When confronting an unknown, it strikes me that a proper assessment must begin not merely by figuring out “the likeliest” suspect causes but also a much more complete list of the possible suspects.

One of the interesting things about a programmed society is that people reflexively know precisely what they must not even consider.

For example, when COVID broke out in China, we quickly learned that there were virology institutes there. So of course we should have considered, immediately, the possibility of not only gain-of-function research going on, but also its use as bioweaponry.

That is, a rational person would immediately know that an act of war may have occurred.

But fine, upstanding citizens in the west are so fearful of looking foolish, so fearful of a real war with real consequences at home, so phobic even about identifying anyone “outside” as a possible enemy (this is the leftist prejudice), that we all immediately feel the taboo against talking about these possibilities. Even I, who thought these thoughts immediately, hesitated to make much of them.

This is programming.

Whether said programming is the result of psychological warfare from the Chinazis, from the CIA, from the old Soviet legacy, or whether it is an invisible hand result of the memes themselves — the egregori of the noösphere — I don’t know. I suspect a little of each.

In any case, right now, there is the Delta variant and a few other strains of the ’rona percolating through society. As soon as we heard this, what did we think?

Well, the likeliest provenance?

1. Normal mutation of a virus. Zoonotic, that is the technical term few of us could remember before 2020.

But we should have considered two other possibilities, at least:

2. Immune escape from leaky vaccines (Geert Vanden Bossche’s warning) or perhaps even poorly implemented therapeutics; or

3. Just the latest wave of bioweaponry release by the CCP/globalist cadres to effect a political restructuring, giving it some breathing room to avoid calamity that they sit upon, nervously.

These more minatory possibilities should be considered for the same reason that the panicky folk insisted on theorizing about the death of many, many more millions of people: the precautionary principle.

But the thing is, when you consider all options in the face of an unknown, not just the one actually pushed (zoonotic origin and worldwide decimating plague), the policy response would be radically different.

How so? Well, from a war scenario perspective, what the world’s nations have done is surrender.

They have done so by crippling their productive capacity and sapping their will to fight. Instead of encouraging bravery, our rulers shepherded us like bleating sheep. And these sheep? They began mobbing for salvation, suppressing independent thinkers in the herd who might (horrors!) somehow jinx the shepherds’ plan to save us. The one thing no one considered was prepare for a fight. To become stronger not weaker. To become active not indolent. To become fearsome not fearful.

The thing is, actual courage would have made us all healthier.

Despair and lethargy need not have been the ineluctable social result of the new disease. I say that, even if — as appears now wildly unlikely — the disease proved of zoonotic origin, and that the death toll sans mitigation efforts would have been much larger, we would have wound up better off regardless. But I don’t believe either of those two iffy suppositions. I believe the evidence that has been accumulating — that this pandemic was the result of gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China — and I suspect that it may very well have been purposely leaked for political or strategic reasons. I also would bet (were a counterfactual gamble a live option) that a reaction of courage would have spurred us to do what we should have done immediately: engage in OPEN DISCUSSION of a wide variety of treatments, and thereby save millions of lives. Indeed, much of the death count of the last year and a half was preventable not by mitigation but by evidence-based medical treatments (accommodating some good-old-fashioned medical artistry). Sadly, the upshot of the frightened reaction has been massive destruction on multiple levels.

I chiefly blame Donald Trump, whose platforming of the man who funded the virus led to the general panic and to the vaxx-craze — his temptation appears to have been his pathetic, narcissistic need to play Savior.

We cannot really blame the Democrats, who surely capitalized on the leadership collapse, for they are ideological cultists, and cultists gonna cult. Their whole philosophy is servility and the promotion of a gimme-gimme culture, not a culture of courage. One shouldn’t blame them, exactly. One should scorn them as quisling fools. But Republicans have hardly been much better. It is the nature of the GOP to tag along behind the Democracy like the whining mutant crying “too fast! too fast!” but never effectively stopping the parade of decline.

Now, you might be wondering — hey, Republicans tend to be opposed to the lockdowns, why couldn’t they have led better?

Well, Republicans are not leaders. They are followers by nature. Their “leaders” have been heavily over-burdened with ignoramuses and fools. President “W,” Sarah Palin, and Donald Trump all showed amazing degrees of ignorance about the world, and all three push a down-homey simpleton intellectual stance. This sort of cultural preference does not encourage people to courageously think through a problem.

When faced with an unknown, as the pandemic was for the first year, at least, you have to look to more intellectual types.

But our intelligentsia has been almost wholly captured by the cult of the omnipotent state, and the wider smarties class has so convinced itself of its self-groomed status as “the wise” that nearly the whole lot of them has become a herd of fools.

This much we know.

twv

N. B. I am not saying that the bioweaponry possibility is likely. I do not believe the conjecture. But I have explained before why it is not “stupid,” why it is not “tinfoil hat,” as has been asserted. Smart people lay on this predictable anti-conspiracy chatter — most especially trotting out the related notion, the tired cliché that “big conspiracies are too difficult to keep secret” — because they do not research how psychological operations by disinformation artists actually work. That being said, recent reports about a Chinese plan to take their research to infect bats with an agent to prevent a zoonotic upgrade to a human-infecting strain suggests that the Chinese may be innocent. But that does not exonerate a possible (but still not likely) globalist sabotage to leak the virus. In the face of unknowns, one should be humble enough not to throw out dismissive theories unbacked by study. It is better to advance conjectures requiring further study.