The argument here is extremely simple, and extremely important. I shall put it in numerical terms. One is a dangerous number. Those who can only count to one are extremely dangerous. Two is a very important number. Those who can count to two – and here I include all liberals and sceptics – are capable of recognising that the world is not simple and should not be subjugated to one king, one law, one policy, one protocol. They want to keep questions open. But two is a weak number. The Greeks called it ‘indefinite’. It only has force when it has a civilisation and conviction behind it. The number two cannot support itself. It always advocates fracture, or division, and cannot itself offer us any good reason why we ought to do this rather than that. Crushingly, it cannot offer good reason why we should defend liberalism, scepticism or that major achievement of practical liberalism and practical scepticism, ‘politics’. The most important number is three. Only those who can count to three are capable of finding a reason to defend the number two: because, by reaching the number three, they are attempting to recognise the undoubted power and importance of one, and also the absolute necessity to have some sort of safeguard against it, as symbolised by the number two.
Now, I am sure that most of you will already be complaining about why this cabalistic, hermetic, Pythagorean nonsense is here in the pages of the Daily Sceptic. I hope to show that it does make sense. Let me do it in three steps: one, two and three.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Author makes a compelling case. I agree on all points.
I too do not see intelligence in Gates or Schwab. But they sure do believe they are acting for “The Greater Good”. Very dangerous types – industrious and stupid.
Of the four types (lazy-stupid, lazy-clever, industrious-stupid, industrious-clever), you always want the second in positions of power. But they won’t put themselves in positions of power. It’s the industrious-stupid ones who get into those positions.
The lazy-clever are the ones without leader, who can afford to speak the painful truth.
anarchy: it isn’t for everyone.
an – without
archos – leader
It’s not about fighting with police or throwing firebombs. That’s what the powers that be want you to think anarchy is, because those who have no leader are free to speak the truth – which is such a threat to the leaders’ existence.
Intelligence needs context. i.e. what it is used for.
High intelligence is probably a good indicator of positive outcomes in the very limited scope of one’s own life. It’s also a good indicator of people’s ability to perform specific tasks.
But when you get to the gargantuan complexity of society and its more complicated systems, there just isn’t an intellect that comes even close to being able to process it all let alone ensure good outcomes across for everyone.
An intelligent person may be very capable of making very good decisions for themselves, he isn’t at all capable of making very good decisions for everyone. It’s too big too complicated.
That is why the free market is not just superior but infinitely superior to central planning. An entire economy is just too big a thing to fit in anyones mind. As are the individual circumstances of every person in a society.
So the issue isn’t a lack of intelligence. I’m sure Gates and Schwab are very intelligent. But they are light years away from being intelligent enough to know what is good for all of us.
And therein lies so many of the problems we encounter. Our lives are constantly being encumbered by the imposition of decisions made by intelligent people on our behalf, intelligent people who insist they know what’s best for all of us, when they just don’t.
I would agree that the best people to have as leaders, if we really must have them, are intelligent lazy people. Because they’re too lazy to try and do something that will end up causing more harm than good.
Exactly. Anarchists (who understand the true meaning of the word) have no desire to tell others what to do.
Anarchic societies don’t exist because anarchists know there is no such thing as society. They could exist, but fleetingly, and can never grow beyond a certain size.
The participants do not listen to authority, they listen to ideas. And the best ideas may come from one mouth today, and from another mouth tomorrow.
Anarchists do not respect a person’s ideas today merely because that person had the best ideas yesterday…
If there is no such thing as society, then there is no such thing as anarchists.
Good point! But most believe there is such a thing as society. So the two ideas exist to oppose each other. There is nothing without conflict…
Alan Bennett told of forming an ‘Anarchist Society’ when at Oxford University. He recalled that it had to be disbanded almost immediately because it’s members just couldn’t agree on anything!!!
“intelligent lazy people.”
Many, many people would argue that this definition fits Boris Johnson. Many, many, many people would say he is responsible for unforgivable and gargantuan damages – and worse – to this country during his short tenure. So not all intelligent and lazy people are safe.
Obviously this is an observation and not an opinion as I do not want a ban.
Hard to argue against that point.
… I do not see intelligence in Gates or Schwab. But they sure do believe they are acting for “The Greater Good”.
I strongly disagree with this statement Joe.
Gates certainly knows that his activities are killing people and he is quite happy with this:
“with proper use of vaccines we can reduce world population by 10 – 15%.”
To suggest that killing millions is ‘for the greater good’ is stretching a point.
As far as I am concerned Gates and Schwab fit exactly “the banality of evil.”
I agree Gates knows this about his activities, Hux. Hitler also knew he was killing innocent people. The issue here is that they justify it to themselves in the name of “Empire”, “Reich”, “The Greater Good”, “Civilisation”… or whatever phrase takes these people’s fancies.
Evil comes dressed in beige not black with slip on shoes and round neck jumpers. The banality of evil is correct, Hux. I very much doubt that Gates or Schwab sit in their cellars surrounded by candles and pentagrams rubbing their hands and making evil laughs. They are dull men with mantras and tunnel vision. They ‘think’ they know the answers and wish to impose these on everyone else and because – in the case of Gates – he is a very rich man, he gets to rub shoulders with some incredibly vain and narcissistic and powerful people – politicians and corporate heads. Above all, they are scared men. Scared of a massive human population who they – as well as their mentor Kissinger – see as useless eaters and the main cause of all the ills in the world. This plan that is unfolding must have been decades in the planning, bit by bit, drip by drip, and with technology enabling a faster route to their goals, it only follows that many of the Big Tech billionaires are in some way involved to greater or lesser extents. I’ll give them one thing though, they are persistent and they play the long game. They might have some intelligence but they’re more demonically clever I would say. They’re utter shites anyway.
Don’t worry, Gates, Schwab & Soros et al will soon shuffle off this mortal coil. They think they are immortal, we’ve go news for them.
We had a clear case of lazy-clever with Boris Johnson. And look where that got us.
How is it that so many people with money and power. Like Gates who started his success off the back of someone elses program are so stupid. Why can’t we gave wealthy powerful people with enough intelligence and commitment to the truth to find it and support it. Is it because power and wealth is not found that way.
Great article. Thanks to the DS for reproducing it.
The career fungibility hypothesis is close to the mark I reckon. Well done that hairdresser.
Whenever I look carefully at people such as Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates, I see clowns and fools whose wealth massively outstrips their intelligence.
Yep, bang on.
PS. They still deserve to end their days in orange jump suits though – at least Gates (I’m not sure what Schwab has. actually done).
“Intellectuals” and medics are highly educated people.
Highly educated people have learned through years of conditioning to do as they are told and do it better than everyone else around them. The are experts in finding out from a higher authority what they need to do and competently complying. They’re highly conditioned not to think for themselves but rather detect what someone “above them” considers the correct thing to do.
And yes, they’ve invested their entire lives to their careers which provide them with a good financial return and social status. So they’re going to find it very hard to give any of that up. But mentally they’re not very capable of it anyway.
I never had much respect for someone just because they were highly educated and had lots of qualifications, but after these last couple of years I see them mostly as unthinking drones.
“after these last couple of years I see them mostly as unthinking drones.”
Well that’s certainly a reasonable definition of doctors.
Another way to see this is through the dominance of left brain over right brain function. Left brain is concerned with, amongst other things, immediate survival function, whereas the right brain provides context and nuance.
For those professions where survival is risky, it makes sense to eliminate the side of the brain dealing with the “big picture”.
I feel that this is a large part of my profession’s failures over the past few years.
Having said this, I don’t in any way condone this behaviour, as all professions have a duty to engage the right brain and think in a critical manner.
Thanks.
A good article. The section re academia reminded me of one of the best lecturers I can remember from my university days, as a student. He was a top-end professor on organic chemistry, and he actually quit from that and moved into the oil trade with what was BP in those days.
Opportunism, and careerism, both make sense, but so does reputation, and the maintenance thereof, especially for Institutions. There are many examples of how they behave in the aftermath of major disruptive events in a wide range of industries. E.g. the odd occurrence of shipping accidents dumping crude oil into the sea, aviation disasters, dramatic explosions at an oil refinery, and so on. There is always a strong element of “something must be done”; especially when the institution is found wanting, but soon followed by the other opportunities.
“It is also lacking in evidence. Whenever I look carefully at people such as Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates, I see clowns and fools whose wealth massively outstrips their intelligence.”
Like vaccine adverse events, it’s lacking in evidence if you don’t look for it. Read the website and the annual reports of Tony Blair’s Gates-funded Institute for Global Change. He tells you what he did with his teams embedded in the governments of more than 20 countries.
The “lacking in evidence” claim also ignores history. The WEF is only doing what has repeatedly been done throughout history, but this time on a global scale using mass media to get the reach. The leaders of similar past movements were also not geniuses.
To his very limited credit, Gates has publicly stated that the jabs don’t work very well. He also has gone on to say that the solution is better jabs.
The most charitable interpretation is that he’s just a software engineer focused on going through the iterative process of improving a product. And yet completely incapable of processing the harm the product is causing and that nobody needs it.
He may be close to autistic.
His claim to be a philanthropist is shot to ribbons by his advocacy for digital ID, and his absurd unevidenced claim that the only way out of lockdown was universal vaccination.
“Gates has publicly stated that the jabs don’t work very well.”
I suggest a different interpretation to yours Stewart and it is the one Gates was referring to. Don’t forget hiding in plain sight.
‘The jabs don’t work very well.” And unsaid:
They are not killing as many as we anticipated at this stage.
I don’t think Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates are clowns and fools. Bill Gates made a fortune by exploiting the greed and hubris of IBM managers. I think he is doing that now, but on a much larger scale. He creates a ‘Giving Pledge’ with Warren Buffet to encourage philanthropy by the extremely wealthy and yet the more philanthropy Bill Gates does the richer he gets. I thought philanthropy meant giving away your wealth to the benefit of others. See how he uses a TED talk to an audience of the faithful to flog a diagnostic device produced by a company in which the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have a financial interest.
https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_we_can_make_covid_19_the_last_pandemic?language=en
https://sif.gatesfoundation.org/investments/lumiradx/
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public…”
Sorry, the quote is from Adam Smith.
I’ll take your word for it re Bliar. I cannot look at that mans face without screaming MUDERER!!!!
what an utter barsteward he is. Total slimeball – I could go on but I think you get gist?
Excellent analysis. But it is possible to map this a bit more deeply. If we use human-direction mapping to look at the four layers of worth of a person, the question arises, why do so many intellectuals, especially in academia, fail to get down to the fourth layer, but remain stuck at the third layer, that of validated-entitlement worth (deserving of the attention, consideration, approval, and support of others)?
This idea that one has to be rich or be supported by ‘intellectual sanctuaries’ does not explain why in the past (perhaps more rarely today), thinkers and artists have been willing even to go to prison for their unorthodox views or to live and die in poverty for their art, let alone give up a non-fungible status position in society.
The challenge many professionals fail to meet lies in the personal development that is required to get to the fourth layer of worth of person: greater-value worth, and devotion to a domain of greater value outside oneself. One does this by finding the passion in oneself, or if it is not that simple, bringing together the four components of greater-value worth, which results in a motivation ignition giving one the resilience to overcome the many barriers to non-conformity and to stand up to public hysteria.
The author’s hairdresser nails it, as did Upton Sinclair: ‘it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it’. Professors’ mortgages outweigh their balls.
I believe there was, still is, a number of ingredients that were placed into the perfect melting pot.
I have no doubt whatsoever that pressure was put on certain individuals to sing from the Government hymn sheet. We know, for example, that MSM was threatened by an Ofcom directive that they must tow the official line or face sanctions. But who was putting pressure on governments? We know governments were playing their part in something that had been coordinated at a global level because they were all doing the same thing, saying the same thing, at exactly the same time. It wasn’t even hidden and they didn’t try to hide it because they knew, from mining social data and other online behaviour, that the majority of people were stupid, naïve, weak, and trusting. Basically prey. That’s ingredient number 1, and the most impactful contributor – it’s easy to underplay how many people in authority will follow the lead of others in authority.
Ingredient number 2 is the authoritarian types in the public domain. These parasites have come creeping out of the rotten woodwork during the last few years. We all know them. They saw an opportunity to boss, bully and dictate, and they grabbed it gleefully. This group of people further the aims of those who control government, but they do it at a more grass roots level and they are ignorant that they are playing a part in a well laid trap.
Ingredient number 3 is fear. Most people, as it turns out, are incredibly fearful. Today’s bubble-wrapped world has resulted in the vast majority of people being completely unable to assess risk themselves. They need others (usually the state) to do their risk analysis for them. The state says panic and they panic. Perfect for herding. Again, many of these people are in positions of authority and channel their fear downwards.
Throw these together, bring to the boil, and stir.
And don’t forget the “boiling frog” syndrome. No shortage of that.
Excellent comment.
Excellent article. Spot-on. ‘Investigative journalism’ appears to be dead in the water.
Not quite. There has been the birth of some relatively new communicative channels, e.g. GB News (which Toby appeared on last night). They don’t just follow the narrative – indeed, they are probably disliked by the usual suspects.
Mark Steyn and Neil Oliver are examples that all in MSM should aspire to live up to.
JT basically describes all of my (former) friends here- dentists, lawyers, surgeons, pilots, IT and marketing pros etc..
There are two additional drivers of them: first, the consequence of their (elite) overproduction: they are very status-conscious, very busy with trying to get their children educational and professional advantages and very conscious and afraid of the increased competition and the more likely larger fall they’ll eventually face.
Second, they are part of the system and benefitted a lot from it. As such, they also believe in it and its other actors and messages blindly- and they expect that everyone else believes and follows them in their own area of expertise.
An otherwise really intelligent, well-read and always in anything interested and knowledgeable friend evaded a discussion about and doing any research on the goo by simply stating: “I trust these guys and the system.”
This attitude is, of course, fatal, as it really also is grounded in and the very definition of hubris and circular reasoning: I am also a part of that group (elite), so that group’s consensus message must be and is always right (they are not even able to see that this consensus message is derived by censorship and that it is as such just propaganda, let alone question or accept it).
It’s a lonely place to be when you’ve seen through the charade…
Red pill Vs blue pill, indeed.
It’s a lonely place to be when you’ve seen through the charade…
And don’t some of us know it!
Right, I’m off for a good cry.
Hux,
Have a hug.
BB
Thank you
me too
Very lonely indeed.
These things can be easier for people to spot in societies that are significantly different from one’s own, for example the countries of Eastern Europe under communism. Most people in those countries didn’t want communism, but it happened anyway, and it persisted for decades, with most people working with the system.
Steve ‘The Tank’ Kirsch interviews four of these people on whether the V safe data should have been made public and whether that rate of ‘7% of the vaccinated needed to see a doctor afterwards’ was of any concern or significance to them.
The attitudes and responses are most telling. https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/dr-david-marquis-speaks-out-about
Perhaps the fact that the Marquis video is still up 24 hours after posting and has not been censored is a small indication that perhaps YT (and, by extension, other major social media platforms) are walking back their “instant censorship” of opinions and evidence that run contrary to the Acceptable Narrative. Perhaps the UK’s contentious “legal but harmful” bill, struggling through Parliament, is focussing our attention on the merits and hazards of censorship of dissenting views and of embarrassing political history.
We went through a similar episode around 2007 when anyone dissenting from the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis was immediately deplatformed (notably from Wikipedia but also from their academic positions or by fear of de-funding). However, the current one is going through its cycle of fraud/cover-up/exposure more rapidly than the AGW scandal did. Interesting times!
“Interesting times!”
I was very, very fond of the less interesting times pre March 2020.
me too!i want them back too
Good on you sam.
Are these “interesting times” the same ones as in the Chinese veiled threat “May you live in interesting times”?
Jeffrey Tucker is a classical liberal, known as Libertarian in the US (because “liberal” there means “left”). What is amazing is that the Libertarian Party of America (and Libertarian parties elsewhere) had nothing to say during the Covid mania of lockdowns, mandates and censorship. I hope their membership has tanked after this performance.
https://www.newsweek.com/libertarians-mass-noncompliance-joe-biden-vaccine-mandate-covid-1627842
Patently untrue.
There were some fringe pseudo-libertarians, mainly philosophers, who came up with some twisted arguments that libertarians could be for mandates.
The party and figureheads of the movement, like JT, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and Mises, opposed all of the dictates from the start and put their whole publishing weight behind the fight.
Ron Paul’s son Senator Rand Paul has been doing a sterling job asking awkward questions
Notice the date. Late last year when it was basically all over. They got criticized heavily by their membership so finally came out with something, but when it mattered they were nowhere.
The media is full of lies – but the truth can’t be hidden. This dishonest report let the truth our this week
Antivaxxers claim Covid jabs have killed 200k during Marlow protest
https://www.bucks.radio/news/local-news/antivaxxers-claim-covid-jabs-have-killed-200k-during-marlow-protest/
By Sam Dean
Well Bucks Radio got our message out to a wider audience, despite the reporter’s distortions:
“Setting up at around 11am on the Westhorpe roundabout just off the A404, the protesters held up signs such as ‘thousands dead from Covid jabs’ and ‘2020 – safe and effective, 2022 – sudden unexpected deaths’ to passing motorists, beckoning them to beep their horns if in agreement.” The good news is that there were beeps in every short clip.
Come & join us when you can.
Keep your freedom alive.
Yellow Boards By The Road
Monday 10th October 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A321 Sandhurst Rd &
B3016 Finchampstead Rd
Wokingham RG40 3JS
Wednesday 12th October 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A327 Observer Way &
Reading Rd Arborfield
Wokingham RG2 9HT
Thursday 13th October 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A3095 Warfield Road &
Harvest Ride Warfield
Bracknell RG42 2QH
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Dishonesty?
Cowardice.
Lazy.
“There is a better explanation: opportunism. Another word might be careerism. This particularly applies to journalists and intellectuals. Their career paths absolutely require compliance with prevailing narratives. Any deviation could lead to potential doom for them. The spirit of going along is the driving force of everything they do. ”
This is one reason why the late, great Christopher (who among other things laid the intellectual groundwork for leaving the EU) was so valuable, and why some people wanted to silence him. Sadly these same enemies of free speech hold far too much sway today.
…Booker.
Whoops…
‘trahison des clercs’: the real reason so many intellectuals have acquiesced to this crime is because they’ve mostly been captured by the elephant in the room that everyone is afraid to discuss (‘to find out who actually rules over you, find out who you’re not allowed to criticise’). i’m referring to a secret cabal of psychopathic blackmailers, poisoners, torturers, and child rapists: an Oxbridge satanic cabal at the heart of our very own British ‘secret security and intelligence services’. almost everyone is afraid of so-called ‘MI5/MI6’, the heart of satanic darkness that is not being discussed. this info comes from my most excellent Uncle Tony, turncoat and superbrain of Jesus College Cambridge.
The song ‘Learn to be Still’ by the Eagles has a couple of prescient verses:
“We are like sheep without a shepherd
We don’t know how to be alone
So we wander ’round this desert
Wind up following the wrong Gods home
But the flock cries out for another
And they keep answering that bell
One more starry-eyed Messiah
Meets a violent farewell”
” Whenever I look carefully at people such as Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates, I see clowns and fools whose wealth massively outstrips their intelligence. ”
But their wealth buys them access to other individuals who ARE more intelligent and possibly more ruthless …. and gives them power. So they are still very dangerous people.
The rest of the article about fungibility makes perfect sense. And it applies in spades to the individuals occupying the red and green benches in Westminster.
Conclusion; going against the prevailing narrative is a jobsworth. Nothing untoward going on, so we can reassure ourselves that being locked up, masked, jabbed and overwhelmed with technological aids and spyware to enable us to function is just how it is. Global organizations are simply harmless ego trips, indeed national and world leading figures have the best interests of the public at heart – of course they do! It would be too silly to disagree with that. Being a bit of a contrarian, I would suggest that believing there is no such thing as a nascent one-world reglion, government, and economy is probably the most dangerous thing anyone can do.
“Even right now, unvaccinated Canadians are not allowed to cross the border into the U.S. for business or pleasure or even to see family members a mile away.”
No longer true!
For all travellers entering Canada by air, land or marine mode on or after October 1, 2022:
So, I guess, all is forgiven …
The same thing is happening with the net zero stupidity. Papers are being published all the time justifying it and peer reviewed en masse, whereas those scientists who have studied climate properly and know how stupid net zero is, really struggle to get heard. I hope the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration are now recognised for being mostly correct when so many scientists and scientific organisations were completely wrong and the actions of most governments incuding ours were wrong and unjustifiable. One day in the near future I hope the so called climate change deniers who are only telling the truth about net zero are also recognised for their truth and valued for it.
I addressed this problem in my 2015 book in German, Klasse Verantwortung, which has a website in Germany with an English section. What are needed are genuine ethics committees. I say genuine because it has become evident that most so-called ethics committees are about compliance and not ethics. Such a committee would be composed principally by people from outside professions. This would counter group think. It would have the power to exclude people from membership of their profession, which they could continue to practise, but without remuneration.Membership of a professional body (there might be several to choose from) would be a prerequisite for steady employment with a middle-class salary. The principle is to provide a counterweight to monetary dependence and power from above. The accountant who was tempted to stand up to his boss and not cook the books would be terrified not of losing his present employment, but all employment in the profession he or she had worked so hard to enter. There must be a countervailing power. But in a largely anonymous society this is no longer there. Restoration will at best take more than one generation.
I am unable to find something I posted a few minutes ago. The same happened a couple of days ago. Neither post contained abuse or profanity, Each was a relevent contribution, spelt properly and with perfect grammar. Neither was long.
Superb article offering a very credible explanation for the lack of ethics and morality in our institutions but we can not dismiss or ignore the dark forces of the Globalist movement and the WEF. These people have enough money to corrupt everything around us. We know that they are spending £billions on funding academics, media, the WHO, etc etc.