Skip to main content

In Rejection of Institutionalized De-humanization

Sometimes there are virtual interactions that are jarring in ways only the too online would recognize. Social media has become the cultural lab for discourse. It's the place where new themes and memes are cultured before being released into the wild to go mainstream. I remember laughing out loud after being called nazbol and strasserite for criticizing the George Floyd riots of 2020. It felt like an archaic insult from someone transported through time from 2017. (In the real world that would be equivalent to being called a jive turkey by someone who had just arrived from 1975.) Nazbol and strasserite were the way self professed online socialists accused others of being neo-nazi collaborators. That was before it became normative to directly frame supporters for one party in our political binary directly as nazis, skipping all euphemism.

Reading nazbol in 2020 is a lot like being called anti-vaxxer now or seeing the mRNA inoculations framed as safe and effective. It is a reflection of a mindset still dependent on themes cultured in 2020 that went mainstream in 2021 with the rollout of the inoculations. The world has moved on and the evidence has mounted. The people who were skeptical of the inoculations have been proved right. The decreasing uptake of each progressive booster suggests that skepticism is growing. 

One reason it feels so jarring is that it seems as if people are lying or being willfully delusional. In the spirit of offering some bit of grace missing from the last few years, perhaps there is a more innocent explanation. Maybe they are just unaware of the mounting evidence. After all, the FDA is considering the bivalent booster as an annual shot and the CDC continues to promote the inoculations as necessary. It may also be the result of a strategy similar to the king's in my re-working of The Boy Who Cried Wolf parable. 

As revealed by the Twitterfiles highlighted by David Zweig, there has been a concerted effort to limit the bounds of conversation on the origin, treatment for, and public heath response to COVID. In pursuit of that end, many doctors, researchers, and vaccine injured were suspended by social media platforms like Twitter. As those individuals have had their accounts restored, their narratives of their experiences elucidate the other reason being called anti-vaxxer feels so jarring. I remember being called stupid by doctors on Facebook for noting that other doctors had reservations about the inoculations and especially the boosters. I was accused of promoting medical harm. People advocated punishment and even hoped for death by COVID for those refusing the inoculations. There was public celebration of people losing their livelihoods for refusing a novel medical product despite having immunity from prior infection. This included many frontline medical workers who had been celebrated for working through the outbreak prior to the rollout of inoculations. If there had been any doubt before the return of the censored, it is now glaringly apparent that acceptance of institutionalized de-humanization was mainstreamed from the cultural lab. It could be described as mass formation (psychosis) based on a theory by Mattias Desmet built on a body of work into social formation and psychology. It was conditioned by the social isolation and lack of connectedness from the lock downs, the pervasive anxiety over an invisible virus which became fear of others as vectors for the virus, and deliberate manipulation.

There have been numerous, almost daily, Twitter Spaces (large public forums) by the medical professionals, researchers, and vaccine injured whose accounts have been restored. They, along with the documents from the Twitterfiles, offer some insight into that manipulation. Two of the larger Spaces occurred on December 27, 2022 and January 8, 2023. 

The first featured doctors from the Global Covid Summit. It opened with Dr. Robert Cole sharing dad jokes like, "you know at Christmas time the alphabet only has 25 letters...because there's noel." The Space was interrupted, but the first segment ended with Dr. Lynn Flynn explaining that she had first been suspended for saying that the spike protein was pathogenic. She was permanently suspended for suggesting that the virus could not have survived in a bat. After her suspension she had federal agents at her door quoting verbatim from her permanently suspended, no longer visible account. The second segment started with a joke that every conspiracy theory had been proven true and the Space was under attack.

The January Space featured a larger panel, which included many of the same doctors. The theme was, "Censorship killed millions. Free speech saves lives." It was divided into 4 segments, Political and Global Aspects of Censorship, Vaccine Science Aspects of CensorshipEarly Treatment Aspects of Censorship, and Media & News Aspects of Censorship. There are over 6 hours of audio between the two Spaces. Rather than try to detail what was said, I recommend taking the time to explore them both for a glimpse into the road not taken. We need to wrestle with the reasons why that path was blocked and the implications. One thing that is clear is that that path offered much more success with much less disruption in place of the complete failure of our public health response. For example, Dr. Bryan Towson, featured in the second Space, treated over 20,000 COVID patients, along with his partner Dr. George Fareed. They experienced six hospitalizations, and four deaths, but only from those treated after seven days of infection.

Consider that alongside hospitals sending patients home until their breathing challenges worsened enough to require hospitalization. Ask yourself if there is any single aspect of the COVID public health response which was actually successful and worth the negative consequences. Is there anything which justifies the learning loss for school children, their mental health crisis, increased drug addiction, the current historical rates of excess and sudden "unexplained" deaths, and the economic instability? There is growing evidence that not only was it ineffective at stopping COVID, our strategy has possibly made it worse. Not only have repeated boosters made us more susceptible to the virus several of the doctors suggest they have weakened our immune response to other pathogens. This completely leaves aside the expansive number of adverse events and injury associated with the inoculation.

The questions raised by my re-working of The Boy Who Cried Wolf are especially relevant here:
  • What happens when our leaders lie to us to fulfill their self interests?
  • What happens if those leaders refuse to be accountable?
  • What happens when those lies break public trust in the institutions meant to keep us safe?
  • What happens if those lies cause us harm?
  • What happens when experts are silenced in service of those lies?
  • How does the public correct those harms without falling into cynicism and despair?
to them we should add two more:
  • Where might we be now had the censored been allowed to speak?
  • Whose advice should we follow when next a health crises comes, the censored, or the people who enforced the censorship to ensure theirs were the only voices heard?

Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, who predicted that the vax strategy would fail and result in more variants.


I collected numerous links related to this topic. I limited myself to what is written above but offer many of those links for anyone interested in diving deeper.

Pfizer trials and the whistle blower
Early Treatment


Popular posts from this blog

'Anti-racism', All Trap, No Honey: A Discourse About Discourse

One of the things that prevents me from writing more often is the sense that I'm just writing the same thing repeatedly from a slightly different angle. In a nutshell, all I'm saying is that moral idealism substituted for material goals will not lead to justice, but is an argument against materialism. I'm a dumb person's low rent Adolph Reed Jr. translator. I'm a "class reductionist" who understands that when the discourse is reduced to just class there's nothing as important as food, water and shelter that's left out. I often find myself contending with people who insist that there is, unable to name anything. They don't understand that they're making an argument against economic redistribution, or they don't care. There are no concrete manifestations of systemic racism or any oppression that are not dealt with through economic redistribution. When people say that economic redistribution won't end racism, what they mean is that


Meet the F--kers F--kers-9-7.wmv Iraq war delayed katrina relief effort, inquiry finds TIMELINES pt. 2 -the president's timeline -gov. blanco declares a state of emergency Friday, August 26, 2005 -gov. blanco asks the president to decl a re a federal state of emergency Saturday morning, August 27 , 2005 -the president declares a state of emergency Saturday, August 27, 2005

Wokeness: The Ugly Changeling Baby and the End of Shared Reality

I have once again found it difficult to write because I'm just saying the same thing in different ways about the moral idealism in the social justice discourse. For months, I've been reflecting on this moment and the future implications. It's seems increasingly likely that we are reaching towards a point in which there's no shared objective knowledge Instead, we'll just have popular consensus and disinformation, depending on your ideological commitments.  I want to lay this out so that it doesn't just seem like a bunch of completely disconnected impressions, but the logical conclusion of tying those impressions together. I think some of it may already be clear to anyone who sees the obvious parallels between the riot in the Capitol and Russiagate, understanding that only the latter had actual power behind it. But I want to make it clear for those who don't. In August 2020, American Greatness published a piece from journalist Oliver Bateman called " The