10 Comments
User's avatar
http://coronistan.blogspot.com's avatar

… to keep the stupid stupid.

The same online, i.e. Youtube etc. So what I did, when I saw this crap the first time, I block it with uBlock Origin. I don't see any spam and any ad on any website, government spam included.

Expand full comment
epimetheus's avatar

Well, same shit, different smell, eh?

As to not seeing them (these things are a nuisance) vs. the true point: how many will stay away from thus labelled works?

I mean, it's very insidious to lump serious people (former intel officer Jacques Baud) together with 'loons'--the main point isn't to discredit the former (albeit that's bycatch, I think) but to redefine what's o.k. and what's not.

Once you accede to the gov't telling you what's appropriate and what isn't, they'll ramp up their game.

Expand full comment
Rikard's avatar

It's stupid and wrong, obviously. But:

I well remember my mother having to write me a note that I could show the librarian at the municipal library in 1980, that I was to be allowed to read whichever books I wanted to.

Not a formal rule, but still gatekeeping and censorious and puritanical - just for different reasons:

"We the annointed knows what's good for you have decided - obey, or you are a Bad Person!"

I was very impressed with mom, still is, for doing that.

Expand full comment
epimetheus's avatar

This is awesome--no such notices were required in the late 1980s/early 1990s in Austria when I spent unknown hours at the nearby public library. Alone.

No-one seemed to care, it was a different time.

Expand full comment
Martin Bassani's avatar

By their labeling they increase the chance that people like me will read it. ;-)

Expand full comment
epimetheus's avatar

Well, that's obvious. Question is--how many sheeple (which is unfair to my livestock) are thinking the exact opposite?

Expand full comment
Martin Bassani's avatar

99.99%

Expand full comment
epimetheus's avatar

Fair point; I doubt that the share of library patrons is that high.

My gut feeling is that the bottom third (give or take) of society doesn't care much either way and participates based on thoughts such as, 'do I benefit' (in the form of, say, vouchers, goodies, or the like); take, e.g., the relative lower share of minorities and members of the lower classes to take the modRNA poison/death juices: they were skeptical of the elites bearing gifts…

20-25% didn't go along with this shitshow.

Hence, I do think this move will merely reinforce the sentiments of the wavering 'middle' of some 35-40% who never really give these or other matters any thought (because they either feel superior or trust those above them), which looks to me why this is done.

Expand full comment
Martin Bassani's avatar

I agree with you. 99.9% was an answer because I misunderstood your question.

Expand full comment
epimetheus's avatar

No worries, I think I understood quite well what you intimated.

Expand full comment