I’ve been in an enjoyable dialogue over the last few days with JJ Dawson over subjects dear to both our hearts – Covid madness and climate cultism. You can see the piece to which I responded at JJ’s Substack here, but I thought my latest reply was worth posting at Harrumpf.

Hi JJ – I’d certainly be interested in seeing more dots joined in the ‘Covid was deliberately concocted and released by a cabal of elite globalist conspirators’ theory, and will keep my mind open to the possibility that it may be true.

When assessing conspiracy theories, I tend to ask myself the following questions:

•             What outcome did the putative conspirators seek?

•             Was the putative conspiracy the means of procuring that outcome which

• Was simplest/easiest to implement, and therefore most likely to succeed?
• Was the least risky, on account of either
  • betrayal by one or more of the conspirators, or
  • personal risk to the conspirators? (one reason I think Putin’s use of nukes is unlikely, though not out of the question, is that he’s located downwind of his likely targets)

In other words, ‘if that’s what you wanted to achieve, is that how you’d go about it?’ In the case of Covid, I have great difficulty imagining a cabal of uber-globalists deciding that the best way to extend their already extensive power was to concoct and release a virus who properties they could not possibly have defined with sufficient precision to rule out the possibility that it would kill the conspirators themselves. While I yield to no-one in the scepticism with which I greeted Covid in 2020, even I was worried for a few weeks that it might have had a CFR similar to the Bubonic Plagues. Where I think we might be closer together is that

•             it very quickly became clear that even the earliest iterations of Covid were little more lethal than several instances of influenza which have occurred in my lifetime without either decimating the population or ruining our society.

•             A large stratum of society which does not itself belong to the uber-global elites, but is aspirationally committed to its values (which includes almost the entirety of the MSM and which I shall refer to as the smuggocracy) fell deeply in love with the drama of Covid. In a way that could not possibly have happened before the era of the smart phone, a large segment of society’s better-off embraced ‘lockdown’ (I use the term as a synecdoche for the entire Covid policy response) with a relish that betrayed its ulterior motives. Masking, social-distancing and ultimately injecting themselves with experimental potions were performed ritually, without regard to, and often in defiance of scientific evidence.

I would be quite easily persuaded that the ‘Davos cabal’, quite possibly primed intellectually by the Event 201 that you linked to, spotted these phenomena, and plotted assiduously to enforce a conspiracy of silence to preserve the reputation of Covid 19 as an unusually lethal disease, thereby extending their grip on the commanding heights of the 21st century economy.

My point is that, to whatever extent the uber-elites were bent on oppressing the masses, they were executing the easiest act of tyranny in human history. These were masses who were crying out to be oppressed. I attempted to fathom this phenomenon in a post 3  years ago CAN EVOLUTIONARY MISMATCH THEORY EXPLAIN COVID MADNESS?

So yes, I’d like to see more dots joined, but for the moment I’m sticking to my ‘opportunism’ theory.

Cooling/Warming

While I understand your reasons for doing so, I think the cooling/warming thing should not be glossed over, because to me it illustrates the disregard for scientific rigour which characterises the entire ‘climate’ cult.

And yes, ‘warming’ did make a brief appearance at the end of the 60s. I know this because in 1969 I was 18, and finishing my schooling with a rather poor UK ‘A’ level in Physics. After our exams were over, our physics teacher, who in retrospect deserves recognition for extraordinary foresight, had a couple of weeks to fill. He did so by giving us an introduction to electronic computing, and an introduction to ‘greenhouse’ theory – subjects he drew together by demonstrating a rudimentary numerical computer model. Even on a blackboard, he was able to demonstrate the principle of ‘sensitivity to initial conditions’, and to show the unlikelihood that anyone would ever be able successfully to model future climate outcomes. He correctly predicted that Moore’s Law would tempt scientists to try, and that we would be urged to believe that anthropogenic CO2 emissions would dangerously warm the planet. He urged us to remain sceptical – I have.

With that background, it was with incredulity that I witnessed, first, the abrupt embrace of the ‘cooling/new ice age’ scare, and its equally abrupt displacement by warming, without any acknowledgement of scientific uncertainty by the scaremongering grifters professing to be climate ‘experts’.