As word spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak in China, the news media was flooded with reports of Westerners publicly acting rudely or exhibiting suspicion towards those who appeared to be Asian (1, 2, 3). For the most part, the media actually had the high ground; Asian-looking people who were being harassed had done nothing wrong except look like "the kind of people" linked to the virus outbreak. Meanwhile, untold thousands who did not look Asian were returning from the source of the outbreak and likely to be infected - and certainly more than some random "Asian-looking" person residing in Anytown, U.S.A., who may have never even visited Asia, let alone China.
But there was likely more to the media's reaction than a concern for logic; the media is often a mouthpiece for the spirit of the age, which not only includes the idea that people should not be judged by where they come from or looked at differently in result, but that racism should be called out and condemned at all times. Time travelers returning from the American Revolution of 1776 would be surprised to find that the famous words of the Declaration of Independence - that "all men are created equal" - have come to mean we should never evaluate anyone in a way that takes into consideration where that person comes from. Yet these are today's sacred cow principles which, regardless of intention, were reinforced through the media's critical response.
Advocates of the global, multicultural spirit were quick to react to the news of these racist reactions as well. For them, a chance had arisen to present their side as that of the "rationale and sane" while polarizing their opponents to the greatest extent, in something comparable to the "Two Minute Hate". Perhaps they also saw an opportunity to project the mindset of globalism into the era of COVID-19; on that subject, the following report, published in The Verge, may point to what the "appropriate" frame of mind may look like:
First off, notice how the author can only propose a solution that involves quarantine and self-isolation, as if to suggest that shutting down incoming flights from the epicenter of the virus is completely off the table. This is bizarre, considering how frightening the footage is coming out of China (1, 2, 3), indicating that this virus is quite a matter. How someone could see those impressions in China and not want to do the maximum to prevent the virus from crossing into the West is mind-boggling.
Second of all, why talk about what we do not do to combat the regular flu when this coronavirus has every appearance of not being like that flu, especially when not enough data is available to understand the extent of the danger? In view of what is coming out of China (again, 1, 2, 3), unless China is bluffing us, writing this thing off as "just the flu" comes across as incredibly naive. But it makes sense if we try to relate to the present based on what we already know, considering we know about the flu but have never lived through what we are going through now; we should also probably ask ourselves if there is a psychological barrier preventing the acceptance of the fact that a serious virus could exist, because we have not know this to exist before. Likewise, for many people, having to do something like close borders and airports to stop the spread of virus seems unusual; more importantly, it may create mental anguish for those raised to believe that nobody should ever be looked upon differently simply because of where they came from, and the reluctance to accept a solution that comes into conflict with such ideology might never be allowed to be entertained. We already know what happened in the midst of the Ebola outbreak of 2015. Ideas like shutting down borders and quarantining airport arrivals were something that did not enter into the conversation in the West in spite of the seriousness of the problem.
But there was likely more to the media's reaction than a concern for logic; the media is often a mouthpiece for the spirit of the age, which not only includes the idea that people should not be judged by where they come from or looked at differently in result, but that racism should be called out and condemned at all times. Time travelers returning from the American Revolution of 1776 would be surprised to find that the famous words of the Declaration of Independence - that "all men are created equal" - have come to mean we should never evaluate anyone in a way that takes into consideration where that person comes from. Yet these are today's sacred cow principles which, regardless of intention, were reinforced through the media's critical response.
Advocates of the global, multicultural spirit were quick to react to the news of these racist reactions as well. For them, a chance had arisen to present their side as that of the "rationale and sane" while polarizing their opponents to the greatest extent, in something comparable to the "Two Minute Hate". Perhaps they also saw an opportunity to project the mindset of globalism into the era of COVID-19; on that subject, the following report, published in The Verge, may point to what the "appropriate" frame of mind may look like:
"The coronavirus could stick around, but the way we fight it will change if it does," by Nicole Wetsman, The Verge
Countries around the world are actively searching for cases of the new coronavirus in an effort to stop its spread around the world. But if they can’t contain the virus, public health officials may need to start fighting a different battle. Right now, countries are relying on measures like quarantine and isolation and hoping that they’re enough to beat back the outbreak. If those don’t succeed, the virus might transition from being the cause of a temporary epidemic outbreak to one that causes a new circulating disease.
Because we’re still learning about the severity of the virus, the implications of that switch are still hazy. But the progression will be driven by social and political tolerance for the new illness almost as much as it is by biology.
"We’re going through the panic phase,” says Graham Medley, director of the Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “Governments don’t know what to do, people don’t know how to react. When we understand the risks, reactions will change."
[...]
“We don’t have this kind of government response to the flu every year. The US doesn’t say, influenza is going to be introduced from Vietnam, so let’s stop all flights from there,” he says. (more)
First off, notice how the author can only propose a solution that involves quarantine and self-isolation, as if to suggest that shutting down incoming flights from the epicenter of the virus is completely off the table. This is bizarre, considering how frightening the footage is coming out of China (1, 2, 3), indicating that this virus is quite a matter. How someone could see those impressions in China and not want to do the maximum to prevent the virus from crossing into the West is mind-boggling.
Second of all, why talk about what we do not do to combat the regular flu when this coronavirus has every appearance of not being like that flu, especially when not enough data is available to understand the extent of the danger? In view of what is coming out of China (again, 1, 2, 3), unless China is bluffing us, writing this thing off as "just the flu" comes across as incredibly naive. But it makes sense if we try to relate to the present based on what we already know, considering we know about the flu but have never lived through what we are going through now; we should also probably ask ourselves if there is a psychological barrier preventing the acceptance of the fact that a serious virus could exist, because we have not know this to exist before. Likewise, for many people, having to do something like close borders and airports to stop the spread of virus seems unusual; more importantly, it may create mental anguish for those raised to believe that nobody should ever be looked upon differently simply because of where they came from, and the reluctance to accept a solution that comes into conflict with such ideology might never be allowed to be entertained. We already know what happened in the midst of the Ebola outbreak of 2015. Ideas like shutting down borders and quarantining airport arrivals were something that did not enter into the conversation in the West in spite of the seriousness of the problem.
To be fair, some may want to know more about the virus before laying out a course of action. But having seen the footage (again, 1, 2, 3) and initial reports, I think I know enough that I want to prevent this disease from spreading into my land based on the prospective level of disruption it seems likely to bring. I have also seen enough to know that, if we limit our responses to quarantines and isolation of the infected instead of travel bans and border enforcement, we might just see a response that causes maximum disruption, like a lockdown. Surely, these are points that should take precedence over considerations about whether a proper vetting and travel ban could hurt the feelings of those on the outside.
Out of the interest of protecting my community - assuming my nation actually functioned like a community - I would propose a mandatory quarantine for anyone arriving from the Hubei province (i.e. Wuhan, China), or from any hub connected to such flights in the week of the outbreak and in the period immediately thereafter. On top of that, I would propose a ban on all arrivals connected to flights from China, Hong Kong and South Korea, except for travel concerning business. Business travel would nevertheless have involved a mandatory, post-arrival quarantine period. Who cares if that is "aggressive" or "intolerant"; it expresses the will to avoid problems stemming from the spread of this disease into our backyard. Had every nation done the same, the plan would work. But I wonder if the society and culture I am a part of feels the same after being injected with one-world philosophy their entire lives, and "there is no race but the human race". I am afraid that those who are worried about conforming to the dictates of tolerance do not think this way. And I am afraid we will now have to live with the repercussions of that.
Nature has a funny way of dealing with civilizations and people who are incapable of prioritizing their health, safety and welfare. It appears, for example, that Italy was unable to resist prioritizing virtue-signaling in favor of one-world beliefs and anti-discrimination over the enforcing a quarantine to isolate coronavirus-infected individuals. As World Health Organization (WHO) doctor Walter Ricciardi reports:
"Serious mistake was made not to quarantine people who arrived in Italy from China" said Walter Ricciardi of the WHO, adding that "within two weeks we will know if we are facing an epidemic" and advising that, for the next two weeks, people "should avoid crowded places: metro, buses, trains, schools, discos, and gyms. (more).
The Italian authorities have finally determined that they have a situation on their hands:
ITALY OUTBREAK (Feb. 23 Updates):
- 78 new cases in Italy and 1 new death in Italy (a woman being treated for cancer in Crema), including 4 new cases near Bergamo, 2 new cases in Venice (historical center), a 17-year-old male in Valtellina, and a couple in Turin who visited their child at the Regina Margherita Hospital yesterday.
- Current total cases in Italy:
- 112 cases in Lombardy (including 2 deaths):. The total includes: 76 in Codogno, 3 in Castiglione D'adda, 2 in Pieve Porto Morone, 1 in Casalpusterlengo, 1 in Pizzighettone, 1 in Sesto Cremonese, 1 in Santa Cristina e Bissone, 1 in Mediglia, 1 in Sesto San Giovanni, and 1 in Monza. Latest cases near Bergamo: 2 in Alzano Lombardo, 1 in Seriate, and 1 in Bergamo.
- 27 in Veneto (including 1 death): 19 in Vo' Euganeo, 3 in Dolo, 3 in Mira, and 2 in Venice..
- 9 in Emilia Romagna (all in Piacenza).
- 6 in Piedmont (3 in Turin and 3 in Cuneo province).
- 3 in Rome (including 1 who had been repatriated).- At least 26 patients are in critical condition.
- 11 towns, 50,000 people, placed in lockdown.
- Armed forces and police forces have been mobilized to form an insurmountable "health belt" around contagion areas. Roadblock violators risk up to a 3 months prison sentence.
- Schools closed in Lombardy, Veneto, Friuli Venezia Giulia, Emilia Romagna, and in Trentino Alto Adige regions. Universities closed in Piedmont.
- Carnival in Venice and all sport and public events in Veneto cancelled.
- All public and private events, including sport, cultural, and religious events in Lombardy cancelled. Movie theaters closed.
- More than 40 football matches, including at least 4 Serie A games, postponed.
- Armani cancels his fashion show today in Milan.
- Teatro alla Scala in Milan suspends all performances.
- "I think these three cases that have no contact with a primary carrier show how this virus is now ubiquitous so, as with flu symptoms, you get it and don't know who you got it from" said Veneto governon Luca Zaia who, in a separate comment, said "we are worried, drastic measures are needed."
But it may already be too late. Meanwhile, the government of Ukraine is exhibiting the same sort of nonchalance that seems to have caught up with Italy:
RT News:
from "Ukraine is Europe..of the Middle Ages," RTNote how President Zelensky's condescending generalization of "Europe of the Middle Ages" matches the theme of the recent Scandinavian Airlines television advertisement featuring the now-infamous "no better than our viking ancestors" quip; here, I mean that Old Europe has become a subject of mockery.
Protests against Ukrainians evacuated from Wuhan which descended into road blockades and clashes with police have drawn the ire of President Volodymir Zelensky, who said his nation has fallen back into the Middle Ages. Ukraine has apparently become reminiscent of Europe, something it has always aspired to, but certainly not in a way it wanted, at least according to its own president. Zelensky compared his nation to Europe of the times of witch hunts, inquisitions, and epidemics.
“You know, we always say that Ukraine is Europe,” the president told the nation, referring to a slogan popular among pro-Western elements, which became particularly widespread following the 2014 Maidan coup. “To tell the truth, yesterday, we sometimes seemed to be the Europe of the Middle Ages,” he added, chastising those who staged violent protests in central Ukraine. (more)
Zelensky is a Jew by the way, which is the cherry-on-the-sundae in terms of the other parallel one can sense, where Zelensky's argument that Ukraine must remain dedicated to open-borders globalism no matter what is reminiscent of an infamous lecture by another Jew, Barbara Lerner Spectre, featuring the same globalism-or-bust conclusion.
Granted, Ukrainians throwing bricks at buses with COVID-19 patients is not the most productive of countersolutions:
But a society infuriated by the idea of a disease simply rolling in by bus is more likely to take the precautions that Italy, under its current leadership, did not.
It seems that perhaps each nation is now in a "survival of the fittest" contest with regards to this virus. "Fit", it seems, is a condition where the virus of political correctness, open-borders globalism or something else does not preclude one's ability to make rational decisions for the benefit of his or her own community regarding this coronavirus. "Fit" may describe a society that can sustain in this new climate because of self-sufficiency, and has the competence to deal with this coronavirus without destroying its society and economy in the process. And yes, some civilizations are in better position to pass this "IQ test" than others. The spirit of Darwin - and perhaps social Darwinism - is upon us, and is ready to judge us all.
Granted, Ukrainians throwing bricks at buses with COVID-19 patients is not the most productive of countersolutions:
 |
| "Scene on the ground during protests in Ukraine (Photo by: Efrem Lukatsky) |
But a society infuriated by the idea of a disease simply rolling in by bus is more likely to take the precautions that Italy, under its current leadership, did not.
It seems that perhaps each nation is now in a "survival of the fittest" contest with regards to this virus. "Fit", it seems, is a condition where the virus of political correctness, open-borders globalism or something else does not preclude one's ability to make rational decisions for the benefit of his or her own community regarding this coronavirus. "Fit" may describe a society that can sustain in this new climate because of self-sufficiency, and has the competence to deal with this coronavirus without destroying its society and economy in the process. And yes, some civilizations are in better position to pass this "IQ test" than others. The spirit of Darwin - and perhaps social Darwinism - is upon us, and is ready to judge us all.
