First I’d like to wish all readers a great Christmas from myself, Santa and Lord Xi Pingpong, Emperor of China, Barbados and soon all the rest of the British Commonwealth once the Chinese Communist Party has paid off those countries’ corrupt political leaders just as it did when buying Barbados and replacing the Queen as head of state with Emperor Xi:
The truth about the Omicron variant?
We keep getting told that the Omicron variant might be ‘milder’ than previous variants of the Chinese Wuhan lab-leaked plague. But it is the word ‘milder’ that is more than slightly misleading. The word our rulers should be using is ‘different’. I attach a link below to a recent YouTube video by Dr John Campbell. He has been making videos about Covid-19 almost daily since the pandemic started.
In this video he explains why the Omicron variant is quite different from previous variants. The original variants seem to have attacked mainly the lungs causing them to fill up with fluid so sufferers slowly drowned to death or else were killed by the cytokine storm as the body over-reacted to the virus.
As Dr Campbell explains, the Omicron variant affects mainly the bronchial tract leading to the lungs and much less the lungs themselves. While Omicron is more infectious than previous variants, it is giving mainly a form of bronchitis rather than destroying sufferers’ lungs. Hence the level of hospitalisations and deaths is much lower. Moreover we have several therapeutic drugs which are effective against bronchitis, whereas we didn’t have drugs effective against the lung-destroying previous variants nor against the cytokine storm.
If Dr Campbell is correct, this poses two rather serious questions:
Question 1: Why haven’t we been told this?
If Dr Campbell knows this, then those great scientists Whitty and Valance must know this too. So must all of Bunter Johnson’s government. Yet, despite our rulers claiming they are ‘following the science’, as far as I know none of them has mentioned the science explaining the important difference between Omicron and previous variants.
A cynic might be tempted to believe that our rulers are deliberately keeping us in a state of ignorant terror so they can impose whatever restrictions they can dream up rather than sharing the good news that this is probably the last stage of Covid-19 in its original form. This mutation will probably take us from a pandemic to an endemic. Its effect on humans is the virus attempting to survive and it is actually much weaker in the Omicron mutation and it is affecting humans as a common cold would. There is no need for any fear any longer because this is the beginning of the end of Covid as we know it.
Question 2: Doesn’t the change in the virus require a change in strategy?
If the virus has mutated from being a lung-destroying killer to a (sometimes severe) form of bronchitis, then doesn’t this suggest that our rulers should be changing their strategy for dealing with it? Instead of endless vaccinations, health- and economy-destroying lockdowns and enforced isolation, shouldn’t we instead be allowing the virus to let rip in order to build up natural immunity? Shouldn’t herd natural immunity be the new strategy?
If the facts change, why is our government sticking to a Big-Brother-state coercive approach which might have been relevant to the previous lung-destroying variants of Covid-19 (though the Swedish experience suggests even that is not true) but is probably not relevant to the much weaker bronchitis-causing Omicron variant?
Anyway, what does an ignorant fool like me know when we have such geniuses like Whitty and Valance now running and ruining our country?
Have a great Christmas.
Here’s Dr John Campbell (the key part is from 4 minutes to 16 minutes into the video):
I don’t know if people still play the ‘Happy Families’ card game anymore. But one family that must be very happy (and very rich) this Christmas is the Biden family.
Biden White House warns of Chinese control of world’s cobalt
In a June 2021 report for the U.S. president, Joe Biden, the writers warned: “Our economic security—steady employment and smooth operations of critical industries—also requires secure and resilient supply chains. For more than a decade, the Department of Defense has consistently found that essential civilian industries would bear the preponderance of harm from a disruption of strategic and critical materials supply. The Department of Energy notes that, today, China refines 60 percent of the world’s lithium and 80 percent of the world’s cobalt, two core inputs to high-capacity batteries—which presents a critical vulnerability to the future of the U.S. domestic auto industry.”
Hunter Biden helps Chinese take control of the world’s cobalt
While the U.S. Department of Defense officials were fretting about increasing Chinese control of the world’s cobalt supplies, Hunter Biden appears to have been busy.
Hunter Biden’s investment firm helped broker a 2016 deal that gave a Chinese state-backed company control of a massive African mine rich in cobalt — a mineral essential for the production of electric car batteries.
In 2016, an investment firm founded by Hunter Biden with several Chinese partners was cut into a complex $3.8 billion transaction that transferred 80 percent of Congo’s Tenke Fungurum mine from an American company to Beijing-backed China Molybdenum.
President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden’s father, was the sitting vice president when the deal was struck.
The mine is one of the world’s largest sources of cobalt — and China’s control of the mineral “presents a critical vulnerability to the future of the U.S. domestic auto industry.”
Your grandchildren had better start learning Chinese
Here’s a link to an article I found quite interesting about how our ruling elites have sold out to the Chinese. After all, the population of China is larger than that of the Western world and so China is where the big money will be made in the future.
And if you live in Taiwan, you’d better start moving your money and your family abroad, because Biden will do nothing when the People’s Liberation Army ‘liberates’ you from democracy:
I list below four articles which make it blindingly obvious that ‘gain of function’ (GoF) research creating highly-dangerous influenza strains in research labs to find new ways of developing vaccines has been going on for years.
I include the titles of the four articles and a brief summary from the abstracts of each article’s contents.
The first article (in blue) written in 2018 just before the Covid-19 pandemic clearly warns about the dangers of GoF and contains the wonderfully prophetic lines: “experiments to create potential pandemic pathogens (PPPs) are nearly unique in that they present biosafety risks that extend well beyond the experimenter or laboratory performing them; an accidental release could, as the name suggests, lead to global spread of a virulent virus, a biosafety incident on a scale never before seen”.
The other three articles (in red) are generally supportive of GoF research while being aware of the risks.
So, my conclusion is that this gain of function research has been going on for years in spite of Fauci’s claims to the contrary. From my very limited understanding, ironically catastrophe only happened when Obama banned such research in the U.S. as he was aware of the dangers. That caused (IMHO) Fauci and friends to move the research to filthy, badly-run labs at the supposedly Biosafety Level-4 labs run by corrupt, lazy, unhygienic Chinese researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). But even worse, the lazy, corrupt, dirty, spitting and hawking Chinese actually did some of their GoF work with highly-dangerous lab-created viruses in labs at the Wuhan Centre for Disease Control (CDC) which is just a Biosafety Level-2 lab (a bit like your local dentist).
And even more appalling still is the fact that the Wuhan Institute of Virology is run by the Chinese military as its leading site for developing biological weapons.
And more ghastly than that is the fact that the Chinese military have already made it clear how they intend to defeat the West, and America in particular, without engaging in an all-out war. This is clearly explained in the book UNRESTRICTED WARFARE written by two top members of the Chinese military:
UNRESTRICTED WARFARE is a book on military strategy written in 1999 by two colonels in the People’s Liberation Army, Qiao Liang (乔良) and Wang Xiangsui (王湘穗). Its primary concern is how a nation such as China can defeat a technologically superior opponent (such as the United States) through a variety of means while avoiding direct military conflict.
Am I really the only person who can see the suicidal madness of doing research creating deadly pathogens not found in nature in filthy, badly-run, corrupt Chinese labs and at the same time teaching the Chinese how to develop biological weapons to cripple America and the West?
I noticed that in possibly the best book about a pandemic – THE DARKEST OF NIGHTS – and in possibly the best film – CONTAGION – both started from premise that the virus evolved naturally. I guess if someone had come up with a book or film predicated on top U.S. doctors trying to avoid a U.S. presidential ban on pathogen GoF research by moving it to a filthy, unhygienic lab run by the military of America’s arch enemy China, people would have considered that too implausible. Yet that’s what has actually happened!
In my humble opinion, Fauci and friends should be investigated for Treason and Crimes Against Humanity and spend the rest of their wretched lives behind bars.
Here are the articles just to give readers an idea of what our crazed scientists were actually doing – creating highly-infectious man-made pathogens in labs – while nobody was looking and nobody was regulating them:
Why Do Exceptionally Dangerous Gain-of-Function Experiments in Influenza? (2018)
This chapter makes the case against performing exceptionally dangerous gain-of-function experiments that are designed to create potentially pandemic and novel strains of influenza, for example, by enhancing the airborne transmissibility in mammals of highly virulent avian influenza strains. This is a question of intense debate over the last 5 years, though the history of such experiments goes back at least to the synthesis of viable influenza A H1N1 (1918) based on material preserved from the 1918 pandemic. This chapter makes the case that experiments to create potential pandemic pathogens (PPPs) are nearly unique in that they present biosafety risks that extend well beyond the experimenter or laboratory performing them; an accidental release could, as the name suggests, lead to global spread of a virulent virus, a biosafety incident on a scale never before seen.
The Silver Lining in Gain-of-Function Experiments with Pathogens of Pandemic Potential (2018)
Half a decade after the contentious “gain-of-function” (GOF) debate of 2012 that followed experimentation showing that highly pathogenic avian influenza virus could become mammalian transmissible, it is possible to reflect on the arguments for and against this type of research. In this essay we argue that GOF-type experiments have already produced important information not available from any other source while also providing information on pathogenesis and the requirements for optimizing strains for vaccine production. We analyze the moral arguments against GOF and find them less compelling for a variety of reasons ranging from the uncertainty of risk-benefit analysis to the reduced likelihood of accidents given the enhanced biosafety and biosecurity protocols currently in place. In our view the most important consequence of the GOF debate is that it brought renewed attention to biosafety protocols and ushered innovation in answering the relevant biological questions with greater safety. We conclude that GOF experiments should go forward provided that necessary biosafety and biosecurity conditions are in place
Influenza gain-of-function experiments: their role in vaccine virus recommendation and pandemic preparedness (2014)
In recent years, controversy has arisen regarding the risks and benefits of certain types of gain-of-function (GOF) studies involving avian influenza viruses. In this article, we provide specific examples of how different types of data, including information garnered from GOF studies, have helped to shape the influenza vaccine production process-from selection of candidate vaccine viruses (CVVs) to the manufacture and stockpiling of safe, high-yield prepandemic vaccines for the global community.
Application of a Biologically Contained Reporter System To Study Gain-of-Function H5N1 Influenza A Viruses with Pandemic Potential (2020)
Natural adaptation of an antigenically novel avian influenza A virus (IAV) to be transmitted efficiently in humans has the potential to trigger a devastating pandemic. Understanding viral genetic determinants underlying adaptation is therefore critical for pandemic preparedness, as the knowledge gained enhances surveillance and eradication efforts, prepandemic vaccine design, and efficacy assessment of antivirals. However, this work has risks, as making gain-of-function substitutions in fully infectious IAVs may create a pathogen with pandemic potential. Thus, such experiments must be tightly controlled through physical and biological risk mitigation strategies.
It features the EU’s always immaculately-coiffed great leader Ursula von der Leyen (affectionately known by some of her many admirers as “Ursula Fond of Lying”) and Albert Bourla, Chief Executive Officer of Pfizer. The photo was taken (I understand) on 10 November 2021 at an event run by an organisation called The Atlantic Council. The Atlantic Council is an American think tank in the field of international affairs, favoring Atlanticism, founded in 1961.
Fond of Lying is pictured handing an Atlantic Council Distinguished Leadership Award to Bourla. Fond of Lying also got a Distinguished Leadership Award at the event. The Distinguished Leadership Awards are given to “exceptional individuals meeting today’s extraordinary challenges”.
Here’s another photo of the pair at the event, this time getting rather closer than normal social distancing rules would recommend:
Moreover I don’t see any of the ghastly face-nappies the rest of us have to wear at indoor gatherings. Still, perhaps they’ve both recently had the Pfizer ‘miracle’ vaccine which gives limited protection to us for a few months and massive profits to Pfizer for many years to come.
Lots to discuss?
I imagine these two would have had lots of things to discuss. For example, they could talk about why the EU was buying over 1.8 billion Pfizer ‘miracle’ (possibly heart-damaging) vaccines at $20 a dose rather than the (possibly less dangerous) much cheaper AstraZeneca vaccine at about $4 a dose.
Ursula’s history of awarding contracts has previously been somewhat controversial – especially how €109m was handed to management consultants when Ursula was Germany’s Defence Minister:
The fragrant Ursula has told the German parliament there had been “mistakes” in how external consultants were hired and said “this never should have happened.”
Perhaps, Ursula and Albert might also have discussed whether ‘miracle’ vaccines like Pfizer’s and annual boosters should be made mandatory for the EU’s 447 million citizens?
I can’t believe it’s not ‘Ivermectin’
Another issue the two might have discussed could have been what medication to use in the EU for people infected with the lab-leaked Chinese Wuhan plague. The EU could encourage the use of the cheap, out-of-patent protease inhibitor Ivermectin. Or it could go for the new, expensive, patented protease inhibitors being developed by pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer and Merck.
I obviously do not have any medical background to be able to judge whether the cheap, out-of-patent Ivermectin is as effective as the new, expensive, patented protease inhibitors. But there appear to have been successful trials of Ivermectin in countries like India, Spain, Brazil, Peru and others which possibly can’t afford the new expensive protease inhibitors:
Ivermectin has successfully been used for decades as an anti-parasitic with more than 3 billion doses given to humans. Yet whenever mainstream media supposed ‘journalists’ mention Ivermectin, they seem to be trying to denigrate it by calling it a “horse dewormer”. This suggests there is a deliberate PR campaign being run by the big pharma companies to undermine the cheap, out-of-patent Ivermectin and replace its use with their new, hideously expensive and massively profitable rather similar protease inhibitors.
Them and us?
Yes, Ursula and Albert certainly have a lot to be pleased about as the photos show. In case you’re wondering why Ursula and Albert are laughing – it’s probably because they’re laughing at us.
Meanwhile we huddle in our homes living impoverished lives and being threatened with vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, never-ending lockdowns, face-nappy-wearing, being fired if we don’t get 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 vaccines and many more similar restrictions on our lives.
And this freedom-limiting, Big-Brother state is only going to get worse when similar restrictions are imposed on us by the self-satisfied, privileged, jet-setting, virtue-signalling, do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do global elites in order to supposedly protect us pig-ignorant, pleb garbage from supposed catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.
How have we allowed ourselves to be taken for such fools?
In this blog, I’d like to suggest that Western governments are trapped in a seemingly endless cycle of vaccinating ever more groups of people ever more frequently, often unnecessarily, in order to prove that the vaccination strategy was the right one in the first place.
Let me tell you about ‘AESIs’
I’ll start with a link to this confidential report – its title is CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021 and it details what are called ‘AESIs’ (Adverse Effects of Special Interest) in people who have received the Pfizer BioNtek mRNA vaccine
There is a summary in the report listing the main AESIs
(as usual, left-click on image and then left-click again to see in glorious technicolour)
The main AESIs seem to be:
Administration site disorders 51,335
Nervous system disorders 25,957
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders 17,283
Gastrointestinal disorders 14,096
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders 8,476
Respiratory and thoracic disorders 8,848
I found Table 7 in the report quite interesting as it lists the main cardiac problems some people have experienced post-vaccination. I have written several times about the apparent rise in heart problems and sudden deaths from heart problems in more than 100 young athletes.
From my brief skim of the document, I don’t think the numbers of AESIs are put in context of how many millions of doses of the vaccination have been given. So this report on its own doesn’t provide any conclusive picture of the frequency of these AESIs or the likelihood of adverse effects.
The not-so-merry-go-round?
There seem to be two main issues raised by the document:
Issue 1: Why have these results not been reported in the mainstream media?
The answer here seems obvious. There has been massive collusion between governments and the mainstream media about what information is reported. The aim has been to inspire as much fear as possible in the public about the Chinese plague in order to terrify us into willingly giving up our freedoms supposedly ‘for our own good’. Journalist Laura Dodsworth effectively describes the behaviour-control tactics used in her 2021 book A STATE OF FEAR How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic:
At the same time, the media have been encouraged to propagandise the benefits of the supposed ‘miracle vaccines’ and to lionise their developers. So, any reports of adverse effects have been deliberately downplayed to avoid giving fuel to those nervous about being injected with largely untested chemicals.
Issue 2: Given the number of AESIs, should so many groups of people risk vaccination?
I’m not quite sure which groups in the UK are now being encouraged to be vaccinated – but I have a feeling that children as young as five years old are also being bludgeoned into vaccination. But given the number of AESIs, there may be a point at which it’s better for people to get the lab-leaked Chinese plague and build up natural immunity rather than take the increasingly ineffective vaccines. This is especially true if it turns out the omicron variant becomes the dominant variant and is no worse than a bad cold.
However, if government scientists and politicians were to suggest for example that only those over 35 should be vaccinated, that would open a huge can of worms. People would start asking awkward questions – questions like ‘why only that age group?’ and ‘what are the dangers which make the vaccines unsuitable for younger people?’ Then there would be those thinking things such as ‘if these vaccines are dangerous for some people and I’m a healthy 37-year-old, maybe it would be better if I didn’t get the vaccines?’
Allowing such doubts to spread would demolish our rulers’ ‘vaccination vaccination vaccination’ strategy.
To vaccinate or not?
I do believe that for certain groups of people the vaccines are the right decision. But I’m becoming more than concerned by the move to vaccinate ever more sections of the population ever more times when for some groups vaccinations may not be in their best interests.
So, I’m suggesting that our governments are now trapped by their own propaganda – having bigged up the benefits of the ‘miracle’ vaccines and the supposed ‘horrors’ of the WuFlu for so long, they are now forced into an eternal cycle of Big-Brother-state vaccinations of ever more people ever more often otherwise their vaccinate vaccinate vaccinate strategy might be exposed to have been misguided for (some and even large?) sections of the population.
I’m sorry if some readers found my previous blog about the impending decline and fall of the West somewhat depressing. All I was trying to do was to place what is happening now in an historical context and to extrapolate the three main trends – mass immigration, the rise and rise of China and the West’s intellectuals’ loathing of their own civilisation – to suggest what the end result would be.
Of course, the West’s demise is not a foregone conclusion. After all, the way Europe rebuilt in just a few years after the devastation of WWII may well have been one of the greatest achievements in the history of humanity. And it’s feasible the West could accomplish a similar Phoenix-like self-resurrection yet again. But this would require real leadership – an Adenauer, a de Gaulle, an Eisenhower and a Churchill. And what do we have? A senile joke in the White House, a pompous, arrogant, little creep running France, a nonentity who could be mistaken for Herman van Rompuy’s twin brother taking charge of Germany, a blundering buffoon as UK PM, and a recidivist failing German bureaucrat promoted upwards to get her out of trouble in charge of the EU.
In fact, the only real leadership we have in the West prepared to defend Western values and civilisation is found in Poland, Hungary and several other East-European, formally communist states. But our West-hating mainstream media constantly lambasts anyone daring to stand up for Western values as ‘racists’, ‘xenophobes’, ‘homophobes’, ‘Izlumophobes’ and even ‘fascists’.
The coming battle for the West’s future will be between the ‘progressive’, ‘liberal’, virtue-signalling, free-speech-hating, woke, multi-cultural, migrant-hugging, climate-catastrophist fools and knaves who control our media, public sector and politics and those with the courage to defend Western values whom our elites currently lambast as ‘racists’, ‘xenophobes’, ‘homophobes’, ‘Izlumophobes’ and even ‘fascists’. Let us hope for the West’s future that those our elites now brand as ‘racists’, ‘xenophobes’, ‘homophobes’, ‘Izlumophobes’ and even ‘fascists’ win.
Pfizer – fun facts
Now onto the subject of this blog.
In the U.S. an organisation called the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency has issued a Freedom of Information request for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make public the data concerning the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine. It took the FDA just 108 days to review this data before granting emergency use authorization to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. However, the FDA originally asked a judge to allow it 50 years before releasing all the data. Now the FDA has gone back to court asking the judge to extend the time for the full data release to 75 years.
The reason the FDA has given for the slow release of the data is staff shortages:
This means that millions of people around the world will be forced to submit to several doses of a vaccine without any independent experts being allowed to see the data around the vaccine’s effectiveness and possible side effects.
As Aaron Siri, a lawyer working on the case, said in a blog post.
“If you find what you are reading difficult to believe – that is because it is dystopian for the government to give Pfizer billions, mandate Americans to take its product, prohibit Americans from suing for harms, but yet refuse to let Americans see the data underlying its licensure,”
Even the utterly discredited, China-controlled, ludicrously-misnamed World Health Organisation (WHO) has admitted that mRNA vaccines can cause inflammation of the heart muscles. Here’s a quote from the WHO website I used a few days ago:
The COVID-19 subcommittee of the WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) issued a statement regarding reports of myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (1). Cases of myocarditis and pericarditis, although rare, have occurred more often in younger men (adolescents or young adults) and after the second dose, typically within a few days after vaccination with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. As of June 2021, US VAERS surveillance data estimated crude reporting rates of 40.6 cases per million second doses among males and 4.2 cases per million among females aged 12-29 years (2). Current evidence suggests a likely causal association between myocarditis and the mRNA vaccines.
Readers may not be aware that squash is one of the most dangerous sports with around 11 players dying of heart attacks every year. The reason is usually that they have heart conditions (myocarditis or pericarditis) often caused by recent viral infections and the players started playing too soon after their normally mild illnesses. The game places huge stress on the heart, with heart rates often reaching 150 to 170 beats per minute.
So it seems that doing strenuous exercise after even the most minor heart muscle inflammation is not a great idea. Since the mRNA vaccinations started, over 100 elite sportspeople have suffered heart conditions, several of which led to sudden deaths:
Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle and is one of the cardiac conditions associated with sudden death in young athletes.1 When it occurs, myocarditis often has no symptoms early on. A young athlete may feel well enough to compete, unaware of the problem. After the diagnosis is made, however, it is necessary for them to significantly restrict their exercise in order to reduce complications, including the risk of sudden death.
The risk of exercise-induced sudden death is real even with mild cases of myocarditis. It is critical that young athletes restrict their athletic activities until given an “all clear” by their cardiologist.
Still, why worry? We’ll only have to wait 50 to 75 years to finally find out how safe the mRNA vaccines really are if the FDA is allowed to delay and delay and delay release of the vaccine trials data.
One of the greatest fallacies of the ‘modern world’ may be the notion of ‘progress’. We imagine the entirety of history as culminating in a Darwinian march toward Western Civilisation. We think of our ‘progressive values’ of liberalism, self-indulgence, materialism, universal human rights, multiculturalism… to be uniquely ‘enlightened’.
Such is our conviction that ours is the ultimate civilisation that there was even a bestselling book in 1992 titled The End of History and the Last Man by American political scientist Francis Fukuyama which argues that with the ascendancy of Western liberal democracy—which occurred after the Cold War (1945–1991) and the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991)—humanity has reached “not just… the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: That is, the end-point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government”.
What arrogance. What hubris we had. But now some of us unfortunately know better.
Moreover, what we are going through is nothing new. Civilisations have gone through the same processes over millennia, recorded by the sages of Greece, Rome, Egypt, Arabia, Aztec America, India. Each one has looked around itself, seen its own superiority and believed in its own durability. And each one has been proved horribly mistaken.
There seem to be three main issues which are destroying Western civilisation – mass immigration, the rise of China and our own self-hatred.
Issue 1 – Mass immigration
In his 2018 book The Strange Death of Europe Douglas Murray provided probably the best analysis of a continent and culture caught in the act of suicide. With declining birth-rates and allowing/encouraging (delete as appropriate) mass immigration of people who hate us, hate our culture and hate our freedoms and want to turn our countries into the backward, excrement-strewn hell-holes from which they came, we are signing our own death warrant.
Moreover, the population of Africa and the Middle East is increasing by over 50 million a year – more than one million a week:
Anyone who thinks all these hundreds and hundreds of millions are going to stay in the corrupt, godforsaken, poverty-stricken dumps where they were born really needs a brain implant.
Issue 2 – The rise and rise of China
It may be a mistake to think of China as just a country. The population of China is over 1.4 billion. The total population of the supposedly advanced West (Europe, North America and Australia) is only around 1.3 billion. So China is more than a country. It’s more like a continent. Or an empire. And China is an empire that is expanding its global power.
Wherever you look – whether at global trade – here are some of the ports owned by Chinese companies controlled by the Chinese Communist Party:
Or at control of our planet’s key resources – here is the share of the planet’s rare earth metals produced by Chinese companies controlled by the Chinese Communist Party:
China is in the ascendancy.
Most of Africa – the world’s richest continent in terms of natural resources – will soon be owned by the Chinese. For example, a Chinese company controlled by the Chinese Communist Party has just taken over the main airport in Uganda because the Ugandan government (having looted their own country) didn’t have the money to pay the interest on a loan from the Chinese Government.
Some Western observers see the (Chinese-sponsored?) military coup in Myanmar as a country taking a step backwards from a form of democracy to a military dictatorship. But as Chinese power grows and the West becomes increasingly irrelevant, perhaps Myanmar is a symbol of the future – a future where Chinese economic power supports brutal dictatorships in order for the Chinese to get access to each country’s resources? And when China is your main trading partner, you can pretty much ignore threats of sanctions from an increasingly impotent West.
The progressive, virtue-signallers like to berate us about the horrors of past colonialism. But Western colonialism, in spite of its many faults, did bring many benefits to many countries. As China dominates the world, I suspect that Chinese colonialism – as the people of Myanmar are finding out – is not going to be as benign to those colonised as Western colonialism was.
Issue 3 – The West’s self-loathing
This is the most incomprehensible of the three issues – the loathing the West’s pampered elites have for what is probably the most successful, most egalitarian, most scientifically-advanced civilisation in the history of mankind.
While our enemies look on in disbelief, the West is tearing itself apart in ludicrous identity politics conflicts. Our Chinese and Russian and African and South American ‘friends’ don’t spend their time agonising over how many genders there are or what pronouns to use or whether biological men should be allowed to use female toilets and changing facilities and be placed in all-female prisons.
But the greatest act of self-harm the West is inflicting on itself is the absurd obsession of the Greta-worshipping, climate catastrophists with destroying all the benefits of a technologically-advanced lifestyle by taking us all back to a pre-industrial level of misery and poverty.
In my book THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS, I introduced the idea of ‘Oikophobia.
Oikophobia comes from the Greek oîkos – ‘house, household’ and phóbos – ‘fear’. One definition of oikophobia is a ‘hatred of one’s country or compatriots’ or ‘the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably those of your own country.’
The theory behind oikophobia is that it is nothing new. Instead it’s a natural phase in the decline of many civilisations. Each civilisation starts to form. Initial successes against other peoples allow it to grow becoming more powerful and wealthier and a sense of shared identity is forged. With success, each civilisation creates a leisure class and even those lower on the social scale can work to advance themselves towards having at least some of the accoutrements of the wealthier leisure classes.
At the zenith of its success, each civilisation starts to believe that it is invincible and therefore not under any existential threat from external forces or peoples. Rather than enjoying the achievements of that civilisation, some groups within it turn on each other in what Freud has called the ‘narcissism of small differences‘ – today’s identity politics and culture wars. Then that civilisation starts disintegrating into largely trivial, but increasingly poisonous, internal squabbles in which there is at first mutual incomprehension and then mutual loathing between the warring cultural tribes who try to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
Meanwhile, our enemies look on and gloat as we decline and they rise and rise and rise.
A few times I have recommended journalist Ross Clark’s satirical novel “THE DENIAL”
In the novel, Ross Clark describes a future dystopian world in which everyone has their own personal carbon budget. This means that everything they buy, every trip they make and every holiday they take will have a carbon value. In order to ‘save the planet’ from the supposed ‘climate crisis’, these personal carbon budgets will be very limited and nobody will be allowed to exceed their carbon budget.
This was meant to be a satire. This was meant to be an absurd and unlikely extrapolation of the current obsession with the imagined ‘climate crisis’.
At least it was satirical until a couple of weeks ago when this article appeared in the Independent:
Here’s what the Independent and its ‘climate experts’ are seriously suggesting:
Your home, sometime in the next decade.
You click the heating on and receive an app notification telling you how much of your carbon allowance you’ve used today. Outside in the drive, your car’s fuel is linked to the same account. In the fridge, the New Zealand lamb you’ve bought has cost not just pounds and pence but a chunk of this monthly emissions budget too.
Welcome to the world of personal carbon allowances – a concept that is increasingly gaining traction among experts as a possible response to the climate crisis.
Each month, it would see every person or household in the country given a limited emissions quota to spend on heating, energy, travel, food and possibly consumer goods. Those who wish to expend more could buy top-ups. Those who require less would be able to sell their left-overs back to the ‘grid’.
Such a scheme, advocates reckon, would get more of us making the link between our own behaviour and global warming. Because consumers would seek greener energy, fuel and goods to stretch their allowance further, it could also help fundamentally restructure the economy in favour of low- or no-emission businesses.
“Individuals accounts for about 45 per cent of the UK’s carbon emissions,” says Dr Tina Fawcett, acting leader of Oxford University’s energy programme and a researcher who has spent almost 20 years studying this concept. “Personal budgets could be a relatively simple, straightforward tool for reducing that.”
Now, in the wake of Cop26, many feel the concept – radical, perhaps, but demonstrably do-able – has never been riper for consideration. So, could this be our future?
Personal carbon allowances are not, it should be said, a new idea.
Academia started exploring the possibilities of such schemes in the late 1990s, while between 2006 and 2007, the then environment secretary David Miliband commissioned two reports into their potential use. The concept, he enthused, had a “simplicity and beauty that would reward carbon thrift”. In those days it was not an app that was envisaged but a carbon credit card.
In the intervening years, a number of local authorities, including Oxford City Council, have explored if such schemes could work regionally. In the Finnish city of Lahti, a voluntary scheme for transport use has widely been praised. Crucially, amid rising concern about global warming, studies suggest there is anecdotal evidence of a growing public willingness to embrace personal limitations.
“They two key issue for people tend to be: can it be implemented fairly and can it be implemented effectively,” says Fawcett. “If both those questions can be answered yes, the idea that people can then manage their own allowance in accordance with their own priorities does appear to have appeal.”
While there is no real agreement on how a UK-wide scheme would work, proposals tend to share certain common characteristics. it would be mandatory, it would cover energy and transport at the very least and possibly food and consumer goods; allowances would be tradable to reward lower use; and the quotas would, ultimately, be reduced over time to reach net zero.
Technologically, most agree the idea is achievable. It may be more difficult than creating, for example, a vaccine passport – but not hugely so.
This perhaps means the whole idea comes down to a question of political will.
For Fawcett and other supporters – which includes the Green Party – this should be a no-brainer. CPAs, they say, would drive our behaviour by appealing to both our self-interest – that is to say our pockets – and to our sense of community.
“By establishing an equal monthly budget for everyone, you create a sense of a shared effort to address a shared problem,” says Fawcett.
According to the Independent, most of us are enthusiastic about having such totalitarian, Orwellian Big-Brother controls on our lives pointlessly impoverishing us while the rest of the world laughs at our stupidity.
I guess Ross Clark’s satirical novel wasn’t so satirical after all.
For various reasons, I haven’t time to research and write a blog this weekend.
So, for something completely different, here’s a “Spot the Ladyboy” competition.
The link takes you to a rather overlong livestream recorded by a blogger on Friday 3 December. If you spool forward to 1.07.30 (one hour, seven minutes and 30 seconds) into the livestream, the presenter shows three screens. In each screen there are two ‘females’. One is a real female and one is a ladyboy. Your task is to spot the ladyboy. It’s not easy!
The competition takes about 8 minutes and ends at around 1.15.40.
We all know that the whole issue of the origins of the Covid-19 Chinese plague has become highly politicised. Because Trump suggested that the virus was accidentally leaked from a filthy, unhygienic, badly-run lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Trump-loathing, Biden-adoring mainstream media has shown a remarkable lack of interest in uncovering the origins of the greatest disaster to hit mankind since WWII. In particular, the US media has run a massive campaign to protect the top US medic, Dr Anthony Fauci.
The aim of a blog like this is not to comment on issues everyone else is blethering on about. There are enough people in our media with big opinions about everything. Instead, insignificant blogs like mine should be trying to dig out stories the mainstream media seems to ‘overlook’.
So, below is an Opinion article a certain Dr ‘Frankenstein’ Fauci wrote for the Washington Post on 30 December 2011. In his article Fauci explains that he is funding ‘gain of function’ research which is creating viruses that are not found in nature. The purpose of this research is to study how viruses develop in order to find ways of accelerating the development of vaccines. This is the research that Obama stopped because he considered it too dangerous. But the evidence suggests Fauci avoided the Obama moratorium by moving the project to the Chinese Wuhan Institute of Virology.
I have highlighted in red the bits I found the most interesting.
If you’re looking for a ‘smoking gun’ linking Fauci to the development of Covid-19, I don’t think you can do better than this article written by Fauci himself.
It’s astonishing that the Trump-despising BBC and C4 News seem to be unaware of this Fauci article as it took me less than 2 minutes to find it.
I will leave this up for a few days as I believe it’s more than important:
Anthony Fauci is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Gary Nabel is director of the Vaccine Research Center at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Francis Collins is director of the National Institutes of Health.
A deadly influenza virus has circulated widely in birds in recent years, decimating flocks but rarely spreading to humans. Nonetheless, because of its persistence in bird flocks, this highly pathogenic avian influenza virus has loomed as a major public health threat. Seasonal influenza kills less than 1 percent of the people it infects. In contrast, human infections with H5N1, though exceedingly rare, are fatal in more than half of cases. Should this virus mutate in a way that allows it to be transmitted as efficiently among people as seasonal influenza viruses are, it could take an unprecedented toll on human life.
A number of important scientific and public health questions regarding this virus remain unanswered, including the likelihood of such mutations arising and the mechanisms by which they may occur. Two recent studies co-funded by the National Institutes of Health have shed light on how this potentially grave human health threat could become a reality.Working carefully with influenza viruses they have engineered in isolated biocontainment laboratories, scientists in Europe and the United States have identified several mechanisms by which the virus might evolve to transmit efficiently in the ferret, the best animal model for human influenza infection. This research has allowed identification of genetic pathways by which such a virus could better adapt to transmission among people.This laboratory virus does not exist in nature. There is, however, considerable concern that such a virus could evolve naturally. We cannot predict whether it or something similar will arise naturally, nor when or where it might appear.
Given these uncertainties, important information and insights can come from generating a potentially dangerous virus in the laboratory.While the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention provide excellent public health surveillance for novel influenza strains, influenza outbreaks still occur suddenly and in unexpected places. The recent H1N1 pandemic exemplifies the problem: In 2009, a new influenza virus emerged. It was shown to have originated from an animal reservoir, and it spread so rapidly that it strained the pharmaceutical industry’s capacity to prepare vaccines fast enough to blunt its spread. We do not fully understand the underlying factors that allow influenza viruses to be transmitted efficiently in humans after they emerge from different species. The ferret transmission studies were intended in part to fill these important gaps in knowledge.
Understanding the biology of influenza virus transmission has implications for outbreak prediction, prevention and treatment. In defining the mutations required for mammalian transmission, public health officials are provided with genetic signatures that, like fingerprints, could help scientists more readily identify newly emergent, potentially harmful viruses, track their spread and detect threatening outbreaks. The ability to identify such viruses even a few months faster than by conventional surveillance provides critical time to slow or stop an outbreak. For example, the CDC implements public health protective measures and stockpiles antiviral drugs.Identifying threatening viruses can also facilitate the early stages of manufacturing vaccines that protect against such a virus in advance of an outbreak.
In addition, determining the molecular Achilles’ heel of these viruses can allow scientists to identify novel antiviral drug targets that could be used to prevent infection in those at risk or to better treat those who become infected.Decades of experience tells us that disseminating information gained through biomedical research to legitimate scientists and health officials provides a critical foundation for generating appropriate countermeasures and, ultimately, protecting the public health.
The question is whether benefits of such research outweigh risks. The answer is not simple.A highly pathogenic bird flu virus transmissible in humans could arise in ways not predicted by laboratory studies. And it is not clear whether this laboratory virus would behave in humans as it does in ferrets. Nonetheless, new data provide valuable insights that can inform influenza preparedness and help delineate the principles of virus transmission between species.
Along with support for this research comes a responsibility to ensure that the information is used for good.Safeguarding against the potential accidental release or deliberate misuse of laboratory pathogens is imperative.The engineered viruses developed in the ferret experiments are maintained in high-security laboratories.The scientists, journal editors and funding agencies involved are working together to ensure that access to specific information that could be used to create dangerous pathogens is limited to those with an established and legitimate need to know.
Here is the link to the original article just to prove I have not made this up. What I find most surprising is that the Washington Post haven’t deleted the article:
David Craig, on December 22nd, 2021
