A Crisis in Crisis
Winter looks more demoralized than "dark"
I try not to use this journal as an outlet for “personal notes,” but as media/state intentions haven’t looked this ambiguous in months, what is one left with but stray musings?
The obvious, primary danger of a state of emergency is that the judiciary becomes defunct. In a vestigially federalized government like the US, this would mean that checks on the executive would devolve from the Federal courts to the states - from Judicial Review, to Nullification.
Arguably, this is where it the country should move in the long run - but in the short term, when the Federal government is still accustomed to direct mediation of state affairs, it would have represented a precursor to a second civil war. And yet it turned out that our Federal judiciary is not defunct. The flimsy OSHA “mandate” - really just a pretext for collusion between the administration and corporations - was suspended, effectively refuting the “emergency.”
The administration was not prepared for this rebuke. There was no backup plan, to restore the “emergency” - which is to say, the elite assurance of an artificial, media-sustained consensus of an emergency among the public at large. The Pandemic™ effectively ended; or at least, the theatre of the White House, that cardboard stage adorned with VACCINE.GOV logos and prowled by a snarling skeleton, ceased to have any power to speak for the thing.
But because of this accidental defiance by the Federal judiciary, and the accidental unpreparedness of the executive to respond to it, some small shred of legitimacy has been retained, in the government of the US. The states and the Federal government can return to a state of cold war - a patchwork of in-minority-party states in quiet defiance to current Federal policy, with no formal declaration of crisis.
I’ll skip over the recent capitulation of several larger healthcare providers, as any comment on the subject would hazard fantasy. I don’t really know anything about what goes on in the mind of the administrator of an institution whose core mission is to denaturalize human life and pervert human death in the service of manufacturing billable event codes. Did another concern briefly overtake the core mission, only to be renounced, or has the calculus on the core mission changed? Who can say.
I’ll also exempt schools from my comments. Here, things are still seemingly up-in-the-air. Until there is a broad, feet-to-the-ground revolt against masking and injecting children, I’m not sure they can count on any protection from continued theatre and experimentation. We, as a society, are simply too indifferent to them.1
More significant and perceptible is the alteration to “Leviathan,” the public at large. Even through autumn, through the constant, gleeful expert promotion of Covid Vaccine Failure, the ire of the Believers in the Experts was intensely focused on the unvaccinated, but all at once the air seems to have been let out. What changed?
I think it was the same thing that was obvious in August: Once the double-dosed were declared “unvaccinated,” the illusion would begin to crumble. This moment must not precede the purge of the un-dosed, in order to bring the police state into being.2 And yet the administration tried.
Has it, at last, failed? The rapid evaporation of a sense of crisis over Omicron suggests this may be the case. But a more pessimistic strain of thought in Covid-vaccine-skeptical world suggests that Omicron is merely the “emergency” framed in advance for impending illness among the Covid-vaccinated - referring, in this case, to the theory that the “common cold” has now become deadly for those who have submitted to this wild experiment on their immune systems. I remain ambivalent on the matter, at present; as always I think the shots are directly harmful enough as it is that a legitimate crisis of some “universal human illness” might only be a matter of months or years away. The best chance of skirting such a crisis lies in the possibility that inconsistencies in manufacture and cold chain essentially resulted in most recipients receiving little or no viable product. We won’t know until we know.
But, the chance remains that the pessimists might be vindicated. There is really no need to keep the masses terrified of a virus, or to maintain hatred and “otherizing” of the unvaccinated, if an iatrogenic crisis arises - it will still be quite fertile ground for the ushering in of autocracy. The new script can be written after the fact.
Either way, it is refreshing (unless you live in a region that has doubled down over Omicron, such as NYC) to not just catch a glimpse at the end of the Vilification of the Unvaccinated Tunnel, but to suddenly feel that we may already be on the verge.
But don’t have the audacity go breaking any toes for the moment. You’re still not a “person,” entitled to legal protection against deliberate media slander, just yet.3
See “In Orphania.”
Thus why, at the time boosters were first leaked to the press, I portrayed the media/state as the French nobles committing to the charge at Crécy after the revolt of the Genoan mercenaries rendered the battle futile. (See “Boostermania.”)
What started as a battle against the pandemic to protect the people has transformed into a battle against the people to protect the pandemic.
At least it feels that way anyway.
Someone, anyone- please show me the data that indicates that the 'vaccines' offer protection from severe disease, hospitalization and death. What is that being based on? Simply the antibody production against the spike protein? It is the last hold out argument from those in favor of mass vaccination and it drives me nuts. There are so many factors (Vitamin D levels, comorbidities, age, genetics, etc.) that determine one's susceptibility to severe disease that all vaccinated cannot be compared, even less able to compare vax to unvax. Even the CDC admits there could be 40% asymptomatic spread, even more of the population who are so minimally symptomatic that they cannot distinguish between the virus and allergies. So for all of those folks (and those infected and recovered prior to vaccination), let's just say 80% of the population, the jab makes no difference in their level of protection because their response was always going to be unnoticeable or minimal. All of those who participated in the clinical trials, who weren't in the most vulnerable categories, were all jabbed, thus destroying the control group which could have shown long term effectiveness on preventing severe outcomes. It is unethical and morally unimaginable to have a vulnerable group to experiment on- so we do not have the data. What am I missing?