Drinking the Kool-Aid
The phrase originates from events in Jonestown, Guyana, on November 18, 1978, in which over 900 members of the Peoples Temple movement died. The movement’s leader, Jim Jones, called a mass meeting at the Jonestown pavilion after the murder of U.S. Congressman Leo Ryan and others in nearby Port Kaituma. Jones proposed “revolutionary suicide” by way of ingesting a powdered drink mix lethally laced with cyanide and other drugs which had been prepared by his aides.
On November 18, 1978, Jones ordered that the members of Representative Leo Ryan‘s party be killed after several defectors chose to leave with the party. Residents of the commune later committed suicide by drinking a flavored beverage laced with potassium cyanide; some were forced to drink it, some (such as small children) drank it unknowingly. Roughly 918 people died.
Descriptions of the event often refer to the beverage not as Kool-Aid but as Flavor Aid, a less-expensive product reportedly found at the site. Kraft Foods, the maker of Kool-Aid, has stated the same. Implied by this accounting of events is that the reference to the Kool-Aid brand owes exclusively to its being better-known among Americans. Others are less categorical. Both brands are known to have been among the commune’s supplies: Film footage shot inside the compound prior to the events of November shows Jones opening a large chest in which boxes of both Flavor Aid and Kool-Aid are visible. Criminal investigators testifying at the Jonestown inquest spoke of finding packets of “cool aid” (sic), and eyewitnesses to the incident are also recorded as speaking of “cool aid” or “Cool Aid.” It is unclear whether they intended to refer to the actual Kool-Aid–brand drink or were using the name in a generic sense that might refer to any powdered flavored beverage.
Given that both were available and are functionally very similar, it is hard to distinguish whether just one or both brands were used. The group had engaged in many “dry runs” using unpoisoned drink.
The phrase “drinking the Kool-Aid” as used to describe either blind obedience or loyalty to a cause is considered offensive by some of the relatives of the dead and survivors who escaped Jonestown. Seventy or more individuals at Jonestown were injected with poison, and a third of the victims (304) were minors. Guards armed with guns and crossbows had been ordered to shoot those who fled the Jonestown pavilion as Jones lobbied for suicide.
The song was written from the point of view of a patient who has just undergone an eye transplant and discovers that he has received the eyes of the executed double murderer Gary Gilmore. Gilmore had requested that his eyes be donated to science after his execution as “they’d probably be the only body part usable”.
A group of medical professionals is asking death penalty states for medications used both for lethal injections and to help coronavirus patients who are on ventilators.
FILE – This July 25, 2014 file photo shows bottles of the sedative midazolam at a hospital pharmacy in Oklahoma City. Many of the medications being used to sedate and paralyze COVID-19 patients placed on ventilators and to also treat their pain are the same drugs that put inmates to death by lethal injection. Last month, nationwide demand for these drugs surged 73% during the pandemic. (AP Photo/File) THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Many medications used to sedate and immobilize people put on ventilators and to treat their pain are the same drugs that states use to put inmates to death. Demand for such drugs surged 73% in March.
In short, official propaganda is not designed to deceive the public (no more than the speeches in an actor’s script are intended to deceive the actor who speaks them). It is designed to be absorbed and repeated, no matter how implausible or preposterous it might be. Actually, it is often most effective when those who are forced to robotically repeat it know that it is utter nonsense, as the humiliation of having to do so cements their allegiance to the ruling classes (this phenomenon being a standard feature of the classic Stockholm Syndrome model, and authoritarian conditioning generally).
Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush https://t.co/VSFDIQl9BW
— GrubStreetJournal (@GrubStreetJorno) April 27, 2020
Bush looked quizzically at the minister, Wallis recalls. They never spoke again after that.
“When I was first with Bush in Austin, what I saw was a self-help Methodist, very open, seeking,” Wallis says now. “What I started to see at this point was the man that would emerge over the next year — a messianic American Calvinist. He doesn’t want to hear from anyone who doubts him.”
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn’t like about Bush’s former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House’s displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn’t fully comprehend — but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Who besides guys like me are part of the reality-based community? Many of the other elected officials in Washington, it would seem. A group of Democratic and Republican members of Congress were called in to discuss Iraq sometime before the October 2002 vote authorizing Bush to move forward. A Republican senator recently told Time Magazine that the president walked in and said: “Look, I want your vote. I’m not going to debate it with you.” When one of the senators began to ask a question, Bush snapped, “Look, I’m not going to debate it with you.”
That very issue is what Jim Wallis wishes he could sit and talk about with George W. Bush. That’s impossible now, he says. He is no longer invited to the White House.
“Faith can cut in so many ways,” he said. “If you’re penitent and not triumphal, it can move us to repentance and accountability and help us reach for something higher than ourselves. That can be a powerful thing, a thing that moves us beyond politics as usual, like Martin Luther King did. But when it’s designed to certify our righteousness — that can be a dangerous thing. Then it pushes self-criticism aside. There’s no reflection.
“Where people often get lost is on this very point,” he said after a moment of thought. “Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not — not ever — to the thing we as humans so very much want.”
And what is that?
In the Magazine Ron Suskind was the senior national-affairs reporter for The Wall Street Journal from 1993 to 2000. He is the author most recently of “The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O’Neill.”
Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.
We know from decades of medical science that infection itself allows people to generate an immune response — antibodies — so that the infection is controlled throughout the population by “herd immunity.” Indeed, that is the main purpose of widespread immunization in other viral diseases — to assist with population immunity.
Animal Farm is an allegorical novella by George Orwell, first published in England on 17 August 1945. The book tells the story of a group of farm animals who rebel against their human farmer, hoping to create a society where the animals can be equal, free, and happy. Ultimately, however, the rebellion is betrayed, and the farm ends up in a state as bad as it was before, under the dictatorship of a pig named Napoleon.
Orwell lists “four great motives for writing” which he feels exist in every writer. He explains that all are present, but in different proportions, and also that these proportions vary from time to time. They are as follows;
- Sheer egoism– Orwell argues that a writer writes from a “desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood, etc.” He says that this is a motive the writer shares with scientists, artists, lawyers – “the whole top crust of humanity” – and that the great mass of humanity, not acutely selfish, after the age of about thirty abandons individual ambition. A minority remains however, determined ‘to live their own lives to the end, and writers belong in this class.’ Serious writers are vainer than journalists, though “less interested in money”.
- Aesthetic enthusiasm– Orwell explains that the present in writing is the desire to make one’s writing look and sound good, having “pleasure in the impact of one sound on another, in the firmness of good prose or the rhythm of a good story.” He says that this motive is “very feeble in a lot of writers” but still present in all works of writing.
- Historical impulse– He sums this up stating this motive is the “desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.”
- Political purpose– Orwell writes that “no book is genuinely free from political bias”, and further explains that this motive is used very commonly in all forms of writing in the broadest sense, citing a “desire to push the world in a certain direction” in every person. He concludes by saying that “the opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.”
In the essay, Orwell charts his own development towards a political writer. He cites the Spanish Civil War as the defining event that shaped the political slant of his writing:
The Spanish war and other events in 1936-37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.
Orwell, who is considered to be a very political writer, says that by nature, he is “a person in whom the first three motives would outweigh the fourth”, and that he “might have remained almost unaware of [his] political loyalties”, – but that he had been “forced into becoming a sort of pamphleteer” because his era was not a peaceful one. In the decade since 1936-37 his desire had been to “make political writing into an art”. He concludes the essay explaining that “it is invariably where I lacked a political purpose that I wrote lifeless books and was betrayed into purple passages, sentences without meaning, decorative adjectives and humbug generally.”
CLimate scienceCovid19 propaganda has become about signalling belief and testing faith even in the most ridiculous concepts this article elaborates on the point vis, General Political propaganda.
https://consentfactory.org/2017/01/13/why-ridiculous-official-propaganda-still-works/Most folk that wash up on these shores must know it is a fool’s errand to try and disabuse the faithful of their faith. And unfaithful priests will continue to seek offerings from their flocks for as long as the Host remains alive.
On Settled Sceance