An iconic pair of people, methinks. A curious blend of old-fashioned conservatism and present-day virtue-signalling liberalism -- one might almost think of iron hands in velvet gloves -- informed mainly by what appears to me as a felt need to perform according to the prevalent zeitgeist amongst their ilk. They came across as so naïve, so trusting in whatever their confirmation bias is telling them. Sara in particular projects the archetypical image of a person with little self-awareness of her own sympathy with the totalitarian trend in rigid orthodoxy. She sent shivers down my spine with her justification for preventing discussion amongst the unwashed plebs.
Oh yes, folks. Only we academic types have the nouse (and more importantly the phDs) that make us qualified and able to preach down to you because you are so dense and obdurate. It doesn't matter that our qualifications aren't in areas, such as climate science, that we know little about. We know what's true, and this Sunday, when you attend our church, we will sermonise you about that because it has been delivered on tablets of stone from on high.
I downloaded the kindle sampler and noted one of the mentions in the acknowledgements section as being of Michael Shermer (I assume
the Michael Shermer we all know and love) -- if so, 'nuff said -- he's another "Karen" who's a tad more of an iron hand than a velvet glove compared to Sara, and just as inclined to retreat into the protective arms of parroted orthodoxy when challenged. That's the thing about orthodoxy: one doesn't have to know a thing; even in the face of cognitive dissonance, when one can't effectively counter different opinions, it's always there to back one up.
I was staggered that Jack Gorman apparently didn't know how social media is routinely stifling free speech on issues it deems beyond the pale. Like someone has already said, he seems to live in a bubble. He should venture out into less calm waters and see what's being said on other platforms, then at least he'd be aware how and
why many other people think differently than he does -- and that
some at least of their arguments aren't entirely without merit.
I've made a few allusions to religion, and that's because I think this is the new religion: of pious believers in orthodox science (more accurately,
scientism) who can use borrowed authority to browbeat heretics mercilessly. Now it's beating with eyebrows, but how long before the iron emerges from the velvet? Actually, strike that: it's already emerged in the Covid arena with lockdowns, vaccination passports and coercive means of "encouraging" people to get jabbed, quite contrary to the
Nuremberg Code.
I've personally lived a pretty solitary life for around 5 years and rarely go out, perhaps once a month or so, mainly to do shopping for goods I can't get delivered to my home address. While out, I have voluntarily observed the ridiculous and ever morphing rules fastidiously -- not because I for a moment believe them, more because I can't be arsed to provoke any negative reactions. Life's too short, and it's only a couple of hours a month, after all. But few are in my situation and would have risked encountering difficulties with their employers had they not been vaccinated.
And I worry about them. In a couple of years, will some of my nearest and dearest suffer from delayed reactions worse than Covid? The simple answer is that we can't be sure yet -- though there is some evidence that data collection for negative outcomes reveals only a fraction of the real number of cases, which include sudden deaths within hours of being injected. In ordinary circumstances (normal cycles of vaccine development and testing lasting up to 10 years), only a few reports of death would be sufficient to halt experimental testing. Many think there's evidence that we have surpassed this amount by orders of magnitude already.
And everybody, including Jack Gorman, seems to be studiously avoiding
the mounting evidence for the effectiveness of ivermectin prophylaxis and treatment. He only mentioned hydroxychloroquine, I noticed. Was that because he is blissfully unaware of ivermectin, or has he heard of it and dismissed it out of hand? Whatever, whilst I have to decline doubtless well-meaning appeals to be vaccinated, nobody is offering the alternative -- ivermectin treatment; indeed, the evidence is being systematically suppressed and one can't get it for love nor money unless one is slightly subversive and willing to buy it in preparations intended for animals such as horses.
If you want to buy pills, go search for them on the web, where profiteers are currently charging an arm and a leg (
$115 for only 10 pills in the US) for what is one of the cheapest and least harmful proven anti-viral agents available. No profit in it for big pharma, so it's getting the bum's rush. And they're suppressing the evidence because if there were a widely-acknowledged treatment, then they could not have legally enrolled millions in their experimental gene therapy exercise.
I hope Jack and Sara know this: the "vaccination" isn't really such: it's experimental tinkering with genetic material (mRNA) that in the past has proven fatal for animals when they've been re-exposed to relevant viruses. No matter: big pharma has vaccinated itself against any lawsuits over negative outcomes, so they couldn't give a toss about it because they're making piles of money. Many people who get vaccinated are unaware what they're signing up for, and so can't really give true informed consent. So much for the Nuremberg Code.
Jack and Sara, you probably think you mean well and that at bottom you're decent people, but try to see how you're coming across: as educated ignoramuses who can't see their own prejudices and predilections. I think your performance was, to put it bluntly, nauseatingly complacent and smug.