Thank you for this analysis & exposure of the great evil's insidious, invidious invasion of humanity's right to life.

Expand full comment

I must respectfully disagree on some picky points. Yes, the WHO, funded mostly by eugenicist Bill "vaccines offer the greatest return on investment" Gates, wants to run for-profit "healthcare" worldwide--which makes sense for him, as he's poised to profit in a BIG way, & of course he's going to exempt himself from those jabs. (Which meshes nicely w/ his telecom investments--please see James Corbett for commentary on that, & Gates in general.) And, those who stand to profit definitely WANT us all to believe that the phrase "socialized medicine" accurately describes this scenario. Because the absolute LAST thing that the global Ruling Elites--the ones who figure they only need 20% of us for doing Their dirty work for Them, so the rest of us need to go see Catherine Austin Fitts), preferrably in ways that will take the least exertion on Their part & be least risky for Them personally --is a world in which the peons are allowed to go about their lives doing whatever they like and getting free healthcare, too (either because taxation is PROGRESSIVE enough so that those who have all the money--the top 1%--are funding it all, and/or because the means of production of the healthcare, both the goods & services, have been SOCIALIZED (Marx's view of the word--see Richard D. Wolff, Thomas Piketty) & are being run & distributed at cost, with zero financial profit added, with what little funding that's necessary being derived either from progressive taxation or--far worse for the banksters--from debt-free currency generated expressly for that purpose (see Ellen Hodgson Brown, Michael Kirchubel's books).

While I personally don't know of any countries which have gotten as far as the last scenario (there might be some, possibly the Channel Islands? Luxembourg?), please bear in mind that --at least up until early 2020--ALL industrialized countries besides the US had healthier, longer-living populations because they had at least partially-socialized healthcare for everyone; everyone was able to get healthcare THEY wanted/needed WHEN they wanted it regardless of their pockets' contents, & someone else paid the docs, etc. nice middle-class salaries just to be available to do their job, regardless of how many patients were lined up outside their doors, with nobody declaring bankruptcy trying to pay healthcare bills. Their gov'ts arbitrarily limited what the medical goods & services were going to cost, to keep it all affordable (please see 2008 "Sick Around The World" PBS Frontline show, or T.R. Reid's book by the same title). Though possibly, the "limit" part was to limit some of the taxes required from the extremely wealthy because, possibly, those countries' taxes were/are more progressive than ours in the US. But "required vaccines" meant that IF the parents wanted to get their kids vaxxed, the gov't was required to pay for it for them--plus pay for any extra healthcare needs caused by those vaxxes afterwards, of course. Which changed abruptly in Germany in (2019?) when, despite its Supreme Court siding w/ Stefan Lanka that there was zero proof that a measles virus existed, its Parliament somehow voted to make any parents who did not make their kids get jabs for measles in order to attend public school (sorry, IDK whether private schools were similarly required) pay a very stiff fine, around $1500. Pretty sure that applied to teachers, too.

My point is that all these countries had some form of "socialized" medicine, & they were all doing MUCH better than the US as a direct result, even the UK after Maggie Thacher declared war on the NHS & greatly cut funding to it, resulting in longer waiting lines due to fewer clinicians/facilities; Canada having much the same problems. Now, several countries, at least, are fighting to retain the socialized medicine they used to have, or fighting to retain its original definition. The U.S., of course, still doesn't have universal healthcare; only a few special, tightly-defined groups rate healthcare, for which the providers of get to charge the sky's the limit, & what's left of our dwindling middle class pays all the taxes that foot the bill. Of course, getting accurate info online has become FAR, FAR more difficult since the FCC decided that we peons don't have a right to a free & open Internet anymore, but I bet this data exists somewhere. (Probably, the CIA knows all about it.)

Expand full comment

I agree that in a country with full employment, no crime and no illegal immigration that there is little difference between "socialized "solutions and private sector ones.

trouble is, in my view, that socialized solutions in any are encourages anti-social behaviour and, one way or another, increases the demand for "free shit". whether that is health, education, welfare or whatever. there is a societal tendency to take "something for nothing" when it is offered UNLESS the country has good character and moral fibre, sufficient that just a few per cent of the country is not criminal. right now, the sum of illegal (economic) migrants, criminals and health/welfare cheaters is approaching 20% in the UK, US and EU, meaning that those who nned and warrant healthcare are either denied (rationing) or cant afford to go to the private sector to actually get the treatment they need.

in my view and experience, socialism in any form and applied to any field encourages bad actors leading to ALL people being put under a jackboot of compliance, which in turn leads to more criminality and deprivation. (I am familiar but not intiate with most of the literature you cited).

Expand full comment
Nov 18, 2022Liked by Peter Halligan

Thank you for reporting on this! It needs continuous attention in order to help as many as individuals in as many states as possible to wake up from

their sleepwalking.

Expand full comment