Decades ago, the British Guardian newspaper used to publish some fascinating, and highly original, science articles. They were well written too. Its editorial was politically left-of-centre, which served as a healthy bulwark against a predominantly right-of-centre broadsheet press.
In recent years, however, its standards have gone lamentably downhill. Science is apolitical; or at least it should be. It is unfortunate, then, that this historically independent newspaper now seems incapable of creating a science article without there being some implicit link to leftist philosophy and attitudes. It simply does not, and cannot, work. All politics is subjective; whereas science is, by definition, objective.
Throughout the past two-and-a-half years, the Guardian has swallowed the ‘COVID’ narrative whole. No mention has, to my knowledge, been made of the fraudulent PCR ‘testing’ protocol, the hyperinflated ‘COVID’ death statistics, or, most importantly, the clear, obvious and extreme dangers of the ‘vaccines’. This is hardly surprising, as its global health section is sponsored by the vaccine-obsessed Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Objective – or indeed truthful – reporting has been nowhere to be found.
The right-wing press has been no better. The equivalent section of the Telegraph is also Gates-funded, so I should not be surprised. I remember reading, years ago, a quote attributed to a former New York Times editor, who warned that if any of his journalists published their own opinions, they would be fired on the spot. Honest investigative mainstream journalism has become a contradiction in terms.
I was somewhat surprised, therefore, this morning, to come across a Guardian article which gently encouraged the perceptive reader to ponder the truth that is prevented from speaking its name (Figure 198.1). Yesterday, yet another professional athlete, the Baltimore Ravens linebacker, Jaylon Ferguson, died ‘suddenly and unexpectedly’ in his sleep. He was just 26 years old and leaves behind three small children. According to the article, there were no signs of trauma or foul play, and that ‘the NFL [National Football League] has been hit by a number of deaths in recent months’. (Other media outlets, both left and right, have also covered the story.)
Figure 198.1: Another day, yet another sporting hero dies.
Copyright © 2022 Guardian News & Media Ltd
Since the end of last year, I have referred regularly to the following web page, which diligently lists suspected ‘clot shot’ injuries:
To date, the number of cardiac arrests etc. among athletes has reached a staggering 1,111, with 732 deaths. If devout Covidians are to be taken seriously, these tragedies are all mere coincidences, despite the fact that prior to the injections rollout, such incidents hardly ever occurred. It is also telling that post mortem examinations (autopsies) are being systematically discouraged.
The article made me wonder whether there exists a political divide regarding susceptibility to State propaganda. Follow the logic. The left advocates more forceful State intervention in matters such as health, economics and education. The right is characteristically anti-State. So, are left-wing individuals more or less likely to accept government mandates and overreach than those on the political right?
A quick internet search gave me some food for thought. As it happened, I needed to look no further than the Guardian. Six months ago, it was reported that an estimated 91% of (left-leaning) Democrat voters had been injected, compared to just 60% of (right-leaning) Republicans. Three months previously, the right-wing Daily Mail claimed that the figures were 93 to 56% respectively.
This left-right difference is statistically significant, although it would seem both dangerous and intellectually lazy to shoehorn solid conclusions into such a complex issue. I have found, however, from recent personal experience, that right-leaning individuals have, perhaps as a result of inherent distrust of State authority, been better ‘tuned in’ to see through the blatant lies of the ‘COVID’ narrative.
Most of the political left has, in stark contrast, been more than eager both to follow and applaud whatever authoritarian measures politicians happened to announce. Some leftists, to their shame, have even supported abhorrent, intolerant ideas about forced medication of, and the removal of basic human rights from, the ‘unvaccinated’. (The left’s embrace of medical apartheid seems ironic to me, given its noble stance against racial apartheid pre-1990s.) It is true that libertarians are found throughout the political spectrum, but it does seem that, since the beginning of 2020, it is the left that has been the more willing to accept information at face value and submit to arbitrary State diktat. I must, nonetheless, concede that I am unable to formulate verifiable reasons for the discrepancy.
My principal worry, though, is that, when it becomes undeniable, even by the devoutest Covidians, that the injections are lethal, the injected masses might well direct their anger not towards the evil deceivers who misled and coerced them in the first place but at the honest sceptics who saw through the propaganda and stood firm. Resentment can be powerful; and, as the American actress Carrie Fisher (1956-2016) once remarked, perhaps prophetically:
‘Resentment is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die.’
Copyright © 2022 Paul Spradbery
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.