Blog

A selection of our writings from 2009 to the present. If you'd like to keep up to date with our latest posts, please subscribe below.

Politicians worldwide can no longer claim ignorance of harm – an open letter to an MP

Dear Catherine King MP,

This letter is long overdue, and long. The impetus to finally write it was inspired by the article, Politicians Worldwide Can No Longer Claim Ignorance of the WHO Power Grab, which was compiled by the World Council for Health and published a few days ago. Please consider the following open letter from two residents within the electorate you are currently the sitting member for.

Movements in Australia and globally are watching governments closely to ensure they don’t continue to hand over our basic human rights to unelected, questionable global organisations and so-called philanthropists.

We wish to participate within a democracy but we believe we are right to be skeptical at this time in history. This hand shake between the Australian prime minister (your boss) and Bill Gates (your other boss) earlier this year speaks to our suspicions.

In a poll in late 2022 that included 50,000 Australians, ‘[m]ore than half of respondents either said they regret getting vaccinated, or were unvaccinated and happy with their decision.’ Only 35 per cent said ‘they were vaccinated and would make the same decision again. Not a single person said they were unvaccinated and regret the decision.’ A year on, the figure of 35% is no doubt considerably less, as we will demonstrate a little further on.

It is our belief that large numbers of the population will not tolerate authoritarian governance and overreach again, nor will they tolerate directives from big industries and their captured organisations, such as the WHO.

In late 2021, somewhere between 500,000 and 800,000 people marched in Canberra [see crowd drone shots at 21:50] against mandates for so-called ‘vaccines’ that never prevented the transmission of the pathogen known as Covid. We, like thousands of Australians, were assaulted by LRAD weapons at that peaceful march. It was the Australian government who used this weapon on us, without our knowing. Patrick experienced vertigo for the first time in his life the next morning, and Meg experienced an intense eye bleed while we were at the march. The bleed latest for several weeks.

Will your government, at the very least, admit that mandating a medical treatment that never stopped transmission is akin to manslaughter when people have died from the shots? And will your government recognise that those of us who protested were also harmed and our basic human rights eroded?

We wish to supply you with the growing scientific evidence that the Covid injections have caused and are still causing widespread harm. For the literature please go here, here, here, here, here, and here, to quote just a few of the available studies. It is revealing to us that with the flood of excess deaths since the jab rollouts, and a surge of heart-related deaths, it has not warranted the government to call for a major scientific review of these ‘vaccines’.

We believe that if the TGA wasn’t captured by industry and were a proper scientific institution, thousands of deaths in Australia would have already been attributed to the vaccines and those ministers and health officials who signed deals with pharmaceutical companies who made themselves exempt from legal liability, would be duly held accountable for those deaths. But then again, if the TGA wasn’t captured by industry, fewer deaths would have occurred, and the shots would have been pulled after the first safety signals were recorded.

As of the 16 August 2021, there were over 462 deaths and approximately 49,000 injuries reported relating to Covid vaccines in Australia. We were sent this screen grab of these numbers recorded by the TGA at this time, which disappeared from public view soon after.

In early September 2021 we asked, ‘[w]hy has the Therapeutic Goods Administration taken offline (since August 31) its Database of Adverse Event Notifications (DAEN), including numbers of deaths caused by Covid vaccines?’

Patrick questioned you outside the town hall in Daylesford in March 2022, relating to unvaccinated people still being locked out of public places such as town halls, public libraries, public swimming pools and cafés and restaurants, despite the failure of the jabs to stop or even slow transmission. ‘Catherine,’ he asked you, ‘when will segregation end in Victoria?’ You dismissively replied, ‘When you get vaccinated.’

Do you regret replying in this way? As a non-medical person, do you regret giving personal medical advice concerning a novel therapeutic? Do you not see the human rights abuses and harm you and your colleagues have caused to members of the public who were (a) willing, (b) coerced or (c) unwilling to trust the state-Pharma nexus?

Your government’s misnomered Misinformation and Disinformation Bill is yet another red flag for us, and signals a path to more human rights abuses in the near future. It really should be called what it is – a censorship bill. When in history has it been good for populations to entrust a government (and its hand selected ‘experts’) to solely decide what is truth and what is not? Your government’s censorship bill and your government’s collusion with the WHO sends alarm bells into many communities across Australia.

Please be assured, the pushback to authoritarianism and overreach will grow in step with government fundamentalism, as it always does. As an MP and minister you are a servant of Australian democracy. You are not an agent for big industry, big banks, corporate power and so-called philanthropists.

Throughout Covid you failed us, our family and our community. You backed policies that harmed many in our community, irregardless of their jab status. You helped sow division over a GMO in a syringe that offered no sterilising immunity and was deceptively dressed up as a vaccine.

When we did this investigation back in August, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) of the Australian government proudly stated that, ‘Several of the COVID-19 vaccines are either GMOs or made from GMOs,’ and that ‘[a]n example of GMOs as medicines is gene therapy,’ and they listed as examples of GMO medicines, Pfizer’s and Moderna’s Covid products. This is the screen grab we took then (accessed: August 9, 2023 at 4:43pm).

In early August 2023 we called the OGTR to inquire about their stated ‘Covid GMOs’ and ‘gene therapies’, and all we got were promises that someone will call us back shortly. A return call never happened. However, since that time the OGTR have changed the language on that same webpage. They’ve since deleted any reference to gene therapies. The webpage now looks like this (accessed: November 24, 2023 at 3:36pm):

The OGTR still admit however that both Covid shots, which are still available in Australia, are GMOs. AstraZeneca was quietly removed from use in March of this year.

Another so-called FactCheck stated, ‘[t]here are no genetically modified organisms in the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.’ but doesn’t say whether these shots are themselves GMOs. So, is this another case of weasel words? Remember, as we’ve just said, the OGTR still states on its webpage several Covid shots (they mean mRNA shots) are ‘either GMOs or made from GMOs,’ thus are either GMOs or have GMO products in them. Can you see the potential confusion or deliberate manipulation here in the ‘FactCheck’?

So, who is misinforming who? Once upon a time there would be robust debate, and genuine points of difference would be respected. It is alarming today how truth is claimed by non-scientific institutions such as the Australian Government who since 2021 has threatened doctors with their livelihoods for speaking against the official health messaging, and boards such as the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) who gagged doctors throughout the pandemic from speaking about Covid vaccines.

Science is being radically politicised, and as a society we are fast losing the ability to respect different points of view or value what both the heterodoxy and orthodoxy contribute to democracy.

Many of us are watching what you and your government are doing, and we are keeping exact records of all your decisions, statements and policies to be judged by future generations.

As a servant of democracy you have brought much pain to our home, so we’re writing to let you know we are watching, and many of us are watching. While we know your government (it is not ours) spies on people (via the Five Eyes agreement, et al), we’re letting you know that rather than spying, we are watching. Legally, respectfully, critically watching.

 

Catherine, please desist from selling off our human rights to big interests that manipulate the WHO. Please desist from supporting the authoritarian Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, which is clearly designed to attack and erase free speech. Please desist from ever using toxic weapons such as LRAD on peoples who disagree with, and protest against, the government. Please desist from continuing to walk the path of medical fascism.

Yes Catherine, you are free to put whatever you wish into your arm or in your mouth, it is none of our business what you do with your own body, but please desist from pushing onto us, and advising us (as you did in 2022) to use toxic treatments produced and distributed by well documented corporate criminals.

As of a few days ago, ‘the take up of a [Covid] booster dose has stalled. Only 5.5 per cent of Australians aged 18 to 64 years [are] rolling up their sleeves for a jab.’ If this report is accurate, this means few now believe The [industry-captured] Science. Science and public health have been irrevocably damaged in the public’s eyes. The distrust is significant and the only way to attend to this wholesale mistrust of government and their regulators is to sever the very cosy marriage between regulator and industry.

While there are only a few of us who make the time to speak up against the corruption in the state-Pharma nexus, most people know now what’s really going on.

May this open letter inspire others to write similar missives to the politicians who are supposedly representing them, to put them on notice, and to call them out when they erode basic human rights.

Sincerely,
Dr Patrick Jones and Meg Ulman

 

An argument for left libertarian ‘community sufficiency’ (land-bonded, neopeasant, anarchist mobilisation)

By Patrick. 15 minute read.

Possibly the earliest recorded approach to workplace safety begins in ancient Mesopotamia, found in The Code of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BC). This document was a set of regulatory laws that applied broadly to Mesopotamian society including workers’ rights and responsibilities. The history of workplace (and other forms of) safety is not a single progressive line. The road to this current era of safety laws, where say, picking up a useful tool or material to repurpose from a council waste transfer station is prohibited on the grounds that this action is potentially unsafe, has been circuitous. Inarguably, we have entered an era of safetyism, and here I argue this ideology is now politically motivated.

Safetyism has morphed from an ideology to a tactic of immobilising, steering people into a permanent risk-adverse and fearful state. On the surface it appears wholesome and well-meaning, attempting to create a non-suffering world where accidents or harmful events are no longer part of life. Such a pursuit of safety, which has no real place in the living and dying, decomposing and renewing of life itself, is safety that’s gone wrong story. Governments are increasingly utilising fear tactics to immobilise populations, and notably they are labelling dissenting and critical voices of these tactics as dangerous or harmful.

While liberal threads have existed since Enlightenment Europe, the political movement of liberalism was defined in 1948 by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which outlined basic freedoms and rights that should apply to all people. The etymological root of the words liberal, libertine, libertarian and liberty is from the Latin liber, which means free. Today, liberalism is barely recognisable, liberals have become champions for curtailing free-speech and applauding safetyism as a core strategy for controlling those they believe to be inferior. In other words, the meritorious approach to workplace safety (led by both leftist and liberal politics since industrialisation) has grown into another significant neoliberal growth industry, setting up a hyper-paternalistic culture around safety, which in turn has led to broad societal immobilisation and even, as some critics are reading it, a slide into fascism.

A permanent state of fear

Fear, and encouraging its centre place in people’s lives, is a well worn strategy for controlling populations. Influencers of left and liberal politics who embrace safetyism are likewise helping to march us all into a society where thought, action and diverse ways of being are curtailed and controlled. Increasingly, any critique of such immobilising is quickly labelled libertarian, ableist, white supremacist, and even neo-nazist despite the broad ethnicities of resistance. Such reductive shame labels play well into governments’ strategies to deter people from looking at the diversity of independent voices raising red flags about how safety is being misused and how it has become an instrument of control.

In The Five Eyes (FVEY) countries of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Britain and the US, these nation-states have an agreement to spy on each other’s citizens and pass on this information across borders, in order to not breach constitutional laws that prohibit countries spying on their own citizens. These colonial-constituted countries are using the next generation of technologies to advance global development, a term that really should be treated as next generation colonialism.

An effective strategy for liberal governments throughout the world now is to spruik the message that they are in the business of protecting vulnerable peoples while in reality they are deliberately creating vulnerability – economic and social – in a range of minority groups who are actively resisting the paternalism of this new brand of liberalism.

Governments and corporations have different interests, but both use data and behavioural insights teams to help manipulate and control populations. There is a neatly crafted relationship between governments and corporations, serving each other’s interests. While financial power drives corporate interest, it’s the control of people that drives the government’s, where immobilisation and compliance is achieved by fabricating materialist ideas of social good that favour city- or human-centric modes of life-making. In the city life is controlled more than anywhere else by people, and it is this monospeciesist world view that derives from urbane monocultures that feeds such disconnected paternalism.

An example of this is how liberals continue to use masks, even if only as a form of identity, despite little evidence that hospital grade masks provide any meaningful benefits in stopping acute respiratory infections (ARIs). Liberals and leftists using handmade cloth masks refuse to educate themselves on how these masks provide no benefits and really should be considered as nothing more than virtue signalling or as a signifying textile of compliance to the order of safetyism.

Don’t climb that tree kid, take this screen and go sit inside!

While the nexus of state and corporate power is not a new thing, with new surveillance technologies the possibilities for control and manipulation have never been so sophisticated, posing new threats to peoples’ liberties and to democracy. If we continue along this path I can see a time in the near future, where blog posts such as this (on independent websites) will be barred from being transmitted, and critical voices who challenge the state-corporate nexus will be removed from sight, and even from their communities. Smear campaigns and more subtle forms of censorship are now common place. Liberal elites have made the cost of dissent too high for the expert class.

The city and indeed civilisation itself is a mirror to what I call fallen or lopsided patriarchy. The past 5000 years of city building has accompanied the past 5000 years of debt as a tactic of economic incarceration, where a civilisational kinship between banking, militarism and go-it-alone patriarchy has dominated power struggles. Patriarchy is only healthy when common lore derives from the logic and culture directives of Mother Country (Gaia) and people are earth-honouring in all their organisation and activity. Our species’ severance from the divinity of Mother Country by ‘patriarchy’s project’ (Vandana Shiva) – colonialism, materialist science, debt and permanent war – is the meta story behind this next phase of authoritarianism brought into play via a supposedly well-meaning desire for increased levels of safety.

The transition from a meritorious emphasis on safety in a dynamic relationship with risk, to overreaching governmental paternalism regarding anything or anyone perceived to be dangerous, to a new unfolding era of control and censorship is rarely critiqued by leftist and liberal commentators currently. Strangely it’s the commentators on the right who have taken up this vacuum of discourse, which is why the term libertarianism has become so derided by liberal academia. In recent years the neoliberal academy (the university as a branch of neoliberal corporatism) has been in a process of radically cleansing itself of heterodox thinkers and deleting from its memory the important history of left libertarianism, otherwise known as anarchy. There are many reasons for this, including the buy up of liberal media by elites increasingly behaving as the puppeteers of a new world order. This order aims to immobilise and keep people in a state of fear and deference to power. The promise of Zuckerberg’s Metaverse is the most striking example of this tactic of hyper immobilisation and control, packaged as our utopian future, where you’ll live a better life.

Regulatory capture fans pharmacolonisation

A recent article by former ABC science journalist, Maryanne Demasi, exposes how billionaires like Bill Gates are bypassing democratic processes in order to manipulate the narrative alongside government agencies. She writes that “[t]en of the past 11 FDA commissioners left the agency and secured roles with pharmaceutical companies they once regulated,” and how Gates is instrumental in the capture of the FDA. And yet it appears that any mention of Bill Gates in the pejorative, at least inside liberal and leftist circles, immediately earns you the reputation of a conspiracy theorist.

This slide from left and liberal critiques of power that I grew up with as a young thinker, to the capitulation to the state-corporate nexus of left and liberal scholarship and journalism, is a travesty for democracy. Yet, it is quite understandable in the context of how universities have been captured by big money and how behavioural insights and indeed pysops teams work in tandem to first game the expert class (by position and handsome wages) and then game a large remainder of society willing to put their trust in these experts, governments and corporates.

An example that immediately comes to mind is the Green tech mining bonanza taking place where saving the world from certain destruction with lithium and other minerals becomes, in actuality, just the continuation of fallen patriarchy’s violation of Mother Country, albeit by a new, hip, liberal mining industry. This example is akin to degrowth activists who on the one hand call for decentralisation and economic degrowing while on the other put their faith in the hyper-growth medicalisation of the world, and deriding those who resist it.

Emergency porn

Resistance to aggregating authoritarianism requires leaving behind the emergency porn and fear campaigns that media outlets like the Australian government-controlled ABC have crafted so well through the immobilising art of keeping people glued to their screens or radios. As we go into this next fire season in Australia, the ABC will again want to hold our attention and shape our thinking by amplifying certain voices while disappearing others.

In my years as a volunteer consultant in my community’s bushfire mitigation group, I have seen firsthand how governments use community groups such ours to tick boxes and appear like they are doing something, while wasting millions of dollars, setting up well-meaning local people to fail in their collaboration with government. It is by being in local and state government-initiated community groups for decades where I have developed a deep-seated distrust of any level of government in Australia. Appearance is everything in political and bureaucratic worlds.

As Bill Gates, the WHO, the US government, pharmaceutical giants, their captured regulators and many organisations such as the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (Gavi) and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) ‘prepare’ us for the next pandemic (as they ‘prepared’ us for Covid-19), we will need to ask ourselves again, should we trust the narrative? Should we trust the ‘experts’?

Colonialism’s camouflage

Western civilisation is inseparable from western colonialism, which continues to hone its strategy of divide and conquer. What liberal governments and their corporate bully mates are deliberately doing now is dividing populations into two camps – acceptable vulnerable peoples and unacceptable vulnerable peoples, the latter of who are the classes of deplorables, contagions, conspiracists and other resisters that will be increasingly targeted in the liberal media.

Instead of listening to the differences of neighbours and community others around us, and respecting and honouring our differences, society is standing at a threshold where reductive shame labels applied to certain groups by academia, the political class and the liberal media automatically give people the permission to be discriminatory. This podcast episode featuring academic Tyson Yunkaporta using doctoral student Tammi Jonas as a prompt to head kick heterodox thinkers like David Holmgren and myself, while lamenting how certain ‘friends’ have fallen victim to “conspiracies” and “radicalism,” is a timely example of this. Yunkaporta’s slide in recent years from important Indigenous thoughtsmith to promoter of correct-think neoliberalism is just one of the many cultural losses sustained throughout the Covid safetyism moment. Yunkaporta’s muzzling of me in this episode of his podcast is another such example of refusing to listen to the other, ironic because his podcast series is called The Other Others and he claims his emphasis is on yarning – generative conversing through threads – not positioning and posturing.

Governments, corporations, academies and behavioural insights units will continue to make sure that such honouring and respect for diverse approaches is decimated, and that mob morality rules, encouraging those who wish to keep their jobs, get promoted, and be part of the in-crowd to distance themselves from ratbags and deplorables. In this cultural milieu we wholeheartedly embrace being outside such a wrong story tent.

As we saw with Covid, the construction of a contagion class was essential for the rolling out of novel medical treatments. This strategy will be deployed again, probably with a more deadly pathogen next time, and again ‘accidentally’ escaped a gain-of-function lab. There are only 100 or so of them around the world, what could possibly go wrong?

We all heard governments confidently state that Covid was of ‘natural origin’ and the novel Covid jabs were both safe and effective, and anyone who disagreed with these proclamations was a danger to society. We saw the introduction of medical passports, the decimation of small businesses, the freezing of bank accounts of those who supported protesters, the biggest wealth transfer to elites in history, and now the rollout of misinformation and disinformation bills, affectively, giving governments, corporates and their institutional ‘fact-checkers” an unprecedented right to call what is truth and what isn’t.

Claiming the ‘correct’ narrative

Above: data showing excess deaths in Australia trending upwards since the Covid response. Health officials have not sufficiently accounted for this huge rise in deaths, many heart-related, and refuse to look into whether mass vaccination of novel GMO vaccines have contributed.

Any government or institution that claims to hold the truth, when so many have lied so egregiously throughout the Covid response, are of course the real threat to democracy. That this position is unpopular with my fellow left and liberal colleagues is deeply concerning, especially given papers like this just published in Japan where scientists show widespread (as yet) asymptomatic myocardial inflammation in people who took these so-called safe and effective jabs as opposed to the unvaccinated cohort who didn’t. There is now a deluge of sudden cardiac deaths in the most vaccinated countries, who are experiencing ‘unexplainable’ excess mortality figures, yet health officials, governments and left and liberal commentators remain tight lipped that there could be a link to the these novel vaccines, that many in the science community are now admitting are GMOs.

The doubling down on ‘natural origin’ and ‘safe and effective’ propaganda is understandable when you’ve gone down those rabbit holes so unequivocally.

Limited hangout – the well oiled tactic massaging the message

In an Age newspaper article (pictured) from a few days ago, the journalist gives a limited hangout regarding the Covid response. At the beginning of her article she states when Covid occurred health officials completely ignored the long founded response for a respiratory virus pandemic, which essentially is focused protection where immunocompromised and other vulnerable people are offered the majority of resources while herd immunity via infection is quickly established by healthy normals. But instead of critiquing the completely novel and human-rights violating Covid response and the throwing out of the prior gold standard approach, the journalist proceeds to amplify the architects of the diabolical Covid response, finishing with a statement from Brett Sutton, the senior Victorian health official responsible for one of the worlds most brutal Covid responses, seeing Victorians locked up for longer periods than most and riot squads and liberal media raining rubber bullets on those who protested. There is zero reflection in the article on what Sutton orchestrated, rather an elevation of his opinion, which expectedly is focussed not on health but more ideological attacks on those dissenting and critiquing his damaging and militaristic response.

This Age article is yet another piece of propaganda preparing its readers for an inevitable “next pandemic”, and holding its readers in a place of ‘trust the captured science’ or forever be cast into the contagion or deplorable classes.

Responding is a dance; reacting is war

In the lead up to the pandemic Brett Sutton was a public health registrar at Burnet Institute in Melbourne, which has received over a million dollars from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation since 2009. This trickle feeding of monies to universities, research centres and media institutions is Bill Gate’s ingenius way of subtly, slowly controlling which narratives are heard while disappearing those that don’t conspire to grow his fortunes via the invisible threat of such funding running out. Gates’ role in pharmacolonisation is central, and puppets like Sutton are his well-paid foot soldiers who keep getting promoted up the rungs of the global health-fascism network.

Understanding what is going on is critically vital for individuals, households and communities in continuing to respond to and prepare our networks and economic lifeways to be increasingly independent of corporates, governments and neoliberal academia. Removing ourselves from dependency on corporate-government education, food, medicine, energy, and basic essentials for life making may grant us greater freedoms. Right libertarian approaches of hyper individualism are limited because of their isolationism. However, left libertarianism invites communities to be self organising and interdependent, and is by nature communitarian, compassionate and sensitive to tyranny. As I have argued before, real communitarianism is never top down, it is never meted out by power.

It is those of us who devise creative, subversive and generative lifeways to either slip away from or dance with the growing fundamentalism of the state-corporate nexus, will be those who thrive in this coming period. By building ever more relationships with life, with Mother Country – not in an ideological but in a sacred sense – and mobilising ourselves into what Artist as Family calls a flow of gifts or belonging economies, we can transition to diverse communities that will trade paternalistic urbane ‘services’ for neopeasant community sufficiency – a term we devised many years ago to signal mobilisation of both household and community economies.

As always, we welcome your comments, corrections, critique and questions. We are now on Substack, so please follow us on this censorship-free platform.

Assange, free speech, youngtimers and bodily autonomy (the well meanings, contradictions and harms of the neoliberalised woke)

35 min read. Audio version here:

 

A few weeks ago we travelled to Naarm, Melbourne to stand with Julian Assange and around 3000 fellow supporters of free speech. We travelled with our friends and elders Su Dennett and David Holmgren, shared a hug with John Shipton, Julian’s father, and made a short video featuring David’s analysis at the rally.

John Shipton is a beautiful human – astute, observant and wise. A recent interview with John by Chris Hedges provides important context for those who are catching up with Julian Assange’s persecution by the US and the UK governments. Of course, the Australian Government’s moral backbone hasn’t shown up once again, either, despite the promise of Anthony Albanese. In early 2022 Julian passed “one thousand days in Belmarsh Prison, dubbed ‘Britain’s Guantanamo Bay‘.” In late 2022 his voice still cannot be heard. His message is disallowed, muzzled. He is the most cancelled, most chained person alive in the global New Normal Reich.

The gift of Nasty

We posted David’s political analysis of the Assange rally on YouTube the day following the rally. Yes, YouTube let us back on their platform last week and reinstated a video they’d censored of ours, after our appeal fed back to them: “A difference of opinion is called democracy not misinformation.” We think one of their bots called for a human to assess our appeal.

One of the comments posted on YouTube responding to our latest video, came from Lean Nasty, who was, well, a little nasty albeit well meaning.

“Where’s the woke left?” Bloody hell. I love you guys and your family but that’s just pathetic. We left all care about Julian. Some of us are not anti-vaxxers. Some are. That’s okay. By making it about the “others”, by focusing on another group, we lose sight of what really matters.

Lean Nasty apparently didn’t face the full force of state violence for refusing an experimental inoculant made by corporate criminals who made themselves (via the admissions of the state) legally immune to any harm caused by the rollout. That any government or person could trust Pfizer, Moderna or AstraZeneca considering their track records, is beyond our comprehension, but to mandate the productions of such criminals is proof the state-pharma nexus exists and is gravely dangerous to human health and society.

We think our political placard must have hit a nerve. “We left all care about Julian,” says Lean Nasty, but is that really true? Before heading to Melbourne we didn’t consider who would be there, we chatted with David, Su and another friend Marita about many things but not that. The political right attended this rally in equal, if not greater, numbers than those of us who once proudly called ourselves Left. If this post-binary political movement continues to grow and Identitarians across the political divide showed up too, the 1% would be truly shitting themselves.

The new right seem to have a better understanding of how neoliberalism is shafting the 99% because their politics, akin to old skool socialists and anarchists (or Left libertarians), are still rooted in hard economic realities. The new right are the youngtimer working classes, trying to survive neoliberal economic shafting that targets them first. On the other hand, woke Leftists are often privileged enough to have been educated in universities that are themselves now fully framed by neoliberal values, both in their economic and cultural forms, and in their production of captains of industry and other workers who are managing the systematic destruction of the biosphere.

Woke influencers have been rewarded by neoliberalism for steering politics away from labour and property relations and into Identity as the primary politic. They have been rewarded by having the new-speak of woke’s Identitarianism rolled out through the neoliberal institutions. The banking system – the apex of the neoliberal church – can handle “birth parent” and “chest feeding” language reconstruction in their own institutions; they have no need for mothers, except for the tedious reproduction of labour, biologically, while they wait for the transhuman embryo factories to fire up.

Neoliberalism, as the global parent (and akin to its woke children), hates the family. The family poses a threat to neoliberalism because the family still posits the possibility of alternative cosmologies to the dominant hegemony, economic or otherwise. Assange’s parents were rightly suspicious about industrial schooling because schools have become compliance factories where children are manipulated to conform to the imperatives of the neoliberal state and its war, transhumanism, ecocide, iatrogenocide and inequality values.

Assange spent some time at school and was also homeschooled. His family’s cosmology questioned the dominant hegemony in a holistic way. The possibility for an alternative and holistic cosmology is one of the tenets of Artist as Family and our crafting of neopeasantry. We no longer participate in neoliberal art, science or economics, but rather have pragmatically and creatively reclaimed ancestral modalities that are rooted in a walk-for subsistence. In relocalisation.

Leftists have typically moved away from defending the family and so any discussion of it is automatically considered a politic of the right.

Neoliberal and woke psychopolitics are working towards a mass culture where everyone is schooled by groupthink, everyone takes Pfizer’s and Gates’ drugs, everyone eats lab meat and GMO veggies, everyone’s behaviour is monitored through centralised banking, and everyone lives in the promised utopia of the Metaverse. This is why the woke Left weren’t at the Assange rally, Lean Nasty. Because they are serving neoliberal psychopolitics, albeit mostly unwittingly, using neoliberal technologies of power on a massive scale to coerce and control populations in how they think and behave.

The collaboration is powerful because there is topdown pressure from neoliberal controllers and bottom up community action from woke influencers working together. Byung-Chul Han writes in his book Psychopolitics (2017), how Big Data and new technologies of power are corralling us into ever more enclosures. “Big Brother and Big Business,” he writes, “have formed an alliance. The surveillance state and the market are merging.” The Covid response by the state-pharma nexus and the rolling out of vaccine passports typifies this.

The tyranny of neoliberal ‘kindness’

Jacinda Ardern – a well groomed WEF young leader who encapsulates woke Left psychopolitics – calls for a politics of kindness, while at the same time insisting her government is the only source of ‘truth’ for matters relating to information generally post Covid. When a government is claiming they hold ‘the truth’ a new period of tyranny has already begun. A recent article by Colin Todhunter titled, “Free Speech, Jacinda Ardern and the Tyranny of ‘Kindness’” published in OffGuardian offers important commentary on this unfolding crisis of cancel culture and censorship. Todhunter writes, “Like other political leaders, during COVID, Ardern clamped down on civil liberties with the full force of state violence on hand to ensure compliance with ‘the truth’.”

It took us quite some time to pop our own woke bubble, taken there initially because like so many things, woke started with good intentions; as a next-gen approach to the meritorious lineage of human rights activism that (in the industrial era) began with peasant and artisan resistance to being forcibly enclosed or cleared from ancestral and sacred lands, which their economic sovereignty depended on. The Crofters’ War (Cogadh nan Croitearan) in Scotland, for example, was “[w]aged over large parts of the 1800s. [T]he ‘war’ was a dispute between landowners and communities distressed by high rents, their lack of rights to land, or facing eviction to make way for large-scale farming operations.”

Land grabs started in the 12th century but escalated in early industrialising England, before British colonialism – the prototype for neoliberal global development – was rolled out across the world. Now Bill Gates is the biggest landowner in the US, land which is intended to kill family farming and bring in a next generation of ecology destroying GMO monocultures. The story of the industrial Left begins with the destruction of The Commons and the assault on land-bonded and artisanal classes and cultures by industrialists and classical political economists such as Adam Smith, and his theories of colonial development and free-trade imperialism (see” The Invention of Capitalism by Michael Perelman 2000).

The part of Left politics that’s now orientated by wokeness or Identitarian ideology foremost, doesn’t seem to grasp the current and historical significance of Julian Assange, whose only ‘crime’ was to expose neoliberal power’s true forms and deeds like any useful journalist should do to keep society from the wolves. So, finally, our reply to you, Lean Nasty (which we published over there at YouTube), went like this:

“Thanks for voicing your difference here. It is very welcome. We’re curious to know whether you listened to what was said by David [in the video] or did you get triggered by the cover image first, which lead to writing your comment? Regarding the cover image placard, for us it’s a very serious question: ‘why are those who purport to stand for human rights not at a rally for Julian Assange?’

Like any reductive shame label, such as the broad sweeping ‘anti-vax’ dismissive used against anyone questioning the state-pharma nexus, ‘woke’ has become shorthand for Leftists who have abandoned the larger geopolitical problems of our time and abandoned examination of any human rights abuse deemed not to fit into Identitarian ideology. There are many reasons for this, including the erasure of critical thinking from the education system and social media’s very intentionally engineered base-behaviour tribalism.

Yes, we agree, reductive language is always problematic, and politics leads us all there very quickly (such as your ‘anti-vax’ usage), but if you watch this video you may find a little more than just a political placard, which was written at the rally to express our grief that younger Leftists have abandoned Assange (or believe the manufactured smear campaign against him), and many have become apologists for state violence, be it mandates or war and everything in between.”

And not just apologists. The example Holmgren gives in the video of the German Greens being some of the most strident advocates for the war against Russia is just one story of this growing power-over trend in woke Left ideology. All over social media woke vigilantes came from lockdown waving Uncle Pfizer’s flag to waving the Ukrainian one without understanding the US’s meddling in that country for decades. The US influence in NATO to get military bases on Russia’s doorstep, for example, and their refusal to engage diplomatically with Russia to overt bloodshed and ecological catastrophe, is due to the capture of US congress by US armaments companies. This is why we’re facing a nuclear war.

So many of us, formally from the green Left, are now politically homeless, not just because Greens parties have become war mongers, but because they’re telling bright green lies about renewables, backing a growing industry of mineral extraction needed for neoliberalism’s bullshit climate fix – The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Our crappy little home-brewed music video, The majors and the Greens (an election ditty), gives you a little more insight into what we mean here.

But let’s sit with the gift of Lean Nasty’s comment for a bit longer, for there is blind spot work in it for us, too.

Is it possible to move beyond reductive, divisive and crude politics and move towards what Charles Eisenstein is calling Political Maturity or what we’ve been calling for – a sacred politics?

Does political maturity mean we don’t speak up when we feel attacked or are fearing of “another group” whose values we perceive as deliberately setting out to destroy our own? Or does it mean we do speak, but only use a language that doesn’t alienate or wound, like non-violent communication (NVC), where people focus on ‘I’ statements and are conscious of not projecting their fears or wounds onto another? We know NVC works in the household and community sphere where there is direct engagement, and we are well practiced at it. But does it work when groups, especially online, refuse to engage with each other and bunker down into ideological silos?

The psychopolitics of cancelling others often takes place in the cowardly domains of the virtual. A recent notable example is when former Victorian Greens party convenor, Linda Gale, was attacked by colleagues in the party who wilfully misquoted her, and destroyed her reputation in a trial by social media for questioning not dismissing Identitarian ideology. These cancelling events will inevitably lead to the collapse of The Greens as many of us turn away, but more broadly it leads to the further fracturing of society. Neoliberals know there’s much money and control to grow when social fracturing occurs. We call this Disaster Corporatism.

A century on, woke invokes the gratuitous decadence of 1920s Europe with the earnestness and puritanism of the Hitler Youth. This is the brilliance of neoliberal psychopolitics, which we refer to as pop-fascism, a force wrapped up in cuteness, smiles, virtuousness and apps.

The rites and rights of youngtimers

How woke Left or Identitarian ideologies slide from human rights into neoliberal psychopolitics occurs by a certain kind of naivety for how this old power-over story of ‘get the kids early’ is brought forward into the contemporary moment.

The four main areas of concern that arise for us regarding the psychopolitical trans revolution, for example, which ideally we’d like to discuss in an open and nuanced social environment, are the four Ms – medicalisation, misogyny, misandry and the muzzling of debate.

  • The medicalisation of young people transitioning across genders who require irreversible operations such as vaginoplasty and harmful drugs like puberty blockers.
  • The unavoidable misogyny that comes with insisting a transwoman is a woman without engaging in open debate across broad feminist and broader social discourses.
  • The inherent misandry that comes with insisting a transman is a man without engaging in debate across broad masculinist and broader social discourses.
  • And the muzzling of all these issues in our communities, closing down discussion with “Vulnerable people will suicide if you discuss this,” or even worse, labelling someone a transphobe and turning them into a social contagion for asking questions.

These four Ms – medicalisation, misogyny, misandry and muzzling – are, we believe, worthy of attention and debate. We know we will lose subscribers for saying this, and we’ll gain some as well.

Nasty 2.0

Lean Nasty’s comment doesn’t seek to engage with the question on our placard: Where is the woke Left? Rather it appears to have touched a shadow point. When our shadows are exposed there is always the possibility of a learning, or at least the opportunity to ask a question of ourselves. Our use of ‘woke’ here may be provocative to some but it doesn’t attempt to shut down debate or silence anyone. It calls for engagement through its trigger; it provokes, and more importantly it is not afraid to ask the question. Where’s the woke Left? is calling for presence, for visibility. It invites debate and inclusion. We want to stand beside the woke Left at all rallies for Assange, but we also want to provide context for why they are not showing up to fight for freedom of speech.

Our question invites the necessary rupture or tension that politics often requires in order to better understand the ‘other’; for there to be argument so there can be movement. We call this ideological pitchforking which we also practice on ourselves to unstick crusty beliefs and move the dialectic into a more generative place. The pitchforking of our own hubris was what pricked our own woke bubble. There is undoubtedly always more we can do to aerate our own ideological composts.

Truth is never a static thing and this is why we value Indigenous thinking that observes the easy slide from right story to wrong story, from aerated compost to putrid compost. This has nothing to do with the game of right and wrong manufactured in an industrial cultural sense, because Indigenous wisdom is asking for each of us to observe the sliding that can so easily manifest in ourselves. There is no such thing as state truth because the state is a power-over leviathan that gets more monstrous with each new generation of technologies of power. The modern state, crafted out of English colonialism, and of course Roman well prior to industrialisation, is always wrong story because it is always a power-over cosmology. That’s why we’ve arrived at neopeasant anarchism – the crafting of social, ecological and economic relations rooted in the cosmology and intimacy of Mother Country.

For us, Mother Country will never be Birth Parent Country, but people are welcome to claim that misogyny.

Bodily autonomy and double standards

We didn’t know it at the time, but simultaneously two other rallies were taking place in the city. Unlike the Assange rally where people were uniting across the Left-Right binary, these two ‘other’ groups were clashing to such an extent police had to keep them separated. It got pretty ugly.

The irony of this clash is that the same set of protestors who are defending bodily rights in relation to abortion were the same demographic who attacked anti-mandate protestors in these very streets a year ago, jeering at people like us on social media and posting academic hit-pieces that called us racist, white supremacists despite the diverse multiracial attendees who showed up from across the state.

At those anti-mandate protests people also carried My Body My Choice placards. The exact same message. We agree in both instances, bodily autonomy must stand, even if the rights of an unborn child are extinguished or even if herd immunity was possible by ‘vaccinating’ into a pandemic with a novel inoculant, which it clearly wasn’t. It must stand because the neoliberal state-pharma nexus, cannot be trusted.

We also understand where the political Right are on this issue of abortion, so we can have empathy for that position even if we hold that bodily autonomy must stand. This goes for trans people wanting a new kind of body. Who are we to speak to that? Where things become problematic, however, is how this surgery is harming people, especially youngtimers, in a way abortion is not, and how youngtimers are the most vulnerable to trans surgery and big pharma’s greed.

If bodily autonomy stands as a universal ethic for both the Left and the Right, why then the moral inconsistency?

Ideological silos are a disaster for society though great for neoliberal power. For all of us to be fighting each other means the bankers and billionaires run away with the wealth while we all miss the sleight of hand that they’re dealing. Infiltrating woke has been a master stroke of neoliberalism, so too Gates and Bezos’ funding or ownership of what used to be reliable medias such as The Guardian and The Washington Post. All this capture has occurred by most of us watching the left hand while the right sneakily does the dirty work.

Charles Eisenstein suggests we have to be clear about who we serve and keep asking ourselves this same question. Tyson Yunkaporta calls for critical awareness of how quickly we can slide from right to wrong story. Rhyd Wildermuth is a gay-animist writer critical of wrong story wokeness. He refers to woke as ‘the new capitalist cosmology’:

so many corporations, banks, and neoliberal politicians have readily adopted the language of identity and at least the aesthetic of diversity and equity in their hiring practices, management styles, and political platforms. They have every reason to be happy with this cosmological shift, since they still get to keep property relations intact as long as they offer more expression to identity concerns.

Political maturity begins with the question, who are we going to serve? And then a process. A process that requires awareness of the adversarial political system we inherited at birth. A system that has always been divisive and favoured the rich and powerful but has now devolved to such an extent that the feigned-democratic, adversarial and colonial nature of the Westminster System is now just a lobbyists’ utopia.

As Rohan Leppert argues, in relation to the June witch hunt in their own party for those advocating for women’s sex-based rights, “The Greens in 2022 has already shown that its rules are subject to appeal in the court of social media.” Bodily autonomy, human rights and freedom of speech for the woke Left are a cherry picked hodgepodge that includes some rights and dissolves others.

Another example is how so-called green technology has become the main ‘fix’ for Greens parties throughout the rich industrialised countries. These parties back the mining industry of rare earth minerals, turning this destruction of Mother Country into ‘saving the climate’. The deceit and hubris of renewables is promulgated by the woke Green Left in much the same way as identity is championed – advance the cause, conceal the harms. The Greens today are just another mining party.

In the days when wind and solar were advocated for by we greenies who saw that these technologies could accompany a radical powering down from oil dependency – a kind of energy methadone programme for heavily industrialised countries – we naively didn’t expect this technology to unfold into the mining bonanza it is today. If the bullshit promise of ‘renewables’ isn’t examined as critically as trans medicalisation harm, or the harm caused by Bill Gates’ capture of institutions ranging from the BBC, The Guardian and the WHO, or the wholesale corruption of major political parties by lobbyists, or the proxy war in Ukraine, and the next great transfer of wealth to bankers in the unfolding inflation crisis, then we’re all in for much more pain as the empire collapses and ecological ruination hits us from every other side.

Rhetoric is the grand tool of this political culture, handed down from the ancient Greeks who also questioned the value of it. Rhetoric is clever crafting, trigger language and often involves shorthand – terrorist, anti-vax, transphobe, TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists), etc. These shorthand labels aim to shame the opponent, reducing them into easily identifiable parts. But woke is more slippery. This is how writer and publisher Bari Weiss, describes ‘woke’.

Ideas are replaced with identity. Forgiveness is replaced with punishment. Debate is replaced with de-platforming. Diversity is replaced with homogeneity of thought. Inclusion, with exclusion.

Diversity and inclusivity are often used interchangeably but we argue inclusivity under woke ideology has become the opposite of diversity. We illustrate the distinction like this: Inclusivity: “Your story triggers me, please don’t tell your story.” Diversity: “Your story triggers me, I need to work out why.”

Having at first opened to the ideologies of woke, taken them on and sat in their well meanings, we eventually came to realise what was at stake as the fundamentalism became increasingly supported and steered by neoliberalism. A rally or protest inspires shorthand missives. A political rally is a series of short messages, symbols and gestures that are quick to grasp for the passerby, the press, the solidarity of the cohort, or for the perceived opposition.

So, where is the woke Left?

We could have written the longhand on this placard: “Where are the Leftists who have abandoned the larger geopolitical problems of our time and abandoned examination of any human rights abuse deemed not to fit into Identitarian ideology?” but in the thrum of the gathering we instead drew on the shorthand, “Where’s the woke Left?” because that was our first question on arriving, and it was super quick to write, even in serif. 

Having been called anti-vaxxers, plague-on-bikes, ableists, neo-Nazis, Artist-as-Plague, granny killers, idiots, selfish spreaders of disease and the like, by people mostly residing in what used to be our political heartland – the Green Left – has been a big ride for us. Through this bleak period we’ve opened slowly to the gift of knowing what it’s like to be part of a contagion class. It’s actually very liberating, and has enabled us to see how neoliberal psychopolitics is always infiltrating grassroots groups who are coming together to do some good.

What we still fail to understand, however, is how woke Leftists (who are generally so loathing of straight white men) have so radically refused to question the coercive medical narratives of the most toxic straight white men in the world – Fauci, Biden, Trump, Andrews, Johnson, Macron, Trudeau, Gates, Bourla, Daszak, Schwab, McGowan, Bancel, Soriot, Morrison et al. There is zero sum critique of these abusive Covid ‘fathers’ from the woke Left. Why? Why did the woke Left cling to the coat straps of corporatist paternalism throughout Covid? And why can’t the woke Left see the link between this tyranny and the unlawful treatment of Julian Assange carried out by the UK and US governments?

We, in part, address this question in our blog post, The Left got Covid almost entirely wrong, and why it matters, and in the music video, We are here together, which we made a few months back, where we sing into the politics of cancelling free speech, mandating dubious injections, harmful child medicalisation and education industries, the power of dancing and climbing trees (as antidote to the derangements of hypertechnocivility), and the importance of political dissidents like Assange.

Youngtimers deserve better than what their neoliberal olders (not elders) are doing to them.

Rebekah Barnett’s recent Substack deep dives into elements of this current climate of what we’re calling ‘olders abuse’. People are suicidal due to vaccine injuries, disabled by them, gas-lit for trying to shine a light on the harm, and ignored by authorities who are desperately trying to sweep them all under the carpet. Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion is a new documentary that examines the extent of state-pharma corruption. We recommend you watch it before it’s censored.

Towards political maturity and the love of elders

If you’ve been attacked, shut down, gas-lit and/or shamed-labelled for your views or opinion, how do you cultivate or maintain political maturity? Is political maturity only possible by those privileged enough not to have been politically vilified? Politics always seems to default to base-behaviour language where smearing the enemy is paramount. Can we rise above it? Can we integrate poetical, sacred, nuanced and empathetic threads into political discourse?

It’s easy to avoid politics and be turned off by reductionist arguments and shame labels, but what then?

Yes, othering is a systemic social problem, especially if the attack is on an individual. But so too is the absence of political critique and the absence of highlighting inconsistencies in a political class that shuts down dissent and peoples’ opinions that don’t fit within a specific ideology. We need more scrutiny of the psychopathic fathers of empire not more rules about what language people can or cannot use. And yes, we need less ideological warfare and more hugs. Thanks Su Dennett!

Where in woke ideology is the wisdom that can smell a rat when corporate greed, political corruption or medicalisation harm enters a room? Where is the wakefulness of not being played and the grace to say, “it’s true, they were never safe or effective, yes I truly bought the nudge fudge, and I labelled people who refused or questioned the jabs as anti-vaxxers, parroting the corporate media”? Where is the question: “If Assange is jailed for exposing war crimes of the empire – crimes that America and Australia, Britain and much of Europe commit their support to, if not implement themselves – and I let this take place on my watch, where will free speech be in five years? In ten? In fifty? Where will life be?”

As always, your comments are most welcome, your difference and your debate. And your questions too. We also want to hear, who do you serve? Who is your master? For us, it’s Mother Country and the flowering, fruiting abundance of the giving, birthing, making and dying earth that our lives are indebted to and we are part of. We say NO to neoliberalism, in all its captured forms.

Artist as Family’s Covid protocols (prevention and early treatment)

Covid finally arrived in our home this week and we use this event to explain our protocols for both prevention and early treatment, and examine the lies, the lab leak, and the misinformation spread by the corporate media in collusion with the state-Pharma nexus that resulted in the deaths of millions of people.

Here’s the audio-only version

 

As mentioned in the video, we’d love you to share your protocols and what has helped you to either prevent or early treat Covid. In an era of medical fascism those of us not wanting to participate in the state-Pharma nexus will need to grow our post-industrial medicine knowledges and share them freely.

References (in order of appearance)

Dr Tess Lawrie on Ivermectin and medical corruption
Dr Peter Couttie on homemade megadose Vit C
Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (Ivermectin and prevention & treatment protocols)
World Council for Health protocols
COVID patient with sepsis makes ‘remarkable’ recovery following megadose of vitamin C
Therapeutic potential of megadose vitamin C to reverse organ dysfunction in sepsis and COVID-19
The lab-leak theory isn’t dead: The mother of all Covid conspiracy theories is true
In Major Shift, NIH Admits Funding Risky Virus Research in Wuhan
A meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of St John’s wort extract in depression therapy
Garlic ferments (including honey garlic)
Indigenous v Industrial Covid
Cold water immersion (powerful free medicine)
Great Barrington Declaration

We recorded this video yesterday, and we are happy to let you know that today, on day 5, Meg has no more symptoms and is feeling back to her songbird Magpie self.

Signing off with much love, solidarity and care,
Artist as Family

People Care includes Voluntary Consent (with Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav)

Those who declare that Holocaust analogies are “off-limits” are betraying the victims of the Holocaust, by denying the relevance of the Holocaust.

Vera Sharav, Holocaust survivor speaking at the 75th Anniversary Event of the Nuremberg Code in Nuremberg, Germany, on August 20, 2022.

This video is the personal opinion of Vera Sharav, a Holocaust survivor, founder of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, and an activist against some practices of the biomedical industry, particularly in matters of patient consent and children.

You can listen to the audio-only version here (22min listen):

 

In this video we have edited Vera’s address and added a little music by Sambodhi Prem. Thanks Sambodhi! And thanks to subscriber, Andy, for forwarding the original link to us.

Permaculture ethics are founded on people care, earth care and fair share, and this is why we could not support the state-Pharma Covid response, which attacks all three of these ethics and every permaculture principle. It has been astounding to us that so many people who call themselves permies have capitulated to the colonisations of the state-Pharma nexus, which is intrinsically industrial in form, scale and byproduct.

As always your comments and discussion are valued here.

The Left got Covid almost entirely wrong – and why it matters

40 min read. Audio version here:

 

A collective-consensual grassroots approach to a systemic crisis is always desirable over narrow self-interest, but when a ‘collectivist’ approach is forced onto populations from the top down, and big money is involved, human rights abuses will inevitably follow.

Mandate critical

The discourse concerning the pandemic response for many in Left and ‘progressive’ political camps has fallen into two monocultural fields – you’re either for The Science™ or you’re a Trumpist-conspiracist. Such reductionism has not only contributed to human rights abuses, it has also helped usher in a bleak new period of authoritarianism and unprecedented surveillance.

If the Left isn’t performing its usual tasks of exposing industry capture, revolving door corruption and human rights abuse, who is going to do that work? Throughout the Covid period much of this work has been carried out by those more likely identifying politically as Centrist or on the Right. This has left the Left somewhat groundless with no other place to go than become the inadvertent fan club of aggressive medical globalisation. Rather than examine this phenomenon critically, many in Leftist circles have doubled-down and become apologists for some of the most powerful and ethically dubious corporations in the world.

An article recently written by retired academic Terry Leahy, published in Arena Quarterly #9, exposes all the typical strawman arguments the Left has promulgated about mandate critical dissidents from across the political spectrum. Leahy’s Wayward growths: Permaculture, Low Tech and the ‘Freedom Movement’ is riddled with inaccuracies, conceit and falsities, and is illustrative of a broader Left ideology concerning the pandemic response. Few Leftists have adequately critiqued the pandemic response let alone The Left’s Covid failure.

Leahy refers to an article published in Medium by Heather Jo Flores as a solid reference for his argument attacking the co-originator of permaculture, Dr David Holmgren. However, Flores’ writing was so slanderous and libellous that she deleted all records of it from the internet. Leahy not only omits the fact it was taken down by Flores shortly after it was published, but also omits to mention the backlash for it was overwhelming, regardless of what side of the mandate debate a reader was on. Leahy instead suggests Flores’ writing on this subject was widely supported and is still circulating. This is untrue on both counts.

The science isn’t in regarding masks, lockdowns and vaccines. Anyone who has followed the scientific arguments for and against these enforced measures knows this. For example, a large Danish randomised controlled trial in late 2020 showed there was 1.8 percent of those in the mask group and 2.1 percent of those in the control group became infected with SARS-CoV-2 within a month, with this 0.3-point difference not being statistically significant. So what has been the point of mandating leaky masks and ‘vaccines’?

Leftists generally, but not exclusively, have become some of the most enthusiastic users of the shame label, ‘anti-vax,’ rather than championing the rights of dissidents who have been mask, lockdown and/or vaccine mandate critical. By prioritising base-behaviour language such as ‘anti-vax’ over more nuanced language such as ‘mandate critical,’ the Left has significantly abandoned its post.

Referring to the forthcoming mandatory mask-wearing laws for those Germans who cannot show on-the-spot authorities their current ‘vaccination’ status or ‘test’ results, Berlin-based playwright and satirist, C J Hopkins writes, “What is happening is, a new official ideology is being imposed on society. It is being imposed on society by force. And now, those of us who refuse to conform to it will be ordered to walk around in public wearing visible symbols of our non-conformity. I’m sorry, but the parallels are undeniable.”

Leahy enthusiastically employs the ‘anti-vax’ shame label rather than investigate whether vaccine mandates constitute human rights abuse or are indeed legal. The pejorative use of ‘anti-vax’ is akin to how the term ‘terrorist’ was applied to any person who identified as Muslim in the Howard-Bush-Blair era. Back then this shaming tactic mostly came from the Right.

As Glen Greenwald argues, “The term “anti-vax” has expanded so widely that even vaccine advocates, such as [Jeremy] Corbyn and trade unions, are now included by virtue of defending bodily autonomy.” For anyone who champions human rights, base-behaviour language such as ‘anti-vax’ should sound alarm bells, especially if it is being promoted by government, in news media and in critical journals like Arena Quarterly.

Ministries of truth

Leahy’s views about which news medias can be trusted shines a light on who has shaped his thinking over the past few years. He suggests to his readers that in order to get to the truth about the pandemic they would be best served by taking out subscriptions with The Age, The Guardian and/or the New York Times. I have also read these medias throughout the pandemic and referenced them alongside many others, as well as hundreds of papers, opinion pieces, scientific articles and commentators from across political, scientific and social spectrums.

In Artist as Family’s video, How do we solve a problem like the unvaccinated?, we take a critical look behind the curtain of Fairfax media, and understand why The Age has been so enthusiastically bugling the same tune as the global vaccine lobby.

The Age is owned by Nine Entertainment, and the former conservative politician that is most influential on that governing board is Peter Costello, who is also Chairman of the Board of Guardians of the Australian Future Fund where he has, in recent years, invested in pharmaceutical companies to the tune of AUS$2 billion, including equity holdings in Pfizer worth AUS $188M. Costello is a managing partner of BKK Partners, a boutique corporate advisory group run by former Goldman Sachs JBWere managers, and in 2008 Costello was appointed to the World Bank’s Independent Advisory Board.

When we read any Fairfax media today we are duty bound to know who the influencers are behind the curtain. This example of conflict of interest – that the politically savvy board chair of Nine/Fairfax also invests in Pfizer – is what Leftists should ordinarily consider a revolving door between state and corporate interests, and a place of likely corruption. It’s the kind of subject Left authors and readers would have traditionally scrutinised.

It’s depressing and frightening to witness the level of capitulation among Leftists who have instead championed the paternalistic white boys of the pandemic – Gates, Fauci, Bourla, Schwab, Biden, Andrews, Trudeau, Macron, Morrison et al – and attacked the likes of Artist as Family and Holmgren who have nothing to gain or maintain – except our integrity – for signalling likely corruption and deceit.

Alex Berenson, a former New York Times journalist who reported on the pharmaceutical industry for that media outlet, has been another source we’ve followed who gives an antithesis view to his old employer. Berenson, who The Atlantic labelled The Pandemic’s Wrongest Man, has been consistently more accurate on the subject than any writer on that so-called ‘progressive’ platform. On 2 August, 2021 Berenson was removed from Twitter for posting:

“It doesn’t stop infection. Or transmission. Don’t think of it as a vaccine. Think of it – at best – as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed in advance of illness. And we want to mandate it? Insanity.”

The truth of this tweet has, arguably, become undeniable and a few weeks ago Berenson was reinstated on Twitter after that platform settled in court with him, and his tweet was reinstated. No evidence could be found to maintain this was “misleading,” though The Atlantic or any other corporate media who slandered him, haven’t as yet apologised for the misinformation they promulgated. The “safe & effective” misinformation campaign has rightly eroded the public’s trust.

Until the pandemic, in my naivety, I was unaware of any conservative like Berenson who could be bothered to expose regulatory capture or corruption in the pharmaceutical industry, which to my mind is structurally Right wing. Leftists like Western Sydney University’s Paddy Rawlinson were the ones sounding alarm bells with pieces like Immunity and Impunity: Corruption in the State-Pharma Nexus (2017).

From Artist as Family’s Covid research it has become clear the vaccine lobby has been working hard for at least two decades to silence any public debate, even concerning what should be fairly uncontroversial – overprescription and the profit motivations for that. As we investigated in our November 2021 video, Fact check: Covid vaccines work, they are safe and are stopping transmission, Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies wine and dine doctors and nurses around Australia, paying for conferences and lunches. This is what is meant by industry capture. We argue throughout our Covid video series that industry capture is in such plain sight today that no one even sees it.

Israeli Professor Shmuel Shapira MD MPH, who received three Covid jabs before being seriously injured by his third, is now attempting to raise concerns about Pfizer’s synthetic biology. Shapira was a leading scientific champion of the Covid vaccines when he served as Director of the Israel Institute for Biological Research between 2013 and 2021.

Twitter, who has no expertise in biology let alone vaccinology, is now censoring Shapira as it has with countless antithesis doctors, medical scientists and science journalists over the past two years. Twitter recently threatened Shapira with being removed from the platform if he did not delete a post which stated: “Monkey pox cases were rare for years. During the last years a single case was documented in Israel. It is well established the mRNA vaccines affect the natural immune system. A monkey pox outbreak following massive covid vaccination: *Is not a coincidence.”

You won’t find Shapira’s perspective, or others like his, shared in The Age, The Guardian or the NYT, although we did report in one of our Covid videos an article that got through the editorial gates of the NYT back in December 2021 titled, Israel Considers 4th Vaccine Dose, but Some Experts Say It’s Premature, where the journalist reported that some senior Israeli scientists are warning too many shots might actually harm the body’s ability to fight the Covid-19 virus, leading to “immune system fatigue” and thus making the vaccinated more susceptible to Covid. We are surely seeing this unfolding now in the most vaccinated countries.

Since 2010 The Guardian has accepted at least US$13 million from vaccine investor and promoter Bill Gates, according to Gates’ own website. Money with which The Guardian was able to set up their Global Development site for the express purpose of communicating global health and development awareness and analysis. Did Leahy ask his readers to observe a possible conflict of interest between someone who profits from new vaccines being the same person who is giving significant amounts of money to a global media organisation supposedly reporting on them without bias?

So rather than promoting these three media platforms and entertainment businesses – The Age, The Guardian and the NYT – shouldn’t Leahy be inviting his readers to investigate the long demise of them as reputable places for journalism? As the ‘vaccines’ came into the public sphere, the NYT insisted they would stop people from getting Covid. President Biden, who has had four doses and contracted Covid twice, said the same, and worse, when he called it “…a pandemic of the unvaccinated”. Instead of this politically motivated rhetoric being denounced by Leahy’s ministry of truth, they parroted and amplified it.

The NYT radically exaggerated the efficacy of the Covid jabs, but instead of investigating who was behind the poor scientific modelling their journalists referred to, the fraudulent trial set-ups and data recording, and what potential corruption was occurring in the public health institutions that have so evidently lied to the public, the NYT instead double-downed on the scapegoated fringe – those of us refusing to participate in this global experiment. The Age and The Guardian followed suit, and in his Arena Quarterly piece Leahy unsurprisingly carries on with this same position.

Furthermore, the ABC has also been a grave disappointment. Emergency porn is the ABC’s specialty and for fires and floods and like-crises they have grown a dependable track record over the decades. However, their Covid analysis broke our trust. The slow demise of the ABC has occurred through increased levels of political interference, more so from the coalition but from Labor as well, in Labor’s failure to protect the ABC’s independence.

A former ABC investigative science reporter, Dr Maryanne Demasi, who was silenced for exposing the lucrative overprescription of statins from the pharmaceutical industry, namely Pfizer, has been one of many independent sources we’ve followed throughout Covid to aid our research. We refer to a little of her research in various videos though feature her work in our December 2021 video, Can we trust the ABC and the FDA? where we expose conflict of interests with senior ABC Covid spokesman Dr Norman Swan in relation to his medical advertising and his Chemist2U pharmaceutical delivery businesses.

Industrial medicine, contiguous with industrial civilisation itself, is not and can never be sustainable because it is almost completely reliant on non-renewable materials. Why would anyone invest in medicines that ultimately have no long-term future for populations, thus making us dependent on therapeutics that probably won’t be around after the short life of the next and final mining boon that is the 4th Industrial Revolution? Why would we not take an innate immunity approach to SARS-CoV-2 for the majority of people for which the disease is mild and thus develop herd protection through engagement and participation with the living of the world, rather than go along with the domination (or mass mining) approach to medicine?

The far Right strawman

In his Arena Quarterly piece Leahy attempts to bind any Covid antithesis thinking to the far Right. He uses Artist as Family and David Holmgren as examples, though doesn’t refer to a single argument or investigative video of ours, and barely quotes from Holmgren. Leahy instead amplifies a single social media post of a photo of David Holmgren, permaculture elder Su Dennett and our youngest son Blackwood attending an anti-mandate march in Melbourne, holding a large permaculture banner.

Early on in his piece Leahy himself admits, “It would take weeks of research to consider all of Holmgren’s points…” referring to Holmgren’s extensive essay, Pandemic Brooding: Can the Permaculture movement survive the first severe test of the energy descent future? (Sept 2021). So, rather, Leahy “[b]oiled” it down for his reader, removing the complexity thinking and nuance that this subject so obviously requires and deserves, and putting it in the same ideological camp as the far Right.

This is why we consider Leahy’s article a personal attack; it doesn’t want to engage with the ideas. At least this is how it appears to those of us subject to his discriminations. But before beginning to write this piece, Ulman and I wanted to be sure we were reading him correctly, so we invited Leahy to discuss his contention with us in a face to face public video. Our intention was to take the reductive argument out of it and open up to generative discussion. Regrettably, Leahy declined.

Born out of social media, cancel culture feeds on insults and attacks and abhors engagement and generative debate. The impact of this on slower forms of media is evident. In Leahy’s attempt to conflate Holmgren’s and our antithesis thinking as being somehow associated with the far Right, he radically departs from any reasonable logic.

This attack on those of us well-versed in critiquing state-corporate collusion, and more specifically the revolving door between government, Big Pharma and the medical industry, cannot be taken seriously. Rachel Goldlust is another who combines social media hubris and poor scholarship to craft hit pieces on antithesis permaculturists including Artist as Family, even before the pandemic. Like Leahy, Goldlust doesn’t bother to interview the subjects she attacks.

To sharpen his attack, Leahy draws on the anti-semitic threads of the far Right yet chooses to leave out that two of the three of us he attacks are Jewish – Holmgren and Ulman. Additionally he doesn’t want to inform his readers that we have been vilified throughout this pandemic in parallel ways to political dissidents, Roma and Jews of 1933-1935 Nazi Germany. We’ve experienced economic enclosures and social stigmatisation, and we’ve been blocked from entering public swimming pools, public libraries and our local council’s public events.

To laugh off these parallels, or worse become outraged by the association made between such similar formations of a deplorable or ‘contagion’ class without proper examination of one’s own prejudices and the historical records, is to continue the attacks, scorn and vilification those of us have experienced who have challenged the state-corporate Covid response.

Not forcing you, just removing your rights until you comply, is one of many placards we made for a small protest we held outside our town hall when we ‘unvaccinated’ residents were locked out of this year’s International Women’s Day (IWD) event. Ulman herself has served on the organising committee of the annual IWD event, and Su Dennett is an inductee on the IWD honour roll for her work locally in the community and her work globally as an environmental pioneer. Our video, Forbidden women – International Women’s Day in segregated Australia, captures some of the pain felt by we deplorables, and remains another historical marker of the medical apartheid, segregation and discrimination we’ve experienced. Another placard at that protest read, Please stop othering the control group.

Lab leak

The evidence that Covid was lab-engineered through joint US and Chinese funding and accidentally escaped the Wuhan Institute of Virology from where the research was being conducted, is greater now than for any other likely origin story. Not that you’d know it in Australia, or at least in the medias Leahy quotes as reputable.

That is, with the exception of two opinion pieces published in the Sydney Morning Herald by Professor Clive Hamilton back in May and July 2021 respectively. Hamilton states back then that the virus most likely came from the Wuhan lab, just a stone’s throw from the Wuhan wet market. In referring to the gain-of-function research that many world virologists knew was taking place at this lab, Hamilton states “[t]he ambition, ostensibly, was to develop vaccines.” In other words the objective was to make a bat coronavirus intentionally pathogenic in humans and work out how to make vaccines to counter them. Since Hamilton’s opinion pieces were published, Lab Leak theory has been essentially shut down in this country, but in almost every other continent it is still the most plausible theory.

In our provocative Covid coming out video, Jab the kids, we end with a 2016 clip of Peter Daszak, director of New York based EcoHealth Alliance, who worked closely with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to secure US government funding for the research. In this clip Daszak boasts about gain-of-function (1:17:03) research that he refers to as “sequencing” being conducted by his “colleagues in China.” He states at the conference, “…we found other coronaviruses in bats, a whole host of them, and some of them looked very similar to SARS[-CoV-1]. So we sequenced the spike protein, the protein that attaches to cells, then we…well, I didn’t do this work but my colleagues in China did the work… you create super particles, you insert the spike protein from those viruses, simply bind to human cells, and each step of this you move closer and closer to: this virus could really become pathogenic in people.”

A member of the audience then asks Daszak and the panel whether this type of research could lead to a man-made pandemic.

Four years later in 2020 the WHO put Daszak in charge of an investigative team to research whether Covid originated in the Wuhan lab. Daszak reported that there was no correlation with Covid-19 and denied gain-of-function research was being conducted there. He also put together a Lab Leak hit piece in the esteemed medical journal, The Lancet, and got a handful of virologists to sign it. The piece originally omitted Daszak’s conflicts of interest and tried to turn the heat away from Lab Leak theory, calling anyone who questioned the zoonotic origin theory a conspiracy theorist.

If Covid came from a lab, can we imagine how much better the response to the pandemic would have been if scientists had access to the gene sequencing that took place in Wuhan that Daszak was boasting about in 2016? But by acknowledging that all fingers point to Lab Leak would require an almighty admission – that science itself caused the pandemic. In a culture where science is the unspoken orthodox religion of the day, that isn’t going to happen without a whole lot of resistance, and probably explains why Lab Leak theory is still consistently attacked.

Rather than critique dubious research projects occurring in contemporary science that few of us have consented to, a scapegoat class needed to be developed to take the heat and turn peoples’ attentions away from the likely source of the pandemic.

Vandana Shiva insightfully states in the documentary The Seeds of Vandana Shiva (2021), “[w]hat we call science is a very narrow patriarchal project for a very short period of history.” For those of us reading the pandemic response as smug paternalism that has benefitted disaster corporatism, the wisdom of her quote resonates.

Breadcrumbing

Leahy utilises the twisted allegory ‘breadcrumbing’ in his attempt to describe how people are wooed by the far Right. In the actual folk story of Hansel and Gretel, where the allegory originates, the bread crumbs signal a rites of passage, a stepping into the underworld of the witch, with gifts of foresight that Hansel initiates. While the forest birds ruin his path making by eating the bread crumbs that he’s left behind, there is autonomy, and an independent child-led approach that Gretel goes on to develop in order to help them escape the incarceration of the witch.

So in the story the children are not lured by breadcrumbs but by the gingerbread house of the witch. It’s interesting to note here that Pfizer was founded by two men in 1849 – a confectionist and an entrepreneur-chemist, ushering in a new era of drug luring and profiteering. Leahy’s use of the twisted breadcrumbing allegory is akin to the same poor scholarship as his ‘anti-vax-far-Right’ polemic.

Because I don’t live in a world where medical science is free from the powerful influences of big money, and because I’m a farmer-gardener who understands that overdosing a soil ecology with any given nutrient or mineral can have disastrous effects, let alone bringing synthetics into that biome, I believe in bodily autonomy. I also believe in the rights of children to be free from the clutches of globalised corporatism and nefarious billionaires. I believe in the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship, and Do no harm as the first and foremost principle of medicine.

Leahy’s doctoral work – his gateway to a career in academia – perhaps gives more context for why our values part ways so radically. Leahy’s thesis, Negotiating Stigma: Approaches to Intergenerational Sex (1991), which is now only available on the International Pedophile and Child Emancipation (Ipce) forum site, has been removed from all records at UNSW, from where he was awarded his doctorate.

Leahy advances pedophilia emancipation and describes the taboo of pedophilia as a “social construction” that is unfairly “stigmatised,” rather we should call it “intergenerational sex.” His research posits that the social stigmatisation of pedophilia traumatises the child rather than adult sexual interests infiltrating the child or adolescent, and he exclusively interviews adults who speak of “positive experiences” of pedophilia reflecting back to when they were children or adolescents encountering “intergenerational sex.” He continues this activism in, Sex and the Age of Consent: The Ethical Issues (1996), where he finds “samples” in his personal “social network” who have had positive “child/adult” sexual experiences.

Some politics of permaculture

At a book launch in Castlemaine earlier this year for Leahy’s, The Politics of Permaculture, where David Holmgren, Su Dennett, Artist as Family and others were refused entry due to our medical choices, I asked Leahy and the associated panel (from out on the footpath), whether they thought the Left could take any responsibility for the growth in the far Right? Leahy didn’t bother to answer, however Pam Nilan, who was simultaneously launching her book Young People and the Far Right, gave it a stab though effectively didn’t answer the question either, saying, “I’m not sure I answered your question; I couldn’t really hear you.”

Artist as Family documented this event in Castlemaine in our video, Some politics of permaculture (from inside and outside the tent). It appears the Arena Quarterly piece Leahy assembled after this event is an attempt to keep us perennially out on the footpath when in actual fact, for the preservation and health of the Left, and society more broadly, folk like us need to be inside the tent alongside many other diverse thoughtsmiths from across the political and cultural spectrums, to avoid the tent becoming an echo chamber.

The more difficult project now, especially for the Left, is attending to the human rights abuses that have occurred throughout the pandemic because of the state-corporate collusion, the state overreach, and the absence of critical Left and progressive investigations. We look forward to Arena Quarterly and other Left journals and progressive medias addressing these abuses in the future with proper scholarship and commitment to human rights, especially in relation to those workers who lost their jobs due to mandates and those who have been harmed by the ‘vaccines.

The ‘collectivist’ approach to Covid, as meted from the top down, demanded we rolled up our sleeves for vulnerable people. What we’ve seen instead is Moderna, Pfizer and profiteers like Bill Gates make a lot of money while vulnerable and previously not-vulnerable people become increasingly harmed and economically shafted by this “very narrow patriarchal project,” some call The Science™.

In summary

Artist as Family, David Holmgren and Su Dennett are not right about Covid, just as we are not wrong. Many things we have been accurate about. Chiefly, not to trust long-established corporate criminals with our complex biology – biology that is not static nor remains trapped in our fields or bodies. But biology that is intimately connected to composts, to soils and rock, to nearby creeks and trees, to wattle birds and honeyeaters, to earthworms, goats and air currents, to snake, bee and microbe.

We’re very grateful we trusted our intuition not to follow the directives of nudge units as employed by governments and roll up our sleeves for Uncle Pfizer’s little prick. Our solidarity remains with those like us who resisted, those who were coerced in order to save their jobs, those who have been injured and have started to ask questions, those who got jabbed but can see the human rights abuse, and those who, although initially seduced by the propaganda, now openly admit they were foolish to trust the public health messaging.

Over the past 17 years our household has been shapeshifting from industrial mind to ecological mind. That is, from money to gifts, from car to foot, from competition to relationships, from pollution to compost. This, we figure, has been appropriate adaptation for the future we all face. We’re not working towards a future where there’s a million hectares of medical waste spread across the world’s continents, alongside every other kind of toxic waste hypertechnocivility produces. Until Covid, we were respected, even honoured for our radical degrowth-neopeasant transitioning.

Because we had changed the shape of our economic forms – living richly, well below the poverty line in walked-for relationship with the Djaara land we love and call home – when Covid hit we were empowered and resourced enough to say NO to Uncle Pfizer and co. Holmgren, Dennett and Artist as Family have not had Covid throughout this pandemic, and this is in large part attributed to how we live, what we eat, and the post-industrial health protocols we put in place.

All around us ‘vaccinated’ people have fallen ill with Covid, many contracting it twice. This is unsurprising because in Pfizer’s six month trial data, Covid itself was listed as one of the significant adverse events included in a field of thousands of adverse reactions ranging from cardiovascular, neurological and reproductive injuries, and beyond. It is no wonder Pfizer and the FDA attempted to lock up this data for 75 years, which of course went unreported in Leahy’s three ministries of truth. It took about six months before the ‘vaccines’ started to be significantly administered in Australia, imagine if people had Pfizer’s trial data then.

For those of us across the jab and non-jab spectrum who are mandate critical and continuing to resist the coercive state-Pharma nexus, the heat may well be turned up on us again shortly. If the social costs of the state-Pharma pandemic response are not thoroughly examined, and the nefarious actors not held responsible for human rights transgressions, we will find ourselves vilified again and we’ll see the escalation of state violence put onto mandate critical dissidents.

The Left has a role in guaranteeing this doesn’t occur. Individuals and small cultural groups can’t cause much harm to others on a mass scale, but governments and corporates who lie and deceive populations can, especially when they encounter little resistance from the privileged classes. When important decisions are placed in the hands of those who are not held responsible for them, we are surely living in dangerous times.

This is by no means a comprehensive breakdown of all the subjects that need to be included in exposing the corruption and misinformation of the pandemic response. A more comprehensive analysis would include the smearing of long-standing therapeutics known to work against Covid in order to greenlight emergency-use authorisation for the fast-tracked Covid jabs, and fabricating the myth of asymptomatic ‘silent’ transmission in order to justify mask, lockdown and ‘vaccine’ mandates. I hope, however, this serves as a useful document for those interested in the Left’s Covid failure and what we can all learn from it.

As always we invite your insights, questions and comments, and please share this post if you think it advances the discussion.