Jimmie Moglia for The Saker Blog
In all mass phenomena it is uncertain whether to believe the scientists as the infallible voices of truth, or if, in their explanation of some events, we see but the dimming of the light of reason. For in the current currents of the world, science is often an improper verbal expression, used by sundry technocratic dictatorships to suggest unquestionable infallibility, leading to the imposition of very questionable restrictive measures.
I will remind the irrefragable believers in science, that not long ago (for example), the National Institute of Science and Technology determined that Building 7, a 50 story structure untouched by planes during 9/11 – and reinforced by an additional 200-million $ investment to secure unassailable strength and invulnerable resistance – collapsed due to an office fire. Not after retracting previous even more comical explanations, publicly exposed by a high-school physics teacher.
In fact the term or concept of ‘science’ has a curious conceptual kinship with the term or concept of ‘constitution.’ Both are shields against dissent.
For science is what I believe among what I see (or I am told) that supports my own perception or prejudice. Perceptions and prejudice that include parental influences, sense of security or insecurity, safety in crowds, etc.
Whereas constitution is what I believe the state should do if only I had any influence. In fact, especially in America, the helpless and hapless member of the decaying middle class, who claims that this or that measure is ‘unconstitutional,’ deserves both sympathy and a smile.
A smile because the courts that decide on constitutional matters have less concern for him than an elephant has for an ant, or as the writers of the declaration of independence had for the ‘people’. Indeed, they believed that all men are created equal, except the original American Indians, who were a nuisance, the women and the poor who could not vote, and the slaves who were not human.
Sympathy because he is an idealist – for he believes in democracy and therefore, implicitly, in the Panglossian and Leibnitzian view that this (American) is the best of all possible worlds.
To prevent the irate remarks of those who hold a quasi-religious belief in science, I will state, by far and away and without the shadow of a doubt, that I am not a scientist. The following are but observations that, with some adaptation, may apply to all mass phenomena.
Furthermore, it has become standard practice to label as conspiracy theorists all those whose point of view on matters touching on authorities differ from the proclaimed vulgate.
Conspiracy Theory is a kind of post-theological term defining heresy against the official political doctrine – a doctrine that is itself a totally artificial construct. In fact the new anti-conspiracy centers, based on the censure of alleged “fake news”, are actually preparing the Revolution of Silence. They are disguised tribunals of inquisition, indicting those who give a different interpretation to the daily scriptures.
Actually, apart from all that has already been said on the subject, the proto-conspiracy theorist was Socrates, who employed dialectics (read uncensored exchanges of questions and answers) to reach a tentative truth. And we know how he ended.
But I digress. Why the long introduction when the subject of epidemics would deserve none, as all are affected in however different ways? Because what follows is a concise historical reflection on epidemics, but I will leave it to the willing and patient reader to reach his/her own conclusions.
I will begin by citing a point of view on the plague that struck Italy around 1630. Europe was in the midst of the Thirty Years War and marauding armies spread the disease as they ravaged countries. At the time astrology was part of, or akin to science, and here is the point of view of a contemporary philosopher-scientist.
The passage comes from one of the best known novels of the 19th century [in English “The Betrothed”]. The English translation cannot convey the grand tone of the Italian language of the 1600, akin to the French of Racine or Rabelais or to the English of Richard Burton, in his massive but extremely amusing “Anatomy of Melancholy” – incidentally, the book I would take with me – if I could only take one – should I be stranded indefinitely in the proverbial remote island.
The thesis of the philosopher-scientist was that the plague did not exist. In comparison, today no one denies the existence of the corona virus, though, as we will see, that is not the end of the story.
From the commencement of the pestilence, Don Ferrante was one of the most resolute in denying its existence, not indeed like the multitude, with cries of rage, but with arguments which none could accuse of want of concatenation.
“In nature,” said he, “there are but two kinds of things, substances and accidents; and if I prove that the contagion can neither be one nor the other of these I shall have proved that it does not exist; that it is a chimera. Thus, then: substances are either material or spiritual; that the contagion is a spiritual substance, is so absurd an opinion, that no one would presume to advance it; it is, then, useless to speak of it. Material substances are either simple or compound.
Now, the contagion is not a simple substance, and I will prove it in three words. It is not an aerial substance, because, if it were, instead of passing from one body to another, it would fly off to its sphere; it is not a watery substance, because it would be dried up by the wind; it is not igneous, because it would burn; it is not earthy, because it would be visible. Moreover, it is not a compound substance, because it would be sensible to the eye, or to the touch; and who has seen it? or touched it? It remains to see if it be an accident.
This is still less probable. The doctors say it is communicated from body to body; this is their Achilles’ heel; the pretext for so many useless regulations.
Now, supposing it an accident, it would be a transferable accident, which is an incongruity. There is not in all philosophy a more evident thing than this, that an accident cannot pass from one subject
to another; so if, to avoid this Scylla, they are reduced to call it an accident produced, they avoid Scylla by falling into Charybdis, because if it be produced, it does not communicate itself, it does not
propagate, as they declare. These principles allowed, what is the use of talking of boils and carbuncles?”
“It is folly,” said one of his hearers.
“No, no,” resumed Don Ferrante, “I do not say so. Science is science; we must only know how to employ it. Swellings, purple inflammations, and black carbuncles, are respectable terms, which have a good and proper signification; but I say they have nothing to do with the question. Who denies that there may be and are such things? We must only prove whence they come.”
Here began the vexations of Don Ferrante. So long as he laughed at the contagion, he found respectful and attentive listeners; but when he came to distinguish and demonstrate that the error of the doctors was, not in affirming that there existed a general and terrible disease, but rather in assigning its cause, then he found them intractable and rebellious, then he no longer dared expose his doctrine, but by shreds and patches.
“Here is the true reason,” said he, “and those even who maintain other fancies are obliged to acknowledge it. Let them deny, if they can, that there is a fatal conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn. And when has it been said that influences propagate? And would these gentlemen deny the existence of influences? Will they say there are no planets? or will they say that they keep up above, doing nothing, as so many pins in a pincushion? But that which I cannot understand from these doctors is,
that they confess we are under so malign a conjunction, and then they tell us, don’t touch this, don’t touch that, and you will be safe! as if, in avoiding the material contact of terrestrial bodies, we could
prevent the virtual effect of celestial bodies. And such a work in burning rags! Poor people! will you burn Jupiter? will you burn Saturn?”
Holding these ideas, that is to say, on these grounds, he took no precautions against the pestilence; he caught it and died, like another hero in literature, complaining of the stars.
Unlike the coronavirus there are no longer doubts on the nature of the plague. Causing it is a bacterium called Yersinia pestis, usually spread by fleas that pick up the germs when they bite infected animals like rats, mice, or squirrels. Then they pass it to the next animal or person they bite.
As for Don Ferrante, we can well now laugh at the esoteric foundation of his science, but his colleagues of the time were not much more cognizant about the nature of the plague. In fact, to promote the end of the disease, they organized religious processions, which actually favored its rapid spreading.
With the coronavirus we cannot easily bring the stars into the picture as its cause. However, at least in the realm of epidemics, politics have replaced the stars in the mind of geo-politically minded and geo-medical analysts. For some it was an American conspiracy to weaken the Chinese, for others a Chinese conspiracy gone wrong to weaken the Americans.
We then come to an issue dealing with size, a concept familiar to all, including those without a university degree. How large/long is a virus? Specifically, how big is the coronavirus? Here my research has found no conclusive answer, but some usable clues. Extrapolating from the esoteric terminology surrounding the structure of cells, DNA, RNA etc. it is stated by more than one source that a virus varies in size from 25 to 400 nanometers. A smallpox virus (about 250 nanometers) is considered “large.” There are 25,400,000 (twentyfive million and four hundred thousand) nanometers in an inch. It follows that a large virus is 10 millionths of an inch wide.
At which the unspecialized observer may ask: even assuming that the mesh of protective masks is such as to prevent the entry of any virus of any size, the mask wearer still must breathe in and exhale. It follows that the now universally recommended and popular masks protect indeed from contaminants such as dust and mold but – reading from the specifications – “do not eliminate the risk of illness, disease, or death.”
Nevertheless, we all may agree that no remedy may be perfect but any is better than none.
We now deal with a more thorny issue, the nature of the test(s) that determine whether an individual is or isn’t a carrier of the coronavirus. Here I rely on an expert whose expertise I can only assume from his qualifications. Nevertheless his argument as stated, is consistent with logic and, apart from his impeccable qualifications, his physiognomy and demeanor do NOT suggest the “I-know-best” or “I-know-it-all” attitude made familiar by scores of experts and pundits floating to the surface from the mud od mediocrity. (For a video of the interview click here https://youtu.be/p_AyuhbnPOI)
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg is a German pneumologist, responsible for Public Health of the Council of Europe, of the Bundestag and of his Land in Germany. He had already unmasked the questionable if not dirty operation connected with the earlier Sars H1N1 epidemic, thanks to which Big Pharma realized astronomical profits, while gaining a permanent seat in the protective shade of power.
“Every year in the world there appear new viruses, about a hundred. From 2005 to 2013, eight different coronaviruses were observed in Glasgow. They show up in respiratory diseases. The (new) Corona types are between 7 and 15% (of the existing family) added each year. A new variant was discovered in Wuhan and was included in the worldwide database. It should have been validated by measurements and tests, but the World Health Organization, given the great panic, decided to use it immediately in their statistics.
The virologists, contrary to what actually claimed in the field, cannot say how dangerous but only how different the virus is.
The danger can be ascertained only by subsequent epidemiological data, including the acuity of the disease, the timing of recovery, if more patients die and how many.
For this reason it is imperative that comparisons be made with previous years’ data and mortality rates (apparently this was not done).
Now, if I look for coronavirus in an entire population, I’ll find traces of it also between 7 and 15%. But if i go to a clinic and look for the sick, I obviously find a lot more positive cases. If I look in hospitals, I’ll find them out of proportion. It all depends on the number of people I examine.
If I do the research among people in the Intensive Care Units, or who are about to die, or who have died, I will always find coronavirus up to 15% of them. But whether those people are sick or die of coronavirus, or other viruses and other pathologies (and the corona virus is just a coincidental presence), how do I establish it?
I see that in Italy they are all dying of coronavirus. Then I want to know where the tests were taken and what were the autopsies. If the tests were done on terminally ill patients in the hospital, it is obvious that the mortality rate rises, because that’s the only location examined. For the Civil Protection Service, all the dead are counted as caused by the Covid-19 vurus.
1,500 Italians who die every day of everything, end up in the coronavirus list. 37 die of pneumonia, which becomes coronavirus, 1 in 10 Italian has the flu, meaning, for the Civil Protection Service, coronavirus. Is that honest?
As for the seasonal pathology called influenza, we have a mortality rate of 0.1%. It is the upper limit, which means that every winter 1 in 1000 people die of influenza. We now have to see if the corona virus kills more.
In past years all patients with serious diseases in hospitals have not been tested for coronavirus, as today. We should have expected up to 3,000 influenza deaths with coronavirus. Today we are still far from these numbers. In Wuhan, virologists insisted so much on the severity of the virus that it impressed the Chinese government. Convinced about the danger, the government took extraordinary measures that in turn caused international repercussions.
Politicians rushed to the occasion and turned to virologists from whom it was confirmed that the thing was very worrying and that they (the virologists) were ready to help out with tests.
In short, the climate was created and a network of information and opinions was fabricated. In turn politics latched on to these environments and became part of this network. Which led politics (and politicians) to submit to the arguments of virologists and to rely on their decision on whom to help, what security measures should be taken, what to allow, what to prohibit, whom to quarantine. Soon the network decided on everything. Consequently, now it becomes very difficult to express antithetical positions and say, “Stop, nothing extraordinary is happening!”
This reminds me of the fairy tale of the emperor without clothes. Only a child was ready to say, “Hey, the king is naked” All the others, the court, members of government and their helpers, ask instructions from outsiders because, not being experts, they cannot know, they must trust, they must play the rigged match, they must sing in the choir.
Today politics is courted by many scientists (the bearers of dogma). There are scientists who want to enter or connect with politics, as they need money for their institutes. Scientists who swim in this current and want to secure their share. “We can help, we have the APPS, we have the right program.” It means wealth and power.
But we should ask questions that no one asks. How did you find out that this virus is dangerous? How did it behave before? Was there not the same thing last year? Is this really new? This (information) is missing. The king is naked.”
Other questioning voices have recently been heard regarding some extraordinary anomalies, such as the dramatic differences among the dead from Coronavirus between, say, Italy and Germany. For example, on the 19h of March, 52 in Germany, 3,405 in Italy.
In Germany who dies of cancer, pneumonia, cardiac arrest and Coronavirus, is considered as having died of cancer, pneumonia etc. That is, the virus is not computed as the cause of death, unless it is the exclusive cause.
In Italy, instead, whoever has contracted the Coronavirus, is deemed to have died from it – if he dies – along with pre-existing pathologies.
Aware of this statistical anomaly the Italian Superior Institute for Health has published an analysis based on the medical records of the deceased, that is, those who died from existing causes, to which the coronavirus may have contributed, and those who died from the coronavirus. In this new statistic, the percentage is 0.8%, comparable to the numbers in Germany.
In truth it is difficult to assess how much the coronavirus may have aggravated preexisting causes. An answer could be derived from statistics and records of previous years. At the moment this is an open question.
Based on the above and adding to data available from all other the world, it seems we are dealing with catastrophism without a catastrophe. That is, spreading and sowing terror among the population for what is, in the end, a wave of a particularly severe influenza syndrome – though it does not cause many more deaths than what on average occur during winter – except in some specific area for reasons not entirely well determined.
For example, an endemic presence of meningitis that earlier on prompted intensive vaccinations causes the virus to be more aggressive, as it happened in some limited areas of Northern Italy.
Also, an abnormal mortality index may be due to misdiagnosis or to real sanitary reasons. For example, Iran has a higher mortality, but so it does for influenza (not reported because not newsworthy). Furthermore, among the survivors of the Iraq war there are many old people whose lungs were damaged by the poison gas that the US supplied to Saddam Hussein before killing him.
And now a brief look at the politics of the Coronavirus epidemic. As it is common, politics are based on speculation, imagination and deduction. Logic suggests that politics and individual health are separate domains, but, as we have seen above, the domains are strictly interconnected.
Few, probably, may remember the North American influenza, labeled as swine flu or Mexican, though born in California. There was even a photo of Obama being vaccinated. From what I read, that flu affected and killed about one million people, of which 16,000 in Europe.
With Covid 19, a new element, which we can call cultural, is/was China. This acted as a political amplifier for the geo-political, geo-medical management of the event, quickly exploited by Washington and its European lackeys.
According to this view, China promptly realized that the coronavirus could be used as a gun against her New Silk Road program. Medical or political diseases desperate grown, by desperate measures are relieved or not at all. A possibly improbable medical catastrophe (as per Dr. Wodarg’s report above) could certainly become a probable political catastrophe for the New Silk Road. Which justifies all the measures undertaken by China, so as to turn the threat into a moral victory.
Still, the Chinese scenario cannot explain what happened afterwards in the West, namely the great fear, disproportionate to the gravity of the events, while the governments were initially inactive compared to what China promptly undertook.
Here the theory (or reason), has to do with the opportunity, caught by Western powers, to implement that total control of society not yet completely realized to date. Hence the use of incorrect and fraudulent statistics, so as to create the panic needed to achieve “full spectrum dominance” of the citizenry, to use a turn of phrase dear to the CIA and to the AngloZionist Cabal.
In England – before the Coronavirus became a pandemic, and in the style of the “Yes, Prime Minister” series – they may have thought of setting up an inter-departmental committee, with fairly broad terms of reference, so that at the end of the day they could be in a position to think through the various implications and arrive at a decision based on long term considerations, rather than rush prematurely into precipitate and possibly ill-conceived actions which might well have unforeseen repercussions. But then the speed of the global phenomenon suddenly overtook any plan for dilatory decisions.
Still, for reference, statistics from South Korea, based on mass screening in the most affected area, show numbers 35 times lower than those, for example, in Italy.
Whereas, in Italy, the coronavirus has enabled the survival of a political class largely discredited and enslaved to the European financial cabal. In turn the epidemic has led to a situation of actual collapse – which, in the end, will make of Italy an easier morsel to swallow.
There is an echo, here, of the situation in the USSR, just before the AngloZionists managed to destroy the Soviet Union and privatize (read ‘gobble’) the most profitable Russian enterprises.
And yet perhaps all this would not have been possible were it not for the presence of a diffused sensation of approaching the end of an era, a sensation of bitterness against the neo liberal ideology that has impoverished and deprived of their rights a large mass of people. Add to this a general sense of derangement and alienation feeding an emotional expectation associated with millenarianism.
It happened before in history that some events were metaphors for epochal changes. For example, the fear surrounding the year 1000 was an invention of successive ages. But in effect, around 1000 AD, the medieval world was on the edge of a great transformation.
Neo-millenarians tried something similar with the Y2K scare of the year 2000. The attempt, however, was contrived and artificial, it did not work though many believed it.
Portents and prodigies, cosmic, miraculous, metaphysical expectations have always galvanized people, notably in times of stress. Wonders were willingly told and willing heard.
Around the second century AD the resurrection of the dead was very far from being esteemed an uncommon event. Edward Gibbon relates how a noble Grecian, anxious to convert to Christianity had promised Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, that if he, the Grecian, could be gratified with the sight of a single person who had been actually raised from the dead, he would immediately embrace the Christian religion. It is somewhat remarkable – Gibbon comments – that the prelate of the first Eastern church, however anxious for the conversion of his friend, thought proper to decline this fair and reasonable challenge.
To return to our times, the sensation or the hope that the coronavirus epidemic may do away with the invisible status-quo clashes with the current reality, where the usual few already salivate at the opportunities offered to vulture capitalists by disaster capitalism.
Furthermore, some oligarchs, pundits and even politicians, living in the tide of pomp that beats upon the high shores of the world, have hinted or openly stated that too many goy live too long, hence acting as a drag on the growth of the oligarchs’ wealth. A proper pandemic could be an intelligent alternative to a third world war while simultaneously hiding the boil that is destroying democracy for the greater glory and power of the financial oligarchy with its house of cards.
In this view wealth is the abstract soul of man, which gives to the wealthiest a kind of rude health – for it’s difficult to imagine death at that income level. Or rather, maybe there is no death as we know it, just documents changing hands. There must be an awareness of prosperity, a security and contentment that the oligarchs’ wealth bring to their soul – a fullness of being unknown to people who need less, expect less, or who plan their lives around lonely walks in the evening.
Against the oligarchs’ lifestyle even the psalm from Genesis, warning man that he is but dust and that to dust he will revert, loses its sting. [Memento homo quia pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris].
Which brings me to some concluding cosmological considerations, only peripherally related to Covid-19.
Many, I should think, have implicitly accepted the “Big Bang” theory about the birth of the Universe. It is understandable, because a Universe that has a beginning is at least half as terrifying than a universe that has no beginning and no end.
But other astrophysicists, for example Freeman Dyson, have proposed an alternative theory, according to which the universe has no beginning and no end. Consequently, he maintained, life brings drama and enthusiasm to a universe that, otherwise, would be deadly dull indeed.
Now, if I compare my (our) biblical essence of dust with Dyson’s idea of an infinitely boring universe, I think that the dusty prospect has more appeal, or at least less unappeal. For if, a few billion years hence, the sun will expand and bring the earth into its womb, my dust too will be part of a star. Which almost adds a romantic tinge to an otherwise helplessly gloomy prospect. For, by my dust belonging to a star, I will become veritable stardust. And so will you.