Genocidal rhetoric

“We all know people who are deciding whether or not they are willing to get vaccinated, and we will do our very best to try to convince them. However, there is still a part of the population [that] is fiercely against it. They don’t believe in science/progress and are very often misogynistic and racist. It’s a very small group of people, but that doesn’t shy away from the fact that they take up some space. This leads us, as a leader and as a country, to make a choice. Do we tolerate these people?” -Justin Trudeau

“The unvaccinated, I really want to piss them off. And so, we’re going to continue doing so, until the end. That’s the strategy, I won’t send (the unvaccinated) to prison, I won’t vaccinate by force. So we need to tell them, from Jan. 15, you won’t be able to go to the restaurant anymore, you won’t be able to down one, won’t be able to have a coffee, go to the theatre, the cinema…” -Emmanuel Macron

At this point, you need to be asking yourself the following question: How am I supposed to trust anything my government comes up with? “Do what I say, or I’ll dehumanize and humiliate you.” Is not exactly the sort of government policy that should inspire trust and credibility in you.

Let’s turn this around. If we had posters and commercials everywhere telling me to take my vitamin D supplement and the politicians around the world came out telling me I’m a terrible human being who should be fired from his job if I don’t take my vitamin D supplement, I would stop taking my vitamin D supplement, because I would now expect it’s probably full of arsenic or something similar.

Let’s make this very simple: What do you expect to be injected with, when your prime minister declares that you’re “taking up space”? You’re the last 10 percent of the population, the population most vehemently opposed to your prime minister, who has just enforced an emergency act and who will throw people in jail for years if they’re caught giving you money or giving you fuel.

What do you expect to be injected with? What reason could I possibly have, to trust that I’m going to be injected with the same thing the first people who lined up for these shots received? At this point, how am I supposed to trust that I’m not just going to be injected with some cytomegalovirus or some SV40 that’s going to give me cancer or Alzheimer’s five years from now? A government is supposed to generate trust in the general population. A government that constantly dehumanizes, humiliates and stirs up hatred against me, while destroying my livelihood, is the sort of government I can’t trust.

The German government used the technology available to them at the time, to make the Holocaust as discreet as possible. They had a whole operation, where Jews sent to concentration camps were made to sign postcards for their family, to make it appear as if the concentration camps were fine places to stay at, but by the time the family read the cards, they were already dead. That’s what they came up with in the 1940’s, in the middle of a total war. What would they be doing, if they had to carry out their genocide today?

You can’t trust anything from a government that has publicly stated that you’re “taking up space” or that you’re “not part of our society”. That’s genocidal rhetoric. Any government that rules over a sufficiently large population has a demographic of people who form its main pillar of support, along with various sections of society who are alienated and disenfranchised to one degree of another.

Our governments have now succeeded at isolating and identifying the 10% or so most disenfranchised people in society and now they wish to inject them all with something. Imagine if Kim Jong-un in North Korea came up with a policy like this. The 10% or so of people who didn’t show any tears during the death of his father are taken in for questioning and receive some sort of novel experimental medical injection. What do you think is going to happen?

Government officials don’t own the population, they’re supposed to govern with the consent of the governed. These government officials have done everything in their power to violate the social contract. Please keep in mind: They know it. They’re better aware of the fact that what they are doing is wrong than you are. These people have a guilty conscience.

The problem you all face, is that you’re too innocent. You go out there in Canada with your trucks and you blockade a couple of roads, expecting your Prime Minister to come to some sort of agreement with you. That’s innocence. It’s clearly illustrated by the fact that the Prime Minister fled to an undisclosed location.

The politicians don’t do that when people are rioting over “racism”. You can loot stores and burn down whole streets and they’re actually going to pay you lip service and make excuses on your behalf. They flee to an undisclosed location, when it it looks like the people who “take up space” plan on fighting back.

Even the unvaccinated and the people who protest against their government, are eager to make excuses on behalf of their government. You don’t want to see yourself as the new undesirables. “They must have some sort of good reason”, is what you think to yourselves. The thing is: There’s no government in history that thought of itself as the bad guys. Rather, the evil they commit is always the product of some sort of perverted insane ideology that runs its natural course due to an echo-box effect. From within the confines of the ideology itself, you’re not insane, you’re a hero.

When the Nazi’s carried out the Holocaust, they didn’t think to themselves of all the poor children who had done no possible wrong and who were going to lose their lives. Within the mental construct of Nazi ideology, this all made perfect sense. You shouldn’t try to interpret genocidal government policies and rhetoric through a lens where this actually makes sense and is intended to serve the public’s interest. Your government officials have a responsibility to remain attached to reality, once they lose that attachment that’s very unfortunate, but their regime become illegitimate.

Politicians like Trudeau have a narrow mental construct in their heads, that allows them to think of themselves as the good guys and allows them to brush off any potential evidence to the contrary. Hitler didn’t go out of his way to think of Jews who were nice and had done nobody any wrong. If such people run into evidence that contradicts their own preconceived notions, they’re going to block it out.

Similarly, there is at this point no evidence left that is going to lead someone like Trudeau to change his mind. You can show him the children in the hospital with myocarditis, you can show him the people suffering Guillain Barré syndrome, you can show him the people who drop dead from heart attacks within days or sometimes hours of the shots. You can show him the excess mortality, the numerous people who are no longer with us because they were injected with experimental gene therapies, produced by companies that will only offer these shots to governments that promise them exemption from any sort of legal liability for the product they produce.

You can show him that these vaccines don’t block transmission. You can show him they last for six months before the antibodies are gone. It doesn’t matter to them. They have trained themselves to block out any contradicting information. These people have an ideological conviction and they’re not going to abandon it, they’re either going to carry it to its natural conclusion or they will fall down together with it. There is no real point left in peacefully protesting, because you’re not faced with people who are going to change their minds by anything you say or do.

The ideological conviction of these people is pretty simple: It’s scientism. It’s the idea that systematic research by properly trained people will allow us to arrive at some sort of objective truth on the basis of which you can then form public policy. Whatever some trucker who never went to college says, does or believes is of utter irrelevance to them. The people who are not experts in one particular scientific discipline or another exist solely to be “managed”.

Blue-haired white college students and angry black men upset about police brutality are managed by paying them lip service (because your own bureaucrats feel sympathy towards them), working class white men are dealt with by threatening them with the loss of their job. The arguments they offer are irrelevant, they exist to be managed.

With the rise of soft sciences like political science and sociology, ideology can now rebrand itself as science and so when they make a value judgement, they no longer recognize it as such, rather, they now see it as an established scientific truth. Consider for example all these studies suggesting that “vaccine hesitancy” is linked to “right-wing authoritarianism” or “social dominance orientation”. These studies serve just one purpose: Some pencil licking bureaucrat now has it programmed into his head that there exists a scientific consensus that the people who disagree with him are fundamentally bad people.

It’s inconceivable to these people that a whole scientific discipline could be wrong, or that a scientific consensus could be incorrect. It never enters their mental model of the world. The idea that bureaucracies will systematically suppress evidence that contradicts their mental model of the world, because individual bureaucrats don’t wish to bring them bad news, or that pharmaceutical companies may have a profit incentive that leads them to report flawed findings, never really occurs to them.

You’re no longer human to these people. You’re just the “out group” in their heads and they have a whole list of scientific studies that proved to them that you are “bad people”, just as Nazi Germany had a whole eugenic scientific discipline, that led their scientists to travel to the furthest corners of the world to measure people’s skulls and discover things they already believed to be true.

The big conflict you’re faced with today, is the growing rift between government based on individualist classical liberal enlightenment ideals and a collectivist model of government based on scientific consensus. In the first model, government exists to safeguard people’s individual liberty. Social programs that redistribute wealth are generally justifiable in such a model, insofar as they increase individual liberty. The type of hardcore libertarianism that sees policies like inheritance taxes as government overreach tends to be pushed onto the masses by a handful of billionaires. It doesn’t pose a serious threat, because it can never be the basis of society.

The second model is that of technocracy, which has its heartland in the east. This is how societies like China and Singapore are arranged. You’re not supposed to publicly disagree with fundamental government policies, you’re left to discuss minor differences of opinion among each other and if you have any sort of fundamental disagreement you tell your government in private behind closed doors and only if you’re a college professor with relevant insight into the nature of the subject. Consider for example Hong Kong, where the government recently declared that you’re “allowed” to disagree with the zero COVID policy.

Western elites are eager to move towards a technocratic model of society. Anyone with any sort of blue collar job has zero say in such a society, not just about government policy, but ultimately even about their own medical decisions.  This is the fundamental nature of the conflict you’re dealing with.

18 Comments

  1. The other thing that really ought to be mentioned is that fewer than half of scientific papers have results that replicate anymore. Taleb used to hammer this point before he went renegade and started supporting the exact things he used to be opposed to. The idea that you can have this poor quality of scientific research and still be expected to take studies, papers, etc at face value is the height of absurdity.

    I hand it to the bureaucrats of our age, they have managed to make a system every bit as stifling to liberty and thought as the Church at its worst. Not only are the opinions of non-experts completely without value, they will also throw under the bus anyone who IS an expert but goes against the consensus of “experts”. And just when were the truth or falsity of scientific findings determined by consensus anyway? Also the most valued “experts” appear to be political talking heads of the “elected” or bureaucratic/managerial type. Note how they strictly controlled access to the media during the pandemic. Very few doctors with experience in clinical medicine were allowed to speak.

    • “I hand it to the bureaucrats of our age, they have managed to make a system every bit as stifling to liberty and thought as the Church at its worst.”

      The elites in the West belong to a church, or a religion at any rate. It’s just a heretical and evil religion, something like scholastic Catholicism.

  2. But why demonize the unvaccinated en route to a more collectivist and technocratic style of government? The relationship between getting vaccinated and the Great Reset remains an unsolved riddle. Perhaps, as some have speculated, the vaccine is about “depopulation” with the idea that control is easier when the herd is suitably culled. But then how is that supposed to work? Is it because the vaccine impairs our immune system leading to constant reinfection and T-cell exhaustion (as Radagast has argued), antibody dependent enhancement, micro-blood clots that induce heart failure, or some other mechanism? And why indulge in such reckless political rhetoric precisely when restrictions/mandates are being lifted in various countries under the auspices of a “milder” variant in Omicron? The mind boggles…

    • There is no intention behind it except to make money. The truth is, when the new vaccines were done (and there was great demand for them from the public) nobody could’ve known whether they would kill you or protect you.

      The real objective always was to introduce the digital identity passes. Everything else is just redistribution of wealth or a smoke screen.

      • For a variety of different reasons, I’m reasonably confident this is about more than just money. In retrospect, it seems that the whole point of the containment policies of lockdowns and mask-wearing coupled with media falsehoods around asymptomatic transmission and Covid risk was to induce a state of panic in the population, thereby creating demand for a vaccine. I’m of the opinion that the virus, PCR test, and vaccine technology was mostly engineered upfront in early 2020 following multiple coronavirus pandemic simulation exercises (jointly conducted by the WEF, Gates Foundation, Johns Hopkins, etc.) in the Fall of 2017 and 2019. Indeed, I’d encourage anyone reading this comment to search for the SPARS pandemic simulation exercise scenario book and see for themselves whether we’ve more or less followed the 2-3 year scenario outlined there. This whole pandemic is (again, in my judgment) an introductory public phase of a much larger geopolitical project, called the Great Reset.

        Having said that, it could be the case that the vaccines are just an intermediate step to a more all-encompassing Digital ID. In other words, the pandemic was designed to great demand for a vaccine, hence also vaccine passports, which are just a basic precursor to the sort of Digital ID that would allow much greater technocratic control. And I’m willing to seriously entertain possibility that this line of thinking is correct; however, why not use a more traditional vaccine technology to ensure very high uptake (e.g., 90+%) instead of using highly experimental gene therapy platforms in the LPN-mRNA and DNA-AAV shots? If the point is to accustom people to taking vaccines so as to keep their QR passports “up to date”, with the ultimate goal of expanding this to a more comprehensive Digital ID, then I think it would be a much better plan to push a vaccine product that is safe but mostly ineffective, like the annual flu shot. But that has not happened. For some reason it really seems important that we receive these gene-based vaccines that contain instructions for a modified version of the ancestral Spike protein, suggesting that the health effects of the vaccine are part of “the plan” in some way.

    • I realize I didn’t answer your question about rhetoric. That’s an easy one. Politicians also have a face to lose, if the vaccine they promoted turns out to be ineffective and potentially dangerous. So their rhetoric must become ever more extreme, to keep the cognitive dissonance alive.

      It’s no longer about science, it’s about belonging to the group that is “right”. Science doesn’t prove the vaccinated right any longer. So they must be ideologically correct, which can only happen if the reason for the whole thing is removed by using emotional rhetoric. Nobody even thinks about WHY unvaccinated are not humans, they just know it’s true because the politicians wouldn’t use such extreme rhetoric otherwise.

  3. Trudeau may figure he can’t afford to care about dying children

    *Canada to buy 40 million Moderna COVID-19 doses in next two years: Trudeau*

    **Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says Canada will buy another 40 million doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine over the next two years.
    Trudeau tweeted about the agreement with the Massachusetts-based drugmaker, saying the deal could be extended into 2024.**

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-moderna-vaccine-doses-deal-1.6141406

  4. I appreciate the complaint that Coronapasses turn the unvaccinated into the postmodern equivalent of Jews before WWII, but I think you should still refrain from making the comparison.

    It breaks Godwin’s law, so that is a non-starter. Just do not go there. For example, the bitch mayor of Amsterdam had a field day insulting the unvaxxed during the last Memory Day. It gives them a 50-point advantage.

    Also, technocracy has long been part of the West, probably since the colonial wars at the end of the 1800s, and surely since WWI. Liberalism died way back then (Orwell already wrote as much).

    What we are facing now is neither Neo-Nazism nor Asian-style technocracy, but Soviet-style dictatorship as it happened after Stalin’s death.

    Grim as it sounds, the upsides are that we can learn from old Soviet dissidents how to resist the regime, and that it is a regime fit for societies in decline, so hopefully it will not be around for long.

  5. 1. How to fight back?
    2. How to stay as free and independent as possible?
    3. Can one avoid it altogether?

    I guess it is an individual balance between pushing back against the tyrants by taking some meaningful action and trying to simply run away.

    Maybe escaping, emigrating to a saner place, is both? You escape the tyranny and in the same time you starve it – it needs your labour, your service.

    Obviously Florida, or other red states are an excellent destination, but for many, including me, not really feasible – as non-resident you must be vaccinated to enter the US.

    I guess many African countries qualify as sane now, especially when compared to already dystopian European shitholes like Germany, Austria, Italy and France. South Africa could be an excellent choice! What do you think?

    I am from the Balkans and the bureaucracy there is so weak and corrupt that any mandates will hardly be effectively enforced. If the EU introduces mandatory vaccination then maybe, but you will anyways probably find a way around it. Also it is in the people’s DNA there that they do not trust the bureaucrats/experts and correspondingly the vaxx rates, especially in some countries, are like half the ones in western Europe. Politicians cannot effectively exclude half of their population from everyday social life.

    Another thing is – build an amish community in europe :). Those guys might actually be onto something!

    I’d really love to hear your thoughts, guys!

    • I did read of a bunch of older Germans, Austrians and Swiss moving to some seaside locale in Romania. Allowed them to stretch out their savings/pensions and live an undisturbed life.

      I’m more keen on Balkan places like Croatia, with the beautiful and rugged coastlines. What would you assess the chances of those places remaining intact and functional, if we really do get a mass dieoff in western europe and the African masses start to move? Just one of many scenarios that’s percolating in my head…

      • During the refugee crisis in Europe the Balkan states were basically used as transit countries. Barely anybody stayed there. They are no rich welfare states like Austria, Germany, France.
        If a massive vaxx-related dieoff does happen I guess eastern Europe will be a better place simply due to the lower vaxx rates. In general it will be much safer to be in a rural region of course. I personally do not expect this to happen but who knows. It will be more a slow bleed off, coupled with lower birth rates and permanent crisis-like situation. Currently in Germany they are slowly opening up the gates for more refugees.

        I never visited Croatia but heard from friends that it is a beautiful country. Montenegro as well.

Leave a Reply

The patients in the mental ward have had their daily dose of xanax and calmed down it seems, so most of your comments should be automatically posted again. Try not to annoy me with your low IQ low status white male theories about the Nazi gas chambers being fake or CO2 being harmless plant food and we can all get along. Have fun!

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.