• 738

Vaxx and klimate

When the right talks about vaxxines and the klimate they really talk about liberty—the issues themselves are neither here nor there. Vaxxines have been contentious ever since their invention; in 1775, in Boston, the local assemblies were alight with discussion over the first smallpox vaxx; and, as in our day, many people were adamant that they would not take the vaxx. The point is elementary as regards liberty: I do not want anyone—least of all the state—to coerce me to do anything; and so if I choose to take the risk, even if the disease may kill me, then that is my prerogative—and, further, I accept that risk, even mortal risk, constitutes an element in liberty; so I would prefer to risk a few casualties rather than see our liberty destroyed—and, besides, if the herd is winnowed then that only strengthens us. Usually, there is a religious component to this position as well; as Lord Salisbury ventured when he discussed whether a man should be hanged, if you know there is an afterlife then death in this world no longer becomes the worst thing imaginable.

In consequence, the arguments the right puts forward as regards the Covid-19 vaxx are just rhetoric. Whether or not the vaxx is very effective or not, the right will do everything to say it is rubbish—look for every flaw and magnify those flaws to the greatest extent; and, of course, there are many flaws in any medicine—and even more in a hastily concocted one. So the issue is never about whether the vaxx “really” works, the issue is about whether enough alarum can be created so as to dissuade the government from measures to curtail liberty.

Ultimately, the right is not on strong ground here because liberty is about action: liberty is when the king’s men invade your little Danish croft without reason and then you summon your cousins and ride out against the king to secure a guarantee that the king’s men cannot harass random crofts. There is not really a rhetorical element to liberty; hence right-wing rhetoric is always inferior to left-wing rhetoric—the latter is always a slick job, slick like a Hollywood lawyer.

The right only appears “uneducated” and “unscientific” because they do not primarily care about eloquence; they care about liberty, about action and results—not a pretty package. Hence their counter-arguments always seem somewhat clumsy, because in essence the argument is: “I don’t know about this new innovation, I just don’t want to be hassled by the government—I’ll pass and take the risk, thanks.”

The same is true for the klimate; the issue at stake is not “the klimate psyence”—it is the package used to present that psyence, a package that says that the answer is agrarian socialism. Again, the point is that the right objects to government coercion; however, how do you express that in a democracy where you are meant to convince the mob you are right? Well, you can use arguments that ridicule and attack the “klimate psyence”. What they really think: “If we die, we die—give me liberty or give me death; perhaps we will be killed by klimate khange, but it is better to die free than live in chains.”

A similar problem exists in the American gun debate: the left has a point—too many nutters have guns in America. Secretly, the gun lobby agrees; however, the issue is political: if they make one concession to the left, even the slightest concession, they know the gap will be used to force a wedge to ban more and more guns until gun ownership is outlawed. In consequence, they have to remain locked down as regards even the most reasonable proposals for gun control—since these are never sincere, just Trojan horses.

A regards the vaxx, I think it works somewhat—yet I took it and still got Covid-19, so it cannot be very effective. “Nah-nah, you took the vaccine. Nah-nah. Loser.” Of course, to defy the vaxx—or say you defied it—is just a right-wing virtue-signal, a way to demonstrate in-group loyalty; and, as with leftist hypocrisy, there are many rightists who claim to be unvaxxed but who took it anyway for an easy life; the social status competition is easily gameable. “People wouldn’t…lie, would they?”. Anyway, at least I know from personal experience that the vaxx barely works—as for the papers people post online, I have no idea (I gno no biology).

But the Davos elite put mind control nanobots in the vaxx that will sterilise you, because they’re all descended from SS doctors and Covid-19 is a covert eugenics program.” That is just typical bad right-wing rhetoric, so bad it has to piggyback on the leftist idea that Hitlerism and aristocracy are the ultimate evils—whereas we, the populists, are the real democrats. As with all leftist inventions, from Ladas to British Rail, the vaxx is not engineered to harm you—it is just an inferior knock-off product that barely functions; if it hurts you it is not from design—if it were designed to hurt you, it would fail to do so.

As for the klimate, well “klimate khange” is probably the wrong term for it—and the leftist rhetoric around it, as with the rhetoric around the vaxx, just constitutes an excuse for involution. Remember, the left is feminine—women are masochistic, just like teenage girls who experience a collective phrenzy for self-harm, a subtle slash at the legs with your nail scissors, so too leftist politics is about masochism. The self-harm is not “a cry for help”, it is “a cry for daddy”—it is a cry for father to come and say, “Now, stop all this nonsense, my girl. Tush. Ye have Satan in ye, get thee to some useful work.”

Unfortunately, in modernity, the right is also substantially feminised and so refuses to take adequate steps to pacify the left. Instead, it acts like the suburban dad who says, “You’re imagining things again, m’dear.” This is what the left means by “gaslighting”—they indulge in it too, but it is mainly a rightist tactic. It is mainly a rightist tactic because the right, being a polite diligent citizen, wants to avoid a “scene” with his wife, social embarrassment and screaming—because he thinks it unkind or illegal to physically chastise her; and, further, does not think Satan exists—and so is unlikely to say, “Brother Jonas, ye daughter has the devil in her I tell thee.” The left, as with women, tends to actively invent “a scene” that contains a few emotionalised facts contextualised so as to be a lie—the right, as with a man, just remains silent and hodls his insider angle from other men (and his wife).

As with Covid-19, k.k. constitutes a real problem; and, in fact, if anything, the left underestimates the degree to which it is a problem. Again, how do I know? Because the weather is different from when I was a child and it is different in a way that is most parsimoniously explained by man-made k.k.. The right denies this fact because the right is relatively on the left; it actually, as with the left, worships technology as a God—preferably masculine technology, as with muscle cars, and not limp-wristed solar panels. The worst thing imaginable is if their technological God destroys the planet.

K.k. will not be solved by deindustrialisation or the de facto nationalisation of all industry—no society was more ecologically unsound than the Soviet Union. The right, for its part, has no solution either—its view is the suburban dad’s view; it will enjoy its prosperity and if it dies then it dies—whether or not “the catastrophe happens” at least they will die (relatively) free and surrounded by their techno goodies; probably, as with nuclear war, nothing can be done anyway—though at least we can live (and die, die before it gets too bad) without the misery of full socialism. “Um, what about reality? What about responsibility? Where do those come in?” Answer: they never do. All that matters is whether or not the rhetoric you deploy works to achieve your political objectives—whether or not k.k. is real, neither side wants to explicitly know.

As far as k.k. goes, both sides know the real solution—you can tell because they allude to it all the time. The left claims the right wants “billions to die” as the klimate khanges because it refuses to back “alternative energy”, the right claims the left wants “billions to die” because it will hold back technology. Reality: we need to kill billions of people—otherwise we will endure a squalid death by a thousand cuts, our own little stand on Zanzibar. There are just too many people on this planet, the human race is overripe—we need to cull it, otherwise nature herself will collapse. Good stewardship requires periodic culls: nature’s law.

Unfortunately, it is not acceptable to say that in a democracy, since in a democracy everyone is sacred—even every human on the planet is sacred. All have a right to life. Yet, in reality, your “right to life” depends on how well you have finessed your instruments of war—so if, as with Africa, you happen to have been unable to finesse the nuclear bomb and nerve gas, then your “right to life” has become practically null. You see, God helps those who help themselves—and if you have not helped yourself, divine protection has been withdrawn; and if you have made “the people” your God it is doubly withdrawn.

Incidentally, the obsession with nuclear energy as a solution is leftist—and the fact “the right” is enamoured with it indicates they are leftists; and this is because they also think all that exists is material life, and so to extinguish other lives to balance the system is unthinkable—a life is all we have, we cannot deprive people of it (even murderers).

Marxist-Leninists and Communists love nuclear power; and anything they love must be suspect. They love nuclear power because they know it damages nature, and Communists hate nature—in particular, they like the fact that nuclear energy contains the potential to damage genetic material; it attacks heredity and spawns misshapen freaks—corrupts the blood. It also carries a burden, nuclear waste, down the generations—not a farmstead but spent fuel rods, the poisonous anti-inheritance. Hence Communists are always enthusiasts for all things nuclear; and it is no surprise that the USSR was heavy investor in nuclear power and the site of the world’s worst nuclear catastrophe—nuclear energy carries the suggestion there might be “electricity too cheap to meter”, the illusion of money for nothing; and leftists glom onto this democratic potential.

Is it deliberate or incompetence? So goes the rightist refrain, conspiracy…or retardation? Let us put it this way: deliberate incompetence. As with an envious woman keen to carry out a subtle social assassination on her rival, the left sets up a scenario where negative events become possible in a deniable way—the red wine will be spilt on the new white dress, but only because it was so arranged the queen bee would end up in an awkward spot where the sloppiest waiters push by her. Hence the sensitive biological material will end up in China, as paid for by the US government, so that it is highly likely—though not inevitable—it will escape. The poorly designed nuclear power plant will be built and operated by sloppy irresponsible technicians—and so you get Chernobyl. Is it inevitable the worst will happen? No, just highly likely. “Oh, what a shame—that was a lovely dress, sweetheart.”

The left is feminised and masochistic, so it will self-harm in such a way as to take everyone down with them. It makes no sense. No, yet for the narcissist it is inconceivable to concede to reality sufficiently, to lose your pride, to genuinely progress—it is better to slash and destroy yourself and other people; in fact, with an external locus of control, the narcissist is not even aware “they” do it—everything is done “to them”; in their mind, they are entirely passive victims—even as they subtly author new catastrophic scenarios for themselves and others (scenarios to be blamed on other people, naturally). Unfortunately, the right itself, as stands, also functions in a very similar way to the left.

142 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All