The “courage” of the quitter

These bizarre defenses of chokers and quitters are beginning to border on parody:

“After further medical evaluation, Simone Biles has withdrawn from the final individual all-around competition,” USA Gymnastics said in a statement. “We wholeheartedly support Simone’s decision and applaud her bravery in prioritizing her well-being. 

“Her courage shows, yet again, why she is a role model for so many.”

Meanwhile, real competitors like Aaron Rodgers are criticized for months just because he chose to try passing the ball rather than attempting to run it into the end zone. (The criticism was incredibly stupid, by the way, because there was no way Rodgers was going to outrun Jason Pierre-Paul, who had already sacked him twice during the game, from the 10-yard-line.) Can you even imagine how the media would have come down on Patrick Mahomes if, instead of playing a Super Bowl behind an injured and ineffective offensive line, he had withdrawn from the game the day before?

“I won’t be playing in the Super Bowl today. I don’t know, I’m just feeling a little blue. But hey, to the rest of the Chiefs, you guys just go out there and kick some ass. I’ll be cheering for you!”

It’s strange, because it’s not as if black athletes were previously immune from criticism. Perhaps this is a consequence of Black Lives Matter or something, or perhaps it’s just a coincidence combined with the philosophy that everyone is a winner no matter what happens.

Either way, it’s ridiculous. Champions don’t choke and they definitely don’t quit.

Miles Mathis has an entirely different take:

In February of 2018, I called foul on the USA Gymnastics story of Larry Nassar, who was allegedly sentenced to 175 years in jail for molesting young women.  There I showed all the discontinuities, contradictions, flaws, and red flags on that story.  Well, that story has continued to spin out this week, since two days ago we saw the story dredged up for the Olympics, with Simone Biles being forced in an interview to say she too had been molested by Nassar.  I have watched all of 30 minutes of Olympics coverage, but happened to see the first part of that interview, since I was with friends at the time.  I walked out in disgust, knowing she was lying, and missed the second half where she was with her mother.  Anyway, the interview apparently backfired on the controllers, since many normies saw it and realized Biles was lying. One of my friends talked to his mother later that night, and she volunteered the information that she thought Biles was lying.  Pretty extraordinary, since his mother is not a conspiracy theorist and otherwise doesn’t think too much of my papers.  Apparently word got back to Biles through the grapevine that viewers all over the world were not believing her, since yesterday she had a meltdown, quitting the all-round competition despite not being injured, and giving the gold to Russia.  Just so you know, Biles is considered the best gymnast in the world, and the US was favored to win the all-round because of that.  Many are calling her the best gymnast ever, due to the difficulty of her routines and the height of her tumbling.  So this is a huge deal.

In the mainstream, no one is mentioning the obvious, so as usual it is up to me.  I absolutely guarantee you the reason she quit wasn’t because she was “sad” or “stressed” or mentally weak.  Clearly, she quit because she was sick of being forced to lie by these bastards in Intelligence who now control everything.

So, maybe she is a hero after all?

There is no “could have” about it

Vaccinated people carry a much higher load than unvaccinated people. This was predicted and is part of the ADE breakthrough problem. As the educated skeptics have been correctly pointing out from the start, Covid vaccines are literally worse than useless.

Karl Denninger has been pointing this out for months.
The data is that these jabs do not prevent disease.  They also do not prevent transmission of disease.  In fact they appear to, if you get a breakthrough case, make transmission more likely in that the Ct data from these miners shows equal or lower values on balance in the vaccinated cohort with one sample at Ct22!  Reminder: The lower the Ct the more virus you have in your body.
Now granted this is a small group — very small.  But it is extremely concerning that the lowest Ct recorded among these cases was a fully-vaccinated person.  Where is the data from the state labs and CDC on these “breakthroughs” and their Ct numbers generally?  It’s not being reported.  I bet you can guess why not without needing more than one guess.

The silver lining

There may be a considerable amount of good coming out of the pandemonium in the long run:

The rate of households homeschooling their children doubled from the start of the pandemic last spring to the start of the new school year last September, according to a new U.S. Census Bureau report released this week.

Last spring, about 5.4{cc08d85cfa54367952ab9c6bd910a003a6c2c0c101231e44cdffb103f39b73a6} of all U.S. households with school-aged children were homeschooling them, but that figure rose to 11{cc08d85cfa54367952ab9c6bd910a003a6c2c0c101231e44cdffb103f39b73a6} by last fall, according to the bureau’s Household Pulse Survey.

The survey purposefully asked the question in a way to clarify that it was inquiring about genuine homeschooling and not virtual learning through a public or private school, the Census Bureau said.

Before the pandemic, household homeschooling rates had remained steady at around 3.3{cc08d85cfa54367952ab9c6bd910a003a6c2c0c101231e44cdffb103f39b73a6} through the past several years.

Based on the previous statistics, that implies that around 8.5 million American schoolchildren are being homeschooled. That is absolutely massive and bodes well for the future.

Where Have All the Boomers Gone?

Where Have All the Boomers Gone?

Where have all the pillows gone, long time passing?

Where have all the pillows gone, long time ago?

Where have all the pillows gone?

Justice served by every one

Oh, when shall we forget them?

Oh, when shall we forget them?

Where have all the Beatles gone, long time passing?

Where have all the Beatles gone, long time ago?

Where have all the Beatles gone?

Gone with Lennon and a gun

Oh, when shall we forget them?

Oh, when shall we forget them?

Where have all the Hippies gone, long time passing?

Where have all the Hippies gone, long time ago?

Where have all the Hippies gone?

Dead and buried every one

Oh, when shall we forget them?

Oh, when shall we forget them?

Where have all the vinyls gone, long time passing?

Where have all the vinyls gone, long time ago?

Where have all the vinyls gone?

Gone to downloads, every one

Oh, when shall we forget them?

Oh, when shall we forget them?

Where have all the Boomers gone, long time passing?

Where have all the Boomers gone, long time ago?

Where have all the Boomers gone?

Pillows silenced every one

And now we can forget them!

Thank God we can forget them!

Why people don’t believe in “science”

An explanation of why the public doesn’t trust science anymore underlines the importance of distinguishing between scientody and scientistry:

From climate to Covid, politics and hubris have disconnected scientific institutions from the philosophy and method that ought to guide them.

The Covid pandemic has thrown into sharp relief the disconnect between science as a philosophy and science as an institution.

If you think biological complexity can come about through unplanned emergence and not need an intelligent designer, then why would you think human society needs an ‘intelligent government”?

Science as an institution has a naive belief that if only scientists were in charge, they would run the world well.

Perhaps that’s what politicians mean when they declare that they “believe in science”.

As we’ve seen during the pandemic, science can be a source of power, but conformity is the enemy of scientific progress, which depends on disagreement and challenge.

There’s a tension between scientists wanting to present a unified and authoritative voice, on the one hand, and science-as-philosophy, which is obligated to remain open-minded and be prepared to change its mind.

The pandemic has, for the first time, seriously politicized epidemiology.

It’s partly the fault of outside commentators who hustle scientists in political directions, but it’s also the fault of epidemiologists themselves deliberately publishing things that fit with their political prejudices or ignoring things that don’t.

Scientists, by and large, are relatively stupid. Even worse, they’re accustomed to being more or less unaccountable. They’re high-level midwits, for the most part, which is why so many epidemiologists failed to note the obvious: if you make an incorrect prediction that costs people a considerable amount of time, money, or freedom, you will not get a second chance to tell them what to do.

For example, no one in the UK cared about SAGE’s third wave doomsday predictions or paid any attention to its demands for a lockdown because its predictions for the first two waves were off by a factor of more than 10.

Furthermore, everyone with an IQ over 115 understands that science is corrupt now, so they correctly view any “study” or recommendation with extreme skepticism.

Americans are the Indians now

The inability of the Indians to band together against the invading Europeans presages the inability of the posterity of the American Revolution to stand together against the multiple waves of immigrants that have invaded, transformed, and even disappeared the very concept of the American nation:

King Philip had one extraordinary advantage as war raged in the autumn of 1675: The settlers did not know how to fight an Indian war. They couldn’t cross a swamp, they couldn’t travel silently in woods, they couldn’t keep warm outdoors. Indians won battle after battle.

But the victories were Pyrrhic. Plymouth and its allies in Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Connecticut were connected to global trade networks and could import food, while the Indians were an agricultural people a long way from their fields and stores. King Philip’s troops may have been winning. But they were also starving. The English controlled the technological platform of the war. However formidable Indians were at firing guns, they could not manufacture them. The best hope of the Wampanoags and their Nipmuck, Narragansett, and Abenaki allies was to enlist the ferocious Mohawks of the upper Hudson, with their thousands of fighting men. But the Mohawks’ ferocity (and independence) rested on arms obtained from Albany merchants whom they could not afford to alienate. They entered the war against King Philip, suddenly and to devastating effect.

Finally, the English had cohesion, however you choose to name it: solidarity, like-mindedness, uniformity. The Indians had diversity. That meant some fought with Philip and others fought against him. The Christians among them were an important source of intelligence to the English. War split up not just families but, among the tribal leaders, marriages. King Philip was driven eastward, back across Massachusetts, to his homeland and his fate.

“If the Wampanoags are as much our fellow Americans as the descendants of the Pilgrims,” Silverman asks, “and if their history can be as instructional and inspirational as that of the English, then why continue to tell a Thanksgiving myth that focuses exclusively on the colonists’ struggles rather than theirs?” The answer, as noted, is that we no longer do tell that myth, and haven’t for years. Once we have dismissed the Puritans’ religious claims, once we lose interest in the way their democratic intuitions, from the Mayflower Compact onward, anticipate our own democratic institutions, then we are left with a tale of increasing tensions between two ethnic communities that eventually exploded into war. Every prejudice that has been schooled into Americans over the past half-century would prompt them to root against the Pilgrims.

But that is no longer the only reason we don’t look at Plymouth from a Pilgrim perspective. Of the two communities that confronted each other in New England 400 years ago, it may now be the Indians, not the Pilgrims, who most resemble today’s Americans. The Wampanoags were divided between, on one hand, cosmopolitans like Massasoit, who believed that there was room for a mosaic of peoples in southeastern Massachusetts, and, on the other, skeptical provincials like Philip who lost faith in that ideal. They lacked the cohesion to stand up against a resolute rival.

A remark often bandied about today is Adam Smith’s to the effect that “[t]here is a great deal of ruin in a nation,” by which he meant that it takes a much greater set of misfortunes to destroy a nation, and over a much longer period of time, than we commonly realize. It is not actually true. The Wampanoags went from dominance and confidence to a point of no return in about 55 or 60 years. Suddenly they were losing population, and abandoning old values, too. Each problem fed on the other in a dangerous process. Once a people begins debating how much ruin there is in a nation, that process is already well underway.

This is why it is so pointless for conservatives to babble about “they’re trying to divide us” and other nonsensical civnatteries. There is no longer one single “us”, there are only multiple nations negotiating and jockeying for power over everyone else. 

Perhaps Americans will preserve a rump state amongst the ashes of empire. Or perhaps the conquerors of the US empire will permit whites a few reservations out in North Dakota and Idaho.