What's The Real Agenda?

I went googling for Dr Fauci's latest remarks and came up with intriguing questions. The screen shot above is from a CNN story, where Fauci is giving the current line on the New Normal, clearly endorsed by an upper-class white woman with The Look, in this case Dana Bash. It used to be that The Look went with a facial expression that at least affected a wide-eyed ingenue quality, but no longer: Ms Bash is trying on Big Sister, which we're going to be getting more of, I do believe.

Fauci, meanwhile, is blathering away with a self-satisfied smirk.

Asked by CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union" whether he thinks Americans will still need to wear masks next year, Fauci replied: "You know, I think it is possible that that's the case and, again, it really depends on what you mean by normality."

It's plain from the CDC news conference I referenced yesterday that Fauci isn't just speaking on his own account, the suits at the CDC are behind him. He speaks for the lizard people who are running the planet, it's pretty plain. But they've clearly been moving the goalposts all along. As part of my web search, I came up with this story from last October:

People will likely need to wear masks and follow social distancing guidelines through the end of 2021 and into 2022, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts said during a recent meeting, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.

. . . “I feel very strongly that we’re going to need to have some degree of public health measures to continue,” he said.

“It’s not going to be the way it was with polio and measles, where you get a vaccine, case closed, it’s done,” Fauci said. “It’s going to be public health measures that linger for months and months.”

So a year ago it was 15 days to flatten the curve, but by last October it was through the end of 2021 and into 2022, but now it's morphing into all of 2022. The public service announcements, oddly, haven't dropped the original message: wear a mask. Socially distance. Stay home. There's no get the shot and we'll have done it. Why not?

The agenda, I've become more convinced, is wide-ranging social engineering, certainly including breaking existing social patterns. Here's an example of what's being mooted, from a UK site, but I think the idea is more widespread:

Nuclear households, it seems, are where we are all intuitively expected to retreat in order to prevent widespread ill-health. ‘Staying home’ is what is somehow self-evidently supposed to keep us well. But there are several problems with this, as anyone inclined to think about it critically (even for a moment) might figure out – problems one might summarize as the mystification of the couple-form; the romanticisation of kinship; and the sanitization of the fundamentally unsafe space that is private property.

How can a zone defined by the power asymmetries of housework (reproductive labor being so gendered), of renting and mortgage debt, land and deed ownership, of patriarchal parenting and (often) the institution of marriage, benefit health? Such standard homes are where, after all, everyone secretly knows the majority of earthly violence goes down: the W.H.O. calls domestic violence “the most widespread, but among the least reported human rights abuses.”

In this view, "stay home" amounts to a temporary measure -- and we're talking about "home" as couples or nuclear family units exclusively, not extended or multigenerational families, which are clearly part of the "public health" problem. At some point in the foreseeable future, the object will be to remake human relations completely.

The longer the measures in place can continue, the more they become a New Normal, the more easily traditional ties of friendship, family, community, and religion can be broken down. At least, that's the idea.

Fauci: The Pushback Increases

I was drawn to this exchange at the White House CDC COVID briefing Monday:

MODERATOR: Next we’ll go to Chris Megerian at Los Angeles Times.

Q Hi, everyone. I was interested in your thoughts on the messaging around the vaccines. There’s a lot of conversation about how you need to keep doing the same things even after you get vaccinated — you know, like wearing a mask, not seeing your family, things like that. Do you think that’s preventing people from being more enthusiastic about getting vaccines? And may we see that change in the future?

ACTING ADMINISTRATOR SLAVITT: Well, I’m going to invite both Dr. Walensky and Dr. Fauci to comment on that, and then — you know, and then I will as — I will as well, if there’s anything to add.

DR. FAUCI: Yeah, I — actually, let — I’ll start — well, whatever. (Laughs.) I’ll start off and be very brief and hand it to Dr. Walensky.

I don't know if video of this conference is available -- I haven't seen it -- but from the transcript, it appears that Fauci is basically playing cute here, vamping and mugging (Laughs), sending a message that this isn't a serious question, but he's briefly gonna toss it off pro forma. So he basically repeats the latest Fauci line, the vaccine sorta-kinda isn't like, say, the smallpox vaccine or the polio vaccine, no, you gotta keep acting as if you'll still get sick and kill grandma no matter what.

But the problem for the others is that this isn't a question from Fox, it's a question from the LA Times. The other white folks take the threat more seriously, and they circle the wagons.

ACTING ADMINISTRATOR SLAVITT: And let me just follow up, to make a broader point. The broader point that Dr. Fauci and Dr. Walensky both alluded to is this: . . . I will tell you that people are interested in taking the vaccine in large numbers for the same reason people are interested in taking the vaccine for MMR and for the flu: because they want to live. They don’t want to be sick and they don’t want to die. And that is a very important benefit that people don’t often talk about quite as much but that the public, we believe, clearly understands.

So beyond that, what we’re able to do as a society — the scientific team is going to continue to study based upon prevalence, based upon vaccination levels, and based upon the data, and we’ll come out with more.

Fauci does his cute routine at the start, but you can tell that all of these white people are angry at that question. The ultimate answer is the American people are smarter than you, bub, and they want to live. Whew! Maybe they should try to be less defensive and less reliant on their privilege, huh?

The problem continues to be, of course, that Fauci's remarks are inconsistent from week to week and have nothing to do with "science". Public figures from Meghan McCain to Sen Rubio are beginning to push back against Fauci publicly. McCain and Rubio are not heavyweights, but the lizard people ridiculed them on Twitter and fact-checked them posthaste.

An attack on Fauci is an attack on the foundations of how things are right now. Interesting indeed.

In fact, the two media golden boys of COVID, Gov Cuomo and Dr Fauci, who've bantered with each other about just that on CNN, are starting to lose their luster. The plebs has been sruggling to get appointments for the shot for weeks -- and based on our experience and those of friends and relatives, it takes weeks of effort -- only to find the goalposts moved yet once more. Get two shots, no big deal, you're still not gonna have your relatives for Easter.

There's a limit. The irritation of the white folks at the CDC Monday is an indication they're feeling it.

By the way, I wonder why Sally Quinn thought Dr Fauci was actually a Dr Lancer. There's gotta be MeToo lurking in the background here.

Try To Be Less White

I had a real adventure trying to find a picture to illustrate this post. After a week of Mars rover specials on TV, plus the usual History Channel fare, I was beginning to realize the world is still run by upper-class white ladies who all look the same, because no matter how many transsexuals, blacks, Latins, Asians, or whatever else they have on the show to explain things, there's always -- always -- an upper-class white lady to endorse whatever is said, although the lizard people have given everyone else an approved script as well.

So, knowing what I was looking for, I started doing google image searches for "upper class wasp woman look", and sure enough, I got mostly picures of insects, with a few 19th century sketches of period fashion as well. I tried variations. "Understated elite look" brought, remarkably, ladies in bikinis. "Upper class look" brought ladies in big hair.

Finally, as a last ditch effort, I hit on it: "Sally Quinn". That was exactly what I wanted. I kept thinking of the woman I'd seen on the History Channel last night explaining McDonald's and fast food to everyone, though I'm not sure if a lady like that ever visits a fast food joint. But it was apparently important that an upper class lady with just that look explain fast food to the rest of us.

"Those white ladies are never going to go away," I told my wife.

"You're right," she said.

It was just the icing on the cake that in my search for pictures of Sally Quinn, back in the 1990s apparently she thought Dr Fauci was hot:

In 1991, Sally Quinn—doyenne of the Washington intelligentsia, who was then on a streak of popular novels—published “Happy Endings,” which climbed the bestseller list. Across 500-plus pages, Quinn unspools the juicy romance of a widowed First Lady who falls head over heels for a dashing and cutting NIH scientist. . . who goes by the name of Michael Lanzer.

Or better known by his real name: Anthony Fauci.

In the best Washington tradition, this sort of Washington insider novel is ghostwritten, with the Washington celebrity lending her name to the product for a big fee. This is the manufactured world these people inhabit.

Whiteness is in the news due to a recent flap over a Coca-Cola employee sensitivity program that instructed the hired help to abjure whiteness:

The tips to “be less white” included: “be less arrogant, be less certain, be less defensive, be more humble, listen, believe, break with apathy,” and “break with white solidarity.”

Another slide tells viewers that in order to confront racism, they must understand “what it means to be white, challenging what it means to be racist.”

But neither Dr Fauci nor Sally Quinn will change their ways. In fact, they'll lecture the rest of us on our whiteness, implicitly using themselves as examples of good white people.

A Romanian YouTuber on the channel Romanian TeeVee got it right, I think: the Try To Be Less White campaign is directed at the plebs, who've been subjected to racial hiring quotas since the 1970s. It's all meant to get the plebs, black, white, yellow, brown, whatever, to squabble with each ofher while the white people in charge deliberately lower their living standards.

The business of masks, wind power, and artificial beef are all on the white people's agenda.

Mars And The Living Desert Problem

I keep thinking back on the Mars mission special I watched a week ago. A space probe professor type made a remark that, to the great disappointment of all the space probe professors, Mars looked like the Sonoran desert or something. Well, not actually. the 1953 Disney film The Living Desert simply contradicts that characterization. The Sonoran desert doesn't look much like Mars at all.

What appears to be the conventional wisdom promoted in the current media discussion of life on Mars is that, given liquid water and t amount of time, life will appear in some microbial form and evolve from there. The quantity given for t is at most a billion years, because that's the time span Mars is supposed to have had liquid water. Where they got that isn't explained, but let's grant it.

I went to Wikipedia's timeline of life on Earth. I recognize that all these estimates, a billion years for water on Mars, 4.4 billion years ago for the first liquid water on Earth and so forth, are subject to all sorts of challenge, but we're dealing with conventional consensus here, so these numbers will work for our purpose.

Wikipedia indeed says the first liquid water appeared on earth about 4.4 billion years ago. Then it gives a range of 3.9 to 2.5 billion years ago as the dates when the first living cells emerged. So taking the most optimistic estimates in these ranges, from 4.4 to 3.9 billion years ago was what it took for any sort of cell to result from radiation bombardments and such -- half a billion years. Of course, it could have been as long as 1.9 billion, so that would have been too long if Mars had liquid water for only a billion years, as they said on TV. But whatever.

But then the timeline gives 2.8 billion years ago as "Oldest evidence for microbial life on land in the form of organic matter-rich paleosols, ephemeral ponds and alluvial sequences, some of them bearing microfossils." In other words, this is the primordial soup of popular imagination. But in that case, t, the time value for how long it took for microbes that could leave fossil evidence to emerge from plain liquid water, is 1.6 billion years, which is longer than Mars is supposed to have had liquid water.

But these numbers apply to Earth, not Mars. Mars is colder and has less atmosphere. How this affects the equations in which t is a factor we have no idea, but the fact is that over almost 200 years of evolutionary science, nobody has come close to developing an equation that quantifies or predicts what the value tor t is in water * t = life. Nor even DNA * t = beneficial mutation.

I think it goes without saying that nobody at McDonald's would suggest a multibillion-dollar investment in a project where a bunch of professors went looking for a random formula that would generate a new secret sauce in, oh, a billion years. But this is the sort of wild speculation that's caused generations of consensus among policymakers that we send successive probes and rovers at enomous national treasure looking for something for which there is likely no fossil evidence even if it happened.

I don't know what would happen to me as a freshman in college geology class if I raised quesitons like this. If I were lucky, the prof would think I showed promise but needed discipline, and he wasn't going to destroy my career just for youthful aberration. But I might not be lucky. Bluto, after all, didn't go to class. That might be why he turned out OK.

If you want more of something, you fund it. We keep geting more of this stuff.

Dr Fauci Says We Can Hug Our Family Members At Home If We've Had The Shot

According to Fox News,

White House chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci said Thursday that it's "very likely" that family members who have been vaccinated against coronavirus can safely hug each other.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director explained that what vaccinated individuals can safely do with family members and in a public setting differ greatly.

If an individual is vaccinated and with another person who is vaccinated, the things they can do are "much, much more liberal in the sense of pulling back on stringent public health measures," Fauci said during an interview on MSBNC with host Andrea Mitchell.

But wait a moment. Last August he said people could hook up on Tinder, and that was even before the jab:

"[I]t's what's called relative risk," Fauci said. "If you're willing to take a risk — and you know, everybody has their own tolerance for risks — you could figure out if you want to meet somebody."

. . . "If you're looking for a friend, sit in a room and put a mask on, and you know, chat a bit. If you want to go a little bit more intimate, well, then that's your choice regarding a risk," Fauci said.

So let me see. Just this past week, what he seemed to be saying was that if they've both been vaccinated, your toddler can hug mama, or something like that, as long as it's in private. (I assume doing it in public would set a bad example.) But last August, if you wanted to hook up wth a stranger, no vax involved, that was up to you. Is there one rule for swingers and another for the nuclear family, or what?

But people are starting to notice that anything like a policy statement from Fauci should be written in wind and running water:

Remember that line 'you can still spread it even if you get vaccinated? What kind of anti-science crapola is that? On top of this illogical tripe, we have ever-changing narratives coming from the so-called expert class that is driving all of us insane (via NBC News):

A growing body of evidence suggests that the Covid-19 vaccine can slow the spread of the coronavirus, Dr. Anthony Fauci said Wednesday. Whether vaccination can prevent transmission of the virus is “the looming question,” Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during a White House coronavirus response team briefing. “If a person gets infected despite being vaccinated — we refer to that as a ‘breakthrough’ infection — does that person have the capability of transmitting to another person?”

“There have been some studies that are pointing in a very favorable direction,” he said, adding that these studies will have to be corroborated by additional research.

Fauci highlighted two recent studies that looked at a person’s viral load — that is, how much virus he or she has in the body — and transmissibility.

The main problem is that for Fauci, talking to the media is like singing in the shower. He likes to hear himself, and that's about it. If he contradicts himself week in and week out, that's not a bug, it's a feature.

On serious matters of public policy, the government needs to have a clear and consistent message. The White House and the CDC need to be on the same page. But Fauci isn't even the CDC, though he has a high-paying job there, he's just running off at the mouth on his own account, with an official position to give him a platform for it.

This is where the Trump White House communications office fell down badly. Fauci should have been told to coordinate all remarks via the White House in his official capacity, and if he didn't, he should have effectively had his mike turned off. The Biden White House is making the same mistake -- if anything, it's worse. At least Dr Birx had the sense to retire once xhe embarrassed herself.

The Mars Rover And The Dinosaurs

The other day I was browsing the web for news of the lunar rover's landing. What I noticed was that the TV broadcasters were all reading from the same script, apparently approved by the Bilderbergs, but even more jarring was they were all wearing the same rictus that North Korean broadcasters affect to celebrate Dear Leader's birthday. This was a major, major event.

The reason for this latest multibillion-dollar excursion, as indeed the expressed reason on the TV specials for all the previous ones, is to find evidence of life on Mars. And this has been a national effort not too far in scope from the Manhattan Project. Somehow our way of life, or democracy, or civilization or something, hangs in the balance. Wha? To me, as I would guess to vast numbers of other people, whether the rover landed on Mars was about as critical as whether Tom Brady won the Super Bowl.

So I thought back to the TV special I saw last weekend about the mission. I won't cite which one, I think they were all scripted by the Bilderbergs and said the same things. Mars once had water. Then the water went away after a billlion years. But a billion years is long nough for microbes and such to evolve. After all, what you need for life is water and other stuff. Leave water around long enough and let lightning and volcanes stir things up, and voila, microbes.

So the Perseverance rover is gonna use its little shovel and stuff and dig up the microbes, or at least the microbe fossils, and basically prove the above standard wisdom.

But this actually illustrates the problem of the dinosaurs. In the mid 19th century, as dinosaur and other fossils were discovered, this posed questions about the age of the Earth. If dinosaurs existed a gazillion years ago, this meant that conjectures, ostensibly based on scripture, that the Earth was created 6000 years ago were incorrect, although scripture itself mentions no such number and has nothing specific to say on the subject. This was a problem largely for Evangelicals at the time, but mainstream Christianity has never been much disturbed by it.

But the dinosaurs over time became a much bigger problem for Darwinians. Fossil evidence cuts both ways. If life evolved via a process of random natural selection that started with simmering primordial soup, with speciation a very gradual process where rats turned seamlessly into guinea pigs and so forth, why do we have sudden cancellations of whole biological orders? If things got warmer or cooler, why didn't we just get fat dinosaurs with fuzzy scales or something? Instead, the whole idea just suddenly didn't work any longer, and although there are still cockroaches, there aren't any dinosaurs at all.

This is the origin of the big asteroid theory of Earth's history. At some point, an asteroid left a crater that created Yucatan, and that explains why the dinosaurs didn't just evolve their way along. (Wha?) In other words, the dinosaurs have actually been a bigger problem for the secularist theory of life than they were for certain schools of Evangelical thought. They're what might be called a metaproblem.

Mars represents a similar metaproblem for secularism. The first Mars probes that sent back photos were the start for this branch of the problem. It could be theorized that life might have evolved separately on Mars even given the climatic conditions we surmised were present on the planet -- after all, microbes thrive on Earth in extreme cold at low oxygen levels. But the first Mars photos showed there was no persuasive evidence that any such thing had ever taken place there.

Nor has any subsequent probe or rover proven anything else. This is probably the inspiration for the name Perseverance. They're gonna persevere at this search, presumably until they can find the evidence they want. If this one, or the next one, or the ome afer that, finds even a fossil bacterium, wham, that'll prove it. Life is not unique. Humans are not unique. The whole theistic scriptural project has been a huge evolutionary dead end.

Well, good luck. But we shouldn't kid ourselves about the nature and objective of this incrediblly huge boondoggle.

The Campaign Against Human Nature

The photo above appears regularly as a Facebook ad. What's begun to occur to me is that there's been no change in the COVID narrative. There's simply no information on how to sign up for a shot, where you cqn go, what the lines are like, or whatever -- in fact, Mayor Garcetti closed many sites last week for lack of vaccine, but there's no info on whether they've reopened or what this week's supply is like.

I went to Kaiser yesterday for a shingles shot, which was hard ebough to go through, what with an entitled medicql staff taking its time to do any tasks at all. But the tech asked me if I had any intention of getting a COVID shot. I said of course, but we can't get them from Kaiser. In fact, my wife fianlly got an appointment next month at Rite Aid, but Kaiser still says they're just doing front line workers and over-75,

So I'm not sure if the lizard people even want us to get the shot. I see a lot of opinion that they and the Bilderbergs want to give us the shot so we'll be genetically modified or something, but in fact, whoever does run the planet isn't moving all that fast to do it. Biden says the minarities don't know how to sign up, and apparently he's copacetic with that. In fact, nobody's running ads showing specifically how to sign up to anyone, black, white, or zebra.

And the background noise for some weeks has been that, two shots or not, everyone's got to keep wearing a mask until whenever. This is not a temporary measure any longer. I keep thinking of a homily I heard on line six or eight months ago sayng people need to see faces, people need to gather, people need to have friends and family. This all goes against human nature.

Meanwhile, the prophet Bill Gates is saying two shots won't be enough, but also, we need to move to synthetic meat. You can bet that one guy who won't have to eat synthetic meat will be the prophet Bill Gates. But if he speaks for the Bilderbergs or the lizard people, it's getting plainer by the day that these folks have the object of lowering living standards for everyone, or at least everyone but themselves. But the Biblical message is that people should prosper.

I wasn't a regular Rush Limbaugh listener. I think his health had been declining for several years. He used to say we aren't here just to debate these people, we have to defeaat them utterly.

He had a point.