This is how liberty dies
As summer approaches, and with it the 244th anniversary of America's Declaration of Independence and establishment of a new nation, it is well worth remembering that the men who wrote and signed that legendary document did so over abuses of power that were absolutely microscopic compared to what has taken place over the past six months.
The Founders were enraged by taxation without representation, by seeing their properties taken without warrants, by the unpleasant experience of having to deal with British troops billeted in their homes without their consent, and by the fact that a far-distant sovereign refused to consult with their own elected representatives and made their jobs quite arduous.
Yet, if you read through the long list of grievances that the Founders laid against the feet of King George III, and then compare them with what Tucker Carlson detailed above and with what we have all seen unfolding before our very eyes, you would think that the Founders launched a war with the greatest empire and military power that the world had ever seen at that point, over mosquito bites.
That is the degree to which various state and local governments in the USA, and various Federal agencies, have usurped and abused powers that should never have been theirs to begin with.
The Founders were absolutely right to be afraid of government power, and they were absolutely right to do everything that they could to restrain it. But they were only human.
They failed to anticipate that their descendants would sell their birthright and import hordes of people who were nothing like them and held no allegiance to the values that created the new country, even though most of those foreigners were of the same skin colour, race, ethnicity, and even faith.
They certainly did not anticipate that several generations further down the line, the descendants of those foreigners would choose, of their own free will, to import tens of millions of even more foreign peoples who looked, sounded, acted, dressed, ate, and worshiped absolutely nothing like them.
Most of all, however, the Founders did not anticipate that even those directly descended from their posterity would fail to heed their warnings about choosing security over freedom.
Again, they were only human. They were great men - thinkers, philosophers, inventors, generals, politicians, ordinary citizens, and above and beyond all, free men who worshiped God the Father of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. But they put their faith in men.
One look at the USA today tells you plenty about how that faith has been repaid.
The sliver of justification given for the manner in which America has sold herself like a cheap whore and tossed aside her freedoms, is that back when the Kung Flu was really getting around, we just didn't have enough evidence or data to waste time in following "conventional" prevention protocols.
Let us remind ourselves what those conventional protocols are, in the case of highly infectious diseases like measles.
When confronted with highly infectious diseases where the transmission mechanism is well known and understood, standard protocol is to quarantine the infected, and ideally those within three "concentric rings of contact" - everyone that the infected came into contact with, everyone that those people then came into contact with, and then everyone THEY came into contact with.
What about diseases for which there is no vaccine whatsoever, like Ebola or HIV - or, for that matter, the common cold?
Again, quarantines are for those who are actually INFECTED. Not for the healthy, and certainly not for the general populace.
What, then, made the Chinkflu so different? Why did the entire world insist on shutting everything down because of a virus that is part of a family of such bugs that, among other things, cause the common cold?
Partly it was the fact that the initial mortality rates were extremely poorly understood and the spread of the virus was difficult to calculate. But within two months of the initial outbreaks, we had enough data to conclude that:
- This virus is primarily deadly to people over 65 with preexisting medical conditions, and is particularly dangerous to men;
- The vast majority of people who get infected either show no symptoms whatsoever, or have such mild symptoms that they just write it off as the common cold or flu;
- Only a small percentage of patients will ever get so sick as to require hospitalisation;
- Quarantines have increasingly been shown to have limited to zero effect on the spread of the virus;
These are not hypotheticals or conjecture. These are facts, well established over the past six months through extensive testing, data collection, and laboratory experiments.
The standard rebuttal to this view is that we should follow the science and listen to expert opinions when formulating policy responses. However, even a cursory examination of the logic within that sentence tells us that this is a contradiction in terms.
Firstly, "science" as we understand it is not some monolithic construct. It is in fact at least three different disciplines:
- Scientody, the actual scientific method;
- Scientage, the body of available testable information;
- Scientistry, what scientists actually do, that is to say, their profession;
- Scientism, an increasingly and unfortunately common affliction, the dogma of politicised scientistry;
Scientage is available to all of us. No one has a monopoly upon it. No man can claim to be more capable of interpreting it than any other simply because he has advanced degrees in biology or physics or chemistry or whatever. That body is available for all of us to use and draw conclusions from it.
Scientistry is a profession, nothing more. There is nothing particularly noble or honourable about it, relative to other professions. It is a profession that requires intelligence, commitment, hard work, and no small amount of brilliant intuition at times - which makes it no different from the vast majority of other honourable and noble professions, such as being a plumber, an electrician, a network engineer, or an auto mechanic.
The difference between those professions and scientistry lies primarily in the fact that the Sons of Martha "finger death at their gloves' end when they piece and repiece the living wires".
Secondly, "science" is not about expert opinion. It is about rebelling against expert opinion.
Don't take my word for it. Let's see what two of the greatest scientists in history had to say on the subject:
There is no getting away from the fact that "expert opinion" throughout the Kung Flu Crisis has been reliably and repeatedly WRONG in almost every respect:
One of the most interesting aspects of this entire crisis is the radical difference in the ways that particular states and nations have reacted to the Chinkflu. We are going to be studying this for years to come.
What I have observed indicates that we can separate out the "good" versus the "bad" responses on two axes: societal trust, and respect for government authority.
East Asian societies tend to be highly respectful of authority. That is due to their Confucian ethic. But those same societies are a mixed bag when it comes to trust.
China is a high-authority, low-trust society. The ChiComs responded swiftly and brutally after their initial stupidity, incompetence, arrogance, and malfeasance was exposed and it was no longer possible to hide their ineptitude. There is absolutely no reason to believe one damned thing that the ChiComs say about their containment protocols; it is quite likely that Corona-chan is continuing her epic rampage throughout their country.
Taiwan is a high-authority, high-trust society. They clamped down hard on the virus by implementing stringent monitoring and quarantine measures.
Singapore is a high-authority, low-trust society - you don't put the entire population under 24x7 camera and internet surveillance if you trust them. They responded as they usually do, with extreme monitoring protocols.
Japan, by contrast, is a high-authority, high-trust society with an astonishing degree of social compliance with rules. The government simply asked its people to stay indoors and did very little to enforce its edicts. The people complied. Japan has fared really quite well due to its insistence on following common-sense, high-trust measures.
Turning to Europe ,we see that the high-trust nations have done well regardless of their respect for authority. Germany, Sweden, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, and others have all done pretty well.
Norway implemented draconian lockdown measures. Sweden did not. Both are relatively high-trust cultures. Both have similar mortality rates.
Russia is a low-authority, high-trust society. They are currently running at about 124,000 confirmed cases with about 1,230 deaths. Moscow is in lockdown. Yet the metro is running, people are out on the streets walking around, grocery stores are fully stocked, and people are increasingly getting outside and enjoying the warmer sunny weather. There is no sense of panic in that city despite the fact that it comprises well over half of the entire country's caseload.
And now we turn to the USA.
Look at the difference between the red-state and blue-state responses. I will expand upon this more in tomorrow's podcast, because it is a topic of considerable interest to me, but it is very clear that the red state responses have proven vastly more effective, while being considerably more measured, than the blue state ones.
The blue states have almost universally cracked down massively on individual liberties - with absolutely NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the spread of the Kung Flu.
The red states have basically trusted their people to act responsibly and do the right thing. And that trust has, by and large, been repaid.
These are the fault lines which will define future conflicts within the USA - high-trust versus low-trust. And trust ultimately comes down to a sense of who is "us" versus "them" - and these divisions are created, exacerbated, and made irreparable through the refusal to understand the five fundamental forces that create nations.
Those forces are: race, religion, language, history, and culture. It has become inescapably clear that the red states are a nation of high-trust individuals who believe in liberty and human decency - and the blue states are a nation of Karens who put their faith in petty tyrant-kings and queens, rather than in the sovereign Lord and His Kingdom.
This, my friends, is how liberty dies - when trust in each other is destroyed, when faith in the Lord is gone, when the ties that bind a nation together are frayed beyond repair.
And especially when the opinions of so-called "experts" are trusted.