Chapter 10: Choices
“The job of the online left-wing journo-intellectual-influencer nerd is to provide a steady stream of talking points that appear principled and extremely independent of the Party while coincidentally managing to completely align with the interests of the Party at any given time”
Shant Mesrobian
A month or so after the anniversary of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, the daughter of former South African President Jacob Zuma, Duduzile Sambudla-Zuma, got fingered by a group calling itself the “Center of Information Resilience” as central to a “disinformation campaign”, sponsored by the Kremlin, circulating fake information on social media relating to Russia’s war.
Ah, typical bloody Zuma, you think, making a nuisance of him or herself - peasant-ing around an issue they have no business with. Then you recall her being all-in on the whole ‘white monopoly capital’ fast one too, coupled to a few racist remarks for which she has - unsurprisingly - received no punishment for. So, idiot propagandist, move on. We good?
Not really, I’m afraid. Because the person working the “Centre for Information Resilience”, the individual who was quoted in the Bloomberg article about Dudu - Nina Jankowicz - possesses a willingness to beclown herself on issues far more substantive than stock theft or someone faking an Instagram account. In fact Nina beats any of the former US officials now moonlighting on cable television networks - insofar as the circulation of fake or false information is concerned. She beats young butch Marianna Spring at the BBC and the Observer’s hysterical cat mother Carole Cadwalladr (neither of these women - Marianna or Carole - are married by the way - and neither would you be if you spent your life at disinformation/state security-themed conferences, where the pronoun-ed, benzo’d, neck-bearded soyjak men are more partial to internet hentai or shoving remote vibrating devises up each other than real dating of the opposite sex. Just look at The Daily Beast’s Justin Baragona, or Walker Bragman, sometimes of the Intercept but most times simply depriving a township of its idiot. Nina is married, so congratulations poor bastard and all that - but more to the point here, she alone could match the Poynter Institute’s “politifact” or the Washington Post’s “head fact checker” (sponsored by George Soros’ Open Society) Glenn Kessler for the sheer volume of crap promoted as truth.
Nina shot to prominence in 2022, where she found herself a nominee for the Department of Homeland Security’s ‘disinformation’ panel. This department, headed by the unfailingly incompetent Alejandro Majorkas, is supposedly responsible for securing America’s borders and monitoring domestic extremism. Around the same time, a now drooling Joe Biden started going around claiming that ‘white supremacy is the biggest domestic threat to America’ which his advisors made up and clearly didn’t bother to check on Joe’s own history of making racially inflammatory remarks. The most basic of investigations, namely a review of her social media accounts (Twitter, TikTok), soon revealed that Nina was heavily biased in favor of the Democrats, hated Donald Trump and Rudy Guiliani, and was therefore an unsuitable candidate for a role that presumably required - at the very least - balanced analysis. After her bizarre Mary Poppins-esque TikToks were scrutinized, those behind the equally bizarre initiative miraculously arrived at the conclusion her participation would complicate it, so the program was quietly dismantled, and she scuttled off muttering out the side of her mouth about ‘the far right’ and ‘Russian trolls’.
On throwing Dudu under the bus: what exactly qualified her on the subject of the Russian invasion of Ukraine? For that there’s a Twitter ‘presentation’ she made on September 20th, 2020 where she seeks to explain, in the manner of a patronizing, right-on teacher scolding a juvenile tearaway for making a casually sexist remark, that ‘color revolutions have nothing to do with race’. Having cleared that up - for which, thank you ever so much Nina - she went on to moan about how, courtesy of Vladimir Putin, color revolutions were ‘getting a bad rap’. Here is how Revolver covered the rest of the patronizing, unsolicited tutorial:
*So why is Nina so angry at somebody criticizing the color revolution model? Naturally, because Nina herself is the perfect representative of it: the fake “democracy” enthusiast who splits time between overthrowing governments abroad and suppressing free expression at home. Nina used to work for the National Democratic Institute , a group funded by National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, and the State Department, among other agencies. NDI played a major role in Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution — pretty much the archetypical color revolution. During her own time at NDI, Jankowicz managed “democracy assistance programs” in Belarus and Russia, and then received a Fulbright grant to provide ‘strategic communications’ advice to the Ukrainian government. Back in the U.S., meanwhile, Nina’s scholarly talents cover topics like “gendered disinformation” (she invented the term).
You get the point. She’s full of it, Dudu’s full of it - and we, the condemned, have to choose our fighter, once again, despite the near certainty that we trust neither and probably loathe both. If we side with Nina here we’re on the team of one of the most destructive forces ever conceived - if we side with Dudu, we’re terrorist sympathizers - but the balance is so weighted in favor of Nina that if we choose to abstain, which is technically the correct response - we’re immediately lumped with Dudu. This - the imposition of corrupt choice, where the bad is mostly bad and the good is mostly bad disguised as utmost good - is Sutenbastud ’s inescapable paradox of modern life in the West.
But what happens a choice emerges that is authentically, unimpeachably good? There are examples we could explore, but few impact as meaningfully as the case of the South African Nick Hudson and PANDA.
Nick is one of the brightest, most intellectually honest people I’ve ever encountered, but even if he wasn’t - if he was just some inaccessible, aloof academic who didn’t like people, had no friends, and busied his time with papers that nobody else understands - his treatment at the hands of the emerging British establishment and its activist media extensions was more brutal than the thousands of British-Pakistani men who’ve been prosecuted for grooming young, white, working-class girls in northern English towns for decades. So remove admiration and return to the early months of 2020, when the piercing howling of a dog in Wuhan, mortally wounded by a bullet and inches away from death started getting louder. This will take you to Cape Town, to an actuary who - for the first time in his life - is suffering anxiety and sleepless nights on account of the early stages of coof’s accelerating coverage.
Nick’s reaction was prescient: even amongst all the deliberate fear-mongering, he could find no reason to declare covid a “public health emergency” that required a “global health response”. So, along with a few colleagues and friends, Nick established an alternative perspective, one that sought to convey and emphasize the concept of liberty as a profoundly durable, resilient force, accessible to anyone calm and reasonable enough to aspire to it and to push back against the panic captured in video footage where Chinese people started dropping in buses. Hope, in other words. Thus PANDA - Pandemic Data and Analytics - was born.
For a moment take a step back and try remember: where were you? March, April, May 2020? Shitting yourself? Even if you weren’t, I doubt that you recall the period fondly - or can claim to have been thinking lucidly.
But even in those weeks it became immediately clear that anyone with an alternative view on the unfolding events was swimming upstream, against effluent formed of confected or misleading information. We were still entertaining the ridiculous idea of the pangolin theory and our heads were filled with the images of the trucks in Wuhan spraying the entire city with bleach. Here in the UK the political strategists got into their hive: believing the public can be programmed by short, prescriptive statements - something that occurred even before Tony Blair’s annoying platitudes - hours were spent forcing the hydrogen sulphide out of Downing Street’s intestines to conclude with: “Stay at Home”, “Protect the NHS” and “Save Lives”. These statements were blasted onto London’s BT Tower, bus stops, into newspapers and their websites and the very lectern from where Witty, Boris and the Chief Scientific Advisor, Patrick Vallance, later revealed as the holder of £600,000 in GSK stock - one of the firms contracted the produce covid’s experimental therapeutics - held court at 6pm most evenings. The relentless noise filling people’s heads would inevitably make a critical departure to attack anyone and anything who did not comply. In fact, that was part of its strategy.
Yet there was an encouraging response to PANDA. People I spoke to in London were growing weary of lockdowns and suspected something irregular. When I mentioned that PANDA was a South African initiative founded by a group of actuaries, whose experience in modelling and forecasting was arguably a much stronger qualification than a medical or scientific degree, some - including the owner of a men’s shoe brand - even offered to volunteer for them. In hindsight, the period of May 2020 to December 2020 was something of a honeymoon and those in the South African citizenry possessed with open minds and common sense were enjoying what they heard.
I can pinpoint the day I suspected that trouble would start. On Sunday the 5th of January 2021, Nick and I spoke. He was in Knysna and that morning one of his children had been hauled off their windsurfer in the lagoon by local police (South Africa’s own shameful set of prohibitions included banning people from beaches). I couldn’t tell if it was that incident, or a heightening atmosphere of political instability in America - where I was at the time. The following day in Washington, a group of pro-democracy / anti-Jack-and-the-Beanstalk-vote-counting-machine protestors, ostensibly provoked then kettled by the FBI and its informants, would be welcomed by security guards into the rotunda on Capitol Hill and occupy some of offices of their elected congresspeople.
In that honeymoon period, PANDA formed an advisory board. Among the assembled good were Scott Atlas, the American radiologist and the trio responsible for The Great Barrington Declaration of October 2020 - the British epidemiologist Professor Sunetra Gupta, previously the subject of that repulsive smear by Neil Ferguson’s mentor, the Swedish biostatistician Martin Kulldorff and the American Professor of Medicine Jay Bhattacharya. Alongside them were a popular UK oncologist, Karol Sikora; the German microbiologist, Sucharit Bhakti; the South African-born Nobel Laureate Michael Levitt; the former Republican nominee for Governor of Minnesota and physician Scott Jenson and finally, a former Pfizer executive Michael Yeadon, who was already courting controversy for criticising aspects of the political response in Britain. These were unusual times, but for a group to have established such a brain’s trust not a year into its existence was impressive, and for a time presented the illusion that if nothing else, at least the alternative view would be platformed.
What happened next involves two distinctly forehead-ed young women - both ‘she/her/hers’, namely Mallory Harris from Stanford University and Rebecca Davis from Cape Town, a baying Irish donkey living in London called Sam Bowman, a creepy British politician called Neil O’Brien and a crisis actor and far-left activist journalist called Dr. Nafeez Ahmed who once, true to the age of Sutenbastud , advised the UK Ministry of Defence’s Defence Academy - at a guess - on how to surrender using descriptive language about your appearance first (just in case your captors are blind), then assessing whether or not your enemy combatant posts climate skeptical views on Facebook - something you may wish to bring up in your defense.
First, the donkey: Sam was once employed by the Adam Smith Institute and likes to think he’s an economist, whilst others mistakenly describe him as a libertarian. It appears he jumped from grift to grift and, possessing a natural ability to make absolutely no sense whatsoever on camera, he thrilled impressionable booking agents for the likes of BBC and ITV who filled his diary with airtime. It was the donkey who led - cheerfully - the descent of libertarianism into ‘LOLbetrariasm’ during coof, celebrating lockdowns, worshipping the economy-destroying furlough scheme - and praying for a ‘vaccine’. There were others - but nothing said “free market” quite like a smart-aleck, socially-distanced maskhole.
Second, the creep: on the 21st of January 2021, London’s historic newspaper, the Evening Standard - now good for little outside of warming up tramps’ bottoms in winter - published in its diary section news that an exciting anti-disinformation combatant that had entered the scene:
Coronavirus wars have been raging online with websites such as Toby Young’s Lockdown Sceptics, but now there’s a new force in town. Anti-Virus describes itself as “dedicated to debunking common Covid-sceptic arguments, and highlighting the track record of some of the most influential and consistently-wrong Covid Sceptics”. Started by a group of think-tankers, journalists and one MP — rising Tory star Neil O’Brien — it went live this week. Sam Bowman, a senior fellow at the Adam Smith Institute, tells us they’re trying to “join up the dots” in the ecosystem of what they see as misleading claims. Anti-Virus has a list of sceptics, including academics, journalists and Twitter users, whose arguments it documents. And next week we have an exclusive interview with one of the stars of Love Island, who describes life with no legs after she snorted 18 lines of cocaine before driving a BMW off a cliff in coastal Turkey.
I made that last sentence up, but it would be consistent with the type of reporting in this newspaper - i.e describing Neil O’Brien as a “rising Tory star” as if everything is so fucked in the world that a third-rate-nobody politico needs to be introduced in the manner of a not-quite-wealthy-enough Home Counties mother hawking her debutante daughter to London society.
In UK politics, there is no worse insult than to accuse someone of being ‘a creature of George Osborne’ - and Neil is very much his creature. George, another compelling study in the rhythms of upward failure, was deeply unpopular and remains so, despite his attempts to rehabilitate his image into a right-on liberal democrat. Anyone close to people like this are themselves infected; this is what happened to Neil, and explains what he did next.
He mounted the donkey, and together they rode into this brave new information realm of dismissing critics and buttressing the now fabulously corrupt regime narrative. PANDA was one of the first targets.
It is unlikely that anyone else in on this scam, who had anything to do with the website, namely, Stuart Ritchie, Mike Bird, Saloni Dattani, Michael Story, Lawrence Newport, Mustafa Latif-Aramesh, Jonathon Kitson and Ben Hoskin, actually knew who John Ioannidis, the lauded Greek-American Stanford Professor was before coof, and so had no problem expressing this statement:
“However, we *do* argue that they have misunderstood the evidence, have been slow to update their beliefs in the face of new evidence, or simply haven’t updated their beliefs at all”.
Whilst a pseudo-intellectual circle jerk in a flat overlooking Brixton market must be fun, it’s nothing compared to a pile-on prompted by the she/her sickos (“science, kween beeeaatches”). Enter Mallory, the PhD student, who composed a tweet on the 26th of January 2021 attached with highlighted sections of a Q & A section from the group’s website, entitled, “you asked, we answered”. By “we” - PANDA was referring to the scientists, doctors, researchers and writers who all frequently contributed to discussions. Ignoring most of the content, Mallory seized the COVID-19 section, then highlighted certain statements. PANDA’s first statement:
“…inidividuals, with the help of their physician, should do a cost benefit analysis based on their individual profile, their age and health status to determine whether taking the vaccine would be more beneficial than getting a natural infection”
PANDA’s second statement:
“Currently, there is no-one for whom the benefit would outweigh the risk of these vaccines - even the most vulnerable, elderly nursing home patients”
The second statement is the more flammabla but I caution not to get too tempted by hindsight: for the sake of balance if, by judicial clarity, we accept that as contentious, what do we then do about Joe Biden’s “pandemic of the unvaccinated” or “you’re not going to catch covid if you’re vaccinated”? Where was she/her for those? But more importantly, you ask: who cares about the comments of some right-on millennial whose parents probably hate each other?
Unfortunately, this is what you call contagion, the title of a film said to resemble coof’s proliferation. Mallory’s squealing was seized by the donkey, now a qualified ass, who then composed a tweet listing the names of PANDA’s advisory board members alongside some of their Twitter handles. Although PANDA statements were edited, also on the 26th of January, Karol Sikora became the first to publicly recuse himself from PANDA’s advisory board, followed by others.
To this day some sensible people dismiss the strength of a pile-on featuring Twitter legacy verified profiles, erm, “rising star” politicians and supported by an information-selective website. For Nick and PANDA, the accusation of “denialism” - the old Holocaust and new-ish climate smear - was undeniably damaging. The attackers clearly had no idea about “public health” in South Africa thanks to apparatus so weakened by seeping ANC rot that made the prospect of WHO (lol) or other information about reaction or treatment unavailable to much of the public (how much you would wish to trust of that is another issue entirely). Add to that confusion and uncertainty, the prospect of losing one’s job and being unable to feed the family. In that kind of desperation, a man who exists on the fringes as it is, now falling through the cracks, wishes he was dead - and the only thing he can be given is hope.
Nope. Not good enough for Neil, the ass and co: on the 2nd of February 2021, things took a turn for the worse.
Along with everyone else who was paying attention, I first became of just how inferior activist journalists were in 2016, but the game was rigged in their favor 4 years later when legislators, in a series of hitherto unknown democratic infractions, annihilated their competition. As I’ve repeatedly emphasized, these people cannot think properly - they haven’t been programmed to - so they didn’t just note the outrageous advantage they now owned, but they sought to use it to batter opponents for eternity. And this is where, in February 2021, we locate Dr. Nafeez Ahmed in an article entitled “Cambridge Analytica Psychologist Advising Global COVID-19 Disinformation Network Linked to Nigel Farage and Conservative Party”.
It was published by the Byline Times in the UK, which is something of a home for activism journalism (or a halfway house for rehabilitated pedos). Biased, angry, incoherent - but helpful to the narrative, at this point in the final stages of its approval process - and a single point of departure for anyone upset about the election of Donald Trump, Brexit, the election of Boris Johnson at the end of 2019 and anyone else who has been brainwashed with the idea that Russia is the root of all the world’s evil. So naturally anything that rises from the depths of this long drop should include all those things - type 2/3 on the Bristol Stool Chart if you insist.
Neither Nick, nor anyone involved in PANDA had met or knew Nigel Farage - or had anything to do with Cambridge Analytica, a firm said to have been central to data harvesting and linked to both Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and Brexit. The origination of the article was akin to a popular viral caricature that surfaced in 2018 that teased at the way VICE News went about information gathering. In the video an actor playing a standard, machine-processed VICE journalist sits at a desk wondering what to write before grabbing a black rubber dildo from his desk and throwing it behind him at a wall with various post it notes: “Black Lives Matter”, “gender fluidity”, “Trans rights” and “climate change”. It lands on the latter, but the journalist then grabs another three black dildos and places them on the other subjects, before linking each dildo with a piece of red string - like a forensic psychologist linking clues of a serial killer. That’s exactly what Nafeez did: into a completely unrelated forum, one fraught with unhinged guessing, paranoia and loathing, he dragged PANDA and sought to use the feelings and perceptions existing on the periphery, chiefly of fascism and supposed climate change denial, to destroy the organization.
26 days later and Byline’s equivalent in South Africa, The Daily Maverick, or The Daily Moron, buddied up to Nafeez through Rebecca Davis, a Rhodes University-educated writer, and produced a version of the assassination for local audiences. Nick subsequently challenged the article “Kung-Flu Panda: Dodgy analytics or pandemic propaganda?” by taking it to the Ombudsman, probably knowing the exercise would be only symbolic. How? The answer to that lies in a small disclaimer that accompanies Rebecca and Nafeez’s smear - but one that, just like Ofcom’s missive of March 2020 in the UK, captures everything:
Under the South African Disaster Management Act Regulation 11(5)(c), it is prohibited to publish information through any medium with the intention to deceive people on government measures to address Covid-19. We are, therefore, disabling the comment section on this article in order to protect both the commenting member and ourselves from potential liability.
Under these conditions, the idea of an even remotely fair hearing is preposterous: with the exception of Nick and PANDA, every party involved in the complaints process were invested in this logic - if not for their own existence, then their own pleasure, meaning that people like Nafeez and Rebecca could attack as they wished, and not only find succor from their own editors, but the “regulators” too. And no clearer can you note this than in 3.43 of the Press Council’s ruling, where Pippa Green (a former SABC board member and the author of Trevor Manuel’s biography states), about Dr. Scott Atlas’ “contentious theories”, “ …in any event, the stance of Dr Atlas, a former high-powered advisor and aide to former US president Donald Trump has been well documented by reliable newspapers such as the New York Times” Pippa dismissed the appeal - not before dismissing concerns about Nafeez’s demented role in this: “And although there were allegations of Ahmed’s bias and “conspiracy theories” about other issues, this is also unconfirmed. In fact the Guardian continues to host his environmental blog on its website although he is not contributing to the newspaper anymore.”
There was no doubt as to the collective objective against PANDA; at this stage of 2021, any normal convenor would have packed up and shipped off. Funding an organization like this and its projects appears dangerous for several reasons - chief amongst which obviously, for the benefactors, involved being exposed by people like the nepo baby, or Rebecca and Nafeez, or the ass and its rider. Pockets of legitimate scrutiny were appearing, but they were fragmented, and even clumsiness on the part of the narrative enforcers - take the example of CNN deliberately shading the podcaster Joe Rogan’s face grey upon his announcement he had contracted covid - was insufficient. So what can you do?
For my own part, I did come up with a response that I’ve shelved until 2024 - for that is to be the next UK general election, and I’ll be buggered if Neil O’Brien escapes any sanction - conventional or otherwise - for his role in contaminating an obvious choice. My idea is this: I have printed arranged to print 5000 A3 fliers, on which is printed:
Hello. I’m sorry to intrude upon your lovely little garden, but your Conservative MP, Neil O’Brien is a wanker not fit to represent your esteemed constituency. You may not know that in 2021, in a style befitting a careerist wanker, this wanker circulated false information about a South African organization seeking to bring people’s attention to the gross misrepresentation of Covid data. He attacked them because he and his government wanted you to be scared and dependent. You may have lost loved ones during that period, and for that I am sympathetic, but I urge you to consider the wanker’s behavior, the agenda behind it and what part it formed in a wider censorship racket…. More information can be located here….Thank you, and have a pleasant evening.
On the eve of the election, I am going to travel to Birmingham, to my friend Billy’s Cessna parked at the Woods Farm airstrip, and together we are going to fly over Neil O’Brien’s constituency, dropping leaflets as we go.
In the event my plan is executed, I expect Neil to form a response similar to the discredited US politician Adam Schiff’s yelping after being expelled from the US House Intelligence Committee in January 2o23 - for being a liar: “I did nothing wrong / they are victimising me / I am a patriot / if you would like to meet other likeminded men in your neighborhood after 10pm, dial 0800 etc etc”. This is, of course, what they do.
Just on this point: I wouldn’t want this interpreted as the Guardian’s attempt to influence the American Presidential election of 2004. That insurrection - a deliberate interference with a soveriegn democracy - was the brainchild of one of the leading Sutenbastud’s of his generation, the South African-born Ian Katz. He told his readers to write to the inhabitants of Cook County and, erm, “encourage” them to vote for the Democrat candidate John Kerry, and, Guardian readers being Guardian readers, they saw this as an opportunity not to so much to politely inform residents, as I seek to do, but to scold them. The Americans, and I can’t praise them enough here, took offense to this typically patronizing crap, and warned the Guardian - and its brainwashed geriatric readers - to stay out of their affairs: “limey bastards” and “fix your disgusting teeth”.
Whilst PANDA was deeply impacted by the attacks, those doing the attacking are …fine. Today Sam Bowman is the editor of an obscure website called worksinprogress that is hyping vaccines for malaria, hoping no doubt (if it hasn’t already) to catch the eye of a certain oddball who once made shitty computer software. Sam’s enjoying a budding friendship with the young homosexual journalist Tom Harwood, drafted into the UK’s Fox News-esque GB News as a small “c” conservative, as a gradual dribbler of pathologies (transgender rights and immigration to be specific). Whilst they do their Brideshead Revisited things, but in diverse south London without the estate, Rebecca Davis continues to write columns and books, her latest one being about “wellness”. Dr. Nafeez Ahmed has reverted to climate change leaving only Mallory Harris on the coof hysteria beat, where she continues to attack Jay Bhattacharya.
Perhaps the most discomfiting feature insofar as the UK’s interrogation of its past policies is concerned relates to the institution of The UK Covid-19 Inquiry. In the second half of 2023, the activities of a secretive group known as the Covid Disinformation Unit, or CDU, emerged with revelations that the CDU had been monitoring the social media feeds of certain government ministers, in particular David Davis MP. David was furious - he happens to be a grandee of the party that is supposedly in government - and demanded that another inquiry be established. Another? Well, that’s British form as I explained in an earlier chapter.
David’s complaints should in theory be addressed by the official Covid-19 Inquiry, but it appears that the window for submissions relating to the suppression of expression was open for bare seconds before it slammed shut; instead of listening to lockdown sceptics, the inquiry has decided it will listen to lockdown enthusiasts, and has invited Independent SAGE, which only differs from original SAGE in that you had the choice of locking down harder from the former or just locking down from the latter.
*
Sutenbastud’s choice paradigm is not limited. There’s media, in which the west can listen to CNN, or if it has to, FOX. Ideally, we should all be listening to the perma-spastic fitters from MSNBC. There’s politics, in which you really ought to be supporting Labour or the Democrats (anyone who bent a knee in June 2020 or who cannot stop catastrophizing about the climate), but there are also the options of the Conservatives and Republicans, both of which are racism, climate and transgender genocide deniers, but if you must. If you’re into black female politicians, in America you really ought to go with Ms. Kwanzaa, Kamala Harris, but there’s always Condoleezza Rice if you cannot abide Kamala’s cackling. And just like Dudu and Nina, none of these things are massively removed from their opposites but choosing not to listen to the news, or support any extension of the uniparty results in a jeer of ‘uninformed’ or worse, you belong to some terror cell like Shining Path in Peru. In that state, you shouldn’t be given access to banking services.
There are indications of reversal. Tucker Carlson’s departure from Fox to Elon Musk’s now X (formally Twitter). Robert F Kennedy Jnr’s challenge to the Democrat party. As Ukraine goes, the retired U.S. Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor has broken from the ranks of unofficial Military Industrial Complex lobbyism, which Sutenbastud has opened membership to doped up GEN Z’ers, to raise awareness of just how many casualties Ukraine is losing. “Make peace, you fools!” is a frequent expression from Colonel Macgregor, one that speaks to a realism and sensibility located in an ever-distant past. Colonel Macgregor appears to understand timing - that his success in convincing normal people of the truth must not involve a rush of information but rather a steady drip. Ideally one shouldn’t have to do that, but Colonel Macgregor is aware that for the time being he’s playing by someone else’s rules.
In 2023, Nick Hudson turned 50, but what he created, when it really mattered, was something of a wise man’s life’s work, something that spoke to profound humanity and instinct, the need people have to be with an around each other as stimulation for seeking answers to problems, the necessary (and only) conditions from which exceptionalism is prompted. That fatal combination of politics and media interrupted the channeling of possibly one of the most important choices in recent history.
Both today’s choices are bad. When a really good choice emerges that reflects well our collective conscience, that expresses how far we’ve come despite the participation in the everyday axis of angry journalists and incompetent politicians, that implores us to consider beyond the realms of panic response or instant gratification, well then…that just isn’t allowed.