State of the nation: in a bit of a state?

The Truth Is Out There

All HART articles also on Substack. Please consider a PAID SUBSCRIPTION so we can continue our work. Comments are open so you can join in the conversation.

Welcome to 2024.  Even in the depths of the great coronapanic debacle of early 2020, one might have assumed – all things being equal, of course – that by now society would have veered back on course, the majority of right-thinking folk having realised the folly of the great misadventure.  Alas, we seem to be deeper in the quagmire… and worthy ‘bros with shows’ (Pauls formerly known as Sauls) are busy explaining how actually their full-throated support for short, sharp and harder lockdowns was just a great mistake prior to their Damascene conversions. 

Prior to the establishment of HART, many of its current members spent much of that year screaming themselves hoarse in vociferous objection to the abject lunacy of school closures, social distancing and the tyrannical imprisonment of people. Most of us just assumed that it was a great big mistake, and that the collective delusion would have lifted by the summer.  After all, history is littered with situations of large groups of people being bewitched by mass hysteria, only for normality to reassert itself. 

However, the coldly calculated way in which dissent was crushed so as to lay the groundwork for the ‘vaccine saviour’ narrative brought with it the devastating realisation that it is far more likely that mistakes were not made, at least not from the point of view of the purveyors of quackish paraphernalia such as personal ‘protective’ equipment, diagnostic ‘tests’ and injectable pharmaceuticals with mystical – if somewhat undefined and sometimes devastating – effects.

HART came together to fight this insanity and – as an entirely amateur organisation staffed by volunteer professionals from various walks of life – we do not claim to have got absolutely everything right, nor do we have the same political views as each other.  But we are quite sure of five theses that we protestors have nailed to the proverbial cathedral door:

  1. Forced social isolation of citizens is always morally and ethically wrong;
  2. Forced medical procedures are always morally and ethically wrong;
  3. Psychological manipulation of populations without their consent is morally and ethically wrong;
  4. Government policies that trample on basic constitutional rights (e.g. the right to work, freedom of movement, free speech) are morally and ethically wrong; and
  5. Government policies designed to increase fear are morally and ethically wrong.

Anyone that tries to conjure up a weasel-ish justification for dismissing any of the above theses has surely claimed thirty pieces of silver or is in league with the dark side… or both.

Some people were on the right side of history from the off:

Which brings us back to the future, sorry, to today.  Changizi has expressed this very well – and with humility – in a recent statement

There are several (so-called?) leaders in the resistance movement who have a lot to say, but are reticent to utter the words “I’m sorry” for using their reach to passively (or even actively) condone the tyranny in the early days. 

Such a phrase – or an unequivocal similar one with the same meaning – isn’t that hard to express.  Consider this exemplar:

Look at the impact; note the reach.  But for some, it just seems impossible.  As for unequivocally signing up to something akin to the above theses? Such molehills are being turned into insurmountable massifs.  And being instructed by those who played along with the nonsense – albeit briefly – that we “have no experience wielding any power or influence at all and so play the game like novices” sticks somewhat in the craw.

Well, HART has no interest in having any power (we are more interested in removing various powers from certain autocratic individuals and entities), but we will go to whatever length necessary to stand up for what is right and against evil.  And this involves stating and repeating our position on what really matters:

  • The word ‘pandemic’ – with highly dubious definition changes – has been hi-jacked to nefarious ends. It is instructive to note that those wishing to impose a biosecurity state are the ones attempting to sell protection from the ‘next’ so-called pandemic.
  • We have explained why we use the virus model, but we reject the notion that a catastrophic ‘point release’ of a devastating ‘novel virus’” was directly responsible for a global deadly pandemic….
  • …while accepting that modern life (and its hazards) may lead to continuously changing and developing (i.e. novel, as in some parts are new!) manifestations of human ill health and that what happened in early 2020 (prior to the any exacerbating interventions) was at worst a seasonal mortality trend as might be experienced once every 20 years or so. There was therefore absolutely zero justification for declaring a state of emergency and enacting devastating interventions ‘from the hip’.
  • These interventions were deadly, and may well have contributed to a very large proportion (or even a majority) of the excess mortality seen in 2020 and 2021.  Even taking this into account, there are certain particular geographies (such as New York in the spring of 2020) where the official narrative is even more irregular and require continued investigation & analysis.
  • We have outlined that many of those considered villains of the piece – disagreeable characters to a man and woman – are actually merely expendable chaos agents, chancers, shysters or petty opportunists who jumped on the bandwagon to line their pockets or further their political beliefs… the real play all along was to create the backdrop for the pharmaceutical interventions’ coercive measures (such as mandates and psychological warfare) to maximise uptake. 
  • The lab leak / zoonotic origin ‘discussion’ as currently being drip-fed to the mainstream press is a totally irrelevant distraction, with the intention of causing destruction.  We pointed this out in November 2021, requoting Thomas Frank: “Because if the hypothesis is right, it will soon start to dawn on people that our mistake was not insufficient reverence for scientists, or inadequate respect for expertise, or not enough censorship on Facebook. It was a failure to think critically about all of the above, to understand that there is no such thing as absolute expertise
  • The vast majority of the establishment – politicians, bureaucrats, press, regulators and corporates – has, wittingly or unwittingly, colluded to censor and suppress constructive dissent.  They have presided over Kafka-esque double-speak and have brazenly supported the promulgation of untruths. Good & honest individuals who have stood up to this tyranny have been treated ruthlessly pour encourager les autres. HART has not been spared the wicked ministrations of the censorship complex.

Welcome to 2024. The work continues.

Please follow and like us:
Twitter
Visit Us