I’ve often wondered why so many (most?) people seem to have an utter lack of curiosity about what happened during the first four years of the ongoing Scamdemic. Today on a walk in the woods it occurred to me that maybe compliance is a big part of that. In fact, we might be able to state that curiosity is inversely proportional to compliance. Maybe if you complied with the “rules”, so you could visit your relative in the hospital or go to concerts, there’d be nothing more to think about — you were allowed to get on with your life in the New Normal, and you could relegate that little roadblock to the past.
In other words, once you make the decision to comply, you don’t have to waste any more time and energy thinking about the issue. This might be just a silly crackpot theory, no better than a Neil Ferguson pandemic model. But it could help to explain things that otherwise seem crazy.
I have a little anecdote to illustrate this, from back back in 2022, during the two year period when the do-gooders who run the music events in this town implemented medical apartheid. My normie friend called me up and invited me to go to a concert in town with her. I reminded her that I was an unclean plague rat and wasn’t allowed to go to concerts. So she went by herself.
Now at this point in the Scamdemic, we were expected to be taking “boosters” of the very safe and effective injections, because the previous injections were apparently not effective enough. My friend had taken the first two injections in 2021 so that she could visit her dying father in a nursing home. In other words, the medical establishment used unethical extortion on her to get her to comply. But at the time of the concert, she was not “updated” on her jabs, and her last one had been more than year prior. Yet the concert venue let her in. This tells us that the medical apartheid was implemented not because of Science™ or safety, but to ensure compliance — in other words, to prove that you were a member of the Good Citizens Club.
This normie friend understands my position on the “rules” and the jabs, and has never been anything but kind to me during these four years. But this incident was a bit disappointing. Despite her acceptance of my position on these things, my friend hasn’t shown any curiosity about the safety and effectiveness of the jabs, or about the other “rules”, or about the sudden and unexpected deaths of people we know. I think that once she took the jabs so that she could see her father before he died, she probably didn’t want to think about any of the other possible consequences of the jabs.
To be clear, I am in complete sympathy with my friend on this issue. To be presented with such an extortionate demand (“Nice parent you got there, be a shame if you couldn’t ever see him again”) is a terrible thing and I’m not sure I could have resisted if I had been in her situation. Maybe, as Tereza Coraggio says, people aren’t evil, but the evil they propagate, like this unethical medical extortion, sure seems real to me.
Thank you for the mention, Mark. To clarify, I say that to do good is to relieve suffering, to do better is to enable (or allow) people to relieve their own suffering. To do bad is to cause suffering, and to do evil is to cause others to cause suffering. Without a doubt, the misery inflicted on people was evil because it was done by a handful of people who compelled millions to force billions to do things. It's that mechanism of obedience and force that I see as an evil system. So I'd say we agree.