Eichmann in Your Living Room

Source: New York Times citing the CDC.

So now it is OK to “believe” what for a year has been heard only from “conspiracy theorist” YouTubers and bloggers.

C.D.C. Now Says People Without Covid-19 Symptoms Do Not Need Testing

Will this be cause for shame, or even the slightest reflection (?) among scientists with PhDs, or from anyone in mass media, or from administrators or those order-following middle managers who’ve pressured employees into destructive acts, or politicians who’ve dealt out mass destruction by decree, or parliamentarians who’ve delegated authority to do so?


That’s my prediction. The answer is no.

There will be no self reflection. There will be entrenchment. Doubling down. They will continue with this. The masks. The closings. The restrictions on travel and speech. The criminalizing of dissenting speech. And the shots. Not just 1, or 2, or 3 shots. But forever. You will take shots, and wear masks, forever. And there’s nothing you can say or do about it.

Anyway, this is what they TELL us.

Who’s they?

The ones in authority. THE ONES TELLING US THE WAY IT IS.

And they have an army of shameless unreflective automatons (third paragraph above) to carry it out.

Brion Frantz writes:

“Hey what a surprise… “asymptomatic people” don’t need testing anymore.

Because that’s called “being healthy”. So after a year of hysteria and devastating policy choices, guess what? That’s right…There is an illness, but the numbers were ridiculously manipulated for political and monetary gain.

(Also on the same day as the inauguration, sequencing and other procedures have been added to the PCR testing regimen, because… as it turns out, the old way, it seems that nearly all the tests were returning False Positive results.

Huh. How ’bout that.

I guess if they had implemented these quite normal sounding, common sense methods last year, there might not have been ANY pandemic at all…


Prediction was correct. The article was published in August 2020.

Don Harder writes:

I’m going to be direct here. First, I’ll note that I make it a policy for myself not to make claims that I can’t support with strong, reliable evidence. Sometimes that support is complex and isn’t easily relayed to those not willing to do the work and are unwilling to look at it objectively without dismissing it because the media baldly claimed otherwise. This is the environment we must all exist in alas.

The US regularly uses terrorism as a foreign policy tool. Putin commented after the St. Petersburg metro had a bomb go off in it a few years back that 95% of all terrorism is directly or indirectly carried out in accordance with western intel agencies. My own research supports this. If you’re willing to do a bit of intellectually honest digging, it’s not so difficult to verify this; it just takes some work.

It’s my belief that most of us are good people. I think most people believe that if say a CIA agent supports via recruiting, logistics, money and weapons an attack on innocent civilians, then that agent is acting immorally. If you find yourself justifying something like this for the furtherance of the goals of the multinational corporations and geopolitics, then maybe do some soul searching.

That out of the way. What about the press who obfuscates this reality so that the public is unaware of what is going on in their name? Whether it be through laziness or something much worse, isn’t that member of the press as responsible as the CIA agent? For without the press misinforming the public, it wouldn’t be possible to continue to carry out these types of attacks without public pushback.

I’ll never understand the mental justification these people engage in. It’s my opinion that they are truly bad people.

Good article here with the answer to Don Harder’s question.

Once the war was over and some prominent Nazis were brought to justice, Arendt attended the trial in Jerusalem of Adolph Eichmann, the architect of the Holocaust.

The experience left an indelible impression upon her, one that would shape the trajectory of her philosophical thinking. What she observed was that, much to her surprise, Eichmann wasn’t the incarnation of evil that she expected to encounter. His actions were monstrous, yes; but he was remarkably ordinary or “banal,” to use Arendt’s term of choice.

What struck Arendt was Eichmann’s “curious, but authentic, inability to think.”

“However monstrous the deeds were, the doer was neither monstrous nor demonic, and the only specific characteristic one could detect in his past as well as in his behavior during the trial and the preceding police examination was something entirely negative: it was not stupidity but a curious, quite authentic inability to think.”

Eichmann didn’t subscribe to any “theory or doctrine,” exhibited no “particularity of wickedness, pathology, or ideological conviction;” his “only personal distinction was a perhaps extraordinary shallowness.”

Note, Arendt did not intend her characterization to be interpreted as commentary upon Eichmann’s IQ. Nor, for that matter, did she mean to suggest that he was literally incapable of thinking critically. Rather, her point was that Eichmann showed no will to think beyond the clichés—the memes, bumper sticker slogans, and hashtags—of his day.

Because of his reliance upon “clichés,” “stock phrases,” and “conventional, standardized codes of expression and conduct”—all of which “have the socially recognized function of protecting us against reality,” “against the claim on our thinking attention which all events and facts arouse by virtue of their existence”—numerous “inconsistencies and flagrant contradictions” littered Eichmann’s testimony in court.

Yet he showed no signs of being in the least “bothered” by them.

Upon her experience with Eichmann, Arendt began to revisit an ancient thesis, one taken for granted by earlier generations of philosophers, that between the will to think and moral character there is an inseparable connection.

“Is evil doing, not just the sins of omission but the sins of commission, possible in the absence of not merely ‘base motives’ (as the law calls it) but any motives at all, any particular prompting of interest or volition? Is wickedness, however we may define it, this being ‘determined to prove a villain,’ not a necessary condition for evil-doing?”

Continuing, Arendt writes:

“Could the activity of thinking as such, the habit of examining and reflecting upon whatever happens to come to pass, regardless of specific content and quite independent of results, could this activity be of such a nature that it ‘conditions’ men against evil-doing?”

It is crucial for the reader to recognize that the phenomenon that she witnessed in Eichmann she knew was one that is endemic to human beings generally.

In other words, Arendt knew that there was nothing unique at all about Eichmann. Quite the contrary: He was ordinary, all too ordinary, to paraphrase Nietzsche. But this was the problem.”

For this reason:

Some stand up:

Celia Ingrid Farber writes:

5:40 am. Article on Covid statistical fraud at CDC finished in first draft form. I’m angry.

Darwin Holmstrom writes:

I was interviewed on Monday by the History Channel for an episode of a new series “Machines that Built America.” The producer hunted me down for this. After I agreed to do the show, she said I’d have to be tested for COVID. I told her thanks, but no thanks. I said that if someone tried to stick a swab up my nose I’d dislocate their shoulder in a way that would prohibit it from ever being relocated. She panicked and said they’d make other arrangements. Later her assistant called and said I could take a spit test instead of the swab test. Again I told her thanks but no thanks. I said that it was against my principles to participate in a PCR test, which can be manipulated to produce 100% false-positive results that are then killing people by creating socio-economic conditions that are driving people to die from overdoses, alcoholism, suicide, and other depression-related diseases. The producer called me about five minutes later and apologized profusely. She said they’d have to take extra precautions on the set but they’d make it work. They really wanted me to be on the show. On Monday I went to the studio and because I wasn’t tested, I got my own greenroom. Everything went well, except this one little git backstage kept yelling at me to put on a mask. I just smiled at him, which I could do because I wasn’t wearing a mask. The interview went well–the producer interviewed me for almost four hours. As I was walking off the set, the little git once again yelled at me to wear a mask (he was wearing two of them, a placebo face diaper and a plastic shield). I put my face right in his plastic shield and calmly told him, “I haven’t crunched the numbers yet, but I suspect that your odds of surviving pissing me off are lower than your 99.7% chance of surviving COVID.” He didn’t yell at me after that.

Others build the prison:

Others can’t stop laughing their fucking ass off:

Others feed the Engine of Demonization:

That’s what mass media is. An Engine of Demonization. Nothing more

Mary Ann Caton writes:

I’m reading a piece in Counterpunch by a professor at Smith College whose claim to fame is her honorary doctorate and her decades of teaching faux academic classes in those “Studies” departments. Her point is that the Republicans are no better than Germany’s Nazis and she makes what can only be called a mighty argument, throwing everything she can find at it, in order to prove that Hitler and Trump are pretty much the same person who were or are up to the same goals.

But her article is littered with logical fallacies. Here’s my favorite one so far: “Hitler led an insurrection against the German government in 1923 and was sentenced to five years in jail, served one, and used that leniency to commit the Holocaust.” 

Do you see what she did there? The connection she made between 1923 and the Holocaust that began in 1941 has a gap of 18 years. Her logical fallacy, common among those who don’t understand how history operates is called “post hoc ergo propter hoc” in which one makes the assumption that because one event, “Y,” followed event “X,” that “X” must have caused “Y.” 

Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc is evidence of an untrained mind. She’s assuming that the leniency Hitler was shown in 1923 when he served only 1 year in prison, instead of the 5 he was sentenced to, was directly responsible for the Holocaust. Never mind that inflation in Germany, followed by the Depression, and the collapse of the Weimar Republic and its liberal values, not to mention the pointing to Jews as the cause of Germany’s problems rather than the treaty that punished Germany for WW1 all played a role that led to the Holocaust. And let’s also not forget that FDR’s State Department knew about the Holocaust and never did anything about it. There is absolutely no historical or logical connection between leniency for Hitler and the Holocaust. ZERO.

And that leads me to wonder about the quality of this woman’s courses. Sloppy thinking and lines of causation like this one are stupid and dangerous. She should know better.  It reminds me of the Daughters of the American Revolution who like to say every year on Constitution Day that the War for Independence caused the Constitution to be written. No, it most certainly did not. 

Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc leads people into the trap that prior actors and their actions not only have foreknowledge of events far into the future, but it ignores the actual many causes of past events. Put another way, correlation does not prove causation.  

This professor needs to return to undergraduate studies and take a class from a rigorous logic professor and a demanding historian.

The biggest problem with her “argument” is blindness to the ongoing Holocaust and its perpetrators: the establishment in its entirety.

The blindness is involuntary.

the banality of evil, a curious, quite authentic inability to think… – Arendt

Paula Densnow writes:

Her purpose is not to make sense, but to manufacture consensus for the very Hitlerian idea of ”cleansing” society of unwanted Deplorables. 

Yep. It’s projection.

The Engine of Demonization, the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), or as Ray McGovern has said:

the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-MEDIA-Academia-Think-Tank complex, MICIMATT, if you will.

The mass media, or more generally, the MICIMATT, demonizes as if it’s its job. Because it is its job. And it’s a two-step: Demonize, then destroy.

The MICIMATT engine of demonization and destruction has been aimed outside of the United States worldwide, for as long as anyone can remember. That SAME engine of demonization and destruction is now aimed inward, inside the United States.

Writing that, one realizes, it’s been aimed there for decades already, what with the controlled demolition of the American working class since 1980-ish. 40 years later, the engine kicks up a few gears. The demonization is amplified, super amplified.

Destruction always follows.

Then there are the facts. Which don’t matter at all:

114 of the last 120 years were deadlier than 2020 in Sweden (deaths per population).

The 6 years of the last 120 that were less deadly (slightly) than 2020 were 2014, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 2019.

2019 was the least deadly year in Sweden in the last 120 years, and possibly the least deadly ever in the history of Sweden. 2020 is slightly higher, a bit less than 2013.

Detailed discussion here:

The data is similar in Germany, and elsewhere. I would like someone to explain therefore, particularly, those who don’t believe in “conspiracy”, why we are facing increasing restrictions, like the requirement to restrict our breathing, restrict the sight of our faces, restrict our movements, and so on, and why preparations are in place in Germany to remove “violators” into “isolation centers”?

No one is conspiring to impose these restrictions? Or, rather, they’re doing it out of benevolence, not malevolence, for our own good, for public safety?

Safety from what?

See the graph

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s