Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (57)


By John Mackay (Creation News), 12/8/2021

They fear death but not God and seek salvation by Jab not Jesus, and fear is their key to
power! Yet so many who do believe this is their Father’s World and their body is His holy temple have emailed or called our Creation Research head office asking ‘What should we do about the Jab?’

Many University Students are paining with “I’ve been told my Uni career is down the drain if
I don’t get the Jab”; or Bosses are sharing “My company will get no further contracts unless
my workers are Jabbed!” Add to that the Medical Drs sharing how they won’t have the Jab
and don’t advise it, but add “Don’t say I said it!” And then there’s the Parents who are told
“Your children can’t come to our school if you’re not Jabbers,” … “What should we do?”
So what advice is correct to give re the Jab? How do we decide? Yes, we do have access to
highly qualified medical scientists and professors, plus pastors and as well as lay folk and of
course our Lawyer, so that does make it much easier. For this editorial alone, feedback was
sought from some 20 people. Here’s what we have found.

At almost every level we have been able to confirm reports of deaths after covid vax or
blindness or pregnancy problems, but when we ask; “Will you put your name to this?” – from
layman to Professor the answer is almost always – “It would cost me my job!” One dear
senior citizen reporting real post vax sickness problems in her town, finished with “I won’t
name names as I don’t know who’s listening.”

The whole nature of our western society has evidently been changed from being one of strong independence and openness, to a place where many fear the phone is tapped, their emails are read, or even their neighbours will report them. Such action is being openly encouraged as ‘the way to go’ at most levels of officialdom – even in dinki-di, downunder Oz.

It is interesting that The Australian newspaper on Sunday August 1 2021 (web post),
published an article on how Health Authorities don’t know what to do with the significant
number of doctors who are counselling patients to not have the Jab. It seems that a Dr’s oath
to protect their patients has no value in the eyes of government when Doctors disagree with
the government’s political position. Which translates to ‘by law doctors are not entitled to
have any opinion, except the official one – or be de-registered!’

The fear of professional castration dominates even those willing to spill the beans or think differently, and Doctors Against Covid run closed covert meetings that have a verbal hash tag … ‘You can’t quote us!’ Even the August 11 Courier Mail reports many Aussie Drs won’t give the vax to under 60’s because the Aussie PM has not come good with his promise to grant them immunity against legal liability for damage, disease and death.

It has become a global trend to treat the unvaccinated as ‘unclean’, as the enemy onto which
the yellow star of Covid is slowly and surely being boldly stitched, no matter what their
qualifications. Equally obvious is that at every level, fear is the chief weapon being used to
control God’s chief creation …. mankind!
It is very evident to us that the innocent and ignorant may accept the illnesses and deny or
ignore the death rate within a month of the Jab, simply regarding it as an acceptable price for
community wellbeing as they excuse vax problems on the basis this is an urgent rush job by
governments who are merely ‘Doing their best’, as they are constantly succoured by repeated
putdowns from FACT-CHECKER or shouts of conspiracy, conspiracy, to deny any factual

Yet the majority they don’t even know that the death rate from the tetanus vaccine since the
1940’s has been a total of 2 people worldwide, and anyone can find out that many more have
died after the Jab in just the last month! I remember when my friends suffered from polio and
TB – it was a real issue. Seemed I was naturally immune and didn’t need any of those shots,
but as someone who still remembers how long and hard I suffered from the common flu virus
before flu shots, I am immensely grateful for those vaccines. But that was a world where
Pfizer didn’t keep bumping its prices up, and fear was not public persuasion policy, and the
drug companies weapon of choice.

Don’t be fooled by the emotional push of ‘doing your bit … we are in this together …
remember your oldies! … get the jab now!’ But I am one of the oldies ones, and I fear loss of
truth and freedom way more than the viral spreading of politicians self-centred control of

Wherever you have politicians or medicos who have murdered millions who never had a
chance to fight back through their policies on abortions, don’t trust their claims to care for
your health. They are the ones beginning to now demand your children be free to make their
own life decisions about Jab, or Gender, and even worse, they seek to bulk vaccinate schools
without parental consult or consent. You are the Creator’s appointed protector and guardians
of your own kids. Be that!

As one refugee from behind the Iron Curtain shared … ‘It reminds him of his darkest days
under communism’ … a time when controlling minds and men through fear was the norm.
But none of this is freedom! Neither is it democracy, and all of it betrays a devil in every
detail, as political powers and company kings enforce the sad fear ridden reality of
compulsory and total vaccination.

But now our ex eastern bloc friend knows that only the ‘Perfect love of Jesus casts out fear’ (1John 4:18) and because he is currently high up in the Medical Industry, he is also able to provide us with the ‘rest of the story’. Yes – sadly even he has told us that leaking what he has could cost him his job. What a world? Pray for us as telling the truth about the Creator and creation comes at a high price, but the tarnished cost is 30 pieces of silver.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (55C)

By Andrew McColl, 12th October, 2021

Whatever replaces humanism must be comprehensive: a world-and -life view that addresses every area of life. Its recommended alternative programs must also be philosophically consistent with its declared world-and-life view. If it is to survive over long periods of time, its recommended programs must also be practical. The programs must work, meaning that they must be consistent with the way the world really works, as well as consistent with its own presuppositions.

A world-transforming gospel is not one that offers a religious way of life whose visible positive effects are strictly confined to family and church-hearth and home-because people demand more from a world-and-life view than the promise of a safe place of temporary retreat when the work day or work week is done. What people insist upon is a system for their life’s work that really does work. What they demand, in short, is a system for dominion.[1]

1st Samuel is a book of pain, that commences with the narrative of a corrupt priesthood, that God is about to judge (I Samuel 4). But 1st Samuel doesn’t come from nowhere. It’s closely related to the preceding book, the Book of Judges, and its multiple, apostate attempts by Israel to centralise government in an individual or a dynasty, all of which prove futile, leading to a civil war (Judges 20).

Judges chapter 9 sounds like an abbreviated version of 1st Samuel, without the corrupt priesthood. Gideon has died, and one of his sons decides to grasp power by murdering all his brothers, arrogating power to himself, only to finish up dying in battle, leaving a mess behind him.

Why is this relevant today?

Our real problems today with Covid and its spin-offs, have not commenced with government at all, but with the church’s leadership. The Bible describes the church as “…the pillar and support of the truth” (I Tim.3:15). But in my estimation, 98% of church leaders today are quite happy to go along with the Welfare State. This means that Education, Health and Welfare are dominated by government departments at a State and Federal level, requiring that a huge amount of taxation be exacted from the community. Yet none of this has scriptural sanction, for the Bible is a document that’s implacably opposed to the Welfare State.

God wants His people to be of great influence and responsibility in the community (see Eph.3:10), but that’s not what 98% of Ministers want. It’s not something they’ve been prepared for by their training, their doctrine, their eschatology or their experience.

But it’s all coming home to haunt them, and us. They don’t like the idea that books like I Samuel, and its tale of an apostate priesthood which God judges, should speak to our situation today, because that’s too daunting, damning and radical. After all, can’t we speak of the love of God for lost sinners? Yes, we can.

And we can and must speak of His judgments on His people when they’ve been disobedient to Him, and have failed to take His Word seriously. And we can associate our problems politically and socially, directly with the Church’s disobedience.

Judgment may not be a popular sermon theme, but scripture requires us to accept that it begins “…with the household of God” (I Pet.4:17).

Rushdoony pointed out that

The cleansing of the Temple was predicted in Malachi 3:1. The Temple was the house of God, His appointed dwelling place. God speaks throughout the Old Testament of the tabernacle and the Temple as “My house.” Our Lord in Matthew 16:18 speaks of “My church.” As against this, our Lord refers to the Temple as “your house.” When the sanctuary or church becomes man’s, it is doomed, because God will move against it. At the beginning and end of His ministry, our Lord cleansed the Temple (Matt.21:12-13). He cleansed it because it was properly His house, required to serve Him and not itself. The Temple’s rejection of an inner cleansing slated it for judgment.[2]

Thus we cannot expect lasting community change will eventuate, until God’s people are on their knees in repentance, asking God for His forgiveness and mercy for our many shortcomings, and our failures to be faithful to Him in declaring the “…whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:27), and the logical applications of His law to the community.

Maybe this is too much. Maybe, He’ll have to raise up a new generation of leadership willing to obey His Word, setting aside the compromises, the accommodations with the enemies of God, along with the acceptance of such things as Public Education, Health and Welfare.

And that would be consistent with 1st Samuel: on-going social pain, till there’s change in the church. It’d be easy to avoid this, and shove the issue back under the carpet where it’s been for three centuries, pleading that

We’re not under law but under grace,


You can’t mix religion with politics,

Or some other pathetic excuse for our disobedience to a holy God. But the issue remains the same, that

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever (Heb.13:8).


God requires that the house of God be cleaned up, and that we do it. He will not accept it left like some kind of moral pigsty, where acceptance and tolerance for abominable practices is the standard fare, because it’s not standard fare for Him.

Forty years ago, Herbert Schlossberg penned this:

Even the good kings of ancient Judah, who expelled the worship of the Baals from the temple, left the Asherim and their devotees undisturbed on the hills. So rooted in communal life these deities became, that it was unthinkable to be rid of them. In the late twentieth century the West is similarly plagued with major and minor idols, some of them all but invisible. It is hard to imagine a more important or satisfying role than to embark on the spiritual, intellectual, and political adventure of working toward stripping them, root and branch, from the land.[3]

Wouldn’t you want to be a part of that?

[1] Gary DeMar and Peter Leithart, “The Reduction of Christianity,” 1988, p.360.

[2]Rousas Rushdoony, “The Gospel of John,” 2000, p.23.

[3]Herbert Schlossberg, “Idols for Destruction,”1983, quoted in Gary North (Ed), “Tactics for Resistance,” 1983, p.81.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (55D)

Christian Leaders, Fight for the Conscience of Your People: Vaccine Mandates and Letters of Exemption

“Will the Confessing Church ever learn that majority decision in matters of conscience kills the spirit?” Dietrich Bonhoeffer


By Giuliano BordoniTim GrantMatthew Littlefield, and Warren McKenzie.

“Will the Confessing Church ever learn that majority decision in matters of conscience kills the spirit?” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

The current state of affairs

Australia, October 2021, is a much different country when compared to Australia, February 2020. How would you have felt if, when you first heard the words “two weeks to flatten the curve” you knew that in little over a year you would be living in a country where significant portions of the population would be losing their jobs if they didn’t undergo a specific medical procedure? Or, perhaps, if you were told that those two weeks of lockdown would turn into a future where those who do not approve of having a medical procedure imposed on them would not be able to interact freely with loved ones, friends, workmates, etc. If you could have known this beforehand, how would you have felt back then when those initial weeks of lockdown were announced?Advertisement

Whilst there are glimmers of relief for the vaccine-hesitant, even coming from some quite unexpected solitary voices in secular places of authority, the silence in the room when it comes to the vast majority of Christian leaders is almost deafening. In the same week, Victoria announced the most totalitarian vaccination policy this country has ever seen, you could hear a pin drop in that hypothetical room filled with leaders from all sorts of Christian affiliations. Not even the fact that Christian leaders will be unable to continue to shepherd their flocks if they are not double jabbed by a certain date has been enough to provoke a reaction at this stage. The Church appears thoroughly cowed.

Daniel Andrews, along with Gladys Berejiklian, for example, have not only now rewritten the requirements for Christian fellowship and worship, but Andrews even took a step further and has now also meddled with 1 Timothy 3:1-7. The Victorian premier has passed a policy which, in practice, means that it is no longer enough for Elders to fulfill the requirements listed by Paul in the letter mentioned above, but they also need to be vaccinated in order to exercise their office.

In the midst of all this confusion, there was a faint light glistening at the end of the tunnel.  People started to talk about the possibility of Christian ministers writing letters of exemption for people in their churches whose livelihoods were in jeopardy, yet had objections to the vaccination on the basis of conscience. One would think most Christian leaders would be eager for the opportunity to offer some relief for the conflicted in their flocks but, instead, what we witnessed playing out is something quite different.

Many leaders, for example, The Gospel Coalition Australia, are currently arguing that unless people’s religious objections are based on a narrow set of arguments, then the objection doesn’t qualify for a religious exemption.  The main argument they allow is a narrow exception for those concerned about the use of aborted fetal tissue in vaccine development. Even some Baptists, who are supposed to hold ‘liberty of conscience’ as one of their distinctives, have followed this line of thought and argued that there are only a couple of religious grounds for declining a vaccine.

In other words, if a person is opposed to being vaccinated on other grounds besides the use of fetal cells, even, perhaps, something that could be very private, such a person will probably hear a ‘no’ from many Christian leaders in Australia today. This attitude shows many people do not understand how conscientious religious objection works, namely,  how Christians understand the requirements of Christ over their lives in regard to what is and isn’t permissible. It is unfair for Christians to be interrogated in what could be a fairly embarrassing process of trying to analyse a person’s real motivation by asking questions such as, ‘What about these other medications? They were also developed with fetal cells, aren’t they? Have you thought about that?’ Why some are trying to create a ‘gotch ya’ kind of scenario is beyond our reasoning capacity.Advertisement

Even after a person has been exposed to all of that in order to know if they are really “worthy” of that charity from one of their leaders, the ‘no’ is almost guaranteed in many cases.

The questions many are asking

But, are these limited reasons really all there are?  Aren’t any other objections that originate from the Christian conscience enough to serve as the foundation for a religious exemption? Whilst the decision about signing a letter of exemption is also a matter of conscience on the part of each individual Christian leader, to completely disregard as religious objections other types of conscious biblical objections, besides the use of aborted fetal cells in the vaccine production process, can be a real revelation about the compromised thought process of some leaders in the church.

Could it be that such leaders haven’t spent enough time considering Romans 14, or article 20.2 in the Westminster Confession of Faith or similar confessions, which contain weighty doctrines that when neglected can cause a huge impact on minority groups in our congregations? Or are they maybe being apathetic? Or are they being fearful, perhaps, since they would prefer not to risk their valuable reputations and not to appear to be at odds with the governing authorities?Advertisement

Regardless of the answers to the questions above, we most certainly believe that there are other valid types of conscientious biblical objections, especially regarding this current hesitation around the vaccine. But, before we present our case, we want to make sure we proceed on clear and common ground. Therefore, it is necessary before we continue, that we should define our terms. 



Much has been said about ‘the conscience’ or ‘the Christian conscience’ in this debate, but what is meant by those terms? Jonathan Edward’s provides a definition in his work “Ethical Writings”, namely: 

That disposition to approve or disapprove the moral treatment which passes between us and others, from a determination of the mind to be easy, or uneasy, in a consciousness of our being consistent or inconsistent with ourselves.1

In other words, the conscience is the mind’s internal referee, at times approving, at times disapproving of our thoughts, actions, inactions, and interactions with others. 

Lordship of Christ

The Christain confession that “Christ is Lord” is comprehensive and is not vague spiritualism. That Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate is an undeniable historical fact, recorded in scripture and other external sources. Scripture attests to the resurrection of our saviour, and Paul records that upon returning to life, Jesus “…appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time…” (1 Corinthians 15:6).

All are called to subject all of their lives to the risen and reigning Christ. This faith is revealed to us in God’s Holy Word, the Bible.  For the Christian, the Scriptures are, therefore, sufficient for life and faith and we are compelled to believe and obey all that is written within them. To do otherwise, would result in disobedience. The Christian submits to the Lordship of Christ, as they submit to His Holy Word.

Religious objection

In this debate, most agree that religious objections do exist and that they do qualify an objecting person for having a religious exemption letter signed. The issue around using aborted fetal tissue in the production process of vaccines, for example, is a clear case of a non-disputable religious objection in the minds of many. Those who hold to that specific objection do so based on their biblical understanding that offering any form of affirmation or support to products that benefited from the evil of abortion is something God would always condemn, regardless of any possible benefits.

If we are to define ‘religious objection’ based on this particular example of aborted fetal cell lines, and in light of the other two definitions previously given, we would say that a religious objection is an uneasy mind, which originates from a particular reading of the Scriptures, resulting in the inability of an individual to proceed with a determined course of action without experiencing a deep sense of disobedience against God, because one considers himself to be under the direct Lordship of Christ. 

A case for any objecting Christian to be provided with an exemption

If the previous paragraph is true, is it correct to say then, when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccines, that the only situation capable of producing an uneasy Christian mind are those narrow considerations expressed by some prominent Australian Christian leaders?  We don’t think so. The Lordship of Christ impacts the conscience in a far more comprehensive fashion.

In our current situation, we find ourselves divided because of two dichotomous positions.  However, on matters not pertaining to the moral law, God allows for liberty of conscience.  Paul assures us that there will be varying “opinions” amongst Christians on many different subjects (Romans 14:1). The word “opinions” (ESV) can be equally translated as “conclusions reached through reasoning.”2

Paul acknowledges that two separate Christians, reasoning in light of scripture and endeavouring to apply the Lordship of Christ to their lives, will, sometimes, arrive at different conclusions (Romans 14:2). He also says in Philippians “Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you” (Philippians 3:15), which indicates that there is an apostolic expectation that Christians will think in a certain manner, but, as for the process of arriving at that point of agreement, that’s between each Christian and the Lord. Passages like this one show that one of Paul’s priorities in ministry is to ensure each persons’ conscience is being respected and led, primarily, by the Lord in matters where freedom of thought is allowed.  

These conclusions are not to be treated lightly, namely, they entail the formation of conscience in the life of a Christian, which directly pertains to “faith” and “sin” (Romans 14:23). “Faith” and “sin” are matters that are first and foremost directed toward God (Psalm 51:4).  One action originates from “faith” and puts the conscience at ease, yet another action proceeds not from faith and causes the conscience to become uneasy because that action is in fact sin (Romans 14:1423).

In the life of the Christian, the conscience cannot be separated from reasoning in the light of scripture, and scripture cannot be separated from its mediation of the Lordship of Christ over the life of a saint. A Christian who has reasoned in the light of scripture will endeavour to be consistent with the conclusions to which they have arrived. Although, as Paul argues, Christians may arrive at different conclusions on matters of indifference and he also urges neither to quarrel over these matters (Romans 14:1), nor to judge others on these matters (Romans 14:4,13), nor to place a stumbling block in the life of a believer. Why? Because to compel a Christian to act in discord with his conclusions is to cause them to become inconsistent with their biblical reasoning.

On such matters, the believer gives an account, not to men, but to God (Romans 14:12).  Calvin would write “Our consciences have not to do with men but with God only.”3 For any man, entity, or institution to impose something on a conscience on matters not related to the moral law, would be for that entity to usurp the place of God.  

In our context, we have a unique set of challenges. Broadly speaking, Christians are reasoning from two different sets of assumptions. The first, from the prevailing narrative, namely, that the vaccine is safe and effective, and therefore is beneficial for me and those around me; God is honoured in this act. The second, from a counter-narrative, the vaccine is a ‘clinical trial’ in a highly politicized public health environment and hence caution is necessitated.  The vaccine may not be beneficial for me and those around me; God may not be honoured in this act. These two perspectives, under normal circumstances, would be able to coexist side-by-side, with individuals acting in accordance with their conscience, and receiving or abstaining from the vaccine as seems best to them before God. However, for many people, the state has removed the matter of conscience, mandating the vaccine through coercive means. 

Indeed, for many believers, the simple fact that all of society’s major institutions such as the media, academia, and government, along with many of the public Christians leaders, are pressuring them to do something, is itself the reason for their religious objection. Some Christians are deeply skeptical of social pressure, aware that their brethren have endured extreme examples of such behaviour throughout history. Thomas Crosby describes the milieu of the early English Baptists this way, “…liberty of conscience [was] taken away, and the most cruel and barbarous actions committed”4 and, sadly,  such deprivation of liberty of conscience is still occurring today in many places. 

Think about this: when in history have all of these institutions come together to override people’s consciences, in a rushed and high-pressure situation, and done this for good? Never? Rarely? This one fact alone causes many Christians to be suspicious. For others, it may not, but compelling the conscience of those who are, only confirms their suspicions.  

How then do we articulate vaccine mandates and their resulting impact on the minority Christian conscience from a theological perspective? Candidly stated, one set of assumptions and its associated formed conscience have been imposed on the other. Conscience has been usurped. The conscience of the minority group of Christians has become uneasy, they are being coerced to act in a way that doesn’t proceed from faith. Some people are being pressured to act in opposition to their conscience when that very conscience was formed through reasoning in the light of scripture. The result of this action is that there are Christians who are now being coerced to act inconsistently with the Lordship of Christ in their lives. This is a serious point; it is the point. 

One mistake many people make when evaluating whether another Christian’s conscientious objection is a valid religious one is that they focus only on the issue. This is a mistake. The question is often not the specific issue, the real question is: who is Lord of the Church and Conscience? In the early Baptist and Puritan movements, non-conformists of both stripes were willing to be persecuted for, among other things, not agreeing with the decreed vestments5 (religious garments) commanded for Church of England ministers by the Crown.

Some people might think this is extreme, being willing to suffer over such a disputable issue. But the issue was not ever really about the vestments. The issue was who was Lord of the Church; the crown or the Lord Jesus Christ? The Puritans, and their offshoot cousins, the Baptists, were willing to suffer for this point. Their conscience would allow them to do no other thing.6  If the Baptist forebears were willing to object to required religious garments which are worn externally, how much more should we object to mandated vaccines which are administered internally?

The question, then, that we must answer for the church, in this case, is: what is the proper response when the majority’s conscience is imposed on the minority’s conscience? Dietrich Bonhoeffer in fact provided a response to this question 83 years ago, with a short pithy statement on the matter:

In June 1938 The Sixth Confessing Church Synod met to resolve the church’s latest crisis. Dr Friedrich Werner, state commissar for the Prussian Church, had threatened to expel any pastor refusing to take the civil oath of loyalty as a “birthday gift” to Hitler. Instead of standing up for freedom of the church, the synod shuffled the burden of decision to the individual pastors. This played into the hands of the Gestapo, who could then easily identify the disloyal few who dared to refuse. Infuriated at the bishops, Bonhoeffer demanded, “Will the Confessing Church ever learn that majority decision in matters of conscience kills the spirit?”

There is a need for pastors and church leaders to defend the reasoned conclusions of people in their congregations, especially on the issue of a ‘clinical trial’ vaccine. These are matters of conscience that are intimately connected to a person’s relationship with God.

Imagine for a moment that you are the pastor of the church in Rome in ~57AD.  You have read Paul’s command to provide liberty on various opinions not related to the moral law (Romans 14).  How would you respond to the people in your congregation if, on the very next day, Caesar mandated that those who only eat vegetables must now only eat meat?  Would you:

  1. Withdraw from such people, embarrassed at the indignity of having to defend their conscience which is no longer sanctioned by the state?
  2. Fight at great expense to yourself in order to protect their conscience and maintain the unity of the faith?

Choose carefully. This is not a test.  Currently, there are people in our congregations who cannot in good conscience obey the state health orders and receive a vaccine, and whose livelihoods are now on the line. There are many others who, because of excessive coercion and the lack of alternatives provided to avoid or stand against such coercive methods, have already received the vaccine whilst, in their minds, being opposed to it. Leaders have been given some reasonable power to come to the rescue of their people whose consciences are being coerced and became uneasy due to conflict with the Lordship of Christ in their lives.

Even if pastors don’t necessarily agree with the ‘hesitant’s position’, Romans 14 should guide them to come to the defence of the minority’s conscience in their congregations. A person with a conflicted conscience before the Lord is a person in serious spiritual danger because the sin born out of an action that proceeds not from faith is as dangerous as any sin.

If anything, Christian leaders should at least be seen fighting on behalf of their flocks due to the spiritual implications of an uneasy conscience. To provide letters of exemption to Christians with many other genuine concerns and objections to getting vaccinated, besides the issue around aborted fetal cells, is not only the charitable thing to do, but it is a matter of taking good care of the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made us overseers.


Giuliano Bordoni

Pastor Giuliano Bordoni is a registered minister part of Queensland Baptists. Giuliano has a bachelor of Music, as well as a master of Divinity, focused on pastoral studies.

Tim Grant

Tim Grant is the pastor of Mount Isa Baptist Church. He is a registered Minister in the Baptist Union of Queensland. Tim has a ‘Bachelor of Ministry’ and ‘Master of Arts in Theology.’

Matthew Littlefield

Reverend Matthew Littlefield is the pastor of New Beith Baptist Church. He is an ordained Minister in the Baptist Union of Queensland. Matthew has a Masters in Theology.

Warren McKenzie

Warren McKenzie is pastor at Biota Baptist Church in Inala, Brisbane. His interests are theology and evangelism. He is currently studying a Master of Theology through Malyon College.


  1. Edwards, J. (1989). Ethical Writings. (P. Ramsey & J. E. Smith, Eds.) (Vol. 8, p. 592). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
  2. Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 232). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  3. Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. (1845). Institutes of the Christian religion (Vol. 3, p. 196). Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society.
  4. Crosby, T. (2011). The History of the English Baptists (Vol. 1, pp. 1–2). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
  5. Bebbington, D. (2017). Baptists Through the Centuries: A History of a Global People (pp. 17–18). Baylor University Press.
  6. If you think this was a silly sacrifice, let me ask you: does your minister wear the officially decreed vestments of the crown of England? If not, thank the Puritans, it gets really hot in Australia.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (55B)

When They’re Oppressing You

By Andrew McColl, 5th October, 2021

But the Lord abides forever; He has established His throne for judgment, and He will judge the world in righteousness; He will execute judgment for the people with equity. The Lord also will be a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble; and those who know Your name will put their trust in You, for You, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek You (Ps.9:7-10).

We shouldn’t be surprised that there are monsters in governments today. They’ve been around from the beginning. Pharaoh was one of them, until God drowned him in the Red Sea (Ex.14:27-28).

When Moses was first sent by God to challenge Pharaoh, he responded bluntly.

Who is the Lord that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the Lord, and besides, I will not let Israel go (Ex.5:2).

Pharoah wasn’t interested in granting freedom to Israel’s slaves, and neither are our modern monsters. Some of them wear dresses, but they are monsters, nonetheless.

What makes them monsters? They utterly reject the idea of a God Who rules over them, and they enjoy pushing people around. Nowadays, they’re using the smokescreen of “Public Health.”

Once again, there is nothing new about this. The Psalmist spoke of the uproar in his era, when

…the king of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, “Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!” (Ps.2:2-3).

Monsters in high places do create challenges, but there are important, scriptural means of dealing with them, and the first two chapters of Exodus illustrate these.

Firstly, the two Hebrew mid-wives (Shiphrah and Puah) chose a strategy of quiet but constructive disobedience, to Pharoah’s evil commands to them to murder Hebrew baby boys (Ex.1:15-16). When they were discovered, they lied to him. They’re explanation was

…because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife can get to them (Ex.1:20).

The next verse tells us,

So God was good to the midwives, and the people multiplied, and became very mighty. Because the midwives feared God, He established households for them.

Plainly, this text connects the midwives’ faithfulness to God in lying to protect the baby boys, to His blessing. They obeyed the Lord-He blessed them.

Secondly, when Moses’ mother bore him, she chose to disobey the law in not killing him. Rather, like the midwives, she concocted a devious scheme of protection and concealment (Ex.2:1-10), even involving Pharoah’s daughter.

Was this really right? The New Testament explains:

By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw he was a beautiful child, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict (Heb.11:23).

Sometimes, disobedience to civil government is not just acceptable, but absolutely necessary for the godly. In both examples, there was nothing else for these bold and godly folk to do, but to act with deliberate and planned deception, in the protection of innocent life. And the Bible in its consistency speaks very plainly (if indirectly) of Who they really feared the most:

There are six things that the Lord hates, Yes seven which are an abomination to
Him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood… (Prov.6:16-17).

Consider this 3rd case: Rehab’s protection of the 2 spies from Israel (Joshua 2). She concealed them, she lied about their whereabouts (v.3-6), she saved their lives (v.15-16). Clearly, she could have been killed by the king of Jericho, for her actions against Jericho in a time of  impending war. Because of her actions, she was later protected from Israel’s genocide that came upon the city (Joshua 6:20-25), she married a godly man (Mat.1:5), and she was grafted into the lineage of Jesus Christ.

How can we describe this set of activities?

Non-violent, imaginative resistance by people who feared the Lord, protecting the innocent. In our time of challenge when people of doubtful ethical standards are in power, using that power oppressively, we must consider if we should emulate these earlier examples.

In a public document such as this, there isn’t any need to go into detail. Suffice to say, that these three examples (and there are many more in scripture) will suffice to make this principle evident:

Absolute, unconditional obedience to any human authority has no basis in scripture, for this would be a violation of “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Ex.20:3).


Difficult, oppressive times call for wise, prudent and imaginative choices from the Lord’s people. We must make these, submitting ourselves to His law, while taking all the necessary steps to preserve the lives of the innocent from those who would oppress them.

And in these choices, we can call for and expect His help and blessing.

Arise, O Lord; O God, lift up Your hand. Do not forget the afflicted. Why has the wicked spurned God? He has said to himself, “You will not require it.” You have seen it, for You have beheld mischief and vexation to take it into Your hand. The unfortunate commits himself to You; You have been the helper of the orphan. Break the arm of the wicked and the evildoer, seek out his wickedness until You find none (Ps.10:12-15).

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (55A)

Don’t Let the Shepherds Silence You on Digital Vaccine Passports

By Rod Lampard, “The Cauldron,” 18/9/2021

If we once normalise an unbiblical divide like this in church, we are searing the consciences of our members and setting ourselves up for long-term segregation whether mandated or not because we have NOT clearly said, “It is wrong.”

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill, and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness.” (Matthew 23:23)

Where in history has it ever gone well for a society to have Government sanctioned and enforced discrimination and segregation – apartheid in South Africa, segregation in America, Jews in Nazi Germany?

Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.” (Luke 6:26)

You who with honeyed words and couched in tones of highest respectability rationalise to get the church to do what ought not to be done. After all, “it’s only temporary” – a statement with an appalling track record given the first lockdown to flatten the curve and Melbourne, at least, facing the world’s longest lockdown.

While Australia is one of the few countries in the world to ban unvaccinated from public worship (along with Brazil, Nigeria, and Israel), you imply that it will all blow over as it seems to have done in the UK, Sweden, and Denmark — no need to make an uncomfortable and costly stand now… again ignoring that these changes didn’t happen in a vacuum but in the case of the UK following huge public protests and back benchers revolt, and in the case of Sweden from a determined refusal to lockdown or limit liberty too greatly throughout the pandemic. None of which we are seeing here.

We are also missing the spiritual dynamic and God’s blessing which we cannot just turn on and off at a whim. He is not to be trifled with.  Indeed, if we once normalise an unbiblical divide like this in church, we are searing the consciences of our members and setting ourselves up for long-term segregation whether mandated or not because we have NOT clearly said, “It is wrong.”

They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace.” (Jeremiah 6:14)

Meanwhile, their true heart is shown again in The Pastor’s Heart, where the discussion is that even if it wasn’t mandatory, segregated services could be a good idea. Another chimes in on excluding ‘them’ from ministry – so people feel safe coming of course.

Once again, the church here is following the world or the latest opinion poll instead of speaking the truth in love. They love to use the immunocompromised to make their argument sound loving — instead of responsibly reminding their congregations and the community that a person who is immunocompromised is at risk whether it is a vaccinated or an unvaccinated person sitting next to them as all can transmit — that excluding the unvaccinated solves very little.

While these pastors are happy to educate people about the need to get vaccinated, it seems they are not so happy to calm people’s exaggerated fears.

Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and respectful greetings in the marketplaces.” (Luke 11:43)

You who claim to have the ear of the Government – who assure us that we must not stand against injustice publicly through the Ezekiel Declaration– but leave it to them working behind the scenes in much more ‘respectful’ ways. And what have they achieved behind the scenes in real terms?

The faithful Archbishop Kanishka Raffel who originally gave this clarion gospel call:

Jesus is Lord of all, and his gospel is a gospel for all. A ‘No Entry’ sign at the door of the church is wholly inconsistent with the gospel preached inside. Neither race, gender, ethnicity, age, nor economic or educational status – or vaccination status – are to operate as divisions within the Christian community or barriers to the fellowship we share because of Jesus.

…has now been convinced only a few days later to back down and hollowly echo Government health advice and obedience to Caesar:

“I support vaccination because clear medical advice shows you are less likely to get C-19 or have serious complications. While not supporting an indefinite vaccine mandate for entry to churches, we are committed to complying with health orders and ensuring our churches are safe.”


What key Christian leaders accuse others of, they do themselves. They are acquiescing in segregation of the church between vaccinated and unvaccinated against clear scriptural teaching on the unity of the body while ironically accusing those who raise concerns about vaccine passports as ‘creating division’.

They attempt to hold the moral high ground by saying they are the ones ‘loving their neighbour’. In actual fact, their words belie them. Instead of speaking out as church leaders against the increasing rhetoric of hate speech towards the unvaccinated by the media and Government, they echo it.

And so we hear pastors on The Pastor’s Heart mention a worldview clash they see between ‘the highly individualist worldview of the anti-vaxxer and the other-person centeredness of the gospel’ as if Christian anti-vaxxers are outside the fold by definition. Apologies to unvaccinated Pastor Peter Leithart amongst others.

No – a thousand times no. Ephesians 2:14-18 couldn’t be clearer.

“For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups [Jew and Gentile] one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.” (Ephesians 2:14-18)

This is the reverse of a two-tier society in which hatred and fear towards the minority are stoked for political purposes, for politicians will never let go of a perfect scapegoat on which to blame every outbreak, every overloaded hospital from years of underfunding and a growing list of other problems – IF we, the people, do not cry foul.

Where are the ambassadors of Christ to call these leaders to account – Christ who came to the despised – the leper, the Samaritan, and the tax collector?

Martin Niemoller stated his one regret in 1930s Germany was his failure as a minister in the confessing church to stand up for Jews in the community but only for those in the church. Now, we are failing to stand even for the discriminated-against minority in our churches. God help us.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (55)

By Dr Joseph Mercola (, 6/8/2021


  • The U.S. government is seeking to dictate what is truth and what must be censored to protect the public from dangerous information. To that end, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., has introduced a bill that would strip social media platforms of their liability protections if their technologies spread misinformation related to public-health emergencies
  • Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has led the U.S. pandemic response team from the beginning, admitted he lied to the public about the usefulness of masks
  • According to investigative journalist Ben Swann, Fauci has funded gain-of-function research to the tune of at least $41.7 million, a claim Fauci has denied before Congress
  • Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has sent a letter to the Department of Justice asking for a criminal referral. According to Paul, Fauci lied to Congress, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison
  • According to Hannah Cox, content manager for Foundation for Economic Education, “Fauci’s disastrous track record of misinformation, laid bare throughout his many rounds with Rand Paul, shows why the government has no business trying to be a monolithic source and arbiter of truth”

“Misinformation is much more destructive when it emanates from a monopolistic ‘Ministry of Truth,’” Hannah Cox, content manager for Foundation for Economic Education, writes in a July 25, 2021, article.1

“[Anthony] Fauci can’t get his own facts straight, yet the government wants to decide what’s ‘misinformation’ on social media,” she adds, pointing to National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Fauci’s testimony during a recent Congressional committee hearing in which Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., questioned him about his funding of gain-of-function research on coronaviruses. Cox writes:2

“In his opening statement, Paul referenced an academic paper3 that further calls into question the origins of the COVID-19 variant that upended the world.

‘We hypothesize that the direct progenitor of SARS-CoV may have originated after sequential recombination events between the precursors of these SARSr-CoVs,’ stated the numerous scientists and doctors who authored the research.

The data is the latest in a long line of evidence that has emerged indicating the viability of the theory that the disease not only came from a lab, but that the NIH actually funded the laboratory and research that may have produced it.

But in a May hearing, when originally pressed on it by Dr. Paul, Fauci denied that his agency funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

Those statements were brought into doubt. The NIH did fund research at WIV that analyzed bat specimens collected from caves in China to study their potential for infecting humans. The grant was made in a roundabout way through a nonprofit called EcoHealth.”

When pressed, Fauci insisted he has never lied before Congress, and would not retract his May 11, 2021, statement in which he claimed the NIH has “never funded gain-of-function research.” According to Fauci, the PLOS Pathogens paper4 Paul introduced as evidence has been “judged by qualified staff, up and down the chain, as not being gain-of-function.”

“It appears that instead of arguing the actual data, Fauci is now resorting to semantics around the definition of ‘gain-of-function,’” Cox writes,5 “but even to a scientific layman it is becoming increasingly clear that Fauci misled the American public for some time on this matter. He knew he authorized the funding and was not forthcoming on that fact — even when asked by a sitting Senator.”

Paul Highlights Verbatim Admission

Paul appears none too impressed with the semantics defense and has publicly called Fauci out as a liar. In a July 20, 2021, tweet, Paul said,6 “Yes, Dr. Fauci’s NIH did fund the Wuhan Virology Lab. Here’s the verbatim admission from their chief scientist Dr. Shi Zhengli.”

In a follow-up tweet on that same day, Paul stated:7

“MIT biologist Kevin Esvelt reviewed this paper that was published with financial assistance from Dr. Fauci’s NIH/NIAID and concluded ‘certain techniques that the researchers used seemed to meet the definition of gain-of-function.’”

July 20, 2021, Paul went on the Hannity program,8 announcing he “will be sending a letter to Department of Justice asking for a criminal referral because he [Fauci] has lied to Congress,” a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, adding “We have scientists that were lined up by the dozens to say that the research he was funding was gain-of-function.” A month earlier, May 12, 2021, Paul made the same argument, telling Fox News:9

“What Dr. Fauci said yesterday was verifiably false. He said no NIH money went to the Wuhan Institute for gain of function. Well, the main doctor there, the one they call … the bat woman … wrote a paper that MIT scientists have looked at that they said was gain of function — meaning juicing up these viruses to make them very potent and infect humans.

She wrote this paper and, in the paper, acknowledged her funding came from Dr. Fauci’s group, the NIAID, which is part of NIH. So, he is verifiably telling you something that is not true. In the grant application … it says it is for gain of function … So, Dr. Fauci came to Congress yesterday and lied.”

WIV Deleted US Research Partners from Website

Before March 2021, NIAID collaboration and funding of research at the WIV could easily be verified simply by visiting the WIV’s website where it listed its research partners. However, shortly after Fauci testified in a Senate hearing in March 2021,10 the WIV suddenly deleted mentions of its collaboration with the NIAID/NIH and several other American research partners.

As of March 21, 2021, the lab’s website listed the following U.S.-based research partners: University of Alabama, University of North Texas, EcoHealth Alliance, Harvard University, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the United States, and the National Wildlife Federation.11

The next day, only two remained: EcoHealth Alliance and the University of Alabama.12 At the same time, the WIV also deleted studies with hallmark descriptions of gain-of-function research on the SARS virus.13

According to investigative journalist Ben Swann,14 the NIH/NIAID has funded gain-of-function research to the tune of at least $41.7 million. Up until 2014, this research was conducted by Dr. Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina (UNC). In 2014, the U.S. government issued a moratorium on federal gain-of-function research funding due to safety, ethical and moral concerns raised within the scientific community.

At that point, NIAID funding for this kind of research started being funneled through the EcoHealth Alliance to the WIV. Swann reviews documents he believes prove that Fauci lied to Congress, including a paper15 titled “SARS-Like WIV1-CoV Poised for Human Emergence,” submitted to PNAS in 2015 and subsequently published in 2016. In this paper, the authors state that:

“Overall, the results from these studies highlight the utility of a platform that leverages metagenomics findings and reverse genetics to identify prepandemic threats.

For SARS-like WIV1-CoV, the data can inform surveillance programs, improve diagnostic reagents, and facilitate effective treatments to mitigate future emergence events. However, building new and chimeric reagents must be carefully weighed against potential gain-of-function (GoF) concerns.”

At the end of that paper, the authors thank “Dr. Zhengli-Li Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology for access to bat CoV sequences and plasmid of WIV1-CoV spike protein.” They also specify that the research was supported by the NIAID under the grant awards U19AI109761 and U19AI107810, which together total $41.7 million.

Grant Letter Dispels Semantics Defense

A letter16,17 from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to the director of proposals at UNC Chapel Hill, discussing grant U19AI107810, also puts a kink in Fauci’s attempt to change the definition of gain-of-function, and stands in direct challenge to his claim that the NIAID has never funded gain-of-function research, and that Baric’s research never involved gain-of-function. The October 21, 2014, letter states, in part:

“NIAID has determined that the above referenced grant may include Gain of Function (GoF) research that is subject to the recently-announced U.S. Government funding pause …

The following specific aims appear to involve research covered under the pause: Project 1: Role of Uncharacterized Genes in High Pathogenic Human Coronavirus Infect — Ralph S. Baric, PhD — Project Leader. Specific Aim 1. Novel Functions in virus replication in vitro. Specific Aim 3. Novel functions in virus pathogenesis in vivo.”

‘Fauci Found It Appropriate to Lie’

“This would certainly not be the first time Fauci has been caught giving the American people false information,” Cox writes.18 “From the very beginning of the crisis, Fauci found it appropriate to lie to the people and control valuable information around the pandemic.”

She goes on to highlight Fauci’s ever-changing opinion about mask wearing. Scientific evidence shows face masks do not prevent viral illnesses.19 This includes COVID-19-specific research20,21 from Denmark, which found that mask wearing may either reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or increase your risk by 23%. Either way, the vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection free.

Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among controls. When they removed those who did not adhere to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8%, which suggests adherence makes no difference. Among those who reported wearing their face mask “exactly as instructed,” 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% of the controls.

Back in March 2020, Fauci was on the right track, publicly stating that masks cannot prevent viral infection. The video above features one such appearance. At the time, Fauci stated22 that “people should not be walking around with masks” because “it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.” Only symptomatic individuals and health care workers were urged to wear them.

Fauci even pointed out that mask wearing has “unintended consequences” as “people keep fiddling with their mask and they keep touching their face,” which may actually increase the risk of contracting and/or spreading the virus.

In February 2020, Surgeon General Jerome Adams also sent out a tweet urging Americans to stop buying masks, saying they are “NOT effective.”23 (He has since deleted that tweet.) Adams also warned that if worn or handled improperly, face masks can increase your risk of infection.24

Fauci Admits Issuing Intentional Misinformation

By July 2020, Fauci admitted his initial dismissal of face masks was an intentional fib, as there was a shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) at the time and he wanted to ensure there would be enough for frontline workers.25 “If we listen to Fauci’s account, he essentially believed it was alright to prioritize some lives over others and lie to people in the process,” Cox writes.26

This is a classic illustration of the use of what Plato calls the Nobel Lie. It is fine to lie as long as it is for the greater good. Fast-forward a few weeks, and by the end of July 2020, Fauci suggested adding goggles and full face shields, in addition to a mask, ostensibly because the mucous membranes of your eyes could potentially serve as entryways for viruses as well.27

Interestingly enough, a March 31, 2020, report28 in JAMA Ophthalmology found SARS-CoV-2-positive conjunctival specimens (i.e., specimens taken from the eye) in just 5.2% of confirmed COVID-19 patients (two out of 28). What’s more, contamination of the eyes is likely primarily the result of touching your eyes with contaminated fingers, and if you wear goggles or a face shield, you may be more prone to touch your eyes to rub away sweat, condensation and/or scratch an itch.

Fauci’s disastrous track record of misinformation, laid bare throughout his many rounds with Rand Paul, shows why the government has no business trying to be a monolithic source and arbiter of truth. ~ Hannah Cox, Foundation for Economic Education

Around December 2020, recommendations for double-masking emerged,29 gaining momentum through extensive media coverage as we moved into the first weeks of 2021,30 at which time Fauci agreed that wearing two masks instead of just one was “common sense” as it would likely provide greater protection.31

By early May 2021, Fauci introduced the suggestion that we might also start wearing face masks during influenza season after the COVID-19 pandemic recedes “to help avoid spreading or contracting respiratory illnesses like the flu.” Mid-July 2021, Fauci also insisted parents should continue to mask children aged 2 and older, saying:32

“Unvaccinated children of a certain age greater than 2 years old should be wearing masks. No doubt about that. That’s the way to protect them from getting infected, because if they do, they can then spread the infection to someone else.”

No new scientific evidence to support masking against respiratory viruses has been presented, however. Cox also points out that Fauci recommended nationwide school closures even though published science showed children are largely immune33,34 to SARS-CoV-2 infection and are not significant vectors for spread.35 More recent research36 shows children, when infected, also have a survival rate of 99.995%.

Government Nominates Itself as Ministry of Truth

“To add insult to injury, the government has nominated itself as the sole arbiter of truth when it comes to information on the coronavirus,” Cox writes, adding:37

“The Biden Administration has claimed misinformation on social media platforms is ‘killing people’ and has openly been pressuring Facebook to remove posts that do not align with their narrative … This is concerning for multiple reasons.

First and foremost, it is a violation of free speech and the free market for the government to tell any private business how to run its operations. Plain and simple.

Additionally, the government has no business being in a position of determining what the truth is or is not. They’ve been caught lying more times than we can count and are likely to continue, given how misleading the public often serves to increase their own power.

The government’s track record of inaccuracy by no means begins with COVID, but has certainly grown with it. This is the last entity we should trust with a monopoly over information.

Fauci’s disastrous track record of misinformation, laid bare throughout his many rounds with Rand Paul, shows why the government has no business trying to be a monolithic source and arbiter of truth.”

Senator Introduces Bill to Force Online Censorship

July 22, 2021, The Wall Street Journal38 reported Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., has introduced a bill “that would strip online platforms such as Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. of their liability protections if their technologies spread misinformation related to public-health emergencies, such as the Covid-19 pandemic.”

Section 230 protects internet platforms from lawsuits arising from content generated by users and third parties. Klobuchar’s bill would create an exception to this law, the Health and Human Services department (HHS) would be responsible for dictating what health information is true and what is misinformation.

Internet platforms would then be required to censor accordingly or face potential litigation. Time will tell if this bill will pass and stand up to legal scrutiny.

As noted by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in an April 5, 2021, ruling39 in which he weighed in on the ability of social media giants to control free speech, “The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.”

After Censorship, Will Social Credit System Be Far Behind?

If government censorship becomes law, will a social credit system based on government narrative adherence be far behind? “We need to act now to block Britain’s social credit system,” columnist Ross Clark writes in a July 24, 2021, Spectator article.40

While Clark, just 12 days earlier, had estimated it might take two to five years for a British COVID vaccination passport scheme to transition into a full-blown social credit system like that of China, in reality, it’s already being rolled out.

“This morning it was reported that the government is planning to introduce a health app in January which will monitor our shopping, our exercise levels, or intake of fruit and vegetables — and reward us with virtue points which we can exchange for discounts, free tickets … and other goodies,” Clark writes.41

Considering the whole world is acting in lockstep — as described and recommended in the Rockefeller Foundation’s 2010 “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” report42 — it’s probably only a matter of time before the same kind of social credit score “carrot” gets dangled in front of our faces here in the United States.

First Comes the Carrot, Then the Stick

Looking back, it’s easy to see how the carrot and the stick have been intermittently used to herd the population toward a desired goal. While getting everyone injected with SARS-CoV-2 spike producing mRNA is clearly one goal, it’s not the only one.

As indicated by Clark, a social credit system that grants outside agencies complete control over your life is also being introduced, one small step at a time. And, like with the COVID jabs, carrots to get people to voluntarily embrace this social credit system are deployed first. The stick will come out later, as it has with the COVID shots.

ABC News panelist Margaret Hoover recently told George Stephanopoulos she thinks government ought to make life “almost impossible” for people who reject the COVID shot.43

To that end, she suggests making COVID injectables a requirement for government-provided health and financial services, such as VA treatment, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security payments, “because … we are going to have to take care of you on the back end.” 

PayPal to Block Certain Financial Transactions

Those relying on Social Security aren’t the only ones who might begin to feel the sting of the stick. More than 150 health care workers were recently fired from Houston Methodist for refusing the experimental COVID jab,44 and many other professions face the same “jab or job” dilemma.

PayPal is also using the stick against the self-employed and small businesses that aren’t toeing the desired line. It recently partnered with the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism “to investigate how extremist and hate movements in the United States take advantage of financial platforms to fund their criminal activities,” Reuters reported, July 26, 2021,45 with the aim of “disrupting” such transactions.

The headline, “PayPal to Research Transactions That Fund Hate Groups, Extremists,” had originally included the word “Blocking.” Perhaps announcing that PayPal will actually block the financial transactions of those suspected of harboring anti-government sentiments was too great a truth bomb for the average Reuters audience?

Targeted entities include individuals and companies suspected of supporting white supremacy and anti-government narratives, and anyone spreading information and/or profiting from antisemitism, islamophobia, racism, anti-immigrant, anti-Black, anti-Hispanic and anti-Asian bigotry.

The information collected will be shared with other financial institutions, law enforcement and policymakers. It doesn’t take a genius to deduce where this might end up, considering intelligence agencies are already deploying sophisticated cyberwarfare tools against civilians.46,47,48 As reported by independent investigative journalist Whitney Webb in an article for Unlimited Hangout:49

“British and American state intelligence agencies are ‘weaponizing truth’ … in a recently announced ‘cyber war’ to be commanded by AI-powered arbiters of truth against information sources that challenge official narratives.”

While it can cause discomfort, the best defense is a peaceful offense. If you don’t like where things are headed, peaceful disobedience is likely to be the most effective way to push back, be it against mask mandates, forced vaccinations, a two-tier society of vaccinated/unvaccinated with unequal rights and privileges, mandatory vaccine passports, a social credit system, or all of the above.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (54)

Sen. Rand Paul: Mask Mandates and Lockdowns from Petty Tyrants? No, Not Again. Choose Freedom

Charles Burris August 4, 2021


They can’t arrest us all. They can’t keep all your kids home from school. They can’t keep every government building closed – although I’ve got a long list of ones they should.

We don’t have to accept the mandates, lockdowns, and harmful policies of the petty tyrants and feckless bureaucrats. We can simply say no, not again. 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi — you will not arrest or stop me or anyone on my staff from doing our jobs. We have all either had COVID, had the vaccine, or been offered the vaccine. We will make our own health choices. We will not show you a passport, we will not wear a mask, we will not be forced into random screening and testing so you can continue your drunk with power rein over the Capitol. 


President Biden — we will not accept your agencies’ mandates or your reported moves toward a lockdown. No one should follow the CDC’s anti-science mask mandates. And if you want to shutdown federal agencies again — some of which aren’t even back to work fully — I will stop every bill coming through the Senate with an amendment to cut their funding if they don’t come to work. 

No more.

Local bureaucrats and union bosses — we will not allow you to do more harm to our children again this year. Children are not at any more risk from COVID than they are for the seasonal flu. Every adult who works in schools has either had the vaccine or had their chance to. There is no reason for mask mandates, part time schools, or any lockdown measures.


Children are falling behind in school, and are being harmed physically and psychologically by the tactics you have used to keep them from the classroom last year. We won’t allow it again.

If a school system attempts to keep the children from full-time, in-person school, I will hold up every bill with two amendments. One to defund them, and another to allow parents the choice of where the money goes for their child’s education.


Do I sound fed up to you? That’s because I am. 

I’m not a career politician. I’ve practiced medicine for 33 years. I graduated from Duke Medical School, worked in emergency rooms, studied immunology and virology, and ultimately chose to become a surgeon. 

 We are at a moment of truth and a crossroads. Will we allow these people to use fear and propaganda to do further harm to our society, economy, and children?

I have been telling everyone for a year now that Dr. Anthony Fauci and other public health officials were NOT following science, and I’ve been proven right time and time again. 


But I’m not the only one who is fed up. I can’t go anywhere these days — from work, to events, to airports and Ubers, restaurants and stores, without people coming up to me thanking me for standing up for them.

For standing up for actual science. For standing up for freedom. For standing against mandates, lockdowns, and bureaucratic power grabs.

I think the tide has turned, and more and more people are willing to stand up. I see stories from across the country of parents standing up to teacher unions and school boards.

I see members of Congress refusing to comply with Petty Tyrant Pelosi. 


We are at a moment of truth and a crossroads. Will we allow these people to use fear and propaganda to do further harm to our society, economy, and children?

Or will we stand together and say, absolutely not. Not this time. I choose freedom. 

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (53)

How the Scam was Perpetrated

By Paul Craig Roberts July 27, 2021

I have provided numerous documented detailed accounts demonstrating the lack of evidence supporting the official Covid narrative.  The next time you hear Big Pharma’s propagandists say “believe the science,” ask them what science.

When believers in the official narrative and Covid vaccine are confronted with facts, they retreat to a second line of defense.  If the Covid threat is exaggerated and the vaccine unsafe, why did all the doctors and nurses get vaccinated? If the vaccines are unsafe, why haven’t the predicted deaths and injuries showed up?

The answer is that all the doctors and nurses are not vaccinated, do not believe in the extent of the “pandemic” or the hyped threat of Covid—indeed, many regard the hype and vaccine as greater threats than Covid—and the adverse effects of the vaccines are showing up.  The believers in the narrative just do not know it because the presstitute scum suppress the information and do not report it unless to ridicule and denounce it as “disinformation.”

All doctors and nurses are not vaccinated.  For example, here is a report of an entire hospital—200 doctors and 1,500 nurses—on strike in protest of the Macron nazi’s attempt to force them to be vaccinated.

As for the alleged belief in the Covid narrative by doctors and medical personnel, here are 1,500 health professionals who say Covid is the “biggest health scam of the 21st century.

A survey by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons finds that 60% of doctors are not vaccinated.

There are two stronger reasons than doctors’ belief in the efficacy and safety of the vaccine that explain why some doctors are vaccinated.  One is that they get vaccinated in order to save their practices.  Their fear-driven, terrorized patients are afraid to be examined by a doctor who hasn’t been vaccinated.

The other reason is that the main consequence of Obamacare was the buy-up of independent practices by hospital chains and health care organizations.  This transformed independent doctors into employees who have to follow guidelines.  Many who have ignored guidelines by treating patients with HCQ or Ivermectin and by refusing vaccination have been fired. The big organizations for convenience and liability reasons follow whatever is the line of NIH, CDC, FDA, and WHO.  In other words, coercion displaces medical judgement.

As for the adverse effects of the vaccine, EudraVigilance, the European Union’s database of suspected drug reaction reports covering 27 European countries, reports that as of July 17, 2021, there have been 18,928 deaths and 1,823,219 injuries.

In the US the VAERS database reports a total of 463,457 adverse health effects among all age groups following Covid vaccination, including 10,991 deaths and 48,385 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and July 9, 2021.

A CDC whistleblower has revealed in a sworn statement under penalty of perjury that the VAERS deaths released in the report are understated at least by a factor of five and that the actual figure in the VAERS database as of July 9, 2021, is 45,000.

In response to the large numbers of deaths and adverse reactions associated with the vaccines, America’s Frontline Doctors filed a federal lawsuit to curtail emergency use of Covid vaccines.

The British counterpart to the US VAERS is called the Yellow Card system.  It is operated by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.  Based on this database, researchers at the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy (EbMC) have concluded that the Covid-19 vaccines are “unsafe for humans.”  The research group’s director, Dr. Tess Lawrie concluded: “The scope of morbidity is striking, evidencing a lot of incidents and what amounts to a large number of ill.”  Dr. Lawrie arrived at this conclusion based on the Yellow Card data for the first four months of 2021 during which the UK recorded 888,196 adverse vaccine events and 1,253 deaths.

Authorities acknowledge that the reports in the databases of adverse vaccine effects are massively underreported, capturing only from 1-10% of adverse vaccine effects. One reason for the underreporting is that it is not easy to report an adverse vaccine event. The reporting doctor or health organization has to be determined and persistent. The reporting takes time and energy from other demands.  Consequently, there are pressures not to report.

In the case of adverse effects associated with the Covid vaccine, more powerful forces restrict reporting. Democrats do not want the adverse reactions reported.  They have groomed Fauci as the hero who saved us from Trump’s rantings about HCQ and saved all of us from dying from Covid by getting a vaccine out in time. Health care organizations and medical associations that have complied with the official narrative want to protect their credibility from adverse reports in order to avoid providing grounds for employees and members to voice divergent opinions. 

A colleague says that her son experienced cardiac failure and blood clot following his vaccination, which kept him hospitalized for 22 days with his life hanging in the balance. The adverse event is not being reported to VAERS.  The doctors or hospital administrator have avoided reporting to VAERS by attributing his case to an “unknown virus.”  Her son refuses to report the case because he is an ideological Democrat and Democrats have made Fauci and the vaccine their issue.

My colleague also says that her cousin, who lost the use of his legs immediately after the vaccine just as did my friend, then lost the use of his arms the next day, had a heart attack on the way to the ER, and another heart attack 3 days later that killed him.  The doctors won’t report it to VAERS.  The cousin’s wife, an ideological Democrat, defends the vaccine and will not report the case either.

Let’s take the most optimistic case that VAERS, Yellow Card, and EudraVigilance capture 10% of adverse Covid vaccine effects. That means that databases covering the US and part of Europe through about the middle of July 2021 would reveal 299,190 deaths if all deaths were captured by the reporting systems and 639,280 deaths if the whistleblower’s correction of the VAERS deaths is used.

The databases covering the US and part of Europe would show 22,866,760 injuries.

Assuming the UK reporting also captures 10% of adverse events, during the first four months of 2021 the British experienced 8,881,960 adverse effects and 12,530 deaths.

These large numbers are from a small part of the world. They don’t include Russia, China, India, the rest of Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, Canada, Australia. If the same underreporting is characteristic of these areas, the deaths and injuries from the vaccine far exceeds those from Covid.

Play around with the numbers.  Assume that the vaccine adverse reporting systems capture 50% of averse events.  We still have a situation far worse than Covid.

There are two final damning facts.  One is that never before has a vaccine been left in use that had anything close to the official adverse reporting numbers of the Covid vaccine.  Why hasn’t the vaccine been pulled out of use?

The other damning fact is that the requirement for emergency use of an untested and unapproved vaccine is that there are no known cures.  We have known from the beginning that there are two safe and inexpensive cures—HCQ with zinc and Ivermectin with zinc.  To clear the way for a vaccine, these treatments used by many doctors to save patients’ lives, were demonized, and successful attempts were made to prevent their use.  Now there are two more cures according to reports.  What then is the basis for continuing emergency use of the vaccines, much less forcing it on people?

Clearly the health of people is not at the forefront of the Covid drama.

It is important to understand that the vaccine controversy is not one between vaxxers and anti-vaxxers.  Most of the independent scientists and doctors who have revealed the downside of the vaccine are not anti-vaxxers and some of them even recommend the vaccine for some parts of the population.  The vaccine critics see it as an experiment with new technology that behaved differently than expected but continues to be conducted on the world’s population.

The one part of the official narrative that does seem to be true is that the virus is real and can be very dangerous to those with co-morbidities and weak immune systems. The virus can cause death and serious protracted illness.  It is difficult to judge the extent of threat, because hospitals are incentivized to report all deaths as Covid deaths even when the deceased died from other causes. Apparently there are few deaths from Covid alone.

What is most difficult to explain is the hard push for universal vaccination when we know from the databases that the vaccine is itself dangerous and we have known cures.  Recently, I have been receiving “Coronavirus World Updates.”  I did not sign up for the updates, and I do not know who is behind them. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are a Big Pharma operation. They seem to be intended to keep fear alive and to use fear to encourage more vaccinations.  See this for example.

Nothing we know about Covid justifies CNN’s call to punish the unvaccinated, segregate them from society, and force them to pay for Covid tests each and every day.  Such hyperbole as this indicates that insanity has taken hold of the issue and rational discourse is impossible.

Youth were largely unaffected by the original Covid.  Now vaccine advocates  claim a new “variant” is attacking the young, which raises suspicions.  The new variant is also being used for political purpose. For example, Florida’s Republican governor who avoided lockdowns and mask mandates is being accused of responsibility for a “new outbreak” in  an area of Florida where 75% of the population is vaccinated, a higher percentage than required for herd immunity. One wonders if this “new outbreak” is really the manifestation of illnesses caused by the vaccine.

In closing I will say that I think I have given a thorough explanation of the issues. It is difficult to do, because the issue was politicized by Democrats and many dissenting expert voices were censored, thus denying us the benefit of differing expert accounts. If the virus is as serious as media and public health bureaucracies have presented it to be, there should have been open debate among experts so that the public would have a chance to understand instead of being indoctrinated by one voice.

Whoever believes my explanation is defective and can do a better job, please step forward.


This Is Admission That Covid Vaccines Do Not Protect 

Tyranny Based On An Orchestrated “Pandemic”

If herd immunity, natural immunity, and cures exist, there is no justification for mandated universal vaccination.

How can a vaccine known to be toxic and to cause deaths and injuries be mandatory?

These mandates are certainly not related to public health.  Is mass vaccination being coerced prior to the adverse effects having time to fully reveal themselves? 

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (52)

The Demonization of the Unvaxxed

By Karen Hunt, (, July 19, 2021

“Children are the vessels into which adults pour their poison.”
Salman Rushdie, Midnight’s Children

In The Silver Chair, book 6 of CS Lewis’s magnificent The Chronicles of Narnia, the first pages describe a “mixed” school, meaning for boys and girls, that was…

not nearly so mixed as the minds of the people who ran it. These people had the idea that boys and girls should be allowed to do what they liked. And unfortunately what ten or fifteen of the biggest boys and girls liked best was bullying the others. All sort of things, horrid things, went on…[and] the people who did them were not expelled or punished. The Head said they were interesting psychological cases and sent for them and talked to them for hours. And if you knew the right sort of things to say to the Head, the main result was that you became rather a favorite than otherwise.”

The school is called Experiment House and it’s a drab, dull place where, even though it gives the appearance of “everyone doing what they liked,” it’s really a place where everyone must fit in and those who don’t are singled out and persecuted.

The two heroes of the story, Scrubb and Jill, don’t fit in at all, and are being chased by a group of bullies when they come up against the wall at the back of the garden. They are trapped, with nowhere else to turn. In the wall is a door that is always locked. But on this occasion, it opens.

They expected to see the gray, heathery slope of the moor going up and up to join the dull autumn sky. Instead, a blaze of sunlight met them. It poured through the doorway as the light of a June day pours into a garage when you open the door. It made the drops of water on the grass glitter like beads and showed up the dirtiness on Jill’s tear-stained face.”

And so, just as they are about to be caught, Scrubb grabs Jill’s hand and pulls her “through the door, out of the school grounds, out of England, out of our world into That Place.”

I wonder if children read these books anymore? I wonder if children read books at all anymore, or if they simply stare at a lit-up screen and talk into it and it talks back. These books could well be banned as white supremacist propaganda soon anyway. Who knows?

Lewis isn’t very nice to adults in his books. But that’s because adults aren’t very nice to children. Adults have lost their sense of wonderment. The boisterous actions of children are hateful because they remind adults of what they have lost. Children must conform.

Every child who is a little bit different understands exactly how Scrubb and Jill feel. For those who don’t fit in, school is a terrifying place of torture and dread.

What we are now doing to our children with masks and vaccines is a way to make children so compliant that they never think another thought that makes them question what is “behind the door in the wall.”

Children are the bargaining chips held over the heads of those parents who are also inclined towards being just a little bit different. The consequences of being different used to be so benign. Now they could very well be death.

Someone who was once considered a friend might sneeze or touch another person’s hand, or laugh too vigorously and they will become infected. Of course it is better to live in isolation, dependent on electronic devices for amusement and companionship. The world outside is just too unpredictable.

In my last piece Happily Slipping into Our Straight Jackets, I talked about the history of drugging our children and how it has led us to so easily give up our children on the altar of Big Pharma. This, in turn, led us to where we are now, allowing the State to administer an experimental vaccine to our children, and soon even to babies.

As of late May over 600,000 children have received a first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccination. By late June, over ~7 million people younger than 18 have been vaccinated.

Yet it is still only green-lit for emergency use. Why are we doing this? Why are we using our children as guinea pigs to protect adults, when it’s been shown that this illness barely affects children, nor do they easily transmit it?

Most troubling, the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are the first-ever authorized vaccines to use mRNA. Let me just say, I am not an anti-vaxxer. However, I admit that since the start of this pandemic, I, along with a lot of other people, have begun to question things that I once simply believed because our government told me I should.

A year ago, I was living in Luxor, Egypt, having all kinds of wild adventures while my friends back home were locked in their houses and apartments. I’ve written about those experiences in a series of three essays here. Like most people, I already accepted that not everything I read in the news was true. But I never realized how bad the lies were until the pandemic struck.

From my vantage point far away across the world, in a place that didn’t close down because villages just can’t do that, I began to notice how every single news outlet said the same things. Used the same buzz words. I saw how the tension was building between President Trump and his pandemic task force, in particular Dr Fauci. I watched how at every turn, no matter what Trump said, right or wrong, he had to be discredited.

When Trump closed down travel to China, he was accused of xenophobia. To “send a message” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi toured San Francisco’s Chinatown, saying there was no reason tourists or locals should be staying away. The day after Trump’s travel ban, Biden accused him of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. And yet, months later the media made it out that Trump hadn’t done enough and if Biden had been in charge, he would have done much more. What would he have done? Kept the borders open as he is doing now? Everything is a contradiction.

When Trump tried to reassure the public so as not to create a panic, he was accused of purposefully lying to the American people. Yet this was information he got directly from Fauci and he has never been accused of the same. Fauci waffled back and forth on masks, admitting that he lied to the public about masks not being effective in stopping the spread of COVID. Apparently he did this so there wouldn’t be a shortage for health workers. The press doesn’t seem to have a problem with this.

But if our number-one infectious disease expert admits that he lied to us, how do we know he won’t do it again “for our own good?” What we have learned from all of this is that truth doesn’t matter. As long as the lies are making us feel the way we are supposed to feel, we swallow them.

How were we supposed to know Fauci was right and all the other scientific experts who disagreed with him were wrong? It didn’t matter. There could be no dissent.

I saw how information was kept from the public. I became frustrated and began looking for information elsewhere. I had never really listened to Fox News. So, I checked it out. I quickly learned that I could not share anything I discovered on social media. I would be laughed at, screamed at, and unfriended. I couldn’t say that it was giving me a perspective I wasn’t getting on CNN. Not necessarily right or wrong. Just another perspective. And I needed at least one opposing viewpoint from which to compare the State approved information I was receiving.

New media outlets cropped up like Newsmax. I began to appreciate The Epoch Times. I listened to and watched the videos of journalists like Andy Ngo who were out in the field filming raw footage of the riots that mainstream reporters refused to let us see. I read his book, Unmasked, and learned how he was discredited by mainstream reporters. I have a lot of respect for Andy Ngo and I am grateful for his courageous reporting, in the face of physical attacks and death threats that became so bad, he had to move out of the country.

Way back in April of 2020, Mike Pompeo demanded the truth from Beijing as to whether COVID-19 escaped from the Wuhan lab during experiments and China covered it up by blaming ‘wet’ food markets. This sounded plausible to me. Yet, Pompeo now says he received pushback against any type of investigation. Like so many other plausible theories put forward by Trump and his team, all reference to COVID originating in a lab were removed from the internet. Anyone daring to talk about it was labeled a conspiracy theorist and shut out of their social media accounts.

Now, suddenly, it’s all over the news. A year after TRASHING the theory that COVID originated from a Wuhan lab because Trump supported the suggestion – America’s woke mainstream news outlets suddenly start asking if it’s true!

Why? That is a mystery I would like to find the answer for.

And then there’s Hydroxychloroquine. And, I should add Ivermectin. Although I don’t go into it here, it’s the same scenario and you will see it in the news a lot lately—too late for so many people.

In April 2020, a small French study showed HCQ combined with azithromycin, an antibiotic, was safe and effective in lowering COVID-19’s virus count in patients who had first contracted the disease. Mr. Trump immediately cited the study — as it was good news — the world was at the height of the pandemic and HCQ had been approved and used by physicians for 85 years to treat both malaria and some autoimmune diseases.

Instead of this being greeted as hopeful, it was immediately trashed in the media. Fake news. Not following the science. But I wondered. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Big Pharma in collusion with anyone investing into it had good reason to discredit HCQ. The medication was cheap and easily administered. If millions of people started taking this drug, in conjunction with other therapeutics, and they started getting better, what justification would there be for vaccinating the entire world?

When, in July of 2020, a group calling themselves America’s Frontline Doctors, stood upon the steps of our capital building and spoke of the merits of hydroxychloroquine, describing masks as unnecessary, they were derided as quacks. A video of their impassioned speech immediately went viral and was removed from all social media by the next day.

It became apparent to me that anyone, no matter how prominent, no matter how upstanding, who dared to question the State-sanctioned propaganda were being silenced, discredited and fired from their positions. Why weren’t we listening to them?

If, as Fauci was always saying and continues to say to this day, “we simply don’t know [fill in the blank]”, why wouldn’t they welcome the help of a wider range of expertise? These were doctors who put their reputations on the line to speak out. They were in the trenches, actually treating patients. They weren’t theorists like Dr Fauci, playing god in laboratories, receiving grants from Big Pharma with the understanding they needed to reach the required conclusion.

I was inclined to think maybe these doctors had something important to say. Yet still, when I tried to make that suggestion on social media, again, I was shot down. People were really getting worried about me. I was being brainwashed.

By whom? I was merely comparing possibilities. Once upon a time, that was called critical thinking. Now, everyone’s minds were completely closed to any inquiries. I had never experienced anything like it.

Perhaps future generations will look back on the denial of HCQ and Ivermectin to the public to treat this illness as one of the greatest crimes in history. How many lives could have been saved if these inexpensive and easily accessible drugs, along with other therapeutics, had been used early on? Perhaps millions.

Renowned public health officials from around the world denounced the draconian measures being taken in “The Great Barrington Declaration:”

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Immediately, all of these experts were discredited and silenced. The all-encompassing power to control information was becoming apparent.

Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test himself said it was not a reliable test for viruses. His words were silenced, or twisted around to mean something else, even though what he said was very plain.

In the meantime, the flu magically disappeared. That was because of masks and lockdowns we were told. But then, why didn’t it work for COVID?

If even the testing method we were using wasn’t accurate, or could be fiddled with to create more or less positive results when needed, how could we be sure of anything?

We have a video from 2017 where Dr. Fauci actually warned of a pandemic and a surprise outbreak. But it doesn’t seem to be of significance.

We have Dr. Fauci’s treasure trove of emails, where it looks like he potentially tried to hide the very real possibility that the virus came from the Wuhan lab. The emails show him flip-flopping on masks, justifying it by saying well, the science changed.

But whose science? When only one voice is allowed—that being the voice of those who have everything to gain from hiding truth—then “science” becomes a tool for control rather than a method by which we find truth.

Despite the revelations, the state-run media, are still enamored with Fauci. Asking him delicate questions, drooling over his sainthood, just as they do over Biden’s grandfatherly and completely nonthreatening demeanor.

That is, except when Biden wakes up long enough, as he did at a recent event, to squint down at a little girl in the audience, of not more than 10 years of age, and say,

I uh, I love those barrettes in your hair, man. I tell you what, look at her. She looks like she’s 19 years old sitting there like a little lady with her legs crossed.”

poll during voting showed that nearly half of Biden voters said their vote wasn’t for Biden so much as it was against Trump.

Anything would be better than that racist maniac Orange Man Bad.

Better to lie, better to have people die without the therapeutic drugs that could have saved them, better to let China off the hook, than to admit Trump was right about anything.

Fill people with so much fear and hatred they don’t suspect the obvious: That the gods behind the curtain; the likes of Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates, are gaining absolute power over our minds and bodies and we are giving it up to them without blinking an eye.

During the pandemic the nation’s 644 billionaires gained almost $1 trillion in total net worth, according to a new analysis, while the poorer Americans struggle with lost wages and jobs. Doesn’t that mean anything to anybody? Aren’t the implications obvious?

Apparently not. I haven’t finished my Netflix series. Have you seen it? What do you recommend I watch next?

Take care of us. Keep us safe. Lull us to sleep with our smartphones and our drugs, cover our faces, administer our vaccines.

Once Trump was gone, anyone who thought the same, namely anyone who questioned the State, needed to be discredited as well. A line was drawn. There was no middle ground.

Either you were a masker and a vaxxer or you were a heretic. And we all know what happens to heretics.

When January 6th occurred, Biden called it the worst terrorist event in our history. Domestic terrorism, that’s what we are up against now. Even though those who stormed the capital were let in by the police, had no weapons and killed no one. Called murderers when the only person murdered that day was Ashli Babbitt. Journalist Tayler Hansen, @TaylerUSA, who filmed Ashli Babbitt’s death, identified the officer responsible for the shooting as Lieutenant Mike Byrd, a Black man. Hansen was subsequently arrested. True to form, the mainstream media showed no interest in investigating Ashli Babbitt’s death.

Obviously. It would have gone against the narrative.

In a recent speech, Biden declared white supremacists the ‘most lethal threat’ to US, as he marked Tulsa race massacre.

Where is this terrible, out of control threat? To compare what happened that day when a bunch of losers entered the capital—video footage even showing police officers inviting them in—to 9/11 is an insult to all who died when terrorists rammed those planes into the World Trade Center. 2,977 people were killed that day and more than 6,000 injured.

It is an insult to all who died during the BLM and Antifa riots, to those who were trapped inside government buildings when rioters tried to burn them down, to small neighborhood businesses that were destroyed. BLM riots caused over $1 billion of damage, ‘yet media says they’re mostly peaceful’.

Most of all, it’s an insult to the nearly 300 children who were shot and killed in 2020, a 50% increase from 2019, and the more than 5,100 children aged 17 and younger were killed or injured, within their own neighborhoods.

So, who are these white supremacists endangering our country? They are fast becoming defined as every person who does not agree with the State.

How do you succeed in silencing almost 80,000,000 people or maybe even more? Trump warned that when he was gone, his attackers would not be finished. “Then they will come for you.”

Anyone who refuses to submit to this vaccine will receive this label. Anyone who refuses to submit their child to this vaccine will be given this label. It won’t matter whether you voted for Trump or not. That will be the label assigned to you.

Proof of vaccination is already being required in restaurants, where the unvaxxed must sit in a special section, wearing masks.

There are countless cases of employees being fired from jobs for not taking the jab. If you want to keep your job, you better take the jab.

Although we were previously told the federal government would leave mask mandates to local government and businesses, Homeland Security now says it is taking a close look at vaccine passports for international travel.

In January 2021, the Los Angeles Unified School District announced that it plans to require its students to receive the COVID vaccine once it is approved and available. Los Angeles Unified is the nation’s largest school district.

And so, we have now been divided into two camps. The vaxxed and the unvaxxed. Who will suffer the most from this? Who is already suffering the most?

Our children.

I hear from parents that they are receiving messages from schools to get their children on the waiting list to be vaccinated. The vaccine will be available in the fall for kids twelve and up. The parents who contact me are against vaccinating their children and say they will never give in. I don’t think they realize how bad it could get.

All the “good” parents will line up for it. All the “good” children will be rewarded for obeying the State by being allowed to attend school free of masks and lead a “normal” life. The children whose parents refuse will have to continue wearing masks. They will have to sit in a special section, eat and play separately.

As I showed in my previous essay with drugging children diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, parents who do not conform to vaccinating their children will be seen as irresponsible. Those who are vaccinated will accuse them of selfishness, just as we see adults accusing the unvaxxed of this. Of putting the entire community as risk.

Imagine being those children, being used as examples of the evils of nonconformity. They will become pariahs among their peers and their teachers. They will be mocked, shamed and shunned.

Already, children at this age just want to fit in. The unvaxxed children will go home and beg for their parents to get them vaccinated. Children will turn against their parents. Those few kids who are natural free thinkers, like Scrubb and Jill, will suffer more than they ever have in the past. They will not even have the satisfaction of being thought of as cool by the outside crowd. There won’t be any outside crowd.

Only the vaxxed and the unvaxxed.

Where adults have been allowed to remove their masks — although many choose not to — children are still being forced to wear them. While the nation debates Dr Fauci’s emails and how much he really knew, how much information was hidden, how deeply involved he was in research at the Wuhan lab; all these things that for so long were labeled conspiracy theories and are now turning out to be true; our children continue to suffer the abuse of covering their mouths and noses eight hours a day both inside the classroom and outside in terrible heat as they attempt to play.

But according to parents I’ve spoken to, when their kids go home, they don’t go outside. Instead, they are on their tablets or i-pads, interacting on Tiktok, Instagram and Snapchat. They are uninterested in exercise. They are terrified of germs. And parents, busy online themselves, are ignorant as to what their children are engaging in.

During April to October 2020 in the US, emergency room visits linked to mental health problems (e.g. anxiety) for children aged 5-11 increased by nearly 25% and increased by 31% for those aged 12-17 years old as compared to the same period in 2019. During the month of June 2020, 25% of persons aged 18 to 24 in the US reported suicidal ideation. While some of this may be related to the pandemic, we suspect that it is largely a function of our response to the pandemic.

While “the most common experiences reported of online issues involved bullying or generally being made to feel uncomfortable, one in three participants reported having had an online sexual interaction,” a report said. Thorn report: Why you kids shouldn’t be on TikTik or Instagram |

Most participants reported receiving a “sext”, while 18 per cent had received a nude photo or video and 18 per cent had been asked to send a nude photo or video.

Children as young as five years old know how to use phones and tablets. It is their language. Jackie, a friend of mine who is a mother of a toddler and a social media influencer on Tiktok says “You wouldn’t believe what children are accessing online nowadays.”

The gods above us use their power to suppress knowledge of all that might expose them as the Machiavellian fraudsters that they are, yet no one is protecting our children from dangerous information.

What is a parent to do?

Move to the country. Start a commune. Start neighborhood learning centers with like-minded parents. I have heard many parents say, “If they try to force me to vaccinate my children, I will take them out.”

All well and good. But there are many who cannot afford to do this. Many will have no choice but to give in to the State. If they don’t, just as happened to parents who resisted putting their children on Ritalin, they will be accused of abuse and perhaps even have their children taken from them.

Just as happened to Patricia Weathers, who in 2020 took her 9-year-old son off an antidepressant and medication similar to Ritalin, because he was constantly gnawing at his shirt collar and had began to hear “voices.”

As a result, her son’s elementary school accused her of medical neglect and called child-abuse investigators. Years of battling the school in the courts took its toll until she finally won in court. But most people don’t have the knowledge or the resources to sustain such a battle.

School officials can force a parent to seek out a professional, such as a psychiatrist. And can they expel a child who doesn’t take medication or intimidate parents by threatening to phone social services or child-abuse investigators? Weathers says that’s what happened to her, and there are reports of other similar cases around the country.

All of this intimidation and training to comply was a precursor to what is happening now. With psychiatric drugs, the only person the State can claim you are putting at risk is your own child. With vaccines, they can claim you are putting the entire country at risk. Millions of lives are on your hands and the hands of other deplorables like you.

My daughter and her husband spent the past year in Slovenia where their two boys, ages three and two, have gone to daycare free of masks. In July, they are moving back to Los Angeles. They are against masks and the vaccine, both for themselves and their children.

They could not find a single daycare in their area that didn’t require children to wear masks.

And those daycares all reassured her — as if it would make her feel better — that once the vaccine was available and the tiny tots had taken it, they would be allowed to go mask free. At last, my daughter found one daycare that didn’t require masks. It was a private Christian school. So, that is where they will put their boys.

We already see signs of Christians schools being demonized.

A March article in Ms Magazine declared How Christian Schools and Homeschooling Teach Supremacist Conspiracies.

Statistically, homeschoolers do much better with learning and their futures than public school children. Yet academics such as Prof. Elizabeth Bartholet, are leading the charge against those who actively resist public schools and she believes that the generation currently being homeschooled is an eventual, if not active, breeding ground for racism, sexism, and isolationism.

“Many homeschool precisely because they want to isolate their children from ideas and values central to public education and to our democracy. Many promote racial segregation and female subservience. Many question science. Many are determined to keep their children from exposure to views that might enable autonomous choice about their future lives,” she claims.

My daughter certainly is not a white supremacist. She is not a Trump supporter. She has no interest in politics. She just wants to follow what she believes is best for her children.

Yet, if things keep going on as they are now, it is quite possible that anyone who doesn’t adhere to the “ideas and values central to public education and to our democracy,” meaning what is acceptable to the totalitarian state, will automatically be considered enemies of the state and as such, in need to reeducation, imprisonment, or perhaps even worse.

Some might accuse me of alarmism. Nothing would make me happier than to be proved an alarmist. However, unless people stand up and speak out, this is surely what we are facing. And I think those who are reading this who don’t want their children submitted to this experimentation and abuse know in their hearts this might well be what they are facing.

I want to end with a little story. I was raised by a Mennonite mother. There was much I rebelled against as a child, teenager. Despite my doubts and rebellions, I always knew I had a history to be proud of; a foundation of strong, courageous people who stood up for what they believed, even in the face of death. Before her passing my mother left each of her children a booklet with the history of our people.

She called the booklet A Far Journey. It tells the story of the Anabaptists who split from the Catholic Church and followed the teachings of a Dutch preacher named Menno Simmons, born in 1496.

This was a time of great upheaval. The Protestants were fighting for the right to free information for all. No longer should the gateway to God be blocked by priests and popes. No longer should the common man be kept from reading and interpreting the Sacred Scriptures for himself. This free information for all, brought about by the invention of the printing press, threatened the hold the powerful had on the ignorant souls beneath them.

ca.1875, Paris, France — France: Paris Besieged By The Normans, A. D. 835. Guizot’s History of France. — Image by © Bettmann/CORBIS

Bloody battles ensued. The cause became politicized, of course, and used by both sides to gain more power. But as always, there were the common people who stood up for their rights. The Martyrs Mirror, a collection of records, letters and court accounts tells the stories of many of those who remained faithful and paid the price of their lives.

There is one letter in the collection from Janneken Muntsdorg, written from prison to her one-month-old daughter, also named Janneken. The mother bore her child in prison and the girl was taken from her. Knowing she would never see her daughter again, she wrote a letter for her to read one day. Part of it goes thus:

The true love of God and wisdom of the Father strengthen you in virtue, my dearest child; …and strengthen and confirm your understanding in His truth […] for if we were to continue in the world, we would have had no trouble. For when we were one with the world and practiced idolatry, and loved all manner of unrighteousness, we could live at peace with the world; but when we desired to fear God and to shun such improper ways…then they did not leave us in peace; then our blood was sought; then we had to be a prey to everyone, and become a spectacle to all the world. They seek here to murder and burn us; we are placed at posts and stakes, and our flesh is given as food to the worms.”

Words too drastic? I think not.

I recite these words if only to wake people up from their sleep! If only to remind us that many have gone before who suffered and died for the freedoms we enjoy. The freedoms to read and write, to worship and pray and speak as we choose. Not just for Christians, but for everyone. Everyone. The freedoms to agree and disagree. Even to believe outrageous “conspiracy” theories.

The internet has created a crisis even greater than the invention of the printing press. In those days, the information of the texts was limited to biblical knowledge. As time went on, that information grew. Now, a seemingly infinite wealth of information is at our fingertips. We are being told that information is dangerous. That we need to put it into the hands of the powerful once again. We must trust them as the doorkeepers between our minds and the mysteries of the universe.

Just as the reformers stood up for their rights to interpret texts on their own, so we must stand up for our rights to do the same.

Perhaps the day will come when the individual will submit to the will of the State and we will be more machine than we are flesh and blood. I know men like Elon Musk dream of this. He says we need these changes if we want to explore the universe, to travel to other planets. We need to evolve. I would love nothing more than to explore other planets. Perhaps losing our humanity little by little is the price we must pay for that “advancement.” If science fiction is any indication—and I tend to believe science fiction sometimes more than actual science—this is probably inevitable.

But that day is not today. For now, we must fight for the right to hold onto our freedoms. Oh, we can have intellectual discussions about how we aren’t really “free” and all of that, but I do know the difference between freedom and bondage.

I walked through Dachau as a child. I stood at the Berlin Wall and crossed the barrier from the land of the free into the land of the oppressed. From one step to the next, I passed from light into darkness. I was fortunate. I was allowed to pass back again, horribly aware of all the yearning souls I was leaving behind.

Don’t let the lies lull you to sleep. Don’t let cynicism overcome you.

I have faith that there will always be at least one Scrubb and one Jill in every school. Those who refuse to fit in. Those who still see the mystery beyond the wall.

Those who find the way out of darkness and into light.

I started with Salmon Rushdie and I will end with him. I saw him once at a party at a club, back in the 90s. He was a very ugly man, but he was with a very beautiful woman. I wondered about him. He looked so insignificant, yet what power his words had! So much power that they were dangerous to the regime in Iran and a price was put on his head. Yet there he sat, enjoying his life.

In those heretical Satanic Verses, he wrote:

What kind of idea are you? Are you the kind that compromises, does deals, accommodates itself to society, aims to find a niche, to survive; or are you the cussed, bloody-minded, ramrod-backed type of damn-fool notion that would rather break than sway with the breeze? – The kind that will almost certainly, ninety-nine times out of hundred, be smashed to bits; but, the hundredth time, will change the world.”

We may be smashed to bits. Still, let’s be the ones who change the world.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (51)

The Forever War Against COVID-19

Gary North ( July 19, 2021

On July 17, the top stories on Drudge’s site were these:

For over a year, governments around the world have put lockdowns and masks at the top of the list to consolidate power. They claim they are saving lives. They are determined to force the public to cooperate in their programs for saving lives.

Bureaucrats who have been elevated to senior positions for the first time in their faceless lives love the attention and the power. Turf defence against any suggestion of the complete removal of lockdowns and intervention is in full-court press mode. The bureaucrats are not going to surrender power. They are not going to admit that the COVID problem was never so great as to justify the interventions, nor are they going to admit the COVID problem has gone away. They are going to maintain turf.

Governments are now justifying maintenance of these controls and even an escalation of additional controls on the basis of a new strain of the disease. It is not clear that it is deadly. It is not clear that it is highly contagious. It is not clear that any of the vaccines will work against it. But it is clear that some portions of voting public can still be conned into believing that they are at risk.

At the same time, the other side of the debate, the hard-line anti-vaxers and the deniers of the existence of the disease are uniting in their continued opposition. They are never going to believe that this disease was or is a major threat. They are going to fight the government tooth and nail on these issues. The government is going to fight back.

I think the vast majority of people are pretty much fed up with the whole charade. They do not want to be vaccinated. They do not want to wear the masks. They think COVID has gone away, and they want the controls to stay away. I do not see many masks these days.

I do not think most people can be whipped up into hysteria again on the basis of a new strain of the disease. It is clear that there will always be new strains of this disease. It is also clear that government bureaucratic agencies are going to try to make the best of this in order to defend their turf, their budgets, their authority, and their ability to push people around.

The longer that this division goes on, the more voters will be pushed into the camp of the COVID disbelievers. People who have had enough of the masks are going to conclude that the new strains are not major threats unless there is overwhelming statistical evidence that there is a threat. I do not think such evidence is going to appear.

Nevertheless, Treasury Secretary Yellen says that lockdowns may be necessary again. She is clueless politically. She is not alone.

Government, officials who keep pushing the public where the public no longer wants to go will find that there is a backlash. These politicians are going to lose their positions in the next electoral cycle. This is a good thing.


One of the articles on Drudge’s site reported the following.

President Biden on Friday accused Facebook of “killing people,” just after White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the Biden administration is “in regular touch” with the platform to ensure correct “narratives” are promoted — elaborating on her Thursday admission that the White House is “flagging problematic posts” to censor.

Biden was asked about his message for platforms like Facebook as he departed the White House on Friday afternoon for a weekend trip to Camp David.

“They’re killing people. The only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated. And they’re killing people,” Biden said.

At her daily press briefing, Psaki told reporters that the White House is “regularly” coordinating with Facebook and other social media giants on the “latest narratives dangerous to public health” that the administration thinks should be censored.

“We are regularly making sure social media platforms are aware of the latest narratives dangerous to public health that we and many other Americans are seeing across all of social and traditional media,” Psaki said.

“There’s about 12 people who are producing 65 percent of anti-vaccine misinformation on social media platforms,” she said.

Psaki also said the White House is encouraging social media companies to alter their algorithms to promote “quality information” and for platforms to act in unison to ban certain people.

“You shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others,” she said.

The Democrats just cannot stop. They want control over the social media. They are convinced that this issue is high on the voters’ agenda. They think that they have leverage with the broad mass of voters on this issue. They are convinced that they are in the right morally. They are convinced that the government should back up social media’s de-platforming. This is a matter of power, and they love power.

This is going to backfire. They are creating hard-core resistance. They are not going to gain public support for this kind of behaviour. But they do not understand this. They think the public is really on their side.

These people are blind. They are betting the electoral farm on an issue that a large segment of the public no longer believes is significant. They are trying to whip up support for more coercion against people who are expressing their opinions on an issue that is fading from the public’s concern.

The unreality of all this is significant. Biden is trying to breathe life into what is becoming a dead political issue. He does not have that much political capital. He is squandering it on COVID.

There is not going to be a wave of new controls to fight the latest strain of this fading disease. The public is not going to cooperate again. Voters are convinced that the threat is no longer there. They are also tired of wearing masks. The Biden administration is increasingly spinning its wheels in the sand. It is running out of time to get its agenda through the 50-50 Senate.


This indicates just how out of touch Biden and his administration are. Biden has been unable to get his agenda through a split Senate. He does not have a mandate from the public. Yet he acts as though he is in the catbird seat. He acts as though his program will be confirmed in the next congressional elections.

He is no longer talking about imposing new taxes on the public. He is not speaking out against Trump’s tax cuts. He is proposing an increase of the marginal tax rate to 39.6%, up from 37%. That is essentially chump change. It is no threat to the super-rich, who do not pay anywhere near the top tax rate. He is making it clear to Bernie Sanders and his followers that they are dispensable. The Sanders wing of the party is being hung out to dry. This is good news.

So, let him fight the new strain of COVID. That will keep him busy until the next round of congressional elections.