I was hoping to see something that would help explain why things are going so crazy, but once again, the people who are supposed to be able to explain don’t explain anything very useful at all. I mean, you talk about ideology and then go on to do some slight tweak of the talking points of mainstream media and politics. Like, the vaccine is somehow connected to the historical experience of black people. Again, the vaccine. Again, the history of black people.
It’s a while ago that I reached the conclusion that if politicians and mainstream media talk about a general subject, that general subject is probably a distraction. That the real issues are probably things they don’t talk about at all. Not always. A pandemic is a real issue. It also should be a no-brainer, it isn’t as if infectious disease hasn’t been well understood for decades. The only reason it’s controversial is because it has been made controversial.
Probably to avoid talking about the elephant in the room: Modern civilization is falling, and can’t be saved. And the very fact that it’s possible to have a serious controversy about vaccination is blatant proof that this is true. No healthy society would have a major controversy about vaccination. There wasn’t one on previous vaccination drives for other infectious diseases, because society was reasonably healthy and capable of dealing with the risks in a rational way.
This interview talks about the status quo. Let’s face it: the status quo is a result of people in positions of leadership trying to coordinate the efforts of others, and it’s always a case of herding cats. You have to convince people one way or another to do things together, instead of doing each of them their own thing. But the ideal level of coordination isn’t a fixed quantity. It depends on the amount of resources available, and on the structure of the group we are dealing with. Problem is, the whole planet is running out of many resources, while the structure of society can’t be changed all that fast, short of major upheavals (wars, revolutions and very major crises). So, craziness.
Throw faith into the mix, which I freely admit I understand very little of, and the result appears to be that the symptoms give very little clue about what the underlying disease is.
So, in practice, what can you do? Essentially, you have two options:
-
Try to introduce some fast changes in society, to the extent that you are able. This is risky business, so I’m not even going to make any specific suggestions. Be well aware that it could go horribly wrong.
-
Decide that you aren’t willing or able to take that risk, and prepare for everything to fall apart. This is, I think, very much the philosophy of this site. But it then becomes a question of how to best prepare. And it’s very clear that in practice, the question of how to best prepare has become itself controversial. Or we wouldn’t be seeing this sort of content in sites like this one. How you dare not to try to save everyone? I think prepper sites are being enlisted to the job of trying to save everyone, to the detriment of their stated mission on trying to save what’s possible to save.
This is how I dare not to save everyone: Because I know I haven’t been listened to this far. I tried, I failed. I know what my estimates are. I know I don’t have any credibility. I know nobody is interested in what I have to say or giving me any information that would improve my work.
So it must be time for the lifeboats, I reckon.