David Profile picture
23 Nov, 89 tweets, 14 min read
I didn't, but I'm tempted to ask people getting the booster and now feeling knocked out for a day if they're going to do this every 6 months for the rest of their lives now. Because no one is saying the "booster" is going to last longer than 6 months.
Maaaaybe it's an out so they can sorta phase out the policies and let things get "back to normal" without admitting colossal failure... but it's just very hard to believe there isn't some meta-agenda that is not really based in health NOR addressing covid-19.
There's really no solid evidence for thinking that covid-19 is the primary purpose of policies AND policy makers are competent.

Look at the price tag and combine the cost in dollars with cost in time lost etc... is it worth it?
Only way is through some meta-agenda like 'we need to put everyone on the grid where govt has total control of everyone's lives at all times'.

This COULD be an effective argument, but it relies on having a trustworthy gov't and for most people the gov't doesn't qualify. So no.
So what are we left with? Seems like something very very bad at an enormous scale.

What if we really were invaded by a foreign power? What if they took over from the inside? What if we didn't really know who was working for who?
These are difficult questions. Especially when you recognize at a certain point that just having the information is not necessarily so comforting.
In academia, we're trained to believe that information is a solution. What's the problem? It's some question that has some answer. When you answer it, you have solved the problem.

Well, that's not how all things work in life.
The news cycle has us thinking it's all about information. What's NEW in the world of information? What are the new developments in words?

This is much different than building up some strength, deconstructing some rot, building relationships...
At the end of the day, what will "the truth" about covid get anyone? I don't want to discourage finding a cure for covid, but would finding a cure for covid even do anything?

Children realistically might have an actual 0% death rate from covid. That's not enough.
So who cares about a cure? Children are already "cured". But that's not enough to keep them out of masks, allow them to play, allow them to live without being injected...

And to those concerned about kids spreading covid... then you could get them tested.
Over the last 2 years grandparents have died and did not get to spend time with their grandkids many of which simply because they did not test the kids or recognize how low the risk is. They just figured meeting in person was too risky... then time marched on and they died.
People could have lived "normal"-ish lives where they just did more testing and had more discernment about who they are close with if they're concerned about covid and others could have chosen their own paths as well.
People could have volunteered/been paid to live totally normally and be tracked to see how the disease really spreads.

But no, that would be "too dangerous"??? No, that would simply be counter to some semi-secret agenda that is not about covid-19.
And again, the question is, do we or should we have faith in Fauci or the executive branch of the US gov't or the CDC or any of the health agencies or whatever from top down?

And everyone hates it when you say you don't trust some huge entity because you're bringing fear.
They don't want to hear that barbarians are at the gates or that we have been infiltrated or that the sky is falling or whatever.

And that's fine - if they want to be cattle.
If we want to be citizens, we must be engaged in dealing with the real threats our civilization experiences or could experience.

Without people being willing to do this, we will be taken over.

Is there any question of this?
There are global cartels engaged in sex trafficking, kidnapping, extortion, blackmail, assassination, murder etc... and they're intent on survival and growth.

There are foreign powers that perhaps operate more ethically but too are intent on survival and growth.
There are foreign powers that are sworn to defeat us. They see us as enemies. Perhaps because WE as a nation swore to defeat them as well. Perhaps because WE as a nation attacked them. Bombed them. Killed their children assassinated their leaders etc... etc...

It's complicated.
But it's clear. We don't just live in some utopia where all men live as brothers and want nothing but the best for everyone kumbaya.

Even without radical extremists, there are simply profit-motivated businesses whose methods incidentally kill a lot of people.
Our great philanthropists may also believe the world would be better with much fewer people... so their "goodwill" is only extended to a small fraction of those living, while they work to cut a viable future for the majority of mankind.
It's a VERY difficult idea to have out in the open that it would be good if the majority of people would not reproduce. It's not palatable. It's not something that can be delivered with "informed consent" and yet that's an overt motivation of our "top doctor without an md".
Decreasing the native US population while opening borders to unvetted parties couldn't be more profoundly and overtly anti American... and yet we either have such an ignorant population or such a muddled/divided political system that somehow this is "our" policy.
I believe that at the core of "health" is fertility and capacity raise healthy children into healthy adults that can then do the same. This is a fundamental standard of sustainability to judge a whole lot of policies.

But our "top doctor" wants to decrease fertility.
He appears to treat general decreases in fertility as something to judge as a default positive.

In most circumstances, this would be a curse.
How far is "You will die childless and alone" from "You will own nothing and be happy"?
We need to judge policies within some framework or context.

If the lead proponent of an extremely far-reaching policy (life restrictions supposedly tied to covid cases) believes that the world would be a better place if the population stabilized then started to drop...
Then you should think about their agenda with that in mind, and not make the mistake of assuming they had goals that were basically in line with "normal" people.

Normal people want to have some economic success, and have a family and they want their family to have families.
The people at the helm of these covid policies may OVERTLY be in opposition to families. Just straight up "we oppose you having children, we oppose your children having children" <--- that's their position.
Imagine someone whose DEFAULT reaction to hearing women are not having children is "wow that's great".

Now consider that person having carte blanche to determine health policy.

Now consider "health" policy including effective sterilization for years.
Do you want that person teaching your kids? Do you want them in charge of the media and games they consume? Do you want them picking the food they eat? The activities they engage in?
Imagine a person saying directly to your face, "I hope your kids grow up to die childless" and then saying "Hi, I'm your kid's pediatrician." Or, "Hi, I'm your kid's school teacher or college professor". Or, "Hi, I have the highest authority to direct health policy for the USA".
You should find this absolutely vile. You should consider yourself under attack. You should think there's some kind of war.

But it's not to say the world is so dark and bad.

Because there are also people that would say they would love for you to have a health family.
There are people that recognize the importance of not only their own family's success but the success of their friends and communities families... or that go beyond and recognize family as a basic need and aim for actualization and that government policy must have that in mind.
Covid policy could have started with much more of a "family bubble" approach. Take care of your family. Build trust with your family. Contact trace, share health data, talk openly. Find out what's going on. Make decisions collectively or at least share your decisions internally.
Family first, Fauci second. (or F* Off Fauci, it's family first).

Where is government meant to be in our priorities? God, Self, Family, Community, Government? God, Family, Self, Community, Government? Self as family? Family as self?
Now it's difficult because it's science! We can't just make decisions for ourselves we need labs and phd's and so on. Well, I say no. I think that we must protect the rights of people to decline medical intervention.
I think it's fine to keep contagious/sick people out of certain places, but people should be allowed to live without being forced to engage in medical processes they disagree with or don't understand.

But what difference does what I think matter?
Let's say I think you should be injected with whatever whenever our head doctor says so, then what? What if he has not only an M.D. but what if the government makes a new license called I.M.D. for Infallible Medical Degree? Like the Pope. Then what?
He can do no wrong! If you deny him you are a heretic and it's YOU who is doing wrong! Easy peasy!

How can we judge it?
Numbers and science and analysis are so difficult. It's not just some straightforward question of what saves more lives. We don't know. Yet we must act. We must make decisions.
What's it gonna be? There are entire countries with people that aren't vaccinating. Are they to be invaded? Are they to never be allowed to enter our borders? Are we going to put all humans on a database to track everything always? (Is that inevitable anyhow)?
Who determines these policies?

If anything, perhaps, the most important thing is that the people determining policy both have our best interest in mind AND are capable.
Being very capable and having antagonistic interests is not very appealing by the way. You shouldn't be thrilled about having a "eugenicist" doctor when your genes are the ones to be culled.

Nor should you be thrilled if they serve a foreign interest.
That's a rough one. What if there was a certain extremely powerful nation pushing these policies? Because it was WAR not "health".

Honestly, how can anyone think the US gov't has a legitimate interest in public health?

LOOK AT US (obesity/sedentary related illness).
Look at USDA promoted recipes with entire cups of sugar and white flour. They're not bringing "their best". They're not trying to produce health.

Look at the fertility rates...

If they're optimizing for anything, it's not health - unless it's some "massive surgical operation".
Where they want to remove some huge amount of the population... and thus they are inherently anti-family.

Their default is anti-family.
Their philosophy and operating principles literally could be "there's no greater threat than freedom and population growth". So if something decrease freedom for the masses and decrease population growth... it's default good in their eyes.
Seen in that lens, so many things make sense. The racial division, the pronouns, the anti-male, the abortions are great, the social distancing, the alienation from nature, the criminalization of intuition and instinct...
And now your kids or your friends' kids wear masks. Their breathing is worse, their communication is worse, their lives are worse, and what is it setting up besides compliance to a policy built by an anti-family anti-child agenda?
Where's the evidence that the government is pro-family? Even if you could provide some press releases or initiatives... if the fact is that there are less families, lower fertility rates, higher average age for first births... then the government is effectively anti family.
If the government is anti-family, then what is it pro? Whose interests does it serve?

Is there some higher ideal than family? Does the government appear to serve God? Does the government appear to truly serve the individual? Does the government appear to truly serve community?
For whatever degree it's a runaway train of kleptocracy or incompetence or intentional malfeasance OR it's part of some "wise" philosophers making the "tough" decision to prevent life for so many people perhaps will never be fully known to us.

So we should not rely on that.
We should not rely on long chains of bureaucracy and authority in order to determine whether we can hug our children or let them play indoors or whatever.

If people want to isolate your children from mine, by all means.
But if they want to hamper my kids' breathing? Forcibly inject a substance which they either are lying about its effects or are ignorant about them... then those people will be treated with that in mind.
My blood is boiling and I refuse to be governed by cowards, morons, psychopaths, thieves, or mad scientists. Or the people "just following orders".
It seems that every single statement and policy has been based on lies. Masks don't work. 2 weeks to stop the spread/flatten the curve? 2 masks is best. 60% vaccines so we can have a bbq? 80% then maybe pizza party? 90%+ now Ppl aren't ready for my true agenda yet so ____?
Mass protests/riots/murders/arsons b/c some tweaker that was resisting arrest died are totally fine b/c racism is worse than covid or something?

Look. Obviously we're not gonna get straight shooting.
Your enemy is not bound by their duty to shoot straight. Their duty is to crush you. Ignore that at your peril.

Think that your enemy is a blubbering senile old man at your peril.
That all being said, I imagine the orchestrators of these policies do enjoy order. I think it's a mistake to get lost in dystopian visions like the matrix or black mirror or dark city or 1984 or whatever. I imagine there are some competing forces and some have "normal" values.
Some must believe in a just or merciful God. Some must believe in some framework of ethics or pragmatic utilitarianism that allows for change and newer better ways to get things done that involve less pain and more gain for more people.
Additionally, much of this problem is simply because people are negotiating for what's already theirs instead of just living life and refusing to be hindered and making the others escalate while building networks, building strength, building resilience, building resolve.
I imagine if more people were overt about being willing to kill to protect their families, less families would be threatened. But there are foundational instabilities for so many people. They don't truly own their homes and even if they did their homes don't provide sustenance.
If we rely on amazon or google or whatever for food and communication... then what?

In a sense, we could spin this as a very positive context. We have an opportunity to build strong networks with people of similar values.

We have an opportunity to determine what our values are.
But we need to have good information and good basic analysis. "everyone" might say they want to keep their families safe, but some think the policies are so wrong and others think they are so right.

What to do then?
If most people are going to be followers, then I think there needs to be some kind of organization worth following.
People at least should have a way of pushing out bad info and bad actors from their own info space.

So many of us believe gov't/media/corporations have harmful effects on us but we still consume their works daily as though we'll be able to digest them without harm.
Perhaps that's the greatest solution we can find at the moment. They can have dr. Fauci, we can have our local doctor. They can have Bill Gates, we can have our local plumber to keep connected to what matters. They can have the USDA, we can make hay.
REMEMBER that when in an informational war, GOOD information is being hidden from you.

It's not simply a situation where everything is bad and you're being attacked and the "BAD" truth about the "evil" is hidden.

The GOOD TRUTH is hidden.
The GOOD truths are obscured and obstructed. Made to seem wrong.

Consider what if over the past two years nearly no one was worried about covid affecting children? What if kids could see their grandparents fearlessly and grandparents unafraid of their kids?
What if the only group really afraid was the already sick that was getting itself exposed, while vulnerable, to other people that were sick and actually obviously sick too?
What if people took the opportunity to learn more about how to be healthier? More to pay attention to symptoms? More to make decisions based on what will make them healthier?

That would look a whole lot different than Warren Willard Jr. slurping down a hamburger and fries.
Stay home everyone. There's a fries component! When you think vaccines think french fries.

Imagine if people took personal responsibility instead of submission to untrustworthy authority?
Would that happen? Honestly, what would happen if the government just said, look "here's what we know, here's what we don't. Please do your best to stay away from others if you're sick. Be mindful of the company you keep. Take better care of yourself"
"We can't be your parents. We can't force you to eat well or to exercise or to sleep. We can however help you access these things more efficiently and effectively. We can provide good information".
IRONICALLY the biggest proponents of government. The people that love snopes dot com and de-boonking are the same ones that will ALWAYS tell you the government is too incompetent to do anything and will think they're so sharp because they invoke Hanlon's razor all the time.
Well you shouldn't take incompetence going in the wrong direction and then simply multiply its momentum.

The straight forward analysis of govt policy on health is incompetent/hyper-corrupt/hidden agenda. Basically bad/bad/possibly more horrific than anything you can imagine.
Like seriously. The policy could actually be controlled by an ACTUAL foreign power that wants to kill every single individual capable of fighting back that it can.
It is an absolute MUST to have extreme levels of defense against this possibility when you are going to penetrate every vein of every citizen and fill it with unknown substances.

How can we do that? Just trust a handful of government officials and corporate heads?
A blink ago our government was "installed by a foreign dictator" then we just had a "free election" and "chose" to be ruled by a mumbling moron. What gives? Trust that?
Extreme skepticism and cynicism is reasonable. But it should be married to interest in self actualization and ethics.

Do not make the mistake of thinking you are absolved of sin because you can point to a greater sinner.
And certainly do not make the mistake of thinking that pointing out a harmful phenomena is enough to make things better.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that something is in your way when it is not.
Nothing but you can stop you from choosing ethics or morals over convenience or cowardice.

People are making choices.
It's hard. When people are desperate they will take "bad" choices. Enough poverty and murky vision of future and plenty of people will join a gang or commit crime for money.

How many people complied with policies they disagreed with out of financial fear or otherwise?
Is it our responsibility to give them jobs? Perhaps not, but if we don't work to create some kind of social structure then what should we expect?

Just because we don't want to be in a war, doesn't mean we're not in a war.
But we're not in a war. Shots are not fired so often. People aren't wearing uniforms. Borders are not clear.

But one thing is clear, that if you're on most social media, you're on some kind of thin ice.
Massive followings and networks get deleted. Just today I was reminded who owns linkedin. Who owns github. Who owns gmail? Etc...

Should we be satisfied with our communication through these platforms?
At the bare minimum we should start gathering means to back up our communication. Multiple apps, burner accounts, ways to access networks without having an account, etc...

We should be putting in work to develop our networks.
I've got some things in the works. Could use help. User testing, feedback, reminding me to keep building.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with David

David Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!