Category Archives: The Coronavirus Apocalypse

Jordan Peterson, Do You See What I See?

What does the number of times Hitler bathed in a day have to do with the Coronavirus lockdowns?

On the surface, it might seem like the the two have nothing to do with each other, but the connection between slowing infection and manufactured disgust is nothing new, as explored in the following video.

By the way, this video actually predates the coronavirus lockdowns, which makes its contents all the more jarring:

It is a very human tendency to bring order to chaos, as leaders are expected to do. But an over-emphasis on order brings with it the risk of crossing the civilizational rubicon into madness.

Such was the case with Adolf Hitler, who initially combatted infection, not through an abundance of fear, but with a perception of civility.

That same perceived civility resulted in a sense of manufactured disgust in those who were not as “pure” or “uninfected”, and the better judgement of the Germans was overridden by a desire to further their leader’s vision of purity.

Hitler’s intention was to completely reorder society, perceiving himself as an intellectual superior who knew what was best for people, more so than the people themselves.

Sound familiar?

The Proposed Stimulus Stipulation Smells Rotten

In a previous post, we examined a video by Dave Cullen which explores the possibility that the coronavirus vaccine is a scam designed to sterilize a percentage of the people who get it in an effort to curb overpopulation. I know that such an idea would sound crazy to most people, but considering the preponderance of evidence (and the fact that the vaccine makers have been indemnified from side-effects claims), I think most people should be a little suspicious.

I bring this up because representative Steve Stivers (R-Ohio) has suggested that a proposed $1400 stimulus be withheld, except for those who got the coronavirus vaccine. Rep. Stivers wasn’t the first to bring up the idea of incentivizing vaccination, a similar suggestion has been brought up by Rep. John Delaney (D-Maryland).

That’s interesting, considering that it was just a couple days ago that we’ve examined the Jaffe memo, which suggested, among other things, “Payments to encourage sterilization”.

It is possible that it’s just a coincidence. However, suppose someone was a mean-spirited pork-belch with way too much influence, way more money than they deserve, and with a HItler-esque interest in reducing the world’s population. If a sterilizing vaccine is how they intended to pull it off, they’d achieve far greater success if vaccination were incentivized, especially if a significant portion of the population has been brought into dire financial straights.

That would be conspiracy theorizing, of course. But people seem to forget that being skeptical, having doubts, and seeking out motives can actually be a good thing, especially when there are some seriously sketchy things going on.

Dating Dynamics Have Shifted… Due To the Lockdowns?!

I’ve noticed a sharp increase in the amount of attention that I’ve been getting on dating sites from interested women, even though my employment has remained consistent, and most of my profiles haven’t been updated in months.

Ignoring world events, this might seem like an enigma, but we know better. It has to do with the lockdowns that were a response to the coronavirus epidemic. You know, the virus that’s so deadly that you have to take a test to know you have it.

Because of the lockdowns, men all over the country have lost their jobs, which is bad news for the numerous men out there who would otherwise be able to support women in their lives.

Worse yet, the moratorium on evictions is looking like they’ll expire in March, which puts many already-desperate women in a pretty bad spot.

Obviously, these circumstances are not favorable for everyone, except for a few: Those whose jobs have been deemed life-sustaining by their state governors, especially those not in low-paying service industry jobs.

Considering their circumstances, women are suddenly overcoming their natural inhibitions by taking initiative, pursuing relationships with men who may be better able to care for them. The alternative to succeeding in the current economic conditions may very well be for women to end up back with their parents, or worse, to end up homeless!

Considering this, it would greatly behoove women to avoid using their old tactics, such as psychological manipulation, because they really can’t afford to end up losing a valuable opportunity because something went wrong.

What’s more, they won’t have the same confidence that men would come crawling back, as though men are so desperate for some naked time that they could easily be made to give up their self-respect to get it. If it’s intimacy that men are after, there are now many more women who are offering it, and some of them happen to be much better at being women.

Such as Asian women, for example. They have a knack for being kind-hearted, submissive, and non-belligerent. It’s because of these attributes that western men, having been vexed by western women, have historically turned to the far-east to find their spouses. Those women tend to be eagerly accepting, in part because they find western men attractive, and in part because they see America as offering a brighter future.

Everyone gets off well from the deal, except western women. Whether they like it or not, they do have Asian women to compete with. Which is a great reason for them to get competitive.

In times past, dating sites have been a blast for women, while men have found them exhausting. If you’ve ever wondered why this is, it’s because of the disproportionate amount of women who have used dating sites frivolously. In many cases, they’d already be in a relationship, but they’d use the site anyway to gauge their attractiveness. As a result, men have come away from dating sites feeling dejected, having no idea that they’ve been played for dopamine hits.

Matters are changing now, as women are becoming competitive again, there being too much at stake to treat dating sites as a big, stupid game.

As refreshing as this is, it’s true that these circumstances are not ideal, particularly for the men who aren’t as well off. The job market is already being flooded with men who became unemployed due to the lockdowns, but dating pools seem like they’re being flooded with women who actually have an interest in getting relationships to work out.

As if I haven’t already hammered away at the point, there’s also the fact that dating sites are a recent invention. That’s not something that people have had ages and ages to adapt to. For that matter, the same could be said for dating in general. For much of human history, for a person to choose their spouse was something infrequent. It usually came down to marriages arranged by parents between families, usually in the interest of ensuring that communities remained tightly-knit. Royalty did something similar, arranging marriages that were intentionally designed to ensure familial connections. Modern ideas of “love” seldom had anything to do with it.

When you understand this, it makes intuitive sense why it seems like, when it comes to the dating game, people don’t seem to have any idea what they’re doing. That’s because humans are better-accustomed to having mommy and daddy pick someone out for them. In the absence of this, people instead meander about from one date to another, afraid to slip up over the slightest goof. In recent times, men have had to learn shifting rules as they go, often pulled about by marketers that want them to buy diamonds (which aren’t actually rare), gross lobsters, expensive chocolates, and other carefully-marketed bullcrap that women aren’t always interested in, anyway.

Women might want to bring their A-game, because I’m already considering buying a two-way ticket to Japan, and a one-way ticket to bring someone back with me.

TWAT News: Transsexual Appointed Health Secretary

Rachel Levine. I did not edit this photo.

I have a series called That Was Actually The News, which examines crazy or hard-to-believe stories that make the news, sometimes with jabs at the outlets that consider these occurrences news. For the first time, I have my doubts that the category could do it justice. Wait ‘til you find out why.

President Elect Joe Biden has just appointed his health secretary. And it is a transsexual woman.

We’re really in for it, now.

Rachel Levine, who previously served as Health Secretary of the state of Pennsylvania, had been selected by Joe Biden as his Health Secretary. Rachel identified as a man for the first 50 years of her(?) life, before deciding she’d rather be a woman, breaking up with her wife over the delusion.

Rachel is also known for blowing her stack when an interviewer used the wrong pronouns on her, accidentally. I know that not every transsexual is militant about it, but there is an outspoken few who actually view misgendering as a form of assault.

And as though that weren’t bad enough, she was the one who ordered people who tested positive for COVID-19 into nursing homes, where they became surrounded by people especially susceptible to fatalities through complications. If you still haven’t figured out why that’s stupid, just read that last sentence again until you figure it out. No reader left behind!

With her new position of power, Rachel can be expected to spew intersectional propaganda under the guise of science, while shaping the medical world to the image of a sexual proclamation that only about 0.5% of people identify with, alienating the remaining 99.5% of people who are better in touch with reality.

Additionally, Biden wishes to impose 100 days of mask-wearing on all Americans, as though the results would be any different from the previous 300 days of doing the same.

Biden also wants to stick the arms of 100 million Americans (just under 1/3 of the population) with a vaccine that might actually cause sterilization, in under 100 days.

Incidentally, the vaccine manufacturer has been indemnified against claims of harmful side effects. Suspicious?

As creepy as all this is, ol’ sleepy Joe hasn’t even been inaugurated, yet.

A man pretending to be a woman is now one of the most powerful physicians on earth. Dark days are ahead for the medical world.

TWAT News: Prince Harry Implies Beer-Virus a Punishment From Mother Nature

If the idea of a human-led monarchy didn’t have its flaws, there wouldn’t have been much call for todays constitutional governments. For example, if an absolute monarch was completely out of touch with reality, there would be little expectation of a prosperous society.

So, when royalty such as Prince Harry suggests that the novel coronavirus is a punishment from a nature deity, that really makes one grateful for the Magna Carta, and its enduring legacy.

That’s just what happened; Prince Harry suggested that COVID-19 was Mother Nature’s way of punishing people for being so mean to the environment.

That’s really interesting, because I had the idea that the virus originated in China, either from a filthy wet-market, or from incompetence in a bio-research lab, and the Chinese Communist Party isn’t being open about it because they’re famously unreliable when it comes to anything that can make them look bad (also, they don’t understand how to run a society, which makes the CCP like every communist ever).

Harry then went on to make the case that people should do more to benefit the environment, complete with inane analogies and obtuse non-sequitors. Among these was comparing people to raindrops.

I don’t know, and I don’t care to try to interpret just what he was attempting to say. What I do know is that Prince Harry has a political ideology that goes after ordinary members of the population to recycle every last plastic bottle, in spite of the fact that households produce only about 1% of recyclable waste. But that did nothing to stop him from purchasing a sprawling estate, like other environmentalists such as Barack Obama and Bob Dole, enjoying having as many as 16 bathrooms in these estates. Of course, the fact that these people buy private jets doesn’t mean they’re not opinionated about you driving a car and eating real beef.

You know, the ol’ rules for thee, but not for me.

Nature worshippers, including those who treat “Mother Nature” as a literal personal entity, are living a collective delusion. A person can learn a lot about nature just by reading a guide on how to identify edible plants. In so doing, a person would learn that a day in the woods is not like a trip to the supermarket. The fact is, nature doesn’t give a care about us, not nearly enough to make it easy to tell the difference between a plant that lets us live another day or poisons a person dead.

It’s because of this that the human relationship with nature is one of mistrust, and as soon as we developed the capability to subdue it, we were right to do so.

There is something about neo-environmentalism that’s unsettling, and that’s the creepy undertone that views humans as the bad guy, or that the growth of the human population is something to respond to with tighter top-down controls, with deference to the will of wealthy coastal technocrats, moral authoritarians, and the other unsavory forms of scientism. While they have no problem with telling the rest of us how to live our lives, one simple question makes them disintegrate like vampires in daylight:

If you think this is such a good idea, why aren’t you doing it?

Odds are it’s because the political elites don’t want to live in one-bedroom apartments, subsisting on cheap pasta and taking mass-transit to work a minimum-wage job. Political elites like Prince Harry, Barack Obama, and Bob Dole consume immensely more than the average ordinary human being living today, and they prefer to keep it that way.

I wonder whether Greta Thunberg is aware that this is the case? Maybe that girl should be more careful about who she plays with.

So, how about it, hyper-rich environmentalists? Why not be the change you want to see, if it means anyone will take you seriously? What’s stopping you? It’s obvious what the answer is, and that’s that you still want more than the average person.

So, here’s an idea: let’s reward a person proportionately based on their contributions to society. That way, a person would have more if they earn it, based on what they do. If this were the system that were in place, then how would you justify having more than someone else?

Hard question? I’ll go first. I produce circuit boards that have defense and aerospace applications. What I do is difficult to become qualified to do, with about two-thirds of those who attempt the degree failing or dropping out. What I do, without question, makes the world a better place. I want a house, a couple cars, and the means to support a family well in excess of the replacement rate. I’ve earned it.

So, what does the typical hyper-rich environmentalist do? It’s not so much a question of whether they work for a living as it is whether they’ve worked at all. In fact, if people stopped paying taxes, they wouldn’t have any income. Outside of foreign energy investments, just ask Hunter Biden.

The coronavirus epidemic has been played for political purposes, and a nature deity had been brought into it. That Was Actually The News.

Supreme Court Upholds Religious Protections in Face of COVID Lockdowns

In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court of the United States blocked the state of New York’s restrictions on in-person attendance for religious gatherings. This was among the first major rulings which involved the newly-appointed Amy Coney Barrett, who sided with the Constitution on this matter in what is now a 6 to 3 conservative-majority Supreme Court.

The ruling seemed an obvious consequence of interpreting the first amendment of the Constitution, the first of a list of Bill of Rights that collectively act as the superordinate principles that govern the relationship between the U.S. government, state governments, and individual members of the population.

While it’s no surprise that the three “liberal” judges ruled as they did, it’s disappointing that a conservative judge, Chief Justice John Roberts, sided against the Constitution in this regard. Considering the value of the Constitution in American society, none of the judges should side against the Constitution in any case.

The text of the first amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The law specifically precludes the U.S. government or the states from favoring one religious organization over another, and protects the right of the people to assemble peaceably. This is especially relevant to the Orthodox Jews who complained of the restrictions, and also claimed that they were specifically targeted. Recent restrictions on the number of people allowed in religious gatherings in light of the coronavirus epidemic limited religious gatherings to 25 attendees, or more recently, to ten.

As a personal observation, as I read the language of the first amendment, and see the common themes of the activities and parties mentioned, I get the idea that the government is not to be involved in ideological influencing of any kind towards the population. Protections for religious groups and the press carries a strong implication of this. If this is the case, this would mean that psy-ops historically conducted on U.S. citizens should be strictly illegal. Though, to be fair, private organizations go much further in this regard than institutions of the U.S. government. Anyone who cares to name some examples are free to do so in the comments below.

The Supreme Court pointed out that “even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. The restrictions at issue here… strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.”

As the BBC pointed out, the ruling won’t have an immediate impact, as the parties that filed the complaint are no longer under the restrictions that they contested.

Disturbingly, as the coronavirus lockdowns demonstrated, it is possible for state governors to enact orders that are in direct violation of the constitution, and for the unlawful orders to be carried out over the course of months, in which time the courts debate the legality of the orders. Yet, even once state governors are determined to have broken the law, the damage has already been done, including to the assets and enterprises of the people, and these governors face little to no personal consequence for their illegal orders, with the possible exception of Gretchen Whitmer, who may face impeachment for her defiance of a court order.

Since the beginning of the coronavirus restrictions, U.S. citizens have found out that state governors have the ability to cause substantial damage to their livelihoods, and face little consequence for their misuse of power, which in some cases is illegal.

The United States is widely regarded as a country of rebels. There is a reason for that, which has much to do with the fact that our founding fathers figured something out about government: that what makes a leader is a following, and that no one can govern an individual without the individual’s consent. Our proclamation of religious liberty was a direct challenge to a king who claimed that his position of authority was a matter of divine mandate. Today, the religious people of America are being challenged by a different sort of tyrant, the kind who possesses less power, authority, and consequence than a king. Our indignation towards them is unquestionably appropriate, as many of our state governors are loathsome individuals with no respect for the religions or faiths of the founders.

If you’re among the many Americans who, on this Thanksgiving day, are gathering together with family and friends in defiance of the will of certain debased governors, you are doing so with the true heart of an American. If these so-called governors have the hearts to understand it, maybe they’ll eventually figure it out.

But if someone doesn’t have the capacity to understand why a person would want to gather with family and friends, they’re truly unfit to lead.

Panic-Buying Round 2 is Underway

This photo was taken earlier this year.

Just a few days ago, I warned my readers that they have an opportunity to prepare for a possible new round of lockdowns. It would appear that I’m not the only one with my ear to the ground, as people have started prepping for a next round of lockdowns, which seems to be turning into another bout of panic-buying.

While Biden’s guys are flip-flopping on whether to institute a nationwide lockdown (which federal judges in Michigan and Pennsylvania have already found unconstitutional), Gretchen Whitmer, governor of Michigan, has decided that she just couldn’t wait and decided to institute a three-week lockdown (ignoring those federal judges). Leftists are itching to lock everything down, and they can hardly contain themselves.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has already opposed lockdowns, citing the economic damage that they do, worsening the problems of poverty and child starvation.

Not that left-wing governors care.

With them, it’s about power. And the lockdowns are yet another way they can express their power over you. Want to physically attend college so you can build career connections? Governors have their own aspirations. Want the income you need to buy that house? Governors care about their own income. Have family plans? Governors have their own plans for the future, and they don’t care about you.

While mass-hysteria fueled by corporate-media sensationalism was the main driving factor of early 2020 panic-buying, the panic-buying of late 2020 is being driven by sheer distrust of left-wing governors, at least one of which is ignoring a court ruling and the law of the land just to do as they please, and more chilling still, they’ve been able to avoid accountability for it until now. That may soon change with the possible impeachment of Gretchen Whitmer, but I’m not counting on it.

Just days ago, a handful of Northeast governors have met up in an emergency meeting to conspire against us discuss further coronavirus restrictions in light of an increase in the number of new cases. Among the points discussing involved more limitations on the number of people who can gather together in one place, which just so happens to be something a Pennsylvania federal judge directly ruled against.

Wow, I had no idea that a federal judge could be simply ignored. Life hack!

Michigan Governor Faces Impeachment Over Lockdown

(I would have put an image of Gretchen Whitmer here, but my readership probably doesn’t want to look at her.)

Michigan representative Matt Maddock announced on Twitter that he is one of several Michigan lawmakers that will be pursuing the impeachment of Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer.

The impeachment motions would be coming in light of Gretchen’s announcement of new coronavirus restrictions, which she intends to last three weeks. Earlier this year, a federal judge ruled that Gretchen’s previous coronavirus lockdowns were unconstitutional, similar to another ruling in Pennsylvania.

Not only is Gretchen’s lockdown unconstitutional, it is in direct violation of a court order. What’s more, as Matt explains, she ignored due process and “Weaponized [contact] tracing databases to aid democrat campaigns”.

Of course, it’s also relevant that Gretchen is a dangerous, irresponsible fanatic, for reasons Matt gives in his Twitter post.

Personally, I applaud Michigan lawmakers’ pursuit of the impeachment of Gretchen Whitmer, as I believe that there should be consequences when leadership damages the livelihoods of ordinary citizens in violation of the law of the land. Considering the extent of the damage Gretchen has caused, impeachment is not enough. She needs to be held financially responsible for the damage she caused, as determined by a class-action lawsuit, out of her own pockets.

It would seem as though Gretchen was one of many children who believed that being governor meant that you could do whatever you want, but didn’t at some point learn that the U.S. of A. is a very rule of law kinda place.

Because Gretchen Whitmer thinks it’s okay to ignore the ruling of a federal judge, perhaps Michiganders should ignore her.

TWAT News: Burger King recommending McDonald’s?!

It would seem like the Coronavirus Apocalypse is getting serious, because now Burger King is recommending eating at McDonald’s in an effort to keep the fast food industry going.

If you’re like me, then you’ve been eating at home more lately, or just eating healthier in general, as it’s much less expensive than dining out. Of course, I’ve been downing ramen lately, which isn’t the healthiest thing around, but is inexpensive, and accessible.

It would seem like the fast food industry is feeling the pinch. There aren’t many Burger Kings in my neighborhood, and the one I’ve visited on the way to church has closed down since the onset of the Coronavirus Apocalypse. Not that I’m feeling especially bad for the fast food industry, considering the tricks that they play to keep people addicted, which includes adding sugar to their food, as Subway does with their bread.

As an article from BoredPanda pointed out, not everyone was buying the corporate shilling. As commenters on Twitter duly noted, it’s smaller businesses that more desperately need attention. They have a point, considering that it’s the small businesses that were hit the hardest during the lockdowns, with some of them closing down, never to open again. In fact, during the lockdowns, it was big business that was better off, especially with less competition from smaller business.

People are going to big box stores like Walmart and Target, getting more in fewer stops in an effort to limit travel. People who aren’t leaving their homes are ordering through sites like Amazon. Are these the kinds of businesses that need help?

Yet, people are finding it more difficult to frequent smaller businesses, as many of us have lost our jobs, and others still are squeamish to spend lots of money, considering that more lockdowns might be in the near future, and it’s hard to predict what some state governors might do.

When it comes to food, I’ve taken an interest in shelf-stable items, including canned food, flour, rice, dried beans, and even ramen. I even have some food left from one of those Auguson Farms buckets, which has simple-to-prepare food items that can last on the shelf for years. What I got was mostly cheap, and has the potential to last a little while, which can help in the event that things get challenging. It’s not a bad idea to secure some of these items while they’re still relatively easy to find.

When facing the possibility to fighting for your life, fast food loses much of its appeal. But it wasn’t so much the virus that brought us to this point as it was the response to it.

Burger King recommended McDonald’s. That Was Actually The news.

Fauci: “Do what you’re told” because science

Anthony Fauci, looking more like Hannibal Lecter by the day.

Dr. Anthony Fauci has been a proponent of muzzling Americans with facemasks. Now, it’s apparent that his own facemask is tight to the point of depriving his brain of oxygen, because now he’s literally telling Americans to “do what you’re told”.

Don’t believe me? Here’s what Fauci had to say, provided by NBC New York:

“I was talking with my U.K. colleagues who are saying the U.K. is similar to where we are now, because each of our countries have that independent spirit,” he said on stage. “I can understand that, but now is the time to do what you’re told.”

He actually said that.

He also said that “science” was being politicized, rather than trusted. That’s interesting, because it was “science” that governors trusted when shutting down states, causing unemployment to skyrocket, poverty to soar, and exasperating child starvation, all while not asking Americans themselves whether they objected.

And, what do you know, it turns out that scientists don’t have any idea how to run a society. For that matter, neither do doctors. Why not ask economists? And sociologists? And, for that matter, the people themselves? Even the WHO has come to understand that lockdowns were a bad idea.

Anthony Fauci sounds close to understanding that Americans don’t listen to authoritarians like him. But if he figured that out, he’d promptly shut up, get off the stage, and go where we don’t have to look at him.

If Anthony Fauci does not end up at a bus station somewhere begging for change, he has not experienced the damage he himself has caused.