The CDC's Wicked Decision to Add the Covid Vaccines to the Childhood Schedule is a Critical & Profoundly Positive Development

There is only one path to red-pilling a critical mass of people powerfully enough to overthrow the establishment & restore ethical medicine

I’m sure that everyone reading this is well aware of the ACIP vote to introduce the covid vaccines onto the childhood vaccine schedule.

I am not contesting the moral abhorrence of this travesty. This nullification of medical ethics dressed up as a vote signed the death warrants for some number of children, and condemned an even greater number of children to horrific suffering, who reside in states where they legally mandate adherence to the CDC’s “recommendations” embodied in the vaccine schedule and will do so for the covid vaccines. The CDC is an incorrigibly and irredeemably corrupt force of evil in society. With this said, I still firmly believe that the ACIP vote was a profoundly positive development in the grander scheme of things.

The Practical Virtues of the ACIP Vote

Briefly, successfully engineering political, cultural or social reforms in society that reallocates or redistributes power from those who have it depends entirely on the “political will” of the people at large. Political will is itself the manifestation of people’s convictions and desires on an issue translated into political engagement. Currently, the Pharma-Govt-Military Industrial Complex - the International Big Business / Big Nonprofit / Government modern-day Axis of Evil - is firmly ensconced in their power. Thus in order to overcome and defeat them, it is necessary to build up a critical mass of political will in society that can be wielded to induce change and reorganization to the political institutions such as they currently exist.

What drives people’s level of political engagement, as applied to the current situation¹

[NOTE: Everything below is true in degrees that vary from person to person. It is crucial to keep this in mind.]

Political engagement on an individual basis is a function of a person’s level of clarity and conviction regarding the following components:

1. Identification of a problem

2. Attribution of the problem to something

3. Identification of a resolution to the problem

4. Do the benefits of resolving the problem outweigh the costs

1. Identification of a problem

The first step is identifying an issue. People are only compelled to entertain change when faced with the distress or suffering, which are by definition brought about by something. People experiencing distress are therefore inclined to try and identify a/the cause of their distress.

Critically, change itself is something that is also distressful to people. Human nature abhors relinquishing the stability and comfort of what you’re used to. This is true even of things that are intensely distressful.² This means that in order for something to be experienced and identified as a problem in the first place that can push a person to seek changing something to resolve it, it must cause enough distress to overpower the inherent distress of change in the first place. This dynamic can often lead a person to decide that the underlying problem is unidentifiable or unfixable, in order to escape having to contemplate changing anything in their lives by rationalizing to themselves that there is nothing they can possibly do about it.

2. Attribution of the identified problem to something

Put simply, you can’t fix a problem without knowing what’s causing it. Since people strongly desire to ameliorate the distress they experience, they are powerfully driven to assign blame to something, even in the absence of compelling evidence for anything in particular.

Here we have a major paradox of human nature that is important to keep in mind: part of the suffering on account of anything unpleasant is a person’s natural distress for being the cause of their own problems (which nobody likes to admit to). Thus, there is a powerful innate bias to attribute the problem to anything other than yourself, even if it means not fixing the actual identified problem.

3. Identification of a resolution to the problem

Once a person has identified (in their mind) a cause or causes for whatever the problem they have decided is a source for significant personal distress, they can identify how they can resolve the problem.

4. Do the benefits of resolving the problem outweigh the costs

It is axiomatic that solving problems in life requires effort, sacrifice and suffering. You’re only going to be willing to solve a problem if you perceive that resolving the problem involves less suffering than not resolving the problem.

As previously mentioned, people often pick #’s 1 & 2 specifically in order to set up a “resolution” to the problem that does not involve making substantial personal changes or efforts (or accepting personal responsibility). People even sometimes would rather delude themselves that there is no problem in the first place when faced with a problem that they cannot bear to admit to themselves, or cannot tolerate what they know would be necessary to resolve the problem.

Conversely, people have an powerful inherent sense of dignity & morality (you want to perceive yourself as fundamentally good) that is deeply insulted if they accept blatantly false propositions or act immorally. Thus, people if cornered by the facts in a way that penetrates & is internalized emotionally - in other words, becomes a sort of objective self-evident truth to them - will almost always do something to align their lives and actions so as not to be blatantly in violation of the obvious truth of the matter.

These are the four steps that people are making when they grapple with distress, whether they are consciously aware of it or not (and usually they are not).

5. The degree of clarity for the above 4 steps

There is one more ingredient in this process, that determines how a person will adjudicate and respond to all of them: Clarity.

The degree of clarity determines the degree of one’s confidence and conviction. As applied here, if you’re not confident that “X” is the problem causing you distress, or that “Y” is responsible for the problem, or that “Z” will solve the problem, then you will minimize the perceived benefits of dealing with the problem and have weaker conviction to attempt a resolution. After all, if something is probably not going to work, then why do it in the first place, especially if it entails distress or unpleasantness in its own right.

Applying this paradigm to the current situation

With the above in mind, let’s break down the individual psychological factors that people that are still not yet “red-pilled” are grappling with when deciding how to make sense of the whole pandemic and covid vaccine situation.

Obviously, because people are individually unique, it is impossible to give a precise portrait of every individual’s personalized version of this, so by necessity I will have to stereotype somewhat. Also, this list is far from complete, and is intended to convey an approximate sense of the internal conflicting forces pulling people in both directions.

Some factors in favor of the establishment narrative:

• Personal identity - people identify with a segment/s of society. Relinquishing a part of your personal identity is extraordinarily distressful. These people overwhelmingly incorporate as a component of their personal identity the following things (among others) that are directly implicated here:

  • belief in the societal “mainstream”

  • rejection of what they perceive as “conspiracy theorists”

  • political affiliation/ideology - for a variety or reasons, SCIENCE vs science has become a partisan debate

  • sense of morality derived from their self-perception as “following the ‘science’” and/or “doing their part / sacrificing for the good of society”

• Prior actions or decisions - people are loathe to admit they got something wrong. They are especially loathe to admit that they acted on the basis of a mistake. People who got vaccinated have some degree of natural reluctance to admit to themselves that they fell for a massive con. This is even more pronounced if they were involved in convincing others (or bullied others) into getting vaccinated, which implicates them morally.

• Admitting to themselves they were successfully manipulated - the experience of being manipulated tends to make a person feel profoundly violated, doubtful of their own skills/capabilities/intellect, and insecure in their own selves. People will go to great extremes to avoid admitting that they were manipulated & duped.

• Public humiliation - this one doesn’t need much explanation, they were on the wrong side of possibly the most consequential issue of their lifetime

• Loss of their sense of stability - this one requires multiple full-length articles to even begin to scratch the surface of. Basically, admitting that the anti-establishment people are correct about the covid vaccines (and other pandemic policies/”facts”) by definition means that the bases for their sense of stability in society & life are false. It also means that their worldview is fundamentally wrong in significant ways (particularly how they adjudicate what is true or factual). And admitting that society is run by fundamentally evil, wicked people is about as big an earthquake to your sense of stability and conscience as you can get.

• They caused grievous harm to themselves and/or their families/friends - vaccines, lockdowns, masking, etc. caused horrific carnage throughout the entire society. Admitting to the vaccine carnage means that they are the proximate culprit for any vaccine injuries/deaths suffered by themselves or others who followed their advice or coercion to get vaccinated. Admitting that they supported masking/lockdowns/school closures and the like means that they supported evil and destructive policies that caused immense devastation.

• “It doesn’t make sense:” ‘How can it be that so many experts were so wrong on everything??’ - People have an innate need to make the world make sense to them. People typically cannot bear to live with significant unknowns or apparent contradictions. Thus, human nature powerfully compels a person to require something to make sense in order to acknowledge and accept it.

Some factors against the establishment narrative:

• People abhor being lied to, manipulated, scorned, admonished, etc. - pretty much being treated in an undignified manner.

• “It doesn’t make sense” - The guidance & positions of the mainstream are inconsistent, contradictory, and by now many of them have been soundly refuted that there is some amount of inherent cognitive dissonance to still accept the establishment positions. Furthermore, a considerable amount of blatant corruption within the establishment has been exposed.

• People want the pandemic to just be over already - anything related to the pandemic is stressful & a constant reminder of the pandemic misery. People want to move on and forget about the whole thing. (This is true even for people who have fashioned their entire identities around the pandemic, it is inherently stressful, but for them the stress is far less unpleasant than the all-out identity crisis they would suffer should society ever move on from covid.)

• The lives & health of themselves, their families & friends are on the line - if the covid vaccines are dangerous, well…..

• Their ability to make their own decisions about major life issues is threatened

The final two are the main ones that can be game changers.

How does the CDC’s vote to add the covid vaccines to the childhood vaccine schedule impact this?

Feeling all of the above (plus a bevy of other unmentioned concerns on both sides) can be a very confusing & discordant experience. In order to “red-pill” someone, that requires that they perceive the factors militating against the establishment as far more clear, compelling, and distressing than the factors militating on the establishment’s behalf.

People who are not “red-pilled” tend to be laboring under a ton of uncertainty and confusion about the specifics. They have innumerable biases that are keeping their heads (brains really) “underwater”, so that they cannot shed their prior conceptions and break through their confusion. For instance, such people would tend to be unsure of how exactly to interpret the CDC’s actions & guidance, but wouldn’t think of the CDC as an evil force threatening them personally.

This is where the CDC’s decision to add the covid vaccines to the schedule comes in.

As is abundantly clear from the unequivocal rejection of covid vaccines for children - especially the 6mo-5yo - by the overwhelming vast majority of society including even most Democrats, people will not simply accept and go along with this new edict. This is potentially transformational. By affirmatively rejecting the CDC & establishment at this juncture, people will be forced into entertaining if not outright accepting the following clear demarcations to at least some extent, which they hadn’t ever had to truly grapple with prior to now:

• The CDC/establishment is not a legitimate scientific authority

• The CDC/establishment is morally & ethically corrupt, and probably politicized

• The CDC/establishment is an immediate and substantial peril to the safety of their children & their freedom to make fundamental life choices

• The people (“conspiracy theorists”) who have accused the CDC/establishment of corruption have are at least partially validated

For the people who still are having difficulty accepting the truth about the establishment narrative & all it entails, seeing and feeling the ominous, immediate peril posed by the CDC’s wicked, egregious, reckless and unjustifiable overreach is necessary to tilt their internal scales so that they feel it is necessary to first accept to themselves the “red-pilling”; and second to become more politically engaged, which is ultimately preconditional to garnering sufficient political will to overthrow the current evil WEF et al regime.

Seeing the CDC this way cuts through their emotional uncertainty and confusion, because it portrays - exposes - the CDC in stark, vivid and unambiguous objective certainty as scientifically/ethically corrupt and a threat to themselves and their families.

Acting on this recognition in the form of refusing to vaccinate your kids - and taking action to ensure you won’t have to - habituates and internalizes within a person this newfound recognition that the CDC/establishment is definitely corrupt and unreliable, and possibly wicked. It is hard to overstate the significance of this.

(This is similar in effect to the menace of sexualizing children at schools, which has forced parents to accept the reality that the public school (and also many private schools’) infrastructure is demonically evil hellbent on indoctrinating their kids into objectively demented insanity and a mortal peril to the welfare of their children.)

How can someone support something so evil, even if it is helpful in the general scheme of things?

Prosecuting a war by definition means that you are sending people to their deaths. A general making a decision to attack the enemy does so knowing that he has just consigned some number of his own soldiers to death. This does not make it immoral to attack the enemy, it is the simple but brutal reality of war.

The simple reality - however unpleasant - is that the establishment and the societal institutions are incorrigibly evil and corrupt. They all must be defeated and burned to the ground. They have through their actions already killed millions of people and wrecked the lives of hundreds of millions if not billions, whether by denying effective treatments, using deadly ‘treatments’, lockdown/anti-social policies, or by way of the covid vaccines.

We need maximum clarity to build political support and momentum. People are anyways already dying and will continue to die regardless, especially if the Pharma-govt-military-industrial complex is allowed to remain in power.

Thus, despite the fact that the CDC’s addition of the covid vaccines to the childhood vaccine schedule will almost certainly cause a considerable amount of harm to children (both directly by vaccine injury/death and indirectly as some kids will have their lives upended as parents seek workarounds or to escape from vaccine mandates), it is a necessary development to sway public sentiment and clarity on the matter.

Conversely, would the CDC have decided not to include the covid vaccines on the vaccine schedule, that would have been a potentially devastating development. Such a decision would make the CDC look responsive to the public, somewhat reasonable, and not hopelessly corrupted to precisely the whom we need to convert to our side.

At this point, the ideal scenario is that the establishment goes max cray-cray. These people must feel the pain, and feel trapped, in order to turn on the establishment. That is the sad but intractable reality.

So yes, I am actually a bit optimistic now that the CDC has decided to go ahead and add the covid vaccines to the schedule.

May a tsunami of VAERS reports bloom!

1. Although I am focusing solely on the domain of political engagement, the following is applicable to every other dimension of people’s lives.

2. Such as the tendency of domestic abuse victims to seek out a new spouse/partner who has the same toxic personality characteristics that their prior abusive spouse/partner had.