As the year in which life officially returned to normal comes to an end, we must ask an uncomfortable question. What on earth just happened? We have lived through a period of what would once have been the unthinkable suspension of basic freedoms: interventions by the state into personal life that even most totalitarian governments would not have dared to impose. And we, along with most (not all) of the democratic societies of the West, accepted it. Before that era slips into the fog of convenient forgetfulness, it is absolutely imperative that we – the country as a whole – hold a thorough post hoc examination, because our governing classes have certainly learnt something they will remember.

The critical lesson that has been indelibly absorbed by people in power, and those who advise them, is that fear works. There is, it turns out, almost nothing that a population (even one as brave and insouciant as Britain’s) will not give up if they are systematically, relentlessly frightened.

The Covid phenomenon has provided an invaluable training session in public mind-control techniques: the formula was refined – with the assistance of sophisticated advertising and opinion-forming advice – to an astonishingly successful blend of mass anxiety (your life is in danger) and moral coercion (you are putting other people’s lives in danger). But it was not just the endless repetition of that message that accomplished the almost universal, and quite unexpected, compliance. It was the comprehensive suppression of dissent even when it came from expert sources – and the prohibition on argument even when it was accompanied by counter-evidence – that really did the trick. Now the prescription is readily available for any governing elite hoping to initiate a policy likely to meet with strong public resistance. First tell people that they, or their children and grandchildren, will die if they do not comply. Then prohibit any mitigating argument or critique of this prediction.

If the laws of the land do not permit you to stamp out all such deviant opinions, you can simply orchestrate an avalanche of opprobrium and disrepute on those who express them so that their professional reputations are undermined. But that is yesterday’s battle. Covid – as a historic event – is over. Let’s talk about how the Fear programme, now an accepted part of the armoury of democratic politics, is likely to work in the present and future. As it happens, there is what looks like a remarkably similar model of anxiety-plus-moral-blackmail being applied to the matter of climate change. Note: these observations have no bearing on whether or not there is a true “climate crisis”. What I want to consider is how the policies that are being formulated to address it are being framed.

Words are terribly important here. There seems to be an alarming similarity between the language in which the climate campaign is being conducted and the one used to sell the authoritarian Covid lockdowns. There is, for example, a curious anthropomorphising of the threat in both cases. The virus was depicted regularly by both politicians and their medical officials as a sentient adversary with an “agenda” (that word was, believe it or not, was actually used) to destroy human lives. It was likened to a wartime enemy – except that it was more sinister because it was “invisible”. This was not strictly true, of course: it was an organism clearly visible under a microscope as was demonstrated repeatedly in scary images widely reproduced in the media. Now, the Planet (the word is usually capitalised as if it were a proper name) is being described as if it too was a conscious being whose innocent life was being threatened by the thoughtless rapaciousness of human beings. So we – and our inclinations – are once again the potential danger.

None of this nonsense has anything to do with science. It is the language of horror movies or particularly gruesome fairy tales designed to frighten children into good behaviour. The great offence that is being committed by these machinations, in fact, is against scientific endeavour itself, which relies on disagreement and open debate to progress. Somehow, we have found ourselves back in the Middle Ages when scientists were forbidden to contradict the inviolable truth of authority. Who would have thought that, centuries after the Enlightenment, we would return to Galileo vs the Vatican? This is not intended to imply that religious belief is always the enemy of scientific rationality. I personally believe that human intelligence is the greatest of God’s gifts and that the traducing of it is truly sinful as well as utterly irresponsible. As it happened, there was one more affirmation of the irreplaceable importance of intellect and inventiveness just last week with the successful experiment in nuclear fusion, which may, literally, save the future of all those who inhabit the earth (if, in fact, it is genuinely in danger).

What intelligence and innovation rely on above all is criticism and disputation. That is the nature of the thing. It should be what education is for. We cannot, must not, stop fighting for the right to disagree. It is appalling that it has become necessary to legislate to enforce this freedom on academic institutions that were once dedicated to free discussion. The imperatives that must be taught to the young have not changed since Plato’s day. Argue. Question. Disagree. Expose received ideas to rigorous interrogation. Express doubt when you are unpersuaded. Seek truth through endless dialogue. Certainly some mistakes will be made in the name of liberty, but they can only be corrected if we do not, literally, lose our minds in the name of safety. The lines by Dylan Thomas, which were intended to be about physical death, could just as easily be applied to the death of Reason:

“Do not go gentle into that good night,

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”

Historically, most vaccines have at least offered antibody-only “protection” for years, not months. Please recognize all vaccines fail to use cellular immunity to protect you, which is far more important than humoral antibody protection. This extremely short duration of antibody-only protection appears to be a hallmark of mRNA technology however, and indeed, at least some of these new RSV shots are mRNA based.

Moderna has announced it is working on an mRNA jab for RSV, which is scheduled for release in 2023.¹⁵ They’re also working on a combination mRNA jab for COVID, RSV and the flu. (Ultimately, Moderna wants to create an annual mRNA shot that covers all of the top 10 viruses that result in hospitalizations each year.¹⁶)

Janssen is also working on an RSV shot using an adenovirus vector, the same technology used in its COVID shot, while Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) are testing “protein subunit” RSV vaccines for pregnant women and seniors.¹⁷

According to Forbes,¹⁸ Pfizer announced November 1, 2022, that it is ready to seek FDA authorization for its RSV vaccine. In clinical trials this shot was given to pregnant mothers and the efficacy was measured not by whether it prevented RSV, but by severity of the infection in hospitalized babies during their first months of life.¹⁹

Why No RSV Vaccine Ever Made It to Market

No vaccine for RSV has ever been successfully developed before. Why? Because the vaccines had a persistent tendency to cause worse disease, a phenomenon known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). As explained by CNN:²⁰

“The hunt for an effective way to protect against RSV stalled for decades after two children died in a disastrous vaccine trial in the 1960s.

That study tested a vaccine made with an RSV virus that had been chemically treated to render it inert and mixed with an ingredient called alum, to wake up the immune system and help it respond. It was tested at clinical trial sites in the US between 1966 and 1968.

At first, everything looked good. The vaccine was tested in animals, who tolerated it well, and then given to children, who also appeared to respond well.

‘Unfortunately, that fall, when RSV season started, many of the children that were vaccinated required hospitalization and got more severe RSV disease than what would have normally occurred,’ said Steven Varga, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Iowa, who has been studying RSV for more than 20 years and is developing a nanoparticle vaccine against the virus.

A study²¹ published on the trial found that 80% of the vaccinated children who caught RSV later required hospitalization, compared with only 5% of the children who got a placebo. Two of the babies who had participated in the trial died.

The outcomes of the trial were a seismic shock to vaccine science. Efforts to develop new vaccines and treatments against RSV halted as researchers tried to untangle what went so wrong … ‘It is in fact, in many ways, why we have some of the things that we have in place today to monitor vaccine safety,’ Varga said.”

Is Anyone Monitoring Vaccine Safety?

The sad irony here is that while we do have vaccine safety monitoring tools in place, the data are not being properly evaluated and used in the decision-making process. So, no, we do NOT have a functioning vaccine safety monitoring in the U.S. If the FDA and CDC were actually monitoring safety, using the tools at their disposal as intended, the COVID shots would have been withdrawn within months of their release.

They are, by any measure, the most dangerous and lethal injections ever released in history. Yet the FDA and CDC have ignored all safety signals and recently added the COVID jab to the childhood vaccination schedule. If there’s no safety monitoring for the COVID jab, there’s no reason to expect safety monitoring for any other new vaccine or mRNA shot.

What’s more, there’s no reason to assume researchers have actually figured out how to make an RSV shot that doesn’t cause ADE or immune imprinting, both of which pervert your immune response to subsequent exposures of the pathogen “immunized” against so you actually get sicker than if you had never been jabbed.

Public health technocrats foolishly believe mRNA technology will circumvent the problem encountered previously, but considering we’re now seeing signs of ADE and immune imprinting — or original antigenic sin — in those who got the COVID jab, there’s no precedent to assume such a thing.

It’s important to realize that the COVID pandemic has radically altered the authorization and approval processes for medical interventions. Everything is now on the fast track, which opens the floodgates for quick profits.

Instead of requiring trials that span a decade or more, mRNA shots are being rolled out after mere months of testing, and much of the safety is assumed based on the alleged safety of the COVID shots.

“Alleged safety” are the key words here, as more than 1.4 million adverse event reports following the COVID jab have been logged in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), including well over 31,600 deaths.²² According to the FDA and CDC, NONE of these deaths are attributable to the shots, which is a statistical impossibility.

Fearmongering Is a Tool to Foster Obedience

The biosecurity crisis needs to continue indefinitely because it’s the primary justification behind The Great Reset. That’s why, over the past three years, the goal post for “public safety” has been moved further and further away as we’ve gone along. At regular intervals, there’s been another Chicken Little warning that the sky is still falling and that we must not let down our guard.

As fall and winter set in, we’ll see another wave of doom and gloom being predicted for anyone refusing to wear a mask and get all the shots. At some stage, you must realize that the more you give in and obey, the more you have to give in and obey. There really is no end to what they can and will take from you, and holding on to the belief that your government would never [fill in the blank] is becoming more dangerous by the day.

It’s also important to realize that your government isn’t the ultimate power. Our government officials take orders too, from what is often referred to as the deep state. It’s not a government at all, but a global, hidden power structure that is accountable to no one, while influencing and manipulating everyone to bring about a new world order.

In years past, this shadowy cabal of power brokers were referred to under the term the New World Order. In 2020, the World Economic Forum came out on the public stage and announced The Great Reset, which is nothing but the NWO rebranded.

In the video above, investigative journalist Harry Vox talks about disease outbreaks, quarantines and curfews being essential tools in the ruling class’ toolkit, and how these tools were planned to be used to usher in the next phase of control.

The interview, which took place in 2014, sounds more than a little prophetic today, as these three indispensable tools for totalitarian control have been part of our reality for three years. In it, Vox also refers to “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development,”²³ a document by the Rockefeller Foundation, in which they laid out a “Lockstep” scenario, which details the global response to a fictional pandemic.

They’ve Already Told You What the End Game Is

While the name and origin of the virus differ, the scenario laid out in “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development”²⁴ closely matches what we’ve gone through in the era of COVID, especially its deadly effect on economies.

The scenario predicted international mobility coming to a screeching halt, debilitating industries, tourism and global supply chains. “Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers,” the document reads.

In the Rockefeller narrative, China is hailed for its rapid imposition of universal quarantines of all citizens which proved effective for curbing the spread of the virus. It’s important to note that universal quarantining — lockdowns of healthy people — has never ever been used in infectious disease control before, and there’s a reason for that. We already knew it doesn’t work.

Many other nations where leaders “flexed their authority” and imposed severe restrictions on their citizens — “from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries of communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets” — also fared well, in this Rockefeller scenario.

Listen to the disbelief in the interviewer’s voice when he asks if Vox actually believes that such a thing could happen, that we would have to stand in line to get our temperature checked before entering a building.

Well, every single one of us has now had to do this, so we know it’s possible. And if that’s possible, why not the rest of the Lockstep plan, which tells us that: “Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck, and even intensified.”

Fool Me Once, Shame on You, Fool Me Twice …

We can no longer afford to disbelieve the lengths to which the globalist elites, the unelected deep state, can and will go to seize total control. They’ve already told us what the ultimate plan is — to use bioterrorism to take control of the world’s resources, wealth and people.

All we need to do is to believe it, and realize that the only thing giving them the power to impose their will is our fear. As long as we choose fear and demand our government keep us safe, they have every chance of winning. Hopefully, a clear majority of people will have learned this lesson by now, and won’t fall for the same tricks a second time.