COVID, Atlantis And S&M...

 "The Fortunes of the entire world may well ride on the ability of young Americans to face the responsibilities of an old America gone mad..." -- Phil Ochs

"Of course I've gone mad with power! Have you tried going mad without power? Its boring and no one listens to you..." -- The Simpsons

"In a world gone mad only a lunatic is truly insane..." -- Homer

Three quotes? My, how generous you are today, My Lord and Master!

The World has gone insane. I don't mean the sort of minor insane that can be cured by a psychotherapist and a happy pill -- like biting your fingernails or pulling out your own hair -- I mean completely batshit-bury-the-victims-in-the-crawlspace-torture-your-hamster-with-a-meat-fork-Hillary-Clinton-shoving-babies-in-front-of-moving-subways sort of insane that is dangerous and which affects an entire culture on a scale so large there may not be a path back.

To question the validity of the first quote, from what I've seen, young Americans will not be able to face the responsibilities of an old America, considering they seem to want to avoid responsibility at all times, as if it came with a case of COVID.

They can virtue signal and mouth platitudes, but concerted, effective action is beyond their capacity.

That younger generation eats detergent, recklessly and thoughtlessly shares its most intimate experiences with the world via a hand-held dopamine generator to which it is addicted, 'lives' in Virtual Reality, asks Alexa for all of its answers and thinks everything should be "for free". 

A generation confused by it's own genitals.

And when it doesn't get its way, it riots.

"Responsibility" entails "sacrifice". A generation that is allergic to both and expects to be rewarded for it is incapable of facing anything, particularly Reality. So it must be left to us not-so-old-and-yet-not-so-young types to accept that mantle and "do the right things".

And by this, I mean the 40-to-50-somethings, the generation that through Latchkey-and-Divorce upbringings, the days of only seven channels on TV, no Internet, who are familiar with and cherish the concept of libraries, and can remember the virtues of work, family, legality and boundaries. A generation that was perhaps the last to learn self-reliance before the Welfare State and Managerialism taught others that dependence and groupthink, victimhood and ignorance were a better -- and more-lucrative -- path.

Examples of the non-virtues of previous and successive generations abound and they serve as an example of everything gone wrong.

For every 70- or 80-something Pelosi or McConnell, there's a 30-something AOC or Crenshaw. Where the former are merely craven and venal opportunists who turn public office into a printing press for cash and perks, the latter are little more than actors in a stage play, creating public dramas for the lowest common denominator, all for clicks and the ability to sell merch.

For every Henry Ford or Andrew Carnegie, there is a Kardashian, or three. People who produce nothing of value, do nothing worth doing, and yet are celebrated and enriched for it. 

It appears to this Would-Be Dictator's eyes that the only people still in contact with physical reality are old enough to know better but not old enough to be senile and incontinent.

That's just an observation; now to get to the real insanity.

It has now been discovered (as if you didn't already somehow know this by instinct) that the COVID 'vaccines' are no such thing. Not surprising, considering the things were based on untested technology, rushed into production and hardly, if ever, tested in anything approaching a rigorous fashion.

If you have to get 'boosters' four times a year, it is clear the fucking thing doesn't work.

If there is a connection between jabs and serious health problems, it is evident the fucking thing doesn't work.

If there has now been scientifically-validated evidence that indicates the more jabs you get the more COVID you get, it is an unmistakable conclusion that the fucking thing doesn't work.

And yet, we're being pushed, coerced and threatened to keep taking the fucking thing because having jettisoned centuries of epidemiological experience, medical expertise, scientific method and chosen the worst courses of action to deal with a really bad flu financed by the American government and brewed within a Chinese germ factory relying on the very best of 1950's Soviet-era tech, the alternatives were to take responsibility, to tell the truth and be exposed for the irresponsible, insanely-stupid, self-interested, corrupt individuals that predominate in today's 'Scientific' and 'public health' establishments.

And accept the punishment.

Reputations would be destroyed; fortunes and government contracts would be lost; the ability to tinker with daydreams and DNA for shits and giggles for free (to the Daydreamers and Tinkerers, not the taxpayer) would be lost; the ability to do nothing useful and get paid, often handsomely for it, without a definitive result, would be lost.

You might even get voted out of office, a job for life, provided you don't get caught screwing animals or underaged girls or murdering someone (unless you're a leftist) and continuously deferred to for no obvious virtue of your own.

And so it is that you have to be harangued to keep getting a deadly poison injected into your body three or four times a year, so that the young -- who are about as useful as fleas on a dog -- and the very old -- about as useful as teats on a  bull -- can go on 'living' a fantasy in which they are entitled to everything and responsible for nothing.

Eventually, that fantasy collapses under the weight of it's own inherent weaknesses, the first being that Reality and Mortality are unavoidable, secondly, eventually the supply Other People's Money runs out. A third weakness: in the end, your bullshit is exposed as a scam to profit at the expense of others and The Others will always get their revenge.

Another signpost on the road to mass psychosis comes courtesy of Twitter, where those who burn one another with cigarettes, torture one another with whips, practice a fetish predicated on the concept of sexual slavery, demand 'equality' ...and that someone else pay for it.

I have no words here.

Well, actually, I do...

First and foremost, far be it from The Overlord to pass judgment upon what other people do with their wedding tackle in the privacy of their own homes dungeons. Furthermore, let me state for the record that if having a woman forcibly penetrate your anus or stomp your nutsack with her 5' stiletto heels (so I'm told) gets you off, then more power to you, you sick fucking bastard.

If you enjoy being humiliated in a sexual fashion and value yourself so little, you're probably a candidate for a rubber room and so no expression of disgust or revulsion of mine will make the slightest difference in altering your beliefs or behavior, so I won't.

But don't you DARE demand that others pay for your perversions and to hypocritically frame such demands in terms of 'equality', the every antithesis of your actus reus.

(No, that has nothing to do with anyone's rectum)

And, finally, I have to conclude with something interesting and off the beaten path for me, which is Conspiracy Theory...sort of.

I have been watching the Netflix series 'Ancient Apocalypse' where journalist Graham Hancock sets out to prove, or at least shed some light upon, a theory (not a new one) that the history of mankind is incomplete (good job! Everyone with a functioning cerebellum already knew that!).

Hancock's theory is that a far older civilization than the ones we currently recognize existed during the last Ice Age; an advanced, technologically-proficient civilization that was destroyed by a major cataclysm, forcing the survivors to scatter to the four winds where they, presumably, brought the knowledge and processes of this advanced society to the more-primitive corners of the Earth, jump-starting what we term 'civilization'.

As a student of History, I find Hancock's theory both interesting and plausible. If you have a penchant for these sorts of things, too, I would recommend giving it a watch. There's enough there to make you admit that he may have a point. It's when you do other research that you begin to see the holes in the premise.

Where Hancock loses me is in his continuous portrayal of himself as a martyr to 'established' science and his (maybe willful and convenient?) apparent ignorance that few in the field of History and associated Sciences necessarily disagrees with his premises. In fact, his 'critics' often point to examples of human achievement which are far older -- and just, if not more -- technologically-advanced as the ones Hancock routinely uses to make his case.

They (The Experts) also claim that he's very selective about the examples he uses and often misrepresents them in ways that are misleading, for example, in claiming that a site like Gobeckli Tepe (in Turkey) has stone monuments that indicate an ability to lift very heavy things, without noting that the standing pillars there were carved from existing rock -- not cut and transported from a different location -- and is younger than many similar surrounding archeological sites.

Many located but a short distance away.

Hancock's ultimate goal is to prove the past existence of the fabled Atlantis, one suspects. Because he keeps making reference to it and the insinuating thread that runs through the whole thing points in that direction. The theory is that Atlantis was real; it was destroyed (the culprit is rapid environmental change represented by The Great Flood tales present in most cultural memories and The Bible); and that the survivors -- if any -- managed to find their way to other places on the globe to seed 'primative' Mankind with the tools to build pyramids, move heavy stones great distances and study the Heavens with accuracy.

His argument is that peoples that Science routinely refers to as unsophisticated hunter-gathers didn't suddenly develop the tools of civilization all by themselves. Certainly not all at the same time all around the world, historically-speaking. There simply MUST have been an outside influence that provided the knowledge that kick-started civilization.

Now this idea, itself, is not exactly a new one or startling. Others have postulated the same thing, only in different forms of Deus Ex Machina, with a long cast of mysterious characters who are never identified or mischaracterized.

For examples, Aliens or God.

Dumb luck, accumulated experience, cultural exchange through trade, conquest or intermixing are, naturally, dismissed by Hancock as impossible given the scale and rapidity of the advance, though to my knowledge he never explicitly says this.

But then, it can be argued that the supposed Atlantian, Alien or Divine catalysts also are dismissible if the only 'proof' of their presence is the argument 'Well, look at the result. It MUST have happened this way!'. 

Other fields of Science are discovering that Humanity is far older than we at first suspected, pushing human origins further back in time (in some theories, as far back as 3-4 million years). We're supposed to dismiss the evidence of human sophistication and tool use that already exists so as to fit them neatly into Hancock's theory.

Assuming 'primitive' humans weren't stupid -- after all, they've managed to survive in every climate and ecology, they did things like track the stars, create advanced systems of irrigation and farming, develop animal husbandry, medicine, metallurgy, engineering, navigation and mathematics without the obvious influence of Deity or Martian -- one can make a very good case that God, Atlantis or Vulcans aren't necessary or explicative in the context of the entirety of human experience and evolution.

Also, this setting himself up as some kind of Rebel, fighting the dogmatic forces of entrenched and intractable scholarship and science is somewhat suspect, too. If it weren't something that has become painfully demonstrable in the fields of Social Science, Climate Science and more-recently Medical Science, you could argue that Hancock is just playing at Odysseus, but the infection of those branches of Science don't necessarily mean that ALL other branches (or the scientists within those fields of discipline) are similarly infected or co-opted.

After all, what archeologist in his right mind WOULDN'T like to prove Hancock's theory correct, when the rewards are so tantalizing in terms of recognition, international celebrity, prizes, tenure, government research grants and book-writing royalties, just to begin with?

The problem 'mainstream' science has with Hancock is NOT that he's not easily dismissed as an amateurish kook that threatens some establishment, undermining 'authority'; it's that he's not got any evidence to prove his theory and that what he presents as such is often mischaracterized, misrepresented or misunderstood by both Hancock and the lay person.

In other words, he's not engaged in a Scientific endeavor, but in a publicity stunt intended to sell books, and in the process, under the virtuous cover of calling Science into question.

But Science is always in question, or it wouldn't be 'Science', would it?

 If you've managed to survive the last three years under the constant drumbeat of 'follow the Science' which has been proven -- by experience and preliminary study -- to be wrong, or influenced by factors other than the quest for truth, you already knew this.

And so Hancock is not really up against anything except his own self-image as a modern-day Crusader for Truth, and in reality, he begins to look more-and-more like a modern-day Don Quixote.

But that doesn't mean that he's crazy, or even wrong, or not asking important questions. He just may be drawing the wrong conclusions from the same lack of knowledge that he accuses (collective) Man of having and the same dogmatic attitude he attributes to 'mainstream' academia.

The Pot calls the Kettle black? Is Hancock a more-intellectual version of the Kardashians and P.T. Barnum? Is he a lonely voice in the wilderness who has managed to catch the first thread of truth? Who knows?

Watch and draw your own conclusions; my own is that he's (Hancock) maybe on to SOMETHING but not quite what he believes he is, although it is a compelling argument all on it's own.

The symbiosis between Hancock's and Randall Carlson's theories just make it all the more fascinating and informative, but, alas, not all-that-much-more definitive.