Free The Animal

A COVID Cult and Clown Car Roundup

Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

Theodore Dalrymple

You could further refine and drill down to wider meaning and integration by substituting “political correctness” for things like mask correctness, lockdown correctness, Thanksgiving correctness, COVID correctness, cases correctness, testing correctness, election correctness, mail-in-ballot correctness, no-widespread-fraud correctness, threat-to-our-democracy correctness, constitutional-crisis correctness, president-elect correctness….” the list goes on.

Generally speaking, COVID has reached maximum narrative and bromide dispersion and at this point it’s rather clear to me that there is no persuasion or cajoling on any level whatsoever—at least of the kind where someone admits I exposed them to new information they were unaware of and changed their mind accordingly—that’s worth the effort. They have “The Science,” you see, invoked in the same manner religious zealots invoke “The Word.” There is only science. “The Science” is euphemism for “whatever it is that I believe, even by faith alone.”

On the other hand, I sense a global weariness that really amounts to “this is not living, so what’s the point?” Well, the point was never about life, death, safety, or peril. The point was enhanced power to the State and profits handed over gleefully to big corporations at the expense of personal integrity—not to mention the destruction of mom & pop small businesses in the millions around the world. And the great tragedy of the latter is its quelling and chilling effect on entrepreneurs who desire to remain small and connected with those they serve, eschewing corporate and grow-big models of business. They seek to be producer-minded, rather than sell-to-consumers minded. That’s a real distinction.

So what it comes down to is waiting for even the most stalwart of COVID cheerleaders to get tired of the fad while yearning for the days when they could sit around with their Karenfriends sipping wine, talking about how good their cats are, and how bad their husbands are. ….That sort of stereotypical thing.

…To absolutely no good or useful end because it’s very unlikely any lessons will be learned. Here’s just a few things that perhaps maybe suggest the sort of mass crowd madness and hysteria I was talking about as early as last March and April.

The COVID Cult

This video presentation by Tom Woods really gets to the overall on that score.

Cult is a decent way to describe it at this point and the typical telltales aboud, paramount being all the people going around proclaiming their own virtue with respect to the COVID Commandments, decrying and shaming all the sinners. But, when the camera is off, doors are closed, in the dark, or when they think no one is watching, they do pretty much as they please.

It’s show theater and it’s funny how the mask doubles as a chin-warmer half the time.

Loosely outlined, you have three basic types of people comprising a cult.

  1. The 80% or more low-95ish-IQ sheep, masses, “the people.” The True Believers.
  2. The 15% or so enablers and influencers. Higher IQ, clever enough to see a bargain. In exchange for admonishing and shaming the peon intellectually-challenged into submission and compliance as to the propaganda or commandments, they are awarded status within the hermetically-sealed echo-chamber cult. They are envied by the masses for the illusion of status and importance that has been bestowed upon them.
  3. The 5% or so elite manipulators who dole out the accolades. Their bargain is that they’re seen as Gods by the peons, owing to the solemn, “knowledgeable” enablers and influencers who’re in-turn seen by the peons as “smart enough to know; and besides, why would they have their high status if they weren’t right?”

It’s all a circular shell-game of mutual back-scratching, wink-nod, and peer-group behavior.

Link to the video. Yea, YouTube pulled this one down in the placating of leftists throwing their petulant, spoiled-child temper-tantrums.


Well, it was removed from YouTube for “Violating Terms of Service” after a huge number of views. Back up, for now.

If it turns out to be removed again, here’s a Facebook link and a Bitchute link.

Yeadon is a former VP at Pfizer, so perhaps this gains some credibility as coming from the belly of the beast.

It’s a fabulous video covering the whole swath of the thing but in particular, it really exposes the huge limitations in the PCR testing that is being done with abandon where the narrative has shifted from hospital admissions, ICU escalation, and death finality…to positive test results called “cases,” reaching the absurd spectacle where you have, on the same chart, “cases” going exponentially up while at the same time, deaths falling off steadily.

“Just wait two more weeks!!!” Remember that one from months ago and we’re still waiting?

Anthony Colpo has a new post exposing the severe limitations of what a positive case means: Why COVID-19 Testing is a Sham Producing Mostly False-Positives.

The greatest limitation in PCR testing for clinical diagnostic purposes is simple: it’s impossible to differentiate between an inactive fragment of a virus and a whole, active one. This is systemic (baked in the cake) because that’s its actual purpose: to detect the previously undetectable by magnifying even a piece of a virus (its RNA) to where it can be detected. So, for example, you could have an antibody or T-cell immune response to the virus that shreds it to pieces and then have PCR come along, magnify the pieces, and declare you positive. You’re not sick, but you’re a “case.”

This would be like going to the scene of a pile-up crash on the freeway and declaring every fragment strewn about to be a “car.”

The Greatest Hoax Ever Perpetrated On An Unsuspecting Public

Ironically, Dr Roger Hodkinson even runs a company that distributes these so-called tests. It’s a short, albeit devastating commentary.

Anthony Colpo even did a post about this one too.

Hodkinson is a medical specialist in pathology, which includes virology, who trained at Cambridge University in England. A Royal College certified pathologist in Canada, he is ex-president of the pathology section of the Medical Association, former chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons Examination Committee in Ottawa. He has also served as a pathologist with the Medical Examiner’s Office in Edmonton determining cause of death, and as Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Alberta.

Hodkinson is in good standing with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, and has been recognized by the Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta as an expert in pathology.

Hodkinson is also Executive Chairman of Bio-ID Diagnostics, a company that produces COVID-19 tests – so he has little to gain personally from calling BS on the coronavirus scaremongering.

Hodkinson pointed out that, thanks to his role as CEO of a biotech company that manufactures COVID tests, “I might know a little bit about all this.”

The True Costs

There’s almost no widespread accounting that ever goes on in anything when it becomes politicized. I’ve already touched on the devastation to small business, the soul of the economy at large. Still, the fallacious even-if-it-saves-just-one-life “logic” always prevails because it’s emotionally manipulative. Just like nobody wants to be called a racist, nobody wants to be called a granny-killer.

But in fact, humans always have and always will assign a cost-accounting to human life. War is the most stark example of that, right or wrong, just or unjust as the war may be—the point is people often think death and killing is “worth it,” whatever ‘it’ may be. So are a host of other things from pharmaceuticals with potential side-effects that include death, to all manner of goods and services that come with a small chance of an adverse outcome, including death.

We get in cars and on motorcycles everyday—even loading our children and grannies into and on them—accepting the implicit risk of death, but we trade the small risk away for the perceived greater benefits they afford us in the widescope accounting.

But politicize it…make of it a bludgeon for virtue-signalling, holier-than-thou, power-and-status grabbing types to use in the enhancement of their faux self-esteem…and all bets are off.

And for a third time in this post, here’s just such a widescope account of the costs of the politicization of COVID-19 by Anthony Colpo, featuring his home country specifically: Australia: Leading the World in COVID-19 Bullshit. And that’s not all. Clearly, the adverse and awful costs are very important to him, as they ought to be to the rest of us: COVID-19: How Social Distancing and Lockdowns are Destroying Lives.

Both taken together, it’s the best and most comprehensive assemblage on the stuff that ought to be of the utmost importance, but barely registers a blip—much like when a war is perceived, touted, defended, cheered, and flag-waived as righteous. And perhaps sometimes it is, but that should ultimately be accounted for and people should have some sense of the true, overall costs of what it is they cheer.

Keep in mind that we’re talking about something with a 99%+ survivability where the vast majority of deaths are amongst those aged 75 years and older; that of those, the vast majority have multiple serious comorbidities and in terms of those without known comorbidities actually dying, you have to get into the 30-39 age bracket to find any, and it’s still a very small number.

Now, with that in mind, assess all the costs honestly. Maybe: drop the political implications of any which way your conscience might sway?

Where’s The All-Cause Mortality?

For those who still read me from back in the Paleo Diet and Whole Food days, perhaps you recall that one element of the antagonism was that the fatphobes and the meatphobes always tended to have their favorite cause of death—usually cardiovascular in nature…clogged arteries and heart-attacks.

But many of us always recognized and correctly pointed out: what about all-cause mortality? What good does it do, for instance, to shuffle people from heart disease to cancer if the overall number of deaths doesn’t change much? It’s a Cause-of-Death Olympics, never a widescope accounting of a different sort: how many total people died, of whatever? Because, you can fake or fudge on cause of death and often enough, it’s a legitimate judgment call where pathology and experience come into play. You typically can’t outright fake a death.

And so it comes to pass that the prestigious Johns Hopkins published a piece in their newsletter, A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19. As you’ll note, the article has been supplanted by an explanation for why it was retracted—but also providing a link to the original in PDF. Here’s an archive to the original in HTML.

We can’t actually know what the total death for 2020 is for any country or globally until all the reporting is in sometime after the first of 2021. Ultimately, we can wait. People, depending on their politics generally, are going to quibble, because this is the most politicized disease in all of history. It’s as though the politicization of fat and meat phobias over the decades since the 1970s into stupid public policies that ultimately made people fat, diabetic, ugly, and unhealthy…got all condensed into a single year, this time.

Here’s what we can know, which is what the data does NOT say: that even if there is some “excess death” this year—deaths substantially above numbers seen for the same time period during previous years—the numbers aren’t in your face or we’d sense and know that, and we wouldn’t be waste time debating it, but rather, protecting ourselves and loved ones. In other words: more or less COVID, more or less death. It is often the case, if you pause to think about it, that the pure existence of debates over things can signal that there’s not much to debate about and it’s a smoke screen towards achieving other ends.

This is similar to what I pointed out about this mask study just published: Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers. Two things:

  1. It took them months to find someone to publish it
  2. It does not find that masks work, or that they don’t work

In other words, nobody is happy, so there’s a debate. But, you must keep in mind that all studies have limitations, per se. There’s no omniscience. And it’s my position that the best way to look at any study is not what you think or hope it tells you, but what it does NOT tell you. And what we can definitively say about this study—after all the arguments and “fact-checks” have been tendered—is that it does not result in any “oh, of course, masks are essentially effective and valuable.” So on the one hand, you have mask haters saying “it proves masks don’t work,” and on the other, mask lovers saying “it proves there’s some benefit to masks.” What it really says is: more or fewer masks, more or less COVID.

There is one place that masks and their related measures of social distancing were very effective: the 2020 election. This is what I saw coming in March when I called COVID-19 “Impeachment 3.0.” It enabled the plausible justification for mailing out millions of ballots—ballots that could then be counted, disposed of, “corrected,” duplicated, or copied in “plain sight”—but which is far enough away as to prevent close inspection.

Where is The Seasonal Flu that kills 200,000 to 600,000 Globally Every Year?

So this is most likely—the Occam’s Razor—an aspect of the shuffling of cause of death around but not ending up with huge amounts of “excess death.”

At large, it’s gobsmacking to me that the WHO is so incompetent in their number manipulating. You’d think they would at least put “estimated” numbers in their database, “technical-problem” it, or somehow cover their tracks so that it’s not so blatantly obvious.

It’s a bit tricky to find if you don’t know exactly what you’re looking for and also, the exact reporting tool (it’s Number 7…perfect) had me head-scratching for a long time. Nonetheless:

WHO Influenza Laboratory Surveillance Information by the Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System (GISRS)

Easy to use. Pick any country, any year, and any week-to-week range. Display report.

So what’s the big deal? Here’s 2,000 words.

USA FOR 2019
USA FOR 2020

Ok, but you object, saying, “well, it typically tapers off in April anyway and is very low, should just now be rising again, so maybe it wasn’t that important given the pandemic so for its rise that should be happening now, it could be a data-entry lag.”


So, explain Australia to me in 2,000 words or less. Since it’s Southern Hemisphere, the seasons are reversed.


Gotcha! Plus, notice that the scale for 2019 (y-axis) is 1/10th the scale for 2020. Now, I didn’t check every single country on earth, but the dozen or so I did check, almost the exact same picture, give or take a week or so of when the data stopped dead.

Could it be that accurately reporting on extrapolated flu incidence given the actual testing data for the 8 distinguished flu strains would severely muddy the waters in terms of calling every plausible death but obvious suicide, COVID? Or, how about the hugely greater flu incidence in Australia the first few months of 2020 compared to 2019? Explain that one.

The only real questions to answer are whether testing for flu just stopped globally (and on whose command?), was not reported by the respective countries (quite a coordinated thing, wouldn’t you say?), or the WHO decided to not enter the data and make it available (why on earth not?).

Well, it’s about as mysterious as all the questions this raises: 5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms.

  1. 80 Million Votes
  2. Winning Despite Losing Most Bellwether Counties
  3. Biden Trailed Clinton Except in a Select Few Cities
  4. Biden Won Despite Democrat Losses Everywhere Else
  5. Biden Overcame Trump’s Commanding Primary Vote

….Which constitutes a brief preview of my very next post, so stay tuned in.

Exit mobile version