LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL

U

Search

Many Voices, One Freedom: United in the 1st Amendment

March 19, 2024

M

Menu

!

Menu

Your Source for Free Speech, Talk Radio, Podcasts, and News.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As Ron DeSantis works to enact an investigation into all things Covid Vaccine, including whether the pharmaceutical industry and/or the Federal Government lied about the efficiency, the effectiveness, the safety of the vaccines, and/or the effectiveness of natural immunity as opposed to the vaccine, I got in a debate with someone online about whether or not conservatives deny science. I made the following claim:

“Yours is a conditioned response. The actual science tells us that Covid-19 is a weaponized bat disease with a human-designed spike protein attached to it to make it easily spread among humans. How it escaped the Wuhan lab, we will probably never know. Still, we do know that it was created (‘gain of function’) with funding from the United States government under the direction of Anthony Fauci. We know that Anthony Fauci repeatedly lied about that to the American people and to Congress, at one point literally having the official definition of ‘gain of function’ temporarily changed to allow him to lie to Congress without perjuring himself.

“We know that natural immunity is stronger and longer lasting against Covid-19 than is vaccine-based immunity; we know that the vaccines are creating all kinds of health issues among the public, with heart conditions, the rates of some kinds of cancers, and auto-immune responses skyrocketing among the vaccinated population without showing any statistically significant rise among the unvaccinated.

“All of that is known, scientifically, to be true.

“But then there are those who use the mantra of ‘science’ to spread things that are anything but scientific.

“Does chemical castration, for example, lead to lower rates of suicide among the trans population? There is, as of yet, no evidence that it does. We have not been using puberty blockers long enough to know if they help. Still, the scent evidence we do have so far is that blocking puberty and later performing surgical sex changes leads to a period of elation, followed by higher – not lower – rates of suicide.

“The cost of transition, from start to finish, averages around three million dollars per person, and ‘gender-affirming care’ has become a 2.2 billion dollar industry that is growing by about 12% per year. A lot of people are getting very wealthy by chemically castrating children without any actual science that they can point to as evidence that they are helping people.

“We do, however, have the expert opinions of the doctors that are getting rich off of ‘gender-affirming care,’ and since these people are doctors, much of the public assumes that their opinions are grounded in science.

“Going back to the vaccines. Do vaccines slow the spread of the disease? No. Do vaccines prevent people from catching the disease? No.

“Do you know what DOES slow the spread of the disease, and what DOES offer protection against reinfection from existing (although not always new) strains? Natural immunity.

“The science says that we would be better off in relation to Covid-19 had we not bothered with vaccines.

“Note that the Covid-19 industry generates $56.5 billion a year globally.

“Is it science that people are listening to, or money? Would you know the difference based on the information you have been shown?”

The guy I said this to called me a crackpot and a lunatic, which is interesting as I have researched these topics in detail. Every statement I made is 100% consistent with the best scientific evidence available.

Do you know what my statements are not consistent with? The narratives are being pushed in the mainstream media.

Perhaps even more worrisome is that I was challenged to provide scientific backing for my claims. While if I search long enough and hard enough, I can still find that evidence, the relevant studies and scholarly articles are increasingly hard to find. Google provides articles by, for example, the NIH, that contradict my claims. The actual science is being suppressed.

Anthony Fauci and the ‘gain of function’ research he helped fund have been directly involved in the deaths of 6.66 million people. That’s more people than Hitler killed in the holocaust, and it does not include those who have died from vaccine side effects.

How about the damage we are doing to prepubescent children – often without the knowledge or consent of their parents?

I’ve written before about a group of ‘scientists’ Heinrich Himmler put together in the SS, called the Ahnenerbe, and about how this group of well-credentialed scientists produced ‘evidence’ of such things as Aryan racial superiority and of Slavic people and Jewish people being ‘sub-human.’ The Ahnenerbe was politically motivated, starting with the conclusions the Nazi party wanted, then producing ‘studies’ to ‘prove’ those conclusions.

There was nothing scientific about the Ahnenerbe – they were producing pseudo-science as propaganda that could browbeat the German population into submission by calling anyone who spoke out against the Nazi atrocities ‘anti-science’.

People often ask how it was that the German people followed Hitler. We are about to learn the answer to that question, as we are following the same pattern of pseudo-scientific propaganda here today. Those who believe that propaganda wears face masks instead of armbands; otherwise, our country is rocking like it’s 1933.

The Nazis liked to send ‘science deniers’ to concentration camps like Dachau. Most died there, and the few that survived were more apt to ‘follow the science’ when they were released than before they went in – making them suitable examples for the public at large. We don’t have concentration camps for conservatives, but I can point to prominent journalists for the New York Times, MSNBC, and CNN openly calling for it.

And Hitler did not have concentration camps when he first came to power either – though they followed soon after that.

How far from actual science has the United States fallen? We are told to believe things such as that a man can get pregnant, that we know are not true – and many among us believe such things. We are so far from actual science that the question of ‘what is a woman’ has become controversial. Such a thing would be absurd were it not true.

When you can get the public to believe what they know is not true, they will follow wherever they are led, irrespective of the truth. Such a public will gauge their value to a society based upon their willingness to believe the absurd. Having given up their right to rational thought, they will follow the leadership anywhere – even off a cliff. And sadly, for much of our public, this is where we are.

And that is how the Germans followed the Nazis.

I did not mention Climate Alarmism. Let me do so, lest I be remiss!

I do not generally read many articles on climate change. I liked the Don Henley song Dirty Laundry as a child, and I remember the adage that ‘if it bleeds, it leads.’ Given that the headline ‘WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE’ will go above the fold, whereas ‘meh’ will not make the front page, I am always skeptical of alarmist headlines.

Always.

But I do click on climate change articles. And then, I look for links to the studies the articles are <often very loosely> based on.

I read the actual studies, and I read them with the critical eye of someone with an advanced degree who has taken a lot of classes in statistics and who is qualified to determine what a study actually tells us.

I do not believe it is a good idea for mankind to change the chemical composition of the atmosphere (that is my opinion), and we have roughly doubled the level of CO2 in the atmosphere (that is not opinion). It is also true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I do not deny these things.

How much have we increased the temperature of the globe, though? Very little. Our impact tends to be highly localized (cities being about 2 degrees on average warmer than the surrounding areas, thanks to concrete).

Our impact globally is real, but negligible.

As for consensus, the scientific community is in almost 100% agreement that the climate has changed, and that mankind has impacted that change. That’s it. There is no scientific consensus on anything more than that. When asked whether mankind’s impact on the climate is ‘significant,’ most climate scientists say, ‘no.’ When those who DO say that our impact is significant are asked if our impact is positive or negative, MOST of THOSE scientists point out that mankind has historically done better on a warmer planet. As such, our impact is positive.

In other words, the number of actual climate scientists who believe that mankind has had a significant, negative impact on global temperatures is small. The majority of climate scientists do not believe that at all.

But if it bleeds, it leads, so you will not see ‘meh’ as a headline any time soon, even though ‘meh’ is the truth.

Climate change alarmism is based on the belief that there are positive feedback loops that will amplify the impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, such as the belief that methane hiding under the ice in the arctic will be released. There are some scientists who believe in these positive feedback loops, but as of yet, there is no evidence to back those beliefs up. I am glad that some scientists believe in alarmism only because I think it is smart to have scientists looking into possible causes for alarm, but I do not like wide-ranging calls of alarmism without scientific backing, which is what we have today.

What we actually have are NEGATIVE feedback loops that help to nullify the effects of increased CO2 levels, such as increased global plant growth.

Should we reduce CO2 emissions? Yes – I think we should (that is my opinion). But not because the world is going to end if we do not. We should reduce CO2 because it is not, in my opinion, a good idea for us to transform the Earth’s atmosphere.

I am unwilling to flush our economy down the toilet to reduce CO2 emissions. We should do that slowly, over time, as the technology to do so becomes cost-effective. Today, the most significant thing we can do is to continue moving away from coal and toward natural gas. We could clue China and India on doing the same since they are the real problem.

As for CO2 being a ‘pollutant,’ calling it one is pure political theater; CO2 is harmless to humans (unlike carbon monoxide, which is co without the two on the end). In fact, plants use CO2 the same way we use oxygen, which means that higher concentrations of CO2 are good for plants, and global food supplies.

I have no ill will toward those who honestly believe in climate alarmism. I think those people are dupes, but I have no ill will toward them. There is a sucker born every minute, as the saying goes, and I do not have the time or the inclination to hate all of them. I do have, however, a great deal of ill will for the global totalitarians who are using climate alarmism to try and seize socialist control over the Earth’s resources.

I’ve touched on three of the more prominent pseudo-scientific narratives, but there are many others out there. What I have a hard time with is getting people to see that all of these false, pseudo-science narratives are interrelated. Consider for a moment how someone who takes righteous indignation in the belief that men can get pregnant is supposed to then deconstruct the truth about climate change.

Some false narratives exist primarily to weaken the public’s ability to question other false narratives – and that is why we chemically castrate prepubescent children.

And the most crazy thing of all is that much of the public gets their understanding of what the science tells us from the same people who brought us four years of Russian Collusion lies. When you know people are lying to you about everything else, why on Earth would you listen to them when they make claims about what the science tells us?!?

The real threat is not the pseudo-science itself so much as the direction those who control us want to take us in, and we see this direction in other countries that are further down the road than we are. We see the direction in Western Europe, where millions are expected to freeze this winter due to a lack of heat. We see the direction in the Netherlands, where agricultural output is being reduced by 90% to reduce CO2 emissions (with no regard for such trivialities as the need to feed the people).

Parts of America are pretty far along this road as well, such as our crime-riddled big cities, and the homelessness in parts of California and Oregon.

The greatest threat facing our country – and indeed the Western World – is the disconnect between consumers and producers.

In a nutshell, the production of physical goods (and food) takes place almost entirely in suburbia and in the country, whereas consumption occurs primarily in big cities.

Consumers want the government to make the things they consume more affordable, which the government is only too happy to do through subsidies. To pay for subsidized consumption, someone must pay more in taxes, and that someone is invariably the producer.

Consumers also demand that producers do more with less. Water? You cannot farm with it – it is needed in the city. Pesticides? Herbicides? I don’t want to wash my food, so you cannot use them. Fertilizers? Go without reducing CO2 levels.

Consumers do not necessarily know (or care) what it takes to produce the things they consume. In the meantime, there are plenty of idiots running around telling consumers that they do not need producers – that the food will always be there no matter what changes are made because, well, the food is there today, and [insert moral platitude], dammit!

Consumers outnumber producers, so their votes tend to carry more weight. As a result, society tends to enact policies that make production ever harder and ever less profitable until production falters.

Even as production falters, there is never a shortage of idiots telling consumers that the problem is not the fact that the government attacks production, but rather the problem is that the producers are greedy little bastards who need to be brought to heel. In other words, the solution to rising prices is higher taxation on producers, more onerous regulations, and more subsidization of consumption – the opposite of what is actually needed.

It does not matter how many societies fall apart because of this pattern. We never run out of idiots willing to blame greedy producers for the failures, and as such most people fail to see the root cause.

The idiots are on CNN. The idiots are the ones screaming the loudest about ‘believing the science.’ The idiots are the modern-day Ahnenerbe.

The same policies that cause society after society to fail to get implemented again and again, with each generation in each country failing to learn the lessons of the past, thanks to idiots who tell them that thanks to [insert moral platitude], those lessons are no longer relevant.

Ron DeSantis is about to start investigating all things Covid. In a few short weeks, we will see Congress investigating everything else.

MANY VOICES, ONE FREEDOM: UNITED IN THE 1ST AMENDMENT

Join our community: Your insights matter. Contribute to the diversity of thoughts and ideas.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
12 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
stpaulchuck
stpaulchuck
1 year ago

 It is also true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I do not deny these things.
there is NO greenhouse. That requires a mid tropospheric hot spot. There isn’t one. There never will be one. Our atmosphere is open to space, there is no “ceiling”.

The CO2 level has been 10 times what it is now in the distant past and here we are. Most of the rise in CO2 levels is from the oceans. As the sun, orbital mechanics and other natural factors heat up Earth the oceans puke up a massive amount of dissolved gases, among them CO2. See Henry’s Law for reference. Best estimates from actual scientists say humankind contribute about 3.5% of the growth in CO2. Consider the LARGEST ‘greenhouse gas’ is water vapor and it is much more important that CO2 ever would be.

read the seminal papers from Nikolov and Zeller, in particular “New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model
– Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller

and this by Scafetta: ‘Testing An Astronomically Based Decadal-Scale Empirical Harmonic Climate Model vs. The IPCC (2007) General Circulation Climate Models’ by Nicola Scafetta, PhD

Russell Johnson
Russell Johnson
Reply to  stpaulchuck
1 year ago

Always demand climate change scenarios be supported with empirical data not corrupt,inaccurate climate models. Imagine CO2 is the cause of climate change with us contributing 3.5%. Then imagine your disappointment and anger when our government taxes and starves us to reduce it by 0.1%. Even a statistics magician knows the problem won’t be solved by reducing our contribution to 0%! The author should strongly condemn climate alarm-ism because it amounts to telling an enormous lie til people believe it!!

TheTexasCooke
TheTexasCooke
1 year ago

When the landscape ecologists at the Oakridge National Laboratory created an atmospheric general circulation model of the planet to test gore’s claims of global warming, no matter how, or how much, they increased CO2 in the modeled atmospere, equilibrium was always returned because the added CO2 dissolved into the modeled oceans. The result was ALL groups of ecologists in ALL national laboratories were disbanded [fired] and all other research ecologists in federal employ were transferred to the US Biological Survey ( precursor of the US Fish & Wildlife service, but its inabiling statutes were never repealed) with no operating funding and ordered to quietly retire.

The ONLY way to increase atmospheric CO2 is to increase the temperature of the oceans. To illustrate, take a soda from your refrigerator and one from the trunk of your car and open both….which releases the most CO2? NOTE: You can’t increase the temperature of the world’s oceans with car exhaust, plant composting, or cow flatulence. And THAT’S the science. The rest is religeon.

gerald brennan
gerald brennan
1 year ago

“We don’t have concentration camps for conservatives,…”
Wake up! We have a gulag in Wash DC.

Bob stump
Bob stump
1 year ago

We have a supreme court justice who testified that she doesn’t know what a woman is. Let that sink in. She plainly was telling the world that she will believe anything that fits her political agenda

Bob stump
Bob stump
1 year ago

And ask the pseudo science race hustlers what their definition of “equity” is. Hint, it apparently has nothing to do with finance. Just making it up as they go

patricia.anthone@gmail.com KC ANTHONE
1 year ago

Such an important and well-written article!!

Librarian
Librarian
1 year ago

Sadly it’s not about Truth or Science. It’s about Power and always has been.

mark rendina
mark rendina
1 year ago

Science has become a wounded morality

PFesser
PFesser
1 year ago

Really good. Really, really good.

Marc
Marc
1 year ago

Can you provide us with your references please? Thank you.

Donald J Trump
Donald J Trump
1 year ago

Calling you a crackpot and a lunatic is spot on. You’re not qualified to perform scientific research.

Sitewide Newsfeed

More Stories
.pp-sub-widget {display:none;} .walk-through-history {display:none;} .powerpress_links {display:none;} .powerpress_embed_box {display:none;}
Share via
Copy link