Andrew Austin is on the faculty of Democracy and Justice Studies and Sociology at the University of Wisconsin—Green Bay. He has published numerous articles, essays, and reviews in books, encyclopedia, journals, and newspapers.
The New York Times is reporting on an experiment that finds that providing poor mothers with cash stipends for the first year of their children’s lives appears to have changed the babies’ brain activity in ways associated with stronger cognitive development. This finding, the Times emphasizes, carries potential implications for safety net policy.
“This is a big scientific finding,” said Martha J. Farah, a neuroscientist at the University of Pennsylvania, who conducted a review of the study for the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. “It’s proof that just giving the families more money, even a modest amount of more money, leads to better brain development.”
I have been telling students for a quarter-century that it is a well known fact that poverty is associated with poor brain development and lower intelligence across the life-course, with downstream effects on academic performance, initiative, resourcefulness, and a myriad of other life chances. It follows that cash support should ameliorate these effects of poverty—if that support is carefully monitored to make sure it goes towards the cognitive development of children.
I have no problem with making sure babies are taken care of. If a parent cannot provide the necessary support, then there is a role for government. For those who are disparaging of social welfare, consider that cash support can be a smart investment; babies with poor brain development become not merely a burden on society, with poor academic achievement and poor labor force attachment, but a menace, as low intelligence is associated with low frustration tolerance, juvenile delinquency, and adult criminal behavior.
At the same time, we need to have a serious conversation about why mothers are poor in the first place and why, while recognizing that there are absolutely more poor white mothers than black mothers, there are proportionally so many more poor black mothers than white mothers. Indeed, as we will see, that there are absolutely more poor white mothers than black mothers, but a much smaller percentage of white mothers who are poor relative to black mothers is a revealing fact, one that cannot be explained away by social class or racism.
Class effects are important to consider. Part of the explanation for poverty generally is the systematic generation of inequality inherent in the capitalist mode of production. This the result of capitalist accumulation, i.e., the exploitation of labor, and its discontents. But this does not explain all of it. There is a big difference in poverty rates between women who are married and women who not married. Having a man in the house reduces household poverty, even among low-wage working families. Thus the fact of poor mothers is substantially a function of the decline in marriage and the rise of its substitution: the welfare state, or, to capture its function, the custodial state.
Perhaps this was an unintended effect, but the custodial state incentivizes single-parent households. Social welfare means that a woman no longer needs to marry a man for financial support. Nor does she need to work herself. The state provides support for her children. Children born in neighborhoods with high rates of single-mother households have limited access to working adults as role models. From these circumstances, a culture of idleness emerges. The downside of cash support is the maintenance of conditions requiring cash support.
Because of racial disparities in poverty, black mothers are proportionately more likely than white mothers to need cash support for their babies. The dynamic of the custodial state thus disproportionately effects the fate of black women and their children. Social class cannot explain racial disparities; capitalism is not to blame for this development. Since systemic racism was dismantled alongside the rise of the custodial state, neither does racism explain the disparities. The fact of racial disparities does not explain itself.
We have to turn to culture and the role the custodial state plays in generating culture associated with poverty. It’s not only because of black overrepresentation in poverty areas that these disproportionalities exist. The proportion of out-of-wedlock births for blacks is more than 70 percent, whereas for whites less than 30 percent. In light of this, without a comprehensive program of restoring the black family, it’s hard to imagine cash support will help the situation of black children over the long haul. What alternatives to cash support might we pursue that can reduce child poverty?
How the black family became overrepresented among those families dependent upon the state is a complex question, one requiring a study of the history of segregation, internal migration patterns, the interaction of the split-labor market with the emergence of transnationalism, especially the off-shoring of low-wage manufacturing and the importation of cheap foreign labor. The historical record indicates that these developments are the result of measures largely advocated by Democrats, who have attempted to address the racially disparate outcomes of progressive policy with more progressive policy, in this case the custodial state. The custodial state established the conditions for the emergence of a culture associated with high rates of out-of-wedlock births. However, while blame is important to reckon, we need to focus now on how to unwind the mess Democrats and progressive policy have made of the black family. We need to get fathers back in the home and married to the mothers of their children.
The problem of the disintegration of the black family is not just child poverty and its effects on brain development. Father absence is associated with higher rates of conduct disorder, juvenile delinquency, and adult crime than we see in father-present households. So while it may be true that part of the reason for overrepresentation in crime by blacks is due to poor brain development caused by poverty (this may explain the differences we see in measurable intelligence on IQ tests between blacks and whites that in the past has been attributed to genetically-based racial differences), this cannot explain all of it. The absence of fathers is the absence of discipline and role models for boys. In the absence of fathers, boys seek solidarity in gangs and surrogate fathers in their leaders.
Small brains, low intelligence, rapid maturation, behavioral problems, inadequate moral development, differential associations—all these are associated with the decline in marriage and father-presence.
These effects have implications for one of our chief concerns: the problem of racial disparities in the American penitentiary system. I’m sure readers know by now that black men are overrepresented in prison compared to whites. There is a call from the social justice crowd to reform the system equitably, which means reducing the racial disproportionality in admissions and sentencing. This is a laudable goal.
However, as I have shown in numerous essays, racial disparities in imprisonment reflect racial disparities in serious criminal involvement and are not the result of a racially unjust criminal justice system. Thus calls for racial equity would result in practice in effective anti-white racism (according to the terms of antiracism) by involving, relatively speaking, punishing whites more harshly than blacks by punishing blacks less harshly. This absurd solution to the problem of racial disparities in crime is cover for the failure of progressive policy to address the problems confronting black Americans. (We might also consider whether those failures are functional to the perpetuation of progressive politics, something I have suggested in past essays.)
The solution to the problem of racial disproportionally in America’s prisons ultimately lies in solving the problem of racial disproportionality in involvement in serious criminal offending. Reducing racial disproportionality in criminal offending means fostering neighborhood conditions conducive to proper brain development and moral training. It is unlikely that cash support to poor mothers will foster these conditions. Indeed, it is likely that cash support will contribute to the problem of the culture of idleness that undermines initiative and the two-parent family by perpetuating the effects of the custodial state. These communities need investments, but these investments need to come in different forms. I could make a long list of investments, but the first of them would be jobs and work requirements.
Last year at this time, as Joe Biden was assuming office, I had a warning for my Facebook friends: “Getting rid of the filibuster—like getting rid of the electoral college—is a desire for tyranny of the majority. This is a republic. But I fear the people are losing their virtue. Without that, we are not a nation. We cannot—we must not—subject our destiny to the mob. Democracy is a local affair. The attempt to relocate collective decision-making to the administrative state is a totalitarian wish. It prepares the ground for world government on their terms. And that is an invitation to empire and feudalism and subjection. The federal government is meant to protect our rights and manage affairs with other nations.” I added, “People, you have got to know what time it is. There are do-or-die moments. This is an inflection point.”
The struggle for our republic is apparent in a lot of things, but perhaps no more so in the attempt by Democrats to nationalize the electoral process. In pursuing his goal of fundamentally transforming America, President Joe Biden compared Americans who disagreed with the plan to our past racists, segregationists, and slaveowners, absurdly asking whether lawmakers wanted to side with “Dr. King or George Wallace,” “John Lewis or Bull Connor” or “Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis.” If that wasn’t offensive enough, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi worried out loud that the American public is too ignorant to appreciate Biden’s references (maybe she doesn’t appreciate them). Nobody knows who Bull Connor is,” she remarked. “You know, if we’re making the case to say, ‘We’re going to be with Martin Luther King or Bull Connor’—who’s that?” Vice President Kamala Harris defended the comparisons Thursday, calling them “apt.”
NBC News usefully informs us of what’s in Democrats’ latest voting legislation, and what the bills do. Senate Democrats are pushing measures that advocates say would reverse some Republican-backed state laws. These are laws that were passed in the wake of 2020, in which Democrats rigged an election to remove Trump from office, effectively the culmination of a four-year coup. However, Democratic Senators Joe Manchin of West Virgina and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona announced their opposition to changing the Senate rule that has long represented a powerful institutional safeguard and then followed through with their intention to protect the sixty-vote rule. Today, the filibuster remains in place and, without it, it is unlikely Democrats can take over state elections.
This is indeed a great victory for American citizens. As I said in that Facebook post last year, the United States of America is a republic. A republic is not designed to run on majoritarian logic. A republic is designed to protect minority rights and prevent radical societal change. We now see that only two Democrat senators believe in the American republic. Maybe unknowingly, only two Democrats defended the American system against the total corporate state. Every other Democrat in the Senate voted for the corporatocracy, for the donor class to effectively take control of the federal election system. America dodged a bullet. But this is not the end of the corporate push to finalize elite rule over the people. We have to stay vigilant. The corporatocracy is in for the log haul.
We may then usefully specify what we mean by the tyranny of the majority. It may look like a desire for mob rule on the streets, but power resides not in the minions of the power elite. The supermajority rule is indeed a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority; however, Democrats are not really a majority. The party is owned by big financial and corporate power, including global finance and transnational corporate systems. When progressives talk about “the majority,” they’re talking about the “minority of the opulent” and the rainbow coalition of disaffected groups they have cobbled together (this is what drives the open borders policies of Democrats). The mob is not really a majority, either. Nor does control over the social construction and myth-making apparatus make real illusions. These groups are controlled in what Gramsci called a “historic bloc,” which the elite are having trouble finally establishing as the hegemonic force. The populist movement is a monkey wrench thrown into the machinery. The populists represent the majority—and they have no desire for tyranny.
With populist consciousness rising, Democrats and the corporate masters know they’re in for a shellacking come midterms. They manufacture a myth about the world then falsely appeal to the authority of civil rights, realized decades ago, to portray the Republican Party as antithetical to voting rights, motivated by anti-black prejudice, and thus open the process to a free-for-all they believe they can win. For Democrats, the principle is not count every valid, certifiable, chain-of-custody vote, which is the principle of integrity in elections. Rather it is every vote for Democrats counts. This is a party that wants non-citizens to vote. In fact, in New York City, they’re actually allowing non-citizens to vote. On a related note, have you ever wondered why Democrat push for drivers licenses for illegal aliens?
Democrats do everything they can to undermine election integrity because they have the street-level organization to cultivate the votes they need to carry elections. You would think with this level of organization they could get into the hands of every black person an adequate voter ID and a ride to the polls. Even feed (bribe) people before putting them in line. But this risks not generating all the votes necessary. So throw open the borders and incentivize human traffickers to deliver millions of new voters. Pave the path to citizenship for the eleven million (possibly more than twenty) illegal immigrants already in the United States. Democrats have no problem infantilizing black people (who will lose even more jobs to foreign labor) to achieve this end. The drive to undermine election integrity is to smuggle in under cover of night vans full of harvested votes.
Democrats admit upfront what they’re up to and the accuse those who object, those who demand election integrity, of voter suppression. In the run-up to 2020, Democrats and establishment media voice told us that, on election night, Trump would win but to wait—hold off on declaring the winner, they cautioned news organizations—because all through the early morning hours more votes would be found and counted and, in the end, Biden would win. And that’s what happened. But the 2020 outcome only got them the White House. The down-ticket results were not only disappointing, but exposed the fraud. But Democrats are bold. The power elite require centralization of governmental power to complete the project of integration with the transnational order, to centralize control over the 2022 election and beyond in order to fundamentally transform America.
There are elements of the voting rights bills I support. I have always supported a national holiday for voting. I have always supporting allowing felons to vote. In fact, I believe felons should be able to vote while in prison, for the simple fact that, in a republic, no law should be imposed on a citizen without the ability of that citizen to participate in the election of those officials who determine or appoint those who determine the law. But postal voting? Absentee voting should be strictly limited to those outside of the country or those who are too ill to go to the polls (2020 would have been a lot different had secretaries of state not exploited pandemic panic to arbitrarily change voting procedure). Chain of custody should be transparent. Any early voting should be brought under the logic of absentee voting criteria. Elections are for state governments to decide. There are many other things in these bills that are objectionable, but the general problem with the legislation is central state commandeering of a process that is expressly constitutionally left to the states. I cannot support the legislation. Obviously.
While Sinema stands strong on the institutions of our republic, she goes too far in supporting the substance of these bills. This is where party loyalty misleads her. And now they are delegitimizing her. The Arizona Democratic Party has censured her for her vote to protect the supermajority rule. This is not only about voting rights. For progressives, this is about stopping populism by ensuring a Democratic majority for years to come. Democrats are seeking to nationalize an intentionally federalized electoral system. They want to remove an obstacle to one-party rule. They want with a rule change what they cannot yet achieve at the ballot box: a filibuster-proof majority. That would be a disaster for our nation. This is about the future of the republic.
Every story I read about Meat Loaf’s death tells readers that it is unknown whether the singer was vaccinated. This includes a slew of stories that also say he was “anti-vax.” The media is obsessed with the question. Their obsession trumps any responsible journalism or just human decency to reflect on the life of a man who provided the soundtrack for so many lives, including mine. (See Meat Loaf has Died.)
This headline from British publication Express provides a good example of the general tone the media is taking with this story: “Scared Meat Loaf dies weeks after criticising masks and Covid curbs.” As if criticizing masks and COVID curbs is somehow causally related to the man’s demise. Rarely in these stories are readers told that Meat Loaf suffered from several health conditions that put him at risk for severe COVID, including asthma. They narrowly write their stories to diminish him while conveying a false impression that the man’s fate awaits all “anti-vaxxers.”
First, refusal to take a COVID-19 vaccine is not anti-vaccination. I don’t know very many people who are opposed to vaccines as a general rule. I know a lot of people who will not take this or that vaccine. I am not opposed to vaccines, but there are vaccines I won’t take. One cannot be anti-vaccination generally if one is selective in their opposition to vaccination.
Most years of my life I have opted not to get a flu vaccine. I have only had the flu shot twice in nearly six decades of life. The first shot likely gave me the autoimmune disorder Graves disease, which I struggled with for year. The second shot, recommended by the physician who diagnosed my Graves, did not prevent me from contracting one of the worst flu cases I have ever suffered. So enough flu shots for me until I have confidence that they are safe and effective. Nobody has ever called me anti-vaccine because I made that choice. It simply doesn’t follow.
Second, the specific accusation being leveled by the establishment media is that Meat Loaf was against vaccine mandates and, while true, opposition to vaccine mandates isn’t even in the same ballpark as anti-vaccination. It’s anti-mandate. One can oppose forcing any medical treatment on people and not be anti whatever that treatment is. For instance, I might not choose chemotherapy if I have cancer, but that doesn’t make me anti-chemotherapy. I am highly critical of chemotherapy. But that is not anti-chemotherapy, either.
This term “anti-vaxxer” first appeared around 2008 (derived from the must older “anti-vaccinationist”). Above you will find a screenshot of Merriam-Webster’s definition of the term which has been revised from its 2018 definition that referred to “laws” instead of “regulations,” a revision to reflects the acceptance among elites of the substitution of democratic with technocratic rule. In a December 2019 article by Nicoletta Lanese, “‘Crazymothers’ Want You to Stop Calling Them ‘Anti-Vaxxers’,” LiveScience tells its readers, “An anti-vaccine group [calling themselves Crazymothers] wants to rebrand itself as ‘vaccine risk aware.’ Here’s why they can’t.” So why can’t they? The article doesn’t tell us. It just repeats pro-industry propaganda.
It is easy to show how the term “anti-vaxxer” is nothing more than a smear. I have already done so above. But let me do it some more for good measure. I support the right of a person to end his life through physician-assisted suicide. A person who is suffering from a terminal illness should have the option of ending his life. There are others who don’t think a person should have that option. They are anti-euthanasia.
Let’s suppose we get to a point where the government and corporations push for the necessity of euthanasia as part of standard public health strategy. Suppose the technocrats argue that the costs of keeping a terminally ill person alive is too much of a drain on society. They will even give it a humanitarian gloss and tells us about how they are saving the ill from terrible suffering. I will oppose a mandate to euthanize sick and suffering people. That does not mean I am anti-euthanasia. My opposition is anti-mandate, a qualitatively different position.
If you can’t get the difference between what is being opposed in this example, then that probably explains why you don’t see what’s going on with language. So I will tell you. What the establishment is doing by redefining anti-vaccination to include anti-mandate, and shamelessly exploiting Meat Loaf’s death to reinforce the redefinition, is to discredit the principle of medical autonomy, shame people into taking a shot, as well as build consensus around forced vaccination.
It would be one thing if a gaggle of busybodies stood over in the corner and wagged their finger at those who consider science before making a choice. But they don’t want people being able to make choices (or even to consider science). They want the government to force people to submit to vaccines. Forced vaccination can lead nowhere good. If the government can force you to take this vaccine, then it can force you to take a flu vaccine or any other vaccine. If it can do this, it can force any medical intervention on you. You will be the pet of the corporate state. This is preparation for serfdom in the coming neo-feudalist order of things.
They’re trying to change our brains by changing our language. The epithet “anti-vaxxer” plays the same role in our society as the term “conspiracy theorist.” It’s designed to diminish an argument by diminishing the person. It’s an ad hominem attack. Those who commit this fallacy are telling us that they Don’t really have a counterargument. They also mean for you to assume as proved that which requires proving. This is why the favorite word of today’s journalist are “baseless,” “unsupported,” and (more boldly) “debunked.” All these terms are intentionally obnoxious; they mean to get a rise out of their targets. Our role a responsible citizens in preserving the rational life is to be logical and not fall for corporate state propaganda. Don’t regurgitate their nouns and adjectives. Simple lifeforms reflex. You’re evolved. Act like it.
Of course, some very smart people evolve in a regressive fashion. In a January 2016 interview with Peter Openshaw, President of the British Society for Immunology, the doctor is asked, “What can you do to avoid getting colds?”
“You might be able to avoid a cold by wearing full protective equipment, but in the end the cold viruses will probably find a way to get you. There are so many viruses that have evolved to cause colds—perhaps 200 or more. It’s hard to see how we can ever defeat all of them.” (An example of one of the many cold viruses is the coronavirus family.)
“Why do kids get so many colds?”
“The immune system needs to learn: it needs to build up experience. Just like we go to school to learn facts, we also go there to pick up germs. Our immune system is very clever in that it has a built-in memory. For example, when it has come across a virus once, the immune system usually retains a ‘memory’ of how it got rid of that virus from the body. If it comes across the same virus later in life, the immune system can bring back this ‘memory’ and attack and defeat the virus before it makes you ill.”
“Does getting colds make the immune system stronger?”
“Yes, probably. Your immune system is designed to fight off infections and keep the body healthy; common infections put our immune system through its paces. In germ free environments, the immune system performs very poorly: it needs germs to keep in trim.”
“What can you do to boost the immune system?”
“If you could boost your immune system and it’s working well already, that might make you more ill. Immune overactivity is as dangerous as immune underactivity. For example, an overactive immune system (which attacks inappropriate substances such as pollen grains or your own body’s cells) causes conditions such as allergy and autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis. Living a healthy, balanced lifestyle is the best thing you can to do make sure your immune system can function optimally.”
I then found an interview Openshaw gave in October of last year.
As I note in my tweet, it’s as if his brain has been wiped clean and a new program installed. He is now masks, vaccines, and boosters all the way. But as Lisa Boothe points out, was Openshaw is saying has been shown to be wildly off the mark.
As for the irresponsible, I am hoping the people around me soon understand what I’ve understood for a very long time, which is well stated in the tweet shared above. I hope they lose the ideology and get back to basic scientific reasoning. I have to hope because I clearly have no power to persuade. But don’t worry over my pessimism. Resistance won’t stop me from trying. So might I suggest this redefinition of the term anti-vaccine:
“Rest in peace my soul brother, soul music blood brother,” said Ted Nugent, who collaborated with Meat Loaf on the 1976 album Free-For-All album. “A great man, great American rock solid in the asset column of the American Dream,” Nugent continued, “The wonderful Meatloaf force of nature will be with us forever.”
If you haven’t heard the track “Hammerdown” from off the Free-for-All album, then get your ass somewhere where you can blast it. It’s one of the greatest heavy metal songs of all time (Nugent’s guitar solo is smoking). Check out the whole album. Meat Loaf wrote half of it.
Meat Loaf’s career and legacy is there for all to see. I won’t cover that in this essay. As you might have guessed, they’re making a thing about Meat Loaf and COVID. Apparently that’s what got him. At this point, they’re “unsure of his vaccine status.” With these people, right now, everything must be wrapped in the COVID narrative.
Okay. Since it’s on the table. Let’s go down that road. For, as it happens, they have given freedom-lovers a platform to celebrate the spirit of life Meat Loaf exuded in the midst of a campaign to stop us from living. Who is “they”? The purveyors of pandemic. The authoritarians.
Meat Loaf recently shared Eric Clapton’s anti-lockdown song “Stand and Deliver.” They’ve worked hard to cancel Clapton and Meat Loaf wasn’t having any of it. Meat Loaf also came out against masks, saying they’re useless, which of course they are. In an interview with the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, Meat Loaf describes a situation at an airport where a “Nazi” (his word) screamed at him: “Get a mask on now!”
“They’re power-mad now,” Meat Loaf told the interviewer. After the interviewer replied, “Oh, God. We’re being controlled by everybody,” Meat Loaf responded, “Yeah, I know. But not me. If I die, I die,” adding, “I’m not going to be controlled.”
Was Meat Loaf afraid of COVID? At that age, given his health situation, he’d have to be. And he said as much. But a full life was more important to him. “I hug people in the middle of COVID,” he told the interviewer; “they cannot continue to stop life because of politics. And right now they’re stopping because of politics.”
That’s the spirit. Life is not merely existing. Life is about being alive—and being alive means not being controlled by irrational fear and corporate state policy.
I am not a member of the woke church. I neither accept its doctrines nor participate in its rituals. I am unconcerned about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin because that presumes angels exist and I am not required to presume such a thing or obliged to affirm or argue about it. You say angels are real to you. It doesn’t matter. I will not recite the woke scripture. I will not supplicate myself before the altar of wokeness. I will not chant woke prayers.
As a civil libertarian and an advocate of religious liberty, I defend the right of people to believe the doctrines and practice the rituals of wokeness just as they would any other religion. The dress, the jargon, the slogans, and all the rest of it are for their congregation. None of these things are for me unless I choose to take them up. These things cannot be an imposition. They cannot burden me without my consent.
Religion is freely chosen and freely exercised only when membership and participation are not compulsory. Once a religious faith becomes compulsory, those compelled to submit to it are no longer free and society has become theocratic. Theocracy is tyranny. When public school, the corporation, and the government take up, disseminate, and advocate any doctrine of the woke church, or any other church, when these institutions, secular by definition in a democratic republic, expect fealty from citizens to any aspect of that or any other faith, the First Amendment rights of citizens are violated.
The religion of the woke church is being taught in public schools in violation of the United States Bill of Rights. Demanding an end to the indoctrination of children in public schools is not curtailing the free speech rights of administrators, students, or teachers. As with any religion, individuals are free to think and practice their religion as long as it does not burden the liberty of others. On the contrary, demanding an end to the indoctrination of our children is respecting the free speech rights and the right to religious liberty for all citizens.
A religion is a particular set of beliefs, values, and practices, organized into a system of doctrine and rituals. Religion involves belief in and reverence for a supernatural entities and forces, powers regarded as creating and governing the universe in which the devtoee believes everybody exists. That the woke church is a religion cannot be reasonably disputed. It meets all the terms of the definition, right down to belief in absurd and impossible things.
I know I told readers I would be blogging about voting rights, mass formation psychosis, and progressivism, but Twitter fascinates me. The whole social media thing fascinates me. I have to get something off my chest. After a decade of existing on the platform, I have almost no followers on Twitter—even while my tweets and responses to tweets get likes and retweets. It’s not that people don’t follow my account. It’s just that the vast majority don’t stay followers for long. If everybody who has followed my profile for a little while wound up staying, I’d have a lot of followers. As of right now, I only have eighty-six followers. Sad, I know. I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s noticed.
I have been looking at the profiles of followers to understand why this is happening (I am a sociologist, so I am so inclined) and I have developed a working hypothesis. Let me know what you think (mean comments will be be deleted). I’m supposing at the moment that identity and orthodoxy explain the pattern: folks like a tweet, follow, detect a left-winger (which I am), and unfollow; others assume I’m a left-winger because I’m a sociologist and a teacher (fair assumptions), follow, hate the tweets, which they perceive as right-wing (which they aren’t), and then unfollow. Right-wingers don’t like the man behind the tweets, while left-wingers can’t stomach the heresy. (Right-wingers appear much better at detecting left-wingers than so-called left-wingers are, an appearance I address indirectly below.)
I have long suspected that the worst species of heterodox thinker in the world to be—especially in today’s political-ideological environment—is the principled left-libertarian. If you ask me what I am, this is what I will tell you. What does that mean? It means that I resemble Christopher Hitchens’ self-description as a Marxist who rejects socialism, which is to say that Marx’s materialist conception of history and his dialectical method forms his analytical system, but those concrete systems claiming to follow from Marxian thought are authoritarian and soul-crushing and must be rejected. This is why both Hitchens and myself like Orwell so much. (Perhaps if I were anywhere close to being as good a writer or orator as Hitchens things might be different. But clearly I am not.)
There’s a version of this dynamic in media requests for interviews. You may have noticed that the media has a definite progressive bias. The assumption is that a sociologist at a university can be counted upon provide woke counterpoint to some conservative or right-wing opinion on an issue. Not this sociologist. During the BLM riots, particularly on the question of police shootings, I would give an opinion that would completely throw the interviewer. What I am supposed to do? If a particular truth has a right-wing bias from the standpoint of woke progressivism it’s not my fault. Lately, there’s nothing to put on my vita about media requests. They’ve stopped calling. At least somebody’s paying attention.
My WordPress blog, Freedom and Reason, which you are now scanning, gets thousands of views and visitors annually. These aren’t incidental hits; the statistics tell me there is engagement. Visitors stay and read content. However, I suspect that as soon as the right-wing visitor sees a reference to Marx or some other leftwing critical theory type figure (and it won’t take long before he stumbles upon one of those), there’s no way in hell he’s going to say, “Hey, there’s this dude who blogs at Freedom and Reason who makes this point. Blah, blah, woof, woof.” Heaven forbid he should forward a link to the blog. My heterodoxy thus explains, I think, why my insights and arguments, sometimes almost verbatim, are rehearsed in populist circles without attribution because—who in hell in those circles is going to cite a left-libertarian? So instead of directing people to my blog, right-wingers take the ideas as arrows for their quiver, developing out their system of conceptual and theoretical weaponry for battle.
Who can blame them? Not me. They know dropping the name of an environmentalist, feminist, pro-gay, atheist critic of capitalism who refuses to rationalize the planetary descent into corporate new-feudalism as a Marxist cabal will delegitimize what are otherwise good and useful arguments—irrespective of right and left. For the most part, this is fine with me. Ideas are way more important than me. And my ideas aren’t that original. My thinking is a synthesis of ideas drawn from political sociology, psychology, philosophy—you know that because I cite the source of my ideas all the time. At the same time, I want more people to be exposed to those ideas and I have this notion that directing people to the source of the ideas might help more people to them. Then again, one’s audience would then know the source of the ideas. It’s too much to expect, I suppose. I can live with this.
On the other side, woke progressive types read my blog and are horrified by what they think are right-wing ideas. That is this happening is not in doubt. I have disappointed a lot of people. Nothing on Freedom and Reason is useful to them because none of it is recognizably left-wing—nor am I anymore. I can make left-wing arguments about racism, immigration, religion, the pandemic, and so on, and the self-identified left-winger is so lost he can’t recognize them for what they are. This is not unexpected; neither wokeness nor progressivism is an actual left-wing position. Both are projections of corporate statism. Awareness that the left has turned and not me is a reality very few people are prepared to accept.
I often wonder about those academics who, having cited me in the academic literature (thanks to the norm of citing the literature, one’s name will appear in references, even if one’s work is unread), after learning that I am not a woke progressive, wince at not being able to remove that particular citation from their paper. The more woke academia becomes, surely the more wincing there will be, a situation I might find humorous but for the curse of excessive empathy. Sorry comrades.
I wasn’t the only one who saw masks for what they were back in the spring of 2020. In the above video, an interview with Lisa Brousseau, ScD, expert on infectious diseases, University of Illinois at Chicago, conducted by Infectious Control Today, was conducted in April 2020, Brousseau tells the interviewer, “The idea that cloth masks will protect anybody from contracting COVID-19 is magical thinking.” Surgical masks won’t help, either. You need respirators if you want any real level of protection.
Dr. Brousseau understands that SARS-CoV-2 is aerosolized and very small. How small? At less than 100 nanometers, it cannot be seen with a light microscope at the highest possible power. While masks do not stop the spread of the virus, they do spread a false sense of security. People confident that they are protected are more likely be out and about contracting and sharing the viruses. This is not a problem for most people, since the viruses is really only dangerous to specific groups in the population. But to those for whom the virus does pose a significant risk, confidence in masks can be dangerous.
If masks are not protective, then why did the CDC push them? Why did so many governments mandate them? Dr. Brousseau answers the question in a roundabout way. In her view, we should have all stayed home. I don’t agree with that since a large portion of the population catching the virus early on would have brought the pandemic to an end sooner. However, you can see how everybody staying home would paralyze the economy. The lockdowns and panic were already bad enough economically-speaking. So to get people to go to work—especially essential workers—authorities told us masks would protect us. They lied in order to keep those workers considered expendable from staying home.
If you shared the first meme without criticism, then you have zero understanding of science. You should be embarrassed to have shared such a bad analogy. Don’t even begin to think you have the intellect to challenge other opinions on this subject if you are sharing memes like this. But the second illustration is hardly more useful. What are these numbers based on? They can’t possibly be based on scientific research. So where did they come from? Frankly, from the rectum of an authoritarian-minded meme-maker.
From a World Health Organization report issued December 2020: “A large randomized community-based trial in which 4862 healthy participants were divided into a group wearing medical/surgical masks and a control group found no difference in infection with SARS-CoV-2.” More science: “A recent systematic review found nine trials (of which eight were cluster-randomized controlled trials in which clusters of people, versus individuals, were randomized) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness. Two trials were with healthcare workers and seven in the community.” Conclusion: “The review concluded that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the prevention of influenza-like illness.”
On my blog, I have shared the insights of industrial hygienists on the efficacy of masks (see my essay Masks and COVID-19: Are You Really Protected?) Wear two masks. Wear three. It doesn’t matter. Wearing a mask is magical thinking. It may reduce your anxiety, which is the function of rituals anyway, but it does not protect you or others from SARS-CoV-2. Nor will social distancing. You might as well wear an amulet blessed by a shaman around your neck.
Which brings us to vaccines. We know vaccines spread the virus. This became obvious early on. As with masks, those who are vaccinated and believe themselves safe to self and others go out into the world where they catch and spread the virus. And because the vaccines offer some protection from severe illness, the infected can walk around spreading more virulent mutants. Because of the magical belief that the vaccine protects them, they go to work and school sick or infected but not knowing they are sick.
I don’t mean to embarrass folks even more, or to sound ethnocentric (a nonsense term created by academic and cosmopolitan types), but this is the same reason the shaman is out on the beach doing his crazy dance moves and uttering incomprehensible incantations while the fishers are fishing near the reef in choppy waters. If the fishers believe the sea demons who disturb the sea are kept calm by the shaman’s spells and rituals, then they will get in the boat and risk their health and lives to procure food for the village. Great But are they objectively safer? No.
The point of magic and ritual, its latent function, as sociologist Robert Merton put it, is to reduce the anxiety of uncertainty in high-stakes and stressful circumstances where there is a high risk of choking or running away in fear. To put this in stark terms, the corporate state has been running a vast psychological operations project on the masses. They first scare the wits out of them by constructing a mythology and then instruct them on ritual practices to ward off the contagion. And while one would have hoped the people had evolved beyond primitive fishers who need superstition and magic to get through life, it is clear they haven’t. This also explains the Inquisition-like attack on doctors and scientist, i.e., heretics, who challenge the narrative, i.e., doctrine.
* * *
Here’s another bit of irrational thinking. Cigarette smoking causes one of every five deaths in the United States each year. That’s roughly half a million deaths annually (eight million worldwide). That a far greater number of deaths than deaths associated with COVID-19. “But people choose to smoke.” Sure. And people choose not to be vaccinated or wear a mask or go to parties. Those are choices that endanger one’s own life. So let the people who choose not to be vaccinated, etc., risk their lives like those who choose to smoke cigarettes.
“What about me?” You’re vaccinated, right? “But you can still get COVID-19, if you are vaccinated.” Can you get it from another vaccinated person? “Yes.” Then what’s the point of vaccination? “A vaccinated person won’t get as sick.” Okay, so you changed the argument. Still, so? What does that have to do with the unvaccinated? “They take up hospital beds.” So do smokers. “But COVID-19 is driving up health care costs.” So are cigarettes. Why aren’t we banning smoking? Why aren’t we fining smokers? “We demand smokers not smoke around us.” But a vaccinated person with COVID-19 is blowing smoke in your face. Think about it, your workplace allows the vaccinated to be around you even though they may be sick and contagious. Infected people vaccinated or not shouldn’t be around other people.
The authoritarian argument makes no sense. If we punish people who don’t get vaccinated but not those who smoke cigarettes then the action is an arbitrary exercise of public and private power. Canada, Europe, Australia—all these countries are mandating vaccines. Some are locking people up. All these countries allow smoking. Why do they allow smoking? It’s deadlier than COVID-19—by millions. Smoking tobacco is a known risk factor for severe disease and death from many respiratory conditions and infections. Heart attack. Stroke. Do smokers have a better prognosis than nonsmokers if they contract COVID-19? Most people who have died from COVID-19 have comorbidities that, if not present, mean that the person likely would not have died. Many suffer from metabolic disorder caused by obesity. They are hypertensive, etc. Why aren’t we punishing people for what they eat and for not exercising? Why aren’t we regimenting ourselves in military fashion?
* * *
A new Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey shows us how pandemic panic is changing attitudes with respect to democracy and freedom along partisan lines. The survey shows how fascistic Democrats as a group have become. “Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democratic voters would favor a government policy requiring that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine.” Such a measure is opposed by 79% of Republicans and 71% of unaffiliated voters. The poll also found that 78% of Democratic voters support the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate plan (only 22% of Republicans and 41% of unaffiliated voters support the vaccine mandate). “And many Democrats would support even harsher measures, including fines for Americans who won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine and criminal punishment for vaccine critics.”
I spend a lot of time on Freedom and Reason worrying about the negation of the Enlightenment. However, I am aware that the Enlightenment never got hold of a lot of people. This is especially true of some of the most arrogant and smartest people in the room. Unfortunately, they happen also to be the most powerful. And they are overrepresented in academia, the administrative state, corporate media, and the culture industry. Bizarrely, a disproportionate number of these authoritarians identify as on the political left. That the corporate state enjoys supporters with Stalinist attitudes does not make this a socialist moment. The label that applies here is fascism.
Before getting to the substance of today’s blog entry, which concerns the depoliticization of tyranny in America today, I want to take the occasion of the holiday in his name to acknowledge the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. and reiterate my opposition to post-civil rights conception of social justice that denies Kings’ vision of a colorblind society. Far from putting racism behind us, the post-civil rights deviation has spawned a new era of racial antagonism. This extremism grows from New Left perversions that pushed civil rights—and politics generally—from its roots in American conceptions of freedom and democracy towards a wholesale rejection of Enlightenment values.
More than Stokely Carmichael’s belittling characterization of King as a “reformer who was good for the image of America,” the New Left eschewed the Old Left’s commitment to orthodox Marxian concepts and socialist politics, and took up instead the anti-American standpoint of such prominent Third World revolutionaries as Mao Zedong and Che Guevara. These developments mingled with the nihilistic turn in French postmodernist philosophy to produce the truly vile synthesis that elites across the West exploit to undermine democratic-republicanism and the modern nation state. It’s this synthesis that forms the basis of contemporary antiracism and critical race theory.
Those of us who believe in justice and democracy must redouble our efforts to explain to those around us that Black Lives Matter and similar phenomena collectively represent a disjunctive break from the civil rights of MLK, Jr. The New Left, however much its rhetoric apes critical dialectics, because of its obsession with race, is incapable of grasping the West as a contradiction in need of a full becoming—the establishment of democratic socialism in the context of the Enlightenment. Thus the so-called critical turn in leftwing politics not only threatened bourgeois interests; it threatens proletarian interests.
If it was not clear in the moment, history has exposed Black Power as a reactionary politics. These are not King’s politics. Let’s rededicate ourself to King’s dream of a world in which individuals are judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. This is a demand not for equity, but for each and every person to enjoy equal treatment—treatment blind to race. Let’s us say once and for all that we are to get no more or no less on account of our race. That’s justice. (See Colorblindness versus Colorfulness; A Note on Desegregation and the Cold War.)
Today we celebrate the victory we achieved more than half a century ago in ending institutional racism and recognize the need take the nation off the path to retribalization that progressives and the corporate state have put us on. Let’s honor Dr. King’s legacy and get back to living the dream.
* * *
Last week the Supreme Court blocked Joe Biden’s attempt to federally impose a mandatory vaccine and testing regime on the nation’s large employers. “Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers,” the majority observed in an unsigned opinion, “it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly.” The opinion continues: “Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply because they work for employers with more than 100 employees, certainly falls in the latter category.”
This was the right decision. I was disappointed on the second decision regarding the mandate for health care workers. The paradox of medical personnel with natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 being fired for not submitting to a vaccine requirement while vaccinated personnel with a COVID-19 diagnosis are allowed to continue working in the heath care system is a contradiction that demands redressing. But as the arguments and questions unfolded, one could see the split decision emerging; blocking the employer mandate was the best one could hope for.
In rationalizing their dissent, the progressive minority, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, those justices who had embarrassed themselves during arguments by disseminating misinformation, write, “When we are wise, we know not to displace the judgments of experts, acting within the sphere Congress marked out and under Presidential control, to deal with emergency conditions.” You knew that was coming based on their questions. What was perhaps unexpected is the degree to which they make explicit the technocratic attitude that works behind the decision-making process. Technocracy is the rule of unelected bureaucrats and selected experts managing the corporate state.
In a pending blog entry (not the next one, which will either be about mass formation psychosis or voting rights, but probably the one after those), I will delve deeply into the struggle to save the American republic from the totalizing tendency of corporate statism reflected in the minority’s opinion. It will suffice to say here that the Supreme Court’s decision on Biden’s attempt to weaponize OSHA against the proletariat is a ray of sunshine in an otherwise bleak historical moment; it will take a lot more than this decision to turn things around.
* * *
I highly recommend to readers Paul Diesing’s How Does Social Science Work? In the chapter “Science Politics,” Diesing, who is a political scientist, distinguishes democratic science from technocratic science. A recent hearing in the Senate provides instantiations of Diesing’s categories. In the exchange recorded above, Senator Rand Paul articulates the principles of democratic science. Dr. Anthony Fauci is the paradigm of technocratic science personified. If you watched the hearings you could see Democrats pushing technocracy. Make no mistake about which of the two parties is the authoritarian part of the moment.
I want to dig into this problem a bit more by bringing in some other voices. In her essay, “After the Neutrality Ideal: Science, Politics, and ‘Strong Objectivity’,” published in a special edition of Social Research, philosopher Sandra Harding discusses the matter by distinguishing between two kinds of politics and their relationship to knowledge production.
The first kind “is the older notion of politics as the overt actions and policies intended to advance the interests and agendas of ‘special interest groups,’” she writes. “This kind of politics ‘intrudes’ into ‘pure science’ through consciously chosen and often clearly articulated actions and programs that shape what science gets done, how the results of research are interpreted, and, therefore, scientific and popular images of nature and social relations.” This kind of politics politicizes science, a practice seen as corrupting in light of the idea of objectivity as neutrality.
This charge is usually leveled against Republicans. One often hears in progressive circles and the establishment media the lament, “How did the COVID-19 pandemic become so political?” The Washington Post tells us, “The pandemic didn’t have to be politicized,” adding, “one party is to blame for it.” Guess who? The Republicans. An article in the journal Science Communications blames “the high degree of politicization in initial COVID-19 coverage” for polarizing US COVID-19 attitudes. The Brookings Institute complains, “Politics is wrecking America’s pandemic response.” While CBS News wonders “Why did COVID-19 become partisan?” Vox tells us why in “How political polarization broke America’s vaccine campaign.” As if one could approach public health from an apolitical standpoint. As if we it wasn’t obvious to everybody that the virus was weaponized to advance the slow-motion coup against the Donald Trump presidency.
The accusation of politicization is a trick that depends on the false notion of objectivity as neutrality—a fig leaf, Immanuel Wallerstein calls it in his American Journal of Sociology essay “Social Science and the Quest for a Just Society.” The pandemic response is political. That’s the truth that requires trickery. But the power elite is desperately seeking to dissimulate the politics driving policy while depicting resistance to those politics as the only politics in play. To see the trick, one needs to understand that there is an other type of politics, Harding writes, in which “power is exercised less visibly, less consciously, and not on but through the dominant institutional structures, priorities, practices, and languages of the sciences. Paradoxically, this kind of politics functions through the ‘depoliticization’ of science—through the creation of authoritarian science.”
Harding cites Robert Proctor, who, in his Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis, reminds us of vital historical facts. “The Nazis depoliticized science by destroying the possibility of political debate and controversy,” writes Proctor. “Authoritarian science based on the ‘Führer principle’ replaced what had been, in the Weimar period, a vigorous spirit of politicized debate in and around the sciences.” (In light of present circumstances, we can update the Führer principle to the Fauci principle.) “The Nazis ‘depoliticized’ problems of vital human interest by reducing these to scientific or medical problems, conceived in the narrow, reductionist sense of these terms. The Nazis depoliticized questions of crime, poverty, and sexual or political deviance by casting them in surgical or otherwise medical (and seemingly apolitical) terms.”
Are things clearer now? This is an old trick. It’s the way the classical political economists, such as Adam Smith with his “invisible hand” metaphor, removed economics from the political realm by establishing the logic Darwin later adapted as his theory of natural selection, a theory that would then inform eugenics and racial science. It’s the way neoliberalism works today; by treating public utilities as private business entities, and I am speaking here of the social media platforms controlled by the oligarchs of Silicon Valley, censorship is no longer a government move but a consequence of market forces. You should see that the pandemic is a strategy to launder the grand project of transnational corporate power by denying the political ambitions of the policy makers.
The question at hand is not whether science is political. It is. It always has been. Denying that is political is part of the corrupting force. Depoliticization works by denying politics—by dissimulating and obscuring power. For the reason, Harding contends, we have to abandon the neutrality that hides power in order to become more strongly objective in our scientific and other endeavors. I agree with her.
One must stand somewhere. Indeed, how could there be science ethics without recognizing politics and power in scientific endeavor? The question before us—and this question must always be before us—is how power and politics are being hidden from view by the depoliticizing language of neutrality. Otherwise, Nuremberg becomes nothing more than a romantic bother that gets in Prometheus’ way. Humanism requires a critical standpoint, and this standpoint simultaneously rejects technocratic science and a demands democratic science—that is, science for the people.
(See also Robert Proctor’s Value-Free Science? Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge and Joseph Rouse’s Knowledge and Power: Towards a Political Philosophy of Science.)
* * *
I want to show you what legacy media looked like before it became entirely subservient to the corporate state. The legacy media wasn’t perfect. But it was a hell of a lot better than what we have now. There once was a thing called “investigative journalism.” The networks covered the Church Committee hearings. They covered the Pentagon Papers. You would never see those stories covered today in the organs of the establishment.
In the video below, you will watch CBS News exposing the dangers of vaccines. In 1976, pharmaceutical corporations and governments around the world, including the US government, manufactured a swine flu epidemic. The government rolled out a massive vaccination program accompanied by an extensive propaganda campaign involving print and television media. Millions of Americans were injected with the experimental swine flu vaccine. Scores of people suffered a range of vaccine injures. The story focuses on a sometimes lethal and almost always devastating paralytic condition called Guillain–Barré syndrome, or GBS. The government, shamefaced, had to cancel the program.
That disaster and mounting death and injuries from other vaccines led to the creation of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, or NCVIA, which required health care providers to report adverse events to vaccines. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, established in 1990 and jointly managed by the CDC and the FDA, grew out of the NCVIA. In the meantime, the US government granted immunity to vaccine manufacturers. United States Code states in part: “No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine.” This law is associated with the creation of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), popularly known as the “vaccine court,” administered by Health and Human Services (HHS), to compensate those injured by vaccines covered by VICP. VICP has to date paid out several billion dollars in compensation to those killed and injured by vaccines cover by the law.
Thus a regulatory apparatus was stood up to manage the fallout from mass vaccination programs—not to hold medical-industrial complex accountable but to act as a public relations operation to reassure the public that these products are beneficial, efficacious, necessary, and safe. In tandem with the establishment of this apparatus, the establishment media shifted its role from its traditional roles as the Fourth Estate criticizing government and corporate power to serving as the propaganda arm of the corporate state. Mainstream news organizations run interference for vaccine manufacturers by denying the link between the vaccines and GBS and a host of other deleterious side effects, while they demand that those who do criticize the industry are removed from social media platforms.
Over the years, I have posted this video twice on YouTube only to have it removed for violating “community standards.” Watch it while you can on YouTube if you are afraid to watch it on Rumble. If you do not fear Rumble (which you shouldn’t), you can can find my upload of a high definition video, “The Swine Flu Epidemic of 1976.” But the one currently on YouTube is a polished and contextualized presentation worth checking out.
This issue is personal. As many of you know, my son was injured by the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. (I discuss this in a recent blog: The World Has Been Played So Hard—But It’s Not Too Late to Resist.) I was injured by a flu vaccine in the late 1990s that produced an autoimmune disorder called Grave’s disease that nearly killed me. Fortunately, my Graves is in remission thanks to hormone treatment, an intervention that unfortunately resulted in obesity and metabolic disorder, which in turn caused my Barrett’s esophagus. All this is thanks to a flu vaccine. The mRNA vaccines are associated with Graves (and several other autoimmune disorders). Why didn’t I not subject myself to this shot? The answer to that should be obvious. (Over the last few years I have lost a lot of weight and my metabolic conditions is under control, but the quality of life lost, not to mention career advancement, is incalculable.)
The COVID-19 vaccine is associated with known dangers, which I have blogged about extensively. These vaccines (mRNA and viral vector technologies) may cause harms down the road. In the video below, Stephanie Seneff, a Senior Research Scientist at MIT with more than 170 peer-reviewed publications, whose research interests lie at the intersection of biology and computation, in which she studies Alzheimer, Parkinson, autism, and cardiovascular diseases, is warning of the potential for neurodegenerative diseases caused by the toxins the vaccine uses to produce an immune response to SARS-CoV-2 (or at least early variants of the virus).
Why is the establishment media not reporting on this story? Because the establishment does not want you to know about the dangers of vaccines. This is why there is so much censorship of information that challenges the official narrative by the social media platforms run by the Big Tech oligarchs. In place of democratic science, the model of science that dominates today is authoritarian science, what Diesing calls it technocratic science. I have called it scientism. Whatever we call it, it must be called out for what it is: corporate profiteering at the expense of human health and life. The Biden regime wanted to mandate this at the federal level. States are mandating the vaccine. Even for children.
I am often asked how it is possible that the United States government would allow dangerous and even lethal health care practices. Why would the medical-industrial complex list COVID-19 as the cause of death in cases where people died with not from COVID-19? That sounds like a conspiracy theory, I am told. Most people have no idea how deadly the policies and practices of medical-industrial complex can be, even when the evidence for this is publicly available. I want to close this essay with an example of publicly available evidence that ought to shock those who don’t already known about it and then make a point about our current relationship with the truth.
In 2016, in analyzing medical death rate data over an eight-year period, researchers at Johns Hopkins calculated that more than 250,000 deaths per year in the United States are homicide cases. The number of those killed by doctors and nurses and lab technicians surpasses the third leading cause of death in America (respiratory disease kills close to 150,000 people per year). How do the killers get away with this? John Hopkins documents that the CDC’s way of collecting national health statistics fails to classify medical errors separately on the death certificate. Are you sure the CDC is correctly classifying COVID-19 deaths accurately?
The media is just now reporting that 40 percent of pediatric hospitalizations for COVID-19 are not COVID-19 cases. The kids were there for something else and incidentally tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. And they were asymptomatic. And that’s not the only recent admission that should cause us to reassess everything we have been told about the pandemic. The fact is that COVID-19 hospitalization and mortality statistics are vastly exaggerated (in morality statistics the error may exceed 90 percent), while statistics on cases remains underreported because most infected people aren’t tested. Also underreported are vaccine injuries and deaths (VAERS only captures some of the incidents).
Why would US doctors, medical corporations, and our government underreport vaccine injuries and deaths? For the same reason they underreport medical error. This is an industry and you’re an expendable. Corporate power means profits over people. You should be so naïve. Untie the ribbons and use them for something else.
These easily-produced antigen and PCR tests for coronavirus mean that, if such tests were made available to the public, one could also easily be tested for adenovirus and rhinovirus, two other viruses that cause the common cold. If the authorities did that, and if the majority of the population were unfamiliar with these viruses, the fear-mongers could make it appear as if these viruses also posed a constant threat of disease in human populations. I know you’re thinking “common cold,” but these viruses are a lot more serious than you think.
Adenovirus, as well as rhinovirus, may cause pneumonia that can result in hospitalization, even death or disability. They are associated with many other diseases. Common cold viruses are a particular threat to certain populations. Your kid might have a cold caused by an adenovirus or a rhinovirus (kids have several colds a year), visit his elderly grandmother, or his uncle whose immune system has been weakened by the chemotherapy used to treat his stage IV pancreatic cancer, transmit the virus to either of them, seeding the development of pneumonia, which could lead to their demise.
On March 29, 2020, in a blog entry When a Virus Goes Viral, I write, “Like influenza viruses and rhinoviruses, coronaviruses are associated with potentially severe respiratory infections.” I continue: “Like rhinoviruses, coronaviruses are a family of viruses. There are many more types and they are widespread in many animal species. They are usually associated with mild to moderate upper-respiratory tract illnesses, i.e., the common cold. However, like rhinoviruses, coronaviruses are also a lower respiratory tract pathogen.”
How many of you visited your grandparents with colds? How many parents spent Thanksgiving or Christmas with their parents and brought along their sick children confident it wasn’t COVID because of a negative antigen or PCR test? A lot of you. Admit it. It’s just a cold, right? Are there grandparents who died of pneumonia where the pathogen came from their children or grandchildren? Certainly. Have you ever stopped to wonder whether you were the one who gave your grandparents the virus that led to their death? Most of you haven’t, I’m guessing. Why not? Because you weren’t made to be afraid of the common cold. You are familiar with its constant presence in your life. “It’s just a cold, right?”
With adenovirus and rhinovirus, you aren’t rushing out to Walgreens to try to find an antigen test or to CVS to get a PCR test because the CDC and the NIH and the establishment media haven’t scared the daylights out of you to push products by pharmaceutical companies. Among those potential products could be adenovirus and rhinovirus vaccines, not just antigen and PCR tests. Did you think about that? Did you know that the Johnson & Johnson jab is in fact a viral vector platform based on an attenuated adenovirus? For my European readers, did you know that AstraZena uses an attenuated cold virus common in chimpanzees known as ChAdOx1?
So why didn’t the corporate state organize the panic they are using as cover to implement dystopian-level surveillance and control apparatuses around those other cold viruses that? Too many people know that the rhinovirus is a cause of the common cold and would immediately ask why the panic. Moreover, Fauci and crowd weren’t (to my knowledge) modifying adenoviruses and rhinoviruses in Chinese labs to produce strains with greater virulence. Since most people had never heard of coronavirus, it was the ideal virus for their purposes. Ignorance makes it easier to manufacture a fear campaign. It’s why I work so hard to enlighten you.
I wrote on March 29, 2020, “I am not denying that coronavirus is a burden. Influenza and rhinoviruses are also burdens. All of these pathogens kill people every year. Nobody wants anybody to die. So we need to deal with these burdens. What I am arguing is that shuttering an economy on account of coronavirus is novel will have serious consequences for jobs and livelihoods, not to mention emotional and psychological needs and human liberty, and, moreover, that wanting to get back to a normal life as soon as possible is not remotely the same as saying we want to kill old people. The societal reaction is following a pretty standard sociological explanation, except on steroids. It is proceeding on the basis of a novel definition of the situation more than a novel virus. The panic is viral.” Nothing that has occurred in the meantime has changed my assessment of our situation.
* * *
From the Los Angeles Times: “In August, [Dr. Aaron] Kheriaty sued the University of California Board of Regents and Michael V. Drake, the system’s president, alleging he should be exempt from the university’s vaccine mandate because he has a ‘natural immunity’ to COVID-19 after being exposed to the virus.” Why is natural immunity in scare quotes? A writer or an editor at the LA Times did that. That’s no accident. The answer is to suggest that there is little or no natural immunity associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, a suggestion that not only flies in the fact of the evidence, but in the face of everything we know about immunity. There are many things for which I am not scheduled to be vaccinated because I have natural immunity by virtue of having acquired the disease. As I explain in my previous blog entry, COVID-19 is one of them.
On December 17, the University of California system removed Dr. Aaron Kheriaty from his position as a professor of psychiatry and human behavior at the medical school and director of the medical ethics program at UCI Health. “Two years ago I never could have imagined that the University would dismiss me and other doctors, nurses, faculty, staff, and students for this arbitrary and capricious reason,” he wrote on his blog. “Once I challenged one of their policies I immediately became a ‘threat to the health and safety of the community.’” This is the University of California Irvine’s medical school we’re talking about. Again, Dr. Kheriaty is an expert in medical ethics. See his essay in The Wall Street Journal “University Vaccine Mandates Violate Medical Ethics.” The subtitle was “College students aren’t guinea pigs.” I think we might see the actual source of the university’s inflexibility on this issue.
To protect the university, the LA Times resorts to dishonest reporting, misrepresenting the science by asserting that research that shows that coronavirus immunity wanes over time. This can be said of all immunity. The extent to which charity might pull from claim some meaning, the research consistently shows that natural immunity is far superior to vaccination in every regard—more robust, more durable, and expressing cross-immunity to different variants. Exposure to the virus rather than just the spike protein provides to the system access to the full genomic profile. Moreover, at this point, as if this needs to be said anymore, the vaccine is worthless as a mechanism for producing immunity. Fully vaccinated and boosted people in large numbers are contracting and spreading the virus.
Irvine’s policy makes no sense from an objective standpoint. It not only expresses an ignorance of basic scientific understanding; by denying what it entirely expected and that which we know to be true, it represents an exercise in anti-science thinking. It is quite obviously irrational, a characteristic of authoritarian consciousness. It is, for the same reason, also anti-humanist—it sacrifices individual liberty for narrow corporate interests. Why is this happening? It’s not about the vaccine. It can’t be. University administrators are not stupid people. Adolf Eichmann’s spirit moves in them. This is about something else, something far darker, and it should deeply concern you.
“We got a Chinese virus. Now we risk getting a Chinese society.” —David Starkey
“It is a lot better to walk alone than with a crowd going in the wrong direction.” —Ricard Feynman.
My goal was to get this article out before 2021 was over. That obviously didn’t happen. So here it is late on the first day of 2022. The delay gives me an extra day to gauge the spirit of the people. I saw everywhere on my social media newsfeeds on New Year’s Eve a reflection that went something like this: “We didn’t think 2021 could be worse than 2020. Boy, were we wrong.” This was followed by a wish that 2022 would be better. I share that wish, but I didn’t think 2021 would be better than 2020. As bad as Donald Trump was in handling the pandemic (lockdowns, not cleaning house at the CDC, FDA, and NIH, rushing the vaccine, allowing the suppression of therapeutics and censorship of contrary opinion), I knew Joe Biden would be a disaster. I warned the nation in Can the Republic Survive Biden? and other essays.
Progressive Democrats across our institutions have struck a most authoritarian pose. And they spread misinformation for its sake. CNN regular Peter Hotez tells the painfully shallow narcissist Jim Acosta that an 80-85 percent vaccination rate could have “staved off” COVID surge in the US (see video clip below—and follow Michael Senger on Twitter). Hotez wants the Department of Justice and Homeland Security to target vaccine skeptics for suppression. This would be wrong even if his claim were true. But nowhere in any country with that level of vaccination has the surge been “staved off.” Countries with 99 percent vaccination rates have COVID surges. Whatever else the vaccine is useful for (power, profits), it is useless as a public health measure.
What explains the insanity? “Vaxism” is a neologism defining an ideology wherein devotees fetishize vaccines and see those who don’t as unclean and subversive. “It’s like a cult,” podcaster Joe Rogan said. It’s more than that, Joe. It’s the new religion. Asking a person to get vaccinated for a virus that poses no realistic threat of serious illness is like asking a person to get baptized to save his soul. When one’s career and freedoms are at stake for refusing baptism, the presence of a theocracy is indicated. Cults tend to be suppressed, not embraced. This new religion is the ideology of the corporate state. As with every system of control, religion is a primary tool for legitimizing hegemony. As we have learned from our experience with wokeism (critical race theory and the rest of it), secularism affords little protection from the insanity of religious-like thinking.
And, as it is is with every religion, rational adjudication of fact is marginalized or forbidden. Elites have shifted the burden to prove vaccines are safe and effective to those who have the right to demand the government meet its burden. As all students of reason know, the burden rests with those who make the positive claim. Now, in an irrational world, it’s up to us to show that vaccines are neither safe nor effective. That’s not a difficult thing to do—except doing so risks censorship, deplatforming, social marginalization, and reputational injury. But if we take up the burden, then the opening paragraph of this Bloombergarticle will find more children exposed to a dangerous, leaky, and unnecessary shot: “Pediatric Covid-19 hospitalizations have risen to record levels as omicron races across the U.S., amplifying the urgency to get boosters and vaccines cleared for children.” So let’s get out the truth: vaccines don’t work. Everywhere this truth is obvious and is followed by a demand to “get vaccinated,” push back. Ask people if they can hear how crazy that sounds. Help them hear the crazy.
Facebook now tells me ahead of time to not post the thoughtcrime I’m about to post. Incorrigibility subjects users to limiting via algorithm. (And not just on Facebook. Twitter recently permanently suspended Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA technology.) Circulation is a journal of the American Heart Association. Facebook threatened to limit me for sharing a story about a scientific talk based on research published there (which readers can here) carried in Robert Kennedy Jr.’s The Defender. Was this the thoughtcrime? That The Defender picked up the story and brought it to a large audience—an audience of vaccine skeptics know pejoratively as “antivaxxers”? According to the establishment, Kennedy has fews peers when it comes to misinformation peddling. If Dr. Malone is banished from Twitter, Kennedy can’t be far behind.
We cannot abide by corporate state censorship of science. Nor can we participate in the perpetuation of lies. We cannot let Malone and Kennedy (and there are several noble others) go it alone. It’s a risk you have to take. Something is going on. Healthy people are dropping like flies. From The Defender (because Facebook doesn’t like it): “In an analysis presented during a meeting of the American Heart Association, Dr. Steven Gundry, a pioneer in infant heart transplant surgery, said mRNA COVID vaccines put many patients at higher risk of a new acute coronary syndrome, such as a heart attack.” Gundry tells his audience, “We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.” (See also this article.) At least allow your sassy inner contrarian to act up. The corporate state is trying to keep you from knowing, or at least appreciating, the volume of devastating injuries this vaccine may be causing. (See “’We do exist’: Some Americans suffer life-changing COVID vaccine injuries.”)
This hits close to home for me. My eldest son, who is twenty-six years old, just starting his professional life (he is an attorney) developed myocarditis within a few days of his first jab of the Pfizer mRNA technology (I would not be telling his story had he not already publicly told it, scolding those who pushed him to take it). He talked to me about the vaccine before he took it. I provided scientific articles documenting the risk he was taking. SARS-CoV-2 carries a very low risk of complications for healthy young people, I explained; the benefits do not outright the risks. But I am no match for my child’s peers. He did it to protect me. I will be sixty years old in a few months and I have comorbidities that put me at special risk for severe disease (I will spare you the details of my medical record). He had said this before the jab. I told him never do anything for me. (I have said this publicly, see Life is Risky. Freedom is Precious.) His cardiologist forbade him to take the second shot (after his primary care physician urged him to take it). Thankfully he didn’t. It appears that each shot sets up its victim for the deleterious effects of the next one.
I wound up getting COVID the week of Thanksgiving 2021 anyway. Aside from a steroid inhaler, which the nurse called in to the pharmacy, and the PCR test at CVS that confirmed I had the disease the day before, I had no contact with any medical professional. I can describe it as a prolonged sinus infection with some upper-respiratory concerns, symptoms resolved with fluticasone. I never developed a fever. My throat was never sore. I did develop COVID voice (inflammation of the vocal cords) for a few days. My wife, fully vaccinated (not because she wanted to be), was infected at the same time and developed disease at least as severe as mine. She lost her sense of smell for a few days. I am not going to tell you that this virus is a walk in the park. But now Mona and I have the best immunity there is.
Why did I say that last bit? Because it is exposure to the virus’ genome that protects you. Natural immunity is how we are going to get past this. Antibodies disrupt the process by which coronavirus gets into your cells, where it hijacks the host’s machinery to reproduce. The virus is constantly mutating its mechanism for entry (the spiked protein). Some mutations allow it to better evade antibodies that recognize it. Reproductive success means these mutations accumulate. Quantitative accumulation of mutations leads to the qualitative change we refer to as “variants.” This is why the mRNA technology works so poorly as a vaccine. Rather than expose the immune system to the full genome of a dead or attenuated virus, mRNA hijacks cellular machinery to produce the spike protein so antibodies (produced by our B-cells) recognize it. Before long, coronavirus mutates to evade that version of the spike and the vaccine becomes useless.
After reflecting on my illness from a few weeks ago, I am more sure than ever that I contracted SARS-CoV-2 mid-March of 2020. That infection produced a sore throat, fever, and a persistent cough. The cough lasted longer than coughs usually do with me. I was never tested and did not seek medical attention. Here’s what I did instead: aspirin, zinc, vitamins C and D, tonic water (which contains quinine), guaifenesin, and NyQuil to sleep. For my recent illness (associated with a positive PCR test) I added artemisinin, famotidine, Xlear (a xylitol-based nasal spray), and the aforementioned steroid inhaler. In both cases, I took 5-HTP for mood and melatonin to sleep. Either the complete regime made my November illness less severe than it might otherwise have been or, having already had an earlier variant (probably alpha), made the second go around milder. Either way, for the vast majority of people, the illness is manageable through self-care.
Perhaps the single greatest act of deception by the government and the media during the pandemic was leading the public to believe that the risks of SARS-CoV-2 was distributed equally across the population. For a brief while at the beginning they admitted that reality when they scolded the public for “killing grandma,” but then they soon settled into a narrative of indiscriminate death punctuated by rare cases of young people dying—the unusual against the backdrop of normality—to create the illusion that everybody was in danger from SARS-CoV-2. Children are not at risk for developing severe COVID-19. Now they do this with the “unvaccinated.” Most people are not at risk for developing severe COVID-19.
Yet we’re hearing reports that hospitals are overwhelmed with the emergence of the new variant, the omicron variant (see The Xi Variant to see the degree of deference of the medical-industrial complex to leader of the totalitarian People’s Republic of China), and that more children are showing up in emergency rooms. CBS News reports “More kids hospitalized with COVID-19 as Omicron spreads: ‘We need to get child vaccinations up.’” Here is that non sequitur again. The US is averaging 260 pediatric COVID-19 hospitalizations a day (it is likely higher now). Reflect on this: there are more that 73 million children in America. At this rate, his many years before all them are hospitalized?
Omicron is a “strange virus,” the media reports. People have symptoms but are testing negative. That’s because omicron is associated cold symptoms—the same cold symptoms NyQuil claims it treats (which it does quite effectively). And that’s because coronavirus is a cold virus. You wouldn’t be able to tell whether it’s adenovirus, coronavirus, or rhinovirus unless you test for it—and then you’re just wasting time and money because it doesn’t really matter if it is omicron. In other words, it isn’t strange at all. Fortunately , the designation “hospitalization” means admission as an inpatient, so it’s a low bar. We need to talk instead of serious illness. Were is the surge in intensive care cases? CNN reports that Omicron is a game-changer for Covid-19 vaccines. If governments worked from a scientifically rational standpoint that would mean that it would bring about an end to mandates and passports. But we live by the rules of corporate bureaucracy.
Why is omicron so mild? For one thing, the evolutionary tendency in viruses is to become more contagious and less virulent over time (see Are We Forgetting Darwin?). Reproductive success depends on healthy hosts who can spread the virus to others. Since the vaccines are a bust, masks don’t work (Masks and COVID-19: Are You Really Protected?), and people aren’t going to lock themselves in their homes (at least not enough people), it was inevitable that a mild variant would emerge. For another thing, tens if not hundreds of millions of Americans have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and the killer T-cells are primed and ready to pick off the antibody-evading mutants. Again, that’s our path to herd immunity. It always has been. We always knew that. Pandemics are self-resolving. Life would not have survived very long otherwise.
Animal species has been subjected to coronaviruses since at least the 1930s, when this virus was first identified as infectious bronchitis virus (IBV). IBV was identified in humans in the 1960s and given its current name. Thus we have known about coronaviruses for decades. More than this, in 1965, scientists cultivated coronavirus and showed it to be one of the viruses responsible for cold-like illness by exposing test subjects to the virus and producing in them cold-like illness. Three coronavirus strains were identified before the decade was over. This discovery closely followed the discover of adenoviruses in 1953 and rhinoviruses in 1956. In the 1990s, the several variants of coronavirus were designated with letters of the Greek alphabet. That’s right, alpha, beta, gamma, etc. (See By Learning to Let Go of Mass Hysteria, We Can Bring an End to the Destructive COVID-19 Panic; also Faking Genius for Power and Profit.)
This is how we know that USA Today is misleading the public in their fact-checking article “Omicron coronavirus variant is not the common cold.” In fact, coronavirus is one of the viruses that causes the common cold. “The most frequently reported symptoms of omicron resemble symptoms of the common cold: a runny nose, congestion, cough and fatigue. But the two are not the same. COVID-19 is caused by a different virus.” The common cold is in fact caused by several different viruses, including the aforementioned adenovirus and rhinovirus. Coronavirus is one among the bunch. To be sure, SARS-CoV-2 (along with SARS and MERS) is different from the strains identified previously because it appears to be the result of a modified coronavirus that makes the virus more virulent so that it produces flu-like illness, especially more severe respiratory symptoms (and appears to have a mechanism that targets fat cells). (See Their Crumbling Ministry of Truth; On Herd Immunity, Establishment Disinformation, and Gain-of-Function; Science and Conspiracy: COVID-19 and the New Religion.) However, the omicron variant is a reversion to the generally harmless coronavirus that you and I have experienced our entire lives.
There is a rather large literature on coronaviruses that predates the pandemic. For example, in a 2015 journal article “Human Coronavirus-Associated Influenza-Like Illness in the Community Setting in Peru” (published in the American Journal or Tropical an Medicine and Hygiene), Hugo Razuri, et al., write, “We present findings describing the epidemiology of non-severe acute respiratory syndrome human coronavirus-associated influenza-like illness from a population-based active follow-up study in four different regions of Peru. In 2010, the prevalence of infections by human coronaviruses 229E, OC43, NL63, or HKU1 was 6.4% in participants with influenza-like illness who tested negative for influenza viruses. Ten of 11 human coronavirus infections were identified in the fall–winter season. Human coronaviruses are present in different regions of Peru and are relatively frequently associated with influenza-like illness in Peru.” As you might guess, I would produce numerous scientific articles like this one. But imagine it’s 2022 and this happens. What will they name the variants? Might we expect a push for mandates and boosters?
So if omicron is so mild, then what’s happening? Why are kids going to the hospital? As Robert Kennedy, Jr. tells us in the above clip, vaccine manufacturers hide behind emergency use authorization and children to avoid liability for products that kill and injure people (most of whom don’t need them). Omicron fear porn is a marketing strategy to herd people to physicians and pharmacies by manufacturing public health emergencies—and now the CDC says that we’re not over delta (they overestimated the prevalence of omicron). Scared witless parents rush their kids to CVS and Walgreens and emergency rooms for PCR tests on the basis of a positive home antigen test or in lieu of one (since stores are running out of them). Hence the “surge in pediatric caseloads in our nations hospitals.” Surely by now you have seen videos of long lines in major cities where people wait for hours to be swabbed by a worker under a tent. This is not rational behavior.
The establishment media appears incapable of reporting the facts. Now they are telling you that can’t lose your sense of smell from other respiratory viruses. This is totally untrue. Adenoviruses, rhinoviruses, and other viruses can also affect olfactory sensory neurons. Moreover, other respiratory viruses can cause severe headache and even fever. This is part of the project to create mass forgetting. The media functions like a giant neurolyzer. The power elite is desperate to keep the moral panic alive. And so parents are taking their kids to the emergency room for cold symptoms, where many of them test positive there—just as they would have if such rushes had occurred earlier in the pandemic. These become hospitalization cases. Those cold symptoms could be caused by an adenovirus, a rhinovirus, or an unidentified virus. The media tells us that you may think you have “just a cold” but it is very likely omicron (which is, as I just showed you, just a cold virus). Others have no symptoms at all, but parents just want to know—they have heard that many cases are asymptomatic. Since corporations and hospitals make money for every test administered, and since they have to protect other patients from COVID-19, everybody is tested. One also has to wonder how many kids visiting hospitals are there for vaccine injuries.
(For what it’s worth, my wife and I tried out one of these antigen tests and the instructions alone suggest that consumer error is big reason for approaching home testing with caution. The percentage of consumers who screw up the test can’t be small. The tests aren’t cheap, either, hence the long lines at CVS and Walgreens for PCR tests.)
Surprisingly, Dr. Fauci appeared on television only a few days ago emphasizing the difference between those who are in the hospital from COVID-19 and those who happen to test positive who were also in the hospital, a distinction that has always been in operation. Where was Fauci on this all along?
The run on hospitals has been exacerbated by loss of qualified personnel resulting from vaccine mandates. How many of those fired for not submitting to the demand that they be injected with experimental gene therapy with a concerning safety profile have acquired their immunity through natural acquisition, the only actual immunity one can obtain from this virus? We don’t know. They don’t bother to test them and see. So we have the most prepared health care professionals across the country sidelined because they refused to comply with the demands of the corporate state.
But it’s all the unvaccinated’s fault for not doing what they were told to do. Fear the unvaccinated or those who won’t show you their papers or who won’t test before visiting for Thanksgiving and Christmas. But the vaccines don’t work. And they know it. If this were the general understanding I would be flogging a dead horse. But this myth won’t die. The Risk of Vaccinated COVID Transmission is Not Low, says Scientific America. “After my son got sick,” the author tells us, “I dived into the data, and it turns out vaccinated people can and do spread COVID” (see also this scientific article). Paradoxically, for many, this has become the argument for vaccination.
But elites aren’t stupid. They know people are wising up. Have you seen how eager they are to change the narrative? “The vaccines weren’t about immunity,” the historical revision goes. “They were about reducing severity.” But that’s not what they said about these vaccines (see the video above). They said the vaccines were to produce herd immunity and stop the virus. This is why we had to take them. This is why we had to have mandates and passports. This is why they tell you to fear the unvaccinated while talking out of the other side of your mouth (doublethink). If anything, fear the vaccinated; they can carry more virulent strains in public because, according to the vaccine pushers, a greater proportion of them don’t feel as sick. Hoist them on their own petard.
The Los Angeles Times reports that “Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Biden’s chief medical adviser, recently urged people to not go to the kinds of indoor parties attended by dozens of people whose vaccination status you don’t know. Fauci said it’s safer for people to gather in smaller-sized gatherings with family and friends in homes where everyone is known to be vaccinated and boosted, and even safer if people get rapid tests just before the event.” People are unsafe. They are unclean. At the same time, Fauci slashed isolation times in half because he doesn’t want to paralyze the economy (i.e., stifle corporate profits). Who is President of the United States? I believe it’s the man with the smaller federal pension, but I could be wrong.
The experts have been wrong about everything. Is there an agenda? Yes. Power and profit (see below video to learn about the depth of planning in Europe). But there is also ego. They’re too egoistical to admit they’ve been wrong. But they also know that they lose legitimacy if they tell the truth. Legitimacy is key to control because it lends authority to power. The clichéd question they dread: “What did they know and when did they know it?” The bottomline is that, if we were to take the vaccine because it would stop the virus, then the necessity of producing herd immunity might justify extraordinary government action. But if in fact that vaccines do not stop the virus, which in fact they don’t, then mandates and passports have no justification—not from the standpoint of democracy and liberty. The continued push for mandates and passports is thus nakedly pushing authoritarian control. Even in Sweden, where natural immunity to COVID was pioneered, authorities have rolled out passports. Swedes, made soft by a super-humanitarian social democracy, are getting chipped to make life convenient. (I discuss RFID technology in Biden’s Biofascist Regime. The technology has spread since then.)
None of this makes sense. If you’re vaccinated, why worry? Isn’t that what vaccines are for? That’s why we vaccinated our children for measles and other childhood disease. The vaccine is a miracle of science. Why does a person need to know whether people are vaccinated if it doesn’t matter whether they are? Because if you’re vaccinated it means you will be less likely to develop severe disease, is the response I typically get when I ask this question. But if you’re vaccinated you don’t have to worry about severe disease. Isn’t that what they tell us? Yes. Constantly. In phrases that clearly have in back of them talking point memos. But some people who are vaccinated develop severe disease after all. Why does it matter whether people are vaccinated if being vaccinated doesn’t protect people from severe disease?
The answer must be because Pfizer wants money and to grease those wheels of capitalist accumulation the government and the media need to install irrational fear after fear. Fear porn is a lot like regular porn: it doesn’t matter if the premise is implausible; you’re there to see cash-transactional jabbing.
Big Pharma surrogates (most of whom are uncompensated and moonlight as friends and followers on social media platforms) are constantly comparing the need for COVID-19 vaccination with the need for measles vaccination. So let’s compare. Imagine people being vaccinated for measles and then getting measles. Not the rare measles outbreak, but large numbers of those vaccinated for measles infected and spreading the disease—to other vaccinated people. Before the vaccine, people would get the measles and acquire life-long immunity (I’m old enough to remember those days). Now they’re getting measles multiple times following vaccination. Not really; this is a “what-if?” But if this were to happen, wouldn’t this strike you as worrisome? Might you wonder what the measles vaccine was doing to the immune system? It’s as if the vaccine erased it. Instead of acquiring immunity, you now have to be repeatedly injected with the same vaccine that not only didn’t protect you, but prevented you from acquiring life-time immunity.
You can use polio and smallpox to illustrate the bizarre character of a popular argument. It’s as if folks have become confused or never learned the difference between positive and negative correlation. Not to condescend to my readers, but to clarify for them, a negative correlation is obtained when the Y variable decreases when the X variable increases. Let Y = COVID-19 and X = vaccination. If vaccination worked, then, as the rate of vaccination increases, cases of COVID-19 should decrease. If you conclude from the real world evidence that a more aggressive program of vaccination is the appropriate response to rising cases among the vaccinated, then either your thinking has become confused or you’re scientifically illiterate. It’s not an argument. It’s a rationalization.
But there is no sophisticated rationalization for these brute facts. “Breakthrough infection” is not a scientific concept; it’s a propaganda term designed to rationalize the reality, which we knew early on, that the vaccine does not effectively confer immunity. All those people not at risk from serious disease did nobody any favors getting vaccinated. All the injuries this vaccine has caused in young people had no public health purpose. Mandates and passports are irrational from a public health standpoint. Those in charge have been lying to you. They are now telling us that “clinicians and public health practitioners should consider vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 to be no less infectious than unvaccinated persons.” Something about follow the science.
But the failure of vaccines doesn’t mean vaccines have failed. It just means the deployment of euphemisms to disguise that fact. “Safe and effective” is marketing for a product you weren’t asked to pay for but are paying for anyway, going to (and hurting) people who don’t need it. They tell you the vaccine is free. Guess who pays for all those millions of COVID-19 vaccines? It’s like telling you that the military-industrial complex is free. They have played us so hard.
It’s the same with masks. Why did anybody think these would work? But I still encounter such irrational comments as, “If I could do things over again, I would not have allowed my son to be around even vaccinated people indoors without masks.” The mother who wrote this then indicates that she will get him vaccinated when allowed. A little kid vaccinated for a cold virus. While she is waiting for that, she can feel somewhat assured that the FDA is expected to authorize the Pfizer vaccine for 12-15 years olds by early next week, according the Washington Post. And the use of the little ones in fear porn finds its counterpart in the use of the elderly ones for the same purpose. The Washington Post tells us about an elderly Iowa man who died from sepsis because all the hospital beds were full of unvaccinated COVID-19 patients. It is only the unvaccinated who fill our hospitals. But that’s not true.
People are pushing back against this. One of my most popular political Facebook posts this week (and one of my more triggering) was my almost certainly unoriginal quipping, “Wearing a mask alone in your car is like masturbating in a condom.” People liked it because people don’t like the authoritarian attitude that masks signal (see What Lies Behind the Mask? Technocratic Desire; What’s the Big Deal With Wearing a Mask? Lots; Mask or No Mask?) It’s a hopeful sign when people get mad and ridicule others. It means they’re paying attention.
A lot of that anger is being directed at Dr. Fauci. It’s well deserved. He should resign. Fauci has deaths on his conscience—deaths for profit . He is responsible for the pandemic, which resulted from gain-of-function experiments in the Wuhan Institute of Virology that he bankrolled behind the president’s back, and the botched response to it, denying the public therapeutics in order to falsely justify emergency use authorization for the experimental mRNA technology that has prolonged the pandemic. Finally we get a therapeutic—from Pfizer and Moderna. Here to mop up their mess. And the sticker shock. Will the government cover that bill? Maybe, if you’re vaccinated. To channel Chomsky, if the Nuremberg rules were properly applied Fauci would be in the dock being tried for crimes against humanity. That he is still in power confirms my characterization of the current regime in power in Washington DC.
“They completely disregard bioethics,” Dr. Robert Malone tells us. “They’ve broken all the rules that I know, that I’ve been trained on for years.” The flouting of the Nuremberg Code was the sign that confirmed my suspicion that we are rapidly spiralling into what I call the New Fascism (From Inverted to Naked Totalitarianism: The West in Crisis; Fascism Becoming Under Cover of COVID-19 Hysteria; ). It’s like the old fascism except it doesn’t present with a dictator. Indeed, it’s a hell of a lot more effective without one—it denies what it is and people accept the deception. The other sign was how willing too many Americans were to give up their democracy and their freedom (and their children) and submit to corporate governance and administrative rule. Fascism always depends on a significant proportion of the masses to submit and follow (The Problem of the Weakly Principled). They even have a shiny new race theory, the New Fascists. Get ready to be tagged. Embed it in your hand to hide your shame.
People are tired of the lies. Biden recently said in a discussion about federal action with respect to COVID-19, “Look, there’s no federal solution.” That has always been true. But that’s not what he said when he was running for president. Check out this video of Biden repeatedly telling us, “I’m going to shut down this virus.” The fact is that the virus spread like a wildfire under his presidency. More people have died from this virus in the vaccine era under Biden than under Trump. Democrats ask, “What do you expect him to do?” That’s actually a useful question, the answer to which is nothing. Pandemics are self-resolving. There is nothing he or anybody else can do about this except let it happen as quickly as it can so we can develop herd immunity and move on—as I have been saying from the beginning of all this.
A colleague of mine asked me where the ACLU was on this issue. I resigned from the ACLU a while ago, but I checked to find out. Here, I found the following: “Far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further them. They protect the most vulnerable among us, including people with disabilities and fragile immune systems, children too young to be vaccinated, and communities of color hit hard by the disease.” The ACLU continues: “While the permissibility of requiring vaccines for particular diseases depends on several factors, when it comes to Covid-19, all considerations point in the same direction. The disease is highly transmissible, serious and often lethal; the vaccines are safe and effective; and crucially there is no equally effective alternative available to protect public health.” The disease is generally not serious, very rarely lethal, the vaccines are neither safe nor effective, and there are in fact superior alternatives to vaccines.
“While vaccine mandates are not always permissible, they rarely run afoul of civil liberties when they involve highly infectious and devastating diseases like Covid-19.” Even if we were to agree with this in principle, COVID-19 does not fall into the category of highly infectious and devastating diseases, a category that would include smallpox. “Vaccines are a justifiable intrusion on autonomy and bodily integrity,” the ACLU asserts. “That may sound ominous, because we all have the fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health care decisions. But these rights are not absolute. They do not include the right to inflict harm on others.” This formulation gets the ethic backwards. Corporations do not have the right to inflict harm on others. Nor does the government. Corporations and governments have powers which must be limited by the civil liberties and human rights of individuals. That the ACLU would get this backwards in such an obvious way shows us that a grand institution has succumbed to the corrupting force of woke progressivism.
Vaxism is part of a larger religious movement known as “safetyism.” Safetyism is being normalized through a contrived process of institutionalization. There is neither democracy nor liberty on the other side of this contrivance. If our immune system doesn’t work, then the vaccines can’t work, since the mechanism of the vaccine depends on a functioning immune system to have an effect. It seems millions of people have forgotten this basic biological truth. If you have had this virus, and you have a healthy immune system, then you have developed an immunity to the virus. This immunity will be robust enough to provide a significant degree of protection from future variants, just as previous infections with any number of cold and flu viruses provide a degree of protection from variants of these. Even if we grant some efficacy to the original vaccines, they were narrowly specified for a protein associated with an earlier variant and therefore have no relevant. It’s as if you were to take last year’s flu shot for this year’s flu. Vaccination is entirely unnecessary to a person who had recovered from COVID-19 because (a) the vaccine is old and doesn’t work and (b) your immune system is there to catch you. Put your evolved brain to good use. Don’t give into the madness. Resist. Do not comply.