We live in a corrupted system. The way to tackle corruption is to first acknowledge it exists. Only then is it possible to come up with ways of dealing with it, but don't make the mistake of believing the system can or will uncorrupt itself.

A Few Good Lies

17 November 2025

It has been said in various forms over many years that the truth fears no interrogation.

There are as always, two sides to the argument. There are those like the character Colonel Nathan R. Jessep played by Jack Nicholson in the film “A Few Good Men” that believe hiding the truth with lies or omission is better than open and transparent honesty. This is usually justified with some pseudo-moralising rhetoric about saving someone or some group from a perceived or implied greater harm from knowing the truth, and that the bliss of ignorance is better for them.

Examples like if your spouse or partner asks you if they look good in a new piece of clothing, we’d probably say yes even if we didn’t think really so to save their feelings are often presented as how this happens in everyday life and therefore if you accept that, then you should have no issues when this is deployed at a national or international level, to spare people’s feelings.

The other side of the argument would be that if you truly cared for your spouse or partner, and the relationship is strong, then honesty should not be a problem, as clearly one does not have to be rude about it. There’s a difference between “no, you look awful” and “I’m not sure that really suits you” or words to that effect.

People who lie are always looking to justify lying, and the above example is just that. Honesty does not have to be brutal, unfeeling or callous. Sure there are times when facing the truth can be tough, or it may not be something we want to hear in the moment, but if there is to be any trust at all, honesty and truth are top of the list of attributes that build and strengthen long-term trust.

A partner who routinely says what they think their other-half wants to hear will eventually get “you’re just saying that” (or similar) as a response, as trust is eroded and those “white lies” end up doing more harm than the perceived good it was thought they were doing. If someone cannot be honest about small stuff, it is reasonable to think perhaps they wouldn’t be honest about big stuff. This often leads to a breakdown in trust, and as relationships are built on trust, many relationships do not stand firm after their foundations are gone.

This is not to say if you ever told your partner a “white lie” then the relationship is doomed, but it’s not a good long-term policy generally where being dishonest is a regular thing. Truth and honesty are not just important, they are absolutely vital, even if it is sometimes hard work and the easier option would be a “harmless lie”.

Of course our personal relationships are one thing, and the “relationship” between Governments and their “citizens” is another. Governments would love it for us to see this relationship as way more than it should be. The Governments after all want to be our nurturers and protectors and providers. Governments want us to submit to their Authority on everything. They want to “educate” us on all topics, encourage us to fulfil the potential they have decided we have by funnelling everyone through “higher education”. They want to (allegedly) protect us by force from enemies real and imagined, and they want to provide via schemes like Universal Basic Income.

These are all ways in which the Government wants to perform the role of parent or partner, and because the Government gets to make the rules and enforce them, they can and have systematically made it more and more difficult for actual parents and partners to do it for themselves.

Phrases like the “Nanny State” didn’t come from nowhere.

The topic of truth, and this idea that truth has nothing to fear from scrutiny is inextricably entwined with the relationships between Governments and the people they rule over. The reason why is because what we see, increasingly so in the last 5 years, is that Governments shut down conversation they deem “dangerous”, and censor people who hold views that are counter to the Government’s Official Position.

Why though?

If the truth is on your side, you will win any debate. If you’re telling the truth then any conversation with anyone holding a counter-view can only be good for you, as all the evidence will support your position.

It is important not to muddy the waters and interject the usual obfuscators like “well things can be subjective”, or “we all have our own truth”, or “well we cannot say anything for certain because <insert waffle about probabilities>”. We’re not talking about things that are a matter of opinion. Of course there are things that are entirely subjective and opinion-based, but these are not the kinds of things we’re talking about. We’ve all seen this kind of thinking represented by images like this…

It’s a matter of perspective or context is the argument put forward here, and yes there are indeed many times in our lives where that is absolutely the case, but not always.

The argument in the above picture whether that is a six or a nine misses several important details if we’re going to try and apply it anywhere other than entirely subjective matters, and that the intent of whoever it was who put the number there. If it was the person on the left stating it is a nine because that is what they wrote, it is not a matter of perspective. The other person is simply wrong. They might not think so because of their “vantage point”, but they’re still wrong. The same goes for if the person on the right put it there. It is a six. No arguing that from where the other person is it looks like a nine makes it a nine, because it was intentionally written as a six. Furthermore, if neither of them wrote it and someone else did, then they can argue but neither can really know, without any other information or the writer telling them, which it is.

So, what we’re talking about here, to be clear, is not “your truth” or “my truth”… phrases that have become common parlance but really are not terribly helpful when trying to establish the actual truth about something, the objective reality of whatever it is, how things really are.

When we’re told to “Trust the Science”, or something has been “Scientifically Proven” and so on, we are being told this is not a matter of opinion. The public was lectured daily about “The Science” behind the COVID-19 injections, how they had been “proven” to be “safe and effective”. People were not permitted a “perspective” or an “opinion”, or even to cite evidence if it ran contrary to the Government’s bought and paid for “Single Version of The Truth”. In fact anyone saying anything else was “dangerous” and a “medical misinformation” spreader and the Government deployed the entirety of its censorship machinery to deal with them.

We’ve been told this for years now.

But there is a problem with all of that… which is that all they ever needed to do was win the argument with their “Science”, because what actual science is supposed to be is repeatable, demonstrable and empirical, i.e. you can just show someone why you’re right. The feeble, paper-thin justifications for censorship, as they always are, exist for one reason only, and that is to protect the people doing the censoring.

As we have observed many times, there has NEVER been in instance in history where the good guys were the ones doing the censoring. There are countless examples where the bad guys, the authoritarian dictators, the brutal and oppressive regimes, the cults and organisations that rule by fear, we have a near infinite history of those groups censoring alternate ideas, even well evidenced ideas. The number of examples of good guys doing it…? Precisely zero, and the reason for this is based on that phrase (or a version of it) that we mentioned at the start…

The truth fears no interrogation

There is no justification for censorship. Ever.

With that in mind the Telegraph published an article (non-paywalled archive link) on the 15th November 2025 titled “Government ‘withholding data that may link Covid jab to excess deaths’”. The sub-title of this article is:

“UKHSA argued that releasing figures would lead to ‘distress or anger’ of bereaved relatives if connection were discovered”

Oh really? More distressing that the fact their relatives died? It would be better to lie and hide this information that may (or may not, but we’ll get to that shortly) prove a causative link between COVID jabs and the now admitted excess deaths in the UK, according to the UK Health Security Agency, because presumably they would prefer people continue to get injected with this stuff than allow people with absolutely no motive or financial incentive to look at this data, versus all the people and organisations that have done very nicely out of this mass-marketing of so-called “vaccines”.

The UKHSA has made various pathetic attempts to justify not giving this data out over the last few years. None of them stand up to the slightest of pushbacks. As the Telegraph article mentions, one of the arguments has been that releasing this data could create “a risk of individuals being identified”, even though this data can and has been anonymised and already handed to the pharmaceutical companies. This is just a lame argument, entirely unsupported by the fact they gave this information out already, and that it is perfectly possible to supply this data in a format that does not obscure or remove any important data for analysis while leaving out any personally identifying information about individuals.

It seems that as each of these attempts to continue to censor and lie are knocked down and proven entirely without merit, they dream up another, even more ridiculous reason, and this is the latest in that list.

We don’t want to give this information out because people would be upset if they knew the truth. Amazing. You couldn’t make it up.

Now obviously, and as Vaccine Fans will immediately point out, we don’t know if that data would prove any causative link, and that is correct. We only don’t know though because thus far the UKHSA has refused to provide it, which brings us back, yet again to the idea that the truth fears no interrogation. If the evidence, the “science” is on their side, this should not be a problem. They should easily be able to prove all the crazy “Conspiracy Theorists” wrong with their amazing science and proof. We’ve all been repeatedly and relentlessly bludgeoned with this claim that the COVID jabs are “safe and effective”. It should be trivial to actually demonstrate this with evidence, facts and figures, and top of the list would be that people who took the injections did better. That after all was the entire sales pitch for them.

The desperation on show to NOT release this basic information has only one logical explanation, which is that the amazing science and proof they’ve been banging on about for years doesn’t exist, and this data would be devastating, because obviously THEY know what it contains.