We are going through unprecedented times. A virus that is no more damaging than many other epidemics or events that we have lived through has resulted in incalculable damage across the World. The damage is mostly not caused by the virus, but by government responses to it. People are dying from other conditions due to hospital restrictions, or from lockdown-prompted suicide or violence. The economy is crashing. Governments and others are taking on gargantuan debt to pay for the lockdowns; money which will have to be repaid with interest. Basic human rights and freedoms have simply vaporised right around the Globe. Social contacts with family and friends are cut off.
Perhaps the best reason for fearing the virus is that those who do, can feel that government is doing its very best for the people. If the virus is not to be feared, we need some other explanation for what governments are doing. For most, considering such a possible explanation causes a far greater sense of foreboding than thinking about the virus. There are really only three possibilities:
1 Covid19 really is extremely dangerous, and would have caused millions and millions of deaths globally without the government actions. When the danger has passed, life will naturally go back to the way it always has been.
2 The virus is comparable to, say, the 1968/69 epidemic, which most people didn’t even notice (even though it killed 80,000 in the UK.) And therefore governments have been catastrophically stupid in their actions.
3 As in “2”, the virus is comparable to the 1968/69 epidemic, and governments have reacted not out of monumental stupidity, but because of some hidden agenda.
Number one is the most comforting to believe. Number two is decidedly worrying. Number three is something that nobody really wants to think about.
As a lover of science and a science teacher I have had no problem absorbing and analysing the data and various scientific viewpoints that have been put forward. On the basis of that analysis I can readily discard the first option. I can almost as quickly discard the second; even though people can be very stupid and thoughtless, I do not believe that simple stupidity on such a colossal scale is possible. I’m left with option three.
Option three immediately raises the the concept of “Conspiracy Theory.” We hear that phrase so often today that it’s interesting to see where it came from. After all, the alternative phrase we might just as easily be hearing is “No smoke without fire.” And it seems we never hear that! Anyway, it seems it was the CIA who “weaponised” the term, in order to counter criticism of the Warren Report into the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963. CIA Document 1035-960 refers to this. It was released in response to a 1976 FOIA request by the New York Times. Of course, you could say that was just a conspiracy theory. If you have an open mind, it’s one point at which you might start googling!
Or you might do some personal research. You could set up a Facebook Page, put up some posts that profoundly disagree with the “accepted wisdom” on some current topic; then boost those posts (it will cost you a little) to reach more people. See how long it takes for Facebook to disable your boosting. You will soon discover that, though you may have freedom of speech when talking with your next door neighbour, when you try to reach larger numbers, as the Mainstream Media do every single day, that freedom disappears. My attempts to send readers to this site from Facebook have been constantly hamstrung; and within the site I have to provide links to scientist interviews with Bitchute, because Youtube have taken their videos down. It is very clear that free debate, even scientific debate, is not allowed. This cannot be accounted for by stupidity, but only by a very strong alternative, and also hidden, agenda.
Or you might start with some old and famous novels, like Brave New World by Huxley, or 1984 by Orwell. These men were not “novelists.” They were not writing just to exercise their imagination, nor to make a living. They were deeply involved in the politics of their day, and very deeply concerned about the direction things were moving in. I recommend Orwell, but start with his Homage to Catalonia. The title gives little clue as to the content; it is actually the narrative of Orwell’s experience fighting in the Spanish Civil War. For him it was a painful experience, but also one in which he observed and learned a great deal. You can even learn a little more than he did by googling “Bebb Pollard.” These were two men involved in an MI5 conspiracy to convey Franco to Mainland Spain to begin the War. Orwell knew that the British Government was not a disinterested neutral in that war, as they claimed, but he didn’t know the detail of how they plotted to get it started. To write 1984 Orwell took himself off to the remote Scottish island of Jura, in order that he could write without surveillance or interference from MI5. 1984 is definitely not just a novel!
There are many other starting points. You may remember the Dodgy Dossier, and Tony Blair’s claims of weapons of mass destruction that can be ready in 45 minutes. Both of these were crucial to our starting the Iraq War. Or consider the likelihood of a sturdy, steel-framed building rapidly collapsing into its own footprint because of fire. In considering this, you need to remember that steel does not readily burn or melt, except in some very specific situations, such as the presence of thermite, or acetylene and oxygen. Building 7, WTC, refers.
Alternatively, you will be far more comfortable watching Coronation Street, or Premiere League, or East Enders.
I may provide more information on this page in due course. In the meantime, I hope the above at least makes one simple point: namely, saying that “The virus must be really dangerous, because no government would force all these restrictions otherwise,” is not a conclusive contribution to the debate.