The Peter Principle

Real leaders come along once or twice in a lifetime and the rest of the time we, as citizens must put up with less, less-than, almost ran, and if we criticize we are asked how we might act in their stead. OK, I'll bite that bait, but first, I will comment, and ideally, provoke.

Sadly, current lame-duck leadership coincided with events — I’ll not say crisis because I don’t think it was until they made it so — that require real leadership to address. Instead we have ducks or self-serving fucks and the scared and fearful advising the ignorant. And before you assume I believe the previous leadership would have acquitted itself better in this current period, one year on from its ousting, I assure you that I don't.

I don't believe in any of them. None at the top have earned my trust or respect since the virus episode began. Of course, hindsight clarifies much, and I'll admit I swallowed the story up front and reacted strongly to protect myself and those I love, but as I learned more I chose a different path. I had to. I could either take responsibility for educating myself or allow them to "educate" me.

Of course, I could look to academic rather than political leaders to help shape my opinion and behavior but I would likely arrive at the same disillusion. The Harvard Business Review suggested that a good leader provides, "both brutal honesty ... and credible hope," then cites Governors Andrew Cuomo and Gretchen Whitmer as examples of good leadership. I disagree, and not respectfully. People who act to cover their asses scare me. I only trust them as far as their self-interest is apparent. People who won't admit their errors scare me even more because they always double-down on their initial premise when confronted by new data, especially when developed by individual and group experience, i.e. facts. I truly despise any leader whose personal behavior is inconsistent with actions imposed upon their citizen constituents; restrictions for thee but not for me.

Furthermore, that "science" and its frontman are the final word is laughable because the whole point of science is to question, and to prove or disprove a hypothesis. This is an ongoing process. To impose behavioral controls based upon speculation and small data sets developed early in the process of exploration and to present these conclusions as fact is patently ridiculous. Especially when the resulting authoritative position is claimed to be unassailable, without a possibility of error. "Just do as I say, even if I contradict myself." And don't ask questions.

Have you questioned why the authorities pushed back so hard against the lab leak theory, and that gain of function research was being done there, and at least partially subsidized by US taxpayer dollars? Maybe you should. Game it out. Go on. Is there a financial or power or social risk to that thesis being true? If a party or parties could be proven responsible for the death and economic devastation and mental health crises in the wake of it all, what might happen to them? Of course, accountability only appears in the lexicon of real leaders, and in the end the source or cause matters little because that genie left the bottle a long time ago.

As far as a propaganda campaign goes, this has been spectacular. I'm not into the idea of organized conspiracies regardless of how a conspiracy theory might provide useful narrative structure. I like happenstance as an explanation here. I like random. I see opportunism. I see CYA. It appears that leaders were finally confronted by something they could not manage and when their incompetence was discovered they reached for the power button. They believed their positions of authority gave weight and truth to their actions, and that they had the power to coerce anyone who questioned or disobeyed them.

But generally, we did obey. We trusted. Our desire to believe was stronger than our doubts. We dearly wanted someone to lead us out of what appeared to be a life-threatening situation. Of course, it was life-threatening for some, and many died. Suddenly, as a society, we began to value lives we had barely taken notice of because they had never been threatened before. They were our own lives and few believed their prior lifestyle choices might offer some protection from the virus. Everyone became a potential statistic, a casualty, and when they went looking for "a man on horseback" to defend them, to tell them what to do, to lead them through the crisis, those who answered the call were found either wanting or collusive.

Reporting on the issue appears specifically designed to keep people in fear. "Three thousand new cases today," they exclaim, their voices heavy with such certainty that many instead hear, "3,000 will die". Manipulating numbers and their meaning is, historically, an effective means of manipulating people. Sometimes the news is absolutely paralyzing. Being incessantly bombarded by the scare tactics and shifting explanations, that anyone can understand how to look after their families is beyond me. I've no advice, only thanks for my own good fortune, because, if you do have a family and you test positive, what then?

We finally caught it a year and a half after the first case appeared in Utah. During that time we were not locked down, we trained people, taught Symposiums, traveled, and spent time with friends — all things that tested our thesis about robust immune systems. I was vaccinated in April 2021 because I foresaw the "licensing issue" it would become for international travel, which I naively still hoped to do. Blair did the same but Michael and Erin didn't and we all evaded the virus for the same length of time. I like what this tells us about our health, diet, fitness, and attitude. As well, the COVID symptoms Blair and I experienced were certainly attenuated by the vaccine, which we quite appreciated (Ep. 179 of the podcast has details).

That said two weeks after my last symptoms had disappeared I still tested positive. It was a PCR test, which, being overclocked, can show positive for up to three months post-infection. It's a good type of test if the goal is to increase fear and therefore compliance. It's good for media, and certain sectors of the stock market. But even the CDC advised doctors not to use it after the quarantine period following infection because it is too sensitive, which, of course produced a lot of false positives. My result locked me out of the local hospital system for seven weeks and prevented two orthopedic surgeries. This got me thinking about the relationship between testing and cases, and how mentioning the latter without referencing the former is misinformation. And if you talk about transmissibility without addressing severity it’s the same thing.

I've been in the business of teaching people to take control of their own fitness and health and therefore their lives for a couple of decades. I have known all along that our "extreme practices" make us outliers, and by the numbers we are few, while the obese and overweight, aka the unhealthy, are many — sixty or more percent in the U.S. The virus has a greater impact on the obese and diabetic (among other co-morbidities), as well as the aging who — through the fact of time — have less sturdy immune systems so it makes sense to examine and perhaps redefine the concept of health. It certainly appears that we few put up better viral resistance than those who voluntarily gave up their health, depending instead on the availability of a "cure" if things went south. Well, the cure to this isn't anything of the sort.

The vaccine(s) are non-sterilizing, do not prevent transmission, their effects wane over time, they appear to compromise natural (and adaptable) immunity, and if the VAERS records are accurate, may have some serious side effects. Perhaps the reduction in the severity of breakthrough cases is worth it but the conversation and rhetoric around the vaccines is so politically and socially charged that one may not make their own decision free from pressure.

I had hoped that time and experience would help people see their agency in this context more clearly. I had hoped to have reached a different, less confrontational point by now, that the threat would have faded naturally as human nature adapted and addressed the virus but media and politics are powerful amplifiers. They are so effective that many are saying, "If I do X the authorities will give me back the freedom and autonomy I once so cherished." Instead of believing that appeasement will get us what we want, perhaps we should start discussing how to take it.

I always wanted to be revolutionary. I never thought that simply living and thinking for myself might be considered a revolt, or disobedience. I never imagined that every breath might be inhaled in opposition to someone else's idea of their own best, and preeminent interest.

Should I change my behavior because you can't or won't change yours? If so, why isn't the reverse true? Should I limit the range of my life to protect you from disease because its effect on you is amplified by decisions and risks you took in the past? Have we really reached a point where we must suppress our own desires regarding life and experiencing it in order to "save" people who never considered their relationship to the environment and people around them in the past? Should I stop my "non-essential" work of creating and making, of thinking and imagining and educating so that others who don't create or make or teach may continue doing whatever they are doing? This is a serious question. What should I do?

For sure, I didn't get fit and healthy and eat well and support my immune system because of anyone else, I did it for my own benefit. It has been an advantage in these circumstances, certainly. Yet despite the positive outcome of my behavior, I am advised and urged to possibly compromise my own health (go ahead, read the VAERS data) to supposedly protect those who have obviously never given a shit about their own health in the past.

So I’m looking for that real leader, the one who weighs risks to his or her constituents and calmly acts in their best interest all the while admitting that what are considered best practices now will change. A leader who does not coerce or threaten or throw tantrums when policies or behavior are questioned. A leader whose investments and special interest exposure or leverage are transparent (and the same goes for their family members).

Finally, perhaps we should all seek a leader or leaders who keep at least one foot grounded in the social and economic strata of the middle class, able to look down as well as up. This grounding might offer insight regarding fiscal actions and their consequences which, ideally, would keep them from chasing the managed economy pipe dream where printing money does not cause inflation, the devaluing of citizen-owned assets, and massive wealth redistribution.

We are urged to trust facts regarding the virus. For the sake of consistency perhaps we should do the same for economics, and our political representation.

And now, please excuse me while I step back in my lane.