explicitClick to confirm you are 18+

Not Letting a Crisis Go to Waste

RenBloggerMar 29, 2020, 6:23:32 PM

It's becoming apparent to me that the aftermath of the covid19 crisis will hold a different crisis for America, maybe for the world. We are standing on a precipice: Will we be 'one world' or will we continue to be separate nations? I vote for the latter, but the globalists aren't letting a good crisis go to waste.

I have to give credit where it's due to The Atlantic's staff writer, Ed Yong, for writing a thorough piece on how we can respond to covid19 and what comes next. I'll be referencing the article, How the Pandemic Will End, in this post.

The credit that's due is the fact that he made fairly good work of covering the options. While his, and undoubtedly, The Atlantic's, view of which options we should choose were clear, the author did give us the options and thoroughly covered the cons of the option to which he's predisposed. I can appreciate that.

After making the case that the covid19 is, indeed, a crisis, and why, he maps out what the options are in the coming months, what the 'end game' is, and what may be in the aftermath.

I am, currently, undecided about how much or a crisis I think this is, but for the sake of argument, I'll go with the author say, sure it's bad, but ...

I. The Next Months

He sites four things which must happen and ... "quickly".

Thing which must be done #1: Mass production of medical preventive equipment: Masks and gloves and the like. No argument there, but we don't need the government to do that for us. There are reports all around of businesses already rising to the challenge of turning their productions and industries toward seeing and meeting the growing need for what's lacking. But, those efforts aren't, and likely won't be good enough for our little, centralize-the-world, globalist. No. The answer is, of course, government ... big government.

2. And, that same bureaucratic, unelected, governmental group will solve thing which must be done #2: We must have more tests! Because "data". It doesn't matter that some 81% of those who catch it will just stay home with mild symptoms and get over it, we must know how many people have it! Now, of course, it's important for medical staff and those who are admitted into the hospital with severe symptoms to be able to find out who has what. But, the rest of the god damn world has shut down and most people, and businesses, are shaking in their shoes about the possibility of catching it and/or spreading it so, do we really need to flood the hospitals for testing when we have no to mild symptoms? Do we really need to know or can we just let the thing run its course? We could, but the scientists want their lab rats and their data.

Thing which must be done #3: Be socially 'distant' because there's a curve to flatten. OK, I get it, buy the unprepared medical industry a little time to manage the onslaught of terror, but he acts like we all have a choice at this point. And, choice is the matter at hand. It'll take weeks to months to get the hospitals where they need to be. Weeks to months for the testing to get where it needs to be, and 

"In these moments, when the good of all hinges on the sacrifices of many, clear coordination matters—the fourth urgent need. The importance of social distancing must be impressed upon a public who must also be reassured and informed."

There it is, the good of all. The greater good. It requires the sacrifice of many and the importance of this sacrifice must be impressed upon us. Communistic thinking. One wonders, with no shortage of historical examples to consider, how this need will be impressed upon us. 

That is the battle before us. Is the greater good going to become our highest moral value? It certainly is the author's and every option he leans toward reflects it. The greater good requires much control over the many. It requires 'the many' to sacrifice their freedom of choice right down to their freedom to view the options and choose one that doesn't satisfy the champions of the greater good. 

He gave the options, but throughout the article, it's clear that one option is good, the others bad. One option is what we must do, no matter the consequences. The others we should reject. There used to be a time when reporting was merely the transmission of the facts, the options given to the people with the understanding that people were free to make up their own minds about what to do with that information. But, now, we're told what we must think and what we must do.

"Persuading a country to voluntarily stay at home is not easy, and without clear guidelines from the White House, mayors, governors, and business owners have been forced to take their own steps."

OH, NO! People have to think for themselves, create solutions, and take matters into their own hands?! What?! How awful! Decentralized response? Oh, NO! I don't know what you're experiencing in your city and state, but the "mayor, governors, and business owners" here, in Maine, are doing just fine - according to his view of what must be done - in their response. 

And, it's categorically wrong that the White House has not given guidelines. That's all they have done because that's all they can do because the Constitution prevents the White House from overstepping into State's and the people's rights, which is why governors, mayors, and business owners are leading the charge. Of course, the author seems like a smart guy, I imagine he knows this already. The underpinning plea, here, the thing which has been craftily and subliminally messaged-in is that there must be further, centralized, federal power and control. Because, 'progressive' and communistic thinking for the greater good.Thing which must be done #4.

Must. That's the term with which I take umbrage. There are options and differing views about what must be done if, anything at all. And, people get to have differing views and they get to make their arguments for them. That human, inalienable right belongs to Yong and it, also, equally, belongs to you and me, regardless of expertise on the matter. 

II. The Endgame

"Under these conditions, there are three possible endgames: one that’s very unlikely, one that’s very dangerous, and one that’s very long."

Again, we will read a relatively fair presentation of the three possible endgames. Kudos to the author for being honest enough to explore the options. However, his opinion, of which endgame is best, will be clear. And, really, he should have started with the endgame, because his choice of endgame is what informed his prior list of what must be done.

Endgame #1, the very unlikely scenario: Universal affectivity in bringing the virus "to heel" at the same time. I agree with the author that the ship has sailed on that one. Of course, this option is the one he'd like to see rectified when he gets to the Aftermath options.

Endgame #2, the very dangerous scenario: Herd immunity. Let the virus do what it's going to do. This, by-the-way, is my standpoint. The surprising thing to me is that the ones screaming the loudest in fear about what must be done to prevent covid19's possible carnage, are the same who believe ardently that people are overpopulating the planet, using up the resources, and are a key factor in, what they believe, is a carbon crisis of global climate change. These same people won't have more than 1 or 2 children because they don't want to place any more people on the planet than what will replace them. They support abortion, in part, to solve overpopulation. Bill Gates, by his own admission, didn't involve his foundation in global vaccination efforts until he learned how vaccines help with population control. 

Listen up, sillies, a plague or pandemic, is nature's population control, a human thunderstorm to clear the air if, you will. A way to decrease the surplus population that is fair in the sense that we aren't the ones deciding who lives and dies. If it's out of our control, it's not a moral weight to bear on our shoulders and it ends a myriad of social arguments. We don't actually need to worry about the number of children we have, killing off millions of innocent pre-birth humans a year, or forcing humans to inject substances against their will because nature has a way of keeping the population in check. 

And, again, those screaming the loudest in fear, are those who will browbeat a Christian for believing in creation rather than evolution. If a pandemic goes through, the weak die and the strong survive, would that not be an evolution in progress? The logical inconsistency based on fear is staggering.

I don't believe the population needs to be controlled and I don't believe in evolution or climate change as a problem. I, simply, accept that shit happens. That there is a certainty of pain and loss in life and that none of us is promised a long, healthy, pleasant one. Let the virus do what it's going to do, let the surviving population gain it's immunity, and let people be free to choose the risks they want to take with the life they have. Because the alternative not only represents an astounding logical inconsistency from its supporters, but it's also ...

Endgame #3, the very long scenario: And, the one which will result in massive control and abuse of inalienable human rights and liberties. 

"The third scenario is that the world plays a protracted game of whack-a-mole with the virus, stamping out outbreaks here and there until a vaccine can be produced. This is the best option, but also the longest and most complicated."

... And, requires a tremendous amount of centralized control of the world's population over an extended period of time.

Vaccine rollout - which will undoubtedly add to the, now, in many areas of the country and world, forced vaccine schedules which prevent you from living peacefully in society if you dare to opt-out, and that's if you can opt-out at all. Control.

"But 'we need to be prepared to do multiple periods of social distancing,' says Stephen Kissler of Harvard." 

Through an estimate of 2022. Control.

"Much about the coming years, including the frequency, duration, and timing of social upheavals, depends on two properties of the virus, both of which are currently unknown." 

And, knowing requires data collection and long term observation. Control.

"Whether through accumulating herd immunity or the long-awaited arrival of a vaccine, the virus will find spreading explosively more and more difficult."

That is, has been, and will continue to be the debate over every subject from this point forward: The way which allows for maximum human liberty or the way which enables maximum human control. And, the ideological split amongst us makes it almost impossible to reach a compromise between the two. We are heading into the eye of the storm, the point at which two sides face each other in readiness to win the battle and the war over which ideological view will win-out and dictate our collective course through the coming period of history.

III. The Aftermath

Again, giving credit where credit is due, the author, presupposing, in confidence, that his endgame and his list of must do's are the right course of action, has enough integrity to take an honest look at the unintended consequences, the side effects, if you will, of following his line of thought.

Unemployment and devastation for the economy.

Long term emotional and mental health issues as people are thrown into a wildly unnatural upheaval of life from that to which they are accustomed.

But, it's OK because "Pandemics can also catalyze social change."

We'll be better off because people will wash their hands better, oh, and ...

Not letting the crisis go to waste #1: Working from home and conference calling. The technological revolution agenda. 

Not letting the crisis go to waste #2: Proper sick leave, flexible child care arrangements, and Fair Labour Policies. Governmental regulation of the free market. Headed toward Socialism, which leads to communism, and at the least, certainly represents greater government control of the market. 

Not letting the crisis go to waste #3: Equal Healthcare system. Universal healthcare.  Socialism/Communism.

Not letting the crisis go to waste #4: "Its [the US] individualism, exceptionalism, and tendency to equate doing whatever you want ..." 

Adoption of communal national identity and ideology: The greater good - Communism.

Not letting the crisis go to waste #5: "Years of isolationist rhetoric had consequences too." 

Adoption of a globalist identity and ideology.

This point, as a side note, made me laugh: "“People believed the rhetoric that containment would work,” says Wendy Parmet" 

So, you're saying we shouldn't try to distance ourselves or contain the virus? Yeah, I giggled. It's ok to force the individual into social distancing and haul out the National Guard to contain the virus within communities but, god forbid, we try as a nation, to distance ourselves from other nations in order to try and contain the virus outside our borders ... because, evidently, containment is a lie we believe.

“We keep them out, and we’ll be okay. When you have a body politic that buys into these ideas of isolationism and ethnonationalism, you’re especially vulnerable when a pandemic hits.”

So, we should let the public back into schools, businesses, and nursing homes, right? Because isolating ourselves makes us especially vulnerable.

If only you could see the smile on my face.

Not letting a crisis go to waste #6: "The consequences of defunding public-health agencies, losing expertise, and stretching hospitals are no longer manifesting as angry opinion pieces, but as faltering lungs." 

Refunding - high taxes, ultimately, socialism. Relying even more on 'expertise' continues to build the 'experts' as the authority and drown out the people's voices and wills when that authority disagrees. One sees the ability to petition the government for a redress of grievances flying out the window.

Not letting a crisis go to waste #7: "Expect to see a spike in funding for virology and vaccinology, a surge in students applying to public-health programs, and more domestic production of medical supplies."

Government funding of a particular vocation is the creation of "sustainable" careers. Students applying for only the options which the government declares, through funding, as necessary to a sustainable society is the agenda of education reform. Domestic production of supplies for the necessary, to sustainability industries, is literally communism going into effect.

Not letting a crisis go to waste #8: "The lessons that America draws from this experience are hard to predict, especially at a time when online algorithms and partisan broadcasters only serve news that aligns with their audience’s preconceptions." 

Gotta crackdown on free speech and freedom of the press, because, god forbid, there's a challenge to the one, supreme narrative of how we all must view things and what must be done.

Not letting a crisis go to waste #9: "The nation pivots, as it did after World War II, from isolationism to international cooperation."


"Expect pandemics to top the agenda at the United Nations General Assembly."

The United Nations is the institution that was put into place after WWII. It is the in-place and ripe-for-the-picking infrastructure for a global government.

"In 2030, SARS-CoV-3 emerges from nowhere, and is brought to heel within a month."

2030 is not an arbitrary date. The UN has it's Sustainable Development Goals set to be reached in 2030.

And, with a world crisis like covid19, trust that globalists are working overtime to not let the crisis go to waste.