Complexity Denial

 

One problem with blogging for years is that important links you used way back when can become defunct.  This wouldn't be too much of a problem if you don't blog that much, but the blogging I put in over at The Hesperado spanned some 11 years, with 1,427 postings in all, each posting often riddled with links; so there's no way I'm going to go combing through my archives to check every link.  At best, I have repaired any links I happen to come across whenever I re-read an old posting.

As I just did tonight, in fact.  A conversation came up in my Paltalk chat room (The Sane Asylum) when I mentioned how Bill Clinton raped Juanita Brodderick.  A chatter indicated he'd like to see evidence of that, and I recalled I had penned a posting years ago on that very subject -- it turns out back in 2012.  So I hunted that posting down (Recipe for a National Rape Cover-Up, reprinted on my auxiliary blog) and refreshed my memory that the evidence is more complicated than a mere slam-dunk, and depends on an article by Jeffrey Lord published at The American Spectator also back in 2012.  My posting linked to that article, but when I clicked it tonight, it only took me to an error page.  So then I spent about 15 minutes delving into archives at the The American Spectator site and finally found it, titled Bill Clinton and Legitimate Rape.

That's not really why I called, however.   What I really wanted to say here today was that on re-reading my posting of yore, I was struck at the concept I articulated in the first three, brief paragraphs:

"Jeffrey Lord at The American Spectator has marshaled an impressive array of facts and analysis about the outrageous hypocrisy of the Democrats during this campaign (of 2012).

"Unfortunately, there are so many intertwining facts to present, with so much explanatory weaving together required, that I worry it tends to lose its punch.

"Lord knows Jeffrey Lord does his best, and it’s not really his fault, but just the nature of the complexity of the issue."

What I articulated in passing is a concept that applies to many issues -- for example, the problem of Islam, the problem of Climate Change, and the problem of Covid.  While the issue Jeffrey Lord was grappling with was somewhat complicated, it doesn't come close to holding a candle to the monstrous complexities Islam, Climate Change, and Covid present, each in their own way.  So my analysis of the problem is that much more searingly apt with regard to those. 

This came to mind again recently in a mildly dismaying exchange I had on Twitter with Christine Massey, a diligent activist in the radical wing of the Covid Dissident movement (such as it is) -- radical measured by the fact that they pull the virology rug out from under the whole debate, based on their proposition that there is no virus in the first place (nor any viruses at all).  I simply pointed out to her that the issue is too technically complex for most laypersons who only (at best) know the bare rudiments of biology to understand adequately.  She shot back effectively saying, "Nah it's not complex at all -- it's simple!"  It may be simple to her, but that doesn't mean it's simple to the layperson.  

With her attitude on this important facet in the War of Ideas, she will end up only preaching to the choir -- which includes a very few adequately science-educated folks who actually can grasp what she and David Crow, Andrew Kaufman and Tom Cowan are explaining; and a larger number of laypersons who don't really understand why they are assenting to the claims of the aforementioned.  My position on this is that when an issue is so complex, as with Climate Change and Covid, the layperson has to defer to experts; so the epistemological burden of assent becomes relocated from understanding the actual issue, to determining which experts you want to place your trust in.  Ideally (and I don't think it's too ambitious an ideal) this would entail exchanges and/or debates between those Covid Dissenters who do accept orthodox virology vs. those who don't -- exchanges and/or debates for the benefit of the vast majority who are laypersons.  In the minds of the laypersons in the audience, these exchanges and/or debates wouldn't necessarily create actual understanding of the scientific technicalities -- but they could help the layperson come to a clearer decision of which camp is the more honest and cogent.  It's not a perfect process, and more often  than not will be liable to shadows of doubt.  But hey, that's life, usually.

The complexity of the Islam issue is somewhat different, because there it doesn't really depend on technical concepts that involve scientific training, but rather just a sheer quantity of data and dots to connect, with gigantic subsets of frameworks of data (example, the Serbian-Bosnian conflict, as a subset of the problem of Islam, by itself would probably take 100 hours of laborious study to begin to get a toehold into -- ditto for the Israeli-"Palestinian" issue).  There are facets of the Islam issue that do unavoidably lead to a reliance on experts -- e.g., a knowledge of Arabic in examining foundational texts such as the hadiths and the Koran -- but the intelligent layperson can demarcate those facets and distinguish them from others that do not require such technical expertise.

The Conundrum & Coordination of Counter-Covid Communication

By "Covid" in my title, I don't mean the putative virus, but the massive, strange, complex, possibly sinister welter of reactions to it by governments and their media/medicine proxies around the world.

The "Communication" concerns both communication among Covid Dissenters, and their communication to the world outside their apparently still small, albeit growing movement.

Part of the "Conundrum" is that there is, as yet, no cohesive movement per se, with a coherent message.  The first order of business, it would seem, would be for all people who feel  disaffected and disturbed by this freaky year we've been having since approximately March of 2020 to consciously come together -- for now, merely to be aware of being part of a relatively like-minded community.

As I put it in a tweet about a week ago (probably only seen by 4.5 people):

1st step -- just set up a basic virtual home base where we all merely acknowledge that we have joined together. No other obligations, no other discussions. Just our names/nicknames + contact information (can be an anonymous email or a personal blog). Nothing else. 2nd step later.

Whether people heed me or not, it remains the logical first step.

Once we're all knowing we're together and we have a place somewhere on the Internet to hang our hats, so to speak, we can think about scheduling a global town meeting, using that place or some other platform.  I recommend a chat service called "Paltalk" where chatters can type text and converse vocally with mic chat.

No doubt part, or much of the process of discussion -- and inevitable disagreement -- will be messy, but that's life.  

The first topic we should discuss at the town hall, it seems to me, is to iron out a single platform to our movement -- coming to a general agreement on the wording that will balance two competing qualities:  

a) it should be as comprehensive as possible; and 

b) it should also be attentive to internal disagreements.  

An example of disagreements includes those who believe there is a Covid virus that is deadly vs. those who maintain that evidence for a Covid virus (deadly or otherwise) has not been presented.

To recap:

If the movement is to cohere at all, it must sequentially proceed through 3 steps:

1) Everyone joins up at a single agreed-upon place on the Internet.

2) Once #1 has settled in, we schedule a global town meeting.

3) At that town meeting, we hammer out a single platform that represents us all, despite any potentially significant disagreements.

Coffee with Art

 

Back in January of 2016, I penned a posting on my long-defunct blog, The Hesperado an essay that marked a major milepost in my disillusionment with the Counter-Jihad, aptly titled "The Desperado".

Somewhere in that depressing essay, I made allusion in passing to "my other life, Art (I'm a fiction writer and musician)."

I then went to pose the question:

What meaning does Art have, when it no longer has a civilizational cosmion (at least one that's not stupidly doomed, as ours is) in which to exercise the tension between Art and Reality?  But that may be the subject of a future essay.

That may serve as a reminder for me to take a stab at this interesting question someday soon here on this blog -- a question whose purport & import has in the meantime (and I mean mean) acquired an acutely disturbing jolt of electricity, given the two catastrophes since that halcyon time in 2016 when all I had to worry about was the Stealth Jihad and the dim-wittedness of the Counter-Jihad: namely, the alarming glimpse of the Swamp we saw this past November when a virtually transparent Coup replaced a US Presidential Election; and the protracted insanity-cum-conspiracy of the unfolding Covid Regime.

More on my old friend Art (not Linkletter, though he was a cool guy) later...

Just checking in...

 

I see my last blog posting was January 25, and I was still ruminating about a "rational conspiracy theory".  I've had more thoughts about it since then, but have more or less pretty much put that on a back burner.

I haven't been entirely unproductive, eructation-wise in the meanwhile.  In my "non-virtual life" I've been embarking on a long-neglected project to revamp my many fiction writings with extra words and phrases I have spent years amassing in a long list numbering to hundreds if not a thousand or two; and to date I've done this with about 4 works (one of them involving the creation of a new epilogue to a novel I wrote nearly 10 years ago that was already some 1,200 pages).

Other productivity (such as it is) may be seen at my Twitter account.  Over the past 11 months I've been active there I've learned the hard way that it's not in fact a place to spark conversations or discussions with other people, apparently.  Oh well.

I also lodged my "anniversary" posting on my old battle-scarred battleship, my long-defunct blog The Hesperado (a tradition I began on February 21, 2018).  

Anywho...  Think I'll stop in at this truck stop for a cup of hot brown.  Catch ya on the flip side.

Towards a Rational Conspiracy Theory

A rather circumscribed microcosmic example one can examine is the case of Abigail Shrier, who wrote the book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters.  While it is ironic that Shrier as a regular contributing journalist to the Wall Street Journal and other Mainstream venues, comes out of the Mainstream milieu (for those who have been tuning in, the Mainstream is dominated and steered by the Left), it is ironic also that the various forms of Leftist cancel culture assaults on her & her book have likely helped her book sales and her fame to spread her message, rather than hurt her as they intended

Of course, a Rational Conspiracy Theory wouldn't make sense if you summarily dismiss the possibility of conspiracies in general (or at all). At any rate, Rational Conspiracy Theory proceeds on the assumption that there is a conspiracy, but hasn't yet palpated its contours reasonably.

So, assuming there's a Leftist/Communist conspiracy afoot, it's reasonable to assume the cancel culture phenomenon would be a major weapon in their arsenal, and Abigail Shrier, being an important figure challenging a major Leftist trope, would logically be a figure the conspirators would want to cancel.

The fact then that Abigail Shrier has been helped rather than hurt by the cancel culture attempts against her work means either that the conspirators are inept, or that there is no conspiracy there -- or it means that there are limitations on the ability of the conspirators to succeed in their agenda.   

What are these limitations?  Why do they exist?  And how do the conspirators interact with the non-conspiratorial parts of the sociopolitical ocean in which conspirators and non-conspirators alike swim?  These are fundamental questions a Rational Conspiracy Theory explores.

As usual, important questions raise further questions, such as:  Are the non-conspiratorial elements of the one common world in which we all live -- conspirators and non-conspirators alike -- more numerous and more powerful than the conspiratorial elements?  Or are they roughly equal in number and power?  Or are the conspiratorial elements dominant? (This last option seems to be one hallmark of the irrational conspiracy theory.)

More to come...

Still hanging on by my fingernails

 

Back on September 14 of 2020, I began a post this way:

Holy Moly, I haven't posted anything in nearly 2 months!  This Corona Madness messes with your sense of time (not to mention with your life).

Well now, on the morning of January 11, I see I haven't posted anything since October 19.  That goes well beyond a Holy Moly, almost to a Moliest of Molies.

That September posting, by the by, also alludes to a running theme that had increasingly preoccupied me over the course of 2020, and reached a nerve-rattling crescendo with the protracted trauma of the Presidential Election and its surreal, Orwellianly Kafkaesque aftermath -- receiving an added jolt on January 6 -- from which the nation reels and staggers to this day toward an uncertain future.  The running theme of which I speak has become clarified in my mind as the ongoing philosophical quest to develop a rational conspiracy theory.  More about that (and I've taken various stabs at it here on this blog) anon.

Perhaps the most searingly acute and stunningly concrete representation of that theme involves the interview Mara Zack gave on America Can We Talk, a YouTube channel hosted by Debbie Georgatos, on January 6.  That video has been consistently taken down by YouTube -- the latest instance being in the wee hours of last night as I write.  I had the video in hand late last night, and this morning when I went to retrieve it, it was gone, even though other videos by Debbie Georgatos are still on her YouTube page, many of them "far right" analyses of the Election etc.  If the reader looks at her YouTube page, they will see videos dated Jan. 5 and Jan. 7, but nothing for the 6th.  Luckily, a website has preserved the audio of that interview.

The peculiar -- to the point of being eerie -- thing is that nobody, not even Trump supporters, are talking about Maria Zack's astounding claim.  I worry about her safety, since I have not heard from her since January 6.

Getting closer to pinpointing the Problem of the Berensonite Wing

My term the "Berensonite Wing" refers to that dominant wing of the Covid Dissenters movement (such as it is) -- named after Alex Berenson, their unofficial leader -- who tend to play it safe, double-virtue-signalling both to their Team Reality members and to the Mainstream at large ("look at us, we're not wild-eyed Conspiracy Theorists!"), thereby unwittingly reinforcing the very same damned Mainstream narrative they purport otherwise to oppose.

Over the months what I've adverted to here on this blog represents a small fraction of what the Berensonite Wing has been up to in this regard.  Even my Twitter feed is not the whole story, since probably more often than not, I'm too weary to tweet my protestant response.  At any rate, here are a couple that reflect my theme today.  So we have today Alex Berenson tweeting this:

I know some of you feel overwhelmed at this moment. I hear from you everyday.

But this will not be the future. Not for you, Sarah, not for your kids, not for ours.

Not if we stand up for the truth.

Sounds bracingly encouraging in a Churchillian way, eh?  Well, as I tweeted in response:

Depends on what "the truth" is. If the truth is what Dr. Elke de Klerk of Doctors for Truth says -- namely, that there is no pandemic nor epidemic at all -- then Alex is not standing up for the truth.

Naturally, my tweet received only 1 lonely like.  And what was my "Doctors for Truth" reference about?  Well, as I tweeted on Alex's Twitter page a few days ago:

Has Alex ever featured "Doctors for Truth"?  Why not?

And I then quoted what their founder, Dr. Elke de Klerk, said at a recent press conference, flanked by her medical professional colleagues:

"I want to state that we do not have a medical pandemic or epidemic. We also state that Covid-19 should not be on 'list A' for any longer, because we now know that it is a normal flu virus..."

On that same note, in another tweet on another day, I responded to Alex's typical mainstream-reinforcing double-virtue-signaling:

I hate fighting about masks with people like Dr. Gawande. But he is wrong. The papers he offers barely rank as hypothesis-generating. The national data is impossibly confounded, the Harvard hospital paper doesn’t even have a control group, and the others are mostly care reports.

Alex was responding to a Mainstream doctor, who had tweeted:

Masks work? YES. This is appalling. [Dr. Scott] Atlas offers no explanation for the increasing mountain of evidence in support, and instead offers only a bizarre and incoherent paper. I don't know why the administration wants to die on this hill. 

To which I responded:

And I don't know why Team Reality wants to die on the hill of arguing about masks at all -- when the real issue is that what we are supposedly protecting from (or not), is virtually harmless and not really a pandemic or an epidemic, as Dr. Elke de Klerk of Doctors for Truth, says.

Alex's Conspirophobia

 

Pastor Mark Burns asks:

Is it possible that President @realDonaldTrump & his team was targeted for #COVID19?

Alex Berenson tweets:

No

My response at the time was:

Where is Alex's proof for his apodictic certitude?

Of course, Alex has no proof. He has only the axiom: It can't possibly be a conspiracy, so we must bracket that out of consideration when we think about and pronounce upon this unprecedented earth-shattering event of Covid policy.

More ruminations on Alex Berenson

 

More thoughts on Alex Berenson's cognitive dissonance (or less charitably, schizophrenia) -- challenging the mainstream narrative on Covid with one side of his mouth, reinforcing that same narrative with the other side of his mouth.

One side of Alex's mouth:

And for six months. #SARSCoV2 is not seriously risky to the vast majority of people. In fact if @who’s numbers are correct the death rate is much lower than has been reported.

Followed swiftly (in the same tweet, separated only by a paragraph break) with the other side of his mouth:

Trump’s illness is scary for him and his family. I hope he recovers...

Followed by another tweet:

But an even deeper tragedy will be if the media uses his illness to frighten people unnecessarily and push us toward policies that take away our rights, hurt our economy, and most importantly damage our kids.

And unfortunately that’s already happening.

Well, unfortunately it's already happening because the mainstream does that with Covid in general, and Alex is participating in (and thereby reinforcing) that very same panic rhetoric he's otherwise decrying in the quotes above.

As I tweeted there:

Hesperado
Alex is subtly reinforcing the Mainstream (whether he knows it or not).  The vast majority of people had nothing to worry about these past 6 months from Covid. Trump and his family have NOTHING to worry about from Covid; and EVERYthing to worry about from the treacherous Swamp.

Then I noticed someone named "Squidink" level an apt riposte:

"But an even deeper tragedy will be if the media uses his illness to frighten people unnecessarily" and yet you write: "Trump’s illness is scary..." Speaking out both sides of yer gob much?

To which I responded:

Hesperado
Yep. Alex has been doing that for months, in a variety of subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) ways.  His fan base (choir) doesn't seem to notice, and when I have pointed it out here in tweets over the months, I get like 1 or 2 likes and zero comments LMMO (Laughing My Mask Off).
 

The Problem With Alex

 

Alex Berenson, that is; the (or an) unofficial leader of the Covid Dissident movement (such as it is). I'll illustrate features of this problem with 4 tweets and my immediate, brief responses to them. In a subsequent posting, hopefully (if I don't die of Covid or -- far more likely -- if I don't die from a falling grand piano as I take a whistlingly jaunty walk in the park), I will further palpate the problematics. 

1) 

Someone tweeted this: 

Florida reports 127 newly identified deaths, and the oldest addition today: April 15th! I am not making this stuff up. Lots of deletions, some additional deaths in mid July. How is this even possible? @GovRonDeSantis what in the world is going on here? 

Alex Berenson (AB) replied: 

Hey @GovRonDeSantis - if you don't have the power to stop this practice, you can at least force your Health Department to be far, far more transparent about it and disclose granular data on causes of death and overall data on the percentage of deaths from death matching. I know you have done the right thing in FL but in most of the rest of the country "200,000 deaths" has become the rallying cry to make full reopening impossible. The data you provide can help those of us explain the truth about those deaths. 

Then the great Hesperado got in his typical zinger (typically ignored by as great a percentile as those who will never be harmed by Covid -- 99.99%): 

@HesperadoBlue Replying to @AlexBerenson

It could help, if 1) the mainstream weren't hopelessly corrupt; and if 2) Branch Covidians (who dominate our public space) weren't psychotically OCD thus rendering any SLIGHTEST POSSIBLE danger as = **Mankind will die**. 

[Then I noticed a tweeter named "A little bird told me" added some helpful information:] 

@ALittleTweet Replying to @AlexBerenson 

WA State counts “all death, irrespective of the cause, that tested positive for COVID.” CO too. TX is ridiculous. WA counts “untested & negative” in their cases. 

screenshot: https://twitter.com/ALittleTweet/status/1311684310370414593 

 2) 

AB: I don't agree with all of @zeynep's piece but it is exactly what supposedly serious outlets like @TheAtlantic SHOULD be offering - a non-hysterical take that tracing "super-spreader events" is crucial to controlling #Covid, with ideas about ways to do so. 

Hesperado:  There seem to be two wings to the Covid Dissident movement. One of them (the Berensonites) seems overly anxious not to catch conspiracy theory cooties, and thus ends up in subtle ways reinforcing the same damned mainstream narrative that has been oppressing us all these months.   The key passage in this regard:  ". . . tracing "super-spreader events" is crucial to controlling #Covid. . ." assumes that there are "super-spreader events" at all, and that "controlling Covid" is something we should be wringing our hands about at all -- both mainstream narrative memes.

3) 

AB: After six months ⁦@washingtonpost admits the truth: kids are at close to zero risk from the ro, and the inflammatory syndrome is generally easily managed. One small step... 

Hesperado: "close to zero" to the Branch Covidians = Mankind could still *possibly* die. All they need for their psychotic OCD principle of Better Safe Than Sorry is the slightest, most infinitesimal chance of doom, and they will think, feel, and act as though it were full-throttle doom. 

 4) 

AB: ...the irony is that the #Covid response has turned out to be the ultimate example of the kind of statist/elitist power grab that Trump in 2016 successfully ran against... And guess what? It’s steamrolled him and he can’t even understand why, much less explain what’s happened... 

Hesperado:  This one I didn't tweet because it had been too long since Alex's origial tweet, and we all know that Twitter cultivates a manically short attention span. I.e., if you respond to a tweet that's more than about 30 minutes old, you may as well be sending a letter in the 19th century to a missionary in Timbuktu.  I will only say in response now that AB's jab at Trump is rather rich, seeing as AB himself hasn't adequately grappled with the full nature & dimensions of the madness of Covid behavior & policy.  As I have tweeted countless times over the months now, this madness either reflects 1) a mass psychosis or 2) a conspiracy, with no reasonably adequate third explanation.  (#2 of course can include elements of #1, but not vice versa, in terms of an Either/Or.)  AB consistently shirks, dodges, bobs and weaves from facing this.  

His persisting evasiveness manifests itself in many behavioral quirks, among them a cognitive dissonance or schizophrenia whereby one day he posts an example of the confounding factors calling into serious question the mainstream numbers -- then the next day (or the next 15 minutes) posting a report that in his own words shows complete reliance upon the mainstream numbers.  And he never seems to even attempt to harmonize these mutually contradictory impulses of his CDB (Covid-Dissident Behavior).

P.S.:

Yet another example of Alex Berenson's quirks -- here's another recent tweet:

The Milwaukee coroner says about 20 percent of #COVID deaths in his county are misclassified and not due to the virus (not sure if this includes death certificate matching, which typically happens at the state level). 20 percent is likely the minimum.

 

As I Twitteringly noted at the time:

 

Approximately every other tweet by Alex reports various permutations of confounding factors that ruin the mainstream numbers on which the mainstream narrative is based; meanwhile the other Alex tweets in between reinforce those same mainstream numbers by relying on them.

 

The net effect of this incoherent schizophrenia (or, more charitably, cognitive dissonance) is to reinforce the mainstream narrative while giving Alex's fan base the encouraging illusion that they are fighting that mainstream narrative. 

Breaking News: Corona pandemic still never-ending

Holy Moly, I haven't posted anything in nearly 2 months!  This Corona Madness messes with your sense of time (not to mention with your life). 

I also have unfinished business, with 2 or 3 postings where I began a "Part 1" and promised parts deux but have yet to deliver...

Most particularly, my meditations on the concept of "conspiracy theory" in an essay I published here June 13, Corona Conspiracy...? (Part 1).  If I were to write a Part 2 (and I really should get cracking on it), I would explore its crux: namely, the question, what is the nature of the conspiracy?  The exploration should not revolve around whether there is a conspiracy or not -- one can table that as a distinct question and keep it unentangled from the crux -- but rather, if there is a conspiracy, what follow-up questions ensue?

Who is involved in the conspiracy?

Why are they involved?

What are their goals?

What are their motives?

What factors enable their conspiracy but couldn't reasonably be supposed to be part ot it (example: the sheeplish compliance by millions of ordinary people, even often expressing itself in ardent support)?

When these questions are probed and palpated (and there could be more one could come up with), it often "smokes out" the kinds of conspiracy theorist one wants to avoid -- the clearly loony people whose theories quickly morph, in response to the first question listed above, into the Illuminati, the Masons, the Rothschilds, the Lizard People, etc.  Then hopefully, one can pursue the questions more soberly -- without necessarily rejecting positive answers to them out of hand on an a priori basis flowing from the axiom that "there could never be a conspiracy EVER, so don't even go there, girlfriend".

* * * * * 

P.S.: A note about my dearly departed blog, The Hesperado.

While my last essay there before closing up shop with door-slamming finality was on February 21, 2018, I subsequently hit on the novel idea of posting one essay a year on "anniversaries" of that date.  My last posting was, of course, on February 21, 2020, Another year down the pike...  It amazes and grimly amuses me how blithely Covidless that essay was.  How close to the threshold I was -- we all were -- at the end of February, before the shit of madness began slowly unraveling to hit the fan mere weeks later.

Mulling a cup of coffee over the corona madness...

Problems of this corona madness that haven't been noticed and highlighted enough:

1.  Millions of ordinary people, it seems, are going along with the madness, and many among those millions identify the various aspects (lockdowns, social distancing, masks) as signs of virtue and moral superiority over those who disagree.

These millions of ordinary people give enormous sociopolitical traction to the Corona Narrative strong-armed by governmental elites and their media propagandists.

2. The data by which all of us can come to some rational assessment of the scope of the problem seems to be hopelessly useless due to a complex tissue of confounding factors.

Because the mainstream data is virtually useless, we can't trust any of the mainstream reports about how bad the "pandemic" is (or whether it's even a "pandemic" per se).

3.  Despite #2, the Mainstream's own numbers -- though one has to tease these out since the Mainstream obfuscates this -- indicate that over 99.9% of people will not be harmed by corona.

Because of this, it is monstrously irrational to invasively impact the Healthy Majority, rather than selectively quarantine the tiny fraction of those at risk.

*  *  *  *  *

I notice the Corona Dissenter movement (of which Alex Berenson is one of the most prominent of unofficial leaders) virtually ignores #1 and #2, and usually fails to connect logical dots from #3.

A coffee break from Corona and BLM

Like I said recently, I haven't really been reading Jihad Watch lately; pretty much stopped since March because the coronamania began to be more (cough, cough) interesting.

Took a look at Jihad Watch today and couldn't help bump my shin against a familiar piece of furniture.  We have Robert Spencer's headline:

ISIS jihadi returned to Austria several times for medical treatment, then went back to jihad, retains citizenship

It was Spencer's brief editorial remarks where we glimpse the problem (of the problem of the problem):

Why was this jihad terrorist allowed to come and go for medical treatment? Why was he collecting aid? He retained his Austrian citizenship because he doesn’t have any other, but in going to fight for the Islamic State, he committed himself to citizenship in the ISIS caliphate, an entity that was and is at war with Austria. 

The problem is not overtly evident from the quote; one has to be able to tease it out from between the lines, by rephrasing the crucial core of Spencer's words in a way which he and most of the Counter-Jihad are too cowardly or politically correct to do:

In being a Muslim (defined as supporting rather than opposing mainstream Islam -- defined as no better, though certainly stealthier and more ostensibly "diverse", than ISIS) -- any given Muslim commits himself or herself to "citizenship" in the trans-national Umma of mainstream Islam, a trans-national entity that has always been and continues to be at war with the entire non-Muslim world.

Mask Psychosis

Medical professionals and staff having sane fun back in November of 2019 for a good cause, raising funds for cancer research at the Montreal Institute of Cancer through their event, the Soirée Masquée ("Masked Evening Party").



Medical professionals and staff in the office (not in proximity to any COVID patients) at Silver Cross Hospital in Illinois post-coronamania -- feeling obliged, with that strange mixture of virtue-signalling pride and anxiety, to wear masks anyway.

On Alex Berenson's Twitter page, there was one thread that had interesting & cogent replies by various tweeters.  Alex started it off by responding to this tweet:

"My Relatives had to hide in haylofts so they wouldn’t be murdered by Cossacks, I can wear a mask when I go to Starbucks."

Alex's response was aptly snarky:

This is profound. But to go to Starbucks, wouldn’t you have to leave your safe room?

A few of the comments were in the coronamaniac camp (what Alex calls "Team Apocalypse"), but most were not (what Alex calls "Team Reality"), and a couple of times the latter cogently engaged the former.

Here are some of the more notable tweets from that thread:

My great-grandfather came to America so I’d never ever have to be told by the government to wear a mask.

But this isn't Russia, Nazi Germany, Communist China, modern Iran, etc. We haven't been conquered by Tamerlane. We're not subservient to the Romans.We should not have to hide or wear a mask or do anything of the sort because of fear of the government. She doesn't get that.

Imagine thinking that going to Starbucks is necessary if you're that afraid.

Weird inversion. You'd think the conclusion would be, "Cossacks...I think I can buy a cup of coffee without wearing a surgical mask." Somehow, it's, I come from tough stock, ergo I can do passively anything imposed on me by authority figures.

My relatives fought in wars against creeps like domineering Cossacks so people would be free from rule by domineering creeps that mandate mask wearing.

Then there was this exchange between a coronamaniac and a normal person:

coronamaniac:  Getting out, working, spending, while wearing a mask will ensure the public stays healthy and society doesn't collapse. Wearing a mask is easy & limits the spread. People need to stop being whiny friggin babies and just wear the masks!

normal person:  nope. If you're healthy and don't view others as virus-coated contagion, no need to wear a mask.

coronamaniac:  Sigh...YOU may be healthy, but YOU may also be asymptomatic. That means YOU don't know that you are carrying the virus. If YOU are asymptomatic YOU may pass the virus on to others. The point is to reduce the spread.

normal person:  there's zero evidence of asymptomatic people (who are merely breathing) spreading it. There's no precedent for obsessing over such things, no reason to start now.

coronamaniac:  ok - share the current studies that show your statement to be true. The CDC says otherwise.

normal person:  the onus is on you. There are no scientific studies that show that masking is worthwhile. There are not even scientific standards for the masks (unlike bike helmets). And the masks were deemed entirely optional during the riots and protests. I'll opt out of the charade,thanks    

And here was another exchange between a different coronamaniac and a different normal person, scintillatingly lucid and succinct:

coronamaniac:  How does a mask inhibit your freedom, exactly?

normal person:  It depends on whether it's mandated or not, doesn't it?

* * * * * 

Only one problem with all the otherwise refreshingly real comments from the coronaskeptics: They all seem focused on the aspect of coronamania mask-wearing as an imposition from above on the people; but this imposition in our relatively free societies would have little or no traction without the millions of ordinary people who have so quickly become True Believers in the Mainstream Narrative about it.

This I maintain is one of the two most critical problems of this devolving global train wreck of a catastrophe; the other being our inability to really know virtually any damn thing -- especially on the macro level -- about the effects of this virus, given the misinformation, disinformation, and corruption of the data necessary for us to come to an informed assessment of the whole mess.

Corona Conspiracy...? (Part 1)

This whole coronamania in all its dizzyingly diverse madness has given me pause about my perennial disinclination to "reach for" the conspiracy theory.

There have been many sociopolitical outbursts and conditions of pneumopathology (Eric Voegelin's term for "spiritual disease") over the years, decades (even centuries -- but let's stick to the relative present) that are so remarkably phenomena of mass neurosis they become conducive to the conspiracy theory explanation. Three I can think of off the top of my head:

1) the systemic whitewashing of the pernicious human rights violations and dangers of Islam;

2) the systemic misinformation-cum-disinformation about climate change from the establishment;

3) the systemic Trump-bashing that has veritably reached derangement.

All along during these overlapping processes of mass irrationality, I resisted "going there" to the conspiracy theory, and even many times on my former blog The Hesperado I would have recourse to my meme "the Explanatory Vacuum" (for example, this one) -- which essentially refers to the reflexive tendency many have in the Counter-Jihad to explain the general myopia & deference to Islam by some sort of conspiracy, because they lack an explanation otherwise (hence, the "vacuum" that has to be filled).

Well, a 4th major sociopolitical phenomenon of mass neurosis has reared its ugly head in the last few months -- the corona panic-mongering.  It's become so bad, in so many complex ways, that early on I realized this is no longer a mass neurosis, it's a mass psychosis.

Now, mass psychoses don't just happen for no reason, do they?  The question is, what are the reasons for this complex, massively throbbing tissue of diseased sociopolitics otherwise known as coronamania?  I don't have an easy answer, if any; I can say the conspiracy theory is looking better and better as time goes along -- but at the same time, some of its features seem to militate against "reaching for" the conspiracy theory.

(A part 2 will hopefully be forthcoming in the near future...)

Well, Alex Berenson's Twitter page, which was one of the most popular and (not without significant flaws) finest corona-skeptic site for some three months, seems to have finally morphed into something else, now that the cyanophobic cop-hating pandemic has overtaken coronamania.  Most of Alex's tweets now concern the protests-cum-riots-cum-lootings in various parts of the US, and his "pinned tweet" (which he used to change daily) has now been for several days a plug for his 2019 book on the dangers of marijuana, which is what he was semi-famous for before the corona madness.

It's unlikely though that this means the Left-dominated Mainstream will relax its mass psychosis about corona.  As one Alex fan put it wryly:

Then there’s Portland (who still haven’t “opened” to their phase 1). Can’t have church or graduation with more than 25 people. But protest? 10,000s are A-Okay! 

The Counter-Corona

One fallout of the coronamania pandemic was that I finally after years broke my daily habit of drinking my first cup of coffee with Jihad Watch, and switched (round about March of this year) to the caramel macchiato of Alex Berenson's Twitter page of daily reports and analyses of the madly morphing corona madness.

As I intimated in my last two postings (see directly below), however, I've found Alex to have quite significant signs & symptoms of that far worse virus than corona -- namely Leftism.

His Leftism found an interestingly (albeit unintentionally) vivid expression in two recent threads where his fan base, by disagreeing with him nearly unanimously, starkly backlit it.

The first I mentioned in one of the two previous postings (see below), where he gushed a virtue-signal in praise of AOC, and his fan base said, in effect, "nope, Alex, you're wrong about her".

The second came more recently, where he lit into Trump's call (no doubt twisted by the MSM) for a robust response to the devolving hatred and violence around the country, basically a sequel to Rodney King:

Oh FFS. This is not a good idea. And I’m old enough to remember this morning, when the Insurrection Act was off the table.

I here quote a representative sample of his fan base dressing him down (some more gently than others, bolded ones the juiciest):

anoroc
@anoroc68338337
Normally I would agree.

But under the current circumstances, when our own mayor and governors seem to care more about hurting the feelings of lawless criminals, I'm not gonna blame Trump.

And if any of the criminals get hurt? Not ideal, but still better than residents.
VM
 
@huck68finn

I get you, but I really think he needs to do it. The Dems will sacrifice their own people and their states to somehow counter Trump (just look what they did RE: HCQ). Also, it sends a dangerous message when we convey this kind of weakness toward anarchy.

Luis Bobby
@LuisBobby3
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Stick to the COVID hoax. This isn’t your expertise.

Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Disagree.  Time to take the gloves off.

Lisa Fleming
@BULLYNOT2U
·
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
It’s not bad when our country is burning down and allowed by democrat Govs who wouldn’t allow people to open their businesses but allowed peaceful protests that turned deadly.

Melissa the Homeschooling Mater

Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
I disagree. I think this is exactly what the president needs to do. If he doesn't take control, these blue state mayors and governors will allow the situation to continue to deteriorate. Part of their plan, none of this is surprising.

@eastwood88_20

Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Been with you for a long time. You are incorrect about this one. Violence needs to stop. Great decision.

Jerod
@Jerod37657830

Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Clearly many governors reactions while having all available tools has been complacency. While MN has as many as 10,000 available. Walz decided to wait days until the city was a mess. Why trust these state leaders? We want our country back!

Obamagator
@HStowit

Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Good idea or not, people definitely want something forceful or a plan that doesn't involve fire and looting while police stand down.

Kamran Pasha
@kamranpasha

Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
There goes Posse Comitatus.

John Schreiber
@JohnSchreiber8

Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Disagree. He had no choice.

Gus Polinski
@WisconsinHFC

Jun 1
I agree with that. Allowing this to continue isn’t an option. For the record, I cannot stand Donald Trump. But I’m not blinkered enough to just be diametrically opposed to everything he does. I’d imagine I’m not the only person in the Country who’s thinking this way.
1 more reply
Si vis pacem, para bellum

@GeorgeRSimpson

Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Low-information source.  Maybe vet the story.

Mike
@Mike23656644

Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Allowing the riots to continue is the bad idea.

We Want to Live
@WeWanttoLive5
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Reuter’s is usually somewhat reliable on this type of thing - They just say he will use troops if the governors don’t stop the violence - Story was just undated and nothing about him actually invoking the act Trump vows to end protests; tear gas fired on protesters near White House
U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday vowed to end violent protests in major cities across the nation "now," saying that he would deploy the 4 More Years
Flag of United States
K
Fire
A
Fire
G
Flag of United States
@USAANON2
·
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Just let em burn it down and steal
Because Dems want Pres to look bad
This is politics - watch

SimulationCommander
@SimulationComm3

Jun 1
Which is super crazy to me. George Floyd happened in blue Minneapolis. The riots are happening mainly in blue states and being allowed by blue politicians. Yet we're supposed to blame Donald Trump? WTF?
3 more replies
BrainsVsExperts
⭐
⭐
⭐
@trustbible
·
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Oh, you want our country burned to the ground. Our citizens brutalized,  and our law enforcement officers killed. Got it.
BMD
@BMD02635719
·
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Order first, Alex.  No progress can be made under threat of violence or chaos.
Charlie Boardman
@charlieboardman
·
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
I don’t think this is even true. I can’t find it anywhere besides this tweet
The Hyperbolic Literalist
@shoelessjoe255
·
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
 and
@reypoullard
Nope. This is EXACTLY what is needed. Sitting around letting our country burn to the ground is what the left want.

TheOracle
@jlm9999912

Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
I think you’re doing a great job on Covid, but more nights of looting and destruction are really not a good idea.Brian
@eagles512
·
7h
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Why isn’t this a good idea? The cities obviously can’t handle this themselves?
Some Dude
@TwatterMcGee
·
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Tear gas will do the trick. I agree, no need for Insurrection Act. They want him to do it so they can claim he’s a military dictator. It’s like in Die Hard when Hans feigned being a terrorist so the FBI would get involved & predictably cut the power so they could access the vault
SimulationCommander
@SimulationComm3
·
23h
It's crazy to me that no matter what, he just will not be the dictator that they claim he is. Blue governors, on the other hand.......
SwimNMom
@SwimNMom1
·
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
States like Ohio need help. Our Governor is no where to be found and the protests are now spreading to suburbs. It must be stopped.
mrriau
@mrriau1
·
Jun 1
I think the problem are also the media, they are spreading chaos. Some media who couple of years ago were quite good, they gave good info on computers and tech, are into politics  now.  Ex. CNET with "Black Lives Matter...

EyesWideOpen
@karaokemomo1
·
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Remember, it doesn’t mean he’ll use it. He doesn’t want to but we all saw how local elected had no problem killing livelihoods for a 99% survival rate virus.
Jack Jones
@abeligbod
·
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
I lived in LA in 1992. It was a good idea then, that much I can tell you.
Chris B
@almix77
·
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Think you got dooped on this one Alex. Don’t think that has been dropped yet.
larry_sellers
@_larry_sellers
·
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Wait and see what he does with it. My guess is it’s just leverage to get some of these mayors/governors to start doing their jobs. I think if he uses it at all it’ll be sparingly.
FHOIdealist
@HaskTweet
·
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
I listened and didn’t hear him say that. He urged governors & mayors to use the Nat’l Guard. He said if law & order wasn’t restored soon he would deploy the military.
Sweet Fancy Moses
@DrStevenP
·
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
He gave these worthless mayors and governors a few days to get it done.  They won't.  Someone has to put a stop to the lawlessness.
Bob Sayeth: The comet approacheth
☄
@SoSayethBob
·
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
It's inevitable. Chaos will not be permitted indefinitely.
PastaMonkey
@monkey_pasta
·
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Are we sure he did this?  Can’t find confirmation.
Prof. Snarf
@ProfessorSnarf
·
Jun 1
He threatened to do it. He didn’t actually do it.
1 more reply
Matthewp
@Matthew76056943
·
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
As far as I'm concerned, every member of Antifa is waging war against the United States and is thus guilty of Treason.
northcliqueboy
@chadwhitfield5
·
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Why not, Bush did it.
mrriau
@mrriau1
·
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
You are wrong.
Mark Miller
@markmillerdakar
·
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
It's a good idea if he responds in force, knocks out the rioters and looters, BrainsVsExperts
⭐
⭐
⭐
@trustbible
·
Jun 1
No man that's what the Democrat Governors have been doing  while their cities burn.

Angie

@angie_laughing

Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Why not?? What am I missing
Flag of United States

Angie
@AngieNC3

Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
You fell for a report with an "anonymous senior official" as the source.
That's not Trump's fault. That's a you problem.

@deemw1·
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
I bet POTUS  will probably just use it in 1 or 2 cities if at all.

He's forcing the mayors & governors to own the situation. The ones that can't look weak or corrupt like Deblasio.  I wouldnt be surprised if he took over NYC.

Daisy Smart
Flag of United States
@Smart67Daisy

Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
And there’s the old Alex back, lol. Hard to shake off that NYT mentality.

conservative pilgrim
@conserv_pilgrim

Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
That isn’t the full quote. “If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.”
Donald Trump Speech Transcript June 1: Trump May Deploy US Military to Cities - Rev
Donald Trump gave a June 1 speech in the Rose Garden amid George Floyd protests. He said he wants will "deploy the United States military" if mayors and governors don't solve the problem.
rev.com

Martok1
@Martok111
Jun 1
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
It was done for the LA riots.
It’s needed

death2freedom
@death2freedom
23h
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Maybe we don’t need standing armies. They seem to exist to enforce the overseas empire rather than any sort of homeland defense. Also we probably don’t need a CDC. Look what those creeps have done to us over the last 3 months. Maybe we don’t need a state at all.
Tim
@tntDVM

11h
Replying to
@AlexBerenson
Disagree on this.People have had enough. Needs to be stopped now

Brahms

@Johanusbrahms

Jun 1

Replying to

@AlexBerenson

He said he “will” bring in the military - he called on governors to deploy more national guard. Just listen to the 10 minute speech instead reading the tweets of anti-white media propagandists.

* * * * * 

And so forth. Many more good responses.