The Experiment Continues

In the 60s a researcher named Stanley Milgram conducted a series of experiments in which the subjects were told they were participating in a teaching experiment, but the study was actually designed to measure compliance and obedience to authority. They were told to adminster shocks to the other subject (actually an accomplice to the designers) in increasingly severe levels, to see how far they would go when ordered. 65% of them administered what they thought was a lethal dose, when so ordered by a person of authority.

Milgram suggested that two things were needed to convince subjects to comply: One- The person giving the orders is perceived as being qualified to direct other people’s behavior. That is, they are seen as legitimate. Two- The person being ordered about believes that the authority will accept responsibility for what happens.

Ten months ago, researchers enrolled most of the adult populations in the industrialized countries in an experiment in which subjects were told they were receiving an injection that would protect them from infection of the SARS 2 virus. They were assured that if enough people complied, the population would reach herd immunity and all the restrictions on public life would be lifted. They were not, however, told that the authorities would accept responsibility for any bad outcomes. All agencies, the government, the medical industry and the media were enlisted to push this story and anyone speaking up to object were suppressed and banned.

Ten months in, we have been told that the injectable does not actually do what they promised it would. It does not protect the recipient from disease, it does not stop the spread of the disease and the restrictions have not been lifted.

If this experiment was actually about testing the safety and effectiveness of the drug, it would now be reasessed and the experiment stopped.

But instead the subjects are being told that since the product is ineffective, they need a booster shot. Clearly this is not about testing the product.

This is instead a continuance of the Milgram obedience experiments, a vast test of mass compliance to authority, even when authority has removed the second pillar of Milgram's hypothesis, the agreement to take responsibility for the results.

Targeting people's children is a new, and particularly unethical (in my opinion) twist. We have now sunk into Harry Harlow terrortory. Will people actually offer up their young to receive an injection that they know doesn't work for a disease that doesn't harm children? If I were a mad scientist I might be interested in this question. But as an ethical human being I am appalled.

A Call For Decorum

I mostly like men. They are usually pretty amiable and I appreciate the ones that can fix stuff.

But the men who are fixated on their genitals are off-putting, like those dogs you can't stop from noisily licking themselves.

There are the ones who are so enamored of their penises that they target random women with dic pics, apparently sure that said women will be equally impressed, and swoon with admiration and desire.

Worse now are the ones who dislike their genitals, because they have the backing of the Establishment to make sure that the entire society knows about their inner feelings, and makes allowances for their tender insides.

So we have things like everyone required to pick pronouns to force everyone around to use, so that no one accidentally devastates a man who feels distaste for his penis by using his non-preferred pronoun, because then he might react by committing violent acts like suicide and/or homicide (or just trashing the place in anger), and it would totally be the fault of the person speaking English, according to the Establishment. I see no reason for this policy. Genitals were nicknamed ''private parts'' for a reason. There is no reason that the general public should be exposed to people's internal feelings about their external genitals. Keep them to yourself, please, and we'll all be better off.

Mass Psychosis & You

We are being deliberately driven insane. There has been no time in the past when The Madness of Crowds has led to anything good. There is no reason to believe that this will be different.

Freezing in the Dark

Back in the 70s, when it became apparent that the fossil fuels were finite, a generation raised with frugality and social responsibility started looking at alternative ways of doing things, so as to conserve resources for future generations.

I distinctly remember that some people were composting using a system that harvested the methane produced for cooking purposes. Heating was usually a matter of passive solar building and insulation, combined with putting on a sweater.

Then along came the Evil Reagan, announcing to Americans that there was no way they would have to freeze to death in the dark. Instead, Americans should embark on an orgy of consumption back then, and screw future generations.

Oil use has doubled since then, and electricity use has also gone up, (but I don't know the percentage).

Frackers spent the last 15 years flaring off natural gas, as they went for oil instead. North Dakota and New Mexico were lit up at night for years, as they burned off all that natural gas into the atmosphere.

Anyway, here we are in the future, getting ready to freeze to death in the dark. Thanks, Reagan.

Does anyone know how to make one of those methane-capturing compost devices?

Merchant of Death

Back in the days before the war machine became a permanent fixture of the American way of life, weapons manufacturers were opportunists called Merchants of Death by the population. Selling WMD was seen by many as a wicked way to make money. But whole generations of Americans have grown up thinking that spreading death and misery to other peoples is normal, even noble.

It has been muttered in certain circles that there are those who sell to both sides in war, profiting from the misery of double the populations, but those names are not usually known. Oliver North comes to mind, but he did it on the downlow, and there was a (feeble) attempt to excoriate him for his perfidy.

Anthony Fauci is the first double-dipper I have ever known to be lionized by the media, although he is one of the most despicable characters history has ever seen. The funder of gain-of-function bioweapon research, looking for ways to turn ordinary viruses and bacteria into deadly killers, he, like Oliver North, even funded it on the downlow when ethical scientists sounded the alarm and it was temporarily stopped on the US continent.

The release of the SARS 2 virus, a gain-of-function twist on SARS 1 (which spread in 2002-2004), in late 2019 led to a world-wide shutdown to stop the spread. Dr. Fauci, who should have been frog-marched to court to answer for his research, instead was put in charge of the US response. Official federal protocols forbid early treatment and prescribed only Remdesivir for hospital treatment. Remdesivir was an experimental drug never before approved until the FDA gave it an Emergency Use Authorization in May 2020, without extensive clinical trials. It was shown to be ineffective as well as dangerous and the WHO recommended against using it but the US, under Tony Fauci, continues using it to this day.

Then the merchant of death who funded the research into the bioweapon, and then pushed for no treatment except an experimental drug, moved on to vaccination, pushing for Americans to accept mass vaccination in order to end the lockdown. A new experimental mRNA technique was applied for the first time in a vaccine and Dr. Fauci was allowed to proselytize for it on every major media outlet, as if he were some sort of reputable source, instead of a war criminal. At first he advocated that 60% of Americans needed to accept the jab to reach "herd immunity", but he started upping his numbers when he saw how gullible Americans were to his plan.

Fauci and Bill Gates, a software and vaccine salesman, were both used as reputable sources for both the vaccine and the vaccine passport, an internal document they proposed to limit movement of US citizens. When they first proposed it, in early 2020, they talked about it as a document to be held both by people who were naturally immune, by virtue of recovering from the disease, and those who had accepted the mRNA shot. Again, though, when polls showed how gullible and submissive Americans were, they changed the requirements, and started demanding that even those with natural immunity submit to the jab.

By now we know that the mRNA jab has serious side effects, including disability and death. Instead of now frog-marching Fauci to court, however, the media continues to present him as a legitimate source of policy making.

As in most wars, the bodies pile up, nameless and faceless, and we don't know their stories. But because of the ability of Americans to communicate horizontally through the internet (that ability now under severe attack), we know a few. The ones that really touch my heart are the ones who did not want to accept the jab, but were forced to take it by nameless, faceless bureaucrats. The 13 y.o. girl who wanted to play soccer, the 39 y.o. mother who wanted to volunteer at her children's school, the 18 y.o. girl who wanted to go to college, the 23 y.o. graduate who wanted to work....all dead now. And the only name we know, the only face we know, responsible for the policies that killed them, is Anthony Fauci. And he is held up as a hero to those too shallow to think beyond what the screen tells them to think, too simple-minded to recognize that profiting from all sides in a war is despicable, not heroic.