Conrad Goodsir, aka "RC The Rapper" is a Canadian music producer, sound engineer, photographer and, as the name implies, rapper. He has been an artist, audio specialist and photographer/videographer based in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada for the last 10 years. In December of 2020, after a long hiatus, he decided to start releasing his own music again. But this time he had purpose. After watching the totalitarian tiptoe creep into our communities, our homes, and our minds for nearly a year, RC had seen enough. He wanted to do something, and as an artist with over two decades of experience writing and recording, making music is what he does best. On Christmas Day 2020, RC released a song called “The Virus,” which proposed that the real virus was fear. At the same time, he got involved in pro-freedom activism, and since then his music has been streamed hundreds of thousands of times, putting him in the spotlight for better or worse. He's received praise, support and applause, as well as hate, condemnation and threats. He's been slandered, censored and fined for his efforts, and lauded as a maverick and hero by others. Needless to say, the opinions about RC are quite mixed, but he never cared much for what people say about him. In his own words, "I know who I am and nobody can tell me otherwise. I’m someone who values the truth, pays attention to the world I live in, and acts accordingly. People say that makes me Brave, but to me that's just Logical." 

RC, his music and more can be found at www.rctherapper.com – be sure to check the resources section for more info and citations relating to these passages. 

Conrad Goodsir is my wife’s nephew. I have known his mother and father for about fifty years. I have known Conrad since his birth. He was a difficult child and a difficult teenager, a free spirit with obvious creative talent. He began to find his way in life in his twenties. When visiting Alberta in 2014, I had a wonderful conversation with Conrad, by then a fine young man. Visiting again in 2019, I again enjoyed spending some time with him and observing how his mind was developing and maturing. 

Conrad has now chosen to be a public figure and I find no fault with that. In fact, I hope that I will be able to communicate with him in the public domain. I have lots that I want to say to him and BRAVE: THE LOGICAL CHOICE affords me an opportunity.

My name is John Stokdijk and I live in Ajijic, Jalisco, Mexico.

Conrad, let me start by stating that I am quite impressed with “On My Own”, your best work to date. You have talent and I am pleased that you have found a way to express your creativity. I remember you as a boy drawing cartoons which you were also quite good at.

I am pleased that you have put your thoughts in writing. This can be useful in multiple ways. You are writing messages to your future self. In a sense, you are not the same person you were ten years ago. And you will be a different person ten years from now. It is difficult to remember everything about ourselves and now you have this record. 

But this time he had purpose.

And I am pleased that you have found purpose. A sense of purpose is necessary for well-being and those who lack purpose do not thrive. Using your creative talent to support your purpose puts you ahead of many of your cohorts.

...the real virus was fear.

You are so right to be concerned about fear, Conrad. I agree, fear is used to manipulate and control people. I will come back to this idea later.

 I’m someone who values the truth, pays attention to the world I live in, and acts accordingly. 

When I was young I also valued truth. And from teenage onward I too paid attention to the world I live in. And I acted accordingly with mixed results.

There is a lot I want to say to you, Conrad. I doubt that I can touch your mind with logic, but I hope instead to touch your soul. That will be a challenge for me because, unlike you, I do not have the soul of an artist. Yet I hope to stir something deep inside you that will stay with you for a long time. Perhaps I can spark something that you will not be able to extinguish.

As one of the few musicians going against the grain, a lot of people ask me what inspired me to do what I do. For that, we have to go all the way back to the beginning, circa the mid-2000s. After my friend and I smoked a joint, he started trying to convince me that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition and George Bush was in on it. He told me to check some stuff out, I told him he was an idiot and I would debunk it and get back to him. I stuck to my word and promptly set out to prove him wrong. But to my surprise and wonder, I quickly realized I couldn’t, and found my skeptical mind shifting its focus from the “conspiracies” to the official narrative. The more I learned, the stranger the reality. There were things about the event that could not be explained away within the framework of the story we were told. I uncovered facts that outright refuted the official narrative, and thus my world was changed forever. How could it be? Right in front of my eyes, an entire piece of history was fabricated. The only logical explanations involved corruption and malice at the highest levels, and a conspiracy so grand it puts every Hollywood script to shame. The news that we trusted to keep us informed was actively trying to deceive us. It is not possible for two planes to pulverize three buildings into piles of dust. The idea is laughable in any other context. The collapse of the third building, WTC7, is so unexplainable that the 9/11 commission report (the “official investigation”) did not even mention it following a two year “investigation.” Yet with zero evidence or even an argument that makes sense based on what we can see with our own eyes, one must admire the mainstream’s audacity in their bold faced and unwavering assurance that two planes did indeed pulverize three buildings. As Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propagandist once said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it often enough, the people will come to believe it.” Our own “democratic” media was taking a page directly out of the socialist playbook, but the scariest part of all, is that normal, otherwise intelligent people were starting to repeat the lies. It was surreal to watch people try to explain falsehoods. Office fires cannot cause a building to collapse at freefall speed. Not in this universe, anyway. The “official explanation” defied physics and betrays our own eyes, yet nobody seemed to notice. 

I have not studied the collapse of the Twin Towers and I will not try to dispute what you say. But I have a question for you. Have you read the 9-11 Commission Report? I have not and I think most people have not. It is 567 pages long and not an easy read. I suspect you have only read some articles written about the report. I suspect that there are many articles about the report that you have not read. I suspect that your knowledge of the matter is very incomplete.

The more I learned, the stranger the reality.

Yes, Conrad, you are on the right track with this statement. But there is always more to learn and reality then becomes stranger and ever more stranger. So I have another question for you. What is ultimate reality? If you know, please tell me. I have spent a lifetime looking for ultimate reality and for many years thought I knew the answer. But that answer collapsed into a pile of dust, just like the Twin Towers.

This sent me on a path of questioning everything and into a period of researching as much as possible about the forces that shape our world, and from then on I refused to allow anyone else to think for me. I learned about the Bohemian Grove and the Finder’s Cult, the Gulf of Tonkin and Operation Paperclip. I learned about the history of fractional reserve banking and the Federal Reserve Act. I learned about families that had been wealthy and influential for centuries but somehow managed to stay out of the history books. I learned who owns the media, and Hollywood. I’ve learned a great deal, and continue to learn all the time, and since my re-education I’ve kept a very open mind. We live in a very rich tapestry, and truth is stranger than fiction. 

...I refused to allow anyone else to think for me…  I’ve learned a great deal, and continue to learn all the time, and since my re-education I’ve kept a very open mind.

Again, this is a good way to live and I try to do the same. I have learned that the more I know, the less I know. Let me explain. 

We live in an age of the exponential growth of information, more than any one person can possibly keep up with. I have read over a hundred books since I have retired. But many thousands were published that I have not read. So every year, what I know as a percentage of all human knowledge, is less than the year before. I think the same must be true for you unless you are some kind of superman or god.

You probably do not know about hyperobjects. That is not a criticism. I only began learning about them and their importance a few years ago. And I still do not know much as I have only read a few articles about hyperobjects. Hyperobjects - Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World by Timothy Morton is one of the many books that I would like to read sometime.

Perhaps we can discuss hyperobjects sometime in the future and why I think they are important.

The full extent is far beyond the scope of this chapter, but what I would uncover in the following years led me to realize the only framework in which the world made sense was that of a grand conspiracy, the end game of which was the enslavement of the entire human race by a small cult who had been working towards their goal for centuries. Sounds crazy, right? But much of this concept is not a secret, and anyone who performs an honest assessment of modern history can only reach the same conclusion. The same handful of inter-breeding families have dominated the main levers of power all over the globe since before the industrial revolution. The governments of the world are their tools, and neither this ruling class nor the governments they command care about the masses despite the façade. If they did, the world would not be the way it is. America spends hundreds of billions per year on military expansion but can’t seem to solve the homelessness in Los Angeles. This is not how benevolent rulers behave. 

I learned that this “elite” cult was closer than ever to their goals, and much of the necessary infrastructure was already in place. This does not necessarily mean they will be totally successful with their attempt. I always believed in the wild card that is the spirit of humanity. But it meant at some point in my lifetime I would probably see them make their move. The writings were on the wall, and I remember telling my friends back in 2010 that the UN wants to crash the world economy, manufacture scarcity and “terrorism,” and then swoop in with the “solution;” digital one world currency, chip everyone and impose Martial Law to “keep us safe.” They laughed and told me I was crazy. I said we’ll see.

 Sounds crazy, right?

Yes, Conrad, it sounds crazy. But I am going to share some crazy shit with you as well. However, I will agree with you that the world is run by elites for the benefit of the elites, not for the likes of you and me. 

...the only framework in which the world made sense was that of a grand conspiracy...

We live at a unique time, Conrad. It has never been more difficult to make sense of the world. I have learned that there are many competing frameworks all trying to make sense of the world.

I always believed in the wild card that is the spirit of humanity… we’ll see.

Yes, I too believe that the spirit of humanity is a wild card.

Through the 2010s, life happened, and I stopped researching at such a fever pitch. I met a group of friends who were more “normal” than I, and I caught myself censoring my own thoughts to fit in better. After some time, I became acclimated to my “normal” friends. They were so care-free, unburdened by a knowledge of humanities dark corridors, and as time went on I started to believe that maybe I had been wrong… that perhaps I had lost my way. Maybe there wasn’t a looming monolithic conspiracy that would one day come knocking on each of our doors. As 9/11, the wars in the middle East and the lies that caused them slipped into the background behind the noise of life, so too did my concern. But then at the start of 2020, it happened – The grand Conspiracy reared its head, came banging at our doors, and I realized I had been wrong about being wrong. If only I had trusted my intuition a decade earlier and resisted the urge to fit in, perhaps I could have sounded the trumpet. But now it was too late. They were already making their move. 

But then at the start of 2020, it happened…

Yes, the coronavirus pandemic is a big deal, the biggest event of our lifetime, bigger than the collapse of the Soviet Union, bigger than 911, bigger than the Great Recession. But I do not think it is too late.

Conrad, do you think it is possible that you are now wrong about being wrong about being wrong?

When the first “cases" began to appear in Canada in March of 2020, nobody knew what was happening. The first lockdown was upon us in the blink of an eye. In the days leading up to “two weeks to flatten the curve," I had just returned from a ski resort and was feeling a bit under the weather myself. At the time, there was no data available. All we had was the word of the mainstream media, which of course was nothing but doom and gloom. I was immediately suspicious, however. The truth is often hidden within the lie if you know how to read between the lines. The news was trying to convince us of a deadly and dangerous new pathogen, but at the bottom of the same articles, the only deaths listed were people in their 80s and 90s. When considering that the average life expectancy in Canada is around 82 years, the “very deadly and dangerous" idea didn’t seem to hold water, but there was no way of truly knowing the extent of it without any good quality data. So I too closed my studio and stayed home for a few weeks. It seemed like a reasonable thing to do at the time. However, I knew better than to stay glued to the television and allow the pundits to convince me that the world was ending. As always, I wanted to see the data myself. So I watched, and waited.

...March of 2020, nobody knew what was happening.

March, 2020, what a month that was! I too did not trust the mainstream media. I too wanted to see the data for myself. But I had a problem. New information and data was coming at me at a faster pace than I could keep up with. In fact, it was like trying to drink from a fire hose. I too became suspicious, suspicious of my own ability to keep up and know and suspicious of all those who claimed to know what the data was telling us. So Conrad, I hope you will not be offended by me being a little suspicious of you as well. 

After seeking a test for my symptoms, I learned that Alberta (and all of Canada, and most of the world for that matter) was only testing people who need immediate hospital care due to test shortages. The nurse on the phone told me “we're not giving out COVID tests for sore throats. If you think you need an ambulance right now, that's the only way to get tested.” I was perplexed. The news had already reported thousands of cases and hundreds of deaths. If all of those cases and deaths were strictly people needing urgent medical care while the testing protocols ignored people like myself who only had a scratchy throat, then the fatality rate of COVID is going to be skewed and appear far more dangerous than it really is. This piqued my interest even more. But there was still no good data.

Yes, Conrad, what a mess they made of testing. It has gotten a little better, but only a little. It is still mostly a mess in most places. Here in Mexico there does not seem to be much testing and it is even harder to get good data than in Canada. So yes, we are still missing a lot of good data.

A few weeks later, the first good science emerged from Iceland. They had decided to test as much of their population as possible whether symptomatic or not since the population was small enough to be covered by available resources. Iceland is an Island nation so they were the perfect sample pool for calculating a more accurate infection and case fatality rate. Sure enough, they found the prevalence of COVID to be 5x higher than anticipated in the general population, and approximately half of total cases were completely asymptomatic (or in other words, not sick at all). Another 48% had mild flu like symptoms, leaving only 2% of cases requiring medical treatment, and only a fraction of those cases (<1%) died. They also noted that the worst cases and deaths were heavily weighted towards the elderly and already ill. >98% of cases required no medical treatment, and would recover just fine on their own. The risk of death or serious complications for healthy people below the age of 60 was almost nonexistent, and they still hadn’t tested everyone, which meant these numbers were most likely still inflated. 

I did not follow the situation in Iceland but I tried to pay some attention to Israel. Every country seems different, and has something different to teach us. But again, there was too much information from too many countries for me to keep up with. I found New Zealand interesting. And being Canadian myself, I have been paying a little more attention to the place where I once lived.

This was fantastic news! So there it was. The science had been followed and the truth was clear for all to see. If a layman like me can figure all of this out, then surely the highly trained health authorities know too. Case closed, right? Well… apparently not. 

Despite the data getting better from this point, showing increasingly that COVID is not a threat to the average person, the fear-mongering continued to ramp up. Health officials ignored the good news; natural immunity, recovery rates, age stratification. Cheap and effective cures were demonized without even being given a chance. Two weeks came and went but the lockdowns stayed. Then came the masks. Then came the fact-checkers. “Follow the science,” they said, while refusing to take their own advice. But the scariest part was watching my peers fall for the lies. It was 9/11 all over again. The reality was available for anyone who cared to look, yet mainstream media had become the arbiter of truth, singing an entirely different tune, convincing us that we were not smart enough to interpret what our own eyes were showing us. When my friends began repeating the ridiculous narratives back to me, looking at me funny, and speaking to me differently when I tried to explain the hard data which proves otherwise, I knew we were in trouble. The more I dug, the clearer it became that the government was not interested in facts, and was instead pushing an agenda. It was all about a new vaccine right from the beginning. In all of the scientific history of masks, they had never been effective in controlled trials, and had shown consistently to cause hypoxia and no benefit or even worse outcomes for infections. Suddenly in March of 2020, masks were deemed effective when a handful of very unscientific studies (including a “study" on hamsters) showed up and claimed otherwise, and of course, the media ignored the entire hundred year history of masks in favor of the latter. Fear and division was being overtly encouraged, and I could see exactly where all of this was going. My “normal” friends told me that I’m overreacting. That I'm too deep down the rabbit hole. That nobody would ever get a ticket for not wearing a mask and the lockdowns would be over in a few weeks. A year and a half later, these same friends are now vaccinated and won't talk to me.

...natural immunity, recovery rates, age stratification. 

Right again, Conrad. Age stratification is important. That is why I am much more concerned for your mother than I am for you.

…yet mainstream media had become the arbiter of truth, singing an entirely different tune, convincing us that we were not smart enough to interpret what our own eyes were showing us. When my friends began repeating the ridiculous narratives…

Yes, we must not let the mainstream media be the arbiter of truth. However, the mainstream media is not all singing the same tune. The left leaning media pushes the narrative that masks are good. The right leaning media pushes the narrative that the left is lying about masks. That too is a narrative. And the alternative media also has a bunch of narratives. Conrad, did you ever wonder if it is all just stories, and stories about those stories, stories all the way down?

Fear and division was being overtly encouraged, and I could see exactly where all of this was going.

Because you are so good at seeing exactly where this is going, Conrad, let’s try an experiment. How about you making three predictions of specific things that will happen in the next two to five years, things that you believe are highly probable. And then we can watch together and see what happens. And five years from now I might say, Conrad, you were right.

A year and a half later, these same friends are now vaccinated and won't talk to me.

That is so sad. I am vaccinated and I wear a mask and I want to talk to you. I hope to talk to you for the rest of my life, hopefully for more than five years. We can keep talking and talking about where this is going. 

Governments are the most dangerous thing on Earth. Far more dangerous than any virus. Not even the Spanish Flu can hold a candle to the hundreds of millions of people who have been slaughtered by their own ruling class. Democide is a concept proposed by U.S. political scientist Rudolph Rummel to describe "the intentional killing of an unarmed or disarmed person by government agents acting in their authoritative capacity and pursuant to government policy or high command.” This term includes acts not directly covered by “genocide," such as criminal omission and neglect, or forced labor camps. According to Rummel, democide surpassed war as the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century. Statistically, you are more likely to be killed by an agent of your own government than any other human. But clearly history does not light the way, as so many cheer and clamor to give the government more power over them, not realizing that compliance and conformity are two necessary requirements for democide. In many ways, our government has already launched an assault against the people of this nation. The national media, and even the Prime Minister himself are already demonizing anyone who doesn’t want a vaccine that nobody needs. The vaccine mandates have arrived just as swiftly as the concept was dismissed as a “dangerous conspiracy theory” which would never come to pass only six months ago. Now my fellow citizens are repeating the rhetoric, and cheering for the scenario they said would never happen. There are real people out there who are convinced I should be made a second class citizen for not wanting a gene therapy with less than six months of safety data, and which admittedly doesn’t prevent infection or transmission. None of this bodes well. So how did we stray so far into the lie when the truth has been so clear from the beginning? Ah yes, that's right; the almighty “consensus.” We have the “experts” to thank for our slide down the slippery slope from “just wear a mask when you shop” to “get vaccinated or you can’t shop, period.”

I share your concerns about governments. But it is not all bad. The Government of Canada puts money in my bank account every month. We are living a good life here in Mexico with our Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security income. And while I am not impressed by the Government of Mexico, I think the drug cartels here are far more dangerous.

I've spoken to many proponents of government interventions, and a common thread runs through all of them. Since there is no good data to support any of these soul crushing countermeasures, if I get them to talk to me long enough, without fail, they get cornered by the data, and always fall back on the same argument; “well… if these measures didn't work, we wouldn’t be doing them. The scientists would have figured it out by now.” They don’t know how or why it works, the only thing they know is that the experts say it does. The “consensus" itself is cited as if it were evidence. But do the experts really know better? It's not like they speak a different language. Why is “the science" only alluded to, and never described? Most of the relevant data breaks down to simple grade school math, and can be understood by anyone, yet it's been a year and a half without an audit and the charade continues 

Since there is no good data to support any of these soul crushing countermeasures…

Conrad, have you ever heard of Viktor Frankl? He was a Jew who spent three years in German concentration camps including Auschwitz. The Nazis could not crush his soul and we can all learn much from his story. The Mexican government told me to get vaccinated and wear a mask and I do. But the Mexican government has not crushed my soul. In fact, something strange happened to me last year. I experienced six months of enhanced wellbeing and, all things considered, 2021 is a better year for me than 2019 was. And it seems to me that there are a lot of Canadians who have not had their souls crushed by the Government of Canada or the Government of Alberta.

Why is “the science" only alluded to, and never described?

After the pandemic began, I went to Wikipedia which described the science of infectious diseases caused by viruses quite well. And I looked at the history of the 1800s, the time before vaccines were developed, an ugly story. I am very grateful that I live in 2021 rather than 1821. I found far more science described in great detail than I could possibly absorb.

I wrote two essays that that captured my thoughts at the time I wrote them: About Homo Sapiens and Viruses, posted September 16, 2020 and About Infectious Diseases, posted April 17, 2021.

The COVID-19 era has brought an old saying to the front of my mind;

"If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"

My mother used to ask me this question whenever I would justify my actions with the logic that: "my friends did it." My mother asked me this for good reason. She was trying to teach me how to think for myself. She knew that the group can have a strong effect on perception. A consensus can often bypass individual scrutiny. When we see the majority of others behaving in a synchronous way, we assume that their behavior is correct, and want to fit in. But just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it right.

When we see the majority of others behaving in a synchronous way, we assume that their behavior is correct, and want to fit in.

I see very little synchronous behavior. There seems to be very little consensus on just about anything. Society seems very fragmented with most people gathering within their own tribe. It seems to me that everyone is fitting in but just in different tribes. Well, not quite. There are some people going off the grid so they can rightly claim that they are not fitting in.

When we appeal to authority, or the “wisdom of the group” this opens the door to all sorts of horrors. Many of us have heard of the Stanford and Milgram experiments (worth looking into if you haven't) but there was a lesser known series of fascinating studies conducted between 1950 and 1965 by Dr. Solomon Asch, an American psychologist. He was interested in group consensus, and the power a group can have on an individual. I think his findings are very applicable today.

Asch placed a naive participant (the "target") in a room with seven actors and told them they were taking an eye exam. The group was presented with a graphic showing three lines of different lengths, and a fourth line which was the same length as one of the other three. The group was asked to identify which line was the same length as the example, and had to announce their answer aloud, one by one, with the target individual placed near the end of the line. The actors were instructed to provide pre-planned responses, and the target didn't know everyone else was in on it. Asch wanted to see if the target could be persuaded to make a clearly incorrect choice due to group pressure.

The results showed a strong correlation. The actors unanimously provided the correct answer for the first two trials, and unanimously provided a wrong answer in the third. In all of the trials where the correct answer was provided, the target always provided the correct answer. But out of 12 critical trials where the group provided the wrong answer, 75% of participants conformed at least once, and on average about one third of total answers conformed to the incorrect consensus.

The subsequent interviews were just as interesting as the experiment itself. The biggest conformers were also the least aware, exhibiting what Asch called a "distortion of perception.” Those who agreed with the consensus in 50% or more of the trials truly believed that the group was correct, and were apparently totally unaware that wrong answers were being given. These participants had allowed the group to think for them entirely. These however were a small minority of the conformists. The majority of conformists instead expressed a "distortion of judgement.” They explained that as the group answered differently over time, they concluded they must be interpreting the data incorrectly, and the group must know something they did not. After a period of giving the right answer, they began to conform with the group. They were aware of the discord between themselves and the group, but the pressure was enough to make them doubt themselves to the point of providing a wrong answer. The rest of the participants exhibited a "distortion of action.” They claimed to know what the correct answer was, but went with the consensus to avoid the discomfort of being the odd one out. All of the conformists and all of their reasons had one thing in common; a lack of self confidence. They had all, to some degree, placed their trust with the group instead of their own discernment. Even the ones who suspected, or outright knew that the group was wrong were not brave enough to stand up for themselves and challenge the status quo. The problem was not the ability to discern, but the courage to stand alone.

On the other hand, those who consistently resisted the group pressure felt no different than the conformists. They too expressed that at times they had doubted themselves, or that they had considered "going along to get along" so as not to feel extricated from the group. They persevered with what they thought was the right answer, however, because that's what they had been asked to do. The main differing factor for these people who did not yield was the willingness to go against the grain rather than just the ability to judge. They trusted themselves and wanted to do what they saw as the right thing rather than the popular thing. While most participants were able to judge the data correctly, the main difference in outcome was bravery.

Dr. Asch demonstrated the power of groupthink and how easily the individual can slip into conformity, but by conducting variations of his original experiment he made further important discoveries about the nature of conformity.

The motivating factor seemed to be the unanimity of the group rather than the overall size. He found, for example, that the size of the group mattered, but only up to a point. It is not so difficult to disagree with one other person. With one other person, conformity was only 3%. With two, it rose to 13%. Three or more brought it up to 32% (1/3rd), but adding more had no further effect. In one variation, the target wrote down their answer. Conformity significantly decreased when the target responses were written and therefore exempt from the scrutiny of the group. When the difficulty of the task increased (ie. the difference in length of the bars becomes less obvious) conformity increased, showing that when we are uncertain, we look to others for confirmation. Conformity increased when the group was perceived to be an authority or more knowledgeable on the subject. We can infer much from all of this, but most important was the revelation of a “True Partner.” By adding only one "friendly" actor who gave the correct answer while the rest of the group still answered wrong, conformity dropped to 5%. When the friendly actor was removed, conformity shot up again. The size of the group didn't matter. All it took was one other person to break up the unanimity of the group, and that was enough to give others the confidence to speak their true thoughts. It turns out that people can snap out of conformity just as quickly as they slipped into it, with a little help from a friend.

Further studies conducted by researchers in the 70s and 80s challenged Asch's original findings. Perrin & Spencer et. al ran an exact replica of Asch's 1950s study, but were unable to replicate the same level of conformity. In fact, out of 396 trials, only once did the target comply with the erroneous majority. They dubbed Asch's experiment a "child of its time," proposing that the climate in the 1950s was much different and more conducive to conformity than the 70s and 80s. The newer study was performed specifically on mathematics, science and engineering students, however, who were naturally more inclined towards trusting their own analysis. But besides the difference in sample pool, in many ways Perrin & Spencer were correct. The 70s and 80s when their experiments were conducted were a much different time. Freedom of expression, free speech and individuality were at the forefront of the American collective. In contrast, during the post war backdrop of Asch's experiments, America was deeply entrenched in an anti-communist stance, socialist sympathies were demonized and adherence to American nationalism was strongly encouraged.

Yes, Conrad, I am familiar with the Stanford and Milgram experiments. And I am familiar with group think. And I have looked into cognitive biases, particularly confirmation bias. And I have looked into logical fallacies. And I have looked into illusions. This is all good stuff.

But human evolution does not follow a linear path. We often progress and regress through the same cycles of behavior many times throughout generations. If Asch's study, and the tendency to conformity itself could be a child of its time, then so could Perrin & Spencer's non-conformist results.

The innate drive for a human being to belong to a group and to be accepted by others is ever present. The fact should be obvious to anyone because it is our nature, and it is an aspect of our nature which can be exploited at any time. So how would the average person score now? It has been yet another 40 years since those findings by Perrin & Spencer. What would happen if Asch's experiments were conducted again today?

Conrad, are you not now a part of a group, a tribe which I will label as Freedom Fighters? There seems to be a very strong consensus in the group. How do you know how much of your own behavior comes from a desire for truth and how much comes from a need to belong to your group?  How much are you being influenced by the opportunity this group gives you to showcase your music?  I agree that we have strong innate drives, but there is more to that story than the need to belong. Group behavior and our own behavior are very complex matters.

Well, I propose that there is no need to wonder. Look around. Asch's experiment is being conducted all around us. North American society and much of the “civilized” world has shifted to a place where the group is revered and individuality shunned. Society has once again leaned into the prime tenet of a group think model, but our current state of technology pushes the potentials of the Asch effect to an extreme. Modern society is like Asch's experiment supercharged and on steroids.

Asch's experiments taught us that when an opinion is subject to scrutiny, it is more likely to align with the group scrutinizing.

You have identified one of the great challenges we face, the conflict between what is best for the individual and what is best for the collective, the group. It seems to me that there are two mistakes that can be made. It is obviously possible to overemphasize the collective and the twentieth century exposed the failures of communism and socialism, far too much of the collective. But we can have too much individual freedom as well. I doubt that you would want to live in a society with no speed limits for vehicles. And we would not want a society where people were free to sell cocaine. Telling me to wear a mask does not seem like much of a restriction on my freedom. But as I look at the USA, I see too much personal freedom which allows for the rise of people like Alex Jones.

The prevalence of social media has connected everyone, but instead of liberating us from our isolation, it has sent us further into it, unable to speak freely or risk being canceled by the mob. Our connectedness ensures that our views are made as public as possible.

Asch's experiments taught us that individuals seek and over trust authority, especially when the correct answers are unclear.

The government and media overwhelm us with conflicting and changing messaging, moving goalposts, dishonest/obscured data, and present hand picked "experts" who all sing in chorus to tell us how to make sense of it all. 

Asch's experiments taught us that it is not the size of the group, but the unanimity of the group that is so persuasive.

Dissenting voices are censored, ridiculed and reprimanded as publically as possible to smooth out the "consensus" and discourage anyone else from stepping out of rank. Asch's experiments taught us that one other person speaking truth to a lie encourages others to do the same. But in Asch's experiment, the "friendly actor" was still allowed to speak freely. What happens when a friendly actor speaks out, but they are ridiculed, shamed and "fact checked" for the effort? These are indeed unprecedented times. Dr. Asch would be horrified. 

I share your concern with cancel culture, the selective use of experts, the censoring of dissent, the ridiculing and shaming of others, all very bad.  But I see no consensus. Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham are going strong on FOX and Wolf Blitzer, Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper are going strong on CNN. The same is true of The New York Post and The New York Times. And then there is Breitbart… But there is no consensus.

Challenging the consensus is uncomfortable no matter how unreasonable the consensus is. In the last year, how many people have you heard explain away their behavior with something akin to; "Yeah it's dumb but I'm just going along to get along.” The problem with that excuse can be summed up eloquently by Asch himself.

"The tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black. This is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct."

But Conrad, it seems to me that the values that should guide us is the place where there is no consensus. It seems that our differences about what we value are what is driving us apart. Some people value freedom more than safety. Other people value safety more than freedom. Jonathan Haidt has done some very good work in this area.

When truth is no longer an objective value which guides our conduct, not worthy of individual scrutiny, but merely a matter of whatever the consensus is, we are in trouble. This allows others to think for us. When the consensus changes, we change right along with it without thinking twice. The COVID narrative has already shifted drastically multiple times on the topics of risk to the public, masks, natural immunity, lab leak theory, vaccine efficacy and safety, vaccine passports and more, and nobody even bats and eye. Yesterday's conspiracy theories and fact-checks are today's reality, and it seems as if most people don't notice, or care. But is that true? Or are the majority of people suspicious but just “going along to get along” due to massive group pressure?

When truth is no longer an objective value…

Objective truth exists by definition. It is the reality that exists in the external world and there is only one such reality. But we live in our own minds and, by definition, it is not possible for objective truth to be inside us, only some representation of that truth, that part of reality that we individually perceive. This is a deeply philosophical matter that should keep you awake at night if you really think about it. We could have a great discussion about this. 

Of course the COVID narrative has shifted many times since March 2020. At the beginning of the pandemic we knew very little. Each month that went by we learned more and adjusted our narrative accordingly. That does not necessarily mean that what was said in March 2020 was a lie or that the truth was being suppressed. So it is highly probable that the narrative will keep shifting in the future.

We are up against a monolith that would make Dr. Solomon Asch blush, but we can still learn much from his experiments. The power of one voice speaking truth to a lie is worth many more who are on the fence. If our society really is a giant Asch experiment, then the saving grace is that the majority of conforming participants knew or suspected they knew what the right answer was, they were just too scared to go against the perceived consensus. But it only took one other voice of reason to give them the courage to join the ranks of objective truth. We have an additional hurdle though. Since the relevant information is so heavily suppressed, it is up to us to provide it. We must be brave enough to push through the wall of censorship and stand up to the slander. We need to show people what the truth is as well as endorse it.

The power of one voice speaking truth…

You talk a lot about truth. Did you know that the word truth needs an adjective? Historical truth, scientific truth and mathematical truth are not the same kinds of things. These days we hear a lot about scientific truth. Everyone says that they are following the science. That is good advice but often people miss the bigger picture, that there is much more to life than scientific truth. I too try to follow the science but I do not only follow the science. It was obvious to you and me early in the pandemic that economic matters were as important as the science of infectious disease. And you, Conrad, as a musician, should easily grasp that we need to also seek the truth that can be found in music and art and myths and narratives and stories.

Censorship is so rampant because it only takes a small number to break up the unanimity. Conformity may be contagious, but so is bravery, and bravery is exponentially more powerful. That is why I do what I do. I swim upstream in the hopes that I can inspire others to do the same, and I encourage you to join me. Be brave my friends; resist the currents of conformity. Analyze and decide for yourself, and speak the truth in whatever capacity available to you. That is the most important contribution anyone can make. When we stand on our own, we challenge the ineffable consensus, and eventually, when enough of us fly our flag over the landscape, the spell will be broken. The majority of people are able to discern the truth when properly shown and encouraged. It is the bravery to go against the grain that makes all the difference in letting the truth come to light. I know you are out there, and there are many more of us than you think. Join us. Be brave my friends. Let's end the experiment.

I swim upstream in the hopes that I can inspire others to do the same, and I encourage you to join me. Be brave my friends; resist the currents of conformity. Analyze and decide for yourself, and speak the truth in whatever capacity available to you.

Conrad, you and I are trying to do the same thing! Yet somehow we are both swimming upstream but we are going in different directions. We seem to be resisting different currents. I love your rebellious spirit. I am finding myself late in life becoming more and more on the fringe of mainstream society.

For those who want homework, I believe I’ve found the best formula for dismantling the narrative. There are so many avenues to the conversation from virus isolation to the lab leak theory, and it is easy to get lost in the reeds. It is important to be as educated as possible, but when educating the uninitiated, it is more important to be clear, concise, rock solid and relevant. It needs to be as easy to digest and irrefutable as possible, so with that in mind I think the scam can be best summed up with the following; 

Total all cause mortality, total ICU admissions, age stratification of deaths, testing protocols, definition of "covid case" and "covid death," Laos, Vietnam, Thailand, China, and Nigeria. 

For those who want homework, I believe I’ve found the best formula for dismantling the narrative.

I too have a formula: beware of those who claim to have the formula. And I am skeptical of dismantling the narrative. It seems to me that there are many narratives. Yes, they have a narrative but so do you and so do I. Like I said before, it's all stories all the way down.

Let’s break it down from the top;

I’m aware of the CDC making the claim that there has been excess mortality in the US over the course of the pandemic, but there are some major problems with their data. First of all, it is not a strict year over year comparison of the total number of deaths from all causes, it is an unnecessarily complicated mathematical model based on taking a few weeks of the year and working with averages based on that time frame. This is problematic because the death rate grows slightly each year, so averaging backwards in time will always create the illusion of excess mortality. But why use a mathematical model based on a small portion of the year when you can just add up the totals? If you just do that, you see that the overall rate of death has not changed anywhere in the world during 2020. The increased rate of all cause mortality in Canada was exactly what we would expect in any normal year, and many places including Canada show higher rates of death occurring during non-pandemic years in the last decade. 

Even with their obvious attempt to spin what should be simple data, the amount of excess deaths being proposed by the CDC is still only around 30k while the official tally of “COVID deaths” is 20x higher than that. Furthermore, even if they were shown to clearly exist, there is zero data to suggest that these excess deaths have anything to do with COVID. But even if we take their number at face value and assume its all a direct result of a “novel virus,” things still don’t add up. If “COVID deaths” are over 600,000 in the US alone, but there is only 30k in excess, then what exactly are the other 570,000 “COVID deaths?” Thus, the CDC’s own attempt to demonstrate “excess deaths” due to COVID inadvertently shows the exact opposite. 

You are correct, Conrad, to focus on the concept of excess mortality. And, like you, I do not trust the CDC. I do not even want to look at their data.

I looked at Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) compiled by Our World in Data. For the year 2020 for the USA they concluded that, “The raw death count gives us a sense of scale: for example, the US suffered roughly 472,000 excess deaths in 2020, compared to 352,000 confirmed COVID-19 deaths during that year.” But maybe they are wrong. Conrad, my challenge to you is to review this analysis and show me where it is in error.

In Canada, I’m aware of two Freedom of Information requests in regards to ICU numbers that show the same phenomenon. One for Alberta, by Chris Scott, owner of The Whistle Stop Café in Mirror, AB, and another for Ontario, by Adam Skelly, former owner of Adamson BBQ in Etobicoke. But hey, if you want to join the ranks of the Brave, you can always file your own. They will all show the same thing as Alberta and Ontario; nothing changed. Previous “non-pandemic" years (2017/18) racked up more ICU admissions than the full-blown “pandemic" in 2020. Go figure. This statistic alone destroys the narrative full stop, and watching people’s reactions to this information is always very interesting. The most common response is; “this can’t be true, I don’t trust it. It’s just a chart.” But it is true, and the data comes straight from the government. The ICU data falls directly in line with and corroborates the all cause mortality data. Despite the hysteria about a novel virus, nothing has changed in 2020.

Perhaps nothing changed in 2020 in Alberta, but what about the ICU bed situation now in  October 2021? I watch CTV and CBC news and there seems to be a crisis where you live. Doctors and nurses are in a state of panic over this. Is this all fake news?

Next, I cannot stress enough how important it is to bring the age stratification of deaths to the forefront of our collective wisdom. The media is now trying to convince us that it’s a good idea to vaccinate all the children, but a simple glance at the official government numbers unequivocally shows otherwise. As of August 27th, 2021, in all of Canada, since the start of the “pandemic,” we have 16 deaths aged 19 or younger. Sixteen. And keep in mind that this is a year and a half worth of data. To help put this in perspective, the same age group for the calendar year 2018-2019 suffered: 

So why isn’t the government launching any campaigns about heart health, mental health and emotional support, childhood cancer or influenza, or vehicle safety, considering that these problems all range from 200% - 3975% more “deadly” to our children than COVID. Just a hunch, but I’d bet it has something to do with the fact that there is no vaccine manufactured for profit by a private company that can “protect” children from unintentional accidents. 

Beyond the 16 deaths under the age of 19, as of August 27th, 2021, in Canada, according to official government data, we have;

Let’s pause for a moment to acknowledge that over a year and a half, in a nation of almost 40 million, we have a total of 585 COVID deaths below the age of 50. To help put that in perspective, for the calendar year 2018-2019, Canada had 16,174 cancer deaths below the age of 50. You can’t tell me the government is looking out for us while they completely ignore something that causes 2664% more death than COVID.

By using official government statistics at face value and grade school math, we don’t need the help of any so called experts to make an incredible revelation. The overwhelming majority of deaths in Canada (63%) are at the age of general life expectancy, and the deaths drop off sharply from there. 84% of all COVID deaths in Canada are over the age of 70, and 94% of the deaths are over the age of 60. Deaths below the age of 60 only constitute around 6% of COVID deaths. Once again, it is not possible to call these figures a “pandemic.” But what is a “COVID death” anyway? This brings me to the next point. 

I agree with the spirit of what you say, Conrad. I have long been troubled by how little has been done about deaths caused by drunk drivers. And I have long been troubled by our inability to reduce suicides. So yes, we should look at all deaths from all causes, all stratified by age. 

Why are we as a society not looking at this data?

Earlier you pointed out that fear is used to control and manipulate people and right you are. One of the big fears in society is a fear of death. I can’t help but wonder whether a denial of excess deaths is somehow connected to a fear of death. To be Brave, Conrad, is to squarely face our own mortality and perhaps you have done so. Hopefully we can discuss this some more sometime.

Remember my experience trying to get tested at the start of 2020? Well, shortly thereafter, things took a sharp turn in the other direction, and the protocols became so loose that pretty much anything can be considered a “COVID death.” According to the official WHO guidelines, all that is needed for classification of death “due to” COVID is a positive, or even “presumed positive” test result.  Essentially, the only criteria needed to diagnose a death as due to COVID is “a positive PCR test at or around the time of death.”  That’s it. It doesn’t matter if the person had three comorbidities and was given a week to live, if that test comes back positive, that’s a COVID death. Dr. Ngozi Ezike, Director of Public Health in Illinois spilled the beans herself during a press conference last year, saying that “the case definition of COVID death is very simplistic… even if they died of a clear alternate cause, but the test was positive, that would still be considered a COVID death.”

So what about the testing then? If all of the numbers hinge so heavily on the test, we’d better be sure it’s accurate. Enter the PCR test. PCR stands for polymerase chain reaction, and is a process of amplification. It takes a sample of something so small that it cannot be seen with a microscope, and magnifies it exponentially until it can be measured. The problem with this is that with enough magnification, it can find viral particles still kicking around from a flu infection you had when you were eight years old. If we use too many cycles of amplification, and use viral particles alone to determine a “case,” this is a recipe for many false positives, especially as more and more of the general population comes into contact with the virus. In Episode 641 of the “This Week in Virology” Podcast, which aired on July 16, 2020, Anthony Fauci himself said that anything over 35 cycles is unusable, and is just “dead nucleotides, period.” To quote him directly (parenthesis added for context;

“…If you get [perform the PCR test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”

His comments are around the 4:00 minute mark of the podcast for anyone who wants to look it up. Meanwhile, the FDA’s official guidelines recommend 40 cycles, and all across Canada, Europe, the US, and the world at large, hospitals are using PCR tests with cycles anywhere from 36-50. The inventor of the PCR test himself, Kary Mullis, has stated in no unclear terms that the PCR test should not be used the way we are using it. He explained that it is “too good” at finding particles that are likely irrelevant, and should never be used in the absence of other diagnostic measures. It should be part of an array, and not the only diagnostic tool. Yet this is exactly what we are doing. An interesting side note is that hospitals in the US are being paid to classify patients and deaths as COVID. Look up Dr. Scott Jensen for more details on this topic. Hospitals were being offered up to $40,000 per COVID death. It doesn’t take a genius to figure this out. It’s exactly what it looks like. Loose definitions and monetary incentives to abuse them. This is the crux of the whole scam, as it has turned into a PCR driven “casedemic.” If the cycles were reduced, or even better yet, we only counted people who were clinically ill, the “pandemic” would vanish overnight.

I agree that the whole matter of testing is problematic. But I am skeptical of your assertion that it is all just a scam. However, I have not researched this aspect of the situation so I will say no more at this time.

Finally, all of the regions I mentioned are of particular interest because they are anomalies when it comes to COVID statistics, including, of all places, China. John’s Hopkins has put out an official real-time COVID world map, and if you know where to look, you will find statistics that are impossible to justify. Search the map, and even Google for any of the mentioned regions, and be amazed. These are some of the most populous countries in the world, some of which never bothered much with countermeasures including vaccinations, yet they all have less total deaths than the province of Ontario. Some have less than half. 

For the birthplace of the virus, China has done remarkably well overall with only 4636 total deaths as of August 2021. Shanghai has a population half the size of Canada jammed into one city, and to date, has seven COVID deaths. There has been essentially no COVID deaths in China since March of 2020. It’s almost as if China's only goal was to set the stage for the rest of the world, and then stopped the farce as soon as their program was adopted everywhere else. This statistic is so strange that as of August 2021, Google will not even graph the deaths in China. The option is greyed out. It will only show the cases on a graph, but even the cases abruptly trickle down to nothing in March of 2020. How is it possible that the entire country of China, where the virus originated, with a population of 1.44 billion, has less than one fifth of the deaths in Canada? To further put this into perspective, Canada has a population that is 2.7% as large as China, yet Canada has 479% more deaths. Does that make any sense at all? 

Thailand and Vietnam both have very interesting charts. If you simply look up “Thailand/Vietnam COVID deaths” on Google, you will see what I mean. Thailand, with its population of 70 million had managed to keep COVID deaths below 50 without vaccinations until April of 2021. One more time for those in the back. <50 deaths in a population of 70 million over a year and a half. No vaccine. Thailand began their vaccine rollout slowly with healthcare workers at the start of March. Then suddenly, after a year and half of no deaths, for the first time ever, deaths began to creep up in April of 2021. Thailand began their mass vaccination rollout very recently in mid July, and since then the deaths have gone through the roof. In a matter of months, Thailand went from less than 50 deaths, to 12,103, and 6732 of those occurred in August 2021 alone. Vietnam tells an almost identical tale. The chart shows nobody dying until the deaths suddenly begin to spike in June/July of 2021. Vietnam now has 12,138 deaths, and 10,067 of those are from August of 2021. Vietnam began their mass vaccine rollout In June. They went from 4% with one dose to just under 20% with one dose from mid July until August 21s and that happens to be exactly when the deaths skyrocketed for the first time ever. If anyone ever tries to tell you that vaccines are safe, effective, and the only way out of this, show them this data. 

Laos appears to have simply refused to play ball after the first few weeks, with a population of 7.3 million, a shared border with China, and fourteen deaths as of August 2021.

Nigeria on the other hand has less COVID deaths than the state of Iowa. Iowa has a population of 3.1 million. Nigeria has a population of 201 million and never cared much for non medical interventions (lockdown, masks etc.) - So how is it remotely possible that Iowa has approximately twice as many deaths as Nigeria? This is not possible based on the narrative we’ve been fed; that COVID is everywhere, and is very dangerous. But the reality should be clear by now. There are different rubrics at play, and ultimately COVID is a game of reclassification and nothing more. The nations with low death counts are employing much stricter definitions which include using PCR tests in proper context and at a reasonable cycle threshold, while nations with runaway death counts are simply using high threshold PCR tests and extremely loose definitions of “COVID death” to classify as many otherwise normal deaths they can as “COVID deaths.” This reality is irrefutably demonstrated by these key talking points. We can go back and forth about whether or not the virus has been isolated all day, and that is indeed an important angle in getting to the bottom of this, but why rest on such a technical discussion when it is not even necessary to expose the scam? The truth has been right in front of our eyes the whole time according to “official” statistics, statements and guidelines. You just need to be brave enough to look for it, uncover it, and braver yet to speak it.

This is interesting, Conrad. The pandemic is playing out quite differently from country to country. But I am not just interested in only the few countries you mention. I would like to see a comprehensive analysis of every country. I do look at Our World in Data Coronavirus Country Profiles sometimes but there is so much happening so fast that it is overwhelming. Too many countries, too little time...

This has been a brief summary of my awakening to the world, a detailed account of my awakening to the COVID scam, plenty of food for thought, and a plethora of ammunition for the fight ahead. As you can probably tell by now, I let logic and reason dictate my beliefs and opinions. Nothing more, and nothing less. The truth is always there, no matter how well hidden. It can never be destroyed, only obscured. It remains patiently, ever present and ready to be discovered by someone brave enough to see it for what it is rather than what they’ve been told it is. If we allow others to dictate our thoughts, we betray our own powers of observation and discernment, and may end up calling white black without even realizing it. After discovering that the wool had been pulled over my eyes this way, I vowed to never let that happen again, and have been paying acute attention to the world I inhabit ever since. 

What people perceive as my Bravery is really just a deep understanding. How could I possibly act any other way knowing all that I have disclosed here? I could not idly stand by knowing what I know. The implications are far too strong. Therefore my bravery is a natural by-product of my understanding. In Asch’s experiments, it was those who were most sure of themselves who stood up to the consensus. They had the deepest understanding of the data presented to them. But the trick of Asch’s experiments was that the lines were just similar enough to sow doubt when confronted with the pressure of the group. In a similar way, I believe there is an inner conflict happening within most people. They know that something feels “off,” but the data being presented along with the consensus about it is just convincing enough to keep them doubting their instincts. But there is no arguing with the data I have presented here. That’s why it is never spoken of, and that is why we must show it to them. What if Asch’s experiment had made the answer overwhelmingly obvious? Would anyone have fallen for it? Perhaps we should try this variation ourselves. 

To all of the awakened souls, whether you’ve been awake longer than me or you just woke up right now, you are awake because you trust your own understanding and do not let anyone else think for you. And now, we must teach others to do the same – we must make the truth overwhelmingly obvious, and shatter the consensus in the process, so that even the most timid among us can step into the truth, unhindered and unafraid. 

You are now equipped with all of the ingredients you need to serve up the truth as a “true partner,” and blaze a trail for others to follow. Let an understanding based on logic and reason guide you, trust your judgement and instincts above all, and the secret ingredient: Bravery, will flow effortlessly from you.

 I let logic and reason dictate my beliefs and opinions. Nothing more, and nothing less. 

Have you no feeling in your gut? Have you no beliefs or opinions based on intuition? Are you able to perfectly control your emotions? If so, you are a better man than I am. I am skeptical of the idea that we can be purely rational beings guided by logic and reason and true science.  

And now, we must teach others to do the same – we must make the truth overwhelmingly obvious, and shatter the consensus in the process, so that even the most timid among us can step into the truth, unhindered and unafraid.

I love your passion, Conrad, and I like your approach. But you have not convinced me that this is all just a scam. I am pleased that you have put your thoughts in writing, on the record, something I do myself. 

I have read BRAVE: THE LOGICAL CHOICE twice. I hope you will read what I write below at least once. And I hope we can keep discussing this in the public domain. I know of a good platform where we could do that. In any event, be well and keep creating.

On the Bus

Something is wrong, very wrong. Many of us can feel it in our gut. Many of us are trying to make sense of the senseless world we now live in.

Governments tell us not to worry. We can fix this, they say. Trust us. We, the Government, are driving the bus and we will get you to the promised land.

But we have lost trust in Governments. The coronavirus pandemic was the last straw for many of us. Anyone can see the mess they made, worse in some countries than others.

The bus is headed towards the edge of the cliff and picking up speed. Somebody needs to do something. And now lots of somebodies are popping up all over the place promising to be our savior.

Some somebodies are telling us that Governments have never really been in charge. It is really an evil cabal that is driving the bus. Good, we think. Now we know what to do. We the people will expose the cabal and take over the task of driving the bus. We will save ourselves.

We rush to the front of the bus and, and, oh no, the driver’s seat is empty! NO ONE IS DRIVING THE BUS! And it is too late, the bus is going too fast and we cannot jump off as we approach the edge of the cliff.

Some on the bus are gripped with fear. NO ONE WILL SAVE US. It is too late!

Strangely, some on the bus seem to have no fear. They know the bus has no driver and is headed for the cliff. Yet somehow they have learned to HAVE NO FEAR. Maybe they know something. Or maybe this is just another story.

NO ONE IS DRIVING THE BUS. NO ONE WILL SAVE US. HAVE NO FEAR. Crazy shit.