Archives for category: A Journal of a Plague Year

While we chortle watching Democratic insiders scramble to pretend that

  • there is no recession,
  • inflation is no big deal,
  • their goofy tax increase package (complete with IRS-agent/audit-increase measures) will decrease inflation (it won’t), or
  • jabbing infants with COVID “vaccines” is a good idea,

it’s not so funny when we comprehend that the Republican response is led by

  • Trump.

While I’m not now nor have ever been a NeverTrumper, my huzzahs for the former president are severely muted.

Why? Well, Trump is almost as much to blame as Biden & Co. for the current fiasco. His last year in office was a disaster.

While watching a terrific report on the Wuhan Lab Leak Theory, it became clear to me from Trump’s own mouth just how in-over-his-head he was in 2020.

Yet Donald Trump still defends Operation Warp Speed and the vaccine roll-out. He glories in it.

What he doesn’t seem to realize that it was the vaxx that allowed for the governors — and world governments — to inflict lockdowns for months and even years longer than made any sense (much less that they had any right to inflict them).

It was the lockdowns that led to the bailouts that led to the money supply increases coincident with supply reductions that led to the current stagflationary morass.

Biden cannot blame Trump, though, and indeed isn’t blaming Trump — for he wants to do more of the same that got us into our fix.

But as horrible as Biden is, it was Trump who signed the bailout checks — not only to individuals but also to major corporations — and it was Trump’s pushing Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx up into daily prominence that allowed the contagion of mask mandates, lockdowns, and bad therapeutics to rule while we all “waited” for the vaccines.

And it is Trump who is marshaling the forces against the egregious Democrats.

This does not bode well.

But, again, it is hard to lambaste Trump to the exclusion of the Democrats, with their unhinged fixation on the January 6th mini-riot leading them to their seemingly insane belief that they have something on the man, to prevent him from running again. The FBI raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence better be something more than what it looks like, a witless fishing expedition. For only the Democrats could make a Trump 2024 run look like a good idea.

That’s American politics today: there is no “bipartisan” loyalty in opposition any longer. Each side breeds its Nemesis, and suffers for it . . . while feeling, somehow, class-righteous.


. . . from Facebook two years ago. . . .

The self-fulfilling prophecy often rests on a more basic trap: the self-reinforcing policy.

You support a policy because you are alarmed at how awful x is, so you support policy A, which you say fights x. But policy A increases x. So when x increases, you double down on policy A. Demand more measures of an A-ish nature, and continued support of policy A. Because x!

This makes you a fool, of course, but most of us are fools about something, and it is impolite to call each other foolish, since there never would be an end to it. So, in politics, folly increases.

Here are some examples:

1. Low-skilled worker unemployment is bad, since it leads to crime, drug-use, family breakdown, and, of course, more unemployment. So, policy A: Raise the legal minimum wage rate! This of course increases unemployment, as economists have explained for two hundred years, requiring more state aid. But most people don’t listen to economists except when economists back up their prejudices. And since state aid is obviously designed to help the afflicted, we are not unreasonably distracted from noticing that policy A is responsible. Now focused entirely on intentions, not on means or results, when someone like me suggests getting rid of A, oh, the outcry! Raise A instead! This ensures more unemployment, more state aid, and a great deal of Pharisaic posturing. Forever and ever amen.

2. Terrorism is bad. Terrorists often come from foreign lands. So policy A: ‘let’s fight terrorists over there, not here!’ But bombing innocent weddings and children and the like in the War on Terror increases resentments that lead to terrorism here and elsewhere in the First World. But terrorism spurs resentment here as well, thus increasing support for policy A, the War on Terror. Which ramps up the violence, and. . . .

3. The latest contagion is bad. Undoubtedly. The standard way to deal with this is to quarantine the infected, isolate the at-risk population, and let the healthy part of the population get infected and handle the disease with their immune systems, and then build up herd immunity. But that is not a very woke way of doing things, so a new policy, let’s call it . . . A . . . would isolate the healthy population. Now, that is taking x seriously! Of course, we are now on a new course, and we aren’t concentrating on the at-risk populations, like those in nursing homes, and are even sending those who should be quarantined into nursing homes, leading to alarming death rates. This panics the proponents of the new policy A, so they demand . . . more of policy A, not the older policy, which is so passé — or should I say ‘pass-A’? The panicky folk demand evermore A, which prevents herd immunity. But when suppport for A diminishes, and a return to normalcy occurs, the number of cases of infection increase. Entirely to be expected, but it is ‘proof’ of a need for more A! So, A is re-introduced. Sure, it’ll decrease herd immunity and mean that more people will die later on, but hey: ‘at least we tried’!

Policies that reinforce themselves by their ‘failure’ are the favorite kind of policies of fools. Whole ideologies congeal around them. And certain unscrupulous people encourage them in full knowledge.

It is so easy to manipulate fools.

And since it is folly to tell fools of their folly — what is the percentage in that? — folly is self-reinforcing.

And it is my own folly that I persist, since there is a good chance that when they come to take me away to the new concentration camp — let’s call it camp A — many of the people I have called fools will shout huzzahs.

Making me the biggest fool of all.

So folly is bad. . . .

twv, July 3, 2020 (Facebook)

This was pushed at me on Facebook by Pfizer. This is cultic cringe.

“Believing in science” is parodic of Christian phraseology — but sans satiric intent or even mockery, making it itself mockworthy.

The idea is salvific: “Believe” in Big Science . . . and thou shalt be rewarded with a glass-and-steel utopia right out of science fiction.

But everybody knows what we actually get: designer drugs made to counteract designer diseases that make the designers ultra-rich while those who take the jabs still get the disease even though they were told they wouldn’t.

Do you need more evidence that insiders of the technocracy belong to — and run — a cult? And no one is more inside-the-cult than the subsidized-and-protected biggest gun in the Big Pharma corporate arsenal.

This new cult, though, is worse than the corruption that set Luther to rebel against the Papacy — the selling of indulgences — for no buyer of an indulgence could prove the deal a fraud, while Pfizer’s and Moderna’s “vaccines” have been shown to provide almost no immunity. The only recent cases of COVID among my adult friends and family were all “vaxxed.”

But the word for this, precisely? 



What the Dementia Patient in Chief calls “the liberal world order” is unstable (I know it; you know it; we all know it) and our elites urgently want to move to a much-ballyhooed “New World Order” where there is much less freedom and no privacy. They want a well-oiled machine where The People are subject to massive controls.

This is also what both political parties have been working towards — the phrase “The New World Order” (NWO) was introduced to us by a former CIA head who somehow became the U.S. President on no merit whatsoever — but is now a decidedly Democrat goal.

It really is a class-based notion, as Alex Gutentag’s “The Great Reset Is Real” makes clear. The power-wielding/power-seeking class in question, which might as well be called the “cognitive elite,” made a near-united push for the NWO during the insane response to the recent pandemic and is now rapidly switching gears. But its goal is clearer now than ever. And the means of new controls on the general population can be seen in every emergency order and accommodation by major corporations:

As the idea of a “Great Reset” continues to be dismissed as a conspiracy theory, governments, central banks, and NGOs are becoming ever-more explicit about their plans. Any new supposed emergency can be manipulated by financial institutions to initiate systems of total control. Once fully realized, these systems may be impossible to combat.

For my part, I merely suggest we consider reviving older technology, something already tested on the elites:

As my friends know, one of my favorite conspiracy conjectures — which I lovingly bring up at awkward social moments, to fondle intellectually and perhaps too publicly — is that [some of] the elites in the Deep State and the Davos crowd know that a huge natural holocaust is coming, that it would likely destroy the bulk of civilization, and that it would be a mercy to kill off vast swaths of humanity more slowly, prior to that chaotic event.

How? Say through a planned rollout of pseudo-vaccines that make us weaker and prone to spread-out deaths via bloodclots, autoimmune disease, and the like.

And what would this natural holocaust be? A surge of solar energy is the most likely candidate. Knowledge of a cyclical recurrence of comet hits might suggest the same strategy.

This is not just outrageous speculation. Terrestrial hits of solar bursts are unpredictable but not uncommon on a long time-line. Evidence for them is accumulating — they are not just limited to the infamous Carrington Event of 1859. A recent article at relates evidence of a massive solar storm many thousands of years ago, as the pre-pottery neolithic (PPN) was reaching a tipping point in accumulating capital — something perhaps necessary for civilization to take off. The article’s blurb: “An analysis of radioactive chemicals in ice cores indicates one of the most powerful solar storms ever hit Earth around 7176 B.C.” The article links to a scholarly paper published in January, “Cosmogenic radionuclides reveal an extreme solar particle storm near a solar minimum 9125 years BP.” It is fascinating.

Other extraterrestrial events are being studied and categorized as well — I’ve mentioned the Holocene Impact Working Group before. In the paper “A Tunguska sized airburst destroyed Tall el-Hammam a Middle Bronze Age city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea,” the truth about Sodom and Gomorrah came out last year: a bolide event destroyed a city near the Dead Sea c. 1650 BC. This fits the Biblical timeline. More important is evidence of massive destruction at the Abu Hureyra site in Syria: this event c. 10,800 BC. This fits the Younger Dryas timeline, and is a few thousand years earlier than the PPN.

And note: isn’t it interesting that the eruption of Thera/Santorini happened within a century of the destruction of Sodom/Gomorrah? Ralph Ellis’s contention that the Santorini event corresponds to the first Exodus, arguing that the “parting of the Red Sea” describes classic tsunami behavior, and that the historical record of the event can be found on a well-known stela in Egypt, hidden in plain sight.

But back to my conjecture about our elites: Arguably, it’s not “mercy” alone that would have the elites kill off the “superfluous” populations. The chaos of mass death on a multi-billion population planet might preclude the elites from reaching their bunkers in time to wear out the maelstrom. But had the population already been radically reduced in number and spirit over years of death and anguish and sorrow — from, say, iatrogenic effects of the recent pandemic — then maybe the elites could make their getaways.

What I am suggesting is that the celestial coup de grâce (solar surge; comet hit; what-have-you) might make for less civilizational destruction — fewer riots, mostly — allowing for the rich folks (Hollywood moguls, tech company heads, politicians, billionaires, scientists, a few athletes — insert Dr. Strangelove arguments here) to make their escape into the underground bunkers.

The elites are contemplating a new Ark. What with the military’s vast empires of underground installations already in place, the Ark, I hazard, has already been made, and the plan is in place. And folks like Fauci and Schwab and Gates and others are likely in on it.

I of course merely speculate; I know nothing. But for us science fiction readers, well: some of us assume that when we imagine possibilities, well-funded people make plans.


Looking westwards towards the Sun, on the Pacific.

A news item of a few weeks ago (mentioned here and by me on Facebook — and I’ve encountered it elsewhere, but cannot find the links) has had hardly a ripple of an effect. The story: the self-spreading “vaccine.” It’s basically bioweaponry justified as medicine. There has been almost zero alarm, from what I can tell. Modern “democrats” don’t bat an eye when told that folks in laboratories are cooking up viruses for “our own good.”

Which means that we have sealed our stefnal fate. All those sf novels I read, decades ago, about escaped viruses transforming mankind? Not merely prophetic: they explored a likelihood that is becoming our reality, and our species will be radically altered by such experiments.

The question is: was Omicron the first such, or have many been implemented before?

Did it happen thousands of years ago, as hints in ancient myth suggest?

A people not even curious about this does not deserve to survive, so I won’t make much of this: no point in pushing on a wet noodle. We all have to die sometimes. Maybe most of us will die soon, and a few of us survive with new body parts, or strange new abilities, just like in those sf novels.

Let’s hope it doesn’t go like in Greg Bear’s imagination.


From the beginning of the pandemic, I heard one simple idea every now and then, and it seems to express the assumption upon which a lot of policies came to be demanded:

I have a right not to be infected.

That is of course a falsity. There is not and can be no such right, as such. You have a right, at most, to negotiate the terms of your avoidance of infection.

The phrase: “I have a right not to be infected” shows an expectation of a miraculous nature imputed to rights as such, or to government in general.

How rights work in the real world are not so magical. A right is a specific kind of human instrument that only works when specifically limited to performable operations.

After all, every right articulates an obligation. In law, the obligations (and therefore rights) we worry about are those that may be compelled by law, or by those operating under its umbrella. We cannot compel people not to infect each other. We cannot effectuate such an outcome. Viruses are slippery critters. We can only compel people to do this and that. And most of those thises and thats must be negotiated for, traded for, accommodated by manners or by convenience. The error here — this assumption of having a right that is beyond our means to perform — has been made all across the political spectrum. I’ve heard it, or words to that effect, from progressives, conservatives, libertarians. All are wrong. Very wrong.

I suppose at some point I’ll have to write about why this is so. It seems obvious to me, but what’s obvious to me isn’t widely observed. Think of it like a similar notion, which I often hear amongst my compeers: “no one has a right to pollute.” Well, estoppel principles apply, and finders-keepers/first-poopers rights apply, too.

One should not try to make ”rights” do too much work. That is the way to break the tool itself — and rights are a very useful tool. It would be a pity were it broken because its users abused it.


There has been no pandemic in Canada: no excess deaths. So what to make of the much-ballyhooed mortality stats in the U.S. and elsewhere?

Well, we’ve got to accept the regionality and seasonality of the data patterns — and who (that is, what demographic groups) show the biggest jumps in deaths. 
And we must explain why an alleged respiratory virus demonstrated summer contagion surges. Also: why it has been so regional, and (to repeat) flipped seasonal — why the summer surges. A lot of this appears to be new. And anomalous. Very odd, and the oddity is not being addressed (or even acknowledged) by our cognitive elites.

But a few daring scientists are indeed looking at the data. First consider this from a few months ago:

We analyzed all-cause mortality by week (ACM/w) for Canada, and for the Canadian provinces, and by age group and sex, from January 2010 through March 2021; in comparison with data for other countries and their regions or counties.  

We find that there is no extraordinary surge in yearly or seasonal mortality in Canada, which can be ascribed to a COVID-19 pandemic; and that several prominent features in the ACM/w in the COVID-19 period exhibit anomalous province-to-province heterogeneity that is irreconcilable with the known behaviour of epidemics of viral respiratory diseases (VRDs). We conclude that a pandemic did not occur.

But something has happened. What? If no pandemic in Canada, something horrible happened elsewhere — and the political pandemic panic in Canada has been more extreme than in most states to the south of the provinces.

And we must consider: to what extent has the excess deaths we have seen been iatrogenic? Mask mandates and lockdowns, sure, but also bad prescription and treatment protocols, suppression of normal medical practice in favor of centralized medical control and official programs, not excluding promotion of novel leaky vaccines.

I’ll  try  to  read  a more recent  paper,  discussed on The Last Vagabond program on Rokfin,  tomorrow, which aims to answer some of my questions — and a few I hadn’t thought of before. For now, I’ve just listened to the article’s main author, and skimmed this newer article.

Could stress be the biggest factor in the current pandemic panic, and have caused most deaths?Lots of great stuff here.


I started a new channel on Rumble. I will be putting future videos up on that platform. For now, this one from a few weeks ago is uploaded there:

Paul Jacob, with whom I make a podcast every weekend, is now on that platform, too, after having a video taken down on YouTube. His channel is This Week in Common Sense, and here is his first video on Rumble:

My favorite game in game theory is Chicken. While in political science and Public Choice the Prisoners’ Dilemma gets the most attention, Chicken is a simpler game, and does indeed lie at the heart of many paradigmatic relationships that undergird the State as both organization and institution.

In high school, my friends and I used to play Chicken with knives and feet on the green grass of the football field. Great fun. No one was hurt.

Now we have a big, more dangerous game begun in earnest: the establishment fires people for not taking the jab, and the anti-establishment walks out in protest of the mandatory jab. Mass firings versus the strike! A classic case.

Which side’ll give in first?

Let me go find a knife.


For home-made knives, see