A Disease for All Seasons

 

It seems like only yesterday that... no, actually, it seems like it's been ten years since... I put out a blog post entitled “Conspiracies on Parade” (April 19, 2020 – still available!) inspired by the -- at that time – new and springtime-fresh plague that was well on its way to making a shambles of the economy and of society in general – not that plagues do this unaided, but that the “policies” imposed and enforced by totalitarian means to “manage” the plague had appeared almost overnight – which kind of makes you wonder, were they already set up in advance and only had to wait until the “balloon went up”, as the saying goes? (File this under the heading of “suspected, but unproven”. More to come.)

If you have the time and the inclination, I urge you to re-read (OK, read, whatever) the post in question in order to set the tone for the present discussion. In some ways, it's incredible that this problem is still with us – whatever happened to “15 days to slow the spread”? (That was the 2020 version of “duck and cover” – reassuring until people realized that it was totally absurd.)

So – using the 4/19/20 post as a baseline, I'm going to take advantage of the breather that has been bestowed upon us by Vladimir Putin, who, merely by invading Ukraine, has managed to drive all competing stories off the mainstream print and broadcast media and the Internet. We can argue all day as to what this means, as in – does it mean that Covid, nee Corona, was never real to begin with, and as such cannot hope to compete with events that are very real? Or does it mean that Covid entering Year 3 has become a bit shopworn, so even if it is genuine it's no match for newer and more exciting current events? Or is it just the MSM chasing the newest butterfly, and Covid will circle around eventually and become, once again, the Big Story?

I guess we have both Covid and Ukraine to thank for reminding us that “the news” is not necessarily what's actually most important at the time (or possibly at any other time as well), but is the result of a selection process by the collective organs of propaganda designed to maximize and accelerate the cycle of fear, and thus create, in the citizenry, despair of ever truly exercising their rights as free citizens, but to substitute an even more intense feeling of helplessness and willingness to submit to the government, AKA the ruling elite, for all their needs (including all the things they've been convinced, by the advertising industry, that they need). If fewer people than ever distrust “the news”, and government in general, that could be considered at least a thin silver living to the cloud that has been looming over us for two-plus years.

So – let's get started. The most obvious initial question is, is (was) Corona/Covid a hoax? Is it really a “novel” virus of murky origins that has attacked, without warning, the global population and necessitated a total reset of national economies and people's life styles? I admit that I haven't studied the matter in detail, but it appears that there actually is a virus out there, and that it is “novel”, in that it exhibits new qualities and new combinations of qualities (including symptoms and responses to medication and treatment), and that it's not “just the flu” as some have claimed (for one thing, it doesn't seem to exhibit the same seasonal cycles as the typical flu virus). And it appears that it does, indeed, mutate – thankfully from more dangerous to less harmful versions, but – this time more like the flu – it comes along in waves, and it will be a long time, if ever, before we will see the end of it. And the fact that it can attack people of all ages, all races/creeds/colors, in all climates, of all social and economic conditions, etc., indicates that it is robust and adaptable, even if the more serious cases seem to correlate with preexisting conditions like age, general health, obesity, life style, whether or not they watch TV (not a complete joke), and so on.

I present the foregoing as an unproven basis of reference for what follows. (For those who believe it truly is/was a complete hoax, don't touch that dial, because I'll be discussing ideas that you will find appealing aside from the hoax question.)

OK. The first theory I discussed in the previous post was:

Yes, it originated in China, but it was no accident. It was an intentional biological attack on the U.S. in retaliation for economic and trade sanctions, our position on Taiwan, our positions on currency manipulation, intellectual property, etc. As such, it was intended to be a “shot off our bow”, i.e. get out of our face or else (it could be worse).

Discussion: The China origin theory is still in question – by China. Again, choosing probability over proof (which is impossible at this point), I would say that China is the culprit. But then, was it intentional? And the first argument against this would be – if it was, why wasn't it aimed at the U.S. in a more precise, “surgical” manner? Why let it out of a lab in a city no one had ever heard of up to that point, and let it run amok in the local population, when it could have simply been shipped over here and added to the water supply in certain major cities? Answer: Can you say “plausible deniability”, class? If the first victims were Chinese citizens, that would tend to derail any notion that the virus was aimed at the U.S. – and as for any notion that normal human compassion would have prevented the Chinese government from doing such a thing, just take a weekend off some time and read up on Mao's Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution for a taste of how highly the Chinese government values human life.

Having said that, as retaliation for economic and trade sanctions, something that pretty much trashed the world's economy and brought world trade to a halt for a time would seem to be an odd way of going about this. (They would have been much better off demanding that we pay off their share of our national debt.) And as for Taiwan, the Chinese are playing the long game, and sure enough, it's already paying off with our response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The Chinese are seeing what Russia can and can't get away with, and they may be perfectly willing to commit to the same outcome for the sake of reclaiming Taiwan. (But it wouldn't be as severe, because China has a much firmer foothold in the U.S. economy than Russia ever had.)

And as for currency manipulation, guess who just put the ruble on the gold standard. That's sending more shock waves through global monetary systems than anything China ever did.

Intellectual property? The Chinese are buying so much of it up on the global market that they scarcely have to steal it any longer.

To sum up, the predictable outcome of a global pandemic would have been seen as “overkill” when it comes to getting our attention – not that China is incapable of any sort of blackmail and extortion, nor do they have any qualms about doing so. It's more a proportionality question. But before we leave this idea totally, consider Variation 1:

Variation 1: It was a probe – a test case – to see how effective biological warfare would be, what our response would be, etc. Corona was never intended to be the ultimate weapon, in other words; that's still under development.

I'll use the “precision” argument again on this one. You can test biological warfare agents in a smaller area than the entire planet. However, having said that, even if the release was not intentional it did indeed serve as a test case, which could serve quite well if, in the future, China decides to resort to biological extortion. (This falls under the heading of “unintentional consequences which turn out to be beneficial” – at least in one respect.) And yes, anyone who doesn't see Covid as the beta version of something much worse is dreaming. But then how about:

Variation 2: The intention was not only near-term but long-term. By bringing the U.S. to its knees economically, China would be assuring its ascent to the position of leading economic power on the planet – and, soon to follow, leading military power.

This is actually a more likely motive. Any plague that impacts the entire globe will impact the U.S., and more severely in some respects, since we have the most complex, multi-layered, interdependent economy on earth – a benefit of our technological and logistical sophistication, but also an Achilles' Heel, as was brought out in sharp relief in the first few months of the pandemic. “The bigger they are, the harder they fall” could have been coined to describe what happened to the U.S. economy – true no matter what one thinks of the motives of the authorities. Could China have predicted a total lockdown of the U.S. economy? Seems unlikely, but who can say? They may have actually been pleasantly surprised at the readiness with which our officials committed economic suicide. In any case, it did serve to weaken us on both an absolute scale and also relative to other less complex, less “developed” economies around the globe.

I say this is more likely, but I would still not give it a very high grade, for the simple reason that China already has a virtual stranglehold on large sectors of the U.S. economy, and why “blow it” by causing unneeded distress, chaos, and destruction? Leave the heavy-handedness to others. Remember, when it comes to China, the long game and patience are the watchwords, as they have been throughout their history.

OK, then – but how about:

Variation 3: The focus was on causing major damage to our military, which has turned out (no surprise, if you know anything about history) to be particularly vulnerable to viral infections and epidemics. If you can sap the strength of the U.S. military, and get it to stand down, it's much easier for China to continue its high jinks in the South China Sea unimpeded. (If the military was the prime target, then the civilian population counts only as “collateral damage” – something that aggressors are always willing to accept.)

I think we can safely dispense with this one. Our military turned out to be quite robust in its response to the pandemic, and the fact that military personnel tend to be young and healthy, and in good physical condition, was probably the best preventive one could hope for. And yes, disease has ever been the enemy of armies – but they didn't have the resources we have, and Covid turns out to be much less deadly than most of the traditional, “old-fashioned” diseases that armies are prone to.

However, this does not mean that something much more lethal couldn't be unleashed, in a more precise fashion, on our military, either in garrison or in war zones – and this is the very reason that the military has long been heavily involved in research and prevention when it comes to biological warfare. So from that point of view, the “test case” theory – even if unintentional – gets high marks.

Then there's the footnote to the preceding scenarios:

China has decided that a direct military confrontation with the U.S. would be costly, and they might not even win. So they had to come up with something completely different (if not totally unexpected – after all, we've been studying the biological warfare issue since before World War II).

Again, Covid turned out to be a dud in this respect, but it may have paved the way for something worse – something that could turn the tide in a military confrontation. But this assumes (1) conventional forces rather than air power only (or nukes); and (2) solving the precision issue (recall how mustard gas attacks in World War I often backfired when the wind shifted). So this is certainly a reason for vigilance.

That was the first scenario with variations. Now we shift gears a bit:

It was a false flag operation on the part of the globalists and their collaborators in the U.S. (including no small portion of the Deep State). See that China gets the blame, while in fact they are creating a crisis in order to (1) cut the U.S. down to size, and (2) increase the power of central government exponentially, which will, in turn, (3) increase the power of the globalist elite once they consolidate their control over the U.S. government, which will, at that point, become a mere proxy or shadow government for the globalist empire, the way most Western European governments already are.

“False flag?” That's exactly what the Chinese are claiming, and they haven't given up on that story. My sense is that the preponderance of evidence indicates that the origin was in China and connected to a Chinese military research facility. But again – was it “an ill wind” that provided unexpected benefits to those with globalist tendencies? Certainly. When you see the ease with which the U.S. economy was, for all intents and purposes, nationalized (the government not taking over, but regulating, down to the most minute detail, businesses from the largest to the most minuscule) – and the ease with which virtually all other human activities were either locked down or closely monitored (schools, shopping, dining, live entertainment, etc.), the results could only have warmed the hearts of globalists and totalitarians everywhere. If America, the land of the free, can be turned into a land of helpless victims, paralyzed by fear, almost overnight, then there is no limit, is there? If it can happen here it can happen anywhere (and has, by and large – especially (ironically) in the other English-speaking countries).

Now... if you've noticed an apparent contradiction between the agenda of cutting the U.S. down to size and increasing the power of central government, allow me to clarify. We get cut down to size on the international/global/diplomatic level (well under way with Biden in charge), but on the domestic level become more totalitarian (ditto). The result is that the citizenry become acclimated to big government that meddles in every aspect of their lives, but at the same time the global elite are consolidating their reach and their power, with America as first prize. So the transition from what we have now to one-world government would be painless, if even noticeable. (This is assuming it hasn't already happened, which is a point worth debating.) I think this is the long-term plan with or without China, and with or without Covid – just that Covid has served to accelerate the process and provide a convenient rationale for measures which would otherwise have looked obviously tyrannical.

So really, the question of whether or not to “blame” China has faded into obscurity at this point. The test case was created, intentionally or not, and it had results... data were gathered... and the outlines of what global tyranny would look like became shockingly clear. Shockingly – because of how easy it was. We thought we valued freedom, but the next minute we were locking ourselves indoors for months at a time, then marching off, robot-like, to vaccination centers, with “smiley faces” everywhere you look. The wonderful world of George Orwell is here! It's no longer a threat, or a distant possibility.

I would say that of all the “benefits” of the plague – looked-for and otherwise – this has to stand as the one that will be seen to have made the most difference in the long run. The global elite has the citizenry by the – well, you know – and half the citizenry doesn't care, and the other half are reduced to bootless protests for which they are promptly punished.

And again, the U.S. was more severely impacted simply because of the titanic structure of our economy and the social mechanisms that go with it, and this did indeed cut us down, not quite to size, but enough to provide welcome data for the global elite's future planning. The U.S. will not be a pocket of resistance, in other words – we will not be the Ukraine to the global elite's Russia. There will be resistance, for sure; there already is. But the main elements have been shown up in all of their weakness and vulnerability – the ready demoralization of the populace is now a historical fact – and we have, when you run the numbers, many more who comply, and cooperate, and follow the crowd off the cliff than those troublemakers who believe in liberty and self-sufficiency. And don't think any of this has gone unnoticed. It will come back to haunt us, and sooner than we expect.

OK then... how about this:

It was cooked up by the vaccination industry and lobby in order to demonstrate, once and for all, that vaccination is the only way to survive, and that vaccinations for every conceivable ailment, up to and including toenail fungus, should be mandated by the government, and anyone who objects should be arrested and jailed because their reckless ideas threaten public health.

This is another case of a “discovered benefit”. I don't think the vax people started it, but the way they jumped on it indicates that it was, for them, a blessing in disguise – not only because it freed up unlimited funding, but it gave them time (nearly a year) to work up the narrative that vaccination was the only thing that was going to save the human race from this plague – and that any alternative treatments were unscientific, dangerous, and should be banned. And this is still the basic narrative, although things have loosened up a bit with regard to therapeutics, owing largely to the pressure of public (1) skepticism re vaccination and (2) demand for alternatives. And of course, the counter-narratives about the dangers of the vaccines, side effects, unexplained deaths, etc. added to the mix. As did, of course, the passage of time, which showed that refusing to be vaccinated was not a death sentence, and that the “unvaxed” were not an army of Typhoid Marys out to infect and kill everyone else.

Another contributing factor – and perhaps the most important one – has been the complete and utter politicization of the whole thing. First it was “Trump's vaccine”, which no self-respecting liberal would submit to. And then the instant Biden moved into the White House it became “Biden's vaccine”, which acquired sacramental status among liberals, but caused skepticism and downright paranoia among Trump supporters, conservatives in general, libertarians, and pretty much anyone else who could be described as anti-establishment.

So what are we to make of a medical treatment that is accepted or rejected based almost solely on one's political position? There are other things in medicine that show a similar phenomenon, and things in the food and beverage industries as well, but this seems like an extreme case, which is odd since we're supposedly talking about “science” here, right? Isn't that one of the few areas of life in which we can find general agreement? Well... no. The lesson is that when science is corrupted by politics it ceases to be science, for all intents and purposes. It becomes a battleground and a political cause instead – and given what has been going on for many years with “global warming”, AKA “climate change”, this should not have come as a complete surprise.

And this phenomenon is not limited to the “unwashed” by any means. Scientists themselves tend to become defensive at the drop of a hat, as witness the grandiose statements by Anthony Fauci. (Didn't he, at one point, say “I AM science”, or something to that effect? And here I thought Louis XIV had retired.) But this is because they have, at some point, left science behind and opted to become media stars (Fauci again) – and once this happens there is no turning back, because your credibility is in the dumpster.

(And don't get me wrong. I'm a trained scientist myself – but I think I know where science leaves off and politics (and personal agendas) begin. Science is supposed to be self-correcting; in fact, that's one of its essential qualities, without which it devolves into belief and opinion. When the self-correcting function is disabled (as it was with much of the media coverage of the pandemic and the treatments) then whatever remains is untrustworthy and deserves all the skepticism it attracts.)

Try a thought experiment here. What if the space program – not the funding priorities but the actual technology – had turned into a political battlefield? We'd never have even gotten into orbit, leave alone to the Moon (relax, Moon landing skeptics – I'm just trying to make a point here). It's interesting that when it comes to rocket science, which very people understand (hence the meme), politics tends to take a back seat – or no seat at all. But when it comes to medicine, which everybody thinks they understand to some extent (especially media talking heads and entertainment types), politics can take over with no trouble. Oh, but – you might say – medicine is an inexact science compared to the pure physics of rocketry; there is plenty of room for opinion and debate. Fair enough, but that opinion and debate should still be confined to the sphere of science rather than becoming raw meat for the media, Internet, and late-night talk shows. Covid seems to have turned the entire populace, from the lowest to the highest, into medical experts, whereas it more likely just accelerated and amplified the pre-existing level of ignorance.

And then we have –

It was a false flag operation on the part of our own Deep State, which seeks (1) a death blow to the Trump administration, because all other efforts have failed; and (2) an exponential increase in the power and reach of the Deep State, with the ultimate goal of complete control of the citizenry, including monitoring all movements, transactions, and social contacts. (The totalitarian dream, in other words.)

This would make sense if one considers the Corona/Covid virus to be a complete hoax. I have allowed that there is “something” to it, just not as presented in the doomsday/end-of-the-world manner of the health establishment early on, and their facilitators in the media. But – never letting a crisis go to waste, the enemies of Donald Trump, which were (and continue to be) legion, jumped at the chance to accuse Trump & Co. of “not doing enough” – as if anyone knew, at the time, what should be done. The utter chaos that characterized (and continues to) things like masks, social distancing, isolation, etc. – recall that this was pre-vaccination – was happily used, by his enemies, as a mark against Trump. Another discovered benefit, in other words.

I think it can at least be postulated that, despite all of the efforts of the combined Deep State, the media, academia, the entertainment industry, Congress, the intelligence/law enforcement community, etc. to bring down Trump and his administration, it might have survived the election of 2020 if Covid hadn't been in the mix. But along with everything else, Covid became the poison pill that put Biden over the top. I can't prove this, of course, but I present it as a possibility.

As for the larger issue of increasing the power and reach of the Deep State, it certainly accomplished that to some degree, as any crisis will, which is why we now have, firmly established, government-by-crisis (being a perfect reflection of the media, for whom crises are their life's blood).

The biggest surprise, however, was the extent to which mayors and governors have absolute power – or, let's say, they can assume absolute power and no one can stop them. It turns out that mayors really do rule cities, and that governors really do rule states – to a much more thorough extent than anything the federal government is capable of at this point. In an ironic sort of way, this should have been good news to libertarians and fans of subsidiarity – but of course it depended on whether the officials in question had libertarian leanings, or whether they fancied themselves mini-Napoleons. Unfortunately, there were more of the latter type than of the former. But still, as a lesson learned, it was quite striking, and one should take it to heart whenever elections come around. Your vote might wind up electing the next tinhorn dictator – is that what you want?

Or –

It was a false flag operation on the part of our economic “planners”, political ideologues, “agents of change”, and the ruling elite. Getting rid of Trump is necessary, but it's only a first step. The main goal is to deliver the final death blow to the American middle class, and finally achieve what the elites have been dreaming of for generations – namely, a slave state made up of serfs and rulers, with the middle class eliminated as an economic and political factor. Note that:

• The titans of big business have no problem at all with the shutdown – in fact, they're urging Trump to keep it going indefinitely. That should be a clue right there. And with their cash reserves, they can weather just about anything while they wait for their “stimulus” check from the Treasury Department.

• The ruling elite and the working classes have recently discovered a common cause in demonizing the middle class and gradually eroding its resources and influence. This is exemplified in the makeup of the Democratic Party.

• The economic shutdown is having a much more severe effect on the middle class – in terms of employment, income, and small business – than on big business (an example being the DJIA, which took a major hit but is still alive and well, because it represents big business, which has sufficient reserves to ride this out, whereas small businesses are dropping like flies and unlikely to recover). (It's also possible that the scheme included letting the Dow take a hit as a cover – “See, we're suffering too”, etc. But see what recovers first when this is over with.)

Again, I don't trust the false-flag idea, but as a discovered benefit – sure. Who suffered the most from the lockdowns? Well, we know the answer – small business, i.e. an activity of the middle class. Small businesses of all sorts, with the possible exception of carry-outs, were indeed dropping like flies for many months – and Internet-based businesses (owned by oligarchs) prospered as never before. Which is to say that countless middle-class people took an economic hit and became no longer middle class, but members of the vast army of “service industry” wage earners.

So has this situation reversed itself to any significant degree? I don't have the numbers of this, but what I suspect is that people who became accustomed to buying via the Internet decided it wasn't a bad idea – kind of convenient, actually – a lot of choices, etc. Stuff gets delivered. And so on. So if there is a recovery, I suspect it's far from complete – and one could argue that there's nothing wrong with this, but that would be to say that small businesses ought to just go quietly away and leave it up to Amazon. Pardon me if I'm somewhat sentimental about “Main Street” and the people who work there (or used to).

I'm going to copy the footnotes to the above theory without further comment. I think they still have considerable general relevance independently of the Covid era.  (And please excuse the formatting issues -- they are beyond my total control.)

Footnote 1: Why is the middle class so despised and persecuted? (And why, for that matter, has this process been going on ever since the Progressive Era, although it has become much more blatant over the last 50 years?) For one thing, it tends to be, and vote, conservatively-- especially if you're talking about people in agriculture, small business, and the skilled trades. People who do meaningful work that has a well-defined product, and people with ties to the land, are naturally more conservative. It's the paper traders and parasites who tend toward the liberal side.

Footnote 2: What the people in charge of this project intend is for small business to vanish, and for all of those enterprises to be absorbed into vast industrial and commercial cartels which will eventually become synonymous with the State. Note that (1) this process is already underway, with predatory large businesses gobbling up small businesses at a rapid rate, and turning those business owners into franchisees at best, and wage slaves at worst; and (2) what we call “crony capitalism” will, in its ultimate state of evolution, become either business being a wholly-owned subsidiarity of the State, or vice versa. This will be a distinction without a difference. Whether those in charge are called CEOs or commissars will make no difference to the disenfranchised citizenry.




• Footnote 3: But how does a “modern, industrialized society” function without a middle class? We've had that discussion before. The answer is that it doesn't – not in the way we're used to. But the Soviet Union managed to pull it off for many decades. (China, on the other hand, was stuck in the stone age until they decided to try a bit of free enterprise and property rights. And apparently it worked.)

And finally...

It was a deal worked out between China – birth-control experts extraordinaire – and the ZPG cartel, to reduce populations worldwide because free and unrestricted abortion has failed to do the job (as has war).

It was an act of sabotage by the “greens” and eco-fanatics, who are already celebrating the improvement in air quality as the result of restrictions on commerce and travel.

As to the first, the birth-control movement always has a keen interest in anything that threatens to reduce global populations, whether by “natural causes” or otherwise. China has, of course, been on the side of radical birth control for decades; less so in the U.S., and here one notices that the campaign is typically aimed at certain selected minorities – the same ones that Margaret Sanger didn't think too much of. But as for a deal having been made, again I see what may have been an accident as a test case as well. I'm sure it got the attention, in particular, of not only birth-control advocates but ZPG types, and the even more radical element that wants to reduce global populations back to levels of a few decades ago. In the practical sense, using biological weapons as a shotgun approach to reducing populations would certainly raise containment issues. After all, we all breathe the same air (at least I assume the ruling elites do).

As for the “greens”, now that one of the benefits of working from home, or not working, has been brought out in sharp relief, you can expect them to continue to promote this as a good trend (and, having dealt with traffic on the D.C. Beltway for many years, I find it hard to disagree).

But speaking of biological weapons... the “elephant in the room” in all of this, and something that is completely suppressed by the mainstream media, is the question of what on earth we were doing not only working with the Chinese government on biological warfare research, but actually supporting it (Fauci again). I mean... OK, we've been experimenting with bio-warfare agents for decades, presumably in order to develop defenses in case the technology is aimed at us (either at our military or our population in general). And it wouldn't be all that scandalous if we were working with our allies on the same thing. But China? Our “enemy”, “rival”, “competitor for world dominance”? I mean, what's going on here? Maybe someone figured that the old saying “keep your friends close and your enemies closer” should apply to bio-warfare research. Or, maybe we were anticipating that someday we and China would be working together in order to... what? You can see why the MSM don't want to open this can of worms. And yet, I think it's the most important question that can be asked at this point. If we worked with China and funded this research and then something “escaped”, isn't that just as much our fault as theirs? In order to make any sense of this, you have to go way beyond the standard conspiracy model.

In a world of paradoxes, a few stand out when it comes to Covid. One is that there was a sudden and significant centralization of commerce (from “brick and mortar” to the Internet), but at the same time a decentralization of the workplace (office vs. home, school vs. home). Also, the pandemic was “managed” (so to speak) by the federal government in terms of distribution of healthcare resources and information (just kidding – it was the opinions of “experts” who changed their minds on a daily basis). But there was also considerable management – much of it way more effective than the federal variety – at the state and local level. Likewise, the more localized policy decisions tended to be more effective and less economically/socially disruptive than the diktats that came down from on high (Washington, D.C., that is). The “experts” on the federal payroll couldn't avoid contradicting each other (and themselves) on a regular basis, whereas there were some more level-headed types working things out at the state (some, not all) and local (ditto) level.

Another unanticipated consequence was the discovery – out of sheer necessity – of home schooling, by parents who had never considered it as a possibility up to then. In many cases they decided they liked it – and that it was, in some cases, worth giving up that second paycheck for – so they kept their kids home even after the schools opened up again – much to the dismay, I'm sure, of the teachers' unions and the boards of education. (And I'm sure the grass-roots movement against the teaching of CRT, and things like the transgender locker room issue, didn't hurt the cause either.)

And last but far from least, we have the most general phenomenon resulting from all of this, namely the ever-widening political and social gap in American society. It was there before, of course – it's been there pretty much since the Founding, but what was arguably a fault line in the 1960s has grown into a canyon, and you can credit Covid and the responses to it, along with the War on Trump, for the yawning abyss we see before us now. And yes, there was a lot more going on in 2020 than a new mystery disease, lest we forget; it was truly an annus horribilis. But some good has come from it as well, it seems to me. Another layer of our much-treasured American optimism and naivete has been chipped away – and I for one would rather see things more as they truly are than to cling to illusions. And anyone with a sense of history can at least appreciate the fact that so much has been brought out in sharp relief – mostly bad, but some good as well. As I've said before, no one wants to live in history – it's too messy, confusing, chaotic, and dangerous. Much better to sit back and view it from afar – in books, on Wikipedia, in movies, etc. But when you're in it, you're in it, and there's no sense in pretending things are any other way.

Thus, my take on Covid and some of the theories that were floating around early on – and continue to do so in many cases. I have chosen to argue against one major class of theories having to do with intentional release of the virus; the probability is still not zero, and never will be, but it just doesn't seem to fit into the big picture. However, the overall theme of “discovered benefits” – mostly negative in their impact on the plain citizen – can be found at every turn. “Cui bono?” And I would say, basically, the usual suspects – globalists, totalitarians, would-be dictators, population control advocates, the ruling elite, multinational corporations, anti-Americans everywhere (including here in America), Big Medicine, Big Pharma, the utterly shameless mainstream media, the Deep State, dictator wannabe's everywhere, population and environmental activists... but also China itself, and biological warfare specialists, all benefiting from the rich data base created by the pandemic.

Who, on the other hand, has suffered the most? Again, the usual victims – the beleaguered middle class, freedom and liberty in general, patriots, and those with a residual and naive trust in government. The good news is that many of these have put up a fight. They protested... they engaged in civil disobedience... the asserted themselves as citizens of a free (even if no longer free) country. The human spirit is not to be conquered by mere diktats or the pronouncements of tyrants – or of the increasingly transparent propaganda apparatus.

And of course there is always that first casualty of war (or any major crisis), namely the truth. We look in vain to find it in the “news”, the media, political speeches, and pronouncements of the current administration and many governors' and mayors' offices. It's truly a taste of what many people around the world had to put up for generations, and continue to do so in many cases – Soviet Russia and its clones come first to mind, but there are other guilty parties as well.

And dare we point out the serious damage this episode did to families, local organizations, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of medical choice, neighborhoods, and friendships? There are people to this day peering out from behind masks... at other people peering out from behind masks. (A better stage set for a dystopian drama, where individuality and personhood have been abolished, can hardly be imagined.) There are countless places one is not allowed to enter without a “vax card” (“Your papers, please” – says the guy in the trench coat with the Luger in his pocket). Paranoia has a new face, except that it's just half a face. The “unvaxed” have been made second-class citizens... no, worse – lepers! Unclean! Truly, the pod people have taken over in many parts of the country. And yes, the madness seems to be abating a bit, but there has been permanent damage, and the scars will remain – for a lifetime I imagine.

But to end on a more positive note – the eternal verities are still with us because they are indeed eternal. They may be attacked and persecuted by malevolent rulers, but they will not die because they are an essential component of human nature – and in this, at least, we may have hope.

20+ for 2020 (and still counting)

Why are there so many declared Democratic candidates for president, with a year and a half until the 2020 election? One obvious answer is the generation gap – the Democratic establishment or old guard, AKA old white guys, vs. the wildly diverse Young Turks, who are, besides not being senior citizens, also arguably somewhat to the left of the old timers (though not enough to make a difference for any genuinely conservative voter). But that doesn't explain the sheer numbers, and the number of them who are not just grass-roots, but, basically, unknown, having either never having held elective office or having, at best, been at one time a member of some small-town water and sewage board.

In any country where, as it used to be said, “any boy born in a log cabin can grow up to be president of the United States” – and one has to substitute “girl or someone of indeterminate or undeclared gender” for “boy”, even if we leave the log cabin part in just for old times' sake – although “trailer” might be more apropos to the present day... it seems that people are starting to really take it seriously, as in: “If anyone can be president, then that includes me!” The impossible dream is no longer impossible, nor is it a dream – although, to look at some of these candidates, it might turn out to be a nightmare for everyone else.

But that's not enough to explain the 20+. It has to be based on the premise – held by everyone in the Democratic party, candidate or not – that anyone can beat Trump. Anyone! You wouldn't even have to be human! A yellow dog could do it! A cockroach! An amoeba! An inanimate object like Jeb Bush! So... with this premise, that being nominated by the Democratic Party is equivalent to being elected president, everyone with time on their hands is jumping into the race, because, well, what have they got to lose? Even if some other Democrat is nominated, at least a Democrat will still win... and maybe the sheer force of all those candidates will, in some way, help to insure success (image of countless sperm cells besieging an egg cell – one of them has to succeed, and the others ought to be glad to help out, and if they aren't, well, they just have a bad attitude, that's all).

But oh boy, here we go again with the “inevitability” thing. Can memories possibly be so short? A mere three years ago, Hillary was already picking out water-repellent wallpaper for Bill's White House playroom, not only assured of the nomination but also assured of victory in November. Bernie Sanders thought he was a contender, but the fix was in. And meanwhile, Donald Trump was already starting to knock off other Republican hopefuls like tenpins (except that tenpins generally have more sense).

The great thing about our political system is... no, it's not what you think, or what most people think. It's the White House. I mean, when leaders in many foreign countries take office, it's still kind of ambiguous, like, what do they really do (the term “ceremonial” comes up quite often)? And how much power do they really have, where do they live, how readily can they be thrown out of office, how do your pronounce their name, etc. It all seems so tentative, in a sense... so fragile... so ephemeral. But in our country the winner gets to move into the White House! They, and no one else save spouse and minor children. Everyone else has to come begging “around the back”. The president gets the limo, and the helicopter, and Air Force One, and “Hail to the Chief”, and all the things fit for a king – because he is, in many ways, a king – elected, yes, but the beneficiary of an immediate windfall of power and privilege that monarchs of old could only have dreamed of. European royalty are mere birds in gilded cages by comparison. Why, the president of the United States can start a war single-handedly, at any time and in any place! It happens all the time. I call that real power. (The main reason European countries no longer start wars is they've forgotten how. It has nothing to do with the E.U., NATO, or the U.N.)

But if the White House is more than symbolic, it can also become a prison, as it clearly did in Tricky Dick's case toward the end... and as it keeps promising to do in Trump's case, except that he's no Tricky Dick. He doesn't make mealy-mouthed excuses while hunkered down behind his desk in the Oval Office; he stands up in broad daylight and shouts defiance at the opposition on a regular basis. And this, of course, just drives them to new heights of hysteria – as intended. He plays them like a Stradivarius, as the saying goes, and they fall for it every time. It's a beautiful thing.

Which is, of course, still another reason why everyone from the assistant dogcatcher in Ash Flat, Arkansas on up thinks they're more qualified to be president than Trump, and why they're all running, or intending to, or seriously thinking about it. It could get to the point where there are so many Democratic candidates that they each wind up with one vote, which is the one they cast for themselves. (Try that out on the Electoral College!)

But getting back to inevitability – in 2016 it was Trump, and his campaign promises, vs. Hillary, and her promise to have the third Obama term. And Trump had no help – not from the Republicans, and certainly not from the mainstream media, who were all working for Hillary along with Hollywood, late-night TV, social media, and Obama's Department of Justice, FBI, and CIA. I mean... you'd think with that sort of playing field Trump would have made out about as well as George McGovern did in 1972. And yet, the “deplorables” turned out in numbers much greater than anyone (maybe even Trump himself) could have imagined, and the Electoral College did its usual quaint thing by awarding the victory to Trump even though he fell short in the popular vote (still another energizing factor behind today's Democratic candidate frenzy). (One theory is that the Democratic strategists only counted residents of trailer parks, figuring that anyone who actually lived in a house would never vote for Trump.)

But here we are confronted with an enduring mystery. Let's assume, for the moment, that the Mueller investigation didn't find any Russia “collusion” because there wasn't any, and that Russian “interference” can't be proven to have changed a single vote. Of course, the shadow of suspicion has now fallen on the formerly-sainted Robert Mueller & Co. now that they've failed to live up to expectations; “Say it ain't so, Bob!” But in any case, when you consider... and, by the way, even if the Russians decided that hacking our election in 2016 was too much trouble, the 2018 election showed that elections can, in fact, be hacked, despite protestations from the likes of Barack Obama (that was before the 2016 election, note) – at least at the grass-roots level. Can you say “Orange County, California”, or “Broward County, Florida”?  All it takes is a handful of operatives in key election precincts; who was it who said, “The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do.” Oh, right – Joseph Stalin. But the key is to have “boots on the ground”; if it can't be done via the Internet, it has to be a labor-intensive local operation. This tends to favor what we might call “professional political operatives” (formerly known as ward heelers)... and guess which party can claim the bulk of these. Enough said!

And yet... and yet!... Trump won. And this is what has the opposition in a state of continuing meltdown; it's like a nightmare from which one cannot awaken. Because, when one considers all of the above, it's impossible. Not improbable, but impossible... unless! Unless, for some deep, darkly mysterious reason, “somebody” didn't want Hillary to win, and/or did want Trump to win. And that “somebody” (or those “somebodies”) had the ability to make it happen. And no, “Russia” is not the answer, because they were helping, or attempting to help, both sides in 2016, supposedly to sow chaos and disorder (and if that was their aim, then “mission accomplished”!).

But wait! Maybe that is the answer. Because who would benefit the most from the utter political and social chaos which has overtaken the U.S. since Trump declared his candidacy, and which has only gotten worse since he took office? To put it another way, who benefits when Americans are distracted, demoralized, bogged down with politics, fighting the culture war full-time, and – in many cases – subject to hysteria and near-psychosis? Why, our enemies, of course – which, in our time, means economic rivals most of all, but also political (on the global level) and military rivals.

Here's where it gets a bit more complicated. If we're talking about military rivals, it's pretty clear that the main contenders are Russia and China, with North Korea as a sidebar (because without China they are nothing). Economic rivals? China, of course... but we also have an uneasy relationship with Canada and Mexico (still NAFTA partners) as well as the European Union and other countries that are, in most other contexts, considered allies. (We're unlikely to run into a trade deficit problem with the Central African Republic very soon.) The thing is, with the massive economic interlinkages that characterize the world economy, it can be argued that “no country is an island”, and that what hurts one hurts all to some extent. (Prime example – a serious economic crisis in the U.S. is going to make China and some other countries wonder if holding on to more than one-third of our national debt is a good idea. Of course, dumping it all at once could be considered an act of war – and it would be, in a way. So they're stuck holding our debt, and we're stuck with them holding it, since it's never going to be “paid”, nor was it ever intended to be.)

Then how about political rivals? The most obvious are globalists of every stripe, but this includes plenty of entities right here in the U.S., not the least of which is much of Congress and the “deep state”, not to mention multi-national corporations. So am I saying that a large chunk of the government and other economic players are actually opposed to our national interest as a sovereign nation, in the long run? Yes. This is not to say they are “anti-American” exactly (at least they don't consciously think of themselves that way), but that they don't value the U.S. as a sovereign nation with the right to make its own economic and diplomatic decisions without having to grovel and beg permission from one or more international organizations. (Wouldn't you love to know who members of Congress have on speed dial – other than D.C. call girls, of course.) And if you don't think that uncontrolled “immigration” is an economic/political attack by the globalists, you haven't been paying attention. (This is the case in Europe as well.)

Those with globalist inclinations would much rather we be just one of many – nothing special, no big deal. Kumbaya and all that. And the more radical elements firmly believe that it's time for America to get its comeuppance – and whatever form this takes is OK, and they will be glad to help the process. Please note that this is the present-day version of the wreck of the European colonial powers after World War II (or World War I in Germany's case). But they were replaced by economic colonialists, and the result has been much worse for the victims than old-fashioned colonialism ever was (with the possible exception of the Belgian Congo).

And the current debate over “nationalism” exemplifies this – is “nationalism” the same as “fascism”, for example? The opposition says it is. Which means, by simple logical inference, that it's the same as “hate”, and racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. etc. – you know the litany by now. The point being, while nationalism may be considered good for the country (although I would argue that old-fashioned patriotism is preferable), it is bad for the “world community” – which is why some formerly Iron Curtain countries are coming under so much criticism for reasserting their national (ethnic, religious) identity. (The fact that their captivity by the Soviet Empire is still so fresh in their minds might have something to do with it. Why trade one form of servitude for another? Is George Soros really preferable to Joseph Stalin? I suspect not.)

So the strategy, if you're a globalist puppeteer, is a delicate one – preserve the U.S. sufficiently to maintain us as the world's policeman (on behalf of the global elite) but suppress national pride and loyalty in all other respects, even if it saps morale. Which, I guess, is the modern version of the way the colonies of the European powers used to be tapped for “troops” who were sent to do the bidding of the colonials, not for any sort of benefit of their own country. And any sorts of stirrings (“the natives are getting restless”) were ruthlessly suppressed, the way stirrings of nationalism in the U.S. are instantly condemned by the opposition and its lackeys. One thing for certain – since Trump declared himself a nationalist, that term has fallen to the same level of disrepute as “fascist” or “Nazi”. So no matter what the term means (and it means many things to many people), it is suddenly forbidden to be used favorably in polite company (which, obviously, includes any E.U. confab).

It's like some sort of global cat-and-mouse game – keep America sick (but not on life support – more like a low-grade infection), demoralized, dependent, on the defensive, and subjugated on the one hand, but strong enough to provide a market based on consumer “needs”, and military muscle, on the other hand. Which means, by the way, that our so-called “world dominance” – our post-Cold War status as “the” superpower – is an illusion. We are much more like a dim-witted, stumbling giant controlled by unseen powers... and may, much sooner than anyone would like, become not much more than a beached whale, which is harvested for consumables while the skeleton is left to bleach in the sun. Of course, the global elite don't think much about sustainability, i.e. how long this situation can be maintained; that's someone else's problem, the way whoever let the Roman Empire slip away figured, well, how bad can it get in my own lifetime?

Imagine, if you will, a world without America. Poof, overnight, no USA at all, just a big vacant lot where we now stand – or, better still, a new sea caused by rising water levels due to global warming. The anti-America crowd would celebrate, no doubt – but Europe, and even China, might not be so sure. Israel would shit a brick. Russia, on the other hand, would consider it a golden opportunity. And for the global elite, well... they've been there before, and they always have another plan. But that's way down the road, if ever; how often do these “think tank” scenarios ever actually come to pass? Very seldom, thankfully. (Every day that goes by when most of us are still alive disproves the theories of another gaggle of “experts”. We have avoided utter annihilation at least a half dozen times since the 1960s.)

But – what about the Muslims? Have I forgotten about them? And if they are truly enemies and not just boogeymen, in what sense is this true? They have to be considered military enemies, since we find ourselves fighting them all across Africa and Asia, including in countries no American citizen has ever heard of (but even in those places, we're still fighting for “the American way of life”, don't forget that). But military rivals? A true threat in the military sense? Not so much. Our wars against Islam tend to be medium-tech for us and low-tech for them. If they fought the way we do, they wouldn't have a prayer – but when they fight their way (shades of the Viet Cong) they can do considerable damage.

So... is the Islamic world an economic rival? Hardly, unless you include the antics of the “oil-rich sheikhs”, and even their power is threatened by our increased domestic production of natural gas and oil.

OK then, what about politics, which means world politics in the case of Islam? As always, it's a matter not only of power and influence, but of “winning hearts and minds” (you know, that thing that we so spectacularly failed at in Vietnam). Islam is, at this point in world history, pretty much the only thing that can be described as “inspiring”, in the sense that it gets people excited, wins converts, and causes people to do radical and drastic things in the name of jihad – up to and including suicide bombing. Can anything comparable be said of Christianity, or of Judaism? Or of political systems like communism, fascism, capitalism, socialism, etc.? Yes, those have adherents, but many of these have ulterior motives, and just try and find a “true believer” who is willing to lay it all on the line as did the Bolsheviks and Maoists of old. Most of the world, and especially the “Western world”, is largely populated by jaded cynics who are content with eating, drinking, and making merry. And this, as much as anything, helps to explain the Islamic tidal wave that is taking over much of Europe (and making inroads here and there in the U.S.). It turns out that faith and demographics can win out over any amount of technology, sophistication, and even tradition if it's not defended properly. Power centers in Europe at this point are either the fortresses of the ruling elite or the Islamic neighborhoods operating under sharia law; everyone else is caught in the middle and feeling helpless because they are, in fact, helpless.

But, as with solving a crime, you need to define means, motive, and opportunity. Our enemies have a complex mixture of motives, best exemplified by the globalist dilemma described above. The means are primarily military at this point, in the sense of threats and of the renewed arms race, which can also be seen as a technology race. But economic and diplomatic means are another matter, and they are being applied with due diligence, along with a steady stream of propaganda directed at the American public in order to convince them that “nationalism” is bad and Trump is worse, and that their only hope is to get rid of both and return to the open arms of the “international community” (in order to be exploited all the more). Consider that Hillary, and all of Trump's rivals for the 2016 nomination with the exception of Rand Paul, were, and remain, hard-core globalists, and you can see how uneven the power relationship is. And Trump himself seems ambivalent about globalism; he opposes it in some ways but embraces it in others, but clearly not enough to satisfy the hard core.

But again, how to define the threat Islam represents? If not military in the sense of absolute power, then what? Diplomatically, the world seems pretty much divided between Islam and non-Islam, with us and our so-called allies all on the non-Islam side. That should make things simple – as simple as the comfortably black-and-white world of the Cold War. And yet, we find ourselves “engaging”, to a greater or lesser degree, with much of the Islamic world, for military reasons above all, but also for diplomatic reasons, and economic as well (if you include oil). The only Islamic country that is considered a hard-core enemy is Iran (thanks largely to Jimmy Carter's titanic blundering), and yet every time we approach the brink of going in and teaching them a damn good lesson, we shrink back for some reason. Could it be that we really did learn a lesson of our own in Afghanistan and Iraq? One can only hope. (Of course, a standoff is a good way to keep the pot bubbling; a back burner is better than no burner at all. And if perpetual war is our goal, it makes sense to be at knife points with as many other countries or other entities as possible.)

The main impact of our ongoing struggles with Islam are, clearly, economic – and, to be more precise, economic in the sense of transferring wealth from the productive sector to the non-productive sector, i.e. war. But while that sector is non-productive, it is certainly not unprofitable, and this is a key factor in explaining why we persist in what appears to be a fool's mission. We forget that while the Cold War, for example, could be defended as a stand against communism, it also provided a rich source of funding for the war industries – not as much as an actual “hot” war, but enough to sustain them at a high level for many decades. The end of the Cold War may have been considered, by the average citizen, to be a good thing, but to the great “military-industrial complex” it was a disaster, and something had to be done, and fast! Enter the War on Islam (not an official term, but a better descriptor than all the official ones combined – especially the ones that include the word “freedom”).

In any case, the War on Islam is a major hemorrhage – a sucking chest wound – on our economy in general. Even if it does benefit the few, it harms the many. (This is true both domestically and at the global level.) And it is, in fact, impacting our economy severely enough to hasten our demise. So, it is shortsightedness, or part of an actual plan? Get us involved in endless wars which will only end when we are no longer able to wage them? Hard to say, and I think both factors are in play. And Congress, and the vast bulk of politicians, are mere tools in all of this; they aren't in on the plan, and there is no reason to let them in on it. So they have to be won over by a combination of threats and bribery, and probably some measure of pathetic and delusional “patriotism” (as opposed to the real thing, which, unlike most members of Congress, has red blood and functioning reproductive organs).

So... to finally get back to Trump vs. the Peanut Gallery – or, not quite yet. We should think a bit about what all of this meant, or may have meant, when it came to the 2016 election. The impossible candidate won, and the inevitable candidate lost – and no, it wasn't just about that silly old Electoral College. But was it only about the 63 million “deplorables”? (And that, by the way, is a lot of people – not quite a fifth of the total population at the time, but still quite a few for the Democrats to completely write off, not only in 2016 but potentially for a generation.) True enough, they came out of the woodwork to vote for Trump, and they came out in the right places to swing the electoral vote, but... again, with the forces arrayed against Trump, I still can't imagine how he won – or how he expects to win in 2020 by hanging on – oops, I mean “clinging” – to those same 63 million.

One way of summarizing the perennial “conspiracy” issue is this: Either you believe that there are unseen forces at work, or you don't. And as I've pointed out before, everyone is, on some level and perhaps only in the most trivial of cases, a “conspiracy theorist” (when people talk about socks that never reappear once they're put into the dryer, they're only half joking). And on the opposite end (psychologically at least) there are people who believe that everything is a conspiracy, and that the CIA spends every waking moment keeping track of their dull, boring lives. (This is also known as grandiose thinking, but is far from the only way it can come about.)

Thus, the natural response to Trump's not only unlikely but impossible victory in 2016 was that over half the citizenry turned, overnight, into conspiracy theorists, including those who had, up to that point, been perfectly satisfied with outward appearances and with the establishment's “narrative” about pretty much everything. So they began groping around, desperately, seeking an explanation, the way law enforcement officials are always looking for a “motive” when it comes to shootings. And sometimes there isn't one – sometimes things really do just happen. But this cannot possibly be in the case for 2016 – surely randomness is far too weak an explanation... no explanation at all, in fact, although it seems to satisfy those very same people whenever they are talking about evolution, which is a much bigger and more important phenomenon than American elections.

But if 2016 cannot be explained in any sort of reasonable way, what does this say about 2020 and everyone's expectations? Will it be a “normal” election (in which case Trump should lose in a landslide), or will it be another spectacular anomaly, the way 2016 was? This is what is, or should be, keeping the 20-plus new-and-old kids on the block awake at night. And if the sum total of our enemies, for any reason, want to continue to assault us – culturally, diplomatically, economically – what outcome will they prefer? What feeds more readily and efficiently into their agenda? The American public, once the very image of naive optimism and confidence, has had its dreams and delusions shattered, maybe once and for all, by the results of the 2016 election and by ensuing events, regardless of what “side” any given individual was on. Everyone is scandalized... everyone is disillusioned... everyone is dismayed, for many reasons... and everyone is “out on the street”, either literally or in spirit, gearing up for still another “mother of all battles” next year. So if the ruling elite at one time felt that an anesthetized American public was their best strategy, that has obviously been discarded in favor of something much more violent and stress-prone... which may mean that we have come to a moment of truth for our nation and society, the way so many other societies have come to a moment of truth, almost always unexpectedly (which makes it even more traumatic). It may be time to be either openly enslaved or equally openly discarded – and quite frankly, whoever winds up running in 2020, and however the citizens vote, is not going to make a bit of difference if the die is already cast. Trump, and the 20+ (or whatever the final figure is) may as well just be chaff in the wind if America's fate is sealed.