What is Nigel Farage up to?  It is now a month since he launched Reform UK as the new incarnation of The Brexit Party.  No one in British politics has a shrewder political mind than Farage, but at the time it seemed a strange choice for him to bet his continuing relevance - as he seemingly has - on The Great Barrington Declaration.  Barrington recommends “an approach to herd immunity called focused protection” whereby only the old and vulnerable are maintained in lockdown, while the rest live life normally. 

The Declaration itself is a culmination of months of criticism and questioning of the Western governmental response to the virus by senior figures in academic and practising medecine.  But precious little has been heard of it amid the lock-step media coverage of the official narrative.  As a populist cause, it hardly ranks alongside Brexit.  Moreover, it’s not as if better targeted regimes than a general lock-down haven’t been tried.  The Swedish experience with such a regime did not work out particularly advantageously.  Its principal advocate, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist Anders Teigel, has been sidelined today and his infection control model replaced by a much more conventional lockdown model.

In any case, the common and extremely rosy expectation is that lockdown will become a thing of the past ... a blip in the unstoppable progress of human freedom ... as mass vaccination swings into effect.  A political stand on lockdown, therefore, is only a prelude to a political stand on vaccination itself.  The first segues effortlessly into the second.

Of the three vaccines developed so far, the Pfizer-BioNTech product is already in roll out.  Over the next six months most vulnerable British citizens and key workers will be vaccinated.  Regardless of the inevitability that Covid 19 is going to be with us in the long-term, there would seem to be very little political cause here which is likely to be around for the next General Election.

So, what is Farage up to?  Is there a way of interpreting his re-launch decision other than as a political mis-step?  Well, in contrast to the rosy assumptions of returning, untroubled normality there are three future scenarios which could gift the ever-opportunistic Farage the leading role in a new attack on the politics of the Establishment.  In taking up a position critical of the lockdown he automatically positions himself against the first and least troubling of those three scenarios, and by that action he also positions himself against the second scenario; and by taking up that he automatically positions himself at the fore of resistance to the third, should events move that far.  If that is to be the trajectory of our collective future, then for all its limitations Barrington is no bad political starting point today.

So let’s look at that in more detail.  In order of their historical challenge and severity the three future scenarios are:

Scenario 1: Rising public doubt about the vax

According to the New Scientist, a group of researchers have extracted data from the ten most reliable of some 175 reports on Covid 19 infection fatality rates.  Taken together they show a mortality-to-infection rate by age of:

for people under 40,  0.1%
between 50 and 60, 0.36%
between 70 and 74, 2.17%
between 80 and 84, 5%,
over 90, 16%

At the average, Covid has an infection fatality rate of 0.25% or even less, and around double that of common flu.  This puts Covid on a level with the Hong Kong Flu 1968 or the Asian flu 1957 in terms of danger - nothing like the 1918 Spanish flu which had a 2-4% fatality rate, and not a once in a century type threat at all. There is a certain historical routineness to it, therefore.  A similar type of pandemic to Covid may well come again in the lifetimes of most of us, and maybe sooner than we think. 

People are not stupid.  They see the police treatment of those who point out such inconvenient truths (Piers Corbyn, for instance, and his fellow lockdown protesters) and know that treatment to be excessive.  They compare it to the treatment - “taking the knee”, basically - of BLM protests, where maskless gatherings without social distance mysterously go unopposed.  Then they see that the authorities don’t actually know that much about the vaccine:

There are no data as yet on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy, either from human or animal studies. Given the lack of evidence, JCVI favours a precautionary approach, and does not currently advise COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy. Women should be advised not to come forward for vaccination if they may be pregnant or are planning a pregnancy within three months of the first dose.

... As trials in children and pregnant women are completed, we will also gain a better understanding of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines in these persons.

People understand when they are being manipulated by politicians (as they understood in droves with the Stronger-In “Project Fear” campaign in the 2016 EU Referendum).  They will inevitable question what is justified action and what is hidden agenda, and if they think they see a hidden agenda they will react accordingly.  Among the online media-savvy section of the public, vaccine skepticism is already up and running.  An Opinium poll for the Guardian has found that 30% of respondees will not accept the jab.  By way of a sample of the sort of things people are starting to think and say, the following comments appeared in a Daily Mail thread last week, after the lightning fast formal drug approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech’s product by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.  They are by no means the exception:

“Pfizer vaccine is APPROVED by regulators. What a surprise. There wasn’t a snowball’s chance in Hades that it wouldn’t be because that’s what they were instructed to do. All the normal protocols for assessing safety were abandoned”

“... now expect them to believe having a vaccine will help them ...amendment. I just believe people need to weigh up the real risks to their family, friends and themselves, and proceed with extreme caution. People are not being given honest, fair reasonable arguments. Infernally wicked choices and diktats are being foisted upon them. People should be very, very wary indeed. Do NOT trust them.”

“WHY, WHY, WHY has a company like Pfizer, with a very well documented history of legal cases, prosecution and payouts (due to the devastating side effects of some of its products) been granted immunity from prosecution if this vaccine is so safe? WHY? “

“Ask yourself this, Bill Gates has been banging on about depopulation for years. What makes you think that all of a sudden he wants to save us all?”

“So many coincidences this year. They really think we’re idiots. Now anticipate the FREEDOM PASSPORTS to divide and force us into having it! And when you decide, consider the following: We have law changes to prevent litigation over side effects, trials lasting a few months instead of years, “flexibilities” allowed in the mhra safety regulations, scientists and regulators with conflicts of interest, compulsory vaccination in all but name, a new AI system to log the tsunami of unprecedented side effects. Potentially introducing laws to stop criticism and questioning of vaccinations, like this post! If these aren’t huge red flags I don’t know what is!”

“... experimental mRNA vaccine never before used. Phase 3 trialled ONLY since July 27th = 129 days! CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW THIS IS SAFE. What about long term adverse reactions? Autoimmune responses / cancer etc?”

“As a Covid survivor I certainly welcome a vaccine against this virus, but whats worries me the most is the speed in which this vaccine has been deemed safe. It’s been months in the making and I think because they usually take years we’re all very concerned what long term health issues may happen. It won’t be long before we see those on the news having the vaccine, proving it’s safe but will the cameras be back on them if it goes wrong.”

Neither is Farage alone in positioning politically to ride this developing wave of public opinion.  Days after he re-launched TBP as Reform UK a new party in Germany sprang up along rather similar lines:

The former Green politician David Claudio Siber, lawyer Dr. Reiner Füllmich and lawyer Viviane Fischer from the Corona Committee, the biologist Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer and the legal scholar Prof. Dr. Martin Schab have joined the newly founded party “Basisdemokratische Partei Deutschland”, or “dieBasis” for short.

The prominent critics of the current Corona policy now want to advocate a fundamental change of course through political means.

The party demands the immediate start of a public, scientific and critical discussion of the corona and lockdown problem. It is also campaigning for a ban on direct or indirect compulsory vaccination. In addition, the new party demands that the events in the Corona crisis be fully dealt with. This concerns civil and criminal law issues as well as the responsibility of the persons and institutions involved.

The party recorded 26,000 hits on its website within 18 hours after a video by the two lawyers on the subject, a large number of new membership applications as well as inquiries from abroad regarding the establishment of foreign branches. According to information from the party leadership, more prominent persons will soon join the party.

So there very definitely is an emerging constituency for Farage’s new brand of anti-Establishment populism.  What would come next “if it goes wrong” and stories of unforeseen vax consequences begin to emerge would be a hardening and deepening of the divide - a great gift for any political opportunist.

Scenario 2: Rising resistance to vax authoritarianism

In the Commons last week fifty-five Tory MPs mostly from the libertarian wing of the party voted against the latest coronavirus restrictions - enough to defeat the government had Her Majesty’s Opposition not abstained.  Just as with the ERG during the long Remain Rebellion the Tory Party is divided on a principle which allows for little compromise.  The next sacred cause for these MPs to defend is free movement - already a hot topic with the announcement of the national vaccination card together with a mixed message on its utility as a means of population control (all in the good cause of fighting “the virus”, obviously).  Already, the devolved government in Wales is indicating that it may introduce some form of passporting system of its own to restrict the movement of those who have not accepted vaccination.  Initially, at least, it is likely that proof of vaccination will be mandatory for free movement, while those without it will have to wear protective equipment.  Meanwhile, as fines and restrictions for businesses are introduced across Britain, many of the younger generation are continuing to demonstrate a hedonistic disregard for the whole Covid thing.

Signs of the likely (and, for Farage, extremely helpful) response from government to all this are already present.  The British Army’s Information Warfare Unit (part of the Army’s 77th Brigade, which “often works with psychological operations”) is being deployed to confront “anti-vaccine propaganda”, the Daily Mail reports.  So soldiers are already monitoring the internet for Covid-19 wrong-speech.  Add to that the role police have taken up in enforcing lockdown restrictions and in crushing lockdown protests and the potential for a crackdown on the freedoms of association, movement and speech is plain to see.

As regards enforcing vaccination as such, central government does not necessarily have to be directly involved at all.  Local Education Authorities, for example, could require pupils to be vaccinated before being allowed to attend school.  Employers could insist upon employees being vaccinated before allowing them onto business premises.  Perhaps less probable, retail businesses could demand that customers show proof of vaccination.  Parts of the hospitality industry, sporting and entertainment venues likewise.  Travel could be severely curtailed for non-vaxxers.  Airlines are already leading the way.  And so forth.  What price freedom of movement, freedom of association?  Governments do not have to make the vaccine mandatory when so many others can simply make life intolerable for people who refuse the jab.

So then, if pubs, bars and restaurants, cinemas and sports venues, airlines do so ... indeed, if your employer does so, and others all make the vaccination a mandatory condition of service, anyone who refuses to take it will be reduced to a personal form of de facto lockdown with their social lives and mobility on indefinite hold.  Such coercion will generate massive resentment.  And for what, people are going to ask.  This could be more fertile political ground than leaving the European Union ever was.  But it would be as nothing compared to the resistance that would accompany a public realisation that all this has another agenda entirely ...

Scenario 3. Klaus Schwab’s “Great Re-Set” ... Bill Gate’s eugenics ... the technocratic future for 2030

One is bound to ask why Boris Johnson has been blithely retailing Schwab’s Great Re-Set language and the WEF “Build Back Better” slogan, when only a few weeks ago he was seeking to ban his ministers from going to Davos to, as he put it, “drink champagne with billionaires” (and, one might add, chat about the trans-human future, global depopulation, and non-exec board positions when the Westminster days are done).  What changed for Boris and who changed it?

Very possibly this, as as described by Zerohedge’s inevitable Tyler Durden (links added):

The time frame is ten years – by 2030 – the UN agenda 2021 – 2030 should be implemented.

Planned business measures in response to COVID-19:

# An acceleration of digitized work processes, leading to 84% of all work processes as digital, or virtual / video conferences.

# Some 83% of people are planned to work remotely – i.e. no more interaction between colleagues – absolute social distancing, separation of humanity from the human contact.

# About 50% of all tasks are planned to be automated – in other words, human input will be drastically diminished, even while remote working.

# Accelerate the digitization of upskilling / reskilling (e.g. education technology providers) – 42% of skill upgrading or training for new skills will be digitized, in other words, no human contact – all on computer, Artificial Intelligence (AI), algorithms.

# Accelerate the implementation of upskilling / reskilling programs – 35% of skills are planned to be “re-tooled” – i.e. existing skills are planned to be abandoned – declared defunct.

# Accelerate ongoing organizational transformations (e.g. restructuring) – 34% of current organizational set-ups are planned to be “restructured’ – or, in other words, existing organizational structures will be declared obsolete – to make space for new sets of organizational frameworks, digital structures that provide utmost control over all activities.

# Temporarily reassign workers to different tasks – this is expected to touch 30% of the work force. That also means completely different pay-scales – most probably unlivable wages, which would make the also planned “universal basic salary” or “basic income” – a wage that allows you barely to survive, an obvious need. – But it would make you totally dependent on the system – a digital system, where you have no control whatsoever.

# Temporarily reduce workforce – this is projected as affecting 28% of the population. It is an additional unemployment figure, in disguise, as the “temporarily” will never come back to full-time.

# Permanently reduce workforce – 13% permanently reduced workforce.

# Temporarily increase workforce – 5% – there is no reference to what type of workforce – probably unskilled labor that sooner or later will also be replaced by automation, by AI and robotization of the workplace.

# No specific measures implemented – 4% – does that mean, a mere 4% will remain untouched? From the algorithm and AI-directed new work places? – as small and insignificant as the figure is, it sounds like “wishful thinking”, never to be accomplished.

# Permanently increase workforce – a mere 1% is projected as “permanently increased workforce”. This is of course not even cosmetics. It is a joke.

This is what is being put forth, namely the concrete process of implementing The Great Reset.

... The “survival angle” is an aspect not mentioned directly either in The Great Reset, or in the “Implementation Guide” – i.e. in the White Paper “Resetting the Future of Work Agenda – in a Post-Covid World”.

Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, Kissinger et al, have never made a secret out of their strong opinion that the world is over-populated and that the number of people has to be literally reduced. We are dealing with eugenicists.

A perfect method for reducing the world population, are Bill Gates initiated, and WHO-supported vaccination programs. Scandals of such disastrous vaccine programs resulting in children’s death were recorded in India (in the 1990s), Kenya (2014 and thereafter) and other parts of the world.

See also a very revealing TedTalk by Bill Gates of February 2010, “Innovating to Zero”, just about at the time when the “2010 Rockefeller Report” was issued – the very report that has given us so far, the “Lock Step Scenario” – and we are living it now. Hardly protesting it – the entire world – 193 UN member countries – has been coopted or coerced into following this abject human rights abuse on a global scale.

And so forth.  Well, the dual memes of a Schwabian re-set and Gatesean mass sterilisation are gaining traction on-line, particularly since James Delingpole discovered Schwab’s latest little anti-human book, and found a globalist parent for his twin bug-bears of climate alarmism and Covid alarmism.  Now the word is out, and it’s by no means tin-foil hat stuff:

The microbiologist Prof. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi and the lung specialist and former head of a public health department, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, have critically examined the RNA corona vaccine that is currently being rushed through.

... These are fragments of different genetic information that are to be introduced into human cells as RNA or DNA in a similarly different way.

Recombinant RNA, which is introduced into human cells, also alters the genetic processes there and can very well be classified as genetic modification of the cells or the organism, because genetic modification is not limited to a direct modification of the DNA. However, the recombinant RNA introduced into the cells is not intended to reproduce, as viruses do. It is also not part of the rehearsed cellular communication and abuses existing defense routines like private security services in a police station.

According to Prof. Dr. Bhakdi, it is impossible to overlook which processes in the body can be triggered by the vaccination. An impairment of the human germ line cannot be ruled out, which could also lead to changes and damage in future generations.

Matt Hancock, current Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pictured in January 2020 with Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates

Farage as the people’s champion in the battle against globalism

As a stand-in for Brussels, Davos presents the most tempting possible, most unmissable target for Farage.  Stripped of the usual vaguely humanistic global-speak, there is not the remotest possibility of a single respectable argument for the WEF agenda.  It is naked, totalitarian Power acting on a global not national scale against all humanity.

Is Farage then, likely to emerge on the right side of history again and as the champion of human freedom in this country and perhaps even across the West?  It is a scenario in which the new party name - Reform UK - seems almost modest.  It is also a scenario in which, as things are with us ideologically and politically, nationalists would not be wholly equipped to compete for a following, given that the multiracialisation of our home and the replacement and dissolution of our people is contained within the drive for The Globality.  It is not its singular purpose.

We would have much work to do to make ourselves properly relevant from the ground up, and thereby make our demands for the survival and continuity of our people.  I can offer only one modus by which we might rise above our apparent disadvantage and succeed in that, which is to cleave to an analysis of artifice versus authenticity, and make our politics of nation into a politics of Nature in Man.  Because that ... Huxley and Orwell all in one ... is ultimately what this vast and audacious globalist power-play is about.  Smile for the camera, Matt.