Archives for category: information vs misinformation vs disinformation

One theory of democracy is that it’s a stunt — a way to suck people into accepting more government than they would otherwise accept. Voting in elections is seen by these conspiracy theorists as fake, as a con job.

This is distinct from the idea that many elections are faked. Communists had an obviously fake form of democracy, where the outcome was nearly always known going in. It helps to have only one candidate, for example.

To discover that one or two or an alarmingly high number of elections are controlled not by voters but by hidden forces does not prove the conspiracy view of democracy, but it does suggest it. Which is why the Democratic sector of legacy media — most networks and news programs — is not reporting on the ongoing Twitter revelations much at all. Because Elon Musk has shown that social media interference in the dissemination of opinion and news during the 2020 presidential election was destabilized the integrity of that election, this is a topic too hot for propagandists to handle. It’s blankout time.

The Twitter Files, as subcontracted out by Mr. Musk to a handful of independent journalists, has been very instructive. Recently, we’ve learned that the FBI had a huge presence in Twitter’s employee ranks, with hundreds of former federal law enforcement and intel agency personnel swelling the ranks of the company. They even had their own employee server and new former-fed employee welcoming parties. And it turns out that the government paid Twitter to censor in partisan ways.

And Elon Musk has point-blank stated that the same sort of things were going on in other social media outfits.

This is not “regulatory capture,” where corporations imperialize bureaus by swapping personnel. This is partisan government-worker capture of business, not much different than how Nazi Germany worked: one party planting operatives in every major business.

Meanwhile, Mr. Musk has continued his goofy online polls. Earlier he had let Trump and “all” banned users back onto Twitter because of polling results. On the 18th he polled his audience about whether he should continue as CEO, saying he would “abide by the results of this poll.” A greater-than 14 point spread favored his resignation. 

And then someone suggested that only paid blue-checkmark people should vote in such polls, and he accepted the idea.

The latest tweet of @elonmusk’s that I have read stated, “I will resign as CEO as soon as I find someone foolish enough to take the job!”

Stunt!

twv

If you make a case against a public group for advocating and working towards a goal that you think most people would be against, if it were “up for a vote,” and they call you a “conspiracy theorist” for making the charge, there’s a good bet that there is an actual conspiracy involved in the background, which you cannot see.

But remember: they — the media, the partisans who support the plan, the usual “intellectuals” — brought up conspiracy. This is a tell. They would support it if it were a conspiracy, and they may themselves be in on the scheme.

I’ve identified more than one of these quasi-conspiracies in the recent past. The Great Reset is a case in point:

But is it a conspiracy?
Well, it’s been out in the open. So: no.
But then notice something: the people who have brought up the alarm about this “open” policy advocacy and planning have repeatedly been called “conspiracy theorists.” And, therefore, are regarded commonly as fringe, as nutty. Examples include Glenn Beck (with a new book out on the subject, I hear) and the indefatigable Alex Jones.
This calumny marginalizes opposition to the policy (The Great Reset), insulating it from criticism — or even open discussion. It means that people generally can ignore the process of fascification.
So, I’d call the Davos-devised, globalist Great Reset a “quasi-conspiracy.” Its openness is obscured by psy-op.

And it is one of many reasons I no longer freak out when someone brings up actual conspiracies. Methinks the establishment doth protest too much.

twv

There have been four varieties of “vaccines” devised for dealing with the 2020-x pandemic. Curiously, on the Mayo Clinic “Different Types of” page, only three are mentioned.

The four:

1. the most famous and heavily pushed mRNA variety associated with Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna;

2. the adenovirus vector virus agents associated with Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, and Russia’s Sputnik V;

3. the subunit vaccine delivered by the Novavax COVID-19 used in Japan, Australia and Canada; and then there is

4. the most traditional of all, the whole inactivated vaccine as developed in two forms by China.

Though most of the world has come to its senses and put the insane lockdowns to a halt (at least for the time being), China has continued them, with totalitarian rigor and socialistic incompetence. Curiously, China has not imported any vaccines, sticking with its old-fashioned variety and forswearing the fixation on the spiked protein feature that American vaccine manufacturers are so enthusiastic about.

Do the makers of SARS-Cov-2 know something? Or is it another Han-handed flub?

I’ve no great reason to prefer one theory over the other. But, as always, the state of the debate in the West is absurdly stupid. Most people are unaware of the different types of concoctions called “vaccines.” To ask a normal person to explain the differences would be to like asking a neocon what the differences between Sunni and Shia Islam are.

But there are sources on pandemic policy with honest presentation and some degree of reliability. Dr. John Campbell’s video updates are worth regular consult, for example.

A study of actual infection/death rates prior to the introduction of any of the vaccines was synopsized by Dr. Campbell, recently:

The initial analyses of the epidemic were much more dire than these results: the Wuhan flu was not as deadly as feared, though it was indeed deadly. Dr. Campbell calls attention to three things not covered in the study:

  • the subsequent vaccine effects
  • results of prior infections (natural immunity)
  • evolution of variants

But I am very disappointed that the doctor does not mention a fourth factor: the suppression of normal emergency medical practice and the complementary reliance upon the vaccine rollout, and, more generally, doctors’ and politicians’ reliance upon centralized control of medical information.

I hazard that one reason for the devastation of COVID, especially in the U.S., was the government response regarding the use of vitamin and anti-bacterials and anti-fungals and anti-viral medicines. I go far on this: Fauci and the CDC are mass murderers. And they did what they did for money. Key to the successful implementation of this plot was the cowardice of our leaders, and our population.

But perhaps I overstate. Maybe it was all folly, no perfidy. Even so, the suppression of early treatments, and the active political-media suppression of alternative treatments, HCQ and Ivermectin most infamously, contributed to the deaths of millions.

It’s hard to forgive fools for this; impossible to forgive knaves.

twv

The State of the Debate Restated

Two months after ‘Oumuamua was sighted, Leslie Kean and her colleagues broke the AATIP story in the New York Times, beginning a new era in public UFO discussion in America and the world. That was five years ago.

Since then, in several disclosures to Congress, the U.S. Government has admitted that there is indeed something to some subset of UFO sightings, the objects in question behave outside the parameters of normal understandings of physics, are seen not irregularly at sea, and that metamaterials from some UFO encounters are now being studied by Pentagon contractors.

Not admitted or publicly discussed by the government? The long history of UFOs since World War II; the many documents revealed that show serious, top-level concern over the issue by the Army, Air Force, and CIA (including the infamous Twining Memo); the weirdness of the Moon and the alarming accounts of deep sea “USO” (unidentified submersibles) activity or many even stranger reports and issues; or any attempt to disambiguate between official denials and covert hoaxery by government operations.

As for ‘Oumuamua itself, a well-known Harvard astronomer, Avi Loeb, has declared that the object is likely a bit technology from a stellar system outside our Sol’s orbit, and has written a book about it . . . which I’ve not read. 

I know little about all this, really. But I have tried to suspend my sense of shame at the subject. (If you don’t believe that intellectuals have been the target of a huge shaming psy-op regarding the subject, you haven’t been paying attention.) And I have gone on to repeatedly insist that this is a huge story — arguably the greatest of our time — and that we need to unclog our minds regarding it.

Twenty years ago, despite many multiple-witness sightings from the “foo fighters” to the Belgian Wave to the Phoenix Lights, it was easy for me and my Debunkers’ Brigade to dismiss the subject as disreputable.

Now it is clearly disreputable to dismiss the subject.

Also, it seems to me, yammering about topics like the ”Fermi Paradox” without addressing UFOs is witless as well as grand examples of pathetic insularity in action.

That being said, I am by no means committed to the ET Hypothesis as an explanation for all or most or even some of these publicly unexplained sightings and their surrounding corona of lore. One need not lurch from knee-jerk debunking to credulity. Now more than ever we need to combine curiosity with a doubters’ discipline.

twv

Is some half-remembered Kantianism behind the clever person’s pseudo-clever rejection of the idea of “the Deep State”? Some misunderstanding of phenomenon and nuomenon?

Most of the institutions that make up the Deep State are known entities, with acts of Congress behind them, or public corporation status, and personnel and budgets and logos and the whole shebang.

But the essence of the Deep State is that much of it is secret, and the institutions we identify as Deep State are filled with secrets. So of course we must be circumspect and not pretend to know what we cannot. But we must not also pretend to not know what we do. And we know that secret powers and connections have their own properties. So even if we cannot know specifics, we know many of the principles that make the Deep State deep.

We have enough phenomena, and can make reasonable inferences, to understand the latticework of secrecy as a “thing.” The ontology is not too outré. And the fact that we do not experience its internal essences quite the same way we understand Congress or the Supreme Court or the local school board does not allow us to declare the Deep State unknowable, pompously intoning Wittgenstein’s apothegm “that whereof we may not speak we must remain silent.” Better Spencer, who inferred an invisible force and dubbed it The Unknowable.

But the Deep State isn’t that unknowable, and we certainly may say of its existential status that. It. Exists.

twv

Illustration, at top, of Gustave de Molinari, the economist who saw states instruments of war and terror.

In the Middle Ages, society was convinced that there were witches. People were so positive that they burned people whom they suspected of witchcraft. To-day there is an equal number of people who believe just as firmly, one way or the other, about spiritualism and spirits. They do not burn mediums. But people who have made no research of the subject pass strong denunciatory judgments. Others, no better informed, consider mediums divinely inspired. Not so long ago every intelligent man knew that the world was flat. To-day the average man has a belief just as firm and unknowing in the mysterious force which he has heard called atomic energy.

It is axiomatic that men who know little are often intolerant of a point of view that is contrary to their own. The bitterness that has been brought about by arguments on public questions is proverbial. Lovers have been parted by bitter quarrels on theories of pacificism or militarism; and when an argument upon an abstract question engages opponents they often desert the main line of argument in order to abuse each other.

How often this is true can be seen from the congressional records of controversies in which the personal attack supersedes logic. In a recent fight against the proposed tariff measures, a protagonist of protection published long vindictive statements, in which he tried to confound the character and the disinterestedness of his opponents. Logically his discussion should have been based only upon the sound economic, social and political value of the bill as presented.

A hundred leading American bankers, business men, professional men and economists united in public disapproval of this plan. They stated their opinion that the “American” Valuation Plan, as it was called, would endanger the prosperity of the country, that it would be inimical to our foreign relations and that it would injure the welfare of every country with whom our commercial and industrial ties were at all close. This group was a broadly representative group of men and women, yet the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee accused all these people of acting upon motives of personal gain and lack of patriotism. Prejudice superseded logic.

Intolerance is almost inevitably accompanied by a natural and true inability to comprehend or make allowance for opposite points of view. The skilled scientist who may be receptive to any promising suggestion in his own field may outside of his own field be found quite unwilling to make any attempt at understanding a point of view contrary to his own. In politics, for example, his understanding of the problem may be fragmentary, yet he will enter excitedly into discussions on bonus and ship subsidy, of which he has made no study. We find here with significant uniformity what one psychologist has called “logic-proof compartments.”

The logic-proof compartment has always been with us. Scientists have lost their lives through refusing to see flaws in their theories. Intelligent mothers give food to their babies that they would manifestly forbid other mothers to give their children. Especially significant is the tendency of races to maintain religious beliefs and customs long after these have lost their meaning. Dietary laws, hygienic laws, even laws based upon geographical conditions that have been changed for more than a thousand years are still maintained in the logic-proof compartment of dogmatic adherence. There is a story that certain missionaries give money to heathen at the time of conversion and that the heathen, having got their money, bathe away their conversion in sacred streams.

The characteristic of the human mind to adhere to its beliefs is excellently summarized in the volume by Mr. Trotter to which reference has been made before. “It is clear,” says Mr. Trotter, “at the outset that these beliefs are invariably regarded as rational and defended as such, while the position of one who holds contrary views is held to be obviously unreasonable.

“The religious man accuses the atheist of being shallow and irrational, and is met by a similar reply. To the Conservative the amazing thing about the Liberal is his incapacity to see reason and accept the only possible solution of public problems. Examination reveals the fact that the differences are not due to the commission of the mere mechanical fallacies of logic, since these are easily avoided, even by the politician, and since there is no reason to believe that one party in such controversies is less logical than the other. The difference is due rather to the fundamental assumptions of the antagonists being hostile, and these assumptions are derived from herd-suggestions; to the Liberal certain basal conceptions have acquired the quality of instinctive truth, have become a priori syntheses, because of the accumulated suggestions to which he has been exposed; and a similar explanation applies to the atheist, the Christian, and the Conservative. Each, it is important to remember, finds in consequence the rationality of his position flawless and is quite incapable of detecting in it the fallacies which are obvious to his opponent, to whom that particular series of assumptions has not been rendered acceptable by herd suggestion.”

Thus the public relations counsel has to consider the a priori judgment of any public he deals with before counseling any step that would modify those things in which the public has an established belief.

It is seldom effective to call names or to attempt to discredit the beliefs themselves. The counsel on public relations, after examination of the sources of established beliefs, must either discredit the old authorities or create new authorities by making articulate a mass opinion against the old belief or in favor of the new.

Edward L. Bernays, Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923), Part II, Chapter I, conclusion.

I see lots of expressions on Twitter of Twitterers’ “feelings” about Elon Musk acquiring Twitter.

This is funny. But aside from mirth, I don’t have a lot of “feelings” about the change. I mainly have a number of questions.

Though I do indeed regard anyone who supports curated, censored political, medical, and “scientific” speech as an enemy of liberal civilization (which I’m for), I may have moved past anger on this subject. And Musk himself has so many ties to the Deep State, I am left with so many questions. Lots and lots of questions.

Here’s one: Elon, you’ve made billions by contracting with Never A Straight Answer (NASA) and the Pentagon — how do your buddies in the Deep State feel about your professed ”free speech” agenda?

Are there factions within the Deep State now at war with each other, and you’re on one side?

As an advocate of connecting brains directly to AI, how would free speech operate in a cyborg environment?

What security can there be against AI with (shall we say) less-than-transparent agendas and abilities?

So, no hosannas from me about our political savior, St. Elon. But I’ll be very glad to see woke corporatists cast out on their asses, as Twitter moves to better policies and ceases to serve as the butt boy to Klaus Schwab, Hillary Clinton, and their puppeteers.

twv

or, Why the Best Bioweapon Is a Weak Bioweapon

Early in the “pandemic,” Scott Adams heard a rumor that the new virus affected non-Chinese more fatally than the Chinese, so he speculated. If I remember correctly, his speculation was that a biological weapon directed against a race of people was an inevitability, and that perhaps it was happening now. Specifically, the Chinese “communists” harbored an itch to eradicate Uyghurs. Perhaps SARS-CoV-2 was a new instrument of that ongoing genocide, and it had gotten out of hand.

I do not follow Adams, and do not know how he ultimately settled, in his mind, this Ultimate Uyghur Sanction, but I was impressed by one thing: Adams was willing to consider wild possibilities, including one that most people resisted on what seemed like grounds of squeamishness, the squeamishness of people afraid to be called “racist,” or “conspiracy theorists”: that the virus was built in a lab, and may have even been deliberately deployed as a bioweapon.

More than a year and a half later, and now the likelihood of the so-called Lab Leak Theory is commonly recognized as quite high. The worm turned.

Early on, I advised that, according to the Precautionary Principle, it was pure foolishness not to consider the possibility of a conscious bioweapon release. The reason to parlay the principle was simple: one considers a danger to prevent the worst outcomes. Early on, the Precautionary Principle was used to justify extreme mitigation efforts. But that was considering only the virus as a menace. By considering its threat potential, on the other hand, we might fend off other possibilities — those worse than a mere mass death.

Worse?

Yes.

The trouble with bioweaponry is that its deployment is negative sum: it is almost impossible to contain a virus, and the virus you deploy against your enemy will likely bite back at you.

With China, though, there is plenty of “surplus population.” So if the virus’s creators had prepared an inoculation in advance, and were willing to get rid of some population surplus, while also destroying much more of their enemy populations, that remains a possible strategy.

But there is a simpler method. If you want to destroy your enemies, what you want is not a real killer virus, but a virus that is actually not that dangerous … but which, with the right propaganda also deployed, can be made to seem more dangerous than it is. Indeed, a weak bioweapon is the perfect kernel for a psychological operation to get one’s enemies to over-react and weaken themselves.

Which is what happened.

Not only have western nations — weakened by standard churning state politics and China-funded race-baiting psy-ops — over-reacted to the contagion with psychologically destabilizing mask mandates and economically and culturally destructive lockdowns against commerce, they now deploy a very risky set of pseudo-vaccines, which may end up killing more people than the disease they are supposed to defend against.

I don’t know much about what is actually happening, but I do know that it is easy to manipulate mass men. 

And that is what we have here, the culture of Late Stage Churning State Capitalism is filled with Last Men, the gender-rending fools of our decadent culture. Our politics is now crazy, our government policies crazier, and our culture, laziest, ready for Lying Flat, the ultimate nincompoopery of a witless, ill-informed, culture of marks.

Grifted by the authorities, we accept as true things that are obviously false.

What things? You know, things like notion that the pandemic was an existential threat. No. Our reaction to it was. Are we fulfilling a civilizational death wish, or have we been pushed by Chinese (or globalist?) machinations?

I suspect the latter, but don’t rule out the former. Conspiracies are possible, but invisible hand processes still dominate most major trends.

In any case, we must contemplate the possibility that the pandemic could be the result of a conspiratorial threat — of warfare — so we can steal ourselves against our own destruction. It is easier to unite in the face of a concerted threat than against a mysterious menace; easier to accept losses, easier to become heroes.

twv

One cannot logically dismiss UFO close encounter reports summarily merely because we have reason to regard the reports of the crafts’ alleged masters — variously identified as Venusians, Zeta Reticulans, inhabitants of distant galaxies or comparatively nearby stars, such as Sirius — as preposterous.

We have to consider the possibility that the beings in the “flying saucers” are liars.

Indeed, once one gives up the idea that not only is our government lying about UFOs, but so too are the ostensible “aliens” inside, the subject begins to make sense.

Encounters with Trickster beings are very, very old, and resemble UFO lore to an alarming degree.

Of course, what about you and me? We have no reason to believe any particular theory. We just have reason to disbelieve the scoffers, the “skeptics” whose idea of explaining data depends mostly upon denying data.

I find self-identified skeptics to be ultra-amusing. These are people who defend a paradigm promoted by the Pentagon and by the shady hall-walkers in the deepest corridors of the Deep State — the latter folk being self-interested/class-interested statists who have been caught already, on the record a hundred times over, in lies about UFOs, and much else.

Indeed, between the tales from close encounters and press releases by the Pentagon, we only know that we can Trust No One.

twv

When Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., 46th President of These Benighted States, speaks, we should listen. Amidst his fits and starts and faux pas we can find real gems of revelation.

The latest examples come from his G7 adventures. Speaking of Russia, he wants to appear smart. He obviously enjoys every old-timey turn of phrase, and he smiles as he says Russians have “bitten off some real problems they are going to have trouble chewing on.” I wonder if he rehearsed that. It is not exactly Shakespeare, but it is the Bard Himself compared to his repeated references to “Libya.”

You see, Biden meant to say “Syria,” which Russia has defended against repeated U.S. attempts at the overthrow of the Alawite regime. Biden wants to make Putin look bad here, for getting in the way of noble, peace-loving U.S. intervention. But Biden ruins this brilliant bit of misdirection by repeatedly bringing up Libya. For Libya’s the far bigger mess, and it was a mess caused by the United States, the Obama-Biden Administration in particular.

So, why would he do that?

I figure that his ability to lie is low, his pre-frontal cortex being so shriveled up that he cannot maintain the prevarication. Libya is the counter to everything Biden wants to say about Russian and Syria. It shows that it is the United States that is in way over its head, or, to use Biden’s preferred cliché, has bitten off more than it can possibly chew. The Obama-Biden-Clinton team ruined Libya. It is the U.S. that is responsible for that mess, and what a mess it is! And Biden knows that HE MUST NOT SAY IT, so he says it.

The Imp of the Perverse is Edgar Allan Poe’s metaphor:

Induction, à posteriori, would have brought phrenology to admit, as an innate and primitive principle of human action, a paradoxical something, which we may call perverseness, for want of a more characteristic term. In the sense I intend, it is, in fact, a mobile without motive, a motive not motivirt. Through its promptings we act without comprehensible object; or, if this shall be understood as a contradiction in terms, we may so far modify the proposition as to say, that through its promptings we act, for the reason that we should not. In theory, no reason can be more unreasonable; but, in fact, there is none more strong. With certain minds, under certain conditions, it becomes absolutely irresistible. I am not more certain that I breathe, than that the assurance of the wrong or error of any action is often the one unconquerable force which impels us, and alone impels us to its prosecution. Nor will this overwhelming tendency to do wrong for the wrong’s sake, admit of analysis, or resolution into ulterior elements. It is a radical, a primitive impulse—elementary. It will be said, I am aware, that when we persist in acts because we feel we should not persist in them, our conduct is but a modification of that which ordinarily springs from the combativeness of phrenology. But a glance will show the fallacy of this idea. The phrenological combativeness has for its essence, the necessity of self-defence. It is our safeguard against injury. Its principle regards our well-being; and thus the desire to be well, is excited simultaneously with its development. It follows, that the desire to be well must be excited simultaneously with any principle which shall be merely a modification of combativeness, but in the case of that something which I term perverseness, the desire to be well is not only not aroused, but a strongly antagonistical sentiment exists.

An appeal to one’s own heart is, after all, the best reply to the sophistry just noticed. No one who trustingly consults and thoroughly questions his own soul, will be disposed to deny the entire radicalness of the propensity in question. It is not more incomprehensible than distinctive. There lives no man who at some period, has not been tormented, for example, by an earnest desire to tantalize a listener by circumlocution. The speaker is aware that he displeases; he has every intention to please; he is usually curt, precise, and clear; the most laconic and luminous language is struggling for utterance upon his tongue; it is only with difficulty that he restrains himself from giving it flow; he dreads and deprecates the anger of him whom he addresses; yet, the thought strikes him, that by certain involutions and parentheses, this anger may be engendered. That single thought is enough. The impulse increases to a wish, the wish to a desire, the desire to an uncontrollable longing, and the longing, (to the deep regret and mortification of the speaker, and in defiance of all consequences,) is indulged.

Something like that is going on in Biden’s poor head. I suspect it is not unrelated to other impulses, which we see at play in the Law of Nemesis.

Biden knows he must not mention Libya, but cannot help but bring it up.

The imp is upon him, like the narrator in the Poe story, who is mysteriously impelled to run out into the public confessing to murder — inevitably bringing on his own destruction.

He is utterly in thrall to that imp.

That imp now rules America.

twv