You mention the mainstream media are not performing their job of investigative journalism.
I investigated this in Canada and the US and the result was found by following the money.
From my digging I have come up with some alternate reasons why the mainstream media is no longer objective. It seems to have started decades ago with colleges pushing the liberal point of view and graduating liberals. This was fine until the internet came along and slowly print and TV media has been dying as people gravitate to the internet for their news. Fox News seems to have been the fist major agency to move towards picking one side and went with promoting conservative journalism viewpoint. The other major news networks went mostly to the liberal side and promoted their views, possibly because their major commercial buyers were drug companies. Objectivity was second to making a profit and staying alive. For a young person wanting to break into a job at a major news agency in New York they had to toe the liberal line and at a salary that barely covered rent.
When the Pandemic broke out the US MSM was bought by government advertising followed by big Pharma advertising when the vaccines were introduced. MSM tailored its coverage to support its advertisers.
In Canada the transition took a different route as successive Federal governments refused to bail out the failing major media until in 2018 the Liberal government suddenly reversed course and invited appx. 30 heads of major media to a meeting to divvy up over half a billion dollars in subsidies. Now the conservatives would never support a failing business, the NDP will never form the government so the only answer to stay alive and get more subsidies is for a news agency to support the liberals.
This was the year before the 2019 federal election and of course the Pandemic started at the end of 2019. I assume there was a quid pro quo deal in there.
Incidentally, the reason the MSM reduced their scope to liberal or conservative issues was reported in another article to be due to the need to reduce costs as Internet intruded on their readership so covering less news was a good way to save on staff costs hence the reduced news coverage.
The CCP is up to its neck in this scandal, but that's another story - I didn't want to dilute the main message, and I always struggle to keep my articles from getting too long and labyrinthine lol.
I was looking for direct CCP link but could not uncover anything. Maybe it is there but very subtle. Recently in Canada and the US, federal politicians have been exposed for taking money from CCP. It is very possible the CCP has influenced MSM.
I agree the CCP is dangerous and insidious. I have sworn to restrict as much product from China a possible so as to not support their country. We all need to do that. That will push manufacturers to move to different countries to product the cheap products we all have come to love buying.
As far as the CCP and MSM I could not find a direct link however China's government will infiltrate anywhere that gives them and advantage so will do some digging into the link.
I know a considerable number of people who were fooled because they trusted corporate media and government bureaucrats to be at least somewhat honest and competent. They will never make that mistake again, as some have stated more than once in my presence. I also know a few people who remain clueless as ever. They are nice well meaning people but dreadfully credulous. I fear they face a Darwinian future given the deceit which reigns among corporate media and DC, with no end in sight.
A brilliant summation and pre-history of the covid scam - bravo.
This obsession with bureaucratised Health and Safety in the workplace, and totally risk-free lives that crept into all facets of life (which as you point out, became "safe spaces") has less to do with actual concern and welfare for individuals, and more about group herding and mentality.
"The Manufacturing Of A Mass Psychosis, Can Sanity Return To An Insane World?" Academy of Ideas you tube channel.16 minutes. Graphic with quotes ~ https://youtu.be/fdzW-S8MwbI .
It doesn't get any better than this; outstanding work. Thank you.
Sadly, given the immense power and wealth in the hands of our oppressors, and the near absolute dearth of contrary efforts, owing to the absence of power and wealth, it seems inevitable that we will not be able to save civilization as we know it. Only when the entire edifice crumbles and we few are left to pick up the pieces and start over will we have a chance at renewal.
I know this sounds pessimistic (because it is), but, given the landscape, it also sounds realistic and prescient. I wish things were different, that we had recognized what was closing in on us earlier and in time to stop it, but the train is traveling too fast to stop it now, and we have to wait until the whole mess destroys itself (as it inevitably will) before we can look to a brighter future. At least if we acknowledge the inevitable failure of Western civilization, which was predictable and predicted, we can be better prepared to weather the storm.
Fair comment; Hitchens has been consistent throughout.
It's such a shame he stubbornly cultivates the image of an arrogant intellectual elitist. It limits his audience and masks the truth of so much of what he actually says.
Excellent post. As you know from your brief look at my work, I largely concur.
Where we differ is on the question of solutions. Simply put, I no longer believe democracy (i.e., any system in which people vote and can run for office/work for government) can restrain itself, or can be brought back to some measure of sanity by means of the processes or mechanisms of the democratic system.
You hinted at it yourself: "The very last people who should have a voice in assessing the shambolic response are those who got it all wrong but now claim to have “seen the light”.
True! The problem is—that cannot be avoided. Governments are only held accountable by themselves, and it is in their interest to do a poor job of holding themselves accountable. The notion that "the voters" can do it or will do it has proven illusory—a lovely reverie of our classical-liberal ideological forebears, dreamt up for all the right reasons, but ultimately a failure from a practical standpoint. The same applies at NGOs. The NHS, the BBC, the media—they aren't going to be held accountable by panels of based citizens. They are going to put on kabuki masks, do their dance, and nothing real will happen.
I believe
a) democracy contains the seeds of its own destruction. (Hoppe helped me see the light here.) Anglophone genius gave us two of the greatest democratic systems ever. But that greatness only delayed their demise; it could not stop it.
b) democracy, even under better circumstances, is actually an undesirable and fundamentally rights-violative system. It simply exchanges the tyranny of majorities for the tyranny of monarchs. (And in some ways, a monarch might be safer, for as Lewis notes, his "cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated." Democratic majorities, however, are insatiable—and they are structurally guaranteed to produce leftward drift.)
c) to repeat myself from above—this situation does not seem soluble by means of those mechanisms afforded to us by the democratic system. Try to imagine solving any of this. I am not trying to black-pill you here, but try to imagine gaining enough "democratic" momentum to turn back the tide. Then, as ephemeral as that vision is, try to imagine doing so in some fashion that will not let the pendulum swing right back. I used to fancy myself an imaginative person, but I no longer can imagine anything even close.
Weirdly, I am not black-pilled about this. I believe that we are on the cusp of the next evolution in human governance. From 1.0 (hereditary rule) to 2.0 (democratic rule) to 3.0—something new. Decentralized. Voluntary. Polities of any size: micro-states, city states, etc. Private-law societies. Sovereign joint-stock realms. Allodial title to one's land. Voluntary subscription to competing private rights-protection agencies…and even to membership-based mini-countries. The freedom to choose. No more involuntary governance.
I know this seemingly pie-in-the-sky vision doesn't seem to help much in the near term—yet I think it does: I think the time has come to give up on the notion that this is going to get solved by winning elections. I think that while we focus on elections and trying to reform the system, they're going to "concentrate" us in 15-minute cities, give us digital currency and smart meters (both of which they can turn off if we misbehave) and make whatever remaining concept of individual rights into a showpiece—something we still feel as we sing our patriotic songs, but does not actually exist.
I think we're better off spreading the word—and acting on the notion—that the emperor has no clothes, and that natural law and the rights of the individual human person are absolutely sovereign and inviolable. And we must resist, at all costs and by all means, the fates described above. We can do two things at once—we can vote and act within the system, to buy us time. But we must also plan for what we're going to do next.
I do not think it is pie-in-the-sky. I think it's what's coming next. The state as we have known it has run its course. If they don't suffer the inevitable collapse that tyrannies do, they will collapse from sovereign debt. I do not know how long i will take. Cicero did not know, as he was losing his head, that it would take almost 2,000 years. Algernon Sidney did not know that it was right around the corner when he was losing his. Both men envisioned a new way. It is time for us to do the same.
You say we differ on the question of solutions. I'm not sure I *have* a solution, but I would say I'm not as down on the question of democracy as you are. For sure, democracy has pitfalls - as does *any* form of collective government - but that is why checks and balances are so important. The Long Marchers recognised this and consciously sought to exploit the weaknesses in our systems, as well as the complacency of the populace. Ironically, McCarthyism probably helped them a great deal because it made people wary of 'alarmist conspiracy theories' so that they could operate under the radar as it were.
They used the education system to plant the seeds of communism. In both the UK and the US, law schools are amongst the most left-wing establishments of all.
As a result, the legal system is now almost exclusively obsessed not with justice, but "social justice". The entire legal system is captured by neo-Marxist activists - yet so many otherwise awake people are totally blind to it. It's perplexing, so say the least.
The deliberate erosion of checks and balances is one of two main issues I see with democracy as we currently practice it in the West. The other is the Party system.
Again, in both the US and the UK, morally corrupt politicians are far more interested in their own fortunes than in 'serving' the public, and the means to preserve their own interests is the gravy train of the Party system. So Party loyalty becomes far more important than anything else; we end up with robotic group-think and a complete lack of responsiveness to the actual priorities of the electorate. Anyone who deviates from this model is labelled with the pejorative of "populist" and soon taken down by the swamp/blob. Occasionally, a fraud such as Macron invents a 'new' approach to disrupt the status quo but, as soon as they're elected, they fall back into 'establishment mode'. We should keep our eyes on what happens next in Italy with Giorgia Meloni.
Your approach seems a bit too close to anarchy to be workable? Forgive me if I've misunderstood.
In a modern, mobile and equitable society, with people more densely packed together than ever before in over-populated nations and cities, some issues simply have to be managed on a 'collectivist' basis. Even in your vision, for example, what authority verifies your Allodial title to your land? In many regions, even the concept of land ownership is so foreign as to be irrelevant. Central London or Paris? Downtown New York or Los Angeles?
Representative democracy is the best thing we've come up with so far but, as we've seen, it's
far from perfect. Another commenter here, Hugh Willbourn, wrote a thought-provoking piece you might appreciate.
I will finish by stressing that I am not optimistic. You say "I think that while we focus on elections and trying to reform the system, they're going to "concentrate" us in 15-minute cities, give us digital currency and smart meters (both of which they can turn off if we misbehave) and make whatever remaining concept of individual rights into a showpiece".
I agree. I think this is our fate, it's why I said in the post that we're going to need a miracle. What I fear we may actually get as an alternative is a series left wing revolutions which are going to accelerate the madness. Watch France closely.
Oh, I missed answering a direct question; I apologize. You asked,
"what authority verifies your Allodial title to your land?"
Answers could be brief or extended. I will shoot for the former.
1. Right now, a monopolistic legal system verifies and records the documents that certify that I purchased the property. In a system of voluntary order, there are nuances in the various ways this could be handed, but the gist is that the same ownership record would be recorded within a competitive free-market legal system, and the mutual recognition thereof would be the result of standardization across the industry, in the same way that happens now, both in competitive profit-making enterprises (National Association of Manufacturers, e.g.) and in private arbitration systems.
2. Right now, invasions of my property are defended against by me, and by a monopolistic entity that forcibly taxes me to pay for its protection services (and may or may not also prosecute me for defending my own property). In a system of voluntary order, invasions of my property would be defended against by me and by the private rights-protection agency I have hired from among a competitive market of such agencies. Disputes would be adjudicated in a competitive court system, with arbitrage and legal courts chosen in advance, stipulated in the contract with the agency.
As of right now, I am not an especially skilled apologist for the specifics of these voluntaryist systems. I am in the process of learning them myself. The two books I mentioned above do an excellent job of laying it all out. As an intelligent man, you will no doubt think of objections. Those guys have answered so many of the standard objections; they really are worth considering.
Any system will have flaws, but the system we have now, among its many flaws, has a fatal one: it is not morally permissible. Its involuntary nature violates the rights of the individual human person. I lay that argument out in detail here: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/is-any-government-morally-permissible
I have not yet been persuaded by any counter-arguments thus far. Involuntary governance—and inescapable "social contracts" that call my agreement "implied" and then back that up with force—are fundamentally rights-violative, and thus morally impermissible, phenomena. I am still learning the arguments for workable alternatives, but on that question, I am fairly confident.
Ultimately, the only legitimate law is natural law. My property is the result of natural law. It is the result of my own self-ownership, which is exclusive, inalienable, and morally inviolable. My free will (which is at the core of my self ownership), acting upon the things of the earth, produces wealth, which I then use in a voluntary transaction with another free human being to purchase a piece of property. That piece of property is now mine. Full stop. I do not need to justify it to anyone, nor does anyone have the moral right to force me to use it in a particular way, or to force me to pay for its use. So long as I am not exerting coercive force upon others in the course of its use—dumping gasoline into the water-table, e.g.—that is the end of it.
Now, if I CHOOSE to live in, say, a private-law enclave in which I rent an apartment, and as part of the arrangement in order to drive upon its roads and enjoy its overall dweomer of protection, pay a fee of some sort, that is my choice. Allow such polities to form and let us see what people choose! But this one-size-fits-all involuntary system, built on force and violence and the tyranny the majority—and the oligarchs and ideologues who game the system—has got to go.
By the way, I did read Dr. Willbourn's article. I love sortition, but the notion that it must be involuntary— forced upon people—is exemplar of the poisoning of the human mind that has taken place over the last 10,000 years. As an ultra-social species, we are community-oriented by nature, but we have conflated that with force. "Don't you want to become part of our community" has become "things cannot function unless you are forced to be part of our community." It has become so entrenched in human thinking that now, all but a few (the Hoppes and D. Friedmans, et al, e.g.) lack the imagination to see how flawed that notion is, and how we might move past it.
Dang it, that answer was supposed to be brief! Oh well. Thank you for the conversation!
You list a series of ways in which the left has gamed, and ultimately corrupted, the system. The thought that has been troubling me is this: I cannot imagine a counterfactual reality where they DON'T do that. It was there to be corrupted. It has been corrupted. In fact, really the only Western democracies that have not been taken over are in Eastern Europe, and I strongly believe that the ONLY reason why is because they still have people alive who remember the horrors of two generations under communism. As soon as that memory, and those people, die off, those democracies will be ripe for the picking too.
And it's not just that. Democracy is designed to be slow and inefficient—to keep from sudden lurches or accumulations of power. Brilliant planning, but with one flaw—it does not just open the door to being slowly undermined by the left, it also opens the door to being controlled behind the scenes by shadowy figures who are not constrained by the strictures of a democratic system. The result is exactly what we have now. Billionaires, creepy globalist weirdos, leftist ideologues, C-suites, etc. have become oligarchs. Democracy is a fig leaf for the oligarchy we live under. And what democracy we do have is so gamed and oppressive that even the lowest-level officials are tyrants. The councilors in the City of Bath about to unilaterally herd people into 15-minute cities. Here in the States, school board members are able to tell parents that their kids are going to be exposed to all sorts of sexual indoctrination (and encouraged to mutilate themselves) and there's not a damn thing they can do about it. Oh, and the FBI is going to declare parents who complain to be "domestic terrorists."
Not a good look for democracy.
And we expect not only to vote our way out of this mess, but somehow to reform the system by using the same system that brought us all this in the first place? I will read Hugh's article, but honestly, this is starting to seem like the definition of insanity to me: repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
"Anarchy" is such a fraught and freighted word. How about we just start with decentralization? Take away the ability of large central powers to use their power to accumulate even more power, to the point where they can do anything they want. At very least, end that. Bring back the heptarchy, maybe!
I know that sounds glib, but I have to be honest with you—I believe that if we all keep saying words to the effect of, "Democracy is flawed, but it is the best we have" (or only thing we can think of) or "if we get rid of democracy, the only other option we have is chaotic anarchy," we're going to lose. There are actually tons of conceptualizations for how human questions can be solved without resorting to democracy or monarchy. Voluntary order, private-law, etc. I know it's obnoxious to recommend entire books, but until I can find shorter summaries, I would say go for "The Machinery of Freedom" (D. Friedman) and "Democracy: The God That Failed" (H.H. Hoppe).
I know it's a big leap. In fact, I just took it myself within the last year. It took working on a book for 12 years, and a whole bunch of thought and some really good arguments (Hoppe especially), for me to become open to the notion that this system we have may not be the final stop in the evolution of human governance. It was bequeathed to us with the best of intentions, undergirded by the right philosophy, and was arguably the best they could have come up with in their historic moment. But it is fatally flawed. And we are living out those flaws now.
So what will we do? Will we just say that it's grim and hopeless and allow ourselves to be herded into dystopia? Will we keep saying that we have no other option but the system that is doing the herding, even as the dogs are at our heels?
Because it is either that…or fight…or we think of something new and start working toward that.
Here in the U.S., we're talking more and more about "national divorce." Still feels like a longshot, but the gallows doth wonderfully concentrate public opinion. And, though many people caved on covid, I don't think people are going to cave on 15-minute cities. We're armed to the teeth here, but a peaceful separation could forestall a fight. All it takes is some governors with some balls. You guys are in a tougher circumstance. But you cannot let the Mother Country fall! Don't be wedded to what is. Imagine what could be. A massive consciousness shift could be your greatest weapon. I don't mean to sound like a hippie there, but it's true.
Sorry again if it seems like a black pill. I don't believe it is. Keep fighting on every front. No matter what you do, do not let them take away cash or concentrate you into travel-restricted places. Do whatever it takes, within or without the system.
And don't despair! Spread the hope that it can be done. It can be done if you all absolutely refuse to lie down, no matter what. There are more of us than there are of them!
The failure comes down to extreme lack of accountability. It throws open the doors to halfwits, utopians, psychopaths.
'Getting voted out' or 'losing a job' simply does not cut it, it's just an end to the jolly. Most of parliament should be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned for their role in Covid tyranny, but they swan about as if they are untouchable heroes. Climate Hysteria tyranny is now ramping up, and again the narcissists enacting it think they're heroes.
100%. But they ARE untouchable, aren't they? At least within the mechanisms of the system. Who is going to hold them accountable? Other feckless MPs? The voters who allowed all this to come to pass in the first place? The system itself? Governments are terrible at holding themselves accountable for anything.
I am not sure what to suggest for you guys. You are disarmed and generally far more polite than we are in the States. The idea of #NationalDivorce is starting to get discussed here, and that has promise. It would have promise for you too—decentralization is (part of) the way forward for all of mankind, IMO. But I am just not sure how y'all would even get started. The impediments for you are even greater than ours. But something must be done. You're even further down the road to serfdom than we are, and I worry for you!
I will close with Tolkien's excellent words from Father Giles of Ham, in which he reveals his anarcho-monarchist leanings and suggests a way forward, by going back…
"for people were richly endowed with names in those days, now long ago, when this
island was still happily divided into many kingdoms…"
I heard about a Mercian independence movement recently, and also one across the water in Donegal. I think that's the direction. Withdraw consent to be centrally governed.
It is not practical for everyone to take care of everything and to coordinate what enables us to live the lives we have hence why we, the public, have delegated responsibility for this to politicians. That they work for us and theoretically, take their instructions from us, is frequently forgotton.
What has developed over many years is not only our essentially leaving them to get on with it with occasional nods when they over-step the mark or introduce something irrational or that we disagree with, but dangerously, we have also allowed them to grow their level of importance, the levels of bureaucracy, to create a greater need for them to exist than there needs to be, and we have allowed it to happen. This struck home for me when watching Clarksons Farm and Jeremy is sat there with his farm manager / accountant asking what the UK Govt wants him to grow. Why should a Govt tell farmers what to grow? Why aren't there local cooperatives who know the regional demand coordinating on behalf of farmers crops with farmers contributing given their particular skills and knowing what is best given the need to rotate crops? Why is that a Govt issue?
How have we gotten to a point where we have allowed politicians to tell us how to live our lives and to get involved in every minute detail? Yes, acts of parliament by acts of parliament, by looking to right wrongs and increase fairness through legislation and forgetting that 'life isn't fair' or that we have a moral compass and can turn the other cheek. Having responsibilities rather than rights.
We gave away the power and right for politicians to over-step the mark. We have to stop delegating that level of authority
Fascinating articles, thanks for sharing. I agree with much of what you say, though the "citizens assembly" type approach does come with a few risks that would need to be carefully managed. Then again, what novel approach doesn't...
The entire pandemic was faked as were all the responses. These clowns will do the exact same thing come the next fake pandemic and have no doubts, it will be a complete fake out like all the other pandemics since the 1950's. The responses will be all the same because the CDC and WHO have no clue as to how to respond to a REAL DEADLY pandemic of some kind. If there was a true pandemic horror, hundreds of millions would be dead before the stupid CDC or WHO could even invent a fake name.
"Any significant public health threat from Covid was over in the early part of 2021..."
This "health threat"... ie the act of biological warfare inflicted on humanity... would have been over early 2020, if people had not been murdered by hospital protocols and the silencing of everyone opposing the proposed/enacted counter measures.
I've written previously that it was largely over by Summer 2020, but a minor resurgence was always likely the following Winter.
Murder is too strong a word imo for the iatrogenic deaths that happened in Spring 2020. Like many, I would like to see a detailed investigation of the facts as part of a genuine enquiry; I'm sure there would be examples of manslaughter to prosecute in various circumstances - but particularly in care homes.
Unlike some, I believe there was a genuine and serious Covid threat to a small sub-set of people in Spring 2020.
I think there is no question that SARS-CoV2 was a distinct and genuine Coronavirus - much mutated now, in 2023, from the original strain in 2020. My view is that it was an engineered virus from the lab, but very unlikely to be a "weapon". If it *was* from the lab, that makes the cover up a very serious crime anyway; almost as bad as a deliberate release.
Covid19 though - the illness caused by the virus - is a bit less clear. Certainly, the 'original' strain caused severe illness and many deaths in vulnerable groups - though I stress again, nowhere near as many as were portrayed in the official narrative.
Omicron is completely different though - whatever "Covid19" was (there is no meaningful objective definition to my knowledge), it doesn't exist with Omicron, certainly not at anything like pandemic levels.
"Long Covid" is and always was an utter scam imo. For sure, a small number of unfortunate people suffer post-viral problems after infection with all kinds of things, but there is no evidence that LC is a particularly serious problem.
As for the countermeasures, I couldn't agree more.
Castro was a whole lot better than the regime he replaced. And he was not a late C19th philosopher, he was a man of action in living history willing to put his own life and safety on the line and at huge personal risk for an ideal.
Under Castro - life expectancy in Cuba equalled the USA.
"To the victor, belongs the spoils of War' is an old adage.
When Andrew Bridgen (MP) is ostracized by the British parliament for telling the truth, how can anybody believe that there is going to be a New Deal in the UK?
There was a Plandemic in 2020, not a pandemic!
UK MP says Covid-19 is a Manufactured Bioweapon and Security Services knew about it in August 2019
The ambiguity / irony of using the phrase did occur to me as I wrote it, but I thought what the heck, let's just say the ancient Chinese displayed a bit more wisdom than their modern counterparts!
On my use of the word miracle, I didn't use it in a literally religious sense. What I mean is precisely that WE have a lot of work to do, but we're going to need a *lot* of luck if we're ever to turn things around - a "blessing from the gods" if you will.
I guessed that it had. Lol. The fact that the ancient Chinese were wiser than their modern counter-parts was, I assume, why Mao needed to get rid of them.
'Miracle' - as in 'not used in a literal religious sense': Understood.
I, on the other hand, do believe in miracles in the literal sense - speaking from experience. :D
You mention the mainstream media are not performing their job of investigative journalism.
I investigated this in Canada and the US and the result was found by following the money.
From my digging I have come up with some alternate reasons why the mainstream media is no longer objective. It seems to have started decades ago with colleges pushing the liberal point of view and graduating liberals. This was fine until the internet came along and slowly print and TV media has been dying as people gravitate to the internet for their news. Fox News seems to have been the fist major agency to move towards picking one side and went with promoting conservative journalism viewpoint. The other major news networks went mostly to the liberal side and promoted their views, possibly because their major commercial buyers were drug companies. Objectivity was second to making a profit and staying alive. For a young person wanting to break into a job at a major news agency in New York they had to toe the liberal line and at a salary that barely covered rent.
When the Pandemic broke out the US MSM was bought by government advertising followed by big Pharma advertising when the vaccines were introduced. MSM tailored its coverage to support its advertisers.
In Canada the transition took a different route as successive Federal governments refused to bail out the failing major media until in 2018 the Liberal government suddenly reversed course and invited appx. 30 heads of major media to a meeting to divvy up over half a billion dollars in subsidies. Now the conservatives would never support a failing business, the NDP will never form the government so the only answer to stay alive and get more subsidies is for a news agency to support the liberals.
This was the year before the 2019 federal election and of course the Pandemic started at the end of 2019. I assume there was a quid pro quo deal in there.
Excellent insights and comment. Thank you.
Incidentally, the reason the MSM reduced their scope to liberal or conservative issues was reported in another article to be due to the need to reduce costs as Internet intruded on their readership so covering less news was a good way to save on staff costs hence the reduced news coverage.
Excellent synopsis! I would like to add one more variable to your comments: the infiltration of the CCP.
It’s quite apparent in the USA.
Agreed. Neil Ferguson is tenured at Imperial college London (ICL). The
"the UK’s number one research partner with China" is? ICL.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/168497/chinese-president-sees-uk-china-academic-partnerships/
The CCP is up to its neck in this scandal, but that's another story - I didn't want to dilute the main message, and I always struggle to keep my articles from getting too long and labyrinthine lol.
YES indeed!
I was looking for direct CCP link but could not uncover anything. Maybe it is there but very subtle. Recently in Canada and the US, federal politicians have been exposed for taking money from CCP. It is very possible the CCP has influenced MSM.
Where I live in the Bay Area (Commifornia), it’s not subtle at all. The CCP is taking down society as we know it, from the inside.
An example would be the Confucius Institute, implemented on many college campuses, in the USA.
The CCP plays the long game.
I agree the CCP is dangerous and insidious. I have sworn to restrict as much product from China a possible so as to not support their country. We all need to do that. That will push manufacturers to move to different countries to product the cheap products we all have come to love buying.
As far as the CCP and MSM I could not find a direct link however China's government will infiltrate anywhere that gives them and advantage so will do some digging into the link.
https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/how_many_confucius_institutes_are_in_the_united_states
Piers Morgan didn't get had by the Triggernometry Boys in the slightest. Give us 10 minutes with him, he'll be totally incinerated.
True, but have you watched the link? Alistair Williams rips them to shreds.
But I would absolutely like to see Morgan alone in a room with yourself and some of your associates!
A good rant, Joel---did you miss the legal system?
I know a considerable number of people who were fooled because they trusted corporate media and government bureaucrats to be at least somewhat honest and competent. They will never make that mistake again, as some have stated more than once in my presence. I also know a few people who remain clueless as ever. They are nice well meaning people but dreadfully credulous. I fear they face a Darwinian future given the deceit which reigns among corporate media and DC, with no end in sight.
My worry is that Darwinism will make slaves of the credulous to the dominant creatures at the top of the food chain.
A brilliant summation and pre-history of the covid scam - bravo.
This obsession with bureaucratised Health and Safety in the workplace, and totally risk-free lives that crept into all facets of life (which as you point out, became "safe spaces") has less to do with actual concern and welfare for individuals, and more about group herding and mentality.
Thank you.
"The Manufacturing Of A Mass Psychosis, Can Sanity Return To An Insane World?" Academy of Ideas you tube channel.16 minutes. Graphic with quotes ~ https://youtu.be/fdzW-S8MwbI .
It doesn't get any better than this; outstanding work. Thank you.
Sadly, given the immense power and wealth in the hands of our oppressors, and the near absolute dearth of contrary efforts, owing to the absence of power and wealth, it seems inevitable that we will not be able to save civilization as we know it. Only when the entire edifice crumbles and we few are left to pick up the pieces and start over will we have a chance at renewal.
I know this sounds pessimistic (because it is), but, given the landscape, it also sounds realistic and prescient. I wish things were different, that we had recognized what was closing in on us earlier and in time to stop it, but the train is traveling too fast to stop it now, and we have to wait until the whole mess destroys itself (as it inevitably will) before we can look to a brighter future. At least if we acknowledge the inevitable failure of Western civilization, which was predictable and predicted, we can be better prepared to weather the storm.
Why no Peter Hitchens in the Media list? Glaring absence.
Fair comment; Hitchens has been consistent throughout.
It's such a shame he stubbornly cultivates the image of an arrogant intellectual elitist. It limits his audience and masks the truth of so much of what he actually says.
Excellent post. As you know from your brief look at my work, I largely concur.
Where we differ is on the question of solutions. Simply put, I no longer believe democracy (i.e., any system in which people vote and can run for office/work for government) can restrain itself, or can be brought back to some measure of sanity by means of the processes or mechanisms of the democratic system.
You hinted at it yourself: "The very last people who should have a voice in assessing the shambolic response are those who got it all wrong but now claim to have “seen the light”.
True! The problem is—that cannot be avoided. Governments are only held accountable by themselves, and it is in their interest to do a poor job of holding themselves accountable. The notion that "the voters" can do it or will do it has proven illusory—a lovely reverie of our classical-liberal ideological forebears, dreamt up for all the right reasons, but ultimately a failure from a practical standpoint. The same applies at NGOs. The NHS, the BBC, the media—they aren't going to be held accountable by panels of based citizens. They are going to put on kabuki masks, do their dance, and nothing real will happen.
I believe
a) democracy contains the seeds of its own destruction. (Hoppe helped me see the light here.) Anglophone genius gave us two of the greatest democratic systems ever. But that greatness only delayed their demise; it could not stop it.
b) democracy, even under better circumstances, is actually an undesirable and fundamentally rights-violative system. It simply exchanges the tyranny of majorities for the tyranny of monarchs. (And in some ways, a monarch might be safer, for as Lewis notes, his "cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated." Democratic majorities, however, are insatiable—and they are structurally guaranteed to produce leftward drift.)
c) to repeat myself from above—this situation does not seem soluble by means of those mechanisms afforded to us by the democratic system. Try to imagine solving any of this. I am not trying to black-pill you here, but try to imagine gaining enough "democratic" momentum to turn back the tide. Then, as ephemeral as that vision is, try to imagine doing so in some fashion that will not let the pendulum swing right back. I used to fancy myself an imaginative person, but I no longer can imagine anything even close.
Weirdly, I am not black-pilled about this. I believe that we are on the cusp of the next evolution in human governance. From 1.0 (hereditary rule) to 2.0 (democratic rule) to 3.0—something new. Decentralized. Voluntary. Polities of any size: micro-states, city states, etc. Private-law societies. Sovereign joint-stock realms. Allodial title to one's land. Voluntary subscription to competing private rights-protection agencies…and even to membership-based mini-countries. The freedom to choose. No more involuntary governance.
I know this seemingly pie-in-the-sky vision doesn't seem to help much in the near term—yet I think it does: I think the time has come to give up on the notion that this is going to get solved by winning elections. I think that while we focus on elections and trying to reform the system, they're going to "concentrate" us in 15-minute cities, give us digital currency and smart meters (both of which they can turn off if we misbehave) and make whatever remaining concept of individual rights into a showpiece—something we still feel as we sing our patriotic songs, but does not actually exist.
I think we're better off spreading the word—and acting on the notion—that the emperor has no clothes, and that natural law and the rights of the individual human person are absolutely sovereign and inviolable. And we must resist, at all costs and by all means, the fates described above. We can do two things at once—we can vote and act within the system, to buy us time. But we must also plan for what we're going to do next.
I do not think it is pie-in-the-sky. I think it's what's coming next. The state as we have known it has run its course. If they don't suffer the inevitable collapse that tyrannies do, they will collapse from sovereign debt. I do not know how long i will take. Cicero did not know, as he was losing his head, that it would take almost 2,000 years. Algernon Sidney did not know that it was right around the corner when he was losing his. Both men envisioned a new way. It is time for us to do the same.
Some very interesting thoughts there - thank you.
You say we differ on the question of solutions. I'm not sure I *have* a solution, but I would say I'm not as down on the question of democracy as you are. For sure, democracy has pitfalls - as does *any* form of collective government - but that is why checks and balances are so important. The Long Marchers recognised this and consciously sought to exploit the weaknesses in our systems, as well as the complacency of the populace. Ironically, McCarthyism probably helped them a great deal because it made people wary of 'alarmist conspiracy theories' so that they could operate under the radar as it were.
They used the education system to plant the seeds of communism. In both the UK and the US, law schools are amongst the most left-wing establishments of all.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11895943/Stanford-law-equity-dean-sparked-fury-challenging-conservative-judge-BRAGS-behavior.html
As a result, the legal system is now almost exclusively obsessed not with justice, but "social justice". The entire legal system is captured by neo-Marxist activists - yet so many otherwise awake people are totally blind to it. It's perplexing, so say the least.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65067321
The deliberate erosion of checks and balances is one of two main issues I see with democracy as we currently practice it in the West. The other is the Party system.
Again, in both the US and the UK, morally corrupt politicians are far more interested in their own fortunes than in 'serving' the public, and the means to preserve their own interests is the gravy train of the Party system. So Party loyalty becomes far more important than anything else; we end up with robotic group-think and a complete lack of responsiveness to the actual priorities of the electorate. Anyone who deviates from this model is labelled with the pejorative of "populist" and soon taken down by the swamp/blob. Occasionally, a fraud such as Macron invents a 'new' approach to disrupt the status quo but, as soon as they're elected, they fall back into 'establishment mode'. We should keep our eyes on what happens next in Italy with Giorgia Meloni.
Your approach seems a bit too close to anarchy to be workable? Forgive me if I've misunderstood.
In a modern, mobile and equitable society, with people more densely packed together than ever before in over-populated nations and cities, some issues simply have to be managed on a 'collectivist' basis. Even in your vision, for example, what authority verifies your Allodial title to your land? In many regions, even the concept of land ownership is so foreign as to be irrelevant. Central London or Paris? Downtown New York or Los Angeles?
Representative democracy is the best thing we've come up with so far but, as we've seen, it's
far from perfect. Another commenter here, Hugh Willbourn, wrote a thought-provoking piece you might appreciate.
https://www.hughwillbourn.com/post/36-a-decent-democracy
I will finish by stressing that I am not optimistic. You say "I think that while we focus on elections and trying to reform the system, they're going to "concentrate" us in 15-minute cities, give us digital currency and smart meters (both of which they can turn off if we misbehave) and make whatever remaining concept of individual rights into a showpiece".
I agree. I think this is our fate, it's why I said in the post that we're going to need a miracle. What I fear we may actually get as an alternative is a series left wing revolutions which are going to accelerate the madness. Watch France closely.
I hope we're both wrong.
Oh, I missed answering a direct question; I apologize. You asked,
"what authority verifies your Allodial title to your land?"
Answers could be brief or extended. I will shoot for the former.
1. Right now, a monopolistic legal system verifies and records the documents that certify that I purchased the property. In a system of voluntary order, there are nuances in the various ways this could be handed, but the gist is that the same ownership record would be recorded within a competitive free-market legal system, and the mutual recognition thereof would be the result of standardization across the industry, in the same way that happens now, both in competitive profit-making enterprises (National Association of Manufacturers, e.g.) and in private arbitration systems.
2. Right now, invasions of my property are defended against by me, and by a monopolistic entity that forcibly taxes me to pay for its protection services (and may or may not also prosecute me for defending my own property). In a system of voluntary order, invasions of my property would be defended against by me and by the private rights-protection agency I have hired from among a competitive market of such agencies. Disputes would be adjudicated in a competitive court system, with arbitrage and legal courts chosen in advance, stipulated in the contract with the agency.
As of right now, I am not an especially skilled apologist for the specifics of these voluntaryist systems. I am in the process of learning them myself. The two books I mentioned above do an excellent job of laying it all out. As an intelligent man, you will no doubt think of objections. Those guys have answered so many of the standard objections; they really are worth considering.
Any system will have flaws, but the system we have now, among its many flaws, has a fatal one: it is not morally permissible. Its involuntary nature violates the rights of the individual human person. I lay that argument out in detail here: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/is-any-government-morally-permissible
I have not yet been persuaded by any counter-arguments thus far. Involuntary governance—and inescapable "social contracts" that call my agreement "implied" and then back that up with force—are fundamentally rights-violative, and thus morally impermissible, phenomena. I am still learning the arguments for workable alternatives, but on that question, I am fairly confident.
Ultimately, the only legitimate law is natural law. My property is the result of natural law. It is the result of my own self-ownership, which is exclusive, inalienable, and morally inviolable. My free will (which is at the core of my self ownership), acting upon the things of the earth, produces wealth, which I then use in a voluntary transaction with another free human being to purchase a piece of property. That piece of property is now mine. Full stop. I do not need to justify it to anyone, nor does anyone have the moral right to force me to use it in a particular way, or to force me to pay for its use. So long as I am not exerting coercive force upon others in the course of its use—dumping gasoline into the water-table, e.g.—that is the end of it.
Now, if I CHOOSE to live in, say, a private-law enclave in which I rent an apartment, and as part of the arrangement in order to drive upon its roads and enjoy its overall dweomer of protection, pay a fee of some sort, that is my choice. Allow such polities to form and let us see what people choose! But this one-size-fits-all involuntary system, built on force and violence and the tyranny the majority—and the oligarchs and ideologues who game the system—has got to go.
By the way, I did read Dr. Willbourn's article. I love sortition, but the notion that it must be involuntary— forced upon people—is exemplar of the poisoning of the human mind that has taken place over the last 10,000 years. As an ultra-social species, we are community-oriented by nature, but we have conflated that with force. "Don't you want to become part of our community" has become "things cannot function unless you are forced to be part of our community." It has become so entrenched in human thinking that now, all but a few (the Hoppes and D. Friedmans, et al, e.g.) lack the imagination to see how flawed that notion is, and how we might move past it.
Dang it, that answer was supposed to be brief! Oh well. Thank you for the conversation!
You list a series of ways in which the left has gamed, and ultimately corrupted, the system. The thought that has been troubling me is this: I cannot imagine a counterfactual reality where they DON'T do that. It was there to be corrupted. It has been corrupted. In fact, really the only Western democracies that have not been taken over are in Eastern Europe, and I strongly believe that the ONLY reason why is because they still have people alive who remember the horrors of two generations under communism. As soon as that memory, and those people, die off, those democracies will be ripe for the picking too.
And it's not just that. Democracy is designed to be slow and inefficient—to keep from sudden lurches or accumulations of power. Brilliant planning, but with one flaw—it does not just open the door to being slowly undermined by the left, it also opens the door to being controlled behind the scenes by shadowy figures who are not constrained by the strictures of a democratic system. The result is exactly what we have now. Billionaires, creepy globalist weirdos, leftist ideologues, C-suites, etc. have become oligarchs. Democracy is a fig leaf for the oligarchy we live under. And what democracy we do have is so gamed and oppressive that even the lowest-level officials are tyrants. The councilors in the City of Bath about to unilaterally herd people into 15-minute cities. Here in the States, school board members are able to tell parents that their kids are going to be exposed to all sorts of sexual indoctrination (and encouraged to mutilate themselves) and there's not a damn thing they can do about it. Oh, and the FBI is going to declare parents who complain to be "domestic terrorists."
Not a good look for democracy.
And we expect not only to vote our way out of this mess, but somehow to reform the system by using the same system that brought us all this in the first place? I will read Hugh's article, but honestly, this is starting to seem like the definition of insanity to me: repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
"Anarchy" is such a fraught and freighted word. How about we just start with decentralization? Take away the ability of large central powers to use their power to accumulate even more power, to the point where they can do anything they want. At very least, end that. Bring back the heptarchy, maybe!
I know that sounds glib, but I have to be honest with you—I believe that if we all keep saying words to the effect of, "Democracy is flawed, but it is the best we have" (or only thing we can think of) or "if we get rid of democracy, the only other option we have is chaotic anarchy," we're going to lose. There are actually tons of conceptualizations for how human questions can be solved without resorting to democracy or monarchy. Voluntary order, private-law, etc. I know it's obnoxious to recommend entire books, but until I can find shorter summaries, I would say go for "The Machinery of Freedom" (D. Friedman) and "Democracy: The God That Failed" (H.H. Hoppe).
I know it's a big leap. In fact, I just took it myself within the last year. It took working on a book for 12 years, and a whole bunch of thought and some really good arguments (Hoppe especially), for me to become open to the notion that this system we have may not be the final stop in the evolution of human governance. It was bequeathed to us with the best of intentions, undergirded by the right philosophy, and was arguably the best they could have come up with in their historic moment. But it is fatally flawed. And we are living out those flaws now.
So what will we do? Will we just say that it's grim and hopeless and allow ourselves to be herded into dystopia? Will we keep saying that we have no other option but the system that is doing the herding, even as the dogs are at our heels?
Because it is either that…or fight…or we think of something new and start working toward that.
Here in the U.S., we're talking more and more about "national divorce." Still feels like a longshot, but the gallows doth wonderfully concentrate public opinion. And, though many people caved on covid, I don't think people are going to cave on 15-minute cities. We're armed to the teeth here, but a peaceful separation could forestall a fight. All it takes is some governors with some balls. You guys are in a tougher circumstance. But you cannot let the Mother Country fall! Don't be wedded to what is. Imagine what could be. A massive consciousness shift could be your greatest weapon. I don't mean to sound like a hippie there, but it's true.
Sorry again if it seems like a black pill. I don't believe it is. Keep fighting on every front. No matter what you do, do not let them take away cash or concentrate you into travel-restricted places. Do whatever it takes, within or without the system.
And don't despair! Spread the hope that it can be done. It can be done if you all absolutely refuse to lie down, no matter what. There are more of us than there are of them!
The failure comes down to extreme lack of accountability. It throws open the doors to halfwits, utopians, psychopaths.
'Getting voted out' or 'losing a job' simply does not cut it, it's just an end to the jolly. Most of parliament should be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned for their role in Covid tyranny, but they swan about as if they are untouchable heroes. Climate Hysteria tyranny is now ramping up, and again the narcissists enacting it think they're heroes.
100%. But they ARE untouchable, aren't they? At least within the mechanisms of the system. Who is going to hold them accountable? Other feckless MPs? The voters who allowed all this to come to pass in the first place? The system itself? Governments are terrible at holding themselves accountable for anything.
I am not sure what to suggest for you guys. You are disarmed and generally far more polite than we are in the States. The idea of #NationalDivorce is starting to get discussed here, and that has promise. It would have promise for you too—decentralization is (part of) the way forward for all of mankind, IMO. But I am just not sure how y'all would even get started. The impediments for you are even greater than ours. But something must be done. You're even further down the road to serfdom than we are, and I worry for you!
I will close with Tolkien's excellent words from Father Giles of Ham, in which he reveals his anarcho-monarchist leanings and suggests a way forward, by going back…
"for people were richly endowed with names in those days, now long ago, when this
island was still happily divided into many kingdoms…"
I heard about a Mercian independence movement recently, and also one across the water in Donegal. I think that's the direction. Withdraw consent to be centrally governed.
It is not practical for everyone to take care of everything and to coordinate what enables us to live the lives we have hence why we, the public, have delegated responsibility for this to politicians. That they work for us and theoretically, take their instructions from us, is frequently forgotton.
What has developed over many years is not only our essentially leaving them to get on with it with occasional nods when they over-step the mark or introduce something irrational or that we disagree with, but dangerously, we have also allowed them to grow their level of importance, the levels of bureaucracy, to create a greater need for them to exist than there needs to be, and we have allowed it to happen. This struck home for me when watching Clarksons Farm and Jeremy is sat there with his farm manager / accountant asking what the UK Govt wants him to grow. Why should a Govt tell farmers what to grow? Why aren't there local cooperatives who know the regional demand coordinating on behalf of farmers crops with farmers contributing given their particular skills and knowing what is best given the need to rotate crops? Why is that a Govt issue?
How have we gotten to a point where we have allowed politicians to tell us how to live our lives and to get involved in every minute detail? Yes, acts of parliament by acts of parliament, by looking to right wrongs and increase fairness through legislation and forgetting that 'life isn't fair' or that we have a moral compass and can turn the other cheek. Having responsibilities rather than rights.
We gave away the power and right for politicians to over-step the mark. We have to stop delegating that level of authority
Ioannidis was pushing the vax in interviews...
Levitt signed the letter pushing for continued funding of EcoHealth.
https://www.science.org/content/article/preposterous-77-nobel-laureates-blast-nih-decision-cancel-coronavirus-grant-demand
Less "leadership" of any kind and more freedom would be best.
Here, is a possible, if improbable, solution https://www.hughwillbourn.com/post/36-a-decent-democracy
and as you rightly say this has been a long time coming ... https://www.hughwillbourn.com/post/23-cock-up-conspiracy-or-murmuration
I have a forthcoming book which offers an option for people to see more clearly ..
Fascinating articles, thanks for sharing. I agree with much of what you say, though the "citizens assembly" type approach does come with a few risks that would need to be carefully managed. Then again, what novel approach doesn't...
The entire pandemic was faked as were all the responses. These clowns will do the exact same thing come the next fake pandemic and have no doubts, it will be a complete fake out like all the other pandemics since the 1950's. The responses will be all the same because the CDC and WHO have no clue as to how to respond to a REAL DEADLY pandemic of some kind. If there was a true pandemic horror, hundreds of millions would be dead before the stupid CDC or WHO could even invent a fake name.
"Any significant public health threat from Covid was over in the early part of 2021..."
This "health threat"... ie the act of biological warfare inflicted on humanity... would have been over early 2020, if people had not been murdered by hospital protocols and the silencing of everyone opposing the proposed/enacted counter measures.
I've written previously that it was largely over by Summer 2020, but a minor resurgence was always likely the following Winter.
Murder is too strong a word imo for the iatrogenic deaths that happened in Spring 2020. Like many, I would like to see a detailed investigation of the facts as part of a genuine enquiry; I'm sure there would be examples of manslaughter to prosecute in various circumstances - but particularly in care homes.
Unlike some, I believe there was a genuine and serious Covid threat to a small sub-set of people in Spring 2020.
One question for me is: what IS "covid"?
I don't believe it's a "virus" at all, but a manufactured biological weapon.
This is why I say "murder".
And the countermeasures are further crimes against humanity.
I think there is no question that SARS-CoV2 was a distinct and genuine Coronavirus - much mutated now, in 2023, from the original strain in 2020. My view is that it was an engineered virus from the lab, but very unlikely to be a "weapon". If it *was* from the lab, that makes the cover up a very serious crime anyway; almost as bad as a deliberate release.
Covid19 though - the illness caused by the virus - is a bit less clear. Certainly, the 'original' strain caused severe illness and many deaths in vulnerable groups - though I stress again, nowhere near as many as were portrayed in the official narrative.
Omicron is completely different though - whatever "Covid19" was (there is no meaningful objective definition to my knowledge), it doesn't exist with Omicron, certainly not at anything like pandemic levels.
"Long Covid" is and always was an utter scam imo. For sure, a small number of unfortunate people suffer post-viral problems after infection with all kinds of things, but there is no evidence that LC is a particularly serious problem.
As for the countermeasures, I couldn't agree more.
Castro was a shit biological father. Look how his pedophile bastard son Justin Trudeau turned out. Castro was a piece of shit.
Castro was a whole lot better than the regime he replaced. And he was not a late C19th philosopher, he was a man of action in living history willing to put his own life and safety on the line and at huge personal risk for an ideal.
Under Castro - life expectancy in Cuba equalled the USA.
"To the victor, belongs the spoils of War' is an old adage.
When Andrew Bridgen (MP) is ostracized by the British parliament for telling the truth, how can anybody believe that there is going to be a New Deal in the UK?
There was a Plandemic in 2020, not a pandemic!
UK MP says Covid-19 is a Manufactured Bioweapon and Security Services knew about it in August 2019
.
https://expose-news.com/2023/01/02/covid-virus-was-a-manufactured-bioweapon-says-mp/
Just a thought - in your conclusion, you said that we're going to need a miracle.
A miracle is only something God can do.
Then you quoted Laozi's statement, which implies that the colossal work ahead, (albeit one step at a time) is something WE have to do.
I'm being a bit facetious here, but is this a subtle reference to the fact that the Chinese have the answer? ;)
Lol, no.
The ambiguity / irony of using the phrase did occur to me as I wrote it, but I thought what the heck, let's just say the ancient Chinese displayed a bit more wisdom than their modern counterparts!
On my use of the word miracle, I didn't use it in a literally religious sense. What I mean is precisely that WE have a lot of work to do, but we're going to need a *lot* of luck if we're ever to turn things around - a "blessing from the gods" if you will.
I guessed that it had. Lol. The fact that the ancient Chinese were wiser than their modern counter-parts was, I assume, why Mao needed to get rid of them.
'Miracle' - as in 'not used in a literal religious sense': Understood.
I, on the other hand, do believe in miracles in the literal sense - speaking from experience. :D