Recently, a colleague commented: “I am still truly angry about what happened to me and my family because of our refusal to take the vaccine in this country [Canada]. I never believed Nazi Germany was possible again until covid. And now I KNOW it is possible and likely WILL happen again…only next time the gloves will be off, and there will be nowhere to hide.”
He’s correct in each of his points.
First, there can be no question that the COVID scam was used to create tyranny in globalist countries. Although the other countries overreacted, there is mixed evidence as to whether their leaders sought tyranny or whether they were just trying to exercise caution by copying the policies imposed in the globalist countries. Therefore, the level of actual force by governments varied.
Second, the globalist First World countries introduced a joint programme that was akin to the Nazi effort beginning with Kristallnacht, and there can be little doubt that this was intentional – a campaign to manufacture irrational fear and demand obedience far beyond what might have been necessary for a mere virus.
Third, whether the globalists intend to revisit COVID with a further viral “emergency” or not, that’s not really the point. COVID was a highly successful dry run into tyranny. Whether the next emergency is to be justified by a virus, warfare, or economic collapse, is immaterial. The implementation of globalism requires tyranny to succeed, and the clock is ticking on the next excuse for a lockdown.
Not surprising, then, that those who recognise that a further, more all-encompassing tyranny is on the way are likely to ask, “Where do I go? Will I be caught out, no matter where I am? If so, why not just stay where I am?”
Now that the dust has settled on the COVID scam, the answer to this quandary may be found by looking back on how COVID played out in a variety of locations around the globe. Was the outcome uniform? Or did it vary? And if the latter, was this significant enough that I owe it to my family to relocate before the next wave of tyranny is on our doorstep?”
Having tracked the behaviour in dozens of countries during and following COVID, my first observation is that there were unquestionably layers of tyranny. It became clear over time that there was a coordinated push in the First World globalist countries (the US, UK, EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand) – a verifiable effort to impose uniform restrictions, with uniform rhetoric by the media to back up the oppression.
This was less so in other countries. Those closest to the globalist countries tended to mimic their policies without seeming to do so with zeal. There was a mood of “We don’t understand any of this, but we want to be safe. Tell us what to do.”
Those who are the least attached to the globalist countries, either through trade or culture, tended to deviate even more from globalist diktat, in some cases defying it.
In this regard, it became clear that each country that was not fully invested in the globalist cabal tended to react in keeping with their respective cultures.
The US was, predictably, the spearhead for globalist mandates. Self-absorbed crusaders came out in force, as they do over every issue, making the US one of the worst places to be. Not only were people pressured to get each vaccination, regardless of a lack of evidence of effectiveness. Shaming of those who were unvaccinated peaked in the US, with a campaign that emphasized a Gestapo-like “Pandemic of the Unvaccinated.”
We saw something similar in the closest allies of the US – the other countries listed above.
However, the further out we ventured from the globalist centre, the more each nation reacted in accordance with its natural culture rather than with globalist diktat.
In Thailand, an orderly programme was created that most people complied with, yet there was a minimal push for greater controls. This was not surprising, as in Thailand, most people take up what the government puts in place, and the rest are on their own. There’s nothing in the limited national budget to pursue them. Thailand was, therefore, a good country to simply not take part in the imported hysteria.
Similarly, in Uruguay, most people observe a high degree of compliance with their minimally-corrupt government. Most people, therefore, went along with vaccinations, and Uruguay was one of the most highly vaxxed countries in the Americas. But Uruguayans have a strong distaste for meddling in the private affairs of others. Therefore, even with a high level of vaxxing, very few people would have the bad manners to question their neighbours as to whether they’d been jabbed, so Uruguay became a good country to live – to fly under the vaccine radar, unvaccinated.
Not ideal, but I’d settle for that.
In the Cayman Islands, people have always expected newcomers to come in with a good bill of health or stay away, but they will vote out any politicians who dictate to Caymanians. As a result, Cayman’s government shut down tourism for a year, but no politician dared to suggest a vaccine mandate for locals for fear of losing office. (The expats were the only people attempting to shame those who didn’t get vaxxed.)
Again, not ideal, but workable.
In Mexico, the populace has a long history of distrust of authority and is inclined to defy the central government at the drop of a hat. Consequently, the Mexican Government allowed its people access to all vaccines and traditional treatments, such as Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, but made no edicts about their use. There were no mandates of any kind and, in fact, no testing required, even for travelers in and out of the country.
Mexico ended up being the freest country in the Americas regarding COVID.
COVID was a dry run for globalism. Those who managed to avoid the vax dodged a bullet, but, like my colleague in the opening paragraph, they were left with the understanding that, while the COVID scare may be over, the intent of globalists to impose tyranny is not. COVID was merely a dry run – a Kristallnacht that’s the first installment in a plan for all-encompassing tyranny.
As troubling as this realisation is, we can benefit from it by understanding that while the tentacles of globalism do seek to dominate all corners of the globe, they’re less effective than they’d like to be. The world at large does not perform uniformly to the globalist edict.
It matters little whether we see another manufactured viral emergency or whether the next globalist attempt at dominance is justified by unnecessary warfare or by a now-overdue First World economic collapse. The COVID scam has revealed that the worst place to be in a crisis is right at the centre of the storm – the First World.
Interestingly, Uruguay sat out two world wars and the Great Depression almost totally unaffected – they simply didn’t participate, and the country bypassed all three crises. In the colonialist period, attempts were made to colonise nearly every country in southeast Asia, yet Thailand was passed by. As such, to this day, Thais tend to ignore the edicts of the West more than any other Asian nation. Good to know.
There’s no perfect place in the world, but there are locations where the odds of being victimised by the latest Hitler, Robespierre, Idi Amin, etc., are considerably less.
Regardless of the comfort of the familiarity of our birth country, if it’s a First World country, we’re located in the centre of the storm that’s now underway.
If we establish a bolt-hole in another country, our environment will surely change. There may be no Starbucks. There may be no baseball game to watch. But there’s the likelihood that we can provide ourselves and our families with a greater possibility of a continued quality of life than by remaining in a location where a significant decline in freedoms is a near-certainty.
Article cross-posted from International Man.
Bypass Big Tech Censors
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.