A Prince would have had his royal guard immediately investigate the involvement of certain Fed bureaucracies in the affair. Upon finding the inevitable mountain of evidence of culpability, he would promptly sentence every person in the leadership chain to death by hanging, and nail the evidence to the gallows pole for all the public to see.
When your 3 year old is trying to start fires, you don't reason with him - you smack the magnifying glass out of his hand before he *starts an actual fire*. If he does start a fire, guess who's going to jail? Protip: they have no jails for three year olds.
We wonder why this sh*t keeps happening. Its because bureaucrats have nothing to fear. They can cause a literal worldwide pandemic, and not see a day inside a jail cell.
These arsonists need nothing other than to be under the constant and watchful authority of a leader that they actually *fear*.
An excellent article by Nicholas Wade, on Medium, goes into considerable more detail on Daszak’s role in funneling US NIH coronavirus research funds to the Wuhan Institute of Virology—what the work was that was actually being performed at the Institute— and Daszak’s prominent role in organizing opposition to the idea that the coronavirus could have escaped from the lab. Highly recommended. https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038
To give you a flavor, here is a small excerpt:
“From early on, public and media perceptions were shaped in favor of the natural emergence scenario by strong statements from two scientific groups. These statements were not at first examined as critically as they should have been.
“We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,” a group of virologists and others wrote in the Lancet on February 19, 2020, when it was really far too soon for anyone to be sure what had happened. Scientists “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,” they said, with a stirring rallying call for readers to stand with Chinese colleagues on the frontline of fighting the disease.
Contrary to the letter writers’ assertion, the idea that the virus might have escaped from a lab invoked accident, not conspiracy. It surely needed to be explored, not rejected out of hand. A defining mark of good scientists is that they go to great pains to distinguish between what they know and what they don’t know. By this criterion, the signatories of the Lancet letter were behaving as poor scientists: they were assuring the public of facts they could not know for sure were true.
It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Dr. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Dr. Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”
I remember quite distinctly being in a car with my father in very early March 2020 and he turned on NPR news and there was an interview with a virologist being asked about the lab leak theory and he so breezily hand waved it away with these appeals to authority arguments like - 'The Wuhan Institute is a world class lab - we have nothing to worry about' type reasoning and almost laughing away the lab leak theory like someone was asking him if the moon was made a cheese.
It made me suspicious it was so breezy as the world was falling apart - I was open to any idea about the Covid origins at that time but hadn't really thought that hard about it; wet market, bioweapon, escape, etc. but this 3 minute interview made me super suspicious. I remember thinking at the time: Why is this scientist virologist dude on NPR so utterly convinced he has the answer so early into this whole thing? Shouldn't he be open to the lab leak theory considering there is this bat lab in Wuhan? Shouldn't he be in favor of a proper investigation - Root Cause Analysis, audits, etc. etc. - but nope 'we got this one in the can, its the wet market, case solved...'
As a slightly crusty culturally lefty Gen Xer I'd been nibbling on the edges of the red pill for the last few years but frankly had other things going on in my life besides thinking too hard about US elite culture and politics (and still do thankfully) but I take that interview as the starting point of me just getting red pilled as fuck since then - its been relentless and the journey continues. Thanks Curtis...
"In the clear spirits and cordials, he fears, he has not even come to grips with the foe…" hahaha.
Chernobyl is the obvious parallel, and yet we can be confident the (apparently guilty, US-centric) virus-breeding business will come out of this in much better shape than the (innocent) western nuclear industry did following the woopsie-daisy in Pripyat, for reasons of who/whom. The virus-breeders will have some extra meetings about safety for a few months, and carry on outfitting Pandora's box as usual.
"worst tragedy in decades" -- say the Managerium's rotting mouths. Masking of the human face is the worst CRIME in decades, certainly. How was this crime perpetrated -- even in Israel, even in Peru?
Can we get paid to study virologists? We could run bad ideas through them, passing from professor to post-doc to grad student, gaining appeal and certainty with each generation. The first step in responding to dangerous notions is to understand them. I need a grant-writer for my virologist city in a bottle project, any recommendations?
I heard Curtis' interview on the Gornoski show. I found it interesting that he asks whether the science of virology is worthy or not, if they're crazy or not, then affirms it's all fine (David mentions maybe some physics areas would fail this criterion). Then he goes on to criticize the bureaucracy and funding etc.
I would like to invite you to take a second long and hard look at that conclusion. What makes us so sure of that? Compelling experiments, tests and treatments, or is it mostly fear of the diseases they claim to explain?
It wouldn't be anything new: government claims a serious treat is out there, coming to get you, and they are the ones who can fight it. Then they spend your money to solve the problem, allegedly.
We give vaccines to healthy people, we test healthy people. We are now locking up healthy people in their homes... We should raise the bar for virology a lot higher after 2020. We keep it low because of the "emergency imperative", same thing regarding security and terrorism. The fact you believe virology is "intuitive" is not scientific. The fact the diseases exist does not mean their simple, appealing explanation is correct.
Many treatments against "viral" diseases don't involve the concept of viruses at all. To give an example, Pierre Kory very clearly says this about Ivermectin in the recent interview with Bret Weinstein.
I used to believe in virology as well. I recommend you read the book "Virus Mania". At best, there are some funny business going on and I believe we should raise the bar for virology a little bit. At worst, the CDC is the FED on steroids --- pun intended.
Curtis, Tucker Carlson used the phrase “self-licking ice cream cone” in his monologue tonight (June 3) about the federal bureaucracy, Daszak’s The Lancet letter, Fauci’s leveraging of this letter, and the inability of this whole system to police itself.
'The vaccines we have are of course narrow-spectrum vaccines targeted to specific viral sequences, which has some issues but is better than waiting ten years for an abstract research program which may be a little more realistic than fusion reactors.'
This is the assumtion that lead us to developing non-sterilizing vaccines that result in immune escape and potentially the evolution a far more deadly virus. See the work of Geert Vanden Bossche.
It's still a bit puzzling to me that the Cathedral would prefer to blame peasants across the world rather than do its usual thing of blaming the West. It's *far* easier to link lab leak to the West (by pointing the flashlight at the funding stream from Washington to the Wuhan lab) than it is to link the wet-market story to the West (though I've seen some attempts at drawing out this link). But maybe the key here is: the Cathedral loves to blame "the West" but will never go so far as to blame itself.
The challenge of Trump and populism calls for much more clarification in musical terms. A significant contribution to such a clarification has been made by Frances Dyson (The Tone of Our Times: sound, sense, economy, and ecology, 2014).
Quintilian defined the Orator (who practices Rhetoric) as 'A Good Man, Speaking Well'. Why do you think he did that?
Aristotle analyzed 'science' as a sort of Rhetoric, specifically as similar to a funeral oration because it is possible to pass judgment on a man's life -- praise or blame his actions -- only after he is dead.
Bacon redefined 'Science' as a different kind of Rhetoric -- forensic Rhetoric in fact -- where the theory of evidence comes to the fore, and the initial object is Discovery, which sounds like something you hire lawyers to do.
A Prince would not have let it get this far.
A Prince would have had his royal guard immediately investigate the involvement of certain Fed bureaucracies in the affair. Upon finding the inevitable mountain of evidence of culpability, he would promptly sentence every person in the leadership chain to death by hanging, and nail the evidence to the gallows pole for all the public to see.
When your 3 year old is trying to start fires, you don't reason with him - you smack the magnifying glass out of his hand before he *starts an actual fire*. If he does start a fire, guess who's going to jail? Protip: they have no jails for three year olds.
We wonder why this sh*t keeps happening. Its because bureaucrats have nothing to fear. They can cause a literal worldwide pandemic, and not see a day inside a jail cell.
These arsonists need nothing other than to be under the constant and watchful authority of a leader that they actually *fear*.
An excellent article by Nicholas Wade, on Medium, goes into considerable more detail on Daszak’s role in funneling US NIH coronavirus research funds to the Wuhan Institute of Virology—what the work was that was actually being performed at the Institute— and Daszak’s prominent role in organizing opposition to the idea that the coronavirus could have escaped from the lab. Highly recommended. https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038
To give you a flavor, here is a small excerpt:
“From early on, public and media perceptions were shaped in favor of the natural emergence scenario by strong statements from two scientific groups. These statements were not at first examined as critically as they should have been.
“We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,” a group of virologists and others wrote in the Lancet on February 19, 2020, when it was really far too soon for anyone to be sure what had happened. Scientists “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,” they said, with a stirring rallying call for readers to stand with Chinese colleagues on the frontline of fighting the disease.
Contrary to the letter writers’ assertion, the idea that the virus might have escaped from a lab invoked accident, not conspiracy. It surely needed to be explored, not rejected out of hand. A defining mark of good scientists is that they go to great pains to distinguish between what they know and what they don’t know. By this criterion, the signatories of the Lancet letter were behaving as poor scientists: they were assuring the public of facts they could not know for sure were true.
It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Dr. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Dr. Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”
I remember quite distinctly being in a car with my father in very early March 2020 and he turned on NPR news and there was an interview with a virologist being asked about the lab leak theory and he so breezily hand waved it away with these appeals to authority arguments like - 'The Wuhan Institute is a world class lab - we have nothing to worry about' type reasoning and almost laughing away the lab leak theory like someone was asking him if the moon was made a cheese.
It made me suspicious it was so breezy as the world was falling apart - I was open to any idea about the Covid origins at that time but hadn't really thought that hard about it; wet market, bioweapon, escape, etc. but this 3 minute interview made me super suspicious. I remember thinking at the time: Why is this scientist virologist dude on NPR so utterly convinced he has the answer so early into this whole thing? Shouldn't he be open to the lab leak theory considering there is this bat lab in Wuhan? Shouldn't he be in favor of a proper investigation - Root Cause Analysis, audits, etc. etc. - but nope 'we got this one in the can, its the wet market, case solved...'
As a slightly crusty culturally lefty Gen Xer I'd been nibbling on the edges of the red pill for the last few years but frankly had other things going on in my life besides thinking too hard about US elite culture and politics (and still do thankfully) but I take that interview as the starting point of me just getting red pilled as fuck since then - its been relentless and the journey continues. Thanks Curtis...
So the Brain is malfunctioning and the Cathedral doesn't work. Ok.
Where's the Prince though, and where is his Mirror? They have passed like rain on the mountains, like wind in the meadow.
Did somebody say "future-oriented material" and "all new premium content"?
"In the clear spirits and cordials, he fears, he has not even come to grips with the foe…" hahaha.
Chernobyl is the obvious parallel, and yet we can be confident the (apparently guilty, US-centric) virus-breeding business will come out of this in much better shape than the (innocent) western nuclear industry did following the woopsie-daisy in Pripyat, for reasons of who/whom. The virus-breeders will have some extra meetings about safety for a few months, and carry on outfitting Pandora's box as usual.
It's worth the $10 just for the RIGHT wiki articles
"worst tragedy in decades" -- say the Managerium's rotting mouths. Masking of the human face is the worst CRIME in decades, certainly. How was this crime perpetrated -- even in Israel, even in Peru?
Can we get paid to study virologists? We could run bad ideas through them, passing from professor to post-doc to grad student, gaining appeal and certainty with each generation. The first step in responding to dangerous notions is to understand them. I need a grant-writer for my virologist city in a bottle project, any recommendations?
I heard Curtis' interview on the Gornoski show. I found it interesting that he asks whether the science of virology is worthy or not, if they're crazy or not, then affirms it's all fine (David mentions maybe some physics areas would fail this criterion). Then he goes on to criticize the bureaucracy and funding etc.
I would like to invite you to take a second long and hard look at that conclusion. What makes us so sure of that? Compelling experiments, tests and treatments, or is it mostly fear of the diseases they claim to explain?
It wouldn't be anything new: government claims a serious treat is out there, coming to get you, and they are the ones who can fight it. Then they spend your money to solve the problem, allegedly.
We give vaccines to healthy people, we test healthy people. We are now locking up healthy people in their homes... We should raise the bar for virology a lot higher after 2020. We keep it low because of the "emergency imperative", same thing regarding security and terrorism. The fact you believe virology is "intuitive" is not scientific. The fact the diseases exist does not mean their simple, appealing explanation is correct.
Many treatments against "viral" diseases don't involve the concept of viruses at all. To give an example, Pierre Kory very clearly says this about Ivermectin in the recent interview with Bret Weinstein.
I used to believe in virology as well. I recommend you read the book "Virus Mania". At best, there are some funny business going on and I believe we should raise the bar for virology a little bit. At worst, the CDC is the FED on steroids --- pun intended.
Curtis, Tucker Carlson used the phrase “self-licking ice cream cone” in his monologue tonight (June 3) about the federal bureaucracy, Daszak’s The Lancet letter, Fauci’s leveraging of this letter, and the inability of this whole system to police itself.
Dammit Jim, I'm a code monkey, not a transhumanist borg surgeon!
'The vaccines we have are of course narrow-spectrum vaccines targeted to specific viral sequences, which has some issues but is better than waiting ten years for an abstract research program which may be a little more realistic than fusion reactors.'
This is the assumtion that lead us to developing non-sterilizing vaccines that result in immune escape and potentially the evolution a far more deadly virus. See the work of Geert Vanden Bossche.
It's still a bit puzzling to me that the Cathedral would prefer to blame peasants across the world rather than do its usual thing of blaming the West. It's *far* easier to link lab leak to the West (by pointing the flashlight at the funding stream from Washington to the Wuhan lab) than it is to link the wet-market story to the West (though I've seen some attempts at drawing out this link). But maybe the key here is: the Cathedral loves to blame "the West" but will never go so far as to blame itself.
The challenge of Trump and populism calls for much more clarification in musical terms. A significant contribution to such a clarification has been made by Frances Dyson (The Tone of Our Times: sound, sense, economy, and ecology, 2014).
https://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs10s/wilber.php
Quintilian defined the Orator (who practices Rhetoric) as 'A Good Man, Speaking Well'. Why do you think he did that?
Aristotle analyzed 'science' as a sort of Rhetoric, specifically as similar to a funeral oration because it is possible to pass judgment on a man's life -- praise or blame his actions -- only after he is dead.
Bacon redefined 'Science' as a different kind of Rhetoric -- forensic Rhetoric in fact -- where the theory of evidence comes to the fore, and the initial object is Discovery, which sounds like something you hire lawyers to do.
"I hate to digress"
Liar!
And most of us wouldn't be here if we hated digressions!