"Why Putin Criticized the Bolshevik Counter Revolution: Trotsky, Parvus and the War on Civilization" by Matthew Ehret

 

Why Putin Criticized the Bolshevik Counter Revolution: Trotsky, Parvus and the War on Civilization

Matthew Ehret Nov 2

A scandal arose this week as President Putin took some time to denounce the Bolshevik Revolution at the Valdai Discussion Club saying:

“Just over a century ago, Russia objectively faced serious problems… Russia could have dealt with its problems gradually and in a civilised manner. But revolutionary shocks led to the collapse and disintegration of a great power… These examples from our history allow us to say that revolutions are not a way to settle a crisis but a way to aggravate it. No revolution was worth the damage it did to the human potential.”

How could a statesman so critical of the abuses of capitalism, and so masterful in combatting structures of modern imperialism, bemoan the Bolshevik revolution which gave rise to Soviet Russia? Doesn’t Putin respect Soviet Russian accomplishments including the sacrifices made to put down Hitler? How could Putin be a true anti-imperialist if he is an anti-revolutionary?

To do my part in resolving this paradox, let me begin by saying: it isn’t a paradox.

The fact is that Vladimir Putin is both an anti-imperialist, and also a revolutionary, just not in the way you might imagine. To understand what I mean, a certain lesson into recent history is in order.

Aborting a System of Win-Win Cooperation

The sad fact is that neither the Bolsheviks nor Mensheviks which emerged onto the stage of history at the turn of the 20th century were organically arising “peoples’ movements”.

Upon deeper analysis conducted by historians like Anthony Sutton, Kerry Bolton, and Robert Cowley, both organizations which eventually merged into a singular force, enjoyed vast financial patronage of western imperial powerhouses such as Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff (head of Kuhn, Loeb & co.) and even Lord Alfred Milner- head of the newly formed Round Table Movement.

These characters bankrolled much of the Bolshevik movement as early as 1905 in order to destroy a truly revolutionary process that was spreading across much of the world in the wake of the Civil War.

One of the leading champions of this revolutionary process was Lincoln’s former bodyguard and the first Governor of Colorado William Gilpin. Governor Gilpin envisioned a world of sovereign nation states united by rail lines stretching through the Bering Strait and bringing all the continents and cultures into harmonious co-existence. In his famous 1890 ‘Cosmopolitan Railway’ Gilpin stated:

“The cosmopolitan railway will make the whole world one community. It will reduce the separate nations to families of our great nation… From extended intercommunication will arise a wider intercourse of human ideas and as the result, logical and philosophical reciprocities, which will become the germs for innumerable new developments; for in the track of intercommunication, enterprise and invention invariably follow and whatever facilitates one stimulates every other agency of progress.”

Describing the obvious brotherhood of Russia and the USA in spearheading this project, Gilpin wrote:

“It is a simple and plain proposition, that Russia and the United States, each having broad, uninhabited areas and limitless undeveloped resources, would by the expenditure of two or three hundred millions apiece for a highway of the nations through their now waste places, add a hundred fold to their wealth and power and influence. Nations which can spend in war their thousands of lives- the lives of the best and bravest of their sons and citizens- can surely afford a little of their surplus wealth and energy for such a work as this.” [p.35]

The American System Goes Global

Gilpin was not alone in this vision.

In fact, he represented a network of statesmen spread all across the globe who recognized that the only way to break out of the endless cycle of wars, usury and corruption which the Hobbesian structures of the British Empire maintained globally was through the adoption of an anti-Free Trade system known as “The American System of Political Economy”. This was a very different concept of “America” than the Pax Americana which has run roughshod over the world since WWII.

In Russia, this process found its champion in the figure of Sergei Witte (Finance Minister and Minister of Transportation from 1892-1903) who led a faction of the Russian intelligentsia in a struggle for progress and cooperation both internally and with allied nations against powerful forces committed to feudalism both within the Russian oligarchy and externally. The regressive forces which Witte had to contend with included powerful reactionary traditionalist forces who yearned for the good old days before Czar Alexander II freed the serfs and on the other extreme, the emergence of vast clusters of anarchist movements threatening to burn down the state in a replication of the Jacobin frenzy of the French revolution.

As Martin Sieff has demonstrated through his many writings on Prince Kropotkin, many of these anarchist networks enjoyed the patronage of powerful forces that cared little for the plight of the working class.

The international spread of the American System between 1876-1905 took the form of large-scale industrialisation and railroads. The funding mechanism was located in a practice that has fallen out of favor in the west (although has made a powerful comeback in China in recent years) called ‘dirigisme’- the emission of productive credit from state banks.

It was Witte who had spearheaded the Trans Siberian railway’s construction between 1890-1905 with plans to extend rail lines to China and beyond utilizing state directed capital and a blend of private enterprise. A fuller exposition of Witte’s fight will be unveiled in the next installment.

The British Empire which always relied on keeping nations divided, underdeveloped and dependent on the use of maritime shipping was not amused.

By controlling the international maritime choke points, the tiny island was able to exert its influence across the globe. Through the vigorous enforcement of laissez-faire doctrines of free trade, nations were blocked from protecting themselves from the financial warfare launched by the city of London against victim states (speculative volatility, usury, cheap dumping, cash cropping and drug running). Anyone wishing to engage in long term planning in the building up of the land-based transport corridors via rail, roads and industry would be easily sabotaged if the British System were shaping their world.

The international movement to break this system of evil was the only real revolutionary process animating the world during this time.

The Bolshevik Counter-Revolution: An Anglo-American Fraud

In 1905, Wall Street financier Jacob Schiff had given $200 million to the Japanese to assist their victory against the Russians during the 1904-05 Russo Japanese war. This generosity ultimately earned the banker the Medal of the Rising Sun in the in the Meiji Palace in 1907.

After crippling the Russian state and military (it’s navy was wiped out during the war), Schiff turned his attention to financing revolutionary activities within Russia itself. How money was spent by Schiff was difficult to say until 1949, when Schiff’s grandson John Schiff bragged to the New York Journal that his grandfather had given $20 million “for the triumph of communism in Russia.”

American journalist, and Schiff asset George Kennan played an instrumental role as perception manager of the revolution and bragged that he had converted 52,000 Russian soldiers imprisoned in Japan into Bolshevik revolutionaries. A March 24, 1917 interview recorded in the New York Times celebrating the revolution read:

“Mr. Kennan told of the work of the Friends of Russian Freedom in the revolution. He said that during the Russian-Japanese war he was in Tokyo, and that he was permitted to make visits among the 12,000 Russian prisoners in Japanese hands at the end of the first year of the war. He had conceived the idea of putting revolutionary propaganda into the hands of the Russian army.

The Japanese authorities favoured it and gave him permission. After which he sent to America for all the Russian revolutionary literature to be had…

‘The movement was financed by a New York banker you all know and love,’ he said, referring to Mr Schiff, ‘and soon we received a ton and a half of Russian revolutionary propaganda. At the end of the war 50,000 Russian officers and men went back to their country ardent revolutionists. The Friends of Russian Freedom had sowed 50,000 seeds of liberty in 100 Russian regiments. I do not know how many of these officers and men were in the Petrograd fortress last week, but we do know what part the army took in the revolution.’ “

Schiff himself jubilantly stated to the New York Times, March 18, 1917:

“May I through your columns give expression to my joy that the Russian nation, a great and good people, have at last effected their deliverance from centuries of autocratic oppression and through an almost bloodless revolution have now come into their own. Praised be God on high!”

Historian Kerry Bolton wrote of New York Federal Reserve director William Boyce Thompson who had been installed as head of the American Red Cross during the 1917 revolution and was largely recognized as the true U.S. ambassador to the government, saying:

“Thompson set himself up in royal manner in Petrograd reporting directly to Pres. Wilson and bypassing U.S. Ambassador Francis. Thompson provided funds from his own money, first to the Social Revolutionaries, to whom he gave one million rubles, and shortly after $1,000,000 to the Bolsheviks to spread their propaganda to Germany and Austria.”

Writing in 1962, historian Arsene de Goulevitch who experienced the events of 1917 firsthand wrote:

“In private interviews, I have been told that over 21 million rubles were spent by Lord Alfred Milner in financing the Russian Revolution… The financier just mentioned was by no means alone among the British to support the Russian revolution with large financial donations.” (1)

According to his own accounts, during the four months Leon Trotsky spent in New York in 1917, much of it was spent hobnobbing with the upper crust of Wall Street and being driven around in limousines (2).

Leon Trotsky’s Immortal Treachery

Leon Trotsky, who Lord Milner, Schiff, Paul Warburg etc always intended to be the leader of the movement that would take control over the dead bodies of the Romanovs, was fortunately ousted by the saner forces around Joseph Stalin in 1927.

As historian Grover Furr masterfully documents using recently declassified material, testimonies and other evidence from archives in the USA and Russia, Leon Trotsky made several attempts to return to power in Russia after his expulsion. He didn’t do this alone however, but largely with the help of fascist forces in Britain, Japan, Ukraine, and Germany all the way until the moment he met his untimely end in 1940. This will be the subject of a future review of Grover Furr’s work (3).

For all of Lenin’s many problems, he differed from Trotsky on two interconnected points of 1) a general belief in voluntarism and 2) a rejection of the theory of permanent revolution.

Where Lenin believed that productive labor could be channeled towards the improvement of productive forces of society, Trotsky believed that any such effort at peaceful productive improvement would lead only to decadence. Permanent revolution was thus needed to keep workers from falling into sloth amidst the eternal striving for global class struggle. In 1914, a frustrated Lenin spoke of Trotsky’s fetish saying: “he [Trotsky] deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left ‘permanent revolution’ theory.”

Another point of conflict between Lenin on the one side and Trotsky on the other centered on whether or not Russia should continue to participate in WWI.

Where Lenin wanted to bring Russia out of the insane conflict in the first moments of their coup in 1917, Trotsky and his close ally Bukharin demanded that Russia stay in the war with the aim of converting it into a total pan European (and ultimately global) revolution. Trotsky’s commitment to global socialist revolution vs Stalin’s commitment to “socialism in one country” was at the heart of an unbridgeable divide between the two revolutionaries throughout the years.

Parvus and the Pan-European Union

Trotsky’s close association with Alexander Israel Helphand (aka: Parvus) throughout the revolution of 1905 and beyond is also suspicious and should be considered in the context of a much broader imperial geopolitical strategy.

Parvus’ association with the Pan-European Union founded by Count Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi in 1923 is another relevant anomaly that takes us into the deeper power structures lurking below the surface waves of history (4).

Other members of Coudenhove-Kalergi’s institution included likes of Benito Mussolini, Walter Lippman, Nazi finance minister Hjalmar Schacht and Nazi geopolitician Karl Haushofer, while financiers Max Warburg, Louis de Rothschild openly bankrolled the organization.

In 1932, Kalergi delivered a speech celebrating the great restoration of order that would emerge in the unified pan-European effort to put down Bolshevik anarchism saying: “This eternal war can end only with the constitution of a world republic…. The only way left to save the peace seems to be a politic of peaceful strength, on the model of the Roman Empire, that succeeded in having the longest period of peace in the west thanks to the supremacy of his legions.”

This group played a much greater role in history than many realize and set the stage for the European Union. Parvus’ close association with Vladimir Jabotinsky set the stage for the most fascist elements of Zionism to emerge in the wake of WWII, and Parvus’ work as propagandist and arms dealer for the leadership of the Young Turk movement (deployed to set a weakened Ottoman Empire on fire and provoke what became the Balkan Wars of 1912-13) can still be felt across the Turkish world to this day.

It is also noteworthy that none other than Otto von Hapsburg himself had run this organization for over 30 years and also created a sister organization called Dignitae Humanae Institute to ‘united the right of the world” under a gnostic Catholic veneer with a Clash of Civilizations rebranding for the alt right. As the ultra-liberalized dissolution of society proceeds expectedly apace under the moral mush of LBGTXYZ gobbledygook, pagan Gaia worship, and critical race theory, it is obvious that a knee jerk leap into radical conservativism will accelerate. Hence, a net has been cast to catch conservative fish.

Located in an 800 year old monastery in Trisulti, Otto Hapsburg’s organization has found a useful frontman in the form of a Jesuitical fascist right-wing priest of the American alt-right by the name of… Steve Bannon. (5)

Trotskyites Mutate into Neocons

I say this here and now just to draw a parallel in the reader’s mind to the strange transmogrification which leading Trotskyists took in the USA once their leader’s life was snuffed out in 1940. Trotsky’s body wasn’t even cold before such devotees as James Burnham, Max Schachtman, Albert Wohlsetter and Irving Kristol abandoned Trotskyite socialism and adopted a new rabidly right-wing paradigm, which came to be known as ‘neo-conservativism’.

This poisonous movement grew quickly throughout the Cold War and took over the USA over the dead bodies of JFK and his brother while unleashing a new global dis-order ‘clash of civilizations’ each-against-all logic onto the globe under the watch of the Trilateral Commission of Kissinger, Brzezinski and David Rockefeller.

I think we can intimate what Trotsky ultimately saw as the final destination for his aims of a global revolution of the masses, and willingness to collaborate with Nazis to achieve his ends by considering the writings of former Trotskyite James Burnham.

As Cynthia Chung pointed out in her recent article on the topic, Burnham, (Trotsky’s former personal assistant and a man known to many as the father of the neocons), saw the resolution to the Manichean problem of class struggle and Cold War in a one world fascist government. Right before Trotsky’s 1940 death, Burnham wrote an essay renouncing Dialectic Materialism in favor of the superior philosophy of Bertrand Russell as outlined in the 1913 Principia Scientifica, and hence his rebirth as a neocon was ensured (6).

The question now sits before us: Was Burnham’s conversion to Russell’s worldview inconsistent with the actual goals and mission of Leon Trotsky?

It is too often forgotten that Leon Trotsky, acting as chairman Of the technical and scientific board of industry, quite literally controlled all science policy of Russia from 1924-25. During this time, he wrote a 1924 pamphlet outlining his pro-eugenics vision of the future global order that would be brought into existence through the forces of Darwinian natural selection saying:

“The human species will once more enter into a state of radical transformation, and in his own hands, will become an object of the most complicated methods of artificial selection and mass psycho-physical training. This is entirely in accord with evolution… man will make his purpose to master his own feelings, to raise his instincts to a higher consciousness… to create a higher social biological type, or if you please, a superman.”

Whether we consider Trotsky’s relentless efforts to integrate Darwinism with Marxist Dialectic Materialism or the Neoconservative commitment to a Darwinian survival of the fittest ethic merged with a gnostic Christian end times doctrine, the effects are largely identical: Global chaos with a supposed point of rapture/synthesis to resolve the chaos of the material world. Getting to this destination, whereby a new order and new Nietzschean human being were to emerge, simply required a cleansing experience.

In this sense, Trotsky could be compared to a Russian version of his contemporary Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Where Chardin was tasked with merging Darwin’s theory of natural selection into Christianity, Trotsky was tasked with merging Darwin’s theory into the state religion of Marxist dialectic materialism in Russia. The end result in either case was identical.

The Frankfurt School Global Revolution

That cleansing experience would take the form of ritualistic climax of purgative violence which would usher in a state of total despair and thus a new scientific priesthood managing the slaves of the other under a renewed form of technocratic feudalism. But how would society be brought to such a state of despair such that the masses would clamor for a new age to be imposed upon them in the form of a one world technocratic government?

When Christianity, nationalism, and respect for family values still governed society, such a state of nihilistic despair requisite to achieve this breaking point was more than a little difficult to achieve.

Here the role of Trotsky’s associates Georg Lukacs, and Willi Munzenberg play an important role.

Both men were not only radical Bolsheviks but also founders of a new organization founded in 1923 known as the Institute for Social research founded in Frankfurt Germany, otherwise known as “The Frankfurt School”.

This group and their role in steering mass education, and culture over the ensuing century will be the topic of a future report.

Post-Script: A Final Word from Putin

In the midst of Putin’s Valdai Club speech, the Russian leader (who is a revolutionary although he is certainly no Marxist-Leninist) called out the social engineers masquerading as revolutionaries and social reformers today driving a parallel to the destructive ideology of the Bolsheviks of 1917:

“The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs.”

In the next article, we will explore the fight of Sergei Witte, Dimitry Mendeleyev and compare their vision for a world of win-win cooperation against the perversion of science and culture envisioned by Trotsky and his international imperial co-thinkers.

The author recently delivered a lecture on this topic which can be viewed here:

Notes

(1) Czarism and Revolution, published by Omni Publications in Hawthorne, 1962 French edition, pp. 224, 230)
(2) Leon Trotsky: My Life, New York publisher: Scribner’s, 1930, p. 277
(3) One of the best and more recent among Furr’s pioneering writing on this topic can be found in his New Evidence of Trotsky’s Conspiracy, Erythos Press, 2020. Furr’s website is also an invaluable resource.
(4) Parvus’s association with the Pan European Union and broader fascist operations across Turkey and the Middle East is laid out in Jeffrey Steinberg’s 2005 report “Cheney Revives Parvus’ Permanent War Madness”
(5) This fact gives new meaning to Bannon’s self-characterization as a Leninist. In an August 22, 2016 Daily Beast article, journalist Ronald Radosh described a conversation he had with Bannon two years earlier saying “we had a long talk about his approach to politics. He never called himself a “populist” or an “American nationalist,” as so many think of him today. “I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed. Shocked, I asked him what he meant.
“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”
(6) In his Feb 1940 ‘Science and Style’, Burnham wrote: “Do you wish me to prepare a reading list, Comrade Trotsky? It would be long, ranging from the work of the brilliant mathematicians and logicians of the middle of the last century to one climax in the monumental Principia Mathematica of Russell and Whitehead (the historic turning point in modern logic), and then spreading out in many directions – one of the most fruitful represented by the scientists, mathematicians and logicians now cooperating in the new Encyclopedia of Unified Science.”

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation . Consider helping this process by making a donation to the RTF or becoming a Patreon supporter to the Canadian Patriot Review.

 

Source: Matt Ehret's Insights

"The ‘Hidden Curriculum’ of the Face-Mask, Part 2: The Politics of the Mask" by Phil Shannon

 

The ‘Hidden Curriculum’ of the Face-Mask, Part 2: The Politics of the Mask

1 November 2021

Read Time: 21 minutes

 Left Lockdown Sceptics is meeting in London on 13th November! Find out more and register to attend here.

The ‘Hidden Curriculum’ of the Face-Mask Pt 1 looked at the weight of empirical evidence against mask efficacy, reviewed the technical reasons why masks don’t work, and documented the suite of health harms they pose in return. Part 2 delves into the politics of the mask as the explanation for why they have risen to such prominence despite all he strikes against them.

The Politics of the Mask

So, the mask does not work as a piece of medical technology – it does not stop you from getting the virus or passing it on, it may increase the viral load if you do get it thus making you sicker than if you were maskless, and it has a trailer-load of its own health problems. All in all, a lot like the Covid ‘vaccine’.

And, again like the Holy Covid Vaccine, the lesser deity of The Mask, even if it worked, is an unnecessary intervention for most people against a virus that is no worse than the flu for the frail elderly already in the prime of their senescence and is, if noticed at all by the rest, a rather routine virus that causes zero symptoms in around 86%  of those infected and mild to moderate cold-like symptoms in nearly all the rest, and which has a survival rate, for those requiring medical attention, of 99.8%, a rate that can only increase as the original virus becomes more innocuous, variant by variant, as viruses do under the evolutionary principle behind virus mutation into more transmissible but far less deadly variants.

If science and logic mattered to them, our health Tsars should not entertain a policy of mask mandates at all, yet, during Covid, the public health establishment has become a political health establishment fully invested in, and power-drunk on, the daft, overwrought, economy-wrecking, counter-productive pandemic policy response which manacles the population by lockdown and muzzles them by the mask. There is now a symbiosis between our public health controllers and our political rulers who use the popular trust associated with the scientific and medical profession to validate their futile but damaging policy response to Covid and to shore up their electoral longevity with the magic incantation of ‘keeping people safe’.

Illustrating the rank politicisation of health institutions during Covid era is the transformation of the WHO from mask-atheist to High Priest of The Mask. Politicians robotically claim to be ‘following the science’ on all matters Covid and lockdown but what the WHO’s clumsy pirouette on the mask actually shows is that it is ‘Science’ (the bowdlerised science at the interface of bureaucracy and political power) that is following the politics.

It was “political lobbying” from governments (and it is governments which provide the personnel, the policy and the funding to the WHO), with assistance from the Davos group, “Masks for All”, which brought about the WHO’s new policy direction on masks. Looking for global institutional backing for their desire to be seen to be ‘doing something’ about the virus, in addition to lockdown (and school closures and curfews, and the rest of it), governments wanted the WHO’s tick of approval for the mask as a public health measure.

The WHO complied, cherry-picking a narrow meta-analysis of pro-mask studies, consisting of crude observational data (not controlled for a host of other factors affecting transmission), implausible modelling and artificial lab results unrelated to real-world mask use. They completely ignored the more reliable and robust RCTs, all of which undermined the case for the mask. Armed with this highly-selective ‘evidence’, the WHO now supports mask mandates as a control tool against Covid. An ember of conscience, however, still glows dimly in the recesses of the WHO in their still-extant caveat that there is “limited evidence” to support the use of face masks by healthy people in the community but this has gone the way of all official caveats during the Covid madness – to the dustbin of public health history.

What mattered was the WHO’s ‘scientific’ imprimatur for the highly visible symbol of ongoing Covid crisis. Any ‘anti-maskers’ (those who still stuck stubbornly to the real science on the uselessness of masks) could now be cast into the outer darkness of Big Tech’s censorial Black Hole as purveyors of ‘misinformation’, and simply driven from the public square through caricature or censorship. With its mask U-turn, as with its jeremiad against Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, and its banishment of the concept of natural as opposed to vaccine-induced immunity, the WHO (and vast swathes of the academic and practising medical profession, assisted by the professional humiliation and deregistration of dissenters from within their ranks) has, by swapping politically-required dogma for science, trashed whatever integrity it had left.

So, like kids in a lolly store, governments the world over have inflicted WHO-endorsed masks on their populations as a theatrical prop to justify as necessary and right these governments’ original mad lockdown decision to deal with an unprecedented viral pandemic. The mask is also the gift that keeps on giving – another ‘temporary’ extension of your ‘emergency powers’, Honourable Minister?

The mask agenda is overtly about power – the power of the public health elite to rule through ‘Public Health Orders’ that powerless, muzzled citizens must obey. The mask is about social control not virus control, acting as the ideal visible badge of compliance, in the same way that the membership lapel pin under totalitarian political regimes publicly displayed that the wearer belonged to The Party and would thus not come under suspicion for regime disloyalty and face banishment to the Outer Party.

The mask is all health theatre, all about a show of ideological and state power under the rubric of ‘public health’ – there is a pandemic crisis and you will wear a mask because we say so. There are some True Believers in the mask, to be sure, those who delight in being a demonstrably good Covid citizens but, for most people, once the compulsion, under threat of fines or refusal of service, to mask up is removed, the mask comes off pretty sharpish.  The Achilles heel of the mask is that it is unnatural and people do not, by choice, do the unnatural. Casual observation will quickly show that the mask is frequently worn as a ‘beard’ around the chin, or worn below the nose (in spite of the peremptory ‘Masks are Mandatory!’ notices specifying that the mask must cover both mouth and nose). Most people, even at the risk of financial penalty, will deviate from ‘correct’ use as often as they can get away with it.

Like everything else from the Covid policy nightmare, the mask is entirely symbolic, serving to ramp up the fear factor and to constantly remind us that the government and its tough but caring health ‘professors’ is doing all it can to protect us. The world’s governments, with the exception of Sweden, Tanzania, Belarus and South Dakota (a heterodox mix of political and geographical entities), since joined by Denmark, Singapore and numerous US Republican states, have manufactured a state of fear and propagandised their populations to obey their dictates, in which the mask features prominently.

Overlaid on this broad political function of the mask (‘there is a deadly pandemic on’ and you must obey our dictates) are the specific politics of the US. The day after the CDC first endorsed nationwide mask-wearing in 2020, then-President Trump announced that “I won’t be doing it, personally” (he held out for 99 rebellious days before yielding) and the Trump-hating, lockdown-loving, mask-adoring, liberal left immediately made mask wearing a sign of political virtue. This has regrettably persisted – its sole compensation being the amusing sight of Covid-virtuous, Trump-hating left-liberals twisting on the exquisite dilemma of following the un-masking orders of Democrat-run states (these states are now back to ordering re-masking but they did have an un-masking phase) at the risk of being seen as a mask-spurning, Trumpist, Republican Covid Unbeliever or leaving their mask on to spite the right wing Covid Deniers without being seen to disobey their ‘progressive’ political masters. Science never entered into it, as in any stage of the mask nonsense.

The mask works so well as politics because it is omnipresent, pure visual propaganda. Humans are primarily a visual species and the visual gains it raw power through activating primal instincts, especially that of the emotion of fear, which resides in the amygdala in the limbic system and which has been fundamental to all species’ evolutionary survival. Politicians exploit this primitive emotion by promising fearful people safety, by being seen to be ‘doing something’. The public loyalty ritual of mass mask-wearing is the audience-participation street theatre that has accompanied the full stage production of Covid Fear. In a very real, visceral sense, the mask keeps alive an atmosphere of deadly pandemic long after the pandemic, such as it was, was over and which had only ever been kept alive on statistical life-support through inflationary ‘case’ and death counts.

That explains why the Australian federal Government, amongst many others, could advise the public, in April 2020, to not wear face-masks whilst now, the New South Wales state government will slap you with a $500 fine for failing to wear a face-mask in public. Our governments need to throw some more mask fuel on the Covid fire to keep the pot of fear simmering as they apply themselves to the Covid recipe with the ingredients of lockdowns and jabs, border closures and dramatic announcements of ‘clusters’.

With fear, comes obedience. The mask signals the frightened but good citizen’s compliance with the ongoing public health tyranny. Wear a mask and you show that you care, that, yes, ‘we are all in this together’, all part of a great collective striving of humanity and not at all like those selfish, rightwing individualists, those irresponsible, anti-social Covid-Deniers, anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, anti-testers, illegal party-goers, border-hoppers and other social deviants. The mask separates the rule-followers from the rule-breakers, the robots from the miscreants who stray from the approved script and who can thus be isolated from the herd and pilloried and persecuted.

Masks are symbols of subordination to arbitrary ‘rules’ and surrender by citizens of their rights and freedoms, a submission which the Covid rulers require so that they can continue to exercise their power over those citizens.  Masks normalise the New Normal, every minute of the day, dramatising and reinforcing the Covid-induced shift in the balance of power between, on the one hand, citizens and their (much-abused but still extant) democracy to, on he other hand, unaccountable ‘emergency’ rule by a political elite, who were always irritated by popular democracy (Brexit!  Trump!!) and their goody-two-shoes ‘public health’ auxiliaries.

If you were a member of the ruling class and you wanted to devise a strategy to turn citizen into subject, it would be hard to go past the mask during a ‘public health emergency’. The mask is an ever-present reminder that we should remain in a state of existential terror and thus duly obedient to the commands of our rulers. ‘But it’s just a mask!’, a ‘minor inconvenience’, say the muzzlies, trying to shame the bare-faced and critical-minded into wearing the face-rag but the mask is nothing of the sort. The mask renders the wearer a non-communicative, expressionless, atomised, less-than-human automaton displaying political subservience to, and blind faith in, unaccountable elites.

The mask is an essential adjunct to the lockdown as the only responsible course of action in the face of an alleged apocalyptic threat instead of the panicked, futile social and economic catastrophe that lockdown was. Or, as the slightly maverick US leftist satirist, Bill Maher, succinctly and irreverently has put it, “sometimes I think we have to cover our faces so other people can cover their arses”.

Masks – The Theatre of the Absurd

The mask is enjoying a record-breaking run as the latest attraction in the public health Theatre of the Absurd.  The Australian state government Public Health Orders meant to dignify the mask can not hide the self-evidently ludicrous nature of governmental mask wearing directives. For those under the heel of the mask mandate, and who haven’t succumbed to Covid hysteria, every time you leave your front door you are seemingly teleported onto Planet Zog, which looks uncannily like Earth but with humanoids roaming the landscape with a weird blue splotch where their mouth and nose used to be.

Walk through your local shopping centre and ponder the sight of upright people correctly attired with face-mask whilst, sometimes barely a foot away from them, will be the Chosen People, the seated imbibers of food and beverages, who, because they are eating or drinking, will be exempt from mask wearing.  The dumb ol’ virus apparently knows only how to infect the standing, at a certain height above sea level, and who, therefore, need to be masked but it can be easily foiled if we are sitting down and feeding our gob. That person is safe from the virus.

Or, to be doubly sure of avoiding viral death, sometimes you must mask up between mouthfuls to keep out the cleverer virus which waits for just the opportunity of an open but foodless mouth. At least bit of cheap comedy provides a nice loophole for those canny enough to bend the ‘rules’ by making a bottle of water or bag of peanuts last for an entire plane trip, for example. 

In Victoria, there is a astute state Premier who ‘keeps us safe’ by ‘allowing’ us to remove our mask to drink coffee on the street but decrees it to be a fineable offence to do so to drink alcohol on the street. In New South Wales, a mask is required everywhere unless exercising but people walking their dogs have been fined for not wearing their own muzzles if the activity isn’t deemed by police to be ‘strenuous’ enough. Queensland’s health minister, Yvette D’Ath, however, was taking absolutely no chances back in January 2021 when, despite the risk of outdoor viral transmission being practically zero, she ordered Brisbane residents to wear a mask every single time they left their home including when walking, cycling or even driving alone in a car. They can get away with this sort of nonsensical order because they have power and we don’t, and the mask validates this for all concerned.

Meanwhile, the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra, along with many other cultural institutions, goes full medical apartheid, banning attendance by people who are not ‘vaccinated’ but undermines the whole, rationale of the vaxx by requiring the double-jabbed to wear masks for the whole performance. The audience is expected to be grateful for such ‘treats’ as these from the Before Times even if it involves claustrophobia from a piece of fabric over the mouth and nose.

All the elaborate mask voodoo is so obviously nuts but its public acceptance demonstrates the stunning effectiveness of the ideological power of the Covid state, backed by police powers, to conjure up a baseless, fear-inducing ‘public health emergency’ to get people to suspend their usually robust scepticism and irreverence towards elite authority figures and to, instead, invest their unquestioning trust in the public health ‘expert’ just because they have ‘Professor’ in front of their name, or M.D. after it.

Most people go along with it, however, less from a genuine belief in the mask than from a profound psychological need to believe in the mask, to believe that they are being fed good coin on the threat of Covid and the necessity of the lockdown/vaxx/mask policy response. Otherwise, the recognition that the Covid authorities don’t really know what they are doing, that their authoritarian, draconian and byzantine rules are ridiculous, that they are not ‘following medical advice’ (getting blood out of a stone is easier than getting the ‘medical advice’ their decisions are allegedly based on), that they are just hamming it up with histrionic pressers and melodramatic propaganda to inflate the fear, would embarrass the victims of the masking/lockdown fraud into conceding that they had been taken for a ride all along. Psychologically, that is difficult for people to accept. Recognising that all the misery of the last eighteen months hasn’t been worth it, that we were too gullible, too ready to surrender our civil liberties, to sacrifice our personal freedoms and to vandalise the economy and our children’s future, would be too much to bear.

The authorities running the Covid show also have a deep inner need for reaffirmation of the power they wield, of the control they exercise over the public by normalising the mask as an unquestioned fact of daily life to ‘defeat Covid’.  If they were to be called-out as public health shamans, the CHOs and CMOs of the world would lose their hold over the public mind and would have to slink back, in personal and reputational disgrace, to bureaucratic obscurity. Their coevals, the state premiers, would then revert back to political ordinariness, their stellar, Covid-based approval ratings plummeting back to the bog-ordinary. Getting everyone to behave like trained seals by wearing pointless masks helps to get them to obey every other nonsensical order during our politicians’ contemporary salad days of unrestrained Covid power.

With the mask, we are engaging in a contemporary experimental replication, on a global scale, of three of the time-honoured classics from the academic discipline of psychology – B. F. Skinner on conditioning, Solomon Asch on conformity and Stanley Milgram on obedience – and finding out that there is nothing new under the psychological sun, and that our Covid overlords are, consciously or sub-consciously, exploiting this for all they are worth.

Everyone in the Covid tragi-comic farce – the authors, the principal players, the spear-carriers – has too much of themselves emotionally invested in being right to be able to easily pull the pin on the mask lest the whole Covid compliance show comes crashing down to bitter reviews.

The Left and the Mask, or Comrade Strangelove: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Mask

Just as the contemporary ‘Left’ has been smitten with lockdown, the curtailment of civil liberties, the expansion of state authoritarianism, and state and Big Tech censorship, it comes as no surprise that the Left is deeply in love with the mask.  Every left-organised protest rally, against anything other than lockdown (which fully meets their support), now features masked (and dutifully socially-distanced) protestors. When the Left obsequiously wears the state-sanctioned mask at its public protests, this signals that the Left is fully compliant with official Covid propaganda and the hare-brained and damaging policy response that flows from it. These leftist rebels are missing the huge, elephant-sized, cause in the room – Covid hysteria and disastrous policy overreaction.

The Left is loathe to be seen as ‘anti-mask’ because that would be to challenge their self-image as the ‘party of Science’ helping to keep the people safe. When ordinary people suffering under lockdown and the threat of compulsory, experimental medical procedure, took to the streets a couple of months ago in Australia to oppose their plight, the large, boisterous rallies were, predictably, covered with hostility by the lockdown-fanatical, Zero-Covid-zealous Green Left Weekly (for which I used to write until their Covid balls got to be too much to be associated with) which managed to combine caricature (the demonstrators were, quote, “flag-waving racist neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, anti-vaxxers, anti-testers, members of the religious right, people flying the Eureka flag, people who don’t think COVID-19 is real [and other conspiracy theories] and self-proclaimed ‘libertarians’”) with condescension (the rally organisers were “exploiting the pain and anger of  some plain angry, stressed out folk worrying more about their dire economic situation than concern about infecting their family or community”). Nice to see GLW not being shy about their real view of  ‘plain folk’ (too dumb to understand the real threat they face is from a virus with a fatality rate of 0.02%) and not its job-destroying, futile policy response) but they could have just used the all-purpose smear word of ‘deplorables’ for working class people they disagree with and left it at that.

GLW’s anguish was palpable when considering some of the woke left’s favourite constituents amongst the protestors – the young, migrants, Pacific Islanders (“possibly from the fundamentalist Christian wing”, GLW adds dismissively) and women (GLW being especially discombobulated by the trifecta of “young women wearing Middle Eastern headscarves”). ‘How could you!?’, is the subtext – after all we’ve done for you, championing your victimhood, and you repay us by acting irresponsibly, congregating maskless in public and, like Louis the Fly, spreading disease with the greatest of ease. Protesting workers from the restive suburbs of the capital cities, beyond the chic inner-city haunts of the woke left, were patronised for being “conned” into a “confused and random act of rebellion”.

GLW’s antagonism to the lockdown protests is no surprise, really, because the slogans of ‘What do we want?  Lockdown!  When do we want it?  Forever!’, or ‘Zero Covid Now!’, or ‘Jabs for All!’, or ‘1, 2, 3, 4 We Demand Masks For Ever More’ would have struck a jarring note if the Left, which has ‘cut and run’ from the greatest political battle (lockdown) of recent decades, had deigned to join the protest against freedom-restricting, job-killing lockdowns.

When there was a ‘second wave’ of even larger protests in August, with riot police firing rubber bullets and teargas and calling out the dog squads and mounted divisions, the ‘Left’ was otherwise engaged by masking up for a ‘Covid Safe’ vigil for Afghan refugees. Hey, guys, there is an assault on freedom and civil liberties right on your doorstep being waged by lockdown fundamentalists, ‘vaccine’-mandaters, democracy-deniers and curfew-imposers (Sydney’s curfew starts a whole hour earlier than even the Taliban’s 10pm curfew) who compel women and men to cover their faces on pain of arrest and stiff financial penalty.

In the same manner, GLW’s support for the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020 during lockdown was self-justified because it was ‘Covid Safe’, unlike the anti-lockdown protests of 2021 which GLW condemned for being “un-masked and [where] people did not space themselves out” (and, if GLW were to be up-front about it, for backing the ‘wrong’ cause).

A century ago, when the Left had real, organic class roots, it was different. In the US, during the 1918-19 ‘Spanish’ flu, the US Public Health Service and the Red Cross recommended mask use by all citizens as a civic duty and many states and counties made them mandatory, backed by fines and jail time for any maskless miscreants but the mask laws were unpopular. Workers complained that masks were uncomfortable to wear all day. San Francisco streetcar conductors threatened strike action (forcing a watering down of the city’s masking orders). Seattle’s streetcar conductors refused to turn away unmasked passengers. There was widespread non-compliance which sometimes turned into defiance – in January 1919 in San Francisco, an Anti-Mask League organised large protests against masks because of their ineffectiveness, their unconstitutional infringement of civil liberties, the heavy-handed policing of mask orders, and the hypocrisy of state officials who flagrantly flouted their own rules.

Leading the Anti-Mask League was the working class suffragist and American Federation of Labour union activist, Emma Harrington, supported by a former mayor of San Francisco, Eugene Schmitz, the president of the Musician’s Union and founder of the Union Labor Party. They saw the mask as an attempt to discipline the working class into compliance with the state’s mandates to enforce ineffective and harmful mask-wearing under the guise of public health.

That was then, however, and this is now. Now, the New South Wales Rail, Tram and Bus Union threatens a strike (in August 2020) by Sydney’s bus drivers unless masks were made compulsory for passengers. Today’s left, and the unions, have now joined the screenwriter team for the B-grade production of Comrade Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Mask but without the darkly satirical intent of the brilliant Kubrick/Sellers’ Dr. Strangelove: Or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

Conclusion

There is a dismayingly wide field of contenders for the title of the single most obnoxious aspect of the whole misbegotten Covid saga. How about the economically-ruinous and serenity-destroying lockdown? Or the discriminatory ‘vaccine’ passport?  Or the industrial-strength assault on civil liberties?  Or the padlocked international borders and the ‘Papers, Please!’ Checkpoint Charlies on our internal borders?  Or the privacy-invading, population-monitoring, public loyalty Covid ritual, QR, track-and-trace sign-in code on every venue (and most states are firmly wedded to pointless contact-tracing)? Or the mass testing of the asymptomatic (i.e. healthy) with a clinically meaningless PCR test that is replete with false positives, is unable to diagnose actual illness and which can’t even tell the difference between ordinary flu and the coronavirus that causes Covid?

All of these have very strong claims but for sheer, literal, in-your-face loathsomeness, it is the intellectually infantilising, politically enfeebling, futile, filthy face-rag that is in a class of its own.

 

 Source: Left Lockdown Sceptics

 

 

"Chilling Bigly" by James Howard Kunstler

Chilling Bigly

---

Is it so, as some wags say, that industry no longer makes money; only finance does? That’s been the operating theory for much of the West lately. Of course, that invites the question: what then is finance supposed to finance… that is, put money into? Why… industry, of course, and in the broadest sense of the word: the production of goods… goods being things that have value (that’s what‘s good about them). How quaint! But most of the industry that used to be here has gone to other lands.

What about all that money (capital) flowing into technology: Facebook, Google, Amazon? Hmmmm. What does Facebook produce, besides conflict between its users? Okay, it harvests data about them to sell to advertisers. And what are the advertisers advertising? Their products. Who produces the products? Mostly those people in other lands. Facebook users, then, are increasingly not employed, at least not in the production of goods. Perhaps in services like nursing, trucking, garbage pickup, food prep, police, firemen, prison guards, government bureaucracy (is that a service or a dis-service?) and et cetera.

Anyway, those service people are being fired left-and-right now because they refuse to be coerced into taking a vaccine that was never properly tested and has many scary side-effects. By the way, as of Sunday, the “newspaper-of-record” (The New York Times) finally had to come clean, after months of whistling past the graveyard, and admit what the public already knows: mRNA vaccines are dangerous:

While we’re on the subject, what does Google produce? Supposedly, answers to questions, plus, like Facebook, it harvests information about the people who ask the questions and then sells the info, blah blah. And whutabout Amazon? Don’t they sell a lot of products? Yeah, mostly produced by those people in other lands. What Amazon really produces is a phenomenal amount of motion — trucks going hither and thither, at increasing cost now as the price of gasoline and diesel fuel shoots up. To me, that looks like a problem for Amazon’s business model. Another problem is the growing number of people without gainful employment who have little money to buy stuff from Amazon, wherever it comes from.

That last problem has been papered-over for two years by “helicopter money” from the federal government — direct payment to the people for doing nothing, producing neither goods nor services. This has been an impressive trick. The money comes from nowhere and for nothing. The trick is based on simple accounting fraud. The second law of thermodynamics, a.k.a. entropy, suggests that eventually this process will degrade the value of the money (or “money”) issued by the fraudsters.

The hand in play for the moment is the spending legislation proposed by “Joe Biden.” It would generate a whole helluva lot more helicopter money from nowhere for nothing, and would theoretically keep the game going a little bit longer — except the process will only generate more unwanted entropy, causing decay in the value of that “money” and canceling the desired effect of spreading it around. That’s called inflation. If the value of money drops hard and fast, that is called hyperinflation. It would be politically and socially devastating, and probably lead to the downfall of the government. The net effect would be a nation bankrupt at all levels and that will segue into an epic economic depression.

If the legislation doesn’t get passed, the USA will perhaps skip the hyperinflationary intermezzo and move straight into a deflationary depression, which is what you get when nobody has any money. When that happens, especially in a system with money actually based on debt-creation, debts do not get paid (mortgages, car payments, credit cards, perhaps even coupons on US Treasury bonds), and when debts are not paid, money disappears. Poof! No money! It’s a vicious cycle. The more money disappears the more money keeps disappearing. None of this bodes well for the winter ahead.

Add to that the growing breakdown in global trade operations. Even many of those goods produced in other lands aren’t making it to the docks, and the reduced flow of goods that happened to already land on the docks can’t get unloaded and delivered to its various destinations because of disruptions in the US trucking sector. To some degree, those disruptions are caused by bonehead government regulations, especially in California, where most of the stuff from Asia lands. The bonehead regulations (like, outlawing trucks more than three years old) can be thought of as typical government “dis-services.”

Now add to that the rising cost of oil, natural gas, and coal — the global economy’s primary resources — and disruptions in the industries that produce these vital resources and you’ve got another layer of disorder being introduced into the system (entropy again). For the moment, government propaganda tries to divert your attention to a possible shortage of Christmas presents as the nation’s main concern. Don’t be fooled. It’s more about total systemic economic breakdown, as in US citizens having no heat and no food. Also, no gasoline and no parts for fixing broken cars (and trucks).

Do you suppose the capital markets will keep rising as all this spins out? I would suppose that the capital markets will lose 80 to 90 percent of their value when all is said and done. The fabled “One Percent” will finally feel the pain that was previously distributed among the rest of us. Don’t make the mistake of thinking the One Percent can control the situation. They are mere Wizards of Oz, barfing into their laptops. If working-from-home wasn’t a thing, they’d be jumping out of windows on Wall Street.

It’s a grim outlook, I admit, but you could see it coming over the horizon from a thousand miles away. Where I differ from other observers is that I doubt that any sort of extreme government surveillance state can be imposed on the public under these conditions. The people will be too pissed-off and, anyway, the current regime will be broke and out of mojo — possibly to the degree that it has to be shoved aside. “Let’s Go Brandon” is serious business. It’s the end of something.

In the background lurks this virus thing, and the insane vaccination program it prompted. We know that people have been harmed by the vaccinations, but not how many people altogether will be affected moving forward. The possibility, though, is for a nation both broke and sick struggling to get through a dark passage of history. Stay nimble, stay local, stay reality-based, be helpful, be honest, be brave, and be kind to each other. We’ll get through it.

 

Source: Clusterfuck Nation

 

"The jab makes it EASIER for the virus to spread – who will stop this madness?" by Neville Hodgkinson

 

The jab makes it EASIER for the virus to spread – who will stop this madness?

By Neville Hodgkinson

November 1, 2021

 

 

 

I’VE tried to step back from reporting on Covid, but just can’t. It is becoming too obvious that our leaders are in denial about the ineffectiveness of the experimental vaccine they are pushing, the harm it is causing and the potential for harm that lies ahead. This isn’t a time for statistical games. This is a matter of life and death.

The madness keeps getting worse. The Government is putting children’s lives and health at unnecessary risk by driving them into being vaccinated, even though they have high levels of natural immunity to the virus.

This is despite a growing body of evidence that the vaccine impedes the development of natural immunity, and may make those who receive it more vulnerable to virus variants than the unvaccinated.

Could this be why several countries, including the UK, are experiencing higher rates of infection in vaccinated people than in the unvaccinated?

When the newly formed UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) – perhaps not yet fully integrated into the official propaganda machine – published data to this effect (now removed!) it found itself lambasted in the press, which has for the most part blindly supported the vaccine drive from the start. Cambridge statistician David Spiegelhalter was reported as complaining that the data was ‘simply an artefact’ due to inappropriate population estimates, but was ‘material for conspiracy theorists around the world’.

The agency itself warned that the figures could easily be misinterpreted, because of differences between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. But as the indefatigable analyst Dr Will Jones pointed out, if there are biases that need adjusting, we should do that rather than smear those who raise the questions.

The mechanism through which the jab itself may be contributing to higher SARS-CoV-2 infections has to do with a phenomenon spelled out in this post by ‘Eugyppius’, an expert commentator based in Germany, as well as in this TrialSiteNews article published last week.

It is known as ‘Original Antigenic Sin’, or OAS. It means in a nutshell that the first time we are exposed to a disease agent, such as a virus, the response of the body’s immune system shapes how we deal with modified forms of the same pathogen – such as virus variants – when we meet them later.  

With Covid, the vaccines we have seen so far target a single part of the virus, the famous spike protein. That is in sharp contrast to what happens when we meet the virus naturally. In the latter case, the infection provokes production of antibodies against a range of virus proteins, including the spike but also one called the nucleocapsid or N-protein. This plays a key role in the virus’s life cycle. So, people who mount a successful immune response to the infection subsequently enjoy much better protection than the merely vaccinated.

The problem goes still deeper: when those who have had the jab are exposed to the natural infection, their antibodies focus on the spike protein with which they were originally inoculated. If that has changed in the meantime, it becomes much easier for the virus to bypass the immune defences – ‘potentially for good, and in billions of people’, as Eugyppius gloomily comments.

His speculation is supported by a recent Journal of Infection article finding just that kind of mechanism at work. People who receive a vaccine based on the spike protein of the original Wuhan virus produce antibodies which limit protection, and even enhance infection, when they are exposed to the Delta strain.  

To assess how many people have developed natural infection, public health experts in England have been measuring Covid antibodies in blood donors. Immunity towards the N-protein has been rising very slowly, and is especially low – around 5-15 per cent – in the most heavily vaccinated age groups. In contrast, antibodies to the spike protein – elicited both by vaccines and infection – have reached 96 per cent.

‘If our vaccines were pre-programming the immune response to focus only on the spike protein, this is what that would look like,’ Eugyppius says.

The UKHSA clearly states that recent surveillance data show the N antibody levels ‘appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following two doses of vaccination’.    

Eygyppius comments: ‘Thus the report authors are compelled to admit that prior vaccination inhibits anti-N antibodies’ – that is, the most protective antibody response.

He goes on: ‘The universal vaccination campaign has coincided with a marked increase in the volatility of corona and vast changes to regional and temporal patterns of infection. For the first time, SARS-2 has departed from the seasonality observed by other human coronaviruses. Official discourse has laid all of this at the feet of the Delta variant, but it is very doubtful even the scientists and bureaucrats responsible for this line really believe it.  

‘Mass vaccination has drastically altered the environment in which SARS-2 circulates. This was always expected to change the behaviour of the virus – just not in this precise way. In return for only limited protection against severe outcomes, the vaccines appear to encourage the spread of SARS-2 in multiple different ways. In continuing to insist on mass vaccination, our public health bureaucrats are doing the bidding of the virus. There is no other way to look at it.’ 

With infections in the vaccinated continuing to outpace infections in the unvaccinated by ever greater amounts, he writes, ‘it’s just no longer credible to claim that this is a statistical error’.

Eugyppius remains anonymous, probably because of working in academia or medical science, where the climate of opinion is such as to try to silence those who challenge the wisdom of the global vaccination drive.

We know now that short-term protection against Covid, as seen during a few weeks following the jab, does not continue. This is why booster shots are given. With even three jabs proving inadequate, a fourth dose is currently proposed for vulnerable Americans. 

The Prime Minister, speaking to reporters on a visit to a Covid vaccination centre, gave us a welcome dose of honesty when he said double vaccination does not protect against catching the disease, or passing it on. He nevertheless insisted that it provides ‘a lot of protection against serious illness and death’.

But is that true?  Not according to this report, again from TrialSiteNews. It finds that as of October 10, death rates from Covid are higher, following the vaccine rollouts, in 70 per cent of 178 countries for which data could be obtained. And in the USA and other countries around the world, deaths from all causes are higher than they were in 2020, before the rollouts began.

Leaving aside risks of a mass failure of the vaccine in the longer term through ‘Original Antigenic Sin’, thousands of deaths have been reported globally in the immediate wake of vaccination. That is despite a ‘head-in-the-sand’ attitude over the link among many doctors and hospital authorities, suggesting the actual figures may be a lot higher.

We are repeatedly told that these deaths are mostly among older people, who may have died anyway from unrelated conditions. But regulators have done little to investigate the true causes, even when they reached record-breaking levels such as during the early jab drive in Gibraltar last January.

People who have seen friends or relatives die in front of them often have no doubt about the cause. You may have seen the Testimonies Project, from Israel, featured here at TCW. Please also take a look at this harrowing account, In Loving Memory of Sue. It’s a simple story, told by Sue’s best friend, of how a woman’s body ate itself up in the wake of the jab. And here a ten-year-old tells a public gathering of Stephen, found dead in bed a week after his second dose.

In America, with whom our health officials seem bound in some unholy alliance, children as young as five are now destined to be inoculated. Will our five-year-olds be next? Is there anyone out there with the power to stop this insanity?

 

Source: TCW

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The ‘Hidden Curriculum’ of the Face-Mask Part 1" by Phil Shannon

 

The ‘Hidden Curriculum’ of the Face-Mask Part 1

 

 Left Lockdown Sceptics is meeting in London on 13th November! Find out more and register to attend here.

We’re pleased to publish the first part of another significant article from Left Lockdown Sceptics correspondent Phil Shannon, who writes from Australia. You can read Phil’s other contributions here, such as his ‘Have you had your jab yet?’ which has been read over 4,000 times. This post was also published by Phil on his Medium blog.

Introduction

School teachers of a certain chronological, and political, vintage, like myself, were quite taken in the 1970s by the theory of two US Marxist sociology academics, Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis, that schooling was primarily about teaching obedience to authority – what they called the ‘hidden curriculum’ – which was essential to preparing the student to graduate from obeying Sir to obeying their future employer and the capitalist state. Only coincidentally was schooling about teaching literacy, numeracy and critical thinking skills and I must say that my early career experience as a high school English and Maths teacher convincingly confirmed the Bowles and Gintis hypothesis that the pedagogical sub-text of obedience to authority was the key lesson being taught.

As with the hidden curriculum of teaching, so, too, is there a hidden agenda behind the weird fetish for the face-mask in the Covid/lockdown era. Ostensibly to contain the spread of a killer virus, the real purpose of wearing a face-mask is to signify obedience to medico-political authority.  Do as you are told – stay home, keep six feet apart, wear a face-rag, get a jab – it’s all about acquiescing, like some feudal serf, to the power and ‘majesty’ of the political and public health technocratic elite. And, above all, not questioning that elite’s disastrous, unscientific decision to push the big lockdown self-destruct button in response to a quite run-of-the-mill virus which has a flu-like mortality profile for the already highly vulnerable but which is experienced as a mild-moderate cold, if at all, to everyone else.

As the most publicly ostentatious symbol of the Covid era power relationship between the politically-approved public health ‘expert’ caste and the unquestioning citizen, the mask is the most visible emblem of individual and mass compliance with the hegemonic, fear-based Covid/lockdown agenda and the power of those behind it.

Masks don’t work!

Face-masks don’t work. This used to be the scientific consensus – before the Covid-deranged ‘experts’ dived off the deep-end into the mass delusional psychosis that erupted with the corona panic in early 2020. The few studies that had previously found some benefit of masks in controlling the spread of a virus had been either rickety computer models, crude observational studies with no control group or narrow mechanistic laboratory simulations bearing no relation to real world mask use, whilst, for each one of these studies which found that masks ‘work’ against viruses, there were dozens that found no such thing.  

Concerning the influenza virus, a comprehensive meta-analysis of fourteen Randomised Control Trials [RCT] (the real-world, gold-standard for experimental studies) of face-mask efficacy in community settings, conducted by researchers from the University of Hong Kong in May 2020, found that eleven of these fourteen showed no effect at all of the mask in reducing flu incidence whilst the three studies that did find something yielded results that were not statistically significant. Other studies and reviews (such as by researchers from the University of Illinois, for example) have found no support for the efficacy of either cloth or surgical masks against viruses.

The bare cupboard of empirical support for the mask led responsible health institutions, before the corona madness had fully set in, to give short shrift to their efficacy.  A New England Journal of Medicine editorial, for example, concluded that, for unmasked people in the community, “the chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is minimal” because “significant exposure to Covid-19” only occurs with “face-to-face contact within six feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 20 minutes)”.  The motive for masking-up against Covid, they said, has nothing to do with actual public health outcomes but is merely psychological, “a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic” – the mask is pure placebo, in other words.

The Centres for Disease Control (CDC), the US government agency responsible for monitoring and managing Covid and which is now fully aligned with the political agenda of statistically inflating the Covid Menace (and neutering the harms of the Covid ‘vaccines’), had, in its more politically neutral days, no illusions about masks, concluding that, in the case of the influenza virus, “masks in everyday life have no or very little effect on mitigating the annual flu epidemic”.  The mask, therefore, can not save anyone from infection with the flu, or other respiratory virus, or stop them from spreading it. In July 2020, even at the height of mask mania, the CDC retained some vestige of integrity by reporting that 85% of people who developed symptoms of Covid ‘always’ (71%) or ‘often’ (14%) had worn a cloth mask in the fourteen days preceding their illness.

Before they got their new riding orders, old-school public health bureaucrats had brushed aside the useless mask. In Australia, the federal Department of Health’s Infection Control Expert Group still, now, after all the Covid hysteria and manically askew policy response, says that evidence for the efficacy of cloth masks is “limited, indirect, experimental”, thus “the general use of masks in the community is not recommended”. In February, 2020, the-then-US-Surgeon-General, Jerome Adams, tweeted, with evident frustration, “Seriously people—STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching Coronavirus” (Adams has, of course, since deleted this embarrassing deviation from current mask orthodoxy, apparently unaware that the Internet never forgets).

Even the US Covid Svengali, Anthony Fauci, the attention-seeking director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and saboteur-in-Chief of the lockdown-wary then-President Donald Trump, had said, in the very early days of the developing corona lunacy, that masks were useless comfort-blankets: “there is no reason to be walking around with a mask”, he said in February 2020 – they “might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is”.

Other correct-line Covid ‘experts’, like the University of Minnesota’s Professor Michael Osterholm, when advisor to then-President-elect Biden, have also committed mask heresy (on today’s terms), the celebrity expert saying “we know today that many of the face-cloth coverings that people wear are not very effective in reducing any of the virus movement in or out”. This, too, has been Memory-Holed but what was said was said.

The UK’s health authorities were on the same page back in February 2020: even for staff providing residential health and aged care, “during normal day-to-day activities, facemasks do not provide protection from respiratory viruses, such as COVID-19 and do not need to be worn by staff”. Their official guidance for retail establishments in July 2020, even at a time when the government was mandating masks for indoor use, was that “it is important to know that the evidence of the benefit of using a face-covering to protect others is weak and the effect is likely to be small”. A study of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory virus mitigation measures in primary schools in the UK over three months at the end of 2020 found that face-mask use by teachers “was not associated with lower odds of school COVID-19 cases” (indeed, wearing a face-mask correlated positively with “higher self-reported cold symptoms”).

The largest RCT, specifically concerning SARS-CoV-2 incidence (amongst other respiratory viral diseases), conducted in Denmark, compared outcomes between three thousand mask-using adults and three thousand mask-free adults, with each group going about their daily lives for thirty days, and confirmed that even the better quality surgical-type masks (which were the mask type trialled in the study) are rubbish, with 53 of the bare-faced (2.1%) contracting Covid (as measured by PCR test and clinically confirmed by antibody testing and hospital diagnosis where applicable) compared to 42 (1.8%) of the maskers, a soupçon of difference of just eleven fewer ‘cases’ out of 3,000 subjects. In the best statistical light for the pro-maskers, the (misleading) Relative Risk Reduction between the masked and the unmasked was a deeply unimpressive 21% and the (far more meaningful) Absolute Risk Reduction was a miniscule, and statistically insignificant, 0.4% (or sweet FA, in plain English). Scrupulous use of the mask didn’t make an iota of difference, either – of those who reported always wearing their face-mask ‘exactly as instructed’ (such as ‘if you touch it, change it’ or ‘if it becomes moist, change it’), 2% got Covid compared to 2.1% who never wore a mask. For mask zealots, these results are nothing to pop the champagne cork for.

To rub salt into the statistical wound, the Denmark study also looked at eleven other respiratory viruses (including the common cold) and struggled to find a Tally-Ho’s worth of difference for any of these, with 0.5% of the masked testing positive for other respiratory viruses compared to 0.6% of the unmasked (control) group. 

If these results remind us of any other Covid intervention studies, it is with the (unblinded and now prematurely ended) clinical trials of the experimental and fast-tracked Covid ‘vaccines’ where the vaxx was found to reduce your chance of getting Covid by barely 1% in real-world, Absolute Risk Reduction, terms. So, it looks like even the superior, but still pathetically ineffective, surgical-type face-mask (which no one wears in the community) is about as (un)useful as the Covid ‘vaccines’.

The bog-ordinary cloth mask performs even more poorly than the surgical mask. An RCT of 1,600 health care workers in high-risk wards in fourteen hospitals in Hanoi over four weeks in 2015 found that ‘influenza-like illness’ (ILI) was thirteen times higher for the cloth-masked (2.28% contracting an ILI) compared to the surgical-masked (0.17% getting an ILI). Combine the results of the Hanoi and the Denmark RCTs, and the cloth mask comes out around one-thirteenth as (non)effective as even the best surgical mask.

A hot-off-the-press, Yale University RCT of mask use by 300,000 people in 600 villages in rural Bangladesh (funded by a liberal NGO, Poverty Action, who apparently see themselves as mask missionaries to the world, it leads off with “our objectives were to identify strategies that can persistently increase mask-wearing”) found no statistically significant benefit for cloth-mask-wearing villages (7.6% of villagers reporting ‘Covid-like symptoms’) compared with non-masking villages (8.6%). Antibody testing on a sample of villagers found 0.68% of the mask-wearing villagers had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (thus having acquired the relevant infection some time previously) compared with 0.76% in the non-masking control villages. Leaving aside the methodological flaws of this study, these are not exactly results that will blow anyone’s skirt up.

As William M. Briggs, a right-leaning but invaluable statistician unfazed by any of the usual statistical Covid flim-flammery, concludes, “masks reduce seroprevalence of Covid antibodies in the population by 0.0026%. At best.  Since seroprevalence is not a direct measure of disease severity, and we know only a fraction of those with the bug become seriously ill, even fewer than that ‘at best’ 0.0026% are protected against actual illness, of any severity. No better than, say, a reduction of 1%, on average, across all ages become seriously ill or die. So mask protection against serious illness is 0.000026%”.

The cloth mask in rural Bangladesh comprehensively failed and any positive, virus-foiling effect for the surgical mask in the villages is both miniscule and statistically weak. The Bangladesh results do nothing to justify forcing people to wear a mask against any virus, let alone one that spares 99.8% of the population who meet the definition of a clinical infection from it and which only poses a life-ending threat to the comorbid vulnerable, already at or beyond average life expectancy, as any number of respiratory viruses routinely do.

All the mask trials and experiments discussed above attest to the epic fail of the virus protection capabilities of the humble cloth mask. These are complemented by international and intra-national comparisons between mask-mandated and mask-free jurisdictions which show that face-masks do not affect the natural, bell-curve trajectory of the coronavirus whose “infections have been driven primarily by seasonal and endemic factors, whereas mask mandates and lockdowns have had no discernible impact”, concludes Swiss Policy Research from its compilation of such comparative studies. In one study by the CDC of America’s 3,142 counties in the last ten months of 2020, for example, the three quarters of those counties which were subject to government mask mandates barely registered a blip (1.3%) in ‘reduction in the rate of increase’ in Covid ‘cases’ in the hundred days after the mandate was implemented compared to those counties that didn’t muzzle up. This is random statistical noise territory.

Cross-cultural analyses also show that mask-wearing norms (particularly in Asian countries) have no impact on virus spread. Despite its ubiquitous use of masks (against viruses and/or pollution), Japan, for example, still experienced its most recent strong influenza wave in January/February 2019. In mask-diligent China, the face-rags did nothing to stem the initial coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan in 2019.

Mask usage during previous pandemics also offers no joy to the pro-maskers. The 1918 ‘Spanish’ flu pandemic saw the widespread use of cloth (gauze) masks (and even cotton handkerchiefs) and these showed no beneficial results against contracting the flu (unsurprisingly, given the porous nature of cloth/gauze masks, as was known at the time). Stockton (in California), for example, made masking compulsory for one month, and Boston (Massachusetts) didn’t, yet both cities showed the familiar, carbon-copy, dome-shape of virus progression, with bare-faced Boston actually showing better results with a lower flu mortality rate (John M. Barry, The Great Influenza). Even the Covid-compliant Washington Post has succinctly said “everyone wore masks during the 1918 flu pandemic. They were useless” – but that was in April 2020, before they found out that Trump was agin’ ‘em and they thus changed their tune on masks.

The WHO, pre-Covid, knew all about the uselessness of the mask against a virus, declaring, as late as December 2019, that “there is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2”. The WHO’s Health Emergencies Program executive director was adamant, saying, in March 2020, “there is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any particular benefit”.  Both the common cloth-mask and the surgical mask were not designed to act as virus filters, he added.

Who else doesn’t believe masks do a damn thing against a virus?  How about the leaders of the G7 where the masks came off for a private party but went straight back on for the public photo-shoot.  Or Nancy Pelosi (bare-faced in her hairdresser’s salon where masks were mandatory).  Or the Great Fauci himself (bare-faced at the baseball when he thought he was off-camera). Or Barak Obama (partying with naked visage at his 60^th birthday bash – everyone virtuously double-jabbed, to be sure, but, small problem: the CDC’s latest mask policy pirouette had specified that even the ‘fully-vaccinated’ must mask up). Or any number of political and health supremoes who, judging by their hypocritical behaviour, don’t believe a word of what they mandate for the plebs.

Many mask-mandating governments don’t believe in the technical bona fides of the masks they prescribe. Some government health websites still promote the homemade mask (the UK advocates fashioning one from an old T-shirt, whilst the Australian government’s Department of Health also promotes the DIY approach) but the flimsy (to a virus) common household materials used for these (even cheesecloth, if you really want to take the piss), not to mention any holes made by sewing needle or pin, are an open invitation to any virus. 

In light of all the evidence on masks, you would do just as well at warding off the bad corona juju with your rabbit’s foot or other lucky charm, or making the sign of the cross when entering the supermarket, as you would by slipping your mask on.

Why masks don’t work

So, why don’t masks work? 

Invisible to all but the most powerful electron microscope, your typical virus (coronavirus, influenza, etc.), is around 0.125 microns in diameter, one six hundredth the size of the thinnest strand of human hair.  The microscopically tiny virus is one thousand times smaller than even the tiniest of gaps in the standard supermarket-issue cloth mask.  Even the very best quality surgical-type mask has a minimum 0.3 micron filter, two and a half times larger than the virus.  Lesser quality, but more common, surgical masks have gaping, to a virus, holes averaging 2-10 microns, sixteen to eighty times the size of a virus.

Viruses are tiny but the respiratory virus’ preferred mode of transport is via the larger aerosols, the invisible spray of moisture that we release every time we talk or breathe (the heavier and larger droplets we give off when coughing or sneezing generally fall quickly to ground and out of harm’s way to a nearby person) and which circulate in the air, especially in poorly-ventilated, enclosed indoor spaces where people end up breathing the same air whether they are within spitting or sneezing distance of each other or not. Pro-maskers seize on the fact that the mask can waylay any virus hitching a ride on the much bigger aerosol but they ignore the fact of evaporation – within seconds or, at most, a few minutes, depending on humidity and other micro-climate factors, any virus temporarily halted by the mask will ditch its watery transport to waltz straight through, or out, the porous mesh of the mask.

There are even greater virus super-highways around the mask. Beards, pimples and other mountainous skin blemishes are gaping chasms, between ill-fitting mask and skin, to a virus. Oh, and the mucous membranes in the eyes are still available for viral access which is why any serious medical attempt at virus protection uses hi-tech eye-shields and visors as well as vacuum-sealed, fitted mouth and nose masks, all impractical for everyday use. In environments where virus protection really matters, of course, such as Level IV virology labs, they don’t bother with the supermarket or medical/surgical mask – they use hermetically-sealed hazmat suits, regulated to precise standards, with an independent oxygen supply and quality air filtration system, not the grotty thing you just grabbed from your car’s glovebox.

Studies of cloth-mask virus penetration rates show that, depending on quality of design, material and fit, virus penetration varies between 74% and 94% whilst aerosol filtration efficiency (which looks at penetration of the virus with its aerosol transport mode) concluded that, of 44 different mask brands, there was an average of 36% penetration whilst medical masks had penetration rates of 20%. The Hanoi RCT mentioned earlier also carried out lab-testing of mask penetration rates, with the ubiquitous cloth mask clocking up a virus penetration rate as high as 97%, compared to a (still rather underwhelming) 44% penetration rate through the surgical mask – a “very poor” versus just “poor” result, say the researchers. Hi-tech, vacuum-fitted N95 respirator masks (so named because 95% of particles with a diameter of 0.3 microns or less are electrostatically filtered out), which are thoroughly tested for size and fit and are used once and once only, managed to shut out the advertised 95% of viruses but, of course, no one apart from hospital workers wear these.

Surgical masks, because of their white-coat association with medicos and surgeons, sound more intuitively impressive at virus-blocking than cloth masks but this reputation is unwarranted. Surgical masks were only ever intended to prevent (larger-than-aerosol) spittle droplets, potentially containing bacteria, from being expelled by surgeons and nurses and landing in, and thus infecting, a patient’s open wound when in surgery, and to protect the medical wearer against splashes or sprays of the patient’s potentially contaminated bodily fluids. The surgical masks have nothing to do with protection against viruses. They may put patients at psychological ease, as any placebo does, but physical access by a virus through the surgical mask is essentially unimpeded.

There are yet more prosecution witnesses in the case against masks. Amongst the star witnesses are the mask manufacturers themselves who always include a legal disclaimer on their product specifying that their masks are ‘not for medical use’ and ‘will not stop you from being infected or transmitting the virus’.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then you can probably stop reading about here and just enjoy, with fascinated horror, the clarifying video of vape smoke (whose particles are much larger than the virus) billowing out, through and around various mask types.

Access and egress routes around a mask are enhanced through incorrect use of the mask.  Surgeons must change their fitted medical mask frequently (every couple of hours) and must never touch them lest they contaminate the mask with pathogenic micro-organisms for transfer to practitioner or patient. Compare this rigorous protocol with people’s behaviour with regard to the mask during the Corona Panic. Does anyone go through the Doctor Kildare pre-surgery handwashing protocol and avoid touching their mask? Does anyone replace the soiled face-rag from their pocket every couple of hours with a new, and sterile, mask?  Doesn’t happen. The few favourable studies on the efficacy of face masks have all been based on mechanistic laboratory-simulated tests “which quite simply have limited clinical applicability as they can not account for such human factors as compliance, coughing and talking, taking them on and off for a ‘breather’ or to eat or to sneeze, etc.”.

Health authorities once knew all this. Even the now mask-friendly CDC admits that “cloth masks used to slow the spread of COVID-19 offer little protection against wildfire smoke” because the smallest of the particles that make up wildfire smoke are at least four times the size of the virus, so if the cloth mask can’t keep out smoke they are going to be at least four times worse than useless at keeping out a virus.

Yet, the mystical power of The Mask lives on, even gathering extra force with the new, altruistic, refrain of choice – ‘its not about protecting me, its about protecting others’. Reduced to moral guilt-tripping, the pro-mask lobby are saying that, even if you secretly acknowledge that a bit of cloth can’t really protect you against the virus, you, if you are a Good Person, should wear one to protect others – if you don’t, then you are a Bad Person. The ‘theory’ behind this is that whilst the mask will not block incoming viruses, it will block outgoing ones (if the transmitter is infectious – although what the mask zealots are doing out of self-imposed isolation if ill is a bit of a mystery for those who claim to be so concerned for the welfare of others). The ‘logic’ of this is mind-bending. If wearing a mask doesn’t stop the wearer from getting infected then why on earth would it magically stop another mask-wearer from getting infected?  It’s all incoming to ‘the other’ you are trying to protect and will get through.

Of course, logic has been abandoned from day one of the mad shutdown of the world for a humdrum virus, so the myth of the Miracle One-Way Mask is quite at home with all the other Covid nonsense. The ‘it’s not about me, it’s about you’ line belongs in romantic comedies – outside of that, in the field of disease management, is only a slogan, simplistic marketing copy for those who see themselves as morally superior in responding to the virus by wearing a mask.

Masks: Not just useless but worse than useless

Not only will the mask do nothing to ward off the virus, it will cause a variety of health harms to the wearer.  Even the WHO’s own Technical Guidance, updated in June 2020 and thus well within their Covid Derangement period, still lists eleven ‘potential harms’ from the things. Top of the WHO’s list is the risk of viral ‘self-contamination’ from touching the face whilst handling the mask, repeatedly whipping it on and off and generally fiddling with it, and then touching the face and inviting the viral pathogens into the body with a priority pass.

Even without wearing a mask, people touch their face 23 times an hour, on average, with 44% of these touches involving contact with a mucous membrane opening (mouth, nose, eye) to the body. This finding was for University of New South Wales medical students, whose awareness of the necessity for, and practice of, stern hand hygiene would be expected to be higher than that of the general public. That figure of 23 touches an hour could be expected to be much higher if a person was wearing a facemask and constantly messing with it to ease discomfort or to breathe easier.

With this amount of face-touching going on, it is unsurprising that the mask not only does not protect you from the virus, it actually increases your risk of contracting it because concentrating the viral load through constant touching of the mask makes it easier to reach an infection threshold, as recognised by many individual scientists, and in reviews of the research literature, and in many other sources on the infection risk from inappropriate use of the mask, including sources that still do, or used to do, actual science (here, here, here, here and here, for example).  For the final ironic indignity, the elevated rate of viral infection in mask-wearers can also be due to a weakening of the body’s immune effect caused by lower oxygen intake during mask use.

The Hanoi RCT on the (in)effectiveness of the cloth mask in Vietnam’s hospitals discussed earlier also delivered a parting shot on the harms of the mask, observing that wearing a cloth mask “may potentially increase the infection risk” for health-care workers because “the virus may survive on the surface of the facemasks, aiding virus transfer from the mask to the hands and then to vulnerable parts of the body.”

Mask use has been shown to increase the risk of influenza infection, as even the CDC notes. This was the CDC that – before they went mad (or rather, remembered who their political bosses are i.e. Covid-alarmist governments –  and who their paymaster is – Big Pharma) – still paid attention to independent science. A UCL study (from the same stable as the mad modeller, Neil Ferguson, but clearly from the organisation’s saner reaches) concluded that “if face masks determine a humid habitat where the SARS-CoV-2 virus can remain active due to the water vapour continuously provided by breathing and captured by the mask fabric, they determine an increase in viral load and therefore they can cause a defeat of the innate immunity and an increase in infections”.

If, despite all the infection-enhancing properties of the mask, you get lucky and dodge a bout of one viral infection or another, there are other micro-organisms out there that will stand a better than usual chance of nailing you thanks to mask-wearing.  Bacteria and fungi readily multiply in the moist petri-dish of the mask when worn for any length of time.  A German children’s charity had laboratory testing done on the typical supermarket mask after having been worn by a schoolchild for eight hours straight and the result (the original source for this study has been ‘disappeared’ by the ‘misinformation’ snatch-squads of Big Tech but it lives on in secondary sources) was 82 bustling bacterial colonies and four mould (fungoid) colonies having the time of their contaminating lives.

But wait, there’s more! Added to the increased risk of viral, bacterial and fungal infections from mask use, are a range of additional harms. Here’s some of them: increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, cerebral vasodilation, sore throat, chest congestion, dehydration, respiratory problems, hyperventilation, rhinitis.  Rebreathing more of your own waste CO₂ instead of oxygen adds more to the list including headache, migraine, nausea, fatigue, exhaustion, hypoxia (which can damage brain cells), hypercapnia (which can result in cardiac overload, renal overload and metabolic acidosis), drowsiness, dizziness, loss of concentration, decline in cognitive performance, fainting and impaired decision-making (watch out for those masked drivers!).

There is also the potential for (sometimes fatal) bacterial pneumonia – which was a bigger killer than the flu virus itself during the 1918 ‘Spanish’ flu, and who knows what damage (potentially carcinogenic) may result down the track from breathing in the toxic synthetic fibres from the mask. Psychological problems round out the menu of mask harm: a decrease in empathy, being flooded with physiologically-damaging stress hormones and, my favourite, a “psycho-vegetative state” (which describes the devoted maskoid to a T!). So, if harassed by a jumped-up Covid Marshall about going bare-faced in the supermarket, you would be entirely justified in saying that you are mask-exempt for any or all of these health reasons.

The crowning irony of the mask is the false sense of security provided by it – they don’t work against viruses yet they encourage those who are genuinely vulnerable to the virus (from age, co-morbidities, obesity, compromised immune systems, etc.) to venture out to their possible doom in the illusory belief that the mask is providing protection.

 

Source: Left Lockdown Sceptics