Archives for category: Social Media

Government has always been eager to save you from the problems it has caused.

Now, with gain-of-function research proved under NIH’s aegis, we know this is quite literally true regarding the pandemic.

The only way to break free of statism’s ratcheting circular non-argument is to openly disbelieve and to mock government officials and disobey their orders.

“The state is the coldest of all cold monsters, everything it possesses it has stolen and every word out of its mouth is a lie.”

Nietzsche’s great observation, from memory.

Supporting state coercion because you are afraid of a disease the government gave you is to be a pathetic weasel, unfit for civilized discourse: you should be shunned, not praised.

Don’t be a weasel. Don’t be a slave. Break free of the slaver’s mill, which goes round and round and round and breaks you.

A Facebook friend gave me push-back for this:
Stirring up fears is certainly a recurring pattern in electoral politics, and democratic practices are, to varying degrees, everywhere flawed, but why, several generations on from representative government being seriously attempted, is it still part of entirely normal discourse to regard “the State” (hence any state) as wholly other?

My response:
It is a system with its known properties, and I don’t regard it as wholly other. It is in some sense a representation of a certain type of human soul, one we all sometimes also represent: the repackaging of vice as virtue. I do not regard it as wholly other from humanity. Though I do regard it as something wholly other from me. I am not the State. I mostly criticize the states that say I am theirs. I try to get those who are in my same pickle to stop thinking of the State as their Savior, and see it for its actual qualities, and consider, where we can find them, alternatives.

Facebook, Timo Virkkala’s personal page, September 12, 2021 — whence hails all the squibs in today’s blogpost.

Why would you believe anything from people who suppress debate? Why would you trust the expertise of those who will not honestly respond to criticism?

None of the information we are told is reliable, much of what has been said as official truth has been proven to be lies, and the people who push all this ”information” couple it with draconian policy that just so happens to advance their their careers and their class at the expense of the non-professional majority. The whole pandemic has been managed as if to show the extremity of Franz Oppenheimer‘s theory of The State as an exploitation system, coupled with Molinari’s Terrorism theory of the State, and explanations of special interest politics by Pareto, Mises, Buchanan and others. Going in, I was deeply suspicious because I was more than aware of the possibilities for abuse by “experts.” I was not suspicious enough.

And now comes forced vaccination of a vaccine that cannot possibly induce herd immunity, and may very well induce immune escape.

But it is a good way to end the republic. So there is that.


We are told to believe things all the time that stink of a lie from the beginning, but which people just blithely accept.

One such story? That Seal Team Six killed Osama bin Laden and threw his body into the ocean so that it wouldn’t cause problems.

Yeah, right. That makes sense.

A more likely scenario? One of Osama’s lookalike doubles was discovered, and the Barack Obama administration decided to tie up a “loose end” in the war on terror. So they sent in soldiers not to arrest the man — that would have left things quite untied — but to shoot him, and then they got rid of the DNA evidence so to not show what happened.

Maybe this was the moment that I stopped believing any official story. Because I bought the 9/11 explanations as they came at us fast and furious, and for a long time. But the Osama bin Laden assassination was a dumb story. If true, that makes Obama look like a cretin. He was many things, and many things bad, but he was not a cretin.

Then again, people bought the story, so. . . . Reality looks more and more like a very bad paranoid movie, one where even your greengrocer is a conspirator.


The President declared that the unvaxxed in workplaces put the vaxxed at risk.

This either shows you how bad the vaxxes are, or that the president just wants an excuse for tyranny.


I shared a thought from last year today.

Credulity. “Being a mark.” The study of how cons are pulled off should then be applied to policy discussion in modern times.

The current con job that has been rolled out worldwide is to force vaccination onto people, even when it is obvious it would not help them, even when it would hurt them. You know, “to save other people.” You know you are talking to a con artist when he narrows the spread of options, focusing tightly onto an issue and never bringing in obvious and quite salient factors.

Re: vaccination? When they don’t talk about natural immunity and when they push vaccination on the immunodeficient. These vaxxers, then, are either con artists or the deluded-by-same, and spreading their idea pathogens “rationally.” What I remember most about 2020 is how governments ginned up fear but never once advised people to eat healthy, get plenty of sunshine, take the apt vitamin and mineral supplements, and exercise. This really is the marker. If there’s a contagion spread by breath, and they tell you to stay indoors, they are probably evil.

Other clues: they suppress debate and information-sharing and curb the search for treatments. When they scorn a treatment as, say, “horse de-wormer” or just unapproved, and then demand everyone accept jabs of experimental, under-studied drugs made in tandem with gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China, then the level of psy-op has gone beyond the madness of crowds level. We are dealing with more than just the gullible.

What would we call it?

Please excuse me if I speculate about civilizational death wish.

A friend commented on the above:
In addition to all their civilization ending death wishes, the normies have absolutely no understanding of immune function and its importance to dealing with v viruse. There are numerous immune related topics to which they respond as if I were explaining the same subjects to my cat. They do not understand that the deadly ARDS stage of lung clogging is the result of an impaired immune systems’ over-reaction to the virus. Therefore, they did not understand the importance of immune boosting to preclude that phenomenon. They don’t understand that immune boosting occurs with high doses of vitamin D3, vitamin C and zinc along with HCQ and/or quercetin. They don’t understand that ivermectin is safe and has antiviral properties. Therefore, they do not understand the importance and efficacy of early treatments. They don’t understand that the vaccine is not an antibiotic that simply kills the virus. I could go on and on because they understand nothing about the medical science aspects of the virus and the illness that it causes. Whenever any of these points are made even with a peer reviewed medical study, their response 98% of the time is a laughing emoji.

Bob Roddis, Facebook, September 13, 2021.

I’ve known this all my life. Its play in in-group hierarchies and out-group marginalization is what led me to consider political philosophy.

I never bought into the idea that government is primarily established and maintained to provide unequivocal public goods, benefitting all. I have always known that human being are far more warped than that, and that government provides a perfect machinery for advantaging a few at the expense of the many, and then churning the issue and doing it for a different set of exploiter/exploited. This was obvious to me at age 14. Why it is not obvious to everyone puzzles me.

Maybe it was my sensitivity to small betrayals by friends in school that led me to a realistic view of human nature.


The demented president of the federal union of states, humiliated by his own false assurances and lies about the Afghanistan pull-out, is trying to fix his plummeting approval ratings by sparking the ultimate Us vs. Them panic. His expressions of disgust for those who refuse to vax up, in the context of a witlessly mad and madly spooked population, may prove the uncorking of the shaken bottle of our civil war. “Our patience is wearing thin.”

This could be the modern equivalent of Goebbel’s Beer Hall Putsch speech of November 9, 1938.

Goebbels spoke in [Hitler’s] place and announced to those assembled the news of the diplomat’s death. Then he reported on the antiJewish manifestations that had erupted in Kurhesse and Magdeburg-Anhalt, adding that Hitler, after hearing his ideas, had decided that the party should do nothing either to help prepare or organize such demonstrations. However, he added, should such outbursts take place spontaneously, no attempt ought to be made stop them.

Stefan Kley, “Hitler and the Pogrom of November 9/10, 1938,” Yad Vashem: The World Holocaust Remembrance Center.

Strike the Match, LocoFoco’s Back

Stephen Schumacher was minding his own business in the quaint town of Port Townsend, Washington, when the world went crazy!

Yes, after a long stretch of no podcasting, I am back, this time with a friend from my days in the vineyards (metaphorical) of Liberty. That is, Liberty magazine, which I worked on from its inception in 1987 and continued until the summer of 1999. While Steve occasionally helped out at Liberty, probably on computers, it’s been many decades: my memory will not hold up to interrogation.

Be that as it may, Steve had settled in Jefferson County before I got there, and he stayed.

And what has he been doing? Recently, Steve has been fighting the good fight where he lives, writing letters to the editor, providing data and reason to the Covidians on his county’s council, confronting the local health department and more:

LocoFoco Netcast, vlog version: September 9, 2021.

The audio version is ready for listening on SoundCloud or your favorite podcatcher:

Books that just came into my library, or that I have just begun reading.

Two months ago or so, my little sister was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in its later stages. Though she had had a tough case of the COVID in 2020, the hospital required her to take one of the “vaccines.” She chose the Johnson & Johnson, and then, in early July she endured her first chemotherapy treatment. In eight days she was dead.

I have been as listless as many who have taken the pushed treatments, since. No desire to make a podcast or write anything of much importance. But the times are not waiting for me. The onslaught of medical tyranny is coming.

Last night, my dog woke me up in the middle of the night and I couldn’t get back to sleep. So I went on a binge of posting to Twitter and Facebook, doing little on Gab. My previous day’s Twitter foray was described as crazy by one Twitter follower:

I take my alarmist cue in part from seeing what is happening Australia and New Zealand and taking these societies as bellwethers. The tyrannies being set up there are quite horrific. I’ve been catching occasional news about it all, but one YouTuber — a fascinating and extremely odd gentleman going under the name Theoria Apophasis — has been engaged in a string of videos on the subject of Pandemic Over-Reaction Down Under:

Though things look grim, the logic of it all is so fractured that it is hard not to laugh. Somebody satirized the logic in a fine parody:

ABBOTT AND COSTELLO’S ‘WHO’S BEEN VACCINATED?’

Bud: ‘You can’t come in here!’

Lou: ‘Why not?’

Bud: ‘Well because you’re unvaccinated.’

Lou: ‘But I’m not sick.’

Bud: ‘It doesn’t matter.’

Lou: ‘Well, why does that guy get to go in?’

Bud: ‘Because he’s vaccinated.’

Lou: ‘But he’s sick!’

Bud: ‘It’s alright. Everyone in here is vaccinated.’

Lou: ‘Wait a minute. Are you saying everyone in there is vaccinated?’

Bud: ‘Yes.’

Lou: ‘So then why can’t I go in there if everyone is vaccinated?’

Bud: ‘Because you’ll make them sick.’

Lou: ‘How will I make them sick if I’m NOT sick and they’re vaccinated.’

Bud: ‘Because you’re unvaccinated.’

Lou: ‘But they’re vaccinated.’

Bud: ‘But they can still get sick.’

Lou: ‘So what the heck does the vaccine do?’

Bud: ‘It vaccinates.’

Lou: ‘So vaccinated people can’t spread covid?’

Bud: ‘Oh no. They can spread covid just as easily as an unvaccinated person.’

Lou: ‘I don’t even know what I’m saying anymore. Look. I’m not sick.

Bud: ‘Ok.’ Lou: ‘And the guy you let in IS sick.’

Bud: ‘That’s right.’

Lou: ‘And everybody in there can still get sick even though they’re vaccinated.’

Bud: ‘Certainly.’

Lou: ‘So why can’t I go in again?’

Bud: ‘Because you’re unvaccinated.’

Lou: ‘I’m not asking who’s vaccinated or not!’

Bud: ‘I’m just telling you how it is.’

Lou: ‘Nevermind. I’ll just put on my mask.’

Bud: ‘That’s fine.’

Lou: ‘Now I can go in?’

Bud: ‘Absolutely not?’

Lou: ‘But I have a mask!’

Bud: ‘Doesn’t matter.’

Lou: ‘I was able to come in here yesterday with a mask.’

Bud: ‘I know.’

Lou: So why can’t I come in here today with a mask? ….If you say ‘because I’m unvaccinated’ again, I’ll break your arm.’

Bud: ‘Take it easy buddy.’

Lou: ‘So the mask is no good anymore.’

Bud: ‘No, it’s still good.’

Lou: ‘But I can’t come in?’

Bud: ‘Correct.’

Lou: ‘Why not?’

Bud: ‘Because you’re unvaccinated.’

Lou: ‘But the mask prevents the germs from getting out.’

Bud: ‘Yes, but people can still catch your germs.’

Lou: ‘But they’re all vaccinated.’

Bud: ‘Yes, but they can still get sick.’

Lou: ‘But I’m not sick!!’

Bud: ‘You can still get them sick.’

Lou: ‘So then masks don’t work!’

Bud: ‘Masks work quite well.’

Lou: ‘So how in the heck can I get vaccinated people sick if I’m not sick and masks work?’

Bud: ‘Third base.’

And…scene…

The illogic of it all is the astounding thing. Paul Jacob captured this yesterday by showing how challengeable the official line is:

A recent Reason article on New York’s new vaccination passport informs that “there’s a case to be made . . .” yet neglects to mention that the opposite case can also be made. 

What case is it?

Well, the Mayor Bill de Blasio-sanctified case is that “these [totalitarian] measures are important for getting as much of the population vaccinated as possible in order to reduce virus mutation and prevent more harmful variants from taking root.” 

Yet the inverse is perhaps more persuasive. Several important figures in the medical and scientific community have been crying Cassandra* for some time, arguing that an ineffective vaccine, like the mRNA treatments sponsored by Pfizer and Moderna, may, according to epidemiological principles long understood, pressure the spreading viruses into the thing we don’t want: more deadly variants.

The normal course for a new contagion is for it to mutate into easier-to-spread but less deadly variants. Killing a host isn’t good for the virus, so it changes over time. Oddly, I rarely hear this mentioned.

Herd immunity, which is the prevalence in a community of enough people who can fend off the virus preventing transmission to weaker people, can only be helped by vaccination when the vaccines increase hosts’ immunity to obtaining it and spreading it — neither of which clearly applies to the current vaccines.

“From their very first conceptualization,” claims Geert Vanden Bossche, one of the biggest names in the industry to object to the vaccination campaign, “it should have been very clear that these ‘S-based’ Covid-19 vaccines are completely inadequate for generating herd immunity in a population, regardless of . . . the rate of vaccine coverage.”

Sans herd immunity but with universal vaccination, he says, deadlier variants could arise.

Is he right? I don’t know. 

But the case against vaccine passports might reference epidemiology and virology from sources outside establishment-approved “scientific” opinion.

Totalitarians rarely have “the science” on their side.

Paul Jacob, Common Sense with Paul Jacob, “Ceding ‘Science’ to Totalitarians?” (August 19, 2021).

The Reason article Paul quoted notes that there are no exceptions given, under de Blasio’s regime, for natural immunity. You have to take “the jab” no matter what, or no society for you. You will be kept out of all public buildings. Including “private” businesses. An astounding thing. My Facebook reaction to this policy was brief:

The irrationality here should be obvious. The consequences of the irrationality are perhaps less obvious, because Americans have never really seen their own society break into pure terror and mob-fueled totalitarianism before. They are unprepared. And most will deny the warning, calling the warning itself irrational. But Folly now calls to its own, and we can expect the madness to grow exponentially. It has been fun, so to speak. Now it gets grim. The end of the republic is at hand. Woo-hoo? (Ugh.)

Theoria Apophasis calls the process underway “bringing a people to its knees.” But it is not just the madness of crowds. There are guiding hands, as I argued, and it has been going on a long time. Take the vaccines. Vaccination has been hyped and the case for their success grossly overstated:

We are propagandized about vaccines for reasons of power: medical and political. More important than vaccination in [nearly] eradicating traditional major diseases was the automobile replacing horses (which shat everywhere) and the development of good plumbing and sewage systems.

“Civilization is the distance man has placed between himself and his own excreta.” Brian Aldiss, The Dark Light Years

Folks who like public Uplift could take credit for these two major developments, since government was involved in strategic ways. But why don’t they? Because there is scant more power to be gained by their promotion. The next ramp-up of power is from the medicalization of everyday life. Therapeutic tyranny is, as Thomas Szasz predicted, the next big thing.

And fabulism about vaccination efficacy is a key propaganda point to ushering in the new form of control.

New York’s vaccination passport is merely the first step. Politicians, bureaucrats, doctors and Big Pharma will take it all — take away as much freedom and dissolve as much distributed responsibility as possible — if we let them.

The rationales for masks, lockdowns, and the vaccines are all very bad. Courtesy of historian Tom Woods, I shared an important chart:

Here are the death numbers for Germany and Sweden. Sweden is at about 9% mask compliance; Germany has a medical-grade mask mandate. Yet same trajectory, same numbers. £ It’s almost like the virus does what it will, regardless of our “I feel better if I’m doing something even if it’s pointless” interventions. [Tom Woods]

My comment on this was succinct:

I’m so tired of the way most folks argue for masks. That is, like religious zealots. I argue against masks every which way — except one: I think masking when sick would be socially useful; masking when not showing symptoms, on the other hand, is socially detrimental. I’ve made the case before. It’s fairly obvious.

My view of the near future is quite bleak. But I do agree that not all hope is lost:

An intransigent minority can win. And did. In Afghanistan.

And, just so, if Americans wish to regain freedom, the would-be free must become intransigent, or they shall be ground down quickly. The grinding machinery of mob government is at the door….

And I do have a vision of how a freer society would handle contagions like the current one — and worse:

A free people would negotiate with each other openly and rationally on matters of how to handle sociality during a contagion.

They would not mandate coercive policies with ambiguous effects and then stick to their “sides” as if the issue were Eternal Security and the proper way to settle arguments were to point at specific Bible verses.

They would not revise their history books to conform to the latest policy whim, as the author of that history of the Spanish Flu did this past year. They would not blithely suppress ideas they disagree with. They would not scream at those whom they disagree with in public, and sic the cops onto children to pepper spray them for non-compliance with an ineffective mask mandate.

But we are not a free people. We are a disgraceful one.

That reference to a cop pepper-spraying a child who wasn’t complying with an idiotic mask mandate came from Australia, actually. But I feel at one with Australia. This is not just one country utterly pissing away freedom, here. It is most of a civilization. Ours. “Western,” so to speak.

twv

. . . as appeared earlier on Facebook. . . .

I’m one of those people who don’t much care for public fondling. Half the population seems really into hugging, for example. Me, not so much.

So, what do I think of Andrew Cuomo’s “That’s Italian!” defense of his behavior?

He pretty much convinced me. I am very skeptical about the worst of the accusations, and I doubt if the bulk of his gropings and fondlings were primarily of a sexual nature.

Were they “inappropriate”?

That depends upon culture. I don’t think men should be kissing each other in public — but he did kiss other men in public. Many people do. Many people in Europe today do. And in the Middle East. “Kiss each other with the brotherly kiss” is in the Bible. Human beings tend to be very hands-on/lips-on in their basic ceremonies, and pretending otherwise is I guess kind of stupid.

While I think Biden’s gropings and hair-sniffings of girls and women in public is ultra-creepy, he may be innocent — though his whoremonger son suggests that the Big Man’s lesson was not taken innocently. Which decreases my subjective probability of Joe’s innocence.

Perhaps we need an end to #metoo.

How about #dontgropemebro?

We who do not like to be groped by strangers, or kissed by acquaintances in public, and suchlike, need to come up with graceful ways of brushing off the over-huggers and kissy-kissy folks.

And when it gets to genital or other gropings, a good kick in the crotch always works.

Hey, I’ve been the subject of unwanted sexual gropings — in my younger days, I assure you — but I never squealed or even protested. I merely removed the offending hand, saying “no thanks.” This was not difficult. It wasn’t traumatic. But I’m a man, and I was at full 5’10” the first time it happened. Drunken sluts and horndog pederasts seemed easy to rebuff. And they are nothing like the public displays of over-touching that Cuomo engaged in.

Should he have resigned? He should have over his horrific COVID failures. But note the cultural difference here: he was widely praised for his COVID policies! Oh, how the cuomosexuals drooled over his dreamy “leadership”! Talk about offensive.

It is amusing that he was concerned with lockdowns when he couldn’t lock down his hands or his lips when greeting someone.

There’s a lot of humor in this situation. But it is not just that Cuomo is a perv. He probably is. I think old men with nipple rings are pervs. But whatever. Seeing him kiss Bill Clinton should put all this #metoo stuff in context.

I still think that he is bowing out because the investigation revealed actual criminal behavior. That Democrats prefer to sacrifice him on the grounds sexual harassment is a good example of their cowardice and lack of integrity.

But hey: hug the monster you want. Consensually.

Yet, in politics, consent is barely an issue. And the left may regret pushing it to the front. For the very nature of the state denies consent at a fundamental level. Individually we do not consent to the state. We accommodate power. And we call our accommodations “consent.” The average citizen behaves like those battered spouses who cling to their abusers. I have always thought that these sexual and ceremonial issues should be dealt separately from politics. As in the Cuomo kissery and banter and such, but maybe not.

Like at the end of the Planet of the Apes, a warning applies: if you push the consent issue to its logical conclusion, “you may not like what you find.” Your beloved cult of the omnipotent state falls apart. The State itself may crumble under the critique.

twv

The embargo, according to Florida’s senior senator to the United States.

Senator Marco Rubio, of Florida, explains the United States’ embargo on Cuba in a clear and enlightening way. I am as old as the Cuban regime, and I have never heard it explained like this. I am impressed:

This clip is from Fox News on YouTube: https://youtu.be/cF4zxFsBd48.

The odd thing about this m&m meme (post) is that the statement is completely inapposite.

The subject in question is allegedly whether women are overly sexualized “in media.” And we are given a funny m&m ad.

It is a candy being sexualized, not a woman.

Sure, it is a candy being sexualized to look like a woman dressing/acting “sexy” (sexily) — but it is still understood as a candy.

No one denies that some women (or most women some of the time) try to look sexy using the cultural norms we are used to. That is not the claim under consideration, here, though, is it? @fricknook’s m&m post doesn’t prove any point worth making.

Are women overly sexualized “in media”? Or, do women better succeed in media when they sexualize themselves? (Better question, eh?) Ask Ana Kasparian. (See for yourself.)

But candies being sexualized in a feminine as opposed to masculine way is mainly just comic. It proves nothing about “too much.”

twv

The well-known George Mason University economist plies his tool to a current issue:

I’m deeply puzzled by the idea that mandatory vaccination is more morally objectionable than mask mandates. The benefits of vaccination are clearly much larger. The costs also seem much lower — 2 pinpricks versus a constant dehumanizing burden.

Bryan Caplan @bryan_caplan

I responded, helpfully:

“I’m deeply puzzled by the idea that rape is more morally objectionable than unwanted hugging and kissing. The cost of rape seems so much lower — one insertion and a few thrusts and it’s over . . . versus constant dehumanizing burden.”

Timothy Wirkman Virkkala @wirkman

Early reactions have not been uniformly positive.

twv

Our culture’s moral center is an antipode

The video, directly below, is the finale to a series of lectures on the history of unbelief from medieval to modern times. It strikes me as quite good — good enough that I just ordered the lecturer’s book on the subject. (I also cued up the audio version in Scribd.)

Alec Ryrie’s novel argument in this lecture is that the modern humanist consensus is not based on any of the major arguments or strains of intellectual atheism, but, instead, on the replacement of Jesus Christ as the center of our civilization’s moral universe WITH HITLER . . . as the Devil. What unifies most parties and certainly most citizens today is actually the Argumentum ad Hitlerium. The humanistic consensus, in Christian, non-Christian, and anti-Christian forms, is derived by inverting Hitlerism Popularly Understood. Hence our obsessive focus on one type of vice — racism, sexism, and other x-isms that intellectually congeal around the in-group/out-group antagonism — to the exclusion of other vices or any coherent set of virtues.

And this allows me to understand why I am so at variance with our general culture.

For I definitely did not derive and hone my normative thought via inverting Adolf Diabolos!

I find this devil-inversion method witless, and today’s cultic focus on this new Devil as sub-intellectual.

The reason for the former is that the method allows people to be manipulated by ideological propagandists and Deep State psy-op masters. The reason for the latter is that Hitler Popularly Understood is a hothouse flower, carefully cutivated and not enough of the real thing.

Hitler is in many ways far worse than his image, because the bulk of his ideas are now so mainstream. The welfare state itself was one of his crowning achievements, and it was an outrage, and quite integral to his designs. Yet many of the nutters who today think they oppose Adolf Diabolos in every possible way actually promote many of his key programs, and their commitment to these programs corrupts their politics generally. Sure, sure; I know, I know: They pick and choose — just as did the American military when it rescued thousands of Nazi scientists and engineers under Operation Paperclip and organized the post-war Deep State as this strange and quite dangerous echo of the Third Reich’s hidden core.

So now we have Boris Johnson and Joe Biden openly planning to regulate speech in a totalitarian fashion, and most people do not see this as the culmination of Hitlerism. I do.

And don’t, for it is also the culmination of the love of leftist socialism.

I am just not into setting up binaries and normative inversions. For I think we Hyperboreans must be mindful of the Law of Nemesis.

Which is in truth the real, animating spirit that is bringing an end to this age of the humanist consensus.

And Ryrie is surely right to prophesy that the current consensus will not last. And yes, I think it is in the process of collapsing right now, in a spectacular way.

twv

The analytic mindset is geared towards monocausal explanations. Duo-causal and multi-causal explanations offend against the rule of thumb known as Occam’s razor. Even theories that technically incorporate many causes are usually framed as mono-causal. Example? The Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle.

And it is fun to watch the schoolmen fight it out, so to speak, to see who can toe their chosen line with the most singular ferocity.

This is a huge problem for the UFO issue. Of the persistently unexplained aerial phenomena, I suspect that Deep State players are trying like heck to keep people thinking of One Explanation, and away from Many.

Some UFOs are no doubt poorly understood plasma phenomena; others are man-made craft of an “experimental” nature; still others are perhaps developed from wrecks from extraterrestrial civilizations’ excursions; others could be incursions from extraterrestrial elsewheres; there could be time-travelers and other interdimensionals (I place my bets heavily on this latter, alas); and crypto-terrestrial breakaway and remnant civilizations are I suppose possible.

The common lurch towards ET hypothesis is interesting. We should wonder to what extent our opinions on such matters have been sculpted not merely by science fiction, but by psy-ops behind sf, especially sf TV and movies.

Meanwhile, the debunkers’ “UFOs Are All Illusions” Theory seems untenable. I wish it were true, though. All of the possible explanations (listed causes), above, are uber-creepy.

As would be the religious folks’ go-to theory: “Angels and Demons.”

twv on Gab

The reason the analytic mindset exhibits a prejudice for mono-causal explanations should be obvious, but will nevertheless be explained at greater length in a future entry here, no doubt.

…as posted on Gab.com….

Once again, many of my opinions barely climb to the level of “belief”: they are suspicions.

For example: I suspect that had Americans been polled prior to 2020 about a new strain of virus that would pass over kids and productive adults pretty much with mere flu-level symptoms at worst, but would indeed kill some immune-compromised older people at about the levels it is now being said to have done, and then asked them whether they would advise nearly the whole world population to take a new, understudied, unapproved-by-the-FDA genetic treatment that works in some significant ways quite different from vaccines in the past, almost no one would be in favor of the “vaccine.”

I cannot prove that. It is my hunch. Outside the context of the events as they unfolded, I suspect nearly everyone on the left would have objected to the proposed vaxx — and rightly so.

But wait. Do I believe that?

Maybe. Depending on the definition of “belief.” But I don’t know it.

And my suspicion affects other beliefs and arguments I make. I think veil-of-ignorance rationality works against the current craze of worldwide vaccination with mRNA spiked protein treatments. I hazard that people are so overwhelmed by events and panicky contexts that their rationality has been undermined, and they support policies (masking; lockdowns; vaccination) they would not have, otherwise.

I could be wrong. It is, alas, hard to prove — nay, impossible to prove — that I am wrong.

And vice versa. The mass of credulous and panicked vaxxed maskers could be wrong, too. But can I prove it? No. But how would their beliefs fare were they to take my challenge?

Probably not well, once they realize how easy it is to be duped.

But most people believe only other people can be duped. And I do very much believe that this specific belief is without any foundation in psychology or common sense.

We are, none of us, dupe-proof.

twv