the madness of king joe: framing and misdirection

wait until the CDC grants itself the authority to quarter soldiers in your home.

on the bright, side, at least you won’t have to pay rent…

in all seriousness, there is A LOT of ugly chatter coming out of DC right now. the feds are chomping at the bit to push federal vaccine passports, but know they likely lack the authority.

so they will push it out to the “private sector” yet fund it, set standards, and unify databases. you know billy gates would love to get in on that perpetual gravy train. then they will, inch by inch, force them into acceptance. start small, individual companies, some chains, some cities. but that’s how the anaconda gets you around the ankles. and once it does, it does not let go.

the fact that they are using lapdog outlets like AP to float trial balloons (or as best “outrageous ask gambits” to anchor debate) this insane should terrify you, even if they then panic and immediately walk it back. and clearly, some folks are clamoring for this stuff… sigh.

the world is full of willing brownshirts like barbara. they seem to care only about feasibility. they certainly do not care about you or your rights.

my guess is this just leaked early/generated worse backlash than expected and now they are playing “duck and cover.”

as history has shown us all year, current disavowal can turn to future implementation in the blink of a media cycle. note the weasel words of “at this moment.” that’s far from an assurance they would not do such a thing. if it were off the table, they would not use such a qualifier.

the safe assumption is this is absolutely in their planning schema. (and you’re not gonna like where it leads.)

  • mandating “your papers please” for interstate travel? wait until they grab the FAA and mandate it for all flights.

  • changing reimbursement for those unvaccinated? wait until they link this to social media and do the same for “wrongthink.”

you do NOT want the thin end of this wedge going in.

note that they are not even discussing ideas like:

  • is this legal?

  • is this moral?

  • is this in accordance with principles of liberty?

  • are we being horrible, evil, dictatorial totalitarians?

they never even question their right to do this or the righteousness of doing so. they just worry it might be “too polarizing.” seriously?

that’s the logic of a psychopath.

and, of course, the cure for polarization is MOAR FEAR. unify the nation against an enemy. tell it it’s under attack. trot out new variants, new fears, new foes.

vilify the unvaccinated and ignore the pesky fact that vaccines are clearly failing and losing efficacy over time, at least in terms of sterilizing immunity.

your vaccine does not protect me nor mine you. you still get covid. you still spread covid.

even the CDC says so.

no sane person would be trying to mandate vaccines as source control when it’s obvious they do not work as such unless they had ulterior motives. ask israel and iceland how that’s going. boosters do not fix this. these vaccines simply do not aid herd immunity all that much. only exposure and recovery does.

they are not even trying to make sense anymore. they are just trying to see what they can get away with. these are probing raids for the future push. it’s the setup for november/december and the zeta variant to be optioned later.

@cernovich captures the zeitgeist perfectly here:

but i’d like to take this a step further.

i once had a truly brilliant professor who taught “politics of the legal system.” he was fond of saying

“i can win any argument on any topic with any person at any time if you simply allow me to be the one who poses the question.”

this is a surprisingly deep statement about framing and it’s intensely germane to the current issues around covid restrictions.

we’re letting them frame the question.

it’s always “does this intervention work?” or “does this mandate reduce X?” these are the wrong questions.

sure, they are losers for team “lock down and mask up”, but they place the debate on the wrong turf and force us to shovel back an endless supply of new lies, made up facts, bought and paid for shills pushing credentials over science and data, and increasingly simply making stuff up and peddling it to a credulous citizenry.

what has gone begging in this framing is “so what?'“

even if these things DID work, so what? what gives them the right to force them upon you? what ends your liberty and enables their mandate? by what just power or ethical precept can they take your agency away?

the term “inalienable” attached to rights was not some extraneous redundancy. it’s the literal foundational precept of a republic.

the rights of we the people, of each individual, stand paramount to the state. it may not intrude upon them or abrogate them. they are intrinsic to you and inviolate.

this is where the “appeal to common practice” fallacy gets trotted out. “well, they mandated X before, so how is this different?” this is a terrible argument and invalid on its face. past outrage does not justify new ones. chattel slavery was once the law and practice. did that make it right or moral?

the same laws and precedent people love to use to defend vaccine mandates were used to justify japanese internment camps and mandatory sterilizations. you really wanna go there? that’s not moral high ground and neither is “because it’s for the social good.” that one is a truly vile and false framing.

there is no “social good” in any knowable sense. it’s an aggregation fallacy. if harming me makes you feel better, how can we even decide which outweighs the other? are you more happy or am i more hurt? is it even moral to hurt some to please others? who gets to pick? who decides what values to weigh? because none of these choices affect just one thing.

we could mandate physical fitness and healthy diet and get rid of 60% of US medical costs. we could stop countless early deaths. we could limit medicare and medicaid to the lean and fit. “if you won’t take care of you, why should we?” the savings would make all the rest of healthcare free while cutting US federal spending.

yet almost no one would support this highly effective strategy with little to no side effects and a clear “social good” if we limit our discussion to health, lifespan, and productivity.

this is because we (correctly) see it as a monstrous imposition into personal sovereignty. who are you to force me to be healthy, eat kale, and do cardio day even if it’s good for me, good for us, saves money, and makes me less likely to carry disease, infect others, and get needlessly sick?

well, huh. that sounds a lot like “who are you to force me to take an experimental vaccine that likely poses me net harm even in the unlikely event it might protect you? what valid moral structure calls “forced conscription of human shields” ethical?

pro tip: not one you want to live near.

“societal good” is the last refuge of the amoral villain with no real case to make. it’s the bad, predatory framing of the tyrant and the totalitarian that uses slight of hand to hide the injection of a presumed and unverifiable moral and value structure.

it inevitably ends up with “we had to burn the village to save it” and your rights and freedom burn with it.

fighting endlessly with these experts is a sucker bet. it’s their home field and a rigged framing. they can be totally wrong, over and over, and it does not matter. they are not there to convince you or to provide data. they are there to misframe the issue.

they are not the trick, they are the stage magician’s flourish to draw your attention away from where the trick is being done.

do you seriously think anyone with 3 brain cells to rub together believes fauci or eric ding? they’re not designed to be compelling, at least to anyone with basic critical thinking faculties. they are designed to be infuriating, to be captivating, to be distracting.

we get so absorbed countering their latest barrage of baloney that we take our eye of the real ball: that the anadonda is taking liberty after liberty while we fight about CFR and whether a new variant is vaccine evading.

understanding the medical salients is all well and good, but in terms of preserving our liberty and livelihoods, we’re in the wrong fight, guys. we’ve been sucked into an endless and unwinnable rope a dope.

you get to keep the rights you’ll fight for.

there’s no changing that.

arguing that all these measures provide “social good” when so much of society clearly does not want them is like claiming that women were made less unhappy by being denied the vote than men were made happier by having all the power and using that as a defense for banning female suffrage.

you cannot aggregate “good” that way or ever measure all the variables involved. and everyone will lie. this is why we must all have the right to say “no” to escape predation by would be social planners cum tyrants.

the powers being discussed will stay around for a long time. the wild outlier from one emergency becomes the SOP in the next one. even if you trust these guys, imagine all this power wielded by the politician you hate most because one day, it will be.

your rights are your line of defense against this.

protect them and they protect you. neglect them, and get used to serfdom…

trading rights for safety will inevitably leave you with neither.