2023-03-19
More follow-on in the wake of the Hancock WhatsApps is provided by Alex Starling, writing in the Daily Sceptic, who rightly identifies Hancock as a low-level player whose role was simply to do as he was told, not ask any difficult questions, and (one suspects) be rewarded by making quite a few essentially illegal bucks on the side via dubious procurement contracts.
I find his analysis persuasive, and note with some satisfaction that he does indeed go beyond the simplistic but unsatisfactory notion of "incompetence" and asks the serious question: "Who was the organ-grinder" that issued Matt (directly or indirectly) his instructions?
He is also kind to Chris Whitty, noting that "Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty advised government ministers in February 2020(!) that Covid was not deadly enough to justify fast-tracking vaccines".
(So what, we may ask, persuaded Chris Whitty to either (a) change his mind abut that or (b) go along with all the subsequent propaganda to the huge detriment of the public and the nation?)
It's hard to deny the logic of Alex's case that a "fantabulous four" effectively conspired (whether accidentally or mendaciously) to drive a particular medical intervention that would ultimately make billions for the providers involved (and it's also hard not to notice that there is one name in particular that crops up in association with all of them).
So I'm with Alex all the way when he opines that " ... collective action ... that is dictated by a group and imposed on everyone else is tyranny".
"It gets worse if authorities are sufficiently captured by this tyranny such that they deploy subversive psychological weaponry on their citizens and suppress any dissent"
But then he inexplicably (perhaps he had reach his word-count limit!) fails to take the final step and ask the very necessary question:
How did it come about that theoretically independent authorities around the world (with a few honourable exceptions) were all simultaneously captured by this tyranny?
After all, the trail from the primarily medical to the overtly political is not hard to identify.
Nevertheless, let's not cavil - this article takes the argument much further along the road than some other efforts, and is very welcome.
