I have a new piece up at Discourse Magazine asking, “Do the Populists Have a Point?” A lot of the people who endorse the current, conservative version of populism do so because they are incandescently outraged at real or imagined failures of “the elites”—however they interpret that term—which therefore justifies a resort to a populist strongman as the answer.
"During the pandemic, their messaging was sometimes confused and contradictory, often portraying a false confidence in the face of real uncertainty, which caused some policies, such as school closings, to continue way too long." - school closing was never justified at all. There, your absurd claim destroyed in one sentence.
"The liberal institution of a free press serves to subject political leaders to scrutiny and require them to justify their views in answer to their critics. Much of the crying about “free speech” among the populists, however, is a demand that they be shielded from criticism. Take the complaint about Francis Collins, the head of the National Institutes of Health, asking about a “quick and devastating” rejoinder to the Great Barrington Declaration, a manifesto by COVID skeptics demanding that we adopt a strategy of “herd immunity” (which amounts to just doing nothing and letting everyone get the disease). This request was touted as “collusion” in government censorship, but the real story is the exact opposite.
Collins’ request was answered by Anthony Fauci—who did what? Did he send a government agency to censor wrong ideas? No, Fauci replied by sending links to several articles already published independently—in Wired, The Nation and elsewhere—challenging the premises behind the herd immunity claims. (And they were right. More than a million deaths later, we still have not achieved this supposed herd immunity.)"
No, they were not right at all, Fauci was never right, the Great Barrington Declaration was both correct and scientific, Fauci was as wrong as it was possible to be in this whole affair.
Stop pretending there is a scientific justification for lockdown because there isn't one, it is mediaeval balderdash, correctly abandoned centuries ago as policy and revived by the adoption of mediaevalist philosophy.
You're supposed to be an Objectivist so stop pretending the post of Doctator, the post held by the likes of Anthony Fauci, Chris Whitty and every other fake science hack across the world, is rationally justifiable. The post should not exist, just as the post of Chairman of the Federal Reserve should not exist.
"One of the authors of the declaration went on to complain that he was “the subject of a propaganda attack by my own government,” as opposed to “discussion and engagement.” But what he got was discussion and engagement—in the form of criticism in the media. That is what the populists, experts at playing the victim, find to be unacceptable. Government scientific officials, particularly in public health, must not merely refrain from censorship. They must refrain from holding or expressing their own views."
No, what he got was bullying and censorship by proxy, by propaganda because all that Anthony Fauci ever presented was propaganda.
This is completely wrong. "Herd immunity" does not fight the pandemic but just surrenders to it--and a million deaths later, we still haven't achieved it. This is what I mean by replacing the flawed "elites" with even more flawed elites. The people you are listening to have been comprehensively wrong about the pandemic.
The Great Barrington Declaration wasn't implemented anywhere, btw, or did you not notice that?
Sweden doesn't count since they didn't lock down and the GBD was announced in the Autumn of 2020, long after nearly everyone else did lock down.
So, if there have been a million deaths, it certainly isn't due to the implementation of the GBD and the imposition of lockdown and other accompanying absurdities hasn't prevented deaths.
Your claim is like saying the Great Depression was the result on unfettered capitalism.
Also, those I have been reading and listening to include Capitalism Magazine.
Anthony Fauci is a bureaucrat, not a scientist, his record is one of bureaucracy masquerading as science and he's the real-life equivalent of Floyd Ferris.
No, lockdown is poison presented as the cure for poison.
I have not been listening to conservatives, I have been using my eyes, something you haven't done at all on this subject. The justifications given for lockdown were utterly innumerate fantasy from the likes of notorious doomsday cultist Neil Ferguson.
As for fight the pandemic, since when is that the job of government to do that?
In Ayn Rand's time, the government didn't fight the pandemics of the late fifties and late sixties.
You imply that the million deaths or, at least, some of them could have been prevented. They most definitely couldn't have been prevented by lockdown measures, those measures were utterly absurd and ensured that cancer treatment, treatment for heart ailments etc were fatally delayed or prevented from taking place at all.
And, no, I don't want the flawed elites replaced, I want the job of Doctator abolished. It should not exist, just as the job recently vacated by Chris Whitty shouldn't exist.
In Britain, supposed scientists Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance said that, without a second lockdown, Britain would have more deaths per day than India had done on the worst day of the pandemic, India with twenty times the British population.
And don't gaslight me either, I am not Conservative nor am I populist. What I do do is use my eyes, something those who still defend the combination of medievalism and domestic abuse that is lockdown don't do.
As for masks and shutting schools, that was something Sweden didn't do and for good reason: the latter was unnecessary, the former is completely unjustified in science since no studies demonstrating their efficacy have ever been made.
I'm removing these comments because I don't mind people posting links in the comments field, but you can't post the full text of an outside article (because of copyrights, among other reasons).
“In court, these claims evaporate one by one when they are required to meet well-established rules of evidence and when—unlike in the media—there are distinct penalties for flagrant lying.”
Too bad this was not the case for the guy who perjured himself saying, “I did not have sex with that woman.”
Just to be the Well Akshually guy, Bill Clinton was disbarred--not for that particular statement, which was to the press, not a court--but for lying in his deposition.
"During the pandemic, their messaging was sometimes confused and contradictory, often portraying a false confidence in the face of real uncertainty, which caused some policies, such as school closings, to continue way too long." - school closing was never justified at all. There, your absurd claim destroyed in one sentence.
"The liberal institution of a free press serves to subject political leaders to scrutiny and require them to justify their views in answer to their critics. Much of the crying about “free speech” among the populists, however, is a demand that they be shielded from criticism. Take the complaint about Francis Collins, the head of the National Institutes of Health, asking about a “quick and devastating” rejoinder to the Great Barrington Declaration, a manifesto by COVID skeptics demanding that we adopt a strategy of “herd immunity” (which amounts to just doing nothing and letting everyone get the disease). This request was touted as “collusion” in government censorship, but the real story is the exact opposite.
Collins’ request was answered by Anthony Fauci—who did what? Did he send a government agency to censor wrong ideas? No, Fauci replied by sending links to several articles already published independently—in Wired, The Nation and elsewhere—challenging the premises behind the herd immunity claims. (And they were right. More than a million deaths later, we still have not achieved this supposed herd immunity.)"
No, they were not right at all, Fauci was never right, the Great Barrington Declaration was both correct and scientific, Fauci was as wrong as it was possible to be in this whole affair.
Stop pretending there is a scientific justification for lockdown because there isn't one, it is mediaeval balderdash, correctly abandoned centuries ago as policy and revived by the adoption of mediaevalist philosophy.
You're supposed to be an Objectivist so stop pretending the post of Doctator, the post held by the likes of Anthony Fauci, Chris Whitty and every other fake science hack across the world, is rationally justifiable. The post should not exist, just as the post of Chairman of the Federal Reserve should not exist.
"One of the authors of the declaration went on to complain that he was “the subject of a propaganda attack by my own government,” as opposed to “discussion and engagement.” But what he got was discussion and engagement—in the form of criticism in the media. That is what the populists, experts at playing the victim, find to be unacceptable. Government scientific officials, particularly in public health, must not merely refrain from censorship. They must refrain from holding or expressing their own views."
No, what he got was bullying and censorship by proxy, by propaganda because all that Anthony Fauci ever presented was propaganda.
This is completely wrong. "Herd immunity" does not fight the pandemic but just surrenders to it--and a million deaths later, we still haven't achieved it. This is what I mean by replacing the flawed "elites" with even more flawed elites. The people you are listening to have been comprehensively wrong about the pandemic.
The Great Barrington Declaration wasn't implemented anywhere, btw, or did you not notice that?
Sweden doesn't count since they didn't lock down and the GBD was announced in the Autumn of 2020, long after nearly everyone else did lock down.
So, if there have been a million deaths, it certainly isn't due to the implementation of the GBD and the imposition of lockdown and other accompanying absurdities hasn't prevented deaths.
Your claim is like saying the Great Depression was the result on unfettered capitalism.
Also, those I have been reading and listening to include Capitalism Magazine.
Anthony Fauci is a bureaucrat, not a scientist, his record is one of bureaucracy masquerading as science and he's the real-life equivalent of Floyd Ferris.
No, lockdown is poison presented as the cure for poison.
I have not been listening to conservatives, I have been using my eyes, something you haven't done at all on this subject. The justifications given for lockdown were utterly innumerate fantasy from the likes of notorious doomsday cultist Neil Ferguson.
As for fight the pandemic, since when is that the job of government to do that?
In Ayn Rand's time, the government didn't fight the pandemics of the late fifties and late sixties.
You imply that the million deaths or, at least, some of them could have been prevented. They most definitely couldn't have been prevented by lockdown measures, those measures were utterly absurd and ensured that cancer treatment, treatment for heart ailments etc were fatally delayed or prevented from taking place at all.
And, no, I don't want the flawed elites replaced, I want the job of Doctator abolished. It should not exist, just as the job recently vacated by Chris Whitty shouldn't exist.
In Britain, supposed scientists Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance said that, without a second lockdown, Britain would have more deaths per day than India had done on the worst day of the pandemic, India with twenty times the British population.
And don't gaslight me either, I am not Conservative nor am I populist. What I do do is use my eyes, something those who still defend the combination of medievalism and domestic abuse that is lockdown don't do.
As for masks and shutting schools, that was something Sweden didn't do and for good reason: the latter was unnecessary, the former is completely unjustified in science since no studies demonstrating their efficacy have ever been made.
I'm removing these comments because I don't mind people posting links in the comments field, but you can't post the full text of an outside article (because of copyrights, among other reasons).
“In court, these claims evaporate one by one when they are required to meet well-established rules of evidence and when—unlike in the media—there are distinct penalties for flagrant lying.”
Too bad this was not the case for the guy who perjured himself saying, “I did not have sex with that woman.”
Just to be the Well Akshually guy, Bill Clinton was disbarred--not for that particular statement, which was to the press, not a court--but for lying in his deposition.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/02/duncancampbell