Archives for category: A Journal of a Plague Year

One should be able to point to a news story and call attention to its oddity, or recognize it as somehow pregnant with meaning, or suggest that it is indicative of an ominous element, without being called names. That time may come some day. But not today.

Not effective.

I have been thinking about masks for years.

It started when I began riding motorcycles in 1992. I felt claustrophobic under a full face mask, but I did not want to breathe dust, bugs, and agricultural poisons.

So I have been musing about masks for years — as a problem to be solved: could a good mask be made?

Now, I have not done a lot of research, but I have done some. I have even drawn up plans for effective mask/respiration technology. Fortunately, I live in the country, and the poisons of city life don’t make themselves obvious to my nostrils. And I don’t have heavy allergies. So I gave up on mask R&D.

Enter the current super-flu, COVID-19. And the mask mandates. People say they are concerned. But the masks people actually use range from plausible-but-ineffective to the wildly ineffective. And people routinely wear the masks they have in ineffective ways.

If anyone really thought that masking could work to prevent plague, and that the current contagion is as dangerous as they say it is, I would encounter at least a few people using their “masks” effectively and then going the next step, innovating to the gold standard of mask tech: full sealed head mask, separate filters for air intake and outgassing, and forced air with fans.

Though such tech is available, I have not seen anyone use it. Not one. Zip. Nada.

People “believe” in the pandemic like Christmas & Easter Christians “believe” in Christ.

Or else they are really, really stupid.

Suckers. Fools. Cowards. Such are Americans today.

I wear masks out of courtesy to cowards. And thus am implicated in cowardice, too.

We are not a serious people.

twv

“Why does nobody seem to bother about viral immune escape?”

…sort of a follow-up to yesterday’s….

People should be aware that there is a vaccination specialist out there who (a) thinks the technology of the mRNA treatments “vaccines” is brilliant, but is also (b) extremely dangerous, epidemiologically, in that, when used as a mass prophylactic against the current pandemic, has a strong potential to produce a highly resistant strain of coronavirus that will infect the young and could lead to a civilizational and even species threat.

Now, I cannot “vouch” for the man. His name is Geert Vanden Bossche, PhD., and he sure seems on the up and up. But I am not an epidemiologist. Still, as I blogged the other day, I understand the concept of antifragility, and I have long suspected that over-use of some medical technology could end up producing a major plague. Scientists have been warning of this for years, and it has been spun out in numerous science fiction tales, many of which I’ve read with a sort of gallows-interest enthusiasm. And here we do have a viral science technician urging world governments to stop the vaccination campaign, for the health of our species, for humanity.

Specifically, Bossche warns that “this type of prophylactc vaccines are completely inappropriate, and even highly dangerous, when used in mass vaccinaton campaigns during a viral pandemic.

Vaccinologists, scientists and clinicians are blinded by the positive short-term effects in individual patents, but don’t seem to bother about the disastrous consequences for global health. Unless I am scientifically proven wrong, it is difcult to understand how current human interventons will prevent circulatng variants from turning into a wild monster.

Racing against the clock, I am completing my scientific manuscript, the publication of which is, unfortunately, likely to come too late given the ever increasing threat from rapidly spreading, highly infectious variants. This is why I decided to already post a summary of my fndings as well as my keynote speech at the recent Vaccine Summit in Ohio on LinkedIn. Last Monday, I provided internatonal health organizatons, including the WHO, with my analysis of the current pandemic as based on scientfcally informed insights in the immune biology of Covid-19. Given the level of emergency, I urged them to consider my concerns and to initate a debate on the detrimental consequences of further ‘viral immune escape.’

PDF provided by Geert Vanden Bossche; numerous typos corrected, above and in quotations below.

I have opposed the popular “wisdom” of how to deal with COVID from at least last April, when the nature of the lockdowns became clear in the wildly moved goalposts. Since then, most folks have stuck to what their bureaucrats and politicians and public scolds have told them, usually with less knowledge of the subject than I possess. It’s all cultic tribalism on all sides now.

But you should understand what you are getting jabbed with. Start with the CDC. Its website is not outright lying. But it is propaganda.

That being said, the technology is not what most folks think it is. It does not work like a simple vaccine. And that difference could make a difference. How big? Very; extremely:

[I]t’s becoming increasingly difficult to imagine how the consequences of the extensive and erroneous human intervention in this pandemic are not going to wipe out large parts of our human population.

This is End Times stuff, really. Which is why “smart people” will resist. They are easily embarrassed by end-of-the-world predictions, since most are by kooks, are heavily ideological, or quickly proven wrong.

But Bossche’s case is quite familiar to us. The concepts he is talking about are part of the general scientific approach of our age. He is not pushing Conspiracy Theory here (though that shouldn’t make us mindless, either). He is advancing a quite-familiar approach to the evolution of contagions. Standard neo-Darwinian science.

But he is obviously worried. He says there is no time to spare, yet worries even more because, in his words, “I have not received any feedback thus far. Experts and politicians have remained silent while obviously still eager to talk about relaxing infection prevention rules and ‘springtime freedom.’ My statements are based on nothing else but science. They shall only be contradicted by science.” Yet “the elite of scientists who are currently advising our world leaders prefer to stay silent.”

This reminds me of some tragedies that occur in tyrannical societies, where the experts fear to speak up, not unreasonably imagining reprisals. Examples abound in the Soviet Union, including the infamous cases of Lysenkoism and Chernobyl.

Though we are talking a possible end to our civilization, I do think proponents of mRNA vaccines can be funny. The especially funny ones fall into two categories, as I blogged yesterday:

  1. The same people who normally extol the FDA and its long, killer waiting periods and expensive regulatory hurdles now push a drug that Donald Trump moved heaven and earth to get around, while
  2. the people who dislike the FDA because of its huge and deadly regulatory burden now like this drug since it has been pushed through — while not recognizing that it is massively subsidized, distributed by an untrustworthy government, and has a demand built up by psy-op and coercive threats, explicit and implicit.

I do not plan on taking this experiment in genetic manipulation . . . though, if the doctor is right, I may be more susceptible to the killer strain it produces than its users.

It is possible we are witnessing the greatest crime against humanity in world history, in its early stages. And the reason? Because experts and politicians will not properly consider scientific evidence that contradicts their favorite policy proposals. And they resist this, despite the dangers, because the general political culture has moved away from free speech and vigorous debate to cultic tribalism. While I have been saying that these anti-free-speech tendencies of today’s hyper-partisanship could kill our civilization, I do not remember considering that they could do so in precisely this manner, and so quickly.

But what do I know? Just go along with the flow. We all gotta die sometime.

Do we really need to all go together when we go, though?

twv

The Brazen Serpent (Numbers 21:9), Artist: Tissot; Photographer: John Parnell. ©The Jewish Museum

The current vaccination craze presents some puzzles.

Those who insist that we must have a regulatory body like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), even if it adds great expense to drugs and prohibits many useful treatments with calculable loss of life, are the same folks who also believe that the population of the whole world should be injected with experimental gene therapy while pretending that only good can result.

Though the new therapeutics has been studied for 20 years, the studies are by no means exhaustive.

Libertarians are beset with the inverse problem: a fast-tracked pseudo-vaccine has reached the masses, and because normal FDA procedures were bypassed (by Trump), it can look like a triumph of pharmaceutical capitalism over regulatory dirigisme. But note: the drug was indeed pushed by politicians and bureaucrats, is heavily tax-subsidized, and demand for it has been whipped up by a massive panic orchestrated as a psy-op by our managerial elites, not a few of them inhabiting the corridors of power in that sector we call “the Deep State.” The explicit goal for many people inside and outside of government is to inject all of humanity with this peculiar treatment. This is nothing like a free market. It is a government operation, and the product being pushed has consequences we cannot know. But we do know that it has unknown consequences.

“Don’t put all your eggs in one basket” is a common-sense cautionary maxim.

”Don’t inoculate the whole world with an experimental gene therapy” would be that wisdom translated into the contemporary situation.

At base, here, are issues that get to the heart of medical intervention. Public goods problems abound, at this level, and they do not suggest the advisability of a uniform policy. Indeed, uniformity of policy is a very dangerous course to take. It is inherently fragile, not antifragile — and as I write this, I am more than aware that the coiner of that term, antifragility, has been a huge pusher of the COVID panic. I believe he has been profoundly wrong, because he has only conceived of the danger in one dimension. Which is a strange thing in itself, since Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s genius has been to broaden our conception of threats and menaces. In his reaction to the pandemic, Taleb has become the thing he despises, a fragilista.

But then, fragilistas have been generally ascendent. When confronted with a menace, it is hard for most people — driven by fear and with their imaginations limited enough to prevent them from considering the sheer variety and enormity of possible threats — to resist the promise of a panacea, even if said panacea makes our species and our civilization weaker. And in this case could open us up to much worse diseases with far graver consequences.

Fragilistism is the mind contagion against which our welfare-state, social-engineer dominated civilization has proven to possess few antibodies.

Pity. It has been an astounding civilization, for all its horrors.

twv

In the Summer of 2016, I answered a question on Quora that does not look very good in retrospect, “Will we ever see a Libertarian president in the USA?”

Until this crazy year, 2016, I said “no.”

Now, after all these years, it appears that the Johnson-Weld team might pull off something astounding. The intellectual death of the two major parties, instantiated in their terrible candidates for office, Hillary and the Donald, might send desperate voters left and right and center into the LP camp.

The Johnson-Weld team did not pull off something impressive. The vote totals, while better than for any other LP ticket in the party’s now long history, were not all that impressive, considering the terrible candidates of the major parties. Surely they could have done better.

One reason that the team did not do better was obvious from almost the first day. When asked about Hillary Clinton, Bill Weld — apparently leading the team — and Gary Johnson, the ostensible Presidential candidate, said she was a good kid, basically, a good and faithful public servant.

If a Libertarian candidate cannot come out swinging against a statist like Clinton, he (or she) is not even a little libertarian.

This milquetoast anti-provocationism could be seen in 2020, too, where Jorgensen-Cohen spent more energy courting the SJW anti-racist vote than the anti-lockdowner vote. It was almost as if the mask-wearing pair didn’t really believe their alleged ideology.

But the problem with the LP remains. Its membership is too radical to succeed in a big way. Their choice of two marginal-to-the-movement candidates suggest the membership’s recognition that the old PlumbLine stance will get them nowhere.

While in 2016 I wrote, above, that Libertarians are “too radical,” the most obvious problem with the candidates since Harry Browne has been that they are not radical enough.

But mainly, the candidates and their supporters in the party do not seem to understand their place in history. They do not understand what they are up against.

So, in that, they are very much like Donald Trump.

They do not see the American union as highly unstable, constitutionally — having lost most of its original federal character — and dangerously over-stable — being run as a nation-state-cum-empire, fed on sectoral greed and guided by Deep State psy-op.

Libertarians do not seem able to grok the most important fact of contemporary partisan electoral politics: the two parties are driving each other insane, ratcheting up their levels of ridiculousness, as can be seen easiest in the fact that Americans just swapped one allegedly corrupt billionaire of erratic temperament and dubious moral character for a super-corrupt, senescent puppet of DNC/Deep State hacks. Libertarians have no sense of story. They do not seem to understand the roles they are playing.

And before you can succeed, you must first understand what you are doing.

Libertarian Party members do not understand what they are doing. They do not understand why they are losers. In 2016, I at least had a clue:

The even bigger problem is that the party has the stink of death about it. Americans give political upstarts a fairly narrow window to show their mettle. (Because of how votes are counted, only two parties can remain viable for long, simultaneously. See the work of Condorcet; view FairVote.org. This systemic two-party bias nudges voters to accept a challenger parties only when there is immediate hope of displacing one of the current major parties.) The LP lost in 1980, with the Clark campaign, and hasn’t had a significant chance until now. Americans see it as a party of losers. The brief time in the early 1980s, when there were several Libertarian state representatives in the Alaska legislature, has long passed. No significant wins have occurred since. Each presidential outing an irrational hope bubbles up, for one candidate or other. I remember economist Murray N. Rothbard’s insistence that Ron Paul could win over social conservatives for new life for the party, in 1987. The 1988 Paul campaign was an embarrassing bust. My colleagues claimed Harry Browne as the breakout hope several elections later. As good a speaker as he was, he received few votes. Candidates Michael Badnarik and former Rep. Bob Barr likewise fizzled.

I’ve been saying for 28 years: the party should fold, and reorganize as several vital activist groups, none of them running presidential candidates — though running deliberate mockery runs, a là Pat Paulsen, might be worth a shot.

But I underestimated the Libertarians’ predicament, here. Libertarians are not serious. They are merely earnest. No Libertarian candidate challenges Libertarians to actually make a difference. No Libertarian candidate dares take the bull by the horns and acknowledge, as a bedrock truth, the party’s always also-ran status, and therefore cannot overcome the Wasted Vote argument — an easy argument to destroy, logically, but Libertarians haven’t the wit to see that their only hope is to face it head on and rub Americans’ noses in the inherently scammy nature of electoral politics, of pretending that democracy can rule an empire.

In other words, Libertarians are intellectual cowards. They have been staring down the Wasted Vote argument since the beginning. Somehow, it never occurs to them to give a good answer. I say that a good answer is to be found, but running with it would be honest and therefore dangerous.

Libertarians would get further by pushing initiative and referendum measures, lobbying Congress and state houses, protesting bureaucracies, etc.

Some day, forming a less radical, explicitly Libertarian Lite party might make sense, a Liberist Party, or, more entertaining and useful, a Receivership Party to fold a bankrupt federal government and form new unions in its place, might make sense.

The idea of a Receivership Party still makes sense, but a Libertarian Lite party is a bad idea. That is what the Libertarian Party is right now. What Libertarians need is not lite, but enlightenment.

But for now, let us see if Johnson-Weld can at least send the 2016 presidential election into the House of Representatives! (Or win?) Right now the campaign’s strategy is to offend as few people as possible, capitalize on their experience, and create whimsical, light-hearted tugs at our heartstrings, hoping to grab NeverHillary and NeverTrump voters, along with disaffected independents, to really send the system into an epochal change.

Best of luck. It is a long shot. But no one else is worth voting for. So why not vote for them?

Yeah, that was dumb. There was no hope. Not with two former Republican governors.

And while the Libertarians’ pathetic hope for respectability, seen in choosing such candidates, may merely parallel the ratcheting-up of ridiculousness by the major parties — all part of the Law of Nemesis that we should (were we paying attention) understood as well now as our ancestors did in ancient times, when memes were myth — take a breath: something more nefarious may be afoot.

Libertarians should ask themselves: are they being played?

Specifically, by the Deep State.

The CIA and NSA and other behind-the-scenes manipulators of public opinion have had a huge hand in politics from the JFK assassination on. The FBI’s James Comey tried to blackmail Trump, after all, and the hidden hand was in plain sight in trying to remove the outsider prez from office for his first three years. In the last year, we must wonder, did the Deep State go back to being professional, bringing out the Big Guns to take down Trump?

For remember, prior to the pandemic, Trump was set for reëlection, the Democratic presidential candidates being so horrifically unimpressive and all, and the economy doing surprisingly well. But in comes the Wuhan bug, and Trump crumbles. While he resisted going as authoritarian as Democrats demand (and that was funny, I admit) the way he handled Fauci and pushed “vaccination” meant that he was doomed. The Democrats worked mightily both behind the scenes and in plain sight (as Time so niftily explained) to ensure that the pixillated puppet, Joe Biden, got more votes than Trump. It was an astounding thing to watch.

Libertarians should wonder whether they have also been manipulated. By infiltrators into their ranks (like, say, former Libertarian National Committee chairs and former state governors as candidates) and by strategically placed temptations.

We should speculate and inquire: what has the Deep State been thinking about us?

Wonder, especially, what to make of Brennan’s new direction, of placing libertarians under direct investigation — “even libertarians”!

I suspect that libertarians are the group in America that the Deep State most fears — intellectually. Because libertarianism has such a strong connection with the tradition of American independence — the United States began as a secessionist revolution spouting ideas of liberty! — libertarian ideas are potentially the most destabilizing for the Deep State’s mission of managed politics. So, Libertarians have been managed. For a very long time.

But with Brennan’s floated idea of treating libertarians as open enemies of the State, libertarians might want to now rethink their insignificance.

Could we be insignificant by design?

And if we made ourselves significant, by confronting reality as it is, not reality merely theorized and dreamed about, would we survive?

The question then becomes, are libertarians brave enough to take the next steps? So far, bravery has been associated with dunderheaded stupidity, as in the whole Tea Party movement and Trump moment. But for actual libertarians, the bravery will become necessary after the stupidity is foresworn. Do libertarians have the necessary courage?

I doubt it.

As far as I can tell, witlessly pushing the LP rock up Sisyphus’ hill is what libertarians want to do, over and over, forever.

Scant savvy and no courage required for that.

twv

People not tempted by a weird belief express their incredulity. They dismiss the belief out of hand, with a kind of contempt that gives them a feeling of being special, set above the other. They think they are superior.

Pride goeth before the abyss.

I have been fascinated by QAnon, as I occasionally mention. Not fascinated enough to research it much. But contact with Q posts online gave me an extra window into a world I know exists, but which I experience chiefly through fiction: the world of myth, legend, mania. . . .

I have oft repeated two judgments about Q:

I have no evidence against much of the lore, and that the final months of Trump’s administration would put the theories to a falsifiability test.

This last idea seemed especially important. And I was as pleased as anyone to witness QAnon lore largely falsified.

You know, because, come what may, Truth is better than lies.

But those who see in QAnon only insanity and partisan madness, and in their rejection of it see evidence mainly of their own high moral standing? Well, they tend to look at the phenomenon with less open-ended interest. For example, this question-and-answer on Quora:

How can I convince Qanon supporters that Q is a hoax?

Let me summarize Qanon for you.

There is a cabal of Satan-worshipping cannibalistic pedophiles who are running a sex-trafficking ring and are working against Donald Trump in order to ruin the world.

Think about that for a moment.

Let it sink in.

Do you really think that there is anything you can say to a person who believes in that which will change their mind? They must have armor built from the thickest, laminated slabs of fabricated lies welded together that is proof against the strongest facts or logic.

As a coworker once told me (and I’m sure it’s not an original from him):

“You cannot reason someone off of a cliff they didn’t reason themselves onto.”

Or, as another coworker put it (and I suspect this is an original):

If you don’t speak crazy, don’t talk to crazy.

In short, there is nothing you can tell them. They will just assume that you are part of the cabal.

This answer seems all very knowing and savvy. I am sure its author felt very satisfied with his answer. But all of his assumed “wisdom”? It is all as fake as QAnon proved to be.

The main assumption is false. And this is important. Yet it is a falsity sanctified by the very best authorities. It was pithily stated by Jonathan Swift long ago:

Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion,
which by Reasoning he never acquired

Fisher Ames restated it:

Men are not to be reasoned out of an opinion
that they have not reasoned themselves into.

But this is more obviously untrue than the QAnon conspiracy accounts themselves. I rejected many ideas using “reason” that I had acquired in a much more careless way. In fact, most of my ideas that are of a controversial nature were so acquired. Writing before Swift, Dryden is more nearly right:

A Man is to be cheated into Passion, but to be reason’d into Truth.

Of course, “reasoning” can err; or, more precisely, reasoning man does not always find the truth. Using evidence and logic, one can conjure up a conjecture, knead it into a theory and proclaim it “verified” in proper positivist fashion and remain completely wrong. Indeed, in my experience, people who do this can be as obstinate (or more) than those who haphazardly accumulate convictions.

The Quoran’s answer was mere pride and prejudice. I would trust nothing about about that person’s epistemics. His core beliefs that he thinks define himself as a rational man bear, likely as not, all the weight of gossamer.

After all, we have seen many a QAnonster drop the more fanciful notions. You have probably even read a report or two about such a recantation: the “shaman” of January 6 has so confessed to having been fooled.

Of course many Q enthusiasts only reject select parts of the lore. And perhaps that is what is warranted. Break the Quoran’s litany into separate points:

  1. There is a cabal seeking to run (ruin?) the world.
  2. Its members worship Satan.
  3. They engage in strange anthopophagic rites.
  4. They are pedophiles.
  5. Many political insiders participate in or are blackmailed by sex-trafficking rings.
  6. One or more of these cabals worked mightily against Donald Trump.

With just the above, quite slight restatement, Q lore looks less nutty. Is there a cabal for global governance? Well, yes; more than likely more than one. Do some of these folks worship Satan? Well, have you heard of the Temple of Set and its status within the U.S. Government, courtesy of lobbying by a man who became a top NSA official? Set may or may not equal Satan. Cannibalism? Yes, it is now being openly defended as a sexual fantasy on lefty websites, and I wouldn’t be shocked to hear of worse. Pedophile sex rings among the very powerful have been uncovered in Britain and Europe, and Jeffrey Epstein may not have killed himself. Finally, Donald Trump was indeed opposed by very connected members of the FBI and CIA etc., and this is not at all controversial.

The questions for Q enthusiasts are:

how organized are the groups they oppose?

how knowingly do how many of their enemies share the negative, lurid attributes Q assigned to them?

how explicit and how extreme are their aims, or are some or all driven by a sort of memetic blindness?

how much of Q lore was hope, how much of it was a prank, and how much was disinformation by masters of psychological operations?

I heard quite a few science fictional scenarios from Q folks. You know, about Trump directing the military to engage in secret operations against underground caverns of devilish pedophile cannibals. That kind of thing. It felt like open-source sci-fi. And while it would be easy to dismiss all this out of hand, I had no trouble just setting it onto my Epoché shelf, carefully filed.

Why not just dismiss it?

Well, were the government not officially disclosing UFO information in dribs and drabs, while ignoring eight decades’ worth of leaked memos about UFOs, I probably would. But we have a huge mystery here, the government has been all over the map concealing, denying, acknowledging and ignoring the UFO lore, making it a huge matzo ball looming over our culture and over our conception of the world. I know that most intellectuals prefer to ignore this. I cannot. In my philosophy, inconvenient evidence requires explanation, not damning. (I relish every Charles Fort reference.) And I recognize what C.G. Jung recognized, that government handling of the UFO issue is driving people nuts.

Nuts enough to believe Q? Yes. But also nuts to disbelieve everything even slightly Q-adjacent.

Oh, and the nuttiest thing in Q? That Donald Trump was going to save us from the bad guys. Turns out: nope. The globalists have taken control, shamelessly engage in a concerted suppression of dissent, and have used the excuse of a contagion to marshal unconstitutional powers to rob millions of the freedoms. And they insist on doing more.

Oh, and not only was Trump unable to stop them, in the key area of COVID insanity, Trump fed the beast.

Q was obviously way off. And I do hope Q enthusiasts can reason their way out of placing inordinate hope in mythic champions who — it just so happens — deliver them to their enemies. For sacrifice.

twv

Factitious disorder imposed on another (FDIA), also known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP), is a condition in which a caregiver creates the appearance of health problems in another person, typically their child, sometimes going so far as to wound, poison, or kill the victim/patient.

Why would anyone behave like this? Hard to figure. 

But maybe it is easier to understand now that politicians & bureaucrats lie to us about a contagion, abuse the legal powers of the quarantine, & insist that we all take experimental genetic therapy and call it what it isn’t: a “vaccine.”

Now, I have been using terms like “psy-op” to define the mass manipulation of the population in regards to the pandemic, but perhaps “Mass MSbP” brings the idea home better:

Munchausen by Proxy is an official mental health diagnosis given to someone who, as a caregiver, convinces the person in his care that he is ill when he really isn’t. The net result is the caregiver has total control over his charge and can even go so far as to cause his charge to be ill to fit the narrative. 

We who live in blue and, to some extent, purple states are victims of this syndrome, with state governments acting as the (mentally disturbed) caregivers, and the citizens, collectively, as patients. Many of the patients have been convinced that they are, in fact, being protected by their persecutors.

Liberal media (and, at this point, that means virtually all uncensored media) shuts down any factual discussion of what works and what doesn’t to stem the Wu Flu. If you examine the actual statistics, lockdowns a la California and New York have yielded no better results and it could be argued, much worse in terms of cases and hospitalizations, than more open states such as Florida and Texas.

Where schools are allowed to function normally, there have been no more reported cases than in those where children languish at home, preventing parents from earning a living and learning their lessons haphazardly by remote Zoom “class”. What is most striking about the difference between these states, is that the closed ones have a far higher incidence of drug abuse and overdoses, child abuse, poverty, and suicide from despair.

Many of us know someone who died from (or with) COVID, or has had severe COVID and recovered, or has lingering problems from long term COVID. We’ve been fed this as an excuse, along with claims about ICU bed shortages. It’s fear, fear, and more fear!

Personally, I don’t know a soul who’s died from COVID, although I hear about friends of friends who have. But if you think about it, you also know someone, or many someones, who have died from other things. Take cancer, for instance. I know many people who have died of cancer. My mother, my grandmother, my friends Marion and Jeff, my old dental hygienist, my mother-in-law, my childhood best friend, the guy two houses from me, the guy two houses in the other direction, a friend’s husband, and the list goes on.

People get sick, people die. It happens. People get in accidents and die too. Have we stopped living our lives to keep from having that happen? Have we ever even considered doing so? Never!

Only for COVID. So, think about it. Ask yourself, why is there so little real information to make one’s own decision, and why are we denied opportunities to make our own decisions? Why have we gone from 14 days to “flatten the curve” so we can ramp up hospital capacity to cope with the expected influx, to a year of living by not living at all, with no end in sight?

Even before having a vaccine we’ve known that those who are going to get this thing are, yes, going to get it sooner or later. The vaccine may change the equation, but only for the better. That’s the way pandemics work. Either you get it over with, and reach herd immunity, or you live your life scared to allow anyone to look at your face, get within breathing distance, or educate your children in person.

Early treatment would make the effects of the virus much less, but as discussed here, that is not the model our health bureaucracy espouses. An elegant and sensible solution would be to allowing those who have serious co-morbidities to get vaccinated or stay cloistered from society and supported financially as needed, while the rest of us get on with life. But that’s not what’s happening in the Munchausen by Proxy states.

There is, quite simply, a vested interest in keeping us afraid and at home, masked and silenced. This must be ended, and those of us who disagree with the locked-down version of half-life in these United States must speak our minds while we still have the freedom to do so. The more people do, the better.

Terry Paulding, “Munchausen by (government) Proxy,” January 10, 2021.

In a later piece, the same author argues that the “vaccine is experimental, and we, the people, are being herded into a mass drug trial such as the FDA has never before attempted.” Now, I do not see how we gain anything by referring to the American treatments as “vaccines.” They seem something much newer and far more “experimental” than taking broken viruses and using them to cue our immune systems. The Pfizer drug is much more radical and cutting edge. I have not yet found any response to Dr. Joseph Mercola’s charge that the “COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines.” But the experimental nature of the shots is more than acknowledged by official sources. Indeed, President Trump was a key player to push them around regulatory hurdles.

That is the unembellished truth. Nobody in authority wants to mention this truth. Instead, there’s a long trail of rah-rah news propaganda, about fabulous new stadium-parking-lot vaccine sites (because, what else would a parking lot at a stadium be used for these days?), numbers of doses available, and reports about the elderly in nursing homes doing a dance of joy at getting their jabs and maybe being let out of jail to see family and people other than one another. These generally come with an interview of somebody in a nursing facility who calls the rest of us, those who don’t want to be guinea pigs, “fools” and tells us to just “get on with it” so we can finally hug mom.

I want to reïterate: Trump was necessary in unleashing this drug onto the market.

But note: “market” itself is something of a misnomer. We are being coerced to take this drug. Our governments withhold the freedom to move about, peaceably assemble, contract, and be a part of normal society from millions of Americans until they are “vaccinated.” That is, infected with an under-studied, poorly-described soup of nanotech agents.

And Americans sure seem awfully bamboozled. Compliant. Servile. They yammer on, dutifully, as if their “caregivers” would never lie to them!

But they are lying, and we are being tricked and corralled into some new order:

If the vaccine is an experiment, if the cases are plummeting, and if the state is still stepping on our necks both to keep us from noticing the devastation and to make us desire the vaccine, then what is the logical conclusion? My guess is it’s all about making some people some money and, in the process, changing the country for the worse. That’s a harsh conclusion and, perhaps, another explanation is that we have a case of Munchausen by (government) proxy, whereby the State wants us ill so it can be seen as our savior. But that only takes us so far.

The further reach? As Terry Paulding, the above-quoted author, puts it, the much-worked-for next step is . . . well, I prefer Michael Rectenwald’s favored term: corporate socialism. Not the old-fashioned money-less/market-suppressed, centrally-planned fiasco, no, but a system “to limit the possibilities for individual activity — by dint of squeezing out industries and producers within industries from the economy.”

Call it totalitarian oligopoly. Like China pushes.

As has been quite successful with the lockdowns.

While timorous Americans quivered in fear of COVID, their leaders prepared the next step of totalitarian control with the help of their Orange Man Evil, Donald Trump.

twv

The bacon cheeseburger is case #1 for American exceptionalism.

First served on the first day after re-opening at Hunters’ Inn.

That was one juicy burger. The fries are standard, but not bad. I shouldn’t have eaten them, considering my diet, but I did. Iced tea, too. What a treat.

But note the mask on the table. Wearing a mask into a restaurant only to take it off at table is insane, of course. Crazy — so dumb that lockdowners should hang their heads in eternal shame. But that is the effin’ rule. And lockdowners maintain their unwarranted pride.

I did not plan to break my fast in this way. I went to the nearby village hardware store in search of a doorknob assembly for an outer door. The choice was easy, binary: yes/no — for there was only one. And I step out and the restaurant next door flashed an OPEN sign!

I love dining in restaurants. It’s one of my several vices of commission (the other major one is collecting books, the vice consisting in buying more than I read). And so after a few months expelled from this form of commerce, I entered the restaurant, ordered, at and was satisfied.

Now, I have been purchasing to-go meals these last few months of the closing of public gatherings. The local store makes a few really good sandwiches. I picked up a great meal from my favorite eatery in Astoria, Oregon, a few weeks ago. And yesterday I ordered a pizza, on a whim. Which occasioned some thoughts while waiting:

Ask the Next Question? Or just ruminate on a pizza order?

The willingness of Americans to put up with lockdowns and mask mandates is a sign of decadence. Cowardice and mental flabbiness, at least. Or maybe it is a sign that most Americans have accepted the socialistic/progressivist premise: to “save” one group of disadvantaged or at-risk people, the freedom of all must be sacrificed. This is borne of a general Christian idea, that all must be saved . . . or at least aided. But the notion that what we call God’s work must be, necessarily, man’s commanded work and in a political context, forcibly to be shared as a burden by all — this is a grave error, no matter what you believe about the gods. For one thing, what is God’s work rests, in the end, on God, who famously works in mysterious ways. A state aid program, or some other government policy, is not so mysterious, for it works via red tape, forced compliance, redistribution of wealth, and a touch of transparency. Not mystery. We all know how government works.

But the problem is obvious . . . when you look behind the obvious machinations of states. When God’s work becomes the State’s work, no element of life proves exempt from compulsion, and the opportunity for corruption on all those doing the State’s work is immense, for power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And universal power corrupts universally. With the pandemic, Americans and the world have abandoned all sense of limitations and limits. The State must — must, we shout, must! — protect . . . everybody!

And everybody must be compelled to aid the State in this cause. Which means requirements vast and small, the cessation of social activity and no end to harassment. In the cause of saving everybody, the extremities of requirements become anti-social.

Of course, everybody cannot be protected, for there are costs to policies, and there are limitations to our powers and acuity. Shutting down half of commerce has meant attacking small businesses around the country, and hurt the working poor and the entrepreneurial classes most (and the poor in foreign countries most of all: but who really cares about them?). It’s been fine for retirees and government employees and those who can work at home. And those people seem easy to get on board the insane regulations concocted as “mitigation strategies.” But they do not work.

That is what we are learning — how very not-in-control we are. The “virus gonna virus.” But government has worked mightily to lie to us about the stats, to string us along in our subjugation, and to keep from normal consciousness this fact: that most deaths are of the old and sick already, and COVID is said to be a co-factor, not the sole cause, of most of these deaths. The extent of this will be tested in how many excess deaths can be demonstrated in 2020 mortality stats.

And then I keep hearing reports of medical investigators who cannot verify tested-positive COVID cases. The tests are not reliable, over-report, and — this is just rumor, as I regard even government reports these days as hardly better than rumor — are often mis-identifying two forms of flu as COVID. I am uncertain of the veracity of these rumors, of course.

After all, what do I know? Little. I read a report and then forget most of it. This is not my area of expertise. But what is my area of expertise is how propaganda works. And we have been propagandized to give up freedom for [insert cause]. Because people are fearful, distracted creatures without moral compass and almost no understanding why liberty must be the central, organizing principle of justice, they fall for all sorts of buncombe, like “weapons of mass destruction” and “exponential growth!”

Which leaves me somewhat depressed. It is easy to fool smart people. For smart people want to fool themselves, first of all.

Which makes the smarties fools.

Which I can understand, personally — eating burgers and pizza at my age!

twv

“Common sense” is under attack from all sides. Some folks seem to have trouble understanding what “common sense” even means. 

By current usage, “common sense” apparently means “the guess that I pulled out of the ether.”

Note that word “ether.” I could have used a more common — and vulgar — metaphor.

Anyway, last week, Dr. Anthony “Who Is That Unmasked Man?” Fauci was asked about double-masking, and he posited that it was “common sense” to wear two masks. Uh, what? Could it make sense? “It likely does,” he explained, “because, I mean, this is a physical covering to prevent droplets and virus to get in. So, if you have a physical covering with one layer, you put another layer on, it just makes common sense that it likely would be more effective.”

A few days later, Fauci “clarified” this odd notion. “There are many people who feel, if you really want to have an extra little bit of protection, ‘maybe I should put two masks on.’ There’s nothing wrong with that, but there’s no data that indicates that that is going to make a difference.”

Well, “no data” means there is something wrong with the “that.”

Cue your viewing of the Kant monograph, at bottom of page.

And cue, also, a view of my latest “Terra Incognita” video:

Further, just because we can make a fairly obvious conjecture doesn’t mean that it is sensible. Two poorly fitted masks will hardly work better than one well-fitted one.

And note how he touts the masks, as prevention for the mask-wearer from getting infected, rather than to reduce the chance of infecting others. One half the rationale for the masks being dropped, we should ask why.

While masks do something, the evidence does not show that universal mask mandates have been effective even to slow down the pandemic.

And what of Dr. Fauci misusing the notion of “common sense” to shore up the mask mandates? Well, his recognition that doubling up has no data to back it up begs the more important question: whether the mask mandates have been beneficially effective at all.

“Common folly” has to be the better term than “common sense.”

Of course, the mask mandates have been crucial in implementing lockdowns. Without them, compliance would not have been nearly so complete. Masks are performative, ritual. Wearing them places you in the tribe of wearers, and conditions wearers to their understood function. Without mask mandates, I suspect Americans would have rebelled against the lockdowns long ago. (Think about it: objecting to lockdowns while wearing a mask seems dissonant; you cannot object to an extreme measure to “fight the pandemic” while engaging in an extreme measure to “fight the pandemic.”) And lockdowns were key to getting Trump out of office.

As well as setting the stage for The Great Reset.

So what we are getting from Fauci is not common sense but a psy-op.

twv

Could our political mess be the mere epiphenomenon of the UFO story?

Multiple Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts have discussed their UFO experiences while in space flight, though usually briefly and not in public. Gordon Cooper was most frank, and Edgar Mitchell impressively took up the cause, while Buzz Aldrin’s cryptic and not-so-cryptic pronouncements are often most interesting (such as his discussion of the L-shaped craft that tracked Apollo 11 for days was famous for a day, but quickly given an official public massaging). Many NASA alums have become UFO researchers. The lore on all this is vast, but NASA treats the issue as one to be kept strictly mum.

Wally Schirra is said to be the first astronaut to use “Santa Claus” as codeword for a UFO close to a capsule. You can run through NASA transcripts for discussion of that jolly ol’ elf. Medical channel communications were, multiple sources claim, how some of the Apollo astronauts on the Moon discussed the tricky matter of being observed by UFOs. Yes, this was said by several NASA employees as having occurred on all Apollo missions.

We should consider the possibility that one reason not to have gone back to the Moon is to avoid close encounters in full public view. There was a famous oops with Apollo 14 and Walter Cronkite. Too hard to manage.

Now, I am as far from NASA as we are from that mysterious sphere in our night skies, the Moon (which really is bizarre), and I know little for sure. But I do know that quite a few astronauts have been believers in UFOs, and some appear to have been scared to their core — see Neil Armstrong’s strange behavior post-11. And then there are the cosmonauts! I have mentioned before that one female cosmonaut has even written a book on the subject of UFOs … but this Polish publication has not seen print in the English language.

I watch and read debunkers on this and similar subjects, and am usually unimpressed. They seem to always be spewing bunk. Cooking up a few counter-explanations for a few claims is not a way to falsify the vast lore on the subject. But they do have something on their side: the practice of secrecy by the U.S. Government. However, we know quite a bit about that secrecy, now. And it does not really supply any epistemic weight to the debunkers’ cause. The fact that several segments of the U.S. Military have admitted that UFOs have been studied for a long time, that their telemetry data and testimony by military people are not faked, and do not point to incidents of known technologies within U.S. inventories, well, that puts the debunkers at huge disadvantage.

Like political and religious debates, the public debate over UFOs is not very rational. Because public officials and academic scientists are not allowed to discuss the issue in a straightforward manner — disallowed by cited NDAs as well as the obvious cultural taboo — the popular discussions are often dominated by religious cultism, hucksters, and bizarre political psy-ops like Q.

Trump seemed uninterested in the subject, while Hillary pushed for full UFO disclosure. This has led me to speculate that the reason Trump was allowed to win in 2016 was to punt the issue down the field for four years. Now, perhaps, the Deep State has its act together enough, and has figured out a way to lie about UFOs that will please its Democratic voting base. But that is mere speculation. Nevertheless, I expect a shift on this subject with Biden-Harris in office.

My guess is that this is one of two issues that worry our overlords most, the other being the unsustainable financial system. They may even be oddly connected — perhaps by the pandemic, which could very well have been another diversionary tactic. We may see.

Much depends upon what UFOs are. They do not constitute a uniform phenomenon. From my recent reading, and reading between the lines, the issue is not just a simple matter of “extra-terrestrials.” I suspect UFOs are far, far weirder than that, probably an admixture. But of what? Perhaps extra-solar space travelers, interdimensionals, crypto-terrestrials, recent secret space program reverse engineering projects going back to the 1950s and beyond, and even maybe time travel and Simulation interfaces. I would not wholly rule out angels and demons.

If the UFO subject is a hoax, and I am wrong on its existential reality, then — considering all the NASA involvement — it is a Deep State psy-op at base, and that could be the worst of all possibilities.

Talk about conspiracy!

twv