A Tale of Two Omicrons…

… and what the future looks like if we don’t salvage our self-respect

Below we publish another withering analysis of the latest twist in the tale of pandemic propaganda by Rusere Shoniwa, which was originally published on his blog, A Plague on Both Houses, on 1 January 2022.

---

The word ‘Omicron’ had barely fallen off the lips and pens of Big Media’s propagandists when the Mayor of London used it to declare ‘a major incident’ on 17 December.

Meanwhile, the PM and his Minister of Jabbing issued the usual thinly veiled threats to the citizenry to get ‘boosted’ or have the privilege of stepping outside your front door or allowing others to step inside it severely curtailed. Your elected leaders sincerely don’t want to do this, but you give them no choice unless you obey. Your freedom really is in your hands and yours alone: all you have to do to retain it is to continue being a slave to measures that haven’t worked, won’t work and weren’t intended to work. Assuming ‘work’ here means prevent the spread of the Covid virus.

To addicts of the official Covid narrative, it’s welcome to day 634 of ‘flattening the curve’ or ‘protecting the NHS’ or ‘not killing granny’. If you’ve got a prescription for the red pills, it’s welcome to the Christmas panto called ‘The End of the Illusion of Western Liberal Democracy.’

Omicron and shifting the vaccine goalposts

The Omicron variant is the latest fear tool being rolled out in the Western hemisphere and it’s a pretty lousy sequel to the scariant pantos that have come before it. Omicron was first reported on 24 November. Undeterred by the widely accepted fact that the vaccines don’t protect against transmission and infection, Pfizer moved at its customary ‘speed of science’, an imbecilic phrasing belched out by the Pfizer CEO, announcing a mere two weeks later (8 December) that getting boosted with a third jab is just the ticket for combatting the new variant.

The language it used – “protection against severe disease” – is in line with the new watered-down definition of a vaccine. So, not a vaccine that prevents infection and transmission of the target pathogen. If the new bastardised definition of vaccine sticks, vaccines will no longer have to perform that once foundational function – foundational at least in principle if not always in practice. This choice of language is, I will argue, important, but equally important is that no reliable scientific inquiry (in vivo peer reviewed clinical trials) could possibly have taken place between 24th November and 8th December to confirm Pfizer’s claim about the ‘protective’ power of a third dose against the new variant.

The BBC, acting on the signal from Big Pharma, relayed the warning of ‘scientists’ that “two doses of a Covid vaccine are not enough to stop people catching the Omicron variant, but a booster dose prevents around 75% of people getting any symptoms.” [emphasis added]. (I’ve put ‘scientists’ in ‘ ’ because when I click through on the claim, I can’t find the names of the scientists who have made this claim.) One amusing aspect of this claim is that research shows that 86% of people who test positive for Covid have no symptoms anyway. So it’s valid to ask how it’s possible to know that the absence of symptoms in 75% of those ‘boosted’ can be credited to the booster when 86% of them wouldn’t have symptoms anyway.

Another important aspect of this claim is the BBC’s choice of words. Look at the deceitful elision, in a single sentence, of the concepts of ‘catching the Omicron variant’ (infection) and symptom reduction. At two doses they admit the vaccine is ineffective as a vaccine (infection and transmission) but, at three doses, they claim it morphs into an effective symptom reducer. If Omicron is the mildest of the variants that have emerged so far, and the evidence for that is mounting, the symptom people should care about most is death. This claim is not supported, either by a recent clinical in vivo trial to weigh the vaccine against Omicron or by the original vaccine trials which never proved that the jabs would improve your chances of surviving Covid, which in any case were around 99.85% and even higher the healthier and younger you are.

All of this helps to confirm that we have arrived at a point where no one – not the BBC, not the government, not Pfizer – is claiming that these ‘vaccines’ do what vaccines are, or more accurately were, supposed to do, namely prevent transmission and infection. Instead, recognising the power of the word ‘vaccine’ in the mind of the general public, the definition of a vaccine has been bastardised to accommodate the failure of the Covid ‘vaccines’. The infection and transmission narrative has been shot down in a ball of flames by independent media but, rising like a phoenix from the ashes, it has morphed into a symptom reduction narrative while the ‘vaccine’ has illogically been permitted to retain its title as a vaccine through semantic sleight of hand.

There are at least two blowback consequences of this deceit. Firstly, as the editor of the BMJ, Dr Peter Doshi, pointed out, if claims about the Covid ‘vaccines’ have been reduced to symptom alleviation, some irritatingly rational questions surface: would you take a dose of this drug every six months for possibly the rest of your life if that’s what it took for the drug to stay effective? Or would you choose instead to use other available medicines – the kind we take when we’re sick and want to get better? And crucially, why would you mandate it?

The second blowback consequence of changing the definition of vaccines to accommodate Covid vaccine failure is that those who have claimed for decades that vaccines don’t create immunity to targeted pathogens have been handed a white flag by a leading global vaccine licencing authority. In dropping the claim to immunity and replacing it with fuzzy ‘protection’ language, the CDC has effectively admitted that ‘anti-vaxxers’ were right all along. Vitamin D3, vitamin C, zinc and a whole host of other nutraceuticals make compelling claims to protection against a wide variety of illness including Covid while also having immune protective characteristics.

While trying to claim that a vaccine is a unique ‘preparation’ with magical properties not possessed by other preparations, the new definition is in fact a broad tent for thousands of other ‘preparations’.

Meanwhile, the Daily Sceptic’s analysis of the latest UK ONS data on Omicron infections reveals that:

According to early data published on Tuesday by the ONS, the triple-vaccinated are 4.5 times as likely to test positive for a probable Omicron infection than the unvaccinated. The double-vaccinated, meanwhile, are 2.3 times as likely to have a probable Omicron infection.

No matter. Minor details like this did not stop the WHO from stepping into the fray in its role as equal vax enforcer, telling the West to let go of its supplies and spread some of that vaccine joy to Africa.

So, this is the story of Omicron in most of the Western world. Tonnes of fear porn and massive coercion to get ‘vaccinated’ accompanied by dubious claims that ‘vaccination’ will ‘protect’ against Omicron. The narrative is a leaky boat riddled with contradictory holes. But there is another glaring contradiction which takes the form of a parallel Omicron universe in which the variant is not being treated with the fear and awe accorded to it in the West. A universe in which the variant is eliciting a rational response. That parallel universe is South Africa, the so-called original epicentre of the Omicron outbreak.

A parallel universe

On 16 December, South Africa’s Ministerial Advisory Committee (MAC) on Covid, a similar body to UK’s SAGE, wrote to the South African Health Minister recommending that all contact tracing and self-isolation of contacts for Covid be stopped because it is unnecessary and ineffective. Highlights of the memo are :

• Strongly hinting that Covid has reached endemicity, it points out the limitations of quarantining stating that it “does not generally have a role for endemic diseases, where control is not possible.”
• Levels of immunity to Covid are now “exceeding 60-80% in several serosurveys.”
• It states: “Crucially, it appears that efforts to eliminate and/or contain the virus are not likely to be successful. Therefore, it is critical that the role of containment efforts like quarantine and contact tracing is re-evaluated.” [bold emphasis added]
• Referring to the ineffectiveness of testing it said that “testing is heavily skewed towards detecting symptomatic cases” but that as much as 84% of cases are asymptomatic. (That is supported independently by a study to which I have referred earlier in this article.) It added that “among the small proportion of symptomatic cases, testing is far from universal, since patients may not seek testing when their symptoms are mild and when testing would be burdensome and expensive.”
• Referring to the unreliability of testing it added: “Furthermore, the SARS-CoV-2 test sensitivity is suboptimal, sometimes leading to false negative results.”

It reads like a diplomatic, firm, rational and scientific two-fingers-up at the Covid containment debacle.

ICU admissions in South Africa are 79% lower than their July peak and new data from Denmark finds the hospitalisation rate from Omicron 60% lower than from other variants. All the evidence so far points to Omicron being less severe than previous variants and more contagious – the ideal combination for hastening herd immunity with minimal population health impact.

So what’s going on?

They lie to us, we know they’re lying, they know we know they’re lying. And yet still the sick charade continues. Why? What is the real purpose of the charade?

The charade itself consists of the Covid containment policies together with a barmy narrative riddled with holes you could drive a lorry through. So far, we can see that these policies have not worked if we define ‘worked’ as successful virus containment. On the other hand, if you define “worked” as the implementation of vaccine passports, then all of this has in fact worked since the government has introduced them, albeit in limited form so far.

The ‘vaccines’ are the delivery system for vaccine passports. Whether the vaccines ‘work’ from a medical standpoint is not relevant to the goal of rolling out vaccine passports, although such a dramatic failure in vaccine safety and efficacy can’t have helped the government’s main aim of implementing digitalised biometric ID systems of population control. To the extent that people remain unconvinced of the merits of the ‘vaccines’, the deprivation that might accompany not having a passport serves as coercion to get vaccinated.

Only 75 years ago, Nazi doctors were tried and hung for forced experimentation on Jews. These trials produced the Nuremberg code, which was used by countries across the Western world to enshrine the right to bodily autonomy by espousing the principle of voluntary informed consent in medical practice – the right to refuse a treatment without fear of punishment in any way.

While it is shocking to see no less a figure than the European Commission President unashamedly encouraging the trashing of the Nuremberg code, the unjustified and demonic fury with which governments in the formerly liberal West are ganging up on unvaccinated citizens must be seen as the overzealous attempts of freshly qualified tyrants desperately trying to embed vaccine passports in the everyday life of citizens.

The West’s newly minted despots understand only too well that vaccine passports themselves play no role in virus containment, as a parliamentary committee confirmed back in June 2021, before the vaccine narrative had collapsed in a heap of smoking rubble. The little Hitlers know that, like the ‘vaccines’ themselves, the vaccine passports have not worked to contain the virus in any country that has introduced them. They know that vaccine passports are an affront to human dignity, but it is human dignity they seek to crush.

A government whistleblower told Laura Dodsworth that ‘masks were a softening up exercise for Plan B’ – Covid passports. And because totalitarian control can’t work unless it’s total, the government will continue to push for maximum population coverage with all the levers of fear and coercion at its disposal, courtesy of the draconian Coronavirus Act 2020.

The tried and tested method for getting people to willingly give up freedom is to terrorise them. And so the organ grinder’s monkeys in the media continue to screech incoherently about Omicron, testing, severe disease and boosters.

Obedient citizens will get boosted and flash a QR code to gain access to increasingly wider aspects of life. Compliance will make life easier. And there’s the added feel-good bonus of ‘keeping others safe’ – just one more little lie in a lifeboat constructed out of lies to prevent mental drowning if reality were allowed to flood in. This act of compliance instils the citizen with the glow of goodness, the kind that comes from ‘knowing’ that you’re saving granny.

In time and with sufficient take-up, the passport app will be tethered to other systems and technologies that will morph into a total system of financial and social control. But you might not actually mind it because by then, your capacity for independent thought and engaging with difference will have been destroyed. You won’t want difficult thoughts, ones that you have to work for, wrestle with, argue and fight about. Thoughts which, if entertained, may require you to take real risks. Our culture is all about eliminating risks, down to zero. You’ll only want the thoughts that have been approved and given to you by the tightly controlled web.

The future, as Paul Kingsnorth hauntingly describes it, is “a QR code flickering across a human face forever”. Except that this doesn’t quite convey the relentless attempt to stamp out what makes us human – being inquisitive, curious, and seeing where that curiosity can take you.

While I believe that the Covid vaccination programme is the springboard for technocratic control through biometric ID passports, right now it is hardly a remote possibility that mandated (polite language for forced) vaccination will become a permanent feature of life. For one thing, Big Pharma has perhaps just experienced the single biggest injection of profit into its bank accounts from one product in its history. It is hooked on easy vax cash and it wants us, needs us, to be hooked on the vax. Any vax will do. Just give it a name and a good story. And there are 7.5 billion human pin cushions at its disposal to continuously siphon off billions in taxpayer funds, aided and abetted by their marketing arms, government medicines regulatory bodies.

And then of course there’s the Fourth Industrial Revolution, a.k.a The Great Reset, of which Klaus Schwab speaks so fondly and for which his billionaires’ club, the World Economic Forum, is the driving force that has world governments in its thrall. The Fourth Industrial Revolution envisages a world in which human beings will own nothing and be happy nodes in the matrix of the internet of things. Is it too far-fetched to imagine that ‘vaccines’ could morph into vectors of technology that promote the transhumanist aspirations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution? With one quick website update in September, they morphed from ‘providing immunity’ to ‘providing protection’. Vaccines could morph at Warp Speed into anything Big Pharma and its government partnership wants them to morph into.

You are not a passive bystander in all of this

If this interpretation of the government’s bad, mad, and contradictory pursuit of vaccines and vaccine passports seems too fanciful for you, why not think of it as just plain good old-fashioned bullying.

How so? Well, on the government’s own terms and by its own admission, nothing has ‘worked’, if we define ‘worked’ as successful virus containment. Lockdowns, masking, vaccination were all supposed to contain the virus and yet, after we have endured these humiliations for nearly two years, the government is telling us that cases are still rising, the vaccine doesn’t stop infection and transmission, the NHS is within a hair’s breadth of being overwhelmed and Covid deaths might skyrocket if we don’t behave ‘responsibly’. And despite the NHS being on the verge of collapsing, the government will sack 100,000 NHS employees who refuse to take a vaccine that won’t stop them or their patients from being infected with Covid.

And to address these failures, their plan is to apply the definition of madness – piling on more and more of what has been proven, by their own standards and definitions, not to work.

If Covid containment policies have not worked but continue to be applied in the full knowledge that they are not working, then the government is just humiliating you. It is simply exercising power for its own sake, otherwise known as bullying. The thrill of control over the victim is the psychological reward for bullying and submission by the victim is confirmation of control.

I’ve written about why every single pillar of the Covid narrative from lockdowns, masking, testing to mass vaccination is nothing short of voodoo garbage. And it doesn’t require lengthy references to long lists of scientific studies to demonstrate this although that must and is being done to seal the coffin of the government’s response measures. But a fool-proof shortcut to understanding that the government and the chiefs of its medical bureaucracy have played one hell of a number on us is to understand that the politicians and bureaucrats who have analysed and understand all the information about Covid don’t believe in the medical efficacy of the policies they are enforcing.

That is the only kernel to grasp from the Cabinet Office 2020 Christmas party scandal. If you’re upset because they broke the rules while you dutifully obeyed them, you’re missing the point. You should be upset because they never believed in the rules. The people deciding on the minutiae of your ritual humiliation understood that, unless you were elderly and frail, there was no reason to be unduly frightened or to put your life on hold in the way they were telling you to.

They acted in accordance with their beliefs. It’s almost impossible not to. So, they did not put their lives on hold. But you did because you acted in accordance with their instructions. Which should be a good argument for developing your own beliefs before following anyone’s instructions.

Huge amounts of power and control have been transferred to politicians and the medical bureaucracy and they are not about to be relinquished voluntarily. Power is never surrendered. It must be taken back. The bullying ends when the victims collectively dig into their reserves of self-respect and take the decision to stop cooperating with the humiliation. If you want to delve deeper into the psychology of bullying, the dance between the victim and the bully and how it ends, listen to this conversation between Charles Eisenstein and Tessa Lena.

Life at its worst is possibly a game of competing fears. Understanding that the senior ministers and heads of SAGE aren’t anywhere near as afraid of the virus as the nation seems to be may allow us to collectively replace the fear of Covid with the fear of a not-too-distant future in which everything you do and say is tracked and traced by algorithms that reward or punish you depending on whether you have acted and spoken in accordance with government policy and the consensus of the day.

It’s a future in which most rebellious or dissenting thoughts are blocked from ever reaching you. A future in which any remaining such thoughts that might accidentally seep through the guarded gates are voluntarily emptied from your mind because to do otherwise would jeopardise your ability to live. In such a ‘life’ I would suggest you needn’t bother taking out a life insurance policy because you would already be dead.

---

You can find more of Rusere’s work at https://plagueonbothhouses.com

---