Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Plandemic Video, the Wisdom of Confucius, and YouTube Censorship
The Plandemic video seemed pretty ridiculous to me. All I could discern was a sea of unjustified and tragically unexplained claims in which were raised a few islands of genuine concerns.
The root problem here is neither new nor especially complicated: Our government, journalists, academics, and other elites have not heeded the wisdom of Confucius highlighted here, and as a result they have lost the trust of the people. (See here on the catastrophe of that loss of trust.)
That the elites have largely earned our distrust, however, does not mean that we can abandon all standards of evidence. For all I know, the people named in the video may be the jerks the good doctor says they are. However, she gave me no evidence for it beyond her own testimony (none that I could understand, anyway).
And that brings us to YouTube and Facebook, which are censoring sources they consider dubious rather than allowing a freedom of speech wherein those sources and their refuters are allowed to converse.
YouTube and Facebook, please stop censoring. You yourselves have, by and large, never thoroughly studied science, logic, philosophy, history, religion, or law. You lack the expertise needed to refute these claims. Let the ignorant speak, and let the informed correct them. You will do the most good by supporting the process of rational conversation.
Most importantly, YouTube and Facebook, you have now joined the elites. When you censor others, you are making yourselves one of the reasons people are inclined to believe in vast conspiracies when they hear of them.
Published in Culture
Not to mention that some conspiracies do exist. What good does it do to add to them a conspiracy of social media censorship?
I watched that video for 7-8 minutes, then stopped and Googled Judy Mikovits. Turns out that she was fired for creating irreproducible results that required Science Magazine to print a partial retraction, then refused to return lab property and was arrested for it. Also, she’s an anti-vaxxer. Never went back and watched the rest.
[Edit: Having said that, censoring her video just calls more attention to it — it’s the modern-day Streisand Effect.]
Disagreeing with the WHO is by definition ‘misinformation’. Except when the WHO does it. Then it’s science.
Well, she says that was all part of the conspiracy. For all I know that is possible.
But lots of things are possible. Why should I think this possibility is true?
I still don’t understand what an old British rock band has to do with anything.
“… And I get on my knees and pray, we won’t get fooled again. …
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…”
It frustrates me to no end that with all the substantive, compelling arguments against continued lockdowns, this is the thing that’s caught fire. About 30 seconds in, when the on-screen graphic identified the interviewer as a “filmaker,” I had a pretty good idea what was coming. I kept watching and thought it was overly dramatic and silly, often at the same time. The fact that so many people are sharing it (often with a message like “Something to think about…🤔”) is disheartening because it’s energy that could be spent making substantial arguments that might change minds in the middle.
I think you’re exactly right. This is what happens when the public loses trust in institutions, including the press. And that’s just as much the fault of the institutions as of the public.
And the censorship feeds the paranoia and makes things worse. Not only that, it doesn’t work anyway, because it’s impossible to keep something like this from popping up again.
The default for any free people should be to maintain a healthy skepticism of those in charge.
I know someone who entertains conspiracies simply to keep the skepticism alive. We should be looking into what bothers us rather than accepting the information handed down by dictate via experts and politicians. We may not be the best at it, but it keeps the knowledge keepers honest.
We are not a country of high priests with secret knowledge entrusted only to a few… and it’s good to “think about” controversial things if they can jolt us out of implicit trust. For some so rooted in trusting authority, it takes crude and extreme questions to push them to just ask the damn question:
“Am I being lied to?”
I think it’s possible to remain healthily skeptical of those in charge without believing or promoting stuff like Plandemic.
”Am I being lied to?” is a question we should apply equally to official press conferences, newspaper articles, and YouTube videos. Just because the answer is “yes” in the first two cases, doesn’t mean it’s not also true in the third.
Bill Gates is the second richest man in the world. He is the head of the multi headed Hydra. He is also closely “friended” by the Clintons and the Zuckerbergs.
His major donations that are flung at this university and that college, across all the nations of the world, give him the ability to pull strings at far too many research labs. the reasoning behind his desire for this control exists for several reasons. So for instance, just looking at this COVID virus, he pulls all the strings. His 100 million dollar donation to the WHO guaranteed that all he needed to do to have the top officals reverse their original thoughts on COVID, that COVID was not pandemic, was to apply a bit of pressure so that Tedros would issue the proclamation that COVID did deserve pandemic status. (He cannot get the mandated status for his COVID vaccine unless it is considered a serious Pandemic-level illness.)
So he has the proxies in place at WHO to offer him the status he needs. Then when the press discusses things, they know enough somehow to usually refer to Johns Hopkins officials and their statements, without informing the public that Johns Hopkins has offered up their ability to be independent of Gates – as they have received some 1.2 billions of dollars from him since 2003.
Think about the benefits to him. When in the 1990’s, his proxy inside the Imperial College, one Neill Ferguson began promoting the idea that CJD was contaminating all the cow, goats and sheep in Great Britain and that the only way humans would be sure they didn’t fall victims to eating mad cow-contaminated cattle products was for a mass slaughter to be waged. It later was found out to be negligently brought about. Yet Neil Ferguson remained in his lofty Ivory Tower position.
But think about it from Bill Gates’ stand point: he could short the cattle market, invest in food markers from other places and make out like the bandit that he is. Then it only made sense to continue to be Ferguson’s patron..
After Trump’s declaration of “State of Emergency” for the USA, on Mar 13 2020, the Zuckerberg’s took to the airwaves to declare how much they desire to help out their friend Bill Gates as he brings forth a vaccine to save all of humanity. If you think for one moment they would not commit themselves to do the only real thing they have the power to do, which is to eliminate any and all references to hydroxychloroquine, to DIAMOX, to the Vit C and/or D regimens, you’d be kidding yourself. They will also censor any one who disses Gates. Or his proxy Fauci. Google and twitter execs know it is Gate who will pay them off royally, not us peasants, so they are on the same cyber page as the Zuckerbergs. . You can only expect more censorship in the coming months.
Amen.
It is especially hard to avoid having the social media-censored media from being installed on BitChute and Brighteon and other digital platforms free from the Zuckerbergs and google and twitter execs.
On edit: “Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.”
— Justice Potter Stewart, Ginzburg v. U.S., 1966
So if I connect all the dots you’re setting up, what picture should I come up with? That Gates has a lot of financial control over a lot of institutions, that he has a chance to make money off of a vaccine he’s funding, and that the behavior of those people under his influence is aimed at maximizing his eventual profits?
I didn’t say you shouldn’t question those sources.
I was being critical of your issue with people saying something is worth thinking about.
It is worth thinking about in so far as it challenges your acceptance of the CDC (or whatever is being challenged).
I listened to this when pseudo first linked to it. I did not find her to be totally rational, but she echoes some thoughts I’ve already entertained. Her facts are worth checking.
And dismissing someone as a quack because of anti-vaccination sentiments seems rather short sighted when we have released the producers from all culpability and any accusation of vaccine related injury is defended by the biggest, most powerful law agency in the country (the DoJ). And those are basic facts that are easily verified. It doesn’t suggest conspiracy or that vaccines cause problems – it just suggests skepticism may be reasonable concerning vaccines.
Strictly speaking, my only claim here is that I couldn’t see a lot of logic in the Plandemic video–mostly just assertions.
There’s not much need to justify that.
But let me explain with two examples.
–I’m pretty sure she said the coronavirus came from the earlier SARS; i.e., it’s NOT a new jump from a bat virus. That should be EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED, and the connections/distinctions with the dominant horseshoe bat theory CLARIFIED.
–She says this virus would not change this much from its forebear in less than 800 years of natural evolution. There should be some justification or explanation of that claim. E.g., plug some numbers into this formula: The virus has V% similarity and W% difference with virus X, and viruses normally only change Y% in Z years.
That he could be manipulating the markets much like incredibly rich people have been doing since the Railroad wars?
But beyond that, do you really think it not worth being skeptical if he’s been granted indemnity for any vaccine he produces?
By what means does failure come to haunt him and persuade him “this was unwise?”
I’m sure it’s worth being skeptical.
I just don’t understand much, and know even less.
E.g., what are we talking about here exactly? Is Bill Gates funding a vaccine with legal protections in case something should go wrong? Are other vaccine developers not being given this protection?
Why are you posing your statements as questions? You seem to know how you yourself would answer the questions, so why bother asking me?
So I’ve been listening to that Bible Project podcast and I just finished listening to part 2 of Job and he says the book of Job asks 2 important questions where one I’ve never heard before. Specifically: is it wise for good men to always prosper?
His argument being that we have a tendency, in our prosperity, to lose sight of God, fear of Him (or seeking His wisdom), and become proud in our own goodness or accomplishments.
It can’t be wise of us to assume that just because we, ourselves, or someone else is prosperous and wealthy that we/they must be “good”. Perhaps they made wise decisions once, but to reiterate and dive deeper into my last comment’s final question… great wealth tends to inocculate people from the consequences of bad choices… so is he STILL wise? Or has he found that others’ love of money can buy clemency, indulgence, and blindness?
Is it fine to ask that question without casting judgement on Bill Gates? Because honestly, I don’t know him or his motivations. But is there enough there to act on discretion (a question specifically for you, SA, as it is a moral and Christian question)?
Here is a recent Tucker Carlson show on media censorship, and I like so many of his thoughts. And those of his young guest, Dave Rubin, at the end of his show:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPrbGU0Wyh4
And I’m being critical of people who watched that video and thought about it, then decided its claims rose to the level of “something to think about.” I don’t think it is credible in even the most minimal way — even as a conspiracy theory, I find it fairly weak.
Maybe some of the general concepts raised in that video are worth thinking about, but having watched it, the specific claims are not worth thinking about, in my opinion. I wouldn’t stop anyone from watching it, but if a friend asked, I’d say it’s a waste of time except for entertainment value.
Just a few of many Somethings I do believe are worth thinking about:
– Are continued harsh limits on gatherings necessary?
– Are some politicians using this crisis to increase control over us after it ends?
– Do some people or companies have a financial interest in the policies they are endorsing?
But as we think about these things, I would prefer we do it specifically and with concrete evidence, well sourced, rather than generalities, opinions, and suspicions.
Stina, I ‘ll repeat what I wrote inside another topic on hospital protocols a few moments ago:
Just how much less severe the actual hospital crisis would have been, if there had been an established response to the COIVD National Emergency such that should a person feel ill, they’d go to their own doctor, receive a prophylactic prescriptions for Hydroxychloroquine, at the established dosages used for decades by both lupus patients and rheumatioid arthritis patients.
We know from statistics released on these 2 groups of chronic patients that they have not experienced serious cases of COVID 19, nor has there been a single death.
Also how many lives would have been saved, if the HCQ, and Vit C and D regimens, as well as looking into DIAMOX, were available instead of being held back so Gates & his supporters, including the Clinton Foundation and Zuckerbergs were not then able to get their vaccine brought forward?
Being on this site since August 2017, reading so often about the spiritual awareness that a fetus is a baby and should be protected, I am amazed at finding so many here overlooking that Gates is not a 17 year old HS senior who may be considering an abortion to avoid her parents’ grounding her for the summer – he is instead the well established 2nd richest man in the world who funds Planned Parenthood and so many health clinics where millions of abortions are performed globally on his dime. Is that hypocrisy or are people so terrified of COVID that they will put their morals aside in order to get this vaccine?
⋅
⋅
Because I wasn’t making statements. I was asking questions.
I was asking whether that’s what you were thinking.
Yes.
I don’t know what “act on discretion” means.
Amen.
And what about this story? Are there allegations of factual inaccuracies in it ? Or is there something else I’m missing?
Everybody wants to rule the world.
Wouldn’t it be cool if there were some people, who could investigate claims in a disinterested fashion, doing interviews and gathering information, and then writing about it for others to read? We could call them “reporters” or something…
https://wattsupwiththat.com
This site has been most informative since shelter in place was imposed in my state California on March 19.
Lots of useful information on covid-19, hydroxychloroquine and Diamond Princess cruise.
Read the articles, ignore the comments.