There were encouraging signs from Europe last week when at least four Members of the European Parliament (MEP) went rogue and publicly rebuked the European Union’s COVID-19 passports.

Speaking for the group, at a news conference in Strasbourg, Romanian MEP Cristian Terheș said,

“We were elected by the people, but we should not forget that we are elected here for the people…”

Terhes, a member of European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECRG), admonished EU parliamentarians for claiming to be a beacon of the Democratic process and procedure, whilst it failed to uphold informed consent, be transparent about “vaccine” mandates, and reveal important information regarding “vaccine” deals made with big pharma.

“Have you told these people in the parliament when you decided to strip their fundamental rights why you have done it? You see we have all this treaty – as my colleague said – no medical treatment should be imposed on you, unless you decide about it, freely, and under informed consent.”

He called the “vaccine” passports (known as Green Certificates) “a violation of freedom.”

The people, Terhes argued, have no informed consent, they don’t get to choose “what they want to be vaccinated with or tested with.”

“There’s another aspect to this,” he continued. “The question that is addressed not only to you in the parliament, but to every European citizen. Ask your own government, were you properly informed about what is going on?”

The rebel MEP Romanian said,

“We had a lot of debates at the beginning of this year in the parliament where we demanded full access to the contracts signed between these companies that produce the vaccines and the European union.”

What they got in return, Terhes explained, was “redacted format, after the [pharma] company agreed to open the contract to scrutiny.” (According to Terhes this was only after the company was pressed hard on the matter.)

Terhes then applied the heat to the puzzling Big Pharma response.

“So, you’re imposing a medical product on the European citizens without them knowing what’s in this contract? Not only them knowing, but we don’t know [either].”

Holding up the redacted report, which had sentences, and some pages completed blacked-out, he said,

“You tell me if this is okay for the European citizens to be exposed to? This situation, where they cannot come to work. They cannot enter a store. They cannot go with their kids to schools; where they cannot freely move from one country to another [un]less [someone] is vaccinated with one of these products.” 

He added, “You call this transparency? […] Why aren’t they open with the people and full transparent, so we all know what is going on?”

It’s pertinent that a Romanian representative is one of the few speaking out against the infringement on human rights.

Romanians, like all Eastern European countries, who lived like slaves under the Marxist heel of the Soviet Socialist Empire, have first-hand experience with organised state thuggery, and its inhumane, elitist despotism.

Speaking from this context, Terhes stated, 

“The difference between tyranny and democracy is very simple. When the government knows everything about you, that’s tyranny. When you know everything about your government that’s democracy. I know how it is to live in tyranny.”

On behalf of the breakaway dissenters opposing “vaccine” passports, and “vaccine” mandates, he asserted,

“We are here for you and we will fight for you. I know many of you are struggling all across Europe, and many of you working for the European institutions are struggling right now, but look, as a former U.S. president said, ‘freedom liberty is one generation away from extinction.’ We live that type of time right now. It’s our duty, and our call to fight for liberty.”

The press conference was downplayed by Reuters in a Fact Check.

They took more effort in telling the world that only a “small” number of MEPs voiced opposition to “Green certificates” (a digital COVID certificate), than reporting on what was actually said, and why the members said it.

It’s of little wonder legacy media press, seemed unimpressed.

Loud and proud, VICE has labelled Cristian Terhes a “homophobic conspiracy theorist.”

In 2019, the leftist rag called him ‘one of the most dangerous new MEPs in the European parliament’, after his election in 2019.

VICE’s big problem with Terhes is that he’s a Christian, a politically conservative social reformist, and a (‘non-leftist’) Social Democrat, who openly opposed to the 2SLGBTQAAI+ ideology, particularly same-sex “marriage.”

Terhes is also a member of the centre-right, Christian Democratic National Peasants’ Party, re-founded after the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989.

Marking the event, he posted on Twitter, “EU citizens’ rights are severely violated by the Digital Certificate. We will fight for your right to freedom, which has to be restored in the EU!”

In an October 22nd press release, Terhes called on Europeans to stand up to “any government trying to take away freedom, civil rights and liberties!”

He condemned the misuse of “vaccine” passports, stating,

“What we have seen in this crisis is that civil rights and liberties have been transformed from fundamental rights to privileges that governments grant or revoke as they see fit.”

Terhes, and those who stand with him, understand that civil liberties are being replaced with “prisoner privileges.”

The government is using the threat of losing those privileges to force compliance with a “fall-in, line-up, goose-step in unison and salute, or else,” Globalist prison.

Like Communist China, privileges will be issued on the basis of someone’s social credit score. Rights will be rationed out by degrees of loyalty to the regime, and its ideology.  

One recent example of this is a push from The Greens in Australia to replace free speech, with what they call “fair speech.”

This all sounds “nice,” until you read the fine print. They get to decide what’s fair and what’s not.

Governed by the fickle whim of the ruler, not the rule of common law, compliance will win the public lesser restrictions, not more freedoms.

Cristian Terhes speaks for a growing number of people who see how important it is to distinguish between doing the “right thing” and doing what’s “nice.”

Popularity, as AW Tozer once wrote, does not always equate with excellence. Being good is often not the same as being nice.

If honest, common-sense politicians, along with a strong majority fail to seize the day and oppose these mandates, the propaganda, and the nonsense Public Health Orders, history, when it recalls this era, will tremble at the sound of that silence.

Just as we do, when we recall Winston Churchill’s reprimand of those, who with blind obedience, assisted in the rise of stoppable tyranny.

In his “Iron Curtain Speech” Churchill stated, there never was a war easier to prevent than World War Two,

“I saw it all coming and cried aloud to my own fellow-countrymen and to the world, but no one paid any attention […] no one would listen and one by one we were all sucked into the awful whirlpool. We surely must not let that happen again.”

Once this corrupt political hegemony is through with those of us standing against the gathering storm, they’ll come for the cosy, middle class privileged lifestyle that the silence of many is trying to protect.

To repurpose Churchill’s words,

“Our difficulties and dangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to them. They will not be removed by mere waiting to see what happens; nor will they be removed by a policy of appeasement.”

WATCH:


First published on Caldron Pool, 2nd November 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

In the strong chance you’re not keeping up to date with mad Leftists and their steady game of pin the tail on the oppressor, there’s a new kid on the chopping block.

As trendy as “right-wing extremism” or “white supremacism” was, threats to national security now include anyone who chooses to question, think through the science, practice informed consent, and make their own health decisions.

The vaccine hesitant are inching closer and closer to the cancel culture guillotine.

Both groups, Hamilton explained, are “science deniers.”

Cheering on the deaths of COVID-19 victims who weren’t vaccinated, Hamilton pins his hopes on the vaccinated politicising the suffering of others as examples that would force “COVID and Climate change science deniers wake-up.”

Hamilton repeatedly labels the vaccine hesitant as “anti-vaxxers”, writing,

“Climate change deniers make comparable claims to “anti-vaxxers.” Prone to “conspiracist ideation”, many anti-vaccination activists appear to believe Covid-19 is a hoax.”

A bizarre claim considering that many of those who are vaccine hesitant, are not traditional “anti-vaxxers.”

(Many of them, much like myself and my family are all up to date with tried, tested and common-sense vaccines.)

The vaccine hesitant simply choose to practice more discernment in their decision making.

They also see-through government sanctioned propaganda, and as such, are less likely to respond to any conditioned reflexes built into subsequent groupthink.

They see a growing chasm between fact and fiction, due in large part to the inconsistency, conflict, and censorship, all of which hinders an honest presentation, and reading of the scientific data.

Rather than winning out against the vaccine hesitant, Hamilton reinforces reasons for being so.

For example, if his use of logical fallacies weren’t enough, falsely accusing ‘COVID and Climate deniers’ of evasion tipped the bucket.

He argued that they resort to saying they’re only asking questions when they’re ‘cornered.’

The prized insight within Hamilton’s piece is found in what it reveals.

When we’re told to “shut-up” and “follow the science,” what we’re really being told is, “fall in line with ideological propaganda, or else!”

Asking questions is a crucial part of applying the scientific method.

What Hamilton does is inadvertently admit there is no room for dissent.

He appears to be guilty of denying the science, while accusing others of doing the same.

For instance, on the basis of risk, he conflates women taking the “pill” with the COVID vaccines.

This is without concern for qualifying how the two are vastly different.

Which is tantamount to saying that humans are related to Chimpanzees by a 98.6% correlation, without stating that the 1.4% differences in the hit into the double-digit millions.

Here are five observable reasons why Hamilton’s “pill”/COVID vax equivalence is misleading:

First, informed consent. No woman is forced to take the pill, on threat of losing their job.

Second, the long-term data is in on the “pill.” Assessing long term data on the global COVID ‘vaccine trial’ is still a work-in-progress.

Third, there are confirmed deaths, unconfirmed deaths, and a consistent pattern of health problems associated with the vaccines. Such as heart inflammation, balls palsy, and blood clotting.

Fourth, if women were having the same reactions to the pill, as some people are experiencing with the vaccines, the pill would have been pulled from the market.

Fifth, the pill is specific, targeted and measured out proportionally. A stark contrast to the ham-fisted, arrogant rush associated with the COVID vaccines.

Forcing a vaccine onto healthy people, many of whom have a 0.003% chance risk of dying from COVID-19 is non compos mentis.

Lastly, Astra Zeneca admits the potential for long-term negative health problems, and has sort to indemnify their company against long term adverse effects.

In July, Reuters reported that ‘AstraZeneca had been granted protection from future product liability claims related to its COVID-19 vaccine’ by countries AZ has signed distribution deals with.

Almirall board member, and Astra Zeneca EVP Ruud Dobber, was quoted as saying,

 “This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in … four years the vaccine is showing side effects.” 

Add onto this the Australian National Cabinet (as opposed to the suspended elected representative parliament) implementing a “no-fault indemnity scheme for GPs to administer AZ.

It doesn’t take a genius to quickly identify Hamilton’s bias and reveal the poor quality of Hamilton’s argument.

After taking shots at Tony Abott, and Craig Kelly, he then refers to freedom rally demonstrators as ‘far-right anti-vaxx and anti-lockdown’ protesters; and caps this with a clear contempt for The Australian and ‘Murdoch Media.’

Hamilton’s hysterics taint his attempt to criticise vaccine hesitancy.

What we’re left with is a rant, not a reasoned argument.

For all the vitriolic claims about ‘anti-vaxxer and climate change deniers’ all being nut-cases and conspiracy theorists, Hamilton is guilty of his own tin-foil hat nonsense.

His theory – which isn’t backed by anything other than ‘it’s been widely documented’ – claims that Republicans, and fossil fuel industries have been working together to undermine ‘climate science since the 1990s.’

Hamilton states, ‘operatives developed arguments and political strategies,’ so as to ‘cast doubt on climate science.’

This, he asserted, created a culture of doubt, which has, ‘since 2010, taken root in right-wing political culture.’

Hamilton’s “hate speech” doesn’t serve science, it’s typical cancel culture, agitprop nonsense.

One would think that a Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University would carry himself, and his argument a whole lot better.

I suspect Hamilton would fully embrace both Joe Biden, and Daniel Andrews’ “pandemic of the unvaccinated” propaganda, welcoming it as an excuse is to paint people as the virus, advocating for their eradication.

Based on his reckless use of the word “denier,” that’s a fair assessment.

Hamilton demonises an entire group of people, in order to defend his belief in the COVID and Climate Catastrophising cultism.

The bitter irony of his callous Holocaust reference appears to go over his head.

Hamilton and others would do well to heed recent comments made ‘Outsiders’ host Rowan Dean,

“Once the authorities have decreed that there are two classes of people in Australia, the good, and the bad; that one class is superior to another and gets special privileges while the other class is shunned, locked out, vilified and loses their employment you have, by definition created an inferior class.”

“For which the Germans,” Dean adds, “once coined as Untermensch (under/inferior person). If that word brings a chill of horror to your hearts, so it should!”

One of the great benefits of the internet age is that any halfwit with access to the internet, and reliable sources can see straight through the delusion tacked onto COVIDism.

I have to back-handily thank Clive Hamilton and the Guardian for doing a great job of reminding me, why myself, and many others, will continue to resist the vitriolic COVID cultism of climate change catastrophisers.

It would seem that now New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian has stopped her COVID crisis press conferences, legacy media are back to their regular programming.

The political narrative appears to matter more to them than the science.

All vaccines should be chosen by individuals on merit, not the power of their apparent virtue, threats or coercion.

Substance will always, ALWAYS trump appearances.

It’s not “anti-vaxx,” Clive. It’s common sense.

In case you missed it, “Anti-vaxxer” is the new “that’s racist.


First published on Caldron Pool, 15th September, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Michael Leunig, poet, satirist and artist, has been axed by Australian left-wing newspaper, The Age, after violating the sanctity of COVID cultism.

Leunig’s chief crimes were doggedly questioning the use of force to impose unwanted – and based on COVID’s 99.9%+ survivability rates for the majority, unnecessary – medical procedures on Australians.

One viral violation consisted of him portraying protesters opposing the rape of medical autonomy by government authoritarianism with the sole protester who opposed the 1989 convoy of PLA tanks, used by the Chinese Communist Party to squash pro-freedom rally protests in Tiananmen Square.

Michael Smith News cited Leunig telling The Australian’s Media Diary, ‘Purge is a word that comes to mind […] Apparently, I’m out of touch with the readership.’

Smith said, Leunig defended the cartoon, arguing,

“The Tiananmen Square image is often used in cartoons around the world as a Charlie Chaplin-like metaphor for overwhelming force meeting the innocent powerless individual. In my view, it is a fair enough issue to raise in the most locked-down city in the world.”

The Daily Mail explained the image in question was first posted to Leunig’s Instagram page in September, after it had been rejected by editor, Gay Alcorn.

Criticisms of Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews also feed into the ersatz blasphemy charge.

Leunig’s support for life, light and liberty have broken taboos on criticising the church of COVID and its corrupt cultic priesthood.

According to Smith, Leunig said he’s had “12 cartoons censored this year, “all about Covid and/or Dan Andrews, with next to no explanation.”

Rebel News gave examples, stating, ‘When the cartoon emerged, it caused a storm of controversy on Twitter where the #IStandWithDan hashtag filled with condemnation.’

One smack-talking Twitter user whined,

“This Leunig cartoon is grotesquely offensive. To compare the plight of anti-vaxxers to that of a man whose fate remains unknown, 30 years on, is just appalling.”

With another user flapping,

‘Leunig is no longer being published in @theage because his anti-vaxxing views could not be tolerated in the middle of a pandemic – even by The Age which says a lot. It does make me happy though that Leunig seems to believe the #IStandWithDan crowd are the reason he’s been booted.’

News.com confirmed that Leunig has been axed for questioning the mandatory vax.

“Leunig has been taken off the newspaper’s prized Monday editorial page position — not long after his Tiananmen Square cartoon emerged and stoked outrage from Daniel Andrews fans.”

Michael Leunig is an Australian icon. He’s been ‘declared a national living treasure by the National Trust and awarded honorary degrees from La Trobe and Griffith universities and the Australian Catholic University for his unique contribution to Australian culture.’ (Biography)

Leunig was a darling of the Left when he opposed the post-9/11 “war on terror” invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

In true leftist style, it would seem that the artist has been dropped by the Left, for applying the same loveable sharp-eye of accountability to those on the Left.

This is yet another remarkable testimony to the insidious power of cancel culture, and the danger it poses.

When the only allowable opposition is what the Left approves as opposition, we are no longer dealing with reasoned debate, but a manufactured narrative, and its badly constructed religion.

To quote Albert Camus,

‘Facts are facts. Whoever says that the sky is blue when it is grey is prostituting words and preparing for tyranny […] There is room for nothing in Stalinist culture except for edifying sermons, colourless life, and the catechism of propaganda.’ (Essays)


First published on Caldron Pool, 27th October 2021

© Rod Lampard, 2021.

Another pro-health professional athlete has been defamed as an “anti-vaxxer” after defending informed consent.

The latest tussle occurred on Instagram when pro-surfer Kelly Slater  defended Australian surf life-saving legend, Trevor Hendy who had voiced opposition to “vaccine” mandates on a “get vaxxed” promotion posted by Summer of Surf.

Slater responded to an analogy used by Australian Ironman champion Matt Poole, who criticised Hendy by comparing not being “vaccinated” with jumping into rip-tides.

Slater told Poole his ‘analogy made no sense’, arguing,

‘If I know the risks (informed consent) and I judge the choice to be one that benefits/hurts me based on the stats and info, and my ability (health), I can choose accordingly. If something happens to me, it’s on me, not on anyone else. Your argument is false equivalence. Apples and oranges.’

Making a distinction between health and medicine, Slater added,

‘This is clearly a disease of the obese, unhealthy, and elderly. If you study the official statistics. And for people saying listen to the doctors, I’m positive I know more about being healthy than 99% of doctors. Most of my COVID info comes from directly doctor friends, many of them in disagreement with the official ‘science.’

The 49-year-old American world surfing champion talked about friends who’d had horrible reactions to the vaccines, writing that his mum was one of those ‘underreported stats.’

Despite a large number of comments from social media users thanking Slater for speaking out, legacy media coverage only drew attention to pats on the back for Poole’s pro-CCP-19 vax evangelism.

Fox Sports (apparently more dazzled by Poole’s girlfriend Tammy Hembrow, than COVID facts) labelled Slater’s comments a “bizarre vaccine rant,” painting the surfing legend as “coming from nowhere to continue to promote his so-called pro-choice agenda.”

RT news wasn’t much different. They band wagoned the “anti-vaxxer rant” tune, but to their credit, RT at least gave Slater a fair hearing.

7News was more subdued, but mocked Slater, ripping the context out of his comments by failing to first acknowledge Slater’s reasoned argument. Secondly by failing to uphold his distinction between knowledge about health, and knowledge about medicine.

Yahoo Sport joined them calling Slater’s reply to Poole, “slightly ridiculous,” while accusing him of “pushing Coronavirus misinformation.”

Far-left political activists, “Right-Wing Watch” added Kelly to their list of “anti-vaxxer” ‘worst offenders,’ telling Kelly to line-up, goosestep in unison and salute, ‘instead of adding to the polarisation of the vaccine debate.’

Of the many who agreed with Slater, one user said, ‘Informed consent, not coercion.’

Another wrote, ‘I liked it better when we weren’t forced to take an experimental drug to do normal, everyday things. It’s a shame everywhere I look I’m being bullied to do something I don’t want to do; and [I’m] a little upset I’m seeing it here too.’

In response, Summer of Surf clarified “not forcing, just asking for everyone’s help.”

Slater’s replies received no legacy media love, so here’s a sampling to good not to be shared:

This isn’t the first clash Slater’s had with his peers or the COVID priesthood in the media.

The Daily Mail claimed in June that Slater was forced to defend himself when users reacted to a comment on an unrelated CCP-19 article about a ‘father who was proud after stinking up a toilet,’ on Australian satire site The Betoota Advocate.

Slater simply wrote, “Dads have no shame.”

As DM recounted, this was enough for one man to write,

‘’Aren’t you the fella who shares anti-vax nonsense on social media? Seems like you have no shame either.”

Slater fired back,

‘Why does this account always end up with these triggered, b***y people who can’t take a joke? And second, I’m not anti vax. I’m anti mandating medical procedures.’

He then said,

‘It hasn’t been studied long enough to know long term cons. A friend’s dad also died a couple days after getting it from blood clots, so there’s that. Think I’ll wait for the antibodies naturally if I get covid.’

This tripped a pack attack with haters rolling in to mock, smear and ridicule the surfing legend, because “science.”

Key findings about COVID published by Sydney University in June, appear to back Slater’s defence of informed choice.

‘Overall population-wide risk of death after the diagnosis of a COVID-19 infection was 4 percent.’

In other words, a 96% likelihood a person will survive, with a 4% chance of dying.

Additionally,

‘COVID-19 mortality risk was 40 percent for the elderly (90+), 10 times the population-wide risk.

  • 32 percent COVID-19 mortality risk for people in their 80s
  • 14 percent COVID-19 mortality risk for people in their 70s
  • 3 percent COVID-19 mortality risk for people in their 60s
  • Less than 1 percent COVID-19 mortality risk for people in their 50s or younger.’

What’s the point of forcing a medical procedure onto the public?

This data raises a number of questions about the purpose of “no jab, no job,” alongside lockdowns and segregating the population along a vaxxed, unvaxxed line.

This suggests that inept governments, acting on the “health” advice of bureaucratic “health advisors,” are deliberately making us unhealthy in the name of protecting public health.

The facts do not support the fantasy or the fear porn.

Public health orders, are creating a public health crisis.


Original exchange:

POOLE:

SLATER:

Related reading:

Australian Tennis Legend: “Government Doctors Are on the Payroll, Be Wary of What They Preach”


©Rod Lampard, 2021

A 14-minute video circulating social media shows Polish MPs protesting outside the Australian embassy in Warsaw, labelling COVID-19 Australia a quasi-Democratic nation.

Lead protester, and former president of Classical Liberal group, KoLiber, M.P. Jakub Kulesza stated,

“What is happening in Australia cannot be called democratic. Australia has contracted COVID madness. Australian police oppress, harass and attack peaceful citizens depriving them of their fundamental freedoms.”

He asserted that “continued heavy lockdowns were totalitarianism,” arguing that “these drastic measures have led to record increases in infections, showing that drastic restrictions do not make sense.”

Kulesza provided a long list of examples, including curfews, 5km limits, “stay-at-home” orders, medical conscription, and the promise of some freedoms being restored on October 11th, for citizens who’ve complied by taking the COVID vaccines, stating,

“This will divide citizens between better and worse. This is how totalitarianism is born. These are not conspiracy theories […] How much freedom has been lost in Australia can be seen in how the police, with great brutality suppress protests, and aggression against citizens.”

He continued,

“We want to warn the people of Poland, and prevent it from happening here. [We don’t want to see] our government follow the example of Australian authorities, and here [in front of] the Australian embassy we are protesting against such behaviour.”

Another M.P. stepped up to add,

“People aren’t protesting because they’re bored. It would be absurd to not protest having their freedoms taken away […] In terms of lockdowns were are dealing with the manipulation of data and the manipulation of the number of tests done. The more lockdown laws were introduced, the less effective it was.”

One M.P. asked,

 “What is happening in Australia? […] “We cannot sleep. It maybe on the other side of the world, but we should nevertheless realise that if we don’t protest now; if we don’t publicise the disturbing situations, perhaps we will have these sorts of situations in Poland. Where you can be jailed at home, and so we expose this murderous style [of governance] growing in Australia.”

He then said, “Here I hope that our leadership decides to condemn what has happened [in Australia]. We will not be replicating what is happening there, here in Poland.”

A third M.P demanded, “we do not want Melbourne in Warsaw. Do not try to bring that totalitarianism here to Poland. We demand that Australia stop these practices immediately, with an immediate return to Human Rights and civility.”

He asserted,

“Australia has unsubscribed herself from the International Community; the community of civilised nations. We therefore demand that the Warsaw Government condemn what is happening in Australia. We are also ready to rush help and legal aid to organise the evacuation of Polish dual citizens, as refugees from the People’s Republic of Melbourne.”

One of the few to report on it so far, Harry Richardson, editor of Australian Libertarian online news site The Richardson Post, described the potentially viral video as ‘rather crudely translated.’

‘But,’ he added, ‘the level of disgust these Polish MPs share for the totalitarian bastardry being shown by the Victorian police in particular, is crystal clear.’

Unsurprisingly, Australian Legacy media appear aloof, and uninterested in politicians from the former Communist bloc nation, warning about Australia’s downgrade of civil liberties, and civil rights, particularly in Victoria.

WATCH:


First published on Caldron Pool, 3rd October 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Like many Australians, my wife and eldest daughter are being forced to get “vaxxed” in order to keep their jobs and successfully finish two years of study.

They are victims of totalitarianism, and I’m as mad as hell about it.

By forcing our hand, the Government has turned my family’s strong opposition to totalitarian anti-covid measures, into a fight for survival.

The Government is forcing our hand because like a large number of Australians without land of their own, we can’t refuse the vax, then “live off the land”.

Additionally, sacrificing jobs for the “cause” would mean no reimbursement for holidays or long-service owed, no chance of future employment.

It would also mean being held back from receiving government support, because they are deemed “able to work, but unwilling to do so.

We lean hard on our faith, and could live on beans, rice and fickle charity, but we’d be living without shelter while doing so.

We could lean on family, if we had family that we could lean on without being a burden to them.

For me, being force out of a job means being forced back into the abusive generational welfare cycle I’ve spent my entire working life trying to liberate my family from.

This would be a soul-crushing move back into total government dependency.

Even then any fall-back onto the Australian taxpayer would until the pre-requisite for Centrelink became “no jab, no pay” (a policy implemented by the “the vax is voluntary” hypocrites in the current government back in 2016. One that very well could be extended to the COVID-19 “vaccines”).

In effect, my family would have been forced out of work. Only to find ourselves being forced into getting “vaccinated.” In order to keep welfare payments, we were forced to become dependent on.

Unlike the majority, my family are being forced to be “vaccinated” not so that we can maintain a lifestyle, but so that we can stay out of the welfare cycle. 

Since August, when the subjective Education decrees were issued, we’ve agonised over our response to the current regime’s abuse of power.

After the New South Wales Supreme Court loss last Friday, we were hit with the urgency of having to redraw the line in the sand.

We were forced to establish a new frontline.

It was either do this, or face becoming totally dependent on an authoritarian government, who are already walking all over us, with their blitzkrieg fanatical takeover of medical autonomy.

My wife and daughter have no choice.

As Bob Cotton’s recent Caldron Pool piece spectacularly illustrated, there is zero informed consent at play here. The government, with the support of big media, and a gullible public, have made it so.

There is no way to maintain the same level of resistance. So, our non-compliant approach has to change.

Non-compliance is not new to us. It began for me in resisting an abusive father and the generational welfare cycle – one which is not much different to the authoritarianism we’re seeing today.

I was the first in my family and extended family to finish high school and attain the Higher School Certificate, and latter a college degree.

This divergence from the dysfunctional norm culminated in the revolution of baptism.  It manifested in getting married young, staying married and having five kids.

This non-compliance made me few friends, when managing a Christian bookshop for over a decade, I preferred to recommend customers buy Keith Green, not Joel Osteen.

This lifestyle of non-compliance resonates throughout my family’s 12-years of homeschooling.

My point is, for those in the same position as my family, there are many tones, shapes and paths to non-compliance.

In the current climate, every vaxxed, forced-to-be-vaxxed, unvaxxed and never-will-be-vaxxed, “Hell, no!” to the current authoritarianism matters.

There’s little chance of victory if the unvaxxed are discouraging and demoralising those who are forced to get vaxxed into not participating in both prayer and protest, because the unvaxxed entertained the sin of self-righteous posturing.

We can’t play the same segregation game. If we do all is lost. Faith in the face of oppression involves sighing with the wounded, not self-promotion.

In other words, people shouldn’t be forced ti drop-out and give-up because some drop-kick told you that being “vaxxed”, “unvaxxed”, or being forced into getting the “vaxx” somehow disqualified them from participating in pro-freedom prayer and protest.

Every “hell, no!” matters.

The rape of medical autonomy by an authoritarian power who has no checks or balances, doesn’t bode well for ALL Australians.

Nothing’s changed in regards to me and my family’s convictions.

I’ve given my all to this fight, and I’ve been doing so since at least March last year via Caldron Pool. (See my piece dated March 2020: ‘Are oppressive totalitarian measures necessary in order to fight against coronavirus?’)

I’d much prefer being in a better position to oppose this madness. Despite how much we’ve prayed, asking God to power alternatives, we’re not able to continue resisting responsibly.

I’ve made and continue to make sacrifices, turning up, even if, and when haters attack, or people simply just don’t tune in.

Another household family member is currently without work because she’s not “vaccinated”.

COVID-19 required a scalpel, government used an axe!

I take no pride in the “vaccines” or being forced down this pathway. I detest the slimy smiles from politicians, who, accompanied by TV Doctors, boast about their smoke and mirror schemes.

The Australian Prime Minister is the worst of the lot. Scott Morrison had the chance to be a statesman, he chose middle-management instead.

To quote Pauline Hanson’s astute summary,

‘Scott Morrison is impotent…He’s too gutless to admit the Constitution forbids the Commonwealth from authorising civil conscription with respect to medical services, so he lets the states and territories trample all over our right to choose, take away our jobs, separate our families and isolate our communities.’

One of the greatest lies imposed on the Australian people by Scott Morrison is his assertions that the Covid-19 vaccines are voluntary.

My family and I had every hope that the NSW supreme court would reject the vaccine mandates and uphold the Australian constitution’s ban on medical conscription. When the aloof, government appointed, Justice dismissed the cases, we had to respond with plan B.

While some of us are being forced into getting the “vaccination,” we don’t do so quietly. By sticking with a policy of responsible resistance we are still acting in a way that honours God.

This means acknowledging, as I have above, our limitations, and fighting back within our means.

Thus, being capable of fiercer non-compliance because we’ve regrouped and closed a few fronts we were no longer capable of fighting on.

We do this in the full knowledge that for those living under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, what looks like defeat, can be the birth of a greater victory.


First published on Caldron Pool, 26th October 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Emily Holleman a writer for The Cut, – part of New York Magazine’s ‘One Great Story’ section – recently condemned bearing children in the age of the “apocalypse,” selfish.

Holleman’s reflection on anxiety and personal loss in a time of uncertainty is the better part of what becomes an environmentalist “sermon”.

An autobiographical piece, the article describes a grieving, displaced woman, who sees her ‘pandemic pregnancy’ as another nail piercing in an unwanted cross. Her self-indulgent rant against parenthood, is bent into a twisted concoction of hope, and hopelessness – life and death.

The illustrative sermon deploys the dogma of the Green social gospel.

“Catastrophic climate change,” drags down an otherwise thought-provoking story of pregnancy, and married life.

For her,

‘Having a child in a developed nation is among the most environmentally unsound decisions you can make — a baby born in the United States adds another 58.6 tons of carbon to the atmosphere per year.’

Presumably, to avoid the charge of racism, it appears that for Holleman, having a child in an undeveloped nation is perfectly acceptable. The hint of contradiction, self-hatred and contempt for her own nation, and its people wafts like a pungent smell from here on out.

Her anti-carbon drivel descends even further, with the proclamation,

‘The decision to have children has always struck me as an essentially selfish one: You choose, out of a desire for fulfillment or self-betterment or curiosity or boredom or baby-mania or peer pressure, to bring a new human into this world. And it has never seemed more selfish than today.’

She rides the pessimistic narrative of falling skies, and “rising temperatures” in a world that worships climate-control.

(A world oblivious to the acclimatisation of air-conditioned comfort, because it’s too focused on self-aggrandising posturing, and panic inducing “climate crisis” headlines.)

If we are faced with “catastrophic climate change” it would be better to ditch fossil fuelled artificial climates in homes, business and transport, not reproduction, families and the life that both carries.

Even here, one has to ask Holleman what she means by Climate Change. Which climate is facing catastrophic decline? Is it temperate, mild, dry, tropical or polar?

Where does the sun and solar activity play a role? Could it be that the sun is a bigger contributor to any warming climate, than the carbon footprint of children, including her own son?

Holleman’s article is a cross between anti-parenting, anti-carbon and anti-people. There is a stark absence of balance, especially given the basics: Carbon is plant food and without it, life on earth ends.

I acknowledge Holleman is writing from hindsight. She’s writing about becoming a mum for the first time, in trying times.

Holleman is in a foreign place. She’s greeted with one bitter disaster after another.

A pregnant woman, facing a difficult childbirth. A grieving sister – and general fish out of water – having relocated from the congested New York to California’s wide-open spaces.

Yet, her situation is compounded by the presence of wild fires, panic on the TV, COVID-19, and (as my wife put it after reading the piece) all the hormonal trimmings attached to having a baby on the way.

A soon to be mother, Holleman argues existence with non-existence with emotional reasoning.

She confesses to feeling selfish. Then supposes that the answer to a “climate catastrophe” is for the people of the developed world to stop having children.

The hope of a better world Holleman finds in the embrace of her new born son, is morbidly smothered by a lament at what a child’s carbon footprint is.

Twistedly Holleman infers children are a great evil, but they’re a useful distraction.

For her, kids are a “blessing” to have around, because they provide ‘small moments of joy.’ A welcome distraction from ‘cataclysmic changes to the climate [and other] inequities it exacerbates.’

Holleman lives in a world which views children as either an accessory, or an inconvenience.

A world that also equates conceiving a child, with contracting an STD.

What’s also striking is the use of eschatological terminology: “End Times.” Indicative of the religious environmentalism – or cultism – which pervades her Green ideological evangelism.

In the broader context of Holleman’s experience, it’s not easy write to this off as rhetorical.

Holleman believes we’re all doomed, stating, ‘we are living in a real way on borrowed time, under the shadow of carbon.’

The takeaway conclusion: “Carbon is the great Satan. Humans are carbon. Ergo, humans are a great evil.”

One thing Holleman can be applauded for is repeatedly referring to her [then] unborn son as a baby, not a “clump of cells”.

Another is the depth to which she writes about the clash between her grief, her beliefs, and the hope beaming from the new life she holds in her hands.

Having kids, Holleman concludes, provides a semblance of comfort and reassurance about the future, and that makes the future worth fighting for.

I support her positive conclusion, but 80% of what Holleman writes is straight-up tripe.

There’s nothing more selfless than having kids.

You’re constantly giving, serving and saying “no” to yourself, in order to say “yes” to life.

Out of 21 years of fatherhood, there is no greater example who testifies to this than my wife.

She conceived six times. (We miscarried badly on the first.)

With the five who followed I witnessed her battle a war with uncontrollable nausea.

A condition known as Hyperemesis Gravidarum (an extreme, rare form of morning sickness that went on for months).

Over the space of ten years, with pauses in between, she was hospitalised for severe dehydration five times.

After diagnosis, even when offered to abort our children, she refused.

Doing so with the full knowledge that this new pregnancy will likely mean another round of constant vomiting and lengthy stays in bed.

Not only did my wife choose to fight for life, instead of embrace destruction, we did it together.

We often did so without the support of family, church or friends. Many of whom misunderstood her decision, as much as they misunderstood her condition.

Contra to Emily Holleman’s anti-kid “climate change” tirades, there’s nothing more selfless than having kids.

There’s nothing selfish in saying “no” to yourself, in order to care for the young, through the joyful embrace of saying “yes” to life.

To quote the oft quoted, Theodore Roosevelt,

‘The poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer. There are many men who feel a kind of twisted pride in cynicism; there are many who confine themselves to criticism of the way others do what they themselves dare not even attempt.’

(A slightly revised version of this article was first published on Dads 4 Kids, under the title: Our Children are the Answer, Not the Problem to Our Environmental Challenges; also published on Caldron Pool, 22nd October 2021).


©Dads4kids; Rod Lampard, 2021.