ecosophia | Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 192

We are now in the fourth year of these open posts. When I first posted a tentative hypothesis on the course of the Covid phenomenon, I had no idea that discussion on the subject would still be necessary more than three years later, much less that it would turn into so lively, complex, and troubling a conversation. Still, here we are. Crude death rates and other measures of collapsing public health are anomalously high in many countries, but nobody in authority wants to talk about the inadequately tested experimental Covid injections that are the most likely cause; ~~public health authorities~~ government shills for the pharmaceutical industry are still trying to push through laws that will allow them to force vaccinations on anyone they want; public trust in science is collapsing; and the story continues to unfold.

So it's time for another open post. The rules are the same as before:

1. If you plan on parroting the party line of the medical industry and its paid shills, please go away. This is a place for people to talk openly, honestly, and freely about their concerns that the party line in question is dangerously flawed and that actions being pushed by the medical industry and its government enablers are causing injury and death on a massive scale. It is not a place for you to dismiss those concerns. Anyone who wants to hear the official story and the arguments in favor of it can find those on hundreds of thousands of websites.

2. If you plan on insisting that the current situation is the result of a deliberate plot by some villainous group of people or other, please go away. There are tens of thousands of websites currently rehashing various conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 outbreak and the vaccines. This is not one of them. What we're exploring is the likelihood that what's going on is the product of the same arrogance, incompetence, and corruption that the medical industry and its wholly owned politicians have displayed so abundantly in recent decades. That possibility deserves a space of its own for discussion, and that's what we're doing here.

3. If you plan on using rent-a-troll derailing or disruption tactics, please go away. I'm quite familiar with the standard tactics used by troll farms to disrupt online forums, and am ready, willing, and able -- and in fact quite eager -- to ban people permanently for engaging in them here. Oh, and I also lurk on other Covid-19 vaccine skeptic blogs, so I'm likely to notice when the same posts are showing up on more than one venue.

4. If you plan on making off topic comments, please go away. This is an open post for discussion of the Covid epidemic, the vaccines, drugs, policies, and other measures that supposedly treat it, and other topics directly relevant to those things. It is not a place for general discussion of unrelated topics. Nor is it a place to ask for medical advice; giving such advice, unless you're a licensed health care provider, legally counts as practicing medicine without a license and is a crime in the US. Don't even go there.

5. If you don't believe in treating people with common courtesy, please go away. I have, and enforce, a strict courtesy policy on my blogs and online forums, and this is no exception. The sort of schoolyard bullying that takes place on so many other internet forums will get you deleted and banned here. Also, please don't drag in current quarrels about sex, race, religions, etc. No, I don't care if you disagree with that: my journal, my rules.

6. Please don't just post bare links without explanation. A sentence or two telling readers what's on the other side of the link is a reasonable courtesy, and if you don't include it, your attempted post will be deleted.

Please also note that nothing posted here should be construed as medical advice, which neither I nor the commentariat (excepting those who are licensed medical providers) are qualified to give. Please take your medical questions to the licensed professional provider of your choice.

With that said, the floor is open for discussion.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It wouldn't make sense to say that the Holocaust wasn't genocidal because Hitler didn't succeed in finishing off every single Jew. That way, "genocide" could apply only retrospectively to people from the distant past, the Midianites or the Albigensians, say. Nobody could protest genocide before it was completed because if there was a single target left standing to complain, it wasn't genocide.

As for "not involving death", think cultural genocide, as in Indian boarding schools, or the practice in China of sending Uighur men to slave labor camps and sending male Han agents to live in their houses and sleep in their beds. If the Uighur women aren't killed, but are forced to bear babies who aren't Uighur and aren't allowed to learn Uighur culture, in a couple of generations the Uighurs could effectively be gone without any mass graves.

It wouldn't make sense to say that the Holocaust wasn't genocidal because Hitler didn't succeed in finishing off every single Jew.

But that's all in how you look at it. True, Hitler failed to murder them all but he is guilty of the crime of trying to commit genocide. Whereas, Cortés and his fellow conquistadors succeeded in wiping out the Aztec people and much of their culture (although, a South American friend of mine tells me that there are still individuals with Aztec blood alive today, so that attempt at genocide failed too). Complete genocide would be very difficult to accomplish. In my mind, the crime is in the intent and the attempt, not just in the success.

The rest of your post is very thought-provoking. Thank you for that.

Caldathras

Er, this is off to one side of the main issue, but I'm going to encourage you to read a good history of the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire sometime. No, the conquistadors didn't set out to wipe out the Aztec people -- quite the contrary, they wanted to rule over them and profit from their labor, in the usual style of conquerors throughout history. (What made Hitler unusual, though not unique, is that he really did want to exterminate many of the people he conquered.) Furthermore, there are still millions of people descended from the Nahuatl peoples, the population of the Aztec Empire; most Mexicans today have some Nahuatl ancestry. I'd encourage you to look into this and see what you find, as stereotypes abound on this and related subjects.

Thank you! Millions is the right power of ten, even though some of us don't look nahuatl enough to satisfy the puritans and tourists. I was actually arranging my tlalmanalli (aztec altar) while I read this and was dumbfounded, given that last weekend I was at a temazcal with fellow participants singing songs from way back in Nahuatl, which is an official language right next to Spanish and other 67 indigenous languages like Zapotec, Totonac, Mazahua, Otomi, Yucatec, etc... It's notable to remember that the strength of the culture and people is so much, that the Catholic Church had to start incorporating the local culture into Mass to bring people in, spawning a great syncretism.

¡Chicahua! (That means, strength, btw). We are not going anywhere, anytime soon.

Here are a couple pics of the inside of the Anahucalli I took last week, a modern Nahua temple created by Diego Rivera dedicated to the four elements, with Our Lady Tonantzin of the Serpent Skirt towering in the ceiling.

Edited (inappropriate typo) 2025-04-09 22:27 (UTC)

I certainly meant no offence and I apologize for my limited understanding of the history of your people and the confusion my previous comment caused. Graeber's interpretation made it sound like the wholesale slaughter of an entire people and culture. I am thrilled to know that this was not the case and that the Nahuatl continue to thrive. Thank you very much for all the background information.

Valuable lesson learned here. I should have known better than to rely on just one source. Once again, my apologies.

Caldathras

Oh, none was taken whatsoever! I do not get offended at all by people not knowing something they haven't encountered, much less from the far lands down south. That only happens in bad schooling and to bruised egos. I just like to take any opportunity to talk a lot :-). Even many mexicans are unaware the Great Spirit is pretty much alive.

All is good and take care!

A great syncretism indeed! When I have had the opportunity to interact with great mother Tonantzin Our Lady of Guadalupe, she has come across as being fully Aztec, with only a later veneer of Marian worship to camouflage her true nature. Likewise, my interactions with San Pasqualito Muerte, a potentially vicious ally to work with in the unseen realms; fortunately, he can also be quite generous when the whim strikes him. Thus far, I have not interacted directly with Santa Muerte, so haven't had the chance to ask her if she is actually Mictecacihuatl or some other divinity from her and Mictlantecuhtli's realm. One day, I will surely get that chance, but I do hope that won't be too terribly soon! So many things left to do this time round, including visiting that magical temple by Rivera.

— Christophe

I was being perhaps too succinct and, I'll admit, my knowledge does not seem to be as in-depth as yours. I've been told that much of the "official" history is Western propaganda. I don't know if that's true. Much of what I read about the matter came from David Graeber's Debt. He described Cortés as a greedy madman who was deeply in debt to Mediterranean bankers. Graeber said he worked his Aztec slaves to death. He cited the memoirs of a man who worked under Cortés, whose name escapes me at the moment. I was horrified by what I read. I am aware of Aztec descendants because friends from South America told me of them.

Caldathras

Graeber rather too often has an ax to grind. It's an unfortunate side effect of writing history from within a fixed political agenda. I've also read the memoirs in question, Bernal Diaz del Castillo's True History of the Conquest of New Spain; in fact, I first read it in my teens. It tells a much more nuanced story than current political narratives allow -- but again, I wouldn't expect Graeber to make room for that.

Yea, I sensed that while reading the book. His work was thought-provoking but one could also see he had certain biases.

Caldathras

I'm not entirely sure this is a comprehensive reading of what Graeber wrote about La Conquista. (also, I would have to re-read the section to determine whether he characterised what he wrote about as genocide).

What I personally appreciated learning from that section of his Debt book (which I had not learned from any other historical source I had encountered up to that time) was the extent to which the actions of bankers enforcing claims upon their debtors *in Europe* radiated out to the effects - some of them quite ruinous - experienced by people as far away from Europe as Mexico.

It's entirely possible that the label of genocide was from my personal interpretation of the events Graeber described in his book. Cortés was ruthless and brutal, though.

I concur with your second paragraph. I too found it very eye opening.

Caldathras

Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 192

Re: Definition of Genocide

Re: Definition of Genocide

Re: Definition of Genocide

Re: Definition of Genocide

Re: Definition of Genocide

Re: Definition of Genocide

Re: Definition of Genocide

Re: Definition of Genocide

Re: Definition of Genocide

Re: Definition of Genocide

Re: Definition of Genocide

Re: Definition of Genocide