In the first three years of Donald John Trump’s presidential tenure, one thing we often marveled at was his ability to get his enemies to shift gears and focus on something else. Well, “shifting gears” is too anodyne a phrase: Trump derailed his opponents and set them on utterly orthogonal courses, careening out of control.

Can we be forgiven if we wonder whether other forces are now doing that?

Take 2020. At the start of the year, media focus shone almost solely upon Trump’s impeachment and trial in the United States Senate. All eyes gazed upon that steaming pile of compost.

Then, the “novel [China] coronavirus.” SARS-CoV-2 took over not merely the national focus, but the world’s. A most amazing turn.

Then, a few weeks ago, it became obvious that the lockdown policies were not going to hold: the people had had enough. Further, knowledgeable opinion was marshaling plausible scientific arguments against the lockdowns’ rationale. Progressives and Biden voters, overwhelmingly for the lockdowns, were seeing diminishing returns for their obsessions about the subject.

As if to save public ire against Trump, then came the execution of George Floyd by a Minneapolis policeman, on camera. An eruption of horror, almost unanimous. The cop was fired and charged with a crime.

Yet protest rallies and marches ensued, despite the apparent working of justice to redress the problem.

And then the riots. Which may have included some infiltrators spurring on the violence.

If you think this might all be a conspiracy to channel public attention, in mad hopes of ousting Trump in the next election, you are probably wrong. But I think you should be given some license to express the idea. You might be right.

Public obsessions turning so quickly on a dime sure look managed!

Illusion, probably. Natural action and reaction, likely. 

But smart people resist being caught up in manias outside their control. Super-smart people place others under their control.

In any case, it seems the case that Trump has lost some of his mojo. He no longer controls the news cycle; he no longer controls the focus of our attention.

twv

Why is not more made of the fact that the supposed Trump economy is really just a chimera based on a loan against the future that serves the rich very well, while mortgaging the middle class’s future and especially that of their children?

…as answered on Quora….

Is that a fact or a theory?

I am not saying it is not true. But the likelihood of a default on the debt is very high, so who ultimately pays may be a bit of an open question. The incidence of the burden shall shift.

Why is not more made of this, though? Great question.

The answer is easy: it is not just about the “Trump economy.”

Economic policy madness is a truly bipartisan effort. The recent and quite unhinged “stimulus” bills that Trump signed ran through the House of Representatives under control of the Democrats, as well as through the GOP majority Senate.

Fiscal irresponsibility is the basic position of both major parties.

Any attempt to characterize this as a mere partisan or personal failure is a nonstarter. The truth of our predicament is that our rush into the future is chaotic and crazy and by consensus. Confronting the truth of government today? Americans simply cannot handle the truth.

Which is perhaps the real reason our politics is so . . . mad. The double bind we have collectively embraced must have some effect. The effect is a kind of schizophrenia. All Americans are implicated. All. And thus politics is basically the drivel of madmen.

…from the last few days on social media….

As anyone may have noticed, I’m not very big into “protests.” I turned on the idea of mass protest pretty thoroughly when I stumbled into Seattle’s 1999 WTO protests by accident, and then watched (from a safe distance) as the protests spiraled into mass violence.

Since I also opposed the WTO, you might think I would have been simpatico with the protesters. But no: they were mainly left-anarchist poseur hippie boys and their earnest, professional girlfriends, spouting contradictory and incoherent gibberish, unlearned and anti-factual and rather stupid.

The biggest difference never receives official attention: “right-wing” protests almost never lead to violence, “left-wing” protests almost always do. 

This wasn’t always the case, and much depends upon how you define left and right, which I blogged about once again today. But in recent memory, left-wing protest tends to lead to rioting.

Remember just a few months and then weeks ago normal Americans — mostly but not all white — were promoting the Second Amendment in Virginia and then protesting the lockdowns in Michigan? In both cases the major media freaked over the weaponry on display. But there was zero to scant violence, during and after.

The main complaints were “I saw a Confederate Flag!” and “They aren’t social distancing!”

But media folks — they don’t mind seeing commie and anarchist flags, pointing their cameras elsewhere, and I haven’t heard any umbrage taken about the protesters in Minneapolis not wearing medical masks.

There were mask-wearers, of course, but those appeared to be rioters — and the Men in Black who were instigating mayhem.

So, one reason there may be violence associated with left-wing protests is that right-wingers sabotage them. But that isn’t the full story, for the anarchists at the WTO riots, and antifa and BAMN at more recent protests, are very, very left-wing, and very, very violent. 

And do a lot of instigating.

While being institutionally supported by George Soros.

Further, masses of leftists seem more violent than masses of rightists.

The lack of objective reporting by the press is interesting. 

It could be ideological: we rah-rah our side, we boo their side! 

But it may be more craven: the media likes to cover violence, so encourages the protests that give corporate heads the stories that help with the bottom line.


I have never denied that SARS-CoV-2 is extremely dangerous. Why, it makes even the uninfected go mad.


Does it need to be said? No matter who instigates a destructive riot, riots are bad. No matter who casts the first stone, so to speak, does not let off the hook the second thrower, or the third, or the fourth. We can make judgments about people who attack innocent people and their property. Condemnation is the standard, traditional, and quite justified judgment.

“Outside instigators of violence” should worry those who think their protests are legitimate. If they go ahead and protest, and do not patrol their ranks, and their peaceful protest breaks out into looting and arson and street violence, then that’s a tragedy. If, however, every time a protest of your cause ends up that way, and yet you organize protests, you become complicit (to some extent) in the horrors of the crime wave.

I have seen credible (but not certain) accusations of instigation to violence in Minneapolis and elsewhere of undercover/off-duty police and of antifa and other anarchist groups, and much speculation about criminals, political groups, etc. What if it were a perfect storm of influences, from left, right and center?

Would it matter to protesters? If what they do is set off violence, then what they do is at best counter-productive.

Something other than protests need to be thought. I have suggestions.

But because they are rational suggestions, irrational people will not engage in them, now, will they?

Defending “peaceful protest” is fine, but if it always ends up violent, the defenses are inapposite.

Remember Martin Luther King, Jr.? Somehow, he took a lot of care to make his marches peaceful.

Today’s protests generally repudiate the principles of MLK. Yet everyone claims to admire him.

Par for the current course, though: seemingly earnest pieties are regularly repudiated in action.


Were you aware that notorious pick-up artist Roosh V. has repudiated his past and now preaches traditional Christian ethics?

I first became aware of him as he began undergoing his transition. It has been interesting to watch. I was of course aware of “the game” for many years, but had never really followed it. Roosh, however, is an interesting case.


So, the challenge is here: the famous anti-HCQ study is probably a fraud.

I had seen someone else make the case yesterday. On Twitter or Gab. Somebody else other than this linked author who deals with data on a regular basis was utterly incredulous about the data set described:

If you’re following at all the search for COVID-19 treatments, and possibly even if not, you will have seen the flurry of media coverage for the observational study in The Lancet ‘Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis. It made the news not least because hydroxychloroquine is the drug President Trump says he is taking in the belief that it will reduce his chance of catching COVID-19. This view is not backed up evidence until some randomised trials come in. Getting in before the trials, the Lancet study used propensity score matching to try to control for the non-random treatment. It found that taking hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine were associated with an increased risk of heart problems.
I am highly skeptical of the powers of hydroxychloroquine with relation to COVID-19 (‘skeptical’ in the sense that I have suspended judgement for now – there simply isn’t evidence either way). But I want the test of its properties to be done properly, with random controlled trials. And if we are to use observational studies (which I do not object to, they just aren’t as useful as an experiment where you can manipulate the treatment), they have to use real data.
The data in that study, and in at least one preprint on a second treatment, were provided by an Illinois firm called Surgisphere. Allegedly the data represents the treatment and health outcomes of 96,032 patients from 671 hospitals in six continents. However, there is simply no plausible way I can think of that the data are real.
I’ll say that again – I believe with very high probability the data behind that high profile, high consequence Lancet study are completely fabricated.

Peter Ellis, “A health data firm making extraordinary claims about its data,” free range statistics, May 30, 2020.

So, a major journal accepts a study on a highly politicized subject and — if this charge holds — scandal ensues.

This is par for the postmodern course, from what I can tell. We do not have as much actual science going on as we are led to believe. Much of it is scientism — pseudoscience. I assume you are aware of the replicability problem that has been dogging the heels of institutional science for the last decade. Many journals have also become corrupt or, at best, inefficient. (I just read the abstract of a paper co-authored by Dan Klein about “the paucity of theory in the Journal of Economic Theory.” Hilarious.) Much of the academic world has lost its way. The “scientific method” is not in practice when the “public testing” element is institutionally scuttled.

The problem, I believe, is government funding. For that puts science into the whorl of special interest incentives, and makes the subject area liable to something very much like “regulatory capture.”

Whole domains of science seem untrustworthy to me:

climatology
paleontology
ancient history
economics

. . . I could go on and on.

Only when academics are held accountable on objective grounds can they be saved from corruption by politics and funding. And since the academy is by definition an exclusionary institution, accountability has to be imposed. It is imperative that non-academics speak up. 

And let us be frank: this case is in part about TDS.


To what extent is COVID-19 panic driven by class insecurities? Most illnesses the well-off can avoid or pay for. The panic began when being rich did not seem to help, while lockdown mania grew as it became clear that the well-off were less negatively affected than the proletarian middle and lower income groups.

twv

The startling horror of wearing stripes with plaid made me go crazy with the filter. Still: stripe v. plaid!
SARS-CoV-2

Last week I published another episode of the LocoFoco Netcast, but forgot to link to it here. So, a little late. . . .

LocoFoco Netcast #11.

The podcast version is on SoundCloud, findable with the domain name LocoFoco.net:

Something I just learned: associating the “right” with both “west” and “moral rectitude” (“dexter”) and “left” with both “east” and “evil” (“sinister”) goes back many millennia to ancient Egypt, when the Theban priests expelled and crushed the Amarna pharaohs and their Atenist cult. The worship of the Aten, you see, was a rite directed at the rising sun. The Theban priests who re-took complete control of Egypt under Horemheb reinstated the worship of the setting sun, the worship of Amen.

So Akhenaten’s religious revolution was not an aberration, not a mere foreshadowing. It was a forming feature of our civilization. Well, we can regard it as so if more linkages with our traditions can be found. And I think there are many such linkages.

But regarding directions: the victorious Amenists won.

It is amusing how “left” and “right” in politics has so transformed our values, though, for in popular discourse “right” no longer carries the implication of moral rectitude, “left” does. Right-wingers are generally despised as evil — by our cultural elites, I mean. Yes, these highly influential left-wingers think of themselves as utterly good, their causes wholly just because (they think) for the good of all, while rightist causes are only for the good of some.

Of course, in truth, popular opinion is filled with illusions.

The drollery here is rich, for, as everyone knows, whether something is to our left or our right depends on where we are looking.

But it is fun to see a memeplex sport such deep roots in our civilization.

Which we can watch burn, livestreamed.

twv

We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.

CIA Director William J. Casey, February 1981, Roosevelt Room, White House

Caricature by Andre Gill.

Progress is in inverse ratio to the coercive action of man on man, in direct ratio to his command over things. The Protectionist, by trying to prevent his countrymen from consuming what they choose, wishes to remove them from the effects of all external progress, and when he gains his ends he may indeed find the most extravagant conceptions of Swift pale before the irony of his creation.

Yves Guyot, The Comedy of Protection, 1906, viii. (h/t Common Sense with Paul Jacob).

. . . descends deeper into depravity by pushing for an unlikely candidate for the Vice President:

Joe Biden’s concern about the national-security impact of the coronavirus has led him to weigh picking the Obama-administration national security adviser Susan Rice as his running mate, according to several people who’ve spoken privately with the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee in recent weeks.

Rice is well known in Washington, but has a much lower national profile than most of the other women being considered, and comes with few conventional political upsides. She isn’t particularly likely to be selected, people inside the campaign say (some who have spoken about her with Biden see her as a more likely pick for secretary of defense or secretary of state), and Rice has told confidants that she knows that.

But the interest Biden has expressed in Rice reflects his concerns that the ongoing economic and public-health crisis the U.S. faces may require him to pick a strong national-security hand as his running mate.

Considering that Ms. Rice both accused Trump of treason and has admitted under oath that she had no reason to believe her charge, her VP possibility is, shall we say, an interesting choice.

Doubling down on treachery must be the new plan.

Read the rest of this entry »

I am halfway through the four-part Netflix documentary series on Jeffrey Epstein. It is very good. I think all girls should watch it, perhaps everybody should.

Epstein was an Enchanter. He behaved like an Archon: manipulative, resting much of his power on being charismatic and very smart. He not only got about a hundred teenage girls to service him sexually, he gained their compliance as recruiters, and as “hostesses” to service others — Mata Hari harlots — and he used both fear and benefits to ape legitimate contracts, which means, also, the threats and enticements functioned as post-transactional loyalty inducements.

I call him an Archon not just because he reminds me of the Principalities and Powers of ancient lore — the angels, devils, Fallen Ones, Anunnaki — but also the charismatic leaders of States, indeed of the State itself. States behave almost exactly like Epstein did, combining abuse with benefits, in a context of fake contractual arrangements.

But Archon in a third sense, too: Epstein was almost certainly in the employ of some state spy group, or two, or more. He operated a sophisticated sexual Honey Trap to catch illustrious men and blackmail them for … information? influence? So, Epstein was a Deep State player, and thus the worst kind of Archon.

Alas, I do not think the series will go on long enough to cover all of this. One episode has to be devoted to his last few months alive, right? Which means that there is only one episode to delve into most of what I discuss here. Episodes one and two make the case against him that was developed in Florida and by the DBI up to the mid-2000s.

Preparing to be disappointed.

Still, this is must-see TV.

twv

Leaders have the courage of their own convictions. 

Censors have the cowardice of their own convictions.

twv