the modern green movement is mostly a luddite evangelical sect seeking to atone for some imagined fall from paradise through self-mortification and faux asceticism
they use performative deprivation and obedience to cement belief in place through a process of cognitive dissonance
they fail to address the real issues (like ag paying for water rights or using nuclear power)
the point of these petty intrusions is not to change anything. they are rounding errors.
the point is to be intrusive, to be annoying.
the point is to compel your participation
the act of participation serves as indoctrination
your mind seeks cognitive harmony and when it asks "why did i do this annoying thing?" it must have an answer.
and the answer it gins up is "because this is important!" because the only other answer is "i'm a dope."
social pressure is used to initiate this and ongoing performance used to cement it in place
your kids come home from school braying about plastic straws @ restaurants & legislators ban them
this has 0 measurable effect on the world but huge effect on society: it instills belief
we can argue if this is planned or an emergent property of people being people, but the outcome is the same:
the bigger issues like "hey let's use less packaging" are left unaddressed because they do not trigger this effect.
so the whole movement winds up backwards
the denizens of the people's republic of california are told to shower quickly, let lawns die, & snitch on their neighbors for the antisocial crime of car washing
meanwhile, a zillion gallons of water given away for near nothing to let famers grow alfalfa and cotton in a desert.
modern greens push visible but useless and unserious goals
they champion energy sources that do not work & resist those that do because the point is not to thrive:
the point is to weave endless hair-shirts to intensify alliance to the secular religion of watermelondom
realizing this is half the battle
they do not want to fix anything or to see humans flourish
they want to see societies fail and are experiencing deprivation as validation
this is why they are mostly so miserable as people
decline their invitation to join them
it's a trap
i am not anti-ecology.
i like open spaces and clean air and water.
there are many real environmental issues in the world.
but this nonsense is sucking all the air out of the room and leaving them unaddressed.
it's not the solution.
it's barrier to finding one.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
people love to trot out the old chestnut of "we did the best we could with the information we had" around covid vaccines.
the more extreme examples claim "you could not have known, you just got lucky!"
both are risibly false.
people ask: "how did you know not to take or trust the covid jab?"
here's how: (and how to spot similar in the future)
1. you could tell from the pfizer trial design that the "covid vaccine" was not assessed as a vaccine. it was never tested on spread, infection, transmission, or sterilizing immunity. at best, the trials could have shown it to be a therapeutic. even that was deeply /sus and the sudden enrollment in sites in argentina run by a doctor with a history of fraud did not reassure. neither did the all cause deaths data in the study.
2. the messaging about the covid vaccine "this will be a dead end for the virus! if you get the vaccine, you will not get covid, you will not spread covid" was obviously not supported by any clinical data.
it was a made up claim to make getting the shot look like a moral duty. it was marketing, not science.
3. this marketing was NEVER plausible. vaccines are not magic, they simply train your immune system to recognize a pathogen. if you do not develop durable immunity from exposure to live disease, a vaccine is not going to impart it either.
it's amazing that people are still out peddling this obviously inaccurate data. rig your studies all you like, covid vaccines did not reduce cases, deaths, or hospitalization. they made them worse.
all these slanted studies fly in the face of the overall data. for this to be correct, covid vaccines would need to reduce hospitalization risk by ~92%. that's incredibly high efficacy. efficacy like that would create a massive, unmistakable signal in the data with populations that were 70-99% vaccinated. the curves would bend so hard that anyone could eyeball it. it would be air horn during vatican vespers unmissable.
but it's not there. not only is this signal absent, it's inverted.
let's take some obvious examples in the high risk high vaxxed populations:
i chose the top states in the US by vaxx rate and looked at 65+, the high risk high vaxx group.
95% vaxxed. hospitalizations and all cause mortality both rose post vaccine despite a less dangerous covid variant. if this were 92% effective, the 5% unvaxxed would have had to see their hospitalization rates rise 18 fold just to stay flat. and we KNOW that did not happen.
this signal is not isolated. we see the same thing in maine, rhode island, massachusetts, connecticut. this is obviously the modal outcome.
more here:
in fact, the highest vaxxed states in the US saw the worst rises in hospitalization rates while the lowest saw far less. vaxx is, at a societal level, associated with more, not less hospitalization and death.
one could, i suppose, try to argue causality, but the timing is highly provocative and again, if efficacy is 90% signal should be strongly opposite to that which is observed.
this same was true of all search engines i tried. it's not just google.
i suspect this is an artifact of something deeper like "media refusing to use these words" or some more generalized manipulation.
literally in the time i was doing the analysis, luxxle caught up perhaps because this issue is going viral on X.
but the others had not as of this writing.
i suspect this may have more to do with this than with something google specific:
even once this avalanche of absurdist headlines was replaced by ones that bore at least marginally more resemblance to reality, the words “assassination attempt on” appear basically nowhere.