"Flattening the curve" - What happens when a lie has served its purpose?

Do you remember back in the olden days - way, way back so long ago that hardly anyone can recall it - I mean in March-April 2020. Well children, in those dark ages, everyone in the world thought that the most important thing in the world was "flattening the curve" of the birdemic.

It was so important that we needed an international totalitarian coup to impose a worldwide 'lockdown' (just like in a prison! Ha Ha!) and 'social distancing' (so that each person was locked into his-own prison).

But Not To Worry because it was only to flatten the curve, nasty perhaps - but only temporary, just for a few weeks; and when that darned curve had been good and flattened - it would be 'back to normal' with just the memory of a 'V-shaped depression' of GDP in the history books to remind us of those quaint days of solitary confinement.


So now we know that it was all true, all necessary; and can thank from our hearts our honest and well-motivated rulers that we have been saved from a new plague with bodies piled in the streets (as evidenced by what happened to the few places that did not fully lock-down-social-distance).

And we can approach the future with confidence that our Establishment in government, the mass media and all the rest of it, have now proven themselves to be worthy of our unlimited attention, absolute belief, and trusting obedience.

Which is why The Powers have utterly (and with relief) undone their vast systems of micro-surveillance and omni-control. Unsurprising, then, that nobody ever mentions flattening curves anymore.

Job done!

How the neglect/ suppression of the real nature of Communism and 'Fascism' led to our current (unrecognised) atheist totalitarianism

My high school education took place in the 1970s, and as a result I had a pretty solid understanding of Communism - and its evils. I knew about both the Russian and Chinese versions; and these were expounded alongside National Socialism in Germany as variations on the theme of totalitarianism - three ideologies with many similarities and lesser distinctions.

George Orwell has been by-far the most influential advocate of this analysis; but it was the Western norm up into the 1970s.

But in contrast, the next generations were taught very little indeed about Communism. The 'totalitarian' analytic category was not used. Instead both school and culture hammered home, again and again, an indictment of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP; in English, National Socialist Workers Party of Germany) as the unique and greatest evil of world history.

However NSDAP is nearly-always abbreviated to Nazi, presumably to de-emphasise its roots in Socialism and its Communist-like pro-worker stance. And nowadays the NSDAP is treated as an "extreme Right Wing" party.


What was not made clear - even up to the 1970s - was that these examples (Russia, Germany, China) were all among the rare instances in human history of explicitly atheist states. Because this unfying atheism was seldom mentioned, and because the post-mid-sixties generation took secularism for granted; its significance was missed. (This particular neglect has - of course - continued.)

And because atheism as the core and unifying feature of the twentieth century totalitarianisms was missed; the seeds of our current falsehood were sown.

It used to be said (from the late 1940s and until the middle 1970s) that Communism and National Socialism were examples of extremes meeting. The idea was that Communism and National Socialism were opposites, Left and Right, but at the extremes Left and Right circle around and join-up.

This is a devastating error. In fact, Communist and Nazi are merely variations on the same basic ideology, which is Leftism.

National Socialism is merely Communism moderated by Nationalism (i.e. Nazis were moderate Communists); because in the middle twentieth century Communism was ideologically inter-nationalist (as with their theme song).


More specifically, National Socialism (and indeed, also the earlier Italian Fascism under Mussolini, and the later Falangist-atheist/ Roman Catholic alliance of Franco in Spain) was a reaction-against the internationalism and socially-destructive extremity of Communism.

Because after the Russian Revolution there was a widespread (and apparently justified) fear that Communism would spread across Europe. National Socialism in Germany was a Socialist Workers party, exactly the same as Communism (and appealing to a similar proletarian base); but was nationalist and patriotic, which enabled the different classes to work together under the revolutionary new arragements.

Rather than the attempt being made, as in the USSR, to exterminate the bourgeoisie and the ex-aristocrats; instead the NSDAP imposed a new ruling class of 'lower class' party members (mostly derived from the non-gentry, 'blue-collar' middle class, in practice: e.g. Hitler had been a Non-Commissioned Officer). However, (unlike Communism) although aristocratic titles and privileges were abolished; the ex-Junker nobility, Professors, writers and artists, clerks and schoolteachers etc were all welcome to join the national ('workers') effort; so long as they endorsed the new ideology. Apparently, most of them accepted.


Thus National Socialism was far more effective and efficient than 'pure'/ extreme Communism, since it succeeded in mobilizing a far greater proportion of the population - across all classes; because it repudiated some of the insane inversions of Communism, and also because the NSDAP replaced religion with an intense, supernaturalistic, ritually and symbolically-supported cult of The Fuhrer.

The hatred of Communists for Nazis is therefore the hatred of the ideological purist for the moderate pragmatist. On the other side; the hostility of Nazis to Communism was itself the springboard of their success with both the German workers and the ruling class.

The traditional German nobility and gentry correctly perceived that (in the short/medium-term, anyway) - when the range of possible choice had been reduced to Nazi or Communist, they would be much better-off under the NSDAP than Communism.


Anyway; it can be seen that the recent global totalitarian coup was made possible by the decades of neglect and disinformation concerning Communism, and the misrepresentation of Nazis as 'extreme Right Wing' -- rather than an understanding of the nature of generic atheist totalitarianism that encompasses both.

(Part of this was also a false representation of the essence of the Nazi system as being anti-semitism; whereas this was mostly a peculiarity of Hitler himself, and not-at-all intrinsic to the NSDAP system of government.)

Furthermore, the lack of of comprehension concerning the atheist roots of totalitarianism has affected the opposition to mainstream post-middle-1960s New Leftism - because there is a false belief in 'a non-religious Right'.

Whereas there never has been, and never can be, a non-religious Right; and all purported examples of non-religious Right are actually merely (more or less) moderate forms of Leftism; just like the NSDAP.


All forms of political atheism are 1. Leftist, and 2. Totalitarian. The only thing which disguises this is social inertia; and as older (religious-reared) generations die-out, all possible secular societies will move Left towards the extreme of psychotic Communism.

Thus, since the entire West (and developed nations) have been atheist for some decades - all-without-exception are now (and for the past few months) extreme Leftist and under totalitarian rule. 


The only genuine opposition to totalitarianism is therefore from those who wish to put religion at the centre of the political system: those who regard religion as more important than politics (or anything else).

And the only legitimate dispute among those who oppose Leftism is: Which Religion?

Flat cap versus beret

Norman Clegg - a Northern English folk hero; from TV sitcom Last of the Summer Wine

Suspiciously French-looking...

Flat cap or beret? For me it is always flat cap, and never a beret.

A flat cap is the English National Costume for men.

I wear a flat cap pretty often, at most times of year. I even have a worsted woollen one for winter that has ear warming flaps that fold down. And a spring/ autumn cap made of corduroy; and for summer a linen one (which I keep in the car, and wear as a sun shade).

(I don't always wear a cap! Since I am bald, I always wear a hat of some kind outdoors - perhaps most often a Tilley wide brimmed thick cotton hat; and in the winter a Tilley thick woollen hat with a moderate brim and concealable warming flaps.) 


Because I've been wearing a flat cap since mid teens, I don't feel self-conscious about it. But a beret? Well, that's a different matter altogether. I have never stepped-outside wearing a beret, because I would feel like a fool.

Why should a beret make me so self-conscious? Is is the association with pretentious beatniks? Or is it simply because of the French connection?  For the English, the French are the Old Enemy, and are stereotypically wearing a beret (the kind with a little stalk on top) and horizontally striped shirt.

In general, I regard the beret as unpatriotic.


Of course there are British Army units that wear a beret. And General 'Monty' Montgomery sported a particular type that was named after him. But it still fails to convince me. Perhaps beret-wearing was imposed on our army by the Frenchified Norman Upper Classes?...

From a practical perspective; the beret strikes me as merely a dysfunctional flat cap; one that lacks the benefit of a brim. Its only advantage that I can imagine is to be more secure in a strong wind.

But then, in a wind, I do what the Northumbrian shepherds do; and pull my hood up and over the flat cap - to retain the benefit of the brim.


Rationality aside; I can't shake that reflex response that there must be something wrong with anybody who wears a beret, voluntarily and in public. So there it is.

Those who warn you against intuition are on The Other Side

Frank Berger has done an excellent post today, in which he discusses that 'most vital of subjects' for our times: I mean intuition (which I have also discussed under the names of Direct Knowing, and Final Participation - do the appropriate word searches if need to to know more).

To generalise, I would say that it is an important rule of thumb (here-and-now, but not necessarily at all times and places) to be alert against those who warn you against intuitive knowing. Why? Because intuition is - ultimately - your only bastion of independent and autonomous - hence free - thought.

What are the alternatives? Well, one anti-intuitive point of vew being pushed is by the anti-conspiracy theory movement. Frank links to an excellent, and concise, example of this new kind of propaganda. It can readily be seen that anti-conspiracy theory is a new pseudo-academic discourse which has been much funded and pushed over the past few years; with the usual apparatus of grants, conferences, papers and books (look at the reference list for example, which show how very recent this all is). 


Just as with all other mainstream discourse in the 'social sciences' - Marxian class analysis, feminism, antiracism and colonial studies, peace studies, gender studies, climate science - this is dishonest, manipulative rhetorical discourse masquerading as objective and impartial; and intrinsically supportive of the Global Elite agenda.

And likewise it is fake-radical; while actually being a mouthpiece of the exact and evolving narrative pushed by the ultra-rich, super-powerful plans of the Supra-national, Great Reset, New World Order Establishment (as catered for by Davos, Bilderberg, the UN/ WHO/ EU etc - with The Economist, WSJ and Financial Times as its House Journals.  

So, we need to ask ourselves that vital question:

If Not; Then What?


If Not intuition - Then What exactly should be our ultimate source of authority? Because anyone dissing intuition is simultaneously pushing something else...

The United Nations? Or a Western government bureaucracy? A university? The 'legacy' mass media (NYT? BBC?). Professional research as published in journals like Nature, Science, NEJM or The Lancet? Or some NGO, perhaps? Senior Judges? Multinational corps? Or the leadership/ public relations and media outlets of one of more of the major Christian churches? 

Because in the end (and not very deep down) all these authorities are actually The Same Thing - that is The System.


The System's unifying linkages are there, obvious and complex - if one takes the trouble to dig a litle (and only a very little digging is needed - I mean ten minutes excavation on the internet).

But very few people can or will do any digging at all; and for them it is only necessary to know that every assertion needs to be checked by intuition; and any that input has Not been checked should be rejected as Almost Certainly an evil lie.

That is; not merely dishonest and incompetent, but also designed specifically to mislead and harm your ultimate spiritual well-being.


In short: anyone or any-institution advising you to ignore your intuition, or to over-ride it with some external source of mainstream authority, should be assumed to be on the side of Satan and his demonic minions; unless the source can specifically (that is by direct personal knowledge backed by intuition) be shown to be motivated on-the-side-of God, Good and divine creation.

This is one of the ways in which living in these End Times makes life very simple! Simple to discern, if not simple to live.

Almost everything that reaches us without our-selves having made a conscious effort - everything that relies on our passive or unconscious absorption, is going to be ('net', overall, in aim) Lying Evil - so we can safely use that as a baseline assumption.


Beyond such an assumption; it is a matter of inferring which side of the spiritual war the source is working-for- asking what are the actual, underlying motivations of the persons or institutions from-which the information is emanating; and that, too, is usually very easy to know.

If the side is not obviously, explicity, consciously with God; then it is evil. 

(See what I mean by 'easy'?)

What makes iconoclasm evil? A clarification

Quite simply; iconoclasm is evil when the motivations behind it are evil.

Iconoclasm: the action of attacking or assertively rejecting cherished beliefs and institutions or established values and practices.

[I would add that the proper definition of iconoclasm is broader; and includes attacking, damaging, destroying and subverting cherished concepts, objects, symbols and rituals.]

It might be assumed that since it is 'cherished' beliefs and institutions (etc.) that are attacked by iconoclasts, then the good or evil of iconoclasm depends on the moral validity of that-which-is-cherished. It might be assumed that cherishing a good person is good, and an evil person is evil. But that is wrong and false.

What matters is the motivation of the iconoclast. When the iconoclast's motivation is evil, then it does not matter at all what is being attacked - because all such iconoclasm is evil.

And successful evil iconoclasm, when the evil-motivated iconoclast successfully destroys anything; feeds the evil of the iconoclasm by gratifying the evil motivation.

That's all we need to know.  

When iconoclasts are motivated by evil, they are morally wrong in their attacks - and it does not matter a jot what specifically they are attacking.

Cover your face! (The transition from face mask to face covering)

Here you can see the rise of "face covering" and the decline of the "face mask"... As usual, as with "social distancing", we are being told the underlying purpose of the measures. As usual, this reality is ignored/ denied.

(In other words, there has been a transition from the hygeine theatre of masks as a fake prophylaxis; to the blatant PSYOPS of covering; presumably with the usual motivation of divide/ rule, and fear/ resent/ despair.)