321 Comments
User's avatar
southern kiwi's avatar

Well said. I struggle to explain to my more conspiratorially minded friends that we are merely reaping the fruits of decades of societal decay.

Expand full comment
Rob Dubya's avatar

While we might not be friends, the fact that we are both here suggests that we probably could be if we knew each other personally. I say this because I am more conspiratorially minded than eugyppius and yourself. I completely agree with pretty much all of what is written here, but I just take it that extra step, that whether or not we are being intentionally driven to be more liberal and collectivist through popular culture (I believe this is utterly intentional), we are where we are because very powerful people are criminally conspiring to take advantage of the liberal, collectivist culture and the compliant nature that this culture permeates. I have spent some time in Southern New Zealand. It is my most favourite place on the planet, its such a shame what is happening to your country of all places.

Expand full comment
Ki's avatar

Agreed. Our cultural zeitgeist began this cycle in earnest in probably the late-60's free love revolution. For all the Christian warnings about slippery slope morals, here we are. Behind all of that however is a very powerful hand of puppet masters, that turns into a strangling claw via social media and captured news media and entertainment. People have feasted on a heavy diet of propaganda for the past twenty years, massively amped up in the last five. eugyppius is right, this is all here to stay and represents a deeper moral rot but I also think it's reaching a capitulation and awakening point that gives me great hope.

Expand full comment
ChesterView's avatar

I agree. It is all laid out very clearly in chapter 12 of “The Real Anthony Fauci”. The problem is that TRAF is a very thick, information dense book and there are probably very few people that make it that far (it is the last chapter).

Fortunately it is a relatively stand alone chapter and can be read profitably without having read the entire book. It is a revelation.

Expand full comment
CK's avatar

Everyone should really read this book, and look up some of the references. It's life changing.

Expand full comment
Satan's Doorknob's avatar

RFK Jr. makes some very serious accusations. There are hundreds of footnotes. While I admit I don't check media or Lexis/Nexis each day, to the best of my knowledge, no one has filed a defamation suit against him. As a seasoned attorney, RFK Jr. would be well aware of libel law. Also, the book apparently has been generally ignored by the mainstream media. Although this is just an impression, I feel that all the above says that RFK Jr. is speaking some very difficult truths about powerful, shadowy people and organizations, none of whom wish to even try and rebut him.

Expand full comment
InfoHog's avatar

And you are categorically excluding the possibility that some or much of that decay has been steered, too? I wonder then why so many of it seems to shoot in the same direction.

Granted, the hordes of useful idiots is a necessity - but they don't produce societal destruction in certain directions, from all angles, as an emergent effect. The tools are not the tool wielders. There is some degree of active exploitation of peoples' lower motivations (positive and negative), with psychological knowledge behind it.

Expand full comment
Gail Finke's avatar

This could be so, but it's equally possible that if you educate enough people the same way, they think the same things. And if part of that education is that they are uniquely perfect and correct people who SHOULD be in charge, and that they SHOULD make everyone do what they say because the only reasons not to are either ignorance or malevolence, then it doesn't matter if people trying to steer them are good or bad at it, because they are already all trying to do the same thing anyway.

Expand full comment
InfoHog's avatar

Yes. Certainly. (apologies for the many lines of mess, it's what I can manage now)

Btw, I'm not saying I'm sure about any of this and very aware of different tree sub-branches of how things could be & there necessarily being much speculation, from information fragments one can catch.

But where does the education, educating them "all the same way", come from? Does it *all* just organically evolve from "academics" who are exactly what they seem?

I had written this all off as "ideology" before, and certainly, at some rank level of this game, there is a lot of it.

If there are a bunch of people who literally own 90% of the world's wealth, though, and even more so if it's clear their gaming the sytem isn't sustainable, but would like to remain in power (and their offspring), do they seem the types to leave things to chance? "Gee, things really seem to go down the drain for our kind, I guess that's how things will go. Well, what can ya do. All of those billions. If only they could help somehow."

But, what if there are some "think tanks" of people with certain goals, who come up with ideas with e.g. societal degradation potential, and somehow relate them to "the academics", many of whom, in certain subjects, don't seem all that genius at all. But thankful for stuff they can use to "produce" some output & "justify" their positions - some of those things are sure ways to harness sucpetible/insecure/disadvantaged/more-heart-than-brains people - just the thing a grifter in a BS academic field needs. Maybe some such academics share the goals and are part of it, and smart enough.

Then this would be more centralistic than it may seem at first glance.

I wonder whether those are connected to the same superrich people who also largely own the media, and who are "developing their politicians" and, when ripe, helping them in positions.

Who could want to fill "education" with ever more society dissolving thought patterns and attitudes?

It could be the classic foreign competition, seeking to prevail in the long run, using subversion (competition in ideology, ideas of how societies should be run, perhaps future ideas of who will be using remaining resources, while the others destroy themselves and become defenseless idiots)

Then there are those WEF guys, who speak about things like "creative destruction of the current order". Societal destruction, including with division, atomization, destroying things that give people a grounding like family, making them more susceptible of becoming dependable dependables - that all helps reduce resistance towards wrapping the world around. Especially if people get convinced that their emotional misery, lack of purpose, all that stuff, is due to "the current system", and the salvation will come when a big brother with an ability to put everyhting in such nice words (and has media largely parrot the way of thought) overhauls the system. (omitting little details like the deliberate creation of these dire circumstances by the very same people over the past decades).

I sometimes hear "who's patient enough for such plans, over decades?"

Well. Look at the big players. Klaus is at it since the 60's. One of them, a certain George S., knew Adolf (and ratted out peers to him), he's that old. Probably getting the Mr Burns overhaul treatment (IDK whether he sings "good morning star shine" in Esperanto). Maybe the really old ones are especially in a hurry now, they want to see things coming together. Even if they eat all the expensive pills Ray Kurzweil does ^^

(also, they're certainly not "plans from 1960 til now", but iterative, adaptive, and one generation teaching the next. Of those superiors, of how to deal with the peasants and why that's ok...)

Expand full comment
Barekicks's avatar

I like your theories. Don't really have much to add, except that I've had these trains of thought too.

"some of those things are sure ways to harness sucpetible/insecure/disadvantaged/more-heart-than-brains people - just the thing a grifter in a BS academic field needs." Yep. And if you look at stuff like the growth of trans activism and the adoption of such ideologies within gender studies departments at universities, you can follow the money back to organisations like the Open Society.

Expand full comment
InfoHog's avatar

Yeah, a lot of such things are (partly) sponsored by shady "societies" and "foundations" that are connected to people who control tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. It it is pretty interesting that their view of how society should change aligns so much. Be it Open Society, Bill+M G, Bertelsman, Rockefeller et al., all pushing for these things.

Does anyone sane* believe that a 3-year-old can understand what it means to be "trans" and whether that's what he/she is, and to decide to undergo chemical and surgical, irrepairable alterations of their bodies... IDK whether that passed, but in Canada they wanted to do that stuff without getting the parents' consent / criminally punish parents for interfering, and then given indoctrinated younger daycare people, the stuff they arte instructed to teach children, so tehy talk them into it (I've been told that by east-european roots people who left Canada back for east-EU again because they don't want their kids to be messed up) ... But a lot of people buy the pseudo ethical / compaassion based framing of this, so you're a monster if you oppose destroying those kids lives - same big framing machine as now if you oppose certain pharma products. Exactly the same. And people are programmable exactly the same, it's extremely frustrating...

* e.g. not befallen by the mind parasite (like Gad Saad calls it) of wokeism and all connected. Certain people are susceptible to jump on the bandwagon and "be trans" or something else high on the victim pyramid, it seems to give them something they're missing. But given the loosened conditions of "being trans" (to the point that you can supposedly feel like something different each day), it's clear that the vast majority of those aren't really afflicted by this (used to be called Gender Dysphoria, although the word "gender" alone is already manipulative, only that most people don't remember how that started. It used to be a grammatical concept only. Until Judith Butler et al.)

Expand full comment
John Stout's avatar

I like it, but it's all questions. I am kind of an outlier. I ran away from school on the first day of kindergarten. For real. In about 1952. And I got away with it. I went back the next day and the teacher didn't get fired. But I've been out there ever since, even though I went to school and University and all that. I taught Middle School Earth Science for a while. And I see things on the long time scale. Longer than those old farts you mentioned. When they first came out with covid-19 and the vaccines thinning the herd, I thought it seemed like a better solution than another world war. I still think it is. It's winter where I am and I spend a lot of time putting wood on the fire in the stove a little cabin out on the Prairie. It's good for you. When spring comes I'm going to keep digging/drilling the well I started last summer. It's so dry here that my old well went dry last July. I'm down about 29 ft. I'm kind of stuck in a mass of blue clay laid here about 10,000 years ago. I'm hoping to break through the clay into a nice layer of gravel with some water in it.

Expand full comment
InfoHog's avatar

If only I had a piece of land where I could dig my well ;) It's impossible for someone not rich here right now. The housing market is insane, and I wouldn't be surprised if BlackRock buys everything they get there mits on here, too, not just in the US.

Expand full comment
John Stout's avatar

The key is to buy a piece of land with no house on it. If you buy a house out on the countryside you will automatically become a slave to the house You must look at the Land Market. And once you have purchased a piece of land, the key is to build a hut and not a house. You must avoid making yourself into your own government Taskmaster.

Expand full comment
SaHiB's avatar

It's the centuries or millennia old fnord, the invisible elephant in the room, of being bound to sworn oaths. Usually called "you gotta go along to get along". Watch the television movie, Brotherhood of the Bell.

Expand full comment
Bravo's avatar

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Last year the Prime Minister of New Zealand could walk on water. Now protesters are camped on her lawn and she has gone into hiding. Covid is turning into political toxic waste. It will be buried. Even the stupidest of leaders can read a poll.

Expand full comment
eugyppius's avatar

this is true. containment sooner or later chews up all the politicians who embrace it, which is good, because otherwise we might still be locked down.

Expand full comment
jo jergensin's avatar

One of the ways to prevent this from regularly occurring in the future is to vote out every single government that implemented these lockdowns and mandates. Let the new guys coming in realize there is a price to pay for it. Otherwise, everyone will move to Sweden...or Florida to get some sense of normalcy.

Expand full comment
Lysias's avatar

Are they going to allow us to have any more genuine elections?

Expand full comment
CMCM's avatar

I've found it amusing but also predictable that the politicians who became the most draconian in their Covid policies would at some point get hoisted by their own petard. As it has seemingly reached that point where the extent of the disgust and opposition is now too great to hide or censor, these loathsome authoritarian-wanna-be's are faced with the conundrum of continuing with their own hysterical narrative or easing things a bit in a desperate attempt to maintain the intoxicating power they have tasted. At an inexplicably fast pace a great many are suddenly snapping out of their Covid haze and loosening things up as minimally as they can get away with in the desperate hope of salvaging their positions. This is why the Canada trucker showdown is so fascinating to watch, and the ultimate result will be incredibly important for the rest of us.

Expand full comment
rjt's avatar

Speaking of medieval technology (petards), I was very disappointed that the bouncy castles were not properly defended with caltrops, the historic ancestors of IED's.

Expand full comment
Bob Thebuilder's avatar

Thanks, always wondered what those were.

Expand full comment
Silva's avatar

How's this for an idea? Any invocation of a state of emergency that involves restricting the rights of citizens in _any_ way should result in an immediate scheduling of a recall election against the politican who ordered it, to be held in the same week as the statutory maximum length of the emergency declaration (no more than 15 days in length). Any renewal of the state of emergency should trigger _another_ recall election, with the pattern continuing for as long as the emergency is continued.

Expand full comment
God Bless America's avatar

I likee 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Feb 20, 2022Edited
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
eugyppius's avatar

it hurts the politicians, but the pressure for it comes from deeper institutional elements, to which the politicians are beholden, and which are the real drivers of policy.

Expand full comment
Southern Sally's avatar

I like your analogy of sociological antibodies....A lot of trust has been eroded and will be hard to win back.

Expand full comment
INFJ-T Advocate's avatar

The medical fraternity will suffer for years. In particular when the rate of vaccine injury starts to really show. It seems to me that society here in the UK is holding its breath somewhat.

Expand full comment
God Bless America's avatar

You are so right, many will never trust doctors again… unfortunately it’s the medical establishment’s own fault… I have argued repeatedly with fellow nurses that just go along with all of this madness… it always makes me want to pull my hair out because of their lack of critical thinking…

It doesn’t take a lot of research to figure out something is completely wrong with this whole narrative…

Satan has been very busy… 🔥🔥🔥😡

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Feb 20, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
rjt's avatar

I resemble that statement!

However, I have been banished and 95% of my former colleagues are still in thrall to the narrative.

Trust will be lost for two generations at least

Expand full comment
Bigs's avatar

I will never trust a doctor again for the rest of my life. I used to take doctors deep into the rainforests here in SE Asia, to reach remote villages. Those same doctors ignored the growing evidence that ivermectin works, even as I waved that evidence under their faces. Then came the vaccines and lockdowns, and the trips were suspended. I won't be going back now they are calling for volunteers again. They can buy their own trucks, use their own fuel and take their own risks of their vehicle stranded. Damn cowards.

Expand full comment
Thom Jane's avatar

Part of it is a stark absence of humility. Someone who is secure in themselves doesn't force their view on others. Whether it is buried beneath sloth, fear, ignorance or greed, there is something major missing in physicians' hearts today.

Expand full comment
Satan's Doorknob's avatar

Depending how far back the pendulum swings, they may not have the option of merely licking their wounds 😶

Expand full comment
Motu is in Charge's avatar

My instinct suggests she will be gone soon. Even before an election. Her own party will realise she is a liability rather than an asset now. So I expect the deputy PM to take over prior to the coming election to "shore up support". Her body language in rare appearances on TV is very scared. The "pulpit of Truth" has been locked away in the depths of parliament now. The protest at parliament has highlighted significant differences in the general population and more and more are seeing the stupidity of manadates and compulsory jabs for jobs. However change is going to be protracted and drawn out. Economically it is hurting so bad. NZs major earn in tourism has gone to zero and cant be turned back on like a switch. International reputation of the country has been trashed.

Expand full comment
Silva's avatar

So has Australia's. I used to think of Australia as the land of kangaroos, koalas, "g'day," Crocodile Dundee, Steve Irwin, and so on, but now it's the country that used to be a penal colony and that has reverted to same.

Expand full comment
rjt's avatar

Please be careful, and look behind the curtain. Klaus Schwab boasted in 2017 that he had control of half the Canadian cabinet. Your ms Ardern is from the same training school, as is our deputy PM, Chrystia Freeland. Our Conservative party has been noticeably useless and compliant over the past two years. Is there any mechanism to ensure that any successors are clean?

Expand full comment
Silva's avatar

Sounds like your conservative party is controlled opposition like our Republican party in the US. The Democrats are bold and evil, while the Republicans do little other than talk about how what the Dems do is bad. In terms of action, they are timid and submissive, and when they get into office because of how the last round of Democrats was so bad, they don't do anything, and soon people forget how bad the Democrats were and elect them to get things done. Unfortunately, the things that get done would be better left undone.

In the US, we have come to call it the uniparty. Most Republicans in office do not exist to oppose Dem governance, but to protect it. They are members of the same party who pretend to be the loyal opposition to safely absorb conservative votes without any risk of someone who actually wants to do the things he claims to want of getting in office. Trump was an exception, and it is specifically his boorish and sometimes petty personality that was able to punch through the protection mechanisms that are geared toward controlling more typical (timid) Republicans who can be frightened into going on defensive very easily (you can't win on defensive).

Expand full comment
Kerry Davie's avatar

'Freeland' -what a misnomer!

Expand full comment
Lysias's avatar

Do polls matter after a seizure of power/Machtergreifung? What's going on in Canada now looks to me like a seizure of power.

Expand full comment
J Wolfmoon's avatar

Totally it is. To seize bank accounts of citizens who donated funds was a huge, monstrous over reach and people were pretty chill about it. I do not understand the general population here in Canada and their wimpy non reaction to losing our free speech and many other rights. The “emergency laws”, they are discussing extending permanently to prevent anything like the truckers protest again and no one I know is the least bit upset about that. I am of course, but apparently I’m a crazy fringe citizen and my opinion doesn’t count.

Expand full comment
ChuggyWuggy's avatar

Speaking of Trudeau (stupidest of leaders) , I’m not convinced that he can read a poll. A comic book perhaps if there are no big words.

Expand full comment
J Wolfmoon's avatar

He’s a kindergarten teacher for cripes sake. That hardly qualifies him to run a country.

Expand full comment
Satan's Doorknob's avatar

Isn't it a curious historical coincidence that his own father, Pierre also declared an (I think) "Insurrection" in 1967 (?) during civil unrest over (?) Quebec separatism.

Expand full comment
Kerry Davie's avatar

Indeed; a nice demonstration of one interpretation of Newton's Third Law.

Expand full comment
Max's avatar

We are seeing a purity spiral (aka holiness spiral). As soon as public opinion was that covid-19 is dangerous, the harsher the state reaction the more the covidians could claim to be good and holy people and gain power.

How this will unfold depends on how harmful the vaccinations are. Will most of the vaccinated die within the next few years or will the effects only be felt by life insurance companies and some unlucky vaccinated? We'll see. It is too soon to say

Expand full comment
Johnny Dollar's avatar

Two words that pose a problem with this: Plausible deniability. Already the deaths that occur soon after vaccinations they deny aret correlated. Imagine two years out. When we all know it absolutely will be because of these dangerous experimental shots. Which by the way now Gates says Omicron confers immunity better than his shitty medicine does. It's game over. But the state will remain addicted to it.

Expand full comment
nightspore's avatar

Right now the key term in "plausible deniability" is "plausible". In that respect, this thing doesn't seem to be working out for them.

Expand full comment
Broken Pottery's avatar

I don't think most of the vaccinated need to die for society to feel the pain and probably crash. If even 5% of them die or can't work, it will be a nightmare. This is true especially if we lose the "people with knowledge", i.e. the guy who knows how to fix the problem in the wastewater treatment plant or the nuclear reactor. There are hundreds of professions that are losing the people with knowledge to retirement and death and the people stepping in just don't care as much. It's the downwind problem of losing these people that will crash societies around the world.

Expand full comment
Satan's Doorknob's avatar

The problem is much deeper than "just don't care as much." In many cases, the replacements are simply not as well trained, educated or in some cases perhaps not even as intelligent even if training and education were available. The guy(s) who used to know how to do X, or how to maintain Y, or even knew why process Z was essential to the overall workings of the system, are, as you note, retired or dead. Perhaps they chose to quit rather than submit to a dangerous ineffective experimental drug. Or perhaps they got sick of office politics, and said, "Let one of the woke try and do my job. I'm outta here!" I would argue the next-to-worst case is a critical job goes unmanned. The worst is that an incompetent, dangerous, ambitious fool takes that position.

There are reasons that great world empires (e.g. Rome) reached peaks then coasted for a while and (optimally) gradually decayed or (less so) succumbed quickly or chaotically. Experts will debate those reasons, but too easily overlooked is that everything has a life span, and that seems to include epochs, eras, cultures, and perhaps entire civilizations.

In either case, whatever utility or benefit the prior regime provided typically died with it. With rare exceptions perhaps, what replaced it was far worse. Like you (?) I suspect much of the world is undergoing a similar decadence.

Expand full comment
Henry's avatar

Thank you! Now I understand! The Branch Covidians are a Satanic cult and the vaccine is their sacramental initiation. At last the we have an epistemological lever with which to begin prising open their smug self satisfied certainties.

Expand full comment
CPJ's avatar

I don't think this will happen, as you say, too soon to say, however I would say that it probably wouldn't take that much of an impairment to life insurance assets to cause some serious knock-on problems in the broader financial sector, especially because it is a completely symmetric global shock. We will probably though see life insurers disputing liability. So far the reports of this that I have seen don't seem to be very certain though.

Expand full comment
Vicki Sanderson's avatar

This is already happening. Ex Blackrock executive Ed Dowd predicts a fraud charge against Big Pharma for concealing adverse vax data will soon be underway by insurance companies.

Expand full comment
God Bless America's avatar

🙏🙏🙏 I sure hope it’s coming… I hope they bury Pfizer and their fellow vax companies… no one should benefit from another’s suffering and death…

Expand full comment
rjt's avatar

It will be like a battle of dinosaurs! LifeCo's vs Pharma. Do you thing Vegas will offer odds?

Expand full comment
Bob Thebuilder's avatar

Short sell $MRNA

Expand full comment
Irena's avatar

Hear, hear! From your keyboard to God's eyes!

Expand full comment
J Wolfmoon's avatar

Purity spiral. I love that!! So, so true. I will be using that friend, thank you

Expand full comment
Bash's avatar

While I am not one for conspiratorial thinking, the pandemicists have overlapping desires with the statists and centralists. Accordingly, there does appear to be some effort to take advantage of the situation and put in laws and launch initiatives that wouldn't have worked before. But this is not a conspiracy- the same way that pre 9/11 you certainly had people who were security obsessed and who used the attacks as a pretense to push through laws and programs.

On the other hand, i do feel an invisible hand of control, of some entity trying to exert its will on the world. Is it the ccp? Maybe. If any entity is capable of massive conspiracy, its them

Expand full comment
eugyppius's avatar

sure, i don't disagree with any of this. there was definitely a cabal of china-connected people who set this off in the beginning, and as the pandemicists (the virologists, the epidemiologists, etc) come to wield more political authority, they will be more heavily networked with the globalists and the politicians and the press and all the rest of them.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Feb 20, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Southern Sally's avatar

Unfortunately in Canada, NZ and Australia they still wield a lot of power. The tide of public opinion is beginning to turn in NZ though ... or maybe the quiet, compliant, non-confrontational kiwis are beginning to speak out. Even the MSM is changing its tone slightly.

Expand full comment
CMCM's avatar

An old line from Hemingway could apply here...things happen gradually and then suddenly.

Expand full comment
Kerry Davie's avatar

There are a lot of sheep in New Zealand; a nation of sheep begets a government of wolves.

Expand full comment
CMCM's avatar

Good one!

Expand full comment
Gail Finke's avatar

No they are not! There are plenty areas of the country where a large number of people still do what they say and defend them 100% of the time.

Expand full comment
CMCM's avatar

I'm almost finished reading "The Bully of Asia" by Stephen Mosher. It's a fascinating read and has given me a broader, more complete understanding of what motivates the CCP. Two thousand years of Chinese history are very important to what the CCP is today. I urge everyone to read it. I don't believe the CCP is the proverbial "kingpin" behind everything, but they are supreme narcissists and opportunists, and it does appear that they have lured the West and all the big tech companies into their orbit. The CCP is sick and twisted in their own way, but their strategy has been brilliant and has come to fruition in many ways. It does appear that people in our government and also those in the big tech companies etc. SHOULD know the things in this book, but they simply DO NOT and therefore the Chinese have figured out how to lead them around as if they had rings in their noses. There's the old saying about "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". I would add this: "Money corrupts, and massive amounts of money corrupt massively".

Expand full comment
Kerry Davie's avatar

John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (aka Lord Acton) said that memorable sentence concerning power and corruption. But even more apposite, given the malignancy of people like B Gates, was his " Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by authority."

Expand full comment
Lysias's avatar

What Lord Acton actually said was, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I.e., absolute power always corrupts, whereas less than absolute power does not always do so. Which I think is what we observe in real life.

Expand full comment
Bash's avatar

One difference between the ccp and western governments is that the ccp is extremely competent. Not good or moral or benevolent - but very, very competent. And that is what makes them all the more formidable

Expand full comment
Yo mismo soy el regalo's avatar

Even Rome didn’t last forever. By the time they got to this stage there wasn’t much hope.

Expand full comment
Lysias's avatar

By the time Rome got to our stage, the Roman Republic was doomed, but the Western Roman Empire had another 400 years to go, and the Eastern Roman Empire another 1400 years.

Expand full comment
Kelliann's avatar

If not for this "pandemic" many would still be asleep.

Expand full comment
Joe Doe's avatar

I agree. I was asleep. But at this stage I can't understand how some still are

Expand full comment
Unacceptable Bob's avatar

Amazing that so many remain asleep.

Expand full comment
John Henry Holliday, DDS's avatar

Oh, the fingerprints of midwits are all over this fiasco, but there was/still is a central force trying to push through revolutionary change in the West. In light of America's stolen election (your friend William Briggs has documented the irregularities) and Canada's crackdown yesterday, with subsequent threat to take bank accounts of all those who contributed to the truckers, I am baffled that anyone can think otherwise.

And there actually is a worldwide organization openly boasting about how its disciples have penetrated the cabinets of governments in the west. Dissent to the Davos crowd is being criminalized.

Bill Gates just expressed his disappointment that Omicron was a natural vaccine that spread throughout the world before he could stick a needle in more arms. He promised in another interview last week that another pandemic would be coming. It's not over; it's just starting, I fear.

Expand full comment
Jack Bauer's avatar

Do you have a link to where Bill said those things?

Expand full comment
John Henry Holliday, DDS's avatar

If you go to his website wmbriggs.com and search his articles after the election in 2020, he explains many of the irregularities that he uncovered.

It was stolen and not just to get rid of Trump. Biden is, of course, just a mannequin (poorly) mouthing the words he's been told to speak. There is a revolution going on. Fundamental rights are being trampled.

Expand full comment
Jack Bauer's avatar

Oops, I meant a link to what Bill Gates said.

Expand full comment
John Henry Holliday, DDS's avatar

rt.com has a story (with video clip) on it from 2/19. Gates actually states, "Sadly, the virus itself ...(Omicron) is a type of vaccine...and it's done a better job of getting out to the world population than we have with vaccines."

He actually says "sadly"...

Expand full comment
nightspore's avatar

Yes, that struck me too - that's a Freudian slip worth paying close attention to.

Expand full comment
Jack Bauer's avatar

thanks mate

Expand full comment
J Wolfmoon's avatar

Yes, truth, thank you we see too little of it. I’ve really appreciated your writings friend and your balanced point of view. I appreciate you very much.

Expand full comment
The Green Hornet's avatar

Naziism was only defeated militarily. The ideology lived on post WW2 thanks in part to operation paperclip and bringing of the Nazis to the US and elsewhere. Everything that started in 2020, the riots, the pandemic, is starlight out of the Nazi playbook and being run via the new Hitler/Schwab and the graduates of his global leadership program (Trudeau, Macron, Johnson, Arden, et al) using the planDemic in usher in the NWO. Criminals and psychopaths are running the world.

Expand full comment
eugyppius's avatar

they're not national socialists. this is just objectively wrong.

Expand full comment
The Green Hornet's avatar

Noted but it's almost semantic at this point. Call them Nazis call them communists. It's top down techno tyranny.

Expand full comment
eugyppius's avatar

you have to pick your poison here. the national socialists were one of various political reactions to communism, in fact they were arch anti-communists.

what we have is something totally different from national socialism, which however increasingly resembles in various details old soviet-bloc regimes (though with a softer authoritarian approach).

this is a diffuse authoritarian political order of its own kind, perhaps it is even the natural end-stage of liberal democratic political orders.

Expand full comment
The Green Hornet's avatar

Exactly which is why I think splitting hairs isn't very productive. It may have started as Naziism back then and may have been "anti-communism" (just like Antifa were communist "anti-fascists") but at the end of the day, it's techno medical totalitarian tyranny.

Expand full comment
eugyppius's avatar

well, I'm not interested in splitting hairs, but I want to be very clear that these policies originate within our own ostensibly liberal democratic political systems.

Expand full comment
The Green Hornet's avatar

Absolutely. As ex communist David Horowitz famously says, “inside every progressive, there’s a totalitarian screaming to get out”.

Expand full comment
Satan's Doorknob's avatar

Agreed. Here's my view, perhaps simplistic, of how we got here. To a large extent, the "rot" is indeed communism, or more generally, Marxist and related thought that was "imported" into the USA and other western nations beginning long before WW II. Now, whether you want to think this was deliberate, that "march through the institutions" or just incidental, is up to you. The West's long traditions of academic and other freedoms of expression and thought are/were its soft white underbelly. With time, the Left, the socialists, etc. "colonized" academia and the cancer has spread to governments, corporations, etc. These professors taught later generations of students who then carried the ideologies further afield.

It was not without reason that the Nazis and less famous right-authoritarian regimes rounded up Communists and Socialists and executed them. Please don't get me wrong here. The underlying disease is of the risk of totalitarianism, whatever ideological trappings it may wear. It's not clear that being arrested, imprisoned, tortured, killed was all that different whether it was done by Hitler's Gestapo, Stalinist agents or the Spanish Inquisition, to cite three very disparate ideologies. What those had in common was authoritarian power, terror and little regard for what we today consider human rights.

To a large extent then, what much of the world is facing is the final flowering of collectivist dogma that has gestated, grown and to a large degree, usurped the host (democratic, relatively free governments and institutions).

That is the fatal flow of freedom loving peoples: You must allow equal voice and opportunity to all comers, even those who may be enemies of the existing order.

Expand full comment
Kerry Davie's avatar

They use the same tools though.

Expand full comment
Viv's avatar

Much of the Nazis arch anti-communism was because they were after the same votes on much the same platform, just with added folk nationalism and even more Jew hatred. The communists had to be eradicated, and were, in the space of a few weeks between the 1933 elections for that reason.

Expand full comment
hoppah's avatar

They were only “arch anti-communists” because they were *competing* with communists for domination.

Expand full comment
Louisa Enright's avatar

I so fear this is true. I have been calling it Late Capitalism.

Expand full comment
Tom Ford's avatar

It is not a big stretch to view the whole period of compulsory education as one long limited lockdown. If students are very lucky they may have a decent hearted guard (teacher?) or two. However, if we see this long conditioned period as normalizing, perhaps many people are actually more comfortable in UBI/highly regulated conditions, then fending for themselves or having to face any meaningful consequences for their behavior. Hence the long decline you speak of is perhaps fully and intentionally engineered in the schools.

Expand full comment
ER's avatar

Maybe that's why I hated school. :)

Expand full comment
Tardigrade's avatar

What I find refreshing about your viewpoints is that you look at the big picture. I tend to try to look at things anthropologically. Civilizations come and go; usually near the end there's a widening wealth gap between the elites and the plebeians.

Historically speaking, there is nothing new under the sun. However this time there is something new. This is the first time it's global. Our pathological population growth is its own worst enemy.

Expand full comment
jo jergensin's avatar

As FDR told the rich..."You better give them something, or they will take everything from you." History repeats because we don't really teach it anymore....or never really did. I think we are not much different than the Romans were 2000 years ago. We just have more luxuries.

Expand full comment
CMCM's avatar

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Expand full comment
Bob Thebuilder's avatar

Populations are all shrinking in western countries and Japan.

Expand full comment
Surviving the Billionaire Wars's avatar

Not so much the growth as the global reach of the technology, especially weaponry.

Expand full comment
Tardigrade's avatar

That is a result of too damn many people on the planet.

I get in trouble every time I say this because somehow people interpret it as advocating genocide. I do not advocate genocide. I just wish we could come up with a system of governance and living that didn't depend on constant growth, but rather a population level that the planet can sustain.

Expand full comment
Steghorn21's avatar

The "overpopulated" thing is exaggerated. Apart from Sub-Saharan Africa, birth rates are falling everywhere. Sure, the trend is still upward, but that will peak. The greater challenge is probably the ever increasing global middle class as more and more people demand all the goodies that the bourgeoisie traditionally aspire too.

Expand full comment
Tardigrade's avatar

I disagree. I think you're looking at it in a much shorter timeframe than me. I'm thinking tens of thousands of years perspective.

Expand full comment
Surviving the Billionaire Wars's avatar

What do you consider a sustainable level?

Expand full comment
Satan's Doorknob's avatar

Nobody knows what sustainable is. Does that mean a Western European style of life for all? Or is Sub-Sahara Africa subsistence existence acceptable? Or some other standard? Who decides?

And even if it could be decided scientifically would remain the problem of convincing 8 billion (16? 32?) of what the correct number should be. Now, how to reach it?

Even less rarely discussed than the unsolvable population conundrum is this: the chance, hopefully remote, of a systemic collapse. It's a fact that the advanced parts of the world are way below replacement rate. To a large extent, at least in the eyes of many onlookers, the West is committing slow motion cultural, political, technological and (maybe) racial suicide. The poorer parts of the world, which tend to be blacker and browner, also tend to be more backward for a variety of reasons we won't go into in detail here. They also tend to be reproducing far above replacement rates. There is no historical basis nor reason to believe that on the whole, these peoples will ever achieve a level of civilization much above what they have produced to date.

As such, I don't put much stock in those optimists who say that economic growth will lower birth rates, that Africa is somehow magically going to civilize itself and escape what could charitably be described as the Iron Age, etc. I don't deny they have vestiges of development here and there, but on the whole, the backward parts of the world largely remain that way. In a hundred years the average citizen may have "advanced" from a grass hut to a tin-roofed shanty and instead of hunting wildebeest they now are day laborers for a multi-national, when work is even available. Perhaps that's progress, but they are still perilously close to a cave-man like existence.

Here's the awful secret, the thing nobody likes to think about. Virtually all the poor nations' support, the technology, the foreign aid, the intellectual capital, that has given them the standard of living and western style technology they have -- has come from the West, often donated or otherwise given, not earned.

If any of that aid and support were ever eliminated, or even cut back dramatically, for whatever reason, it would be a catastrophe for most of the poorer world.

Yes, they historically have been (and continue to be) exploited by the richer world, by strong-man local governments, and so on. You may think my observations a bit racist, classist, whatever. And indeed they may be. But does that make any of them any less true or at least plausible?

Expand full comment
Surviving the Billionaire Wars's avatar

Actually, the point of my question was if the current state of technology isn't behind the depopulation program, why did the cult wait until nearly 8 billion souls were living to begin it? Why not in mid 80s, the time of the Georgia Guidestones, at 5 billion? Or 70s at $3 billion? Or 50s at 2 billion? What were they waiting for?

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Feb 20, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Surviving the Billionaire Wars's avatar

Can't like this, so I'll post this instead. (Oddly, I didn't get emailed re: your post & the email for the response to me has vanished!)

Lol! As soon as I posted this my like appeared!

Expand full comment
Art Minds's avatar

I challenge your conclusion that we have to learn to live with this new reality. The power of the Ottawa convoy and the youth that have joined the protests provide evidence that the status quo of the past two years is no longer acceptable and will not be tolerated. This is a movement to return to "normal", as we experienced before this WEF-led effort to impose totalitarian control under the guise of the hyper-inflated hysteria of the lab-created virus. We will not be ruled by fear going forward.

Expand full comment
Unacceptable Bob's avatar

The challenge is to activate people. Those who have reached other conclusions will be sitting this one out.

Expand full comment
HenriO's avatar

Western liberal democratic republics have devolved into oligarchies. The ruling class now has a rancher and cattle relationship with the ruled. This progression appears to be one of the main weaknesses of the republican form of government: individuals elected to represent the electors naturally move toward their own interests until the electors become only a means of support that must be inconveniently placated from time to time. We were well into the late stages of this process long before Covid. Covid simply gave the Oligarchy a plausible justification for bringing this reality out into the open.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Feb 20, 2022Edited
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Kerry Davie's avatar

Well as long as we're regarded as 'milking cows' it might be tolerable; the problems will really begin when we're thought of as 'beef cattle'. How far are we away from that?

Expand full comment
Skeptical1's avatar

Indeed!

Expand full comment
Suhr G. Halle's avatar

Finally!

Thank you for a clear view of the state of affairs.

Since this is more like a feature of our system and not a bug, there is no way around this mess except for a change of system.

This change is unfortunately not gonna come from trucker rallies or any of the forms the "resistance" has taken (not that i wouldn't wish it could, but it can't).

As i see it, that leaves two options;

Figure out how a new system should look, and attain enough power to install that system.

Or;

Figure out what measures one should take personally in order to cope with the current system and comming similar situations.

Neither of these are easy, and neither seems to be adressed by any parts of the "resistance".

Ufortunately the "resitance" in which ever form it is manifesting (and these are very different, and will never be able to unite into one thing and they only agree on one slightly vague thing "the current handling of out situation is not quite right") doesn't seem to adress these two options.

We seem to be deluding ourselves into thinking that the system will change itself if we use the tools available within the system (and yes, rallies is one of those tools). For example if we just make it clear enough how wrong "INSERT PREFFERED WRONGTHING" is, then they will change everything - even if you/we win that battle, we're still fighting a completely outnumbered war in foreign land, with no clear definition of victory, against the people who decide which weapons we are allowed to use.

This assumption is both wrong and a falsely grandiose view of our power (which seems to stem from the idea of democracy).

I think this current text of yours is one the most clearheaded and easily understood summerizations of our predicament and i hope you will delve into one of the two options i previously mentioned.

In any case, thanks for your work.

Expand full comment
Thiago's avatar

If I understood you, you believe that "the diffusion of political power downwards" is something that exists and that it is a bad thing.

I disagree with both. Country-level lockdowns and other tyrannical measures are only possible because political power is centralized. What we need is a LOT more decentralization (ideally at the individual level). But decentralization at the city/town or neighborhood level is still better: Street X says you cannot go there without the jab but you can still be free in street Y.

In addition, this lunacy was not created by the useless bureaucrats. It is created by the people that empower these bureaucrats. The little wannabe dictators are the *voters*. These votes are the real enemy. And the only way to avoid the mob rule that we saw with corona is to make it illegal for anyone to impose their views on everyone else.

The difficult to swallow pill that corona gave us is to clearly show that democracy is really just mob rule (as we always knew but ignored). The only solution is a different governance system, like a republic, based on individual rights (not the "50%+1 can kill whoever they like and it is OK because it was a democratic decision", for example).

Expand full comment
eugyppius's avatar

1) by "diffusion of political power downwards," i mean the dislocation of power from the political arm into the bureaucratic ranks, into academic "expert advisory committees," into private-sector corporations in partnership with gvt initiatives, etc. this has created a large class of tens of thousands of people involved in one way or another with government, all of them people you've never heard and who are totally unaccountable.

2) people don't empower bureaucrats, bureaucrats accumulate power because their institutions do complex things (like collect taxes, field armies, etc) that nobody outside the institutions can do. so, the bureaucratic apparatus in mass society ends up playing a de facto outsized role in government.

Expand full comment
eugyppius's avatar

elaborating on 2), imagine you're an incomparably wealthy emperor, but you suffer from kidney failure, and in the whole land there's only one dialysis machine, and it's incredibly complicated and only one guy knows how to run it. that guy will begin to wield immense influence at your court. the bureaucrats are much the same.

Expand full comment
Thiago's avatar

1) OK, I guess you are saying that the decision is delegated downwards. I agree with that. But the political power *and responsibility for the consequences* remains at the top (you cannot delegate responsibility):

a) Congress still has the power to ignore the CDC; and

b) it is the congressmen who will ultimately not be reelected if he doesn't please his base.

This is related to:

2) Congress does what ("50%+1") voters want. Hence, these voters ultimately empower the bureaucrats because the voters put these particular congressmen there. These voters want the power to be delegated to bureaucrats, and they also want everyone arrested at home if the bureaucrat says so. This is not a coincidence.... This is why I say that the voters are the enemy. The bureaucrats are just the surface, the tip of the iceberg.

If enough voters did not support home arrests, they would simply vote for someone else. If it ware true that bureaucrats have so much power because they know something "very complicated" that no one else knows, how would you explain the difference in policy between NY and FL? Or the largely *systematic* difference between republican and democrat states?

I understand that realizing that the politicians are doing exactly what the majority wants is disheartening... But it is true. We live with a lot of small wannabe tyrants that would not think twice before sending the police to your house if you do not take the vaccine, or go out without mask, or even leave your house in the middle of what they believe to be a pandemic. They know that the police may kill you if you resist. And they don't have any problem with that.

If you project the problem on the bureaucrats ("we just need better ones"), or the elites ("we just need nicer ones"), you will never understand or solve the problem...

Expand full comment
Susan G's avatar

The US is a federal republic. We are not a true democracy, which is what the Left desires and is pushing for, particularly in their desire to eliminate the Electoral College. We are a republic, if we can keep it. Fight to keep it.

Expand full comment
Thiago's avatar

Unfortunately, the US is not republic. The US is a democracy. And this is the reason why it is a decadent country... Sadly, the 2/3 rule to create amendments to the constitution means that it is a democracy.

Expand full comment
Susan G's avatar

Again, I beg to differ. I believe the facts (US Constitution) support my position.

Expand full comment
Thiago's avatar

With 2/3 of the congress and senate you can do absolutely anything you want: Kill people whose names start with letter "A", kill the unvaccinated, steal the property of everyone on the other 1/3, and so on. This is not a republic. Regretfully, this is a democracy. As I said, this is why the US is so decadent.

In the US, the rule is not whatever 50%+1 decide. But is it what 66.7% +1 decide (and counting states). It is more restrictive than some democracies, but it is still imperfect.

Expand full comment
MrEscher's avatar

We have an electoral college that has nothing to do with "50+1" or "66whatever".

We have a House, and a Senate, where that 67% majority take place. It isn't in the general public, it's a representative Government.

There is a Federal government, then we have the 10th Amendment which reserves powers for the States to conduct affairs independent of that Federal Government. It's why different states can have different levels of freedom (Florida compared to California, for example).

None of that is impacted by a "50+1" majority, except at the STATE legislation level and STATE elections. Each State in the Republic, following the Constitution.

So "some" democracy. Not "a" democracy.

And, right now it isn't working like it should, admittedly.

Expand full comment
Thiago's avatar

"Some" democracy is a democracy... Regardless of the cutoff point being 50%, 67%, or anything (other than unanimity), the individuals are still subject to mob rule.

I am just saying that absolutely nothing protects anyone from a majority of 67% (house and senate). They can and will do absolutely anything by amending the constitution as they please. This is the mob rule that I am trying to explain...

Expand full comment
hoppah's avatar

No you can’t, because no law passed by anyone, including 2/3 of congress and the senate, can abridge *natural rights*. Illegal laws are not laws.

Expand full comment
Satan's Doorknob's avatar

Gentlemen, we are just splitting hairs here. And like it or not, laws, morality, ethics, values, etc. are entirely human inventions, abstract, having no referent in the natural world.

Now, none of the foregoing means that I am saying that morals and laws have no value. I personally value the concept of a democracy or a republic, even if as currently implemented, it is not as I would have it. My entire point is that government is entirely a social construct, a framework by Group A to coerce Group B to one degree or another. Some will say it's "good" or "evil" but again, wholly dependent upon an individual point of view. Everything else is detail.

Expand full comment
MrEscher's avatar

The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

Expand full comment
Louisa Enright's avatar

Right

Expand full comment
Thiago's avatar

I understand that this is what is written in the constitution. North Korea is called "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". The name is irrelevant...

What defines the governance system is how the laws are made. In the US they are made by majority ("supra-majority"). So it is has all the problems of a democracy...

Expand full comment