I was planning to write a long article comparing the accountability
of the various possible Covid-19 culprits. I thought I would delve into a
hypothetical question: who is more guilty of a mass murder - a young
scientist who forgot to seal the safety latch of a laboratory
coronavirus refrigerator and by failing to do so, exposed humanity to
the risk of a viral pandemic, or an epidemiologist and professor who
distributes a phantasmic unsubstantiated study that is not fact-based
and proved to be grossly incorrect and by so doing, inflicted financial
chaos leading to the destruction of the Western economy, contributed to
world famine and the possible deaths of millions?
But as soon as I
started to delve into it, I gathered that the topic was not as
interesting as I hoped. The young scientist was negligent, a relatively
minor offence in comparison with the epidemiologist who committed a
conscious, wilful act following a process of so-called methodical
‘deliberation.’ The young scientist is guilty of negligence that led to
many deaths, the epidemiology professor is, basically, complicit in a
crime against humanity.
I realized a more interesting question is
why most Western countries failed to take the right decision. Britain is
particularly interesting as it initially took what seems now to be the right policy, then made a 180 after it was subject to a media blitz fuelled by the embarrassingly exaggerated ‘predictions’ from a ‘scientific study’ delivered by London Imperial College.
If
we want to live in a better world, we may have to delve into the
systematic failure of our media, government, dysfunctional political
class, and the scientific political technocrats. Considering the crimes
that are now committed by our so-called elite, a criminal investigation is likely the only way forward and may be our only hope to survive.
Other
intriguing questions have surfaced amidst the Corona crisis. While it
is clear why many people supported severe lockdown measures back in
February and March, it is far from clear why liberals and progressives are still supporting the ludicrous surrender of our most essential rights to operate freely and make a living? Why do the tech companies stick with a narrative that is becoming increasingly shaky? Why does Facebook
deploy its robots to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with the World
Health Organization? Why, in the most blatant violation of freedom of
speech, has Youtube been removing content and alternative views presented by frontline scientists and medical doctors such as Dr. Erickson’s Covid19 Briefing?
For those who don’t remember, just two months ago the same American
press, that is now rallying against dissenting American doctors, was
criticizing China for silencing its own medical professionals who
insisted upon telling the truth. What is it about David Icke’s
message that brings to light the true authoritarian nature of Google,
Facebook and Twitter? Why are the tech corporations united against those
who see 5G
as a global menace? Whether the 5G dissenters are right or wrong, there
is no health risk to any of us from people who express their thoughts
and are upset by radiation.
It may be too depressing to admit that
in the West, it is the tech companies, rather than the state, that
display the most authoritarian tactics. But they are not alone in this
battle. What we see is a broad alliance among the so-called
progressives, the liberals and the bitterest Orwellian enemies of
freedom and speech rights.
The division we see in contemporary
society is not of a socio-economic nature, it is not rich vs. poor, it
is not political, it has nothing to do with Left or Right, it is not
even cognitive, it is all about Athens and Jerusalem. Athens teaches us
how to think for ourselves, while Jerusalem dictates what to think, what
to say and who not to listen to. Athens pushes for an Agora: an open
marketplace of ideas dominated by tolerance and pluralism while
Jerusalem adheres to a set of beliefs, and as is typical with beliefs,
the more they are removed from factuality and rationality the stronger
the belief happens to be.
It does not come as a surprise to many
of us that some progressives and liberals are still very pessimistic,
as if they try to save the ridiculously farfetched
predictions made by our state ‘scientists’ two months ago. They cling
to predictions that have proven to be grossly wrong and by unheard of proportions.
I guess that the progressive worldview is not a political position, it
is a mental state and it is actually of a very problematic supremacist
nature. Progressives are those who believe that those who do not agree
with them are somehow inferior: ‘reactionaries’ so to say. To be a
progressive is to believe that your view isn’t just right, it is
actually superior, scientifically and analytically even if the facts and
the rules of logic suggest the opposite.
In my latest book,
‘Being in Time,’ I reached the conclusion that the progressive worldview
is probably choseness’ final stage. I guess that my old insight has
now materialized into a public awareness. I can only thank Covid-19 for
that.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento