2025, Supservatives, 2025

The Year That Either Ends the “Conservative” Part in the Suppression of the Covid-Vax Story, or Extends It for Decades

The Year to Come

N.S. Lyons begins a recent post of his this way,

The [Woke] revolution may finally be over. Donald Trump and the MAGA movement’s electoral victory was so sweeping that an era of real counter-revolution may have finally dawned in America. This is certainly a sweet prospect to contemplate after having endured so many years of escalating political repression and civilizational chaos.

But we also shouldn’t delude ourselves: not a single institutional power center of the left-managerial regime has yet been besieged, let alone taken and sacked; not a single yard of bureaucratic territory has yet been recaptured. …Realistically, the fight is only just beginning and…

You get the idea.

We all know that 2025, which actually begins on January 20th, will be a momentous year. The year of the Counter-Revolution, of the Democracy-Rescue, or if you like to phrase things in a more on-offense spirit, of the Trump Revolution. Of his “100 days.”

But amidst all the coming happenings around that, something easily as momentous will take place. For we will learn this year whether the biggest story of the 21^st-century, the Widespread Deaths and Harms from the Covid-19 Vaxxes story, is finally going to be investigated and discussed. We will see whether it is to be

1.) treated as the blockbuster scandal it is, or

2.) continue to be subjected to the most extensive (and presently quite bipartisan) suppression campaign in human history, one which will now seek to defer the Reckoning for the crime/disaster until sometime in the 2030s or 40s, or even for perpetuity.

The good news is that the second scenario is the less likely one, as the Suppression is on a collision-course with MAHA, i.e., with the promises made, explicit and implicit, by Trump and Kennedy when they came into alliance.

The bad news is dual: a.) not only can we not rule out the second scenario, one which would bring about, alongside many other great evils, the moral collapse of conservativism, but b.), the rapid unfolding of the more-likely one will probably catch most conservatives, the ones I call the supservatives, quite unready.

Supservatives, and What Is Being Suppressed

Some reading this are thinking, “Wait--supservative--what is that? Is this guy saying that I am one?”

Well, if you have to ask, you haven’t been reading my stuff, and yeah, you probably are. At the least, you’re probably another tongue-biting supporter of the supservatives.

For the supservative is anyone who profess to be a conservative and who has some role, however minor, in journalism, punditry, activism, or political office, who has joined the MSM in suppressing the Covid-19-vax disaster. They do this by refusing to provide coverage or even mention of it, and by refusing to demand such coverage.

At present, I’d say 95% of all conservative leaders, down even to the small-fry leaders of podcasts, substacks, etc., are supservatives.

And yes, it is a disgraceful thing. The term is meant to recall the insult of “cuckservative,” though it most of all it points to participation in suppression.

As I said in my 8/31 piece subtitled “Is a Conservative Case for the Suppression of the Covid-Vax-Harms Story Possible?”:

Suppression is the refusal by a journalist, pundit, or politician, to publish or discuss content relating to a story of major public import, in violation of their duty to serve the citizenry.

And I added that in this case the story is

…bigger than big…the claim is that the Covid-19 experimental medications are quite dangerous, having killed half-a-million to 17-million worldwide so far, with comparable numbers of disabling injuries, off-the-charts numbers of lesser injuries, strong reasons to expect them to cause millions of premature deaths in the decades to come, and yet-to-be-ruled-out concerns that they may alter the human genome...

My saying that this is a bundle of “claims” is at this point mainly a formality of discussion, a way to provide the hypothetical premise necessary for evaluating whether an abdication of journalistic and political duty [i.e., a duty to investigate/debate such claims] has been taking place. For those of us who attend to the relevant substacks, websites, books, and videos, call us the “dissidents,” we know that at least three-fourths of the main claims just mentioned will be confirmed. That is how serious the evidence is, and how voluminous. And part of what I mean by “serious” is how few of the claims…have been proven false, or likely false. To mention just a few examples, there have been no thorough and pause-causing refutation attempts of what nearly 200 embalmers [update—250] are reporting about the novel clots, no thorough and pause-causing refutation attempts of the Ed Dowd all-cause mortality and disability reports, no thorough and pause-causing refutation attempts of the studies Peter McCullough cites (42:30-47:30) in the myocarditis area, and no thorough and pause-causing refutation attempts of the Arne Burckhardt autopsies.

The implications to be drawn from most all “conservative” leadership, in journalism/punditry (i.e., Fox, WSJ, National Review, The Daily Wire, The Federalist, The American Mind, National Affairs, Law & Liberty, Mark Levin, Victor Davis Hanson, Michael Anton, City Journal, New Right Post, Powerline, The New Atlantis, etc.) and in politics (nearly every GOP member of Congress except Ron Johnson) deliberately not talking about any of this circa 2022-to-the-present are staggering.

They’ve helped the outright criminals in the relevant agencies and corporations perpetuate their lie that these meds were “safe.” They’ve helped delay research into cures or mitigations of the chronic conditions produced by the meds. Moreover, by chucking their duty to at least report on a controversy of vital public interest, they’ve betrayed basic principles of liberal democracy. And they’ve ignored God’s numerous commands to avoid the way of deceit¹ and to protect the defenseless.

So when I said supservative is a disgraceful term, I wasn’t telling you the tenth of it!

The Year that Could Release You

The good news, however, is 2025. It is putting before the supservative a pathway out. It might even drive you fifty-yards down the start of that path, for if Kennedy and others like him do get in, the data releases forced from the CDC, FDA, DOD, etc., could blast the story wide-open, requiring you to speak about or publish pieces about the long-forbidden topic.

I’d strongly suggest, oh supservative, that you start getting yourself ready for that. You’ve got some studyin’ to do! (Start with the links above.) And maybe some apologies to make? Some contacts to cultivate? Alas, I can predict that few of you will do any confessing, and will instead seek to give your audiences and constituencies the impression that “of course,” you’ve “long been concerned about this.” You won’t want it to seem as if you had kept your relevant convictions and principles entirely dormant, to be activated only when Trump pronounced that he was now for the story being discussed.

Did you notice, for example, how poorly Calley Means recently came across, when up against the simplest of questions from dissidents? Think about how difficult it will be for conservatives to deploy his kind of “let’s wait until a commission has…” line; dissidents won’t tolerate that unless they’ve been given grounds to half-trust the relevant players. So they won’t tolerate it from you, supservative, unless you’ve given them such grounds about your own behavior on this. More generally, think about how difficult it will be to control the story once Kennedy has acted and it’s on the move.

Oh, and you can tell, assuming you largely shun repentance in all this, that I, or others like me, might still work to expose your unconfessed sins of inaction and compliance. So that little conflict could dribble on, and even if you get out in front on the covid-vax story in 2025. Could so for decades: “Oh, what a drag, there’s that Carl Eric Scott guy—one of those who keeps harping back upon what they call the unconfessed conservative moral failure of 2022-2024.” Though in truth, whether that happens or not, you and I would both be immensely relieved that in 2025 you didn’t wind up taking the way of the Indefinite Suppressor.

Or Enslave You

But now we come to a very fearful thing. Something lingering down there near the foundations of the soul, but pitch-black as a syringe loaded with starless night.² Something as stunning as the best minds of my generation, destroyed by mendacity, only apparently prosperous and sane.³

I speak of the prospect of your instead surrendering to the arguments of the Indefinite Suppressor, who advises conservatives to maintain the status quo suppression, indefinitely.

For this is the temptation you’ve led yourself right up to:

Conservative leaders like INDEF are going ask you how it will be possible, if the full story comes out, for the citizenry to take the shock of all their leaders’ lies for all these years, and in your own case, how they will react to what they will at the very least categorize as your hypocrisy. INDEF will say it’s safer by far to stay mum and pretend to be ignorant. That is, that’s what he’ll say to you in mid-2025, assuming the suppression is still chugging along. His key point will be that you’d have little to gain from trying to help it to collapse, and yet, everything to lose were it to. And he will give you the supposed reasons of public interest he gave me—such as the “mass mental melt-down argument”—to help you justify your duty-betraying prioritization of your private interest. He will count on your wavering between your promised-yourself future adherence to your scruples, and this new justification he offers you. He knows you’ve wavered before, because again, if we’re being honest about it, that’s how you got to this position. You kicked the can of owning up to your chosen ignorance down the road. And here you are.

This is from a larger imaginary dialogue I wrote. The second half of this (part III of an essay published on 8/31, 9/1, & 9/5) is with a good conservative who seeks to justify his participation in the suppression by appealing to the imperative of getting Trump elected, and the intolerable risk which open discussion of the vax-disaster would pose to that; and the first half(II of the big essay) is with “INDEF,” a right-wing Machiavel who advocates permanent suppression, unless some clearly-advantageous moment for conservatives ending it arrives. The good conservative, who I label the Temporary Tactical Suppressor, or “TTS,” promises himself that, sometime in 2025, he will cease his part in suppressing the story—that’s his argument for why his position, especially in 2024 but really all through 2022-2024, was morally justifiable.

You should read those pieces, supservative. For they show that all through the last few years, TTS’s case was a dicey one, so entangling him in webs of deceit that, even though the very terms of his moral justification now require him to act, he may well fail to.

That is, those pieces might make you realize that now more than ever, you must not wait upon events, must not resign yourself to going along with whatever Trump and the Trumpist insiders decide.

If God forbid, Trump does decide to eschew all repentance for Warp Speed, to betray MAHA and Kennedy, something which would only work if he could find ways to force men like Kennedy and Bannon (and to a lesser extent Carlson) into betraying past statements, every conservative will be forced to make a decision.

Understand, if you cast your lot with continuing the Suppression, there will be no practical politics-career or journalism-career way of turning back. A Christian like myself is commanded to welcome repentances at any time, but in political creed terms, unity with you, and continued support of your publications and organizations, would become impossible.

Principled conservatives would have no choice but to part ways with the “official” conservatism you would likely still own and lead, and to declare ourselves out of political comradeship with you. We would dub your position as an ideologically new one, that of Right Narrativism. We would refuse to call you conservatives. Sure, we might initially have to stand as a tiny minority, and sure, calculations would likely force us back into various hold-our-noses temporary alliances with you on this or that vote/election, but the deeper bond would be sundered. But we would now understand ourselves as, at bottom, your political opponents. In personal terms, links of friendship might hold in the cases where real friendships span this divide, but the split itself would be fundamental. Such friendships would function under constant strain, similar to the strain between a friend who remains a believer and one who goes apostate.

It’s bitterly painful to contemplate. But I know this:

It is no act of friendship to let a friend stumble into an enslavement.

For what I’m talking about here would be a deforming of your very conscience, a pledge to uphold a set of lies and lying silences for a supposed political good, and not merely in the manner of temporarily handling a tactical emergency, but in the manner of long-term creed. That is, eventually, your hidden service to the omerta would have to become open service to the Lie: continued suppression would more and more become a matter of mandatory attacks upon dissident experts and dissident conservatives like myself, and mandatory affirmations of propaganda. Could you really take comfort from your intellectuals underlining the true-enough fact that these ideological-line requirements for this new “conservatism” would be nowhere near as sweeping as those characteristic of communism and Nazi-ism? Or of Woke-ism? Don’t act surprised by my mentioning the Nazis and Marxists, for the narrative-requirements you would become bound to would be more akin to ideological propaganda than to party-platform loyalty.

2025 could sign you up for this. For I don’t see any neat pivot points becoming available to you after this year. If Trump makes evident an intention to continue the suppression, by what possible moral rationale, or moral/tactical rationale, would it make sense to not break with him on that until say, 2027, or 2029? For much of 2025, however, I’d estimate until about August, you will still be able to play the “I didn’t want to talk about this until I knew Trump was securely in power,” card. Or the, “I wanted to give Trump an adequate chance to come clean on his own before I spoke up against him,” card.

You see, I’m as alive to the calculating side of politics as you are, and can judge what can and cannot work for you in the mode of “finesse,” though yes, my main advice is to drop all such “plays” and just do what the Bible calls you to: to repent already.

The multiple-view account which the gospels provide us show us that both the “Pharisees & Sadducees” (Matthew 3:7) and the “multitudes” (Luke 3:7 ) which sought out repentance with John the Baptist are in God’s eyes a “brood of vipers.” God had the Baptist underline their snake-y character even at the moment they came to repent! So, I must confess that I am part of that brood also. Ever-tempted to viper-dom. Still, what you don’t see which I do, is that 2025’s top Tempter is right at your side, disguised as sophisticated conservative prudence.

Could it be that later on we’ll be forced to realize that at some point during this year we were so grateful for, a demonic seed previously merely fingered in the hand was outright ingested by most of the “conservative” and “populist” democracy-rescuers, working its way into their hearts, eventually sprouting its black roots and tendrils, possessing their souls, and the government and nation also? That in some perilously dark 2045 or 2065, future generations will lament the irony of 2025’s real-enough triumphs occurring right alongside, and indeed putting out of view, this “little” and “merely tactical” act of suppression-acceptance which turned out to doom our republic?

Conclusion

Well enough of that, that peering into a darkness which probably won’t even happen.

For what seems most probable to me, supservatives, is that Kennedy and Trump are going to make it easy enough for you. You likely will get an opportunity to repent that, as such opportunities go, is not that painful. Moreover, even if you don’t really take advantage of it, your future and that of conservativism will wind up okay. Some diminishment of reputation will occur, and at times in a pronounced way for those most unprepared for the Reckoning they are on a collision course with, but conservativism will have remained conservativism, and you will have remained you, having turned away from a precipice. Yes, dissidents like myself will continue to complain, a little about your ongoing dodge regarding your several years of suppression, and a lot about various aspects of the Covid/Vax Disaster which likely will remain inadequately investigated. But all that will pale before the fact that the biggest aspect of the Disaster will finally be put before the public. The pain of that will be intense, as many persons realize “Probably the main reason I lost loved-ones ‘Jane and Jim,’ and that I’m now burdened with health conditions ‘P and Q,’ was those experimental meds, and my duped assent to them.” And yes, the political and cultural consequences of this realization are radically unpredictable.

But as unhappy a cloud as that may prove to be for our society, putting a damper on the Trump coalition’s celebration even as it underlines how direly needed Trump’s reelection really was, we rather desperately need that collective passage through that Reckoning.

For all of us, and especially you, supservative, are presently in danger of something far, far worse.

1. E.g., Rom 3:23, Prov 14:8, Prov 19:9, Prov 26:24-26; Col 3:9-10, Rev 21:8, Ps 101:7, Eph 4:25, 1 Pet 3:10, and Mark 7:20-23.

2. From “Leaping into Clarity,” Pole Shift, Sean Arthur Joyce. The best poetry book of 2024.

3. Slight reworking of the opening lines of “Howl,” Allen Ginsburg.