October 01, 2021 from Architects for Social Housing (ASH)

Table of Contents

Part 3. Resistance

    1. Political Perspectives
    2. Twenty-two Reasons not to take a COVID-19 ‘Vaccine’
    3. Non-Compliance with the UK Biosecurity State
    4. Beyond Civil Disobedience

Predicting the future, as someone once said, is a fool’s game; but in attempting to anticipate, at least, how the UK biosecurity state will develop and expand, I have one guiding premise. Given the political will, the technology to enable that will, and the lack of opposition to it — or, which amounts to the same thing, the financial and legislative power to overcome that opposition — how would those who have this will, dispose of this technology, face this lack of opposition or wield this power, use it and to what ends? What, in short, would those with power do if they could do it? I wasn’t alone in my fears that social-distancing, compulsory face coverings and digital tracking aps would lead to mandatory testing and ‘vaccination’ as a condition of citizenship. And, from the very beginning of this manufactured crisis — or, more accurately, as soon as it was revealed, in April 2020, that what were then called ‘digital immunity ID cards’ were being explored as part of the UK’s exit strategy from lockdown — I understood that ‘vaccine’ passports were the goal to which all the other medically-meaningless biosecurity ‘measures’ were leading. In the guise of an ‘NHS COVID Pass’, they have been introduced since May this year as a condition of travel or entry or service by numerous private businesses and public institutions. Beyond their imposition, there lies the imminent prospect, announced by the Bank of England in June, of centralised digital currency programmed to give the state or an employer control over how it is spent by the user. From there it will be only a small step to the system of social credit used in China, where access to goods, services, homes and travel is contingent on the behaviour and compliance of the individual with the regulations and programmes of citizenship. Beyond that, there are punitive measures, such as a universal basic income which, when linked to our digital identities, can deny access to the basic needs of life, including water, food, housing and healthcare to the non-compliant. I ask again: given the political will, the technology and the lack of opposition or the power to overcome it, what would those who dispose of all these not do?

I ask this question not in order to terrify readers into listening, as we have been terrorised by the propaganda of the UK biosecurity state into unthinking compliance with these technologies and programmes, but rather to paint an accurate picture of the present and imminent reality we are facing. Most importantly, perhaps, I want to identify clearly where we are in this chain of consequences that has led us from social distancing to the brink of a totalitarian society. For that is where we stand now in the UK, and it’s hard to envisage how we can step back from the abyss of digital surveillance and control by artificial intelligence into which ‘vaccine’ passports will drag us. We are, at this moment, at the tipping point of this global project, with the weight of 18 months of compliance to biosecurity restrictions and programmes pushing us to the point of no return.

But there is still hope that, as more and more people see through the illusion of this manufactured health crisis and become aware of where we are heading, they will start fighting to save themselves and the people of the world from the centralised, authoritarian, totalitarian form of global governance being prepared for us. History tells us that, given the conditions to do so, there is nothing those with power will not do to hold onto, extend and increase that power. But it also tells us that the course of history is not made by revolutions in technology and the leaders who wield it, but by the struggle between the ruling class and those over whom they seek to extend and increase their rule. Nothing, not even this most prepared of revolutions, is determined in advance, like the coil of a spring unwound — not by the predictive models of public behaviour scientists or by the doomsayers of historical inevitability. Everything emerges from the struggle. In this, therefore, the third and last part of my article on the UK ‘vaccination’ programme, I want to address how we resist this programme and how we oppose its development into ‘vaccine’ passports and the irreversible and catastrophic consequences of their imposition. Most important of all is the question that only you, the reader, can answer: will you join us in this struggle?

1. Political Perspectives

On 4 March, David Mears, a 58-year-old former world champion in Taekwondo and teacher who had moved to Taiwan before lockdown restrictions bankrupted his bar and forced him to return to England, was injected with his first dose of the viral vector AstraZeneca ‘vaccine’. Within hours he developed a fever, which grew progressively worse over the course of the month. On 10 April, his left foot began to swell and he was rushed to Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge. Two days later, he said, ‘my foot exploded. There was blood everywhere’. Mr. Mears was initially told that he might lose a few toes, but his left leg was later amputated below the knee. Recalling that he became ill on the night of his injection, Mr. Mears said: ‘I think it has got to be linked. It has put me off having the second one.’

It’s possible that Mr. Mears suffered from deep vein thrombosis. Scientific studies have admitted a link between the viral vector AstraZeneca ‘vaccine’ and blood clots, with 419 cases of major thromboembolic events (blood clots) and concurrent thrombocytopenia (low platelet counts) reported to the MHRA as of 15 September. All but 45 of these were reported, as happened with Mr. Mears, after the first injection, and 72 of them resulted in death. However, because he had been told by the NHS that flu-like symptoms were among the expected reactions to the ‘vaccine’, Mr. Mears delayed contacting the hospital and may have developed May-Thurner Syndrome or perhaps critical limb ischemia, which if left untreated can lead to amputation. With the current censorship of information about the risks of taking these ‘vaccines’, his doctors have yet to offer a diagnosis of their own. Mr. Mears said: ‘The doctors say it’s hard to prove that it’s linked to the COVID jab and that the infection could have been there for some time, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence.’ David Mears says his goal is to have use of a prosthetic leg by the end of 2021, and I wish him well in his recovery. This is his GoFundMe page, set up to cover his medical expenses and rehabilitation.

On 18 September, a group called Left Lockdown Sceptics held their first meeting in London. I was asked to speak at it, and prepared some thoughts in response to the following questions, which the meeting was called to address:

  • ‘How did the mainstream UK Left become a devotee of official restrictions, lockdowns, tracking, medical mandates and New Normalisation generally?’
  • ‘In a climate of intensifying cases/variants/vaccine mandates, fear-mongering, how can we (re)connect with each other to build a broader Left LDS movement?’
  • ‘How do we begin broader conversations, reach ‘across the aisle’, grapple with de-programming those around us from what has been called collective hypnosis?’

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to attend on the day; but I’d like to write here what I was going to say at the meeting, as a way of opening the question of how we can resist and oppose the UK ‘vaccination’ programme in the current economic, political, legal and ideological climate. I must admit that I had real trouble with these questions, and felt considerable ambivalence about contributing to yet another forum for the Left; but, perhaps because of that, I also feel I owe Left Lockdown Sceptics these reflections, which I put down here in greater detail than I could have conveyed at their meeting. However, if these issues don’t interest you, feel free to skip to Section 2.

My first response to these questions was to ask — what UK Left, if by this designation we mean a socialist movement, mainstream or otherwise? I’d guess the answer most people would give to that question is the Labour Party and those trades unions, political organisations and pressure groups that advocate voting for it every time there’s an election. I’m not going to repeat what I’ve already argued in numerous articles, written over nearly seven years of work with Architects for Social Housing, about the UK Left having little or nothing socialist in their principles, politics or practices. Unlike most activists, I read the policies and have opposed the practices of the Labour Party in power, including when it was under the Leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, and I know that Labour is a party whose political philosophy is founded in the principles of neo-liberalism — most demonstrably in its collusion in the marketisation of human needs such as housing and the financialisation of those markets by global capital. Anyone who has knocked around the Left also knows that, whatever its so-called ‘left-wing’ elements and organisations argue between elections, when it comes to supporting or opposing the policies and practices of Labour in government at municipal or local authority level, they all toe the party line, keep silent and vote Labour.

I won’t say any more about this topic, which is not one that interests me any longer, and which the leadership of Kier Starmer renders irrelevant. But for the purpose of answering the questions above, it does have some relevance. Because of my work with Architects for Social Housing, which paralleled the rise and fall of Corbynism, it has come as no surprise to me that the UK Left, including not only Labourites but the wide diaspora of people who calls themselves ‘leftists’ and even ‘socialists’, have become ‘devotees’ of biosecurity restrictions on our human rights and civil liberties. But it’s not, as right-wing libertarians and commentators on the coronavirus crisis claim, because of the supposedly inherent authoritarianism of the Left. There is, I say again, little or nothing — in the Labour Party nothing, in its affiliates and fellow travellers little — socialist about the policies or practices of the UK Left. There are some small groups and independent organisations who are both openly critical of Labour and recognisably socialist in their practices; yet even these have adopted the UK Left’s almost universal support for biosecurity restrictions, remain indifferent to the immiseration of the UK working class they are causing, and have steadfastly refused to join the millions of UK workers protesting against their imposition, having uncritically accepted and adopted the media’s dismissal of them as ‘far-right conspiracy theorists’. Some groups have even organised counter-demonstrations.

What all the UK Left shares — and the origin of its otherwise inexplicable collusion with the right-wing government of Boris Johnson implementing the UK biosecurity state — is the former’s decades-long infiltration by the radical conservatism of multiculturalism, political correctness, identity politics and, most recently, the orthodoxies of so-called ‘woke’ behaviour. In some organisations, the infiltration is marginal and exists, under the umbrella of ‘intersectionality’, in an uneasy and usually unexamined co-existence with the slogans if not the practices of socialism. In others, such as the Labour Party and its affiliates, what socialist principles they may have once had have been entirely replaced by the values and orthodoxies of these relatively new ideologies, which have manifested themselves in such youthful, energetic and well-funded movements as Momentum, Black Lives Matter and, most recently, Extinction Rebellion. These are all pro-capitalist movements, hostile to the working class, and directly if not openly opposed to socialism, and it’s by their principles that the Left has operated for some time in the UK. It can’t be long before we see a similar movement, funded by the same or even more powerful capitalists and corporations, formed to support the next stages in the UK biosecurity state — particularly for a universal basic income. Like its predecessors, this movement of the COVID-faithful will claim a position on the UK Left by criticising the Conservative Government’s response to this ‘pandemic’, and in doing so will help create an even greater consensus among UK youth and the liberal middle-classes for increased online surveillance, stricter laws, harsher sentences, more intrusive technologies of public control and greater police powers to enforce them.

The Left, therefore, did not ‘become’ devotees of the restrictions and programmes imposed on the UK population on the justification of a threat to public health that never existed. The Left is the Church in which the COVID-faithful have been raised, its guiding religion and cultic practices formed by the same radically conservative beliefs. No-platforming, cancel culture, trans-essentialism, policing of speech and opinion, and all the other rapidly emerging symptoms of Left ideology did not emerge from a politics of emancipation, class struggle or an ideology of freedom; they emerged from, and are advocates for, authoritarian practices of censorship, repression of debate, suppression of apostasy and punishment of non-compliance that are culturally inseparable from the technologies of surveillance and control developed by monopoly capitalism. As Hannah Arendt wrote in The Origins of Totalitarianism: ‘It is quite obvious that mass support for totalitarianism comes neither from ignorance nor from brainwashing’. Far from the Left being under some form of collective ‘hypnosis’ or ‘programming’ — presumably from the propaganda of the Right — it is from the Left that we hear the most Puritan demands for displays of public virtue, for the harshest punishments to be imposed on unbelievers in the new faith of biosecurity. There is a direct line of cultural influence between the Black Lives Matter slogan that ‘silence is violence’, the ‘rebels’ groomed by Extinction Rebellion to offer themselves for arrest, and the ideologues of ‘zero-COVID’ denying human rights — including the right to medical care and to work — to those who refuse to comply with the dictates of the biosecurity state. Just as, for the past century and more, trades unions under Labour’s duplicitous leadership have repeatedly handed over UK workers to the interests of UK capital, so the Left has handed over UK youth to the UK biosecurity state. To claim these authoritarian, repressive and censorial ideologies have anything in common with the emancipatory aims of socialism shows just how little the ideologues of the UK Left know or care about its politics, principles or practices, except insofar as it exists to suppress any organisation that attempts to enact them.

Given which, I have no wish to see what Left Lockdown Sceptics calls a ‘broader Left LDS movement’, let alone to help build one. The only thing I wish to build for the Left — and will do everything I can to ignite it — is the pyre on which it will be burned to the ground, so that from its ashes a socialist movement of and for the working-class can be built.

What, then, can we learn — not from the failures of the UK Left to oppose what it has been instrumental in creating — but from its ongoing complicity with this revolution of neoliberal capitalism into the UK biosecurity state? Let me start, as every discussion about the betrayals of the Left should, with a quote from the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, this one from The German Ideology, where they differentiate what they call the real movement of communism from the idealism of other models of political and social change:

‘Communism for us is not a state of affairs that is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement that abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.’ 

The fact that even people opposed to coronavirus-justified restrictions refer to the current revolution of formerly liberal democracies into authoritarian technocracies as ‘communist’ — and not only because China’s system of state capitalism, surveillance and social credit is one model of the biosecurity state this revolution is building — is only the latest and not the most stupid misapplication of this admittedly contested term. But one of the things I understand by ‘communism’ is this definition by Marx and Engels. We used this quote as an epigraph to ASH’s recent book, For a Socialist Architecture: Under Capitalism, in which our organisation laid out the principles and practices for a socialist architecture — not within the vacuum of an ‘ideal’ in which so many socialist plans of action are formed, but within the political and economic reality of neoliberalism in which contemporary architecture is practiced. It’s under the same reality — what Marx and Engels called the ‘premises now in existence’ from which the ‘conditions of this movement result’ — that resistance and opposition to the UK biosecurity state must be formed. Yet, to my ears, the wish to form a ‘broader LDS Left movement’ appears to take no account of this reality. I’ve already identified the flaws in trying to align opposition to the UK biosecurity state with a UK Left that has laid the ideological foundations for its acceptance and is now its loudest advocate; but I want to add a few more comments on what I see as the flaws in this proposed movement.

As in so much about the terminology of the Left, the idea of ‘scepticism’ — which has been widely adopted by those on the Left who are opposed to at least some of the regulations and programmes of the UK biosecurity state — undermines the accurate understanding of the ‘present state of things’ that a real movement must abolish. ‘Scepticism’ describes an attitude that may have been advisable — it is one I myself shared — in the first few months of the coronavirus crisis; but it is completely inadequate as an attitude 18 months into this revolution in monopoly capitalism. There is no justification for being sceptical about what has repeatedly been shown to be the foundation of lies on which the biosecurity state has been built, from medically meaningless health ‘measures’ to unfit-for-purpose testing regimes, to the wildly inaccurate criteria for attributing deaths to COVID-19, to the catastrophic impact of lockdowns, to the medical and political consequences of the UK ‘vaccination’ programme. An intelligent child is sceptical when told Father Christmas brings him gifts; only a gullible adult remains sceptical of the same. Anyone who remains a lockdown ‘sceptic’ 18 months into this revolution has either ignored, or failed to inform themselves about, the vast evidence proving that Father Christmas is a story to make children behave and the Pandemic a creation of those it has placed into positions of immense power. The better comparison, therefore, is with God, for whom the figure of Father Christmas tends to stand in theological debates; for, like COVID-19, the existence of God is a moot point when there is so little evidence of the existence of either. What is not in doubt, however, is the financial, political and ideological power of the COVID-Church that, in the name of this manufactured God, demands absolute obedience from the faithful and absolute damnation for unbelievers. Whether or not one believes in God or the Pandemic, only advocates of authoritarian, absolute and unquestioning rule believe either justifies the power and wealth their high priests exert over the world of believers and unbelievers alike.

Another example of the failure to identify the present state of things that a real movement of resistance must abolish is something I have detected in many of the statements of groups and individuals on both the Left and Right opposed to lockdown restrictions — although whether it is shared by Left Lockdown Sceptics I don’t know, as I didn’t attend their meeting. I heard it at the launch of the People’s Lockdown Inquirer, to which I contributed an article on the impact of lockdown on UK housing; and in discussions around Laura Dodson’s book, A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic. What I heard is that a lot of the people opposed to lockdown have the impression that it is over, that the Government of Boris Johnson made a mess of it, certainly, and that it should be held to account for that, but that it and the UK’s medical bodies were responding to a genuine emergency requiring some public health measures, and that, essentially, this crisis is now over bar the excuses and blaming. I do not share this view, and I believe that, this winter, we’ll experience first-hand how wrong it is.

As I write this, the Government has published a policy paper, titled ‘Proposal for mandatory certification in a Plan B scenario’, mandating not only face coverings but also what it calls ‘COVID-status certification’ requiring that access to aspects of public life in the UK will be contingent upon proof — not of immunity from SARS-CoV-2 produced by antibodies or even a negative test — but of being ‘fully vaccinated’, which it defines as a ‘course of doses’ of undefined number and content. Although open to the general public, the paper is addressed to the private sector — the businesses, event organisers and venue operators to which it is handing the responsibility and obligation to enforce compliance. These certificates, and the Fixed Penalty Notices issued for failing to enforce them, will be imposed under the emergency powers illegally conferred by Section 45C of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act, 1984. As I discussed in Part 2 of this article, this means the UK biosecurity state will continue to be governed under an emergency period it is in the Government’s power — and undoubtedly its intention — to extend indefinitely. Already implemented in Lithuania, this policy — which will inevitably be implemented in the UK as we enter winter — shows that ‘vaccine’ passports are, and always have been, the goal towards which the coronavirus crisis has been manufactured. In short, as I have said many times before and will keep repeating until it is recognised as the ‘premise’ from which any real movement of resistance must depart, ‘vaccine’ passports aren’t the unfortunate consequence of the failure of previous coronavirus-justified regulations and programmes to protect the health and safety of the UK public from a deadly new virus; they are — as this policy document should prove once and for all — the product of the success of those regulations and programmes in implementing our revolution into the UK biosecurity state.

The third flaw is the failure to take into account the unaccountability of the UK Government — and the global corporations to which, behind the cloak of this crisis, it has outsourced the management of the UK biosecurity state — to the democratic process while we continue to be ruled by emergency powers. We are no longer faced with even the facade of parliamentary democracy by which we were governed before March 2020, and any plan for resistance must start from the premise that we are governed by unelected technocrats in committees of government advisors employed by and working for the interests of global corporations — a paradigm of government in which, as Mussolini once defined fascism, one cannot pass a cigarette paper between the interests of the Government and corporate interests. I have discussed this at length in my article, Cui Bono? The COVID-19 ‘Conspiracy’, and won’t repeat my arguments here, except to say that, with every passing week, this description of the UK biosecurity state has gained a greater purchase on our rapidly changing reality.

Having first reminded them that, under UK law, they are under no obligation to reveal this information to anybody, I recently asked a table of acquaintances whether they had been injected with the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’, and they all answered that they had. I then asked whether they approved of ‘vaccine’ passports, and they all said they were strongly opposed to their imposition. When I asked why they thought compliance with the former won’t inevitably lead to the mandating of the latter, they offered various hopes and beliefs that some form of check or balance — from the outrage of the middle classes, from liberal sentiment, from a deeply ingrained sense of British fair play, from the duty of the medical profession, from the law courts, from the rebellion of Conservative backbenchers, from Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, from the international community — would somehow stop this happening. It is on this outdated, politically naive and, I would say, willingly blind perception of UK capitalism that the architects of the biosecurity state have counted and relied for its construction. So common is this attitude, however, that I have begun to make up names for it: the ‘Munich Accords’ response to the rise of the biosecurity state; or the ‘Ostrich’ response; or, perhaps most accurately of all, the ‘Boiled Frog’ response. Recently, the 18 months of fearmongering by the Government, the media, Public Health England, the National Health Service, the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Agency, the Office for National Statistics, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies and all the other agents of biosecurity terrorism have all but stopped, so sure are they of the next step; and even the incessant insults and screams for retaliation from the COVID-faithful have fallen silent. We are on the brink of disaster, there is no handrail, and even the blindest are beginning to see the abyss open beneath their feet.

There are, broadly speaking, three camps into which the UK public falls in their attitudes to the coronavirus crisis. I do not refer to the agents of the UK biosecurity state who, from the first, have acted in full knowledge of this manufactured crisis and the totalitarian society they have built on belief in its existence. I mean those who have been subjected to their propaganda, lies, restrictions and threats. In the first camp are those who, from the start, took a sceptical attitude to the coronavirus crisis that has since developed into certainty of its lies. In the second camp are those for whom no amount of evidence or rationality of argument will dispel their faith in what has with some justification been called the new religion in which millions of Westerners have invested their belief for the past 18 months. And, in the third camp, which is the most important and growing in membership, are those who, from a position of either belief or scepticism, are now beginning to realise that a lot, if not all, of what they have been told over the past 18 months is either grossly exaggerated or an outright lie, and has been devised not to protect them from a viral pandemic but to direct them towards the present moment, when a totalitarian future appears inevitable. Like the swing voters in an election campaign, it is this third camp to which we must address ourselves — in the phrase used by LDS, ‘reach across the aisle’ — and any attempt to divide its membership into, or speak to it from, a Left or Right position would be fatal.

Our greatest strength, thus far, lies in the failure of UK politics to divide those of us resisting the biosecurity state into Left and Right, which has no bearing on the reasons for our collective resistance. Both the UK Left and UK Right, and pretty much everything in between, are unified, as never before, in imposing biosecurity regulations and programmes on the British people and, indeed, the populations of the world. Rather than forming a broad Left Lockdown Sceptics movement, my wish — and I believe our only hope — is to form a unified but decentralised opposition that is not sceptical of the necessity or efficacy of coronavirus-justified programmes and restrictions, but knows that the biosecurity state has been built on their lies and is actively opposed to its expansion into totalitarianism.

To this end, we should endeavour to agree on certain principles that represent our opposition — for example, that ‘vaccine’ passports have been the goal of all previously imposed coronavirus-justified ‘measures’ — without making those principles a requirement of our opposition to these measures. We can and must propose a positive and alternative vision to the nightmare of centralised and authoritarian rule by the biosecurity state. We must, even, employ — as an alternative to the fear of COVID-19 that has been used to build the biosecurity state — the fear of the totalitarian world into which it is forcing us. We must develop and use new languages and new practices of politics that refuse division into Left and Right, and which instead allow as many people as possible to join, speak with and find agency in their opposition to this global threat. And we must replace the pessimism of political defeatism with which the working class has been infected with the optimism born of our desperation. As I have written before, pessimism is an indulgence of the present none of us can afford to pay to the future. The unity of opposition we require, however, will not come from sitting in meetings and raising our hands to approve principles of practice that are never turned into action. Unity forms from the action of opposition alone.

This does not mean that there is not, still, a critique of this revolution in capitalism to be undertaken using the tools of historical materialism, and which I myself have tried to initiate and will continue to offer; but agreement with this critique or the political position from which it is made should not be a requisite for opposing the biosecurity state into which we are being led by this revolution. There is no ideal position, political or ideological, to which the real movement of resistance should have to adjust itself. If, in order to describe their opposition to the biosecurity state, someone accuses it of being ‘communist’, they would not be wrong in attributing similarly totalitarian forms of surveillance and control to both past and present states that described and still describe themselves as communist. And while I would disagree with them that, because of the inherent authoritarianism of communism, this is the inevitable fate of all communist societies, it is their opposition to totalitarianism and authoritarianism, and not their understanding of communism, that unifies us. We are today facing something comparable to the rise of fascism a hundred years ago, and we need to form something equivalent to the Popular Front of the 1930s to oppose its so-far-unimpeded conquests. Unfortunately, instead of being faced with the merely Herculean task of uniting the constitutive organisations of the Left into a new popular front to oppose the neo-fascism of the biosecurity state, it is the organisations and ideologies of the UK Left itself that we must oppose and overthrow. If anyone can doubt it any longer, it is the capitalist state in its latest formation that threatens the freedoms of the British people; and which political party sits in its seat of Government makes little difference to the biosecurity apparatus it now wields.

Finally, then, this brief review of what I believe we must not do if we are to avoid repeating the mistakes and failures of both the distant and immediate past — which I offer to Left Lockdown Sceptics as an apology for not giving my talk, and whose observations I hope they will take in a spirit of open inquiry — brings us to what we must do in the present and what remains of our future if we are to oppose the UK ‘vaccination’ programme and the totalitarian society to which it leads. This is what I will discuss in the next three sections of this article.

2. Twenty-two Reasons not to take a COVID-19 ‘Vaccine’

On 21 March, Tanya Smith, a 43-year-old mother of three children and childminder with no pre-existing medical conditions, had her first injection with the viral vector AstraZeneca ‘vaccine’. As a key worker and carer for her disabled child, Ms. Smith was contacted by her GP surgery to book an appointment to be ‘vaccinated’. According to her partner, she felt ‘pretty rough’ for a couple of days afterwards, and then woke one morning in pain. She called 111 for help, and was admitted with severe stomach cramps to Derriford Hospital in Plymouth, where she suffered a heart attack and cardiac arrest. Ms. Smith was diagnosed with multiple blood clots, which had caused the heart attack, and she was operated on to remove them. After initially improving, doctors said her blood platelet levels ‘went through the floor’. On 3 April, just 13 days after being ‘vaccinated’, Ms. Smith suffered a massive heart attack and died in hospital.

Having read about the recent death of BBC journalist Lisa Shaw after taking the same brand of ‘vaccine’, Ms. Smith’s partner, Kenneth Edwards, contacted the press about her death. In response, the MHRA commented: ‘Our detailed and rigorous review into reports of blood clots occurring together with thrombocytopenia [low blood platelet count] is ongoing.’ The regulatory agency continues to insist that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine outweigh the risks for most people. Ms. Smith’s death has been reported to the Coroner’s Office in Plymouth, but no inquest has been opened and the cause of death is not yet established. NHS England has declined to comment, but the fatal drug was administered by the University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, which runs the 1,000 beds in Derriford Hospital where Ms. Smith died. As chance would have it, on 15 January the Trust responded to a Freedom of Information request (W20FOI417) asking ‘how many people have died in your hospitals from COVID-19 alone?’ This was its response:

‘The Trust considers five or fewer deaths were related to patients who died following a positive Covid-19 test result that did not have a pre-existing condition.

‘University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust takes the view that the actual number requested is too low to be disclosed. The information is considered exempt from further supply in accordance with section 41(1)(a) and (b) of the 2000 [Freedom of Information] Act. The Trust received the information in confidence and it cannot be shared.’

What the Trust did not explain is why, 10 months into a pandemic (the FOI request asked for deaths between 1 February and 20 December, 2020), ‘five or fewer’ patients without a pre-existing health condition had died there following a positive RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2. On its own website, however, the NHS does state that, as of 29 September, 2021, 18 months since the first lockdown on 23 March, 2020, just 4,060 patients without a pre-existing medical condition — of which only 742 were between 40 and 59, the age range into which Ms. Smith fell — have had their deaths in hospitals in England and Wales attributed to COVID-19. Even with all the deliberate exaggerations to the official tally of ‘COVID-19 deaths’, that’s about two-fifths of overall deaths in England and Wales from any cause in any 1 week of the year. These are the risks against which the MHRA continues to authorise, and the NHS continues to administer, the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ to people like Tanya Smith.

If stories like this aren’t sufficient warning, there are — at least — 22 reasons not to be injected with this experimental biotechnology temporarily authorised as COVID-19 ‘vaccines’, which I will summarise here.

1. You don’t need them. Unless you’re over 69 years of age with a pre-existing health condition, you don’t need even a COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ that protects you, with SARS-CoV-2 having a median infection fatality rate of 5.5% if you’re over 69, dropping to 0.59% if you’re 60-69, 0.27% if you’re 50-59, 0.082% if you’re 40-49, 0.031% if you’re 30-39, 0.014% if you’re 20-29, and 0.0027% if you’re under 20 years of age. Or, in other words, if you get infected with SARS-CoV-2, your survival rate is:

Age 0-19: 99.9973%
Age 20-29: 99.986%
Age 30-39: 99.969%
Age 40-49: 99.918%
Age 50-59: 99.73%
Age 60-69: 99.41%
Age 70+ : 94.5%

Moreover, a large portion of the population either had cross-immunity from previous exposure to the family of coronaviruses or has acquired immunity since it reached the UK in early 2020.

2. They don’t protect you. The claims of the manufacturing pharmaceutical companies that their COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ offer, in the case of Pfizer, ‘95 per cent protection’ from SARS-CoV-2 are false, being based on inaccurate and manipulated figures on relative risk reduction derived from inadequate clinical trials, with the absolute risk reduction across the whole population being between 0.84 and 1.3 per cent.

3. They don’t protect others. There is no evidence to indicate that COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ stop transmission of SARS-CoV-2, for which they were not developed and were not clinically trialled, and the transmission of a virus by healthy people without symptoms is so rare as to represent a myth of ‘asymptomatic transmission’ created to spread the coronavirus crisis, but without precedence in the history of epidemics. So if you’re not ill and don’t have symptoms, you’re not a ‘case’ and are not a threat to the health of others.

4. Temporary-use authorisation. The use of temporary authorisation being granted not for medically vulnerable groups but for a mass ‘vaccination’ programme regardless of vulnerability, risk or existing immunity is unprecedented, and only authorised by unwarranted changes to existing legislation by which the Government should have been guided, not free to change on the grounds of a threat to the health of the UK public that has never existed.

5. They are dangerous. The adverse drug reaction rate to all the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ are many times higher than is usual for vaccines that have gone through many years and even decades of development and trials, with adverse reactions in the UK occurring in up to 1 in 5 of the ‘vaccinated’, deaths immediately following ‘vaccination’ exceeding 1,680, and an unknown number of deaths within 28 days or longer. All but three of the deaths following injection with a COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ I have related over the three parts of this article occurred more than 7 days after ‘vaccination’, and will not, therefore, even be recorded by the MHRA, let alone designated as a ‘vaccine’ death.

6. Denial of their effects. Despite the growing evidence, all our medical bodies, without exception, have flatly denied any causal connection between the experimental COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ they are administering and the unprecedented number of serious adverse reactions and deaths shortly after injection that for any other drug or vaccine would occasion its immediate withdrawal.

7. Long-term effects are unknown. Because they have been authorised for temporary use before the trials have been concluded, and were not trialled on pregnant women, the elderly or those already infected with SARS-CoV-2, there is no data on what consequences COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ will have in the future for the health and lives of those injected. All these ‘vaccines’ employ biotechnology that has never been approved for use on humans before as part of a mass vaccination programme. Moreover, since so many people have been injected, the virus has mutated, making the ongoing clinical trials, which are not due to be completed until between October 2022 and May 2023, difficult if not impossible to complete.

8. No one is liable for the consequences. Previously existing UK legislation on the development, manufacture, promotion and administering of vaccines has been changed to indemnify every agent in the UK ‘vaccination’ programme against legal liability for all and any adverse reactions, including death, for which, moreover, financial compensation has been limited and will be borne by the public purse. It’s very hard, if not impossible, to believe that the scientists developing the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’, the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing them, the medical advisers promoting them, and the clinicians administering them would do so with such a lack of care for the consequences if they were faced with civil cases and criminal prosecution from the millions of UK citizens adversely affected by these experimental drugs, and the thousands who have died following injection.

9. Corruption in the pharmaceutical industry. The COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ have been developed, produced and — under changes to regulations — advertised by an industry synonymous with malpractice, bribery, lobbying, lies, injuries, deaths and lawsuits from which only its vast profits allow it to escape prosecution, and whose companies and investors are set to make billions from the mandating of their products globally and in perpetuity.

10. Conflicts of interest. The financial influence of the pharmaceutical industry over the regulatory agencies they fund, which includes the Government’s medical and scientific advisors, and which in return authorise their products and guarantee their safety, makes anything those agencies or advisors say about the efficacy or safety or necessity of COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ untrustworthy and subject to conflicts of interest.

11. Public misinformation and lack of information. Almost everything the public has been told about COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ by the UK Government, its medical advisors, the Department of Health and Social Care, Public Health England and the National Health Service has contained what has been shown to be medically meaningless, deliberately misleading and unscientific lies, further placing in doubt their honesty and probity and the financial influence of developers and investors in these ‘vaccines’.

12. Propaganda campaign. The ‘vaccines’ are not being made available to those genuinely vulnerable to COVID-19 on a voluntary basis, as a seasonal influenza vaccine would be. Nor are individuals volunteering to be ‘vaccinated’ being first tested for existing immunity. Instead, these experimental drugs are being aggressively marketed at the entire population of the UK by an unprecedented campaign of propaganda taken up and disseminated at every level of UK civil society, and projected by the Government to continue for the foreseeable future as part of the requirements of citizenship within the UK biosecurity state.

13. Indoctrination into dependency. The UK ‘vaccination’ programme is indoctrinating the UK population, and in particular our young adults and children, into a US-style culture of ‘health and safety’ in which the former is promoted through dependency on clinical drugs and the latter on the propagation of irrational fears that have terrorised the population into unthinking compliance.

14. Existing immunity. Perpetual injection with a COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ is being made a condition of UK citizenship regardless of immunity due to prior infection with one of the coronaviruses that have been circulating in the UK for at least the last fifty years or from infection and recovery from SARS-CoV-2 within the last 18 months, with neither being checked before injection with COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ or constituting proof of immunity, and despite both offering far higher levels and longer duration of immunity than these artificially manufactured ‘vaccines’ have proven to offer.

15. Weaponised. COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ are not being administered on a medical basis but have instead been weaponised as part of the Government’s threat to reimpose lockdown restrictions that have already killed tens of thousands of UK citizens denied medical diagnosis, treatment and care, until the entire population is injected.

16. Ideologically motivated. Even those injected twice or more with COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ are not absolved of compliance with medically meaningless and harmful requirements such as mandatory face coverings and lateral flow antigen testing, indicating that the real function of these ‘measures’ are not medical but ideological and political, encouraging compliance with future and more severe regulations further removing our human rights and civil liberties.

17. ‘Vaccine’ passports. As confirmation of which, as an increasing percentage of the population has been injected with one or more doses of the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’, the NHS COVID Pass, vaccination-status wristbands in universities, and, in the near future, mandatory vaccine-only COVID-status certification have already or are being made a condition of our citizenship, access to public life and services, including travel, work, education and medical care, in contravention of international and UK law and NHS best practice.

18. Enabling discrimination. The requirement to be injected with a COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ repeatedly and in perpetuity will change our status as citizens under UK law forever, effectively removing the civil liberties and human rights of those who refuse to comply and thereby reducing them to second-class citizens, in contravention of every international agreement on bioethics to which the UK is a signatory.

19. Totalitarianism. Upgraded with whatever biosecurity requirements will be imposed on us in the future, the digital surveillance and monitoring of our health ‘status’ — which has nothing to do with our actual state of health — our movements, our location, our contacts, our associations and our expenditures will create a totalitarian system of control over the entire UK population which, once in place, will be almost impossible to remove. If our digital identities are linked to facial recognition cameras, any form of protest or non-compliance with biosecurity regulations and programmes will result in the disobedient being removed from the digital framework and, to use George Orwell’s term, ‘unpersoned’.

20. Suppression of debate. As an image of which, anyone who raises any of these reasons is denounced by friends, family, on social media, in the mainstream media, by doctors, senior medical advisors and Government Ministers as ‘anti-vaxx’ and ‘refuseniks’, accused of ‘vaccine hesitancy’, denigrated as ‘anti-science’, dismissed as ‘Covidiots’, charged with endangering the lives of others, and dozens of other ways of avoiding responding rationally and with evidence to the concerns they raise.

21. Censorship. Informed consent is a requirement of medical treatment under UK and international law, without which those administering it are liable to charges of assault; yet anyone sharing information or arguments that question or contradict the misinformation and lack of information endemic in the promotion of the UK ‘vaccination’ programme is censored and the information removed on the grounds that it is endangering the lives of others, harming the success of the ‘vaccination’ programme, and other excuses for enforcing complete obedience to the UK biosecurity state.

22. Future enforcement. At present, to make COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ and any future medical interventions compulsory would require primary legislation; but once a sufficient percentage of the population has been bullied, threatened and punished with loss of rights, freedoms or mere convenience for non-compliance with ‘vaccine’ orthodoxy, and the UK public has become accustomed and inured to the non-compliant being treated as second-class citizens within an apartheid system of state-sanctioned discrimination, there is nothing to stop the worst Parliament in UK history from voting a new Biosecurity Act into law that makes any future medical intervention compulsory.

For these and other arguments about doctors successfully treating patients with COVID-19 with natural and already-developed drug remedies such as Vitamin C, Vitamin D, Zinc, Budesonide and Ivermectin, which threaten the profits of the pharmaceutical companies developing these experimental ‘vaccines’; about the limits of monoclonal mRNA technology in responding to existing and future variants in SARS-CoV-2; about the vulnerability of the immune systems of those whose bodies have developed antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 to mRNA-generated antibodies from the Pfizer and Moderna ‘vaccines’; about the danger of damage to blood vessels caused by messenger RNA molecules resulting in blood clotting in those injected and leading to permanently damaged lungs and heart failure — and for numerous other medical reasons I am not qualified to comment upon but recommend for your attention — every one of us should refuse and resist the normalisation and mandating of COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ and ‘vaccine’ passports.

Even if these ‘vaccines’ were not causing the huge and unprecedented number of adverse drug reactions and deaths they are, even if the extensive evidence of their dangers is — as Public Health England, Public Health Scotland and the Medical and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency all claim — merely a ‘coincidence’, and even if COVID-19 genuinely did represent a threat to public health justifying the ‘vaccination’ of the entire population of the UK and indeed the world, the conditions under which the UK ‘vaccination’ programme is being implemented, the punishments for not complying and the aims it is serving in forcing us into a totalitarian society, means the choice to be injected with these ‘vaccines’ is anything but personal, as many of the compliant have stated. On the contrary, it is the most collective and political decision any of us have faced in living memory.

One of the ways those too terrified to face the truth dismiss the overwhelming weight of this evidence is to question the qualifications of those presenting it, as if medical professionals alone have the right to comment on the transformation of the UK into a totalitarian society; but I always refrain from commenting on things I don’t understand or understand only partially. That does not, however, exclude me from reading and reporting on Government documents, analysing statistics, or pointing out the flaws in the arguments made to justify this revolution into the UK biosecurity state. That is what I have tried to do over the course of this article, and I hope the evidence and arguments I have presented here are sufficient argument for rational and moral citizens to refuse to comply with the UK ‘vaccination’ programme. In the next section, I’ll look at some of the ways we can all do this without — for the moment — ending up in prison.

3. Non-Compliance with the UK Biosecurity State

On 26 June, Eve Dale, a 19 year-old freelance nail stylist with no pre-existing health conditions, was injected with her first dose of the messenger RNA Pfizer ‘vaccine’. As someone whose job brought her into daily contact with many people, she said she ‘felt it was only right to get the vaccine’. After the injection, Ms. Dale felt unwell, with flu-like symptoms, sickness and tiredness, which she said was ‘expected’. On 21 August, and now 20 years old, she had a second injection of the same drug, and posted a photograph of her ‘vaccination’ card on her Facebook page. Next to the photograph Facebook wrote: ‘COVID-19 vaccines go through many tests for safety and effectiveness and are then monitored closely. Get vaccine info.’

The following day, Ms. Dale wrote, was ‘the day my life became a nightmare’. At 11am, a security camera outside her house in Hugglescote, Leicestershire, recorded her walking from the front door and into her car. Four hours later, it shows her returning in tears, with two friends helping her back into her house, suffering from pain in her lower back. Realising that something was seriously wrong, Ms. Dale went to Accident & Emergency, by which time she had ‘stabbing and shooting pains’ from her neck all the way down to her ankles. A doctor confirmed that she was suffering from full-body ‘muscle spasms’ caused by the Pfizer ‘vaccine’. No medication managed to relieve the pain, and she reported not being able to move without crying out, and needed assistance to drink from a glass or visit the toilet. On 27 August, Ms. Dale was told that she could be in this condition for weeks, months or even years, and that she would need a stick or Zimmer frame to walk. On 28 August, Ms. Dale posted a photograph of herself in hospital wearing a medical mask, and wrote: ‘I’m not at all in any way an anti-Vaxxer just PLEASE PLEASE do your research. I don’t have a choice anymore yet you do.’ The following day, Eve Dale wrote that she was going for an MRI scan the following Tuesday, ‘as I need more tests and answers’. She hasn’t posted on her Facebook page since.

Let me start by saying directly what my former friends, brothers, comrades and allies have spent the last 18 months lying to themselves about. I do not address myself to them, however, but to you, the reader of this text, whom I do not expect to be my friend, my brother or my comrade, but whom I hope will become my ally. Everything you’ve ever done to oppose any form of injustice, discrimination or exploitation, every good deed you’ve ever done, every donation you made to a cause you believed in, every book on politics you’ve ever struggled through to try and understand better the workings of power, every documentary about a moment in history you’ve ever watched and wondered what you would have done at the time, every boring lecture or meeting on politics you’ve sat through because you thought you should, every time you’ve voted with your conscience, every petition you signed, every union strike you observed or picket line you formed, every demonstration you’ve ever been on, every declaration of opposition or act of non-compliance you’ve made, every time you stood up to power and greed in your professional or public life, every time you’ve faced down or denounced the violence of the police, every time you’ve challenged an unjust decision even when it had the force of the law behind it, every squat you’ve ever occupied, every anti-war demonstration you went on, every arms- or property-dealers fair you disrupted, every anti-fascist scrap you’ve fought on, every anti-racist march you shouted at, every road block you lied down on, every protest you’ve ever made in whatever form — everything, all of it — has led you to this moment, and all of it, every last action, thought, written word and spoken promise, will mean nothing — will have no bearing on the future of the UK — unless you are, now, on the right side of this global war that has not been declared against us by any government or army but is no less real for that.

Against the expectations of those of us who grew to political maturity under the threat of nuclear catastrophe, or of the generation that is coming to the same under the threat of environmental catastrophe, this is the Third World War for which we have been waiting all our lives. This is the historical moment for which everything that has made us what we claimed to be in the fat times, must either be put in the service of resisting the forces arrayed against us or be revealed as the bad faith of collaboration with power. Whether you call yourself an anarchist, communist, socialist, social democrat, liberal, republican, libertarian, conservative or none of the above doesn’t matter. What matters is that you are fighting now to resist the totalitarian future that has been prepared for us behind the cloak of this crisis, and which is on the cusp of becoming our present.

The dominance of an ideology can be measured by its transparency. It is precisely because of the imminence and apparent inevitability of this future that the forums in which the access to and uses of power are currently being debated — whether it’s the annual conferences of the parliamentary parties, news and current affairs programmes, the British press and letters, university campuses, or the sudden return of conferences on the various issues of the day, from a post-Brexit economy to global warming, before the imposition of ‘vaccine’ passports — have all rigorously ignored discussing the vast apparatus of biosecurity that has been constructed all around us over the past 18 months. Like capitalism itself, the existence of the biosecurity state is now what is not up for debate, what is already taken as given; and those who dare to question it are now banned or ejected from the spaces where ideas are articulated, heard, discussed and published. And yet, it is within the future totalitarian society the biosecurity state is constructing that every economic, political, legal, social, environmental and cultural issue will find its allotted place, its possible influence or its suppression. It is the borders of these spaces — political, institutional, discursive, educational and increasingly the social space — which the state draws between what it is possible to think and say and what has been dismissed as impossible, that marks the line between power and resistance to it.

From the other side of this borderline, we must, at the very least, refuse to comply with both the legislated regulations and the ideological programmes of the biosecurity state. We must challenge the orthodoxies of behaviour with which we are being accustomed to obedience to tyranny. We must take every opportunity to educate the ignorant and the compliant, whether they want to listen to us or not, because their ignorance and compliance is the consensus on which our rights and freedoms have been removed. But we must also educate ourselves in what’s left of our rights and freedoms under coronavirus-justified legislation. We must learn how to challenge both the employer and the employee whose collusion is ushering in the instruments of our enforced compliance without legal basis. We must stand up to, oppose, challenge and denounce the police forces whose unaccountable violence and unquestioning obedience is fulfilling its historical function of defending the rich and the powerful through this revolutionary moment. We must reach out to those who suspect what is going on, even if they don’t yet understand how or why, and draw them into our circles of resistance. We must organise ourselves into groups and support networks that share information, knowledge and know-how with each other and others. We must attend and take part in as many assemblies, demonstrations, protests and occupations as we can, and use them to build contacts with others fighting this ruthless tyranny of compliance. We must use our contacts to build our own unions of resistance independently of the politically controlled unions that have sided with the biosecurity state. We must let as many of our friends, acquaintances and family members as possible know that millions of others are questioning the lies they know they are being told but are afraid of speaking out, and invite them to join us and others who are not afraid — for courage, like fear, is contagious.

And we must, in addition, resist the normalisation of what is both cretinising and obscene: of drivers sitting alone in their cars wearing medical masks; of every entrance to every public building bullying us into using disinfectant on our hands; of signs in public places instructing us to ‘keep your distance’; of shoppers refusing to pass each other in the aisles of supermarkets for fear of being infected with a virus with the same level of danger as seasonal influenza; of plastic screens erected between each other in pubs, restaurants, post-offices, banks and other public spaces; of our faces being filmed without our permission at every supermarket checkout and recorded in an unknown database; of our local medical clinic, council hub or nearest hospital texting us several times a week to invite us, with increasing insistence, bribes and threats, to be injected with these dangerous drugs; of social media companies and so-called ‘independent fact-checkers’ deciding

Read Original Article
See Also ...
December 19, 2022
THE PLAN shows the official agenda of the World Health Organization to have ten years of ongoing pandemics, from 2020 to 2030. This is revealed by a WHO virologist, Marion Koopmans. You will also see shocking evidence that the first pandemic was planned and abundantly announced right before it happened.
November 28, 2022
Why do we never believe them? For centuries, the global elite have broadcast their intentions to depopulate the world - even to the point of carving them into stone. And yet… we never seem to believe them. The Stew Peters Network is proud to present DIED SUDDENLY, from the award winning filmmakers, Matthew Skow and Nicholas Stumphauzer.
November 14, 2022
This well researched documentary is a must see if you want to understand how governments around the world were deceived into BELIEVING the "science" which underpinned the global COVID response. How could people up to the highest levels of society be deceived?
October 04, 2022
Montagnier won the 2008 Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of the link between HIV and AIDS. Fact checkers swiftly deemed these claims to be false and the paper was taken down.
September 24, 2022
Cardiologist, Nuclear Cardiologist, Physicist, PhD, MD and JD, Dr. Fleming under oath describes the Spike protein bioweapon timeline and the parties involved in its development.
August 14, 2022
You were told the answer to everyone’s prayers was to get the Covid-19 injection. But now that you have done so, the healthcare system is on the brink of collapse. Waiting times for ambulances are at an all-time high. The number of emergency calls due to people suffering cardiac arrest is at an all-time high. The number of people dying is at an all-time high, with hundreds of thousands of excess deaths occurring around the world every single week.
July 11, 2022
Steve Kirsch talks with Brook Jackson and her top legal leads Warner Mendenhall, Robert Barnes about her False Claims case against Pfizer et al.
July 10, 2022
Brook Jackson is the Pfizer whistleblower. Her attorney, Robert Barnes, says that Brook Jackson exposed the fact that the Pfizer clinical trial was riddled with errors and fraudulent and false certifications to the US government.
July 09, 2022
The physicians said that they were suing Twitter for permanently suspending them for posting truthful information about COVID and also failing to provide them with verified badges.
June 19, 2022
We are pleased to bring your attention to the following featured article because it is a clear, well-written description of the monkeypox fraud delivered in a hard-hitting, no-nonsense style. We’ve added some emphases in red. [...]
June 16, 2022
One of the confidential Pfizer documents reveals that approximately 800 people never completed the phase 1 Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine trial. Click title above to read the full article
June 05, 2022
Instantly view those 3 videos or join the Fully Live Community where you can see various talks and interviews with David, as well as talks with David & Kim! By joining the community you will have access to many more videos!
June 03, 2022
Dr. David Martin lays it all out brilliantly. Inspirational!
June 03, 2022
British Medical Journal  by Kevin Bardosh1,2, Alex de Figueiredo3, Rachel Gur-Arie et al. Abstract Vaccination policies have shifted dramatically during COVID-19 with the rapid emergence of population-wide vaccine mandates, domestic vaccine passports and differential restrictions based on vaccination status. While these policies have prompted ethi
Notify me of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments