Covid-19 Lockdowns Are a Perfect Model for Green/Climate Lockdowns

Mariana Mazzucato is a name most people—aside from those in particular fields—won't be aware of, however, it's clear that she is a very influential professor, according to the biography featured on her website:

Mariana Mazzucato (PhD) is Professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value at University College London (UCL), where she is Founding Director of the UCL Institute for Innovation & Public Purpose (IIPP). She received her BA from Tufts University and her MA and PhD in Economics from the Graduate Faculty of the New School for Social Research. Her previous posts include the RM Phillips Professorial Chair at the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at Sussex University. She is a selected fellow of the UK’s Academy of Social Sciences (FAcSS) and of the Italian National Science Academy (Lincei).

She is winner of international prizes including the 2020 John von Neumann Award, the 2019 All European Academies Madame de Staël Prize for Cultural Values, and the 2018 Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought. She was named as one of the ‘3 most important thinkers about innovation’ by The New Republic, one of the 50 most creative people in business in 2020 by Fast Company, and one of the 25 leaders shaping the future of capitalism by WIRED.

She is the author of three highly-acclaimed books: The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths (2013), The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy (2018) and the newly released, Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism (2021).

She advises policy makers around the world on innovation-led inclusive and sustainable growth. Her current roles include:

• Chair of the World Health Organization’s Council on the Economics of Health for All
• Member of the Scottish Government’s Council of Economic Advisors
• Member of the South African President’s Economic Advisory Council
• Member of the OECD Secretary General’s Advisory Group on a New Growth Narrative
• Member of the UN High Level Advisory Board for Economic and Social Affairs
• Member of Argentina’s Economic and Social Council
• Member of Vinnova’s Advisory Panel in Sweden
• Member of Norway’s Norway’s Research Council.
• As Special Advisor for the EC Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation (2017-2019), she authored the high impact report on Mission-Oriented Research & Innovation in the European Union, turning “missions” into a crucial new instrument in the European Commission’s Horizon innovation programme.

Mazzucato is a prolific writer of policy papers on various economic topics, though she notably has written many papers on transitioning domestic and/or global "carbon economies" into "low-carbon economies," as well as other forays into green economics, several papers on Covid-19, the need for stakeholder capitalism, and many other topics. As her short hair and physiognomy would suggest, she is an intersectional feminist, and she agrees with the elite on most topics, whether it be race, LGBT, anthropogenic climate change, etc. The one area where she disagrees with many of them is her critique of neoliberalism, but most world leaders seem interested in adopting her ideas now that the global economy is quite malleable due to the lockdowns.

(She seriously showed her woke credentials by name-dropping in an interview two examples of improvements in recognizing women as innovators:  Hidden Figures, a movie that greatly exaggerates the role of black women in the space race, and Jess Wade's laughable Women in STEM Wikipedia editing project.)

The full extent of her influence is likely impossible to convey with even the lengthy credits above. 

New York Times:

Over the years, Mariana Mazzucato, an economist and professor at the University College London, has achieved the kind of celebrity status that is uncommon for academics.

In February, British GQ named her one of the 50 most influential people in Britain, alongside David Beckham and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. The Financial Times described one of her panel discussions as “electrifying.” She’s got the ears of politicians and chief executives around the world, from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the U.S. and President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa, to Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Pope Francis, who all turn to her for advice or lean on her work for ideas.

Other figures from the political left and right have been influenced by or incorporated her ideas, including Elizabeth Warren and Marco Rubio. In the UK, she has influenced Jeremy Corbyn, Theresa May, and Nicola Sturgeon.

Though it was not mentioned on her biography page, she is also associated with the World Economic Forum (WEF), which has been getting a lot of negative press in alternative media as of late; Mazzucato is regularly referenced in WEF articles, is an agenda contributor, and is one of the Co-Chairs of the Global Future Council on the New Agenda for Economic Growth and Recovery.

The WEF was founded by Klaus Schwab, who is also the current executive chairman of the organization. The WEF is a globalist organization that is highly supportive of the Covid-19 lockdowns, and their advocation seems largely intended to promote a "Great Reset" of capitalism. Additionally, they have expressed interest in moving away from a cash-based currency to a digital currency, stakeholder capitalism, climate change, and potentially, the phasing out of private property. 

It should be pretty obvious that the WEF is an elite organization intent on bringing about a new world order, and everything they advocate for is a means of consolidating power. People ignorantly scoff at such a notion, labeling it a "conspiracy theory," but it is often the tendency of powerful internationalists to consolidate everything, and the western powers are trending in that direction, keeping weaker countries under their thumb with cultural imperialism, debt-trap diplomacy, and the opening of domestic markets for the benefit of transnational corporations and the privatization of industry.

For anyone who isn't themselves an elite or is a nationalist of any sort, the WEF is obviously a group to be opposed, and the same applies to academics like Mazzucato.

I have seen supporters and detractors alike speculating that the Covid-19 lockdowns may be used in the future not only for a "pandemic," but to curb carbon energy usage and as a climate lockdown. Though don't expect that we'll switch one out for the other; more than likely they will expect the populace to have overlapping lockdowns for the two separate issues—there is still no sign of the "normal" lockdowns abating in most areas, and they can exaggerate another minor virus—or a strain of the same virus—to enact a lockdown anytime they want. Mazzucato obviously has a lot of clout with the elites, and she has laid out these ideas in "Avoiding a climate lockdown."

As COVID-19 spread earlier this year, governments introduced lockdowns in order to prevent a public-health emergency from spinning out of control. In the near future, the world may need to resort to lockdowns again – this time to tackle a climate emergency.

Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling. To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently.

Addressing this triple crisis requires reorienting corporate governance, finance, policy, and energy systems toward a green economic transformation. To achieve this, three obstacles must be removed: business that is shareholder-driven instead of stakeholder-driven, finance that is used in inadequate and inappropriate ways, and government that is based on outdated economic thinking and faulty assumptions.

Corporate governance must now reflect stakeholders’ needs instead of shareholders’ whims. Building an inclusive, sustainable economy depends on productive cooperation among the public and private sectors and civil society. This means firms need to listen to trade unions and workers’ collectives, community groups, consumer advocates, and others.

Since the focus of my article is more general and centered around climate change, I haven't touched on Mazzucato's work extensively. As can be seen above, she has a position within a branch of the WHO. Bill Gates is connected to the WHO, and many of the usual suspects fund Project Syndicate, the NGO featuring Mazzucato's above cited article—including Soros' Open Society Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. 

As Global Research notes, this same article was also featured on the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), an NGO that describes itself as "a global, CEO-led organization of over 200 leading businesses working together to accelerate the transition to a sustainable world." Most of the big corporations are members of the WBCSD, including Walmart, Bayer, Chevron, Google, Microsoft, DuPont, 3M, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Danone, and Nestlé. A full list of members can be found here. 

Mazzucato's views are formulated for the benefit of globalist elites and big corporations, and these ties are an indication of their approval of her views.

(Also, make sure to take note of how oil companies are always associated with all of the environmental and sustainable development initiatives; Shell, BP, and Chevron are all on board. Maurice Strong, an oil tycoon was also one of the leading figures in the movement and is associated with the Club of Rome; the Rockefellers of Standard Oil fame are another powerful family that took an interest in the environment and anthropogenic climate change, even though, on the surface level, it would appear to be against their best interests.)

Personally, contrary to most of the conservatives and libertarians commenting on this topic, I'm finding there are some aspects of "stakeholder capitalism" that don't sound bad—some have even likened it to Mussolini-esque fascism and corporatism—however, the distinct difference is her ideas are filtered through a globalist and woke lens, not a nationalist lens. This is not about reining in corporations for the betterment of the people and the nation—it's for the benefit of only an elite minority, and will result in further dysgenic pressure, lower standards of living, and greater suffering for the populace. 

Mazzucato even cites a kooky article from a scientific journal, titled "Covid-19: The disease of the anthropocene," which posits that Covid-19 is a product of ecological degradation, and the authors are proponents of the "wet market" hypothesis, when we're really still not certain of the origins of the alleged virus—I think what we're looking at here is just your standard influenza and coronaviruses, along with whatever else is being lumped in when one tests positive for Covid-19. Yes, many diseases are zoonotic, but it is ridiculous to take a very mild coronavirus and use that as an example of the devastating effects of ecological interactions. 

This is the authors' attempt to tie the majority of diseases to environmental issues. To expand or build roads is to disrupt ecologies, which in turn leads to new diseases. It is the same for animal husbandry and meat production. The idea is obviously to reduce automobile usage and meat consumption for the masses—eventually to zero. 

I can't say that an attempt to reduce zoonotic disease prevalence (or supposed anthropogenic climate change) to near zero is worth these losses in quality of life, and this is obviously not their intention—if they cared about human health, they would do something about the opioid and obesity epidemics or the environmental impact of plastics and chemicals. 

Meat consumption is healthy and important for a balanced diet. Vegan diets are very unhealthy for children especially—even with well-researched supplementation—and adults in general, and vegetarianism is, frankly, not much better. By improving public transit, car usage could be reduced, but it's pretty clear to me that they intend to crack down on car usage to the point that it will affect poorer rural communities who have to commute, the most, in hopes of forcing them to migrate into the cities, where they can better surveil larger swathes of the public.

Can you imagine a future where most humans don't venture very far outside of their heavily surveilled city blocks, where everything is within walking distance or perhaps public transit is used? Only it gets worse. You're eating synthetic "meat," bugs, and soy, all while living in the security of your tiny pod; meanwhile, the elites are eating excellent food, living in spacious manors in gated communities, and maintaining their jet-setting lifestyle. This seems to be a fairly accurate summation of the elites' vision for the world.

The likelihood of a human dying of Covid-19 is very low unless the adult is very old and/or very unhealthy—especially with various comorbidities. Even the oldest person in Europe, who was almost 117 years old when she contracted Covid-19, survived. I get that people who live to be over 100 are freaks of nature in some way, but if people in their 80s-100s can survive it, it's obviously not that serious of an illness.

This may not be the best chart, but it will have to do until I've written a series of articles on Covid-19.

The rate of death is under 1% of those infected until the 50s, where it increases a bit, and it's not really very high until 70-79 years—recall that the average life expectancy in the U.S. is about 78; this data is from China, and their life expectancy is about 76.

The data from the U.S. and other countries is very similar.

In the context of the U.S., we have an alleged 562,000 deaths and 31.3 million cases. The above death toll being true would mean that .17% of the population has died from Covid-19. Using the case numbers to determine the death rate, as many are wont to do, is not accurate because not only are the PCR tests prone to deliver false positives and not at all intended for this purpose, but many people have a very mild or nearly asymptomatic case and are not tested. The death numbers are also inflated because they are counting people who died and tested positive or had similar symptoms to Covid-19 as a Covid-19 death, and hospitals are incentivized to report deaths in this manner to increase their funding.

.17% is not a "serious pandemic," and certainly pales compared to the Kansas Spanish Flu of 1918, which is estimated to have killed 675,000 Americans—the population was a third of our current size, and the percentage works out to about .65% of the population dying. The lockdowns we're using for a more piddly virus than what we saw in the past have caused devastation upon the health of the population and the economy beyond what the virus is capable of. 

If the population of 1918 did not use these lockdown measures, then it's obvious we did not need them either. This is not an instance of the governments of the world being too stupid to learn from history. The lockdowns are for the sake of further controlling the population and consolidating power. 

In the modern context, Hanlon's razor should be seen as a fallacy, and the inverse should instead be invoked: "Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice."

The lockdowns are a failure and Covid-19 is not a serious issue anymore so than seasonal influenza.

Sweden was correct to not force a lockdown or mask mandate on their population, and that is the model the entire world should have followed.

Similarly so, using this model to tackle climate change will be equally deleterious, if not more so—after all, the two "public health" issues will likely be overlapped.

It's really no wonder Mazzucato is speaking of climate lockdowns, for the Covid-19 lockdowns are lowering emissions—if they were to tweak the formula to be centrally focused on climate change (or just emphasize climate change more), then they might be able to reduce emission levels beyond the basic Covid-19 lockdowns.

One of the most common talking points critical of the ruling class is how they bemoan the peasants for energy usage, but they live a jet-setting lifestyle, have yachts, oil-guzzling vehicles, and spacious mansions—so they use a disproportionate amount of energy, and likewise for the amount of emissions they are responsible for. They're eager for a world where travel is rare and everyone is easily accounted for—other than the elites themselves; they will come and go as they please.

Twitter

Everyone knows tourism and travel drastically decreased globally and in the United States. Estimated international arrivals shrank from 1.461 billion in 2019 to 381 million in 2020—a 74% decline. This is especially devastating for islands and other countries that rake in considerable revenue from tourism. An estimated 2.4 trillion in global export revenue was lost in 2021 as a result of the global Covid-19 hysteria and cultish behavior. About 10% of global jobs pertain to travel, but most of this is now gone.

Emissions from worldwide aviation dropped by 50%. Long-distance travel by automobile also decreased.

Overall energy demand decreased globally during the lockdowns. This decrease was most dramatic in the industry and service sectors, partially offset by increased residential energy usage.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) presented data from 2020, which indicated that energy demand dropped during lockdowns, began to recover by about 10% and 5% in June and July, respectively, below 2019 levels, as lockdowns were easing up, then, in October the energy demand levels returned to normal, before new restrictions were announced.

In the U.S., overall energy-related CO2 emissions decreased by 11% in 2020; by sector: residential, -6%; commercial, -12%; industrial, -8%; transportation, -15%. 

Various countries have either increased or are planning to increase their reliance on renewable energy during the "pandemic." Much to the chagrin of Texas, the cold-snap incident was a result of an over-reliance on wind power and a lack of winterized power plants.

Here are some more data points from The Guardian:

During the northern hemisphere spring, when restrictions were at their strictest, the human footprint softened to a level not seen in decades. Flights halved, road traffic in the UK fell by more than 70%. Industrial emissions in China, the world’s biggest source of carbon, were down about 18% between early February and mid-March – a cut of 250m tonnes. Car use in the United States declined by 40%. So light was humankind’s touch on the Earth that seismologists were able to detect lower vibrations from “cultural noise” than before the pandemic.

Global emissions fell by an estimated 7% globally, the sharpest annual decline ever reported, but The Guardian laments that the trend did not last long enough to curb climate change.

Not all of that is bad, of course. Less pollution is good, but there are economic offsets to be considered and all of this comes far too fast. Taking measures to decrease air pollution by improving car engines and industrial methods, among other gradual improvements could be done, but that's not really what this is about. It's not really just about Covid-19, and future lockdowns, even of the green lockdown variety, will not solely be about reducing CO2 emissions.

It's hard to say what these lockdowns are about, because they are obviously about many things: further destroying small businesses and consolidating the power of big businesses, a means of controlling the population and restricting their movement, implementing contact tracing, vaccine passports, and increasing surveillance technology, rolling out experimental vaccines, as well as the topic of this article—their war against climate change. The most succinct, though too broad to be very helpful, answer is that the lockdowns are a means of consolidating power, and all of what was listed above (and what I failed to list) is a subset of that process of consolidation. 

Nevertheless, the data has been in for a while. These lockdowns have shown their potential for furthering the goals of climate change activists, and it's looking like we'll be in and out of lockdown in the following years. One day, they could say Covid-19 is eradicated, but all they have to do is release a new virus from a lab or simply ascribe all of the characteristics of Covid-19 (which is basically just the flu) to another virus.

Then the court-scientists will roll out their data and pretend the lockdowns were a smashing success and ignore Sweden, the media will clap, and then it all starts over again.

It's unlikely enough people will be on board for climate lockdowns alone. The virus seems to be a necessary component. There are many people who are deathly afraid of viruses, and a virus is a solid excuse for wearing face masks and other obtrusive restrictions that break down trust and lower immunity. A "pandemic" is good for big pharma and will reduce energy usage, so that's quite a few birds with one stone.

It's very clear to me that they will never rebrand these general lockdowns into climate lockdowns, rather the two will overlap and support each other, to the detriment of just about everyone other than the elites.

From the recent Project Veritas CNN leaks, a CNN staffer revealed that CNN has played up the Covid-19 death toll for ratings. This is so obvious that anyone who is paying attention would already know this without confirmation. All of the MSM were doing the same thing.

The far more important revelation is what the staffer goes on to reveal:

“I think there’s a COVID fatigue. So, like whenever a new story comes up, they’re [CNN’s] going to latch onto it. They’ve already announced in our office that once the public is — will be open to it — we’re going to start focusing mainly on climate,” Chester said.

“It’s going to be our [CNN’s] focus. Like our focus was to get Trump out of office, right? Without saying it, that’s what it was, right? So our next thing is going to be climate change awareness​,” he added.

The insider information provided by the footage from Project Veritas was proven correct.

Twitter

CNN:

This enemy does not recognize geopolitical borders. It has the power to wreak havoc on national economies, to cost people their livelihoods and their lives. It seeps through the smallest cracks in our social fabric, targeting the poor and the vulnerable among us. Sound familiar?

The Covid-19 pandemic and climate change have led to catastrophic fallout on a global scale, necessitating cross-border cooperation. Both also cause exponentially more harm to those of lower socioeconomic status.

Experts say that the Covid-19 pandemic has been a stress test for regional and international collaboration that has strained political partnerships. But despite nationalistic self-interest surrounding supplies of vaccines and virus treatments, some experts say it may actually put us in a better position to earnestly and successfully combat climate change in a post-pandemic society -- if we learn from our mistakes.

"The pandemic has given us a trial run," said Alice Hill, the David M. Rubenstein senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations. "But the big difference between pandemics and climate risk is that the climate has undergone permanent, irreversible damage. And so we need to focus on how we build resilience quickly and effectively on a global scale."

They're already babbling on about—not inequality—but inequity, riding the nauseating wave coming from the Biden administration, most notably Kamala Harris' Twitter clip—possibly other sources as well. 

There’s a big difference between equality and equity. pic.twitter.com/n3XfQyjLNe

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) November 1, 2020

Also included with an ominous—though predictable, if you're paying attention—quote from the United Nation's "independent expert on human rights and international solidarity," Obiora C. Okafor, who states, "This pandemic will not end for anyone until it ends for everyone." CNN editorializes in a way that allows this line to apply equally towards climate change. It boils down to advocacy for a global redistribution scheme that further consolidates the various countries of the world under a supranational entity (along with the typical domestic diversity fiasco)—expect the IMF and other international financial institutions, as well as the endless list of NGOs and other influential bodies to increase the pressure to make all countries comply.

This shift from Covid-19 to climate change is likely a directive from higher up (above CNN), and you'll see plenty of horizontal alignment on the issue of climate change among the MSM outlets. They'll continue to report on Covid-19 and enforce that narrative, but they'll weave in more climate change talking points and use it for the purpose of stoking fear in an already subdued population. The two will probably be drip fed in cycles—one having greater emphasis when the other topic becomes too stale.

Update: On August 16, Kit Knightly published an article titled "The IPCC Report & the Pivot from Covid to Climate" for Off Guardian. The IPCC report is always an effective way to renew the climate change scare. Knightly has collected quite a few quotes that demonstrate the current round of climate-related propaganda, and these MSM hacks are further reinforcing the idea of climate lockdowns. The social conditioning and modification of infrastructure associated with Covid-19 measures can very easily be adapted to climate change. There can be an ebb and flow between the two issues, or they can co-occur. 

Here is a solid quote to close with, coming from Andrew Marr of iNews:

There is a great turn coming, a change in the terms of political debate, a period of hinge. We are swinging from the many months of coronavirus obsession into an autumn which will be dominated, rightly, by the climate emergency. But much of what we have learned from Covid-19 – about the state, authority, journalism and civil society – is directly applicable to what’s coming next.

Color Out of Space (2019)

NOTE: Most of this was written soon after the movie was released, but I forgot about it and never finished it, so it's not exactly fresh in my mind and likely missing a few details I would have otherwise addressed/added. The nature of it will likely be somewhat fragmented.

Color out of Space (COOS) is an adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's short story Colour Out of Space (Yes, even though he's an American, he added the u because he's an anglophile). It stars Nicholas Cage, Tommy Chong, and a few other people I've never heard of—as always, actors are furniture to pad out the room and not worth listing in most cases, and they can be looked up here. The director is Richard Stanley, an offbeat South African-born director mostly known for sci-fi like Hardware and horror films like Dust Devil, as well as being sacked from directing The Island of Doctor Moreau remake in favor of the veteran director John Frankenheimer. I'll probably never understand Stanley's popularity among genre fans, but Hardware at least had inventive imagery and an interesting style, flawed as it was.

A hungover-looking/coked-up (his natural state) Nic Cage and the fat, nearly boomer-aged director. Who though it was a good idea to put the leopard collar on that jacket?

It would be expected that a figure with such tremendous influence would have more adaptations, but Lovecraft is often mentioned as notoriously difficult to depict on the big screen, what with the creatures appearing minimally or not at all, though the protagonist usually sees enough to be driven to madness by the sight of the entities that abound. But how can one effectively depict something so maddening in a plausible manner? The narrators of his works tell us what they experience, often burning the manuscripts or the artifacts they possess, for they represent forbidden knowledge the world is better off not knowing about. Though Lovecraft's writing can be flowery and overly descriptive, his works rely on prose more than story and many elements remain vague and adjective-laden, leaving the viewer to fill in the details more than the average horror fiction. Furthermore, many of the otherworldly environments sometimes visited by the narrator are described as "non-euclidean," and profoundly strange, and I don't think I need mentioned the incredible lack of creativity in hollywood filmmakers, as well as the high budget and risk-taking these efforts would require, when it's much easier to go with the standard horror formula. Perhaps some of the most successful direct adaptations would be Re-animator and Dagon. Other productions are clearly influenced by his legacy and are somewhat Lovecraftian as well, such as the visual novel Saya no Uta, the films Endless and In the Mouth of Madness, and several manga works by Junji Ito.

The acting and characters really aren't the selling point for a Lovecraft film or horror in general, just as the characters in his stories were little more than dour academics with minimal personality, simple character sketches for the sake of psychological breakdown and a descent into madness, or mere blank slates or ciphers in Lovecraft's fiction. Whether it was the modernist sensibilities of the time or the nature of pulp, this tendency held true for most of his work. 

The characters here are more fleshed out, especially compared to the family featured in the original story. They aren't especially sympathetic or interesting, but they're human enough to evoke more emotion than the average Lovecraft character, though certainly a bit on the eccentric side, especially Nicholas Cage with his ridiculous overacting (his signature) and alpaca farm, along with the occult shenanigans of the daughter, Lavinia. The youngest son just stares off into space most of the time, drawn to the well, a sort of altar place that Cage claims you can see stars within, if you gaze into the abyss long enough, and he seems to hear and see things beyond what the other characters can perceive, even drawing what appears to be an alien creature with similar colors as are seen in the corrupted environment; the oldest son plays video games and indulges in drug usage; and lastly, the mom is insecure and incompetently attends to some financial occupation via Skype. Unlike the original story, where the family is spoken of dispassionately, you can see them breaking apart here.

The only other notable characters are Tommy Chong, whose druggie antics are annoying and just as bad as all the Cheech and Chong trash, and the black guy, who, unfortunately, doesn't die first. I'll never understand how the "black guy dies first" meme was started, because just about any horror film I've seen, the black guy doesn't die first. Maybe Gremlins is an exception, and Spider Baby from 1968 is the one film I'm positive this applies to, with a black mailman being murdered in the first ten minutes (perhaps this scene even marked the birth of the supposed trope). The mayor is an annoyingly sassy, independent wamen, but she disappears early on, and the sheriff has very few lines.

Everything starts off well enough. There are many shots of a misty forest set to narration from the black guy, taken directly from the original story:

West of Arkham the hills rise wild. There are valleys with deep woods no axe has ever cut. There are dark narrow glens where the trees slope fantastically, where thin brooklets trickle without ever having caught the glimpse of sunlight. When I went into the hills and vales to survey for the new reservoir, they told me the place was evil. They told me this in Arkham, and because that is a very old town, full of witch legends, I thought the evil must be something which grandams had whispered to children through centuries. Then I saw the dark westward tangle of glens and slopes for myself and ceased to wonder at anything besides its own elder mystery.

After the narration is over, Lavinia is introduced, performing some kind of occult ritual (seems to be little girl occultism, AKA, Wicca) at the shore of a pond, invoking the names of angels to protect her, cure her mother's cancer, and whatever else ails her. She's not even slightly embarrassed when she's interrupted by another human. As the movie progresses she carves symbols into her body to ward off evil, and she also has a copy of the necronomicon that she bleeds all over.

That's just the kind of woman she is. Does she have anything to do with the family's unfortunate fate? It certainly seems like a sort of nod to Pandora's box or Eve eating the apple, but it's not clear if they are causally linked.

To spice the film up with some diversity, the black guy takes on a role similar to Ammi Pierce from the original story, revealing that he's a hydrologist, which we're reminded of many, many times. It seems to be his only feature, other than being black, of course. 

Why he wishes to survey the water supply is never really made clear: he just does. Given that evil is spoken of in the opening narration, it's possible he's curious if the legends about the location correspond with the environment—especially the water, his specialty—and don't you forget it!

In all honesty, Lovecraft is a rather controversial figure these days because of his racism, sexism, and whatever else is a dire sin in the eyes of the western world. Many of Lovecraft's stories, among them The Shadow Over Innsmouth and The Thing on the Doorstep, concern miscegenation between humans and fish creatures, leading to an infernal and diluted race unfit for man to associate with, who worship dark, evil gods. There's also the more blatant racism in the language of stories like The Horror at Red Hook. 

In Stanley's words:

... I have issues with Lovecraft, like most folk. Lovecraft is also a racist and a misogynist, and there were issues which, although we never openly discussed in the context of the film, we wanted to address in the way that we went about adapting it... 

It's not just Stanley who has a stick up his ass about the views of a man from a very different era. A past award given to genre fiction featured a bust chiseled in Lovecraft's likeness, but it's no more, representing another casualty of the SJW agenda. 

It would seem casting a black man in the role as the surveyor/hydrologist is sort of an attempt to piss/spit on Lovecraft's grave, even to "correct" his improprieties—Stanley, like many other nerds snorting up horror and genre fiction, are humiliated that they love the artistic output of someone like Lovecraft, who didn't hold the destructive elitist values of today, and even expounds on his now-heretical views in his voluminous offerings.

There's meant to be palpable sexual tension between Lavinia and the black guy from the start. In one scene, soon after riding off on her stallion, Lavinia reveals to her brother that she finds the black guy cute, and when he appears again, she tugs him along by the hand, leading him to the meteorite—upon entering the house a few minutes later, the mother suggests that her daughter likes the black guy, stating she was practically throwing herself on him. At the table, there is the comparison of processed fast food and a home cooked meal, and she claims to love "mystery meat," a term that's likely a double entendre, for it can refer to food of an unidentifiable source, especially processed, but it can also refer to uncertain racial or ethnic origin, especially if the individual is of mixed race/ethnicity. To depict a man of a different race as a potential love interest and a white female lusting after him would have been revolting to Lovecraft, and this is obviously meant to spite him. 

This is a modern adaptation of Lovecraft's work, so I don't really take issue with blacks being present or holding positive roles in a very multicultural America. I think it's preferable for races to separate, to the full extent that it is feasible, and make their own visions that corresponds to their own race; this leads to far more organic art. That's not to say multicultural cinema must be eschewed altogether, but it's difficult to see how Stanley's intention was meant as anything but disrespect for Lovecraft, which is why I find the whole thing so sickening. Yeah, Stanley, go ahead and adapt the guy's work and just shit all over him and his views.

It also doubles as interracial propaganda. One can only wonder if the mother's probing was promulgated out of anxiety that she'd have to raise the mulatto child of an ill-fated pairing between her daughter and a black man, for these more melanated individuals are notoriously difficult to keep around as providers. Something like 60%-70% of black children are born to unmarried parents, usually without the father around, the care often being passed on to the parents or grandparents. As a general rule, interracial pairings of every flavor are less successful statistically than intraracial couples.

There's really no good reason to virtue signal about a white woman being the potential mate of a black man. The baby will not truly resemble either the black man or the white woman (and the say goes for other forms of interbreeding), and I can't help but think that most white and black relatives will be disappointed that the child does not look more like them, and that their child has bred with dissimilarity in mind rather than the more stable prospect of similarity. Similarity breeds liking and compatibility and bodes well for the future. There are a host of issues associated with having a mixed-race baby that has nothing to do with "social constructs."

Stanley is not the only creator responsible for this kind of more woke reinterpretation of Lovecraft. The Ballad of Black Tom by Victor LaValle is a black man's reinterpretation of Lovecraft's most overtly racial story The Horror at Red Hook, which transforms into a typical pro-black and anti-white screed. 

Lovecraft Country, which I'm not very familiar with, is another anti-racist series adapted from a book of the same name, written by a self-hating white bugman/hipster-type Matt Ruff. As far as I know, it's not an adaptation, but it works with Lovecraftian themes in some way.

It's rather amusing to see creators increasingly adapting old works into woke garbage because they can't come up with new properties. Lovecraft's racist and xenophobic tendencies are actually the stuff that horror is made of, when you boil it down to its roots. Horror is about the fear of the unknown; of strange creatures that bump in the night. What, then, is a more potent adherence to the roots of horror than the racialism depicted by Lovecraft, the miscegenation, the tainted bloodlines and the despair that they so often bring? It's one of the most authentic attempts at horror, and it is more relevant than ever in the way it builds upon the real anxieties of racial replacement in the west. Given the black nationalism that is common amongst blacks, whether latent or not, I reckon they would appreciate their own black racialist horror—not the wokeness of a Ruff or LaValle, but the visceral disgust of their blackness being diluted by whites or other dissimilar races.

Anyway, the white horse Lavinia rides away on is named comet, alluding to the meteorite soon to plummet onto the family's farm. The horse itself would allow the daughter to leave the farm for the freedom and independence she so covets. As all women are wont to do in this barren feminist wasteland we've concocted for ourselves. 

Most horror films depict families with a seemingly normal exterior, with buried dysfunction underneath, and for the most part, COOS doesn't buck this trend; the patriarch preceding Cage's character was "intellectually abusive" and his presence lives on, for the property once belonged to him, the antique photograph is shown of him a few times, Cage speaks of him, and his children continue to hold onto their grandfather's former belongings—Lavinia has his compass that is "imbued with magical significance" for her rituals, and Benny, the elder brother, a pair of thick black goggles, which he dons against the glare of psychedelic, ominous purple light. They were formerly city dwellers, and they're returning to their roots; the divide is made most apparent with Lavinia's intense desire to leave.

An example of the lighting: purples predominate, but sometimes they work a greenish color in for some contrast.

The meteorite seems to break apart by the morning, just a fraction of the glowing lump in the photo, as if it's absorbed into the ground, and in similar fashion to the source material, it taints the environment, giving the crops an unpleasant taste and warping the forms of the animals and plants, the electronics all malfunction, and worst of all, the minds of those who dwell there. Time and space appear to become distorted. One might question whether this is an effect of the drugs abused by certain characters, but the fantastical elements become too entrenched for this reasoning.

The magenta-heavy psychedelic visuals are what make the film worth watching. It really looks unlike any other modern horror film. Usually they're very dark, drab, and frankly, quite flat. COOS has vivid, intense color. 

The characters become detached from reality in a way that kind of reminds me of the mind-bending nature of Solaris, but in a far more sinister manner. 

It's an interesting experience while it lasts, and the mysterious nature of the entity is kept about as unclear as one can expect for a Hollywood adaptation of an old horror story. The thing itself we never truly know or see—we merely see the havoc and corruption it instills upon the land and its people.

Ultimately, however, it feels a bit shallow. One of the more interesting visual interpretations of Lovecraft, but at least a partial misfire. Despite how wonderful the color looks, it kind of detracts from what should be a bleaker atmosphere and a palpable sense of dread, and there's far too much humor and quirkiness injected into the characters for it to ever be taken seriously. The humor was over played and made the production feel far too tongue-in-cheek. 

This is a pretty good example of how silly some parts of the film were, in retrospect.

I realize there are artists who are looking to adapt a work and add their own personal touch to it, but the whole point of Lovecraft is diluted here. It's about the atmosphere of dread, the smallness of humanity set against uncaring cosmic forces, and I'm not really feeling any of that here. If anything, the horrible existential plight of the human being so minuscule is diminished by the regular humor and Stanley's incessant need to humanize them to the extent that he has.

I'm not against an artist going in a wildly different direction, I just don't feel Stanley has made a memorable horror film, outside of the "trippy" visuals.

If there's one director—not that this would happen or that Hollywood fans would be interested in seeing it—who would actually capture a much of what Lovecraft conveyed perfectly, I think it would actually be the alienating acting, the lyrical camerawork, and slow pacing of Bela Tarr. The slow scenes would capture such dread, and his way of filming in such a detached manner would make the characters feel truly insignificant and small. He's a master of atmosphere. Of course, Tarr is probably too snobbish to want to adapt old pulp horror fiction, and he is, like most artists, quite the liberal cuck, who would probably scorn Lovecraft for his views far more than even Stanley. 

The film closes as such:

I hope the dam water that covers will be very deep, but even then, I’ll never drink it. There are only a few of us who remember the strange days now. What touched this place cannot be quantified or understood by human science, or our basic concept, our perception of reality. It was just… a color out of space. A messenger from realms who’s existence stuns the brain and numbs us with the ghost that it throws open before our frenzied eyes.

Unfortunately, this is too close to the actual story of the American water supply, that I can't help but quote this passage and think of how polluted the water is with toxic chemicals, arsenic, lead, fluoride, etc. It's also heavily irradiated. It's really difficult to drink truly good water without a reverse osmosis filter. Plastic water bottles are, of course, laden with tranny hormones and plastic is one of the most serious pollutants and environmental issues of the 20th-21st centuries—far above the climate change hoax, which is built upon a heap of lies, predictive models that are always wrong, and laughable "hockey stick" graphs, etc. Perhaps herein is where the true horror of the film lies—by the end, the big climax is over, and everything seems to have returned to normality, but the water supply continues to make everyone ill and the government is not going to do anything about it.

Homosexual Judge with Adopted Children Arrested For Child Pornography

Milwaukee County Circuit Children's Court Judge Brett Blomme was arrested and charged for seven counts of possession of child pornography.

Wisconsin Department of Justice:

On February 11, 2021, Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) Special Agent (SA) Tamara Taubel began an investigation into a CyberTip provided by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). The CyberTip indicated that a Kik messaging application user, “dommasterbb,” uploaded images and videos consistent with child pornography through the application on 27 separate occasions in October and November of 2020. Those files were sent to other Kik users through private chat messages or shared in a messaging group. The email used for registering the Kik account “dommasterbb” was identified in the CyberTip as “[email protected].”

Note the name "dommasterbb," which indicates this is a purely sexual account. 

According to Wisconsin law, these shared images met the definition of "child pornography," a rather nebulous distinction, because the "child" is defined as being under 18 in that jurisdiction. Pedophilia involves a prepubescent child, not a teenager who is under whatever the age of consent is. Obviously, either one would be breaking the law, but you'd be hard pressed to tell a 17-year-old apart from an 18-year-old, and a "child" a few years younger than 18 has more agency than a prepubescent child (not to mention, 16 is the legal age of consent in a majority of states, as well as most other countries).  This is always a necessary distinction. Pedophilia should not be trivialized with what is obviously a lesser (or should be) offense. 

However, as would be expected of a deviant homosexual, what he was downloading and sharing was undeniably child pornography:

...he downloaded videos of adult men having anal and oral sex with Asian and Caucasian toddlers and other male children, including a crying boy in a Mickey Mouse shirt.

This is a very tame description compared to what can be found on the complaint document (pages 7-9). I wouldn't recommend reading the more detailed descriptions.

Homosexual Adoption Is the Much Greater offense, yet We've Normalized It

Far more troubling is the fact that Blomme is married to another man, with whom he has adopted two very young children, one male, the other female. One would think Blomme would be disallowed from being around "his children," but he is out of jail on a $500 signature bond and has been ordered to have “no unsupervised contact with any minors except his own children.”

These are not really his children—not biologically, only legally. The amount of abuse associated with child adoption is already very high. There is no evidence that either of the children were featured in the shared child pornography, but that doesn't mean they have not been abused, sexually or otherwise, by these two homosexuals. They are certainly at the mercy of these men.

If the birth parents aren't able to take care of their children or have died, children should always preferably be passed on to someone who is biologically related to them—this is the only thing that makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. It's sad if they aren't able to grow up with parents or close relatives, but a state-run foster care model is probably best suited for the child who has no other biological relatives eligible to become their guardian. At least this way, there can be the potential for multiple employees and similar-aged peers who can support the child and provide a broader accountability to reduce child abuse. Abuse happens in foster care, but it will be even more difficult to detect with an adoptive couple.

Adoption is less than ideal even with straight-laced heterosexual adoptive parents. It's a bizarre scenario for both sides as they unnaturally play these roles. No matter how caring these parents may be, they won't treat the children the same as their own flesh and blood, and the same goes for the adopted child. Not only is abuse more common from the adoptive parents because of the lack of biological relation, but it goes both ways—it's not unheard of for the children to grow up and exploit their parents, or even to be violent or psychopathic, since the adoptive parents know very little about the origin of the child.

The problem of adoption is exacerbated further when we factor in homosexuals. 

The rate of child abuse and sexual deviancy is much higher in the homosexual population compared to the heterosexual population.

I realize not all homosexuals will be abusive in the predatory sense of molesting their children, but even if we take a well-meaning homosexual couple (to the extent that is possible), both of whom are acting upon their paternal and/or maternal instincts and wish to give the child a good life, does this not cause harm in its own way? It is normal to be raised by a mother and a father. Having both fulfills a necessary feminine and masculine balance of parenting styles and provides a proper model of behavior. Having two fathers or two mothers can never be the same, and as we have evolved with these separate roles of father and mother, we should not expect favorable outcomes when we go against the grain. They will be reared with behaviors unique to a small subset of the population, and we can expect a male to become more feminine and a female to become more masculine in their behavior under the stewardship of the homosexual. 

The children will undoubtedly be exposed to more troubling stimuli under the homosexual's tutelage. The homosexual couples are unlikely to last, and many new partners will fill the role of "parent." They will instill homosexual and liberal neuroticism in the child that will engender greater unhappiness, and they will be more likely to promote excesses of this decadent culture, such as transgenderism. 

They will not become accustomed to the values of a heterosexual couple, that which is not only the norm, but is also more desirable and necessary for a functioning society. Being raised in a milieu of homosexuality will instead select for dysfunction. What is a child to do, should his primary role model be a sexual deviant who has non-reproductive sex with the same sex. It is obviously the acting out of mental illness or a brain abnormality, for one to be a homosexual. To subject a child to these circumstances is a form of child abuse.

Yes, homosexual behavior occurs in nature, amongst non-human animals, but this behavior is anomalous and serves no function. It is an error on the part of the animal. 

Both homosexuality and feminism serve no purpose other than to disrupt and subvert society and make it worse in the longterm, meanwhile, in the short term, people think they are freer and happier because of these choices, but they are not. The absorption in this pleasure is nothing more than a dopamine hit that won't last—a rush of wasted chemicals. Once the feeling wanes, there is only despair and alienation to reflect upon, before the cruel cycle of finding the next dopamine hit is pursued. To cave into these impulses leads to the diminution of man, and he becomes hobbled by these destructive impulses, failing to meet his true potential as not only an individual, but as part of the collective we have lost.

When we're not fearfully succumbing to political correctness, does anyone really believe homosexual parenting is good for children, who, as a default, are heterosexual? Liberals will push their biased studies—with tiny sample sizes—that are promoted by gay lobbyists. Science, like anything else nowadays, must follow the money. Everything is political. 

There does appear to be a genetic influence that corresponds with homosexual behavior, but should this be treated as natural and acceptable, or should we try and correct it? I believe the latter should at least be attempted. Treat homosexuality as a mental illness and disparage these impulses, so that these children might be rescued from their wayward path of analism, hedonism, disease, and despair. It's an inevitability that some will go down this path; there's always a small homosexual subset within society, whether it is overt or covert. They at least deserve a chance, however.

What is really the greater crime, sharing and distributing child pornography, or allowing two homosexual men to adopt children? Homosexuals are far more sexually deviant and engage in various paraphilias compared to the general population (I'd argue that homosexuality is a paraphilia to begin with and should be considered a mental illness, just as it was listed in the APA during the early 1970s). 

The downloading and distribution of pornography is bad to begin with, and even worse when it involves prepubescent children—but there is a lot of content that is recirculated and may not lead to extra abuse per se, but enabling homosexuals to adopt children is an immediate vector for abuse and worse outcomes for the children. Homosexuals, as has been previously stated, also sexually abuse children at higher rates than the general population. Every child adopted by homosexuals should be considered endangered, and those who promote and allow them to be adopted by homosexuals are culpable for endangering them.

Back to Blomme and Some of His Other Endeavors

Blomme was a democrat, and a record of his connections and political involvement can be found here. 

Tom Barrett, the mayor of Milwaukee, wrote favorably of Blomme, stating that he attended "Marquette University where he became active in grassroots organizing in the LGBTQ+ community. He has dedicated his career as a community leader and attorney serving underprivileged and often overlooked populations."

Kiwi Farms and LinkedIn

Homosexuals are very, very sexual beings, who are obsessed with sexual pleasure and their sexual identity. They have far more partners and remain monogamous at much lower rates than heterosexuals. They engage in far more perverse and risk-prone sexual behavior and drug use. Their entire life is focused on sexual gratification and increasing the power and status of homosexuals in general. 

Ungodly amounts of money is funneled into treatment for HIV/AIDS, a disease that rarely affects anyone other than homosexuals who engage in regular anal sex without condoms, which could instead be used to mitigate various other illnesses. 

As can be seen in these two charts, the HIV/AIDS prevalence rate is much lower than diabetes, but HIV/AIDS has a disproportionate amount of funding. When we look at proportionality, that breaks down to "$2,583 each year per person with HIV/AIDS, $418 each year per person with cancer, and only $38 each year per person with diabetes." Diabetes is responsible for more deaths each year than cancer and HIV/AIDS combined. 

If we really wanted to, HIV/AIDS could be phased out pretty easily, though that would require a suppression of the ravenous appetite and behavior of the homosexual. 

The research on the topic has come so far that it's alleged there is medication that allows HIV-affected people to have sex without infecting their partner, and there is also PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis), which can be used by men involved in high-risk lifestyles to avoid contracting HIV. How effective are these drugs and what are the side effects?  Do they really work as well as the reports indicate? How often do homosexual use them, properly or at all? Those are questions best served by a separate article. 

However, their quest for sexual gratification is so great, that they will sodomize another man without a condom, exposing themselves to all kinds of bacteria and potential diseases (I'll spare the reader from having to endure Andrew Anglin's disgusting description of the process, though I see the propagandistic worth in portraying it so earnestly). 

You would think abstaining from the behavior would be the better solution than so much R&D devoted to allowing men to sodomize other men for their own sick pleasure.

Now, one of the reasons I originally decided to write about this case is because of Blomme's connections to Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH), which I have previously written about here and here. 

Kiwi Farms

Blomme is not directly connected to DQSH in the sense that he was part of the organization, as the debunkers aggressively point out. He was the CEO of the disgustingly named Cream City Foundation (CCF)—the kind of name only a gaggle of homosexuals would come up with. CCF is an "LGBTQ+ organization that mobilizes philanthropic resources by providing scholarships and supporting non-profit organizations." CCF was a fiscal sponsor of DQSH, which means they are enablers of a predatory propaganda and grooming program. 

Can you imagine having a homosexual represent you or your city in any capacity? He doesn't seem to represent anyone other than the perverse minority which he belongs to. He serves gays, trannies, transvestites, and any interests that involve the grooming of children. No one else, except maybe minorities and whatever the ruling elites expect of him.