Cororna and the majority left of centre?

By the end of 2019, a massive crisis of global governmentality was underway.
A historic window had opened.
In France, the bestial crushing of the yellow waistcoats was still on people’s minds and the police were about as hated as the regime they had so sadistically defended.
Whole peoples were tempted by the possibility of leaving the tracks of a broken future.
Something had to be tried. Control had to be regained, whatever the cost.[1]

The end of 2019/2020 was a time of many social movements around the world. All these movements had one thing in common: the call for a fundamental reform of capitalism. The way capitalism damages society and its environment was identified as a core problem of urgent concern.

Bernie Sanders’ campaign was almost unstoppable, with his rivals losing one by one. His rallies drew hundreds of thousands and the power of the movement came largely from those rallies. And it was precisely this that Corona ended. That is, the lockdowns were called just when Bernie Sanders seemed to be winning the race for the White House. With Corona, a candidate was eliminated who appealed to both Democrats and Republicans, one who could have built a left-of-centre majority in the US, i.e. the “scare scenario” for the elite.

With Corona, not only was Bernie Sanders buried, the entire left collapsed into self-imposed subordination, “[s]o far that [it] abandoned freedom, democracy, alternative, revolution and even insurrection to the toolbox of the far right.” The left—including the Greens—completely self-destructed in two years:

All in all, the entire left has been getting the best out of itself for two years. It will have fallen into every conceivable trap by the end. It will have passed on all the products of state communication channels and resisted no emotional blackmail, no paralogism, no complicit silence. It will have proved itself to be what it is: irrational with rationalism, obscurantist with science, insensitive with sentimentality, pathological with hygienism, spiteful with philanthropy, counter-revolutionary with progressiveness, stupid because it thinks it is cultured, and evil because it wanted to be in the camp of the good guys. Over the past two years, all over the world, except perhaps in Greece, the left – socialist as well as anarchist, moderate as well as radical, ecological as well as Stalinist – has systematically allowed itself to become the stooge of the worldwide technocratic overthrow. No lockdown, no curfew, no vaccination, no censorship, no restriction would have been extreme enough to disgust her. She was the voice of fear as long as fear prevailed.[2]

The COVID pandemic was, among other things, just a huge show to prevent a left-of-centre majority, a divide-et-impera campaign to destroy both state control[3] and left and green ideas—i.e. redistribution of wealth, sustainable economy geared to people’s needs, reform of capitalism, turning away from fossil fuels, etc.—for decades, so that capitalism and the oil economy can carry on as before?

The ruling elite fears nothing more than real democracy. Because democracy can remove their privileges, can enforce redistribution from top to bottom. While climate change and other possible catastrophes can do nothing or almost nothing to the upper per mil,[4] the real danger for this class is the unity of the masses: A majority left of centre.

To prevent this majority, the consensus must be broken: the left must be divided, faith in the state must be weakened, and the notion of man-made climate change, the prevention of which requires a reform of capitalism[5] must be imbued with doubt.

A weakening of the left has certainly been achieved, but the “dangerous ideologies” are still present. I see in the circles critical of Corona measures an accumulation of climate change scepticism and hostility to the state, the former mostly on a scientifically questionable level and the latter propagating a libertarian form of society, i.e. ultra-neoliberal capitalism. While pharmaceutical and other companies made the profit of the millennium, communism or socialism are denounced in all seriousness as the cause of the crisis or are hyped up as a lurking danger on critical forums.[6] Such statements are of course grotesque, but are rarely questioned.[7] It is certainly possible that those right-wing circles, to whom the resistance has largely been left, are using the favour of the hour to be able to bring in their hostility to communism/socialism. However, the arguments are so absurd that the question arises whether this is an orchestrated action: a denigration of “the state” per se (“communism”) in order to give a boost to an ultra-liberal, i.e. libertarian ideology. Because if it succeeds in denigrating the state, if “communism” was responsible for the three-year catastrophe, then a libertarian movement can spread for the benefit of transnational corporations and big business.

Governments have been denigrating state leadership over the last three years through their dictatorial and rule-of-law violating behaviour, so that people have lost faith in the state and yearn for freedom.[8] This yearning for freedom, together with the delegitimisation of state control, can then be used to steer society in libertarian directions so that the state is banished as a regulating force for years.

Governments played—unconsciously, as useful idiots—the “bad cop” in a “good cop, bad cop” game.

But also the WEF itself plays the “bad cop” by propagating a (pseudo) communism[9] («you will own nothing and you will be happy») so that citizens have to defend property per se—all in the interest of the owning elite. However, the masses rising up against the WEF and defending their property will in reality only have implemented the capitalist agenda of the WEF itself.

The appearance of the current government in Germany fits perfectly into the above scenario: the Greens, who have been pushing for a restrictive Corona policy and have even called for compulsory vaccination and want to take everything away from the people, embody this “communism” as if they were instructed to play it. If the economy collapses or there is a severe recession comes in the near future, an ex-Blackrock employee like Friedrich Merz can be portrayed as the great saviour who will lead the German economy with an ultra-liberal programme out of misery back to the «good old days» when Germany was still an economic power. Green ideas would be banished for decades.

That leaves the consensus issue of climate change. In many forums, man-made global warming is negated and “debunked” in a superficial way, which is in stark contrast to the scientificity that the same forums display with regard to Corona. While legitimate criticism of climate change and climate change measures is certainly possible, it is usually completely absent and replaced by a “Corona was fake, therefore climate change is also fake” concept. I consider this selective lack of science to be indicative of an agenda.

Nb: Even if man-made climate change exists, this does not mean that governments will not abuse it for their own interests. On the contrary, the climate crisis is a great opportunity for abuse. That a shift to sustainability is not so urgent for the ruling class is shown e.g. by the fact that the EU would rather lose €1000 billion than buy Russian gas.[10]

Apart from a divide-et-impera strategy on a consensus issue—see doubt that consensus becomes dissent—climate change measures jeopardise the interests of the oil industrial sector, a capital power that has far enough financial means to finance all kinds of actions.

Leaps of thought must be avoided, i.e. every conclusion must be carefully checked to see whether it can actually be derived perfectly from what has been said before. The Corona crisis does not call for the abolition of the state (but control of the pharmaceutical giants, etc.), the Corona lie does not prove that there is no man-made climate change, the abuse of power by governments does not mean that libertarianism is the solution, etc.

What we need to hold on to are consensual demands that serve the good of the 99%: Redistribution (taxation of corona profits would be a start), control of transnational companies, breaking up of quasi-monopolies, etc.

A reform of capitalism is still at the centre.

Translated with DeepL, slightly edited

***

1 Konspirationistisches Manifest (Manifeste conspirationniste, Februar 2022), p. 50

2 Ibid. p. 23

3 State control here stands for a state that represents its citizens and not for a subverted government that serves the interests of transnational corporations.

4 cf. https://senfundpfeffer.wordpress.com/2022/11/28/ist-klimawandel-und-uberbevolkerung-wirklich-eine-gefahr-fur-die-superreichen/

5 The pillars of our current, global economic system is a capitalism based on fossil energy, i.e. it is not only necessary to prevent the majority left of centre, to reduce state control in favour of the population and to the disadvantage of the profits of the few, but also to prevent measures that mean turning away from fossil energy. Not only is the “oil industrial complex” with an annual turnover of about €10 trillion a power that can be trusted with many things, but the USA itself is dependent on a world whose economy is based on oil. One of its strategic advantages is better access to fossil fuels than its competitors, especially Europe.

6 Author, blogger and lawyer Dr Milosz Matuschek sees a “global communism” coming. “Dr. Milosz Matuschek: It reminds me most of a form of global communism. And I say that as someone who grew up in a communist country, namely Poland. And in the end, yes, there are all, all possibilities to do that. So communism has always been accused of not working, because no one can provide this overknowledge of planning, what it takes to provide everyone with everything that is necessary…“, https://punkt-preradovic.com/zeigt-dass-euch-diese-politik-egal-ist-mit-dr-milosz-matuschek/

7 While the WHO – infiltrated by private donors – implemented the interests of big companies, while the government was forced by gagging contracts to buy vaccines for tens of billions of euros from private companies without guarantees of effectiveness, while SMEs went bankrupt, but Amazon and Co. brought in record revenues, i.e. in the period when neoliberal capitalism had virtually taken over total world domination and prescribed the purchase of its products to the peoples, is “communism” supposed to be the problem?

8 Even if many have justifiably lost faith in the state due to the events, fundamental rights can only be guaranteed by a state – a functioning state committed to the rule of law. Without a state, without laws and regulations, the law of the strongest will prevail and transnational companies are always the strongest in an unregulated society.
It is laws and compliance with laws that keep transnational corporations in check and protect the citizen from arbitrariness. We did not have too little state, we had a weak, infiltrated, a corrupt state controlled by transnational organisation (WHO) and big corporations. In a state governed by the rule of law, there would have been no lockdowns, vaccinations would never have received approval and compulsory vaccination would have failed because of fundamental rights and the Nuremberg Code. It takes a strong state with integrity to guarantee fundamental rights.

9 The WEF postulates are hybrids. If they are accepted, the elite will rule in a new form; if they are rejected, we will have a libertarian form of society.

10 cf. https://senfundpfeffer.wordpress.com/2022/12/25/tausend-milliarden-e-fur-klimaschutz-gratis/

Is climate change and overpopulation really a danger for the super-rich?

The speculation about a Great Reset depopulation agenda to be carried out by means of vaccine is, at first glance, quite understandable. A group of concerned, forward-looking philanthropists have realised that only a population reduction can save humanity and have therefore decided to carry it out – for the greater good, so to speak. Or the masses are superfluous to the economy, can be replaced by robots, and therefore exterminated. The empathy-less billionaires, who have completely lost touch with humanity, want to get rid of the useless, consuming masses. Both scenarios are conceivable, even if the mass murder of one to several billion people seems a little extreme.

In both cases, however, the basic condition is that the ruling class sees overpopulation as a problem. At first glance—as described above—this is certainly the case, but at second glance it is not. All great catastrophes only affect the 99%, while the upper one per thousand always gets away with it, regardless of whether climate change, war, or some other catastrophe hits the world. Even if resources become scarce, the rich (the upper per mille) are never endangered. Therefore, the question arises why the ruling class should destroy the pool of cheap labour, this pool that can be exploited wonderfully and that regulates itself. The masses die on their own—currently about twenty thousand children a day—without the world having a problem with it[1]. As long as this mass can be controlled and exploited, there is no reason to fight overpopulation.

The real catastrophe for the ruling class would be a political upheaval, a change in the system that removes the privileges of the rich and redistributes wealth. When the masses unite and work together, when the 99% are united, there is a danger to the ruling class. Neither climate change nor overpopulation is a danger for them, a 1789 is the great fear. Or more generally, a democracy with majorities left of centre that could abolish or fundamentally reform capitalism is the big threat to the rulers of this world.

If the narrative of the last two years collapses—and the signs of this are trickling in almost weekly—the failure of society can be coloured in such a way that the state bears all the blame, i.e. that the regulating, determining, “dictatorial” state was responsible for the COVID crisis. And this state, people will conclude, must therefore be abolished and replaced by a libertarian, i.e. an ultra-liberal form of state. And this libertarian form of state means a free hand and practically no regulations at all for the transnational corporations, i.e. the ruling class.

That the Covid campaign came across as strangely distinctly “woke-left-green” is a sign in this direction. After all, the insight that current (neo-liberal) capitalism must be abolished or at least fundamentally reformed in order to stop climate change had become widely accepted as the majority opinion before Corona. The various social protest movements such as Fridays for future, Gillet jaune, extinction rebellion up to Bernie Sanders all agreed that the fundamental problem is to be found in neo-liberal capitalism.

In other words, the whole Covid show was just to prevent a majority left of centre, a divide-et-impera campaign, so that ideas of state control and especially left and green ideas (redistribution of wealth, sustainable economy made for human needs, capitalism reform, etc.) will be destroyed for decades. The fact that e.g. an Elon Musk—the ambassador of capitalism—was critical of COVID and that not only in forums[2] Covid measures were often equated with “communism” (although this is completely absurd) are indications that this is a planned action.

The question of vaccination deaths, the “sudden deaths”, is somewhat defused with this hypothesis. If about 0.1% die from vaccinations, this will certainly lead to a scandal, but the depopulation agenda will then be refuted over time. Of course, we will not know this for sure for another 20 years or more (the issue will thus divide minds or the population for decades!), but the damage will be in the range of emergency drugs brought to the market and the masses will prefer to believe in botches than in conspiracies. The responsibility has been handed over to the injecting doctors, the big players will not be liable. The profits have been made, the contracts with the protective clauses will lead to years of negotiations without much chance of success. Besides, too many have participated and they will demand forgiveness and oblivion. All together, this will antagonise and divide society for decades to come.

Just as the Vietnam War looked like a fiasco for the USA but was a complete success, COVID will be a complete success for the ruling elite in their fight against the 99%. Billions of $ in profits have been raked in, over $5 trillion has been redistributed (from poor to rich), dangerous ideologies have been dressed up and the population is more divided than ever.

***

Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) and slightly edited

1 Only about €20 billion per annum would be needed to eradicate poverty worldwide. That is about 2.5% of the US military budget. For masks during the 2 years of Corona the world spent about $200 billion. spent. Therefore, from the perspective of global wealth, it would be a small thing to lift world poverty.

2 Author, blogger and lawyer Dr Milosz Matuschek sees a “global communism” coming. “Dr. Milosz Matuschek: Well, it reminds me most of a form of global communism. And I say that as someone who grew up in a communist country, namely Poland. And in the end, yes, there are all, all possibilities to do that. So communism has always been accused of not working, because no one can provide this overknowledge of planning, what it takes to provide everyone with everything that is necessary…”, https://punkt-preradovic.com/zeigt-dass-euch-diese-politik-egal-ist-mit-dr-milosz-matuschek/

Twitter account deleted

I have deleted my Twitter account @pinkzomo.

Using Twitter made me aggressive. In some cases, I could keep calm but in general, after just a few minutes it made me angry. This is not in harmony with my Buddhist practice.

In addition, Twitter shares only short messages without explaining background and complexity. Instead of reading a longer text focusing on the subject for some time, Twitter forces users to jump from subject to subject — and mostly entangles emotionally.

But the worst of all: Twitter is a big US corporation engaging in manipulation and censorship. It is Twitter that controls what we see, when we see it, and if we see it at all. That is not acceptable. Sophisticated algorithms are surely active to manipulate the discussions in such a way that it benefits the company and the US establishment. Most likely the US State Department via three-letter agencies has some influence on Twitter, an influence probably big enough to drive people where the deep state wants them to go. As one of the main techniques of US policy is divide-et-impera (divide and rule), using algorithms so that people will hate each other or at least be divided is quite probable especially in the light that large accounts are routinely deleted so that consensus-building around some great voice is prohibited.

I described my concept for a Twitter alternative or social media alternative in a separate article. Like email protocol (SMTP) there should be a protocol for social media post exchanges so that social media can become application/site independent. In the same way that all email clients can communicate with each other, social media sites/applications could talk to each other.

Until then we might use existing technologies like RSS or newsfeed by email if we want to be free of corporate control as switching to another centralized provider is probably just a short remedy. Centralization is the main weakness, Gettr and others will probably just be intermediate solutions if any. (Gettr banned RT and other channels already … ).

A thank you for all inspirations and likes I received on twitter. If you have the strength and equanimity continue your good work there.

bye bye

Lockdown for rest of lifetime – what exponents of the corona measures in politics and media will have to face

The corona measures brought far more harm than benefit to the world as a whole. An extra 20 million died from hunger and 100 to 150 million additional people fell into extreme poverty in development countries whilst hundreds of millions had to endure restrictions, lockdowns, face-mask mandates and other measures that killed or harmed social life for months. Child suicides show an increase of up to 400% and 50% are depressed. Countless businesses went bankrupt, how many people killed themselves and how many aged died not of the virus but of loneliness we probably will never know. How many have been forced to take the vax and now suffer life-changing disabilities?

The COVID measures are crime against society and in some cases even a crime against humanity.

In an article about the anti-government protests in Venezuela a Swiss reporter asked, when and if violence becomes a legitimate means of action. Peaceful protests – according to him – have limits and violence becomes legitimate at a certain point.[1]

We know that from history. The French revolution is celebrated each year by the French. A violent uprising against a corrupt and decadent upper class that partied all the time whilst the masses were starving, a situation quite similar to today. We accept violence as a means for restoring justice.

The same goes for attempted murder of Hitler. We look back and see these people – at the time terrorists without any doubt – as just and see them as heroes.

What about the rulers of today? For the profit of Pharma et al. and – speculation: a bigger agenda – they take away constitutional rights, break the Nuremberg code, kill 20 million people with hunger, etc. (see top section).

This crisis will see people who will have lost everything. Wealth, job, family members and health. People who trusted the government and followed all the rules. Some of these people might go for revenge. Not now, but in years to come when those responsible are no longer president or prime minister, etc. but retired. When those responsible want to live a peaceful life and enjoy society, go for a walk, eat in restaurants, meet friends, etc. But that might be just wishful thinking. There might be too many that lost too much and these who have nothing left to lose because they lost everything they had due the Covid measures, will wait for them. The waitress in the restaurant might be a former doctor «boosting the starter», the taxi driver might be a former entrepreneur, during a walk in the green a former soldier of rank might use his skills in sharp shooting, etc. the list is endless.

These people that brought so much suffering – unnecessary suffering – to society might therefore be confined for the rest of their lives to live in quarantine. Of course, a quarantine that is substantially more luxurious than what the common man and woman – and the three children – had to endure living in the 65 square metres apartment on the ground floor without sunshine. But anyway, a quarantine and one with a Damocles sword above them – a sword that might look like a syringe ready to fall down at any moment.

We live in a world of affluence. Capitalist-technological surplus has reached a level unprecedented in known human history. Nobody in this world has to die from hunger any more, there is enough – especially with the new technologies of automation – so that for the first time in history everyone could live in prosperity – under the condition that wealth is distributed fairly and societies are governed intelligently[2]. Under these circumstances the crime of the ruling class is even worse. Instead of shifting towards a future of affluence for all, they invent a pandemic to torture and enslave the people. For them, it is not sufficient to be at the top of wealth, the rest (99.99%) should live in misery.

I would not see it as unjust in the sense of “fas”[3] if those responsible for this crisis (the measures, i.e. the response by government and media) would suffer this fate and will have to stay home for security reasons for the rest of their lives.

1 Cf. https://senfundpfeffer.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/hamburg-ist-nicht-caracas/, article quoted there.

2 Systemic thinking for the organisational pattern within a society is of course a condition. Prosperity does not mean that every citizen drives his own hummer. Little private goods, lots of commons, sustainable economy, are key aspects. This eco-social vision is, however, far removed from the WEF-dystopia where a few own literally everything and the masses nothing.

3 Ius is an human invention and is separate from fas, the Divine justice.

100% green with reduction of military spending

Let’s face it. Without a change in US’ militaristic behaviour that forces other countries not only to increase their military budget but also imposes a neoliberal form of capitalism on them, there is no chance to prevent climate change.

But if the US were just slightly willing to change its bullying attitude, there is substantial evidence and hope that we could overcome climate change within a few years. Here is how it can be done.[1]

The US spends $800 billion on its military per year – with R&D it is about one trillion dollar. Let’s assume the US gives up its militaristic foreign policy and reduces the amount of military spending by 60%, i.e. to $400 billion a year freeing $600 billion for climate action.

The rest of the world joins in and adds together another $600 billion (other countries can’t reduce military spending like the US as their budget is comparably smaller, so they together contribute just the same) raising the budget for climate action to a staggering 1.2 trillion dollar.

There are plenty of technologies around and – most importantly – there are systemic options like eradicating poverty and at the same time save or capture CO₂, but that is another topic. For simplicity I want to focus here just on one technology: carbon capture by carbfix. This company injects CO₂ into basaltic rock where it reacts and turns into minerals. It is bound chemically for thousands of years. (For more details, visit the website). The company claims that storage for one tonne of CO₂ costs just $25.

And here we are. The total yearly output of CO₂ is ~36 Gigatonnes. To offset the total yearly output of the world, we need therefore $900 billion[2], i.e. even less than the1.2 trillion that are potentially there.

In other words, with a little reduction of military spending (the US would still spend $400 billion in total for its army) the world could go 100% climate neural, even carbon negative![3]

The above example shows that green is possible, climate change can be mastered. But it needs peace. The NATO goal for military spending in relation to GDP should not be minimum 2%, it should be maximum 1%!

Without peace we can’t go green. With peace, we can go 100% green!

***

1 The data used is based solely on the company carbfix. The totality of options is, of course, much larger and should therefore create additional synergies and ways to reduce costs.

2 If the world would spend the projected amount each year we could expect costs even declining but for simplicity and conservatism I use a linear extrapolation.

3 Keep it mind that here we just use money from military spending and just one carbon capture technique. The totality of techniques, from capture to clean energy production, the taxing of fossil fuels and the systemic options together are far greater.

COVID – a political Pearl Harbour?

Kit Knightly claims in his excellent article COVID, 9/11 & Forever War that COVID is a psy-op to control the masses, a war that doesn’t even really exist, so it never has to end and they definitely can’t lose. But unlike a terrorist threat, in the case of COVID it’s all being done in the name of “helping people”.

In the name of COVID we have seen taxation, censorship, surveillance, state expenditure to the private sector and state powers all increase. These are all the cliche “emergency powers” the state seeks out in wartime.
Kit Knightly

When the masses quarrel the super-wealthy thrive …

COVID killed Sander’s our revolution and reduced all the groups worldwide that questioned a neoliberal capitalist world order to a side show. Sanders did unify people across the left/right divide and therefore made them truly dangerous for the elite owning class. COVID did not only kill the in core anti-capitalist movements, it made it possible for the deep state to remove Trump from power as he was not sufficiently subservient to the ruling power.[1] By doing so, the deep state not only got rid of an enfant terrible, but also achieved a deep divide in society, a divide that plays into the hand of the rulers as divide-and-rule is not just the credo for US foreign policy. Meanwhile one segment of society – the liberal left – was pushed to hate Trump even without any substantial prove, the other segment – the Trump voters – where experiencing media lies, censorship and even voter fraud so that they understandingly radicalised. The result is a divided society, divided to such an extent that any mass movement will be unlikely for years to come.

It’s called “settlements”

I personally do not think that COVID was created by the deep state. They rather rather used and amplified it. Big pharma over the last decades tried again and again to sell us a pandemic – bird flue, swine flue, etc. – in order to sell massive amounts of medicine with less restrictions and testing, without paying for advertisement and liability externalised.

Conspiracies among the big pharmaceuticals are well known, but they are called “settlements”. Public Citizen has documented the number and size of criminal and civil settlements and court judgments over 27 years. From 1991 through 2017, a total of 412 settlements were reached […], for a total of $38.6 billion. Theseillegal but profitable activities will continue to be part of companies’ business model as these amounts pale in comparison to company profits[…] amounting to only 5% of the $711 billion in net profits made by the 11 largest global drug companies during just 10 of those 27 years.[2]

This time the deep state aided big pharma to get rid of Trump and kill social movements. This would explain why the western media was unanimous in backing the COVID lie and why they attacked all deviating opinions like a totalitarian regime.

Privatise profits, socialise losses and shock doctrine for bonus

The ruling class, the upper 0.01%, are using neoliberal capitalism as a ruling model. Capitalism is claimed to be best for all, without alternative, etc. (we know the usual phrases that are hollow and false). Meanwhile neoliberal capitalism is used by those in power to reduce government wherever it interferes with profits, this allegedly much hated government is at the same time a nanny state for the rich that socialises the losses and bails out the rich as soon as they are in trouble. In addition, shock doctrine is used in cases of emergencies to justify the printing of money and its distribution among the powerful. The shock doctrine works like a bonus to shovel extra trillions into the pockets of the super-wealthy.[3]

The public has to be fooled

Since the emergence of democracy the wealthy top fears nothing more than nationalisation. People can vote and could – if they are united – transfer the capitalist-technological surplus of society to the people or even expropriate the wealthy. Manufacturing consent or rather manufacturing illusion to keep the masses at bay is therefore tantamount for the wealthy class in order to keep their assets and stay at the top. Wars were used in the past (WW I) to deflect from wealth inequalities. The war on terror was created or at least used to the same end, now with COVID there is indeed a brilliant “threat” that allows the ruling class to rule by decree, to suspend basic rights, to censor and silence all in the name of protecting the people. The war on the virus makes it possible to keep the people at bay.

Prolonging the illusion

But each war needs an enemy, an imminent danger to be credible. Solidarity with the elderly will not work on long term. People will reach a point where they are ready to sacrifice the elderly in order to live again. They will be fed up with restrictions and demand their rights back and freedom to be restored.

So where will the masters of illusion get their needed victims from to keep the perceived danger alive? How can COVID remain for years a threat when people are not dying in sufficient numbers? Agencies could, of course, poison millions to make the danger real. But even a CIA has limits and killing hundreds of thousands or even millions to keep the danger alive is risky and difficult to do.

A political Pearl Harbour

The COVID-mania is propagated with a liberal-left or even woke flavour: dancing nurses in hospitals, solidarity with the elderly, alleged logic and science, etc.[4] meanwhile the opponents are on the far-right: Trump, Bolsonaro, Republican states, etc. Some outlets like Epoch Times are even blaming socialism or communism for the COVID restrictions – a claim so lunatic in face of the profits generated and exponents of capitalism (WEF, B.G., etc.) calling for these measures that is unnecessary to discuss it any further – adding further to the perception that the COVID measures are essentially leftist: It’s the (woke) left and too much government that brought us the COVID restrictions.

If the COVID narrative collapses – with or without vaccine victims – it will therefore be easy to frame the crisis in such a way that the culprit was the left, the state and excessive government regulations. COVID will then become a political Pearl Harbour, an event to justify going to war against leftists in general and government regulations in particular. The right will triumph and the rich will be laughing all their way to the bank as a state that can redistribute wealth from the rich to the masses will be weakened beyond repair.

The end of climate actions

As COVID will then be seen as a lie, climate change will be seen and actively smeared to be just another government lie to “take away our freedom”. The so desperately needed actions against climate change (especially taxes on fossil fuel) will become impossible to win public support. COVID and a collapsing COVID lie will throw back the climate movement for years if not decades or kill it all together.

Conclusion

When climate change will finally hit the people – and if it is not already too late to change course – with so much trust in government destroyed it will be very difficult to find a consensus for action. To me it looks therefore as if the fight against climate change is lost, leading first to environmental catastrophe and then even to a nuclear holocaust.

Under such conditions, activism only makes sense with a concept of a «reward in heaven» or better rebirth in next life. There is a substantial change that the world will perish. Activism needs therefore a transcendental aim, one that does not fail when the earth perishes. So do the right thing for better rebirth in next life or to paraphrase the Bible:

«Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where climate change and nuclear war can destroy it all, but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where climate change will not reach and no war can destroy it.»

***

1 Trump was the first president since 1936 who was not a member of the CFR. It that sense he was anti-establishment, an exception to accepted doctrine. Trump served as a brilliant scenery for virtue signalling, uniting even the Bushs and the Obamas during McCain’s funeral …

2 https://mkus3lurbh3lbztg254fzode-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/sites/default/files/2408.pdf

3 http://web.archive.org/web/20210225105021/https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/07/COVID-19-crisis-boosts-the-fortunes-of-worlds-billionaires

4 The British Tory government hired a PR firm and spent £119 million for a campaign but was hiding the fact that they were behind, so they avoid equating conservative with restrictions.

The Washington Post article Why outbreaks like coronavirus spread exponentially, and how to “flatten the curve”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/ brought in my view a substantial change in the liberal-left academic world as it could convince people with logic. The logic works indeed but the missing question is applicability, i.e. is this model applicable to reality. After plenty of lock-downs, there should be sufficient evidence that this model – at least in its current form – is not applicable to reality.

The Great Barrington Declaration

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. … Sign it!

Critical thinking not terminal cynicism

Jonathan Cook – whose articles I think are of the best in general – disappoints in his latest article explaining his silence regarding COVID-19 and the anti-COVID-19 measures. Like many of the critical left Cook does not see the crisis worth speaking about except for a brief mention to then move back to business as usual (or, more appropriate, injustices world wide…).

To me, that is striking lack of realisation of the severity of the current crisis, not in medical terms but in opportunities for elite control and the continuation of the current neo-liberal and militaristic global system lead by the US. Class war demands constant propaganda to keep the masses »were they belong« as does the US militaristic foreign policy that needs »justification« for their interventions. The movements for more social justice before COVID-19 took over, i.e. more equal distribution of wealth and accountability of corporation especially in relation of climate change are a threat for the ruling class.

To keep the masses subservient the ruling class needs threats. The »war on terror« served that goal during the last 20 years, now it looks like that it is replaced or extended by COVID-19. That does not necessarily mean that some billionaires sat together in a dark room smoking fat cigars planning the whole thing for years to now play it out. It might well be that other factors that lead to the overreaction as we know it.² But with the threat having been established, it is now used by governments all over the world to justify draconian reductions in constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. And like always, the bottom end of society is hit much harder than the top.

That the stars on the critical left do not speak out against these measures is – for me – disappointing. When Jonathan writes that they [those wishing he writes about COVID] think we can write about their concerns better than they can themselves he simply states a truism as he is a trained professional – in addition to the fact that his articles have a readership of a few 100k.

I expend my very limited resources and energies on trying to persuade readers of the very real and very visible conspiracies – structural conspiracies – perpetrated by our elites to maintain and expand their power. [emphasis added]

The corona measures are very real and very visible and they are used by our elites to maintain and expand their power, they caused tremendous harm already in developing countries³ and will do more harm in the near future⁴.

There are very explicit conspiracies that can be grasped with only a little critical thinking … such as … the five-year campaign to destroy the party’s former leader, Jeremy Corbyn, before he could reach a position where, it was feared, he would be able to disrupt the neoliberal status quo rapidly driving us towards extinction. That conspiracy embraced senior Labour party officials, leaked documents have shown.

A similar conspiracy by the Democratic leadership in the US to prevent Bernie Sanders becoming the party’s presidential candidate in 2016 was exposed in a leak of the DNC’s emails, though that, of course, has been largely plunged down the memory hole and replaced with a straightforward narrative about “Russian” malfeasance.

It is interesting to note that COVID-19 did disrupt Sanders campaign much more than those of his rivals. As the movement was in substantial part fuelled by people coming together – i.e. direct social contact – COVID-19 killed the movement. COVID-19 also killed the yellow west movement in France or at least delayed it substantially for a few months. COVID-19 then enabled governments to print money like in 2008 to extend the de facto bankrupt system. COVID-19 was therefore used against two »dangers«, that would be able to disrupt the neoliberal status quo rapidly, i.e. the Sanders movement and the looming collapse of the system itself. Both facts are very explicit and both can be grasped with only a little critical thinking …

COVID-19 does not appear to be one of those weak points in the western narrative, not least because it is very hard to discern any meaningful western narrative about the virus other than an agreement that it is a dangerous disease for some sections of the population and that its rapid spread could overwhelm most countries’ health services.

It is almost frightening to read that Jonathan ignored not only all non-mainstream information available on COVID-19 – information by luminaries in their field like Bhakdi, Ioannidis, Bhattacharya, Levitt and plenty of others – but ignores his own advice where he writes that there is a reason why overt conspiracies … are not instantly evident to a larger proportion of western publics: the coordinated efforts of corporate media … In an Orwellian double think, Jonathan not just believes the very same mainstream media he denounces just a few lines above but even states that there is no need to disbelieve them – even when they are controlled by the same billionaire donors that pursue narrow, self-destructive corporate interests for which they lobby for endless wars against an intangible “terror”. That “terror” might have now have been extended by “bioterror” i.e. COVID-19 does not occur to Jonathan at all.

To challenge and disrupt that narrative we need people on the left – the critical left – that use their fame to make people aware that, again – like in the case of previous lies –, the mainstream media is framing the discussion, discrediting those that do not believe what they serve us and dare to ask questions. People do not want to be locked up, writes Jonathan, but people do not want wars of aggression either – until you make them demand them. If the shepherd cries ‘wolf’ the sheep demand protection, if the government cries COVID-19, the people demand lock-down. Only if people like Jonathan were to speak out, raising the voice to heaven, then more people would question the narrative, overcome fear and demand appropriate measures instead of lock-down.

When Jonathan demands that exposing these conspiracies is the best hope of getting people to raise questions in their own minds what cold be a better exposé than the German government denouncing a few hundred thousands of peaceful protesters in Berlin as nazis, conspiracy nuts and anti-vaxxers but at the same time allowing a demonstration of Reichsbürger so close to a strangely unprotected Bundestag that its raid could just be expected, a raid that then dominated all the mainstream news and created the unshakable narrative that all those protesting were nazis.⁵

But sadly, in the case of COVID-19, Jonathan is part of the mainstream, shares the consensus of the western medical establishment without realizing the that medical establishment might be as well controlled by billionaire donors not even pursuing their own nation’s interests, let alone the interests of humankind and the planet.

COVID-19 measures are an inconvenient truth and if we as a society accept them because of bigger problems looming, a totalitarian society might be very likely as any pretext will be used by the ruling elite to justify the status quo (class war). If we were to accept such reasoning, even eco-fascism, a totalitarian society in the name of saving the planet from climate change, might emerge. Solving the world’s problem can only happen in democratic ways by inclusion of all people. We shall never accept a totalitarian society on the grounds of the greater good. This will almost always be a perverse lie to keep the elite in power.

We, who hoped for critical COVID-19 articles, will have accept that some of the left did not realize or do not want to realize the incredible framing and falsehood of the mainstream media in relation to COVID-19 reporting. But – in Caitlin Johnstone’s own words, another star of the critical left that remained mostly silent or did not give COVID-19 substantial importance –, «you wouldn’t have to knock these people off the pedestals you put them on if you hadn’t put them there in the first place.»

People have limits and keep silent sometimes for whatever reasons.

So  «don’t plant fishes in the fields» and «don’t ask Chomsky about 9/11».

---

2Non-linear fluctuation amplifying where media, business (pharma), doctors obsessed by carrier and fame, etc. amplify rather harmless events until it becomes a global pandemic might be an explanation.

3India alone had an exess death toll due to corona measures of about 500’000, https://scroll.in/article/962147/stronger-health-system-could-have-averted-500000-non-covid-deaths-in-india-in-early-lockdown-period

4100 million expected to fall into poverty, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/world/africa/coronavirus-hunger-crisis.html

5Meanwhile official media stated the number of participants as 37’000, a little research makes it obvious that at least a few hundred thousand people participated. Judging from the video streams they were from all parts of society. Reichsbürger and Nazis were marginal (<1%). However, that the Berlin government officially allowed a demonstration of Nazis to take place in an area that is usually restricted and that even when hundreds of police men were on duty only three were guarding the Reichstag should be more than strange for a critical observer.
https://consentfactory.org/2020/09/02/new-normal-gleichschaltung-or-the-storming-of-the-reichstag-building-on-29-august-2020/

Reporting out of proportion

The Financial Times reports that «in many countries, these excess deaths exceed reported numbers of Covid-19 deaths by large margins» and shows graphs with peaks ways above the normal. However, putting this in proper context, changes the picture entirely.

I checked the data for Switzerland where FT states that the excess mortality is 27% above normal.

Screenshot of Financial Times graph depicting excess deaths of COVID-19

To put this data in perspective, we look at the graphs from the Federal Statistical Office depicting total deaths for the years 2020 and 2015.

 

An overlay using GIMP gives us this graph.

• Mortality in the COVID year 2020 was lower than in 2015 (1054 vs, 1322).
• Only one short peak with more than 1600 dead exceeds the year 2015
• We do have excess deaths compared to the average.
• We do not have an excess compared to regular 5-year peaks.
• We do only have a few % of excess mortality over the entire year (if it stays)

In other words: we have a classical peak that occurs during a strong influenza wave. Such peaks are a normal phenomenon every few years:

The regularity of the «excesses». Every few years a peak.

Conclusion

Using weekly excess mortality instead of the excess mortality over the entire year is misleading. Every few years there are «excesses» as we can see in the graph above.  This is a normal pattern. For a single week, we can measure an excess of 27%, 61% or even 451% above average but just a few weeks later the numbers come down. Over the year there will only be a marginal increase of a few percentages, e.g. in 2015 the total number of deaths was only 5.4% higher than in 2014 or 4.4% higher than in 2016. In a graph, the change in mortality rate is hardly visible.

Media reporting is in the full sense of the word out of proportion.

 

COVID – a quadruple mission?

It was frightening to see how quickly the liberal left collapsed into totalitarianism when the causes for the measures were presented as being «compassion» and «care for the elderly and weak». As if compassion had any place in the neoliberal, capitalist economy and even less in US foreign policy (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.).
It is also puzzling that the media reporting resembles in large parts Goering’s recipe for totalitarianism. ‘Being attacked’ is extended to ‘attacked by a virus’, and ‘the pacifists’ are replaced by ‘those who do not have compassion with the elderly’.

“Naturally, the common people don’t want war …. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”
– Herman Goering

Having a «war against the virus» — a war — makes airplanes honoring the soldiers on the ground (health workers) fit well into the picture.

cui bono?

Apart from the 5 trillion financial aid that will be distributed with little oversight (i.e. to the usual suspects), corona killed the Sanders movement or at least derailed it substantially. Now people are asking for survival — and want to remain at home (!) — instead of going out and demonstrating for social democratic corrections of the system.

Was this Corona Hysteria orchestrated?

How was COVID turned into a weapon against the Sanders movement? The ‘simulitis’ article from the Washington Post seems to have started a propaganda coup for the lockdown.  Presented with logic in itself — but without proof of applicability — the article tricked plenty into believing that for flattening the curve lockdown is a necessity. Meanwhile, the simulitis model is logic in and of itself, if this model is applicable to the present situation is an entirely different question. How does the virus spread in reality? The model is nice but it is just a model. If it maps current reality sufficiently well is another question.

Climate change

If the whole COVID hysteria will turn out to have just been a panic without substantial underlying danger — and the chances are quite high for that — the movement against climate change will be put back for years. Scientific arguments demanding measures to prevent climate change will not be credible after «science» told us to go into lockdown for nothing and killed millions of jobs. That it was not science that ordered the lockdown but politicians listening to certain very questionable scientists with ties to big business will be rather irrelevant. The MAGAs who lost their jobs will not listen — understandably to a certain extent — as they were demonstrating and defending the constitution meanwhile the liberal leftists were — by following «science»  — sitting at home and watching the country go bankrupt.

Surveillance state

Instead of forcing a surveillance state on the people, let the people ask for it. With COVID fear people will demand that everyone is tracked 24-7 and has his or her vaccination data implanted in order to be checked anywhere at any time. To use an airplane a scanner scans all your vaccination. If you don’t have the required one, you can’t fly. Period. The same goes for concerts, metros, jobs, etc. It’s not compulsory, it’s just necessary to join the society.

By knowing who has contact with whom — allegedly for tracking infection — the organizational structure, i.e. the participants of any political movement will be known in detail.  Imagine everyone Sanders spoke to for more than fifteen minutes and everyone that spoke to those that are around Sanders mapped minuscule details known to an organization that wants to undermine that movement …

So this little coronavirus ended socialist (social democratic) dreams, gives Wall Street et al. new cash they direly need, puts the climate movement back for years to the delight of the oil-industrial sector and starts the total surveillance state.

I think it’s time to start a war against this virus now!