The State Can Never Surrender

The freedom demonstrations are growing. Toronto, Quebec, and now Canberra Australia, too. The state, applying their muscle (i.e. cops, media, and regulatory leverage) will try to lay siege to the demonstration. Cops are now blockading the blockades preventing supplies from getting in. Big media has blacked out the coverage and dutifully smeared the demonstrators. We saw regulatory flexing that convinced GoFraudMe to cut off their fund raising.

If the siege on the demonstration fails, I think its going to get very interesting.

When I game-theory this out, I begin to fear an inevitably violent end. I am operating under the core assumption that the ‘state’ cannot surrender, ever. By surrendering, the state de-legitimizes itself and the state’s very existence is entirely contingent upon its legitimacy.

The state cannot surrender. It must win. It’s very survival depends on it.

This is why FedGov, for instance, can never seem to end its foreign occupations. To do so is to delegitimize the very war they created and waged. When faced with certain defeat, the state attempts to withdraw without fanfare, slowly, quietly, imperceptibly. Eventually, the opposition senses the tide has turned definitively in its favor and they rush in to accelerate the victory (see Saigon and Afghanistan).

I think the canary in the coal mine, here, is the cops. Cops are the state’s muscle. They are the enforcers of the state’s will. They are in the midst of the demonstrations and have the best sense for who is going to win. Bound by paycheck allegiance, they are sell swords who will follow the orders of their paymasters without question, up until they sense the opposition will win. If that point is reached, it is all over for the government. When the cops stop enforcing the government’s will, the government will be neutered and completely humiliated. Many priests and acolytes of government will have to resign in total disgrace… the government itself will survive, after serving up a host of scapegoats.

What will it take to get the cops to switch sides? In America, my guess is it would take a FAILED attempt to disperse a demonstration with government-ordered violence. Let’s hope it doesn’t end like Tiananmen Square.

Last Days of Empire

The sportsball team from FedGov capital Washington DC has changed the nickname of their team to the “Commanders.” The new Commander mascot is a red Darth Vader replete with identity-masking face shield.

How fantastically apropos! The Commanders are now a parody of FedGov itself, right down to the ridiculousness of their caped and spandexed mascot.

I enjoy watching the empire-in-waning flail in its clown show of self-parody. It grasps and clutches to preserve and project its collapsing legitimacy with its symbols and symbolic gestures of dominance (i.e. masks, flags, pointless and obnoxious edicts, banana republic elections, senile puppet usurpers, kangaroo courts, saber rattling, etc.).

FedGov gonna censor, mandate, and lockdown with increasing brazenness, doubling down at every turn, because to admit overreach would be to admit their illegitimacy. FedGov never, ever surrenders. They only escalate.

You better watch out! The FedGov Commanders are gonna do some real commanding, now!

Vaccine Efficacy

In a free country, everyone must assess their own personal risk tolerance.

When considering vaccines in our unfree country, both the pro mandate and pro choice sides of the debate are reporting vaccine efficacy incorrectly. The correct way to evaluate it is thus:


  1. Vaccination rates are 70%
  2. And infection hospitalization rate is 1%
  3. And 50% of hospitalizations have previously been vaccinated…

Then: the unvaxxed are 2.3 times more likely to be hospitalized, or you could say the vaccine is 57% effective (1 – .71%/1.67%).

But there’s more to it…

If hospitalizations are 1% of infections, then the true efficacy of the vaccine is 1% lower chance of hospitalizations vs no vaccination (1.67% – .71%).



In conclusion, if you advocate vaccine mandates based upon a 1% decrease in infection risk of hospitalization, you are drunk on authoritarian impulse.

COVID Questions

If masks work, why do maskers insist the unmasked wear them?

If vaccines work, why do the vaxxed insist the unvaxxed vaccinate?

If the pandemic is a pandemic of the unvaxxed, why are the vaxxed concerned?

If masks do not filter airborne virus, what is the purpose of masks?

If cases were in rapid decline before any significant portion of the populace was vaccinated, how can vaccines be credited?

If cases rose sharply after a significant portion of the population was vaccinated, why shouldn’t vaccines be blamed?

If vaccines work, why mamdate masks for the vaccinated?

If vaccines are necessary to stop the infection, why are between 35% and 75% of the hospitalizations among vaccinated?

If children are unaffected, why require them to be masked?

If infected children are not seriously affected, why vaccinate them?

If having COVID builds the most effective immunity, why require those who have had COVID to get vaccinated or wear masks?

Is there a compelling reason to take an experimental gene therapy that merely increases infection survivability from 99.6% to 99.8%?

If the vaccine does not prevent you from catching COVID, does not prevent you from dying of COVID, and does not prevent you from transmitting COVID, what compelling reason is there for taking it?

When, in human history, were those who promote censorship, martial law, and mandatory injections ever regarded as the good guys?