The Lies that Destroy Institutions

Do you ever wonder what is keeping you from saying the simple, good-hearted and obvious statement: "All Lives Matter"? It's the modern version of woke totalitarianism. Through the use of lies and cancel culture, it is destroying most of America's institutions.

Michael Shellenberger, author of "Totalitarian Manipulation Of Language Behind Woke Destruction Of Harvard, New York Times, And Other Elite Institutions. It's time for counter-Wokeism."

Investigative reporters have exposed a pattern of plagiarism by Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay, that directly violates the university’s policy. . . .

The first salient feature of the above episodes is the willingness of institutional leaders to lie about what they are doing. The first response from Harvard’s Board of Directors was to deny that President Gay had committed any instance plagiarism and to threaten the New York Post with a lawsuit if it reported the opposite of that. The New York Times similarly lied about the op-ed piece it had published and effectively asked the oped page editor to lie about his departure. And similarly, the AAA falsely claimed that the anthropologists who wanted to discuss biological sex on a conference panel had not accurately represented their topic.

In each case, the institutional leaders lied in order to cover up unethical behavior. Harvard was covering up both the plagiarism of its president and the unwillingness of Harvard to do anything about it. The New York Times misrepresented the substance of the op-ed in order to disavow it and, perhaps, to justify forcing out the op-ed page editor. And the AAA lied about what the dissident anthropologists did in order to justify its blatant censorship.

And those lies and unethical behaviors all rest upon a set of underlying lies. Harvard lied when it claimed that it had selected its president on the basis of her qualifications, even calling Gay a “scholar’s scholar” despite her having a below-average scholarly record. The New York Times and the Harvard president, when she was still the Dean of Arts and Sciences, had been misrepresenting Black Lives Matter protests as peaceful and driven by a genuine epidemic of police killings. And AAA’s cancelation of the panel was based on the organization’s claim that biological sex is a spectrum rather than dimorphic. All of this lying is characteristic of totalitarian regimes...

Woke totalitarianism advances values that are contrary to the ones it espouses. It claims to be opposed to racism and sexism and yet promotes them through perpetuating the idea that people, by dint of their race or sex, are either victims or oppressors. It claims to be liberatory and empowering of those individuals designated victims while promoting the idea that they cannot escape their victim identity. And Woke totalitarianism promotes the notion that it is wise and truthful despite promoting such monstrous lies."

What is the solution? It's not going to be pleasant or easy, but we need to confront those who are tearing down our institution with their corrupted language.

Once we understand Woke activists and leaders in elite institutions as being in the grip of an anti-social and dehumanizing dogma which uses dishonest esoteric language to manipulate emotions and people, we can know to take them seriously, but not literally. At an interpersonal level, the best way to deal with narcissists is to ignore them, thereby depriving them of the attention they seek; at an institutional level, they must be confronted in a public way.

Continue ReadingThe Lies that Destroy Institutions

Sasha Stone: How to Remake America

On a recent podcast, Sasha Stone condemned the Biden administration, offering some words of support for Donald Trump. Unlike Stone, I would never consider voting for Trump. Nor can I in good conscience vote for Biden, as I did three years ago. That said, I very much agree with Stone about the many ways the United States has gone off the rails during the Biden years. An excerpt:

Four words on a red hat. Make America Great Again.

Make America able to take a joke again.

Make America understand basic biology again.

Make America the land of the free and home of the brave again.

Make it okay to be white, a Christian, a male, a Jew, a woman, a mother and American again.

Make Thomas Jefferson a hero again.

Make movies watchable again.

Make America a country where we can still say what we think without fear of banishment, public humiliation or the loss of our jobs.

Make America tolerant again.

Make reality cool again, make it okay to reward merit.

Make it okay to be friends with people you don't agree with.

Lots of the hysteria is happening on both sides. It has to do with algorithms and their effects on our brains and our perception of reality.

Continue ReadingSasha Stone: How to Remake America

Steve Kirsch: “When you Try to Show People the Data, They Run Away

Steve Kirsch discusses the latest safety data regarding the COVID vaccine with Russell Brand at Rumble: Kirsch, inventor of the optical mouse, voluntarily received two COVID vaccinations at during the pandemic. He had minor reactions, but he started hearing from people who claimed that their relatives were dying shortly after getting vaccinated. After finding more than 700 safety signals in the VAERS data obtained as the result of the FOIA request, he approached the CDC, seeking comment or explanation. He received neither. Instead, he encountered willing and/or intentional ignorance regarding the data. The CDC started with the premise that everyone must get vaccinated. Anything conflicting with that must be suppressed. At min 24 of this interview, Kirsch reports recent findings (by Barry Young, a New Zealand whistle-blower who worked for a NZ public health agency, who is currently being prosecuted by NZ) that 1 out of 1,000 people receiving the COVID vaccine was killed by the vaccine. If true, this would project to 650,000 Americans killed by the vaccine. Excerpts from the Interview

Steve Kirsch: Let me start with the punch line, which is that when you analyze the data and you look at overall shots over all ages, what you see is about a increase of one death per 1000 doses on average, is that people that were killed by the vaccine that shouldn't have died. And so that corresponds to 13 million people killed worldwide, it corresponds to about 675,000 people in the United States being killed, and about 150,000 people in the UK being killed.

And so that's what the Barry's data reveals. Now, what's important about Barry's data is that this is the first time in history that we have ever seen record level data for a vaccine. It's always kept hidden from public view. So these are public health records that are always kept hidden from public view. You there's no country in the world that publishes this data that was leaked out. There is no state in the United States that publishes this data. Everyone keeps it hidden from public view. This is public health data, it belongs to the public. And this is the first time in history, this has never happened before. This is a big moment. This is the first time we get to peek behind the curtain and find out if they're what the man looks like behind the curtain. So what Barry did is completely game changing. And for me, it's it's like it this is the the Holy Grail.

This is what I've been searching for. This is what we've been denied all this time is access to the data that would show the truth. And nobody, nobody, nobody who is supporting the pro-vaccine narrative has ever called for any data transparency in the public health data. Nobody. There is not a single person calling for for data transparency. But but you know, there's not a paper that's published in the peer reviewed literature--I've checked that--saying that, "Hey, if you withhold the data from the public, it leads to better health outcomes." So if you want their health outcomes, you need to publish the data. ... He basically he exposed the data... He proved that you could publish the data and nobody's privacy would be violated that but there's still statistical fidelity in the data. So we can obfuscate the data but still have the statistical fidelity so we can do it the analysis without violating anyone's privacy.

This was thought to be impossible. And Barry has proved that it is possible to do and not even the New Zealand Ministry of Health or health New Zealand was able to figure out whose records were published. They know it's their records, but we obfuscated it. So there's no privacy violation, and this frustrates the hell out of them.

Russell Brand: How did Barry get that information, he worked for a New Zealand Health for like a government agency?

Steve Kirsch: He's an Oracle 11 DBA. He's a database administrator. He's a specialist on Oracle. He was tasked with creating the database for this pay per dose system in New Zealand. And there are two there are two systems. And one of them is pay per dose. And it's just the way that that that they do billing. And so he has 4 million, he has over 4 million records of the 12 million records that exist in New Zealand. So it's a sample of all the vaccination records, and it would be great to get everything, but it's only people who've been vaccinated."

In the meantime, the Texas Attorney General has filed a lawsuit against Pfizer for widespread misrepresentations:

The pharmaceutical company's widespread representation that its vaccine possessed 95% efficacy against infection was highly misleading. That metric represented a calculation of the so-called “relative risk reduction” for vaccinated individuals in Pfizer’s initial, two-month clinical trial results. FDA publications indicate “relative risk reduction” is a misleading statistic that “unduly influence[s]” consumer choice. Pfizer was also put on notice at that time that vaccine protection could not accurately be predicted beyond two months. Nevertheless, Pfizer fostered a misleading impression that vaccine protection was durable and withheld from the public information that undermined its claims about the duration of protection. And, despite the fact that its clinical trial failed to measure whether the vaccine protects against transmission, Pfizer embarked on a campaign to intimidate the public into getting the vaccine as a necessary measure to protect their loved ones.

In fact, Pfizer’s product failed to live up to the company’s representations. COVID-19 cases increased after widespread vaccine administration, and some areas saw a greater percentage of deaths from COVID-19 among the vaccinated population than the unvaccinated. When the failure of its product became apparent, Pfizer then pivoted to silencing truth-tellers. The lawsuit notes: “How did Pfizer respond when it became apparent that its vaccine was failing and the viability of its cash cow was threatened? By intimidating those spreading the truth, and by conspiring to censor its critics. Pfizer labeled as ‘criminals’ those who spread facts about the vaccine. It accused them of spreading ‘misinformation.’ And it coerced social media platforms to silence prominent truth-tellers.”

 

Continue ReadingSteve Kirsch: “When you Try to Show People the Data, They Run Away

Key Quote from Missouri v. Biden (5th Circuit Court of Appeals 2023)

I'm catching up with an important court decision from September that I've been meaning to post. Here's the key quote from Missouri versus Biden, decided by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals September 8, 2023:

[T]he Supreme Court has rarely been faced with a coordinated campaign of this magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life. Therefore, the district court was correct in its assessment—“unrelenting pressure” from certain government officials likely “had the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens.” We see no error or abuse of discretion in that finding.
Page 61 of the Opinion

This case, will be heard by the United States Supreme Court, where it has been renamed Murthy v. Missouri (Cause No. 23A243 (23-411).

Glenn Greenwald discussed the decision of the Fifth Circuit. Here's an excerpt from his video transcript at Locals:

Tonight: One of the most significant First Amendment victories in years. In July, we reported (you can read or watch it here! https://rumble.com/v2ybni6-system-update-show-110.html) on an extraordinary ruling from a federal district court in Louisiana which ruled that the Biden administration and several key components of it, including the White House, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the Center for Disease Control, had engaged in a massive and grave violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by threatening and coercing Big Tech platforms to censor the speech of American citizens those government agencies and officials disliked. The district court enjoined – barred – all officials in those agencies from communicating threats or coercion of any further kind to tech platforms with the intent to have speech censored. The case is brought by several American citizens who had their speech prohibited or their accounts banned by Big Tech at the behest of their own government. Among them was Stanford School of Medicine, Doctor J. Jay Bhattacharya, who dissented from several of the most important COVID pronouncements of the health policy establishment and for that reason alone was barred by his own government from being heard on Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere.

The Biden DOJ, which has made clear that, like Democrats generally, they regard their ability to have the Internet censored as a top priority, immediately announced they would appeal this ruling. And they did. But on Friday, a three-judge appellate court composed of two Bush nominees and one Trump nominee upheld not all, but most of the ruling, including its most foundational parts. The appellate panel emphasized what a grave and unusually invasive free speech violation this was: “The Supreme Court has rarely been faced with a coordinated campaign” of censorship code “of this magnitude orchestrated by federal officials.” The result said the court was, “suppressing millions of protected free speech postings.” The ruling was based on the long-standing principle that the First Amendment free speech guarantee not only bars the state from directly censoring but also forcing or otherwise coercing private actors to censor for them.

The appellate court found that four agencies in particular were guilty of using threats to all but force social media platforms to censor at their command – the White House the FBI, the CDC and the surgeon general – and, as a result, ban them from engaging in such communications or threats going forward. We will discuss the broad and very significant implications of this decision. We'll also speak to one of the lead lawyers who represented the plaintiffs in this case: Jenin Younes.

Continue ReadingKey Quote from Missouri v. Biden (5th Circuit Court of Appeals 2023)