This paper out of MIT in January, 2021 describes exactly the same thinking. A pronouncement that the writers/researchers possess the one unquestionable, perfected truth, an assertion without any evidence other than the pronouncement itself. And that all other understandings and analysis, no matter the qualifications of the presenter or evidence presented are false, ignorant, wrong, "unorthodox.' The use of religious terms not a coincident. A self-own that their "truth" is really their faith, their religious devotion to the religion of Scientism. And to question them, their tenets is heresy. Not Wrong, Not untrue. But evidence of an unbeliever in their God:
Viral Visualizations: How Coronavirus Skeptics Use Orthodox
Data Practices to Promote Unorthodox Science Online
(Contains a lot of important background to begin the paper, with the most revealing insights in pages 13-15)
When you read it you'll notice a few names you may recognize from the censorship industry, including Kate Starbird, oft-cited and serving on many of the official government and quasi-government information control programs. Over 100 footnotes to the work of many in the censorship industry regime, if one wishes to go down those rabbit holes.
It's not just that they make bold and unmerited assertions that they possess the singular truth and all others are false. All religions do the same. It's their self-righteousness that escalates into the rhetoric that rationalizes and justifies a religious crusade against non-believers. It's not enough to cast out the heretic, the heretics must be hunted down, forced into submission, converted to their religion or suffer the sword. The paper calls for persecution and eradication of all non-believers from public life, polite society, placed into ghettos, both thought and actual impoverishment. Perhaps death comes later when they believe they have the power to get away with it?
These are evil people. When researchers dove into the records of the Nazi's following Germany's defeat after WWII they discovered damning information, detailed records of their atrocities that were presented as evidence at Nuremberg. Many wondered why they were so brazen as to document their crimes against humanity? It was because they didn't view themselves or their work as evil. They believed they were doing good an righteous work, proudly detailing what they thought were accomplishments, not crimes. Hitler even wrote Mein Kampf years before he gained power, his plans for evil were out there for the world to see. Many in power, including in the US agreed with his writings and goals. Not believing them evil, crimes. Others who were taken back by the words chose to dismiss them, "he doesn't really mean that, he could never get away with that, authorities would never allow that to actually happen, that's the crazy talk of a lunatic." The evil in our time tells us what they are doing. Proudly. We just choose to dismiss them, as those who came before us dismissed Mein Kampf and the words and deeds of the perpetrators of the worst crimes against humanity did.
And if anyone was ever curious about what they would've done living in Germany in the 1930's they only need to look into the mirror and reflect on their thoughts and actions since 2020. Sames. The Nazi Party never had majority support in Germany. Getting 43% in the last free election held there, even with opposition parties effectively silenced and on the heals of a crisis they staged, the Reichstag fire (their January 6). Proving it doesn't take a majority of a nation to lead it to hell. Just the will to power. This evil has the will to power. As Nietzsche wrote and Hitler learned from. Sames. A religious zealotry, righteousness, not in God, but in Science, pseudosciences, given divinity.
This write up by Townhall's Scott Moorefield about the paper above gives some good snippets for those who don't care to dive into the research paper above:
kate starbird's grandfather was general alfred dodd starbird, a longtime spook who was in charge of some of the last of the atomic bomb tests in the early 1960s, then ran the DOD's defense communication agency.
Fascists are almost always eugenicists. They truly believe their own genetics are better than the rest of mankind's. That they are the born rulers. Similar to monarchies, royalists, 'blue bloods.' It's why Buck v Bell "Three generations of imbeciles is enough" SCOTUS ruling allowing sterilizations and euthanasia is still the law, even after Nazi's cited it as defense at Nuremberg - "you Americans said so, we just followed your lead."
The Starbird connection makes sense. Thing is, eugenics is a pseudoscience, a lie, descendants of smart, successful people are often stupid lazy entitled people, dangerous because they believe their genes makes them inherently smarter than others. Stupid people bossing others around with a presumption of intelligence and authority are capable of doing terrible things to the world.
Intelligence on its own is basically processing power - it says nothing about what's on the hard drive.
So you could have among the highest strongest most capable processing power... and a hard drive full on online games, porn, and pirated movies and such.
Rule by what is deemed intelligence alone, that processing power is what these drunk on power and credentialed "elite" are drawn to, like moths to flames. "Follow the Science" demands. Follow processing power of a hard drive.
Sixty years ago an esteemed philosopher and law professor, Walter Berns predicted the evolution of law becoming an implement of Social sciences, behavioral sciences specifically. Cautioning about jurisprudence "following the science" into totalitarianism instead of applying good 'ole fashioned wisdom:
Law and Behavioral Science by Walter Berns
Law and Contemporary Problems (Duke Law School), Winter, 1963
[The first 14 pages get into a game theory type application of behavioral sciences on judicial philosophy. In trying to understand the rulings of the Roberts court it could be speaking to the same philosophy. The final 14 pages are very informative and cautionary for the type of governance we are being subjected to today.]
Intelligence isn't wisdom. Science doesn't calculate wisdom. Good leaders are wise. And don't demand people follow unwise science. Weak, pathetic, wretched leaders turn governing over to a hard drive.
The fact that deviation from an authorized set of beliefs now jeopardizes a practitioner’s medical license in California, and they must therefore remain in the consensus lane as determined by some unnamed arbiter, which is likely to be the same public health establishment responsible for our disastrous pandemic response, is Orwellian in the extreme—and idiotic. I wrote about AB2098 here:
Suffice it to say that this new statute will not only harm patients by depriving them of information, but it will further erode trust in public health when the institution can least afford it. This isn’t really about a dangerous spread of dis/misinformation, but is instead an example of the dangerous weaponization of the concept of dis/misinformation in order to silence medical practitioners who don’t trumpet The Narrative™.
As you pointed out in the first part of your excellent post, totalitarians, no matter where nor when, always want to purge those they disagree with, or who might disagree with them, or are just in the way. Thus, the Jacobins purged (executed) the Girondins, who had purged (executed) the royalists, in France, who were then purged (executed) by Napoleon. The original Bolsheviks purged (executed) the Czarists, who were then in turn purged (executed) by the Leninists, who were later purged (executed) by the Stalinists. Same in China, starting before Mao and him extending it through purging (executing) anyone who disagreed, or could do so, maybe. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum. We are witnessing a Maoist revolution here and in all the Angloshere because we are the last barrier to world totalitarian take-over and control. RFK's thoughts and words might have been radical 10 years or so ago: now he's been left behind by more ruthless and violent actors who consider him weak and a purveyor of... misinformation. They haven't accused him of being a secret MAGA spy yet: give them time. I hope the two doctors win their case in your state. I can't believe anyone actually has to take something like free speech to court, but totalitarians have to destroy or at least suppress anyone who disagrees with anything they believe.
That Barbara Ferrer kinda reminds me of someone else who was prone to self-important overzealousness and actually shared the initials "B.F." He was a sheriff's deputy who lived in Mayberry back in the 60's...
"We know only a single science, the science of history. One can look at history from two sides and divide it into the history of nature and the history of men. The two sides are, however, inseparable; the history of nature and the history of men are dependent on each other so long as men exist. The history of nature, called natural science, does not concern us here; but we will have to examine the history of men, since almost the whole ideology amounts either to a distorted conception of this history or to a complete abstraction from it. Ideology is itself only one of the aspects of this history."
Marxists don't believe there is a difference between the science of nature, "Natural Science" (like chemistry and biology) and the science of man, "Social Science" (like political science and behavioral science).
The pandemic propagandists have hidden in plain sight, claiming they are "following the science" for all of their public policy demands. Hiding in the ambiguity of the word "science" without facing questions about what *type* of science. Natural science, hard science, real science as most imagine science is? Or Social science, soft science, pseudoscience as most imagine fake science is? Like the science of the eugenicists exposed a century ago, to the horror of the world.
Hiding in plain sight, in the assumptions that the word "science" comes with. Marxists believing there is only one science, no distinction, is what allows them to hide in the ambiguity of the word, linguistics. Like Marxist Noam Chomsky taught generations of Marxists to use. So do the propagandists. And the fact is, that since 2020 we've witnessed hard, natural sciences, medical, microbiology, etc take a back seat to soft, social sciences, political, behavioral. Dr's of Psychology like Sigmund Freud have been performing open heart surgery while Dr's of Cardiology look down from the observation balcony above.
An evolution of the "Science Wars." A link to a Marxist's perspective on the Science Wars, surprisingly well- balanced within the writer's paradigm. I use the much better linked sources he thoughtfully includes for more credible reference points:
"Marxists don't believe there is a difference between the science of nature, "Natural Science" (like chemistry and biology) and the science of man, "Social Science" (like political science and behavioral science)."
This is not true, excepting modern-day woke and post-modern so-called marxists, and their stance has everything to do with postmodernism, not marxism.
What was, is that old-school marxists thought social sciences could be as exact as natural sciences claim to be, which is not the case; social sciences have fuzzier edges than the natural ones, and rarely have the luxury of being able to parse a problem down to something testable in a laboratory, in a short timespan. Just look at behavioural psychology: you might have to wait a decade or more for your results, as per the marshmallow study.
What your quoted part talks about is that natural science is always implemented by man, and is therefore always subject to man's social structures for how it is implemented - that's how the two interact and affect each other. Social conditons enables/hinders particular scientific research (like gain-of-function, CRISPR, mRNA-"vaccines" f.e.), and breakthroughs of the science in question (see previous parenthesis) are then implemented within the parameters of the social order, in turn changing said order and enabling/hindering science.
The marxist understanding of scientific progress is the cause-effect-loop described above.
Thank you. I appreciate your thoughtful reply. One could make the argument that the distinction between old-school marxists, marxism and modern-day woke and post-modern so-called marxists is an exercise in parsing. Positioning a modern-day non-woke, non-post-modern marxism that you describe as being the "true" marxism. Its ancestors and prodigy the "wrong" type of marxism. Parsing it to a sweet spot...that itself is an evolution, and itself will evolve.
Language games as per Wittgenstein (whom Karl Popper accused of continually polishing his glasses without ever looking through them). 'True marxism has never been tried' kinda thought pathway 😉
Republican politicians looked the other way while these Newspeak-programmed automata slithered their way under the office doors of every public body in our once-cherished 'Democracy'. Apres eux le Deluge. (as we who get our French phrases from Google like to say).
Congress is so far beyond useless…they’re actually worse than useless. Corrupted to the core. What do they actually DO?! They certainly don’t work for ‘we the people’ (lobbying).
This is why totalitarians censor. I have my issues with Steve Bannon. He says and does many things I agree with. And he says and does some things I don't agree with, and don't trust him on. That said, when people finally hear a side of a debate they've never heard before, been told horrible things about and avoided they can change their minds. This video is from a debate held in Canada in front of a VERY liberal audience, an audience that was outwardly hostile to Steve Bannon and supportive of David Frum throughout it. An audience that groaned at Bannon, mockingly laughed at him, applauded all of the liberal talking points they shared with Frum and the moderator, who is an "elite" liberal, not a populist. The audience was surveyed at the beginning and the end of the debate about which side of the issue they were on. The shift was dramatic and unexpected.
The future is Populist or Liberal?
From pre-debate: Populist 28% - Liberal 72%
To post-debate: Populist 57% - Liberal 43%
Steve Bannon vs David Frum - The Rise of Populism - Munk Debate Nov 2, 2018
Because when people hear a side they have never heard before, from the mouth of the person who holds those ideas instead of through a filter that applies a bias, they become more open-minded to an idea they thought they knew their position on before. And this debate is an example of why we are so censored. The powers, government and industry, know the power of free speech reaching ears that haven't heard censored ideas before. And they fear a population that does hear them. For good reason. They know their ideas are losers in free and fair debates. Even in front of liberal, progressive, "elite" audiences. This is why they criminalize dissenters, when your ideas suck you can't let people hear why they suck.
If you haven't read Wild Swans yet, it's an excellent portrayal of life in Communist China from the perspective of a child of Communist revolutionaries. She also details her grandmother's life as a concubine to a warlord general and life under the Kuomintang. That book left me haunted. As it should.
I read it a long time ago, after I dropped out of college. :)
Just listened to it again on Audible and it was really good.
Then I tried listening to her biography of Mao and couldn't get through it. Probably because I'm a tired mom and it was hard to keep listening to stories about someone so sociopathic. Half way through the book I needed a break.
I read it commuting between Philadelphia and New York. It passed the time on several round trips. About the only thing I retain from completing the book is the knowledge that Mao was a filthy pig, in the literal sense of those terms, never bathing or even washing his hands.
The most pressing question is why so many “scientists” act as if they believe any science is settled when in fact we know it is never settled. I worked at NIH during the outbreak and lock down. I have pictures of a shrine set up to deify Fauci. I was gobsmacked to the point of nausea how quickly and with no dissent the NIH campus instituted rules with zero basis in science. Be very careful who you trust. Be your own advocate
Tyranny happens when either elections are shams or the power of the elected is permanently relinquished by the elected to the unelected. It takes courage to take that power back. Political courage in America today is as rare as a sentence written by the puppet-Joe administration directed at their Republican opposition that doesn't contain the word racist. No courage means no elections; just "elections."
"the power of the elected is permanently relinquished by the elected to the unelected..." CHECK
the people who make the laws are not required to obey the laws... CHECK
The rule of law is no longer in effect in the U.S. I am afraid it will take more than courage to get it back. If such a thing is even possible now. What does history tell us about ridding ourselves of rule by tyrants?
It doesn't tell us to be sure to "vote." Demonstrable courage will return the rule of law. When tyrants won't step aside you make them an offer they can't refuse. It takes courage to make and back up that offer.
" It takes courage to make and back up that offer."
Absolutely. But will courage be enough? What is our strategy from taking our institutions and our freedoms back from the leftists? They had a strategy when they took them. What will ours be?
We first have to make sure those charged with administration of our elections see to it that the procedures are incorruptible. But Wait, those people were either elected using a corrupted system or appointed by the corrupted elected. This is where making them an offer they can't refuse comes in. When the ballot is taken away liberty-tree watering has to begin. There is no alternative if a return to self-government is to be realized. Once those elected reflect the will of the people who elected them they must start starving the bloated beasts we call the administrative state. Take away their money. It is in the Constitution. Financing the Executive branch is the prerogative of the legislative.
This is unbelievably dangerous. If this suppression of physician speech is allowed to stand, basically you will NEVER know if your physician is acting in your best interest or simply spewing the proverbial party line. To spell it out for the Democrats in the audience. If the state decides that “science” says you must take “X” for your condition, even if that’s not medically appropriate, your doctor has to recommend it or may lose their license. Well they’d never do that! Uh, they just did and a lot of people died. Remdesivir aka “Rundeathisnear” is one example. Untested mRNA jabs are another. Suppressing better, remarkably safe treatments like Ivermectin is another.
How can these mfer Commies get away with this? Because physicians by and large, like lawyers and professors and soldiers and border patrolmen and everybody else these days don’t want to lose their paycheck. The solutions are either sue the state - which is in process or 10-20000 doctors flip the Commies in the legislature and disobey. They’re not gonna punish everybody. But that will not happen.
And if they do it to doctors, they can do it to any other licensed professional. I predict the state will lose ultimately but they will still have put more fear out there, which harms the citizenry.
In one bit of bittersweet news out of Cali, Mark Tessier-Lavigne, neuroscientist and President of Stanford University tendered his resignation after a university committee found numerous instances of fudged data in multiple publications out of his lab. The committee says that he might not have personally been involved, it just happened a dozen times in his lab. 🙄 it seems without academic fraud and lust for powerthese days, there would be very little academia. Stanford continues to beclown itself..... can’t wait for the next embarrassing episode from my formerly great alma mater.
I fully support those doctors suing their state, I know full well the danger of propositions like that and I know it from experience.
Some 10-15 years ago, the code regulating how swedish teachers (of all levels/grades excepting universities) work was re-written - again. A little passage about "core values" was inserted instead of the older one.
Said older one specified that any subject be taught in a "factual, impartial and objective manner", plus some bits about professionalism, professional integrity, and so on - nothing hair-raising and the text made clear distinction between the teacher at work and not, that students are always considered in a "position of dependency", a phrase with real legal ramifications: doesn't matter if your students are 25, no private relationships allowed, platonic or otherwise.
The new one, basis for the current one (it's re-formulated every other year nowadays) instead states the teacher must teach, act and speak according to the "core values" of inclusivity, equity, and tolerance. DEI in swedish, 15 years ahead of you - I sometimes think my country has either infected others or has been used as a test range for those ideas.
And these "core values" must be publicly embraced by the teacher at work and in their private life, in all areas. Teachers have been fired, fined and stripped of their formal status as teacher for (drum roll) not using the made-up pronouns of a ten-year old, for not kow-towing to demands from moslem parents (like shaking hands, the average moslem regard "infidels" as filth, especially unmarried women), for being suspected of voting "wrong" and for teaching more than just the Climate Doom-narrative.
Wall of text perhaps, but I felt a little background was needed - it's way easier for me to read US media than it is for you to read swedish ones, right?
Those doctors and all others like them deserve the full support anyone can give them, regardless of other issues. If you start letting the state not only censor you but dictate to you what The Right Way of Thinking is, inside one generation you'll lose virtually all ability to turn the current development.
With drawing support from corrupt systems is just the first step, and it needs to be seen as a step back to get a good (metaphorical) run-up for a good hard kick to the nether regions of the system itself. Look at Canada, where the unvaccinated are being denied organ transplants even when providing their own donors, even if (or maybe especially...) it leads to the death of the unvaccinated person. Canada isn't some insert-whacko-ideology-far-off country, Canada is your next-door neighbour. If that can happen there, what can happen in the US once the same train starts gaining speed on your home turf?
Psychopaths and sociopaths gravitate towards occupations, any occupation, which will give them authority over others. The power to manipulate others, to bend them to their will, is what they live for. That may be a criminal barking commands at a hapless victim he intends to murder (what TPTB want us to believe represents psychopathy) or it may be a bureaucrat enforcing petty regulations with zeal (what TPTB don't want us to know can emanate from a sociopathic personality). The greatest single advance humans could make in science would be an accurate test for the psychopath/sociopath spectrum to keep budding Nazis out of government or any other occupation that would feed their appetite for controlling others. The most interesting thing to me about the covid era has been how it brought those people out of the woodwork, from county health officials, to mask Karens on the street, to journalists who gleefully parroted the government line. They are the real pox on humanity.
This paper out of MIT in January, 2021 describes exactly the same thinking. A pronouncement that the writers/researchers possess the one unquestionable, perfected truth, an assertion without any evidence other than the pronouncement itself. And that all other understandings and analysis, no matter the qualifications of the presenter or evidence presented are false, ignorant, wrong, "unorthodox.' The use of religious terms not a coincident. A self-own that their "truth" is really their faith, their religious devotion to the religion of Scientism. And to question them, their tenets is heresy. Not Wrong, Not untrue. But evidence of an unbeliever in their God:
Viral Visualizations: How Coronavirus Skeptics Use Orthodox
Data Practices to Promote Unorthodox Science Online
MIT, January 20, 2021
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.07993.pdf
(Contains a lot of important background to begin the paper, with the most revealing insights in pages 13-15)
When you read it you'll notice a few names you may recognize from the censorship industry, including Kate Starbird, oft-cited and serving on many of the official government and quasi-government information control programs. Over 100 footnotes to the work of many in the censorship industry regime, if one wishes to go down those rabbit holes.
It's not just that they make bold and unmerited assertions that they possess the singular truth and all others are false. All religions do the same. It's their self-righteousness that escalates into the rhetoric that rationalizes and justifies a religious crusade against non-believers. It's not enough to cast out the heretic, the heretics must be hunted down, forced into submission, converted to their religion or suffer the sword. The paper calls for persecution and eradication of all non-believers from public life, polite society, placed into ghettos, both thought and actual impoverishment. Perhaps death comes later when they believe they have the power to get away with it?
These are evil people. When researchers dove into the records of the Nazi's following Germany's defeat after WWII they discovered damning information, detailed records of their atrocities that were presented as evidence at Nuremberg. Many wondered why they were so brazen as to document their crimes against humanity? It was because they didn't view themselves or their work as evil. They believed they were doing good an righteous work, proudly detailing what they thought were accomplishments, not crimes. Hitler even wrote Mein Kampf years before he gained power, his plans for evil were out there for the world to see. Many in power, including in the US agreed with his writings and goals. Not believing them evil, crimes. Others who were taken back by the words chose to dismiss them, "he doesn't really mean that, he could never get away with that, authorities would never allow that to actually happen, that's the crazy talk of a lunatic." The evil in our time tells us what they are doing. Proudly. We just choose to dismiss them, as those who came before us dismissed Mein Kampf and the words and deeds of the perpetrators of the worst crimes against humanity did.
And if anyone was ever curious about what they would've done living in Germany in the 1930's they only need to look into the mirror and reflect on their thoughts and actions since 2020. Sames. The Nazi Party never had majority support in Germany. Getting 43% in the last free election held there, even with opposition parties effectively silenced and on the heals of a crisis they staged, the Reichstag fire (their January 6). Proving it doesn't take a majority of a nation to lead it to hell. Just the will to power. This evil has the will to power. As Nietzsche wrote and Hitler learned from. Sames. A religious zealotry, righteousness, not in God, but in Science, pseudosciences, given divinity.
This write up by Townhall's Scott Moorefield about the paper above gives some good snippets for those who don't care to dive into the research paper above:
https://townhall.com/columnists/scottmorefield/2021/03/29/mit-researchers-grudgingly-admit-covid-team-reality-is-effectively-winning-minds-with-real-data-n2587020
kate starbird's grandfather was general alfred dodd starbird, a longtime spook who was in charge of some of the last of the atomic bomb tests in the early 1960s, then ran the DOD's defense communication agency.
propaganda runs in the fam i guess
Fascists are almost always eugenicists. They truly believe their own genetics are better than the rest of mankind's. That they are the born rulers. Similar to monarchies, royalists, 'blue bloods.' It's why Buck v Bell "Three generations of imbeciles is enough" SCOTUS ruling allowing sterilizations and euthanasia is still the law, even after Nazi's cited it as defense at Nuremberg - "you Americans said so, we just followed your lead."
The Starbird connection makes sense. Thing is, eugenics is a pseudoscience, a lie, descendants of smart, successful people are often stupid lazy entitled people, dangerous because they believe their genes makes them inherently smarter than others. Stupid people bossing others around with a presumption of intelligence and authority are capable of doing terrible things to the world.
Intelligence on its own is basically processing power - it says nothing about what's on the hard drive.
So you could have among the highest strongest most capable processing power... and a hard drive full on online games, porn, and pirated movies and such.
Rule by what is deemed intelligence alone, that processing power is what these drunk on power and credentialed "elite" are drawn to, like moths to flames. "Follow the Science" demands. Follow processing power of a hard drive.
Sixty years ago an esteemed philosopher and law professor, Walter Berns predicted the evolution of law becoming an implement of Social sciences, behavioral sciences specifically. Cautioning about jurisprudence "following the science" into totalitarianism instead of applying good 'ole fashioned wisdom:
Law and Behavioral Science by Walter Berns
Law and Contemporary Problems (Duke Law School), Winter, 1963
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2953&context=lcp
[The first 14 pages get into a game theory type application of behavioral sciences on judicial philosophy. In trying to understand the rulings of the Roberts court it could be speaking to the same philosophy. The final 14 pages are very informative and cautionary for the type of governance we are being subjected to today.]
Intelligence isn't wisdom. Science doesn't calculate wisdom. Good leaders are wise. And don't demand people follow unwise science. Weak, pathetic, wretched leaders turn governing over to a hard drive.
The fact that deviation from an authorized set of beliefs now jeopardizes a practitioner’s medical license in California, and they must therefore remain in the consensus lane as determined by some unnamed arbiter, which is likely to be the same public health establishment responsible for our disastrous pandemic response, is Orwellian in the extreme—and idiotic. I wrote about AB2098 here:
https://euphoricrecall.substack.com/p/ab2098
Suffice it to say that this new statute will not only harm patients by depriving them of information, but it will further erode trust in public health when the institution can least afford it. This isn’t really about a dangerous spread of dis/misinformation, but is instead an example of the dangerous weaponization of the concept of dis/misinformation in order to silence medical practitioners who don’t trumpet The Narrative™.
"it will further erode trust in public health when the institution can least afford it"
Public health deserves zero trust, because it's entirely untrustworthy. And has been for a long, long time.
Amen x 10.
Sure just just deserts ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Public health in its gruesome entirety delenda est. The sooner the better—can't be eroded too fast 😊
It exposes the medical license for many of its flaws. I used to think it meant something, no more.
See also:
https://aaronkheriaty.substack.com/p/beheading-leviathan
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/the-new-york-times-has-lost-its-mind
As you pointed out in the first part of your excellent post, totalitarians, no matter where nor when, always want to purge those they disagree with, or who might disagree with them, or are just in the way. Thus, the Jacobins purged (executed) the Girondins, who had purged (executed) the royalists, in France, who were then purged (executed) by Napoleon. The original Bolsheviks purged (executed) the Czarists, who were then in turn purged (executed) by the Leninists, who were later purged (executed) by the Stalinists. Same in China, starting before Mao and him extending it through purging (executing) anyone who disagreed, or could do so, maybe. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum. We are witnessing a Maoist revolution here and in all the Angloshere because we are the last barrier to world totalitarian take-over and control. RFK's thoughts and words might have been radical 10 years or so ago: now he's been left behind by more ruthless and violent actors who consider him weak and a purveyor of... misinformation. They haven't accused him of being a secret MAGA spy yet: give them time. I hope the two doctors win their case in your state. I can't believe anyone actually has to take something like free speech to court, but totalitarians have to destroy or at least suppress anyone who disagrees with anything they believe.
Danny Huckabee
That Barbara Ferrer kinda reminds me of someone else who was prone to self-important overzealousness and actually shared the initials "B.F." He was a sheriff's deputy who lived in Mayberry back in the 60's...
We let her have her one bullet, and she used the hell out of it.
Marx and Engels had this to say about science:
http://www.autodidactproject.org/quote/marxsci2.html
"We know only a single science, the science of history. One can look at history from two sides and divide it into the history of nature and the history of men. The two sides are, however, inseparable; the history of nature and the history of men are dependent on each other so long as men exist. The history of nature, called natural science, does not concern us here; but we will have to examine the history of men, since almost the whole ideology amounts either to a distorted conception of this history or to a complete abstraction from it. Ideology is itself only one of the aspects of this history."
Marxists don't believe there is a difference between the science of nature, "Natural Science" (like chemistry and biology) and the science of man, "Social Science" (like political science and behavioral science).
A deeper dive on the subject:
https://tjayaraman.wordpress.com/2017/08/06/marx-on-science/
The pandemic propagandists have hidden in plain sight, claiming they are "following the science" for all of their public policy demands. Hiding in the ambiguity of the word "science" without facing questions about what *type* of science. Natural science, hard science, real science as most imagine science is? Or Social science, soft science, pseudoscience as most imagine fake science is? Like the science of the eugenicists exposed a century ago, to the horror of the world.
Hiding in plain sight, in the assumptions that the word "science" comes with. Marxists believing there is only one science, no distinction, is what allows them to hide in the ambiguity of the word, linguistics. Like Marxist Noam Chomsky taught generations of Marxists to use. So do the propagandists. And the fact is, that since 2020 we've witnessed hard, natural sciences, medical, microbiology, etc take a back seat to soft, social sciences, political, behavioral. Dr's of Psychology like Sigmund Freud have been performing open heart surgery while Dr's of Cardiology look down from the observation balcony above.
An evolution of the "Science Wars." A link to a Marxist's perspective on the Science Wars, surprisingly well- balanced within the writer's paradigm. I use the much better linked sources he thoughtfully includes for more credible reference points:
https://magazine.scienceforthepeople.org/vol22-1/science-wars-the-next-generation/
"Marxists don't believe there is a difference between the science of nature, "Natural Science" (like chemistry and biology) and the science of man, "Social Science" (like political science and behavioral science)."
This is not true, excepting modern-day woke and post-modern so-called marxists, and their stance has everything to do with postmodernism, not marxism.
What was, is that old-school marxists thought social sciences could be as exact as natural sciences claim to be, which is not the case; social sciences have fuzzier edges than the natural ones, and rarely have the luxury of being able to parse a problem down to something testable in a laboratory, in a short timespan. Just look at behavioural psychology: you might have to wait a decade or more for your results, as per the marshmallow study.
What your quoted part talks about is that natural science is always implemented by man, and is therefore always subject to man's social structures for how it is implemented - that's how the two interact and affect each other. Social conditons enables/hinders particular scientific research (like gain-of-function, CRISPR, mRNA-"vaccines" f.e.), and breakthroughs of the science in question (see previous parenthesis) are then implemented within the parameters of the social order, in turn changing said order and enabling/hindering science.
The marxist understanding of scientific progress is the cause-effect-loop described above.
Thank you. I appreciate your thoughtful reply. One could make the argument that the distinction between old-school marxists, marxism and modern-day woke and post-modern so-called marxists is an exercise in parsing. Positioning a modern-day non-woke, non-post-modern marxism that you describe as being the "true" marxism. Its ancestors and prodigy the "wrong" type of marxism. Parsing it to a sweet spot...that itself is an evolution, and itself will evolve.
Language games as per Wittgenstein (whom Karl Popper accused of continually polishing his glasses without ever looking through them). 'True marxism has never been tried' kinda thought pathway 😉
Republican politicians looked the other way while these Newspeak-programmed automata slithered their way under the office doors of every public body in our once-cherished 'Democracy'. Apres eux le Deluge. (as we who get our French phrases from Google like to say).
Yes. Democratic politicians tend to be dangerous, Republican politicians tend to be completely useless.
Most Republican politicians are feckless weenies. I never expect much out of them -- that way they rarely disappoint.
https://twitter.com/SenatorRomney/status/1681754372638736384
Congress is so far beyond useless…they’re actually worse than useless. Corrupted to the core. What do they actually DO?! They certainly don’t work for ‘we the people’ (lobbying).
With delusions of adequacy and relevancy.
This is why totalitarians censor. I have my issues with Steve Bannon. He says and does many things I agree with. And he says and does some things I don't agree with, and don't trust him on. That said, when people finally hear a side of a debate they've never heard before, been told horrible things about and avoided they can change their minds. This video is from a debate held in Canada in front of a VERY liberal audience, an audience that was outwardly hostile to Steve Bannon and supportive of David Frum throughout it. An audience that groaned at Bannon, mockingly laughed at him, applauded all of the liberal talking points they shared with Frum and the moderator, who is an "elite" liberal, not a populist. The audience was surveyed at the beginning and the end of the debate about which side of the issue they were on. The shift was dramatic and unexpected.
The future is Populist or Liberal?
From pre-debate: Populist 28% - Liberal 72%
To post-debate: Populist 57% - Liberal 43%
Steve Bannon vs David Frum - The Rise of Populism - Munk Debate Nov 2, 2018
https://youtu.be/qA50BE7d1X8
Because when people hear a side they have never heard before, from the mouth of the person who holds those ideas instead of through a filter that applies a bias, they become more open-minded to an idea they thought they knew their position on before. And this debate is an example of why we are so censored. The powers, government and industry, know the power of free speech reaching ears that haven't heard censored ideas before. And they fear a population that does hear them. For good reason. They know their ideas are losers in free and fair debates. Even in front of liberal, progressive, "elite" audiences. This is why they criminalize dissenters, when your ideas suck you can't let people hear why they suck.
If you haven't read Wild Swans yet, it's an excellent portrayal of life in Communist China from the perspective of a child of Communist revolutionaries. She also details her grandmother's life as a concubine to a warlord general and life under the Kuomintang. That book left me haunted. As it should.
Read it in college, a long time ago. Left me haunted, yes.
https://www.cmc.edu/academic/faculty/profile/arthur-l-rosenbaum
I read it a long time ago, after I dropped out of college. :)
Just listened to it again on Audible and it was really good.
Then I tried listening to her biography of Mao and couldn't get through it. Probably because I'm a tired mom and it was hard to keep listening to stories about someone so sociopathic. Half way through the book I needed a break.
I read it commuting between Philadelphia and New York. It passed the time on several round trips. About the only thing I retain from completing the book is the knowledge that Mao was a filthy pig, in the literal sense of those terms, never bathing or even washing his hands.
Mao, The Untold Story, was so gruesome I read only a third of it.
The most pressing question is why so many “scientists” act as if they believe any science is settled when in fact we know it is never settled. I worked at NIH during the outbreak and lock down. I have pictures of a shrine set up to deify Fauci. I was gobsmacked to the point of nausea how quickly and with no dissent the NIH campus instituted rules with zero basis in science. Be very careful who you trust. Be your own advocate
Have you posted those pictures somewhere? Would like to see them.
Here’s one from my Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CpStghbgReJ/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
Thanks. "Not all superheroes wear capes."
Tyranny happens when either elections are shams or the power of the elected is permanently relinquished by the elected to the unelected. It takes courage to take that power back. Political courage in America today is as rare as a sentence written by the puppet-Joe administration directed at their Republican opposition that doesn't contain the word racist. No courage means no elections; just "elections."
"elections are shams..." CHECK
"the power of the elected is permanently relinquished by the elected to the unelected..." CHECK
the people who make the laws are not required to obey the laws... CHECK
The rule of law is no longer in effect in the U.S. I am afraid it will take more than courage to get it back. If such a thing is even possible now. What does history tell us about ridding ourselves of rule by tyrants?
It doesn't tell us to be sure to "vote." Demonstrable courage will return the rule of law. When tyrants won't step aside you make them an offer they can't refuse. It takes courage to make and back up that offer.
" It takes courage to make and back up that offer."
Absolutely. But will courage be enough? What is our strategy from taking our institutions and our freedoms back from the leftists? They had a strategy when they took them. What will ours be?
We first have to make sure those charged with administration of our elections see to it that the procedures are incorruptible. But Wait, those people were either elected using a corrupted system or appointed by the corrupted elected. This is where making them an offer they can't refuse comes in. When the ballot is taken away liberty-tree watering has to begin. There is no alternative if a return to self-government is to be realized. Once those elected reflect the will of the people who elected them they must start starving the bloated beasts we call the administrative state. Take away their money. It is in the Constitution. Financing the Executive branch is the prerogative of the legislative.
This is unbelievably dangerous. If this suppression of physician speech is allowed to stand, basically you will NEVER know if your physician is acting in your best interest or simply spewing the proverbial party line. To spell it out for the Democrats in the audience. If the state decides that “science” says you must take “X” for your condition, even if that’s not medically appropriate, your doctor has to recommend it or may lose their license. Well they’d never do that! Uh, they just did and a lot of people died. Remdesivir aka “Rundeathisnear” is one example. Untested mRNA jabs are another. Suppressing better, remarkably safe treatments like Ivermectin is another.
How can these mfer Commies get away with this? Because physicians by and large, like lawyers and professors and soldiers and border patrolmen and everybody else these days don’t want to lose their paycheck. The solutions are either sue the state - which is in process or 10-20000 doctors flip the Commies in the legislature and disobey. They’re not gonna punish everybody. But that will not happen.
And if they do it to doctors, they can do it to any other licensed professional. I predict the state will lose ultimately but they will still have put more fear out there, which harms the citizenry.
In one bit of bittersweet news out of Cali, Mark Tessier-Lavigne, neuroscientist and President of Stanford University tendered his resignation after a university committee found numerous instances of fudged data in multiple publications out of his lab. The committee says that he might not have personally been involved, it just happened a dozen times in his lab. 🙄 it seems without academic fraud and lust for powerthese days, there would be very little academia. Stanford continues to beclown itself..... can’t wait for the next embarrassing episode from my formerly great alma mater.
I fully support those doctors suing their state, I know full well the danger of propositions like that and I know it from experience.
Some 10-15 years ago, the code regulating how swedish teachers (of all levels/grades excepting universities) work was re-written - again. A little passage about "core values" was inserted instead of the older one.
Said older one specified that any subject be taught in a "factual, impartial and objective manner", plus some bits about professionalism, professional integrity, and so on - nothing hair-raising and the text made clear distinction between the teacher at work and not, that students are always considered in a "position of dependency", a phrase with real legal ramifications: doesn't matter if your students are 25, no private relationships allowed, platonic or otherwise.
The new one, basis for the current one (it's re-formulated every other year nowadays) instead states the teacher must teach, act and speak according to the "core values" of inclusivity, equity, and tolerance. DEI in swedish, 15 years ahead of you - I sometimes think my country has either infected others or has been used as a test range for those ideas.
And these "core values" must be publicly embraced by the teacher at work and in their private life, in all areas. Teachers have been fired, fined and stripped of their formal status as teacher for (drum roll) not using the made-up pronouns of a ten-year old, for not kow-towing to demands from moslem parents (like shaking hands, the average moslem regard "infidels" as filth, especially unmarried women), for being suspected of voting "wrong" and for teaching more than just the Climate Doom-narrative.
Wall of text perhaps, but I felt a little background was needed - it's way easier for me to read US media than it is for you to read swedish ones, right?
Those doctors and all others like them deserve the full support anyone can give them, regardless of other issues. If you start letting the state not only censor you but dictate to you what The Right Way of Thinking is, inside one generation you'll lose virtually all ability to turn the current development.
With drawing support from corrupt systems is just the first step, and it needs to be seen as a step back to get a good (metaphorical) run-up for a good hard kick to the nether regions of the system itself. Look at Canada, where the unvaccinated are being denied organ transplants even when providing their own donors, even if (or maybe especially...) it leads to the death of the unvaccinated person. Canada isn't some insert-whacko-ideology-far-off country, Canada is your next-door neighbour. If that can happen there, what can happen in the US once the same train starts gaining speed on your home turf?
Thank you so much for covering this.
Thank you so much for suing the idiot.
Psychopaths and sociopaths gravitate towards occupations, any occupation, which will give them authority over others. The power to manipulate others, to bend them to their will, is what they live for. That may be a criminal barking commands at a hapless victim he intends to murder (what TPTB want us to believe represents psychopathy) or it may be a bureaucrat enforcing petty regulations with zeal (what TPTB don't want us to know can emanate from a sociopathic personality). The greatest single advance humans could make in science would be an accurate test for the psychopath/sociopath spectrum to keep budding Nazis out of government or any other occupation that would feed their appetite for controlling others. The most interesting thing to me about the covid era has been how it brought those people out of the woodwork, from county health officials, to mask Karens on the street, to journalists who gleefully parroted the government line. They are the real pox on humanity.
Excellent piece, as usual. The villains of history are back, and they are in near-total control.