultures, even if they try to explain history by some “law of nature”.’

As Václav Havel has elaborated, ideology is an instrument for presenting time and history as immutable successions of events and ‘progressions’, indifferent to human longing or wishes.

The question at the heart of our exploration of the nature and meaning of totalitarianism, wrote Arendt, is: ‘[W}hat kind of basic experience in the living-together of men permeates a form of government whose essence is terror and whose principle of action is the logicality of ideological thinking?’

This is the most chilling aspect: that totalitarianism finds its roots in some dislocated aspect of the human that is still human, that arises from actual human wants and needs — for peace, for serenity, for love.

‘That such a combination was never used before in the varied forms of political domination is obvious,’ she added. ‘Still, the basic experience on which it rests must be human and known to men, insofar as even this most original of all political bodies has been devised by, and is somehow answering the needs of, men.’

Totalitarianism in its full-blown form, then, is something that comes after, but ‘after’ what? It comes after a lengthy ‘preparation’, not necessarily planned with malign intent, in which human beings become isolated, atomised, alienated and lonely — conditions for which the totalitarian has ready solutions in the promulgation of bogus community and imagined bonds of mutual hatreds. The negative undertones of these processes suggests some form of prior error, and this may well have been present, perhaps in the pursuit of greed or exploitation, but this is not any longer admissible. Totalitarianism is like a secondary condition that descends on a society that has first of all been subjected to certain processes of modernity: technologisation, industrialisation, individualisation, atomisation. It is, in a sense, like the lung cancer that ensues from a lifetime of smoking, or the type 2 diabetes that results from an excessively sweet tooth. But it is not ‘secondary’ in the sense suggesting ‘lesser’ or ‘minor’ or ‘subordinate’: When it arrives, totalitarianism announces itself as the actual purpose and destination-point of the entire historical process, the discovery of the actual meaning of history. It follows, but is not collateral to, the events which preceded it. Indeed, its arrival announces a coherence to those previous events that had not hitherto been perceived: It ‘makes sense’ of the drifts and apparent randomness of the past, and in doing so turns common sense on its head and compels man to admit his prior errors of understanding and accept that the true direction of history has now been revealed.

The totalitarian leader, unlike the classical kind, who becomes more benign as opposition falls away, becomes more vicious when unopposed, stoking up the masses to carry out atrocities, long after he has suppressed all dissent. This is why every voice of dissent is so vital: to delay the moment when the totalitarian has a free rein.

There is a distinction, Desmet emphasises, between ‘totalitarian thinking’ and ‘totalitarian regime’. Totalitarian thinking, he says, is characterised by absurd argumentation and illogic, which seems extremely persuasive and ‘drives a society across all ethical boundaries.’ Eventually, by traversing the wastes of senselessness, the society evolves a totalitarian regime that uses totalitarian thinking to rule. Right now, he believes, we are at an advanced stage in totalitarian thinking. ‘They consider the human being to be a biological organism who should be manipulated and controlled through biological means. That’s the ideology by which institutions like the WHO and individuals like Bill Gates start. It’s tempting to say that these people are sociopaths or even psychopaths, but I don’t think it is right. They are people who are ideologically blind. That is their main characteristic.’ Gustave Le Bon, he points out, said that ‘the hypnosis is even deeper in the leaders of the masses than in the masses themselves. They are more convinced of the ideology than the population. They have the feeling that in the end when they have reshaped society according to their ideal image, they will end up in a technological transhumanistic paradise, almost without human suffering, and that is why they feel it is justified to inflict a lot of damage and a lot of suffering, because in the end the result of this revolution will be so marvellous that it justifies everything they do now.’

He also believes that we ought not to presume that every apparent phenomenon and effect of the tyrannical circumstances we endure are necessarily the outcome of a strategy or plan of the perpetrators. Totalitarianism metastasises. ‘I think that once a society is grasped by one narrative, and once this mass formation emerges, I think that, more or less in a spontaneous way, it organises the entire dynamic of a society — very often without people being grasped by it, being aware that they actually reinforce and contribute to the dynamics. Things that seem to be intentional are often spontaneous outcomes of the processes.’

Now we may be at or approaching the most difficult phase of the totalitarian thinking process: when the mob, like an attack dog, awaits the instruction to go for its designated enemy. Dr. Desmet again cites Gustave le Bon: ‘The masses only exist if they have an enemy.’ In the beginning, the ‘enemy’ was the virus; now it is those who are not in thrall to or in fear of the virus, who question its severity and challenge the legitimacy of the official global response — those who refuse to go along with the official narrative. This causes the majority to bond together in a new way against the new object of anxiety, having formed a new ‘social bond’ against the dissenting group, providing itself with a new meaning in life. This, says Desmet, gives rise to a ‘mental intoxication’, providing a ‘new deeply fundamental type of satisfaction for a human being’.

Under mass formation, people become ‘radically intolerant of dissonant voices’, while at the same time being ‘radically tolerant’ of their lying leaders.

Again, he cites Hannah Arendt on the ‘atomised subjects’ who have no connection with the larger whole — now, in fighting the new object of anxiety, their negative state becomes positive. Social isolation is replaced by an experience of a strong social bond, ‘which is the reason why people are continuing to believe in the mainstream narrative — even when it is blatantly wrong and utterly absurd. . . . They do not believe in the narrative because it is correct, but because it leads to this new solidarity, to this new kind of social bond, to this mental intoxication of feeling.’

‘Usually this only stops after a lot of destruction,’ he warns. Crowds are always ‘intrinsically self-destructive,’ as Le Bon repeatedly stated. ‘The only positive way this comes to an end is if people can discover the real reasons for their dissatisfaction and [find] a new meaning. But once a mass emerges, it’s hard to get people to search for the real reasons for their anxiety.’

Society, he says, was being prepared for such a narrative for a long time. For centuries, the dominant view of man has been a mechanistic-materialist view: Man is a machine, a little part of the larger machine of the universe — ‘that is the ideology that has prepared the world for mass formation, and for connecting all our anxiety to a mechanistic-materialist organism such as a virus.’

The chief characteristics of modern masses, according to Hannah Arendt, is that they ‘do not believe in anything visible, in the reality of their own experience; they don’t trust their eyes and ears but only their imaginations, which may be caught by anything that is at once universal and consistent in itself. What convinces masses are not facts, and not even invented facts, but only the consistency of the system of which they are presumably part. Repetition, somewhat overrated in importance because of the common belief in the masses' inferior capacity to grasp and remember, is important only because it convinces them of consistency in time.’ 

Imagination, again, is the key — the process of engaging with reality through a gauze of fantasy. It is important that we grasp this: In the average victim of Covid propaganda, we are not dealing with the same person in the way we have known him or her hitherto. We encounter someone who has been fed with, and swallowed, a grotesquely distorted view of reality. She does not see what we see, or know what we know. And, on detecting this dissonance, she becomes, as she has been programmed to become, highly alert and intensely suspicious. Our disbelief in the things she cleaves to is connected in her mind with a danger to herself. We ought not to underestimate the dangers of this, or its potential for leading rapidly to confrontation and even violence. We are not dealing with people in control of themselves; we are not dealing even with people who remain themselves. The word ‘hypnosis’ must here be treated with the utmost respect and literalism.

We deal with extraordinarily powerful and largely unbridled forces. We ought not to approach our fellows in this condition with the mindset that we might change their minds. That is folly indeed. Instead, we must wait, watch, choose our moments, and strike delicately and precisely.

The most important thing, Desmet says, is to continue speaking out, to keep saying that we do not agree with the mainstream narrative, to interrupt the constant flow of lies (propaganda) with the truth. This unsettles the hypnosis, causing the mesmermised to turn in their sleep.

Desmet says we have to continue to share rational counter-arguments, in the hope of breaking the link of free-floating anxiety to the virus, which he describes as a kind of welded joint created at the highest level of anxiety. Warning people of the dangers of a totalitarian state — itself a possible new object of anxiety — might cause this joint to be broken and a new one formed.

The presence of alternative voices also serves to curb the viciousness of the rulers and constrains the mob in its excesses. ‘Alternative voices, as Le Bon said, do not succeed in waking up the masses, but if the same group continues to talk and utter a different story, and ensure there is a different voice in the public space, then the masses might not become very cruel.

‘We have to aim to keep a path for the small group that doesn’t want to conform to the mainstream narrative. We have to continue to talk and to establish a parallel society that produces its own foods, its own clinics and hospitals and that can provide the means of surviving outside mainstream society.

‘Mass formation gets deeper as the narrative is repeated and as other narratives disappear. The only way to prevent it becoming deeper and more intense is to make sure there is another narrative that leads to a certain cognitive dissonance that at least means that people will be a little confused while following the mainstream narrative.’

And, yes, he agrees, the short-to-medium-term outlook is bleak. When a society reaches the point of transgressing all ethical limits, there are no longer any guarantees. We must not be in any doubt as to the suggestibility of our neighbours. If we doubt that it could go much further,  he warns, we should consider how far it has gone already. He ironically asks of people who are prepared to vaccinate children, to force pregnant women to wear face masks, to allow old people die alone, ‘Why don’t we move to the next step and build concentration camps for people who test positive for Covid?’ Their answer? — ‘Why not?’

When he asks people how far they think the tyranny should go, they reply:  ‘Until the end of the [Covid] danger’.

‘Do not believe that we could not end up with the same kind of measures that Hitler considered necessary to create his pure race. To be honest, I think it will be difficult to avoid ending up in some kind of new totalitarianism. But it will be a new totalitarianism. It will be, on the one hand, the same as the totalitarianism of the first half of the twentieth century, but it will also be radically different, because it will be a worldwide totalitarian system. It won’t have external enemies; it will only have internal enemies, and it will treat these internal enemies in a different way — as the external enemies were treated. This is something that is essential for the logic of totalitarian systems  — totalitarian systems need an enemy; without an enemy they collapse. So I think there is a good chance that the new totalitarian systems will tolerate the existence of the enemies, but it will marginalise them, push them outside of mainstream society.’

Which, up to a point, will suit the dissenters, who have never wanted much more than simply that they be let alone.

His dark prognostications notwithstanding, he is a little optimistic. We should remember, he says, that ‘totalitarianism and mass formation always ends up destroying itself.’ All we have to do is to make sure that our story survives and that we survive outside the system ‘for a few years’.  

How might it happen?

‘If the masses wake up, they start to realise what has happened.’

Then what?

‘Then they kill their leaders.’

‘You will see that the small group will survive and, in one way or another, after the collapse, it will play an important role in the rebuilding of a society according to more human and more ethical principles.’

We may have some distance to travel, he says, but he believes this model of totalitarianism will destroy itself much more quickly than those of the twentieth century, because none of those systems intruded on the personal lives of the people to the extent that this one has ‘in such a systematic and straightforward way’. He cites vaccines as a cardinal example of this form of intrusion and expresses the belief that the vaccination campaign may end up as ‘the most spectacular disaster we’ve ever seen.’

There is, although it may not be obvious, something of an anomaly here in the phenomenon of a clinical psychologist offering a critique of materialist-mechanistic society, in the sense that the discipline of psychology is itself part of the mechanisation of man, part of the apparatus that seeks to break human behaviour and responses into a set of instrumental principles and patterns which, although they can often appear to have individual application, have not, in general produced overall beneficial results. Indeed, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, the discipline of psychology has all but destroyed the art of fiction. The reduction of understandings of the human to manmade scientific polarities has destroyed the mysteriousness that was once the forte of the novel and short story. In the realm of modern literature, the once revered novelist — the source of so much of our understandings of the human — has been demoted by psychology to the role of bumbling amateur who, to be taken ‘seriously’, has to immerse him/herself in Freud and adhere religiously to what he appeared to be saying.

Sigmund Freud was undoubtedly a genius — an artist, in fact, in his own right, who took us on epic journeys within our own minds. His ruminations on, for example, conscience and (though reductionist) happiness, have given us much food for self-scrutiny. But Freudianism, the pseudo-science that grew out of this remarkable corpus, has done untold damage, being absorbed into the societal machines of Western societies to impose itself on actually breathing humans as a form of Holy Writ. In the wrong hands, it can be lethal to human happiness, functioning and freedom. Psychoanalysis, too, has rendered instrumental everything about the human person, reducing the possibilities concerning human action to comprehensible, even simplistic pathologies and crypto-mechanical processes. This enabled the elevation of psychiatrists, psychoanalysts and psychologists to the status of engineers of human souls, capable of diagnosing patterns of behaviour in a stranger in much the way an old-style mechanic would detect the source of a rattle in the gearbox of a 1984 Volkswagen Mk2 GTI. Perhaps more than anything — yes, even more than the notion of chemical imbalances in the human brain — these developments caused the human person to think of himself as a sort of, well, Volkswagen.

So there is, as I say, this anomaly (even a dangerous anomaly) in people like Mattias Desmet (and, to give another example, Jordan Peterson) voyaging forth to diagnose the condition of the human person in these opening decades of the third millennium. A human person seeking self-understanding could, as quickly as becoming enlightened, feel hit over the head with Dr. Peterson’s 25,000 hours of clinical practice. If anything, the problem with the modern world is a surfeit of experts telling us not just what is good for us, but what we are actually doing and thinking wrongly, and why — and what we supposedly need to do.

But there is also an upside. One could also note that all these practitioners have, in the era of YouTube, started to stray outside their disciplines, to commentate on macro, collective trends in human psychology, and this may actually be where they redeem themselves and their role. There is a lacuna in the conversation of modern society in relation to the actions and ‘thought-processes’ of mobs. Most of the more interesting reflections on this aspect of human coexistence occurred in the last century or towards the end of the one before. For the past half-century, there have emerged no substantial practitioners in the precise area of crowd behaviour, perhaps because there are no ‘patients’ and few enough potential clients with a monied interest in exploring these matters. And it is hard to avoid thinking that there is nowadays something of an omertà concerning the differences and interactions between individual responses and those of the crowd. YouTube — probably unwittingly — has provided a generation of psychologists with a platform to begin filling in this lacuna.

In general, the new trend we perceive involves clinical psychologists co-opting the work of thinkers like Le Bon and Arendt, and merging it with their own clinical experience in the individual context. This is not without value, but it is also beset by the contradiction already mentioned: that the interpretations of engineers of human souls must be taken with a soupcon of axle grease when it comes to arriving at any definitive understandings of flesh-and-blood beings. This discussion remains preliminary and tentative. There is a huge gap between the condition of (approximately) the first half of the twentieth century — dominated by Gustave Le Bon, Hannah Arendt, Jacques Ellul  and Joost Meerloo — and the present, a span of time in which nothing radically innovative was added to our understanding of what we shall but loosely call collective psychology and its seemingly osmotic inclination towards totalitarian patterns — and this during a time of the most rapid growth in the promulgation of technologies lending themselves to the manipulation of collective psychology as never before. The great masters — Le Bon, Arendt, Ellul, Meerloo — are all gone and have had no significant successors to update or revise their thoughts in the light of an avalanche of tech diversion, tech addiction, tech toxicity, cyber-censorship, mass baiting and herding, and sundry other pathologies of this ‘most modern’ moment. It is to the end of updating these understandings, rather than the application of more elaborate or dubious schemas to the condition of the individual, that clinical psychology might today make itself most useful.

Desmet, Peterson and others — the British psychologist Richard Grannon, for example — are with us, have read their Le Bon and Arendt, and are capable of hypothesising us into some form of (albeit restricted) collective reflection on our plight. Desmet has so far emerged as the most interesting voice on the Covid totalitarian play, discoursing brilliantly on mass psychology and how it might be manipulated. Peterson has adhered to the continuing Combine-enforced omertà.

And none of these figures shows signs of having yet read their Jacques Ellul — another serious lacuna. For this and other reasons, I propose to devote Part II of this article/essay to the mid-twentieth century reflections of that remarkable Frenchman on the emergence and consequences of the ‘technique society’ – (something more, and more ominous, than mere technology).

Question– Were the animal trials successful?

Answer– Yes and no.

Yes, the experiments on mice showed that a low dose of the vaccine induces a robust antibody response to the infection.

But, no, the antibodies were not able to attack the spike protein from a different strain of the virus.

Question– I’m not sure what that means? Do you mean that the vaccine DOES provide some limited protection from the original (Wuhan) virus, but does not necessarily provide protection from the variants?

Answer– That’s right, but it’s a bit more complicated than that because– as the virus changes — the antibodies that helped to fight the original virus can actually enhance the “infectivity” of the variant. In other words, vaccine-generated antibodies can switch-sides and increase the severity of the illness. Simply put, they can make you sicker or kill you. Scientists have known this for a long time. Check out this clip from a 2005 research paper:

“A jab against one strain might worsen infection with others….

In the.. study, Gary Nabel of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.. injected mice with spike protein from a SARS virus taken from a human patient infected in early 2003. They then collected the antibodies the animals produced.

In lab experiments, they showed that these antibodies were unable to attack spike protein from a different strain of SARS, isolated from a patient infected in late 2003….The team next tested whether the antibodies would attack spike proteins from two SARS strains isolated from civets, from which the virus is thought to have originally jumped into humans. In this case, they found hints that the antibodies actually boosted the ability of the virus to infect cells.…

The results show that the virus changes over time, so that a strain that crops up in one outbreak might be quite different from that in a later outbreak. “This virus is not standing still and we need to take this into account,” Nabel says.

This raises the prospect that a vaccine against one strain of SARS virus could prove ineffective against others. Worse, a jab against one strain might even aggravate an infection with SARS virus from civets or another species. “It’s obviously a concern,” Nabel says..
This would not be the first case where exposure to one strain of a virus can worsen infection with another.” (“Caution raised over SARS vaccine”, Nature)

Question– I’m still confused. Can you summarize what they’re saying?

Answer– Sure. They’re saying that scientists have known for nearly two decades that vaccines narrowly aimed at just one protein are bound to fail. They’re saying that the spike protein is highly-adaptable and capable of changing its shape to survive. They’re saying that vaccines aimed at the spike protein will inevitably produce variants that evade vaccine-generated antibodies. They’re saying that by narrowing the vaccine’s focus to the spike protein alone, the drug companies have ensured that previously helpful antibodies will do an about-face, allow the virus to enter healthy cells, replicate at will, and cause sickness or death. They are saying that the current crop of vaccines is in fact perpetuating the pandemic. And–since the science has been clear for the last 16 years– we can add one more observation to the list, that is, that the current approach to mass vaccination is neither haphazard, slapdash or random. It is intentional. The vaccination campaign managers are deliberately ignoring the science in order to sustain a permanent state of crisis. Science is being manipulated to achieve a political objective.

Question– I think you’re exaggerating, but I’d like to get back to the animal trials instead of arguing politics. As you probably know, the reports in the media do not square with your analysis, in fact, all of the articles in the MSM say the animal trials were a rousing success. Here’s a short blurb that I found today that confirms what I’ve been saying:

“…vaccination of nonhuman primates with the mRNA vaccine induced robust SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity and notably, rapid protection in the upper and lower airways….” (Covid-19, NIH.gov)

Question– Are you suggesting the authors are lying?

Answer– No, they are not lying. They’re just not telling you the whole truth, and you need to know the whole truth so you can make an informed decision. The vaccines DO provide some (temporary) protection. We don’t dispute that. They also trigger a strong immune response. We don’t dispute that either. But what difference does it make? Let me explain: Let’s say, you have a really bad head cold so you take a new medication that you think will relieve the pain. And–sure enough– an hour after taking the pills– Presto — your congestion and headache are completely gone. That’s fantastic, right? Wrong, because what you fail to realize is that the medication is laced with slow-acting strychnine that kills you three days later. Do you still think it was a good idea to take the medication?

Of course, not. And the same rule applies to these vaccines which do, in fact, boost your antibodies and provide some fleeting “immunity”. But they can also kill you. Don’t you think that should be factored in to your decision? Keep in mind, people have died 3, 4, 5 weeks after inoculation without any prior warning. Many of them might have even been bursting with antibodies, but they’re still dead. Can you see the problem?

Question– Okay, but there’s still this matter about the animal trials. The media says that the drug companies performed the animal trials and they were successful. Do you disagree with that?

Answer– They were not successful and the “fact checkers” that were hired to discredit vaccine critics like me, have deliberately mischaracterized what happened in the trials. For example, here’s a typical “fact checker” article titled “COVID-19 vaccines did not skip animal trials because of animal deaths” by Reuters. Here’s an excerpt:

“Posts claiming that COVID-19 vaccine producers skipped animal trials due to the animals in those trials dying are false. Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, which have been granted emergency authorization use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States, all conducted animal trials and had no significant safety concerns to report.”

Sounds reassuring, right? But then they say:

“Due to time constraints and the urgency to find a vaccine for COVID-19, Moderna and Pfizer did receive approval to run animal testing and early trials on humans at the same time, as opposed to fully completing animal trials before moving on to human trials. This, however, does not mean animal trials were skipped or that the safety of the vaccines were compromised.”

Let me see if I got this straight: The drug companies were in such a hurry that they conducted their minimalist animal trials at the same time as their human trials (which is unprecedented) and then rushed the results to the FDA so they could be rubber stamped and waved through under the Emergency Use Authority?

Is that how it went down?

Yes, it is.

But if they were rushed through in a couple months, then the “fact checkers” are tacitly admitting that there is no long-term safety data. And there IS no long-term safety data, nor is there any attempt to disprove the research from the earlier trials where the ferrets, mice and other animals died following injection of mRNA vaccines. They don’t deny it, they just ignore it as if sweeping it under the rug will make it all go away. Here’s a clip from the research paper that Reuters refers to in its article:

“We demonstrate that the candidate vaccines… respectively—induce strong antigen-specific immune responses in mice and macaques….Both (vaccines) protected 2–4-year-old macaques from challenge with infectious SARS-CoV-2, and there was reduced detection of viral RNA in immunized macaques as compared to those that received saline.” (Note–We’ve already acknowledged that the vaccines do produce a strong immune response. Here’s more:)

“Neutralizing GMTs declined by day 56 (35 days after dose 2), consistent with the contraction phase; however, they remained well above the GMT of the human sera panel. The duration of the study was not long enough to assess the rate of decline during the plateau phase of the antibody response.” (“BNT162b vaccines protect rhesus macaques from SARS-CoV-2”, Nature)

Can you see what’s going on? The trial was only 56 days-long, in fact, none of the animal trials exceeded 56 days. Think about that for a minute. The reason the animals died in prior trials is because they were exposed to a mutated version of the (wild) virus that eventually killed them. That’s how ADE (antibody-dependent enhancement) works. It doesn’t happen overnight and it doesn’t happen in 56 days. It takes much longer than that for a mutated version of the virus to emerge and reinfect the host. The drug companies know that. They’re not stupid. So the fact that the animals mounted a strong immune response is completely irrelevant. We KNOW they mounted a strong immune response. We also know they died some months later when a different strain of the virus emerged. Bottom line: The production of antibodies does not mean a drug is safe.

The obvious purpose of the trials was to get the vaccines over the finish-line before anyone figured out what was going on. It’s the same reason why the drug companies “unblinded” their human trials after the vaccines got the green light from the FDA. Shortly after the trials were concluded, the people in the placebo arm were allowed to get vaccinated.

Why would they do that? Why would they vaccinate the people who willingly allowed themselves to be guinea pigs for the sake of public health, only to vaccinate them shortly after, thus, eliminating any chance of finding out what the long-term safety issues might be? It makes no sense, does it?

Take a look at this short clip from the British Medical Journal whose scientists are equally bewildered:

“The (drug) companies say they have an ethical obligation to unblind volunteers so they can receive the vaccine. But some experts are concerned about a “disastrous” loss of critical information if volunteers on a trial’s placebo arm are unblinded…

Although the FDA has granted the vaccines emergency use authorization, to get full license approval two years of follow-up data are needed. The data are now likely to be scanty and less reliable given that the trials are effectively being unblinded.

Consumer representative Sheldon Toubman, a lawyer and FDA advisory panel member, said that Pfizer and BioNTech had not proved that their vaccine prevents severe covid-19. “The FDA says all we can do is suggest protection from severe covid disease; we need to know that it does that,” he said.

He countered claims, based on experience with other vaccines, six weeks of follow-up was long enough to detect safety signals. Six weeks may not be long enough for this entirely new type of “untested” [mRNA] vaccine, Toubman said.

Goodman wants all companies to be held to the same standard and says they should not be allowed to make up their own rules about unblinding. He told The BMJ that, while he was “very optimistic” about the vaccines, “blowing up the trials” by allowing unblinding “will set a de facto standard for all vaccine trials to come.” And that, he said, “is dangerous.”

(“Covid-19: Should vaccine trials be unblinded?” The British Medical Journal)

Do you like his choice of words: “blowing up the trials”? Do you think it is a fair description of what the drug companies did?

Yes, it is.

And what possible motive would the drug companies have to blow up the trials? I can see only two possibilities:

1. They think their vaccine is so terrific, it will save the lives of many of the people in the placebo group.
2. They expect a high percentage of the people in the vaccine group to get either severely sick or die, so they want to hide the evidence of vaccine-linked injury.

Which is it?

You know the answer. Everyone watching this farce knows the answer.

Question– Okay, so let’s cut to the chase: Are the vaccines are safe or not?

No, they are not safe. The way we decide whether a drug is safe or not is by putting it through a rigorous process of testing and clinical trials. After the testing, the data is passed on to physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, and other scientists who review the data and make their recommendations or criticisms. That didn’t happen with the Covid vaccines, in fact, all the normal standards and protocols were suspended in the name of “urgency”. But many believe that the “urgency” was manufactured to push through vaccines that would never have been approved on their own merits. All you have to do is look through the vaccine injury data (VAERS) and you’ll see this is the most lethal medical intervention of all time and, yet, the public health experts, the media and the government keep crowing that they’re “safe and effective”. It’s nonsense and the drug companies know it’s nonsense which is why they reject all liability for the people that are going to be killed by these “poison-death shots.”

Do you know what goes on inside your body after you are injected with one of these “gene based” vaccines?

Once the vaccine enters the bloodstream it penetrates the cells that line the blood vessels forcing them to produce spike proteins that protrude into the bloodstream like millions of microscopic thorns. These thorns activate blood platelets which trigger blood clotting followed shortly after by an immune response that destroys the infected cells thus weakening the vascular system while draining the supply of killer lymphocytes. In this way, the vaccine launches a dual attack on the body’s critical infrastructure causing widespread tissue damage throughout the circulatory system while leaving the immune system less able to fend off future infection.

Now if you think you can have a long-and-happy without a functioning circulatory system, then none of this matters. But if you’re bright enough to realize that wreaking havoc on your vascular system is the fast-track to the graveyard, then you’ll probably understand that injecting these “poison-death shots” is a particularly bad idea.

By the way, it’s a real stretch to call these hybrid injections, “vaccines”. They have about as much in common with a traditional vaccine as a python does with a coffee table. Nothing. The “vaccine” moniker was chosen in order to shore-up public confidence, that’s all. It’s part of a marketing strategy. There is no real similarity. The majority of people trust vaccines and see them as a shining example of medical achievement. The drug companies wanted to tap into that trust and use it for their own purposes. That’s why they called it a “vaccine” instead of “gene therapy” which more accurately describes ‘what it does.’ But–like we said– it’s just a marketing strategy.

Have you ever wondered how the drug companies were able to roll out their own-individual vaccines just weeks apart from each other? That’s a pretty good trick, don’t you think; especially since vaccine development typically takes from 10 to 15 years. How do you think they managed that? Here’s an excerpt from an article which provides a little background on the topic:

“The virus behind the outbreak that began in Wuhan, China, was identified on Jan. 7. Less than a week later — on Jan. 13 — researchers at Moderna and the NIH had a proposed sequence for an mRNA vaccine against it, and, as the company wrote in government documents, “we mobilized toward clinical manufacture.” By Feb. 24, the team was shipping vials from a plant in Norwood, Mass., to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in Bethesda, Md., for a planned clinical trial to test its safety.” (“Researchers rush to test coronavirus vaccine in people without knowing how well it works in animals”, Stat)

Got that? “The virus broke out in Wuhan…on Jan. 7, and less than a week later Moderna had a proposed sequence for an mRNA vaccine against it???

Really? Is that the same Moderna that had been playing-around with mRNA for over a decade but was never able to successfully bring a vaccine to market?

Yep, the very same company. Here’s more:

“And by Feb. 24, the team was shipping vials from a plant in Norwood, Mass??”

Wow! Another Covid miracle! You almost get whiplash watching these companies crank out their “wonder drugs” at record-breaking speed.

Keep in mind, there’s a very high probability that the virus was man-made, (In other words, it’s a bioweapon.) and the people who have been implicated in the funding and creation of that bioweapon are also closely aligned with the big drug companies that have produced the antidote in record time that has already netted tens of billions of dollars in profits for a drug for which there was no reliable animal testing, no long-term safety data, and no formal regulatory approval.

So I’ll ask you again: Doesn’t that all sound a bit suspicious?

Is it really that hard to see the outline of a political agenda here? After all, aren’t the drug companies working with the regulatory agencies that are working with the public health officials that are working with the media that are working with the corrupted politicians that are working with the Intel agencies that are working with the meddling globalist billionaires that are working with the giant private equity firms that oversee the entire operation pulling the appropriate strings whenever needed?

It sure looks like it.

And, don’t the tectonic social changes we’ve seen in the last year have more to do with a broader scorched-earth campaign launched by the “parasite class” against the rest of humanity than they do with a fairly-mild virus that kills mainly old and frail people with multiple underlying health conditions?

Right, again. In fact, many have noticed the cracks in the pandemic artifice from the very beginning, just as many have pointed out that the virus-meme is just the mask behind which parasites continue to conduct their global restructuring project. In short, it’s all about politics; bare-knuckle, take-no-prisoners NWO politics.

Answer– You’ve asked a number of questions about the animal trials, but none about the biodistribution and the pharmacokinetics studies that were done at the same time. Why is that? (Note--Pharmacokinetics; “the branch of pharmacology concerned with the movement of drugs within the body.”)

Question– I didn’t know there were any. Did the media report on them?

Answer– No, they didn’t. They completely ignored them, even though they were produced by Pfizer and provide essential information about where the substance in the vaccine goes in the body, in what amounts, and for how long. By knowing how the drug is distributed, it is possible to make educated assumptions about its effect on the organs and other tissue. In other words, these studies are invaluable. The Doctors for Covid Ethics have done extensive research on the studies and written a report titled “The Pfizer mRNA vaccine: pharmacokinetics and toxicity”. Here’s a few excerpts that help to illustrate the dangers of the vaccines:

“As with any drug, a key consideration for the toxicity of the COVID mRNA vaccines is where exactly in the body they end up, and for how long they will stay there. Such questions, which are the subject of pharmacokinetics, are usually thoroughly investigated during drug development. Initial studies on pharmacokinetics and also on toxicity are carried out in animals… this document has rather far-reaching implications: it shows that Pfizer—as well as the authorities that were apprised of these data— must have recognized the grave risks of adverse events after vaccination even before the onset of clinical trials. Nevertheless, Pfizer’s own clinical trials failed to monitor any of the clinical risks that were clearly evident from these data, and the regulatory authorities failed to enforce proper standards of oversight. This dual failure has caused the most grievous harm to the public….

What do Pfizer’s animal data presage for biological effects in humans?

• Rapid appearance of spike protein in the circulation.
• Toxicity to organs with expected high rates of uptake, in particular placenta and
  lactating breast glands
• Penetration of some organs might be higher with the real vaccine than with this
  luciferase model…The rapid entry of the model vaccine into the circulation means that we must expect the spike protein to be expressed within the circulation, particularly by endothelial cells. ( Endothelial- The thin layer of cells lining the blood vessels) We have seen before that this will lead to activation of blood clotting through direct activation of platelets and also, probably more importantly, through immune attack on the endothelial cells….

Summary

Pfizer’s animal data clearly presaged the following risks and dangers:

• blood clotting shortly after vaccination, potentially leading to heart attacks, stroke, and venous thrombosis
• grave harm to female fertility
• grave harm to breastfed infants
• cumulative toxicity after multiple injections

With the exception of female fertility, which can simply not be evaluated within the short period of time for which the vaccines have been in use, all of the above risks have been substantiated since the vaccines have been rolled out—all are manifest in the reports to the various adverse event registries. Those registries also contain a very considerable number of reports on abortions and stillbirths shortly after vaccination, which should have prompted urgent investigation.
….
Of particularly grave concern is the very slow elimination of the toxic cationic lipids. In persons repeatedly injected with mRNA vaccines containing these lipids… this would result in cumulative toxicity. There is a real possibility that cationic lipids will accumulate in the ovaries. The implied grave risk to female fertility demands the most urgent attention of the public and of the health authorities.

Since the so-called clinical trials were carried out with such negligence, the real trials are occurring only now—on a massive scale, and with devastating results. … Calling off this failed experiment is long overdue. Continuing or even mandating the use of this poisonous vaccine, and the apparently imminent issuance of full approval for it are crimes against humanity.” (“The Pfizer mRNA vaccine: pharmacokinetics and toxicity”, The Doctors for Covid Ethics)

Don’t you think people are entitled to know what the government wants to inject into their bodies? Don’t you think they have a right to know how it will effect their immune systems, their vital organs and their overall health? Don’t you think they have the right to decide for themselves which drugs they will take and which they will refuse to take?

Forcing someone to take a drug he does not want, is not just wrong. It’s unAmerican. Which is why people should reject vaccine mandates as a matter of principle. They are an attack on personal liberty, the foundation of our constitutional system. It’s a principle worth dying for.

As for the mass vaccination campaign, it is the most maniacally-genocidal project ever concocted by man. There’s simply no way to calculate the amount of suffering and death we are about to face for trusting people whose policies were obviously shaped by their undiluted hatred of humanity. As German microbiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi said:

“In the end, we’re going to see mass illness and deaths among people who normally would have had wonderful lives ahead of them.”

It is a great tragedy. (read more)

"  Nobody believes the press anymore.  ‘Let’s go Brandon.’  Everybody knows this is absolutely absurd.  the point is not to make people believe these absurdities anymore.  The point now is to demoralize people and to really silence us.  That’s what’s going on with siccing the FBI and DoJ on parents complaining about hate being taught to their children, and that’s what’s going on with the propaganda...

They want to silence us.  They want to intimidate us.  They want to bully us, and they want to terrorize us into staying quiet...

AG Garland said all these parents are intimidating and harassing school boards.  What could be more intimidating than siccing one of the world’s most powerful law enforcement agency on parents expressing their concern?  I can’t think of more things that would be more intimidating than that.  So, the irony is off the charts, but the goal here is to silence people into submission.”

Newman says the threats and bullying are backfiring and is not working in the least.  There is good news, and Newman explains,

_{“They trot out these people to demoralize us and to scare us and make us think that everything is over.  Just keep your head down and comply, but it’s not working.} 

It is absolutely not working. 

We have an awakening going on in this country... there’s an awakening that is happening here that is unprecedented in the modern history of this country.  It is such good news, but now we are in a race against time.  They are trying to collapse the supply chain and trying to implode everything before enough people wake up and do something about it.”

Newman points out that since 2016, the Deep State has been losing the narrative and losing badly.  Newman explains,

“The entire propaganda machine was non-stop bombarding Americans with anti-Trump propaganda, and Americans went to the polls.  Even with all the voter fraud in 2016, Trump still won in an Electoral College landslide.  That’s how much they have lost control of the narrative. 

They thought by shadow banning us and rigging their algorithms, [undesirable] people should not come across our information [streams].  That failed, and that’s why they had to ban you.  This is why they had to ban thousands of top content creators that were making huge amounts of money for them. 

They have lost total control of the narrative, and they are left with what can they blow up and what can they do to scare us?  What can they do to make us think we are all alone, and that’s exactly what we are seeing right now, and it is crystal clear.  I think everybody should be able to see this at this point.”

In closing, Newman points out how weak the Deep State really is and says, “Their entire narrative is based on lies, deception, trickery and intrigue..."

"  When you examine it closely, it all falls apart.  It’s true with the clot shots.  It’s true with the mandates.  It’s true with the schools.  It’s true with the courts, and it’s true with everything that they are doing.  They have to rely on lies.  The Bible says the devil is the father of lies.”

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with award winning journalist Alex Newman, founder of LibertySentinel.org and author of the recent popular book “Deep State.” (10/16/21)

There are monstrous changes taking place in the world, forces shaping a future whose face we do not know. Some of these forces seem evil to us, perhaps not in themselves but because their tendency is to eliminate other things we hold good. It is true that two men can lift a bigger stone than one man. A group can build automobiles quicker and better than one man, and bread from a huge factory is cheaper and more uniform. When our food and clothing and housing all are born in the complication of mass production, mass method is bound to get into our thinking and to eliminate all other thinking. In our time mass or collective production has entered our economics, our politics, and even our religion, so that some nations have substituted the idea collective for the idea God. This in my time is the danger. There is great tension in the world, tension toward a breaking point, and men are unhappy and confused.

At such a time it seems natural and good to me to ask myself these questions. What do I believe in? What must I fight for and what must I fight against?

Our species is the only creative species, and it has only one creative instrument, the individual mind and spirit of a man. Nothing was ever created by two men. There are no good collaborations, whether in music, in art, in poetry, in mathematics, in philosophy. Once the miracle of creation has taken place, the group can build and extend it, but the group never invents anything. The preciousness lies in the lonely mind of a man.

And now the forces marshaled around the concept of the group have declared a war of extermination on the preciousness, the mind of man. By disparagement, by starvation, by repressions, forced direction, and the stunning hammerblows of conditioning, the free, roving mind is being pursued, roped, blunted, drugged. It is a sad suicidal course our species seems to have taken.

And this I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any idea, religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual. This is what I am and what I am about. I can understand why a system built on a pattern must try to destroy the free mind, for this is one thing which can by inspection destroy such a system. Surely I can understand this, and I hate it and I will fight against it to preserve the one thing that separates us from the uncreative beasts. If the glory can be killed, we are lost.

— John Steinbeck, East of Eden.

“Profoundly disappointing,” another added.

The story exploded. Accusations of racism and lynching were all over news. ABC wrote about an ambush. The hashtags #HeWasJustJogging and #IRunWithAhmaud trended. There were protests in Brunswick, Georgia, and Jacksonville, Florida.

Celebrities such as Taylor Swift, Oliva Wilde, and Justin Timberlake expressed outrage, and NBA star Lebron James tweeted, “We’re literally hunted EVERYDAY/EVERYTIME we step foot outside the comfort of our homes!”

Kim Kardashian asked her fans to sign a petition that claimed Arbery was “chased and gunned down while exercising.” It soon had 750,000 signatures.

The GBI arrested Gregory and Travis McMichael on May 7, charging both father and son with murder and aggravated assault. On May 11, the GBI replaced the Glynn County district attorney with Joyette Holmes, a black D.A. from Cobb County. She was the fourth D.A. to work on the case. On May 21, Roddie Bryan was taken into custody and charged with murder.

Jackie Johnson, the original D.A., who recused herself, was indicted by a grand jury and a judge signed a warrant for her arrest. She turned herself in to the Glynn County Sheriff’s Office on September 8, but was released on her own recognizance. The indictment accuses Miss. Johnson of violating her oath as district attorney “by showing favor and affection to Greg McMichael during the investigation.” Although Gregory McMichael called her for advice following Arbery’s death, there is no evidence she even returned his call. If convicted of this felony charge, she could receive a sentence of up to five years.

This case against the McMichaels and Mr. Bryan has not been tried yet, but it has already resulted in legislation in Georgia. The state adopted a hate-crime law and repealed a 158-year-old law that permitted citizen’s arrest. In preliminary hearings for the murder trial, the prosecution asked that the defense be prohibited from mentioning that the citizen’s arrest law ever existed, or that it was repealed because of this case.

Mr. Bryan was denied bond last July. During the bond hearing, Arbery’s mother, Wanda Cooper-Jones said Mr. Bryan was “dangerous and unapologetic.” Prosecutors said he had sent text messages that included the N-word. He has been in jail since his arrest. Unable to work, he has lost his job, house, and car.

The McMichaels were also denied bond. At a preliminary probable cause hearing last June, GBI special agent Richard Dial testified that Mr. Bryan had reported overhearing Travis McMichael call Arbery a “fucking ni**er” as Arbery lay dying. Special Agent Dial said that he had also seen examples of Travis McMichael using “the N-word” on social media.

During a bond hearing last November, Arbery’s mother once again urged the judge to deny bail. The prosecution referred to a text message Travis McMichael sent to his best friend, Zachary Langford, referring to shooting “a crackhead coon with gold teeth.” Mr. Langford told the court that the exchange had been about a raccoon. He also told the court that Travis McMichael “felt remorse” after the shooting. Mr. Langford’s wife said that Travis “Prayed for Ahmaud’s mother and his family daily.” Travis’s mother said that he lives at her home with his four-year-old son, did not have a passport, and was not a flight risk. The judge denied bail.

The father, Gregory McMichael, had been in court many times as an investigator and is reportedly doing well. His son Travis, on the other hand, is said to be struggling to get through each day. He has lost 40 to 50 pounds locked up in seclusion after the judge denied bond.

One thousand Glynn County residents got jury duty summonses for this case. The defense thinks jury selection will be hard in this high-profile case, and is worried that the jurors will not feel safe. He also wonders whether they can be honest, but is not asking for the jury to be sequestered. (read more)

Toxic algae has been spotted within several water sources in Manhattan’s ecological jewel, and while the effects on people are minimal, pets can be at great risk.

Harmful algal blooms (HABs), which are found mostly in times of warm weather, have been reported as recently as Oct. 5 in the Central Park Lake and Turtle Pond near Belvedere Castle, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) confirmed.

NYSDEC also found HABs in the Harlem Meer on Sept. 13 and the park’s catch and release fishing has been suspended there due to the algae, according to the Central Park Conservancy.

“The toxins emitted from algal blooms can be especially dangerous for dogs,” a spokesperson for the Central Park Conservancy told The Post in a written statement. (read more)