Liberals are like Jehovah’s Witnesses

20220805

They never despair of us unbelievers, thrusting their literature on us at every opportunity.

I recently got this in my mail, with links to the research

Research suggests that vaccinated people who caught Omicron tend to develop more robust immunity to past and present strains of the coronavirus.

Recent preliminary research might offer some comfort to the many vaccinated Americans who came across Omicron this past winter. A pair of studies suggest that vaccinated people who caught the variant went on to develop a strong and diverse immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus in general—more so than people who were vaccinated and boosted or people who were only infected with Omicron. The findings could also indicate that an updated booster, perhaps specific to Omicron, will be more effective at ensuring longer-term immunity moving forward.

First of all this does not apply to me. I am not and will not be vaccinated. I take ivermectin and have not had any kind of Covid 19.

Second, it is preliminary, by a couple of unknown authors. We have been absolutely inundated with such studies over the past 2 ½ years, most of which have turned out to have no substance. Worse than that, a great many of them were compromised from the start, produced by researchers in the pay of big Pharma.

In net, I see no reason to spend my time reading it. If, against very long odds, the research turns out to have some substance, I will read about it later, but it will not change how I lead my life in any way. What I have been doing for 2 ½ years is worked. Not many others can make the same claim.

I’m going to turn this around with a couple of observations of my own. First of all the indefatigable Steve Kirsch asks why Anthony Fauci and Joe Biden took paxlovid for their mild cases of Covid. He writes: “So why take a drug which has ONLY been approved for people AT RISK for severe disease?”  It makes no sense. They don’t follow their own advice. Ivermectin is proven to be both more safe and more effective.

My interlocutors are not all Jews, and not all liberal. But that’s a pretty good characterization. They trust the liberal media, which is largely in the hands of Jews. But let’s turn that one around. Why don’t they listen to people like Steve Kirsch, as good an example of a liberal Jew as you will find. Or Alex Berenson? Or Simone Gold? Or Brett Weinstein? Or Ron Unz? Or Glenn Greenwald? Or Naomi Wolf?  Bobby Kennedy Junior ask what is it about modern liberals that makes them avoid debate?

Kennedy (Catholic not Jewish, but a pedigreed liberal) poses the question very very well in his short (60 pages text, 60 pages footnotes) book A Letter to Liberals. I include his table of contents below. This is what he writes in “A Challenge to Debate,” the first thing you will see in his table of contents below.

My dear fellow Liberal,

Just before his death in 1642, Galileo complained that the authors of his 1615 censure were not just the clergy—understandably fearful that heliocentrism would subvert Church cosmologies—but, oddly, his fellow scientists, who universally refused to look through his telescope.

I am an FDR/Kennedy liberal, but my choice to openly question government policies for managing the pandemic—under both Presidents Biden and Trump— has made me pariah, primarily in liberal circles. Many traditional liberals—reacting to the orchestrated fear and propaganda—have embraced "Lockdown Liberalism," an ideology that departs dramatically from the tenets of traditional liberalism. Like Galileo's colleagues, so many of today's "Lock-down Liberals" refuse to read or debate the science that they believe supports the government's COVID countermeasures. Instead, they place their faith in the official orthodoxies of famously corrupt pharmaceutical companies and their notoriously captive federal agencies and expect others to do the same. This blind obedience is itself a kind of novel virus that now infects the entire upper deck of the Democratic Party. The core of this ideology is a cult-like fealty to COVID-19 countermeasures that are, in fact, scientifically indefensible. By necessity then, the acolytes of this theology must be ferociously hostile toward debate that might expose errors in government dogma and must, like the Roman Inquisition that extracted Galileo's recantation under threat of burning at the stake, mercilessly suppress every utterance of heresy or dissent. Moreover, Lockdown Liberalism's enthusiastic embrace of censorship—once anathema to liberals—has expanded into a repudiation of almost all the precepts of traditional FDR/Kennedy liberalism. This letter is a challenge to my fellow liberals to reexamine the scientific assertions upon which rest the oppressive policies that have savaged the presumptions of classical liberalism and the United States Constitution. It is past time that our nation had an open conversation about the strategies supposedly enacted for ending the pandemic, and the best measures for avoiding future crises.

The word "liberal" derives from the Latin liber, , which the Etymology Dictionary renders as "freedom from restraint in speech or action" and "freedom from bigotry." Conventional FDR/JFK liberalism prided itself on its open-minded tolerance of contrary opinion, its implacable protectiveness of the right to dissent, its embrace of new ideas, and its fearless love for contention and disputation. Democrats were once the party of intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and faith in scientific and liberal empiricism. Liberalism's foundational assumption, after all, is that freedom of speech and expression are essential to a functioning democracy; the free flow of information yields governing policies that have been annealed in the cauldron of fierce, open debate before triumphing on the battlefield of ideas.

We Democrats once took pride in ourselves as the party that understood how to read science critically. We confronted—and mercilessly deconstructed—the fatally flawed faux-science contrived by the carbon industry's PhD biostitutes to support climate change denialism. We also exercised healthy skepticism toward the corrupt drug companies that brought us the opioid crisis and that have paid $86 billion in criminal and civil penalties for a wide assortment of frauds and other crimes since 2000.1 We were disgusted by the phenomenon of "agency capture" and felt a deep revulsion for Pharma's pervasive control of Congress, the media, and the scientific journals. How is it, then, that today's Democrats become angry at the mere suggestion that the prevailing COVID drug and vaccine narrative may be heavily manipulated through orchestrated propaganda by a Pharma cartel with billions at stake in promoting COVID countermeasures? According to an August 18, 2021, Pew Research Center Survey, 65 percent of Democrats currently support government censorship of unauthorized opinions.? That astonishing result suggests that Democrats have lost their faith not only in their party traditions, but also in democracy. The majority of Democrats appear to believe that the Demos—the people—can no longer be trusted to govern themselves  and that it is, therefore, permissible for elites to manipulate the public with propaganda, and even to censor information that might infect the population with dangerous thoughts.

Liberals have long agreed that censorship of dissent is the emblem of totalitarian systems. The new strategy of silencing government critics like myself is therefore repugnant to liberalism's foundational values and is clearly offensive to the American Constitution's guarantee of free speech.

Like Galileo's colleagues, the "Lockdown Left" has abandoned the discipline of evidence-based medicine. Instead of scientific citation, they rely on appeals to often undeserving authorities who have manufactured "scientific consensus" by cherry-picking data to support a predetermined policy. Sanctimonious bromides to "follow the science," "trust the experts," most often mean blind dogmatic trust in the official —and often whimsical—pronouncements of amoral pharmaceutical companies and their venal government vassals at captive agencies like CDC, FDA, NIH, and WHO.

Unable to defend the scientific underpinnings of their ideology in debate, liberals rely on book bans and an arsenal of coercive muzzling strategies including deplatforming, delicensing, doxxing, gaslighting, defunding, retracting, marginalizing, and vilifying scientists, physicians, journalists, and vaccine-injured Americans who complied but now refuse to toe the official line. The hallmark of Lockdown Liberalism is a bullying form of censorship called "cancel culture," which disappears not just the heretical language, but also the heretic who uttered it.

With this letter, I challenge my fellow liberals to look through Galileo's telescope, as it were. Below, I deconstruct—with scientific citation—the key canons of the reigning liberal mythology and throw down this gauntlet to the liberal intelligentsia to defend their assumptions on the battlefield of scientific debate.

Alex Berenson divides the world into Team Covid and Team Reality. Team Reality constantly challenges Team Covid to debates. Steve Kirsch is famous for offering $1 million to leaders of Team Covid simply to spend a couple hours on stage with him in a debate. He has no takers. What are they scared of?

In the microcosm of this blog, I made a bit of a pest of myself asking for substantiation of this WHO/CDC claim of 207,500 measles deaths in 2019.  They named the top four countries for measles deaths as Madagascar, India, Philippines and Ukraine.  The total deaths for all four was 1,600.  Ukraine had 18.  Where were all the rest? I gave up asking for an answer after about for tries.  A studied lack of curiosity.

Naomi Wolfe (feminist author of The Beauty Myth, among other things) is even tougher in her book The Bodies of Others.  Like Kennedy, she stridently demands answers.  She gets none.

Until Team Covid liberals start answering questions from their own liberal breathern, I am surely not going to waste my breath.  It is a lead pipe cinch they will not be convinced by anything that comes out of my conservative, goyish mouth. 

I’m going to continue what I am doing, preparing my children for the world as they will find it in adulthood.  It would be easier if the information put forth by the people in charge were reliable.  It would be much easier if those same self-appointed oracles did not so often override our liberties and our bodies to force their half-baked solutions on us.  I accept and deal with the world as I find it, in the hope that this world will crumble and my children can live their lives in a better one.

Graham

Letter to Liberals Table of Contents