Why are they doing it?

There seems to be a developing consensus on the part of realistic people — even including some ‘experts’, that the lockdowns were not just ineffectual in getting us through the ‘pandemic’, but that they were counterproductive in a number of ways.

In addition we now have a judge saying that the lockdowns and their associated rules and conjured-up ‘laws’ were illegal, and ordered Ohio health authorities to stop within 14 days. We’ll see if that happens.

While a lot of states are now opening up to one degree or another, some remain under lockdown, and some states (notably Washington state) are being told that mandatory ‘contact tracing’ is planned, along with testing of possibly everyone, and that anyone who is uncooperative will have regular visits from minders who will see that they comply.

And though the miracle vaccine is not available and not likely to be, the idea is that once it is available, we must all submit to taking it, despite Bill Gates’ somewhat dubious results with his ”vaccines” in the past.


There’s also been some ambiguous answers on the part of politicians and ‘experts’ as to when the lockdowns will end. There have been mentions of recurring lockdowns, meaning there is no return to normal in sight.

What are those in power thinking? Do they expect that we will just give in and accept the current state of things as inevitable, or will they attempt to return many of us to the state of fear in which we will accept whatever they tell us or require of us? Is this just how easy it is to demolish a country and its people?

It appears a lot of people believe that this is just a temporary inconvenience or a glitsch that is easily corrected, and that we still live in the same country in which we grew up. I feel as though we are definitely ‘not in Kansas anymore.’

Hazelton, revisited

The city of Hazelton, PA is back in the news again, and once more the news concerns the immigration/open borders problem.

Some readers may not have been old enough, back in 2006-2007, to hear about the surge in illegal (and probably legal) immigration to places like Hazelton, PA, which had until then had a more homogeneous population. By 2006, what with some Pennsylvania officials openly stating “we need immigrants; we need diversity“. They got what they asked for. Now Hazelton is in the news as a ‘hotspot’ for the Coronavirus. There are 400+ known cases in a town of 27,743.

A Newsweek article from 2016 displays the usual pro-globalist open-borders bias and anti-nativist rhetoric. At the height of the open-borders craziness back in 2006 or so, the mayor of Hazelton was Lou Barletta, who was determined to try to preserve what remained of Hazelton, and yet his best efforts failed as apparently the cheap-labor lobby and the multiculturalists worked against him. The courts also ruled against Barletta’s efforts and in the end the ACLU won out against Barletta and other immigration patriots or skeptics.

Years later the fruits of open borders and promiscuous immigration policies show. Now it appears that Hazelton is majority Spanish-speaking, which is just what was predicted by those of us who were blogging about this back then, and of course the majority did not want to hear it or acknowledge that the skeptics were right. The town is no longer the same place. It’s an old story by now, having happened to various other towns around this country. There is a town, for example, in eastern Washington state which has an entirely Spanish-speaking city council, where town business is carried out in Spanish entirely.

Now our minds are preoccupied with the pandemic, but that too is part of the story. Anyone with sense knows that diseases like open borders. The more “openness” and diversity, the greater the number of strangers from countries with unfamiliar diseases, the more contagious illnesses we have. There is no question about that. It’s not even open to question.

The town of Hazelton has called on the National Guard to help with the increasing number of Coronavirus cases. How they would be able to help is not clear to me. Why are there so many cases there? No one wants to be politically incorrect, even now, so no one wants to mention crowded living conditions (due in part to cultural habits; extended families living in too-small housing, plus non-relatives sharing living spaces. Lack of language skills and education to learn how to prevent illness where possible.

Somehow this will be found to be somebody else’s fault, and money will be allotted to ‘fight’ the pandemic.

Even now I think a lot of Americans are in denial about mass immigration (including legal immigration — it’s about much more than having the right paperwork to enter legally); most I think are resigned to constant change, and the constant flow of ‘newcomers’ whose own ways are drastically different from our own. Our birthright is precious and should not be given away in the name of Holy Diversity or anything else.

Then and now

In trying to get some perspective on this Covid threat, I’ve been looking at what happened with the so-called Spanish Flu from 1918. It seems that epidemic is the one most often likened to the current event, with all its confusion on rates of infection and numbers of casualties.

As it appears, there isn’t even much certainty about how many people in total died from the 1918 flu. I’ve seen a wide range of estimates, from 50 million to 100 million. That’s a lot of variation, a lot of uncertainty and guesstimating, it seems. I don’t think that in those times a precise number could be calculated, given that there were so many isolated corners of the world, in that (blessed) day before globalism and the ”small world” of today. In 1918 people could still isolate themselves, unlike today in which cheap, easy, frequent, and often needless world travel is rife, and widespread disease is an often unacknowledged result.

The BBC has an interesting article about how the 1918 flu was far from universal in its reach; there were actually towns, schools, or islands with populations who escaped the illness altogether.

How did they do it? The obvious way. They practiced what they called ‘Protective Sequestration’, which is just a more pleasant way of saying ”quarantine”. Compare today’s careless habits, with reports of ‘quarantine breakers’, infected or possibly infected people who refuse to isolate themselves, choosing to go out and share their germs with all and sundry — with few consequences, it seems. Back in 1918 people were more responsible and less selfish. Today it seems it’s all about ‘me’ — or me, myself, and I, and to those with this mindset, nobody has any right to ask an ill and contagious person to stay at home and refrain from infecting others. And too many people in authority seem willing to impose penalties on those breaking quarantine and acting like Typhoid Mary.

The Spanish flu did not spread uniformly; some communities, not many, escaped the epidemic, but some places were depopulated, as in some Alaskan villages of mostly Alaskan Natives. That group seemed especially susceptible to severe infection in the flu epidemic, apparently due to lack of antibodies from previous epidemics of similar flus.

The BBC article, though interesting and informative in its facts, still stays true to its political ideology, as the article tells us that isolation saved lives, and that widespread travel carries diseasse (of course it does; do we need to be told?) — but then the BBC article reminds us that we live in the small world, the global village they tell us about, and that we can’t just up and close borders or close off our towns or villages. It would disrupt too much. So, implicitly they are saying we must leave ourselves open to whatever diseases and epidemics for the sake of Openness and One-Worldism. I find this attitude too fatalistic to be acceptable, but yet it is a common attitude.

One thing I find puzzling: the older generations of both sides of my family always had stories about the Big Events of the past, whether first-hand of second-hand from parents or grandparents. In the days before TV and movies and even before radio, storytelling was the big pastime of an evening, and people usually had true-life stories to tell, and they had long (and accurate) memories.

Neither side of my family had any stories about the 1918 flu, and nobody, even in my large extended family was said to have died of the flu. There were no dramatic stories, as in movies or TV series about WWI, of anyone dropping dead on a crowded street from the flu. As far as I know nobody on either side contracted the 1918 flu. Maybe it helped that, on my paternal side, most people were robust and hardy, and lived mostly in rural areas, far from the overcrowded cities which usually harbor the diseases.

Meanwhile in the area where I live, there have been some cases a couple of counties away (lots of immigrants there, many recently back from their regular visits to their homeland) and many people are starting to hoard, emptying grocery store shelves of necessary items. That doesn’t bode well, if people start hoarding and scarcities are created. I think there is some profiteering going on, and some people may suffer because of the inability to get what they need. It probably wasn’t like this in my grandparents’ time.

Is this epidemic being over-hyped? I think there are too few hard facts known for certain. It’s not possible to say. But it’s not something we should take lightly.

I may be thinking wishfully, because of my own vulnerability to this threat; But we can hope and pray that this will not be the mega-disaster some seem to believe.

Oddly it seems as though some people want this to be The Big One. Why? I can’t explain that mentality; it’s foreign to me. I hope that we all come through this safely and none the worse for it. And it would help if it seemed that somebody in authority made the correct choices as to how to deal with it.

Sensible discrimination

Anonymous Conservative writes about the appalling fact that refugees aren’t screened for tuberculosis, and this, in an age when tuberculosis has made a comeback in the First World, after a long period of absence.

From what I recall, the incidence of tuberculosis had dropped dramatically by the 1970s or so, thanks to improvements in medicine and hygiene, but according to this government website, it began to reappear by the 1980s. I wonder what mysterious cause there could have been for its reappearance?

From 1953 to 1984, tuberculosis disease incidence dropped steadily at an average rate of 5.8% per year to 9.4 cases per 100,000.

In 1985, however, the United States saw a reversal in this long-standing downward trend, and tuberculosis reemerged as a public health threat. From 1985 to 1992, not only did the number of cases increase from 22,201 to 26,673, but also large outbreaks were reported. Many of these, especially in hospitals and other health-care settings in large cities (5), were caused by multidrug-resistant M. tuberculosis. Several factors contributed to this increase, including the emergence of the HIV epidemic and large influxes of immigrants from countries in which tuberculosis was common.”

Yes, I remember reading in local newspapers back in the late 7os, and hearing from people in health care professions that the influx of Southeast Asian ‘refugees’ and immigrants was the source of the resurgence.

Now we are reading of yet new strains of drug-resistant TB.

From the above-linked website:

The proportion of cases in persons born in other countries will probably continue to rise, unless domestic programs providing tuberculosis services for immigrants are strengthened and international programs are expanded. Another risk, in the current climate of bioterrorism, is the possible intentional spread of multidrug-resistant M. tuberculosis.”

Oh, of course, the answer is not to limit immigration but to ‘provide tuberculosis services for immigrants.’ The obvious and sensible answer, to limit immigration and to screen would-be immigrants and ‘refugees’, is off the table; unthinkable.

The even more troubling fact is that not only do we not screen for tuberculosis, neither do we screen for other communicable diseases. During the recent ebola outbreak “we” deliberately brought ebola cases here for treatment. It’s as though they are courting an epidemic or a plague. Our government officials are ‘bug-chasers’, in the ‘gay’ parlance.

We, the people, are not given any say. We must be the guinea pigs, as “our” government is apparently experimenting with introducing various new (or once-extinct) diseases into our population.

Anonymous Conservative is right; screening for TB and all other communicable (and non-communicable) diseases should be re-introduced. It was once standard procedure, but that was in the days when our government actually seemed to have our well-being at heart.

Screening for diseases would be a good way to put the brakes on out-of-control immigration; it would be hard for any sane person to argue against it, but then of course the left are obviously not sane people.

The administration would be acting wisely and sensibly to start screening again.