From the Illusion of Control to the Collapse of the State
A Morning Meander
Mathew Crawford at Rounding the Earth has been busy with a new one that piqued my interest.
In this installment, he connects more dots in his proposal of a hypothesis that the plandemonium was a) caused by a distinct biological entity or entities b) planned c) planned and executed for the purposes of control.
I decided to reproduce my comments over on my own stack as a post, with some additional changes.
In this article, Mathew wrote:
"After all, it has historically been the Navy that has been documented exposing large scale populations to infectious agents. And given that the U.S. Navy includes perhaps more than 90% of the world's ocean firepower, it is the U.S. Navy that has the unique ability to go wherever there is water and deliver bioweapons."
I responded (with some editorial changes here):
Ah ha! In my time off-grid I've followed the trail of bread crumbs (RTE post links) to see that you wrote about Operation Sea Spray.
Yup yup! Serratia marcescens can be a nosocomial pathogen. And of course it can cause UTIs, sepsis, etc.
Interestingly, it’s also a key component of Coley's toxins, which Dr. Coley came to understand from German research in the late 1800s could be used to amplify the potential of killed Strep A strains to cure cancer.
One of the saddest things about the “no virus” crowd is that they are so reactively focused on reassuring people about the importance of lifestyle and diet to health that they refuse to understand that co-evolving with pathogens for millions of years has also provided certain benefits, such as the control of cancer. This crowd generally believes that only “good germs” or probiotics are important in this regard, whereas “bad germs” don’t exist or — if they can be microscopically demonstrated to exist because they can be isolated — are inconsequential. And indeed, that seems to be their main emotional motivation behind reassuring everyone that viruses in particular don’t exist.
The “isolation” argument seems inconsequential to me since my PhD studies were focused on obligate parasites that are as yet also impossible to grow in culture — just as viruses are asserted to be — even though they’re large (between 100 to 1500 um at maturity). It’s also at times difficult to get bacteria to spread between organisms, too, but that doesn’t stop us from believing in bacteria just because we can’t get them to spread in every attempted instance.
Unfortunately, they think that convincing everyone of “no viruses” is crucial to exposing the plandemonium fraud and bringing those responsible to justice.
But what if a germ can be both “good” and “bad” depending on context?
In fact, the assumption that an organism is only good or bad feels like the same arrogance that the US government displayed when it (supposedly) assumed S. marcescens was harmless before they sprayed it over San Francisco.
I don’t think the US government did actually think that S. marcescens was harmless, though, even though the Smithsonian article Mathew cited in his Sea Spray article makes it sound like it was a totally innocent operation.
The pathogenic potential of S. marcescens was well known long before 1950. I think as Mathew did, that the US government believed the harm would be relatively low, which might allow for a situation that would herd people toward certain solutions (or would be useful in other ways if it was undetected).
Over the years I’ve struggled to understand at times where Mathew has been going with certain concepts or assertions, but I also haven’t had the attention span or time to follow everything he’s written in detail over the last 1-2 years, as I’ve been busy with my own adventures.
Additionally I learned that he’s been right more than once due to his childhood trauma of being used by cults associated with the regime, so I know that he knows in his bones how completely wacko the regime people can be.
I’m interested to see where Mathew goes with his “human cloning" argument.
Somewhat like Mathew, I was also severely gaslighted in my childhood about my identity, which led to me being highly skeptical of just about everything — including assertions of a highly personal nature — without sufficient proof.
However, my “knowing” about the depths of the evils of regimes didn’t grow until my 20s-40s when I had personal experiences that amply demonstrated that those in power either don’t really care about individual deaths from ordinary disease, or that the prisoner’s dilemmas that result between individuals in a society as a result of governance and institutions are so massively entangled that the distinction doesn’t really matter, because almost everyone is prevented from doing the truly right things.
These experiences led to constant shifts and upgrades in my worldview, from generally conservative Christian in my early 20s to atheist-agnostic libertarian anarchist in my mid 40s.
I can’t stand mobs and cults and I see all religion and politics, including local politics, as mob/cult behavior.
I do see that people are easily hypnotized and controlled, but I also think the power mongers understand this instinctual mob behavior and are keen to use it to their desired ends.
However, I’ve been slow to see the grand scheme that Mathew sees, or what the specific desired outcomes are, or the sheer depth of the brainwashing operations going on.
This could be because of my training in evolution, as I see an even longer time-frame over thousands of years. The emergence of larger and larger societies enables the psychopaths to game the system and rise to the top in ways that are highly unnatural to our species, but I also see that these people in charge aren’t smart enough to keep governments and institutions from collapsing, time and time again, over many millenia.
At this juncture a passage from one of my favorite books seems apropos (from Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States by anarchist James C. Scott, pp. 209, 211):
“Why deplore “collapse,” when the situation it depicts is most often the disaggregation of a complex, fragile, and typically oppressive state into smaller, decentralized fragments? One simple and not entirely superficial reason why collapse is deplored is that it deprives all those scholars and professionals whose mission it has been to document ancient civilizations of the raw materials they require. There are fewer important digs for archaeologists, fewer records and texts for historians, and fewer trinkets—large and small—to fill museum exhibits. There are splendid and instructive documentaries on archaic Greece, Old Kingdom Egypt, and mid-third millennium Uruk, but one will search in vain for a portrayal of the obscure periods that followed them: the “Dark Age” of Greece, the “first Intermediate Period” of Egypt, and the decline of Uruk under the Akkadian Empire. Yet there is a strong case to be made that such “vacant” periods represented a bolt for freedom by many state subjects and an improvement in human welfare…
Above all, the well-being of a population must never be confounded with the power of a court or state center. It is not uncommon for the subjects of early states to leave both agriculture and urban centers to evade taxes, conscription, epidemics, and oppression. From one perspective they may be seen to have regressed to more rudimentary forms of subsistence, such as foraging or pastoralism. But from another, and I believe broader, perspective, they may well have avoided labor and grain taxes, escaped an epidemic, traded an oppressive serfdom for greater freedom and physical mobility, and perhaps avoided death in combat. The abandonment of the state may, in such cases, be experienced as an emancipation.”
From James C. Scott, Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States, pp. 209, 211