The Great Reset

As Sol transits the Dark zone , we expect a further deterioration in the expression of consciousness of some of the planetary beings .
Those on Sphere 3 — a superlative creation utilizing all the material elements in intricate harmonic levels ( see Appendix 1 : Earth ) — are particularly vulnerable .
The decline there is now about ten thousand solar years long and has followed a well-established pattern .
As you know , the structure of these beings is dual , consisting of a material body and associated mind or soul , Sol ’ s light acting as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ever-unfolding expression of this star ’ s nature ( Appendix 2 : The Human Constitution and Participative Perception ) .
The attenuation of this conduit , which connects to the heart of the being and is its highest faculty or spirit , has led to the following — at times amusing — outcomes .
First , there was a movement away from a close harmony with Earth , and an inclination to dismantle and rearrange it .
At this stage not all beings were adversely affected .
A minority were able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Sun by making it the hidden kernel of various artistic , literary and religious traditions ( see Appendix 4 : The Emerald Tablet of Hermes , Plato ’ s Allegory of the Sun , and the Gayatri Mantra ) .
Nostalgia for what was , and an inner sense of decline and an instinctive aversion to it , were also instilled in the psyche ( see Appendix 5 : Imprinting the Sacred , from Golden Age to Iron Age ) .
However , this only forestalled the inevitable .
Collapse of even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around 500 years ago .
It left a being divorced from Reality and the accession of the normally subservient reasoning faculty .
Left floundering , the beings hailed this turn of events as a Renaissance , and with their attention turned away from ‘ heaven ’ , began developing their physical and mental proclivities in earnest .
This inculcated a novel system — the utilization of the senses and reason alone in an attempt to fathom the now-forgotten essence of Nature ( see Appendix 6 : Science , the Wayward Path ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ belief in an inert Nature prevailed ; obsession with materiality grew .
The higher faculty , the true potentiality of humanity , and a sentient universe were re-categorized as ‘ magical thinking ’ .
Science proceeds by the comparing of one thing with another .
Parts of the material universe are made into apparatus , which are then used to measure other parts .
Essence remains undiscovered of course .
But this method drives the creation of increasingly elaborate tools which allow an increasingly powerful analysis of matter .
This machine technology of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devices that can render the ecosphere dysfunctional , and instruments that disrupt human mentation .
The system which used elements rare on Earth , such as gold and silver , to represent and facilitate the exchange of material goods , was commandeered by those most obsessed by materiality .
The substitution of paper allowed the established practice of usury to be greatly enhanced , enabling wealth to migrate into fewer and fewer hands ( see Appendix 7 : The Fractional Reserve System , the Great Banking Families , and Three Centuries of Market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now underway , is the substitution of paper money with invisible digital money , allowing the very wealthy to syphon off even the little still owned by the rest .
The most serious aspect of the sustained attempt by a minority to own the planet is the alignment of great wealth with innovative science , since it portends an amoral class of beings with vast destructive power .
( Appendix 8 : The Appropriation of Earth ’ s Resources and All Artefacts by the Few , and Appendix 9 : Evolution of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Emotion . )
You ask about the small green island toward one pole , and especially of the mystics who reside there .
There are none now .
Those who had direct experience of the Light were replaced in the last hundred years by those who only spoke of it ( see Appendix 10 : William Blake , the Scientific Enterprise , and the Eclipse of Mystic Consciousness ) .
Further , the obscuring of the Light led , two hundred and fifty years ago , to a proposal to override that hierarchy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflection in the collective sphere of that found in the individual being .
Some inhabitants of the island who had ventured over the sea and established a colony on a continent there , replaced the monarchical system with a form of Rule by the People .
Much effort was made to ensure its success .
It didn ’ t work .
Since the majority elect a few to represent them , they inevitably choose those of a similar consciousness .
Hence , the tendency of democracy has been ever downward , towards a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 11 : Guénon ’ s Reign of Quantity Applied to Forms of Government ) .
Notwithstanding this failing , the colony has maintained its self-belief , and is more or less heedless of the interests of those not inhabiting its area of Earth .
Its imperialism is the chief cause of disharmony .
In the island you revered , and elsewhere , the various propensities indicated above have almost reached a nadir .
Belief in the higher realities has all but disappeared , hence the education systems are defective .
The rational faculty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instinctive emotion and sense experience as motivating factors .
The antics of members of the governing bodies resemble the court fools of the era you experienced , absent a hidden wisdom , with the mental proclivities , demeanor and even countenance of the juvenile form of the beings ( see Appendix 12 : Contemporary Government , Psychopathy and Infantilism ) .
Insight , empathy and goodwill are missing ; they have adopted the inclinations of the monied class .
As this report is being assembled there is an attempt to utilize the activity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear and disrupting all social functioning ( see Appendix 13 : The Role of Viruses in Homeostasis and the Natural Mortality of Earth ’ s Lifeforms , and Appendix 14 : Psychological Methods for Human Control ) .
Some more perceptive beings speculate that the goal is to instigate an inversion of the current order , whereby a minority of materialist imbeciles impose a tyranny over the rest .
However , the level of coercion and violence perpetrated on the majority , the drive to introduce substances that could initiate extreme mutagenesis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligence technology that would make the beings redundant , suggests an eclipse of the remaining mental functioning .
We believe there has been a rupture in the boundary between the physical world and the infernal and that non-human forces have begun to infiltrate .
As you know , the final stage of Sol ’ s transit means that no information reaches us , after which there is a nearly instantaneous reset to normality .
The beings will be alone during this time .
Given the unusual circumstances pertaining at present , there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which means a complete disruption of the soul , and Earth dying away .
As the poet says , “ The fire of suns makes and unmakes worlds , and even the most beauteous lights therein are extinguished.
” As in the previous occurrences , the deeply instilled ideas of the Good , of the forces of Darkness , of spiritual struggle , should provide momentum sufficient to carry them through .
Nevertheless , we agree with your view .
Compassion dictates some form of revelation .
To this end we propose to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to conform with the conscious state of the beings ) disseminated .
Forums are limited , but it can be inserted within one of the remaining broadcast media in which truth is tolerated .
No more than a breath upon the remnant Light that flickers in memory , it may assist in awakening the necessary resistance .
We await the exit of Sol from the Dark zone , the great Reset , and the reinstatement of the Golden Age .
John Lord Griffin is a philosopher , artist and farmer , currently living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Origin of Beauty and Javali with Oranges .

John Griffin
ASSESSMENT REPORT #5 (Final): GALACTIC INNER PERIPHERY ARCHIVE
Excellency,
As Sol transits the Dark zone, we expect a further deterioration in the expression of consciousness of some of the planetary beings. Those on Sphere 3 — a superlative creation utilizing all the material elements in intricate harmonic levels (see Appendix 1: Earth) — are particularly vulnerable.
The decline there is now about ten thousand solar years long and has followed a well-established pattern. As you know, the structure of these beings is dual, consisting of a material body and associated mind or soul, Sol’s light acting as a conduit to carry and so manifest the ever-unfolding expression of this star’s nature (Appendix 2: The Human Constitution and Participative Perception).
The attenuation of this conduit, which connects to the heart of the being and is its highest faculty or spirit, has led to the following — at times amusing — outcomes.
First, there was a movement away from a close harmony with Earth, and an inclination to dismantle and rearrange it.
(Appendix 3: Into the Dark, Nature as Other covers the transition to a sedentary existence, elaborate artificial dwellings and body coverings, producing food rather than collecting it, over-valuing materiality, ownership of parts of the planet, an aberrant social hierarchy and destructive technology, knowing replaced by beliefs, increasingly extravagant visual and auditory art forms, reliance on written symbolic communication, and so forth.)
At this stage not all beings were adversely affected. A minority were able to preserve a knowledge of the operation of the Sun by making it the hidden kernel of various artistic, literary and religious traditions (see Appendix 4: The Emerald Tablet of Hermes, Plato’s Allegory of the Sun, and the Gayatri Mantra).
Nostalgia for what was, and an inner sense of decline and an instinctive aversion to it, were also instilled in the psyche (see Appendix 5: Imprinting the Sacred, from Golden Age to Iron Age). However, this only forestalled the inevitable.
Collapse of even a belief in the highest faculty started around 500 years ago. It left a being divorced from Reality and the accession of the normally subservient reasoning faculty. Left floundering, the beings hailed this turn of events as a Renaissance, and with their attention turned away from ‘heaven’, began developing their physical and mental proclivities in earnest.
This inculcated a novel system — the utilization of the senses and reason alone in an attempt to fathom the now-forgotten essence of Nature (see Appendix 6: Science, the Wayward Path).
Truth, Goodness and Beauty waned; belief in an inert Nature prevailed; obsession with materiality grew. The higher faculty, the true potentiality of humanity, and a sentient universe were re-categorized as ‘magical thinking’.
Science proceeds by the comparing of one thing with another. Parts of the material universe are made into apparatus, which are then used to measure other parts. Essence remains undiscovered of course. But this method drives the creation of increasingly elaborate tools which allow an increasingly powerful analysis of matter. This machine technology of ever more sophisticated range has led to devices that can render the ecosphere dysfunctional, and instruments that disrupt human mentation.
The system which used elements rare on Earth, such as gold and silver, to represent and facilitate the exchange of material goods, was commandeered by those most obsessed by materiality. The substitution of paper allowed the established practice of usury to be greatly enhanced, enabling wealth to migrate into fewer and fewer hands (see Appendix 7: The Fractional Reserve System, the Great Banking Families, and Three Centuries of Market Manipulation).
A further stage, now underway, is the substitution of paper money with invisible digital money, allowing the very wealthy to syphon off even the little still owned by the rest. The most serious aspect of the sustained attempt by a minority to own the planet is the alignment of great wealth with innovative science, since it portends an amoral class of beings with vast destructive power. (Appendix 8: The Appropriation of Earth’s Resources and All Artefacts by the Few, and Appendix 9: Evolution of the Technological Means to Control Human Thinking and Emotion.)
You ask about the small green island toward one pole, and especially of the mystics who reside there. There are none now. Those who had direct experience of the Light were replaced in the last hundred years by those who only spoke of it (see Appendix 10: William Blake, the Scientific Enterprise, and the Eclipse of Mystic Consciousness).
Further, the obscuring of the Light led, two hundred and fifty years ago, to a proposal to override that hierarchy which, operating correctly, is a reflection in the collective sphere of that found in the individual being. Some inhabitants of the island who had ventured over the sea and established a colony on a continent there, replaced the monarchical system with a form of Rule by the People. Much effort was made to ensure its success.
It didn’t work. Since the majority elect a few to represent them, they inevitably choose those of a similar consciousness. Hence, the tendency of democracy has been ever downward, towards a Rule by the Fools (see Appendix 11: Guénon’s Reign of Quantity Applied to Forms of Government).
Notwithstanding this failing, the colony has maintained its self-belief, and is more or less heedless of the interests of those not inhabiting its area of Earth. Its imperialism is the chief cause of disharmony.
In the island you revered, and elsewhere, the various propensities indicated above have almost reached a nadir. Belief in the higher realities has all but disappeared, hence the education systems are defective. The rational faculty is starting to erode, leaving only instinctive emotion and sense experience as motivating factors.
The antics of members of the governing bodies resemble the court fools of the era you experienced, absent a hidden wisdom, with the mental proclivities, demeanor and even countenance of the juvenile form of the beings (see Appendix 12: Contemporary Government, Psychopathy and Infantilism). Insight, empathy and goodwill are missing; they have adopted the inclinations of the monied class.
As this report is being assembled there is an attempt to utilize the activity of a microorganism to subjugate by instilling fear and disrupting all social functioning (see Appendix 13: The Role of Viruses in Homeostasis and the Natural Mortality of Earth’s Lifeforms, and Appendix 14: Psychological Methods for Human Control).
Some more perceptive beings speculate that the goal is to instigate an inversion of the current order, whereby a minority of materialist imbeciles impose a tyranny over the rest.
However, the level of coercion and violence perpetrated on the majority, the drive to introduce substances that could initiate extreme mutagenesis, and the instigation of a global artificial intelligence technology that would make the beings redundant, suggests an eclipse of the remaining mental functioning. We believe there has been a rupture in the boundary between the physical world and the infernal and that non-human forces have begun to infiltrate.
As you know, the final stage of Sol’s transit means that no information reaches us, after which there is a nearly instantaneous reset to normality. The beings will be alone during this time. Given the unusual circumstances pertaining at present, there is a chance they will be overwhelmed, which means a complete disruption of the soul, and Earth dying away. As the poet says, “The fire of suns makes and unmakes worlds, and even the most beauteous lights therein are extinguished.”
As in the previous occurrences, the deeply instilled ideas of the Good, of the forces of Darkness, of spiritual struggle, should provide momentum sufficient to carry them through.
Nevertheless, we agree with your view. Compassion dictates some form of revelation. To this end we propose to have this report (modified as necessary to conform with the conscious state of the beings) disseminated. Forums are limited, but it can be inserted within one of the remaining broadcast media in which truth is tolerated.
No more than a breath upon the remnant Light that flickers in memory, it may assist in awakening the necessary resistance.
We await the exit of Sol from the Dark zone, the great Reset, and the reinstatement of the Golden Age.
— Chief Researcher/Archivist, Outer Periphery Records.
——— REPORT ENDS ———
John Lord Griffin is a philosopher, artist and farmer, currently living in Portugal. His books include On the Origin of Beauty and Javali with Oranges.


Morning in Hell

Increasingly , I think , the American public operates in a mild dissociative state .
I wrote about it here .
It is almost as if people are afflicted with a kind of PTSD — only one where the trauma is generalized , relatively low grade , but ongoing .
Any of us who have questioned the Covid narrative have had to put up with an inordinate amount of hectoring , name-calling , ridicule , and ostracism .
I remember when I signed on the artist appeal as part of the Milosevic Defense Committee , and the abuse and anger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
People who had no history with the region , knew little of the political landscape , would nonetheless wax irate , furious and near tears that I would hold such outrageous positions .
Now , over a decade later , two members of that committee have won Nobel Prizes ( Harold Pinter and Peter Handke ) .
You would think that might cause people to take a moment , reflect , recalibrate their thinking on the topic .
But alas , it rarely does .
The Covid narrative has generated the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has been constructed by the WHO , CDC , and more likely a dozen or so billionaires ( including Bill Gates ) is so rife with contradiction and illogic that one might think cracks would begin to show .
That many who accept the word of authority in general , might at this point start to question why none of this story makes sense .
But no .
Not in America anyway .
( or rather , to be more precise , there is a pushback , but it keeps to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the haute bourgeoisie put one in the stocks ) .
Leave it to America to make the flu into a morality play .
However there are clear signs of people waking up .
In Europe certainly .
And not only Germany , doctors and health care professionals in Belgium , too .
But the governments are sticking to the story they were handed .
In Norway here I still can not drive to Sweden .
Why ?
Who knows , there is no reason provided .
The PM uttered something about better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course .
Everything is discussed this way , in infantile baby talk , gibberish and slogans .
Anti-democratic edicts delivered as if by a kindergarten teacher .
Someone wrote to me on social media the other day and said “ Not everyone gets to live in Norway .
Here we are surrounded by death ” .
Now he lives in Los Angeles .
In a nice westside area .
He is not surrounded by death .
Or rather only in his hallucinatory inner theatre of the mind is death present , surrounding him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I associate with Hollywood .
Its kitsch image-making .
Never mind it ’ s literally not remotely true .
But this is a version of something that I think happens all the time now .
This man is in his own private movie .
It is a movie made of diverse parts ; there is something from all the various post-apocalyptic zombie films ( and TV , think Walking Dead ) , there is something of Norman Rockwell in there , or even Thomas Kincaid , there is Dr Phil and Oprah and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pedestrian thoughts of a Bill Maher , too .
This is what has come to pass for public intellectuals and intellectual discourse .
All are almost impossibly banal .
There are parts from a dozen disaster movies , too .
I mean literally all the way back to Towering Inferno .
And there is , perhaps most significantly , a quality that is harder to define or outline , but which I associate with JJ Abrams and Joss Whedon .
It is a quality of comforting superficiality , of controlled threat in worlds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ born in NY and are only a year apart in age ( mid fifties ) .
Both have a background in animation and computer generated affects .
Both came out of a comic book sensibility and have , more than anyone else in contemporary media , helped to shape the manufactured nostalgia for a fantasy of America .
It is the creation of a longing for a past that never was .
But both have established a universe of whiteness and equilibrium where the threat is from without .
For it can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ within ’ .
In that sense these are the anti Psychoanalytic purveyors of a youth culture for adults .
A comic or cartoon world view in which the sentimental plays an enormous role .
It is a world without tragedy or real suffering .
And just beneath the surface but always implied , is a respect for authority .
It is also a world where one is encouraged NOT to grow up .
The Covid story takes place in a universe of Whedon and Abrams , with parts of The Hunger Games @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of John Hughes .
( Hughes was really the precursor for both Whedon and Abrams ) .
Covid is taking place on the streets where Breakfast Club was filmed .
In people ’ s heads anyway .
Covid the virus is an overdetermined symbol — and one that only makes even a tiny bit of sense if it is located in these personal streaming sites in your brain .
( and I recommend Jonathan Beller , The Cinematic Mode of Production ) .
There is a tendency toward fetishization , too , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebrities .
Its bordering on surreal much of the time : Hip Hop moguls are asked about climate change , Silicon Valley billionaires voice opinion on overpopulation or vaccinations , soap opera stars offer thoughts on stem cell research .
Nothing is investigated , really .
It is all driven by whatever is most lurid or sensationalized .
The ruling class has clearly encouraged , if not mandated , a certain line of thinking on the pandemic .
The ruling class has profited enormously from the lockdown , and is quite happy with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact it is likely that this was at least partly all planned .
I mean what does one think those billionaires at the Bilderberg meeting talk about ?
Or at DAVOS or the like ?
The ruling elite anticipated crises in Capitalism , and the lockdown certainly provides cover for massive plunder or pensions , real estate , and really , most everything .
But the system , to some extent , does the work for the ruling class without instruction at this point .
For revenue is generated by blood and violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ template has already been put in place .
( If it bleeds it leads ) .
Although something has happened to the ‘ sex sells ’ dimension of the Spectacle .
People seem less and less in the throws of passion or lust .
The societies of the west are declining into some form of neurasthenic bloodless onanism .
The consumption of porn is up , but I ’ m pretty sure sex acts are actually down .
And the allegorical dimension of the Covid narrative serves as both substitute gratification and as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump announced he had “ tested positive ” .
He had been campaigning for the previous week and felt fine .
Then he tested positive and is described as having flu-like symptoms .
That this is part of a strategy I have no doubt , but I also could not begin to describe that strategy .
But the magical appearance of symptoms the minute he tested positive echoes the overall magical thinking involved in this entire narrative .
There is a veritable mania , now , concerning testing .
And yet even the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But no matter .
We must test more !
Magical thinking permeates the climate discourse , as well .
Never in history , or never since the Enlightenment , have so many people pretended to know so much .
For the educated thirty percent ( white and reasonably affluent ) it is the era of the TED talk .
Nothing dare last longer or be more demanding than a quick ( and entertaining ) ten minutes .
The fires in California have come primarily from downed power lines ( badly out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exacerbated by homeless encampments ( rarely mentioned ) and fireworks — and of course the drought that has extended backward a decade .
California has always burnt .
It was part of the ecosystem to rid the hills and forests of dead of dead shrub and trees .
Climate is clearly a part — snowpack is down , and summer heat has dried out shrubbery .
But much of what is dried out is shrub not native to California ( stuff like cheatgrass , a native of Asia and parts of Africa , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overstocked anyway .
Infrastructure in America is rotting , and per California , the wild areas have been neglected for almost a hundred years .
But that is not a part of the narrative .
The narrative must be about the rebellion of Earth itself and population .
And population matters only in terms of who can afford to over consume .
The problem is that the most obvious pollution issues ( militarism and the packaging industry ) are never addressed .
US imperialism is the cause of most of the suffering in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the infantile anthropomorphizing of much green discourse is just more baby talk .
I often hear “ we are waging war against ourselves ” .
This is a dangerous bit of mystification .
[ note that this riff goes all the way back to the Pogo comic strip in the 1960s ] .
Its more simplistic sloganeering and like most such chestnuts , class analysis is absent .
I have written a good deal on the psychological appeal of certain hi-tech fantasies , the seductive aspect of AI , and yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yes people , in a very general sense , can be seen as self-destructive .
It ’ s one of the most troubling byproducts of the habituation to screens , the loss of literacy and numeracy and the loss , really , of an ability to think critically .
But this cultic hysteria is driven by the increasing precarity and desperation in contemporary life .
The loss of unions plays a part , the absence of a real left party , a radical Marxist party .
For all the terrific work activist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal justice reform , and stuff like the Innocence Project ) there remains a vacuum in terms of electoral politics .
Perhaps that is just going to be the way this goes .
Maybe the entire electoral apparatus is dead .
And maybe that is a good thing .
There is a quality of suffocating sameness and emptiness that permeates daily life .
People don ’ t look at each other on the street , they look at their phones .
One is walking , all the time , among the pod people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a dire state .
The U.S. and really this is increasingly true in Europe , too , but not nearly to the same extent , is an excruciatingly lonely country .
People have lost the ability to make , and more , to sustain friendships .
And how the role of social media plays into that is an open question .
Or media in general .
So while yes , the marketing of technology serves to manufacture an appeal , on one level there are troubling numbers of people who seem , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to desire , ravishment by our robot overlords .
Android sex is a thing , and its growing .
And it ’ s not just men who want “ pleasure model ” androids ( ok , for now they have to settle for dolls ) , but many want to not just fuck androids – but to get fucked *by* androids .
A number of world leaders have contracted Covid .
Much as many get the flu .
There is something curiously similar in nearly everyone of these cases .
Boris Johnson , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post-coup Bolivia Jeanine Anez , Mikhail Mishustin of Russia , French finance minister Bruno Le Maire , and India ’ s Amit Shah ( the # 2 strongman behind Modi ) , and also in India , Pranab Mukherjee , former President , who subsequently died ( age 84 ) from the virus ( no , actually he died from a blood clot on his brain ) .
I only mention this because I experience an unsettling vertigo when trying to parse all this and make it into something comprehensible .
The way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone on the planet has the virus .
Already there has been significant psychological harm done to children .
The clear lesson is to fear the other .
That humans are contagious and potentially lethal .
Intimacy is officially discouraged .
I can not imagine that message were I fourteen or sixteen .
Growing up in the sixties the idea was to promote intimacy , feelings , and to exactly *not* fear emotional openness .
The English speaking west has gone from Paul Goodman to Theresa Tam .
The resurgent Puritanism is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even bourgeois pundits are noticing .
This is Zoe Williams in The Guardian : This is a lament from the privileged class , but perhaps that ’ s actually a good sign .
The ruling class don ’ t wear masks or have travel restrictions imposed on them .
There is no longer even a pretense .
The rich are entitled to special treatment .
The rich deserve a clean depopulated world where they can cavort on the green , frolic in elysian fields by murmuring brooks , and to not be troubled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a mere hundred years ago that Belgium brought Congolese from their African home , to be paraded in human zoos .
Those they hadn ’ t already murdered .
Covid is the final act in the transference of wealth to the top 1 % .
And culture is being destroyed along with everything else .
Cinemas are closing , permanently , theatres , too , permanently , and museums .
Galleries and other art spaces are shuttered , likely to never reopen .
Something like 30 million jobs have been lost .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Who survives ?
Amazon , Netflix , Google , Comcast , Facebook , et al .
Those who control the screens control the world .
It is a new morning in hell .

John Steppling
“it’s the proper morning to fly into Hell.”
Arthur Miller (The Crucible)
“One of the greatest delusions of the average man is to forget that life is death’s prisoner.”
Emil Cioran (On the Heights of Despair)
Increasingly, I think, the American public operates in a mild dissociative state. I wrote about it here. It is almost as if people are afflicted with a kind of PTSD — only one where the trauma is generalized, relatively low grade, but ongoing.
Any of us who have questioned the Covid narrative have had to put up with an inordinate amount of hectoring, name-calling, ridicule, and ostracism. I remember when I signed on the artist appeal as part of the Milosevic Defense Committee, and the abuse and anger I faced whenever this topic came up. People who had no history with the region, knew little of the political landscape, would nonetheless wax irate, furious and near tears that I would hold such outrageous positions.
Now, over a decade later, two members of that committee have won Nobel Prizes (Harold Pinter and Peter Handke). You would think that might cause people to take a moment, reflect, recalibrate their thinking on the topic. But alas, it rarely does.
The Covid narrative has generated the same near-hysterical indignation. The narrative, as it has been constructed by the WHO, CDC, and more likely a dozen or so billionaires (including Bill Gates) is so rife with contradiction and illogic that one might think cracks would begin to show.
That many who accept the word of authority in general, might at this point start to question why none of this story makes sense. But no. Not in America anyway. (or rather, to be more precise, there is a pushback, but it keeps to a low profile lest the little Cotton Mathers of the haute bourgeoisie put one in the stocks).
Leave it to America to make the flu into a morality play. However there are clear signs of people waking up. In Europe certainly.
And not only Germany, doctors and health care professionals in Belgium, too. But the governments are sticking to the story they were handed.
In Norway here I still cannot drive to Sweden. Why? Who knows, there is no reason provided. The PM uttered something about better safe than sorry, and staying the course. Everything is discussed this way, in infantile baby talk, gibberish and slogans. Anti-democratic edicts delivered as if by a kindergarten teacher.
Someone wrote to me on social media the other day and said “Not everyone gets to live in Norway. Here we are surrounded by death”. Now he lives in Los Angeles. In a nice westside area. He is not surrounded by death. Or rather only in his hallucinatory inner theatre of the mind is death present, surrounding him.
But this language has a quality I associate with Hollywood. Its kitsch image-making. Never mind it’s literally not remotely true. But this is a version of something that I think happens all the time now. This man is in his own private movie.
It is a movie made of diverse parts; there is something from all the various post-apocalyptic zombie films (and TV, think Walking Dead), there is something of Norman Rockwell in there, or even Thomas Kincaid, there is Dr Phil and Oprah and the cheapening of emotion. The snarky pedestrian thoughts of a Bill Maher, too.
This is what has come to pass for public intellectuals and intellectual discourse. All are almost impossibly banal. There are parts from a dozen disaster movies, too. I mean literally all the way back to Towering Inferno. And there is, perhaps most significantly, a quality that is harder to define or outline, but which I associate with JJ Abrams and Joss Whedon.
It is a quality of comforting superficiality, of controlled threat in worlds of generic cheeriness. Interestingly both were born in NY and are only a year apart in age (mid fifties). Both have a background in animation and computer generated affects. Both came out of a comic book sensibility and have, more than anyone else in contemporary media, helped to shape the manufactured nostalgia for a fantasy of America.
It is the creation of a longing for a past that never was. But both have established a universe of whiteness and equilibrium where the threat is from without.
For it cannot be from within because there is no ‘within’.
In that sense these are the anti Psychoanalytic purveyors of a youth culture for adults. A comic or cartoon world view in which the sentimental plays an enormous role. It is a world without tragedy or real suffering. And just beneath the surface but always implied, is a respect for authority. It is also a world where one is encouraged NOT to grow up.
The Covid story takes place in a universe of Whedon and Abrams, with parts of The Hunger Games, Breaking Bad, and the films of John Hughes. (Hughes was really the precursor for both Whedon and Abrams). Covid is taking place on the streets where Breakfast Club was filmed. In people’s heads anyway.
Covid the virus is an overdetermined symbol — and one that only makes even a tiny bit of sense if it is located in these personal streaming sites in your brain. (and I recommend Jonathan Beller, The Cinematic Mode of Production).
There is a tendency toward fetishization, too, and hence the ubiquitous appearance and opinion of celebrities. Its bordering on surreal much of the time: Hip Hop moguls are asked about climate change, Silicon Valley billionaires voice opinion on overpopulation or vaccinations, soap opera stars offer thoughts on stem cell research.
Nothing is investigated, really. It is all driven by whatever is most lurid or sensationalized. The ruling class has clearly encouraged, if not mandated, a certain line of thinking on the pandemic. The ruling class has profited enormously from the lockdown, and is quite happy with a semi-permanent state of crisis.
In fact it is likely that this was at least partly all planned. I mean what does one think those billionaires at the Bilderberg meeting talk about? Or at DAVOS or the like? The ruling elite anticipated crises in Capitalism, and the lockdown certainly provides cover for massive plunder or pensions, real estate, and really, most everything.
But the system, to some extent, does the work for the ruling class without instruction at this point. For revenue is generated by blood and violence, and secondly by sex. The template has already been put in place. (If it bleeds it leads). Although something has happened to the ‘sex sells’ dimension of the Spectacle. People seem less and less in the throws of passion or lust.
The societies of the west are declining into some form of neurasthenic bloodless onanism. The consumption of porn is up, but I’m pretty sure sex acts are actually down. And the allegorical dimension of the Covid narrative serves as both substitute gratification and as a symbolic purification ritual.
This week Trump announced he had “tested positive”. He had been campaigning for the previous week and felt fine. Then he tested positive and is described as having flu-like symptoms. That this is part of a strategy I have no doubt, but I also could not begin to describe that strategy. But the magical appearance of symptoms the minute he tested positive echoes the overall magical thinking involved in this entire narrative.
There is a veritable mania, now, concerning testing. And yet even the NYTimes admits the tests are virtually meaningless. But no matter. We must test more!
Magical thinking permeates the climate discourse, as well. Never in history, or never since the Enlightenment, have so many people pretended to know so much. For the educated thirty percent (white and reasonably affluent) it is the era of the TED talk. Nothing dare last longer or be more demanding than a quick (and entertaining) ten minutes. The fires in California have come primarily from downed power lines (badly out of date and rarely serviced), but exacerbated by homeless encampments (rarely mentioned) and fireworks — and of course the drought that has extended backward a decade.
California has always burnt. It was part of the ecosystem to rid the hills and forests of dead of dead shrub and trees. Climate is clearly a part — snowpack is down, and summer heat has dried out shrubbery. But much of what is dried out is shrub not native to California (stuff like cheatgrass, a native of Asia and parts of Africa, and notoriously invasive) whose forests are overstocked anyway.
Infrastructure in America is rotting, and per California, the wild areas have been neglected for almost a hundred years. But that is not a part of the narrative. The narrative must be about the rebellion of Earth itself and population. And population matters only in terms of who can afford to over consume. The problem is that the most obvious pollution issues (militarism and the packaging industry) are never addressed.
US imperialism is the cause of most of the suffering in the world. Most of the instability. But the infantile anthropomorphizing of much green discourse is just more baby talk. I often hear “we are waging war against ourselves”. This is a dangerous bit of mystification. [note that this riff goes all the way back to the Pogo comic strip in the 1960s].
Its more simplistic sloganeering and like most such chestnuts, class analysis is absent. I have written a good deal on the psychological appeal of certain hi-tech fantasies, the seductive aspect of AI, and yet the world is more proletarianized than ever.
Yes people, in a very general sense, can be seen as self-destructive. It’s one of the most troubling byproducts of the habituation to screens, the loss of literacy and numeracy and the loss, really, of an ability to think critically. But this cultic hysteria is driven by the increasing precarity and desperation in contemporary life.
The loss of unions plays a part, the absence of a real left party, a radical Marxist party. For all the terrific work activist groups do (Prison abolishment groups, criminal justice reform, and stuff like the Innocence Project) there remains a vacuum in terms of electoral politics. Perhaps that is just going to be the way this goes.
Maybe the entire electoral apparatus is dead. And maybe that is a good thing.
There is a quality of suffocating sameness and emptiness that permeates daily life. People don’t look at each other on the street, they look at their phones. One is walking, all the time, among the pod people. America’s mental health is in a dire state. The U.S. and really this is increasingly true in Europe, too, but not nearly to the same extent, is an excruciatingly lonely country. People have lost the ability to make, and more, to sustain friendships. And how the role of social media plays into that is an open question. Or media in general.
So while yes, the marketing of technology serves to manufacture an appeal, on one level there are troubling numbers of people who seem, all by themselves, to *want*, to desire, ravishment by our robot overlords. Android sex is a thing, and its growing.
And it’s not just men who want “pleasure model” androids (ok, for now they have to settle for dolls), but many want to not just fuck androids – but to get fucked *by* androids.
The engine is capitalism.
A number of world leaders have contracted Covid. Much as many get the flu. There is something curiously similar in nearly everyone of these cases. Boris Johnson, Bolsanaro, the fascist interim President of post-coup Bolivia Jeanine Anez, Mikhail Mishustin of Russia, French finance minister Bruno Le Maire, and India’s Amit Shah (the #2 strongman behind Modi), and also in India, Pranab Mukherjee, former President, who subsequently died (age 84) from the virus (no, actually he died from a blood clot on his brain).
I only mention this because I experience an unsettling vertigo when trying to parse all this and make it into something comprehensible. The way Covid tests work one might well think everyone on the planet has the virus.
Already there has been significant psychological harm done to children. The clear lesson is to fear the other. That humans are contagious and potentially lethal. Intimacy is officially discouraged.
I cannot imagine that message were I fourteen or sixteen. Growing up in the sixties the idea was to promote intimacy, feelings, and to exactly *not* fear emotional openness. The English speaking west has gone from Paul Goodman to Theresa Tam.
The resurgent Puritanism is not restricted to odd ducks like Tam. Even bourgeois pundits are noticing. This is Zoe Williams in The Guardian:
There remains, in public life, a rich seam of puritanism that you notice only when times are so bleak that you could really do without it. A sense that frivolity is immoral, even if it is 95% of your economy; a feeling that they had it coming, all those people dedicating their lives to the generation of fun. Puritans tend not to announce their disapproval except in the most roundabout ways, so you can rarely pin it on them. But standing on the precipice of a year that ends without dancing, bears, dancing bears, playhouses, ale houses, music or Christmas, all I can think of is how happy Oliver Cromwell would have been. It is like all his cancelled Christmases come at once. He would be dancing (not dancing) in his grave.”
This is a lament from the privileged class, but perhaps that’s actually a good sign.
The ruling class don’t wear masks or have travel restrictions imposed on them.
There is no longer even a pretense. The rich are entitled to special treatment. The rich deserve a clean depopulated world where they can cavort on the green, frolic in elysian fields by murmuring brooks, and to not be troubled by darkies and riff-raff. Remember it was a mere hundred years ago that Belgium brought Congolese from their African home, to be paraded in human zoos. Those they hadn’t already murdered.
Covid is the final act in the transference of wealth to the top 1%. And culture is being destroyed along with everything else. Cinemas are closing, permanently, theatres, too, permanently, and museums. Galleries and other art spaces are shuttered, likely to never reopen. Something like 30 million jobs have been lost. There is an acute desperation across America.
Who survives? Amazon, Netflix, Google, Comcast, Facebook, et al. Those who control the screens control the world. It is a new morning in hell.


offguardian--2020-10-10--The Great VIRAL Debate Is Underway!

The Great VIRAL Debate Is Underway!

The Great VIRAL Debate is now underway , with the opening statements from our eminent debaters , Drs Tim Anderson @ @ @ @ @ below ! )
.
We ’ ve published their opening statements as separate articles , @ @ @ @ @ us to feature both participants equally in our ‘ featured ’ slot .
The question @ @ @ @ @ follows : Find out more about our two debaters here .
Dr Piers Robinson is @ @ @ @ @ your host .
Enjoy !

The Great VIRAL Debate is now underway, with the opening statements from our eminent debaters, Drs Tim Anderson and Denis Rancourt (linked below!). We’ve published their opening statements as separate articles, and this linking piece allows us to feature both participants equally in our ‘featured’ slot.
The question they are debating is as follows:
SARS-COV-2 merits suppression measures in order to combat the virus rather than the herd/community immunity approach
Dr Tim Anderson’s Opening Statement, arguing for the Affirmative.
Dr Denis Rancourt’s Opening Statement, arguing for the Negative.
Find out more about our two debaters here.
Dr Piers Robinson is our Chair. Off-Guardian is your host. Enjoy!


offguardian--2020-10-10--The Great VIRAL Debate: Dr Rancourt’s Opening Statement

Dr Piers Robinson is our Chair .
Off-Guardian is your host .
The proposition to be debated is : Dr Rancourt delivers his opening statement , arguing against the proposition : The events of COVID-19 can be analysed by unembedded critical commentators following different stances , or using different filters .
Examples of useful analytical stances include : • COVID-19 is caused by a particularly virulent and transmissive viral respiratory disease pathogen .
The death rate in a given population will depend on the effectiveness of government-coordinated mitigation interventions and treatment practices .
Therefore , the hospitalization and death rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a given State jurisdiction .
• Irrespective of anything else , the questions of virulence ( infection fatality rate ) and transmissivity ( contagiousness ) can be answered by unbiased scientific enquiry , assuming virulence and transmissivity to be properties of the pathogen , for a given societal structure .
• The presence of a massive and coordinated information and recommendation ( propaganda ? )
campaign , integrating government departments and health institutions , can be objectively ascertained , and it is both real and unprecedented in magnitude .
In-effect this campaign serves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ censorship and surveillance , severe travel and trade restrictions , a large slowdown of the global economy , and a massive and accelerated effort to develop a vaccine .
Are there geopolitical drivers , and what might they be ?
Or is the campaign simply a rational and apolitical response to a palpable public-health threat , in the other extreme ?
• Large numbers of excess all-cause deaths have occurred in many State and local jurisdictions ( and have not occurred in many other infected jurisdictions ) .
Can it be established by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to a new pathogen ( SARS-CoV-2 ) or primarily due to the imposed mitigation measures , in the given societal structures ?
Can the quality of government be evaluated in terms of the lethality of the mitigation measures themselves ?
Now , Professor Anderson and I want to debate whether SARS-CoV-2 merits special suppression measures versus business as usual , as , I will venture , would probably have occurred if no pandemic was declared .
One reason that we can even have this debate is that SARS-CoV-2 is not particularly virulent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influenza , which is highly contagious .
Folks are not dropping in the streets from SARS-CoV-2 , not even in the USA .
I do not know anyone who knows anyone who has died of this thing , and virtually all of my social contacts report the same .
If SARS-CoV-2 were evidently deadly , in real observable terms for most people , then the debate would be over .
There would be an obvious need to do more than the usual .
Likewise , with an exceptionally virulent and contagious pathogen , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easily be ascertained .
With SARS-CoV-2 , the weakness of the pathogen allows for endless debate , spin , and policy uncertainty .
In that sense , the nature of the instant debate itself puts a limit on the presumed dangerousness of SARS-CoV-2 .
Unlike imperialism , war , global exploitation , and so on , in terms of human misery , this is largely an academic exercise , if it is confined to the virulence of SARS-CoV-2 .
In my own on-going research , I have examined COVID-19 through the lens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
My main research articles have been : I also authored a Report for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association ( ocla.ca ) , entitled “ Criticism of Government Response to COVID-19 in Canada ” ( 18 April 2020 ) ; and co-authored an OCLA letter to the WHO , entitled “ WHO advising the use of masks in the general population to prevent COVID-19 transmission ” ( 21 June 2020 ) .
Regarding virulence , the infection fatality rate ( IFR ) is a scientific question , which can not be answered merely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the number of deaths attributed to the pathogen ( SARS-CoV-2 ) , occurring within a relevant time period , per proven infection in the corresponding relevant time period , in a given population [ 1 ] .
The IFR must be discerned from the case fatality ratio ( CFR ) , which is the number of deaths , within a relevant time period , per number of diagnosed medical “ cases ” , which are confirmed and actual illnesses , in a given population .
CFR is a measure of clinical severity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ case ” is not a “ PCR positive ” , as misused in the media , and that the evaluation must be based on a population , without selecting only the most ill individuals presenting themselves to hospitals .
At the start of the COVID-19 saga , a large uncorrected CFR , estimated from hospital cases in Wuhan , caused the initial panic .
An authoritative and detailed recent study of the IFR for COVID-19 is provided by Professor John Ioannidis [ 2 ] .
Professor Joseph Audie reviewed the Ioannidis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faulty evaluation of IFR revised and concocted by the CDC ( dated 10 July 2020 ) [ 3 ] .
The CDC published re-revised estimates on 10 September 2020 [ 4 ] .
Both Ioannidis and Audie conclude that SARS-CoV-2 is not more virulent than a “ bad ” -season influenza .
Ioannidis puts it in these terms , in its socio-political context : Based on the IFR estimates obtained here , COVID-19 may have infected as of July 12 approximately 300 million people ( or more ) , far more than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 death toll is still evolving , but it is still not much dissimilar to a typical death toll from seasonal influenza ( 290,000-650,000 ) , while “ bad ” influenza years ( e.g .
1957-9 and 1968-70 ) have been associated with 1-4 million deaths .
[ … ] COVID-19 seems to affect predominantly the frail , the disadvantaged , and the marginalized – as shown by high rates of infectious burden in nursing homes , homeless shelters , prisons , meat processing plants , and the strong racial/ethnic inequalities against minorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The revised ( 10 September 2020 ) CDC best-estimates of the IFR [ 0.003 % , 0-19 years ; 0.02 % , 20-49 years ; 0.5 % , 50-69 years ; 5.4 % 70+ years ] are comparable to and smaller than the values for the mild 2009 ( H1N1 ) influenza pandemic [ 0.00066 % , 3-19 years … 0.22 % ( 0.05 % —4 % ) , 60+ years ] [ 5 ] .
Therefore , by now , the numbers are in : SARS-CoV-2 is not an extraordinarily deadly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say nothing about the unsolved problem of inflationary bias in attributing medical deaths to COVID-19 , which is the numerator in the IFR ratio .
The latter bias is documented to be particularly severe with deaths of elderly persons having multiple comorbidities .
It also says little about the problem of the questionable premise of virology that mortality is primarily due to the genetics of one guilty viral strain , rather than being primarily due to vulnerability of the host population ( subjected to an ecology of pathogens ) , including vulnerability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about our two eminent debaters here

Dr Piers Robinson is our Chair. Off-Guardian is your host. The proposition to be debated is:
SARS-COV-2 merits suppression measures in order to combat the virus rather than the herd/community immunity approach
Dr Rancourt delivers his opening statement, arguing against the proposition:
The events of COVID-19 can be analysed by unembedded critical commentators following different stances, or using different filters. Examples of useful analytical stances include:
COVID-19 is caused by a particularly virulent and transmissive viral respiratory disease pathogen. The death rate in a given population will depend on the effectiveness of government-coordinated mitigation interventions and treatment practices. Therefore, the hospitalization and death rates are a measure of intervention effectiveness in a given State jurisdiction. Irrespective of anything else, the questions of virulence (infection fatality rate) and transmissivity (contagiousness) can be answered by unbiased scientific enquiry, assuming virulence and transmissivity to be properties of the pathogen, for a given societal structure. The presence of a massive and coordinated information and recommendation (propaganda?) campaign, integrating government departments and health institutions, can be objectively ascertained, and it is both real and unprecedented in magnitude. In-effect this campaign serves to justify: harsh mitigation measures, censorship and surveillance, severe travel and trade restrictions, a large slowdown of the global economy, and a massive and accelerated effort to develop a vaccine. Are there geopolitical drivers, and what might they be? Or is the campaign simply a rational and apolitical response to a palpable public-health threat, in the other extreme? Large numbers of excess all-cause deaths have occurred in many State and local jurisdictions (and have not occurred in many other infected jurisdictions). Can it be established by scientific enquiry whether these deaths are primarily due to a new pathogen (SARS-CoV-2) or primarily due to the imposed mitigation measures, in the given societal structures? Can the quality of government be evaluated in terms of the lethality of the mitigation measures themselves?
Now, Professor Anderson and I want to debate whether SARS-CoV-2 merits special suppression measures versus business as usual, as, I will venture, would probably have occurred if no pandemic was declared.
One reason that we can even have this debate is that SARS-CoV-2 is not particularly virulent, nor is it more contagious than influenza, which is highly contagious. Folks are not dropping in the streets from SARS-CoV-2, not even in the USA. I do not know anyone who knows anyone who has died of this thing, and virtually all of my social contacts report the same. If SARS-CoV-2 were evidently deadly, in real observable terms for most people, then the debate would be over. There would be an obvious need to do more than the usual. Likewise, with an exceptionally virulent and contagious pathogen, the effectiveness of various mitigation measures would easily be ascertained. With SARS-CoV-2, the weakness of the pathogen allows for endless debate, spin, and policy uncertainty.
In that sense, the nature of the instant debate itself puts a limit on the presumed dangerousness of SARS-CoV-2. Unlike imperialism, war, global exploitation, and so on, in terms of human misery, this is largely an academic exercise, if it is confined to the virulence of SARS-CoV-2.
In my own on-going research, I have examined COVID-19 through the lens of each of the four stances outlined above. My main research articles have been:
I also authored a Report for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (ocla.ca), entitled “Criticism of Government Response to COVID-19 in Canada” (18 April 2020); and co-authored an OCLA letter to the WHO, entitled “WHO advising the use of masks in the general population to prevent COVID-19 transmission” (21 June 2020).
Regarding virulence, the infection fatality rate (IFR) is a scientific question, which cannot be answered merely by using socio-political inferences. The IFR is the number of deaths attributed to the pathogen (SARS-CoV-2), occurring within a relevant time period, per proven infection in the corresponding relevant time period, in a given population [1].
The IFR must be discerned from the case fatality ratio (CFR), which is the number of deaths, within a relevant time period, per number of diagnosed medical “cases”, which are confirmed and actual illnesses, in a given population. CFR is a measure of clinical severity. Here, I should stress that a “case” is not a “PCR positive”, as misused in the media, and that the evaluation must be based on a population, without selecting only the most ill individuals presenting themselves to hospitals. At the start of the COVID-19 saga, a large uncorrected CFR, estimated from hospital cases in Wuhan, caused the initial panic.
An authoritative and detailed recent study of the IFR for COVID-19 is provided by Professor John Ioannidis [2]. Professor Joseph Audie reviewed the Ioannidis study, in relation to a demonstrably faulty evaluation of IFR revised and concocted by the CDC (dated 10 July 2020) [3]. The CDC published re-revised estimates on 10 September 2020 [4].
Both Ioannidis and Audie conclude that SARS-CoV-2 is not more virulent than a “bad”-season influenza. Ioannidis puts it in these terms, in its socio-political context:
Based on the IFR estimates obtained here, COVID-19 may have infected as of July 12 approximately 300 million people (or more), far more than the ~13 million PCR-documented cases. The global COVID-19 death toll is still evolving, but it is still not much dissimilar to a typical death toll from seasonal influenza (290,000-650,000), while “bad” influenza years (e.g. 1957-9 and 1968-70) have been associated with 1-4 million deaths. […] COVID-19 seems to affect predominantly the frail, the disadvantaged, and the marginalized – as shown by high rates of infectious burden in nursing homes, homeless shelters, prisons, meat processing plants, and the strong racial/ethnic inequalities against minorities in terms of the cumulative death risk.
The revised (10 September 2020) CDC best-estimates of the IFR [0.003%, 0-19 years; 0.02%, 20-49 years; 0.5%, 50-69 years; 5.4% 70+ years] are comparable to and smaller than the values for the mild 2009 (H1N1) influenza pandemic [0.00066%, 3-19 years … 0.22% (0.05%—4%), 60+ years] [5].
Therefore, by now, the numbers are in: SARS-CoV-2 is not an extraordinarily deadly respiratory disease pathogen.
This is to say nothing about the unsolved problem of inflationary bias in attributing medical deaths to COVID-19, which is the numerator in the IFR ratio. The latter bias is documented to be particularly severe with deaths of elderly persons having multiple comorbidities. It also says little about the problem of the questionable premise of virology that mortality is primarily due to the genetics of one guilty viral strain, rather than being primarily due to vulnerability of the host population (subjected to an ecology of pathogens), including vulnerability to violent government interventions.
Find out more about our two eminent debaters here
Read Dr Anderson’s opposing opening statement here


offguardian--2020-10-10--The Great VIRAL Debate: Dr Anderson’s Opening Statement

Dr Piers Robinson is our Chair .
Off-Guardian is your host .
The proposition to be debated is : Dr Anderson delivers his opening statement in support of the proposition : I ask readers to reflect a little on health systems and the ideas behind them , and not just react to particular measures .
To simply react to the crisis as ‘ lockdown vs no lockdown ’ , and complain how it affects individual liberties , misses that .
The 2020 pandemic has shown us massive failures in western neoliberal health systems – privatised , heavily commercialised , lacking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analysis .
I suggest we learn from the experience of independent countries , those well organised on principles of humanism and social solidarity , e.g .
China , Vietnam , Cuba , Venezuela and Syria .
Their actions during the pandemic have some important lessons .
It is important to go beyond the fantasies that the current epidemics were not serious public health threats , which demand a social response .
Cynical responses which cry ‘ the data is all wrong , scientists should not be believed , public health systems want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neoliberal failures and prevent us from engaging in social responses .
I have read some of the material that my colleague Denis Rancourt has written on this subject .
I disagree strongly with his idea that all viruses are part of a regular winter cocktail , with little difference between them .
Demonstrable , collective medical science is important , and differs in character from political debate , which is mostly constructivist and argumentative .
Differences between diseases are important .
Some affect the young and others the old .
Many epidemiologists say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one pandemic , you ’ ve seen … one pandemic ” ( Osterholm ; Horton ) .
That is , “ COVID-19 doesn ’ t behave like flu , which doesn ’ t behave like Ebola ” ( Spinney ) .
We know now that COVID19 is not only linked to respiratory illness but also vascular and neurological illness .
It simply entrenches ignorance to say : ‘ we can ignore all contemporary public health data ’ ( because of the chronic uncertainties ) , and ‘ we can ignore medical science consensus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dissidents ) .
We should engage with the best available evidence .
The consequences of denying the pandemic , as do a western liberal minority , are that people assist the neoliberal privatising project and self-exclude from meaningful engagement in many real issues : how to manage particular quarantine regimes , social security , medical regimes , etc .
Pandemic deniers run parallel slogans to those of neoliberals like Boris Johnson and Donald Trump : ‘ no worse than a flu ’ , ‘ natural herd immunity ’ , ‘ the cure is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denialism is not really a ‘ left ’ position because it begins by rejecting preventive health measures ( e.g .
quarantine and vaccines , at the centre of all public health systems ) and its justifications generally capitulate to individualism ( ‘ my liberties above all ’ ) .
I say yes , the 2020 pandemic was a serious health crisis which required prompt protective measures to contain the spread and mitigate the illness and death .
This should be understood in principle , first , before moving to criticise the various quarantine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is always important to not conflate principles with particular political actions .
Protection of populations could not be achieved by simply allowing the disease to run its course and hope that some sort of natural immunity might result .
That would have allowed many millions to die .
I will briefly address the science on the danger of the virus and why ‘ herd immunity ’ is only really viable with the help of a vaccine .
We can debate the science on excess mortality , vaccines , face masks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later .
Epidemiologists calculated a range of Infection Fatality Rate ( IFR ) estimates , a few months into the pandemic .
They suggested IFRs between 0.2 % and 1.3 % , but the consensual area is between 0.5 % to 1 % ( Verity et al ; Basu ; CDC ; Bhattacharya ; Mallapaty ) .
That is , about 5 to 10 times the seasonal flu , not inconsistent with the more than one million COVID19 deaths reported from 200+ countries and territories in seven to eight months of epidemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths from flu globally , in recent years ( Paget ) .
No responsible health official can afford to just cherry pick the most optimistic estimates .
On acquired immunity , measurements of antibodies to COVID19 in some of the hardest hit European cities and New York show 10 % or less , plus some higher levels T-cell reactivity ( Jones and Helmreich ; Pitt ; Woodley ) .
That is far too low for any sort of ‘ natural ’ herd immunity which , given COVID19 ’ s highly contagious nature , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Observed natural levels of antibodies or T-cell reactivity do not yet come close to that ( Pitt ; Doshi ) .
This is where the 300+ vaccine candidates try to do better .
Let ’ s see how good they are .
This is my characterisation of the approach taken by neoliberal countries ( UK , USA , Sweden , Brazil ) : - they stripped their public health capacity , decades before this crisis ; - they developed societies of privilege and exclusion , fuelling distrust and resentment ; - they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the epidemics , allowing contagion to spread ; - they imposed quarantine controls very late , using police and not health officials ; - they generated both contagion and prolonged ‘ lockdowns ’ – the worst of all worlds .
What did the more independent countries ( China , Vietnam , Cuba , Venezuela , Syria ) do ?
- they built and extended public health systems ; - they extended universal guarantees and made more inclusive systems ; - they promptly imposed protective quarantine measures , led by health personnel ; - @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with testing and tracing , could be more focused .
Why should we not reflect on why Cuba and Syria ( e.g . )
imposed quarantine measures before they had a single infection , while the UK and the USA waited 7-8 weeks ?
The first two contained their epidemics , the latter two did not .
Find out more about our two eminent debaters here

Dr Piers Robinson is our Chair. Off-Guardian is your host. The proposition to be debated is:
SARS-COV-2 merits suppression measures in order to combat the virus rather than the herd/community immunity approach
Dr Anderson delivers his opening statement in support of the proposition:
I ask readers to reflect a little on health systems and the ideas behind them, and not just react to particular measures. To simply react to the crisis as ‘lockdown vs no lockdown’, and complain how it affects individual liberties, misses that.
The 2020 pandemic has shown us massive failures in western neoliberal health systems – privatised, heavily commercialised, lacking in preventive capacity – and this deserve analysis.
I suggest we learn from the experience of independent countries, those well organised on principles of humanism and social solidarity, e.g. China, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela and Syria. Their actions during the pandemic have some important lessons.
It is important to go beyond the fantasies that the current epidemics were not serious public health threats, which demand a social response. Cynical responses which cry ‘the data is all wrong, scientists should not be believed, public health systems want to poison us all’ both miss the neoliberal failures and prevent us from engaging in social responses.
1. On the broad debate:
I have read some of the material that my colleague Denis Rancourt has written on this subject. I disagree strongly with his idea that all viruses are part of a regular winter cocktail, with little difference between them.
Demonstrable, collective medical science is important, and differs in character from political debate, which is mostly constructivist and argumentative.
Differences between diseases are important. Some affect the young and others the old. Many epidemiologists say, “if you’ve seen one pandemic, you’ve seen … one pandemic” (Osterholm; Horton).
That is, “COVID-19 doesn’t behave like flu, which doesn’t behave like Ebola” (Spinney). We know now that COVID19 is not only linked to respiratory illness but also vascular and neurological illness.
It simply entrenches ignorance to say: ‘we can ignore all contemporary public health data’ (because of the chronic uncertainties), and ‘we can ignore medical science consensus’ (in favour of our chosen dissidents). We should engage with the best available evidence.
The consequences of denying the pandemic, as do a western liberal minority, are that people assist the neoliberal privatising project and self-exclude from meaningful engagement in many real issues: how to manage particular quarantine regimes, social security, medical regimes, etc.
Pandemic deniers run parallel slogans to those of neoliberals like Boris Johnson and Donald Trump: ‘no worse than a flu’, ‘natural herd immunity’, ‘the cure is worse than the disease’.
This denialism is not really a ‘left’ position because it begins by rejecting preventive health measures (e.g. quarantine and vaccines, at the centre of all public health systems) and its justifications generally capitulate to individualism (‘my liberties above all’).
2. On the proposition:
Does SARS-CoV-2 merit suppression measures in order to combat the virus rather than the herd/community immunity approach?
I say yes, the 2020 pandemic was a serious health crisis which required prompt protective measures to contain the spread and mitigate the illness and death. This should be understood in principle, first, before moving to criticise the various quarantine and hygiene measures taken by particular governments. It is always important to not conflate principles with particular political actions.
Protection of populations could not be achieved by simply allowing the disease to run its course and hope that some sort of natural immunity might result. That would have allowed many millions to die.
I will briefly address the science on the danger of the virus and why ‘herd immunity’ is only really viable with the help of a vaccine. We can debate the science on excess mortality, vaccines, face masks, lockdown casualties, and so on, later.
Epidemiologists calculated a range of Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) estimates, a few months into the pandemic. They suggested IFRs between 0.2% and 1.3%, but the consensual area is between 0.5% to 1% (Verity et al; Basu; CDC; Bhattacharya; Mallapaty). That is, about 5 to 10 times the seasonal flu, not inconsistent with the more than one million COVID19 deaths reported from 200+ countries and territories in seven to eight months of epidemic, compared to an average of 400,000 annual deaths from flu globally, in recent years (Paget). No responsible health official can afford to just cherry pick the most optimistic estimates.
On acquired immunity, measurements of antibodies to COVID19 in some of the hardest hit European cities and New York show 10% or less, plus some higher levels T-cell reactivity (Jones and Helmreich; Pitt; Woodley). That is far too low for any sort of ‘natural’ herd immunity which, given COVID19’s highly contagious nature, has been suggested to require 85%. Observed natural levels of antibodies or T-cell reactivity do not yet come close to that (Pitt; Doshi). This is where the 300+ vaccine candidates try to do better. Let’s see how good they are.
3. Neoliberal failures and independent responses
This is my characterisation of the approach taken by neoliberal countries (UK, USA, Sweden, Brazil):- they stripped their public health capacity, decades before this crisis;- they developed societies of privilege and exclusion, fuelling distrust and resentment;- they delayed for many weeks state responses to the epidemics, allowing contagion to spread;- they imposed quarantine controls very late, using police and not health officials;- they generated both contagion and prolonged ‘lockdowns’ – the worst of all worlds.
What did the more independent countries (China, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria) do?- they built and extended public health systems;- they extended universal guarantees and made more inclusive systems;- they promptly imposed protective quarantine measures, led by health personnel;- they generated shorter ‘lockdowns’ which, with testing and tracing, could be more focused.
Why should we not reflect on why Cuba and Syria (e.g.) imposed quarantine measures before they had a single infection, while the UK and the USA waited 7-8 weeks? The first two contained their epidemics, the latter two did not.
Find out more about our two eminent debaters here
Read Dr Rancourt’s opposing opening statement here


offguardian--2020-10-09--The Great Viral Debate

The Great Viral Debate

Tomorrow ( Sat Oct 10 ) we launch the first round of our Covid19 debate featuring Drs Tim Anderson and Denis Rancourt .
The global response to COVID-19 has been dominated by national and international responses involving unprecedented attempts to suppress and eliminate the virus .
The responses have been controversial , however , and some scientists have questioned their wisdom and advocated herd/community immunity responses .
In October 2020 , a collection of scientists advanced the Great Barrington Declaration calling for an end to existing strategies based on suppression and/or elimination .
From a political perspective , a notable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been a tendency to , rightly or wrongly , associate the suppression/elimination strategy with liberal/left-wing politics whilst the herd/community immunity approach has been linked with conservative or right-wing politics .
In order to critically evaluate these issues two leading voices , Dr Tim Anderson and Dr Denis Rancourt , have been invited in order to rationally and respectfully explore these important issues .
The proposition to be debated is as follows : - The aim is to help critically unpack the rationales , both political and scientific , that underlie these very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over a period of time , with written online dialogue between Dr Anderson and Dr Rancourt .
OffGuardian are the official host for this debate and Dr Piers Robinson will undertake Chair responsibilities , ensuring rules of rational debate are followed .
Denis Rancourt holds B.Sc.
, M.Sc .
and Ph.D. in Physics ( University of Toronto ) .
He was a tenured Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa for 23 years .
Dr. Rancourt has been an invited plenary , keynote , or special session speaker at major scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published over 100 research papers in leading peer-reviewed scientific journals , in the areas of physics , chemistry , geology , materials science , soil science , and environmental science .
He is a frequent media commentator .
His medical , political and social theory articles and interviews are published in many venues , such as Dissident Voice .
His recent video interviews and reporting videos about the science of the COVID-19 epidemic and the science of face masks for preventing viral respiratory diseases have been viewed more than 2 million times , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anderson is Director of the Sydney-based Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies .
His PhD thesis ( Macquarie University , 1997 ) was on economic liberalisation in Australia .
He worked as a lecturer and senior lecturer at Australian universities for more than 30 years , teaching , researching and publishing on : human rights in development , customary land in Melanesia , small farming and food security , health systems and infectious disease , Cuban medical internationalism , self-determination in development , independent regional integration and resistance to the wars of the 21st @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cuba ’ s medal of friendship .
He is the Australia and Pacific representative for the Latin America based Network in Defence of Humanity .
His book ‘ The Pandemic and Independent Countries ’ will be published in late 2020..

Tomorrow (Sat Oct 10) we launch the first round of our Covid19 debate featuring Drs Tim Anderson and Denis Rancourt.
The global response to COVID-19 has been dominated by national and international responses involving unprecedented attempts to suppress and eliminate the virus. The responses have been controversial, however, and some scientists have questioned their wisdom and advocated herd/community immunity responses. In October 2020, a collection of scientists advanced the Great Barrington Declaration calling for an end to existing strategies based on suppression and/or elimination.
From a political perspective, a notable feature of debate in the Western sphere has been a tendency to, rightly or wrongly, associate the suppression/elimination strategy with liberal/left-wing politics whilst the herd/community immunity approach has been linked with conservative or right-wing politics.
In order to critically evaluate these issues two leading voices, Dr Tim Anderson and Dr Denis Rancourt, have been invited in order to rationally and respectfully explore these important issues. The proposition to be debated is as follows:-
Does SARS-COV-2 merit suppression measures in order to combat the virus rather than the herd/community immunity approach?
The aim is to help critically unpack the rationales, both political and scientific, that underlie these very different approaches. The debate will evolve over a period of time, with written online dialogue between Dr Anderson and Dr Rancourt.
OffGuardian are the official host for this debate and Dr Piers Robinson will undertake Chair responsibilities, ensuring rules of rational debate are followed.
About the participants…
Denis Rancourt Denis Rancourt holds B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D. in Physics (University of Toronto). He was a tenured Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa for 23 years. Dr. Rancourt has been an invited plenary, keynote, or special session speaker at major scientific conferences some 40 times. He has published over 100 research papers in leading peer-reviewed scientific journals, in the areas of physics, chemistry, geology, materials science, soil science, and environmental science. He is a frequent media commentator. His medical, political and social theory articles and interviews are published in many venues, such as Dissident Voice. His recent video interviews and reporting videos about the science of the COVID-19 epidemic and the science of face masks for preventing viral respiratory diseases have been viewed more than 2 million times, in both French and English. * * * Tim Anderson Tim Anderson is Director of the Sydney-based Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies. His PhD thesis (Macquarie University, 1997) was on economic liberalisation in Australia. He worked as a lecturer and senior lecturer at Australian universities for more than 30 years, teaching, researching and publishing on: human rights in development, customary land in Melanesia, small farming and food security, health systems and infectious disease, Cuban medical internationalism, self-determination in development, independent regional integration and resistance to the wars of the 21st century. In 2014 he was awarded Cuba’s medal of friendship. He is the Australia and Pacific representative for the Latin America based Network in Defence of Humanity. His book ‘The Pandemic and Independent Countries’ will be published in late 2020..


offguardian--2020-10-15--Twitter, Biden and the New York Post – Social Media Censorship Kicks up a Gear

Major internet companies now claim the power to block any media they want on a totally ad hoc basis Yesterday , the New York Post published several articles claiming to show evidence of corruption on the part of Joe Biden and his son Hunter .
The charges are varied but not really surprising .
One article claims Hunter introduced his father to a Ukrainian energy magnate who asked the family to use their influence to shut down an investigation into his company .
Another story suggests Hunter Biden used his family name to secure a high-paid job and stock interests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence these claims with emails and documents allegedly retrieved from a laptop left at a computer repair store in Delaware .
The owner of the store alerted the FBI to the computer ’ s existence when no one came forward to pay for the repairs and he could not contact the owner .
According to the NYP , both the hard drive and laptop were then seized by the FBI .
They have a copy of the grand jury subpoena , which is certainly solid evidence , if genuine .
The owner of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it being seized , made a copy of the hard drive and sent it to Rudy Giuliani , Donald Trump ’ s lawyer .
While this is potentially intriguing , if true , it ’ s not really “ news ” .
Biden ’ s corruption in Ukraine has been evident since his son was appointed to the board of the largest energy company in Ukraine within weeks of the US-backed coup in 2014 ( a decision so obviously dodgy even the Guardian made a joke out of it ) .
Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure to get a Ukrainian State Prosecutor removed from office .
None of this is really “ big news ” .
Corruption is rampant in the halls of power , that is as certain as death and taxes , and will continue to be so , whether or not these specific allegations are accurate .
The big news , the part of this story that should concern everyone , is that Twitter has completely blocked this material on their platform .
And we ’ re not talking a “ soft block ” , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with twitter ’ s use of “ warnings ” , no they literally made it impossible to share the links , even in DMs .
If you try , you get his warning : We ’ ve talked about twitter ’ s “ partners ” before , and they are suspect .
As for being “ potentially harmful ” , well isn ’ t that subjective ?
Fire is vital at times , but certainly “ potentially harmful ” at others .
Water , in sufficient quantity , is “ potentially harmful ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the truth is “ potentially harmful ” .
Facebook has followed suit , if in less sweeping fashion .
The social media giant ’ s spokesperson Andy Stone announced that they would be : This decision is pending approval by their “ independent fact-checkers ” , which we have also covered in detail before .
So what are the social media companies ’ reasons for blocking this content ?
Well , it depends who you ask .
Twitter claims that since the emails are potentially “ hacked ” , posting them violates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Interestingly this policy was never applied to Trump ’ s leaked tax returns . )
Facebook , on the other hand , claim to have blocked these stories because they might be “ misinformation ” .
A truly ludicrous precedent to set .
You can ’ t block something that might not be true , because that applies to literally almost everything .
You do have to admire the strategy though .
The pincer movement is brilliant .
You see , one site is blocking them because they might not be real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real then they ’ re stolen .
It ’ s a win-win situation .
Essentially , real or not , the tech giants have all the bases covered and there ’ s no way they are going to let people read those emails , or even stories about the emails .
Twitter even blocked the account of the Whitehouse Spokesperson Kayleigh MacEnany for sharing the links .
Of course , moving forward this will not just apply to these emails , but anything they want .
More and more precedents are rolling out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from saying anything by applying their absurdly vague and subjective rules .
They have essentially given themselves license to block anything they want on a totally ad hoc basis , and because it ’ s being done in the name of “ orange man bad ” or combatting “ hate speech ” , an army of useful idiots are happy to go along with it .
Even calling it a win for progressive values .
The mainstream cheered on twitter earlier this year when they started ( incorrectly ) “ fact-checking ” Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We wrote then that it was a scary and potentially damaging idea .
This is why .
We now have mega-corporations , who possess neither democratic mandate nor public accountability , controlling what elected officials can and can not say in public .
The political discourse of our society has become subject to the approval of “ independent fact-checkers ” created by billionaires and staffed by the Deep State .
Which is exactly what we ’ ve been warning about , for years .
It all makes you wonder – what exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Are we just witnessing surface tremors of the deeper internal conflict in the Deep State , just as we saw in 2016 ?
Or is it meant to distract everyone with salacious details of a corruption scandal we all already knew about , while ever-more of our online freedoms are taken away ?
This story probably isn ’ t going away any time soon .
For one thing , we can expect that someone is going to accuse Russia of somehow being involved in the very near future .
….oh , they already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in for Russiagate II then .
Fun times .

Major internet companies now claim the power to block any media they want on a totally ad hoc basis
Kit Knightly
Yesterday, the New York Post published several articles claiming to show evidence of corruption on the part of Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
The charges are varied but not really surprising. One article claims Hunter introduced his father to a Ukrainian energy magnate who asked the family to use their influence to shut down an investigation into his company.
Another story suggests Hunter Biden used his family name to secure a high-paid job and stock interests in a Chinese company.
The NYP evidence these claims with emails and documents allegedly retrieved from a laptop left at a computer repair store in Delaware. The owner of the store alerted the FBI to the computer’s existence when no one came forward to pay for the repairs and he could not contact the owner.
According to the NYP, both the hard drive and laptop were then seized by the FBI. They have a copy of the grand jury subpoena, which is certainly solid evidence, if genuine.
The owner of the store claims he, prior to it being seized, made a copy of the hard drive and sent it to Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump’s lawyer.
While this is potentially intriguing, if true, it’s not really “news”. Biden’s corruption in Ukraine has been evident since his son was appointed to the board of the largest energy company in Ukraine within weeks of the US-backed coup in 2014 (a decision so obviously dodgy even the Guardian made a joke out of it). Joe Biden himself has even admitted to applying financial pressure to get a Ukrainian State Prosecutor removed from office.
None of this is really “big news”. Corruption is rampant in the halls of power, that is as certain as death and taxes, and will continue to be so, whether or not these specific allegations are accurate.
The big news, the part of this story that should concern everyone, is that Twitter has completely blocked this material on their platform.
And we’re not talking a “soft block”, we at OffG are more than familiar with twitter’s use of “warnings”, no they literally made it impossible to share the links, even in DMs. If you try, you get his warning:
We can’t complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful. Visit our Help Center to learn more.”
We’ve talked about twitter’s “partners” before, and they are suspect. As for being “potentially harmful”, well isn’t that subjective? Fire is vital at times, but certainly “potentially harmful” at others. Water, in sufficient quantity, is “potentially harmful”.
If you’re a liar, the truth is “potentially harmful”.
Facebook has followed suit, if in less sweeping fashion. The social media giant’s spokesperson Andy Stone announced that they would be:
“…reducing its distribution on our platform. This is part of our standard process to reduce the spread of misinformation.
This decision is pending approval by their “independent fact-checkers”, which we have also covered in detail before.
*
So what are the social media companies’ excuses reasons for blocking this content?
Well, it depends who you ask.
Twitter claims that since the emails are potentially “hacked”, posting them violates their policy regarding illegally gathered material. (Interestingly this policy was never applied to Trump’s leaked tax returns.)
Facebook, on the other hand, claim to have blocked these stories because they might be “misinformation”. A truly ludicrous precedent to set. You can’t block something that might not be true, because that applies to literally almost everything.
You do have to admire the strategy though. The pincer movement is brilliant.
You see, one site is blocking them because they might not be real, the other because if they are real then they’re stolen. It’s a win-win situation.
Essentially, real or not, the tech giants have all the bases covered and there’s no way they are going to let people read those emails, or even stories about the emails. Twitter even blocked the account of the Whitehouse Spokesperson Kayleigh MacEnany for sharing the links.
Of course, moving forward this will not just apply to these emails, but anything they want.
More and more precedents are rolling out that social media companies can stop anyone from saying anything by applying their absurdly vague and subjective rules.
They have essentially given themselves license to block anything they want on a totally ad hoc basis, and because it’s being done in the name of “orange man bad” or combatting “hate speech”, an army of useful idiots are happy to go along with it. Even calling it a win for progressive values.
The mainstream cheered on twitter earlier this year when they started (incorrectly) “fact-checking” Donald Trump’s tweets concerning postal voting. We wrote then that it was a scary and potentially damaging idea. This is why.
We now have mega-corporations, who possess neither democratic mandate nor public accountability, controlling what elected officials can and cannot say in public. The political discourse of our society has become subject to the approval of “independent fact-checkers” created by billionaires and staffed by the Deep State.
Which is exactly what we’ve been warning about, for years.
*
It all makes you wonder – what exactly is the point of this story?
Are we just witnessing surface tremors of the deeper internal conflict in the Deep State, just as we saw in 2016?
Or is it meant to distract everyone with salacious details of a corruption scandal we all already knew about, while ever-more of our online freedoms are taken away?
This story probably isn’t going away any time soon. For one thing, we can expect that someone is going to accuse Russia of somehow being involved in the very near future.
….oh, they already did. I guess we’re in for Russiagate II then. Fun times.