Another look at last Sunday's election results in Austria holds several lessons for countries that still hold elections: the Uniparty™ vs. Populism, Re-Nationalise or go quietly into the night
Don't be too surprised by the Ivermectin-denialism and revisionism among journalists. Several of have been e-mailed information about the UN/Pan-African project (which I think has been ongoing since 1995) where Ivermectin was produced and distributed as locally as possible, to as low cost as possible, to hundreds of millions of Africans for the duration, to be used as a profylactic against Onchocerciasis (river blindness, though obviously Ivermectin works against all kinds of infections).
I mentioned it, with links to official sources including the WHO to Alex Berenson on his Substack some two years or so ago, when he had been beclowning himself by lambasting Ivermectin the same way lamestream media (such as his old employer NYT) were busy doing.
(As a consequence, I can't comment on his Substack ever since. And he has never - to my knowledge - addressed the undeniable and well-documented facts about how Ivermectin works and how safe it is.)
That this NZZ and others continue to this day to be willfully ignorant despite all documentation needed being just a few web-searches away speaks volumes about them.
I'm not surprised at-all; my quip was mainly about: why do these people bring it up this late in the game? I mean, it's all over in terms of no-one believes that BS anymore, even the CDC had to concede this point--all it is: inside baseball for the faithful.
(I stopped reading Berenson's stuff about the time he went on the offensive vs. Ivermectin: it made no sense, but then again, who knows why he did so, but at least he no longer--I think--spouts that kind of nonsense?)
Berenson's retreated to the Scott Adam's-position: people were right for the wrong reason, and any contradicting evidence is ignored. It is very revealing that while Berenson may be on the out with the NYT-crowd, he has in no way moderated or changed his actual stance on any of the woke-liberal-progressive issues he used to argue for when he was still on-staff.
On balance, I'd say he is angling for becoming the Mainstream-approved alternative voice; i.e. not actually an alternative to the mainstream at all.
Well, given the quite big influence he had, why wouldn't he do so to ensure his continued relevance?
Your second paragraph is telling: I'm suspecting that a good chunk of 'alt-media' is simply a kind of psy-op/attempt to channel some people into weird rabbit holes by 'flooding the zone' with so much BS that, should any of the 'alt-media journos' say something relevant, the knee-jerk reaction will be, 'oh, he's with that outlet'.
All of this madness rides on top of some critical number of brainwashed people. Seemingly mad politicians will not change while their “madness” is handsomely rewarded from the imperial center. Destruction of Europe (and the West in general) of nation-states must continue unimpeded. They will use all means necessary to achieve their strategic goals, from weather warfare, to food, economy, hot wars,…, whatever it takes to achieve those goals. They will not allow “democracy” to gum up their plans. Only an united revolt across the political spectrum can save us; as long as they can slice and dice us, we will surely lose.
There won't be an uprising of the kind you imagine, I'm afraid.
The best we can do, I think, is retrenchment to certain more socio-culturally (and ethnically) coherent, a bit like the Amish in the US.
NATO is toast, it's a Zombie institution: the moment anyone pushes against it, it's done as Art. 5 is an empty letter (no-one will push NATO, though, because the US will immediately go nuclear).
The illusion of voting etc., as Frank Zappa insightfully pointed out decades ago, will continue until it no longer serves a purpose and/or becomes too costly: we're almost 'there', because if the US goes 'MAGA', the risk of 'occupational hazards' for the globalists becomes too big.
I allude to "united revolt" because that is the only thing that could succeed not because I believe it is likely to happen. I think the whole thing is slated for destruction, NATO and all, but I don't see that as the beginning of our liberation because the culprits will remain in charge, even of a severely diminished realm. I don't believe they would allow us to live a detached Amish-like existence simply because they'd view anything like that as a major threat to their existence. Once they had embarked on the population reduction train they can never stop. Even if we were to survive in isolated pockets we would still be regularly hunted down. We can never live harmoniously with those who wish us dead!
Although I believe we are no longer capable of a significant revolt, I'd like for all those who survive to drop all delusions that they will ever be able to live harmoniously with their killers, either. I only wish we were a bit wiser to better assess our current situation. It could have spared us much future suffering.
I don't know how much longer they can sustain the "democracy" scam (sometime I believe we are nearer the end of it than we can imagine) but as soon as it becomes too costly to sustain it, out it goes in a fashion similar to the one described by Zappa. All pretense will be dropped and we will smoothly transition into a totalitarian dystopia. The vast majority will have been prepped for it (just look around you now) and a critical mass will welcome it. Enjoy what we got for the short time we have.
I think the discrepancy is bigger in the imperial centre (not that the US would be a monolithic thing) vs. the vassalised peripheries (esp. the smaller countries that actually still need to 'balance their books' and the like).
In the latter, it's (still) necessary to keep up the illusion a wee bit longer, if only because the powers-that-be in these smaller vassal states depend on the centre to such an extreme.
As to your middle paragraph, my gut feeling is that you're right: every debt-free, property-owning individual is a threat to the collectivist tyrants--and he or she is a threat by virtue of existing because it proves the collectivist tyrants wrong.
Okay, I got to this quote: "And precisely because the measures worked." And then I had to stop and comment. The measures "worked"?? Damn. We all got the stupid virus anyway. That much was inevitable as soon as the thing was all over Wuhan. And the thing that finally "stopped COVID" (ahem) was the war in Ukraine. Who reads these people???
Well, it's obvious that these musings are read by more people than the number of believers. I mean, it's early October 2024 and Ms. Baumann still (!) invokes the 'horse dewormer' trope, thereby virtue-signalling to everyone inside her Branch Covidian tribe she's one of them.
In my professional line of work (history, sic), scholars mused that, 200 years ago, that there were 10 listeners to any one reader of 'the news'. We don't really have evidence, let alone data, to back this up, but, for the sake of the argument, I suppose that the ratio of believers vs. people who prefer reality may be not as starkly different from 1 : 10.
Don't be too surprised by the Ivermectin-denialism and revisionism among journalists. Several of have been e-mailed information about the UN/Pan-African project (which I think has been ongoing since 1995) where Ivermectin was produced and distributed as locally as possible, to as low cost as possible, to hundreds of millions of Africans for the duration, to be used as a profylactic against Onchocerciasis (river blindness, though obviously Ivermectin works against all kinds of infections).
I mentioned it, with links to official sources including the WHO to Alex Berenson on his Substack some two years or so ago, when he had been beclowning himself by lambasting Ivermectin the same way lamestream media (such as his old employer NYT) were busy doing.
(As a consequence, I can't comment on his Substack ever since. And he has never - to my knowledge - addressed the undeniable and well-documented facts about how Ivermectin works and how safe it is.)
That this NZZ and others continue to this day to be willfully ignorant despite all documentation needed being just a few web-searches away speaks volumes about them.
I'm not surprised at-all; my quip was mainly about: why do these people bring it up this late in the game? I mean, it's all over in terms of no-one believes that BS anymore, even the CDC had to concede this point--all it is: inside baseball for the faithful.
(I stopped reading Berenson's stuff about the time he went on the offensive vs. Ivermectin: it made no sense, but then again, who knows why he did so, but at least he no longer--I think--spouts that kind of nonsense?)
Berenson's retreated to the Scott Adam's-position: people were right for the wrong reason, and any contradicting evidence is ignored. It is very revealing that while Berenson may be on the out with the NYT-crowd, he has in no way moderated or changed his actual stance on any of the woke-liberal-progressive issues he used to argue for when he was still on-staff.
On balance, I'd say he is angling for becoming the Mainstream-approved alternative voice; i.e. not actually an alternative to the mainstream at all.
A Judas-goat, in other words.
Well, given the quite big influence he had, why wouldn't he do so to ensure his continued relevance?
Your second paragraph is telling: I'm suspecting that a good chunk of 'alt-media' is simply a kind of psy-op/attempt to channel some people into weird rabbit holes by 'flooding the zone' with so much BS that, should any of the 'alt-media journos' say something relevant, the knee-jerk reaction will be, 'oh, he's with that outlet'.
All of this madness rides on top of some critical number of brainwashed people. Seemingly mad politicians will not change while their “madness” is handsomely rewarded from the imperial center. Destruction of Europe (and the West in general) of nation-states must continue unimpeded. They will use all means necessary to achieve their strategic goals, from weather warfare, to food, economy, hot wars,…, whatever it takes to achieve those goals. They will not allow “democracy” to gum up their plans. Only an united revolt across the political spectrum can save us; as long as they can slice and dice us, we will surely lose.
There won't be an uprising of the kind you imagine, I'm afraid.
The best we can do, I think, is retrenchment to certain more socio-culturally (and ethnically) coherent, a bit like the Amish in the US.
NATO is toast, it's a Zombie institution: the moment anyone pushes against it, it's done as Art. 5 is an empty letter (no-one will push NATO, though, because the US will immediately go nuclear).
The illusion of voting etc., as Frank Zappa insightfully pointed out decades ago, will continue until it no longer serves a purpose and/or becomes too costly: we're almost 'there', because if the US goes 'MAGA', the risk of 'occupational hazards' for the globalists becomes too big.
I allude to "united revolt" because that is the only thing that could succeed not because I believe it is likely to happen. I think the whole thing is slated for destruction, NATO and all, but I don't see that as the beginning of our liberation because the culprits will remain in charge, even of a severely diminished realm. I don't believe they would allow us to live a detached Amish-like existence simply because they'd view anything like that as a major threat to their existence. Once they had embarked on the population reduction train they can never stop. Even if we were to survive in isolated pockets we would still be regularly hunted down. We can never live harmoniously with those who wish us dead!
Although I believe we are no longer capable of a significant revolt, I'd like for all those who survive to drop all delusions that they will ever be able to live harmoniously with their killers, either. I only wish we were a bit wiser to better assess our current situation. It could have spared us much future suffering.
I don't know how much longer they can sustain the "democracy" scam (sometime I believe we are nearer the end of it than we can imagine) but as soon as it becomes too costly to sustain it, out it goes in a fashion similar to the one described by Zappa. All pretense will be dropped and we will smoothly transition into a totalitarian dystopia. The vast majority will have been prepped for it (just look around you now) and a critical mass will welcome it. Enjoy what we got for the short time we have.
I think the discrepancy is bigger in the imperial centre (not that the US would be a monolithic thing) vs. the vassalised peripheries (esp. the smaller countries that actually still need to 'balance their books' and the like).
In the latter, it's (still) necessary to keep up the illusion a wee bit longer, if only because the powers-that-be in these smaller vassal states depend on the centre to such an extreme.
As to your middle paragraph, my gut feeling is that you're right: every debt-free, property-owning individual is a threat to the collectivist tyrants--and he or she is a threat by virtue of existing because it proves the collectivist tyrants wrong.
Austro-Covidian Uniparty™
You do not even need to show me a photo of these people. I know exactly what they look like.
No worries, I won't show images--they are quite disgusting as well as the way you put it: they all look and act alike.
I showed an image of one in my article about France - these 'no pasaran' people.
https://vicparkpetition.substack.com/p/young-frenchman-speaks-there-is-no
Very interesting, thanks for the link!
Okay, I got to this quote: "And precisely because the measures worked." And then I had to stop and comment. The measures "worked"?? Damn. We all got the stupid virus anyway. That much was inevitable as soon as the thing was all over Wuhan. And the thing that finally "stopped COVID" (ahem) was the war in Ukraine. Who reads these people???
Well, it's obvious that these musings are read by more people than the number of believers. I mean, it's early October 2024 and Ms. Baumann still (!) invokes the 'horse dewormer' trope, thereby virtue-signalling to everyone inside her Branch Covidian tribe she's one of them.
In my professional line of work (history, sic), scholars mused that, 200 years ago, that there were 10 listeners to any one reader of 'the news'. We don't really have evidence, let alone data, to back this up, but, for the sake of the argument, I suppose that the ratio of believers vs. people who prefer reality may be not as starkly different from 1 : 10.