There is a distinction, current in sociobiology, that is worth noting for our understanding of racism: the difference between positive and negative ethnocentrism.

As I understand it, positive ethnocentrism is the tendency to prefer your own kind over others, to give them special consideration. This is basically family love and commonality taken beyond clan and to the tribal and even national level. Negative ethnocentrism is the tendency to disfavor, discount or even hate members not of your kith and kin and country.

The importance of positive ethnocentrism to the survival and progress of our species can hardly be under-estimated. Negative ethnocentrism is a much more difficult subject, and it would be worth knowing how much of it is a mere extrapolation from positive ethnocentrism and how much derives from the same or quite distinct impulses/instincts.

Of course, one value of negative ethnocentrism is fairly obvious: it bolsters positive ethnocentrism. But it presents also a danger, for negative ethnocentrism can embroil societies in warfare that advances no group’s welfare. Internecine conflict bought on hatred, loathing or mere fear is just that, internecine, unprofitable for all parties. The obvious problem with negative ethnocentrism is that it leads to negative sum interactions.

Now, it is obvious that both forms require a regulatory propensity, tradition, or law. Or something. One can be too positively ethnocentric as well as too negatively ethnocentric. I suspect the lack of any kind of ethnocentrism is also a vice.

Now, racism takes the group particularism beyond nation (shared genes and language and culture) to a larger grouping based on certain morphological markers of no small but often less definite significance — shared genes are fewer, several language groups could be involved, and the cultures can be startlingly different. Anti-racism started out as an attack on racism as a negative ethnocentrism unbounded by nationalism. But ideas don’t stay put, and hidden in each memeplex lies the seed of its own destruction . . . when the “infected” take one salient element to an unwarranted extreme. We witness just this in current woke attacks upon racism that have led to attacks upon any kind of positive ethnocentrism (at least by powerful white people). The result is a bizarre altruism: the fear and hatred not of the outsider but of one’s own kind.

There are few mind viruses more loopy than white intellectuals hating on whites . . . in general. This cultural development is ridiculous, in that it is anti-racism carried to the unwarranted extreme of an inverse (rather than reverse) racism.

It is probably worth mentioning that one impetus for the development of this inverse racism is likely quite simple: noticing that racism-as-hatred entails fallacious discriminatory treatment against individuals because of an invidious distaste or distrust of members of their race in general, it crosses one’s mind that discriminatory treatment for individuals because of a valorized love of one’s own kind is also kind of fallacy. And it can be. But a predisposition for one’s own kind is not on the same level of error, for a number of reasons. Like what? Well, one of them is our limited capacity for altruistic action, which requires us to expect limitations in fellow-feeling, and, by a small step in reasoning, we should expect it to flourish most in cases of similarity and commonality (not “identity”); it is in family, clan, community and culture where we should expect to see altruism first flourish, and if we do not see it here, we are unlikely to see it elsewhere. A moralistic duty to cultivate altruism for people furthest from us is likely to induce a pharisaic sense of love and a heightening of ugly moralism in culture.

Which we do in fact see.

Whereas positive ethnocentrism is an oikophilia, the reversal stemming from fanatical attachment to anti-racist ideas is sometimes called oikophobia; whereas negative ethnocentrism is called xenophobia, the inverse racism valorizing others over “ours” gets the moniker xenocentrism.

So far I have not taken up the philosophical account of racism. That defines racism as the taking into the realm of justice the errors of fools: namely, the errors of judging parts by wholes and wholes by parts, the misconstruing of the relationship between sets and members, the fallacies of ad hominem and guilt by association, and even the genetic fallacy.

These are obviously complex subjects, but it has to be useful to draw out the full continua on which the concepts associated with racism and anti-racism belong. While I am aware of some of the phenomenological literature on this, and have read a few relevant papers in sociobiology, I am obviously a beginner here. But I do notice something: many well-regarded experts seem laggard in this endeavor to draw out the full range of key concepts.

So, though there has to be much good work done on this subject, it remains regrettable that it is the shoddy, beginner-level work that too often stands out. This apparent fact, however, does not mean that the subject is suspect. Merely that most participants are.

Oh, and it is OK to be white. If you think otherwise, on what grounds? That some who say this are racist? That is illogical, as we say: fallacious. The fallacy is guilt by association.

For the record, I rarely think of myself as “white.” But because I am of solid Yamnaya genetics, hailing from Finland with genetic markers labeling that heritage at about 96 percent, I sometimes express commonality with my fellow Finns and Finnish-Americans. But because I am also an individualist, my particular flavor could be called Finndividualism.

There are not many of us Finndividualists, but perhaps more in America than in the woke home country.

twv

Why were the ideas of the Austrian School of Economics never implemented?

. . . as answered on Quora. . . . 

The “Austrian School” is a movement of social scientists sharing similar method while working out a rigorous analysis that first flowered in late 19th century Vienna. The tradition started with Carl Menger’s Grundsätse in 1871, and carried on in several major works by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk and Friedrich Freiherr von Wieser in the 1880s, till their deaths. Böhm-Bawerk’s work quickly became world-famous, especially his writings on capital and interest, his extremely clear explanations of Menger’s price formation theory, and his understanding of subjective value in the concept of what Wieser called Grenznutzen (“marginal use” or, more commonly, marginal utility). Wieser formulated the crucial concept of opportunity cost, building on work of the French Liberal School economists Frédéric Bastiat and Courcelle-Seneuil. Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, and Wieser were all Austrians, as were a great number of the next generation of the movement — Eugen Philippovich von Philippsberg, Viktor Mataja, Richard Strigl, Hans Mayar — and, of course, the two that remain the most famous, Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek.

Menger gave up academia for tutoring the crown prince of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. He hoped to influence policy — and it is policy that is meant by “ideas” to be “implemented” in the OQ, right? — through his instruction of that one man. Who committed suicide for murky reasons, making Menger’s career bet a bad one. But both B-B and Wieser held major positions in the government. B-B was even on currency.

They did implement Austrian ideas on policy, B-B especially. Later on, Mises, working for the Chamber of Commerce, advised the government. Some say he helped save as much of the old liberal order that could have been, by fighting inflationism. Mises developed a coherent and powerful theory of the business cycle (trade cycle) which was taken up by the younger scholar, F.A. Hayek, who predicted America’s Great Depression while the great Irving Fisher asserted it was all roses just on the eve of disaster in 1929. Hayek went to the London School of Economics, where he elaborated the Misesian theory in interesting and perhaps ungainly ways, caused quite a furor (convincing many), but was then outdone by Keynes.

Why did Keynes “win” this debate? He offered a few very enticing things, the most important being an excuse for politicians and ideologues-on-the-make to engage in governmental fiscal recklessness, spending more than revenue and increasing the levels of debt, and push monetary inflation, as well. Austrian policy is designed to restrain government and serve the greatest number of people through stability. That is, politically, no match for the Keynesian Temptation. Besides, Keynes’s General Theory, his second big book to push his favorite policy (Hayek “destroyed” the first one, which almost no one reads any more), was such a conceptual mess it gave academics whole careers trying to make sense of it and defend it. Hayek was late in the game with his behemoth failure, The Pure Theory of Capital, which could have had a similar effect, except that the Austrians never encouraged elaborate mathematical formalism, and economists hoping to become court wizards to the emerging welfare state order needed that bit of hocus pocus to advance their social position.

Mises, meanwhile, belatedly fleeing Austria from the Nazis (who hated Mises for being a liberal and a Jew), moved to Switzerland and then the States, in which he could not get a good teaching position through normal means: the crowding-out effect of the order of wizards meant that the universities had no interest in this pioneer theorist of ordinal utility, money, boom-bust and banking, and the impossibility of economic calculation in a socialist commonwealth — he was shut out. He was left to pick up just a few students who carried on this now quite fugitive and subversive work: Israel Kirzner and Murray N. Rothbard are the two great Austrians who came out of the 1960s.

Mises was considered an “intransigent,” occasionally embarrassing fellow liberal/libertarians like Milton Friedman (who was not Austrian in approach). Like in the case of business cycle theory, the Mises-Hayek critique of socialist calculation (another of Hayek’s LSE projects) was said to have been “won” by their enemies. Then, after the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed, the Austrian position triumphed. Even the egregious Robert Heilbroner admitted that “Mises was right.”

Every time a socialist state dies, replaced by something more market oriented, I tip my hat to Mises’ shade and smile when I say “now that is a kind of implementation of Austrian policy; step in the right direction, anyway.”

twv

I’ve heard a number of theories about why the vaxxed want to force the vax upon the unvaxxed.

All have some merit, perhaps, including the one I just encountered: “they want you dead!”

But I think a somewhat more subtle and occult rationale is more likely at play: the vaxxed know there are huge unknowns, and that the resolutely unvaxxed claim that the vax may be [“is”] deadly. This makes the vaxxed uncomfortable. They hate the unvaxxed, despise the unvaxxed. But they fear the unvaxxed may be correct. So one reason for universal forced vaccination may be to ensure that if their enemies are right, their enemies die too. They have made their gamble, and wish to make sure everyone shares the risk.

Which is the essence of left statism, now that I think of it.

Universal vaccination may serve, psychologically, as the most outlandish defense against falsifiability and a partisan ”we told you so” in human history.

twv

What we know, pretty much for sure:

1. Fauci funded Daszak to create SARS-CoV-2 via gain-of-function research ostensibly to develop a robust mRNA vaccine in case of a zoonotic outbreak — but the carelessness or evil of folks on the ground at the Wuhan Institute for Virology (the Chinese who circuitously received U.S. tax funds) means that an iatrogenic leak preëmpted the “expected” breakout and “necessitated” a hasty and under-studied deployment of said treatments.

2. Democrats — from at least the Bill Clinton Administration on — have had tight, and quite suspicious, relationships with the “communists” in China.

Joe Biden’s son and brother received millions for their . . . influence peddling . .. from Chinese “businesses.” Biden was anti-Russia and pro-China as a campaign strategy. Democrats generally lambasted Trump for his half-quarantining travel embargo on China (early 2020) and for calling the new pathogen “the China virus,” saying it was “racist”to do so — even after they had been parlaying hatred and distrust, dangerously, at “Russia” for four years, on trumped-up (excuse me) evidence, now quite clear in the Mueller Report and later investigations.

What we must, therefore,* speculate:

3. Insiders in and around the Democratic Party and within the Administrative State (both Deep and Wide) have been working for decades to shift American power to China, in a great baton hand-off of imperialist power (let’s call it “The Mandate of Heaven”), just as British liberals and bankers did to America in the first half of the 20th century. Their reaction to the pandemic has fit in with this agenda, though most stumbled into it by Invisible Hand influences.

I think this is a pretty good surmise. It may not be true. I think it probably is, but am willing to drop it if falsified.

But the Democrats’ general preference for the Chinese commies is quite clear, and despicable. Further, the corruption of the Clintons was clear in the 1990s, just as the corruption of the Bidens is clear today.

Since the 1990s, to repeat, America’s globalist role has been deprecated in favor of China’s reëmergence. By whom? Name the suspects. Whoever; whomever. In any case, even our generals need to signal their willingness to go along with this transfer of power, hence the alleged call of General Milley to his counterpart in the Celestial Kingdom. These American leaders have to jockey for survival even as they negotiate the greatest power hand-off of all time.

What the precise machinations are I’ve barely a clue. But the American nation state is bankrupt financially and culturally — it is pretty much over.

The key drivers behind all this may be a tad more mundane than a conspiracy, I do not doubt:

  1. Big Pharma profits;
  2. Groupthink on a grand scale, a lemming stampede based on fear and disinformation
  3. The statist presumption of salvation by State intervention;
  4. Trump Derangement Syndrome and all the ideological baggage that entailed;
  5. The leftist assumption that ”we” (westerners; Americans) are bad and ”they” (whatever the Other of the Day may be) are innocent, victims of ”our” oppression;
  6. Media and political gains from dividing people against each other;
  7. A complete lack of leadership to marshal courage in Americans, whose experience is key worldwide;
  8. Civilizational Death Wish?!?!

But these underlying forces, which sure seem operative everywhere these days, do not explain everything. The existence of international elites as well as partisan American elites cannot be doubted, but their exact agenda? How coordinated is it? I suspect that there has been coordination at key moments all through the pandemic. But hey! Can all this be proven?

Well, not when evidence is deliberately lied about and suppressed, and dissidents de-platformed. And not, especially, while thought leaders continually accept stonewalling evasion as dissuasive of guilt, when it should be regarded as indicative of same. We have to accept common standards of evidence to prove something, and American politics has abandoned any shared standard of evidence since at least Reagan’s time, when GHWB and friends engaged in Iran-Contra.

twv

* The imperative, here, lies in the Precautionary Principle, if applied in ways not accepted by those who usually try to implement it.

How to get kicked off a progressive-run platform and still come out ahead

The extent to which statists, particularly illiberal, ”progressive” statists, quite consciously work against the idea of freedom, can hardly be underestimated. Progressives hate liberty. Even when they are too muddle-headed to understand that their basic conceptions of normative philosophy run against the idea of freedom, their revulsion against the very word liberty — and especially against any notion of liberty as a limit to government — shows through.

We who study these two very different standards do know, though, and should not be shocked when the one turns against the other and seeks to destroy it.

The idea of liberty as justice gave us free speech as a legal and as a cultural standard. Progressives, who have whored after ”social justice,” have given up on all such liberal notions. They are into censorship now. Way in.

My favorite example of this is not all the social media nonsense lying about COVID or suppressing news about Biden or constantly pushing calumnies against Trump. My favorite example? Quora kicking off Dennis Pratt.

But, considering where Mr. Pratt has re-directed his attentions, that may have not have been a prudent move on the part of Progressive Quora (P Q).

For this, see my latest podcast:

And video at:

twv

The zodiacal ages since the Ice Age ended.

We have abortion, the ancients had child sacrifice.

We are profane, they were pious.

That was my first takeaway, anyway, from “Ancient Carthaginians really did sacrifice their children,” an article from the University of Oxford.

Next, try to understand the idea of sacrifice. The religious fixation on the rite of sacrifice is fascinating. For years I’ve pushed the notion of the practice as important in establishing a moral universe with an integral cost concept. Without a sense of cost, morality is impossible. Sacrifice is crude but perhaps effective in this task.

I think I have heard Jordan Peterson pushing something like that.

Anyway, the ancient Egyptians sacrificed bulls. But that was in the Age of Taurus. Upper Egypt kept the Apis Bull Worship going even after the Age of Aries began. In Lower Egypt, the folks living next to the Giza pyramids knew better, that the Ram had replaced the Bull. This became a central concept in the development of Mediterranean (“Middle Earth!”) and Mesopotamian religion. Genesis and Exodus both encode that transition. And the BC/AD divide marks the beginning of the Age of Pisces, of the Fisher Kings — the sign of the fish and all that.

Could the Carthaginians have engaged in holdover rites from the Age of Gemini, when twins were the religious fixation? I know not. Seems a stretch.

We are still a ways away from the Age of Aquarius. Or already in it. Depends on who you ask. I am unsure of why this would be of prime importance for philosophy — but the ancients were obsessed with the Great Year. Still reeling from the catastrophes of the Ice Age, they were understandably obsessed. And putting the idea of cyclical regularity into the major religions was, for them, a natural notion. And interweaving it into our collective unconscious with sacrifice? I guess that seemed vitally important.

twv

“Overuse of vaccines will drive the development of viruses that are able to evade vaccination.”

“The people that will suffer from this naïve, inappropriate policy of global universal forced vaccination when the potent virus escaped mutants develop will be those people at high risk, the people who most need the vaccine.”

Malone appearing on Jimmy Dore’s show.

Dr. Robert Malone, initial developer of the mRNA vaccine technology, basically (but not explicitly) backing up Geert Vanden Bossche’s fear of massive immune escape driven by universal vaccination with a limited-utility vaccine.

He goes on to say that he believes this technology can be good, but only if targeted at specific populations. Previously, he had noted that forced universal vaccination goes against everything he was taught about bioethics and proper, moral medical practice, which entirely rests upon informed consent. Everyone, he says, has the right to reject medical treatment.

I am only 17 minutes in, and cannot watch the whole thing right now. But Dr. Malone — whom if you have been following the subject* is almost certainly known to you — provides an important perspective on the current contagion and immediate over-reaction by governments and the karen class.

As all my friends know, I hazard that the current pandemic response is revolutionary: a psy-op, as well as an act of war by China and the elites against the American and world population. I also believe that . . . oh, well, you know what I suspect . . . that the new fascism has arrived, that Democrats are establishing it with lip-smacking glee at their new-found grip on power, and that all you who parrot the psy-op slogans (the CDC’s clever-but-evil assurance that the jabs are “Safe, effective, and free!”) are behaving like (and are the moral equivalent of) those Weimar Germans who saw hope in the chancellorship of You-Know-Who.


I hope I don’t understate things. I believe it is evil to promote universal vaccination with experimental technology whose utility is diminishing right before our eyes during the rollout.

If you spread the idea of universal vaccination, you are not merely wrong, you are morally wrong, and should stop. You don’t need to reject all vaccines or the idea of widespread use of some vaccines. You just need to look at the risks and look at standard Hippocratic practice to know that you are morally wrong to demand others “get the jab.”


Yesterday I shared on social media Richard Dolan’s excellent discussion of the current situation:

My only disagreement with Dolan is his underplaying of China’s role.

But be that as it may, we are now seeing the Therapeutic State, which Thomas Szasz warned about for decades — he saw its emergence in institutional psychiatry — come into its own as a totalitarian global order. The New World Order as prescribed by billionaires and Deep State operatives like George Herbert Walker Bush and “crazed futurists” is being established right now.

Dolan thinks there is hope, that we have time to stop it. I won’t be the one to dash that hope. For now.

twv

Government has always been eager to save you from the problems it has caused.

Now, with gain-of-function research proved under NIH’s aegis, we know this is quite literally true regarding the pandemic.

The only way to break free of statism’s ratcheting circular non-argument is to openly disbelieve and to mock government officials and disobey their orders.

“The state is the coldest of all cold monsters, everything it possesses it has stolen and every word out of its mouth is a lie.”

Nietzsche’s great observation, from memory.

Supporting state coercion because you are afraid of a disease the government gave you is to be a pathetic weasel, unfit for civilized discourse: you should be shunned, not praised.

Don’t be a weasel. Don’t be a slave. Break free of the slaver’s mill, which goes round and round and round and breaks you.

A Facebook friend gave me push-back for this:
Stirring up fears is certainly a recurring pattern in electoral politics, and democratic practices are, to varying degrees, everywhere flawed, but why, several generations on from representative government being seriously attempted, is it still part of entirely normal discourse to regard “the State” (hence any state) as wholly other?

My response:
It is a system with its known properties, and I don’t regard it as wholly other. It is in some sense a representation of a certain type of human soul, one we all sometimes also represent: the repackaging of vice as virtue. I do not regard it as wholly other from humanity. Though I do regard it as something wholly other from me. I am not the State. I mostly criticize the states that say I am theirs. I try to get those who are in my same pickle to stop thinking of the State as their Savior, and see it for its actual qualities, and consider, where we can find them, alternatives.

Facebook, Timo Virkkala’s personal page, September 12, 2021 — whence hails all the squibs in today’s blogpost.

Why would you believe anything from people who suppress debate? Why would you trust the expertise of those who will not honestly respond to criticism?

None of the information we are told is reliable, much of what has been said as official truth has been proven to be lies, and the people who push all this ”information” couple it with draconian policy that just so happens to advance their their careers and their class at the expense of the non-professional majority. The whole pandemic has been managed as if to show the extremity of Franz Oppenheimer‘s theory of The State as an exploitation system, coupled with Molinari’s Terrorism theory of the State, and explanations of special interest politics by Pareto, Mises, Buchanan and others. Going in, I was deeply suspicious because I was more than aware of the possibilities for abuse by “experts.” I was not suspicious enough.

And now comes forced vaccination of a vaccine that cannot possibly induce herd immunity, and may very well induce immune escape.

But it is a good way to end the republic. So there is that.


We are told to believe things all the time that stink of a lie from the beginning, but which people just blithely accept.

One such story? That Seal Team Six killed Osama bin Laden and threw his body into the ocean so that it wouldn’t cause problems.

Yeah, right. That makes sense.

A more likely scenario? One of Osama’s lookalike doubles was discovered, and the Barack Obama administration decided to tie up a “loose end” in the war on terror. So they sent in soldiers not to arrest the man — that would have left things quite untied — but to shoot him, and then they got rid of the DNA evidence so to not show what happened.

Maybe this was the moment that I stopped believing any official story. Because I bought the 9/11 explanations as they came at us fast and furious, and for a long time. But the Osama bin Laden assassination was a dumb story. If true, that makes Obama look like a cretin. He was many things, and many things bad, but he was not a cretin.

Then again, people bought the story, so. . . . Reality looks more and more like a very bad paranoid movie, one where even your greengrocer is a conspirator.


The President declared that the unvaxxed in workplaces put the vaxxed at risk.

This either shows you how bad the vaxxes are, or that the president just wants an excuse for tyranny.


I shared a thought from last year today.

Credulity. “Being a mark.” The study of how cons are pulled off should then be applied to policy discussion in modern times.

The current con job that has been rolled out worldwide is to force vaccination onto people, even when it is obvious it would not help them, even when it would hurt them. You know, “to save other people.” You know you are talking to a con artist when he narrows the spread of options, focusing tightly onto an issue and never bringing in obvious and quite salient factors.

Re: vaccination? When they don’t talk about natural immunity and when they push vaccination on the immunodeficient. These vaxxers, then, are either con artists or the deluded-by-same, and spreading their idea pathogens “rationally.” What I remember most about 2020 is how governments ginned up fear but never once advised people to eat healthy, get plenty of sunshine, take the apt vitamin and mineral supplements, and exercise. This really is the marker. If there’s a contagion spread by breath, and they tell you to stay indoors, they are probably evil.

Other clues: they suppress debate and information-sharing and curb the search for treatments. When they scorn a treatment as, say, “horse de-wormer” or just unapproved, and then demand everyone accept jabs of experimental, under-studied drugs made in tandem with gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China, then the level of psy-op has gone beyond the madness of crowds level. We are dealing with more than just the gullible.

What would we call it?

Please excuse me if I speculate about civilizational death wish.

A friend commented on the above:
In addition to all their civilization ending death wishes, the normies have absolutely no understanding of immune function and its importance to dealing with v viruse. There are numerous immune related topics to which they respond as if I were explaining the same subjects to my cat. They do not understand that the deadly ARDS stage of lung clogging is the result of an impaired immune systems’ over-reaction to the virus. Therefore, they did not understand the importance of immune boosting to preclude that phenomenon. They don’t understand that immune boosting occurs with high doses of vitamin D3, vitamin C and zinc along with HCQ and/or quercetin. They don’t understand that ivermectin is safe and has antiviral properties. Therefore, they do not understand the importance and efficacy of early treatments. They don’t understand that the vaccine is not an antibiotic that simply kills the virus. I could go on and on because they understand nothing about the medical science aspects of the virus and the illness that it causes. Whenever any of these points are made even with a peer reviewed medical study, their response 98% of the time is a laughing emoji.

Bob Roddis, Facebook, September 13, 2021.

I’ve known this all my life. Its play in in-group hierarchies and out-group marginalization is what led me to consider political philosophy.

I never bought into the idea that government is primarily established and maintained to provide unequivocal public goods, benefitting all. I have always known that human being are far more warped than that, and that government provides a perfect machinery for advantaging a few at the expense of the many, and then churning the issue and doing it for a different set of exploiter/exploited. This was obvious to me at age 14. Why it is not obvious to everyone puzzles me.

Maybe it was my sensitivity to small betrayals by friends in school that led me to a realistic view of human nature.


The demented president of the federal union of states, humiliated by his own false assurances and lies about the Afghanistan pull-out, is trying to fix his plummeting approval ratings by sparking the ultimate Us vs. Them panic. His expressions of disgust for those who refuse to vax up, in the context of a witlessly mad and madly spooked population, may prove the uncorking of the shaken bottle of our civil war. “Our patience is wearing thin.”

This could be the modern equivalent of Goebbel’s Beer Hall Putsch speech of November 9, 1938.

Goebbels spoke in [Hitler’s] place and announced to those assembled the news of the diplomat’s death. Then he reported on the antiJewish manifestations that had erupted in Kurhesse and Magdeburg-Anhalt, adding that Hitler, after hearing his ideas, had decided that the party should do nothing either to help prepare or organize such demonstrations. However, he added, should such outbursts take place spontaneously, no attempt ought to be made stop them.

Stefan Kley, “Hitler and the Pogrom of November 9/10, 1938,” Yad Vashem: The World Holocaust Remembrance Center.

Squibs:

According to this nurse — protected for now by the videographer’s code of anonymity — medical professionals do not test for or even talk about the “Delta Variant.” There is no test.

Presumably a few people look at viral strains under an electron microscope or similar tool.

What she sees in her hospital work is the normal COVID-19 symptoms in incoming patients and patients with symptoms (such as blood clotting; cardiac issues; cognitive problems; encephalitis; kidney issues) that she believes derive from the “vaccines.” But doctors shut her down mid-sentence when she makes the connection between the vaccine and the new patients. And there is no reporting to VAERS.

This is the madness not of crowds but of elites.

This discussion also talks about the strange official fixation on a drug with a shady history — remdesivir — and the anathematization of alternative treatments — like generic HCQ and Ivermectin. My expertise in medical matters is of course non-existent. But I can follow how people argue. The reason I doubt official explanations for the disease and its treatments? Because the official statements are patently absurd, contradictory, uninformed, and often simple lies. If our leaders cannot talk rationally about costs and benefits, risks and rewards, but merely repeat selling pitches like ”safe and effective,” they are to be scorned as scum of the earth. So I remain doubtful of the officially approved protocols. I thought we had learned early on that ‘ventilators’ were not a good treatment, causing damage to COVID patients, but apparently this extreme measure remains s.o.p.

Something very strange is going on.

There is a reason I talk about occult concepts, like “conspiracy” and “civilizational death wish” and “the madness of crowds” — because irrational behavior requires an explanation, and until you know for sure, consider powerful concepts even if they are scorned by our betters in the cognitive elite.


In my most recent podcast, I added a snippet from Peter Daszak. It’s one of several where he admitted to creating a virus out of a SARS-like bat virus in the Wuhan labs, with spiked proteins, the better to make a vaccine.

His pre-COVID confessions are known.

It is part of our body of historical knowledge.

Yet I know people who deny that SARS-CoV-2 is a product gain-of-function research.

Now, it sounds to me, from listening to Daszak, that he may very well be earnest. A fool, but earnest. He didn’t think he was participating in a bioweaponry scheme.

But the Chinese almost certainly did. There was and is military presence at the Wuhan labs.

So, Daszak and Fauci (who directed funding to Daszak) may not have known they were being played, though we cannot be certain they are not pure evil, rather than being corrupt evil fools. Give them the benefit of the doubt? When they confess their sins. Then we can listen. Until then, all possibilities must be on the table, and these two characters may be guilty of crimes against humanity.

Yet most people just accept the “wisdom” and “expertise” of the latest pronouncements from personnel at the CDC and the NIH. Who themselves have dirty hands.


The idea of mandatory vaccination has always been pushed in the context of herd immunity, with the hopes of eradicating the disease being fought, has it not?

The vaccines now being pushed, and which Biden wants to make mandatory (but admits he has trouble doing within constitutional limits), cannot induce herd immunity, and their efficacy is plummeting. The “safe and effective” talking point is decaying faster than a slug in salt.

And 14,000 VAERS deaths, in the context of most hospitals not reporting vaccinated folks’ deaths to VAERS, apparently means nothing to people.

And still I encounter whole conversations about mandating vaccines with no one mentioning natural immunity. No one. I have theories why, but I don’t know for sure.

Madness.


Scott Adams can be quite the ass, sometimes:

Once again, note what is missing.

My response identified what Mr. Adams performatively pooh-poohs:

The immunocompromised shouldn’t be taking vaccines of any kind, much less these COVID concoctions. The status of the current vaccines, especially the mRNA ones, stinks: they are under-studied, and there is a lot we do not know about them; the studies that have been made are proprietary and full of hype, and were obviously not as good as at first billed; any added oomph the FDA approval could have made was vitiated by the rules the FDA broke to loosely justify the imprimatur; there has been so much lying and bullying about this experimental technology that caution is in order.

The reported harms caused by the mRNA treatments seem far riskier than the slim benefits, discounted from the hype by known liars. We live in the age of psy-op and propaganda. That has to figure in our risk assessments. We cannot trust even what our doctors say. We have to nurture suspicion. How many lies and goal-post moves does it take to inculcate a culture of incredulity?

I didn’t mention in my Twitter response that I live in a county with plenty of fat people and no deaths as a result of COVID. There is a clue here.

And, also not mentioned by Adams — as an option for why one might not want to vax up — is natural immunity. This is always blanked out in discussions with careless, thoughtless people. It is astounding that Adams would fall into that category. I suspect that when doctors say the vax is better than any natural immunity of those who have fought off the disease, they have fallen for junk science.

This elision of natural immunity from medical discussion does not pass the smell test.

In other words, it stinks.

twv

Strike the Match, LocoFoco’s Back

Stephen Schumacher was minding his own business in the quaint town of Port Townsend, Washington, when the world went crazy!

Yes, after a long stretch of no podcasting, I am back, this time with a friend from my days in the vineyards (metaphorical) of Liberty. That is, Liberty magazine, which I worked on from its inception in 1987 and continued until the summer of 1999. While Steve occasionally helped out at Liberty, probably on computers, it’s been many decades: my memory will not hold up to interrogation.

Be that as it may, Steve had settled in Jefferson County before I got there, and he stayed.

And what has he been doing? Recently, Steve has been fighting the good fight where he lives, writing letters to the editor, providing data and reason to the Covidians on his county’s council, confronting the local health department and more:

LocoFoco Netcast, vlog version: September 9, 2021.

The audio version is ready for listening on SoundCloud or your favorite podcatcher: