Brownstone has published an essay by Haley Kynefin. I wanted to find more of her writing, but she’s not well represented online. She wrote at Medium for a while then stopped just before the hoaxocaust.
Kynefin is focusing on the lockdowns and muzzles and distancing, not the vax and “origins”.
Vax is a proper part of traditional pre-2020 public health. The new vax may be more harmful and less helpful than other vaxes, but a few shots don’t ruin society and culture. Arguing about the vax pulls our attention away from the SERIOUS anti-science and anti-civilization torture devices.
Arguing about the “biowar origins” of the “virus” leads us to assume as axiomatic that the “virus” is harmful enough to be used as a weapon. After you accept the counterfactual axiom, you can’t argue against the “measures needed to defeat the lethal virus”. You’ve already surrendered.
= = = = = START QUOTE:
Those who see promise in new technologies, find freedom in the capabilities they bestow, or directly profit from their introduction push for their adoption, and for existing social infrastructure to be uprooted, pushed aside, or rebuilt from the ground up. Their success ultimately depends on the eradication of what was there before and the widespread adoption of the new tech.
On the other side are the keepers of the “old ways,” the lollygags and Luddites. They are those who profit from traditional ways of life, whose cultural identity depends on them, or who see moral or aesthetic value in them. They may be members of traditional or indigenous cultures, orthodox religious or spiritual adherents, business owners, artists or romantics, or those seeking to return to a simpler time.
What this battle boils down to is a clash between two worldviews: the first, the “progress” narrative, which claims that humanity has been on a continuous path of upward evolution from a primordial, barbarous state, and which imposes the acceptance of the new infrastructure as a moral imperative for the utilitarian “betterment” of society; and the second, the “lost paradise” narrative, which sees man as “fallen” from a state of ancient, natural perfection to which we must return to gain redemption.
= = = = = END QUOTE.
Packed full of good points.
Evolution doesn’t explain nature. Evolution justifies psychopaths. When you assume that RANDOM actions lead to progress, you justify the RANDOM acts of demons. And demons always call their sexual pleasure “progress”.
Devolution is a more accurate description of nature and language and human inventions. The first design contains all necessary features. As it spreads into different cultures and situations, some of the features disappear in each situation, shaping it into unique versions that are uniquely ADAPTED to the users and their needs. This is how the world really works when it’s not being SMASHED by demons.
Good stuff, and I hope to read more.