Author: Simon Sheridan

The Coronapocalypse Part 6: The Economics of Pandemic

The Coronapocalypse Part 7: There’s Nothing Novel under the Sun

The Coronapocalypse Part 8: Germ Theory and Its Discontents

The Coronapocalypse Part 9: Heroism in the Time of Corona

The Coronapocalypse Part 11: Beyond Heroic Materialism

The Coronapocalypse Part 12: The End of the Story (or is it?)

The Coronapocalypse Part 16: Dude, where’s my economy?

The Coronapocalypse Part 17: Dropping the c-word (conspiracy)

The Coronapocalypse Part 18: Effects and Side Effects

The Coronapocalypse Part 19: Government and Mass Hysteria

The Coronapocalypse Part 22: The Trauma of Bullshit Jobs

The Coronapocalypse Part 24: The Dangers of Prediction

The Coronapocalypse Part 25: It’s just semantics, mate

The Coronapocalypse Part 29: A Philosophical Interlude

The Coronapocalypse Part 30: The Rebellious Children

The Coronapocalypse Part 33: Everything free except freedom

The Coronapocalypse Part 34: Into the Twilight Zone

The Coronapocalypse Part 35: The Land of the Unfree and the Home of the Safe

The Coronapocalypse Part 36: The Devouring Mother Book Now Available

The Coronapocalypse Part 0: Why you shouldn’t listen to a word I say (maybe)

The Coronapocalypse Part 27: Munchausen by Proxy

In the next set of posts in this series I’ll be expanding on some of the major themes from my previous post which explained the corona event as being either caused by, or encapsulated by (depending on your metaphysical convictions) The Devouring Mother archetype. Among the upcoming topics, I expect to cover the Jordan Peterson phenomenon in more detail to see what it reveals about the rebellious children and to contrast that with what the modern education system reveals about the acquiescent children of The Devouring Mother. Although I’m still working through it, I expect to have a post about the symbolism of Greta Thunberg who embodies the kind of inversion and combining of opposites that the psychologist R.D. Laing was fascinated by. Symbolically, Thunberg speaks as Devouring Mother through the body of a child purporting to be rebellious while in actual fact being acquiescent. That post may hurt my head to write. I will also have a post re-analysing my earlier posts on automation ideology and bullshit jobs into the desire of The Devouring Mother to prevent her children from achieving economic autonomy. And I expect to have a post examining in more detail why Australia has been ground zero for The Devouring Mother. Apart from revealing something about the Australian character, it also demonstrates how the American version of ‘freedom’, although it filters through American culture to places like Australia, is not really believed in by Australians or other westerners outside the US.

In this post, we’re going talk about the psychiatric condition called Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy which is, for our purposes, a subset of The Devouring Mother archetype and which provides an important perspective on what has happened during corona. Munchausen by Proxy comes out of modern clinical psychiatry and refers to the scenario where a mother either seeks unnecessary medical treatment for her children or actively harms the children in order to get treatment. The mother is responsible for such acts of harm in 95% of cases of Munchausen by Proxy and therefore the syndrome fits within The Devouring Mother archetype. Because Munchausen by Proxy is often used in a court of law to either prosecute or defend a mother for the harm of the child, questions of intention arise because lawyers need to establish motive in order to win cases. However, in our archetypal analysis, motive is not necessary. An archetype in the Jungian sense simply exists in the unconscious. It is a possibility that can manifest at any time just like water can manifest as ice or steam given the right conditions. Jung emphasised the notion of transformation and transcendence in his psychology and thus he believed it was our mission as humans to overcome our archetypes and ensure we are not overwhelmed by them but, of course, we don’t always succeed. For this reason, we can expect varying levels of self-awareness on the part of people manifesting an archetype. In relation to The Devouring Mother, many people have been completely possessed and therefore lack almost all self-awareness. This is borne out by the fact that many people appear to be acting against their self-interest. Some people might say they are puppets of Big Pharma and its evil machinations. But within the Jungian analysis, they have been overcome by an archetype. (Note: an argument could certainly be made that the propaganda machine, our invisible religious body, has either encouraged the archetype or failed to mediate it on our behalf). Interestingly, Munchausen by Proxy is problematic in a legal context precisely because it does not establish motive and so even the legal system implies the loss of autonomy that can happen in relation to archetypes.

Munchausen by Proxy is quite well known in our culture. The rapper, Eminem, was one of the most famous victims. His mother would take him to hospital when he was young even though he was not sick. He once wrote a song on the subject which contains the lyric “My whole life I was made to believe I was sick when I wasn’t. ‘til I grew up and blew up…”. If ever there was a catchphrase for the rebellious child breaking free of The Devouring Mother it could be that. All you’ve gotta do is grow up. The Devouring Mother aims to keep her child co-dependant and Munchausen by Proxy is one way to achieve that goal by gaslighting the child into thinking it is sick. In more extreme cases, the mother goes a step further and actively harms the child. Damage to the child comes in the physical form but perhaps more importantly in the psychological form of deep confusion and anxiety. Consider even a simple case of a cold or flu. As children, we came down with a fever but our parents were there to re-assure us that it was “just a cold” and the fever would break in a few days. Eventually, the fever would break and life would go on as normal. What our parents had taught us was how to recognise a cold or flu and how to deal with it. Once we have learned that, we no longer worry when a cold or flu comes along. As adults, we recognise the symptoms and simply go to bed when fever strikes. But now imagine that your parents didn’t do that but insisted on rushing you to hospital every time fever strikes. Not only that, they would rush you hospital when you didn’t even have a fever. That is both confusing at the time but also sets you up for a life of anxiety around disease. Of course, this is exactly what has happened during corona. People with flu symptoms were told they didn’t have the flu, they had covid and were then treated like a biohazard. People with no symptoms who happened to test positive were also treated like lepers. That is exactly the kind of gaslighting that takes place in Munchause Syndrome by Proxy; imaginary illness or the gross exaggeration of mild symptoms.

The best portrayal of the confusion and disorientation caused by The Devouring Mother that I have seen in popular culture is from the excellent Danish-Swedish television series Bron-Broen known in English as The Bridge. In the story, Saga Norén is the lead detective for Malmo police in Sweden and throughout the various series of the show she is required to pair up with another detective from across the strait in Copenhagen. Norén is the cool, calm and rational Swede playing off against her more emotional and intuitive Danish counterpart. The difference is meant symbolically to reflect the differences between Danish and Swedish culture but, even by Swedish standards, Norén is unusual as she has Asperger’s Syndrome and is detached, unemotional and rational to a fault. This makes her very good at her job as detective but no so good at forming close personal relationships. In series three of the show, we meet Norén’s mother and find out she is a Devouring Mother who practiced Munchausen by Proxy on Norén’s sister when she was a child. Norén is plagued by guilt at her inability to save her sister who later committed suicide. Thus, in The Bridge we get to see the interaction of a gaslighting Devouring Mother against possibly the one psychological type that you would expect to be most immune to that gaslighting; a vehemently independent and accomplished adult with Asperger’s Syndrome. However, even Norén struggles to maintain her sanity and keep her rationality intact in the face of her mother who is an expert at manipulation. In this way, the story is true to real life where, in cases of Munchausen by Proxy, the child must be removed from the mother and must stay removed from the mother as it is very common for the syndrome to reappear when the two are reunited. Viewed within this frame, the constant flip-flopping of the government and public health bureaucrats on public health measures could also just be the exact kind of confusion The Devouring Mother desires. To put it in language the Ancient Greeks might have used, the Gods are screwing with them just as much as they are screwing with us. The Devouring Mother sows confusion among her children.

To reiterate, Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy occurs when the mother either makes up a story about an illness that never happened or actively harms the child in order for it to appear as if the child is sick. Let’s take each of these in turn and see how it applies to corona.

On the subject of made up illness, corona is perhaps a world historical prime example. Whether you believe “covid” is actually a new disease (I don’t), it’s a statistical fact in almost half of all “cases of covid”, the person shows no symptoms of illness. This is because we have been (mis)-using the PCR test to identify a “case”. Is it possible to have “covid”, supposedly a deadly disease, if you have no symptoms? According to our public health bureaucrats, it is. Return a positive test and you will be labelled diseased by the state and you will not only have to endure the stress of wondering whether you will become very sick, you will have several weeks of having your life turned upside down while the government tests all your family and friends and while you deal with all the attendant issues on your interpersonal relationships, work and finances. Meanwhile, you are most likely to have no symptoms or only mild flu symptoms. Throughout corona, we have literally been telling people they have a deadly disease even though most barely have any symptoms. The media then amplified the signal by talking endlessly about ‘cases’ and never about illness. If that isn’t Munchausen by Proxy at the societal level, I don’t know what is. At best, it is deeply confusing and at worst a form of gaslighting designed to create unnecessary anxiety. The misuse of the PCR matches exactly the pattern I noted in an earlier post in this series about mammograms where the prevalence of false positives causes damaging treatments to be given to people who would otherwise have been fine. It is at this point that Munchausen by Proxy goes beyond just imaginary sickness and into active harm and, sadly, we have also seen exactly that also during corona.

This harrowing video released by a whistle-blower nurse from a New York City hospital is perhaps the best example of the early days where anybody suspected of having corona, even those who tested negative, were put under heavy sedation and intubated. The survival rate from such an invasive procedure was extremely low. I recall hearing it was about one in ten. There were many similar stories going around in the early days where, for whatever reason, the sedation-intubation protocol was circulated among medical professionals and recommended as the go-to option for treatment of covid. It wasn’t until a couple of months later where videos emerged of doctors claiming that the disease they were seeing was not the one they had heard about and that the intubation treatment was not the correct protocol. By then, the damage had been done. As the video with the nurse in New York shows, many people had already died as a result. Around the same time, we started hearing about hydroxychloroquine which got caught up in the madness of US politics after Trump stated that he was using it as a preventative measure. Some doctors believe that hydroxychloroquine also caused unnecessary illness and even death as the doctors who were experimenting with it were using very high doses that compromised the immune system of already vulnerable people and made them less able to fight off the virus.

How many of the deaths and serious disease attributed to corona were due to these kinds of treatments is a question we will never know the answer to. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that people were both injured and even died directly from treatments like invasive intubation and also indirectly through the reduced care given to those most in danger. In all western countries, most of the deaths from corona have come from nursing home patients and conditions in the nursing homes went to hell right around the time of the lockdown as employees either didn’t show up to work or, if they did, gave greatly reduced attention to the most needy. Again, we will never know how many of the deaths were due to actual illness and how many were due to treatments and lack of care. On one end of the spectrum are people such as Denis Rancourt who believes almost all the deaths were caused by our response. You can read his argument here. There are more moderate positions such as the Swiss Policy Research who have done a great job of providing objective data and analysis right from the start of corona. They estimate about 30% of the excess death was caused by the response. Either way, the response itself caused unnecessary pain and suffering and thereby fits the pattern of Munchausen by Proxy.

It is on the question of the vaccine, however, that the Devouring Mother in her Munchausen by Proxy form shows herself mostly clearly. One could forgive medical practitioners in the early days of corona for over-reacting given the stress of the situation. Doctors are only human and when everybody around you is losing their mind it is no doubt hard to keep yours especially when you are at the coalface. With the vaccine we have no such excuse. We are more than a year into this business and, despite continuing hysterics around every new ‘variant’ that some public health bureaucrat reads into the tea leaves of viral genome, we know what this virus is. The fundamentals have barely changed from day one. The case fatality rate is about 0.15% with the risk being almost exclusively confined to the elderly and immuno-compromised. For the majority of the population, this virus is equivalent to seasonal flu and, the younger you are, the less dangerous it is. The idea of mass vaccination with an experimental vaccine for such a virus is ludicrous and completely irrational but it is irrational in exactly the way predicted by Munchausen by Proxy where The Devouring Mother insists on unnecessary medical treatments even if she must harm the child to do so.

Recently, I was watching a video with Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, who has been one the most lucid experts right from the start of corona. Bhakdi was talking specifically about the dangers of the vaccines and noted “the immune system is being trained [with the vaccine] to do something that it would do very well on its own.” With just a couple of changed words, this sentence could describe The Devouring Mother archetype. Children grow up and seek autonomy all by themselves. The parents’ job is to keep the children on the rails, not to micromanage every part of their development. But that is what The Devouring Mother does because she wants the child to remain co-dependent. And that is what we are doing with the vaccine. Rather than allow people to be exposed to the virus naturally and to let the immune system do a job it’s been doing for millions of years, we have locked them away in their houses waiting to ‘train’ their immune system with the vaccine. That would be bad enough except we have no idea what the cost-benefit analysis of the vaccine is. As Professor Bhadki points out, vaccines such as tetanus have a clear cost-benefit profile. Tetanus is a genuinely deadly disease which will kill almost everybody who gets it if they do not receive immediate treatment. In fact, even with immediate treatment, a large number of people will die. The side effects of the tetanus vaccine are mild and very well-known as it has been in use for decades. It’s a no-brainer to take a tetanus shot. With the corona vaccines, the cost-benefit analysis is not clear at all. Early evidence suggests the vaccine causes about as much serious illness and even death for the population under the age of sixty as would have been caused by the virus. Unlike the tetanus shot, the amount of protection the corona vaccine offers is also unknown but we already know it doesn’t prevent infection and doesn’t guarantee protection from death (contrary to the tetanus shot). Although I very much doubt it, an argument could be made that the vaccines are in the interests of the elderly who are most at risk from corona and, in any case, they have nothing to fear from long term effects. In a sane society, we would let the elderly take the vaccine and let everyone else get on with their lives. But we are in the society of The Devouring Mother. In Europe, the vaccines are now being trialled on children as young as six months old. It’s a simple statistical fact that corona is far less dangerous to children than seasonal flu so why would anybody want to vaccinate children with an experimental vaccine? As Bhadki states bluntly – “You are endangering your own children.” But that is exactly what The Devouring Mother does in her Munchausen by Proxy form. She deliberately submits them to unnecessary medical intervention.

Bhakdi’s exasperation is totally understandable. Right from the start of corona we were told that if we didn’t like the measures we wanted old people to die. That’s a non sequitur and a form of emotional manipulation but it should have been possible to point out that the virus did not affect children and that the lockdowns and masks were a form not just of physical harm but psychological harm. It should have been obvious that everything should be done to shield children from whatever measures were necessary to protect the elderly. In a video from the UK that went viral last year, an elderly woman said that we shouldn’t be worried about her as she was going to die soon anyway. We should be worried about the young people. She was right and it should have been obvious she was right but it has not happened. One can only imagine the direct and long lasting effects of the last year and a quarter on the children that have lived through it.

In the last post I said that a feature of The Devouring Mother was that she sought a never-ending relationship of co-dependence. This is exactly what happens with Munchausen by Proxy except the co-dependence is maintained through illusory medical conditions or through direct physical harm. The stage is set for exactly these possibilities right now. We have the endless ‘variants’ of covid ready to roll. The elderly will no longer die of pneumonia. They will die of covid or rhivid or whatever other ‘new’ disease can be tested for. All it will take is a virologist to find a ‘new’ virus and off we go again. Trump was right in his instincts to defund the WHO but he is gone now. Instead, we have pretenders like Boris Johnson who recently stated that what we really need is a global surveillance network to help find more ‘new’ viruses. Of course, once a ‘new’ virus is found, a PCR test can be created and the whole play can start over again. More frightening though is Bhakdi’s warning that the “vaccines” may cause autoimmune disease. That is also in keeping with Munchausen by Proxy but now the illness is very real and not made up.

In Munchausen by Proxy, just as in other cases of The Devouring Mother, the child must be removed from the mother. In The Bridge, that is exactly what Saga Norén attempted to do but failed. However, it turns out that, in real life, Eminem succeeded. Not only did he free himself, he was later granted custody of his brother in order to protect him from their mother. Maybe in that story there is a hint as to the solution to our problem as well.

All posts in this series:-

The Coronapocalypse Part 1: The Madness of Crowds in the Age of the Internet

The Coronapocalypse Part 6: The Economics of Pandemic

The Coronapocalypse Part 7: There’s Nothing Novel under the Sun

The Coronapocalypse Part 8: Germ Theory and Its Discontents

The Coronapocalypse Part 9: Heroism in the Time of Corona

The Coronapocalypse Part 11: Beyond Heroic Materialism

The Coronapocalypse Part 12: The End of the Story (or is it?)

The Coronapocalypse Part 16: Dude, where’s my economy?

The Coronapocalypse Part 17: Dropping the c-word (conspiracy)

The Coronapocalypse Part 18: Effects and Side Effects

The Coronapocalypse Part 19: Government and Mass Hysteria

The Coronapocalypse Part 22: The Trauma of Bullshit Jobs

The Coronapocalypse Part 24: The Dangers of Prediction

The Coronapocalypse Part 25: It’s just semantics, mate

The Coronapocalypse Part 29: A Philosophical Interlude

The Coronapocalypse Part 30: The Rebellious Children

The Coronapocalypse Part 33: Everything free except freedom

The Coronapocalypse Part 34: Into the Twilight Zone

The Coronapocalypse Part 35: The Land of the Unfree and the Home of the Safe

The Coronapocalypse Part 36: The Devouring Mother Book Now Available

The Coronapocalypse Part 0: Why you shouldn’t listen to a word I say (maybe)

The Coronapocalypse Part 26: The Devouring Mother

All human control comes to an end when the individual is caught in a mass movement. Then, the archetypes begin to function, as happens, also, in the lives of individuals when they are confronted with situations that cannot be dealt with in any of the familiar ways.
Carl Jung, Essay on Wotan.

Way back in the very first essay in this series, I stated that my position on corona was that it was a mass hysteria facilitated by the internet. The cornerstone of my analysis was that we invoked what I call The Plague Story even though corona is clearly not in the magnitude of a plague (pandemic). This raised the question of why that happened and throughout the other posts in the series I have been working through a number of different answers to that question some of them cultural, some political and some psychological. But I have always had the nagging feeling that I was missing something fundamental. Then recently I finally got around to reading Carl Jung’s essay on Wotan, which was his explanation for the Nazi phenomena, and suddenly it clicked. It was the above quote which really struck home not least because Jung uses the phrase “mass movement” which is almost the same as my “mass hysteria”. It’s in a mass movement that the archetypes begin to function according to Jung. For WW1 and the Nazi movement he identified Wotan as the driving archetype. So, I started to think about what archetype has been driving corona and now I think I may have the answer or at least the beginnings of an answer.

Jung believed the archetypes to have an autonomous existence. They existed independently of humans but were the driver of much human behaviour. When Jung asserts that Wotan was driving the events in Nazi Germany he means that literally. In less secular ages, one would have said that Hitler was possessed (by the devil) and that’s kind of what Jung meant too. Because we cannot say that Hitler was possessed by the devil, we have simply turned Hitler into the devil. What earlier societies would have called “evil” we call “Nazi” or “fascist”. The meaning is identical but our words have a quasi-secular ring to them. Jung’s way of thinking is at odds with the extremist materialist philosophy that dominates current Western thought. The archetypes are not testable and not amenable to the scientific reductionism that is our default criterion for truthfulness. Of course, corona has revealed the deep flaws that exist in applying scientific reductionism to the living and breathing biological and psychological world that we all live in. What better time to expand our criteria for truthfulness.

I got my first inkling that corona was touching on something deep and dark down in the depths of the psyche from a couple of direct encounters with some people I know. Obviously, there have been all kinds of crazy things to be seen on television and the internet throughout corona, but it was two face-to-face conversations that really struck me as odd early on. The first one took place at the end of the first lockdown here in Melbourne. During a conversation with a person I have known for quite a while the subject of corona came up. I said something that contradicted the dominant narrative. I didn’t say it in a confrontational manner or to make any kind of broader point. It was just an offhand comment delivered in a very casual and non-threatening way. Nevertheless, the person I was talking to raised their right arm over their chest in an involuntary protective gesture as if I was about to punch them. What was especially weird about it was that they seemingly did not realise they had done it. It was a purely unconscious reaction and something I had never seen from this person or any other person that I can recall in my life. It struck me as deeply weird at the time but I didn’t really think much more about it.

A second example was another person I know who was, up until 2020, a logical and rational person; arguably too logical and too rational. The subject of corona came up in a conversation and with this person I was more forthcoming in my views as he was somebody I thought I might be able to have a rational conversation with. I was wrong. But what was notable was not that we disagreed but that his argumentation was completely illogical. This is a person who makes his living from logic and would in any other circumstances be fully aware that he was speaking basic logical fallacies. As the conversation proceeded, nothing he said made sense. It’s one thing to disagree with somebody, it’s quite another when their entire argument is clearly illogical. It was like talking to a different person or, rather, like talking to a zombie. In both of these cases, I got a very strong sense that something had ‘possessed’ these two people. I simply wasn’t dealing with the same person I had once known. It is only in the last few weeks that I have started to think more about Jungian psychology and have taken seriously the idea that these people and millions more like them really have been possessed by something. In and through them, a force has been at work. An archetype has taken over our lives in the same way that an archetype took over at the beginning of WW1 and continued right on through the Nazi regime until the end of WW2. Unlike Jung, I am not familiar enough with mythology to come up with a Wotan equivalent, so I’ll just use one of Jung’s own archetypes to explain it: The Devouring Mother.

We all know The Devouring Mother at some level as it is an extension of the natural relationship between child and mother which needs to exist in the early stages of life when the infant is completely reliant on the mother for its existence. In the normal course of development, the child learns to become successively more independent of its mother but along the way there will be times when the mother is too over-protective. Mostly, the child will try to assert independence and the mother hopefully will yield it as appropriate. It’s when the mother does not yield that things can start to go wrong and if the mother is not yielding due to her own insecurities leading to her not wanting to let go at all, she can become a Devouring Mother. The Devouring Mother archetype occurs when both mother and child are in a dysfunctional relationship of co-dependence in which the mother is just as trapped as the child. The guilt, however, lies with the mother as it is the parent’s duty to ensure the child’s proper development. Of course, the process of letting go is not easy. Many mothers cry, for example, on the first day the child goes to school for this occasion represents the growing independence of the child. Similarly, in tribal societies, when the male child (for it was almost always the male) was taken away for initiation the mother would wail and cry as the boy was now becoming a man and the mother’s role in his life was about to be changed forever.

It is precisely this autonomy that The Devouring Mother prevents her child from attaining. She wants it to remain perpetually dependent and she does this out of her own insecurity and selfishness. The key reason why The Devouring Mother is relevant to our context, however, is because one of the main ways The Devouring Mother attempts to hide her intentions is on the pretext of protecting the child. This protection is necessary when the child is an infant. The problem occurs when that protection turns into over-protection and hampers the child’s development but that is something that will happen slowly and almost invisibly until one day you wake up and you’ve got a 30 year old grown man living in his parents’ basement playing computer games all day. Just last week, the Prime Minister of Australia, whose Treasurer had just delivered a “woman’s budget” (perhaps we should call it a “Devouring Mother’s budget”), said that his primary mission was to “keep Australians safe”. But that is exactly the excuse that devouring mothers use. Is that just a coincidence? Not according to Jung. According to Jung it would be a synchronicity and evidence that an archetype is at work.

A feature of The Devouring Mother is that she gaslights her children. This happens in two seemingly contradictory ways. On the one hand, she won’t allow any criticism of them at all even when it is necessary and justified. Rather, she suffocates them with false praise. The author D H Lawrence, who wrote a lot about the devouring mother phenomenon as he believed his mother to have been a prime example, once wrote in a letter “I feel I am all the time rescuing my niece and nephew from their mothers, my two sisters; who have jaguars of wrath in their souls, however they purr to their offspring.” One sees this purring in the modern world in corporate marketing. One of the weirdest examples I ever saw was a tweet saying how much Corporation X really loved “you” from the bottom of its heart. You may write this off as marketing bullshit, but it’s bullshit that sounds exactly like a Devouring Mother.

While dishing out false praise and empty promises of eternal love on the one hand, The Devouring Mother will be extremely critical, even violent, with her children if ever they should say or do something that threatens the co-dependence relationship that the mother seeks. This gaslighting has the effect of preventing the child becoming intellectually and emotionally independent, a key part of its overall development. Remember when you were told that if you didn’t support the lockdowns it meant you wanted old people to die? That kind of emotional manipulation is par for the course with The Devouring Mother. There are a thousand and one other ways to keep the elderly safe that don’t involve locking healthy people in their house, but those are never discussed. The Victorian Premier, Dan Andrews, showing that The Devouring Mother can take male form, gave what I think might be one of the most succinct expressions of this kind of gaslighting last year. He was asked by a reporter whether he was concerned that his measures, which included curfews and five kilometre travel restrictions, were a violation of human rights. He replied “would you prefer to be on a ventilator?” This was a complete non sequitur. Only the tiniest fraction of the population had any chance of ending up on a ventilator but one hundred percent of the population had had their humans rights removed. The Premier could have answered in a logical, rational way. Instead, he chose to gaslight. That’s how The Devouring Mother operates. None of the governments in Australia has ever, as far as I know, released the “science” they have supposedly been using to justify their decisions. In the adult working world, we communicate to each other based on facts and models. A democracy is supposed to involve public debate about those facts and models. But in the sickly sweet world of The Devouring Mother, we are kept in the dark and given only one option: to acquiesce.

For those who don’t acquiesce, The Devouring Mother is also perfectly capable of violence as our police forces have shown us. What was particularly interesting about the police response, certainly here in Australia, was that it was unnecessarily brutal and heavy-handed to the point where it seemed counter-productive. The police seemed to be going out of their way to generate resentment. Their behaviour, like the behaviour of my two conversation partners, seemed out of character as if having a source somewhere other than reason. Were the police also playing the role of The Devouring Mother and lashing out against minor indiscretions out of a sense of insecurity? The most heavy-handed policing has been employed against otherwise law abiding citizens who happened to disobey a corona commandment. One Australian example which went viral was a pregnant woman being handcuffed in front of her children in her own home but there were countless others. Meanwhile, mass protests such as BLM were seemingly given a free pass. At a time when politicians were calling for unity, they engaged in favouritism. It doesn’t make any logical sense but it does make sense within The Devouring Mother archetype. The Devouring Mother is happy to play her children off against each other. Such emotional manipulations help her maintain the co-dependence relationship.

To my mind, one of the defining features of corona is the seemingly complete disregard for the effect of our response on children. This is even more puzzling as it’s a simple statistical fact that corona is less dangerous to children than the average flu. This should have been a matter for rejoicing. Instead, in many places children have been kept out of school and, even when allowed to go to school, forced to wear masks and undergo other unnecessary interventions. In Germany, children are now forced to test themselves for corona at the start of the school day. Just this week, a video went viral of a ten year old boy explaining what he has had to go through at school in the US. What he describes is Devouring Mother behaviour coming from his teachers. This is yet another synchronicity and evidence that the archetype is at work. The Devouring Mother only pretends to be acting to protect her child but with corona there was essentially nothing to protect them from. That would have made a difference if logic was at play. But logic was not at play.

In a similar vein is the mask. The mask is perhaps the ultimate symbol of The Devouring Mother. It purports to keep the wearer safe even though there is no scientific evidence for this claim and plenty of randomised control trials that show masks are useless. Worse than useless in fact, as we are only now starting to see some evidence of the effects of long term mask wearing which causes the wearer to inhale more carbon dioxide than is considered safe among other problems. In any case, you didn’t need scientific studies to see that the authorities were making it up as they went. We were initially told that masks were counterproductive and could actually cause more spread of disease as they would be used improperly. Then they became recommended. Then mandatory. Then the recommendation was to wear two. Arbitrary dictates given without rhyme or reason are a feature of The Devouring Mother. What she desires is simple subservience and that’s what the mask represents: a very public display of obedience. With mouths covered, the children of The Devouring Mother will not answer back, will not demand their rights, will not ask awkward questions. Silent obedience is what The Devouring Mother wants and, at least symbolically, the mask gives her that. Once again, I must quote the State Premier of Victoria who gave us another perfect example of The Devouring Mother at play on the subject of masks. After four months of lockdown and with cases finally back at zero, restrictions had eased in Melbourne. We were heading into summer but masks were still mandatory in enclosed spaces. Some people, perhaps looking to other Australian states where nobody had to wear a mask, started relaxing their behaviour and wearing their masks below the nose. Andrews tweeted on a Sunday morning something like “Good morning to everybody, except those wearing their masks below the nose.” Why was the Premier engaging in unnecessarily divisive behaviour? The risk was over and, even if it wasn’t, his tweet was not going to convince a single person to cover their nose. It was inexplicable as a political tactic unless the point was not achieve an outcome but simply to reward the ‘good children’, to make them feel good and to separate them from the ‘bad children’.

The Devouring Mother has been ascendant in the West for several decades. We see her in the metastatic bloat of the modern medical industry especially in the United States where The Devouring Mother will happily bankrupt you for a simple trip to the hospital. We see her in the relentless gaslighting of the modern media, the ideological drivel that comes out of the universities and our hallucinatory political debate which somehow manages to avoid all contact with reality and all genuine issues of politics. We also see her in a less obvious place, which is the rise of Jordan Peterson from being an obscure Canadian professor of psychology to being a worldwide phenomenon. His rise to fame touches on the other half of The Devouring Mother relationship: the children. If Dan Andrews was appealing to the ‘good’ children with his tweet, he was also singling out the ‘bad’ children. In fact, these are the only two pathways available to the child of The Devouring Mother: to rebel or to acquiesce. Jordan Peterson has offered an entire generation, in particular the young men of that generation, raised by The Devouring Mother a way to rebel primarily by the simple act of striving for autonomy and independence. That Peterson would be considered a revolutionary figure speaks to how far The Devouring Mother has become dominant. Most of Peterson’s teachings are what would once have been considered plain common sense but in the world of gaslighting and emotional manipulation that we now find ourselves in, common sense threatens the entire order. Whatever one thinks of Peterson and his ideas, there can be no doubt whatsoever that he tapped into a deep emotional vein. His book “10 Rules for Life” could just as well be called “10 Rules for Breaking Free of The Devouring Mother”. Rule 1: clean your bedroom. Do something for yourself. Show some initiative. In an older time, you cleaned your bedroom or you’d get your backside smacked. But now cleaning your bedroom becomes a political act. It shows the first inklings of individual will, the development of autonomy that so terrifies The Devouring Mother. Peterson’s infamous interview with Cathy Newman was a direct symbolic confrontation between The Devouring Mother and a strict disciplinarian father. It had a surreal feel to it. It barely existed on the logical and rational plane but seemed like a battle between archetypes in the unconscious itself. Much more could be said about this because if The Devouring Mother is dominant, where exactly is the father and what sort of father is he? But that would lead us too far astray for now.

If Peterson offered a way out to the children who wanted to rebel, what of the other children; the ones who have acquiesced? Such children have been given false praise while being protected from any and all criticism about themselves and their work. On the other hand, they have become exquisitely sensitive to the veiled barbs and emotional warfare that goes on in the household of The Devouring Mother. For them, objective reality is of no concern. They are apt to see a psychological and political agenda behind every utterance because that is exactly what has been behind their relationship with their mother (where ‘mother’ can be both literal and symbolic for the state). When they are eventually forced to confront the real world with all its messiness, it is no surprise that they demand ‘safe spaces’. It’s also no surprise that their politics does not seek any actual outcomes but rather is all based entirely around establishing the ‘good people’ and the ‘bad people’ where there are no shades of grey but only absolutes, including an absolute assurance in one’s own self-righteousness.

Children who acquiesce and become part of the co-dependent relationship with the mother can be expected to have not developed into fully autonomous adults. One would expect them to have problems with exercising their will and finding motivation from within rather than without. As it happens, a random social media post I saw during corona provides the perfect example of that. It was during the Melbourne lockdown that happened right in the middle the Australian Open tennis earlier this year. On the Saturday morning on which the lockdown began, a young woman posted how nice it was to wake up during lockdown because it meant she had nothing to do and could happily lie in bed. Such a statement reveals a complete lack of willpower and autonomy. It takes almost no willpower to organise to do nothing on a Saturday but even that simple task must be beyond this person. When the government did it on her behalf, she apparently breathed a sigh of relief. Some have called this attitude Stockholm Syndrome but it is just another aspect of The Devouring Mother archetype. More specifically, the child who has acquiesced and almost doesn’t exist as a separate, adult person separate from the mother. Praising the government for allowing you to sleep in on a Saturday morning is surely one of the most surreal expressions of that mentality. When given in this form it reveals, I think, very clearly the psychological aspect of what is going on deep down: the attachment to the “mother” in the form of the state.

The phrase Nanny State was coined about fifty years ago in Britain to describe the prevailing form of government which took hold post WW2. Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada all share this kind of interventionist government, far more than the USA and so it can be no surprise that The Devouring Mother found the most fertile soil in those countries and perhaps nowhere more than here in Australia. We have let The Devouring Mother run rampant. I’m not aware of any other country which is preventing their citizens from leaving the country. Even New Zealand, with nanny-in-chief, Jacinda Ardern, at the helm, allows that. In Australia, we have had internal state borders closed and even the ‘borders’ around Melbourne shut for four months in one of the longest lockdowns in the world. State Premiers have left residents stranded and unable to return to their houses with snap border closures. Australian citizens languish overseas unable to get home and recently we went an extra step and even made it illegal for our own citizens to return if they have been in India recently. Once again, none of this has a basis in logic or reason. It is the vindictiveness of The Devouring Mother on display. The ‘bad’ children who left the state or the country apparently don’t deserve our ‘love’.

Right from the start of corona, our tinpot dictator State Premiers acted like all their Christmases had come at once. In a tweet quickly deleted, Dan Andrews expressed his delight at a photo of an empty freeway that would normally have been full during peak hour. He later felt the need to assure us that he wasn’t “enjoying this” as he gave his daily press briefing where, like a good Devouring Mother, he was most anxious to let us know just who was responsible for keeping us safe. He was also not averse to blaming us when things went wrong, including when the wrongdoing was clearly the fault of the government. No surprise then that while much of the US is returning to normal, Australia is in limbo and Canada has decided that now is the time for strict lockdowns to try and control a virus that is endemic. Americans have been up in arms about the liberties they have forgone but they look on with horror at what has happened here or in Canada. On this front, the cultural differences between us and the US are very pronounced. Of course, the US once went to war against its “mother” and it celebrates “Independence Day” as a result. One can see why The Devouring Mother would not get as much hold there.

It is a final and telling synchronicity that with corona we were locked in our houses. The household has always been the domain of the female and especially the mother. As a boy, I briefly shared a house with my mother, grandmother and great-grandmother as well as their respective husbands. It was the women who ruled the household. Woe betide the man who dared step foot in the kitchen. The men were usually elsewhere, at work or at the club. If they were home, they were in the shed. The household was very clearly the domain of the woman and children. The development of the individual takes place as they successively remove themselves from the household, firstly with schooling, then a social life and finally as they move out and become autonomous adults. With corona we were all returned back to the household, back to childhood, back to our mothers. Defenceless as we were supposed to be against the virus, we once again needed the care and protection of our surrogate mother: the State. “I’m sick of being treated like a child” is a refrain I’ve heard many times over the past year but that opinion is apparently in the minority.

What does all this portend for the future? The strange thing about The Devouring Mother is how powerless she really is. All her gaslighting is just sound and fury, signifying nothing. If it were to end tomorrow, we would remember it as nothing more than a delirious fever dream. Her power depends entirely on the willingness of the child to put up with it. Once the child is big enough to decide to go its own way, there is nothing much the mother can do about it. Right now in western society, the actions of The Devouring Mother are on full and open display. But, almost by definition, that implies the strain in the relationship. When things are good, The Devouring Mother relies on false flattery and feigned niceness. Right now, we are in full on vindictive mode. 24/7 media gaslighting, censorship of even the most tame dissenting opinion and de-platforming are now daily occurrences. There is an element of desperation in the whole thing and there should be because the pathway we have taken has no endpoint. That is not a problem for The Devouring Mother. She does not want an endpoint. She wants the co-dependence to continue indefinitely. That’s why the case of Australia is so fascinating because our Devouring Mother did her job and kept us safe. But now there’s no way out of the house. We are permanently grounded. It will eventually have to be acknowledged that we must open the borders and expose ourselves to danger once again. How that can be done while keeping up the illusion of safety is a massive political challenge that our current Prime Minister clearly has no idea how to solve because it is not solvable. It is not solvable until the children demand their independence. That can happen at any time. It is what has happened in Texas and Florida and other states in the US. As soon as the public demands that this be over, it will be over. There may be vindictiveness and even violence, but it will be short lived. Each country will now have its own dynamic about how this plays out. The USA is already on the way. Canada, Australia and New Zealand not so much. If Australia has provided the most fertile ground for The Devouring Mother archetype to take hold in the last year, it’s also true she will not so easily relinquish her grip here. But eventually reality will have to be reckoned with. In the process, we could see some serious psychological-political meltdowns. Then there is the larger question of where The Devouring Mother goes from here. If she has been ascendant in the last decades and if corona represents a brief takeover, does she relinquish the newfound power or try to hold onto it? If she does relinquish it, do we go back to where we were or does she lose hold altogether? Again, this is not really going to be determined by the mother. We know what she wants: never ending co-dependence. The question is what do the children want. Is their spirit broken or will they find the will and the energy to demand their autonomy? I fear the former is more true than the latter but only time will tell.

All posts in this series:-

The Coronapocalypse Part 1: The Madness of Crowds in the Age of the Internet

The Coronapocalypse Part 6: The Economics of Pandemic

The Coronapocalypse Part 7: There’s Nothing Novel under the Sun

The Coronapocalypse Part 8: Germ Theory and Its Discontents

The Coronapocalypse Part 9: Heroism in the Time of Corona

The Coronapocalypse Part 11: Beyond Heroic Materialism

The Coronapocalypse Part 12: The End of the Story (or is it?)

The Coronapocalypse Part 16: Dude, where’s my economy?

The Coronapocalypse Part 17: Dropping the c-word (conspiracy)

The Coronapocalypse Part 18: Effects and Side Effects

The Coronapocalypse Part 19: Government and Mass Hysteria

The Coronapocalypse Part 22: The Trauma of Bullshit Jobs

The Coronapocalypse Part 24: The Dangers of Prediction

The Coronapocalypse Part 25: It’s just semantics, mate

The Coronapocalypse Part 29: A Philosophical Interlude

The Coronapocalypse Part 30: The Rebellious Children

The Coronapocalypse Part 33: Everything free except freedom

The Coronapocalypse Part 34: Into the Twilight Zone

The Coronapocalypse Part 35: The Land of the Unfree and the Home of the Safe

The Coronapocalypse Part 36: The Devouring Mother Book Now Available

The Coronapocalypse Part 0: Why you shouldn’t listen to a word I say (maybe)

The Coronapocalypse Part 25: It’s just semantics, mate

Back in the first year of my linguistics degree there was an exchange between our lecturer and one of the students in the class. The lecturer had asked a question and the student had given an answer. The answer was correct and was, in fairness to the student, a succinct and elegant single sentence. The problem was that lecturer clearly wanted a one word answer where the word was one of the technical terms that we had been studying. That word was polysemy, which denotes the state of affairs when a word carries multiple meanings. The lecturer bluntly told the student his answer was wrong and that the correct answer was ‘polysemy’. The student objected to this saying that even though he hadn’t recited the word he had got the meaning of the concept right and that was what was important. The lecturer, a little annoyed at this show of impudence, informed the class that we were students of linguistics and one of our main tasks was to learn the technical terminology of the field as we might one day become scholars and we would be expected to use that terminology to enable precision in our work. In one sense, the lecturer’s rant was a little over the top. One in three people now get a university education and only the smallest fraction of those will ever become scholars. But she was dead right about the precision part. Especially in the sciences where maths is not the main language of communication, it is vital to define terminology. It is because polysemy is very common in natural language that science must use words which are disambiguated as much as possible so that you don’t have to continually ask whether a scholar meant meaning one or meaning two when they use a word.

This issue of precision of language carried over from my linguistics studies into my current job as a software tester. The job of the tester is to find bugs in the software and beginner testers are very happy to find bugs as this demonstrates that they are doing their job. But after some years you begin to notice patterns in the errors. For example, incompetence or laziness on the part of the programmer (both of these are relatively rare, at least in decent software departments). One of the most common causes of errors is imprecision of language. As such, experienced software testers tend to become sticklers for meaning. This is partly because vague terminology leads to extra test cases. By excluding meanings of words you also exclude the need to run test cases for those extra meanings and you therefore reduce your workload. That’s the personal benefit a tester gets from clarifying meanings. But a second reason is that vague meanings lead to miscommunication and that’s where errors come in at the team level. Person One thinks the requirements mean this but Person Two thinks they mean that. Unless the two of them get together and talk through the meanings of the words, there will be errors. Experienced software testers who are good at their job know that making people clarify language upfront will reduce bugs later on.

Ever tried to cutting meat or vegetables with a blunt knife? It’s difficult and the result is usually not pretty. Sharpen that knife up and the job becomes easy, even pleasurable. Same with words. In domains where logic and rigor are required, such as science and software development, words must be sharpened to a fine point. But a surprising number of people take the attitude of the student in that first year linguistics class. I’ve lost count of the number of times I have been told “it’s just semantics” by people who should know better. It’s not just semantics. Choice of words and meanings directly affects outcomes. This is true even in politics where the battle is usually over language. Politicians wouldn’t spend so much time and energy fighting over the meanings of words if those words didn’t make a difference.

The words used during the corona event to denote the foundational scientific terms that should, in theory, be guiding our understanding have ranged from ambiguous to blatantly corrupt to nonsensical. This is partly just because of the contortions imposed by politics and media and partly because there are some genuine philosophical issues in the underlying science. Let’s do a lightning overview of some of the key concepts that have been at play.

Virus

Viruses are deeply strange things. They are not alive and do not reproduce sexually. This makes them an edge case within the field of biology where the existing taxonomy implied sexual reproduction. This difficulty is reflected in the fact that the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses has changed its criteria for categorising viruses three times in the last twenty years. The most recent change was in 2012. As I pointed out in post 8 in this series, there was strong dissent about that change. Many virologists believe that the whole concept of species does not apply to viruses. They say that Wittgensteinian family resemblance is the best way to categorise viruses. This means that no single criterion or discrete set of criteria can define a virus and you could theoretically have two viruses that are ‘the same’ even though they do not share all the same properties. This breaks the rules of logic (more specifically, Wittgenstein was challenging the validity of logic) and is not what we think of as ‘hard science’. It’s easy to see why virologists would prefer a system which seems more rigorous even if the rigor is largely illusory.

Bear in mind that, within the current rules, sars-cov-2 is a strain of the sars-cov species of virus. If, as some virologists argue, the species concept does not apply to viruses then strains are even less valid and all these variants we keep hearing about are just illusions. Even if you believe the species concept applies, currently the boundaries are worked out by mathematical analysis. That is, the difference between variant A and variant B is a genetic analysis alone. Who gets to define the boundaries? On what scientific basis is somebody allowed to declare a ‘new’ variant? Is there any disagreement? Any peer review process? Any way to test if the boundary is wrong?

2) Disease

Cambridge dictionary has several definitions for disease but two are most relevant to our purposes.

An illness caused by infection or a failure of health rather than an accident;

a condition of a person, animal, or plant in which its body or structure is harmed because an organ or part is unable to work as it usually does

Straight away there are all kinds of problems with these definitions. In the first, an attempt is made to distinguish a ‘failure of health’ and infection from accident. But surely viral infection is accidental. Viruses are not alive. They have no will of their own as far as we know. Being infected with a virus is accidental according to the dictionary meaning of that word.

The second meaning, which refers to damage to cells and structures of the body is not much better. The cells of our body are ‘harmed’, in fact, destroyed all the time. You’ve probably heard the bit about how all the cells in your body are replaced every seven years. It’s not quite as simple as that but it’s a good approximation. Some cells, such as skin cells and cells in the stomach lining die and are replaced every few days. If cells ceasing to work is the criterion for disease, we are in a permanently diseased state by nature. When a weightlifter goes to the gym, they are deliberately ‘harming’ the cells and sub-structures of their body. Lifting heavy weights tears the muscles but the weightlifter knows that it’s the response of the body to repair the damage which leads to muscle gain. Given enough food and rest, the body will not just repair the muscles but make them thicker and stronger for next time which means that the weightlifter will be able to lift heavier weight. According to the above definition, weightlifting is a disease.

These simplistic definitions quickly lead to nonsense unless we understand our body as a system responding to the larger systems that comprise its environment. The body attempts to achieve equilibrium or what is called homeostasis. The fluctuations around homeostasis usually occur within regular boundaries and this is called health or the state of being healthy. When the body is pushed outside of those bounds it mounts a response to return to homeostasis. In the case of the weightlifter, this response involves the rebuilding of muscle and ligament. In the case of a broken bone, the healing of that bone. In the case of viral infection, antibodies and other immune system adaptations. Viral infection provides a nice case study here. The body is exposed to viruses all the time and deals with them without trouble. If a virus gets out of control, it throws the body out of homeostasis. The body responds by causing fever and other symptoms. In essence, it diverts resources away from other sub-systems so that as much metabolic energy as possible can be used to fight the infection. That’s why the best thing to do is go to bed and wait for the fever to pass. Other symptoms such as coughing and sneezing are part of the body’s response.

What the dictionary meanings are missing is the element of time. Nietzsche famously said that what doesn’t kill me makes me stronger. A less poetic but more accurate version might be ‘whatever I recover from makes me stronger’. On the other side of a heavy weightlifting session, you are back to homeostasis but with thicker and stronger muscles and ligaments and denser bones. On the other side of a viral infection, you are back to equilibrium but now armed with antibodies to fight that virus and related viruses in the future. In both cases, you are better adapted to your environment; the artificial one you created with your weightlifting and the natural one that your body must deal with every day in the microbiological world.

3. Feeling Sick

Disease would be complicated enough but a big extra layer of complexity is added due to psychological and mental factors that accompany it. It is possible to be diseased and not know it which is called anosognosia. Errol Morris has a brilliant series of essays on the subject. Conversely, it’s possible to think you are sick even though you aren’t which is called somatic symptom disorder. Isn’t it funny how children start to get sick right before having to go to school? Or what about the employee feeling down in the dumps just before having to go to work on a sunny Monday morning. Both of course will make a miraculous recovery mid-morning. These cases are not just outright lies (well, sometimes they are). It is possible to make yourself feel sick. It is even possible for the mind to create the physical symptoms themselves. Perhaps the most dramatic example of this is phantom pregnancy where the women in question show all the signs of pregnancy without actually being pregnant. I once met a doctor from India at a social function and I asked her what was the main difference she noticed between Australia and India. “In India, my patients were actually sick,” she said. She estimated about half her patients were not really sick but were making it up whether at a conscious or, more commonly, subconscious level. This observation fits with the official statistics which state that most disease in wealthy countries is neuropsychiatric in nature.

The point is that feeling sick and being diseased are not the same thing. Again, weightlifting provides a nice example to explain this. The day after a heavy training session you might feel tired, lethargic and sore. You may even feel pain. Part of learning weightlifting is learning to distinguish between genuine injury (disease) and ‘normal’ pain that comes from adaptation. Similarly, once you’ve had the flu a couple of times, you learn to recognise it and you don’t worry about it. You know that if you go to bed for a few days you’ll be fine. But when somebody tells you you’ve got a brand new disease you’re going to worry. How much that worry contributes to outcomes is a question our science doesn’t want to answer. We look for physical causes alone and consider all that psychological stuff to be just epiphenomena. Except we know that it isn’t just epiphenomena. Mass hysteria is a real thing and there are countless examples of groups of people all thinking they were sick when they weren’t.

4. Viral Disease

Technically, viral disease occurs whenever a single cell in your body is infected by a virus. Some have noted that with the corona event we are all sick until proven healthy. More specifically, our public health bureaucrats consider us diseased if even a single cell is infected with a virus. There are all kinds of problems with this:-

The PCR test does not prove a current or past infection
Even if you have an infection, it doesn’t mean you are or will get sick
Even if you have an infection, it does not mean you are or will be infectious or how infectious you will be
Even if you are infectious, it does not mean other people will actually get infected. (That depends on all kinds of environmental factors)
Even if other people do get infected, it doesn’t mean they will get sick or become infectious

Note how the technical definition here differs from the lay definition. The thing any of us care about is feeling sick i.e. coming down with a fever or a cough or, in a worst case scenario, a pneumonia. These are what we can call ‘system level’ issues. With an asymptomatic rate of about 50%, most people would have sailed through corona blissfully unaware that they were ‘diseased’. Nevertheless, a public health bureaucrat considers them diseased and that’s true by the dictionary definition. Prior to corona, a public health bureaucrat only cared about you if you showed actual signs of disease (system-level symptoms). Now they care about you at the cellular level. That is the wonderful bit of ‘progress’ that the misuse of the PCR has brought us.

5. Pandemic

For all of human history until 2020, a pandemic was recognised by external symptoms of disease (note: PCR tests were widely available for the 2009 Swine Flu false alarm but there was not enough to go around and the US CDC had to restrict their use to those who were hospitalised). The corona event started in the traditional fashion i.e. some doctors in Wuhan thought they noticed something unusual in their pneumonia patients. Those doctors reported their concerns to the China CDC who showed up and, within a couple of weeks, were using the PCR test to diagnose ‘infection’. The rest, as they say, is history.

The dictionary meaning of pandemic is a disease that has spread across a wide geographical area. According to this definition, there is therefore a permanent global pandemic of cold and flu viruses including coronaviruses. That is why, prior to 2009, the WHO’s definition of pandemic included a criterion for ‘enormous numbers of deaths and illness’. This criterion enabled us to separate a genuine pandemic from the usual cold and flu cycles. But in 2009, that criterion was dropped by the WHO. Because of that change, we are technically in a permanent pandemic of every cold and flu virus. Because the symptoms shown by sufferers of these viral diseases are indistinguishable, we lump them all, including the known coronaviruses, into a category called influenza-like illness. But in 2020, the WHO decided that this ‘new’ coronavirus would not be lumped into that category but would have its own category called ‘covid’ even though the symptoms of ‘covid’ are no different to any other cold or flu virus. Was there a formal process to make the decision? Were the reasons made public? Is there a procedure to object to the decision on scientific grounds? The answer seems to be: No.

These changes are groundbreaking. Public health bureaucrats now reserve the right to declare any new respiratory virus a ‘new’ disease and to label you as diseased based on a PCR test result for that virus. They then reserve the right to label infections of that new virus a pandemic even if the level of serious illness in the community is not severe. If ever there was an example to show why semantics are important it has to be that. In 2020, we were locked in our houses because of semantics.

6. Herd Immunity

Way back at the start of corona some old fashioned epidemiologists came out and said that lockdowns were the worst thing we could do. What we should do, they argued, was protect the old and immuno-compromised. The best way to do that was to have them stay at home while everybody else got infected as quickly as possible leading to herd immunity. For reasons that I still don’t understand, the counter-message floating around at that time was that we didn’t know that herd immunity could be achieved for a new virus. That was an extraordinary claim. It’s a bit like saying we don’t know whether gravity would exist on a new planet. Herd immunity is not just one of the foundational concept of epidemiology, it’s straight up common sense. Humans have only survived to this day because of herd immunity. How else could it be so?

But not any more according to the WHO which changed the definition in October 2020 so that herd immunity is now all about vaccines. They now say that herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus not exposing them to it. Note the choice of language here. The wording somehow implies that humans now have the power to choose whether we are exposed to viruses or not (I touched on the importance of this change in my post on Acts of Nature). Of course, even if you somehow had individual choice and you chose to expose yourself to a virus rather than get vaccinated you would not be contributing to herd immunity any more. That can only happen by vaccination from now on.

This change of definition seems to me completely indefensible on scientific grounds. I was prepared to cut the WHO some slack early on in the corona event but no longer. It is clearly a corrupt organisation.

The result of this? Public health bureaucrats reserve the right to declare you diseased even if you aren’t sick and to say that the ONLY way to cure your ‘disease’ is by administration of a vaccine.

7. Cause of Death

The first thing to be said about cause of death is that, even in normal times, it is wrong about 1/3^rd of the time. That is, the cause of death put on a death certificate by a doctor or pathologists is incorrect in about 30% of cases that are reviewed by an autopsy. Now, add to that baseline level of inaccuracy the psychological biases caused by a purported pandemic then add to that the political pressures. For example, there have been countless anecdotes floating around about how some family member died in the last year and the family was asked if corona could be placed as the cause of death so that the institution in question could receive the extra government money paid for corona cases. Cause of death is often difficult to determine and a PCR test doesn’t help. All the problems with the PCR as a tool for diagnosing infection apply to the cause of death. Just because you tested positive does not mean the infection played a meaningful role in your death and, even if the infection was serious, we know that in about 95% of cases there is at least one other co-morbidity. I recall early on hearing a statistic that about 50% of ‘corona deaths’ had four or more co-morbidities. This makes sense when you consider that the average age of death ‘from corona’ is the average life expectancy in most places. The people dying are the elderly and the elderly have co-morbidities.

Dying with four co-morbidities is like a zebra being killed by a pack of hyenas. Sure, it might be one of the hyenas that delivered the bite that finally ended the struggle but that hyena on its own wouldn’t have killed the zebra. It took the whole team. But with corona we have pretended that the hyena that delivered the killer bite was really a lion.

8. Excess Mortality

Excess mortality implies an average and the first question of any average is what is the standard deviation. But even if you know the standard deviation, that doesn’t give you certainty. The stock market deviates around an average most of the time and then it crashes. In Australia, the bushfire season deviates around an average and then you get a major inferno. There are things that can be done to prevent the size of a stock market crash and the size of a bushfire and those things absolutely should be done but what you can’t do is prevent them altogether, not without destroying the system i.e. preventing a free market or chopping down all the trees. The same goes for viral disease. There absolutely are measures that can and should be taken but those measures should not destroy society. That is the line we crossed in the last year.

All posts in this series:-

The Coronapocalypse Part 1: The Madness of Crowds in the Age of the Internet

The Coronapocalypse Part 6: The Economics of Pandemic

The Coronapocalypse Part 7: There’s Nothing Novel under the Sun

The Coronapocalypse Part 8: Germ Theory and Its Discontents

The Coronapocalypse Part 9: Heroism in the Time of Corona

The Coronapocalypse Part 11: Beyond Heroic Materialism

The Coronapocalypse Part 12: The End of the Story (or is it?)

The Coronapocalypse Part 16: Dude, where’s my economy?

The Coronapocalypse Part 17: Dropping the c-word (conspiracy)

The Coronapocalypse Part 18: Effects and Side Effects

The Coronapocalypse Part 19: Government and Mass Hysteria

The Coronapocalypse Part 22: The Trauma of Bullshit Jobs

The Coronapocalypse Part 24: The Dangers of Prediction

The Coronapocalypse Part 25: It’s just semantics, mate

The Coronapocalypse Part 29: A Philosophical Interlude

The Coronapocalypse Part 30: The Rebellious Children

The Coronapocalypse Part 33: Everything free except freedom

The Coronapocalypse Part 34: Into the Twilight Zone

The Coronapocalypse Part 35: The Land of the Unfree and the Home of the Safe

The Coronapocalypse Part 36: The Devouring Mother Book Now Available

The Coronapocalypse Part 0: Why you shouldn’t listen to a word I say (maybe)

The Coronapocalypse Part 24: The Dangers of Prediction

One of the many curious (to use the politest word possible) features of the corona event has been how seemingly all the institutions of society failed at the same time. Governments failed to use their power to counteract the hysteria leading to a panic response that has made everything far worse than it needed to be. Opposition parties failed to critique the government’s failure. The media has resembled a rabid mob egging on a fight in a high school playground. With a few exceptions, the courts have done nothing to protect civil liberties. And the public has also done nothing to stop the worst excesses of the government response, although last weekend’s huge march in London may signify a change there.

As somebody who works in a field where we build systems, I can say from experience that what you really don’t want to do is to change too many things at once. Too much change creates uncertainty and uncertainty itself creates its own problems in what becomes a positive feedback loop. Uncertainty is where we are now. Politicians, who have been making it up as they go for more than a year now, are still flailing around for something to say that will alleviate the anxiety caused by uncertainty. This is leading to radically different rhetoric depending on where you are. In Texas and other US states, things are pretty much back to normal. Meanwhile, Canada has gone into an ultra-strict lockdown apparently having decided to wait for the virus to become endemic before doing so. In Australia, we continue to plumb new depths as the government made it illegal for citizens of the country who have been in India recently to return home adding to the large list of Australians waiting abroad to return to the country that is supposed to protect them. At this point, being the holder of an Australian passport probably affords you less rights than the average North Korean.

In a story that I found mildly amusing, the Mayor of Melbourne this week announced her intention to continue wearing a mask even after corona is defeated (whatever the hell that means). Her reasoning? People are not returning to the Melbourne CBD and it must be because they are still afraid of viruses. So, the Mayor will encourage continued mask wearing to get people to return. Of course, as I noted in my post on the economics of pandemic, the real reason people aren’t returning to the Melbourne CBD is because the Melbourne CBD has been an unpleasant place to go to for almost a decade. Well before corona hit, I was having discussions with co-workers about how you couldn’t get on public transport and you couldn’t even walk on the footpath anymore because there were simply too many people in the city. I’m sure that was great for business and great for the council’s revenues, but it wasn’t good for the workers. They had to keep coming though because of a peculiar quirk in Australian culture which holds that if you are not in the CBD of a capital city, you pretty much don’t exist and can’t possibly make a meaningful contribution to national life. Now that workers have an excuse not to go to the CBD, they are gleefully refusing to go. This has actually led to a boom in business for suburban cafes and restaurants who are more than happy to provide newly localised office workers with their daily food and drink. But the Mayor of Melbourne is being paid not to understand such facts. Being unable to face reality she will continue to wear her mask. Who knows what will come next? Perhaps we will have the Mayor sacrificing a chicken or doing a “people dance” to try and get the consumers to return and once again fill the cash registers of Melbourne city traders.

Of all the institutions of society that have failed us recently, I actually feel for the politicians who have an almost impossible job to do at the moment. The reason why Texas and Florida can do what they have done is because the citizenry in those places allow, if not demand, it. It’s possible the Mayor of Melbourne hates wearing a mask but that is the only thing to be done politically in the current climate.

There is one other group that I believe have found underwhelming in their response to corona and that is the public intellectuals. I exclude from this group the op-ed writers who earn their living from the mainstream media as they are part of the general failure of the media. What interests me more are the independent intellectuals and there are three I will single out here as I think their response to corona possibly reveals something interesting about making predictions. Note that this selection is a very specific set and I make no claim to its general validity, although, with a few exceptions, I have found very few public intellectuals who have done well at helping the public contextualise events. Rather, this group simply represents a few of the intellectuals that I happen to follow. The three in question are Nassim Taleb, John Michael Greer and Chris Martenson.

The latter two of these are members of the peak oil scene, that group of intellectuals who reason about the downward trajectory western civilisation is on caused by the fact that we are still wholly dependent on the finite resource of fossil fuels. Within that scene, Greer is a member of the ‘slow decline’ group while Martenson, if I remember correctly, is more of a ‘fast collapser’. The end result is the same, the difference is merely on whether you believe things will fall apart quickly or slowly. Taleb gained fame partly due to being one of the people to predict the GFC and, apparently, to profit handsomely from it by shorting the market. I outlined Taleb’s response and my main problems with it in part 3 of this series.

Let’s very briefly summarise the position of the three. Martenson responded to corona early on by starting up a daily youtube channel where he spent half an hour or so running through the latest ‘case’ numbers as they grew in various countries. This was in line with his numbers-based approach to collapse. His weekly newsletter at Peak Prosperity features a list of articles each week all showing data points as evidence to why collapse is right around the corner. He used the same format to report on corona. In doing so, he didn’t, as far as I saw, question what a ‘case’ was, how an increase in testing might affect case numbers or what it meant for the virus to be ‘new’. He simply took these as given and began counting. He was doing this well before the mainstream media took it up and as a result was at least somewhat responsible for fueling the panic early on.

Taleb also took the news that the virus was ‘new’ at face value. In his mind, it was because the virus was ‘new’ that no chance could be taken and his interpretation of the precautionary principle was that because the virus could in theory kill you, you must act as if it would kill you. Accordingly, he recommended the public to panic. He showed pictures of himself in an aircraft wearing an N95 mask and face goggles and excoriated anybody who dared suggest that we were overreacting. In so doing, he also contributed to the panic early on.

Greer’s position was more nuanced but could best be summed as silence. In one of his monthly open posts, he even forbade discussion of corona. He suggested that a couple of weeks lockdown would do people good and encourage them to reflect on their lives and maybe even lead to meaningful change for the better. He also predicted that the matter would be over quickly, a prediction with some basis in epidemiology (in fact, some epidemiologists pointed out that it would be over quickly if we didn’t lockdown and that the lockdowns would only drag things out unnecessarily. In hindsight, they were correct). All three positions were wrong but it’s not the fact that they were wrong that I think is interesting. After all, who could possibly have gotten it right? Rather, what is interesting is that they were wrong in quite specific ways relating to predictions that each man had made.

I’m not aware if Martenson made any specific predictions about a pandemic or about the year 2020. He is, however, a part of the fast(-ish) collapse school and so when things started to take off he applied that lens to what was happening. Accordingly, he predicted supply chain breakdowns and other disastrous outcomes. This was in accord with many other members of the doomer-prepper community for whom corona was finally the thing that would prove them right. The GFC didn’t quite do it. The housing bubble didn’t quite do it. But it would be a pandemic that would do it and trigger a global collapse. Taleb is on record as having predicted a global pandemic, something he was not shy about reminding us all about early last year, while Greer has made it a habit for some years of predicting the year ahead and he also does astrological readings about the fates of different countries. Unless I missed it, there was nothing in either his predictions or his astrological readings that suggested something like corona would happen early in 2020. Thus, all three men interpreted corona according to their predictions. Greer’s insistence that it would be over quickly and we would return to business as usual was in line with his predictions for 2020. Taleb’s insistence that a Spanish flu-style global pandemic was breaking out was in line with his prediction. Martenson’s insistence that supply chains were about to break and financial markets with them was in line with his broad predictions.

To be clear, my point here is not that they were wrong but how they were wrong. Taleb and Greer are the more interesting examples because their position was also out of character. Taleb could normally be relied upon as a consensus-breaker. Especially in the case where klueless government bureaucrats and other establishment ‘experts’ are running the show, Taleb for years would apply rigorous critical thinking to a subject and often find the main point of weakness where the argument would collapse. In the case of corona, that weakness is primarily the whole concept of a ‘new’ virus and the PCR test which purports to find that virus. Instead of finding those weaknesses, Taleb took it for given that the virus was ‘new’ and then went way off the deep end by promoting panic.

Greer, on the other hand, could have been forgiven for engaging in a massive exercise of I-told-you-so. Having been one of the most acute observers of the decadence of western civilisation in the last decade or so, all of a sudden all the neuroses, political corruption and propaganda came together at once. Many of the themes that Greer has talked about over the past decade were right at the fore most notably the corruption of institutionalised science, the rising fear and paranoia among the population and the grasping after solutions that benefitted large corporations at the expense of the general welfare. I initially thought Greer’s dismissive response was therefore an act of humility on his part. Rather than sink the boot in, perhaps he was choosing to remain silent and allow his past writings to speak. Another explanation, thoug, is simply that he had not predicted such a world changing event and his position was therefore to downplay the matter.

Of course, this is largely speculation. There may, of course, be all kinds of personal reasons that explain the behaviour of each man but those are not possible to know. Rather, it looks from the outside like a case of rigidity of thinking caused specifically by being a public intellectual engaged in making predictions. To be sure, this is one of the occupational hazards of that job. I have seen this play out on a small scale within my occupational field. What always seems to happen is that a public intellectual gets surrounded by a group of sycophants. This causes a number of problems. Firstly, the intellectual is given levels of adoration or respect that are almost guaranteed to cause ego problems. Secondly, the intellectual is never exposed to dissenting opinions and over time loses the ability to engage in critical thinking. Thirdly, the intellectual is drawn into having opinions about things outside their realm of understanding. Imagine being able to say anything and have a group adoring fans tell you you’re a genius every time. That is certainly a psychologically dangerous position to be in and it’s not hard to see how people might go off the rails or at least be led into error. Taleb definitely seems to have fallen into that trap.

It’s a dangerous business to make predictions and one of the reasons is that in the real world you can get state changes where all the old rules become redundant. Unless you know in advance what those rules are, any prediction you made is likely to be radically wrong. To my mind, this is what is behind the error made by Chris Martenson and others who try to predict what life will be like as peak oil bites. They tend to extrapolate forward based on the current rules. However, what is almost certain to happen is that the rules will be changed. Corona has already shown that as governments have implemented rules nobody would have though possible beforehand. What is perhaps the most surprising is how quickly many people treat the new rules as perfectly sensible and rational. One of the most ridiculous justifications I have heard to defend the current behaviour of the Australian government in leaving our citizens in the lurch overseas is that those citizens knew they were taking a risk by going overseas and now they have to wear the consequences. Really? Who on Earth could have predicted the government would arbitrarily make it illegal for certain citizens to return home or that State Premiers would close borders preventing people within Australia from returning to their own houses? Nobody could have predicted that and nobody did. To pretend otherwise is to engage in the most egregious form of post hoc rationalisation. But that is what is going on now. People are furiously making up stories for why the new rules make sense. They don’t want to admit the truth which is that the world is a chaotic place and becoming more chaotic. For that reason, it’s impossible to know what is going to happen in the next little while. All of the old rules are up for grabs and God knows what new ones will fill their place. This was, in fact, exactly Greer’s message in a post towards the end of last year. Now more than ever it’s wise not to become attached to predictions but to stay mentally lean and be ready for anything.

All posts in this series:-

The Coronapocalypse Part 1: The Madness of Crowds in the Age of the Internet

The Coronapocalypse Part 6: The Economics of Pandemic

The Coronapocalypse Part 7: There’s Nothing Novel under the Sun

The Coronapocalypse Part 8: Germ Theory and Its Discontents

The Coronapocalypse Part 9: Heroism in the Time of Corona