The Worst Pandemic that Never Happened

COVID-19 was sold to us as the worst pandemic since the 1918 Spanish Flu, which killed an estimated 50 million people worldwide and caused 675,000 deaths in the United States.  On March 16, 2020, the Imperial College London (ICL) predicted that an unmitigated epidemic would cause 2.2 million deaths in the US alone.  Adding, even in the best-case scenario, with extreme mitigation and treatment, 1.1 to 1.2 million Americans would still die.  Gabriel Leung, chair of public health medicine at Hong Kong University, said that COVID-19 could infect 60 percent of the world’s population and kill 1 in 10 of those infected -- killing 50 million people worldwide.

These dire warnings inevitably snowballed and created widespread fear and pandemonium.  Panicked shoppers stocked up toilet paper, hand sanitizer, and other goods creating a supply shortage.  The media predictably jumped on the bandwagon with their nonstop media coverage.  Governors and mayors, in turn, responded by enacting extreme quarantine and social distancing policies effectively shutting down the US economy.  This same scenario played out all over the globe causing the greatest viral panic the world has ever seen.  However, it didn’t take long for the initial projected deaths to become revised:

On March 29, 2020, NIAID director and White House advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci lowered initial estimates to between 100,000 and 200,000 American deaths.  

On April 8, 2020, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) revised their estimates from 94,000 deaths to 60,400 deaths, a decline of 26 percent.

April 9, 2020, Dr. Fauci said the final toll currently looked more like 60,000 deaths rather than 100,000 to 200,000 deaths.  Incidentally, an article co-authored by Dr. Fauci had predicted that COVID-19 “may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza.”

In less than a month the estimates were revised from 2 million to 60,000 deaths.  Currently, there are 21,993 deaths in the US as a result of COVID-19.  No doubt that number will increase before this is over, but it has yet to compare with a bad flu season.  For instance, according to the CDC 61,000 Americans died during the 2017/2018 flu season.  There were no mass quarantines, stay-at-home orders, or economic shutdowns when that happened just two years ago.

According to Dr. Fauci, the models were revised down because social distancing has been effective, but how can we know that for sure?  There’s a certain degree of plausible deniability involved no matter the outcome.  If the initial estimates were correct then the experts can say “See, we told you so.”  And if the initial estimates were wrong the experts can say “See, we saved you!”  In other words, even if they’re wrong, they’re still right.

It appears unlikely that even with extreme social distancing measures the initial estimates could be lowered so drastically within such a short period of time.  Especially considering many of the models did factor in some degree of social distancing.  Regardless, how do we account for countries like Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Iceland, and Sweden among others?  These countries are dealing with COVID-19 without taking the same extreme social distancing measures, and they haven’t experienced exorbitant death tolls as a result.  Taiwan, for example, currently has had 388 cases of COVID-19 and only 6 deaths.

There are several things we must reevaluate in light of current events.  The first is the blind faith we put in computer models.  Models are not crystal balls, they can’t predict the future with any degree certainty.  They are designed to persuade and change behavior, and that is exactly what they have done.  Second, we should reevaluate the faith we put in the “experts”.  Experts are good at what they do, but it also makes them prone to tunnel vision.  They see problems and solutions only as it relates to their field of expertise. The experts do not take into consideration the social or economic ramifications of their recommendations, and are often unable to relate to life outside their own narrow field of specialization.  Expert advice must be balanced with the real world and the people that live in it.

Finally, we need to reevaluate if these drastic measures were warranted in the first place.  We’ve had pandemics before, such as SARS in 2003 and H1N1 in 2008, but we’ve never taken these kinds of actions before.  Not even during the Spanish Flu were such actions taken.  Yes, they had quarantines and partial economic shutdowns due to labor shortages, but not a nation-wide economic shutdown like we are experiencing now.  The actions we are taking are unprecedented and we don’t fully know the extent, especially to the economy.

The economy is our life-blood. There is never a good reason to shut down the entire economy because if we lose the economy we lose everything.  If that happens a pandemic may be the least of our problems.  A depression would cause untold misery, unemployment, and food shortages.  In addition, if the economy goes so goes our healthcare system, leaving us in a worse position if we need to battle another pandemic.  As President Trump said, "We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself."

At the time of this writing, there are approximately 113,902 deaths globally as a result of COVID-19.  While a single death is still a tragedy, it must also be put into perspective.  Seasonal flu kills an estimated 291,000 to 646,000 people worldwide each year.  The H1N1 pandemic killed 151,700 to 575,400 people globally.  In comparison, COVID-19 is shaping up to be the worst pandemic that never happened. However, the consequences of our actions will have long-lasting repercussions.  It may take us years if not decades to fully recover from it.

How sexual revolution exploded (and imploded) across 1920s Russia

Travesti parties, Vladimir Lenin advocating sexual freedom, nudist anarchists aboard trams, a nude beach near the cathedral of Christ the Savior… such was Russian life at the beginning of the Soviet state. What could possibly go wrong?

“Stark naked people wearing armbands reading “Down With Shame!” have recently appeared in Moscow. A group was seen boarding a tram. The tram stopped, the public was outraged,” Mikhail Bulgakov, the famous Russian writer, wrote in his diary in 1924. Just 15 years prior to that, women could not think of going out in a knee-long dress. But did these changes happen overnight?

Pre-revolutionary Russian society, especially in the capitals, was not puritanical in nature. An anonymous soldier born at the end of 19th century recalls (link in Russian): “at 10, I had already been exposed to all kinds of lewd behaviour… Pornographic pictures were not exactly a rarity.”

Cross-dressing, travesti and gay parties were popular in artistic circles, with even a certain few noblemen having been known for being gay. Party life, often involving multiple partners, was a regular pastime for some. However, male homosexuality was a criminal offense… until Bolsheviks came onto the scene.

‘Glass of water’ – fake theory? 

 

Ideologically, sexual liberation was one of the key weapons in fighting Orthodoxy, and the old order in general. Among early Bolsheviks, the key propagandist of a new family order was Alexandra Kollontai, Russian revolutionary and later, a diplomat. There’s a popular theory often attributed to Kollontai – that of the ‘glass of water.’ It states that love (and consequently, sex) should be available to anyone as easily as asking for a glass of water. This, however, is a gross oversimplification of Kollontai’s idea. 

 

Kollontai promoted a concept of the ‘new woman’ – one freed from the oppression of marriage, household work and the business of  raising children; all these chores must be taken on by society and state. They would take on children’s education (including sexual), urge a move toward a nationwide catering industry, collective housing, foster care and so on. For Kollontai, love was to be freed, too – civil partnership would take the place of traditional marriage.

Obviously, Bolsheviks were building their policy on family along the most progressive lines – something that would not be seen in the West for decades. However, the onus was now on the individual, and such all-encompassing freedom was simply too much for the agricultural, barely urbanized Russian society of the 1920s.

New world's dark corners

“On the abolition of marriage” and “On civil partnership, children and ownership” were among the first decrees of the Soviets in 1918. Church weddings were abolished, civil partnership introduced. Divorce was a matter of choice. Abortions were legalized. All of that implied a total liberation of family and sexual relations. This heralded the beginning of the raunchiest epoch in recent Russian history.

A relaxed attitude to nudism was a a vivid sign of the times: on the bank of the Moskva river, near the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, a nude beach formed, the likes of which Western Europe could not have dreamed of at the time. The aforementioned “Down With Shame!” society had held numerous marches, one numbering as many as 10,000 people. Alexander Trushnovich, a monarchist, recalls (link in Russian) one of their gatherings: “‘Down with philistines! Down with deceiving priests! We don’t need clothes – we’re children of the sun and air!’ – a naked spokesman was shouting from a stage in Krasnodar’s main square. Walking past this place in the evening, I saw the stage dismantled... and somebody beat up the ‘child of sun and air’”.

All of these wild developments had been taking place while Russia was still in the midst of the World War, as well as the Civil War. Amnesties in 1917, 1919, 1920 and beyond freed a great many criminals in a country where state power had only begun to form. The masses of criminals were joined by defecting and discharged soldiers.

Rape by 1920s has become an epidemic. Quite strikingly, sexual violence towards former noble and bourgeois women was for a time even considered “class justice” among the proletarian males. Meanwhile, up to 20 percent of Russia’s male population had carried sexually-transmitted diseases (although in Tsarist Russia in the beginning of the century, the numbers were 25-27%). New laws on marriage and the overall atmosphere of breaking with the past encouraged promiscuity and casual approach to sex, unthinkable just years ago.

Soviet society was breeding a dangerous generation of homeless orphans – official reports indicate that, by 1923, half of the children born in Moscow had been conceived out of wedlock, and many of them were abandoned in infancy. The pendulum of sexual revolution had to swing back – and if it didn’t, it had to be pulled forcibly.

‘Winged Eros’ of Soviet oppression

Already in the first half of 1920s, when sexual liberation was still in full swing, the Soviets had set about promoting traditional values… again.

In 1924, psychiatrist Aron Salkind publishes ‘12 Sexual Commandments of the Revolutionary Proletariat’, that read “love must be monogamous”, “sexual intercourse must only be the final link in the chain of deep and complicated feelings connecting two people in love”.

Even as “Down With Shame!” were parading naked through the Moscow streets, People’s Commissar of Public Health Nikolay Semashko wrote that such behaviour “must be most categorically condemned… At a time when capitalistic monstrosities like prostitution and hooliganism are not yet eliminated, nudity aids immorality… That is why I consider absolutely necessary to stop this disgrace at once, with repressive methods, if needed...”

Soviet leaders did not want the population to squander its energy on self-gratification anymore. Severe austerity and cutbacks were introduced. Women’s rights groups were in decline. Moreover, the women themselves now barely had any reason for the education the feminists had so desperately fought for: no sooner had the woman been freed from the traditional, patriarchal society the Bolsheviks sought to remove that she was being brought back into the kitchen, having to cook for her worker husband; meanwhile,  factory rations were already being redistributed, which made home cooking a necessity. Kollontai’s “new woman” was new for just about a decade.

Now, the family was once more the basic unit of society. Decrees were reversed one after another. Finally, by 1934, homosexuality had been re-criminalized, and a ban on abortion reintroduced (1936). This did not lead to a reduction of the free woman’s propaganda value, of course. Because now, she could “do it all” – perform the communist task of forging the revolution, while also being a mother, wife, cook and cleaner.

For decades to come, sexuality and erotica would be completely shunned by Soviet culture and society – and considering this, it is no wonder Russian society had become so hypocritical about sex. The next sexual revolution would take place only in 1990s.

Original article: https://www.rbth.com/history/328265-russian-sexual-revolution

From the 45 Communist goals for America:

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural and healthy."

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

The Problem with Globalism

Globalism is ideologically driven. The philosophy at the heart of globalism is utopianism. It is the same philosophy that drove Communists in the 20th century, and it's the same philosophy that drives globalism. There is an innate desire to return to Eden, but they are trying to do so without God and they will fail. This is why all man-made utopias are Satanic in nature.

Just from a practical standpoint, world government has the same inherit flaws as big government. The larger government gets the more it demands from its citizens, and the more freedoms it takes away for the sake of the state. The concentration of powers makes it more prone to abuse. That is why our Founding Fathers created the separation of powers. The separation of powers at the national and local level, combined with individual sovereignty, are the greatest obstacles and opposition to tyranny. With a world government there are no such checks and balances. In World War 2 a dictator like Hitler was stopped by individual nations working together. But there is no one to stop such a dictator should he arise in a world government, and this is exactly what will happen.

There is also something to be said of disunity. In the 16th century, Europe was broken up into hundreds of city states. But it was this disunity that created competition and economic growth that was unrivaled anywhere in the world. It's what drove the West to dominate the rest of the world for the last 400 years. Compare this with the single monolithic empire of China. At one point in history China was poised to dominate the world, but they closed off trade and became stagnate. And compare this with ancient Rome. The Roman empire was an inferior version of Greek civilization whose only significant invention was concrete. There was no real growth because the empire sucked up all available resources to sustain it. The fall of Rome was actually a blessing in disguise for the West.

The point being disunity is actually more beneficial to growth, progress, and prosperity than any empire, or world government. And with world government it's strength is also its greatest weakness. Everything is so interconnected that a weakness in one part adversely effects everyone else. It's like Christmas tree lights, when one light goes out they all go out. So when world government fails, everyone fails.

The Problem with Equality, Redux Edition

“There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which excites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom.” —Alexis de Tocqueville

Today equality comes in many forms: diversity, multiculturalism, LGBT rights, political correctness, and so on. No matter the form equality is deeply rooted in Marxism, although it has broadened in use and application from the days of Marx and Engels. In theory, equality sounds good. Who doesn’t want to make things equal and seemingly fair for all? Yet, in practice equality is deeply flawed, and creates more problems than it solves. Lets look at the various ways in which equality actually creates more inequality, and problems where problems did not exist before.

Gender equality
The Left has been on an unholy crusade to abolish masculinity and femininity as they see these as social constructs. In their worldview, men and women must be equal in all respects, even if it means denying reality. Nothing exemplifies this more than what has become of women’s sports. Female trans-athletes, that is biological males, have been dominating against biological female athletes. The reasons should be obvious. Biological males have certain physical advantages that no amount of hormones or surgery will negate. So how is this fair to the other female athletes? You see to make something equal, you have to make something else unequal, which ultimately defeats the whole point.

In reality, equality doesn’t exist in nature. Some people are taller than others, some are stronger, some are smarter, and so on. Life isn’t fair, but that’s the way it is. However, we all have individual strengths and weakness that makes us unique and ultimately complimentary to one another. But since equality is not natural, it must be forced through coercion. Forced equality ultimately erodes personal freedoms and becomes antithetical to a free society.

Marriage equality
Lets consider what marriage equality has done to marriage. In order for same-sex marriage to be legitimatized it meant marriage had to be redefined. In doing so it opened Pandora’s Box for marriage to be redefined indefinitely. And if marriage can mean anything to anyone, it no longer means nothing.

Legitimizing same sex marriage also created a host of new problems that didn’t exist before. Consider the cake bakers who did not wish to contribute to same-sex marriages out of their religious convictions. Note that their contention was not that they would not bake a cake for homosexuals, only that they did not wish to contribute to their weddings. These bakers then became liable to lawsuits to force them to comply. Photographers, florists, and other business were also targeted. In another example of equality causing other inequalities, homosexuals gained a right to marry, while people of faith lost a right to disagree with it. The biggest blow has been that of religious freedoms in general.

Economic equality
Perhaps no greater damage has equality done than to that of economics. Socialists believe that wealth should be distributed equally. That no one should be wealthy, because that is unfair to the poor. In actuality, such as system creates a greater degree of inequality by eliminating the middle class and making everyone equally poor. You are left with a small elite class ruling over the impoverished majority.

The problem with socialism is it does not cooperate with human nature. If the haves are forced to share with the have-nots, it kills ambition and drive. The have-nots have no incentive to work hard since they are guaranteed a slice of the pie regardless, and the haves will not work hard since the fruits of their labor will be given away anyways. Ultimately, it breeds mediocrity, and collapses under its own weight.

On the other hand, capitalism cooperates with human nature by offering incentives. In fact, inequality is necessary for a healthy economy. If we’re all equal and can be never be anything more, what is there to work towards? Free markets guarantees equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.

Capitalists have been accused of being greedy, but greed is a product of human nature not of capitalism. Capitalism actually harnesses those less desirable human traits like greed and laziness into products and services that benefit mankind. As Winston Churchill put it, ”Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others that have been tried. Capitalism is no different from anything else in this world. It is imperfect because imperfect men created it. Humans are not perfect, nor are they capable of perfection. Avarice and greed are not unique to capitalism (they are products of human nature). They were present in the USSR, and they will be present in any man-made system.”

Cultural & moral relativism
Cultural relativism is another form of equality. Cultural relativism is the idea that a person's beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on that person's own culture, rather than be judged against the criteria of another. To the cultural relativist, all cultures are created equal. To them the United States is no better than Sudan or Libya, where slavery is still practiced today.

Herein lies another flaw of equality. For all things to be made equal, there can be no difference between right and wrong, or good and evil. There can be no truth or moral absolutes, everything has to be subjective and relative. Good has to be equal with evil, and evil equal with good. What’s left is a society where ethics and morality are based upon social norms and public consensus that are forever changing.

There can be no justice with cultural & moral equality. For it would be impossible to judge someone justly because what is right for one person is wrong for another, and vice versa. With cultural relativism it would be impossible to judge someone like Hitler for the Holocaust. This also highlights the reason morality must be based on a higher power, and not on human whim that changes like the breeze.

Diversity
Diversity is an example of applied equality that seems fair on the surface, but is not. Diversity seeks to include people from different ethnic and social backgrounds. However, it does this at the expense of alienating other ethnicities, namely Caucasians and to a lesser extent Asians.

The problems with diversity are many. No longer are people chosen based upon character and merit, but something superficial as the color of their skin. It encourages polarization as different ethnic groups have to compete with one another, creating tribalism, which always invites conflict.

Multiculturalism is a subset of diversity. It too seeks cultural equality by alienating the host culture, often by being antagonistic towards it. Ultimately, diversity doesn’t create unity but the exact opposite. What’s more important than diversity is having a common culture with shared values and beliefs. Only with a melting pot does peace and prosperity prevail for all.

The only true equality
In the end, the only equality we are guaranteed is equality under the law, and equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. There is, however, something better than equality and that is fairness. While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are in fact two separate things. Equality, because it does not come natural, must be forced by taking away something from somebody else. The scales will be balanced, but it is hardly fair to those whose rights, freedoms, wages were given away to somebody else.

True fairness, on the other hand, affords everyone the same opportunities equally. It does not guarantee anything, only provides the means for everyone to obtain it. For example, in a fair society everyone has the opportunity to become wealthy, but not everyone will become wealthy. It is dependent on many factors, including the life choices we make. Being fair is not always fair, but it does guarantee a free and prosperous society. In the words of Milton Friedman, “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”

How to spot an SJW movie

I’ve watched as social justice warriors (SJWs), aka cultural Marxists, have slowly taken over the entertainment industry from games, to comic books, and now movies. Over the years I have observed their methods and tactics. The way they think and the way they act. I’ve come up with seven ways how to spot an SJW movie:

1) A strong emphasis on feminismLead characters are often portrayed as feminist. Ironically, they often have very masculine traits. The women are always strong, aggressive, and courageous. They are what’s been termed Mary Sues, they have no character flaws and are good at everything, even beating up men twice their size without breaking a sweat. Conversely, male characters are often portrayed as weak and inept so as to not overshadow their female counterparts.

2) Identity politicsPolitics have always been in movies, though generally not real world politics unless it was integral to the story. However, what’s changed is the focus on identity politics, which is pandering to specific groups based on their gender, race, sexuality, politics, etc. to the detriment of everyone else. Identity politics are added to SJW movies rather it is integral to the plot or not.

3) Politics before profitsSJWs will always put politics before profits because they are anti-capitalists. The most important thing to them is not how much money they make, but using movies to push their agenda and spread their message. To that end, they attach themselves to franchises that are already successful, because otherwise they know no one would buy what they're selling.

4) Bolshevik marketingBolshevik marketing is when they give the audience what they think they should want, and not what they actually want.

5) Gender, race, and sexuality swappingThe gender, race, and sexuality is often changed in long established characters to pander to various groups, even though they don’t represent the core audience. Hence, there is a strong emphasis on diversity. It’s gotten so bad that even characters set in medieval Europe are portrayed by black actors. This also highlights the use of revisionist history in SJW movies.

6) Attacking the audienceThe old adage the customer is always right is no longer true. When an SJW movie is rightly criticized for identity politics or for just being plain old bad, the writers, directors, producers, even actors are not above attacking their own audience. They routinely call their fans racist, sexist, or whatever ist and phobe they can think of.

7) Enviable declineWith the emphasis on political correctness, originality and creativity take a back seat. Is it any wonder then we see so many sequels, prequels, reboots, and remakes. SJWs are incapable of creating good content. Combined with alienating and attacking their own fan base and decline is enviable. The saying get woke go broke is true. When an audience is disenfranchised they will seek out alternatives. An example of this is the once flourishing comic book industry, which has been hijacked by SJWs to the point where it is on the verge of collapse.

What is happening in movies may seem trivial at first. But in many ways the decline of entertainment is a reflection of the decline of Western civilization. It’s not just movies either, but it’s apparent in our art, music, architecture, and culture at large. Movies are just the latest front in the culture war. It’s important because as the late Andrew Breitbart pointed out, “Politics is downstream from culture". The cultural Marxists understood this, which is way they have infiltrated every influential organization including academia, media, entertainment, and politics. The best thing we can do is to not fund them, and find alternatives. This is especially true when it comes to SJW movies.

More on Climate Change

I believe in change change: summer, fall, winter, spring. This climate is changing and always has been, that's nothing new. It goes through cycles and extremes. For example, a period of unusually warm weather from about 800 to 1250 was followed by centuries of extreme cold, known as the little ice age from 1300 to 1850. In 1816 a volcano eruption was responsible for a year without a summer that resulted in major food shortages in the northern hemisphere. The ancient city of Ephesus was once built on the coastline, but is now is five miles inland. If there's one thing we can learn from history is that (climate) change is inevitable.

There are things which affect our climate which we have no control over, such as volcanic eruptions and solar activity. We have only been keeping records for 150 years or so, the last 20-30 being the most reliable, and cannot determine what is normal. But what we have gleamed from the past is that climate has always fluctuated and always had extremes. This has led to mass extinctions in the past as well, all without man's intervention.

True science is never settled. We have observed so-called "crises" in the past: a new ice age, acid rain, ozone layer deterioration. Funny how you never hear about those things anymore. Even the term global warming is outdated in favor of "climate change". But there are people who are using climate to push an agenda. Here's what a Soviet disinformation expert had to say:

"Protection of the environment has become the principal tool for attack
against the West and all it stands for. Protection of the environment
may be used as a pretext to adopt a series of measures designed to
undermine the industrial base of developed nations. It may also serve to
introduce malaise by lowering their standard of living and implanting
communist values. -Natalie Grant Wraga"

One of the co-founders of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, has said as much. He left the group because it had been hijacked by radicals to promote a Communist agenda. Green is very much the new red.

I would add that scientists are not perfect. They are human, and like all humans they can be wrong, and their views can be skewed by agendas, ideologies, and group-think. I'll leave you a really good example of this with a quote by Micheal Crichton:

"This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians, and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

I don’t mean global warming. I’m talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago. Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H.G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort. They were, of course, supporting eugenics. -From: Why Politicized Science is Dangerous, Michael Crichton, 2004."