From Freedom to Slavery and Back Again

Peter Daniel Miller, November 12, 2022

Peter Daniel Miller is a former resident of the San Francisco Bay Area, Berkeley Sociology PhD, former energy and natural resources analyst at Stanford Research Institute, currently observing California and the world from Japan with an occasional blog post at https://kamprint.com/realities/.

Almost every day, something that defies belief is revealed. Wonders of nature and the universe, things we never suspected, come to us from peering into outer space or under the microscope. We apply great resources to discovering their (and our) origins.

Human organization, equally wondrous and mysterious, ranges from the heights of artistic, musical, and scientific imagination to the frenzies of self-destruction that occasionally run riot through humanity. Throughout most of our life on earth, humankind has not had to concern itself with over-population. Living on the edge of existence, plagues, droughts, floods, crop failures, and warfare took their toll. Human life was, in Hobbes' immortal phrase, 'nasty, brutish, and short'. Only with the advent of settled agriculture and industry was some relief available from relentless survival pressures on large numbers of people.

But no sooner was survival assured than a group would outgrew its own territory and desire the territory, natural resources, and human labor of its neighbors. So the neighbors had to prepare against those threats. Within each camp or clan, these conflicts gave rise to cabals adept at marshalling all societal resources under their own command, using both real and imaginary existential threats to compel mass obedience. Thus despite the undoubted social, material, and spiritual benefits of freedom, human societies have oscillated between freedom and slavery. Progress is illusory, belief in an 'end-of-history' perfection merely the inflection point of another cycle. How and why these cycles occur -- the metamorphosis of entire societies from slavery to freedom and back again -- is as wondrous in its way as distant galaxies and elementary life forms.

As some (but not all) have noticed, we are currently in an era of destruction of freedom. It is not Stalinism 2.0, nor updated Nazism nor fascism, though there are liberal borrowings from each. The Internet, at first a great advance in human freedom, vastly expanded the global reach of communication, upsetting established orders of allegiance, knowledge, and commerce. Mass surveillance transformed the Internet into a a mode of self-indoctrination, as users were made to believe that the ideas shoved into their hearts and minds were their own. With covid/vax hysteria, the Internet automated the corraling of much of the human species into mass obedience on a global scale. The 'reset', as the Davos set prescribed, was almost as quick and effortless as flipping a switch. This was the first trial of a new kind of slavery; it won't be the last.

The Internet is still a great resource for human freedom, as you who are reading this and referring others to it know very well. Before exploring further, let's dispense with the notion that conspiracy theories are always and everywhere false. This notion essentially asserts that well-organized and highly focused groups always act selflessly in the best interests of those whom they purport to represent, that they never ever act in secret to further their own interests at everyone else's expense, and that they do not use credulous masses of humanity to generate wealth or power for themselves. It also asserts that when such groups seize control of the state, they do so openly and transparently. Of course none of these assertions is true. Conspiracies do in fact exist. They must act in secret, lest those responsible for protecting society against them be tipped off in advance. That's why uncovering and publishing them is of such great value to free societies. There are of course plenty of wacko conspiracy theories, but using that term to discredit all inquiry was a stroke of genius by those who sought to conceal their own machinations.

Precisely because they violate civilized norms, conspiracies are nearly beyond belief. They upset not only our shared understandings as a society, many of which are enshrined in law, but also in doing so they cut the ground out from under our expectations of normal continuity. They tell us 'all bets are off', shattering predictability, foreshortening time-frames, and shattering social ties relying on these shared understandings. Hence people resist acknowledging conspiracies, as a kind of defense against the collapse of their own social surroundings. Nevertheless, common-sense urges us to recognize that conspiracies against the common good exist, even though we wish otherwise. (One of the principles of sound social science, forgotten in its alignment with favored causes, is to distinguish the way things are from the way we might wish they were.)

We are still dealing with the consequences of megabanks having devised financial instruments with negative value for the express purpose of looting the Treasuries of the United States and every other government in the Western world that 'invested' in 'derivatives', 'collaterialized debt obligations', and other less-than-worthless mumbo-jumbo. Unlike bill-padding fraud, or bribery, where at least something of value is exchanged, the banksters set out to create negative value -- an almost unimaginable conspiracy, in both scale and audacity. The ensuing financial meltdown of 2007 - 08 led to forced taxpayer subsidies ('bailouts') to banksters engineered by the bank condominium known as the Federal Reserve. Far from being a hastily improvised emergency fix as was advertised, these enormous transfers of wealth, estimated to be in the trillions of dollars, were the actual object of the conspiracy. It continues today, as reckless currency-printing to maintain the Ponzi-like scheme whereby the U.S. central bank exchanges its own paper for real labor and commodities.

Financial chicanery, even on such a colossal scale, is at least psychologically comprehensible. Self-enrichment, even to grotesque dimensions, is about as close to an unquestioned value as it gets in modern societies. Specialists in money-making discourse on the virtues of bank profits, even if taxes -- money taken from private incomes -- are required to sustain it. The 'bailout' metaphor implies 'we're all in the same boat' even though only a few are saved. Most people accept this absurdity as part of the overall wealth-maximization rationale.

Until recently, mass murder could not be placed in any common-sense scope of understanding. The rationales offered for past instances -- eugenics, racial purification, territorial sovereignty, national glory -- are easily recognized today as poorly disguised blood-lust. Yet when this impulse runs wild, as it occasionally does, with the apparently unanimous adherence of revered experts, top officials, and masses alike, it elicits blind obedience to its dictates. The impulse to mass murder is propelled by scientific doctrines through intellectual circles. Popularized for mass consumption, it spreads through catch-phrases like 'two weeks to flatten the curve', 'follow the science', and 'take one for the team'.

The current covid/vax hysteria pits conspirators forever scrambling to 'get out in front' of events so as to appear to be leading an effective response, against uncontrollable elements such as airborne transmission of pathogens rapidly evolving into variants. It would be wrong to attribute too much intelligence to officials and experts, who are clueless about why their responses have not worked. At the same time, a few people and groups proved adept at turning unexpected events to their own advantage. Even if they did not plan every detail, they knew well enough how to use the governmental or financial resources at their disposal to maneuver through the maelstrom and emerge in a better position from each successive crisis. Their Knowhow is well-honed. But the Why escapes them.

Such episodes of self-destructive frenzy are hard to understand in real time because the actual motivations of conspirators are missing, even to themselves. The enormity of the covid/vax hysteria, with its combination of conspiratorial and uncontrollable elements, is seemingly beyond belief. But the heart of any credible explanation must be Why. Unless we discover Why, we have no chance of ending it. In this quest we have to consider even the most outrageous possibilities.

As noted above, pecuniary motives are easy to understand. Even poisoning people for profit is not that much of a reach, particularly for the pharmaceutical industry, especially Pfizer, which has paid out billions of dollars in damages for drug-caused deaths and illnesses. This is normal practice, collateral damage, part of their business model, and considered morally justified by the advance of science. This justification is somewhat similar to standard clinical-trial experiments, with the significant difference that informed consent was entirely absent from the covid/vax experiment. Nobody volunteered. Everyone who participated was coerced, deceived, intimidated, and/or psychologically manipulated. Seeing how many could be corralled into that pen was the real experiment.

People of normally healthy disposition have a hard time wrapping their minds around eugenics and its appetite for mass murder. Academic theories about the carrying capacity of the planet, peak oil, limits to growth, and the like have been around for many years. And how could we omit global warming, re-christened climate change to hedge bets on temperature direction, oblivious of the fact that more carbon dioxide and expansion of warm regions would increase agricultural productivity and food supply. Nevertheless Malthusian warnings from the Club of Rome, Zero Population Growth advocates, and their successors resonate with latter-day doomsday prophets who make the classic mistake of specifying a date for the end of the world, discrediting themselves when the date arrives uneventfully. Of late, however, backed by people with more money than they can handle responsibly, infatuation with 'renewable' energy has destroyed both U.S. and German energy independence.

Economist Lester Thurow once opined that the greatest danger of wealth inequality is not social unrest, but people and organizations with too much money making silly investment decisions. No one illustrates that judgment better than Bill Gates, whose proposed sponsorship of global cloud-seeding was vetoed at the last minute by Swedish environmentalists. (George Soros' and Mark Zuckerberg's electoral interventions would give Gates a good run for his money in the silly-investment category.) Gates, who honed his mass-vax skills experimenting on poor people in Africa and Asia, moved on from cloud-seeding to more direct methods of... doing what, exactly? That is the question. Is it really possible that this one-time wunderkind, who took on IBM and foresaw the domination of software over 'ironmongers', wishes to kill off two-thirds of humanity?

Do Gates and his cohorts really think that a remnant, consisting of smart people like himself, would be happier without the other two-thirds of humanity competing for resources? It may be a measure of his own unhappiness that he contemplates such 'final solutions', sought help from the late pedophilist Jeffrey Epstein, and enthusiastically contributed vast amounts of his own fortune to the ill-fated mass-vax campaign. Is it really possible that these people's preferred means of saving the planet is to kill off two-thirds of its inhabitants? Nobody in his right mind would even be caught dead wishing for such a thing, though one can hear eugenics-inspired wishes expressed in the clubs and private sanctuaries of such worthies, and occasionally in publications. These de-population scenarios have always in the past seemed more like what-if games or scenario-spinning by people who like to entertain unthinkable ideas, but who don't really expect them to be implemented.

With the means at hand, however, in the form of a bio-weapon that could be designed to do virtually anything, the idea of eliminating two-thirds of humanity took on a new reality. Without anyone noticing, it slipped through the barrier between monstrous perversion and acceptable practice, like genital mutilation of children, drag-queen story hour, and demonization of all White people. As with other behavioral inhibitions dropped, scientists celebrating a fete macabre of what they conceived to be morally justifiable killing sucked others into their secret societies. And before we knew it, this monstrous perversion became 'the science' which all were duty-bound to follow.

This bizarre situation evolved 'at the speed of science', as Pfizer executive Janine Small memorably improvised in response to an EU Parliamentarian's question about why they failed to test their product before launching it on the unsuspecting public. Or if you prefer the Star-Trek terminology of President Trump, the science moved at 'warp-speed', meaning the speed at which time and space are warped beyond recognition -- a fitting metaphor for what happened in earth-years 2020 to 2022. Is this bio-weapon the covid virus, which, despite assertions of natural origin by politicians and scientists, was actually designed through intentional gain-of-function testing plus standard cut-and-paste operations to enhance lethality and adaptation to human cells? Or is the bio-weapon mRNA technology, which cleverly bypasses immune defenses and proliferates the same spike protein throughout every vital organ in the human body? The answer is: Both. The disease and its purported remedy are indistinguishable.

Thanks to the now-well-known spike protein, symptoms of both covid and mRNA injection, in extremis, are identical. The only difference is that covid begins with respiratory infection, while mRNA injection stimulates production of the self-same spike protein in massive quantities. From there, vascular and organ damage, and auto-immune disease follow, unto quick or slow death, with varying effects depending on underlying health conditions and contents of the injections. Vascular damage and death rates are dose-dependent, meaning the more shots, the greater the chances of illness or death. Dose-dependent effects are among the surest indicators of causality in medical science.

With more than 30,000 reported deaths in the U.S. at last body-count, and still counting, under-reporting is credibly under-estimated by a factor of 44.64, making the actual death toll more than one million in the United States alone. Even more tellingly, unrelated sources that could not have coordinated their vax-caused death reports include: Relatives of the deceased; record-high life-insurance payouts among working-age people, who are generally less susceptible to covid than are the elderly, and for whom the reported cause of death was not covid; 'excess deaths' (meaning more than the usual number in comparable time periods of previous years) in 2021 tracking the mass-vax campaign exactly; an analysis of excess deaths in Israel, especially among young people, that was done by Dr. Steven Ohana, clearly showing a huge rise in excess deaths that have no explanation other than the rollout of a mass vaccination program; substantial reductions in numbers of live births in Germany, Taiwan, and other countries; booming funeral business in countries with high rates of mRNA injection; embalmers' reports of foot-long strands of coagulated blood removed from the veins of the dead known to have been mRNA-injected.

So it can no longer be claimed with any credibility that public health officials don't know what they are doing. Nor can it be claimed with any hope of rational belief that the injected mRNA drug does NOT circulate throughout the body, like any other injected material. (The claim that it stays in the deltoid muscle where injected was always absurd, as any doctor or health professional would certainly know.) There is no question, either, that the covid virus was manufactured to specifications set by scientists specifically for adherence to human endothelial cells. Anyone familiar with the behavior of viruses must also have known that trying to stop such airborne particles from entering human airways, by imprisoning people in their homes and closing down schools and businesses, was bound to fail. Less well-known, but equally clear, is the fact that proliferation of spike proteins targeted to only one variant of a rapidly evolving virus are bound to fail, and in doing so, weaken the ability of the immune system to combat other pathogens.

Knowing that the claims of safety and efficacy are false, and were known in advance by scientists and public health officials to be false, returns us to the question of Why. Public health can readily be eliminated as a motivator, at least for the conspirators who knew all along that public health was merely a convenient narrative. For the doctors who bought into this narrative, these trusting souls, whose license to practice medicine is held (and revocable) by State Medical Boards, who are faithful readers of prestigious publications like the New England Journal of Medicine, who have always followed what they considered to be impartial recommendations by public health officials, relied on what had always been unimpeachable authority. Even to this day, many cannot or don't want to believe otherwise, despite heavy-handed censorship, obfuscation, willful deception, and deliberate manipulation of what passes for 'news' in various media. Such extreme attempts to suppress scientific discourse are inherently suspicious, and themselves indicative of falsehood. Why doctors trusted such advice, and abandoned the common-sense principle of 'Do No Harm' in favor of 'Let's see what happens' is a subject for another Post. Likewise, the motivations of those who allowed themselves to be coerced or fooled into participating in a medical experiment without knowing Why, will require separate treatment.

Social science generally avoids questions of Why observed behavior occurs. It prefers to focus on 'how' and leave Why to philosophers. The favored escape route is to identify 'function', as in 'the function of the family is child-rearing and socialization' (adaptation to accepted social norms). Yet there is no real difference here between the pseudo-scientific term 'function' and the morally laden term 'purpose'. If the bio-weapons scientists were to say they were engaged in 'gain-of-lethality' experiments and gene-splicing for the purpose of adapting their handiwork to human cells, we might have had a clearer idea of what they were up to from the get-go. The pseudo-scientific term 'gain-of-function' allowed them to obfuscate what they were doing, and confused those who were unfamiliar with the term, until their actual activities were ferreted out of elaborate research papers. The notion of purpose, usually excluded from standard scientific prose, links directly to human motivation and thus brings us closer to uncovering why people and organizations act as they do.

Consider the national-security motivation. In bio-weapons research, unlike nuclear physics, defensive and offensive projects are virtually indistinguishable. It's all 'dual-use'. In order to defend against attack by either novel pathogens or bio-weapons, researchers feel they have to anticipate what malevolent nature or scheming human enemies might do. Therefore they feel justified in enhancing and adapting deadly pathogens, to prepare against such an attack. It's not implausible. Several exercises enacting just such a scenario have been staged.

But national security is (or should be) a judgment call, a political decision, not a scientific decision. Scientists like Rutgers' Richard Ebright, and both Presidents Obama and Trump, tried to call a time-out on gain-of-function bio-weapons research. But the wily Dr Fauci made an end-run around his nominative superiors and offshored the final assembly of his designer virus to Wuhan, as the world now knows. The risk of lab-escape is always high even with BS-4-level security, and security at many labs, including Wuhan, is often haphazard at best. And self-fulfilling prophecy is an ever-present danger with live-fire scenario exercises. The actual events that unfolded shortly following such exercises bore an uncanny resemblance to the rehearsals. So this was 'an accident waiting to happen' if indeed it was an accident at all.

The colossally poor judgment leading to the botched virus-fabrication, the lab-leak at Wuhan, its inevitably ensuing dissemination throughout the world, and the frenzied rush toward a disastrous experimental gene-modification device known by its maker to be both ineffective as a remedy and unsafe, again begs the question of Why. We have to ask whether such an elaborate congeries of misfortunes could have been just rotten bad luck, or is there some despicable intentionality behind it.

Public health was manifestly not served by the government response -- remember, to understand Why, we're adopting for analytical purposes the perspective of knowledgeable conspirators, not that of the trusting doctors who have always followed guidance from higher-ups, nor that of the credulous public, nor that of the popular and scientific media who print, broadcast, censor, and shape information in strict accordance with government instructions. The national-secuity defensive bio-weapons research story seems plausible at first, but breaks down in view of the greater dangers of lab-escape by an uncontainable virus, and the numerous fanciful stories about pangolins and snakes fabricated to prevent detection of its human-designed origins. Similarly, the failure of mRNA injections to stop either the virus or its transmission, a failure admitted by the manufacturers themselves, makes that rationale impossible. The profit motive is clear, but inapplicable to those outside the small circle of pharmaceutical-industry executives and government-employed royalty-collecting scientists. What remains are millions of deaths and injuries caused by an artificial pathogen and an experimental genetic agent that hijacks the immune system. Those are the indisputable consequences. We still need to know Why. That those deaths, and others yet to come, may be at least in part an intentional consequence of these engineered bio-weapons, has to be considered a possibility, however fervently we might wish otherwise. Meanwhile, for our survival, it's best to avoid it -- like the plague.

A free subscription to my infrequent Substack posts is available at Substack: https://peterdanielmiller.substack.com/p/beyond-belief?sd=pf