Suffer little children

   How perversely appropriate at this time of the great festival of Christmas - the birth of humanity and the rebirth of the world following the winter solstice - that instead of that vision of innocence and purity of the newborn, we have a ritual of child sacrifice!
 Do they have the wrong idea - as it seems they did 2000 odd years ago, when Jesus' disciples protested at his blessing of children and infants? 
 "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." 

Of course the vision of Christmas as now experienced by many children is no longer that of the infant Jesus in a crib, in a humble and natural "nativity" scene. The festival's pagan origins have taken over, along with a horde of false profits... yet the single remaining link to the nativity is in the blessing of children by father Christmas. Not the Pere Noel or St Niklaus we grew up with, but a parody of this beneficent old man encumbered with the charms of the modern age. Perhaps it's just as well that the COVID age has seen off the lewder developments - the Elfin young women called "Santa's helpers" whose exact role was obscure; helping to sell the Santa product perhaps. 

   But the "COVID-safe" result is unnerving:

Well it should be unnerving - but the newly released and excited hordes will soon be flocking to have their Santa-selfies taken in freshly sanitised seating, placed at a safe distance from the masked visitor in his air-conditioned reception room. (and in case the scene looks photo-shopped, I must hasten to assure you that it is real - bar the rather unconvincing applique window, made necessary as snow rarely falls in summer in Australia.)

When I started writing this before Christmas, there was little indication that yet again our hopes and plans would be derailed by the fear and rumour mill, primed by carefully managed disinformation and a new mutant strain of the virus. It however only served to facilitate their hopes and plans, and remove any chance that serious issues are subjected to sensible debate; we are now in full hysteria mode, in strange synchrony with many other Western countries. 
An indication of where we were heading - where they are now heading - appeared then in the local paper, which has been running the "Vax the Nation" campaign for months in various guises. And it appears that all along the ultimate target was the children, through whom the maximum pressure can be exerted on parents and grandparents, and society in general. 

       "Every jab brings us closer to the things we love"

It seemed somehow pre-ordained - or planned - that Santa Pfizer is bringing life saving potions with him from the Northern freezer, just in time for everyone to have a safe and happy Christmas. No-one seems to worry that he is also bringing the new Omicron mutant, against whom the vaccines seem remarkably ineffective. Yet if they really believed that kids needed vaccinating against this disease and its variants, why would they not be worried if it doesn't actually work? 

  The trouble is also that they don't seem to realise that it can't work. It's been tempting to focus entirely on the lack of credible research on the mRNA drugs' safety, while ignoring the question of "efficacy".  Given the obvious and reported dangers, and the accumulating evidence for greater dangers to children already predicted by the science, focusing on the relative risk between disease and cure is a central concern, with the equation heavily balanced away from vaccination. But the question of efficacy is inextricable from this equation. 
 Suppose the vaccine was really safe - as is the case with the Chinese Sinovac, a killed virus type of vaccine. Even in this case there could be little justification for using it in young people and children who show little sign of illness when infected. What could be the possible reason for so doing, when to do so might weaken one's natural immune response? And how would you know that the vaccination was worthwhile, given its apparent inability to prevent infection or transmission? 

  It is not possible that any trial could demonstrate the efficacy of a medicine used against a disease that causes no visible illness in the individual. In the particular case of SARS-CoV-2, where many children apparently exposed to the virus show no sign of infection and even have a negative PCR test, it would be impossible to demonstrate a positive response to vaccination, even if the vaccine had been shown to be 100% effective. Given its evident failure to do so, no case can be made for treating children whatsoever. Factor in the known dangers and unknown but predicted future effects, including on the child's immune system, the case against their vaccination is incontrovertible.

In light of this, and the pervasive and insistent promotion of the mRNA treatment for children, one can only conclude that the program is in pursuit of a criminal agenda. From this conclusion too, worse things follow, and become apparent when the instigators and participants are seen in this light. From the start it has been around "softening up" the target using subliminal and emotive advertising, including both positive and negative manipulations. 

One of the key features of this behavioral modification is in making people think that their resistance is isolated, and that "most people" are complying with the directives. By the skilled control of media and social media influencers it is actually possible to make people do something that very few believe is a good and reasonable idea. Equally people can be made to believe that some problem or condition is common by drawing attention to the very few cases of it and ignoring the masses that contradict it. Significantly this deception is only used to push public opinion in one direction; little attention is drawn to the young men having heart attacks, while no attention is paid to the millions who've gained natural immunity and no longer have any use for a vaccine. Rather we are told to focus on the one person for whom this naturally acquired immunity allegedly failed to protect them from further infection.

The crowning glory of behavioural manipulation and official deception is illustrated by the pleas of loving parents to have their young children injected with this dangerous toxin, under the impression it will "protect" them. They look forward to January 10th in Australia, when injections of mRNA will be available for 5-11 year olds. Already in France and Spain and other European countries, as well as in the US, the "vaccination" of children has begun in earnest, while parents who refuse to subject their children to this grotesque "experiment" (it isn't really, as we already know the consequences) fear that community and peer pressure will force their hand, or make life and schooling very difficult. 

No doubt many French mothers and parents are concerned at this development, and the power of the pharmaceutical lobby that lies behind it - at least in part. US regulations on the classification of vaccines as childhood vaccinations have a serious effect on companies' liability for injury. And in Australia there is a strong lobby group developing to fight against the effective mandate; "parents with questions" may yet gain sufficient support to put a spanner in the dirty works of government, as there is a limit to the proportion of the population who can be excluded from the community without regard; a safety in numbers. 

  Every day without rest we are told how many people have had first and second jabs, and now how many have had boosters, but the percentage who have had no jabs - and clearly don't intend to do so, remains stubbornly around 5% of the adult population - or around one million people. In France the long-term resisters number over 5 million, and interestingly concentrated into two age groups - those 30-49 and those over 75, where around 10% remain unvaccinated against this virus. In some areas of the south up to 30% of the population is resisting the pressure to be vaxed. 

 In a discussion recently on how to make vaccinations more appealing to young children - and presumably to their parents, it was suggested that perhaps an "enchanted forest" environment could help. This helped to crystallise my thinking, and reflections on the sufferings of children: 

Christmas Chimaeras in the Enchanted Forest