Information Warfare Education, Propaganda, and How to Tell the Difference



Actual Republican stance on vaccines:
“Simple, Easy, and Intelligible”: Republican Political Ideology and the Implementation of Vaccination in the Early Republic


Once upon a time in Missouri: Republican attorney general backed mandatory vaccination

During a 1921 smallpox outbreak in Kansas City, the state health board required vaccine passports to board trains


If it were Ebola or Black Death that you were referencing, I’d fully agree. But I assume that you’re context is Covid. Covid has an IFR (infected fatality rate) of less than 1%. It is most lethal to people over 65 years old, who have pre-existing conditions. Maybe we might “more or less” agree up to this point… you know, the anthropocentric, humans-r-speshul obsession with saving human lives, and all that (to hell with the rest of God’s creation) :wink: Yes, the saving of lives has a place, and is justified… however, how much freedom do we want to give up in the pursuit of this honorable objective? And are we causing more harm than good?

The real evil is in requiring children to be immunized, because we are denying them, and our future generations, superior natural immunity, as opposed to the various “gene therapies” that require periodic booster-shots.

I’d rather take my chances with real covid, satisfied in the knowledge that the natural immunity that I acquire will be more robust and more adaptive to mutations than the therapies that rely on specific technologies targeting narrow ranges of genetic/molecular attributes. I’m not a medical expert, but it seems to me that we’ve moved away from Edward Jenner’s robust vaccination methodology towards a tinkering with genetic technologies that I do not find re-assuring. To see what I’m getting at, see link here.

My “constitutional” approach to pandemics is therefore minimalist. Natural immunity is better and more robust. Unless its IFR is significant, just leave it run its natural course, and allow our bodies to do what nature intended.

Yes, the elderly are at risk… but let us put this into perspective… as mostly retirees, they are in the best position to self-isolate if it worries them. Remember the old days, when we used to send off young, productive men, with their whole lives ahead of them, to die in wars, scarcely batting an eyelid? I guess we don’t like it now as our own demographics approach retirement. What’s with that?

My concerns summarized in a tweet a couple of weeks ago:

What bothers me:

  1. Covid is no more lethal to kids than the common flu;
  2. Kids are denied the more effective natural immunity that they can take with them into adulthood;
  3. Kids have their whole lives ahead of them. Those most vulnerable are 65+.

This covid hysteria is wicked.

BTW, I think I’ve caught covid, very early on when they didn’t know much about it. And despite my own pre-existing condition, it was such a nothing-burger that I can’t even be sure that I’ve had it. I took a blood test a year later, but they said that after a year, the antibodies are no longer detectable, hence my negative result. Either way, I’ve continued to “subject myself” to “dangerous” situations with people coughing and sneezing, and still, nothing (except the occasional rhinovirus sneezes and coughs… or maybe covid, who knows, who cares?).


Which amendment in the constitution gives the right to put public health and safety at risk? Is it in the back somewhere?

What is the greater threat to public health and safety? Meddling? Or not meddling? While the IFR is so low, I think that the minimalist, not-meddling route is the more appropriate action to take.

Mine is not a politicized view. It is an independent assessment of how I see things.


No doubt, disinformation on the part of Team Trump exists, and in the absence of further information, we’ll take the Left at their word as to the extent of it.

Of these two poles (disinformation vs censorship), there exists a third wing of dysfunction. Aren’t the do-whatever-it-takes Democrats also immersed in their own massive disinformation campaign? There’s the ridiculous, desperate impeachment circus by Pelosi, Schumer and the rest of the Schiff-show. What about the Hunter Biden laptop scandal that is simply not being talked about? What about the violent riots by BLM, Antifa, etc, that resulted in business bankruptcies and police stand-downs that were sanctioned by political elites, and what about the media portrayal of the riots as “peaceful protest”? Doesn’t refusal to confront the hard truths amount to the exact same thing as lying? Lying by omission is still lying. Doesn’t deliberate refusal to openly address truths, such as the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, also amount to disinformation?

And in having now invited myself into this thread on “Hacker X” and the disinformation-vs-censorship debate, perhaps I am now better able to answer my own question. The Left might not be involved in an openly orchestrated disinformation campaign as they define it, á la Team Trump. But what they, the do-whatever-it-takes party, are involved in, is sending a clear message to their troops on the ground as to what’s expected of them. BLM, Antifa et al are not free agents doing their own thing; they are an expression of the Democrats’ narrative and agenda. They are the Democrats’ brown-shirts. It’s a culture thing. Instead of distancing themselves from the violent riots, the Democrats are, in effect, endorsing them. A toxic culture of corruption, cynicism, loathing and decay. That’s the third wing that seems to be being omitted in this thread.

The way I see it, there’s a bigger problem with the Democrats than simply censorship and lying by omission. They are involved, over this brief moment in history, in the dismantling of a system that took centuries to develop. Taken together, the Democrats’ toxic whatever-it-takes culture and BigTech censorship are by far the greater threat to the future of the US. They control the cultural narrative. It may not be defined as “disinformation”, but the Democrats’ impact on culture is the more destructive. It’s the culture, stoopid. The disinformation campaign of a languishing, incompetent, buffoonish Right pales by comparison… ducking for cover out of fear of being called mean names, their only impact on culture is to inspire cowardice.


I’ve see little evidence that democrats support the occasions of violence we saw during BLM. I think this perception comes from the frame that the BLM protests were themselves inherently violent across the board, which thankfully they were not (only a single-digit percentage of violence occurred during these protests).

To me, saying “BLM is a violent movement” is like saying “13 percent of the population (black people) are responsible for 50% of the murders.” Well, no, more like .001% are responsible for those murders, and the remaining 12.99% of people should not be expected to carry that blame.

There may, however, be some Democratic leaders who understand what JFK meant by “those who make revolution impossible will make violence inevitable”. Which is not at all condoning violence, but simply understanding that the possibility for violence increases as our system’s ability to change decreases.

That said, I certainly do wish that more leadership was able to emerge from within BLM to better separate themselves from that violence, and to reassert the frame of nonviolent resistance. We’ve never needed a new MLK-style leader more than we do now.

That said, yes, Dems are absolutely engaged in their own disinfo/propaganda campaigns. Politics is itself the art of being (skillfully) partial, and the economic selection pressures in our politics virtually guarantees that this will continue. However, there is clearly a line between commonly duplicitous political triangulation, which is expected, and full-tilt manufacturing of deliberately fake news. It’s the difference between only telling one side of a story, versus making up a completely false story and spreading it as widely as possible. And the problem is, here in social media land, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to tell one from the other.

As for Hunter Biden’s laptop, I still have not heard anyone tell me why it’s relevant. He doesn’t have a government position, unlike Trump’s purely nepotistic appointments.

I think it’s always a good idea to address the dysfunction that infects all sides in our political systems, but without falling into false-equivalence, both-sidesism, and golden mean fallacies (“the truth must lie exactly 50% between two opposing parties”).

@steljarkos if you could think of one system-tweak that would help reduce this dysfunction, what would it be?

For me it would be overturning Citizen’s United, creating mandatory public election funds, and enforcing radical transparency into the financial dealings of both candidates and elected leaders. The idea that a single billionaire lobbyist can buy off a politician or even an entire party for pennies on the dollar is absolutely ludicrous to me.


I wouldn’t call what’s required a tweak. I’d call it a complete, sweeping reset. Beginning with getting our life science paradigm right.



I think the knee-jerk reaction I was about to type would be “No, of course not.”

But then if I instead use “control the flow of information” instead of “censorship” it’s no longer a yes / no question. It’s inevitable and necessary for there to be some controls on the flow of information we receive.

Well said, I largely agree. Funny though, my own knee jerk reaction was “of course it’s okay to censor deliberate misinformation” — but then again, I am wearing a particular hat when I say that. I would happily censor disinformation within this small community, if someone was purposely trying to hijack the space in order to spread propaganda. But I also acknowledge that platforms like Google and Facebook are a completely different scale, and these things don’t always scale so well.

To me, the third way between total disinformation and total censorship looks something like “curation”, which used to be the primary enfoldment mechanism of our media before social media emerged. How do we get back to that, when information has been so decentralized and virtually everyone around us is trapped in their own spinning antmills? I’m not sure we can, at least not until the next informational breakthrough comes along, and I don’t think any of us know what that looks like.

For Google though, the path forward seems pretty clear to me — don’t remove information from places like YouTube, but demonetize them instead. Take away the financial incentives around spreading disinformation, and improve the YouTube algorithms so that instead of the “suggested videos” being a rabbit hole, they become an epistemic ladder to help people climb out of broken and partial views. Folks have the right to exercise their voice, but they don’t have a right to capitalize on their voice using Google’s platform.

At least that looks a bit more like “curation” than “censorship”, from my seat anyway.


I wonder what sort of calamitous events would have to occur in order to knock us back to the drawing board!

This is when I get hopeful about Ken’s “10% tipping point” idea – that once a more integral “life science paradigm” emerges for a certain threshold of people, that quickly begins to saturate down into our politics, media, culture, etc. I think we are seeing all the right life conditions for this sort of thing to occur — the increasing pathology of power at every stage of the spiral, the total deconstruction of “truth” and shared epistemological reality between us, the increasing violence at the fault lines of the culture wars, etc. But something tells me that, based on how power and information move in the 21st century, it’s going to require a bit more than 10% of us for that to happen.


I found this form quite a sharp way to cut through the politics of the Covid Vaccines with some sobering considerations for employers.


I found this form quite a sharp way to cut through the politics of the Covid Vaccines with some sobering considerations for employers.


Lest anyone be unclear as to the scale of the reset required, and what the hell our life sciences have to do with politics:

All life is semiotic. Likewise, all politics is semiotic. Semiotic: the science of meaning.

Peirce’s categories of firstness, secondness and thirdness can be understood from the perspective motivation, association (associative learning) and habituation. Motivation, association and habituation are the cognitive fundamentals that apply not just to humans, but to all sentient beings (hence the relevance of Jakob von Uexküll’s biosemiotic theory). Practical interpretation and application of Peirce’s thesis:

Gender roles are habits, gender roles are chosen from culture, men and women “like” the roles to which they have been assigned. The political implications should be self-evident; for example within the context of equality between men and women, or the LGBTQ phenomenon (LGBTQ does, actually, have a point to make, though they over-simplify it. The relationship between individual choices, mind-body engagement and culture is complex).

The semiotic paradigm impacts on culture, which informs its people “how to be.” And, as per Andrew Breitbart’s doctrine, “politics is downstream from culture.”

That’s just for starters.

What does this imply for Team Biden? What messages is Biden sending to his constituents? How are his values impacting on cultural values? How is one’s “hatred” of racism and sexism a projection of racism and sexism? Have the “woke” actually awoken from their original sin (culture), or are they perpetuating the same, old, same-old? The original sin of culture is a tough nut to crack. More disturbing… the Democrats’ cynical do-whatever-it-takes strategy is toxic and sends the wrong kind of message into culture. It’s the wrong kind of knowing how to be.

And of course, the same rationale can be extended to Team Trump. What messages were they dispatching into the cultural narrative?

Our established, materialist paradigm, especially the neo-Darwinian manifestation of it, is ill-equipped to appreciate how living, sentient beings of all kinds factor meaning into their lives, and how they make choices from their ecosystems (the human ecosystem being culture).


Hey @excecutive, I went to the link and my norton anti-virus shot back with the following warning:

Your welcome :grinning:


Accordung to this article are you taking the concept of symbols perhaps a bit far? See link. Is all life sciences really just symbolic?

This seems similar to IT following Marcuseian leap that since atoms combine to form molecules that humans should live in collective hives.


@FermentedAgave Excellent choice of reference to highlight the current controversy dividing biosemiotic theory.

There is an ongoing debate in biosemiotic theory between the code interpretation versus the Peircean. The code interpretation is favored by Marcello Barbieri, and the Biosemiotics journal was established by him, if memory serves me correctly. I’ve had a couple of articles rejected because they too abruptly challenge the code interpretation.

Barbieri used to be among my list of followers, but I see he’s no longer there. Yup, the split is difficult to reconcile.

But the choice is yours. You might prefer the code interpretation of Marcello Barbieri, but I don’t think that’s the way to go.

I can post my latest submission that was rejected by the Biosemiotics journal, if anyone is interested. Its title is PLASTICITY AND IMITATION, THE NEGLECTED AXIOMS. I might even post a copy of it on my account this afternoon. It’s an article that explains my position very clearly and succinctly.

… Link to my unpublished article inserted…

As promised, I’ve uploaded my article, and here’s a link to it. It’s a brief, easy read, though it references other much more detailed work. The concept is basic… Charles Darwin got it right the first time. The current neo-Darwinian, mutation-based interpretation has never been substantiated, and is responsible for much of our contemporary crises. Rolling back to the original Darwin and then building on him with Peirce is, imho, the way to go:


oh what a coincidence, @FermentedAgave … I’ve just noticed that the article you referenced is by none other than Marcello Barbieri! No wonder you’re skeptical! :grinning:

The code interpretation of biosemiotic theory, if I recall correctly, relies heavily on mutations to account for variations. Whilst I accept that mutations will always occur, and may even in rare instances be beneficial, I do not regard them as fundamental to the evolutionary process. Life is not that dumb. We really are meant to be here.


This is an interesting questioning.
While it wont be desired by big tech, media, and those that utilize to influence the population, what I personnally want is my own curation and annotation solution taking control of the Cloud somewhat.
As an example, IL provides some of this for me. The RealClear sites are some of the better curating and aggregation “algorithms” that I have found.
LaWanna’s TheConversation has some much higher quality journalism albiet decidely Leftist Academy by design.

What are evreyone’s go to aggregation- curating sites?


I think it’s because it was not a secure link because it was http:// not

Here is what I copy and pasted from the PDF typos are evident

NOTE TO EMPLOYER: As your employee, I am requesting that you review this document, provide the
requisite information, and sign the form, in regards to your requirement that employees get a Covid19 emergency use authorization (EUA) investigational vaccine.

  1. If I agree to receive an EUA Covid-19 injection, does my employee health insurance plan provide
    complete coverage should I experience an adverse event, or even death?

  2. As an employee, does my life insurance policy provide any coverage in the event that I die from
    receiving an EUA Covid-19 injection?

  3. As an employee, will you be providing Workers’ Compensation, disability insurance, or other
    resources if I have an adverse event to an EUA Covid-19 injection and am unable to come to work for
    days, weeks, or months, or if I am disabled for life?

  4. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires that EUA vaccine recipients be provided with
    certain vaccine-specific information to help them make an informed decision about vaccination.
    The EUA fact sheets that must be provided are specific to each authorized Covid-19 injection and are developed by the manufacturers of the injections (Pzer/BioNTech, Moderna, Oxford/AstraZeneca, and the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen). The fact sheets must provide the most current and up-to-date information on the injections, and vaccine recipients must also receive information about adverse events. Have you read, understood, and provided me (and all other employees) with these fact sheets and with current information on adverse events so that I/we can make an educated decision?

  5. Have you reviewed the available databases of material adverse events reported to date for
    people who have received Covid-19 injecons?9,10,11,12 Potential and reported adverse events include death, anaphylaxis, neurological disorders, autoimmune disorders, other long-term chronic diseases, blindness and deafness, infertility, fetal damage, miscarriage, and stillbirth.

  6. The FDA’s guidance13 on emergency use authorization of medical products requires the FDA to
    “ensure that recipients are informed to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances… that they have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product….” Are you aware of this statement? Have you informed all employees that they have the option to refuse?

  7. With respect to the emergency use of an unapproved product, the Federal Food, Drug and
    Cosmetic Act, Title 21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I-III)14 reiterates that individuals be informed of “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, [and] of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.” If EUA Covid-19 investigational vaccines are ever approved by the FDA, state legislation would be required to allow companies to mandate the Covid-19 injections. Are you aware of these facts?

  8. EUA products are unapproved, unlicensed, and experimental. Under the Nuremberg Code—the
    foundation of ethical medicine—no one may be coerced to participate in a medical experiment. The individual’s consent is absolutely essential. No court has ever upheld a mandate for an EUA vaccine. In Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F. Supp. 2d 119 (2003)15, a federal court held that the U.S. military could not mandate EUA vaccines for soldiers: “… The United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs” (Id. at 135). Are you aware of this?

  9. The United States Code of Federal Regulaons16 and the FDA require the informed consent of
    human subjects for medical research. The EUA Covid-19 injections are unapproved, unlicensed,
    investigational vaccines that are still in their experimental stage. It is unlawful to conduct medical
    research on a human being, even in the event of an emergency, unless steps are taken to secure the informed consent of all participants. Are you aware of this?

  10. According to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Guidelines17 and the FTC’s “Truth In Advertising,”18 promotional material—and especially material involving health-related products—cannot mislead consumers, omit important information, or express claims. All of this falls under the rubric of “deceptive advertising” (whereby a company is providing or endorsing a product), whether presented in the form of an ad, on a website, through email, on a poster, or in the mail. For example, statements such as “all employees are required to get the Covid-19 vaccine to make the workspace safe” or “it’s safe and effective” leave out critical information. Critical information includes the facts that Covid-19 injections are unapproved EUA vaccines that “may” or “may not” prevent Covid, won’t necessarily make the workspace safer, and could in fact cause harm. Not providing links or attachments of the manufacturers’ fact sheets and current information on adverse events is omitting safety information. Are you aware of this?

  11. Since the Covid lockdowns began over one year ago, there have been over 178 reported breaches of unsecured protected health information (PHI), incidents investigated by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). These breaches exposed millions of people’s personal health information. Although many of these incidents were attributed to hacking, some of the breaches to PHI fell directly under the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), such as sharing a patient’s or person’s information with an unauthorized individual or incorrectly handling PHI.19 Can you please explain your obligations to me, under HIPAA law, and how you are going to protect my personal information - both with respect to your requirement that I receive this injection?

  12. Whereas pharmaceutical companies that manufacture EUA vaccines have been protected from
    liability related to injuries or deaths caused by experimental agents since the PREP Act1 was enacted in 2005, companies and all other institutions or individuals who mandate experimental vaccines on
    any human being are not protected from liability. Are you aware that you do not enjoy such liability

  13. Are you aware that employees could file a civil suit against you should they suffer an adverse
    event, death, or termination from their place of employment?


  1. Congressional Research Service. The PREP Act and COVID-19: Liming Liability for Medical Countermeasures. Updated Mar. 19,
  2. hJps://
  3. Del Bigtree interviews 3 medical professionals incapacitated by Covid injecons. The Highwire, Apr. 29, 2021.
  4. America’s Frontline Doctors. Vaccines & the law. hJps://
  5. Layton, Catharine. Forced to get the COVID vaccine? ICAN may be able to help. The Defender, Jan. 29, 2021.
  6. hJps://,les/Vaccine%20AJorneys.pdf.
  7. The Solari Report. Family Financial Disclosure Form for Covid-19 injecons. Mar. 1, 2021. hJps://
  8. The Solari Report. Form for Students AJending Colleges or Universies Requiring Covid-19 Injecons. May 3, 2021.
  9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevenon. COVID-19 Vaccine Emergency Use Authorizaon (EUA) Fact Sheets for Recipients
    and Caregivers. hJps://
  10. UK Medical Freedom Alliance. COVID-19 Vaccine Info. hJps://
  11. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporng System. hJps://
  12. CDC WONDER. About the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporng System (VAERS). hJps://
  13. Naonal Vaccine Informaon Center. Search the U.S. Government’s VAERS Data. hJps://
  14. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Emergency Use Authorizaon of Medical Products and Related Authories:
    Guidance for Industry and Other Stakeholders. January 2017. hJps://
  15. 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 - Authorizaon for medical products for use in emergencies.
  16. Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F. Supp. 2d 119 (2003). hJps://
  17. hJps://
  18. Federal Trade Commission. Adversing FAQ’s: A Guide for Small Business.
  19. Federal Trade Commission. Truth in Adversing. hJps://
  20. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ONce for Civil Rights. Breach Portal: Noce to the Secretary of HHS Breach of
    Unsecured Protected Health Informaon.


@steljarkos So beyond me in most ways, still a few things popped as well as a my remaining question. Thanks for posting. Note that the Barbieri link was shear luck on my part, or perhaps proves I am an amazingly unaware internet sleuth.

I still have my original question, but perhaps am refining a bit. With our modern/postmodern deconstruction/reconstruction methods, I think there are chasms we deconstruct / reconstruct across that might break an otherwise sound argument. I’ll have to sort through your work, but as a fundamental question I still haven’t bought in to the justification that an elite-lead collectivist global hierarchy is “higher” and “better”. Perhaps I’ll matrix some of the pro’s and con’s of “distributed decision making, control, management” and the popular “collectivist” models. Here is a link that articulates from the UK perspective impacts of our several decades of profit worship at the demise of citizens local stoopid, state bad, nation bad, region bad, globalization great paradigm led by centralized planners (gov, corp) after our “shocking unforeseen consequences” (#pandemic #supplychain #notsofairafterall). This seems hardly different than the classic centralized vs distributed systems studies.
From your paper -
"The ability of complexity to persist across time is a critical concern that has been neglected in the life sciences. Complexity is one thing. Complexity that persists despite the entropy that assails it from every angle is quite another. And one neglect begets another. The neglect of plasticity and the neglect of imitation."

Apprehending the Transcendent (linked, about 1/4 way in I think) states exactly the same regarding our civilization as viewed by modern/postmodern which in essence claims that this society that we enjoy and works beautifully 99.999% was created out of malignant, evil, intentions and only runs by the same dark forces is intellectual absurdity.


On the issue of Curation:
In my Political Science 101 class we learned that in the 1990’s the media could not choose what opinion you had on a topic, but they could choose which topics you have an opinion about.
I see this has become more refined over the next 30 years so that now media are not just in control of the topics covered, but they have also gained the ability to formulate the question.

The great big pink elephant in the room in 2021 is that a society cannot continue to exist if it flip flops on the very foundation of its structures and the policies that are informed by these structures every 4-8 years. We can have chaos and the deterioration of a society, but not a civilization. I’m actually ok with chaos, by the way.
All through the 20th Century we had two parties. One was in favor of change and the other was against change.
What we are experiencing from 2012 to present is the party that was formerly the foundation, anchor and roots of our society that kept our civilization connected to our past and traditions has become the agent of chaos acting to tear down those structures.
The United States no longer has a Conservative party. It has a progressive party and opposed to the progressives is the party of populists. Progressives are viewed as the establishment and the newly emerged populist party is going all out to destroy what the populists see as the “Liberal establishment”. Meanwhile, the few remaining conservatives are completely unable to deal with such a fundamental shift in the system and have no idea what to do. Populism is the opposite of conservativism and true conservatives have a hard time processing that the party they spent their lives supporting is now the opposite of what they believe, but in a two party system, they have to chose to either ignore this or join their progressive enemy.
The real Coup took place in 2016 when one half of a two-party system allowed itself to be taken over by populism. When that happened, there was no longer a party to advocate for the foundations of our 250 year old civilization.
Progressives are wanting to rebuild the house while the populists don’t like the blueprints they see, so they are destroying the foundations upon which any such new house can be built.

It’s no longer a choice to make if our 250 years of American Culture is going to be ended or continue. We have already made our decision as a society. All we can do now is understand that decision and figure out how we are going to live in the new civilization that will be built (or perhaps more accurately the results of the unwinding of civilization in our lifetime).


My position on Covid is summed up in my reply to a tweet that suggested that those who do not get vaccinated are foolish:

I’d rather take my chances with real covid, satisfied in the knowledge that the natural immunity that I acquire will be more robust than manufactured immunity, w their periodic booster shots.

Nothing foolish about my stance at all.

At least we agree on civil liberties, tho.

The covid-employer questionnaire is perhaps a start, but it’s sad that we’ve had to descend to this level of absurdity. Perhaps an item that can be included on the questionnaire: “You realize that you, the Employer, are denying me my natural right to choose the more robust natural immunity that can only come with catching real covid.”