Sep 17, 2022·edited Sep 17, 2022Liked by el gato malo
Many people I encounter are so brainwashed by media that they can't see two inches in front of their noses, and if you ever challenge them on the propaganda they find there, like Pavlov's dog they will call you a conspiracy theorist. They will then turn up their nose and walk away with a heightened sense of superiority.
The term "conspiracy theory" is remarkably adept at turning off all critical thinking like a light switch in a large portion of the people I have personally met.
Conditioning the public to react this way has to have been one of the most effective PSYOPs ever pushed onto the general population.
It is equal parts diabolic and brilliant, and it means that the elites can get away with just about anything with little to no scrutiny because everyone is too afraid to point out that the emperor has no clothes lest they be labeled a "conspiracy theorist".
---------------
I am a "conspiracy theorist". I believe men and women of wealth and power conspire. If you don't think so, then you are what is called "an idiot". If you believe stuff but fear the label, you are what is called "a coward".
-David Cullum
----------------
Someone far smarter than I once pointed out that "belief is the enemy of knowledge". This is also true of disbelief.
The reason we are in this mess running headlong into tyranny is because the majority of people refuse to believe that the controllers would ever do this to us. These eternal optimists appear to be blind to this most fundamental construct of human nature: that power corrupts nearly everyone who wields it—and the globalists - those obscure puppetmaster billionaires you never read about in Forbes and who've spent decades away from the disinfectant properties of sunlight - have indeed become quite corrupted.
Sep 17, 2022·edited Sep 17, 2022Liked by el gato malo
It also sets up a Fake Binary form of consensus. One either believes the entirety of a narrative (say Climate) without even nuanced or partial dissent or one is labeled a "Denier."
It is a rhetorical means to penalize dissent and launder untruths packaged together and hiding behind obvious truths. It removes nuance and reduces the normal distribution of discussion to a binary.
Yup, Try questioning the reasons the west is so heavily involved in Ukraine. Point out the corruption, the open checkbook without attempts at peace talks, the us funded biolabs, etc. trying to start a discussion about any topic really will have you labeled a Putin-puppet in 0.2 seconds. You can’t even be anti war anymore, without the binary thought of the masses wanting to crush you debate by saying you’re the one who’s been duped. But they won’t discuss, or attempt to persuade you, they just want opposition silenced.
This must be the most basic social construct. A group sets up rules and anyone breaking it gets pushed out which significantly reduces one's survival chance.
I dunno... maybe it's my older age and curmudgeonly status. But these terms don't mean one whit to me. I couldn't care less, particularly when such terms are applied in ways that are non-sensical. (Like Justin Trudeau's oft-repeated "misogynistic, homophobic, ...." terms that flow out of his mouth towards people who oppose vaccine mandates, or freedoms, or claim that he's suppressing rights.)
I'm puzzled that this type of rhetoric even works! It's like trying to SHAME people. When you can stand up for yourself, your words and actions, then there's no shame that can bring you down.
Matter of fact, we should publish BINGO cards with squares filled with such terms, so that we can see who "wins" while putting down such efforts to use them. I think this would help silence people by displaying how many "woke" terms they spout off in their every day verbiage.
Let's BRING awareness to this woke BS and silence them with their own words. The center square is a freebie... "Racist".
Here's one of the passages from the book/author I mentioned:
“Lenin developed a special way of writing that made it possible to establish the ‘formula-slogan’ in the mind of the reader or listener . . . Then, as the most important compositional element, there is the use of repetition, by means of which a rectangle is formed which concentrates the attention, narrows the field of possibilities, and squeezes thought into a tight ring from which there is only one exit . . .
Total power over the Word gives the Master of the Word a magical power over all communications. Soviet speech is always a monologue because there is no other party to talk to. On the other side is the enemy. In the Soviet language there are no neutral words – every word carries an ideological burden . . . That is why in Soviet language the same words are repeated over and over again, until they become a signal that acts without any effort of thought. The effect of set phrases and slogans is also assured by their always being repeated in absolutely the same form . . .
The Soviet language became the most important means of preventing people from acquiring more knowledge than the state wished . . . Soviet speech lost its freedom. The language was put together out of slogans and quotations from the Leader [Stalin] . . . The crushing, unquestioned authority of the Leader’s word is the result to a large extent of his right and power to name the Enemy . . . The word that signifies the enemy must be striking, easy to remember, implying condemnation by its very sound, and always imprecise, so that everyone who at a given moment does not please the Leader can be included under it rubric . . ."
- Mikhail Heller (Cogs in the Wheel: The Formation of Soviet Man)
This is not unique to the USSR. Lenin and Stalin perfected it.
The progressives have levered it with the speed of modern day information flow.
Both negative and positive connotations are employed in this word game. My woke oldest sister uses the term "public health" like a mantra. She wields this phrase like a magic wand. Another word she loves to fire off is "unsubstantiated", a word directed at anything opposed to the official narrative. This Substack is "unsubstantiated". There... It's refuted.
My brother dismisses almost all that I tell him if it came from what he identifies as a "conservative" or "right-wing" source. In other words, anything not presenting the party line. In his mind, there are never two sides to an issue, only his side, which of course is correct.
Wow. It's so intellectually lazy. I wonder what her explanation for those rubbery clots being pulled out of people following the period of time commonly referred to as the official beginning of the covid shots being given out for public health reasons? Or high rates of death per the funeral and insurance industries. How would that "public health" be explained away? Or shots putting more people in the hospital than covid did?
Just wondering... have you "unsubstantiated" anything "official" that she might throw out and then showed her when they turned 180 degrees, or admitted that they didn't do X? Or the change in the definition of vaccination?
I think it's as incomprehensible as listening to news casts that say that people in china, locked up in their homes, are starving to death because they don't want to venture out in search for food, simply because they were told not to. When I explained this conundrum to a person with chinese roots (who, btw thought I was nuts for believing all this covid conspiracy stuff) told me in simplistic terms (after several rounds of my not understanding what she was saying) that in essence they were brainwashed into being complete followers of Xi Xi Ping. After listening to all those people screaming in hunger from balconies???
But then again, I've been in situations on a light rail train where some black teenagers were going after a mentally ill person, and nobody except me tried to stop it. Everyone else just whipped out their phones to record it, or sit there and watch it play out. I'm afraid that we're becoming a nation of cowards. We need to restore more traditional roles and rules back to our nation before we crumble in anarchy and fear.
What makes it so difficult to use this in reverse against them? It IS difficult, but why? It feels like it should be so easy to find labels to describe the side that is siding with the most ridiculous ideas.
We're having to break through a constant drumbeat of fake news/narratives, some of which was published by "trusted" networks or complicit/bought off "authorities" (government agencies, individuals, medical establishment, etc), when people were in isolation for months and got their news from the television set/newspapers that were in cahoots with the governments around the world and with each other.
And remember, much of what we're saying is NEW to these people, and can't be believed after all this time. (Some was never broadcast to them at all, and some wildly distorted or "fact checked" by deeply suspect "fact checkers" and supported by social media.)
In essence, we are literally trying to de-program cult-like indoctrination. And you can't use the word "cult" because it immediately gets rejected when you apply it to them.
You're going to have to guide them.. lead them. And continually ask them if what they've internalized is still making sense. And you're basically having to force them to weigh their trust in YOU (along with data) against THEIR network of "trust" seen above.
And then you're going to have to determine if people are so far gone that you can't waste your time. You're trying to reach people who STILL have semblance of non-zombie intellect. (sorry to put it so bluntly, but this is a race of time). And hopefully as we find those who finally believe, they'll use THEIR trusted networks of friends/family, etc. (and have the fortitude to persist against THEIR pressure.)
Yeah? And now I volunteer for an organization that watches elections being run. And I encourage others to do so as well. It's my version of lemonade, when someone wants to throw a lemon at me.
I've been thinking textbook narcissists (the gaslighting, the projection, the blame-shifting, the future-faking, the rage fits, the smear campaigns …), but this is probably a "both/and" situation.
I noticed the use of the word 'denier ' from the beginning. I think it's deliberate weaponisation of words. There's entire units in our UK government called behavioural insight teams who use propaganda to 'nudge ' us in the direction they want. Previously denier was associated with holocaust denier. There's no defense against that association. It's deliberate and disgusting to take what people rightly think is an twisted denial of a heinous crime and use it to teint whatever they decide is the current thing they're trying to shut down.
I agree - it puts things together very well. A standard definition of knowledge is "justified true belief" and that ideally suggests a cyclical and unending effort of testing, assessment, refinement. Being led to or stopping at "belief" is indeed a perversion of the ideal.
And we are all, by this point, aware of the well documented CIA origin - circa 1965 - of the term "conspiracy theory/ist" ? The effort to forestall questioning of the Warren Commission report on the JFK assassination. Surely a case of "elites getting away with anything"! - It was so successful, it became a 60 year and counting go to meme for those same elites or actually, their progeny.
Another Fake Binary. One is forced to declare themselves Anti-Racist or dissent from doing so and risk societal shame.
Every discussion has nuance and a distribution of ideas/opinions and when the Monopolists of consensus want to destroy nuance, they look to impose a Fake Binary to launder their desired consensus outcome. This is why the Racist/Anti-Racist rhetoric is utilized in so many discussions that have nothing to do with race. In other words, it's an easy and effective way to layer a Fake Binary on a discussion that doesn't otherwise have one.
the Bigotry Accusation is one of the foundations of the modern Left, it is their all-purpose Swiss Army knife and Break Glass in case of Emergency tool.
it is essentially the equivalent of smearing someone as a witch or heretic, smearing them w guilt and shame and placing them outside the boundaries of a community.
but, as being branded a Racist is still the great scarlet letter of our time, it has been a winning tactic for maybe 50 yrs and shows no signs of losing potency.
Not only a winning tactic; it's a commercial enterprise as well.
A sort of pariah industry, offering products or processes or advisors that are not reputable, but for which there exists a social demand....small at first.
The racism component reinforces that "demand" - literally on a progressive scheme. An industry that creates demand where there's not much "supply".
So people are "paying" for something that only creates more demand, of ever increasing "need/intensity/ membership", to justify the original manufactured social demand.
Destructive and diabolical but a damn good business model.
Politics and money are both downstream and upstream at the same time.
So you really can't "fix" either unless you dismantle the enterprise and the politics (in this case the Left) at the same time.
Crystal clear in my head...rubs like mud on paper...;p
is amazin how in america what may start w a seed of well-meaning goodness (certainly 50 yrs ago many bigots needed scolding) often metastasizes into a moral crusade, ersatz religion, then of course industrial complex, jobs program, entertainment & marketing niche, mafia extortion racket (nice business you've got there, but you may need a diversity manager)...but in this case it's much much worse than that...
the Race Maoists have installed a commissar in every single cultural and intellectual institution in the entire Anglosphere (even in places like Scotland and New Zealand!) and they have the full political and financial support of the entire global corporate state, including its propaganda arm...
there will be no dislodging them without a great deal of ugly pain, conflict and destruction.
yes, upstream/downstream like an entire separate ecosystem or economy of racialist/leftist narratives where each new event creates a new market and new customers (and new entrepreneurs) all buying and selling to and from each other...
is absolutely diabolical in brilliance and effectiveness!
looking for historical parallels im thinking: it's maybe like a cross bw the widespread sale of Indulgences by the Catholic Church pre-Luther and Tulipmania or the South Sea Bubble where everyone was suddenly a day trader, w of course Mao's Cultural Revolution...
"So people are "paying" for something that only creates more demand..."
Call it intellectual heroin, because heroin is what is sounds like, and having in my youth lost friends to that drug, let me tell you one more thing why heroin fits to a tee:
The addict cares for the drug and only the drug: it becomes the sole focus and point of existence. There s nothing, no matter how vile, a heroin addict won't do to get a fix.
As for business model, it's like selling windows for people to break, sort of, and showing those people that breaking windows is good for business and therefore for the nation and therefore for those who break windows - and never showing the rest of the graph and its tangents, where you can plot the point where it all crashes.
After which the people will have to pay not only for new windows but for new everything.
If my conclusion drawn from experience and observation aligns with the opinion of a bigot, that just means the bigot happened to adopt the right conclusion.
"belief is the enemy of knowledge". This is also true of disbelief.
absolutely- thanks for making that point. disbelief is a belief itself. fervent disbelief is often more insidious than fervent belief since it's often not recognized for what it is.
An interesting point. I don't know if was unique to him, but Nietzsche was unquestionably atheist and advocated inquiry, calling into question virtually everything. At least in his famous "Beyond Good and Evil." I would say: It's perfectly fine to critically inquire (well, not ever, according to the morality you are scrutinizing!!!) and to doubt. But at some point, ask yourself, "What DO I believe in?" And if so, why? Why not?
Merely having read most of his works doesn't make me an expert of course, but I think Nietzsche could be summarized quite succinctly in the sentence: "Most, perhaps all, belief systems are bullshit."
Real world anecdote: In my university days, one club I was active in was the Atheists. If for no other reason, it gave us something of the "cool kids" image, being something of an antidote to the multitude of "Christian" groups infesting a public university. Being in the South notwithstanding, most college age "Christians" have about as much in common with the early Christians as a whore house has with a convent. 😎 What began as a fairly lively club in a few years dwindled to few members and then was deactivated. Only half-jokingly, I would quip "It disappeared because nobody believed in it." 🙂
Hahahaha! Thanks for that anecdote, wonderful way to start the day.
Speaking of convents and cathouses, in Stockholm in olden times (15th-16th century) there were a cloister and a convent on opposite sides of a street and market square.
The messaging is brilliant indeed, fortiori, and it continues to this day.
Anyone who is involved with organizational infighting knows that it's critical to get your apologia out ahead of the facts, and that's been handled in a very effective manner.
The reason we encounter so many ordinarily rational people that shut down any sort of conversation about this, is that they were very thoroughly inoculated against the danger presented by the emerging data.
If you live in or near any major metro area, your local newspaper and broadcast media are continuing the messaging each and every day.
Every morning, I go out to the driveway and unfold the daily propaganda. The thoroughness with which The Narrative smothers the mind in similar fashion to the way a murderer holds a pillow over their victim's face, is remarkable. It's rather like attending a well-rehearsed symphony; the discerning attendee can feel their emotions rising and falling with each sentence, each paragraph and each new article.
Well... you somehow failed to mistake the finger pointing at the moon, for the moon itself. You followed the emerging research and data as it emerged. Yes, indeed, that makes you a conspiracy theorist nut job, and a danger to public health.
Those who wanted to punish you for this were surely correct in their attempts to do so, because you read that data INTENTIONALLY, and with malice aforethought. It is an evil thing to interfere with the efforts of your betters in that fashion. The lives they took with their propaganda were necessary sacrifices, made for the common good.
Welcome to the ranks of the conspiracy theorists. Feels rather odd, doesn't it? It's like re-reading Kafka's "Metamorphosis," only rewritten so that you confront the giant cockroach, not in a mirror, but through a window and on every television screen.
Although his topic is relationships, Harry Rollins "Liar" is a darkly humorous song of a manipulative sociopath narrating his evil deeds. Well illustrating much of what you wrote above. Available on YouTube.
I think asking those questions asked in gato's piece would be a great starting point. You don't have to answer it for them. But leave them lingering in their minds.
Part of the problem is that evil coordinated behavior of this magnitude has never arisen before. The average citizen lacks the frame of reference to see the conspiracy for what it is.
Agreed. But then again, how did WE get to this point? We likely peeled back an onion and came to a conclusion that made the most sense, given the pieces of evidence that we started discovering.
Perhaps encouraging people to look for themselves, and here's some places to begin at...
It probably wasn't entirely rational, even on our part. WE resented the propaganda, and sought alternative sources of information. THEY didn't, and molded their minds on what was dished out to them.
Exactly. Some people pick up on lies better than others whether through practice, rigorous thought, curiosity that leads them to truth, childhood training, or greater emotional intuition, etc. Whatever the case, the propaganda pushed US away rather than toward the narrative they wanted believed.
It took basic science and analytical skills to show one lie after another. It's sad that more didn't even exercise that kind of common sense. But then again, people probably had a lot on their plates and didn't even consider that these news sources, government officials or medical personnel would lie, or be silenced into witholding the truth.
For me, at least, I don't think it was particularly science and analytical skills. It was simply the overpowering stench of propaganda and power-grabbing. When they not only shut everything down over no empirically obvious mass sickness, but immediately set up censors called "fact-checkers" to squelch counter-narratives in the social media that they presumptuously labelled "mis-/disinformation", that was all I ever needed to know that they were dishonest, and that the truth was something other than what they were telling us. The pandemic was obviously a charade. The assault on our most fundamental rights and liberties was very real.
Dr. Robert Malone's Sunday substack introduced me to a depressing video clip from an old BBC comedy series that frankly, feels like a documentary today.
Another part of Malone's piece on Sunday was this monologue from Neil Oliver from a month ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIpLwiaQRRk titled "It's hard to tell yourself you've been taken for a fool but open your eyes"
I wish the hive mind could be reduced to a super villain who dresses in Vulcan attire and encourages us to eat Z bugs, or 3 stooges at the NIH, but I think it’s more incompetence and mass formation psychosis from our media controlled state. In other words, it’s a feature not a bug.
The media - both news and entertainment - have now politicized nearly everything in our society as an extremely powerful mechanism of control.
Politicization is so effective at manipulating the populace because most people emotionally connect their personal belief system to the belief system of their political party, and so then any attack on their party - legitimate or otherwise - is interpreted by their brain as an attack on themselves. Reason and logic then jump out the nearest window as raw emotion takes the helm, thus making them even more susceptible to the predatory controlling influences.
Sep 17, 2022·edited Sep 17, 2022Liked by el gato malo
How can you convince a group of otherwise rational people to simultaneously reject blatant realities? In short, incentives.
In this case, the financial incentives of actors tangential to the "public health" apparatus were and are centrally controlled. That is to say, there is a relatively small group of people - Fauci primary among them - who decide where the financial benefits flow.
This creates a Cantillon class of privileged political actors who are enriched not by their level of skill or ingenuity, but simply by their proximity to the financial spigot. This Cantillon class is most apparent in purely financial organizations like the Federal Reserve and the mega banks. But Fauci has done a tremendous job mimicking that structure in public health. He and his associates successfully gained such significant control of government funding that they were and are able to control even the speech of downstream actors.
This showed itself to be an existential threat to Science itself, which is meant to be a competitive process of decentralized and independent actors. That decentralized and independent academic process (and system of incentive creation) was functionally destroyed by the centralization of the funding mechanism. This also similarly explains Fauci's odd utterances that he himself now represents Science. In a way, he does. He represents the artificial financial incentives that now represent Science.
indeed this would seem to be the inevitable result of the concentration of research capital into federal agencies. the need for grant grubbing to one central chieftain as gold giver corrupts and co-opts entire fields of research and renders that which should be polyglot and adversarial into monocultures of bureaucratic obeisance.
this not only stifles objection and dissent for fear of being forever banned from the gravy train, but locks research direction into dead ends and blind alleys that just happened to be someone's hobbyhorse. look what happened in amyloid plaques or depression mechanisms or mRNA.
the revolving door of pharma sinecure and unaccountable and unaccounted backflow of royalties really blows this out in terms of circular corruption that has spiraled to hurricane force.
this system has eaten and captured and entire field and it's killing us like strangle vines.
Yes it is. I worked 16 years in academic research, much of that time with people doing “climate change” related work. This is precisely what I observed. On occasion I would note issues with the “models” and what that implied as to the worthiness of the research goals. I was quickly shutdown and sent to my corner. No “brilliant retorts” to my “ignorance” were ever proffered (and what academic ever passes up that opportunity?). This suggests they had none.
Yup. And the cancer industry. Create the problem....then pour a never-ending supply of money into looking for that elusive "cure" which never actually works, but so many hopeful possibilities which coincidentally also make never-ending money for the perpetrators.
There is a heuristic to be formed here. In true decentralized and competitive markets (whether it be a market of ideas or price discovery) one would expect to see a highly variable dispersion of opinions/values from the market. This dispersion of consensus should take on the probabilistic shapes of nature (some distribution function, likely normal). The more centralized the market, the less that market will reflect nature and will begin to defy the natural distribution function.
To put this in practical terms, let's use Covid 19 as an example. In a real competitive and scientific marketplace of ideas, we should have seen a distribution of opinions among the "expert" class. There should have been some actual conspiracy theories in very small numbers (the tails), but a lot of voices saying around the same thing but in different ways (the middle of the normal distribution that is close to but not exactly the truth). Instead what we saw were "experts" who were not engaging in a competitive scientific process, but rather reciting an edict from the consensus Monopolists word for word. There was almost no distribution of consensus opinion. We saw a completely binary distribution of opinion - People either believed and recited the official narrative masquerading as Science or dissented from it.
This heuristic can be used going forward to gauge just how real certain conversations/discussions/arguments really are. If there is hardly any distribution of opinion, it is likely the topic has been reduced to a Fake Binary form of consensus creation.
We need a law that says any royalties received are disclosed publicly within a month. After all, if it's legal under the Bayh-Dole Act, then we are entitled to know the source, amount, time/date, and what the royalties are tied to. Since there's a performance part of the royalties, the government-paid-for effort/data showing that development that entitles them to the royalties should also be revealed publicly.
Bill Gates has openly and to the public said that vaccines are the biggest return investment he’s ever made in his life the return is about 21%! Talk about the smoking gun let alone his Ted talk about controlling the population with vaccines he’s a conflict of interest within himself, he is certainly not our savior now
I think it may be worthwhile to read more carefully. And cross-check with other sources. Bill Gates has said in a few places that he's had a VERY nice return on investment in vaccines.
Agree! But we'll never see it. Far too sensible. Our "Western Liberal Democracies" have spent many decades building political and bureaucratic structures impervious to "interference" from citizens. And totally shielded from any trace of accountability. Any attempt to force "them" to reveal information, any information, will be met with massive resistance. Expect a wall of silence, shredders - physical and electronic, and even old fashioned burn barrels will be the order of the day.
And don't forget that we have allowed one powerful government agency to recruit and train an additional taxpayer funded eighty thousand strong army. Well armed, with a commitment to the application of "lethal force". I suspect other agencies, already equipped for physical force, are quietly increasing their armed strength. I very much doubt the purpose of this quasi military build up is to share information about the financial affairs of their bureaucrats.
You're right that there would be massive resistance. What clued me in on the Bayh-Dole Act in the first place was the HUGE resistance (by government workers AND lobbyists) to fixing the problems in that act when it was up for consideration. I'm grateful for the long-forgotten author of that piece in 2020 who opened my eyes to it. Once learned, I tried sharing the info with everyone I knew and even a few people who I thought were influencers. It just didn't gain traction. It was like it was too hard to understand how the Bayh-Dole Act was legalized bribery.
As is nearly always the case, the ancients had the proper question:
Cui bono?
What you have so eloquently described here has general applicability to most, if not all, State intervention into society and economy.
Every State intervention sets up the same sort of perverse incentives: in the absence of market discipline which requires a focus on value, the needs and desires of the coercively imposed parasitical interventionist organization are paramount, and like all human organizations, the members will behave accordingly.
This is a feature, not a bug, of the leviathan State that afflicts us all, and is so ubiquitous across the entire formerly free world that people have not only come to accept it, but have been bamboozled into believing it is beneficial.
Until this changes, we will still have ridiculous rubes lighting their Fauci prayer candles, which given the current state of The Science™, is far more apropos than they know.
"The State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men who clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation – that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class – that is, for a criminal purpose.
No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient."
~ Albert Jay Nock, The Criminality of the State, American Mercury, March 1939.
I agree, Libertate. It's like waking up and seeing the whole world with fresh eyes. I think what is new about this current situation is that now many more people are waking up to the fundamentally corrupt nature of the State. It seems that in the past there were always individual heretics/dissidents that pointed out these truths, but it is only now that many millions (I don't think I'm being hyperbolic here) are asking the right questions (such as cui bono?). Many of the Elite$ really messed up this time in thinking they could accelerate things towards their techno-fascist dystopia by creating this "crisis". There is a possibility that this might be the beginning of the end for their systems of control.
public health, academic research, and big pharma has become a feudal system of fiefdoms and fealty where all pay homage to grub for grants from the top gold givers.
They can be as ugly and vindictive as they want in a decentralized and competitive system of consensus creation and the system will still function properly. The moment the system becomes centralized and political, their vindictiveness begins to impact the system of consensus creation negatively.
Be it nature or nurture, those douchebags have been with us since before douchebags were invented.
The only question is whether we will have a free market which yokes them to good, or the State which empowers them to rule and loot us and thereby attracts them flies to an open sewer.
The problem is that everyone involved was acting rationally. They were just being incredibly selfish and inhumane about it. The lives of billions vs their own careers? You know the answer they chose. I don't even blame them as much as I do the corporate media, who basically at this point are useless propagandists. Instead of acting to investigate and question, they became narrative enforcers. The only good thing that I can see coming out of this is that the failures were so bad that many people are finally waking up.
That's right, they were acting rationally in a game that had become distorted (i.e. too centralized and political). The game itself changed the moment Fauci was able to amass as much control over the funding of Science that he did.
When you have someone in a position of power, and they have a choice between a choice better for society vs better for him or herself, don't be surprised when they prioritize themselves.
See I disagree, they were not behaving rationally, but there was a rationale for their behavior.
Behaving rationally means to behave in a logical or sensible fashion. If I enact a policy, like say mandate vaccines, there (edited: should be) a logical or a sensible reason for it. Reasons like:
• Does the disease have a terrible death rate?
• Does the vaccine prevent infection/transmission?
• Has the vaccine been tested?
A rationale for something on the other hand, takes into account illogical behavior. For instance:
• What would be more advantageous (edited: for me and my interests)?
• Has fear of the virus overcome good judgment?
• What about the idea that doing something is better than doing nothing?
It's not surprising when people prioritize themselves, but it isn't rational. But it is a rationale for their irrational behavior. It makes perfect sense that a lot of doctors were silent in the wake of the narrative for Covid. But, was fear of losing a job, or reputation a rational decision?
You and I are simply using different definitions of rational. My definition is based on logic: given a certain set of facts and assumptions, does the observed behavior logically follow? That is, is it consistent with the specified factors? It's a positive definition, not a normative one. I'm not making a value judgment about their behavior, I'm saying it was a logical outcome given the observed ethics, value systems, and incentives involved.
It is true that we definitely have different definitions on what is rational. My definition too is based on logic.
Most behavior, even irrational behavior can be consistent after learning specified factors, facts, and assumptions about the person, but that doesn't make it rational. For instance, I know someone who is in their seventies and if he has any food on his plate after eating, instead of throwing it in the garbage or giving it to someone else to eat, he throws it in the toilet. About twice a month, as a result of this behavior, the toilet gets backed up.
While this behavior is irrational, it is understandable. At his age, and based on his coherence level, he is having challenges at the age of 77. His behavior is consistent with who he is., but if you told me he was behaving rationally, I would disagree.
The reasons for enacting the Covid policies also were not rational. First, they were based on faulty models. I would argue that basing any decision on computer models is irrational, as even the best models are not taking into account factors such as the bias of the person creating the model Also, even the best models can't account for every nuance. A similar argument can be made about the vaccine. They enacted vaccine mandates without very little in the way of data regarding how it affects fertility, the heart, blood pressure, and the brain,
Second the policies were developed based on Chinese precedent. This should also raise red flags, especially if we are in agreement with these policies. I've heard doctors explaining that lockdowns, masks, quarantining the healthy were nowhere in the "pandemic playbook" and yet they were adopted in a very short period of time. These policies were put in place not in conjunction with "rational behavior,"
Third, zero tolerance policies by their very nature are not rational as they do not allow for any variation or nuance in their application. Thus, a zero case goal, while laudable was not realistic. Having such an unrealistic view of how to get rid of Covid is also irrational. It is understandable based on the fear and panic that erupted over the disease, but it was not rational. It is not based on sound judgement.
A lot of the behaviors we observed throughout the pandemic were understood, but they were not rational. It made sense for instance to count a motorcycle accident as a Covid death, because it meant the hospital could get government funding for each Covid case treated. It also explained using a ventilator for treatment early in the pandemic, because again. it meant more resources for hospitals.
>>> If I enact a policy, like say mandate vaccines, there has to be a logical or a sensible reason for it. <<<
Sure, if you're naïve enough to believe that the people who get to enact policy will behave the way you THINK you would behave in the same situation.
Let's be clear: I'm saying that there is a point past which YOU would not behave in the way you THINK you would behave. And people who are attracted to political life (which includes bureaucrats) are less scrupulous than you think you would be.
Very few people have faced a 'credible' temptation that involved illicit gains of of more than a few hundred dollars - say, the presence of a mid-range bicycle sitting unlocked outside a café.
There's a risk of discovery and apprehension (and getting the shit kicked out of anyone who lays hands on MY bike) - so the decision "Do I steal this bike?" has to be thought of in risk-adjusted terms.
When the risk-adjusted payoff is relatively low, the temptation is relatively easy to ignore - the overwhelming majority of us ignore that temptation all the time. So I can leave my Specialized Allez outside a café without a lock on it, with little risk that it'll be nicked (I always sit somewhere that's line-of-sight though, and my bike has a GPS tracker in the headset - but it's an old bike [2006 Allez Pro]).
I've got several friends who've had their bikes stolen from this situation.
Obviously SOMEONE is stealing all those bikes - most of which can't be re-sold because they've got identifiers in them. (The componentry can be stripped and sold though - a full high-end groupset is worth ~2500, and a good back wheel can go $4k).
So take it as read that there is a subset of people who DON'T ignore the temptation. (In fact there are organised rings that target high-end bikes).
And at the bottom of society are people who will actively seek to steal objects worth hundreds of dollars that they then 'fence' for 90% less than market value.
Now... ratchet up the size of the payoff until it's predictably until it's integer multiples of average household income. Assume it's 6, 7, or 8 figures.
Then... ratchet down the risk of discovery and/or punishment. So pretty much all of that 6-to-8-figure sum goes into the bank.
If you have convinced yourself that you would resist that level of temptation, I claim - without knowing you - that you're wrong.
FWIW that's why I don't hold Paul Krugman's output against him. If someone sidled up to me and said
>>>We like how you write, but we don't like WHAT you write. If you change your ways to write what we like, we can organise for you to earn half a million bucks a year for as long as you are prepared to do that. You don't have to kill anybody or steal anything. Whaddya say?"
I would take that offer in a heartbeat. And if you're honest with yourself, you should acknowledge that you would too.
Because YOU'RE RATIONAL and almost no human being has a utility functional that would resist a genuine multi-million dollar payday (where the payday didn't require overt criminal behaviour).
RATIONAL simply means "Making decisions to maximise an expected utility manifold given the information set and preferences."
I have since edited the comment to state that there "should be" a logical or rational reason for it. I get how reality is, it is why I responded to the assertion by Epamimondas as to the assertion that "everyone was acting rationally." They weren't.
If you had read my full comment here, you would know that my comment was mainly to discuss the difference between rational thinking, and a rationale on why people behaved in a certain way. I was endeavoring to show a contrast between a logical response, (what should have happened based on the information available) and what did happen (a response based upon human nature).
It's ironic,that this is even a discussion because a lot of the response to Covid has been based on human nature, but the policies enacted fail to take human nature into account. Masks, vaccines, social distancing, lockdowns were responses that only sought to eradicate the virus above all else. None of the measures took into account how such measures would affect mental health, physical health, emotional and social responses to one another, as well as the unintended consequences of enacting such policies. At least that is the surface reason for these policies. As you point out correctly, there were also incentives such as money, fear of loss of job or reputation, to account for those acting as they did.
None of the responses took into account human nature, like our need for social interaction, and how realistic it was to assume people could properly wear masks even if they did work. Not to mention the human propensity to divide people into tribal groups and treat the other group with disdain.
I would be the first to admit that I have complied to mask mandates, for instance. I complied and wore a mask on Uber rides, and in doctor's offices. But I also acknowledge that my behavior was not rational, but the rationale for it made sense. I wore the mask because I wanted to get where I was going without hassle. I wore the mask in the doctor's office because I had to get referrals and treatment. All this while knowing masks were theater and did not work.
Regarding the money, Jordan Peterson asks a similar question, but more in line with those that assert they would not participate on informing on neighbors and being guards when the Gulag system was enacted in Soviet Russia. I know that I have a capacity and a will to do bad things, harmful things, and self-serving things. Every human has that capacity, and to not acknowledge that would be living in fantasy land.
Would I take a half million dollars if all I had to do was write what they were paying me to write? I would most likely, but I also know it would keep me up at night. I would probably end up self medicating, or finding another way "not" to think about what I have done. I might also endeavor to see if I could send out coded messages to people to tell them my true thoughts while disguising them, or create a different persona to use that original one as a way to generate discussion and autonomous thought over issues.
If I took vaxx money, for instance, I wouldn't feel great about it, knowing how many people were harmed. I would rationalize my way out of it by asserting it was their decision, that the information on vaccines was out there. But in the end, my decision would be made predicated on greed, not rational behavior.
It's like the people that play the lottery. There is a rationale as to why they play it. All that money would make sense to spend money to make it. But what is the logical or rational chance to win the lottery? Not very likely, and yet when the jackpot gets to a certain point, a lot of people feel the need to buy a few tickets. Has the chance of winning the lottery increased by the size of the jackpot? Would a jackpot substantially lower decrease the odds? Is not a ten million dollar jackpot a reasonable incentive to buy a lottery ticket just as much as a hundred million based on the likelihood of winning the lottery?
I can understand the rationale for buying a lottery ticket in either case, even as it is not a rational decision.
You make some valid points. "Act rationally" is generally good advice, but one must inquire "Rational by what standard?" You seem to assume a person in power will choose "the greatest good for the greatest number." Your apparent faith that humans will choose what's best for most is charming, but I fear it is poorly grounded in reality. I'm with Epididymis or whatever the hell his name is 🙂. We'd all love it, if it were true that powerful people would set aside their own self-interest and serve the general good. Of course this happens, but the problem is that it's not default behavior. Feathering one's own nest is. This takes many forms, and is not even necessarily at odds with a greater goal although it will nearly always impose a cost thereon. A common analogy is a money manager who earns (say) 1% of assets, regardless of the performance of assets he manages. At the extreme of corruption would be the manager who funnels money to henchmen with dubious projects perhaps for a kickback, or perhaps he just cuts out the middleman and takes whatever he can a la Bernie Madoff. Ethically, I think we have enough evidence that the behavior of all people in power re the Covid-19 directives and surely Big Pharma, are closer to the "scraping the bottom of the barrel" category.
First of all, there was never any advice given as to how people should act. In a utopia the advice to follow would be to stay out of the way of the citizens as much as possible and let them decide for themselves how to act as long as it does not encroach or harm other individuals. Let them wear masks, get vaxxed, do the social distance mambo, and wear full hazmat suits if they want.
The comments made were in response to the assertion by Epaminondas that “Everyone was acting rationally.” Thy were not, and I would agree with your question, “by what standard?” In my opinion the response was not based on logical well-reasoned thought, but rather on self-interest, fear, and based on the idea that those in government see government solutions to most problems.
Further you said:
"You seem to assume a person in power will choose "the greatest good for the greatest number." Your apparent faith that humans will choose what's best for most is charming, but I fear it is poorly grounded in reality."
I don’t think that humans act in this manner, again, that is my point in questioning “they were all acting rationally?” It is very difficult not only in nuance, but also in personal cost to decide to choose the greatest good for the greatest number. One of my main arguments against the Covid response is that the "one-size-fits-all, across the board restrictions and regulations were to serve a very small group of people.
One of the arguments for masks for instance were that they were "for others and not yourself" and so being against masking was selfish. My response to that was "what is more selfish, not wearing a mask for a disease that has a .14% death rate, or demanding everyone wear a mask for a disease with a .14% death rate?
We are in agreement that the response was not rational, but rather predicated on default behavior, or human nature. I would love it as well of people set aside their own interests and served the general good, but it is not very likely to happen. Especially since this was part of our founding documents here in the states that the government was to represent the will of the people and to serve their best interests.
Anyone looking at our Covid worldwide response and think it is more of a "monkey see, monkey do" response than anything else, with some blankets of rational behavior here and there.
You further stated
"Of course this happens, but the problem is that it's not default behavior. Feathering one's own nest is. This takes many forms, and is not even necessarily at odds with a greater goal although it will nearly always impose a cost thereon."
I agree with you here as well. My point is that such behavior is not rational, but it is a rationale for irrational behavior. I’ll give you an example:
It isn’t rational that a man to kill his wife or vice versa. Besides moral reasons, there is the logical reason as well, to not become incarcerated and spend time in jail. But if the husband finds out the wife has had an affair, or he ran into money problems and they have a life insurance policy on one another, there is a rationale for that behavior.
A common analogy is a money manager who earns (say) 1% of assets, regardless of the performance of assets he manages. At the extreme of corruption would be the manager who funnels money to henchmen with dubious projects perhaps for a kickback, or perhaps he just cuts out the middleman and takes whatever he can a la Bernie Madoff. Ethically, I think we have enough evidence that the behavior of all people in power re the Covid-19 directives and surely Big Pharma, are closer to the "scraping the bottom of the barrel" category.
Again, I agree with you here, but I would add that this isn’t acting rationally. Looking at it in a logical fashion, it would be illogical to behave in this manner as generally it is hard to keep lies from coming to light, but money is definite motivation for counter-productive behavior.
To paraphrase a saying I first heard from our pseudo feline host: When entrenched lifetime bureaucrats gain the power to decide what does or does receive funding, the first thing to receive funding will be entrenched lifetime bureaucrats.
Dr. Anthony Fauci screws up so many incentive structures. When an egomaniac makes it to the top, the institutional selection standard becomes not "the most competent" but rather "the best at telling the boss what he wants to hear and enforcing it on down and out." When this happens in an unaccountable bureaucracy, there's no corrective mechanism to remove the egomaniac.
It's not limited to Fauci but he's so useful to illustrate it being the extreme example he is.
Marty Makary on Twitter this morning: "Evergrande, a company with close ties to the Chinese Communist Party, donated $115M to Harvard Med Sch. Days after the donation, Harvard-linked experts (some who had proposed a lab leak origin) suddenly changed their position, condemning the lab leak idea." (end quote) It has always made sense to me that following the money would provide the best answers to the questions that boriquagato has posed. Not just about the lab leak, but about the entire process by which the US went from democracy to a pseudo-fascist regime in a manner of days. Where we were told we couldn't gather in groups, see our loved ones, go to work, or go to school. Where we were forced to cover our faces if we left our house. Where people were forced to accept an experimental vaccine or risk losing their job or their ability to move freely in society. And at this point Big Pharma has been given enough money by the US government money to buy every politician, University president, and public health bureaucrat, so who knows where we're headed.
I'm reminded of a Johnny Carson interview in which a woman was asked how much she'd take to get laid. After denials that she'd succumb to being paid for the lay, she eventually agreed to a high dollar amount that would be acceptable. The point being that now that we know you're willing to do it, it's just a matter of price. And in a sense, a prostitute.
I hope the money trail is uncovered here. It's truly the courageous who have been willing to turn all that down to maintain their own self-respect and integrity.
My Beltway Bandit roots see that equation from the flip side. On the scale of transnational corps buying politicians is a rounding error and best ROI around. Millions in donations and lobbying yield unimaginable fortunes & favors... ask Pfizer!
True. I recall a time when I worked for a government agency involved in doling out unemployment insurance. Deloitte was the contractor to implement the software to do so. After seeing a story about how people were ripping off the system and a news story I saw tipped me off. In this case it was a mayor or chief of police in Georgia somewhere who was working, but someone had taken out unemployment insurance on them. The news story had shown a screen in the background, and it matched the screen at the agency I was in.
Looking further, I realized that Deloitte had helped fund a few politicians to run through legislation to "improve" the unemployment insurance program, by collecting additional bits of information and to also give dollars out to each state to automate it. Guess who had a program ready to go with those exact specs??
And of course, they won MANY contracts across the country. When I saw hold-ups in this agency, Deloitte frequently ran to the legislators to apply pressure on staff to get contract extensions and change orders funded.
It's truly a racket! And Deloitte had a few programs as well to extort money from rich families in India to employ their kids in programming assignments that were brutal in nature, and also to pad their resumes so that they could go on to bigger assignments. They had a contract to bring in their "A" team to develop the software, but swapped in their "D" team to actually do the development. When they tried to do it later on, after having an "acceptance" process in place for critical jobs, I was asked to approve a person for a high paying job on that contract. After making a few calls and analyzing their resume, I declined them, citing their lack of endurance in any job, none of which had the dollar amount and size of the current project. I and our team declined them , and we were told to go back and review it some more. So we did. More phone calls. It kept looking worse for this guy. We declined again. We were told to look some more.
We declined him 4 times. Finally a high level government official in the agency come to the team and asked us if we were declining this person. Yes, and we cited all the reasons why this guy was not qualified. They said okay, I just wanted to hear from you directly. They brought him on anyway. And he rarely showed up, and moved on after a few months (same pattern he had exhibited in all his prior jobs). And now he had a line item on his resume for managing a >$100 million dollar contract, in which he didn't do anything.
Deloitte strong-armed politicians to come down on the agency and threatened agency officials with shining a light on sliding schedules, going over budget, and possibly affecting their jobs.
I and others tried to highlight some of the corruption that was happening, including installing a backdoor in our system to allow them in past all our security. Repeatedly! Some of us were administratively silenced and threatened with our jobs. Some moved to other assignments.
I was even in a conference call with a senator from Washington, and explained in plain english what was going on, and some of the corruption happening. Gee, I wasn't invited to any more meetings.
I've learned through that experience that you document everything, and send emails to yourself on outside accounts. You have to protect yourself, otherwise you can be fired for BS purposes. When you have the goods on people, they'll find other ways to get you out of the way. They'll make up BS reasons to put on a performance record, make your life difficult in other ways, assign you to impossible to complete tasks, just so they can write you up and get rid of you.
I spent most of my working career in Federal government agencies or with contractors. I was at a much lower level than him, but I certainly saw how things were done over the years.
The last paragraph is a key to outsiders trying to understand why government or many other similar large corporations appear so Byzantine, often inefficient and corrupt. An optimist might fantasize that groups exist that operate on honest principles, towards common goals, and would support each other. Such wholesome workplaces may indeed exist, but they are probably rather rare. Alas, the real world is more like a tank of piranha, I expect. There is always competition and they will stoop to pretty low behavior to get what they want. A large part of a worker's workload is often documenting as required by regulation, but some may be required simply to cover his own ass, to defend against the ever-circling sharks.
The Chan family/ Morningside foundation bought out the public health school at Harvard. Last year, they bought the entire UMass medical school. I’m not knowledgeable enough to know whether the Chan’s ties to the CCP or the Pharma industry have anything to do with wanting to plaster your name on a school, but I do question a school that is more than happy to let the Chans buy them.
Everyone assumes this was some type of "mistake" and proceeds from there on how to "fix" it. Wrong approach - this was entire planned and worked just as the Faucian "Doctor" ordered.
Unfortunately, it will set medicine, hospitals, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and healthcare, the once-respected CDC, FDA, NIH and even pharma back to the point of no return. Even today where there are over 170 peer-reviewed studies showing masks don't work - the only place in my state requiring masks are the doctor's offices, VA, military bases, and hospitals.
The solution is to tear this quid pro quo, corrupt lobbyist-laden system down. Whether it needs to be rebuilt is up for debate (similar to the NEA).
In the closing days of his presidency, Obama approached Fauci and gave him the go-ahead to revive gain-of-function research. The next day Fauci announced to the world that the next president WOULD face a pandemic. This in the opening days of 2017.
Also: Mark Bradman wrote a June 5, 2021, article titled “Interesting Timing—Obama Administration Lifted Block on ‘Gain of Function Research’ Just Eleven Days Before President Trump Took Office, January 9, 2017.”
Do you really think it will set them back to the point of no return? We’ve had piles of evidence for at least a year and nothing has happened. The narrative is strong and well. I hope you’re right, but the fact that the whole charade didn’t fall apart months ago is worrying.
Once the natural origin narrative collapsed, the least damaging fall back position is to blame an accidental leak from a Chinese lab while admitting the already exposed gain of function funding from NIH. What if this is just another "limited hang out", though? The virus could well have been specifically engineered and deliberately released by nefarious actors in the US and Western Globalist interests, timed to get rid of Trump via a postal vote scam and set up the "Great Reset" agenda. The Chinese may have been on board (to get rid of the Trump tariffs etc) or may have been duped into becoming the fall guy for the whole scam. Don't be too quick to think we've nailed them if they "fess up" to the lab leak/gain of function story.
THIS. This is the whole story. It was a lab leak, of course. But NOT accidental by any means. It was planned, it was controlled - as was the “warp speed” “vaccine” roll-out. This is the single thing for me that casts doubt on Trump’s legitimacy, as he still defends this action to this day.
That Trump was at the origin of this destruction of humanity, and knew it, and now is over kissing the buttend of the Crown, is more than enough to see through him, right? Not sayin Biden is any different. Maybe DeSantis, we hope.
DeSantis has a $200 million war chest, according to the Conservative Treehouse. You don’t pile up that kind of money from the good guys.
More fun about DeSantis: he had a press excretory (fun phone change from “secretary”) who was busy working alongside the crazy disinformation czarina in the Ukraine in their 2019 presidential election.
If you REALLY want to up the ante with conspiracy theories, have a look at some of this guy's writings. Unless I misquote him, he believes that official promotion of the "accidental lab leak" is cover-up for a deliberate act of bio-warfare. Personally, I've always believed the accidental leak is the most likely scenario. In any event, for damned sure you won't be hearing Unz's ideas on NPR, CNN, etc. 🤣
Charles Eisenstein has written about how offending parties are demanding that those of us who got shrieked into a corner and ostracized and othered by former friends, colleagues, and family members just forgive and forget and move on. He argues that if nothing changes in the base conditions for such a circumstance to arise again, that is an unacceptable demand and an irresponsible action. You can recognize the humanity and sincerity of many good people whose actions you disagree with, but that doesn’t mean those actions were tolerable or should be permitted to fade into oblivion without revelation.
I think of forgiveness a little differently. I forgive almost immediately. I don’t want the weight of a grudge on my heart. But I don’t forget. That would be stupid. I’m not waiting for an apology, I’m waiting for some recognition of what happened and why the base conditions have to change. Until that happens, I modify my position relative to the people that rushed to be Fauci’s pets.
Byron Katie says there is my business, your business, and God’s business. Someone else’s contrition is not my business, nor is there repentance answerable to me. I stay in my business, which is to forgive readily and to keep awake to the conditions that created the problem in the first place.
Speaking of US labs... We need to confront the fact that SARS-2 was circulating globally for several months before the Wuhan incident. While that doesn't exclude Wuhan from suspicion, it does mean there are many other places to consider. There has not been any investigation into the D.C. "Pneumonia" outbreak in July of 2019, and the immediate Ft. Detrick closure which ensued. If we're looking for a source, that location needs to be investigated closely.
Some background details, for those who are not familiar with the incident:
July 11, 2019: A "Pneumonia" outbreak (in the middle of summer) in a Washington D.C. suburb leaves 2 dead (later 3), 18 hospitalized, 54 sick, in a matter of days. Symptoms are identical to COVID, with a very fast spread. CDC could not identify the pathogen for several weeks, later said rotovirus (if I recall correctly) -- but that doesn't exclude other pathogens, or assure us that they told the truth.
* 50 miles from Ft. Detrick (biolab) -- an easy work commute or to visit a family member.
* A "Cease and desist" order was sent to Ft. Detrick by the CDC THE DAY AFTER the ABC news report below, citing two breaches earlier in the year which were not described for reasons of "National security."
* Ft. Detrick closed less than four weeks later, and did not re-open until spring of 2020.
Note: This was only a short time before the military games, which China claims was the source of infection, and two of the doctors living in D.C. (husband/wife) who worked with the athletes were later murdered in a strange altercation. (Bizarre stuff...) And don't forget the "Vaping deaths" about that time, which never seemed to have a good explanation.
Yes, Lillia. That's why the source of the "virus" is of less importance to me. "They" needed a story. They made one up that included this idea that this "killer" was made in a lab. Only one problem -- it didn't kill people -- at least not very effectively, as it were. The withdrawal of medical care, the refusal to treat, the use of deadly "medicines", the withholding of food and water, the inducement of coma in order to "ventilate", and on and on. 𝑻𝒉𝒂𝒕'𝒔 what killed people. That and the real weapon -- the point of the story -- the needle.
A pandemic that is spread through a respiratory virus has to be weak enough so that even the people pulling the levers would be safe, should they be infected. No, the real killer was the vaccine. And it was planned that way all along. They just needed a way to shoot everyone up with it. And generating that reason was the entire psyop.
The virus doesn’t need to be weak to ensure the safety of the perpetrators. They just need an antidote. They are several effective fusion inhibitors as well as the curiosity shelved DRACO.
Or the modern equivalent of torches and pitchforks, culminating in either a hanging or burning at the stake in the town square, preferably on free global livestream. Lawyers take too damn long to remove the predators because they a) they bill by the hour, and b) they're essentially the same kind of predators too - cannibals, if you will. Ordinary people who are pissed off past the point of no return by losses of jobs / homes / family / friends will do it for free, and rather quickly too, once we finally manage to get them off facebook and the couch...
But so many people have already paid way more, that they never even owed anyone, with the loss of their careers, homes, etc. They should not have to pay anything else to watch these bastards die in (hopefully) as agonizing a manner as possible... And whose debt is it really, anyway? Not ours (ordinary people), that's for sure...
We do, but flamethrowers are so much more satisfying, and have a considerably longer reach. Anytime you can stay well out of arms reach of your opponent, it's a smarter way to fight...
LOL - good thought, but the traditional napalm delivery mechanism (airplane) would put one so far out of range that they would not have the joy of watching it do it's job. I think the flamethrower approach would be the right mix of distance and full visibility of the results. Napalm would also be harder to prevent "collateral damage" from. We should probably save that for a larger target, like Capitol Hill, where any collateral damage would have less chance of impacting ordinary people. No tears would be shed over lobbyists and other deep state vermin who became collateral damage statistics in that setting...
So you are saying the whole world wanted Trump out of office? What about the countless other countries who all bought into the same bad information? The "pandemic" was already spreading through China (along with the response) months before.
While China's attitude towards Trump was not positive by any stretch of the imagination, I doubt they locked down their whole economy and way of life with a goal of removing him from office. I don't even know if it was a factor. If it was, we should definitely take notice. Imagine being a man so powerful, and who could generate so much ire and hate that the world in response would shut down economies and lock own lives as a way to get rid of him. Imagine the amount of spite that would be generated to decimate economies, cause famines, ruin livelihoods just because "orange man bad."
It doesn't help the profit margin of the capitalists making off like robbers from this. Remember: it's only illegal if you get caught and convicted in court.
All production requires capital investment. The term "conspirators" is more focused and explicit, and it differentiates between a capitalist who invests in production for the market, and a criminal who arranges to push a product via mandates, tax revenue and/or printed money.
It seems that the Golden Calf narrative spun off the hysteria spun by predators, then was ameliorated by fun and games. Better manipulation, but it took some 6-9 months to come up with a plausible vaccine test, so in our case the hysteria had to be maintained until the vaccine was available and the market was saturated.
I'm sure that the Golden Calf experience was more enjoyable than the Covid Panic experience.
My point is that predators create hysteria in order to spook the prey into an ambush or prepared solution like vaccines. Male lions roar to spook gazelles into running towards the waiting lionesses. Someone said something once about sheep, wolves, and shepherds.
What puzzled me was the why no one was asking "Why do we all need a vaccine that was killing so few of us, and very rarely those who were not elderly or had a sea of comorbidities.
9. What the heck was going on with bodies in the streets of Wuhan? That's not how one would die of coronavirus -- all neat and tidy, no blood, lying perfectly flat on their backs ready to photograph. That was propaganda for lockdowns, it came from China but was designed to influence a U.S. audience.
10. There were over 100 candidate vaccines. Why did only the most dangerous spike protein kind get authorized in the U.S.? This is literally the least likely candidate -- because it had never worked in humans. Suddenly it was the only choice. What explains that.
11. Why did hospitals push ventilators so aggressively given that they killed 90% of patients?
The entire event is a performance designed to entrap people into asking “where did this virus come from?”
The right question is “what’s the evidence that a novel virus is in any way associated with deaths around the world?”
Because the answer is “there isn’t any. There’s no new virus. Of course there isn’t. How could they retain full control of there was a novel pathogen out there?”
Dr. Yeadon. As I understand it, no virus has ever been isolated or sequenced anywhere in the world. Therefore, there is no evidence of the existence of any virus at all. All they have are genetic fragments of unknown origin. You say there is no new virus. But there is no evidence of any virus whatsoever. Would you agree?
Unless we manage to persuade the general public that all this around us is a lie, we’re not going to be around to debate the wider question.
Frankly, it irritates the hell out of me, thus lack of laxer focus.
It’s not a new effort. It’s got nowhere & I can see why it hasn’t.
It’s incredibly hard to get people to believe multiple things we can prove to uniformly agreed standards.
Please help humanity right now by focussing only on the present “virus”.
This isn’t a game & our adversaries aren’t playing by conventional rules. If we act as if they are or ought to be, my best prediction is we’ll all be taking a trip six feet under.
I understand your point. But the way I see it is, as long as we continue to believe in viruses- for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever- the more they are going to invent new ones. At least- if not outright denying the possible, though absolutely unproven existence of viruses- we should be saying exactly what they are doing. Which is associating short genetic fragments of unknown origin with theoretical viruses that are short sequences put together to form a theoretical genome sequence, using computer algorithms. Without any actual specimen of any virus that has been isolated and sequenced to use as a reference. We are in a very dangerous time. And they are lying to the extreme. This is why I think only the Truth will set us free. Ppl must be made to know the Truth. Bcz only the Truth can generate the resolve to make the appropriate stand against these inexorable and constantly mutating lies. We cannot compromise with the lies. Bcz they will use that to further the lies.
Unfortunately it’s going to be moot because I cannot even persuade those who already know the entire event is fraudulent that SARS-CoV-2 is not circulating.
I invite magicians to help because a mere mortal like me is out of ideas.
It is for the public to understand the reality of the situation. If a few reputable scientists can tell them the Truth, they will be able to embrace it. I have a friend who is an Analytical Organic Chemist, who worked for Health Canada for over 30 years as a Senior Research Scientist. He knows exactly what is going on with the science of it. I think if the two of you collaborate, something good could happen. If you are interested, i can give you my email address and organize a meeting between the two of you.
Many people I encounter are so brainwashed by media that they can't see two inches in front of their noses, and if you ever challenge them on the propaganda they find there, like Pavlov's dog they will call you a conspiracy theorist. They will then turn up their nose and walk away with a heightened sense of superiority.
The term "conspiracy theory" is remarkably adept at turning off all critical thinking like a light switch in a large portion of the people I have personally met.
Conditioning the public to react this way has to have been one of the most effective PSYOPs ever pushed onto the general population.
It is equal parts diabolic and brilliant, and it means that the elites can get away with just about anything with little to no scrutiny because everyone is too afraid to point out that the emperor has no clothes lest they be labeled a "conspiracy theorist".
---------------
I am a "conspiracy theorist". I believe men and women of wealth and power conspire. If you don't think so, then you are what is called "an idiot". If you believe stuff but fear the label, you are what is called "a coward".
-David Cullum
----------------
Someone far smarter than I once pointed out that "belief is the enemy of knowledge". This is also true of disbelief.
The reason we are in this mess running headlong into tyranny is because the majority of people refuse to believe that the controllers would ever do this to us. These eternal optimists appear to be blind to this most fundamental construct of human nature: that power corrupts nearly everyone who wields it—and the globalists - those obscure puppetmaster billionaires you never read about in Forbes and who've spent decades away from the disinfectant properties of sunlight - have indeed become quite corrupted.
More here: https://tritorch.com/BeliefTrap
so too is the word "denier."
vaccine denier.
climate denier.
structural racism denier.
it's powerful image linkage to shame those one cannot refute.
it seeks to terminate debate through ad hominem and tribalism.
the problem with such tactics is that when overused, they become a shibboleth for being wrong.
such tactics are never adopted by those with the facts on their side.
It also sets up a Fake Binary form of consensus. One either believes the entirety of a narrative (say Climate) without even nuanced or partial dissent or one is labeled a "Denier."
It is a rhetorical means to penalize dissent and launder untruths packaged together and hiding behind obvious truths. It removes nuance and reduces the normal distribution of discussion to a binary.
Yup, Try questioning the reasons the west is so heavily involved in Ukraine. Point out the corruption, the open checkbook without attempts at peace talks, the us funded biolabs, etc. trying to start a discussion about any topic really will have you labeled a Putin-puppet in 0.2 seconds. You can’t even be anti war anymore, without the binary thought of the masses wanting to crush you debate by saying you’re the one who’s been duped. But they won’t discuss, or attempt to persuade you, they just want opposition silenced.
This must be the most basic social construct. A group sets up rules and anyone breaking it gets pushed out which significantly reduces one's survival chance.
I dunno... maybe it's my older age and curmudgeonly status. But these terms don't mean one whit to me. I couldn't care less, particularly when such terms are applied in ways that are non-sensical. (Like Justin Trudeau's oft-repeated "misogynistic, homophobic, ...." terms that flow out of his mouth towards people who oppose vaccine mandates, or freedoms, or claim that he's suppressing rights.)
I'm puzzled that this type of rhetoric even works! It's like trying to SHAME people. When you can stand up for yourself, your words and actions, then there's no shame that can bring you down.
Matter of fact, we should publish BINGO cards with squares filled with such terms, so that we can see who "wins" while putting down such efforts to use them. I think this would help silence people by displaying how many "woke" terms they spout off in their every day verbiage.
Let's BRING awareness to this woke BS and silence them with their own words. The center square is a freebie... "Racist".
Game on!
Sorry. Took me awhile to find it.
Here's one of the passages from the book/author I mentioned:
“Lenin developed a special way of writing that made it possible to establish the ‘formula-slogan’ in the mind of the reader or listener . . . Then, as the most important compositional element, there is the use of repetition, by means of which a rectangle is formed which concentrates the attention, narrows the field of possibilities, and squeezes thought into a tight ring from which there is only one exit . . .
Total power over the Word gives the Master of the Word a magical power over all communications. Soviet speech is always a monologue because there is no other party to talk to. On the other side is the enemy. In the Soviet language there are no neutral words – every word carries an ideological burden . . . That is why in Soviet language the same words are repeated over and over again, until they become a signal that acts without any effort of thought. The effect of set phrases and slogans is also assured by their always being repeated in absolutely the same form . . .
The Soviet language became the most important means of preventing people from acquiring more knowledge than the state wished . . . Soviet speech lost its freedom. The language was put together out of slogans and quotations from the Leader [Stalin] . . . The crushing, unquestioned authority of the Leader’s word is the result to a large extent of his right and power to name the Enemy . . . The word that signifies the enemy must be striking, easy to remember, implying condemnation by its very sound, and always imprecise, so that everyone who at a given moment does not please the Leader can be included under it rubric . . ."
- Mikhail Heller (Cogs in the Wheel: The Formation of Soviet Man)
This is not unique to the USSR. Lenin and Stalin perfected it.
The progressives have levered it with the speed of modern day information flow.
Both negative and positive connotations are employed in this word game. My woke oldest sister uses the term "public health" like a mantra. She wields this phrase like a magic wand. Another word she loves to fire off is "unsubstantiated", a word directed at anything opposed to the official narrative. This Substack is "unsubstantiated". There... It's refuted.
So true. What I always do is say define (insert word or phrase)....
....Whatever they say; then I ask them what's the opposite of that?
OK great do you feel like you defined your assertion and how it applies to this conversation, etc.?
In this case turning around the word "unsubstantiated" to let them hear out loud their definition(s) of substantiated vs. unsubstantiated.
It usually comes down to; wellllll because mines substantiated! ::poopy pants walks away::
Then move on...unless they "catch" themselves. Then it might be worth a conversation.
My brother dismisses almost all that I tell him if it came from what he identifies as a "conservative" or "right-wing" source. In other words, anything not presenting the party line. In his mind, there are never two sides to an issue, only his side, which of course is correct.
Wow. It's so intellectually lazy. I wonder what her explanation for those rubbery clots being pulled out of people following the period of time commonly referred to as the official beginning of the covid shots being given out for public health reasons? Or high rates of death per the funeral and insurance industries. How would that "public health" be explained away? Or shots putting more people in the hospital than covid did?
Just wondering... have you "unsubstantiated" anything "official" that she might throw out and then showed her when they turned 180 degrees, or admitted that they didn't do X? Or the change in the definition of vaccination?
You see, all that stuff is "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories" posted on "unsubstantiated websites".
I am dealing with a woman who told me I needed better sources of information. When I asked her for some better sources, she offered her go to three...
The Washington Post
The New York Times
And as what she called, "a conservative counterbalance", The Wall Street Journal
It's as if three liars repeating the same lie equals revealed truth. There is no one I would like to Red pill more. But where do you even begin?
I honestly can't comprehend such literary prisons.
I hear you.
I think it's as incomprehensible as listening to news casts that say that people in china, locked up in their homes, are starving to death because they don't want to venture out in search for food, simply because they were told not to. When I explained this conundrum to a person with chinese roots (who, btw thought I was nuts for believing all this covid conspiracy stuff) told me in simplistic terms (after several rounds of my not understanding what she was saying) that in essence they were brainwashed into being complete followers of Xi Xi Ping. After listening to all those people screaming in hunger from balconies???
But then again, I've been in situations on a light rail train where some black teenagers were going after a mentally ill person, and nobody except me tried to stop it. Everyone else just whipped out their phones to record it, or sit there and watch it play out. I'm afraid that we're becoming a nation of cowards. We need to restore more traditional roles and rules back to our nation before we crumble in anarchy and fear.
What makes it so difficult to use this in reverse against them? It IS difficult, but why? It feels like it should be so easy to find labels to describe the side that is siding with the most ridiculous ideas.
We're having to break through a constant drumbeat of fake news/narratives, some of which was published by "trusted" networks or complicit/bought off "authorities" (government agencies, individuals, medical establishment, etc), when people were in isolation for months and got their news from the television set/newspapers that were in cahoots with the governments around the world and with each other.
And remember, much of what we're saying is NEW to these people, and can't be believed after all this time. (Some was never broadcast to them at all, and some wildly distorted or "fact checked" by deeply suspect "fact checkers" and supported by social media.)
In essence, we are literally trying to de-program cult-like indoctrination. And you can't use the word "cult" because it immediately gets rejected when you apply it to them.
You're going to have to guide them.. lead them. And continually ask them if what they've internalized is still making sense. And you're basically having to force them to weigh their trust in YOU (along with data) against THEIR network of "trust" seen above.
And then you're going to have to determine if people are so far gone that you can't waste your time. You're trying to reach people who STILL have semblance of non-zombie intellect. (sorry to put it so bluntly, but this is a race of time). And hopefully as we find those who finally believe, they'll use THEIR trusted networks of friends/family, etc. (and have the fortitude to persist against THEIR pressure.)
Thanks for your thoughts on my question - really good points.
LIKE
Very creative way to make all of this name-calling nonsense fun !
I'm thrilled by what I see here. I think the BINGO cards will help accelerate this.
https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/justins-brother-says-trudeaumustgo
Bu that's all Russian bots! (of which I am apparently one, lol). Seriously though - over 500K tweets using #TrudueauMustGo
Agree. Let's fight back!
I'm going to post a passage from a book you might want to check out. It sort of peeled back the onion for me as it relates to this thread.
My apologies to anyone who's already viewed it.
This is a form of shunning which is terrifying to most individuals. We are social beings.
Election denier.
Yeah? And now I volunteer for an organization that watches elections being run. And I encourage others to do so as well. It's my version of lemonade, when someone wants to throw a lemon at me.
I'm with you. I was a poll inspector this last primary and will be for the election. Many holes in our system.
Have you watched the documentary “Selection Code”? It was recommended by Steve Kirsch. Frightening look at the 2020 election.
https://selectioncode.com/
Watched it yesterday, well worth the watch only 1hr.
No but I'll check it out.
Seems like you may be a denier denier. ;)
"I know nothink."
Ha ha. I have a bunch of teenagers that do that to each other all the time. Sometimes I feel like we are dealing with immature spoiled brats!
I've been thinking textbook narcissists (the gaslighting, the projection, the blame-shifting, the future-faking, the rage fits, the smear campaigns …), but this is probably a "both/and" situation.
Yes it feels a lot like what high school has deteriorated into-
I noticed the use of the word 'denier ' from the beginning. I think it's deliberate weaponisation of words. There's entire units in our UK government called behavioural insight teams who use propaganda to 'nudge ' us in the direction they want. Previously denier was associated with holocaust denier. There's no defense against that association. It's deliberate and disgusting to take what people rightly think is an twisted denial of a heinous crime and use it to teint whatever they decide is the current thing they're trying to shut down.
77th Brigade. And many veterans of this unit now work at the major social platforms.
Good point.
I don't think you give yourself enough credit for being smart.
This is brilliant!
I agree - it puts things together very well. A standard definition of knowledge is "justified true belief" and that ideally suggests a cyclical and unending effort of testing, assessment, refinement. Being led to or stopping at "belief" is indeed a perversion of the ideal.
And we are all, by this point, aware of the well documented CIA origin - circa 1965 - of the term "conspiracy theory/ist" ? The effort to forestall questioning of the Warren Commission report on the JFK assassination. Surely a case of "elites getting away with anything"! - It was so successful, it became a 60 year and counting go to meme for those same elites or actually, their progeny.
Yes!
IMO; "belief" is a shortcut to dogma....and manipulation.
'CIA Coined and Weaponized The Label “Conspiracy Theory”' https://www.coreysdigs.com/u-s/cia-coined-weaponized-the-label-conspiracy-theory/
The charge of racist is also used to shut down discussion, claim victory and sit atop the moral high ground as well...
calling names is always end of game
Just like a bratty little bully kid!!
Another Fake Binary. One is forced to declare themselves Anti-Racist or dissent from doing so and risk societal shame.
Every discussion has nuance and a distribution of ideas/opinions and when the Monopolists of consensus want to destroy nuance, they look to impose a Fake Binary to launder their desired consensus outcome. This is why the Racist/Anti-Racist rhetoric is utilized in so many discussions that have nothing to do with race. In other words, it's an easy and effective way to layer a Fake Binary on a discussion that doesn't otherwise have one.
the Bigotry Accusation is one of the foundations of the modern Left, it is their all-purpose Swiss Army knife and Break Glass in case of Emergency tool.
it is essentially the equivalent of smearing someone as a witch or heretic, smearing them w guilt and shame and placing them outside the boundaries of a community.
but, as being branded a Racist is still the great scarlet letter of our time, it has been a winning tactic for maybe 50 yrs and shows no signs of losing potency.
Not only a winning tactic; it's a commercial enterprise as well.
A sort of pariah industry, offering products or processes or advisors that are not reputable, but for which there exists a social demand....small at first.
The racism component reinforces that "demand" - literally on a progressive scheme. An industry that creates demand where there's not much "supply".
So people are "paying" for something that only creates more demand, of ever increasing "need/intensity/ membership", to justify the original manufactured social demand.
Destructive and diabolical but a damn good business model.
Politics and money are both downstream and upstream at the same time.
So you really can't "fix" either unless you dismantle the enterprise and the politics (in this case the Left) at the same time.
Crystal clear in my head...rubs like mud on paper...;p
is amazin how in america what may start w a seed of well-meaning goodness (certainly 50 yrs ago many bigots needed scolding) often metastasizes into a moral crusade, ersatz religion, then of course industrial complex, jobs program, entertainment & marketing niche, mafia extortion racket (nice business you've got there, but you may need a diversity manager)...but in this case it's much much worse than that...
the Race Maoists have installed a commissar in every single cultural and intellectual institution in the entire Anglosphere (even in places like Scotland and New Zealand!) and they have the full political and financial support of the entire global corporate state, including its propaganda arm...
there will be no dislodging them without a great deal of ugly pain, conflict and destruction.
Totally agree. Did it makes sense what I was saying about upstream/downstream?
That's why it could get so ugly...and as you said it's global.
You just said it perfectly.
thanks!
yes, upstream/downstream like an entire separate ecosystem or economy of racialist/leftist narratives where each new event creates a new market and new customers (and new entrepreneurs) all buying and selling to and from each other...
is absolutely diabolical in brilliance and effectiveness!
looking for historical parallels im thinking: it's maybe like a cross bw the widespread sale of Indulgences by the Catholic Church pre-Luther and Tulipmania or the South Sea Bubble where everyone was suddenly a day trader, w of course Mao's Cultural Revolution...
but look out when this Bubble pops!
"So people are "paying" for something that only creates more demand..."
Call it intellectual heroin, because heroin is what is sounds like, and having in my youth lost friends to that drug, let me tell you one more thing why heroin fits to a tee:
The addict cares for the drug and only the drug: it becomes the sole focus and point of existence. There s nothing, no matter how vile, a heroin addict won't do to get a fix.
As for business model, it's like selling windows for people to break, sort of, and showing those people that breaking windows is good for business and therefore for the nation and therefore for those who break windows - and never showing the rest of the graph and its tangents, where you can plot the point where it all crashes.
After which the people will have to pay not only for new windows but for new everything.
Well now we can all sing that Neil Young song, ♪♫ "I've seen the needle and the damage done..." ♪♫
If my conclusion drawn from experience and observation aligns with the opinion of a bigot, that just means the bigot happened to adopt the right conclusion.
I think it is losing potency. I am no longer as scared of it as I once was (pre 2020).
And "anti-Semitic". That's another good one.
actually not so often. Now I see more and more ppl not giving any shits for Jews
Example: liberals, Obama etc
And lots of actual Jews as well
I've learned that everything the media brays in unison turns out to be a lie or harmful to my people.
Corolarry: the media is our enemy. It's interesting to read about what group monopolized media control starting in the 1880s, and how they did it.
"...the (mainstream, State-run) media is our enemy." 100%.
"belief is the enemy of knowledge". This is also true of disbelief.
absolutely- thanks for making that point. disbelief is a belief itself. fervent disbelief is often more insidious than fervent belief since it's often not recognized for what it is.
"fervent disbelief is often more insidious than fervent belief since it's often not recognized for what it is."
Well said! Just look at college-style atheists.
An interesting point. I don't know if was unique to him, but Nietzsche was unquestionably atheist and advocated inquiry, calling into question virtually everything. At least in his famous "Beyond Good and Evil." I would say: It's perfectly fine to critically inquire (well, not ever, according to the morality you are scrutinizing!!!) and to doubt. But at some point, ask yourself, "What DO I believe in?" And if so, why? Why not?
Merely having read most of his works doesn't make me an expert of course, but I think Nietzsche could be summarized quite succinctly in the sentence: "Most, perhaps all, belief systems are bullshit."
Real world anecdote: In my university days, one club I was active in was the Atheists. If for no other reason, it gave us something of the "cool kids" image, being something of an antidote to the multitude of "Christian" groups infesting a public university. Being in the South notwithstanding, most college age "Christians" have about as much in common with the early Christians as a whore house has with a convent. 😎 What began as a fairly lively club in a few years dwindled to few members and then was deactivated. Only half-jokingly, I would quip "It disappeared because nobody believed in it." 🙂
Hahahaha! Thanks for that anecdote, wonderful way to start the day.
Speaking of convents and cathouses, in Stockholm in olden times (15th-16th century) there were a cloister and a convent on opposite sides of a street and market square.
Between them? An orphanage...
"If you think you understand Nietsche you have been fooled, because what he wrote makes no sense."
The messaging is brilliant indeed, fortiori, and it continues to this day.
Anyone who is involved with organizational infighting knows that it's critical to get your apologia out ahead of the facts, and that's been handled in a very effective manner.
The reason we encounter so many ordinarily rational people that shut down any sort of conversation about this, is that they were very thoroughly inoculated against the danger presented by the emerging data.
If you live in or near any major metro area, your local newspaper and broadcast media are continuing the messaging each and every day.
Every morning, I go out to the driveway and unfold the daily propaganda. The thoroughness with which The Narrative smothers the mind in similar fashion to the way a murderer holds a pillow over their victim's face, is remarkable. It's rather like attending a well-rehearsed symphony; the discerning attendee can feel their emotions rising and falling with each sentence, each paragraph and each new article.
Well... you somehow failed to mistake the finger pointing at the moon, for the moon itself. You followed the emerging research and data as it emerged. Yes, indeed, that makes you a conspiracy theorist nut job, and a danger to public health.
Those who wanted to punish you for this were surely correct in their attempts to do so, because you read that data INTENTIONALLY, and with malice aforethought. It is an evil thing to interfere with the efforts of your betters in that fashion. The lives they took with their propaganda were necessary sacrifices, made for the common good.
Welcome to the ranks of the conspiracy theorists. Feels rather odd, doesn't it? It's like re-reading Kafka's "Metamorphosis," only rewritten so that you confront the giant cockroach, not in a mirror, but through a window and on every television screen.
Spot on.
Although his topic is relationships, Harry Rollins "Liar" is a darkly humorous song of a manipulative sociopath narrating his evil deeds. Well illustrating much of what you wrote above. Available on YouTube.
"conspiracy observation", by now ... ( i think dr. urso said that ) ... james corbett says "conspiracy realists" ...
Conspiracy Analyst.
I think asking those questions asked in gato's piece would be a great starting point. You don't have to answer it for them. But leave them lingering in their minds.
Yes!
"have you heard?"
"someone (such and such source) mentioned - I wonder if we'll ever find out?"
"YOU HAD MENTIONED"
"Can you believe x,y,z?"
"What happens if?"
etc. etc. etc.
Part of the problem is that evil coordinated behavior of this magnitude has never arisen before. The average citizen lacks the frame of reference to see the conspiracy for what it is.
Agreed. But then again, how did WE get to this point? We likely peeled back an onion and came to a conclusion that made the most sense, given the pieces of evidence that we started discovering.
Perhaps encouraging people to look for themselves, and here's some places to begin at...
It probably wasn't entirely rational, even on our part. WE resented the propaganda, and sought alternative sources of information. THEY didn't, and molded their minds on what was dished out to them.
Exactly. Some people pick up on lies better than others whether through practice, rigorous thought, curiosity that leads them to truth, childhood training, or greater emotional intuition, etc. Whatever the case, the propaganda pushed US away rather than toward the narrative they wanted believed.
It took basic science and analytical skills to show one lie after another. It's sad that more didn't even exercise that kind of common sense. But then again, people probably had a lot on their plates and didn't even consider that these news sources, government officials or medical personnel would lie, or be silenced into witholding the truth.
For me, at least, I don't think it was particularly science and analytical skills. It was simply the overpowering stench of propaganda and power-grabbing. When they not only shut everything down over no empirically obvious mass sickness, but immediately set up censors called "fact-checkers" to squelch counter-narratives in the social media that they presumptuously labelled "mis-/disinformation", that was all I ever needed to know that they were dishonest, and that the truth was something other than what they were telling us. The pandemic was obviously a charade. The assault on our most fundamental rights and liberties was very real.
That quote is brilliant
Which one?
Re: "The majority of people refuse to believe that the controllers would ever do this to us."
I would say that the majority of people refuse to believe there ARE controllers.
Dr. Robert Malone's Sunday substack introduced me to a depressing video clip from an old BBC comedy series that frankly, feels like a documentary today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIYfiRyPi3o (Sir Humprey Appleby on the Proper Function of Government).
I was led to an even more depressing clip here (funny in parts, but dead-on in how government works) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLm2X6sFa48
Another part of Malone's piece on Sunday was this monologue from Neil Oliver from a month ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIpLwiaQRRk titled "It's hard to tell yourself you've been taken for a fool but open your eyes"
Malone's full piece (full of comedy pieces for Sunday) is here: https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/sunday-strip-be1
I wish the hive mind could be reduced to a super villain who dresses in Vulcan attire and encourages us to eat Z bugs, or 3 stooges at the NIH, but I think it’s more incompetence and mass formation psychosis from our media controlled state. In other words, it’s a feature not a bug.
read this: https://tritorch.com/treason
Oh, that is disturbing... But i think you're right Fortiori... I've seen too much these past few years to discount anything in that article.
I give you an 'a'
a-fortiori?
Agreed, the article is disturbing but over the target.
Excellent insightful comment. You nailed it.
-------
The media - both news and entertainment - have now politicized nearly everything in our society as an extremely powerful mechanism of control.
Politicization is so effective at manipulating the populace because most people emotionally connect their personal belief system to the belief system of their political party, and so then any attack on their party - legitimate or otherwise - is interpreted by their brain as an attack on themselves. Reason and logic then jump out the nearest window as raw emotion takes the helm, thus making them even more susceptible to the predatory controlling influences.
more here: https://tritorch.com/folly
If only people stood up for what was right (in God's eyes) rather than try to gain the approval of man.
One of Nietzsche's titles is "Human, All Too Human."
Yuval Noah Harari is your man. He's looking to promote trans-humanism and being elevated to God-hood.
https://rumble.com/v1c9dt1-yuval-noah-harari-your-immune-systems-will-be-connected-to-net.html
Personally, I find it odd that people who deny God want to be God.
Watch Blade Runner 2049.
That's where we're headed.
How can you convince a group of otherwise rational people to simultaneously reject blatant realities? In short, incentives.
In this case, the financial incentives of actors tangential to the "public health" apparatus were and are centrally controlled. That is to say, there is a relatively small group of people - Fauci primary among them - who decide where the financial benefits flow.
This creates a Cantillon class of privileged political actors who are enriched not by their level of skill or ingenuity, but simply by their proximity to the financial spigot. This Cantillon class is most apparent in purely financial organizations like the Federal Reserve and the mega banks. But Fauci has done a tremendous job mimicking that structure in public health. He and his associates successfully gained such significant control of government funding that they were and are able to control even the speech of downstream actors.
This showed itself to be an existential threat to Science itself, which is meant to be a competitive process of decentralized and independent actors. That decentralized and independent academic process (and system of incentive creation) was functionally destroyed by the centralization of the funding mechanism. This also similarly explains Fauci's odd utterances that he himself now represents Science. In a way, he does. He represents the artificial financial incentives that now represent Science.
indeed this would seem to be the inevitable result of the concentration of research capital into federal agencies. the need for grant grubbing to one central chieftain as gold giver corrupts and co-opts entire fields of research and renders that which should be polyglot and adversarial into monocultures of bureaucratic obeisance.
this not only stifles objection and dissent for fear of being forever banned from the gravy train, but locks research direction into dead ends and blind alleys that just happened to be someone's hobbyhorse. look what happened in amyloid plaques or depression mechanisms or mRNA.
the revolving door of pharma sinecure and unaccountable and unaccounted backflow of royalties really blows this out in terms of circular corruption that has spiraled to hurricane force.
this system has eaten and captured and entire field and it's killing us like strangle vines.
I assume the same is happening with so-called climate science.
Yes it is. I worked 16 years in academic research, much of that time with people doing “climate change” related work. This is precisely what I observed. On occasion I would note issues with the “models” and what that implied as to the worthiness of the research goals. I was quickly shutdown and sent to my corner. No “brilliant retorts” to my “ignorance” were ever proffered (and what academic ever passes up that opportunity?). This suggests they had none.
Yup. And the cancer industry. Create the problem....then pour a never-ending supply of money into looking for that elusive "cure" which never actually works, but so many hopeful possibilities which coincidentally also make never-ending money for the perpetrators.
You're right.
Any time the state says something about a "war" on x,y,z...I know it's a scam.
Except for the war on the middle class. No scam - and they've been winning. So far. But ....
But they never say the are waging war on The middle class.
Yeah. Shit Stain himself just threatened F-15's.
There is a heuristic to be formed here. In true decentralized and competitive markets (whether it be a market of ideas or price discovery) one would expect to see a highly variable dispersion of opinions/values from the market. This dispersion of consensus should take on the probabilistic shapes of nature (some distribution function, likely normal). The more centralized the market, the less that market will reflect nature and will begin to defy the natural distribution function.
To put this in practical terms, let's use Covid 19 as an example. In a real competitive and scientific marketplace of ideas, we should have seen a distribution of opinions among the "expert" class. There should have been some actual conspiracy theories in very small numbers (the tails), but a lot of voices saying around the same thing but in different ways (the middle of the normal distribution that is close to but not exactly the truth). Instead what we saw were "experts" who were not engaging in a competitive scientific process, but rather reciting an edict from the consensus Monopolists word for word. There was almost no distribution of consensus opinion. We saw a completely binary distribution of opinion - People either believed and recited the official narrative masquerading as Science or dissented from it.
This heuristic can be used going forward to gauge just how real certain conversations/discussions/arguments really are. If there is hardly any distribution of opinion, it is likely the topic has been reduced to a Fake Binary form of consensus creation.
We need a law that says any royalties received are disclosed publicly within a month. After all, if it's legal under the Bayh-Dole Act, then we are entitled to know the source, amount, time/date, and what the royalties are tied to. Since there's a performance part of the royalties, the government-paid-for effort/data showing that development that entitles them to the royalties should also be revealed publicly.
We don't need any more laws.
We need wholesale repeal of laws, starting with the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
Starve the beast, and freedom will follow.
Bill Gates has openly and to the public said that vaccines are the biggest return investment he’s ever made in his life the return is about 21%! Talk about the smoking gun let alone his Ted talk about controlling the population with vaccines he’s a conflict of interest within himself, he is certainly not our savior now
I think you're missing 1-2 orders of magnitude on that investment return. He mentioned a 20:1 investment gain here: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/23/bill-gates-turns-10-billion-into-200-billion-worth-of-economic-benefit.html
The 20:1 return referred-to in the article is the claimed, estimated, economic benefit to SOCIETY AT LARGE, for the $10 bil DONATION.
It is not Bill's return on an investment.
I think it may be worthwhile to read more carefully. And cross-check with other sources. Bill Gates has said in a few places that he's had a VERY nice return on investment in vaccines.
Agree! But we'll never see it. Far too sensible. Our "Western Liberal Democracies" have spent many decades building political and bureaucratic structures impervious to "interference" from citizens. And totally shielded from any trace of accountability. Any attempt to force "them" to reveal information, any information, will be met with massive resistance. Expect a wall of silence, shredders - physical and electronic, and even old fashioned burn barrels will be the order of the day.
And don't forget that we have allowed one powerful government agency to recruit and train an additional taxpayer funded eighty thousand strong army. Well armed, with a commitment to the application of "lethal force". I suspect other agencies, already equipped for physical force, are quietly increasing their armed strength. I very much doubt the purpose of this quasi military build up is to share information about the financial affairs of their bureaucrats.
You're right that there would be massive resistance. What clued me in on the Bayh-Dole Act in the first place was the HUGE resistance (by government workers AND lobbyists) to fixing the problems in that act when it was up for consideration. I'm grateful for the long-forgotten author of that piece in 2020 who opened my eyes to it. Once learned, I tried sharing the info with everyone I knew and even a few people who I thought were influencers. It just didn't gain traction. It was like it was too hard to understand how the Bayh-Dole Act was legalized bribery.
As is nearly always the case, the ancients had the proper question:
Cui bono?
What you have so eloquently described here has general applicability to most, if not all, State intervention into society and economy.
Every State intervention sets up the same sort of perverse incentives: in the absence of market discipline which requires a focus on value, the needs and desires of the coercively imposed parasitical interventionist organization are paramount, and like all human organizations, the members will behave accordingly.
This is a feature, not a bug, of the leviathan State that afflicts us all, and is so ubiquitous across the entire formerly free world that people have not only come to accept it, but have been bamboozled into believing it is beneficial.
Until this changes, we will still have ridiculous rubes lighting their Fauci prayer candles, which given the current state of The Science™, is far more apropos than they know.
"The State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men who clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation – that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class – that is, for a criminal purpose.
No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient."
~ Albert Jay Nock, The Criminality of the State, American Mercury, March 1939.
I agree, Libertate. It's like waking up and seeing the whole world with fresh eyes. I think what is new about this current situation is that now many more people are waking up to the fundamentally corrupt nature of the State. It seems that in the past there were always individual heretics/dissidents that pointed out these truths, but it is only now that many millions (I don't think I'm being hyperbolic here) are asking the right questions (such as cui bono?). Many of the Elite$ really messed up this time in thinking they could accelerate things towards their techno-fascist dystopia by creating this "crisis". There is a possibility that this might be the beginning of the end for their systems of control.
Maybe I'm a wishful thinker, but yes, I sense that this may be the darkest moment before a libertarian dawn.
My thoughts exactly.
Opportunity has a way of knocking when folks get knocked around enough.
Part of me almost welcomes it. On the other hand we are dangling from the tree of liberty that the state seems intent on knocking down.
We were just threatened with F-15's. I'll take their word for it.
Also known as "nudges". Great comment 👍
i think a lot of this is WAY past nudges.
public health, academic research, and big pharma has become a feudal system of fiefdoms and fealty where all pay homage to grub for grants from the top gold givers.
Smells like Climate Change™.
Yeah nudges are more like default options and usually appear as "decorations" (think masks).
In this case they utilized mental brutality via occult malice to cover up the biggest oop's and grift in history.
Some would call that EVIL?
Have you met a scientist? You have romantic notions. They are just as competitive and ugly and vindictive as any other group of people...maybe more.
They can be as ugly and vindictive as they want in a decentralized and competitive system of consensus creation and the system will still function properly. The moment the system becomes centralized and political, their vindictiveness begins to impact the system of consensus creation negatively.
Among the miracles of the free market is it will force even complete douchebags to create value for society.
The State, of course, creates the opposite.
Free markets: The ultimate douchebag filter!!!
That said, I'm not sure some of these people didn't come into the world as douchebags.
Be it nature or nurture, those douchebags have been with us since before douchebags were invented.
The only question is whether we will have a free market which yokes them to good, or the State which empowers them to rule and loot us and thereby attracts them flies to an open sewer.
agree. It sure seems like the state and these douchebags are synonymous now
Science is a collection small exclusive clubs that don't tolerate heresy. Yes, financial incentives play a role. And so does ego.
Heresy is unstoppable in the absence of manipulation by the state.
The problem is that everyone involved was acting rationally. They were just being incredibly selfish and inhumane about it. The lives of billions vs their own careers? You know the answer they chose. I don't even blame them as much as I do the corporate media, who basically at this point are useless propagandists. Instead of acting to investigate and question, they became narrative enforcers. The only good thing that I can see coming out of this is that the failures were so bad that many people are finally waking up.
That's right, they were acting rationally in a game that had become distorted (i.e. too centralized and political). The game itself changed the moment Fauci was able to amass as much control over the funding of Science that he did.
If only they were merely useless!
What do you mean by "they were acting rationally?"
When you have someone in a position of power, and they have a choice between a choice better for society vs better for him or herself, don't be surprised when they prioritize themselves.
See I disagree, they were not behaving rationally, but there was a rationale for their behavior.
Behaving rationally means to behave in a logical or sensible fashion. If I enact a policy, like say mandate vaccines, there (edited: should be) a logical or a sensible reason for it. Reasons like:
• Does the disease have a terrible death rate?
• Does the vaccine prevent infection/transmission?
• Has the vaccine been tested?
A rationale for something on the other hand, takes into account illogical behavior. For instance:
• What would be more advantageous (edited: for me and my interests)?
• Has fear of the virus overcome good judgment?
• What about the idea that doing something is better than doing nothing?
It's not surprising when people prioritize themselves, but it isn't rational. But it is a rationale for their irrational behavior. It makes perfect sense that a lot of doctors were silent in the wake of the narrative for Covid. But, was fear of losing a job, or reputation a rational decision?
I think we know the answer to that.
You and I are simply using different definitions of rational. My definition is based on logic: given a certain set of facts and assumptions, does the observed behavior logically follow? That is, is it consistent with the specified factors? It's a positive definition, not a normative one. I'm not making a value judgment about their behavior, I'm saying it was a logical outcome given the observed ethics, value systems, and incentives involved.
It is true that we definitely have different definitions on what is rational. My definition too is based on logic.
Most behavior, even irrational behavior can be consistent after learning specified factors, facts, and assumptions about the person, but that doesn't make it rational. For instance, I know someone who is in their seventies and if he has any food on his plate after eating, instead of throwing it in the garbage or giving it to someone else to eat, he throws it in the toilet. About twice a month, as a result of this behavior, the toilet gets backed up.
While this behavior is irrational, it is understandable. At his age, and based on his coherence level, he is having challenges at the age of 77. His behavior is consistent with who he is., but if you told me he was behaving rationally, I would disagree.
The reasons for enacting the Covid policies also were not rational. First, they were based on faulty models. I would argue that basing any decision on computer models is irrational, as even the best models are not taking into account factors such as the bias of the person creating the model Also, even the best models can't account for every nuance. A similar argument can be made about the vaccine. They enacted vaccine mandates without very little in the way of data regarding how it affects fertility, the heart, blood pressure, and the brain,
Second the policies were developed based on Chinese precedent. This should also raise red flags, especially if we are in agreement with these policies. I've heard doctors explaining that lockdowns, masks, quarantining the healthy were nowhere in the "pandemic playbook" and yet they were adopted in a very short period of time. These policies were put in place not in conjunction with "rational behavior,"
Third, zero tolerance policies by their very nature are not rational as they do not allow for any variation or nuance in their application. Thus, a zero case goal, while laudable was not realistic. Having such an unrealistic view of how to get rid of Covid is also irrational. It is understandable based on the fear and panic that erupted over the disease, but it was not rational. It is not based on sound judgement.
A lot of the behaviors we observed throughout the pandemic were understood, but they were not rational. It made sense for instance to count a motorcycle accident as a Covid death, because it meant the hospital could get government funding for each Covid case treated. It also explained using a ventilator for treatment early in the pandemic, because again. it meant more resources for hospitals.
>>> If I enact a policy, like say mandate vaccines, there has to be a logical or a sensible reason for it. <<<
Sure, if you're naïve enough to believe that the people who get to enact policy will behave the way you THINK you would behave in the same situation.
Let's be clear: I'm saying that there is a point past which YOU would not behave in the way you THINK you would behave. And people who are attracted to political life (which includes bureaucrats) are less scrupulous than you think you would be.
Very few people have faced a 'credible' temptation that involved illicit gains of of more than a few hundred dollars - say, the presence of a mid-range bicycle sitting unlocked outside a café.
There's a risk of discovery and apprehension (and getting the shit kicked out of anyone who lays hands on MY bike) - so the decision "Do I steal this bike?" has to be thought of in risk-adjusted terms.
When the risk-adjusted payoff is relatively low, the temptation is relatively easy to ignore - the overwhelming majority of us ignore that temptation all the time. So I can leave my Specialized Allez outside a café without a lock on it, with little risk that it'll be nicked (I always sit somewhere that's line-of-sight though, and my bike has a GPS tracker in the headset - but it's an old bike [2006 Allez Pro]).
I've got several friends who've had their bikes stolen from this situation.
Obviously SOMEONE is stealing all those bikes - most of which can't be re-sold because they've got identifiers in them. (The componentry can be stripped and sold though - a full high-end groupset is worth ~2500, and a good back wheel can go $4k).
So take it as read that there is a subset of people who DON'T ignore the temptation. (In fact there are organised rings that target high-end bikes).
And at the bottom of society are people who will actively seek to steal objects worth hundreds of dollars that they then 'fence' for 90% less than market value.
Now... ratchet up the size of the payoff until it's predictably until it's integer multiples of average household income. Assume it's 6, 7, or 8 figures.
Then... ratchet down the risk of discovery and/or punishment. So pretty much all of that 6-to-8-figure sum goes into the bank.
If you have convinced yourself that you would resist that level of temptation, I claim - without knowing you - that you're wrong.
FWIW that's why I don't hold Paul Krugman's output against him. If someone sidled up to me and said
>>>We like how you write, but we don't like WHAT you write. If you change your ways to write what we like, we can organise for you to earn half a million bucks a year for as long as you are prepared to do that. You don't have to kill anybody or steal anything. Whaddya say?"
I would take that offer in a heartbeat. And if you're honest with yourself, you should acknowledge that you would too.
Because YOU'RE RATIONAL and almost no human being has a utility functional that would resist a genuine multi-million dollar payday (where the payday didn't require overt criminal behaviour).
RATIONAL simply means "Making decisions to maximise an expected utility manifold given the information set and preferences."
I have since edited the comment to state that there "should be" a logical or rational reason for it. I get how reality is, it is why I responded to the assertion by Epamimondas as to the assertion that "everyone was acting rationally." They weren't.
If you had read my full comment here, you would know that my comment was mainly to discuss the difference between rational thinking, and a rationale on why people behaved in a certain way. I was endeavoring to show a contrast between a logical response, (what should have happened based on the information available) and what did happen (a response based upon human nature).
It's ironic,that this is even a discussion because a lot of the response to Covid has been based on human nature, but the policies enacted fail to take human nature into account. Masks, vaccines, social distancing, lockdowns were responses that only sought to eradicate the virus above all else. None of the measures took into account how such measures would affect mental health, physical health, emotional and social responses to one another, as well as the unintended consequences of enacting such policies. At least that is the surface reason for these policies. As you point out correctly, there were also incentives such as money, fear of loss of job or reputation, to account for those acting as they did.
None of the responses took into account human nature, like our need for social interaction, and how realistic it was to assume people could properly wear masks even if they did work. Not to mention the human propensity to divide people into tribal groups and treat the other group with disdain.
I would be the first to admit that I have complied to mask mandates, for instance. I complied and wore a mask on Uber rides, and in doctor's offices. But I also acknowledge that my behavior was not rational, but the rationale for it made sense. I wore the mask because I wanted to get where I was going without hassle. I wore the mask in the doctor's office because I had to get referrals and treatment. All this while knowing masks were theater and did not work.
Regarding the money, Jordan Peterson asks a similar question, but more in line with those that assert they would not participate on informing on neighbors and being guards when the Gulag system was enacted in Soviet Russia. I know that I have a capacity and a will to do bad things, harmful things, and self-serving things. Every human has that capacity, and to not acknowledge that would be living in fantasy land.
Would I take a half million dollars if all I had to do was write what they were paying me to write? I would most likely, but I also know it would keep me up at night. I would probably end up self medicating, or finding another way "not" to think about what I have done. I might also endeavor to see if I could send out coded messages to people to tell them my true thoughts while disguising them, or create a different persona to use that original one as a way to generate discussion and autonomous thought over issues.
If I took vaxx money, for instance, I wouldn't feel great about it, knowing how many people were harmed. I would rationalize my way out of it by asserting it was their decision, that the information on vaccines was out there. But in the end, my decision would be made predicated on greed, not rational behavior.
It's like the people that play the lottery. There is a rationale as to why they play it. All that money would make sense to spend money to make it. But what is the logical or rational chance to win the lottery? Not very likely, and yet when the jackpot gets to a certain point, a lot of people feel the need to buy a few tickets. Has the chance of winning the lottery increased by the size of the jackpot? Would a jackpot substantially lower decrease the odds? Is not a ten million dollar jackpot a reasonable incentive to buy a lottery ticket just as much as a hundred million based on the likelihood of winning the lottery?
I can understand the rationale for buying a lottery ticket in either case, even as it is not a rational decision.
You make some valid points. "Act rationally" is generally good advice, but one must inquire "Rational by what standard?" You seem to assume a person in power will choose "the greatest good for the greatest number." Your apparent faith that humans will choose what's best for most is charming, but I fear it is poorly grounded in reality. I'm with Epididymis or whatever the hell his name is 🙂. We'd all love it, if it were true that powerful people would set aside their own self-interest and serve the general good. Of course this happens, but the problem is that it's not default behavior. Feathering one's own nest is. This takes many forms, and is not even necessarily at odds with a greater goal although it will nearly always impose a cost thereon. A common analogy is a money manager who earns (say) 1% of assets, regardless of the performance of assets he manages. At the extreme of corruption would be the manager who funnels money to henchmen with dubious projects perhaps for a kickback, or perhaps he just cuts out the middleman and takes whatever he can a la Bernie Madoff. Ethically, I think we have enough evidence that the behavior of all people in power re the Covid-19 directives and surely Big Pharma, are closer to the "scraping the bottom of the barrel" category.
First of all, there was never any advice given as to how people should act. In a utopia the advice to follow would be to stay out of the way of the citizens as much as possible and let them decide for themselves how to act as long as it does not encroach or harm other individuals. Let them wear masks, get vaxxed, do the social distance mambo, and wear full hazmat suits if they want.
The comments made were in response to the assertion by Epaminondas that “Everyone was acting rationally.” Thy were not, and I would agree with your question, “by what standard?” In my opinion the response was not based on logical well-reasoned thought, but rather on self-interest, fear, and based on the idea that those in government see government solutions to most problems.
Further you said:
"You seem to assume a person in power will choose "the greatest good for the greatest number." Your apparent faith that humans will choose what's best for most is charming, but I fear it is poorly grounded in reality."
I don’t think that humans act in this manner, again, that is my point in questioning “they were all acting rationally?” It is very difficult not only in nuance, but also in personal cost to decide to choose the greatest good for the greatest number. One of my main arguments against the Covid response is that the "one-size-fits-all, across the board restrictions and regulations were to serve a very small group of people.
One of the arguments for masks for instance were that they were "for others and not yourself" and so being against masking was selfish. My response to that was "what is more selfish, not wearing a mask for a disease that has a .14% death rate, or demanding everyone wear a mask for a disease with a .14% death rate?
We are in agreement that the response was not rational, but rather predicated on default behavior, or human nature. I would love it as well of people set aside their own interests and served the general good, but it is not very likely to happen. Especially since this was part of our founding documents here in the states that the government was to represent the will of the people and to serve their best interests.
Anyone looking at our Covid worldwide response and think it is more of a "monkey see, monkey do" response than anything else, with some blankets of rational behavior here and there.
You further stated
"Of course this happens, but the problem is that it's not default behavior. Feathering one's own nest is. This takes many forms, and is not even necessarily at odds with a greater goal although it will nearly always impose a cost thereon."
I agree with you here as well. My point is that such behavior is not rational, but it is a rationale for irrational behavior. I’ll give you an example:
It isn’t rational that a man to kill his wife or vice versa. Besides moral reasons, there is the logical reason as well, to not become incarcerated and spend time in jail. But if the husband finds out the wife has had an affair, or he ran into money problems and they have a life insurance policy on one another, there is a rationale for that behavior.
A common analogy is a money manager who earns (say) 1% of assets, regardless of the performance of assets he manages. At the extreme of corruption would be the manager who funnels money to henchmen with dubious projects perhaps for a kickback, or perhaps he just cuts out the middleman and takes whatever he can a la Bernie Madoff. Ethically, I think we have enough evidence that the behavior of all people in power re the Covid-19 directives and surely Big Pharma, are closer to the "scraping the bottom of the barrel" category.
Again, I agree with you here, but I would add that this isn’t acting rationally. Looking at it in a logical fashion, it would be illogical to behave in this manner as generally it is hard to keep lies from coming to light, but money is definite motivation for counter-productive behavior.
I have a cartoon I created of Fauci with a bald head Heisenberg style with the caption "I am the Science™" I also included the title "Breaking Fauci."
To paraphrase a saying I first heard from our pseudo feline host: When entrenched lifetime bureaucrats gain the power to decide what does or does receive funding, the first thing to receive funding will be entrenched lifetime bureaucrats.
Dr. Anthony Fauci screws up so many incentive structures. When an egomaniac makes it to the top, the institutional selection standard becomes not "the most competent" but rather "the best at telling the boss what he wants to hear and enforcing it on down and out." When this happens in an unaccountable bureaucracy, there's no corrective mechanism to remove the egomaniac.
It's not limited to Fauci but he's so useful to illustrate it being the extreme example he is.
We need term limits for high-level government bureaucrats to stop the revolving door between Pharma and government.
An incentive structure is inherent to the system, not the personality of the player in that system.
trump derangement syndrome
and fear!
Marty Makary on Twitter this morning: "Evergrande, a company with close ties to the Chinese Communist Party, donated $115M to Harvard Med Sch. Days after the donation, Harvard-linked experts (some who had proposed a lab leak origin) suddenly changed their position, condemning the lab leak idea." (end quote) It has always made sense to me that following the money would provide the best answers to the questions that boriquagato has posed. Not just about the lab leak, but about the entire process by which the US went from democracy to a pseudo-fascist regime in a manner of days. Where we were told we couldn't gather in groups, see our loved ones, go to work, or go to school. Where we were forced to cover our faces if we left our house. Where people were forced to accept an experimental vaccine or risk losing their job or their ability to move freely in society. And at this point Big Pharma has been given enough money by the US government money to buy every politician, University president, and public health bureaucrat, so who knows where we're headed.
People underestimate what money can buy, because they’re not used to doling out billions or trillions.
precisely.
on the scale of nation state budgets, buying individuals is a rounding error.
I'm reminded of a Johnny Carson interview in which a woman was asked how much she'd take to get laid. After denials that she'd succumb to being paid for the lay, she eventually agreed to a high dollar amount that would be acceptable. The point being that now that we know you're willing to do it, it's just a matter of price. And in a sense, a prostitute.
I hope the money trail is uncovered here. It's truly the courageous who have been willing to turn all that down to maintain their own self-respect and integrity.
I'm sure there's an even better question than that.
Ask the husband for how much money the wife can get laid by someone else! There's for sure an answer for that from everyone!
My Beltway Bandit roots see that equation from the flip side. On the scale of transnational corps buying politicians is a rounding error and best ROI around. Millions in donations and lobbying yield unimaginable fortunes & favors... ask Pfizer!
True. I recall a time when I worked for a government agency involved in doling out unemployment insurance. Deloitte was the contractor to implement the software to do so. After seeing a story about how people were ripping off the system and a news story I saw tipped me off. In this case it was a mayor or chief of police in Georgia somewhere who was working, but someone had taken out unemployment insurance on them. The news story had shown a screen in the background, and it matched the screen at the agency I was in.
Looking further, I realized that Deloitte had helped fund a few politicians to run through legislation to "improve" the unemployment insurance program, by collecting additional bits of information and to also give dollars out to each state to automate it. Guess who had a program ready to go with those exact specs??
And of course, they won MANY contracts across the country. When I saw hold-ups in this agency, Deloitte frequently ran to the legislators to apply pressure on staff to get contract extensions and change orders funded.
It's truly a racket! And Deloitte had a few programs as well to extort money from rich families in India to employ their kids in programming assignments that were brutal in nature, and also to pad their resumes so that they could go on to bigger assignments. They had a contract to bring in their "A" team to develop the software, but swapped in their "D" team to actually do the development. When they tried to do it later on, after having an "acceptance" process in place for critical jobs, I was asked to approve a person for a high paying job on that contract. After making a few calls and analyzing their resume, I declined them, citing their lack of endurance in any job, none of which had the dollar amount and size of the current project. I and our team declined them , and we were told to go back and review it some more. So we did. More phone calls. It kept looking worse for this guy. We declined again. We were told to look some more.
We declined him 4 times. Finally a high level government official in the agency come to the team and asked us if we were declining this person. Yes, and we cited all the reasons why this guy was not qualified. They said okay, I just wanted to hear from you directly. They brought him on anyway. And he rarely showed up, and moved on after a few months (same pattern he had exhibited in all his prior jobs). And now he had a line item on his resume for managing a >$100 million dollar contract, in which he didn't do anything.
Deloitte strong-armed politicians to come down on the agency and threatened agency officials with shining a light on sliding schedules, going over budget, and possibly affecting their jobs.
I and others tried to highlight some of the corruption that was happening, including installing a backdoor in our system to allow them in past all our security. Repeatedly! Some of us were administratively silenced and threatened with our jobs. Some moved to other assignments.
I was even in a conference call with a senator from Washington, and explained in plain english what was going on, and some of the corruption happening. Gee, I wasn't invited to any more meetings.
I've learned through that experience that you document everything, and send emails to yourself on outside accounts. You have to protect yourself, otherwise you can be fired for BS purposes. When you have the goods on people, they'll find other ways to get you out of the way. They'll make up BS reasons to put on a performance record, make your life difficult in other ways, assign you to impossible to complete tasks, just so they can write you up and get rid of you.
I spent most of my working career in Federal government agencies or with contractors. I was at a much lower level than him, but I certainly saw how things were done over the years.
The last paragraph is a key to outsiders trying to understand why government or many other similar large corporations appear so Byzantine, often inefficient and corrupt. An optimist might fantasize that groups exist that operate on honest principles, towards common goals, and would support each other. Such wholesome workplaces may indeed exist, but they are probably rather rare. Alas, the real world is more like a tank of piranha, I expect. There is always competition and they will stoop to pretty low behavior to get what they want. A large part of a worker's workload is often documenting as required by regulation, but some may be required simply to cover his own ass, to defend against the ever-circling sharks.
The Chan family/ Morningside foundation bought out the public health school at Harvard. Last year, they bought the entire UMass medical school. I’m not knowledgeable enough to know whether the Chan’s ties to the CCP or the Pharma industry have anything to do with wanting to plaster your name on a school, but I do question a school that is more than happy to let the Chans buy them.
Makary link https://twitter.com/bethrites/status/1570939744078696449. After getting their lobbying done Evergrande stopped https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/evergrande-reneges-on-multimillion-dollar-pledge-to-harvard-led-covid-project-another-stumble-in-its-ties-to-school/ar-AASQfOZ. Of course, they are somewhat bankrupt if that is possible in China.
https://spectatorworld.com/topic/fauci-harvard-and-the-ccp/
Everyone assumes this was some type of "mistake" and proceeds from there on how to "fix" it. Wrong approach - this was entire planned and worked just as the Faucian "Doctor" ordered.
Unfortunately, it will set medicine, hospitals, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and healthcare, the once-respected CDC, FDA, NIH and even pharma back to the point of no return. Even today where there are over 170 peer-reviewed studies showing masks don't work - the only place in my state requiring masks are the doctor's offices, VA, military bases, and hospitals.
The solution is to tear this quid pro quo, corrupt lobbyist-laden system down. Whether it needs to be rebuilt is up for debate (similar to the NEA).
In the closing days of his presidency, Obama approached Fauci and gave him the go-ahead to revive gain-of-function research. The next day Fauci announced to the world that the next president WOULD face a pandemic. This in the opening days of 2017.
Gain-of-function research was revived under Trump, not Obama.
https://michaelsavage.com/individuals-behind-obama-jan-2017-re-authorization-of-gain-of-function-research-also-claimed-covid-wasnt-lab-created/
Also: Mark Bradman wrote a June 5, 2021, article titled “Interesting Timing—Obama Administration Lifted Block on ‘Gain of Function Research’ Just Eleven Days Before President Trump Took Office, January 9, 2017.”
Here's a link to the white house archives: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2017/01/09/recommended-policy-guidance-potential-pandemic-pathogen-care-and-oversight
Easy enough to check to discover that GOF had allowed exceptions before Trump. Will TDS ever stop?
Do you really think it will set them back to the point of no return? We’ve had piles of evidence for at least a year and nothing has happened. The narrative is strong and well. I hope you’re right, but the fact that the whole charade didn’t fall apart months ago is worrying.
They want to reduce humanity down to a QR code. That's the agenda.
Once the natural origin narrative collapsed, the least damaging fall back position is to blame an accidental leak from a Chinese lab while admitting the already exposed gain of function funding from NIH. What if this is just another "limited hang out", though? The virus could well have been specifically engineered and deliberately released by nefarious actors in the US and Western Globalist interests, timed to get rid of Trump via a postal vote scam and set up the "Great Reset" agenda. The Chinese may have been on board (to get rid of the Trump tariffs etc) or may have been duped into becoming the fall guy for the whole scam. Don't be too quick to think we've nailed them if they "fess up" to the lab leak/gain of function story.
THIS. This is the whole story. It was a lab leak, of course. But NOT accidental by any means. It was planned, it was controlled - as was the “warp speed” “vaccine” roll-out. This is the single thing for me that casts doubt on Trump’s legitimacy, as he still defends this action to this day.
That Trump was at the origin of this destruction of humanity, and knew it, and now is over kissing the buttend of the Crown, is more than enough to see through him, right? Not sayin Biden is any different. Maybe DeSantis, we hope.
DeSantis has a $200 million war chest, according to the Conservative Treehouse. You don’t pile up that kind of money from the good guys.
More fun about DeSantis: he had a press excretory (fun phone change from “secretary”) who was busy working alongside the crazy disinformation czarina in the Ukraine in their 2019 presidential election.
I usually assume at least a couple of levels of limited hangout misdirection for any serious psyop.
If you REALLY want to up the ante with conspiracy theories, have a look at some of this guy's writings. Unless I misquote him, he believes that official promotion of the "accidental lab leak" is cover-up for a deliberate act of bio-warfare. Personally, I've always believed the accidental leak is the most likely scenario. In any event, for damned sure you won't be hearing Unz's ideas on NPR, CNN, etc. 🤣
https://www.unz.com/page/covid-biowarfare-articles/
You go Bad Cat. Some of the rest of us knew this was true. We are an elite group. Thanks for putting all the current facts together.
Charles Eisenstein has written about how offending parties are demanding that those of us who got shrieked into a corner and ostracized and othered by former friends, colleagues, and family members just forgive and forget and move on. He argues that if nothing changes in the base conditions for such a circumstance to arise again, that is an unacceptable demand and an irresponsible action. You can recognize the humanity and sincerity of many good people whose actions you disagree with, but that doesn’t mean those actions were tolerable or should be permitted to fade into oblivion without revelation.
I will consider forgiveness after I receive an appropriate apology and not before.
I think of forgiveness a little differently. I forgive almost immediately. I don’t want the weight of a grudge on my heart. But I don’t forget. That would be stupid. I’m not waiting for an apology, I’m waiting for some recognition of what happened and why the base conditions have to change. Until that happens, I modify my position relative to the people that rushed to be Fauci’s pets.
True forgiveness requires repentance on the side being forgiven.
Byron Katie says there is my business, your business, and God’s business. Someone else’s contrition is not my business, nor is there repentance answerable to me. I stay in my business, which is to forgive readily and to keep awake to the conditions that created the problem in the first place.
So both you and I will never forget or forgive.
I forgive. I do not forget.
Speaking of US labs... We need to confront the fact that SARS-2 was circulating globally for several months before the Wuhan incident. While that doesn't exclude Wuhan from suspicion, it does mean there are many other places to consider. There has not been any investigation into the D.C. "Pneumonia" outbreak in July of 2019, and the immediate Ft. Detrick closure which ensued. If we're looking for a source, that location needs to be investigated closely.
Some background details, for those who are not familiar with the incident:
July 11, 2019: A "Pneumonia" outbreak (in the middle of summer) in a Washington D.C. suburb leaves 2 dead (later 3), 18 hospitalized, 54 sick, in a matter of days. Symptoms are identical to COVID, with a very fast spread. CDC could not identify the pathogen for several weeks, later said rotovirus (if I recall correctly) -- but that doesn't exclude other pathogens, or assure us that they told the truth.
* 50 miles from Ft. Detrick (biolab) -- an easy work commute or to visit a family member.
* A "Cease and desist" order was sent to Ft. Detrick by the CDC THE DAY AFTER the ABC news report below, citing two breaches earlier in the year which were not described for reasons of "National security."
* Ft. Detrick closed less than four weeks later, and did not re-open until spring of 2020.
Note: This was only a short time before the military games, which China claims was the source of infection, and two of the doctors living in D.C. (husband/wife) who worked with the athletes were later murdered in a strange altercation. (Bizarre stuff...) And don't forget the "Vaping deaths" about that time, which never seemed to have a good explanation.
Start here:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/respiratory-outbreak-investigated-retirement-community-54-residents-fall/story?id=64275865
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/health-officials-to-give-update-after-respiratory-illness-sickens-dozens-at-virginia-retirement-community/135890/
Military.com pulled this last link down, but I looked it up on Wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20200325053855/https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/11/24/cdc-inspection-findings-reveal-more-about-fort-detrick-research-suspension.html
I recall seeing an article saying that analysis of spanish wastewater showed evidence of COVID-19 in March 2019.
Eugyppius had a very interesting article the other day. I'll share it here: https://www.eugyppius.com/p/every-day-there-is-more-evidence
It was everywhere in mid to late 2019 and people weren't dying.
Yes, Lillia. That's why the source of the "virus" is of less importance to me. "They" needed a story. They made one up that included this idea that this "killer" was made in a lab. Only one problem -- it didn't kill people -- at least not very effectively, as it were. The withdrawal of medical care, the refusal to treat, the use of deadly "medicines", the withholding of food and water, the inducement of coma in order to "ventilate", and on and on. 𝑻𝒉𝒂𝒕'𝒔 what killed people. That and the real weapon -- the point of the story -- the needle.
A pandemic that is spread through a respiratory virus has to be weak enough so that even the people pulling the levers would be safe, should they be infected. No, the real killer was the vaccine. And it was planned that way all along. They just needed a way to shoot everyone up with it. And generating that reason was the entire psyop.
The virus doesn’t need to be weak to ensure the safety of the perpetrators. They just need an antidote. They are several effective fusion inhibitors as well as the curiosity shelved DRACO.
Can you tell us more about the shelved DRACO?
I think we're saying the same thing?
We are. I'm pointing out the insurance policy for the planners.
Answers don't drive off predators. It takes attacking them with armies of lawyers.
Or the modern equivalent of torches and pitchforks, culminating in either a hanging or burning at the stake in the town square, preferably on free global livestream. Lawyers take too damn long to remove the predators because they a) they bill by the hour, and b) they're essentially the same kind of predators too - cannibals, if you will. Ordinary people who are pissed off past the point of no return by losses of jobs / homes / family / friends will do it for free, and rather quickly too, once we finally manage to get them off facebook and the couch...
Perhaps not free. Think of how much debt could be eliminated with pay per view?
Speaking only for myself, I could scrape together quite a bit that I would consider worth it.
But so many people have already paid way more, that they never even owed anyone, with the loss of their careers, homes, etc. They should not have to pay anything else to watch these bastards die in (hopefully) as agonizing a manner as possible... And whose debt is it really, anyway? Not ours (ordinary people), that's for sure...
True enough - and lives to boot. Although the impending financial implosion will also cause much misery for most all.
I was mostly being flippant.
Cheers
last I checked we still have torches and pitchforks...":-]
Tar and feathers are getting harder to come by though!
Tar, yes. Stroll near any windmill farm or recently culled poultry farm and feathers aplenty!
We do, but flamethrowers are so much more satisfying, and have a considerably longer reach. Anytime you can stay well out of arms reach of your opponent, it's a smarter way to fight...
napalm anyone?......
LOL - good thought, but the traditional napalm delivery mechanism (airplane) would put one so far out of range that they would not have the joy of watching it do it's job. I think the flamethrower approach would be the right mix of distance and full visibility of the results. Napalm would also be harder to prevent "collateral damage" from. We should probably save that for a larger target, like Capitol Hill, where any collateral damage would have less chance of impacting ordinary people. No tears would be shed over lobbyists and other deep state vermin who became collateral damage statistics in that setting...
So true. That gave me a good chuckle!
"Hans..."
Who's going to pay for those lawyers?
contingency
good point!
pandemic response was a targeted psyop, tuned to trump derangement syndrome
the target was the oval office
the strategic object was drop boxes to steal the election
it worked, with media and swamp coordination
now the pressure is on diverting gaze
the count 'certification' was a coup
the operational object of the pandemic strategy
was the coup
So you are saying the whole world wanted Trump out of office? What about the countless other countries who all bought into the same bad information? The "pandemic" was already spreading through China (along with the response) months before.
And what was China's attitude toward Trump, again? Don't you think the Chinese would want some return on their Joe Biden investment?
While China's attitude towards Trump was not positive by any stretch of the imagination, I doubt they locked down their whole economy and way of life with a goal of removing him from office. I don't even know if it was a factor. If it was, we should definitely take notice. Imagine being a man so powerful, and who could generate so much ire and hate that the world in response would shut down economies and lock own lives as a way to get rid of him. Imagine the amount of spite that would be generated to decimate economies, cause famines, ruin livelihoods just because "orange man bad."
Did they lock down their whole economy, or were their factories open while ours were closed?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2022-08-01/how-china-keeps-factories-open-under-covid-zero
#9 Why was natural immunity suddenly NOT a thing?
It doesn't help the profit margin of the capitalists making off like robbers from this. Remember: it's only illegal if you get caught and convicted in court.
All production requires capital investment. The term "conspirators" is more focused and explicit, and it differentiates between a capitalist who invests in production for the market, and a criminal who arranges to push a product via mandates, tax revenue and/or printed money.
https://brownstone.org/articles/mitigation-is-the-golden-calf/
Sometimes a conspiracy becomes a religion.
Maybe the absence-of-Moses panic was created by goldsmiths who saw an opportunity to profit.
Regardless, it sounded like quite the party. Way better than the zoom class getting paid to sit at home in pajamas.
It seems that the Golden Calf narrative spun off the hysteria spun by predators, then was ameliorated by fun and games. Better manipulation, but it took some 6-9 months to come up with a plausible vaccine test, so in our case the hysteria had to be maintained until the vaccine was available and the market was saturated.
I'm sure that the Golden Calf experience was more enjoyable than the Covid Panic experience.
My point is that predators create hysteria in order to spook the prey into an ambush or prepared solution like vaccines. Male lions roar to spook gazelles into running towards the waiting lionesses. Someone said something once about sheep, wolves, and shepherds.
What puzzled me was the why no one was asking "Why do we all need a vaccine that was killing so few of us, and very rarely those who were not elderly or had a sea of comorbidities.
The mask....they were always smelling their own fear....literally.
?????
Fear, bad breath, and stewing in their own echo chamber. I have maintained that if I believed in the mainstream media, I would be scared as well.
Additional questions:
9. What the heck was going on with bodies in the streets of Wuhan? That's not how one would die of coronavirus -- all neat and tidy, no blood, lying perfectly flat on their backs ready to photograph. That was propaganda for lockdowns, it came from China but was designed to influence a U.S. audience.
10. There were over 100 candidate vaccines. Why did only the most dangerous spike protein kind get authorized in the U.S.? This is literally the least likely candidate -- because it had never worked in humans. Suddenly it was the only choice. What explains that.
11. Why did hospitals push ventilators so aggressively given that they killed 90% of patients?
The entire event is a performance designed to entrap people into asking “where did this virus come from?”
The right question is “what’s the evidence that a novel virus is in any way associated with deaths around the world?”
Because the answer is “there isn’t any. There’s no new virus. Of course there isn’t. How could they retain full control of there was a novel pathogen out there?”
Dr. Yeadon. As I understand it, no virus has ever been isolated or sequenced anywhere in the world. Therefore, there is no evidence of the existence of any virus at all. All they have are genetic fragments of unknown origin. You say there is no new virus. But there is no evidence of any virus whatsoever. Would you agree?
I don’t really know for sure.
Quite possibly true.
Irrelevant though.
Unless we manage to persuade the general public that all this around us is a lie, we’re not going to be around to debate the wider question.
Frankly, it irritates the hell out of me, thus lack of laxer focus.
It’s not a new effort. It’s got nowhere & I can see why it hasn’t.
It’s incredibly hard to get people to believe multiple things we can prove to uniformly agreed standards.
Please help humanity right now by focussing only on the present “virus”.
This isn’t a game & our adversaries aren’t playing by conventional rules. If we act as if they are or ought to be, my best prediction is we’ll all be taking a trip six feet under.
Thank you :)
I understand your point. But the way I see it is, as long as we continue to believe in viruses- for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever- the more they are going to invent new ones. At least- if not outright denying the possible, though absolutely unproven existence of viruses- we should be saying exactly what they are doing. Which is associating short genetic fragments of unknown origin with theoretical viruses that are short sequences put together to form a theoretical genome sequence, using computer algorithms. Without any actual specimen of any virus that has been isolated and sequenced to use as a reference. We are in a very dangerous time. And they are lying to the extreme. This is why I think only the Truth will set us free. Ppl must be made to know the Truth. Bcz only the Truth can generate the resolve to make the appropriate stand against these inexorable and constantly mutating lies. We cannot compromise with the lies. Bcz they will use that to further the lies.
You make a very good point.
Unfortunately it’s going to be moot because I cannot even persuade those who already know the entire event is fraudulent that SARS-CoV-2 is not circulating.
I invite magicians to help because a mere mortal like me is out of ideas.
It is for the public to understand the reality of the situation. If a few reputable scientists can tell them the Truth, they will be able to embrace it. I have a friend who is an Analytical Organic Chemist, who worked for Health Canada for over 30 years as a Senior Research Scientist. He knows exactly what is going on with the science of it. I think if the two of you collaborate, something good could happen. If you are interested, i can give you my email address and organize a meeting between the two of you.
"it was a full blown fox commission investigating the henhouse murders"
Of all the feline zingers of the past year, this might be the best executive summary Thanks, gato!