The official narrative surrounding covid that the Establishment has been pushing is nearing its final collapse.  In recent testimony before the US Senate, the former CDC director has admitted truths that heretofore were being labelled as ‘conspiracy theories’:

Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield confirmed the dangers of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in a U.S. Senate hearing Thursday, calling them “toxic” and saying they should never have been mandated.

Redfield’s admissions came during a Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on government oversight of taxpayer-funded high-risk virus research.

The late admission of vaccine injuries underscores the failure of public health agencies and the medical establishment to provide informed consent to the billions of vaccine recipients worldwide.

“It’s important that he is telling the truth now,” vaccine researcher Jessica Rose, Ph.D., told The Defender. “Adverse events were hidden and still are being hidden to prevent injection hesitancy.”

Redfield, who led the CDC from 2018 to 2021, didn’t stop there. He declared biosecurity “our nation’s greatest national security threat,” calling for a halt to gain-of-function research pending further debate.

The hearing, which featured contentious exchanges between senators and witnesses, also touched on controversial topics such as the COVID-19 origins lab-leak theory and allegations that health agencies suppressed data.

During the hearing Redfield, who oversaw the CDC during the crucial early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, elaborated on his recent statements about mRNA vaccine safety.

“I do think one of the greatest mistakes that was made, of course, was mandating these vaccines,” Redfield said. “They should have never been mandated. It should have been open to personal choice.”

Redfield went further, admitting that the spike protein produced by mRNA vaccines is “toxic to the body” and triggers “a very strong pro-inflammatory response.”

He noted that in his own medical practice, he doesn’t administer mRNA vaccines, preferring “killed protein vaccines” instead.

Redfield’s statements stand in stark contrast to the CDC’s official stance during his tenure, which strongly promoted mRNA vaccine uptake as safe and effective.

The Elite made a major move with the covid epidemic to try to consolidate power.  Thankfully much of their effort is failing.  As a result of it all, a great many people have had their eyes opened to the falsehoods they had previously accepted as truths.  Jeff LeJeune has spoken of this process quite a bit lately:

Americans, whether we choose to partake in the battle or not, are entrenched in an information war that is seeing the illusory framework of church and state crumbling more and more by the week.  . . .  a growing number of dramatic examples–as fictional character Bruce Wayne puts it in the Dark Knight film series–that periodically pops up amidst the slower breadcrumbing of truth in a seemingly orchestrated process that is systematically waking up the world.

One more important line from him:  ‘We are living in a most unbelievable shatterpoint in human history . . . .’

Indeed.  And what if part of that illusory framework of church and state that the current shatterpoint is breaking apart is the current federal constitution itself?

You see, it is not just the current group of Elites that manipulated things to their liking.  Such actions by such groups have existed throughout history.  And one of them in the US used an uprising called Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts to scare the States into ratifying the current federal constitution:

“Never let a good crisis go to waste” isn’t just some modern invention by people who want to expand government power. It seems to be an approach used to convince people of the need to replace the Articles of Confederation with a new Constitution in 1787.

Even James Madison admitted as much later in life.

Shays’ Rebellion was one of the most prominent reasons given for a system of government more “energetic” than the one formed under the Articles. Federalists, who had for years failed to expand congressional power under the Articles, repeatedly cited the Shays’ crisis as a glaring example of the weakness and insufficiency of the system – and a reason for a new one.

For instance, in a 1787 letter to William Carmichael, John Jay asserted that the rebellion and the federal government’s inability to fund troops to put down the uprising made “the Inefficiency of the fœderal government [become] more and more manifest.”

In a 1786 letter to Henry Lee, George Washington described the rebellion as “clouds that have spread over the brightest morn that ever dawned upon any Country.”

“You talk, my good Sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found; and if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is no Government. Let us have one by which our lives, liberties and properties will be secured; or let us know the worst at once.”

However, as prominent Anti-Federalists warned, there is evidence that supporters of a strong centralized government were merely using and even hyping Shays’ Rebellion in order to achieve their goals of more centralized power.

. . . In 1821, James Madison went so far as to admit that Shays’ Rebellion was overblown and resulted in a more powerful government than what was “warranted.”

In a letter to John G. Jackson, Madison wrote, “most of us carried into the Convention profound impressions, produced by the experienced inadequacy of the old Confederation, & by the monitory examples of all similar ones antient and modern, as to the necessity of binding the States together by a strong Constitution.”

Madison specifically mentioned the “alarming insurrection” led by Shays, writing that it had “a very sensible influence on the public mind.”

“Such indeed was the aspect of things, that in the eyes of the best friends of liberty, a crisis had arrived.”

But Madison went on to admit that, “This view of the crisis made it natural for many in the Convention to lean to a higher toned system than was perhaps in strictness warranted by a proper distinction between causes temporary as some of them doubtless were, and causes permanently inherent in popular frames of Government.” [Emphasis added]

Deceit and manipulation of the peoples of the States by their Elite bookend the early years of the United States and now her latter years.  Just as covid restrictions weren’t rolled out to protect us from a virus, but to make us more subservient to a degenerate oligarchy, so it was with the Philadelphia constitution of 1787:  It wasn’t meant to safeguard the centuries-old English liberties of the plainfolk that had been handed down generation after generation; it was meant to limit them by placing them under the control of a powerful central government run by the Elite cliques of the time.  You have just read their own admission of that.

This being so, we owe an apology to two groups in US history.  The first is the (misnamed) Anti-Federalists, the opponents of the ratification of the Philadelphia constitution.  They foresaw many of the dangers arising from it which we are now dealing with.  The second group is the Southerners who seceded from the union in 1860-1.  Like the Anti-Federalists, they saw well enough that the current federal constitution and government were taking the union in a tyrannical direction, and they were none too pleased with that.  So they did something about it:  They seceded from the union, just like their forefathers had in 1776 from the British union.  Jefferson Davis lays out some of their reasoning as follows:

If any further evidence had been required to show that it was the determination of the Northern people not only to make no concessions to the grievances of the Southern States, but to increase them to the last extremity, it was furnished by the proclamation of President Lincoln, issued on April 15, 1861. This proclamation, which has already been mentioned, requires further examination, as it was the official declaration, on the part of the Government of the United States, of the war which ensued. In it the President called for seventy-five thousand men to suppress “combinations” opposed to the laws, and obstructing their execution in seven sovereign States which had retired from the Union.  . . .

On November 6, 1860, the Legislature of South Carolina assembled and gave the vote of the State for electors of a President of the United States. On the next day an act was passed calling a State Convention to assemble on December 17^th, to determine the question of the withdrawal of the State from the United States. Candidates for membership were immediately nominated. All were in favor of secession. The Convention assembled on December 17^th, and on the 20^th passed “an ordinance to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled ‘The Constitution of the United States of America.’” The ordinance began with these words: “We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain,” etc. The State authorities immediately conformed to this action of the Convention, and the laws and authority of the United States ceased to be obeyed within the limits of the State. . . .

The State of South Carolina is designated in the proclamation as a combination too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by law. This designation does not recognize the State, or manifest any consciousness of its existence, whereas South Carolina was one of the colonies that had declared her independence, and, after a long and bloody war, she had been recognized as a sovereign State by Great Britain, the only power to which she had ever owed allegiance. The fact that she had been one of the colonies in the original Congress, had been a member of the Confederation, and subsequently of the Union, strengthens, but surely can not impair, her claim to be a State. Though President Lincoln designated her as a “combination,” it did not make her a combination. Though he refused to recognize her as a State, it did not make her any less a State. By assertion, he attempted to annihilate seven States; and the war which followed was to enforce the revolutionary edict, and to establish the supremacy of the General Government on the ruins of the blood-bought independence of the States.

. . . In the nature of things, no union can be formed except by separate, independent, and distinct parties. Any other combination is not a union; and, upon the destruction of any of these elements in the parties, the union ipso facto ceases. If the Government is the result of a union of States, then these States must be separate, sovereign, and distinct, to be able to form a union, which is entirely an act of their own volition. Such a government as ours had no power to maintain its existence any longer than the contracting parties pleased to cohere, because it was founded on the great principle of voluntary federation, and organized “to establish justice and insure domestic tranquility.” Any departure from this principle by the General Government not only perverts and destroys its nature, but furnishes a just cause to the injured State to withdraw from the union. A new union might subsequently be formed, but the original one could never by coercion be restored. Any effort on the part of the others to force the seceding State to consent to come back is an attempt at subjugation. It is a wrong which no lapse of time or combination of circumstances can ever make right. A forced union is a political absurdity. . . .

Men do not fight to make a fraternal union, neither do nations. These military preparations of the Government of the United States signified nothing less than the subjugation of the Southern States, so that, by one devasting blow, the North might grasp for ever that supremacy it had so long coveted.

From Philadelphia in 1787 to covid in 2020, an era is ending.  The twilight of this part of the history of the United States is well represented by the two elderly candidates for president.  It is best not to place too much hope in either of them or their respective political parties.  It would be better to expand our horizons in our search for solutions to today’s political problems.  Two of the options that ought to be considered are those advocated by the Anti-Federalists and by the Confederates – a highly decentralized government of union, and secession.

If the first can’t be worked out in the context of the present union, then the States that want to start fresh should withdraw and craft a new plan of union amongst themselves.  A new organization, Free Louisiana (link via LRN), has recently been formed to help Louisiana wriggle free from the federal leviathan.  Texas has been flirting with secession for several years now, as have Vermont and Hawai’i.  Other States will no doubt look into it as the federal government in DC collapses under the weight of its hubris abroad (wars and sanctions against everyone who looks at them crosswise) and idiotic actions at home (DEI, green energy, carbon capture, spending without limits, open borders, etc.).  Always bear in mind that the United States is not a single nation, but a voluntary union of nations.

Does such a scenario sound crazy to you all?  If it does, that might be for the best.  For one of the 20^th century’s most extraordinary saints, St Paisios of Mt Athos (+1994), once said these remarkable words:  ‘One who doesn’t have a crazy streak cannot become either a Saint or a hero.’