Imagine a crowded planet, overpopulated to the point where babies threaten the environment (we’re there already) and corporations and the state say that women must go on birth control. Either go on birth control or be subjected to weekly pregnancy tests, the President says. You need to wear a condom when you have sex. Sex without protection can make you pregnant. If found pregnant you’ll be excluded from employment and other highly prized life activities and opportunities. It’s time we get serious about making sure women are on birth control. There have to be consequences for sex without protection. Yes, there are breakthrough pregnancies even if you’re on birth control. That’s why you still need to wear a condom even if you are on the pill. Your body, your choice, right? No. The community is more important than your individual desire to go unprotected, to exercise reproductive freedom. Your decisions affect all of us. What, you disagree? Are you one of those anti-birth controllers? You sound like an extremist.
* * *
Back in the 1990s, Democrats wanted to debate communitarianism verses libertarianism. They wanted to discuss abandoning America’s founding in the liberal principles of civil rights, personal liberty, and small government for the sake of big intrusive government and community standards. Maybe you don’t remember Israeli sociologist Amitai Etzioni, endorsements by neoliberals such as Bill Bradley adorning his books, but I do. (See Etzioni’s The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities, and the Communitarian Agenda.) He rooted his ideas of the good moral order in the structural functionalist tradition of his discipline.
At the time, America politely told Etzioni and the Democrats to go fuck themselves. But now, without any debate, with corporate power at their backs, Democrats have decided the matter for us: we will be a nation of communitarian values—our libertarian founding and traditions be damned. All this while they stealthily colonized the minds of enough of the public (especially the new middle class) to prepare them for willing submission to state corporate control. They even turned many into woke scolds who patrol the Internet and college campuses attacking those who still hold on to liberal values.
Communitarianism is ostensibly an ideology that emphasizes the responsibility of the individual to the community. At best, its advocates argue, individual rights must be balanced with community rights—as if abstractions have rights. But what communitarianism really is is an ideology that attaches the label “community” to powerful controlling and exploitative organizations, such as the “business community,” and then emphasizes responsibility of individuals to those communities. This is why Etzioni’s movement so neatly dovetails with neoliberalism. This is what lies behind government officials beseeching the “business community” to mandate vaccines. And now governments are doing the mandating, too. Axios alerts us to the coming troubles: The floodgates have opened for vaccine mandates.
Business is not a community. Government is not a community. A university is not a community. Facebook is not a community. These entities don’t have standards. They have rules. In the age of corporate governance and technocratic fiat, these rules are arrived at neither deliberatively nor democratically. And the old communitarian appeal to the social importance of the family unit, of real community? Forget about those things. They have your children now.
“COVID-19 is worse than the flu.” You hear it all the time. You deserve to be scolded if you imply otherwise. Worse than the flu for whom? This has been a problem for this entire pandemic: progressives inside and outside the government don’t want you to know information that would allow you to perform a reasonable risk analysis. They tell you to follow the science, but they don’t want you thinking like a scientist. After all, they aren’t thinking like scientists, why should you? They practice scientism, a faith-based simulacrum of science serving corporate and government interests. They are terrifying people with gross overgeneralization of risk for profit and control. They need a crisis great enough to justify taking away your liberty. Have you read about what’s happening in Sydney, Australia? They sent to military into the city to force people away from each other and into their homes. Is this coming to a city near you?
The answer to the question about risk is that COVID-19 is worse than influenza for the very old, the very unhealthy, and the very sick, but, for most age categories and health statuses, COVID-19 it not more deadly than influenza. In fact, for some age categories, COVID-19 is much less deadly than the flu. For instance, influenza is deadlier for school age children than is COVID-19. For healthy teachers, COVID-19 is not deadlier than influenza. So why the draconian measures being taken in public schools? At my university, if you have not been vaccinated, you have to submit to biweekly surveillance and wear a mask. Exemption from the policy requires employees and students proving access to administrators to the state vaccine registry. But the vaccinated, we now know, can catch and share the virus. My local school board just voted to require masks for younger children in the classroom.
In this blog, I will focus on school age children, since this is driving public school policy and illustrates most clearly the irrationality of the technocracy’s policy prescriptions. Progressives use children to justify their worsening authoritarian impulses. They aren’t just using children; they are harming children, not only because they are traumatizing them (that’s bad enough), but they are making them sick. The vaccine has serious adverse health effects. The vaccine appears to be making the virus more virulent and harmful. Since the facts indicate that influenza is a very serious problem in human societies and it is worse for children than is COVID-19, given the novel demand for mass vaccination, routine testing, and masks and social distancing, what has changed?
When I read and watch the news reports of people from their hospital beds telling others to take COVID-19 seriously, they will get no disagreement from me. I am approaching 60 years of age and have many of the comorbidities associated with negative health outcome with this disease. I take precautions with this disease and dread getting it (although I suspect I had it in March 2020). But when folks from their hospital rooms compare COVID-19 to the flu in the way they do, they leave the impression than nobody is hospitalized or dies from influenza. They make it sound like influenza is “just a cold.” They are doing exactly what they are accusing others of doing: downplaying the seriousness of disease and not listening to the science. The fact is that, across the nation, for decades, people have been hospitalized and died from influenza. Since they are so fond of anecdotes, for that person, how is COVID-10 worse? Completely missing from the news reports are all those who have been injured, sickened, or died from the vaccine. Are there no injured or sickened persons who regret taking the vaccine?
We know that, as of July 22, 2021, from the onset of the pandemic, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), about 4.13 million children have tested positive for COVID-19. The AAP believes the number of reported COVID-19 cases in children likely is an undercount because children’s symptoms often are mild, and they may not be tested for every illness. Based on CDC extrapolations, the range is probably at least 18-20 million cases of juvenile COVID-19. But even that is likely an undercount, as the metric is based on all ages. Since children are much less likely to experience symptoms, the factor is certainly greater. This is a good thing, since it means that herd immunity is building among the very young, and since this virus is not going away, that will put them in good shape for the future. This benefits all of us. I anticipate the response of some readers: you would have us build herd immunity to a deadly virus on the backs of children.
How many children have died from COVID-19? I did a deep dive on this back in May (A Moral Panic. A Year Later) and found that, for the entire period of COVID-19 to that point, 287 people aged 0-17 had died where COVID-19 was listed on the death certificate. I hasten to add that we know that rarely is COVID-19 the only factor in a death. Indeed, it is more often a case of death with COVID-19 than from COVID-19. Most of the cases presented with significant comorbidities. Associated comorbidities were diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. Want to protect kids from disease? Take on the food industry and demand the government provide resources for parents to properly feed and exercise their children. Where among progressives is the mass hysteria over corporations engineering food that make children sick? Probably in the same place as the hysteria over corporations engineering medicine that make children sick.
What is it for the flu? Keep in mind that the CDC measures flu seasons. They don’t run together multiple seasons. It would be horrifying if they did. Well, it’s horrifying enough: CDC estimates of the burden of illness during the 2017–2018 season are 48.8 million sick with influenza, 959,000 hospitalizations, and 79,400 deaths. The number of deaths from the flu could have been as high as 95 thousand. But let’s go ahead and make it it comparable to the way COVID-19 is being reported. If we combine 2017-2018 stats with those from the previous year, the number of cases rises to 86.8 million cases (more than 100 million top-end estimate), more than 1.4 million hospitalizations (maybe as many as 2.3 million), and around 117 thousand deaths—top end estimate as many as 156 thousand. These numbers didn’t warrant mandatory vaccination, biweekly testing, and masks? Influenza was deadly to as many 156 thousand Americans 2016-2018.
To be sure, there were more deaths under COVID-19 than influenza during a comparable period. But we have to come back to this: for whom is COVID-19 more deadly? That is what you need to know for rational and evidence-based risk assessment and public policy. The CDC estimated 11.5 million cases of influenza in children for the 2017-2018 seasons, with more than 48,000 hospitalizations for the flu, and 643 deaths for children aged 0-17. For 2016-17, there were 251 deaths for children aged 0-17. That’s a combined 894 juvenile influenza deaths. That is more than three times the deaths from COVID-19. And given that the estimates of juvenile influenza are much lower than for COVID-19, the rate of death from influenza is much higher than for COVID-19. Why aren’t health authorities aggressively pushing the influenza vaccine for children?
The evidence clearly indicates that the influenza burden and the rates of influenza-associated hospitalization are much greater for the young compared to COVID-19. Juvenile hospitalization and death rates are much higher for influenza than for COVID-19. (You risk being censored on social media for stating this fact.) Where was the demand for mandatory vaccination, biweekly testing, and masks in public schools for influenza all these years? Where was the moral panic over influenza? Where were the teachers and their unions with their apocalyptic scenarios? What changed?
* * *
Must watch program from this morning. Dr. Robert Malone and Peter Navarro weigh in on the risks on the virus and how authoritarian rule is burying truth.
Evidence-based, research-based—this is what I am all about here on Freedom and Reason. So it is alarming to see how little progressives and their corporate think-masters think or really care about science. More than this, they attack those who really do think and care about science. If you criticize public policy, which is what a citizen is supposed to do in a free society, even if you support vaccination as a general rule, you are tagged an “anti-vaxxer.”
The facts are very clear: the corporate state establishment has established a vast propaganda network that promulgates big lie campaigns and cancels and marginalizes citizens who resist them.
The media told us the reason COVID-19 cases were dropping was because of the vaccine. This is why we have to be vaccinated. But the fact pattern indicates that the decline in cases began when zero percent of the population was vaccinated and began to rise again as the number of those vaccinated approached 50 percent (see the chart below). The vaccine narrative is a big lie. A big shifting lie. And not a noble lie as some are saying.
The official experts told the public that that the reason to get vaccinated is to reach herd immunity so we can go back to some degree of normalcy. This narrative has always been unscientific, not only because the most pushed vaccines (mRNA therapy) do not effectively confer immunity, but also because the narrative excludes from herd immunity thresholds (which Fauci is always changing) those who have already had the virus, this despite the fact that having the virus confers lasting and effective immunity from COVID-19.
If the authorities actually cared about herd immunity they would have at least performed antibodies tests on all those seeking vaccines and, if they tested positive for antibodies, excluded them from what are in fact trials of experimental vaccines, vaccines that carry a great number of serious other effects, as well as injuries and even death.
But the so-called experts were never really concerned with establishing the facts concerning COVID-19 infection as a means for rational policymaking. They were only concerned with getting people to take shots. The reason for this was twofold: corporate profits and government control. Pfizer is pleased. It’s earnings are way up. The government is pleased. Americans are living in terror and suspicious of their neighbors. Your tax dollars and a fear campaign made all this possible.
“Thank you, Sir. May I have another?”
Whatever their efficacy, the vaccines were unnecessary and very likely counterproductive. Using the CDC metric for estimating infections, more than 170 million people in the United States have had COVID-19. In other words, half of the population has already had COVID-19 and are now immune from the disease.
Because we achieved herd immunity without the vaccine, cases began sharply dropping after January 8 (the day we reached the peak number of cases). By late June, cases had fallen to close to an 11,000 7-day rolling daily average from more than 250,000 7-day rolling daily average in early January 2021.
Today, as vaccination approaches half the population, we no longer see cases falling. We see cases rising, And they are rising rapidly (see above). We are now at a 7-day rolling daily average of more than 66,000 cases. There were more than 100,000 cases reported on July 27 alone. The experts are telling us to mask up again. Yes, even the vaccinated should mask up. Indeed, it seems that especially the vaccinated should mask up. So much for the claim that vaccination would return us to normalcy.
In the face of facts it could not dissimulate, or that are perhaps strategically useful, the Ministry of Truth has shifted the narrative. Now the main reason to get vaccinated is to reduce the severity of the illness. (I write about this, scientism, and the problem with mRNA technology in my recent blog Anthony Fauci’s Noble Lying.) But this narrative was immediately troubled by the fact that those who have been vaccinated can get and transmit the virus. Worse, vaccinated people can get sick, go to the hospital, and die. The director of the CDC, Rochelle P. Walensky, estimates that around ten percent of those who are vaccinated will be infected if exposed to the virus.
The Orwellian rationalization for these facts is “breakthrough cases,” said to be a term of art in the field. The term of art is a cover for the truth that blows up the big lie. The truth is that these vaccines were unnecessary and very likely counterproductive. Bell’s palsy, clotting blood, Grave’s disease, Guillain-Barré syndrome, myocarditis, pericarditis, and even death, are just some of the consequences of these vaccines.
And now there is evidence in practice of what scientists warned us about years ago, that vaccines are driving mutations that lead to new and potentially more virulent variants. You may have thought Fauci dropped a bomb on Chris Hayes’ show when he told his host that those with the Pfizer vaccine have the same viral load as the unvaccinated. Dr. Robert Malone, the invert of the mRNA technology tells us that actually the viral loads are probably higher in the vaccinated. These gene therapies are turning people into virus factories.
This is why authorities are telling the public mask up again. The House of Representatives is reinstating its mask mandate in the wake of the shift in guidance from the Centers from the CDC. The media is reporting that a White House press representative was seen swapping a sign saying people are required to wear masks if unvaccinated with new sign saying masks are required regardless of vaccination status. They are also calling for medical-grade masks this time.
These authorities foisted all this on the nation. They should come out and level with the nation. We could have been through this thing months ago if governments had not locked down society and instead allowed healthy adults and children go about their daily lives. Half of the country contracted the virus virus despite the lockdowns. All the lockdowns did was delay herd immunity. In other words, most people were going to get this virus, the government just made it so it took longer to get there.
But readers of this blog know that I have been saying this all along. Way back on April 14, 2020, I blogged this Future Containment of COVID-19: Have Authorities Done the Right Thing? In that blog I write: “I fear the authorities who claim to know best have made a terrible mistake. In the absence of an effective vaccine (or any vaccine at all) for SARS-CoV-2, they have prevented the population from developing widespread immunity to the virus, what we call ‘herd immunity’ (or ‘herd protection’). Since this virus is now part of the seasonal mix (that’s right, it’s not going away), this means that the same situation experienced this spring will be re-experienced in the future. If we had to lockdown on account of this virus this time, that is, if the lockdown were necessary, then we will have to lockdown again next time. But we won’t. This suggests that not only was the lockdown unnecessary, but that the whole exercise was counterproductive to the ends of reducing future outbreaks of the virus.”
“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.” Remember these words from George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four? Watching cops as weeping victims after months of cops as racist killers. With whom is Oceania now at war?
What do I think about Pelosi’s hand-picked committee? I would like get an explanation for why police officers were letting protestors into the Capitol building that day. I would like to know the identity of the man who killed Ashli Babbitt. I would like to know if and how many FBI agents were involved in the planning and execution of the riot (The Michigan Kidnapping Plot and January 6—Is There a Connection?). But Pelosi’s committee is a staged propaganda event to manufacture a lie that the threat to the republic is populist-nationalism and not the globalism the establishment promotes. Having twice failed to remove the President via impeachment, the establishment is reduced to making mountains out of molehills.
I’m a law and order guy. Those who committed violence on that day and broke the law should be punished. I’ve always said this. (The Relative Ethics of Occupying Capitol Buildings.) But getting to the bottom of those acts is the work of ordinary police work, not a 9-11 style government inquiry. January 6 was not the work of a grand conspiracy—at least not by the majority of those who were arrested in the wake of those events. The rabble was overcome by a moment of passion. And while I do not condone law breaking, I understand their passion. Besides, if their goal was to stop the certification of Electoral College votes Biden as president, then their actions had the opposite effect. And that does make me suspicious.
As I reported on Freedom and Reason, most of those who entered the Capitol building who have been charged (presently 510 individuals) have been charged with rather minor offenses (because their offenses were rather minor), but you wouldn’t know it by the draconian measures thrown at them. Participants are being held in solitary confinement in Washington D.C.’s city jail. The justification for “restrictive housing” for the accused was promoted as a safety measure. They are now alone in a cell for 23 hours as day. This is not pretrial detention. This is action designed to make minor offenses appear serious. And it is torture.
A big giveaway to Pelosi’s idea behind all of this is the selection to the panel of Liz Cheney, a well-known neoconservative establishment figure. She represents the Bush-Cheney warmongering side of the Republicans. These people are snakes (see War Hawks and the Ugly American). And while Pelosi is keeping Republicans with integrity off the panel, the panel she created is allowing dramatic liars to “testify.”
Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn states that Officer Brian Sicknick "died from injuries sustained" on January 6th, though the DC medical examiner found that it was natural causes. pic.twitter.com/kmvH7MdylO
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) July 27, 2021
The threat to the American republic is not those Americans who throw their support behind Trump and his ilk. They are a threat to the establishment that threatens the future of the American republic. Whatever you think of conservatives, the enemy of your enemy is your friend.
Don’t you wish you could take this class? This is what my students are reflecting on next week in Freedom and Social Control (Democracy and Justice Studies, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay):
What are Max Weber’s views on politics, the state, and violence? Why, according to Weber, is capitalism different from previous societal systems? What is the Protestant Ethic? What is its logic? According to Weber’s rationalization thesis, what is distinctive to Western society and increasingly dominating the world? What did Weber mean when he described modern bureaucratic society as an “iron cage” or a “steel casing”? What role does the Protestant Ethic play in all this?
There is a reading in this module by George Ritzer, “Ritzer McDonaldization and its Precursors” that discusses rationalization and the Holocaust. This is the reading associated with Zygmunt Bauman and his history of the Holocaust, which depends a great deal on Weber’s analysis, which I covered in the lecture on irrationality, authoritarianism, and war. Ritzer organizes his argument with four principles of rationalization: efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control. This helps to understand Frederick Taylor and scientific management.
Many social theorists posit that these irrational and freedom-suppressing developments are inherent in a capitalist system, whether its form is liberal or state capitalist. This was Weber’s position. This view is reflected in the scholars associated with the Frankfurt School discussed in lecture: Walter Benjamin, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Franz Neumann, and Herbert Marcuse. Be familiar with these ideas. They would make for an interesting reflection essay.
Related to the previous paragraph, what is the connection between bureaucracy, corporatism, and fascism? For instance, what is the relationship between authoritarian capitalism and war? What does Benjamin say about this? I discuss the work of Sheldon Wolin’s in his landmark work Democracy Inc. What is the difference between totalitarianism and inverted totalitarianism? Be able to recognize C. Wright Mills and his notion of The Power Elite.
One view especially emphasized in lecture is that of Erich Fromm, who distinguished between negative and positive freedom, describing the causes of and nature of the “escape from freedom” that plagues liberal societies, manifesting itself in authoritarianism and fascism. Be familiar with Fromm’s argument. A reflection essay connecting this to the first module and then discussing the various things from the previous paragraphs would make for an interesting reflection essay.
And you thought I was a crazy conspiracy theorist. But, really, I’m just a run-of-the-mill sociologist. If you didn’t learn this sort of stuff from your sociology teachers, then you were cheated.
Here’s what students are reflecting on this week:
George Orwell wrote two novels that are widely read and serve as powerful critiques of totalitarianism. Animal Farm is a fable that works as an allegory. What group do the animals represent? What group do humans represent? Who does Old Major represent? What is his argument? How do Napoleon, Snowball, and Squealer develop his ideas into a complete system of thought? Who does Napoleon likely represent? Snowball is almost certain which historical figure? What methods do the pigs use to control the other animals? Who is mollie and what does she represent? What does it mean that, at the end, the other animals cannot tell the pigs apart from the humans?
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell tells the story of a terrifying dystopia in which the West is organized under a socialist government where thought and knowledge are centrally controlled by the Party. Although you may not have read this book, your teacher summarizes it in a video lecture. What are the four ministries that run society? Why do they carry names that represent the opposite of what they actually do? What is the significance of “2+2=5”? Why is it do important to control the telling of history? Why is it so important to control language?
Edward Bernays is famous for developing the concept the “engineering of consent.” Walter Lippmann also identified the concept, calling it “manufacturing consent.” What do they believe about democracy? According to Noam Chomsky, the actual functions of the mass media are to control of the masses through the systematic use of propaganda and persuade people to consume more goods and services sold by business. But it does more than that. What else is propaganda for? What are the “filters” in Noam Chomsky’s propaganda model? What do we mean when we say there is a “media monopoly”?
Mississippi’s argument against abortion concerns viability. People have long argued about how such a thing is or could be determined. But viability is a red herring. The real issue is right to life in tandem with personal liberty. No person has an absolute right to life. It depends on the circumstances. Break into my house at night and see whether I recognize your right to life. On second thought, don’t. ‘Cause I certainly disrespect your right to life.
In other words, don’t be confused about what it as stake here. This is not about life. This is about freedom. Without that, is life really worth living? The paramount right is that of a woman to not be used as an incubator against her will. If women do not have the right to refuse to be or remain hooked up to another person in order to keep that person alive, then women are not considered fully human. Government or corporate control over reproduction is the paradigm of tyranny.
I have written several essays on this topic. Here are some previous entries so you can better understand my argument.
In The Fetus is a Person. Now What? (2008), I lean on Judith Jarvis Thomson “A Defense of Abortion” (Philosophy & Public Affairs, Fall 1971) to argue that advocating state control over women’s bodies is incompatible with the principles of liberty underlying the legal and moral order necessary for a free society. The pro-life position has no reasonable justification for its advocacy for tyranny.
April 2013, I write in Abortion is Really About Freedom, “The question of the permissibility of abortion is not about the status fetus but the right of a woman (or any person) to determine what purposes her body is used for, presuming she is not a slave (and if she it, she must be liberated).” And this: “Personal autonomy is the first right—every person must be free from oppression. Life can be and often is sacrificed to preserve this right. If a woman cannot determine how her body is used, she is not free.”
In Liberty is America’s raison d’être. Preserving Reproductive Freedom for the Sake of the Republic (2020), I contend that the desire to control a woman’s reproductive capacity stands condemned for its double standard. Advocates of restrictions would never willingly agree to a regime that commandeered men’s bodies to exploit their organs for the sake of exclusively preserving individual life. That it is so easy for so many to disregard the personal sovereignty of women suggests a stealth misogyny, one masquerading as empathy for the fetus. It’s the worst form of objectification, for it denies the woman’s humanity.
Before reading this blog, I recommend you read this July 21 blog, On Herd Immunity, Establishment Disinformation, and Gain-of-Function. There you will learn about several recent development that inform the present blog. I have written many things on the coronavirus, but one other entry bears considerable interest in light of the present blog, Some Virus Did Something. There, in the early days of the pandemic, I prepare readers to detect the presence of the corporate state project to amass wealth and subdue popular uprising against technocratic control by exposing the Orwellian function of war metaphors. In conjunction with the present entry, that April 2020 blog is useful in showing how propaganda tactics evolve. Now, there is a vaccine and the unvaccinated and those who criticize vaccines have become the enemies. But with vaccines failing to live up to their hype, and, moreover, the growing list of their negative effects—Bell’s palsy, clotting blood, Grave’s disease, Guillain-Barré syndrome, myocarditis, pericarditis, and even death—the narrative is evolving again.
The Associated Press headline, “Fauci says US headed in ‘wrong direction’ on coronavirus,” provides an opportunity to make an important observation: The US is indeed headed in the wrong direction on coronavirus and Fauci is the tip of the spear. The truth of the matter is that, from the git-go, world leaders, governed by corporate power and not the people who suffer that power, took the wrong path. We should never have locked down. We should never have masked up. We should never have suppressed therapeutics. We should never have put our hopes in a vaccine. We should have never hesitated for a second to investigate China and the Wuhan Lab, or Dr. Anthony Fauci and the US National Institute of Health and Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Challenges to these errors haven’t gone away (they are growing) and the establishment, faced with mounting evidence that the vaccines don’t work, is desperately trying to save the project.
We are in the witch hunt phase of the moral panic (see my Priming for Control: How Mass Psychology is Used to Transform Lifeworlds; Panic and Paranoia Deaden Humanity and Sabotage Its Future; A Moral Panic. A Year Later). The Seattle Times goes after physician Joesph Mercola, whom the dark money funded pro-industry outlet Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) declared in their report public enemy number one (the White House is using the CCDH hit piece to persecute experts who challenge the industry narrative). The Seattle Times accuses Mercola of saying that the injections do not prevent infections. Nor do they provide immunity or stop transmission of the disease, he is accused of saying. The Seattle Times tells us that these “assertions were easily disprovable.” Only we are now being told that the injections do not in fact prevent infections, provide immunity or stop transmission of the disease. Apparently the Seattle Times didn’t get the memo that the propaganda message has shifted. The propaganda machine is vast and, however nimble it can be, there are still true believer outfits that fall behind.
The new message is to pretend that Big Pharma was saying these things all along. Therefore, those who tell you tell you things are trying to make something out of nothing. The Seattle Times also goes after Mercola for saying that the shots “alter your genetic coding, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch.” But that’s what mRNA technology does. They’ve been saying this all along, too. The inventor of mRNA platform himself, Dr. Robert Malone, is warning people that these vaccines were rushed and the side effects that are making people very sick and even killing them were unavoidable. He hopes next generation product addresses the problem of the toxic effects of the spike protein the mRNA technology teaches your cells to produce. But in the meantime, there is no good reason for most people to get the shot. Indeed, there are a lot of good reasons for not taking the shot. Malone tells us that, for sure, these shots will not get us to herd immunity because the shots are not designed to do that. No T-cell memory. No antibodies. Again, the shots were only designed to train cells to produce a toxic protein in the hope that this would reduce the risk of severe illness from COVID-19. But the shots don’t do that, either. The Seattle Times, by treating the telling of a simple fact as the work of somebody who wants his audience to believe a terrible thing about the Pfizer shot telegraphs the terrible thing about the Pfizer shot: that it will “alter your genetic coding, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch.”
As I reported in my previous blog on this topic, after terrifying the public into getting injected with the experimental mRNA technology, so-called “breakthrough cases” started popping up everywhere. As I explained there, this is the rationalization covering cases where a fully vaccinated person is infected with the virus. We now know that breakthrough cases are hardly rare. CNBC is compelled to report that “Israel says Pfizer Covid vaccine is just 39% effective as delta spreads,” while hastening to add “but still prevents severe illness.” We were told that these vaccines were over 90 percent effective against the virus (Israel led the cheerleading with that statistic, you may recall), leading the public to believe that the vaccine was highly effective in conferring immunity, and that therefore they could go about their daily lives again (now states are preparing to mask up the vaccinated).
CNBC assures its readers, the vaccine “still works very well in preventing people from getting seriously sick, demonstrating 88% effectiveness against hospitalization and 91% effectiveness against severe illness, according to the Israeli data.” What CNBC fails to tell readers is that the vast majority of people who contract SARS-CoV-2 will also never develop serious illness nor be hospitalized. CNBC can leave out this important fact knowing that more than 40 percent of US progressives believe COVID-19 puts half of those who get in the hospital and a majority of British citizens and residence believe COVID-19 has killed ten percent of those who contracted the virus. This is lying by omission to a gullible audience. It’s shocking (not really) to learn that those who tell me to “believe in the science” can be counted among those possessing the same quality of mind progressives mock for believing in the devil (except many of the latter aren’t stepping up to participate in a reckless and sloppy mass experiment).
The public is now being told that no authorities ever claimed those who were vaccinated were immune from the disease or wouldn’t wind up in the hospital. According to Dr. Malone, the Pfizer and Moderna technology was never tested for efficacy to infection and transmission (the government told Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., there were never any studies on human safety at all). These shots were only designed to reduce the severity of illness—they believed. Moreover, the technology was rushed to market. They knew that the spike protein the recipient’s cells are taught to manufacture is a toxin (which is why the technology is sickening so many people) but they jabbed people with it anyway and have now pushed the experiment down to twelve-year-olds. They have so manipulated the public that progressive moms are frantically asking when their infants can be jabbed. And please don’t forget that the misleading messaging surrounding vaccines has made those who received the shot believe they are immune when, in fact, not only risk contracting the virus, but they risk spreading it to others. Those who cannot get vaccinated (for example, those who suffer from autoimmune disorders) are thus put at risk by vaccinated people who think they can’t catch and transmit the virus. Don’t kill grandma!
Skyhorse publishing (the same publisher that published a new edition of The Communist Manifesto with yours truly penning the Introduction), is out with a book by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. Kennedy knows as much on this subject as anybody and, crucially, operates from a critical populist framework that puts the interests of people ahead corporate profits. Our democracy and our freedom depend on people understanding the problem of regulatory capture, technocracy, and corporate governance, and acting on this understanding.
From The Real Anthony Fauci web page:
When the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since November 1984 and the leading architect of “agency capture”—the corporate seizure of America’s public health agencies by the pharmaceutical industry—happen to be the same man, conflicts of interest arise. Wearing both hats, Dr. Anthony Stephen Fauci, tasked with managing the COVID-19 pandemic in the US, peddled and back-pedaled his prescriptions as Pharma profits and bureaucratic powers grew and public health waned.
Working in tandem with his long-term partner, billionaire Bill Gates, to corral Americans toward a single vaccine solution to COVID, Dr. Fauci committed zero dollars to studying or promoting early treatment with various drug combinations that could dramatically reduce deaths and hospitalizations. Meanwhile, in an assault on our First Amendment guarantee of free speech, Dr. Fauci’s Silicon Valley and media allies dutifully censored criticism of his policies on mainstream social media and collaborated to muzzle any medical information about therapies and treatments that might end the pandemic and compete with vaccines.
After effectively abolishing the First Amendment right to free speech, Dr. Fauci subverted our Seventh Amendment rights to jury trials by arranging to shield reckless and negligent pharmaceutical corporations from liability for injuries from any COVID countermeasures, including vaccines. His lockdowns targeted First Amendment religious freedom by closing churches—while keeping liquor stores open as “essential businesses”—and abolishing century-old religious exemptions to vaccination. Dr. Fauci’s enforced quarantine trampled the Constitutional rights of assembly, of association, and to petition the government, and our Fifth Amendment protection against uncompensated taking of private property. His arbitrary mask and lockdown diktats, without public hearings or rulemaking, strangled our Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment due process guarantees. His tracking and tracing initiatives bulldozed Constitutional rights to privacy and travel, and our Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless searches and seizures.
Finally, readers will see how Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates, asserting biosecurity rationales, worked together to finance and promote the very gain-of-function experiments in Wuhan that may have released the COVID-19 pathogen.
We have arrived at what Sheldon Wolin, in his terrific book Democracy, Inc., calls “inverted totalitarianism.” You must share this information. Please tell your family, friends, and neighbors about this book and about my blog. Tell them about Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA platform (these faux-vaccines that are sickening people). He appeared on Steve Bannon’s War Room Pandemic yesterday (with Kennedy) and blew everyone away. I am sharing the podcast below. People need to know. Don’t believe the corporate propagandists. Follow the science. Follow the money.
Episode 1,120 – Dirty Dozen: The 12 Most Dangerous People in America Pt. 1
Episode 1,121 – Dirty Dozen: The 12 Most Dangerous People in America Pt. 2
The fallacious character of the argument is striking. It’s textbook appeal to authority. It’s also misinformation. It’s hardly a “couple of discredited doctors” pointing out the problems with the vaccine and public policy about COVID-19. It’s doctors and scientists who are not driving the corporate gravy train. And that is a lot of experts. But, yeah, so expertise matters. And that is why you should come to Freedom and Reason and read my blog. I am a scientist with a PhD who understands demographics, epidemiology, and statistical inference. So when you question whether I should write about COVID-19 as somebody who is not an expert on infectious diseases, please know that, chances are, you are hardly in a position to really know who I should listen to. You said so yourself.
Somebody already conveyed the spirit of this post in a fraction of the words. Social influencer, Ethan Siegel, in a discussion about why we should just trust Fauci and the CDC put it like this, “Don’t Even Think About It Bro.” Now that’s a meme. What is so sad about all this is how many people will read the post and think, “Yep, that’s me, Average Citizen. I don’t know jack shit. I don’t even have the capacity to figure out shit for myself. Please tell me what to do.” I call that cerebral hygiene. This is the religion of the progressive: scientism. It leaves you with just believing the authority who agrees with you. That is what confirmation bias really looks like. Like all those people who for decades couldn’t believe the Catholic Church—and the congregants, politicians, and police who enabled the church—would lie about pedophile priests. Consider how massive that conspiracy was.
I will leave you with a few memes. A little heaven and hell:
On October 11, 2020, in a blog titled Antifa and the Boogaloos: Condemning Political Violence Left and Right, I included reporting on the Michigan kidnapping plot. Recall that the Justice Department alleges that, over several months in 2020, members of the extremist group Wolverine Watchmen plotted and trained to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer and put her on trial for tyranny. Authorities arrested the plotters before any part of the plan was executed. The men also discussed storming the Michigan capitol and taking politicians hostage. This is an important detail.
It is now being reported that the FBI allegedly used at least twelve informants in the Michigan kidnapping case, associates of that agency thus making up a majority of the plotters. Defense attorneys are crying entrapment, arguing that the FBI “induced or persuaded” the defendants to go along with kidnapping plot. If you are familiar with how the FBI works, it is not surprising that the plot was organized by or at least with the help of the FBI. The agency justifies developing apparent inchoate offenses to ostensibly disrupt the plans of domestic terrorists. There are hundreds of instances of the FBI doing this. The agency sees it as its job to have ears to the rails to hear approaching trains. (One may reasonably ask whether the practice gives the agency cover to run operations against political opponents.)
The mob at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, January 6, 2021.
I am not here to interrogate the Michigan case. Rather the case compels me to ask a more immediate question: How is it possible that, only a few months before the events of January 6, when a mob that included members of right wing extremists breeched the US Capitol Building at the nation’s Capitol (“A republic, if you can keep it”; A Peaceful Transition of Political Power), the very agency involved in hatching a plot that included plans to storm the Michigan capitol could be caught so flatfooted? No ears to rails for this train? Are we seriously expected to believe that January 6 was an intelligence failure?
At most, only one-tenth of Capitol arrestees can be classified as supporters of militias or militia-like groups such as the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters (“A New Kind of American Radicalism”: The Campaign to Portray Ordinary America as Deviant and Dangerous). Presumably Nancy Pelosi’s commission will show that a handful of organized extremists instigated the breaching of the Capitol building. However, especially considering her rejection of Jim Jordan to sit on the commission (an action prompting House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to pull all of his choices from the panel), one question that probably won’t be addressed is how many FBI informants were involved in the planning of the events on January 6. Not only would the FBI face charges of incompetence and illegitimacy as an intelligence organization for failing to thwart the breech that day, but they might also be implicated in it.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, decided to create a select committee to investigate the January 6 riot Senate Republicans filibustered a bipartisan bill to set up an outside commission.
What is the point of Pelosi’s commission? I grasp the importance of January 6 to the propaganda campaign to paint populist-nationalism as the greatest threat to American and marginalize those who question Joe Biden’s legitimacy as president. This is what was behind the Democrat’s (second) failed attempt to convict Donald Trump. Will the committee, in the context of a spectacle portraying January 6 as a Trump-inspired insurrection, cover up FBI involvement in it? (See also Cancelling Half the Nation: Progressives Reach for One-Party Rule.)
Far from attempting to preventing certification of the election, the riot instead stopped the process of interrogating state certifications, a process that would have returned the matter to the states, where there is clear evidence of election irregularities (see the Navarro Report). Is it not obvious that the establishment needs to raise the profile of a particular narrative of January 6 to distract from the November 3 movement to get to the bottom of the 2020 election? November 3 is what the Congress should be investigating. Where is that commission?
Will we learn the truth of Ashli Babbitt’s death at the hands of a gunman inside the Capitol? Who killed Babbitt? (To learn more about Babbitt see (“A republic, if you can keep it”; A Peaceful Transition of Political Power.) Will we learn the truth about what happened to Officer Brian Sicknick? We know that he was not killed on January 6. How did he die?
Sorry to wax all scientific but it is a well known fact that herd immunity is not only achieved through vaccination; it is also achieved by getting the virus. Indeed, for most of human history, this was how immunity worked (it still works this way). When the technocracy tells you that—oh, horror—less than half the population is fully vaccinated, what its authorized experts aren’t telling you is that a large proportion of the population has immunity from having had the virus. If you look at the data trends, you cannot miss the fact that case numbers peaked on January 8 and began declining drastically at a moment when zero percent of the population was fully vaccinated and only two percent had had at least on dose. Remember, it takes weeks for immunity to set it. In other words, the same effect would have been achieved without the vaccine.
The way the experiment was rolled out, and this is a problem going forward, a confound was introduced in that many of those who have had the virus also got vaccinated. How did this happen? A textbook case of misinformation that somehow social media let through the filter: because public health authorities effectively changed the definition of herd immunity, they led the public to believe that, whether people had had this virus or not, they needed to be vaccinated. The propaganda push led to millions of people being unnecessarily injected with experimental corporate products. This push was facilitated by workplace rules and social coercion.
If we really wanted to get a sense of where we were on herd immunity, then we would take all those who had a positive test, separate out those who were vaccinated after infection, and then perform antibodies tests on those who have neither been vaccinated nor had a positive test. A representative national sample of willing participants would suffice to draw the inference. The best time to have done this was last year. But since we didn’t do that, the best time to do this is right now. With emergency use authorization, we are (in many cases involuntarily or without informed consent) participating in arguably the sloppiest experiment ever conducted.
All this presumes the technocrats actually care about science rather than corporate profits. Concern for science may have been the case when we had a functioning democratic republic (although corporate power has always been a complicating factor). But in the era of regulatory capture and corporate governance, the public can go fuck itself. And if citizens take issue with that, they can expect censorship, deplatforming, discipline, and ridicule.
* * *
Mika Brzezinski of the Morning Joe program told her audience that the unvaccinated are getting the vaccinated sick. You may have thought the reason to get vaccinated was so you won’t get sick. Think again. Now you are being told that the vaccinated can get sick. Vaccine defenders say that these are only a small number of “breakthrough cases.” But there are quite a lot of stories about vaccinated people getting sick. Vaccine defenders will stipulate with this claim: but they don’t wind up in the hospital. Actually, they do.
NBC Chicago affiliate recently carried the headline “‘Really Surprising’: Vaccinated Chicago Man Who Got COVID After Vacation Warns Others.” The story begins with Robert Coy, a young man who had had been fully vaccinated for months and decided to go on vacation with friends. “It was one of those things where, you know, we’ve been going out to places now at that point, maybe for a week or two, but we were able to take off masks, rejoin society, the CDC guidelines kept getting looser and looser and looser.” Coy and his friends vacationed in Provincetown, Massachusetts, where, it seems, they acquired COVID-19.
Provincetown officials confirmed recent spike in cases, particularly involving fully vaccinated people. Town Manager Alex Morse wrote on Facebook Sunday: “Overwhelmingly, the affected individuals have been fully vaccinated for COVID-19.” Morse tried to save the narrative with: “The moderate intensity of symptoms indicates that the vaccines are working as predicted.” But this is true even for the unvaccinated. COVID-19 is mild to moderate in the vast majority of people who get it, regardless of whether they have been vaccinated.
“It’s like a really nasty cold,” Coy said. “You’ll get a bit of a cough, maybe, and you just feel tired and it’s not fun, but I will say it’s definitely a lot less severe than I would have expected.” Why would he have expected anything different? As I reported in “‘Whatever that number is’: Vaccine Hesitancy, Common Sense, and Stigmatizing Christians,” a poll found that 41 percent of Democrats believed that half or more of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 would be hospitalized. Like tens of millions, Coy was misled. The NBC-Chicago story fails to correct the record. NBC-Chicago cannot be ignorant of the fact that the vast majority of people are either asymptomatic or experience mild cold symptoms, fully recover, and acquire lasting immunity.
NBC’s national bureau is reporting that fully vaccinated can become seriously ill and hospitalized. Like the Chicago bureau, they try to save the narrative with such claims as “Fully vaccinated people who become seriously ill following breakthrough infections tend be older or have serious medical conditions.” But, again, this is true for the unvaccinated. Healthy children and adults almost never developed serious medical conditions after acquiring the virus. The public would know this had those voices telling the truth about this virus had not been censored or deplatformed.
If the vaccine were as effective as the authorized experts claim (I will stipulate that Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA concoctions are vaccines for the sake of the point), then you would expect a young man to not experience these symptoms. Even unvaccinated, he would likely not have experienced these symptoms (yet he and his young friends—all vaccinated—experienced the same symptoms). What’s the difference, then? Had he not had the vaccine, that would have been his inoculation and he would not have risked blood clots, Guillain-Barré syndrome, myocarditis, pericarditis, and the myriad of other health problems (including death) associated with the vaccines. To be sure, there are risks from the virus. But you may or may not get the virus. If you get the vaccine, then for sure you expose yourself to these risks.
Remember, these gene therapies and vaccines are being administered despite not enjoying FDA approval because the pharmaceutical companies who invented them having been given emergency use authorization to distribute them. We might grant that there is a need for emergency use authorization for the very old and those with comorbidities that put them at risk for serious illness. But there is no emergency for those who do not slot into these categories. Yet they have pushed injections of these products down to 12-year-olds. They have plans before the fall is out to push the vaccines down to 6-month-olds. There is no emergency among these populations.
Does getting influenza or the flu vaccine mean you never get the flu again? No. You get the flu even with a vaccine developed for the strain of influenza that makes you sick. Cases of COVID-19 are rising again. Why? Because the vaccines don’t work? It could be that like all RNA virus, SARS-CoV-2 mutates (although the mutations do not appear to change the virus into something the immune system wouldn’t recognized). Welcome to the world you have always known. By all means let’s make the known world strange. For what purpose? So the media can announce a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” It sounds to me as if the efficacy of the vaccine is in question (or that it is not really a vaccine) and the vaccine pushers are demonizing the unvaccinated to distract the public from that fact—and shame the unvaccinated into taking these shots.
Let’s think through this logically. Assume the vaccinated can carry the virus. It is a safe assumption since clearly they can get sick. Some are even hospitalized. If the vaccinated can carry the virus, then they can infect other vaccinated people—and obviously unvaccinated people (unless, to a lesser extend, since they have had the virus, which confers immunity). This means that the vaccinated are getting the vaccinated and unvaccinated sick. A room full of vaccinated people is not a safe room to be in because any one or more of them could be carrying the virus—and any one of them can acquire the virus and get sick. Why are the vaccinated allowed to go around without masks if they can carry and transmit and contract the virus? Isn’t the vaccine really conferring a false sense of security rather than immunity to the coronavirus? I am not advocating masks. I am calling out bullshit.
* * *
Facebook didn’t appreciate being called a killer. Joe Biden clarified his remarks, saying he intended to shock Facebook and other social media platforms into censoring posts that contradicted the establishment narrative. He was, he insisted, calling on Big Tech to act. What does it mean for Big Tech to act? The corporations that control the means of communication should censor and deplatform those who post criticisms of corporate and government claims and practices. As open discourse is the lifeblood of democracy, it means that Biden is deeply illiberal in his attitudes towards freedom of thought and speech. In other words, the United States is governed by an authoritarian leader who was likely installed (of course, Biden isn’t governing anything, including his own mind).
In his rhetoric, Biden refers to a dozen people who are spreading disinformation about COVID-19 and the vaccine. Here is his source: The Disinformation Dozen: Why platforms must act on twelve leading online anti-vaxxers. The March 2021 report is published by the London-based propaganda outfit the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). Number one and two on the list are Joseph Mercola and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. You can read CCDH’s About page to get a sense of who they are. Note that the CCDH brags about employing behavioral psychologists to develop their manipulative messaging. Imran Ahmed is the founding CEO of the CCDH. His site elevates him to the status of “a recognized authority on the social and psychological dynamics of social media.” Recognized by who? I outrank him (I have a MA and a PhD). I don’t recognize him as an authority.
* * *
Watch the video above to see US Senator Rand Paul dismantle Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) with the National Institutions of Health (NIH). Fauci denies lying to Congress in previous testimony in which he dismissed NIH funding of gain-of-function research, but Senator Paul references the following article, “Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus,” in which efforts to produce “chimeric” coronaviruses, the fruit of gain-of-function experiments. The paper lists the NIH as a source of funding.
Gain-of-function research involves altering a pathogen to make it more transmissible in order to better predict emerging diseases. What would make a pathogen more transmissible in nature? Random mutation. Random means that something happens without method or conscious decision. So how does a methodical and conscious decision anticipate natural random mutation?
What are the odds of scientists predicting a natural random mutation? For example, in the creation of the Harvard mouse, what are the odds that a mouse with that genome would have appeared in nature? The answer is probably effectively zero. Does aybody really believe that something like SARS-CoV-2 would appear in nature after having been invented by researchers? Why would it need to? It has already been invented. Do they think we’re stupid? Yes. And a lot of us are.
Gain-of-function research isn’t to better predict emerging disease. People, they’re lying to us. Gain-of-function research is a method of inventing and manufacturing pathogens that are more transmissible so that the pathogens can be patented, giving corporations exclusive rights to products surrounding the pathogen which generate profits. For example, since the RNA sequence used to manufacture the virus would be known to vaccine manufacturers, inventing a pathogen allows for the rapid production of a vaccine. Of course, gain-of-function could also be bioweapons research. It functioned as both in the COVID-19 pandemic.
Imagine if the fruits of gain-of-function research were released and spread around the world and in less than a year vaccines appeared (while effective therapeutic were suppressed). You don’t have to imagine it. It appears to have happened. See, there is a trick to corporate profit. Corporations don’t wait for demand to form around an organic need for a response or solution to a problem. Corporations create the need by creating a problem.
Globalization and its attendant political-ideological system of globalism are disintegrating populations heretofore organized by nation-states to the detriment of individual freedom and human rights. Globalism seeks denationalization, promoting balkanization by encouraging the creation and restoration of subnational identity groups. Globalism is the antithesis of nationalism. Humanity ignores the problem of globalization at its peril.
Under the influence of globalism, there is a shift in emphasis from economics and individualism to ethnicity, gender, race, religion, and the myriad of other ways to divide populations. Globalist are opposed to assimilation, borders, and a common culture and language because they stand in opposition to individuals and the structures necessary to preserve and protect personal sovereignty and advance individual interests. Condemning assimilation and national culture as chauvinist and racist, globalists demand the free flow of non-Western populations into Western countries. This is the postmodern condition.
Over the last few decades populist-nationalist sentiment has emerged and resistance to globalization is growing. We see with it reaction to the postmodernism that has corrupted the cultural and social institutions of the West. The rise of nationalism has fractured the Republican Party, pushing the Party of Lincoln back to its roots as a populist democratic-republican movement. Nationalist are standing up in open forums at city council and school board meetings and demanding public institutions quit such divisive teachings as critical race theory and the 1619 project.
When proponents of globalism and multiculturalism warn in response that nationalism is (just) another form of tribalism, they are either confessing to ignorance of nationalism or engaged in deceit. Civic nationalism, which is the form of nationalism practiced across the West, is the antithesis of tribalism; a nation based on civic virtue detribalizes populations by liberating individuals from their identity-based associations, reincorporating them into a greater juridical-political unit that regards them equally alongside their fellow citizens without respect to group identity. The secular nation-state provides individuals with a common language and a common law that incorporates persons into a greater whole, treating people as individuals rather than personifications of identity groups. The secular nation-state rescues people from the backwardness of primitive social relations.
The problem lies in our nature. Homo sapiens is an animal species. Humans are social animals. Social animals are tribal by nature. It is in the nature of social animals to seek out those who resemble them, to find affinity and feel safety in identity, even in the variation of a species. Tribal organization in human populations is the reflection of this natural tendency in social behavior. But tribal organization is not conducive to human progress. Human tribes, like all animal tribes, exist in a state of nature. In a state of nature, there is no social development, only the chaos of natural history. In a state of nature, or at least on the continuum closer to it, humans have difficulty in creating and sustaining civilization because potential is constrained and intergroup conflict is continual.
As societies detribalize, human potential becomes available to a greater population. Ideas and resources are accessible to the many, and common understanding and cooperation allow for the rapid transmission and adoption of forward-leaning ideas, where humans organize or are organized beyond the tribal level. Detribalization diminishes or eliminates intergroup antagonism and conflict, stabilizing social relations across large culture areas. As world history makes obvious, the most advanced societies are those that are the most effective at alienating the individual from his instinct to organize along tribal lines. Citizens exist in a more advanced state than subjects.
The extent to which a population is detribalized predicts progress. Detribalization is a process of liberating individuals from backwardness and reintegrating them into a common sociocultural structure, a unified legal and political framework, and a shared language. Defending the nation-state from the disintegrating force of globalism is desirable because it preserves those institutions that promote the individualism necessary for the development and perpetuation of advanced civilization.
Not all nations are created equal in this regard. Across the globe, there is uneven development in cultural, economic, and social systems. Not every nation and region is as advanced as other nations and regions. It is the West that most aggressively promotes the individualism necessary for rapid expansion of science, technology, and the humanist values of liberalism and secularism. This is why the West must be defended against woke ideology.
Woke ideology is an expression of globalist desire. With its identitarian politics, the woke seek to return human populations to tribes, to fracture national populations into identity groups based on, among other things, skin color. The woke tell a history without progress in order to deny the power of nationalism in advancing the common interests of human beings. As such, globalism and multiculturalism are regressive developments, elements of a countermovement against the Enlightenment. Social justice advocates encourage individuals to give themselves over to tribal instincts, to see themselves in terms of skin color and other stigma.
Globalization is the force that is undermining the ability to maintain national structures. We are seeing, across the world, the continuation or return of tribalism where the state and law are weak or insufficiently liberal and secular. Globalization is weakening the state and the law. Corporations, innately illiberal structures, are feeding intertribal conflict—both organically and by design. Corporate power is transforming capitalism into something different. It is shifting the gears of social development in reverse. Transnationalization is a return to feudalism. The globalist desire is neofeudalist.
freedom and reason 