Pages

Monday, September 5, 2022

2022-09-04

Part II of Labour Day weekend posts:

still getting caught up on a couple of weeks' missed reading for vacation will require [at least] a couple of posts!


*** denotes well-worth reading in full at source (even if excerpted extensively here)


Economic and Market Fare:

Grannis: M2 says the Fed doesn't need to crush the economy

... On a 6-mo. annualized basis, M2 growth is a mere 0.6%, and on a 3-mo. annualized basis it's 1.0%. In other words, M2 has essentially flat-lined since last January, which was well before the Fed began to take tightening action. This means that the behavior of M2 is obviating the need for the Fed to pursue a typical tightening, which almost always ends with a recession. ....

... So a very strong dollar is symptomatic of a world that is desperate for a safe haven—and one that is expected to soon yield more as the Fed panics and hikes rates even more, crushing the economy in the process. And it is also symptomatic of a Fed that is expected to be "too tight."

It doesn't need to play out this way, and I hope the Fed is listening. The world doesn't need a super-strong dollar, and higher rates are not necessary to slow inflation. Not this time, at least. ...



Since Powell shocked the world with an unexpectedly hawkish speech last week, the market has been struggling to guess just how much worse a tighter Fed is going to be for the economy. As a first pass, the market has decided that it looks a bit scary: most risk assets are down. Meanwhile, the dollar continues to trade very strong in the currency markets. A strong dollar and weak commodity markets are classic symptoms of tight money. Commodities (especially Dr. Copper) are widely considered to be canaries in the inflation coal mine; when the Fed is tight, commodities almost always suffer. ...

... Message: the Fed has pushed up interest rates and the dollar to the point that demand for homes and commodities has taken a beating. This is how the Fed fights inflation. They don't need to do too much more, and they most certainly don't need to crush the economy or put people out of work to get the inflation rate down. ...



Global central banks agreed at Jackson Hole to tighten as quickly and brutally as possible. The exact inverse of the pandemic. What we are watching in real-time is a global coordinated collapse...

The major policy mistake being made globally is believing that inflation is driven by wages and is hence "sticky" and intractable. Today's inflation is driven primarily by asset prices and therefore it will collapse far faster than anyone predicts. Central bankers are already tightening far past the point of "neutral" and thereby collapsing the global debt bubble that has grown inexorably since 2008. You have to be a dunce not to see this coming, hence it's largely unforeseen.

.............. In summary, what investors face is either a markets crash which very quickly brings down inflation and forces global central banks to quickly pivot. Or, central banks will continue tightening monetary policy until an economic depression is a foregone conclusion. Regardless, in either case asset prices will decline to a nadir far below this current level. At which point depression becomes inevitable. Amid all of the sturm and drang surrounding the stock market on Friday, it's shocking that no one mentioned the impact this will have on the already imploding housing market. We face a GLOBAL housing collapse of biblical magnitude. Which will bring far greater economic dislocation than the stock market which is skewed towards wealthy households. ...


Pettis: China’s Overextended Real Estate Sector Is a Systemic Problem
In the first half of this two-part blog post, I discussed the problems affecting four rural banks in Henan and the subsequent mortgage boycott in parts of China. In the second half, I argue that these crises need to be seen not as isolated events but rather as signs of systemic problems that reveal a great deal about China’s finances and balance sheet.



Quotes of the Week:

Roberts: At Jackson Hole, various mainstream economists present papers on the state of capitalist economies and on the efficacy of monetary policy.  It was revealing what Gita Gopinath, the former IMF chief economist had to say. “Existing (mainstream – MR) models cannot explain the inflation surge”, Gopinath said. 


Mac: Both Japan and China are now in deflationary liquidity traps. The U.S. and Europe are following close behind. Soon the masses will learn the hard way, you can't borrow your way out of a debt crisis. They will all find out, once it's officially too late...


Mac: When I first started blogging in 2007 I was writing about the collapse of the U.S. middle class. Now, here we are talking about the collapse of Globalization. While so many were eagerly telling me I'm wrong, the table stakes grew by an order of magnitude. And yet like a tsunami in the open ocean this incipient collapse is imperceptible to the average person, because the super wave has yet to break on shore. We all have a personal choice to step back and gain historical perspective or just get buried under a deluge of disinformation.



Charts: 
1:



[not just] for the ESG Crowd:

The title of this post is a question sent in by a reader from the world of finance and investment. He wants to know if and how businesses can make a difference when it comes to helping the world accelerate the decarbonization of the economy via the application of ESG principles and methods in their business operations. Summarized at the end of this post I’ll four suggestions to CEOs for how to get the most out of ESG while avoiding the pitfalls of playing “the game.”

Let me start with a warning. Much of what passes for ESG related to climate and carbon is just hot air. At its worst climate-related ESG can be a bunch of busy work that lines the pockets of the burgeoning ESG industry while subtracting from shareholder value. At its best climate related ESG offers a chance for businesses to align their operations with a widely-shared global policy goal (net-zero carbon emissions) while adding to shareholder value.

The challenge, of course, is how to tell the difference between busy work and making a real difference. That is what this post is focused on. 

The first step in understanding how to make a difference is to understand — really understand — what it means to make a difference. The global energy economy is ridiculously complex. It is also much bigger than most people imagine. Look around you. More than 80% of the energy services that we enjoy globally comes from the burning of fossil fuels. At the same time there are billions of people around the world who do not even come close to the level of access to energy services that I and most readers of this post enjoy every day. In my introductory energy policy class students head routinely (and figuratively) explode when they get an appreciation of the scale of global energy use, along with their own personal consumption. ....

Thanks to the easily-understood-yet incredibly-powerful Kaya Identity, we know that our toolbox for reducing and ultimately eliminating fossil fuel combustion has four options. That is it. There is no other option beyond these (to learn more please read The Climate Fix). They are, all else equal:
  • Reduce population
  • Reduce per capita GDP
  • Improve the energy intensity of economic activity (technically, energy/GDP)
  • Reduce the carbon intensity of energy (technically, CO2/energy)
That’s it. Those are the options for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.  ....

When it comes to tools in the ESG toolbox, we can make things even more simple. No company is going to seek to reduce population — well, except maybe the tobacco industry. Similarly, no company is going to seek to reduce individual wealth. In fact, the entire reason that businesses exist is to increase profits which in turn increase GDP, most directly by providing goods and services that create or meet a market demand, thereby increasing individual and overall societal wealth. So we can take population and wealth off the table right away as levers that might be used to reduce emissions.

That leaves only two options: Improve energy intensity and reduce carbon intensity. Let’s take each in turn. ....








Sci Fare:


Did the universe come out of a black hole? Will the big bang repeat? Was the universe created from strings? Physicists have a lot of ideas about how the universe began, and I am constantly asked to comment on them. In this video I want to explain why you should not take these ideas seriously. Why not? That’s what we’ll talk about today.

The first evidence that the universe expands was discovered by Edwin Hubble who saw that nearby galaxies all move away from us. How this could happen was explained by none other than Albert Einstein. Yes, that guy again. His theory of general relativity says that space responds to the matter and energy in it by expanding.

And so, as time passes, matter and energy in the universe become more thinly diluted on average. I say “on average” because inside of galaxies, matter doesn’t dilute but actually clumps and space doesn’t expand. But in this video we’ll only look at the average over the entire universe.

So we know that the universe expands and on average matter in it dilutes. But if the universe expands today, this means if we look back in time the matter must have been squeezed together, so the density was higher. And a higher density of matter means a higher temperature. This tells us that in the early universe, matter was dense and hot. Really hot. At some point, matter must have been so hot that atoms couldn’t keep electrons around them. And even earlier, there wouldn’t even have been individual atomic nuclei, just a plasma of elementary particles like quarks and gluons and photons and so on. It’s like the alphabet soup of physics.

And before that? We don’t know. We don’t know because we have never tested what matter does at energy densities higher than those which the Large Hadron Collider can produce.

However, we can just ignore this difficulty, and continue using Einstein’s equations further back in time, assuming that nothing changes. What we find then is that the energy density of matter must once have been infinitely large. This is a singularity and it’s where our extrapolation into the past breaks down. The moment at which this happens is approximately thirteen point seven billion years in the past and it’s called the Big Bang.

The Big Bang didn’t happen at any particular place in space, it happened everywhere. I explained this in more detail in this earlier video.

Now, most physicists, me included, think that the Big Bang singularity is a mathematical artifact and not what really happened. It probably just means that Einstein’s theory stops working and we should be using a better one. We think that’s what’s going on, because when singularities occur in other cases in physics, that’s the reason. For example, when a drop of water pinches off a tap, then the surface curvature of t
he water has a singular point. But this happens only if we describe the water as a smooth fluid. If we would take into account that it’s actually made of atoms, then the singularity would go away.

Something like that is probably also why we get the Big Bang singularity. We should be using a better theory, one that includes the quantum properties of space. Unfortunately, we don’t have the theory for this calculation. And so, all that we can reliably say is: If we extrapolate Einstein’s equations back in time, we get the Big Bang singularity. We think that this isn’t physically correct. So we don’t know how the universe began. And that’s it. ...



Dark matter remains undetected in the laboratory. This has been true for forever, so I don’t know what drives the timing of the recent spate of articles encouraging us to keep the faith, that dark matter is still a better idea than anything else. This depends on how we define “better.”

There is a long-standing debate in the philosophy of science about the relative merits of accommodation and prediction. A scientific theory should have predictive power. It should also explain all the relevant data. To do the latter almost inevitably requires some flexibility in order to accommodate things that didn’t turn out exactly as predicted. What is the right mix? Do we lean more towards prediction, or accommodation? The answer to that defines “better” in this context. 

One of the recent articles is titled “The dark matter hypothesis isn’t perfect, but the alternatives are worse” by Paul Sutter. This perfectly encapsulates the choice one has to make in what is unavoidably a value judgement. Is it better to accommodate, or to predict (see the Spergel Principle)? Dr. Sutter comes down on the side of accommodation. He notes a couple of failed predictions of dark matter, but mentions no specific predictions of MOND (successful or not) while concluding that dark matter is better because it explains more.

One important principle in science is objectivity. We should be even-handed in the evaluation of evidence for and against a theory. In practice, that is very difficult. As I’ve written before, it made me angry when the predictions of MOND came true in my data for low surface brightness galaxies. I wanted dark matter to be right. I felt sure that it had to be. So why did this stupid MOND theory have any of its predictions come true?

One way to check your objectivity is to look at it from both sides. ...



Other Fare:


London CIBC Bankers Kept A Book Full Of "Sexually Suggestive Comments" About Women



Contrarian Perspectives

Extra [i.e. Controversial] Fare:

*** denotes well-worth reading in full at source (even if excerpted extensively here)


Regular Fare:

Tracey: Democrats and Republicans Pretend They Have Massive, Unbridgeable Differences So They Can Unite Seamlessly on War

... Thanks to these occasional instances of classically polarized partisan sausage-making, elected officials and media operatives can claim at least some basis for their frantic insistence that some titanic gulf separates the two parties. The ever-presence of bi-directional Culture War agitation can heighten this impression — upon which it always becomes existentially crucial that one or the other party gets put into power at the next election. Make sure to vote in the upcoming Midterms, because these Midterms just happen to be the most consequential Midterms of all time, at least since the 2018 Midterms. The fate of humanity hinges on whether Chuck Schumer or Mitch McConnell controls the Senate, didn’t you know?

On the other hand, if you’re one of the vanishingly few Americans who’d like to think that your vote this year could meaningfully alter the course of US foreign policy, you’re bound for disappointment. Because even as both parties tried to make it seem like the “Inflation Reduction Act” vividly demonstrated the intractable differences between them, they were simultaneously demonstrating the exact opposite: that at least in regards to another set of issues which genuinely are “existential,” in that they impinge on such matters as whether you’re likely to get incinerated in a large radiation blast anytime soon, there is almost no meaningful distance at all between Democrats and the GOP. Over time, if anything, whatever distance might have previously existed has meaningfully shrunk. Because with limited and marginalized exceptions, both Democrats and Republicans are increasingly functioning as a unified bloc on the questions which most centrally bear on America’s posture as a global military and economic hegemon. As that posture becomes more fraught and antagonistic across multiple theaters, the two parties have become more and more ardent in constricting the range of acceptable debate. Democrats may spend the bulk of their time on social media or in front of TV cameras piously shrieking that the empowerment of Republicans would guarantee the implosion of “democracy,” and Republicans may make funhouse-mirror versions of the same argument. But this phony baloney two-way theater obscures just how much their worldviews have converged.....

......... Today, Bernie is essentially mute on the subject — except when he votes unfalteringly in favor of the latest NATO-related initiative, such as the Finland/Sweden measure this month, or the $40 billion Ukraine war funding bill in May. And for the most part, he can’t even be bothered to explain his reasoning — which in a way is understandable, since it’s not like there’s some steady drumbeat of “progressive” activists/media holding his feet to the fire on these issues



The FBI — They’re the nation’s premier law enforcement agency.  We rely on them to protect us from every sort of crook and bad guy, not to mention international terrorists.  When they’re investigating something important, it’s understandable that they can’t disclose to the public what they’re up to.  That would give away the game, and give the bad guys the chance to escape.  So we need to trust them, to let them operate mostly in secrecy, and just give them the benefit of the doubt that they are doing the right thing.

Boy, has that narrative gotten blown to smithereens over the past few years. Starting with the Russia collusion hoax in 2016, it’s been one revelation after another of the thoroughly corrupted FBI meddling in domestic politics to advantage Democrats.  ....

... Today, nobody in their right mind should give the FBI the benefit of the doubt about anything.  If you assume that everything they are doing is corrupt, you are highly likely to be right.

For this post, I’ll forego a review of the FBI’s role in the Russia hoax, and just consider some of the most recent developments.

Hunter Biden laptop
.....
Mar-a-Lago Raid
.....
Project Veritas/Ashley Biden Diary
....


"There's a lot not to like about the Biden student loan forgiveness scheme":
Before those of you who are in “I’ve got mine” mode about the widely anticipated announcement that Biden will be forgiving $10,000 of student loans for every borrower making less than $125,000 a year: your humble blogger has for many many years advocated debt relief along with fundamental reforms of the student loan program.

This Biden scheme doesn’t even rise to the level of a band-aid over a gunshot wound. It leaves the system that has grotesquely inflated the cost of higher education. For any child not born of affluent parents (or say getting a very hefty scholarship), the choice is foregoing college or taking on a lot of debt. Long gone are the days when kids could earn enough to go to a pretty to very good state school by working over the summer. Why not direct less money to debt relief, particularly as we’ll discuss soon, it is mainly a subsidy to the better-off, and start giving more Federal support to state colleges and universities?

And this grotesque system, of loading up young people with debt even before they’ve made key life decisions, like where to live, whether to get married and have kids, has created a new rentier class, in the form of a greatly enlarged and overpaid cohort of administrators…who have a very strong propensity to vote Democrat. So Biden has kept the subsidies to this voter block very much intact by refusing to do anything about out of control, unsupervised lending.

Remember: nothing, not a single thing, is being demanded of banks who made questionable student loans or the schools who gave students unrealistic information about their future earning prospects. One would think it would be a no-brainer to impose automatic penalties on lenders and schools whose borrowers had delinquency rates over a certain level, and inspected the next tier and imposed fines for bad practices.

So what are we going to do, keep throwing money at a bloated, elitist higher educational complex, and then pretend that this isn’t as grotesque a system as it appears to be by large scale writeoffs every decade or so? Doesn’t the magnitude of the debt cancellation say the time is overdue for root and branch reform? But oh noes, can’t break those rice bowls. ...


Unsustainability / Climate Fare:

And how to go beyond those limits to confront the polycrisis



If we insist on doing the transition the hard, slow, costly way rather than the easy, fast, cheap way, it's going to be a needlessly arduous, soul-crushing slog.

Let's cover a few common-sense points and ask a few questions about the Global Energy Crunch. Let's start with the high-tech, super-costly solutions that many promote as the surefire source of abundant, affordable energy: thorium reactors, mini/modular-reactors, clean coal plants and fusion.

Every one of these may turn out to be a solution, but in the here and now they take many years to build and huge sums of money. Full-scale functioning examples of these technologies do not yet exist. Various prototypes are in development, but the timelines are long and uncertain.

For example, one modular nuclear reactor design recently gained approval, and the first prototype will hopefully be ready for testing in 2030. As for when we can expect the first full-scale modular nuclear reactor to start producing electricity, nobody knows. How many units can be manufactured per year is also unknown. Any practical guess is decades.

Nuclear reactors are costly to build, regardless of their fuel cycle. Cost and time over-runs are the norm. Five years becomes nine years and $1 billion becomes $3 billion. New technologies are especially prone to over-runs. There are about 440 functioning nuclear reactors on the planet and about 55 under construction in 19 countries. The existing reactors supply about 10% of global electricity--in other words, a fraction of total energy consumption.

As for everyone's favorite solution, the so-called renewables of wind/solar--actually replaceables--we all know the problem: they're intermittent. So you need a second power generation system to fill the gaps when the sun goes down and the wind dies. As for batteries-- even mega-batteries only hold a tiny percentage of total energy consumption. And it's already clear that there aren't enough minerals to build hundreds of millions of high-tech batteries, which by the way, are also replaceable, i.e. must be replaced every decade or so. (See chart below.)

.....

The global energy crunch is real and has no easy, cheap, quick fix. That doesn't mean we're powerless (heh).

Let's ask a few questions of the planet's largest energy consumers: Europe, North America, China and Japan.

1. What percentage of habitable structures are well-insulated or super-insulated to minimize the need for heating / cooling?

2. What percentage of habitable structures have geothermal heat pumps (GHPs) that use the ambient temperature of the Earth to reduce energy consumption?

3. How many empty rooms / spaces in these regions are heated / cooled?

4. How many of the millions of vehicles that are stuck in traffic jams are single-occupant?

You see where this is leading: conservation is the fastest, lowest-cost, lowest-technology way to reduce energy consumption by reducing waste. Rather than invest in universal conservation and incentives to reduce wasteful behaviors (heating empty spaces 24/7, etc.), we've squandered decades and trillions of dollars, yuan, yen and euros on bridges to nowhere, wars of choice, speculative excess, virtue-signaling and the mindless consumption of the waste is growth Landfill Economy .......


********** Bates: Compound Disinterest

"In the first two decades of this century, we moved up to perhaps the halfway point where the curve of climate chaos has begun more noticeably to ascend."

...... Because of lag factors after a greenhouse gas leaves the tailpipe and climate effects appear, there is already more warming in the pipeline than what has occurred, as Hansen, Sato and Ruedy will presently describe in a paper, “Global Warming in the Pipeline,” nearing completion. So, even if we stopped all emissions suddenly, such as by the occurrence of a global pandemic that wipes out the economies of all overdeveloped countries, or a nuclear war between overheated India and Pakistan that annihilates China, Korea, and Japan with its fallout, warming trends would continue, only slowly tapering to a new, warmer equilibrium. By that point, many additional tipping elements may have been triggered, with cascading consequences for centuries to millennia.

Already set in motion are massive ice losses that can’t be halted even if the world stopped fossil emissions today, according to a new study published in Nature Climate Change on Monday. That study says it is now inevitable Greenland’s melt will trigger a foot of global sea-level rise, possibly as soon as 2050. Another paper by NOAA says that partly because of sea level rise, the most destructive floods will take place five times as often, and moderate floods will become 10 times as frequent.

............ Now that we are in an exponential curve of climate change can we do anything about it? Economist Steve Keen says,
If we started this 50 years ago when Limits to Growth—which is a far superior piece of research to anything done by economists subsequently—if they were taken seriously and we'd done as they suggested—changing our trajectory from 1975 on—we could have done it gradually using things like carbon taxes and so on. But because economists have delayed it by another half century we're putting as a species three to four times the pressure on the biosphere. We're not going to do it through market mechanisms. I think the only way we can actually do this is effectively a war-level footing of massive mobilization to reverse the amount of carbon we've put into the atmosphere and to drastically reduce our consumption now. That's the mindset we need and unfortunately, economists are encouraging the mindset instead that says let's take advantage of these new transport routes through the arctic, yeah?
Keen argues we need to fundamentally rethink classical economics. The alternative vision is one of ecosystem restoration. ...
The source of wealth is functional ecosystems. The products and services that we derive from those are derivatives. It is impossible for the derivatives to be more valuable than the source, and yet, in our economy now as it stands, the products and services have monetary values but the source—the functional ecosystems—are [valued at] zero. So, this cannot be true. It is false. We’ve created a global institution of economics—an economic theory—based on a flaw in logic. If we carry that flaw in logic from generation to generation we compound the mistake.
.... It is not physically impossible to change our wicked ways and do the right thing, but is it behaviorally possible? The answer to that question will determine our fate.



..... We expected the weather to act in certain ways, and while there were definitely surprises, mostly it has, for thousands of years. This doesn’t discount Europe’s warm period or little ice age, but overall, weather has been pretty consistent.

Now it isn’t. And it will be more inconsistent for a hundred or two hundred years. When you’re moving from one equilibrium to another, there tend to be wild swings until the new equilibrium settles in. Since we really have no idea what the new equilibrium will look like or when we’ll get there (saying X degrees says little and those predictions are dubious) we don’t know how long this will go on, or how bad it’ll be. A hundred to two hundred years is really just a guess.

What this means for societies is that they need to create systems which don’t expect weather or environment as usual. What it means for individuals and groups is the same. You can’t count on the normal weather. You can’t be sure the environment won’t collapse where you are, or somewhere you import food or other resources from. So you need to be able to handle what amount to near random events.

As I mentioned before, this means that outdoor gardens aren’t the hedge a lot of people think they are. Look into greenhouses and other climate controlled options. Find an independent water source, or store large amounts of water. Etc, etc… If you can’t do that (and Lord knows I can’t do most of it) do what you can, and prepare yourself psychologically.

Because our infrastructure was created for a certain climate and environment, it’s going to fail. 

.... We’re in for a very rough period in human history. All the power people were thinking it wouldn’t really start for another 20 to 30 years. They were wrong (as I predicted repeatedly over the years.) It’s here now. There will likely be pull-backs to the previous baseline, not good years, but better ones, but the overall trend will not change.

As for the global economic system, it is in slow-motion collapse. That will not change, and it will also occur in ways that are unpredictable in the short to medium term.

Be prepared, if you can.


In “If Nietzsche Were a Narwhal,” Justin Gregg argues that human intelligence may represent an evolutionary dead end.

........ Humans, therefore, might be succeeding not because of, but in spite of, our moral aptitude, he writes, having taken the social norms that govern and constrain social behavior in most species to self-destructive lengths.

But the most damning chapter of the book — and my favorite — concerns a special brand of cognitive dissonance Gregg calls prognostic myopia, or “the human capacity to think about and alter the future coupled with an inability to actually care all that much about what happens in the future.” .........



Related QOTW:

Neuberger: But something more immediate has come to mind. I’ve been slowly reading my way through Graeber and Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything, and it has radically changed my view of prehistoric humans — who they were, how they lived, and more importantly, how they thought. Why does this matter? Because, simply put, we’re going back there. The next anthropological era will be the New Old Stone Age. And for the first time since I started writing about climate, I see this “devolution” not as a loss, but simply as a return to ways of life — yes, ways — our present thinking blocks imagining.



Endemic Fare:

I've continued to come across too much excellent COVID-related content (with contrarian evidence-based points-of-view!!) to link to it all
Read everything by eugyppius; el gato malo; Mathew Crawford; Steve Kirsch; Jessica Rose!
Paul Alexander, Berenson, Chudov, Lyons-Weiler, Toby Rogers are also go-to mainstays; a list to which I have added Andreas Oehler, Joey Smalley (aka Metatron) and, Julius Ruechel; Denninger worth staying on top of too for his insights, and especially his colorful language; and Norman Fenton; Marc Girardot; plus Walter Chesnut (on twitter); new additions: Sheldon Yakiwchuk and Aaron Kheriarty; I will of course continue to post links to key Peter McCullough material, and Geert Vanden Bossche, and Robert Malone, and Martin Kulldorff, and Jay Bhattacharya, and Sucharit Bhakdi, and Pierre Kory, and Harvey Risch, and Michael Yeadon, and John Ioannidis, and Paul Marik, and Tess Lawrie, and Zelenko, and Dolores Cahill, and [local prof] Byram Bridle, and Ryan Cole, and…
but going forward, my linking to material by those mainstays mentioned above will be reduced to key excerpts and/or essential posts



I’ve been thinking lately about how the pandemic is going to evolve and how the mass vaccination campaign has exacerbated the crisis we’re in, as we receive news of the unprecedented collapse in life expectancy in the United States and massive excess mortality in Europe. When you genuinely understand something, you can make it understandable to others too, so that’s what I wish to accomplish with this post.

To start with, I wish to establish one argument first, which you can either accept or reject:

- The vaccines against SARS-COV-2 have gradually with every successive new variant become less effective. This is what I expected a year ago and when I look at the data, it looks to me as if my expectation has come to fruition. It seems that with Delta we reached negative effectiveness against infection. The birth of Omicron meant we entered the era in which we also face negative effectiveness against hospitalization and death, with successive newer forms of Omicron having increasingly more negative effectiveness. You can find an estimate for when negative effectiveness began in the UK in this study. The negative effectiveness of the vaccines is obscured in most of the officially published data, mainly by the fact that infections for a brief period after the injection are piled into the previous category and by the healthy vaccinee effect: The unvaccinated elderly have large numbers of very sick people among them. In addition, excess mortality statistics suggest that we’re increasingly attributing COVID deaths to non-COVID causes, thus further muddying the picture. To arrive at this conclusion you thus can’t just believe the official data, rather, you mainly have to rely on geographical analysis: Comparing regions of the world with high and low vaccination rates.

You either accept this argument, or you don’t. If you deny the existence of negative effectiveness, this article is not for you. it’s already very long and would get much longer if I wanted to show you all the evidence. The fact that you’re even reading this post makes it likely that you accept it, but it clashes with the official narrative we’re given. It’s illustrated here, in deaths by vaccination status from Public Health Ontario: 


You can see how the burden is shifting over time towards people who received multiple doses of the vaccines.

Now comes the following argument:

- The disturbing wave of excess mortality we’re witnessing in Western nations, is mainly a product of the interaction between vaccination, SARS-COV-2 and the human immune system. As long as SARS-COV-2 hasn’t exhausted its pathways towards developing new variants capable of infecting previously exposed people, the wave of excess mortality will continue to get worse, as the damage being caused to our bodies accumulates.

....... And to explain how this could have happened, I propose my next argument:

Immunity induced by vaccination and immunity induced by natural infection look very different.

What do I mean with this? The vaccine manufacturers sought to take the route of inducing neutralizing antibodies against its Spike protein. This means the antibodies block the Spike protein from binding to the ACE2 receptor, thus preventing the virus from using a cell to produce more copies of itself.

Why did they take this route? That’s the difficult question to which I have no good answer.

However, natural immunity works through multiple routes. It works through the route mentioned above, induced by vaccination, but it functions through other routes too: ....

What are the implications?
Evolution dictates that predators will tend to preferentially spare those potential victims who don’t resemble their favored prey. Optimizing your toolkit for any particular prey tends to come at the cost of your ability to make use of other potential preys.

SARS-COV-2 is ultimately just another predator, one that preys on us by entering our cells. As a coronavirus it is a versatile virus, but it will inevitably face trade-offs. As we make our immune response more similar to each other through vaccination, we encourage variants to emerge that make optimal use of our increasingly similar ways of fighting off this virus. ...

..................... Much of what I’m showing you here won’t be radically new for most of you. It’s essentially what Geert van den Bossche explains when he warns about vaccinating children. Children have a bunch of IgM antibodies, big antibodies with high avidity and relatively low affinity. If they start producing high affinity IgG antibodies, those will prevent maturation of the IgM antibodies to deal with COVID-19 and other problems their immune system will need to address. IgM antibodies don’t just disappear when we become adults, but the body will more selectively deploy them, for example to deal with infections like Influenza or SARS-COV-2. But if the IgG antibodies always show up first, the IgM antibodies don’t get to do their job and thus don’t become a proper part of the immune response. The effect becomes that over time, the body gets stuck on an improper immune response through the science-juice. .............................

......... The speed at which the virus now piles on more Spike mutations, leading to further antibody evasion and/or enhanced ACE2 affinity, is accelerating. .............

... I can’t emphasize enough, how big of an intervention in the normal functioning of the human immune system it is, to take droves of elderly people and inject them three times a year with this vaccine. Their entire antibody profile for everything is starting to look different, we even see that people who get these shots respond very differently to other pathogens afterwards. The flu shot is dubious enough, but it pales in comparison to what we’re doing now.

It’s only through diversity of the immune response to respiratory pathogens, that Homo Sapiens Sapiens can maintain the population density that it maintains today. Your species has such an abundance of different versions of the Human leukocyte antigen genes that differ from person to person, because it causes you to develop very different immune responses to respiratory pathogens.

You’re generally only sexually attracted, to the scent of someone whose HLA genes differ from your own. This is how important diversity of the human immune response to respiratory pathogens is: It’s so important that you don’t want to have sex with someone whose response looks too similar to your own. And yet, we happily blew it up, injecting everyone multiple times with DNA or mRNA that triggers a massive immune response that homogenizes the antibody repertoire we deploy against respiratory pathogens. .........

... There is no real “magic trick” one fits all approach to a virus like this. You survive viruses of this nature, because everyone has a different way of dealing with them. You see this in everything, for example, you can just look at which proteins the antibodies and T-cells respond to in the naturally immune. Most respond to Spike, some to envelope, some to membrane, some to nucleocapsid, it’s different in everyone.

When you get rid of all of that, when you inject everyone with one identical version of the Spike protein, summoning a high affinity low avidity IgG dominated antibody response focused on a handful of epitopes, evolution dictates that this virus has to start playing Aikido with Homo Sapiens Sapiens: It takes your own moves and uses them against you, by accelerating them.

If you were to forget everything I’ve explained here except one thing, I would want it to be this:

The reason our species can maintain high population densities despite being continually infected with a large variety of different respiratory viruses, is because of the overall diversity of the response that different people make against such viruses. ...

.... I’m convinced that excess mortality this winter will exceed the previous winter, simply because of what we’re already seeing in highly vaccinated places like Scotland. 

... If this is the level of infection you’re seeing now in the middle of summer in Edinburgh, vastly exceeding anything seen last winter, what do you honestly expect to see in winter?

And sadly, billions of additional people have now also received these vaccines that just don’t work. Most of them will have been infected before they got the shots, so they’re necessarily sitting ducks for this virus

.... People should avoid these vaccines at all cost, even if you’ve already had multiple infections: These vaccines will interfere with the natural immunity you’ve built up.

I don’t have a solution to offer at this moment, but I hope this post has been useful for you to figure out what went wrong.


If only we'd known about Ivermectin sooner. How many lives could have been saved?

... But, I mean, how could they know how safe and effective is? It’s not like anyone knew until this last study, is it?

Wait, what?! There are already 178 other studies before this one that showed the exact same thing?? 127 peer reviewed?? You’re kidding me, right? ...


There used to be standards, or maybe an illusion of standards, but even the illusion has died from (or with) COVID.

#1. Eight mice
As I am sure you’ve heard, the FDA authorized Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech Bivalent COVID-19 Vaccines, based on a single failed study that involved eight mice. .... Seems like the Chernobyl power plant had better safety controls than the FDA!

#2. Speaking of Eric Topol
... Of course it leaves people susceptible to other conditions—because we are dealing with a synthetically engineered pathogen, dammit, and it’s wreaking havoc in susceptible human bodies and unleashes all sorts of problems that were either non-existent or latent!!! And that’s a problem!!! And because it’s not a natural creature but something that came out of military ambition, it’s designed to wreak havoc!!! And it does wreak havoc if it finds a weakness, whether it comes from environmental exposure or—worse so—if it’s injected in your body on purpose. What will it take to accept this?!!!!

#3. Speaking of wreaking havoc
It’s not the first study that shows damage that the magical potion causes to the natural immune system—but it’s a recent study. Horrifyingly, this study shows that when the mRNA injection “modulates” the innate and the adaptive immune systems, the changes can be heritable. Yay, covert genetic engineering!
And by the way, the potion has to be coded to suppress natural immunity because if not, our wise bodies would not tolerate the invader and would immediately attack it and possibly destroy it on the spot—and so the potion is designed to mimic the militaristic behavior of a pathogen. When people realize what’s happening en masse, there will be riots! (And I don’t like riots but there will be riots if people wait much longer to figure this out.)

.......


Please see for yourself.

The quote below is taken directly from the publicly available UK government website, namely, from the “summary of the Public Assessment Report (PAR) for COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2.”

The first half of the quote talks about injecting poor rats and then killing them on day 17, thus proving that rats lived to the day of “scheduled death.” Methinks that the only thing it proved—assuming that the study wasn’t rigged which in this day and age is a sign of big trust—is that no rats dropped dead on the spot. Hooray.

The really outrageous stuff starts with the section titled, “Toxicokinetics.”

In the quote, I bolded the sentences—and there are lots of them—saying that no studies for various types of toxicity have been done because … wait for it … any product classified as “a vaccine” is considered safe, according to what the WHO said in 2005. Case closed.

Please see for yourself. ....



... Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking capacity asked, “if I have already had Covid, why would I need to get vaccinated? Why not give the vaccine to someone who might need it or just not buy my dose in the first place?” The High Priests of The Science™ would then begin their gaslighting, trying to convince you that natural immunity does not exist and that vaccination is the only way to protect yourself.

However, as with most recent “conspiracy theories”, this one is again proven to be true and the High Priests, unable to hide these facts, quickly switch to gaslighting again. This time, gaslighting that they knew this stuff the whole time and it has all been some gigantic misinterpretation. ...

.... The article explains that there are two arms of the adaptive immune system that produce protective immunity. Humoral immunity provided by antibodies & memory B cells and cellular immunity provided by T cells. If antibodies are present in the body in high enough volumes, they can block infection. This was their hope for the vaccines but it clearly didn’t work.

T cells only recognise viruses once they are in the host cells. Therefore, whilst they probably don’t prevent infection they are likely to prevent severe disease. ...



Let’s play a quiz. The graphs below show the 7-day rolling averages of daily reported Covid cases and Covid vaccine doses in July and August. Can you guess which is which?

... see 2 charts ...

Answer time. The top shows the daily doses, which were mostly 4th doses (taken by 57.7% of over 60s as of writing). The bottom shows daily cases. I’m sure any resemblance is purely coincidental.




Censorship has ruled covid. But emerging data on injury and death may be too big to ignore.

...... “The dam wall is cracking,” said Dr. Paul Marik, a critical care expert and chairman of the Front Line Covid Critical Care Alliance. “The data is coming out,” he told me. ...








They are moving in the exact wrong direction. Again. At a greater cost to you and me.



Bivalent mRNA booster candidates[1] have been developed as a next step in the development of C-19 vaccines to combat the virus; these new vaccines target the induction of a broader immune response than the original vaccines and have to some extent already been approved by regulatory authorities (e.g., FDA, MHRA).

One wonders though why studies conducted to test these new vaccines have only enrolled baseline seronegative participants whereas the new vaccines will predominantly be administered to people who have already been vaccinated with first generation C-19 vaccines. This is quite striking as usage of these updated C-19 vaccines to fight dominantly circulating Omicron variants in previously C-19-vaccinated populations is highly contra-indicated as it violates all basic principles of vaccinology. .............

Conclusion:
Updated C-19 vaccines comprising new mRNA- or protein-derived S-associated sequences of one or more Omicron (sub)variants will only further deteriorate the already dire consequences of C-19 mass vaccination .....



I keep wanting to move on from this whole covid fiasco. There’s so much more I want to write about. So much more I want to talk about in the podcast I recently launched. So much about good and evil, philosophy, the nature of reality, spirituality, psychology, boundaries with others, the medicine of healing, the inner workings of grief, shame, and trauma, the revelations of art, of visions and mystical states.

But my feet drag. My fingertips lay idle. I can’t quite move on to these other things yet—there is so much unresolved grief, so much unaddressed trauma left over from 2020 and 2021. These are not the Roaring Twenties of a hundred years ago. These are the Groaning Twenties. And I’m groaning my way through 2022. I don’t want to keep writing about covid. But I can’t move on to other things until I do. So I haven’t been writing much.

As time goes by, I’m aware that I’m wading through the aftershock of the numerous traumas of these past two years. It’s hard to recover—it’s hard to integrate. And I look around me at people everywhere going back to the numb routines of life as if the whole experience were merely a mirage or nightmare of the ephemera. As if it hadn’t happened. Externally, there’s only scant evidence of the madness we’ve just lived through: scattered people still wearing masks, those absurd plastic walls installed in front of cash registers, an occasional social distancing sticker lingering on the floor of a gas station, the handful of places still committed to mask and vaccine mandates, references to vaccination on dating profiles, empty shelves at the store, sky-high inflation, those damned QR code stickers…

But it’s the unseen wreckage that haunts me—the invisible violence to our relationships, to our trust, the betrayals, broken families, broken friendships, broken communities, and a scourge of illnesses, early deaths, heart inflammation, blood clots, heart attacks, strokes, neurological disorders, auto-immune conditions, and other forms of health catastrophes with names like “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome.” Illnesses that cannot possibly be a byproduct of you-know-what—that thing that can never be named—that thing we must all collude together to pretend never happens—the fabled, mystical, mythical, unreal, impossible, and never-present vaccine injury. ...............................



The purpose of this post is simply to collect some pieces, fractions of the whole, not to shock or depress, but to document and keep the evidence of this Holocaust out in the open.

How to “report” responsibly on this deadly, entirely predictable and predicted catastrophe is not something I can answer yet.

We have to keep reality/truth alive while at the same time be merciful about the trauma and fear induced by both those who got the shots or have loved ones who did, and that latter category, is all of us. One can’t just ring the death bells day and night, toward no resolution or outcome, unless perhaps, keeping alive the collective memory of the dead.

Honestly, I don’t know how to handle this.

A few things one can say:

God bless those who stood up against the needle zealots, who spoke clearly, who said: DO NOT take these shots. So many names.


A response to the Western University mandate

Western University has just released a policy excluding from campus all persons who are not vaccinated against Covid-19.  Government authorized proof of three-dose vaccination must be submitted in order for any student, staff, or faculty member to fulfill his or her duties, from 1 October. Moreover, no one engaged in the work of Western, even as a visitor, may visit the campus without such proof.

"The purpose of this COVID-19 Vaccination Policy," we are told, "is to provide all members of the University community with a safe and healthy work, living and learning environment consistent with the University’s legislative obligations."  That the approved injections or therapeutics do not prevent infection or transmission, a fact known from the beginning to those who make them and now known to everyone, is simply ignored. That these same therapeutics are dangerous (sometimes fatally so) as well as ineffective is likewise ignored.

While much of the world is waking up to the fact that a vast fraud has been conducted through the Covid-19 "pandemic measures,” Western remains fast asleep. Or at least that is the charitable explanation. It is possible that Western has been corrupted by the fraud, rather than sedated by it. ...



Tweets & Quotes of the Week:

Greer: One of the things I’ve had to get used to in writing these weekly blogs is that events sometimes move fast enough that I have to scramble to keep up. The self-inflicted epic fail of mass Covid vaccination seems to be turning into a good example of that phenomenon. Two weeks ago, when I posted part three of the current sequence, medical and political authorities across the industrial world were still striking heroic poses in front of every available mirror, preening themselves on how well they responded to the Covid pandemic. Now? Not so much. ... Exactly where this is going is a fascinating question. The speed with which the backpedaling has begun suggests to me that something may have gone very, very wrong with the Covid vaccines, and word of this has been leaked to some parts of the political establishment. 

Toby: CDC budget: $10.6 billion. FDA budget: $6.1 billion. Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine revenue: $33 billion. Moderna Covid-19 vaccine revenue: $21 billion. Advance purchase order from the Biden administration for reformulated shots: $3.2 billion. Total amount they were willing to spend on efficacy trials for the rejiggered booster? 8 f’ing mice.



CO-VIDs of the Week:

Four recent videos that altogether tell us something's very, very wrong





Anecdotal Fare:

Here's an example of a doctor who died from the COVID booster, but you'd never know it from reading the obituaries, would you?



Satirical Fare:

  1. The same thing Salman Rushdie learned: either you spend your entire life in hiding, or eventually it’ll come for you. Years might pass. You might emerge from hiding once, ten times, a hundred times, be fine, and conclude (emotionally if not intellectually) that the danger must now be over, that if it were going to come at all then it already would have, that maybe you’re even magically safe. But this is just the nature of a Poisson process: 0, 0, 0, followed by 1.
  2. First comes the foreboding (in my case, on the flight back home from the wonderful CQIQC meeting in Toronto)—“could this be COVID?”—the urge to reassure yourself that it isn’t, the premature relief when the test is negative. Only then, up to a day later, comes the second vertical line on the plastic cartridge.
  3. I’m grateful for the vaccines, which have up to a 1% probability of having saved my life. My body was as ready for this virus as my brain would’ve been for someone pointing a gun at my head and demanding to know a proof of the Karp-Lipton Theorem. All the same, I wish I also could’ve taken a nasal vaccine, to neutralize the intruder at the gate. Through inaction, through delays, through safetyism that’s ironically caused millions of additional deaths, the regulatory bureaucracies of the US and other nations have a staggering amount to answer for. ....

  1. Your child wants to play a real-life guinea pig.
  2. You’re too busy to research the potential risks of a novel gene therapy that lacks long-term safety data.
  3. You weighed the zero-mortality rate and microscopic risks of serious complications from COVID to children and thought, why not increase the likelihood of being hospitalized by 74 percent, being injured by twenty-five times, and dying by twenty times?
  4. You’d like to boost your child’s chances of catching COVID—multiple times.
  5. You want to downgrade your child’s natural immunity to antibody-dependent enhancement.
  6. You think keeping your child’s vaxxport up-to-date with the latest injection (Germany is encouraging every ninety days—as is Canada) will circumvent the need for masking.
  7. You believe informed consent is passé.
  8. You Trust The Experts™—not science.
  10. You think life is boring and want to spice it up with some tragedy.
  11. You’d like add to the 54,697 adverse event reports received for children (out of 1,394,703 reports) through August 26, 2022, for conditions such as encephalitis, Bell’s palsy, aneurysms, cerebral hemorrhage, myocarditis, thrombocytopenia, Guillain-Barré syndrome, appendicitis, heart disease, and death.
.....



COVID Corporatocracy / Conspiracy Fare:

Thus they rely on us to serve as our own thought police

Here’s a post by Dr. Meryl Nass, which makes the crucial point that those intent on killing us have been protected from discovery—and punishment—by our own inability to think that THAT could possibly be true. 

This is, as I say, the crucial point; because, once we snap out of that fond fantasy of their benevolence, and face the fact that, yes, they are that evil, and (worse yet) that all the institutions we’ve been taught to trust from childhood on—the government at nearly every level, the medical establishment, “higher education” and (above all) “our free press”—have been corrupted by that evil, and are now part of it: once We the People, or enough of us, stop thinking that that can’t be true, then everything will change. .....


Nass: If you don't think there is worldwide coordination of pandemic responses, here is the evidence: Canada, UK, Switzerland, European Union and US all authorize nouvelle boosters simultaneously
For a threat that has evaporated. Liability-free, of course. No human testing of the new US "bivalent" boosters


Response to Breggin and Breggin (Part 1)

Three weeks ago, American psychiatrist Peter Breggin and his wife Ginger Ross Breggin formulated some harsh criticism of my new book, The Psychology of Totalitarianism. They did so in a book review published in three parts (here, here, and here), asserting that in describing the mass formation that took place during the Covid-19 pandemic I was blaming the victims and absolving the perpetrators. Even more, Breggin and Breggin claim that there hasn’t been such a thing as a mass formation during the corona crisis. People were not allowed to meet – how could they have formed a mass?

I reached out to Peter Breggin and his wife immediately after their review was published, proposing to have a constructive public or private conversation about their review. It is about two months later now, and it seems that they refuse to accept my invitation. That’s why I will respond here.

This seems to be their core criticism: that I argue there was no intentional manipulation at work in the crisis, and no conspiracy—only a spontaneously-emerging mass formation from the population itself. For Breggin and Breggin, that means I am blaming the victims (the population) and psychiatrically labeling anyone who thinks there was, in fact, conspiracy at play.

It is correct that in my book, I describe the societal dynamics of the coronacrisis as an emergent phenomenon, driven by a certain narrative of man and the world—the mechanistic-rationalist-materialist ideology—which created a certain elite and put the population in a certain state that made it vulnerable to mass formation. In The Psychology of Totalitarianism and numerous podcasts, I describe that mass-formation can emerge in a more or less spontaneous way (as happened in the first stages of Nazism in Germany) or that it can be artificially provoked through indoctrination and propaganda (as in the former Soviet Union). In this process, both the elite and the population itself shoulder responsibility—the first because they actively manipulate the population and the second because they prefer to stay blind and, ultimately, commit atrocities towards those who don’t join them. 

However, I never claimed that there was no intentional manipulation or planning. .......

..... And maybe even more important, even if the violent revolution against the elite would be successful and the elite be destroyed, the problem wouldn’t be solved. Not at all. the population would immediately recreate another elite with the same totalitarian tendencies if they continue to be in the grip of the same mechanist-rationalist ideology. That’s is what I explain about mass formation in The Psychology of Totalitarianism: The enemy is not another human being, the enemy is primarily a certain view of man and the world, a mechanist-rationalist-materialist way of thinking; not another human being. .....


“This evidence suggests we are uncovering the most serious, coordinated, and large-scale violation of First Amendment free speech rights by the federal government’s executive branch in US history.”

One aspect of dictatorships that citizens of democratic nations often find puzzling is how the population can be convinced to support such dystopian policies. How do they get people to run those concentration camps? How do they find people to take food from starving villagers? How can they get so many people to support policies that, to any outsider, are so needlessly destructive, cruel, and dumb?

The answer lies in forced preference falsification. When those who speak up in principled opposition to a dictator’s policies are punished and forced into silence, those with similar opinions are forced into silence as well, or even forced to pretend they support policies in which they do not actually believe. Emboldened by this facade of unanimity, supporters of the regime’s policies, or even those who did not previously have strong opinions, become convinced that the regime’s policies are just and good—regardless of what those policies actually are—and that those critical of them are even more deserving of punishment.

........... Through this method of forced preference falsification, any mass of people can be made to support virtually any policy, no matter how destructive or inimical to the interests of the people. Avoiding this spiral of preference falsification is therefore why freedom of speech is such a central tenet of the Enlightenment, and why it is given such primacy in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. No regime in American history has ever previously had the power to force preference falsification by systematically and clandestinely silencing those critical of its policies.

Until now. As it turns out, an astonishing new release of discovery documents in Missouri v. Biden—in which NCLA Legal is representing plaintiffs including Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, and Aaron Kheriaty against the Biden administration for violations of free speech during Covid—reveal a vast federal censorship army, with more than 50 federal officials across at least 11 federal agencies having secretly coordinated with social media companies to censor private speech. .........



You have been lied to. I know. It’s hard to believe, but just stay with me.

I think you’re still reading because you know it’s true.

And maybe, you want to understand how, or more importantly, why?

What happened to us? Humans? What happened to your country, your city, your school, your work, your life? .....

.... Now, it’s time to wake up.

This isn’t a dream. This is your life. It is ticking away, and every moment you make choices. Decide what you want your choices to be. You are in the driver’s seat of your life. You matter. You can make a difference if you choose to. You don’t have to submit anymore. You don’t have to close your eyes and pretend it will go away. ......

... What will you do with the rest of your time?

You decide.

Will you wake up? Or will you go back to sleep?

You can’t choose the time you live in, but you can choose what to do with the time you’ve got.

It’s up to you. What will you choose?


It’s the inability to believe it’s happening that really stops people objecting when they should, when the evidence is unmistakable but has not yet quite reached their door, their family.

....... Dear everyone who is nervously looking around and is asking “What the hell is going on?”,

I hope this isn’t too controversial. It’s certainly frightening, but I believe we are still the right side of disaster and if enough of us become aware of what is happening here and everywhere in the democratic world, we can recover the situation. We really don’t have long. I believe it’s likely things will change irretrievably over this coming winter. Hence this urgent and unusual request.

Everything that’s happened and is happening becomes much simpler and it all makes sense, only when you force yourself to think the impossible.

If you experimentally adopt the position that OUR GOVERNMENT IS ACTIVELY WORKING TO HARM US, TO DISMANTLE MODERN SOCIETY AND ENSLAVE ALL PEOPLE IN A DIGITALLY-CONTROLED TOTALITARIAN WORLD, it all fits. Nothing is surplus.

Even if your immediate response is that this is absurd, please try it for a day or so.

I ask you further to adopt the experimental position that the media, controlled by just six global corporations, all allied to a single global organisation you’ve all heard of, is relentlessly lying to you and has been doing so for over 2.5 years. Same for the internet, controlled by fewer global corporations, also all allied to that same global organization.

Because I am certain it’s true.

I am certain because this all started with a scientific fraud relating to a virus, augmented it with a relentless campaign of fear, imposed measures known to be useless, which wrecked the economy and smashed civil society, then coerced most to accept useless, unnecessary, ineffective and deliberately dangerous injections. Obviously this is an odious crime. Nothing like it has ever happened. ......



In the movement, we’ve been circling around two big questions for the past two years:
  1. Who is “they”; and
  2. Why are they doing this* to us?
*this being: developing and releasing bioweapons into the population; suppressing safe and effective treatments; destroying the global economy via lockdowns; pushing dangerous shots with negative efficacy that maim, kill, and cause infertility at an astonishing rate; and implementing global totalitarianism including the suspension of Constitutional rights and the introduction of central bank digital currencies, 24/7/365 digital surveillance, and vaccine/carbon/ESG passports.

For now I want to set aside the question of “Who is ‘they’?” Generally speaking I think we are dealing with structures not individual actors. If Bill Gates died of a heart attack tomorrow I doubt it would make much difference in the trajectory of this crisis — he would quickly be replaced by another character who is just as bad or worse.

Today I want to focus on the question of WHY? Below I sketch out eight theories of the case — most of which you’ll already recognize and then a new theory that came to me this week. .....


Back to Non-Pandemic Fare:

GeoPolitical Fare:




Orwellian Fare:

The world is a confusing place. People do things that don’t make any sense, think things that aren’t supported by facts, endure things they do not need to endure, and viciously attack those who try to bring these things to their attention.

If you’ve ever wondered why, you’ve come to the right place.

Any casual reader of the alternate media landscape will eventually come up with a reference to Stanley Milgram, or Philip Zimbardo, the “Asch Experiment” or maybe all three.

“Cognitive Dissonance”, “Diffusion of Responsibility”, and “learned helplessness” are phrases that regularly do the rounds, but where do they come from and what they mean?

Well, here are the important psycho-social experiments that teach us about the way people think, but more than that they actually explain how our modern world works, and just how we got into this mess. 

1. THE MILGRAM EXPERIMENT
...
2. THE STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT
...
3. THE ASCH EXPERIMENT
...
4. FESTINGER’S COGNITIVE DISSONANCE EXPERIMENT
...
5. THE MONKEY LADDER
...

....................... They know all of this. And they use that knowledge all the time – All. The. Time.

Every commercial you see, every article you read, every movie they release, every item on the news, every “viral” social media post, every trending hashtag.

Every war. Every pandemic. Every headline.

All of them are constructed with these principles in mind to elicit specific emotional reactions that steer your behaviour and beliefs. That’s how the media works, not to inform you, not to entertain you…but to control you.

And they have it down to a science. Always remember that.



CaitOz Fare:

Capitalism Has No Solution To Ecocide: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

❖

Ecocide will continue as long as ecocide is profitable. No possible iteration of capitalism can address this problem. This, in and of itself, is a sufficiently strong argument that capitalism must be abandoned.

No model where human behavior remains driven by profit can address the problem that ecocide will continue as long as ecocide is profitable. That’s why so many capitalism proponents are reduced to simply pretending that ecocide isn’t a problem.

Eco-consciousness and anti-capitalism go hand in hand, but the liberals are dominating environmentalist discourse while the commies frequently neglect it. This is a strategic and moral error. This is the strongest argument against capitalism, and it’s one which needs to be made.

❖

It can take a while for a principled antiwar leftist to learn that in the big picture they have very little in common with so-called progressives who mostly ignore US imperialism and just want the empire to forgive their student loans. The difference between a leftist who opposes capitalism and empire and your average Bernie Sanders progressive is considerably greater than the difference between your average Bernie Sanders progressive and your average MSNBC Clintonite.

None of this means progressives can’t be worked with on points of convergence, it just means they’re ideologically different and it serves no one to pretend otherwise. The same is true of antiwar right-libertarians. Ultimately there’s commonality wherever class interests align.

❖
❖

We’ve all had the experience of wanting to change something undesirable about our behavior but not being able to. This happens because the forces driving that behavior are not yet conscious. This is what’s happening with the self-destructive behavior of humanity as a whole, too.

There’s a misconception in our society that people stop their self-destructive behavior when they apply “willpower”, which is really just empty head noises. Actually people change when there’s an expansion of consciousness. That’s what we’re waiting on with the human species too.

That’s ultimately why we’re destroying our planet despite knowing it’s bad for us. We can talk all we want about capitalism, corruption, empire and ecocide, but underneath it all what we’re really looking at is the struggle of a thinking species to become a conscious species.

So for me the answer to the “what can we do?” question is usually, expand consciousness. Spread awareness of what’s going on in the world, expand our consciousness of what’s going on in ourselves, anything you can do to bring awareness to previously unconscious important matters.

And people are already doing this. That’s all healthy activism generally is: people working to spread awareness of an important issue. That’s also what real journalism is, it’s what real political dissent is, and what authentic spirituality is. It’s all about expanding awareness.

Working toward a healthy humanity is essentially the task of strolling through the dark hallways of our collective unconscious and flicking on the lights, one by one. It’s not easy, but the more lights get switched on the more awake people there will be helping us switch on the rest of them.



............ I remain comfortably agnostic about most aspects of the UFO question, up to and including the possibility that there are actual extraterrestrial or extradimensional beings zipping around our planet in technology our science cannot comprehend. But one thing I absolutely will take a hard and fast position on is that the moment the US government starts labeling something a “threat”, all trust and credulity must be immediately be thrown out the window.

This is after all occurring as the US enters a steadily escalating new cold war against both Russia and China, and we know that during the last cold war the CIA sought to exploit public panic about UFOs as a psychological weapon against the Soviets .......



.... Every part of this controversy is hilarious, from Republicans thinking they are not extremists, to anyone thinking that MAGA Republicans are meaningfully different from generic brand Republicans, to Democrats thinking they are any less extremist than MAGA Republicans, to Jean-Pierre claiming that you are extremist if you don’t agree with mainstream political consensus in the United States. 

If you look at who is inflicting the most violence, terrorism and tyranny upon the largest number of people in our world, it’s clear from the numbers that the worst offender by far is not fringe neo-Nazi groups, nor violent jihadists, nor communists nor anarchists nor environmentalists nor incels, but the bipartisan political consensus of the US-centralized empire. 

No other power has spent the 21st century killing people by the millions in wars of aggression. No other power is circling the planet with hundreds of military bases and working continuously to destroy any government which disobeys it. No other power is starving entire populations with economic sanctions, military blockades and brazen theft. No other power has been interfering in foreign elections anywhere near as often. No other power is terrorizing populations around the world with wars, covert ops, drone strikes, proxy conflicts, and staged coups and uprisings. No other power is using its military, economic, diplomatic and media dominance to bully the world into serving its interests.

The only reason the mainstream views espoused by Democrats and Republicans are mainstream is because massive amounts of narrative management have gone into creating that consensus. The fact that the social engineers of the oligarchic empire have poured vast fortunes into making sure Americans consent to capitalism, corruption, militarism and murder is the only reason those perspectives are so mainstream that they can be labeled “moderate” or “centrist”. .....



ClusterFuck Nation Excerpts:

Kunstler1: In a confab of friends on a warm evening this weekend, someone asked: Do you think what’s going on is due to incompetence or malevolence? The USA is certainly skidding into a great and traumatic re-set featuring a much lower standard of living for most citizens amidst a junkyard of broken institutions. But so are all the other nations of Western Civ. If it’s not being managed by malign forces, such as der Schwabenklaus and his WEF myrmidons, then it sure looks like some sort of controlled demolition. The big question hanging over the 2022 election, then, is: Must America commit suicide?

Kunstler2: We have never been so unprepared for a calamity in plain sight and that is because the people who run things have made it happen in combined acts of wickedness and stupidity. After decades of mere racketeering, arranging things so as to bankrupt anyone who gets seriously ill, corporatized health care now presides over a harvest of medically-induced death, pretending dumbly that there is nothing to see. Get this: the people are seeing it now, and talking about it, and there will be no stopping their discovery of exactly what has gone on, or their wrath in the afterwash. The chief architect of this epic debacle, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Captain Queeg of American Public Health, has announced his exit from the scene “to pursue the next chapter of my career.” He was coy about what that might be. I think the job title is: defendant.

Kunstler3: The inventory of lies retailed by the FBI is so vast and gross that the agency had to resort to raiding Mar-a-Lago three weeks ago in defiance of all known precedent and settled law regarding presidential records. The reason: Mr. Trump, the former president, had exactly such a cataloged inventory of the FBI lies used during his term in office to overthrow him with the Crossfire Hurricane nonsense, and was prepared to introduce said evidence in the lawsuit he has initiated in a Florida federal court against Hillary Clinton and a rogue’s gallery of campaign aides and allied federal officials who assisted in concocting the RussiaGate operation. The aim of the Mar-a-Lago raid: to un-declassify all that material — via a probably illegal order by “Joe Biden” — so as to prevent it from being introduced as evidence in the lawsuit. Somehow, the news media failed to report that part of the story, and even the alt media has missed that last detail.

Kunstler4: I knew we were in for the business with that “soul of the nation” build-up ballyhoo, but I didn’t exactly expect Independence Hall to be decorated in blood red and sepulchral black à la the-mouth-of-hell for a sermon by the Lord of the Flies himself. Somehow his staff managed to get the Old Trickster to the fiery podium on-time, where, in his trademark inside-out and upside-down mode of argument, he inveighed wrathfully against the “grave threat to democracy” posed by an opposition laboring to undermine “our personal rights…the pursuit of justice [and] the rule of law.” Roger that, Kemosabe. ... And thus went this watershed moment in our floundering nation’s politics du jour. Did you catch an odor of desperation in that marvelous spectacle? A politician does not declare war on half the country in a spirit of comity. Something’s up in this land and it don’t feel all comfy-cozy as we turn the corner on our election season.


There will be a Great Re-set, of course, but it’s not exactly the one that Western Civ is blabbering about — a mere shuffling of political and financial protocols. It’s happening with or without “Joe Biden,” the EU, and der Hoch Schwabenklaus, though the aggregate stupidity they represent is surely making the entry process worse. The Great Re-set is what happens when the business model goes bust for powering the world with oil and other fossil fuels — even if there is quite a bit of all that stuff left in the ground. Years ago, I called it The Long Emergency.

........ The angst around these circumstances is expressing itself in a generalized political nervous breakdown featuring the sort of tragi-comic behavior previously confined in lunatic asylums. Have you ever seen anything more patently insane than the sexual confusion acted out in American schools? Drag Queen story hours? Litter boxes in the bathrooms for students who identify as “furries”?

That was the funny part. The Covid-19 event is no joke — rather a psychopathic mass murder. Obviously, it was no accident. We have a pretty good idea who made it, and set it loose into the world. And the “vaccine” response looks plainly malevolent at this point. Yet the Covid episode is shot through with mystery. How did all those sedulously trained doctors get so mind-fucked as to persist in saying the “vaccines” were safe-and-effective, when the vaxxes were obviously killing and maiming people? They’re still stuck in that disgraceful posture, busy punishing their colleagues who demur, and dishonoring medicine — not to mention the thousands of public health officials still pushing vaxxes and boosters to this day. We can attribute that to mass formation psychosis, but even that reeks of mystery.

Anyway, and in the meantime, we’re obliged to see where all this taking us and what we have to do about it. The survivors of this disorder will be living in a world of generalized contraction, facing much-reduced standards of living. All the giant enterprises will be gone, including probably the federal USA government as we know it, and all the supports it offered. We’ll be gravely disappointed by the failures of advanced technology to mitigate any of this, and much of that technology will disappear, including reliable electric service and the Internet. Whatever you do will have to be much more local and, in one way or another, these activities will revolve around growing food.

... Keep that in mind — if you still have a mind — as you witness the unravelings ahead. This is not the end of the world or the end of the human project in this world. Not everybody will be violent or insane and the number of reality-based people with their emotional equipment intact will, oddly, grow in proportion as the others depart this plane of existence. For some of us, this is a movie with a happy ending. Make some popcorn while there is still some corn, and some electricity to pop it with.


Other Quotes of the Week:

Batiushka: The news of the Western-sponsored terrorist murder of Alexander Dugin’s daughter, Daria, has shocked us all. Of course, in one sense it is no different from all the other brutal murders carried out by drone by the Obama regime, or the CIA’s disposal of countless human-beings under their puppet regimes from the Philippines to Vietnam, from Italy to Latin America, from Greece to Africa, and in many other countries over the last three generations.

Helmer: Those lighting Mikhail Gorbachev’s funeral pyre are torching the truth of the matter – that Gorbachev was a liar of monumental vanity who betrayed his country out of greed and incompetence, outpointed by his adversaries in Moscow, Washington, and London, because they knew him better than he knew himself.

Martyanov: Generally speaking, and I am on record here, economics departments in the West, together with a bulk of "liberal arts" departments should simply be disbanded while "professors" in economics, sociology, literary criticism and Queer studies should be stripped off their "degrees" and forbidden to "teach" because they peddle a pseudo-academic BS as a legitimate knowledge. Professor Michael Clarke of the University of Exeter  certainly qualifies for academic defenestration, because he, same as his former employer of RUSI, have no clue what they are talking about. This also applies to British military and intel establishment populated with barely educated hacks


Long Reads / Big Thoughts:


.... But there exists a line of KOLs operating in science. The ancestor of them all was probably Alexander von Humboldt (1769–1859), who was remarkably famous in the 19th century. More recently, Carl Sagan (1934–1996) was a new incarnation of the KOL scientist. His book "Cosmos" sold some 5 million copies. But both Von Humboldt and Sagan were real first-class scientists. They were so good at whatever they did that their effort in popularizing their ideas didn't harm their work in scientific research.

Unfortunately, that's not true for everyone. The problem is not so much the time needed for the effort. It is that the scientist who takes a few steps into the media, soon discovers that there is good money to be made there. Much more money than what an average scientist can even dream of. Then, they discover that the more time they can dedicate to the media, the more money they can make. Soon, the show takes the prevalence over the lab. And that's the end of one's career as a scientist. ...

... Corrupted KOLs are an enormous problem in those fields where science is used to push products into the market. As you may easily imagine, the situation is especially bad in medicine. On this, you may read the book by Peter C. Goetsche "Deadly Medicine and Organized Crimes." (2013). Goetsche is a somewhat controversial figure for his radical stance on several subjects, but his description of the behavior of the KOLs is both stunning and realistic. That's the way they behave, I can tell that also from my personal experience. They are in for the money, there is little else that matters to them. They may have been good scientists but, at some moment, they switched to the dark side, being paid to promote the products that the industry sells. ...

... So, are we going to have KOLs as leaders everywhere?  The trend is surely visible. But, if you are worried about the end of politics, I can reassure you. In my personal experience, and I have personally known several high-ranking politicians in Italy, they are not actors playing the role of the evil character. They are really evil! And, KOLs or no KOLs, they'll continue ruling us.


stockholm syndrome is not a basis for government

.... i do not think there as been a speech like it in living memory. a hectoring, accusatory president just tried to vilify and other his political opposition while ascribing danger to democracy to them. it was inflammatory and divisive in a manner i have never seen in america.

consider the possibility that it was meant to be, not as a call to lustral assault on freedom, but as a form of manipulation.

lots of ink will be spilled today about impending purges and ill intent, but i’d like to take this in a somewhat different direction because i fear that the firestorm is a feature here and not an accident. ............

... the modern age is an attention economy and those things upon which you spend yours will grow and flourish.

... they select and set the issues to goad you into abandoning any positive agenda of your own to respond to their attacks.

..... and so if we we would thrive in the attention economy, we must spend our attention more wisely.



.... The first point I’d like to make is that the clerisy of the modern industrial world—yes, that’s the class of university-educated experts who claim that their mastery of fashionable abstractions makes them uniquely qualified to run the world—hasn’t actually been in power for very long. ...

.... For that matter, it’s worth noting how many of the failures, disasters, and avoidable calamities of the last three quarters of a century have happened not in spite of the clerisy but because of them. Here’s a wonderful new technology that will bring all kinds of benefits!  Oops, well, I guess it had a whole series of ghastly costs we weren’t expecting, but here’s another wonderful new technology that will fix them!  Here’s a change in society that our theories say will benefit everyone!  Oops, well, I guess that had a whole series of downsides and blowbacks we weren’t expecting, either, but here’s another change in society that our theories say will fix everything! Rinse and repeat, and you’ve got a pretty fair summary of what’s happened to the industrial world over the last seven and a half decades. It’s not a pretty sight. ...

..................... The history of the last decade and a half can be defined fairly neatly as the process by which the clerisy threw away the last scraps of its legitimacy in the eyes of the general public, and then started panicking over the inevitable blowback. The boom and bust cycle that ran from 2002 or so to 2008, to my mind, was the critical event in that process. University-trained economists across the board loudly insisted that the speculative bubble in real estate that popped that year wasn’t a speculative bubble and wouldn’t pop. They didn’t count on a blogosphere that by then was large enough, widely read enough, and more than skeptical enough to challenge them point for point and make accurate predictions that left the economics profession looking like fools.

In the aftermath, things got worse for the experts. The Bush and Obama administrations jointly shoveled billions of dollars of money into the pockets of bankers, insisting that giving yet more unearned wealth to the kleptocratic rich would benefit the rest of us. Of course it didn’t, and the blogosphere and a growing number of ordinary people said so. They were sneered at by the experts, and of course they were also right. Obamacare, another gargantuan giveaway to corporate interests, put icing on the cake: practically every claim made by its proponents, from Barack Obama right on down to the flacks in city paper newsrooms, turned out to be false; a great many of the claims made by the critics and skeptics turned out to be true; and people noticed this. Meanwhile similar shifts were going on elsewhere in the industrial world.

.... Fast forward to 2016. The Brexit vote in Britain and the election of Donald Trump in the US put the clerisy of the industrial world on notice that a very large number of people no longer trusted them and would not take their advice any longer. The result, as we all remember, was a pair of world-class tantrums. How dare ordinary people doubt the expert opinions of their betters? Of course that didn’t exactly go over well among the ordinary people in question, and the result was the increasingly hostile armed standoff between the clerisy and its supporters, on the one hand, and those people who had lost faith in the clerisy on the other. Since the clerisy was doing nothing to give people a reason to have renewed faith in their competence—shrieking insults at your critics isn’t an effective way to do this, after all—stresses rose to the breaking point.

It was quite a tantrum; spoiled three-year-olds looked on in awe.

That, I’d like to suggest, had a great deal to do with the bizarre way that the educated classes in the United States and elsewhere insisted on absolute obedience to a set of wholly untested public health measures once Covid broke out, lined up to get injected with vaccines (that is to say, experimental genetic therapies that were hurriedly renamed “vaccines”) that had been rushed through a few weeks of pro forma testing, and responded with shrill fury and calls for censorship when anybody raised questions about what, by every previously recognized standard of public health, was a very dubious set of procedures. The heart and soul of the clerisy’s claim to political power is its insistence that qualified experts approved by the relevant bureaucracies know better than everyone else. That made it easy for the clerisy and its hangers-on to turn blind acceptance of the official Covid policies into a loyalty test for adherents of the clerisy itself. 

That, in turn, explains one of the oddest features of the whole Covid phenomenon—the way that so many people who used to insist that corporations couldn’t be trusted and that natural healing modalities were the better option suddenly turned on a dime and insisted that the only option was to believe every word that came out of the mouth of a Pfizer flack and take whatever quack nostrum Big Pharma wanted to push on you. The people who did this were by and large members of or aspirants to the clerisy, proud of their educational status and their white-collar jobs.  Here as so often, class loyalties took precedence over everything else.....

... The politicians aren’t willing to take the hit for this one. For once, that’s reasonable.  It wasn’t politicians, by and large, who decided to throw out a century of hard-earned epidemiological experience in favor of the unproven theories behind shutdowns and social distancing, or to demand that entire populations get injected with drugs that hadn’t had anything like enough testing to make sure they were safe, or even did what they were supposed to do.  It was the experts who did that—and it’s the experts who are going to be left holding the bag.

It would be one thing if this was a one-off, the sole failure to be laid at the feet of an otherwise efficient and successful clerisy. Unfortunately for them, it’s anything but that. Here in the United States, it’s hard to find anything the clerisy hasn’t botched. Consider, as one example out of many, our public education system.....

... Here again, take the same principle and apply it to most other aspects of American public life and you’ll see the same thing endlessly repeated. Nor was any other outcome ever likely. University-trained experts, after all, are no more immune from the temptations of arrogance, corruption, and faddishness than the rest of us. Give them the opportunity to form a self-selecting, self-regulating, and self-aggrandizing coterie that runs important elements of society, without effective oversight from any outside source, and they’re going to make a world-class botch job out of it—as indeed they have done. ...


************** Sheridan: Megalomaniacs Anonymous

..................... Spengler predicts people will deal with the cognitive dissonance by looking for external things to blame but there is good reason to think that we may not be able to find anybody to blame but ourselves. .......


Heying: On Fraud
And Being Science-ish

The researcher, alone late at night in the lab, working against deadline, often has nobody watching over her. She needs to get the experiments done, the data entered, the analyses completed.

The researcher, at a remote field site, the passage of time seeming more fluid the longer he is there, often has nobody watching over him, either. He needs to get the experiments done, the data entered, the analyses completed.

Science is hypothesis-driven. We do not decide on truth, or assign it. We test ideas, and in so doing, work to discover what is true. The scientific method is extraordinarily powerful, but inelegant. While we can use it to approach an ever greater approximation of the truth, we can never be assured of getting there, nor of knowing for sure if we have arrived.

Science is hypothesis-driven, but science is also done by people, who are, remember, only human.

Science relies on the honor and trustiworthness of its practitioners. For all of its ability to correct error, science cannot solve the problem of human vanity and frailty. Alone in the lab, at the computer, or in the field—who is to say whether you actually did the work that you said you did? Reality can out you—is the work that you did replicable? But the incentive structure of modern science rarely leaves time for replication studies, so you might get away with it, if nobody bothers to check. If you are the sort of person who is easily swayed by social accolades or money, who values those things over discovery and truth, you may find yourself betraying scientific ideals. Of this, we have far too many modern examples.

“Science is hypothesis-driven,” affirms Raymond Tesi, MD, the CEO of the biotech firm INMune Bio. Tesi was prompted to point out the obvious in response to the revelation that some Alzheimer’s research from 20061 was almost certainly fraudulent. The research in question claims that a specific protein is responsible for memory loss, but the data, it seems, were likely fabricated.

.............

The Department of Justice is now investigating the Alzheimer’s story, but how many more cases like this are still invisible to the public, indeed to all of science? Invisible to all except for the perpetrators of fraud, that is.

The practice of science, once understood to be messy but extraordinarily powerful, the best route we have to revealing what is true in the universe, has become instead a social game, one in which the rewards are more about status and wealth than they are about insight. Increasingly, the game has been gamed. .......

....... Self-deception is a powerful force. As evolutionary biologist Bob Trivers has written about extensively (including here6, and here7; I recommend both), if you are engaged in deception, it is far easier to be good at the job if you fool yourself first.

............. If we assume that people who go into science are likely to have at least average intelligence and ability to get things done, it follows that some of these people—whom I am avoiding calling “scientists,” for many of them do not deserve the title—will also have at least average ability to cover their own tracks, even from themselves.

.......... Instead, what this feels like, increasingly, is the Wizard of Oz. Under no circumstances should you look behind the curtain. The making of this modern scientific edifice—of Big Science, if you will—is worse yet than the making of sausages, or the law. Central to its very being is that science contains the ability to self-correct. If error discovery and correction is a primary goal of science, but Big Science is more interested in profits and reputations, then it seems that science and Big Science have parted ways. Recent cases of fraud are but the tip of a very large iceberg.


cont'd from:

.......... In reading these entries, you will note that the political themes of my growing understanding are quite pronounced. This is important. As noted in my article Narrative Collapse and the Spell of Politics, the psychological domination of the masses has been achieved through political spells, and it is through these political spells that the masses can be mobilized and activated as agents of persecution, directed at proffered enemies. I had been deeply embroiled in the left-wing permutation of this political spell for almost twenty years, and it finally started to unravel in January, 2020 when I watched in shock and horror as Liz Warren colluded with CNN to assassinate Bernie Sanders’s character during the Iowa debates, and fall on her own sword in the process—delivering a death blow to the American political Left, in service to her true masters.

The unraveling continued with growing speed in the months that followed and Sanders’s candidacy was systematically dismantled with laser-like precision by a Democratic Party that for years we had been led to believe was hapless and weak. But it wasn’t until late April, 2020, after about 6 weeks in lockdown, that I began to understand something was deeply wrong with the covid narrative and the whole socio-political narrative of the society I was living in:

.. There are a number of significant truths I need to write down. A lot is changing for me internally in response to these terrible external realities. Let’s start big: My eyes have been opened to truths about the decline and rot of American society, culture, civilization—and in conjunction, globally. The events of the Democratic primary and the state of the nation in the wake of coronavirus has laid bare the hollow, rotted core of this society. There is zero leadership in our institutions, and I can see clearly how the disease of corporate Marketism has consumed the Democratic Party to its now vacant center. The American people have been eaten away into dust as well, after decades of psychological warfare. Truth and values have been utterly annihilated. Most people have been drawn into two competing camps of propaganda and lies in the service of venal, soulless and cowardly corruption. People are fed steady diets of fear, moral hatred and condemnation, and empty scapegoating and virtue signaling.

... In seeing the precision, coordination, and devastation executed against the Sanders campaign by the corporate Democrats (as characterized by Obama and the Clintons), it suddenly becomes clear that the Democratic Party is not weak. It chooses to appear weak so as to collude with corporate, tech, and financialized takeovers. In the face of a true enemy (i.e. Sanders, a leader truly committed to the people) they are impressively competent and ruthless.

All of the pieces come together—the Epstein assassination, cover for the criminalities of the Bush administration and Wall Street grand theft, and the impotency in the face of Trump’s financial crimes. All of these people, all of Washington, are equally implicated in these crimes, and all of them are reciprocally protected.

It makes sense that Biden is the nominee—an utterly empty suit, a walking corpse who can barely tie his own shoe—someone no one believes in, no one is excited about, who stands for nothing. With four years to organize and come up with something to defeat Trump, all they could do was kneecap the one candidate who stood for something, who stood for the people, who was honest, incorruptible, and had an energized movement behind him, and they were just left with this old, corrupt, empty shell of nothing, who reflects exactly what the party has become.

......... The change in my view has been abrupt and pervasive. Now seeing the Left through a critical lens, I can’t unsee it. It’s not that I’m now right-leaning, or conservative, or anything like that. I’m not. Instead, I’ve suddenly realized that my beliefs and values aren’t represented by either the Right or the Left. 

..... Will the red pill start coming to others? How long can they keep believing? How long can they keep going along? Will the contradictions finally unravel their world like it did mine? Of course I had years of preparation: psychedelics, psychology, personal development, world travel, philosophy, political history, conspiracy research, and mythology. And even still, I was able to maintain my belief in blue-pilled reality until now.



Vid:




[not] Satirical Fare:

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)