Thanks to Social Marketing, You Will Be Assimilated

They really, really, want us to get vaccinated.

Whom do I mean when I use the word “they”? Well, for starters, there’s the government. All Western governments, in fact, even that of Hungary. “They” also includes the major media, Big Tech, the MSM, the universities and secondary schools, and all major philanthropic organizations. All of them are pushing relentlessly for all citizens to submit to the injection of an experimental medical treatment that uses messenger RNA, and whose long-term side effects are completely unknown.

For as far back as I can remember, I have never experienced such a relentless full-court press by all social and political institutions in pursuit of a single goal. Perhaps the war effort from 1939-1945 was like this, but I wasn’t alive then, so I don’t know.

Before I started researching the propaganda push behind the vax, I had never heard of the term “social marketing”. It is an important concept in this dystopian age, so we would all be well-advised to learn more about it. The California STD/HIV Prevention Training Center — which is funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and is a joint project of the California Department of Health Services, Sexually Transmitted Disease Control Branch, the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, and the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine — gives the following definitionof social marketing:

Social marketing is the use of commercial marketing principles and techniques to improve the welfare of people and the physical, social and economic environment in which they live. It is a carefully planned, long-term approach to changing human behavior.

So one group of people — presumably quite small — uses subtle manipulative techniques developed by behavioral psychologists to change the behavior of another group of people — presumably much larger — and make them conform to a standard of behavior which the first group has devised and considers optimal.

My instinctive reaction to such a practice is: What arrogance! What hubris!

We ordinary plebs think we know what’s good for us, but they know better. And they see nothing wrong with conning us into thinking the way they want us to think.

I bring all this up because of a paper that was published by The National Center for Biotechnology Information, which is part of the National Library of Medicine, which is a branch of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIH, as you may recall, is where Dr. Anthony Fauci rules over a little fiefdom known as NIAID, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The paper is entitled “Key Guidelines in Developing a Pre-Emptive COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake Promotion Strategy” [pdf]. It was published in August of last year, but I didn’t find it until a few weeks ago.

It is beyond my level of analytical competence to peel back all the layers of manipulative strategy found in this paper, so I’ll just highlight a few significant points. I recommend reading the whole thing carefully, if you have the time and the stomach to work your way through all the sociological jargon.

First, a word on some of the terminology used. A person who receives an injection with the experimental mRNA treatment is said to engage in “vaccine uptake”. Those who decline to take the vaccine are said to experience “vaccine hesitancy”.

In the epistemological framework of the paper there is no acceptable rationale for not being “vaccinated”. Those who have not been vaxed are either vaccine hesitant — in which case they will eventually do their duty and get the jab — or they are malicious actors who have been convinced by evil anti-vax propaganda to resist the injection, and thereby put themselves and their loved ones at risk of contracting a dangerous and potentially lethal disease.

In the mindset of the authors of this paper — and all the official pro-vax propaganda — it is not conceivable that one could investigate the available facts, think carefully, and make a reasoned decision not to get the jab.

Citizens are expected to give their informed consent to the procedure, yet it is impossible to give informed consent. The long-term side effects of the mRNA treatment are unknown, and will remain unknown for at least five more years. Therefore no one can be fully informed about the treatment. Giving informed consent is simply not possible.

But none of that matters to those who are pushing the jab. My reasoning is considered fallacious and maliciously motivated, and my arguments would be removed from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other Big Tech platforms if I were to make them there.

There is only one possible outcome from the point of view of the vax pushers. You may be “hesitant”, but you cannot make a decision not to get the jab, and they will prod you and punish you until you do.

The first thing to notice about the NIH paper is that it’s not primarily an American document, despite its being published by an agency of the United States government. The spelling of certain words — for example, “sceptics” — serves as a clue. And it makes complete sense when you see the names and credentials of the four authors:

  • Jeff French of Strategic Social Marketing Ltd and the University of Brighton
  • Sameer Deshpande of Social Marketing @ Griffith, Griffith University in Australia
  • William Evans of George Washington University
  • Rafael Obregon of UNICEF in Paraguay

Mr. French is the lead author, so one may presume that it was his spell-checker that approved the spellings that no native American speaker would use.

Two of the authors list social marketing in their credentials, so we may deduce that the NIH has subcontracted with expert social marketers to produce strategies and guidelines to induce vaccine hesitant Americans to get the needle into their arm as quickly as possible.

The abstract outlines the techniques that will be recommended (emphasis added):

This paper makes the case for immediate planning for a COVID-19 vaccination uptake strategy in advance of vaccine availability for two reasons: first, the need to build a consensus about the order in which groups of the population will get access to the vaccine; second, to reduce any fear and concerns that exist in relation to vaccination and to create demand for vaccines. A key part of this strategy is to counter the anti-vaccination movement that is already promoting hesitancy and resistance. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a tsunami of misinformation and conspiracy theories that have the potential to reduce vaccine uptake. To make matters worse, sections of populations in many countries display low trust in governments and official information about the pandemic and how the officials are tackling it. This paper aims to set out in short form critical guidelines that governments and regional bodies should take to enhance the impact of a COVID-19 vaccination strategy. We base our recommendations on a review of existing best practice guidance. This paper aims to assist those responsible for promoting COVID-19 vaccine uptake to digest the mass of guidance that exists and formulate an effective locally relevant strategy. A summary of key guidelines is presented based on best practice guidance.

The paper’s introduction defines vaccine hesitancy:

Continue reading

Danish Days

Steen has posted an excellent selection of photos of Fjordman taken during the latter’s exile in Denmark.

Now that Fjordman has given permission for photos of him to be published, I dug through my image archives to see what I could find. I have a fair number of photos taken between 2007 and 2013, the last time I was in Europe. It fills me with a kind of nostalgic melancholy to look at them, since I know I’ll never see Denmark again, given that that I won’t be getting the “vaccination”. Even if I could somehow hop a catamaran to cross the Atlantic like Greta Thunberg, the Danish immigration authorities would still want to see my vaccine passport before they’d let me in.

A lot of the photos in my archive can’t be posted, because they contain other people who have yet to go public, and I don’t feel like trying to pixelate all of them out. However, I picked out a small selection to post here.

Steen took this photo of Fjordman and me in Copenhagen after one of our Counterjihad meetings in 2009:

Not all the photos are from Denmark. This one of Fjordman with Tommy Robinson was taken at an event in London in 2011:


Fjordman and Tommy Robinson, 2011

You can see Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in the left background.

As he mentioned in his post on Thursday, Fjordman spent some time in the USA in the spring of 2012 during the trial of Anders Behring Breivik. While he was here, he went to several wine tastings:


Fjordman at a wine tasting, 2012

In the process of digging through various folders, I came across a couple of screen shots of the letter that Anders Behring Breivik wrote and sent to major media outlets in the fall of 2013:

Continue reading

July 22, Ten Years On

Ten years ago today Anders Behring Breivik murdered 77 people in Oslo and on the island of Utøya. Of all the Counterjihad activists who were impacted by the political blowback from the attacks, none was more affected than Fjordman. Below are his remarks on the occasion of the anniversary.

July 22, Ten Years On

by Fjordman

Sometimes life can be very strange. When I was eating lunch in my small basement flat in Oslo on July 22, 2011, I did not anticipate that in a few hours my country would be rocked by a brutal mass murder. And I certainly did not expect that these events would also turn every aspect of my own life upside down.

Suddenly and without warning, I was thrown into the epicenter of an international media storm. Less than two weeks later, I had evacuated my home and fled from Norway out of serious concerns for my safety. At this point, I was publicly accused of being a possible accomplice to mass murder, and the suggested brains behind an international terrorist network. If my life in the summer of 2011 had been the script for a film, it would have been rejected as being too improbable to happen in real life. Yet all of this did happen to me, plus a lot more. All because of the actions of a man I have never once met in my entire life, not even for a cup of coffee.

Ten years later, things have calmed down somewhat. I have managed to reestablish a reasonably stable personal life. However, this is a new life in a new country.

I quietly moved back to Norway in 2017, to see whether it was possible for me to have a normal life there again. The answer was no. Three and a half years of applying for jobs turned out to be futile. I got no job whatsoever, not even as an unskilled laborer in factories, butcheries or the fishing industry. I applied for such jobs, too, not just for work in offices or shops.

In early 2021, I therefore decided to leave Norway again, for the second time in less than ten years. It is unlikely that I will return in the foreseeable future for anything other than short visits.

A decade of smears following the July 22 attacks by Anders Behring Breivik has left its mark. Norwegian media still publish new articles suggesting that I inspired mass murder. New comments are still being published on social media claiming that I have the blood of children on my hands. Not every month, fortunately, but from time to time.

Being quoted in Breivik’s confused compendium/manifesto is by far the greatest curse of my life. Nothing else even comes close. But perhaps it is possible to be cursed and blessed at the same time. I was also blessed with being surrounded by kind people. Both old friends and new friends alike.

I was homeless for some time. Friends in Denmark referred to me, only half-jokingly, as a political refugee from Norway. My first temporary home was with my friend Steen Raaschou in Copenhagen. He was exceptionally patient, and allowed me to occupy his sofa for months at a time. I also stayed for a while with professor emeritus Bent Jensen and his lovely Russian wife Tatjana. In the spring of 2012 I spent several months in the USA, and never lacked a bed to sleep in. My friend Ned May from Gates of Vienna helped me with this arrangement*. Not all of those who helped me probably want to be named. But they know who they are, and they have my gratitude.

In 2011, I had a part-time job in Oslo, working with young people suffering from autism. After the massive and extremely negative media focus on me in July and August of 2011, it was impossible for me to keep doing this job. Frankly, it was probably dangerous for me to even stay in my old flat. So I suddenly no longer had a job or steady income at the same time as I had to spend money on lawyers.

Continue reading

A Summer of Madness

Ten years ago I walked this street; my dreams were riding tall.
Tonight I would be thankful, Lord, for any dreams at all.

— Robert Hunter, from “Mission in the Rain”

Tomorrow is the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attack in Norway. On July 22, 2011, a man named Anders Behring Breivik detonated a truck bomb in central Oslo next to government headquarters, killing eight people. While police and emergency services were dealing with the aftermath, Mr. Breivik drove to the island of Utøya, where a summer camp for Socialist Youth was being held. There he methodically shot and killed sixty-nine teenagers with a high-powered rifle. When police finally arrived at the island, he calmly surrendered.

Anders Behring Breivik was a neo-Nazi, but that fact did not emerge until several years later, when he wrote a letter to multiple media outlets and admitted that his declared affiliation with the Counterjihad movement had been a strategic misdirection, to spare his Aryan nationalist comrades from persecution. That part of his letter to the media was widely ignored, and was never publicly reported by any major outlet. To this day he is widely identified as an anti-Islam ideologue.

Before he committed his atrocities, Mr. Breivik had arranged the media distribution of his manifesto, or as he preferred to call it, “the compendium”. It was a lengthy, rambling treatise. It contained some of his own writing, but most of it consisted of extensive quotes from various English-language writers, the most prominent of which were Fjordman and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch.

Those writers and others mentioned in the manifesto became the focus of a media frenzy beginning the following morning. Progressive pundits applied their usual pseudo-syllogism to the Utøya massacre:

1.   Breivik admired Fjordman.
2.   Breivik massacred innocent people.
3.   Therefore Fjordman was at least partially responsible for the atrocity. Q.E.D.
 

As I mentioned above, the Butcher of Utøya did not really look up to Fjordman; his admiration was a feint. So even the pseudo-syllogism was wrong. But none of that mattered; any information to the contrary was ignored by the left-wing media. Fjordman became an object of universal loathing. In Norway he was Public Enemy #1, in some ways eclipsing Breivik himself.

Up until that time Fjordman had only published his essays under a pseudonym. Beginning on the morning of July 23, the press and internet sleuths began an intensive effort to unmask him. It was only a matter of time before his real identity was uncovered, so after retaining counsel and making himself known to police, he outed himself via an interview with the tabloid VG. After that he fled the country and went into hiding.

And it’s a good thing he did: there were calls for him to be arrested and tried as Mr. Breivik’s accomplice, despite the fact that the two had never met, and Fjordman had never advocated violence in any form. But Norwegian public opinion did not bother itself with such trivial matters as facts and the truth. The slaughter on Utøya required a scapegoat, and Fjordman was chosen for the role.

He lived outside of Norway for a number of years, and only returned when the risk of arrest had diminished. However, he was unable to find work. Any prospective employer who was aware of who he was would refuse to hire him, and if he somehow found a job, even a menial one, he would be discharged as soon as his employer became aware of his identity. Now, ten years after the attack, he is living outside the country again, since he is unemployable in his homeland.

And, regardless of Mr. Breivik’s admission that his admiration for Fjordman was a ruse, Fjordman is still widely known as “Breivik’s mentor”.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

I won’t go into the Breivik affair in great detail, since this is primarily a reminiscence about the effect the atrocity had on Gates of Vienna and the Counterjihad in general. To learn more, check out the archives for the period from July 22, 2011 to ca. November 2011. Or look up the relevant items in the Fjordman Files. The trial of Anders Behring Breivik sucked up a lot of our blogging oxygen in the spring of 2012; see Circus Breivik for a relevant sample.

Because Gates of Vienna was the main venue for Fjordman’s writings, and was mentioned repeatedly in the killer’s manifesto, this site was put under the media’s klieg lights beginning the day after the massacre. We were thrust into a prominence we had never seen before (or since). It was a hideous kind of fame that I would never have asked for — they say there’s no such thing as bad publicity, but my experience in the summer of 2011 makes me vehemently disagree.

In the first few weeks we received hundreds (maybe thousands) of emails. Some of them were simply requests for information, but they were mostly hate mail, sometimes in Norwegian and Swedish. Various media outlets wanted to contact Fjordman, and I dutifully passed the messages on to him, but he didn’t respond to any of them.

The number of comments at Gates of Vienna (which was still on blogspot at the time) rose into the hundreds for each post, many of them from obvious trolls and provocateurs employed by one or another state intelligence service. They soon became unmanageable, so we reluctantly closed the blog to comments for a couple of months. When we reactivated them, we made them subject to moderation, and they’ve been that way ever since. It’s frustrating and annoying for commenters to have to wait to see their contributions appear, but otherwise Dymphna and I would have been unable to cope with all the trolls and provocateurs.

By the beginning of the week following the attack, media outlets started contacting me. They somehow managed to obtain my phone number, and I received calls from newspapers in Norway and the UK. Needless to say, I declined to say anything to them.

During our fifteen minutes of lurid fame we were mentioned in The New York Times and The Washington Post, among other illustrious publications. The following report from the NYT told its readers that Anders Behring Breivik had commented on Gates of Vienna several times:

What they said was quite true. Fortunately, I had already been alerted to the fact by a European contact, who told me the pseudonym that had been used by Mr. Breivik, so I was able to track down all his comments. Some people urged me to delete them, but that’s not the way we do business here at Gates of Vienna. First of all, nothing ever disappears completely from the Internet; it can always be found in the Wayback Machine or other web archives. But more importantly, I don’t believe in hiding the truth, whether it makes me look bad or not. So I collected all of the Butcher’s comments and reposted them.

Other things published by major media outlets, particularly the British tabloids, were not as accurate. The Washington Post published my name and something about me that was completely, factually false. I sent them an email demanding that they retract and correct their error, but I knew that nothing would happen. All I could do was post about what they did and ridicule them. If I had been a famous movie actress or best-selling novelist who could afford to retain high-powered lawyers, I might have had more success. But the WaPo knows it has nothing to fear from minnows like me.

Other papers, especially the tabloids, published even more ludicrous falsehoods about Gates of Vienna — who we were associated with, where we got our funding, etc., etc. And they asserted various bogus things about other people in the Counterjihad whom I knew personally — so-and-so is funded by the Koch Brothers, or the Mossad, or whatever. Just absolute nonsense.

That summer taught me not to believe ANYTHING that I read in the media unless it is corroborated by multiple independent sources and has a breadcrumb trail that leads back to verifiable facts. Which doesn’t leave much. Reading media news reports has become a form of entertainment for me, like reading mystery novels or watching The Simpsons.

The general effect on the Counterjihad was catastrophic. A lot of sites, especially those in Europe, closed down for good. A number of Counterjihad activists I knew personally soiled their breeches and fled the field at the first whiff of grapeshot. I must admit that I became exasperated with them — I said, “You knew how serious this work was when you got into it. What did you think we were doing, playing tiddlywinks??”

However, in retrospect, I’ve had to acknowledge that they did what they had to do. Unlike me, most of them had day jobs. They stood to lose a lot if they were exposed. Some of them had families to support. I can’t judge them. They dropped out of sight, and I haven’t heard from them since.

A few people urged me to shut down Gates of Vienna. But my Scots blood comes to the fore at such times, and my natural response is defiance. I said, “F**K THAT S**T!” [emphasis in the original] and soldiered on. It was a rough time, and I didn’t get much sleep for the first couple of months. But we weathered the storm.

On the whole, however, it was a major setback from which the Counterjihad never fully recovered. The resistance to Islamization has never returned to the level of July 21, 2011. Freedom of speech has been eroded even further, and sharia is now de facto in force in much of the West.

Dymphna and I always thought that Anders Behring Breivik’s machinations had been guided and assisted by a certain three-letter agency with the assistance of Norwegian intelligence. His “compendium” was obviously in large part not his own work, and his selection of “mentors” was exquisitely chosen to do maximum damage to those who opposed Islamization, at the exact time when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in the thick of collaborating with the Muslim Brotherhood in what eventually became known as the “Istanbul Process”. Resistance to Islam was a thorn in her side, and Anders Behring Breivik helped remove it.

I don’t think mass slaughter was part of the plan, however — the Norwegians would never have co-operated with such an operation. I think the intention was to let Mr. Breivik put together his scheme, and then roll it up at the last moment before it was executed. There would have been a prominent arrest, followed by maximum media publicity for his manifesto.

However, just before the plans matured, Wikileaks released a damaging series of documents showing some of the things [agency name redacted] had been up to in Europe, which forced them to shut down their presence in the American embassy in Oslo and withdraw Mr. Breivik’s handlers. The Butcher of Utøya was then let off his leash, and the rest is history.

Whether mass slaughter was intended or not, the plan was a great success. The Counterjihad was hobbled, the spread of sharia proceeded apace, and the Obama administration became a servant of the Muslim Brotherhood. And the Biden administration is, in effect, Obama’s third term.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Before I close these remarks, I’d like to address an appalling issue that has emerged surrounding the mass murder committed by Anders Behring Breivik. When it first came up it was very distressing, but I’ve had ten years to get used to it. Now it’s just something that I have to endure whenever the topic is broached on this site.

In those early days I was shocked by the number of people who supported Mr. Breivik and considered him a hero for what he did. And I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and Aryan supremacists, but more mainstream people who oppose mass immigration and hate socialism. Every time I post something about the Butcher of Utøya they pop up again and express their admiration for him.

I’m not going to tolerate such comments, and will delete them when they appear. You might as well spare yourself the effort. If you want, you can visit Storm Front and similar sites and make your remarks there, where you’ll get a sympathetic reception and find a lot of people who agree with you.

I’m familiar with the arguments that people make to justify their opinion: Mr. Breivik was targeting future socialists, who would otherwise have grown up and entered politics and invited even more of the Third World into Norway. But that’s a specious line of reasoning, in my opinion. The mass slaughter only hardened public opinion against those who oppose mass immigration, and made it even more difficult to restrain such immigration. Killing all those kids inspired no sympathy for the Aryan cause; it had the opposite effect.

But that’s just the practical, utilitarian argument against it.

Mr. Breivik’s strategy was a recapitulation of one of the major trends of the 20th century: the mass extermination of entire classes of people. For him it was Young Socialists. For Hitler it was Jews, gypsies, communists, homosexuals, and the feeble-minded. For Stalin it was counter-revolutionaries, “wreckers”, the bourgeoisie, kulaks, and Ukrainians. For Pol Pot it was the intellectuals. For the Hutus it was the Tutsis. For Muslims it was Jews, Christians, Hindus, and other infidels.

What all the architects of those atrocities have in common is that they considered it morally justifiable, and even laudable, to engage in the mass slaughter of people based on their membership in a particular class — a race, a social class, an occupation, a nationality, etc. Individuals meant nothing. Those who engineered the massacres were not required to determine whether their victims were guilty of any crimes, or even subscribed to a particular ideology. They were members of a class, and for that reason they deserved to die. Men, women, children, invalids, the elderly and enfeebled — all had to go.

That is a pernicious mindset, and I’ll have none of it. It was the bane of the 20th century, and we’ve no business extending it into the 21st.

I know the counter-arguments — we’re in a war, and war sometimes requires us to do horrible things, etc., etc. If we want to win, we have to grit our teeth and do what is necessary.

Well, if that’s what it takes to win, then I don’t want to win. I’ll go down to defeat rather than jump into that particular boxcar to hell.

Germany is Looking at the Chinese Model

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from Tichys Einblick:

Effective in Climate Protection

Ministry of Education is considering social point system based on the Chinese model for Germany

In a study commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Education, one of six future scenarios is the introduction of a social point system based on the Chinese model. Jobs and study places then depend on social commitment and a small ecological footprint.

Orientation for the “world of tomorrow” is what the Federal Ministry of Education wants to offer with the “Foresight” (Vorausschau) campaign. For this purpose, six future scenarios have been devised in a commissioned “value study”, which researchers will discuss there. In addition to the “European Way” and “Ecological Regionalization”, there is also the “The Bonus System” scenario. The point is that every person receives an individual social score, which should play a decisive role in the allocation of jobs or university places, for example. It is a social point system, as it is currently being tested in China. However, this scenario does not serve as a dark dystopia — neutral, almost positive, the effects are shown and weighed up.

The paper by the Federal Ministry of Education states: “For certain behavior, points can be collected in the point system operated by the state (e.g. volunteering, caring for relatives, organ donations, provision for old age, traffic behavior, carbon footprint). In addition to social recognition, collecting points also has advantages in everyday life (e.g. shorter waiting times for certain courses).”

The approval of the law among the population would increase through “the dynamics of climate change”. The system is in fact successful in this area: “This generated pressure to act to counteract, whereby a points system turned out to be an efficient control mechanism for dealing with the consequences of climate change (e.g. by scoring the ecological footprint). The ‘polluter pays’ principle was made transparent through the point system. In addition, given the good economic situation, the point system proved to be a suitable instrument for the labor market, which is characterized by a shortage of skilled workers and workers,” it says.

In the year 2030, the social point system will then only be fundamentally questioned by a minority: “The point system will meet with approval from a majority of the population in the 2030s, as many feel that it has a binding orientation function for a more complex and differentiated society occupied by different social groups. At the same time, in Germany in the 2030s, the point system as a forecasting and control tool was gradually anchoring new norms in everyday life.” The social point system would obviously also be profitable for democracy. The state sets incentives “for activity in civil society or political organizations, as this is conducive to pluralistic discourse and is seen as the basis of the social evaluation system. Only those who are active here are able to get involved in social decision-making.”

Continue reading

The Freedom That Nobody Can Take Away From Us

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this op-ed from Politically Incorrect:

The freedom that nobody can take away from us

by Wolfgang Hübner

These days there are often complaints that presumptuous politicians in Germany have deprived us of elementary freedoms under the pretext of the coronavirus threat. In view of the resolutions passed by large majorities in the Bundestag to suspend and restrict fundamental rights guaranteed in the Basic Law, this lawsuit is fully justified.

In a parliamentary democracy, it is entirely possible for a majority to make decisions that have undemocratic consequences. If the Federal Constitutional Court in its current composition is determined more by party political interests than by constitutional principles, the parliamentary majority can no longer be effectively corrected. In this situation, are the citizens helplessly exposed to their deprivation of liberty?

That is only the case if the citizens submit to this deprivation of liberty. Nobody can force them to do so, because neither the state nor a parliamentary majority has power over people’s internal freedom. Even totalitarian dictatorships have so far failed because of this inner freedom of individuals. Inner freedom is the indispensable prerequisite for regaining outer freedom. That is why the enemies of freedom do everything in their power to break people internally, to make those who resist submissive by any means.

Currently, for example, with blackmail: “You will only get your freedom rights back if you are vaccinated against the virus.” Those who submit to this blackmail give up not only their physical self-determination, but also their inner freedom. From now on they can be blackmailed in the long term. Because soon it will be said: “You can only keep your freedom rights if you get vaccinated again against the virus mutation XYZ.”

The history of mankind gives clear indications that renouncing internal freedom is the prerequisite for external bondage. And this renunciation has never led to an end to external bondage. If the majority of people, for whatever motives and for however long, decide against internal freedom, then the maintenance and defense of internal freedom by a minority is all the more important. Because only internal freedom, which no one can take away from us, is the indestructible root of external freedom.

The Clueless Clucking Clan

MC’s latest essay concerns the intersection of Racism, Woke ideology, and the Corona “pandemic”.

The Clueless Clucking Clan

by MC

I am an anti-vaxxer. I have spent hours of study, looking at the benefits of vaccines, and also the risks associated with vaccines, and the effectiveness of vaccines — I have also followed the money…

In my opinion, it is not a pretty picture.

My oldest son had a febrile fit following on from an MMR injection (he is now 40) — he survived, and in spite of some small personality changes, he was OK.

It was my sister-in-law who warned us about the MMR Jab and its dubious history (the first version was withdrawn after adverse side-effects were reported). My wife and I had argued over having the jab for our son; unfortunately, I won.

I would encourage all parents to do the research for themselves, here is a good place to start.

If I wanted to break the Constitution of the USA I would have to choose my point of attack very carefully; I would need to get the People to want to break it, to be so fearful of outcomes as to voluntarily submit to destroying individual choice for the benefit of the ‘group’.

What could be better, then, than a ‘Satan Bug‘ and a vaccine that ‘must’ be administered to all for it to be ‘safe’ and effective and provide ‘salvation’?

It is not white supremacy as such which is the problem, after all, almost all of the original communists were white (and mostly male — Kollontai and Luxemburg being the exceptions). Most of those who fought against slavery were white, and most of those who dreamt up ideas of individual liberty and freedom were also white.

It is ironic that dead white men are also behind the wokism that so besets the modern USA and most of the rest of the world, and one might even think that any intelligent non-white wokista would smell a rat…

Imagine a modern implementation of the post-bellum Ku Klux Klan, but designed to support minority non-white interests instead of defeated ‘white’ interests. What would it look like? It seems to me that the Democrat party has once more scraped through the bottom of their barrel of dirty tricks and come up with an inverted KKK clone — lets call it the CCC.

The assassination of President Lincoln created political chaos, especially as he had chosen a Democrat as his running mate Vice President in the hope of some sort of reconciliation. President Trump was not assassinated as such, but a majority of Americans believe that there was election fraud, and that Sleepy Joe is just not legitimate.

The reactions of the Democrats to the Arizona election audit has convinced me that there is something to hide here. Instead of welcoming an audit as an honest winner would do, the Democrats are squirming like a child who has had an ‘accident’.

Wokism is pure racism and is Nazism in drag. It will soon turn lethal if not scotched. The political buildup that led to Adolf Hitler started with a ‘red/green’ alliance; The socialism of German Workers’ Party (DAP) combined with the ‘volkism’ of the Thule, Vril and Wandervogel pseudo-religious cults gave us the NSDAP and many millions dead.

Continue reading

The Kobold of Corona

Karl Lauterbach is a member of the German Bundestag for the Social Democrats. He is also a professor of epidemiology (among other things) at the University of Cologne. That office, plus his socialist credentials, provide him with impeccable standing as an expert talking head on the Wuhan Coronavirus.

Hellequin GB, who translated the following piece, provides an alternate gloss on Prof. Lauterbach:

The Original: Klabautermann

A Klabautermann is a water kobold that assists sailors and fishermen in their duties on the Baltic and North Seas. It is a merry and diligent creature, with an expert understanding of most watercraft, and an irrepressible musical talent. It is believed to rescue sailors washed overboard.

The New Variant: Klabauterbach

Klabauterbach is an evil vaccine kobold that assists governments and global elites in Germany in their drive to kill and control humanity. It’s a horrible but diligent creature with an expert understanding of how to create fear and doom. It’s believed to sing and dance on the graves of the murdered. This nasty creature can be held at bay with SALT.

The translated article from Politically Incorrect:

Book about Karl Lauterbach: Protocol of a burned-out emergency phone

Karl Lauterbach is THE face of alarmism in this Corona crisis: A pandemic, which probably never was, was exaggerated by figures like him into an almost eternal catastrophe right after it was declared by the WHO — and is still exaggerated to this day.

Thanks to Corona, the SPD “health expert” Karl Lauterbach, previously a kind of eccentric backbencher at best, almost blossomed — and became a permanent guest on public-service talk formats, where he reported his daily Corona water level reports and threw his questionable scientific authority on the scales to give Germans one fright after another. Through his talk show appearances, the obvious madness grew and continues to this day like a red thread.

Hardly anyone has been so wrong with his assessments, prognoses and warnings so often as he has. His reputation — especially among the government factions and the top representatives of the Spahn-Merkel Corona regime — surprisingly sustained no damage through the considerable series of his false alarms: Lauterbach can still spread his bizarre, hysterical visions of disaster unhindered even if they are far removed from the perceived and actual situation. With him there is simply never an all-clear. One wave chases the next. And if it were no longer the case at some point, he would be robbed of his public platforms — he would probably lapse into the most severe depression.

By the way: Before Corona, Lauterbach, who has never worked as a doctor (and in 25 years as an SPD political apparatchik, could not have found the time to look beyond the superficial aspects of the studies he cited and to acquire the scientific authority with which he appears as an “epidemiologist” and “virologist”) had a completely different hobbyhorse in terms of health — and even then an irrational, pathological fear came to light in him: SALT. At every opportunity, Lauterbach warned of the dangers of too much table salt in his food, revealed how he himself prepared pasta and potatoes without salt and that the widespread disease high blood pressure could only be kept under control with a strict low-salt diet.

Continue reading

YouTube Fined Pocket Change by Dresden Court

A Dresden court has ordered YouTube to pay a fine for its customary high-handed behavior in deleting “misinformation” about the Wuhan Coronavirus. However, the amount of the fine is chump change — Google execs spend more than that in a weekend on hookers.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from Die Welt:

Dresden Higher Regional Court imposes a fine of €100,000 on YouTube

In late January, YouTube deleted a user’s video, referring to its “Policy on Medical Misinformation about COVID-19”. Wrongly, as a court later decided. Instead of putting the video back online immediately, YouTube took several weeks.

The Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Dresden imposed a fine of €100,000 on the video platform YouTube because it took weeks to restore an online video that had previously been wrongly deleted.

In the decision of July 5, which Welt am Sonntag documents, the OLG speaks of an intentional and serious violation. On April 20 the court ruled that YouTube had to restore the video about Corona protests in Switzerland immediately. The platform did not comply with this until May 14, 2020.

The lawyer Joachim Steinhöfel, who represents the account operator, considers the court’s decision to be a guideline for freedom of expression on the Internet. “With the historically high fine, the Higher Regional Court makes it very clear that court decisions must be observed without restriction, regardless of whether YouTube assumes a violation of its guidelines or not,” said Steinhöfel.

For YouTube, the case doesn’t seem to be over yet. A spokesman told Welt am Sonntag: “We have a responsibility to connect our users with trustworthy information and to combat misinformation during COVID-19. This is a decision on a case-by-case basis that we respect and will review accordingly.”

YouTube had deleted the video at the end of January with reference to its “Policy on medical misinformation about COVID-19”. However, the court rejected this. Among other things, it came to the conclusion that the amended guidelines had not been effectively incorporated into the contract with the account operator. An amendment contract is required for this. The mere indication that there may be changes in the future is not sufficient.

Mutti: All Good Patriotic Germans Will Get the Vax

In the following excerpts from a Ruptly clip, German Chancellor Angela Merkel says she will not force Germans to get the Corona “vaccine”, but she will twist their arms really, really hard.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes and RAIR Foundation for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Mutti Puts a Thumb on the Scales of Justice

The latest political and judicial shenanigans by German Chancellor Angela Merkel bring to mind the notorious confab between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix during the 2016 presidential campaign. Mutti could give Slick Willie a run for his money as a consummate shady political operator.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from PolitikStube:

Trial against Merkel because of the Thuringia election: AfD [Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for Germany] rejects constitutional judges as biased

Angela Merkel invited the judges of the First and Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court to a joint dinner at the Chancellery, including those judges who had to adjudicate a lawsuit by the AfD against Merkel and the federal government on July 21 because of the Thuringian election in 2020. From the perspective of the AfD, both of them have violated their duty of neutrality.

Specifically, it is about Merkel’s statements on the Thuringian election, which she uttered at a state reception in South Africa: “The election of this Minister-President was a unique process that broke with a basic conviction for the CDU and for me, namely that no majorities with help from the AfD should win.” The process is “unforgivable”, the result must be reversed. “It was a bad day for democracy.”

How independent are the highest judges with their party books? To what extent does the executive or even Merkel exert influence? Can connections between the invitation to dinner and the upcoming trial be ruled out?

For the AfD, these judges have lost credibility [from RT]:

The AfD has sued Angela Merkel: The Chancellor has to answer to the Federal Constitutional Court regarding her statements about the Thuringia election.

Spicy: Merkel recently invited the constitutional judges, who are supposed to dispense justice over her, to dinner at the Chancellery.

The Federal Constitutional Court’s hearing on questionable statements by Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) on the Thuringian election in February 2020 will begin in two weeks. The AfD interpreted this as a violation of the “duty of neutrality”. Specifically, it is about the election of the FDP politician Thomas Kemmerich with votes from AfD, CDU and FDP as head of government in Thuringia on February 5, 2020. For the lawyers, the question is to what extent Merkel, at a state reception in South Africa on February 6, 2020, influenced the proceedings in the Kemmerich election. She described this as “unforgivable” and stressed that the result had to be “reversed”.

A transcript of the press conference was available on the website the Chancellor and the Federal Government. From the perspective of the AfD, both of them have violated their duty of neutrality. Kemmerich resigned under pressure three days after his election.

Continue reading

An Arbitrary Political Trial

Geert Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV) in the Netherlands, has lost his final appeal in the “hate speech” case against him. The Dutch Supreme Court upheld his 2014 conviction for “discrimination” based on his agreement with his supporters that there should be fewer, not more Moroccans in the Netherlands. Which would seem a reasonable thing to say, one that any sane Dutch person could hardly disagree with, given the recent behavior of Ridouan Taghi and the Mocro Mob.

Unfortunately, there may not be very many sane people left in the Netherlands. Mr. Wilders still has numerous supporters, but not enough to change the suicidal trajectory of the country through voting.

The following video features remarks made by Geert Wilders after the announcement of the verdict against him. Many thanks to Gary Fouse for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

“No Freedom Without Vaccination”

Hellequin GB has translated an article from SWR (Südwestrundfunk) about a really swell German dude named Dr. Peter Heinz (at left in the graphic below).

Dr. Heinz is the Chairman of the Rhineland-Palatinate Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians. The translator suggests that he bears a certain family resemblance to the fellow on the right, the late Heinrich Himmler, former head of the Schutzstaffel in the Third Reich. You decide.

“No Freedom Without Vaccination”

State health insurance chief demands that unvaccinated people no longer be allowed to travel

The chairman of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians in Rhineland-Palatinate, Peter Heinz, calls for massive restrictions on freedom for unvaccinated people. He refuses to call for a compulsory vaccination.

“The non-vaccinated do not have the freedom to take off their masks. They are not allowed to go to the stadium, the swimming pool or the supermarket without a mask. And the unvaccinated and those with just a simple vaccination are no longer allowed to go on vacation,” said Heinz in the Rhein-Zeitung.

“Even with a negative test, no vacation”

In his opinion, even with a negative test, unvaccinated people should not go on vacation: “A negative test does not protect. For example, anyone who goes to an island with a negative PCR test may very well be infected there, go home, and become a virus carrier.”

“No freedom without vaccination”

“Anyone who gives freedom to the unvaccinated is wasting the chance to reach everyone with the vaccination,” said Heinz. You have to make it clear to people: “Without vaccination there is no freedom. Without this pressure, we will not convince people.” Unvaccinated people are a danger to society and should therefore not be given the same freedoms as vaccinated people.

Heinz considers rewards for vaccination to be “absurd”. However, he rejects compulsory vaccination as “paternalism”. Giving freedom only to vaccinated people is not a hidden obligation to vaccinate, “but an inevitable conclusion from a pandemic situation.”