El Escritor Inglés: August 2021

Thursday, August 05, 2021

The Extraordinary Ordinary Man

A man who represents himself in Court has a fool for a lawyer and a jackass for a client. I have no idea from where this maxim originated, but, however true it sounds, there can be exceptions. Many years ago, I decided to put it to the experimental test and, after I had successfully defended myself, was told by a (very old but razor sharp) High Court judge that I was ‘rather a canny young chap’. No further encouragement was required, so, in full jackass mode, I did it again, this time in a County Court, and came away with a 50-50 draw. It can be done — although, should there be a next time, I would probably hire a proper professional jackass to do the talking for me.

My advice to anyone contemplating self-representation is to do so only when the facts are overwhelmingly in one’s favour. The argument should almost be able to make itself. Any other time is either brave, incredibly stupid or both.

In December of last year, a Canadian man called Patrick King was fined $1,200 for flouting COVID lockdown rules. In a group larger than the permitted ten — in Red Deer, Alberta — the indomitable Mr King refused to pay the fine and opted for a day in Court. By so doing, he must have known that, were he to lose, he would be saddled with the other party’s costs on top of the original fine.

In May of this year, Mr King attended Court and requested (scientific) information with which to formulate his defence. The judge allowed him to subpoena Alberta’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, Deena Hinshaw, and request proof that the SARS-CoV-2 virus had been isolated from a clinical sample. If such proof were presented, the scientific basis for the fine would have been demonstrated and the checkmated King would have been instructed to pay up.

In Article 148 (13 Dec 2020), I published a letter from a Californian research biologist who had been unable to isolate SARS-CoV-2, despite ploughing through 1,500 ‘COVID’ samples. In addition, German journalist Samuel Eckert has offered $1 million to anyone who can prove that SARS-CoV-2 is the cause of any respiratory disease. After four months, the money remains on the table. As far as I am aware — and my ear has been pressed firmly to the ground for eighteen months — there is no proof, anywhere in the world, that a disease called COVID-19 (caused by SARS-CoV-2) exists.

Back to Alberta. At a subsequent Court hearing, later in May, the Chief Medical Officer dropped the ultimate bombshell: ‘Mr King is requesting material evidence that we do not have.’ I have great pleasure in including an excerpt from the official Court documentation (Figure 171.1).

Figure 171.1: No proof of disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. Full documentation is available at:

https://www.redvoicemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2021.08.04-07.49-redvoicemedia-610aef3334bb1.pdf

Copyright © 2021 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

Following this monumental judgement in Mr King’s favour, the province of Alberta has removed almost all COVID restrictions. Children will return to school without being forced to cover their faces all day long; people will hug each other (for good reason); and freedom of assembly has been reclaimed for the people by a solitary man who knew both the law and enough science and was prepared to stand firm.

Patrick King was interviewed by the Minnesotan DJ Stew Peters after his groundbreaking legal victory (Figure 171.2). The judgement will now constitute the basis for thousands of other cases.

Furthermore, it has exposed the COVID hoax to Canada and the rest of the world.

Figure 171.2: Patrick King in his own words

Copyright © 2021 StewPeters.tv

Wednesday, August 04, 2021

(In)Justice For Craig Murray

During my first spell at university, in the mid-1980s, I was never content with reading only medical science textbooks. During the long summer break in ’86, I became hooked on the haunting works of Franz Kafka (1883-1924) (Figure 170.1), although I cannot remember what sparked the sudden obsession. Whatever it was, books such as The Castle (1926) and, in particular, The Trial (1925) convinced me that some future dystopia, with absurd legal theory and practice, could never be discounted. Kafka proved that the worst characteristic of humanity is the pathological ambition of some individuals to control and manipulate others. His works sowed the seed of libertarianism which has grown within me ever since.

Figure 170.1: Kafka crafted stark illustrations of a legal system characterized by precepts that were irrational, discriminatory and arbitrary.

Copyright expired

Three years ago, I wrote Article 116 entitled Another False Flag? It was a brief comment on the strange ‘novichok poisoning’ incident in Salisbury, Southern England. The then government’s knee-jerk, anti-Russian conclusion immediately struck me as dubious; so, having read toxicology for decades, I dug up as much analysis as I could find. One of the most rational and informative accounts was written by a fellow blogger, Craig Murray (Figure 170.2), who had once served as British Ambassador to Uzbekistan (2002-4). Although not a scientist, this former high-ranking diplomat demonstrated profound knowledge of both domestic and international politics.

Figure 170.2: Historian and human rights campaigner Craig Murray alongside the crest of his alma mater

Copyright © 2021 D C Thomson Co. Ltd

Since then, I have enjoyed reading Craig’s posts. He comes across as a journalist of integrity who does not shy away from where his logic takes him. However, after reading his incisive criticism of the far-fetched claims of former prime minister Theresa May, relating to the novichok affair, I did wonder whether his card would consequently be marked by the powers that be.

The following year, 2019, Scotland’s former first minister Alex Salmond was charged with various sexual assaults by a total of nine women. Salmond denied all criminality, and a highly-publicized trial led to his being found not guilty on twelve of fourteen charges. Another was ‘not proven’ — a peculiarity of Scots Law — and the remaining one dropped. The defendant was thus acquitted and walked free.

Craig discussed the Salmond case on his blog but was rightly careful not to identify any of the accusers. However, mainstream media journalists had also compiled articles, and, when combined, it was claimed that so-called ‘jigsaw identification’, where each writer contributes a different ‘piece’, had served to disclose accusers’ identities. Crucially, though, most identification evidence was deemed not to have come from Craig but from mainstream sources.

Which party, if any, should be held responsible? All, some or none? This is of supreme significance. If only some are to be deemed culpable, then, surely, the mainstream media journalists should take most of the blame, as it was they who supplied the most revealing information — or, if you like, the largest, most recognizable jigsaw pieces.

A criminal trial ensued. To my amazement, consistency and proportionality did not enter into them. All mainstream media contributors having been excused, Craig — alone — was found guilty and sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment (Figure 170.3). This was despite his not being made aware during the trial what exactly he should not have written. On appeal, the controversial, agenda-driven Judge Leeona Dorrian contended, incredibly, that mainstream media journalists should not be governed by legal standards as stringent as those applied to independent commentators.

Figure 170.3: Craig Murray speaks to his supporters in Edinburgh.

Hence, a hideous legal precedent has now been set. In terms of freedom of expression, all journalists are equal (before the law), but some are more equal than others. Dorrian seems never to have read George Orwell’s Animal Farm, nor, judging by the Kafkaesque nature of the trial, much else of substance. The discriminating factor is, in effect, whether the writer is truly independent, as in Craig’s case, or a paid minion of a corporate publication with its own political motives. Not only is this judgement nonsensical and utterly disgusting, but it creates a jurisprudential grey area between the ‘cans’ and ‘cannots’. The inevitable consequence is that some journalists will henceforth be free to write with relative impunity, while others will be actively discouraged by threat of criminal proceedings.

We are, therefore, treading a dangerous path toward selective media censorship. I have referred to this recently, in Articles 154 and 161, after some of my own material was censored online. Happily for me, I was not subsequently arrested and charged with anything. By some bizarre coincidence, just before I began drafting this article, about an hour ago, a reader emailed to me a screenshot of a message from his internet provider (Figure 170.4), along with a comment which would be amusing were it not so disturbing.

Figure 170.4: ‘Escritor, where on your website have you hidden the weapons? And the violence, gore & hate? Looked everywhere. Can’t find anything. Very disappointed. ;-)’

Craig Murray was imprisoned in an Edinburgh jail four days ago (Figure 170.5). Freedom of expression is incarcerated alongside him. Please visit the following websites and provide as much support and publicity as you can.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

https://craigmurrayjustice.org.uk/

https://twitter.com/craigmurrayorg

Crypto donations can be sent to Craig’s campaign at:

Bitcoin (BTC): bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9

Ethereum (ETH): 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

Figure 170.5: Craig Murray and I are both alumni of the University of Dundee. He graduated in 1984; I arrived the following year (Belmont Hall, H-1-9). The university is currently number one in the UK for Biological Sciences, an accolade which is well deserved and brings me, as a biological scientist, immense satisfaction. It also has a reputation for breeding dignified rebels who place principle before cheap expediency.

Copyright © 2021 Craig Murray Justice Campaign

Franz Kafka, Aldous Huxley and George Orwell are collaborating on a new novel.

It is to be entitled 2021.

Sunday, August 01, 2021

For 2021, Watch 1958

It is naive to think that tyranny must necessarily be overt and recognizable. In George Orwell’s 1984, written in 1948, the omnipresence and omnipotence of ‘Big Brother’ could hardly be more conspicuous. By making oppression so blatant, however, such a government would risk mass civil unrest, the outcome of which could be unpredictable. Unless the social system were ‘watertight’ — that is, leaving no opening for rebellion — the eventual fate of its architects might involve lampposts and piano wire, à la Mussolini.

An alternative strategy was illustrated by Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) in his 1932 masterpiece, Brave New World. In this work, tyranny is more subtle and sophisticated. By means of genetic reprogramming and universal psychoactive medication, the masses happily accept the eradication of their liberties. They do not rebel because they are conditioned not to desire to do so. I can imagine how Huxley felt when, years later, he saw video footage of Jews, relaxed and smiling, as they boarded trains to World War Two ‘work camps’. The Nazi propaganda machine obviated any need for shotguns and handcuffs.

In 1958, this prescient, and beautifully-spoken, Englishman gave an interview to an American television channel (Figure 169.1). In The Mike Wallace Interview, Huxley explained his fears of a world whose entire population would, by means of mass brainwashing and coercion, accept permanent loss of freedom without being aware of it.

Figure 169.1: The foresightful Aldous Huxley, interviewed in 1958.

‘If you want to preserve your power indefinitely, you have to get the consent of the ruled.’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8jPmJQjiT0

Copyright expired

Fast forward to 2020. Last year, the World Economic Forum (WEF), a group of unelected, supranational oligarchs, published a book entitled The Great Reset. The WEF’s aim is chilling. It uses Huxley’s novel not as a cautionary tale but as an instruction manual.

‘By 2030, you will have no freedom, no privacy, and you will be happy.’

Thus spoke Klaus Schwab, son of a Nazi — yes, really — and WEF chief. He claimed, further, that the so-called pandemic was just a fortuitous stepping stone to reach this (totalitarian) goal (Figure 169.2). Of course it was, Klaus. (See Event 2O1.)

Figure 169.2: The self-evidently arrogant Klaus Schwab believes that he and a few other unelected bigwigs have an innate, unchallengeable right to control the future of humankind.

Since I wrote the previous article, twelve days ago, government heads from the UK to New Zealand, USA to France, have become more and more deranged. In London, Prime Minister Boris Johnson — idiotic at the best of times — threatens to introduce COVIDs (Certificates Of Vaccination Identity Documents), enabling foreign travel and access to recreational amenities to only those that have submitted to medical experimentation. Across the Atlantic, President Joe Biden announces that those that have not submitted lack basic intelligence — this from a man whose number of connected brain cells diminishes by the minute. Meanwhile, French president, the cretinous Emmanuel Macron, has extended the ban even further, and rioting on the streets of Paris has begun in earnest. Macron would do well to read late-eighteenth-century French history.

Figure 169.3: The cherished French word ‘liberté’ seems to have been wilfully forgotten by arch-hypocrite Macron, who is striving to make submission to medical experimentation a condition of employment. Qu’il vive pour le regretter.

As I have explained previously, the demand for universal ‘vaccination’ makes no scientific sense. Natural immunity is already present and will be long lasting. Simpler, safer, cheaper medicines are readily available. Over-prescription leads inevitably to the evolution of ‘superbugs’. Infection fatality rate is a mere 0.14 to 0.15%.

The real reasoning behind mandatory injections is twofold. First, it is a pathway to universal digital social control, which I have already explicated. Second is something which has only recently occurred to me. Scientific experimentation normally requires a treatment group and a control (non-treatment) group. If a particular observation is made in the treatment group alone, then it follows that the treatment is responsible for the effect. (This is assuming that the groups are sufficiently large to be statistically significant.) However, if there is no control group, then cause and effect cannot be proven. So, if no one remains ‘unvaccinated’, then it is impossible to ascribe subsequent deaths and debilitation to the drugs. Conversely, if enough of us resist coercion, then the existence of a substantial control group will expose the truth behind these already-lethal ‘vaccines’.

This explains why the WEF’s political stooges are becoming more maniacal by the week. Their desperation is increasingly evident. Are they, as the COVID fraud unravels, fearing the Mussolini fate; or, alternatively, is free humanity a mere two or three moves from checkmate? We are compelled to discover very soon which way the balance will tip.

Finally, to someone who calls him or herself ‘Evidence’ and trolls me day after day, I say this:

First, it is unfortunate that you lack the courage to identify yourself. Second, regarding your demented rants about ‘conspiracy theorists’, I ask: who deserve more credit, those capable of asking valid questions, regardless of the conclusions reached, or those lacking the insight to notice that there are questions to be asked at all? Aldous Huxley would doubtless have dressed you in a black tunic. Ɛ: look it up.