I gave y’all a couple of recent essays—here and here--establishing the need for such a lexicon, so let’s just dive in.
The Best Term for “It”
The Covid/Vax Disaster
Def.: the set of crimes, errors, and calamities linked to a) the concoction and release of the Covid-19 virus, b) the authoritarian policies used to fight its spread, and c) the concoction and deployment of the “Covid-19 vaccines.”
See Carl Eric Scott, “The Seven Deadly Sins of the Covid/Vax Disaster.”
Discussion: The most important feature here is the slash. The major parts of this Disaster are closely related—several are impossible without the others. Igor Chudov just this week gave us a quick summary of evidence which shows how precisely the same actors were involved in a) and c), and in many aspects of b).
“Disaster” is appropriate, because many disasters are man-made, or, are natural ones whose damage is multiplied a hundred-fold due to criminal negligence (think of a fire in a city that refused to enforce fire-codes). These remain like purely natural disasters in taking many lives, in the tolls not having been intended, and with the mechanisms of damage being beyond control once unleashed. In rarer instances a man-made disaster very much like a natural one is planned and directed, such as Stalin’s Holodomor famine. Another type of man-made disaster occurs when ideological policy demands false reporting as the disaster unfolds, as with Mao’s Great Leap Forward famine, numerically the worst disaster (around 15-55 million deaths) we know of in human history.
“Disaster” captures the feel of major aspects of our event, and most usefully, it remains open to our eventually settling on an explanation either heavy or light on the degree of human intention.
That there was some intended death to, harm to, and oppression of others, at least in some aspects of our 2020-to-present Disaster, there can be no doubt at this point, and there is also no doubt that serious degrees of criminal negligence, shared across whole cohorts of the elite/managerial classes, and rooted in ideological demands, are involved. When a put to a real test, those who run our institutions have proven far more similar than dissimilar to Mao’s officials.
(For my provisional judgment against the idea of one Big Conspiracy being responsible for the Disaster—this is one reason I hold-off from pronouncing the degree of human intention—see my “Seven Deadly Sins” piece linked above, and my “Premises” essay, esp. premise #9)
Deceptive Terms for “It”
Covid
Apparent def.: All the changes, turmoil, policies, deaths, harms, etc., linkable to the virus Covid-19; despite the (variants of the) virus still being the world, the term usually refers to events which ran from March 2020 to around May of 2022.
Example: “Well, that was before Covid, so they were still married at that point.”
Discussion: Extremely common. But you have to resist using it, and you should challenge its use whenever the moment seems conducive. For it deceptively moves us toward assuming that the cause of everything was the virus: the decisions made by officials to lockdown, close schools, deploy emergency powers, etc. It denies that they had other options, contra Debbie Lerman. Moreover, as it is a term which caught on when the virus was thought to have a natural origin, it carries assumptions now known to be false. If you instead say “Covid/Vax Disaster” you signal that something mad-scientist-made is involved, that the apex of the Disaster is the novel medicines themselves, and that their “warp-speed” development was not the obvious thing to try. Finally, you do not suggest the errant idea that the Disaster is over.
The Pandemic
See “Covid” above—all the same dynamics apply, but we should additionally add that many in medical science have pointed out that the pre-2020 definitional requirements for the term “pandemic” were not met by the spread of the Covid-19 virus.
Covid-Despotism & “The Covidians”
Def., Covid-Despotism: The authoritarian measures taken to fight the virus’s spread; e.g., lockdowns, emergency-powers, fear-propaganda, censorship, mask-rules, contact-tracing apps, and vax-mandates.
Def., Covidian: a government official or pundit in favor of these despotic measures; or, one who wanted to extend them indefinitely.
Discussion: I have no objections to the terms themselves, but rather, to their typical use by “professional” conservatives, circa ‘22-’23, as a way to avoid the vax-harm issue.
The trick works like this. Such conservatives will highlight how they are very against Covid-Despotism and the Covidians, and this may be strictly true, at least at the present time. Amid their rhetorical heat, they hope we will not notice that they never mention the claims of widespread Covid-19 vax-harms. Thus, the opposition of these conservative sophists to the general Disaster silently excises one specific aspect, the most-censored aspect of it, from the very conception of what the Disaster is. By this trick, a conservative leader implicitly endorses, and rhetorically benefits from, the media/government Suppression of the Covid-19 vax-harm claims, either because he agrees that the new meds are safe-enough in the aggregate, or, because he wants to remain on the fence about that issue until the last moment.
See last month’s Paula Boyard column on “The Three Top Censored Topics in America.” You’ll notice how, by speaking against the censorship done amid the “Covid mess,” she and her PJ Media colleague Stephen Kruiser—the quote is his—manage to never mention the claims of Covid-19 vax-harms! They thus help the Regime suppress information about the specific Covid area it is most sensitive about, even as they pontificate against it censoring in the general Covid area.
Beneficial Terms and Phrases
Suppressor
Def.: Anyone in a major media organization, or in a relevant government, educational, or corporate institution, who directs, or participates in, the suppression of information, hypotheses, or debates about the Covid/Vax Disaster that the Regime wishes to keep from the public. Suppression includes, in the realm of social media, search-hampering/channeling, shadow-banning, post removals, and account suspensions; in the realm of regular media, refusal to discuss a story beyond brief and hostile-to-one-side “fact checks,” refusal to mention or link to key dissident-experts in such articles which are written; in the realm of institutions, refusal to release key data sets, refusal to respond to inquiries, manipulation of provided data; and in all three realms: silence, silence, silence, and pretense of normality.
Suppression of course includes and often is driven by censorship actions by the government, such as those documented in Missouri v. Biden. But see 2) below.
Discussion:
1) The core assumption is that the discussion which is being squelched is a major one. When editors omit or otherwise downplay a story that is minor, that is not suppression. “Major” is defined by fine-grained and multiple-factors-weighed judgment (aka “good sense”), and always under the rule that every effort should be made in a liberal democracy to enable citizens to become aware of and discuss issues effecting government policy and/or their rights. (And obviously, one thing the Disaster reveals is that we must trim-back quite a few existing “national security” exceptions to the rule.) In my key writing on the concept of Suppression, I said this, which further indicates how “good sense” judges this:
…just as grand jury members, when a certain quality and quantity of evidence is assembled, should rule that the charges merit a trial, so media editors, when an analogous body of evidence is built up, should make efforts to bring the debate to public attention. This is a basic duty of democracy-serving journalism.
I.e. the duty applies even when you initially think the claims at the heart of the story are disagreeable or fishy. Assuming you are in one of the deciding positions mentioned, such as that of an editor, you should understand that these are claims which your institution has a duty to openly discuss and investigate.
2) Thus, Suppression includes but is not limited to censorship, nor to other government actions which violate the First Amendment’s free speech & press rights.
3) Suppression by the press, or by watchdog agencies, is usually in large part rooted in “bias”—remember our quaint debates from the late 90s and early aughts about that? But it goes beyond bias—it is a usually a refusal to report at all, or at the least, it is a calculated omission of all claims, facts, and names which might lead the public to curiosity and further inquiry.
4) There has always been a liberal democratic duty to Not Suppress, and in the U.S., any major outlet that Suppresses violates the Spirit of the First Amendment, regardless of what its lawyers might say about the letter of it. The overall duty is heightened to the extent that major media is either owned or paid by the same set of persons, or is operated by persons of similar class background and views. It is heightened further when one notices that the other major outlets are Suppressing.
5) Suppression is now taking place on a number of topics, but since this is a Covid/Vax Disaster Lexicon, we are stressing the Suppression of the topics that constitute it, and especially of the Covid-19 vax-harms.
Other topics subject to Suppression at this time: the claims of widespread election fraud in 2020, one side of the Transgender rights debate, January 6th issues, and illegal immigration issues.
Adjunct Suppressor
Definition: a Suppressor whose organization or platform is minor, who thus quantitatively has less to do with the public’s awareness being stunted; a Suppressor of lesser import who, due to Half-Innocent Ignorance (see below), is not in the main aware that he is engaged in Suppression.
Discussion: notice the tension between the two parts of the definition. I.e., consider a question like this: could the Suppression of the Covid-19 vax-harm story by a journalist working for MSNBC be regarded as significantly lesser, i.e., of the “Adjunct” kind, if she has plausible claims to Half-Innocent Ignorance? I think not. There would be a difference of culpability, but not of category. For she knows—or should—that her duty to not be ignorant, and thus to not mislead the public, is at a higher level than of the curators of a smaller website, such as the editors of the American Mind for the Claremont Institute.
Speaking of those guys, it was my trying to think about what they were guilty of, in their failure to publish much of anything on the Covid-19 vax-harms, which led me to formulate the very idea of Adjunct Suppression. I was casting about for a term which would capture the lesser yet-still-serious degree of their moral failure. One which would keep the door open for eventual reconciliation. I didn’t want to accuse them of anything without acknowledging that a) I was calling them to use their platform in a way they hadn’t exactly before, such that the duty to cover the story I was stressing might have been unapparent to them, that b) they carried much less of the responsibility for the overall Suppression of the story than the major players did, and c) that these factors had to cause our judgment of them to give more weight to any claims they might make to Half-Innocent Ignorance.
Things which rule out the application of the “Adjunct” qualifier to a Suppressor include: working at a major news or science organization, acceptance of payments from Pharma or from a government’s “Covid narrative” program, making editorial decisions at the directive of government agencies or major politicians of any party, or having no plausible claim to Half-Innocent Ignorance.
Perhaps, persisting in a claimed Ignorance or a claimed Lack of a Duty to Cover after one has been repeatedly called on these points might also push one into the category of the outright Suppressor, as the Adjunct category means to suggest a measure of unwitting participation.
Overall, “Adjunct Suppressor” is a term of art, and while I have provided parameters, I admit it is less susceptible to precise definition than other terms here.
Supservative
Def.: Anyone who claims to be conservative who is either a Suppressor or an Adjunct Suppressor; for most Covid/Vax disaster discussions, then, that means any conservative with clout who never mentions the Covid-19 vax-harm claims.
Discussion: Yes, it is meant to recall “cuck-servative,” a term I always felt was over-the-line. But people are dying by the truck-loads now, so I have fewer qualms about personally insulting those who stay silent about it than I had about insulting the manhood of RINO-ish or scruples-about-Trump types.
Example: “The editors of the Claremont Institute, the writers for Powerline, and the editors, journalists, and pundits of Fox News are supservatives, and the only persons who might doubt that Donald Trump is one also, are those who deny he is any kind of conservative in the first place.”
Disaster-Aware Conservative
Def.: evident from what has been said already.
Example: “Journalist Emerald Robinson and Senator Ron Johnson are Disaster-Aware Conservatives; alas, it is not clear that Senator Mike Lee is.”
Disaster Aware Libertarian; Disaster-Aware Old-School Liberal; Disaster-Aware Democratic Socialist
Defs.: evident from what has already been said.
Discussion: these are decent folk who are worth forming temporary coalitions with. However, circumstances—such as the continued hold of supservative leaders past 2024--could require longer-term coalitions. I.e., I stand against voting for RFK Jr. instead of Trump in 2024; but beyond that, Disaster-Aware conservatives should commit to nothing.
Half-Innocent Ignorance
Def.: A past state of mind, claimed by someone now largely or partly ashamed of their participation in Suppression, in which they simply didn’t know, due to their media diet, their busy-ness, and/or their trust of the expert organizations, that so much high-quality evidence for the Suppressed Story existed.
Discussion: The “half”-innocence here is due to the fact that we always have some responsibility for our areas of ignorance, especially when it comes to politics-touching matters.
I do assume this term can describe a real state.
I also assume that a majority of those who claim it now, or who will do so in the near-future, tend to be less than honest with themselves, and thus with us also, about their past process of choosing a certain media diet, of ignoring certain signs, etc.
And of course, those who claim Half-Innocent Ignorance but without engaging in any kind of public Repentance for their half-guilty participation in Adjunct Suppression should be disbelieved. Their refusal to admit they did any wrong will show that they continue to do wrong.
For one thing the Disaster has revealed is an elite pattern of arrogant dismissal of the do-your-own-research-ideal and a ready recourse to lumping all who aspire to it into the category of the “conspiracy-obsessive.” (No-one denies that in some cases, that label can be accurate.) That pattern is a vice of the intellect and involves injustice. As I said in an “Adjunct Suppressors” footnote with respect to one Claremont editor, “I do hope he now understands why what he joined many in calling [vaccine] “hesitancy,” actually deserved to be called “good gut sense” or even “practical wisdom,” and that he reflects on the ways of thinking which constituted it, the better to see why they proved superior to his evidently more simplistic ones, at least on this issue.”
Philanthropath
Def.: as per Margaret Anna Alice, “a psychopath masquerading as a philanthropist.”
Discussion: A full philanthropath like MAA’s top example Bill Gates, who actually pulls the purse-strings, may have to be distinguished from a philanthropath theorist (aka toady) like Yuval Noah Harari.
Potemkin Democracy
Def.: evident enough, I perhaps will discuss another time.
Pravda-ization
Def.: evident enough, I perhaps will discuss another time.
Democracy Apostasy
Def.: By word or more likely by action, showing that one renounces or radically revises a creed-like commitment to democracy previously declared, especially to liberal democracy.
Example: “All who endorsed Covid-19 vaccination mandates or passports committed democracy apostasy.”
See, Carl Eric Scott, “We Know What You Did Last Summer”
Regime-Naming Terms
Biomedical Security State
Def.: see the discussions by its coiner Aaron Kheriaty, in his book, or see his earlier formulations.
Biopharmaceutical Complex (put forward by Peter McCullough)
Def.: a set of elites in the intelligence/defense agencies, in Big Pharma, and in the health agencies who appear to “operate as a unit” and who have, so far, a) successfully conspired to conceal “a world-wide security issue” present in the fact that the CV-19 was man-made, b) successfully conspired to ban most forms and medicines of early-treatment, including Ivermectin, and c) successfully conspired to conceal, with the cooperation of corrupted media world-wide, the existence of widespread harms from the CV-19 vaxxes, even in their trials.
Discussion: McCullough names names,1 although he has not yet speculated about whether he thinks the same Complex agents most responsible for a) were involved in b) or c). (We know, of course, that quite few of them were the same--see the first link in this piece to Igor Chudov.)
McCullough certainly is speculating that some serious conspiracies happened, and that the key ones were coordinated by a Complex of the largely the same personnel. This works well-enough to explain the squelching of the lab-leak hypothesis, and we have a lot of documentation there, and pretty well to explain the mandated protocols, the fear-propaganda, the quickness of the vax-development, but things get murky beyond that. He needs to give us more on how the Complex developed as the Disaster developed. In any case, “Bigger-Conspiracy” theorists would hold that the individuals and institutions he has named, are merely the front for a deeper/more-sinister Conspiracy.
Deliberately Precise Phrases
Covid-19 Vax-Harm Claims
Discussion: I will leap right to discussion because the definition of each term is known. The key is the distinctions being insisted upon. First, we are talking about the Covid-19 Vaxxes—if belief in those harm-claims cause us to be against them, it does not follow that we are against all or any other vaxxes. Second, the use of “harms” signals that the issue here is not simply claims of death, but also of disability, injuries, and harms to fertility. Third, the use of “claims” indicates that we are not demanding that outlets suddenly agree with us that these harms exist and are widespread, but that they take the claims seriously, and live up to their duty to report on them.
Precision here preemptively blocks sophistic tactics, and places the emphasis where it is most necessary at present, upon the duty to cover. Later on, if and when the key victories against Suppression are won, we can drop the use of “claims.”
Some may notice, however, that the term is imprecise in another way: it calls these medicines “vaxxes,” i.e., vaccines, which seems to go along with one the Regimes’ most potent tricks, as much about these medicines bucked the traditional definition of “vaccines.” “Experimental mRNA gene therapies” would have been more accurate.
“Vax,” however, has two rhetorical advantages: first, it is one syllable, which better allows its incorporation into a phrase; second, it turns the Complex’s sophistry against it—most skeptics of the Covid-19 “vaccines” have come to have second thoughts about the pre-2020 schedule of vaccines, and they see that certain villainous practices of the vaccine-lobby during the 90s, 00s, and 10s in response to rising concerns about the post-1989 schedule paved the way for much of the sophistic and slandering attacks on Covid-19 dissidents. Many of us are now reading books like Turtles All the Way Down, and visiting the CHD website; while we absolutely insist on the difference between pre-2020 vaccine skepticism and skepticism about the Covid-19 vaccines, we are becoming more open to the former. Thus, we now welcome the fact that by deceptively appropriating the term “vaccine” to push their mRNA drugs, the Complex has radically increased skepticism about the pre-2020 vaccine schedule. “Yes, oh bastards who despotically and unscientifically rule over our medical establishments, it is just as you say a ‘vaccine,’ and the permanent diminishment of that word’s prestige due to the unfolding Disaster is entirely on you.”
With-Covid death
The “Covid deaths” tabulated by our agencies and media, as been discussed many times, were corrupted numbers. The Complex arranged it so hospitals would usually count any person who died mainly of another condition, but who had a Covid-19 infection, as a “Covid-death.” We should refuse to enter into discussions of Covid-deaths that have not subtracted out the With-Covid deaths.
Protocol-Suspected Covid death
Additionally, we must insist on a further subtraction, although in this case it will be difficult to ever get basic agreement about the resultant number. There were many mainly-due-to-Covid deaths, which would likely have been prevented had the victim received early treatment, Ivermectin, and other medicines and protocols which were banned by nearly all hospitals, or, had the victims not been subjected to mandated protocols and medicines, such as Remdesivir. I.e., some massive portion of the reported Covid-deaths were unnecessary, and largely trace to the malfeasance of the Biopharmaceutical Complex, and its unprecedented ability to de facto mandate a single protocol across the world.
Unhelpful or Deceptive Terms and Phrases
Conspiracy Theorist
I don’t need to explain why this term is now widely understood to be pejorative garbage.
Anti-vaxxer
The evil of this term is also widely recognized now, but it is still doing a good deal of harm. At a minimum, all Golden-Rule -guided discussion of vaccine-critical movements or groups, even in the shortest of news stories, must point out that there is a difference between skepticism about a set of vaccines and wanting to ban the set (that’s the only real “anti”), and most importantly, that vaccine skepticism or convinced-opposition regarding 1) all vaccines, 2) the vaccines of the pre-1989 schedule, 3) the vaccines added since-1989, and 4) the “vaccines” against Covid-19, are distinct categories. Eight categories if you think about it. No minimally decent person lumps them together as one anti-vaccine stance.
Normie
I like this term when used to describe someone determined to pretend that we have returned to “normality,” or that we are obliged to try to, in what they call the “post-Covid” era. A basic assumption of this delusion is that the Covid-19 vax-harms are quite rare. (Another is that Van Morrison’s 2021 song “Pretending” is mediocre.)
Unfortunately, it has often been deployed by the more aggressive Covid/Vax Disaster theorists, the ones who insist that we know enough to conclude that it is being driven this “Big Conspiracy” or that. The pattern then is, if a more cautious dissident like myself expresses hesitation in believing in, say, one of Sasha Latypova’s theories of DOD coordination (I think she has established quite a bit regarding the contracts, BTW), or say, the connection between the Disaster and the deep state clique which purportedly pulled some kind of hoax-operation on 9/11, I am a “normie.” Maybe even “controlled opposition.”
I.e., the term is too linked to a dynamic of unhealthy dissident infighting, one driven by those Margaret Anna Alice recently labelled “tear-downers.”
Scamdemic/Plandemic
Hard to resist, given the easiness of the rhymes, but a rhetorical mistake at bottom. It’s not that theories about the early spread which posit that something other than the virus itself, such as a classification of flu cases as Covid-19 ones, might have been at work, don’t have some merit, or should be dismissed out of hand. It’s not that the overall behavior of our governments and media at the time didn’t rightly cause many to smell a deception. But knowing there’s a “rat” there through the olfactory sense, and knowing what it is, are two different things. Better rhetoric would have admitted that some novel disease was afoot and was dangerous, and only then highlighted the ratty smell of various parts of the Narrative.
Seeming to suggest that the whole thing was fake was bound to repel many.
The other rhetorical problem is a certain lack of the-needed-seriousness of tone. These two terms lacked it back in ’20 when so many were so frightened, and they lack it in a different way today, when we see that the advent of Covid-19 kicked-off a Disaster which may wind-up, well, let’s see, killing tens of millions, altering the human species in the long-run, and extinguishing our liberal democracies.
What is the tone of these terms? It’s one in which the speaker congratulates himself about his cleverness, and talks as if seeing past the deception was easy. Those fooled by it were fools. (There’s no hint in the tone that whatever else those fooled by it were, they were victims made to suffer a great deal, as Naomi Wolf once described.) It’s a tone which seems far more suited to the “Times Before,” as if the Disaster were just one more scandal or craze our civilizations have temporarily been afflicted by, like the “Tulipmania” episode of 17th-century Netherlands, when most of the Dutch got caught up in speculative bubble about tulips.
A scam? A craze? Would we dare apply such words to what the Chinese communists did to Chinese people during the Mao years, including all the persuasion of them to join in the ideological madnesses? I’m not saying our 2020s Disaster will measure-up to the totalitarian Disasters of the 20th Century, but it’s early yet, and it may come to feel as fundamental. And the fact that our depraved elites convinced so many, and in their own ranks too, to go along with it, and the fact that so many persons remain unable to speak with clarity about what happened and what has been done to them, is something way, way beyond any mere “con” or “scam.”
It’s a whole new world out there, so “stay frosty,” and choose your words well.
“The role of the WHO appears to be operating within a biopharmaceutical complex, a syndicate, a complicated syndicate that has formed over time. It includes the WHO, the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, the Gates Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, Gavi, CEPI the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation that Gates Foundation and the WEF formed largely. The Department of State in the United States, the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, the FDA, the MHRA in the UK, TGA in Australia, SAHPRA in South Africa, the EMA here in Europe. This grouping of nongovernmental organizations, with governmental public health agencies, is operating as a unit. They're carefully coordinated…
…this has all come out in…Congressional hearings, that Anthony Fauci, Francis Collins, Jeremy Farrar who was at the Wellcome Trust who's now the Chief Scientist at the WHO, Kristian Andersen at Scripps, Edwin Holmes in Sydney, Peter Daszak at the EcoHealth Alliance, they all conspired in January of 2020 to cover up what they knew, that the virus was engineered in a joint US-Chinese collaboration in the lab in Wuhan, China.
And they deceived the world with 12 subsequent fraudulent papers in the peer-reviewed literature. These were quarterbacked by Jeremy Farrar…”
My favorite was "essential services"