When I realized that the world had lost its collective mind and leaders were malgoverning the people, had abandoned all of the research and plans for respiratory disease, a century of study, hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars invested, tossed within weeks of panic, into the darkness of fear and nonsensical totalitarian control, I knew I needed more knowledge about what was happening. Knowledge = Power and all.
I filled my head with multiple degrees worth of university study on multiple subjects, informal autodidact learnedness, understanding and comprehension of subjects above most who hold actual degrees in the subjects. A voracious reader of advanced books, journals, papers, eighty+ hours a week. Lucky to have a spouse who understood I was obsessed with finding out more and more, insatiable quest for knowledge.
I did this for the first two years. On our far-too few occasions to go out and meet people, friends, I found it difficult to converse normally. I'd want to share all I learned, I was an open fire hyrdant of information that few people could drink from, even if they wanted to. Too much, too fast. Too many dots connected for people to keep up. I must've sounded like a madman. I was. Mad as hell at what I'd learned. And trying to inform others so they'd be mad as hell, too.
But they couldn't, nor did most want to take in all I had to share. It wasn't until I took a temporary position that allowed me to meet people in the community, short social visits, with time in between away from the computer screen so as not to continue to fill my head with research, able to work over thoughts and ideas, put them together in new ways in my head, that I was able to dial back all I wanted to say and focus on the most important subjects others could easily get their head around without overwhelming them. I'd learn though trial and error what could be grasped by others without making them uncomfortable, and be of service for those who'd listen - what they could do with the information - and deliver it in an entertaining, engaging way.
It was a process, I still practice it. Practice. I've not perfected it. But I'm better practiced at it. I have my stage from time to time, I do well with it. I've been in front of large audiences many times before. The challenge for those of us speaking to the subjects we write about and read others writings on is to focus all we know and wish to share on the wants and needs of the audiences we are addressing. They do not, nor could they know what we know. They will turn off and tune out the moment we take a leap into something we know is next that they aren't ready for, that they haven't connected the dots to understand. Connecting too many dots tires their brains out very quickly. Happens to all of us when we first meet a subject, details and leaps are hard to keep up with.
Simple. Keep it simple. You know the subject at levels of complexity far above your audience. Keep it simple, a few key points, and have a takeaway for them that's useful for them to do with the information you've shared. It can't just be "and that's how it really is, now you know, good luck out there!" My .02 suggestion. Fwiw.
You just summarized some of the main teaching points of Dale Carnegie. Keep it Simple Stupid. Focus on just one area and not 20 different areas. And think about your audience and what might resonate with them. When I speak at the Brownstone event, I'm supposed to keep my talk to 15 minutes. The group will then discuss the subject for 15 minutes - then we go on to the next topic and presenter.
So I've got to condense my talk to its most essential components. As we say in journalism, it's much harder to write short! Or give a short speech.
I write long. And meander. And do all the things I say not to do in a speech. Yet some people still like to read what I write. Making me a niche writer for those with the time and interest.
If I want my writings to reach more minds I'll have to become a good writer. And do the much harder work of writing short.
Imagine being educated in pharmacology, biology, biochemistry and chemistry (and more) only to have it all flushed down the toilet during covid. Having that knowledge that told you this is all bullshit AND that all the other people with the VERY SAME educational qualifications (or even more) were on board with the bullshit. Six feet and masks work but normal (and relatively safe) drugs DO NOT work, nor, god forbid, does NUTRITION have any bearing on health. The frustration was complete hell. Screaming into the void was the best simile. Thank god for contrarians. I’m not sure I’d have remained as steadfast nor as sane without you all to back me up. 🙏🙏🙏
When I was studying everything I could in 2020 I first explored the natural sciences, trying to figure out how to deconstruct The Science (TM) we were being admonished to unquestioningly follow that wasn't true to the hard, natural sciences, defied common sense. As all of the arguments against what was being asserted to be The Science were summarily dismissed without discussion I reasoned that The Science (TM) wasn't based in any hard natural sciences, followed no laws of natural science; they were based in soft social science. Social, behavioral, political science. Only the soft social sciences are that malleable, often self-contradictory, capable of morphing into the whims of leaders simply by co-opting the language of hard, natural science. Aka, psuedoscience.
That's when I shifted my research and discovery into the soft, social sciences, behaviorism primarily. I had learned that is one of the most common university disciplines that virologists today study, is how to change a population's behavior attempting to mitigate the spread of infectious disease, by altering perceptions. Behavioral Science is The Science (TM) of masking, contact tracing, lockdown, social distancing, etc.
And my study of behaviorism led me to the study of ethics, specifically bioethics. The different philosophies of ethics, Virtue, Kantian, Utilitarian. And that most governments subscribe to the Utilitarian variety. Lies in service to a greater good. Sacrifice of the few for the benefit of the many. Conceptually sound concepts. But vulnerable to misuse and abuse when the definition of "good" and "benefit" are subjective, not universally held, and the good and benefit is actually for the few, not the many, inverted. How Stalin's "break a few eggs to make an omelette" murderous dictatorial regime could be deemed "ethical." Every democidal regime in history has practiced an inverted utilitarian ethical model. Including the US/EU/UN today.
And the study of ethics, bioethics led me to the pseudoscience of eugenics. Third Reich, Fascist, Hitlerian master race science. That never went away. Was just rebranded. The pseudoscience that drove Jeffrey Epstein and his Black Book of VIP's to pedophilia, desiring to spread their "superior" seed into future man, after culling the current world population of "inferior" genes, ending the "generations of imbeciles" (SCOTUS 8-1 Buck v. Bell upholding eugenics sterilization - and euthanasia? - practices).
Here's where I check myself about not connecting so many dots and lose readers/listeners! But it's where it all leads. And the gene therapies, mRNA, all of it is inexorably linked and connected to eugenics. It all flows, fits like a glove. And the fact that the scientific "experts," even the ethics "experts" have thrown out all they knew since 2020 can only be because they are corrupt, cowardly and/or complicit with a eugenics agenda.
With your background you may find this paper interesting. Written nearly two-decades ago. Warnings we'd have been wise to heed, lessons we'd have been wise to learn, information that was ignored and dismissed - even by the author herself since 2020! Chock-full of concepts that apply to this Stack of Bill's, your experience and lead down many other rabbit holes. Like one of the scientists given prominent mention in this paper is Francis Collins. Yes. the same Francis Collins found in the middle of the pandemic campaign (p 43-46)
In recent genethics literature, George Annas examines the division between scientists and non-scientists and how this division creates obstacles for serious moral deliberation and critical developments in policy-making involving the social and economic implications of genetic research and technology. Annas explains how nonscientists believe that scientists “underestimate the danger in their work, and vastly overestimate its importance”. Scientists, on the other hand, believe the fields of social policy and ethics “lag behind” science, failing to keep up with advancements and progress in science and technology.
The field of genomics is as complex and mysterious as the human genome itself, and attempting to unlock the secrets of our biology does not follow without ethical and social implications. In determining what these implications will look like, non-scientists must work with and not against the scientific community by keeping up-to-date with what researchers are thinking and doing, the technologies they are using, and their immediate and future goals. Likewise, scientists have a moral obligation to consider potential harmful, social and psychological consequences of their research and technology; they must work with non-scientists to achieve a better understanding of the plurality of values held by the global community.
I believe Annas is correct in saying that social policy and ethics “lag behind” science. Non-scientists and scientists need to work together to achieve a collective understanding of the social and ethical implications of genomics. However, there are several reasons why ethics lags behind science besides the lack of effort and responsibility by scientists and non-scientists in trying to understand and predict the potential benefits and harms genomics research and technology may bring to the community.
Social policy and ethics lag behind because, first, there is a lack of public discourse and deliberation. While many scientific and non-scientific groups may discuss the social and ethical issues surrounding genomics, much of their discourse lacks critical evaluation and reflection. Even with a diverse representation, committees, though able to address significant social and ethical considerations for genomics, find it difficult to deeply analyse and evaluate these considerations given the plurality of values within their national and global communities."
...
"Public deliberation provides an open forum for pluralistic values and interests to be discussed and evaluated."
...
"Though exploring the resources and limitations of ethical theory is essential, ethicists and policy makers need to develop a dynamic framework through which we can begin to make ethical decisions and policies that cohere with the theories and applications of genomic research as well as with the values and beliefs held by our global community. This framework would encourage moral discourse and deliberation among scientists and non-scientists and would identify and critically reflect upon moral theories and principles, namely justice, and their limitations with respect to our pluralistic values and beliefs."
...
"Now, a coherence framework is not necessarily the “magic bullet” for opening lines of communication and creating a better forum for ethical deliberation and resolution. There are serious limitations such as governmental or political resistance for openly discussing all aspects of genomics, notably genomic knowledge used for offensive or defensive military action. Furthermore, the coherence framework may not be useful when there are power struggles among individuals who assume “expert roles” in ethical deliberation and resolution. Yes, I am talking about my own kind—the bioethicists—who have been trained in a variety of disciplines ranging from law to medicine to philosophy, but who, unfortunately, as Black puts it “are of little help in this hurtling new world.” With my lack of objectivity about this issue, I disagree; bioethicists can be useful in formulating new approaches to moral deliberation, contributing personal and hypothetical case scenarios that challenge our critical thinking about genomics and eugenomics, and synthesising a variety of perspectives among several areas of thought so that discussion is ethically based and not politically driven. But, I can also see where Black (and others) has difficulty supporting bioethicists and the discipline of bioethics. Black writes:
"The still emerging field of bioethics includes self-ordained experts who grant interviews to television talk shows and newspapers even as they consult as scientific advisors to the very corporations under question. The do’s [sic] and don’ts of genetic tinkering are being revised almost daily as the technology breeds an every-evolving crop of moral, legal and social challenges that virtually redefine life itself. It will take a global consensus to legislate against genetic abuse because no single country’s law can by itself anticipate the evolving intercollaborative nature of global genomics."
While I agree with Black that there needs to be a global consensus, in order to achieve this goal, a framework such as the one I recommend needs to be in place, as a starting point, to organise our ethical, legal, social, economic, and scientific ideas, theories, and knowledge, while eliminating our biases, fears, misunderstandings, misinformation, and the like—that which contributed to past abuses, including those associated with eugenics."
FF - The paper was written by Julie Aultman. Who is currently an Editorial Board Member of the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics
But, Julie Aultman was a big supporter of the Covid jab, pandemic mandates and even put out a statement on how there was no ethical conflict with hospitals being paid extra for covid deaths.
About that "experts" forgetting all they knew, all they taught pre-2020. Tossed aside. In service, of utility to the regime. How very utilitarian of the ethics "expert."
Wow. It just goes to show that these people will bend "ethics" to their own will, and the underlying evil that they are courting with all their fancy language. They have taken virology/genomics beyond anything we ever needed to explore and turned it into a money making and control seeking venture--and that is all I will ever need to know about their intentions. By completely bypassing that which makes us "healthy" beings, with autonomy and individual rights (nutrition, healthy food, fewer chemicals added to the human/animal environment and food, healthy lifestyles/exercise/work and a sense of belonging/worth). All of this is completely disregarded in their quest for control of all things, including life itself, as stated above. Thanks.
If they didn't know what they were doing it could be passed off as simply ignorance. But they know. They write about, highlight the hazards in taking courses of action that lead to murderous totalitarian regimes. And then take those courses of action anyways. Arrogance and willful disregard makes the mens rea of them guilty as hell of crimes against humanity. It is inverted utilitarian ethics.
Here's another piece from a bioethicist who cites Aultman's paper. About Newgenics, CRSPR technology, designer babies, etc. and the need to avoid a Hitlerian future eugenics program:
Newgenics: Buck v. Bell, American Eugenics, and the Bad Man Test:
Putting Limits on Newgenics in the 21st Century
Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality, January 2020
And she, the top "expert" in national health bioethics says that Fauci and the entire pandemic enterprise is/was super-duper, completely, unquestionably ethical! How could you question their impeccable ethics?!?!
And anybody questioning Fauci's ethics or a conflict of interest with her work and his work is just a hater! They are above reproach, ethical beyond question!:
...Just like Aultman saying to question the payment for covid patients conflict of interest was mean-spirited and a dangerous distraction! Bioethicists are Olympic gymnasts when it comes to their ethical flexibility! The work of Edwin Black she quoted and disagreed with about the field of bioethics was right. She was wrong. Or lying.
Oh yes I’m quite familiar with Fauci’s ties to the wife lying her ass off to show the world just how ethical they all are. It’s similar in nature (imo) to someone telling me that a man can become a woman by just saying so. Why in the world do you think they are shoving all that down our throats? First it’s a lookie over here! Second it’s an example of a blatant lie being force fed to the general public with authority so as to legitimize their own actions with regard to “ethics” etc etc. It’s all a horse and pony show and they are a bunch of clowns who should be shitcanned into history sans job and any commiserate moneys being made. But sadly, because they have been elevated into positions of power they control aspects of our lives that are considerably imperiled by their very presence. This is the danger of such a vast and uncontrolled apparatus like the US Government. It must be deconstructed in a very severe manner.
Exactly. That happened. Those who should've known better, were educated, informed, "experts" in their own right by training and experience tossed it all seemingly overnight. On a whim. And blind trust. That those who they had esteemed, the sources they had always trusted could even remotely be wrong, and if they said all they knew before was false then, by gosh, all they knew before was false. A complete abdication of critical thinking.
Fauci's quip about things "changing at the speed of science" was nonsensical on its face. Science does *not* change very fast, especially not overnight in the middle of a panic and crisis. Anyone trained in the scientific method would *never* allow observations and unproven hypothesis - at the onset of a crisis - supersede peer-reviewed, RCT science proven and validated in patient, deliberative scientific inquiry that had stood the test of time and retesting over decades. Yet that's what Fauci (and those behind him) would have everyone believe about "the speed of science."
The "experts" who went/go along with it were/are fools, corrupt, cowards and/or complicit. It takes non-scientists and the few brave, principled scientists to oppose and resist the forces of a pseudoscientific Leviathan governing system that controls the information space high ground. Mass media and science/trade professional publications are completely bought and paid for by the Leviathan itself.
Hard to oppose with a ragtag band of misfits, contrarians, educated and uneducated alike. But with an abundance of common sense. It's been a feature of these times for authorities controlling information to frustrate us, make us feel helpless and alone, question our sanity. No doubt they'll continue, and even become worse, more censorious as the next "crisis" is dropped on us.
Also: Begin your talk or article with a straight news lead - what is called the direct or expository style - rather than opening by creating an atmospheric environment filled with environmental details. Make your point, then expand and defend - not the other way 'round.
This is great! You’re absolutely correct. I remember reading these books in early college and they helped me immensely. That was in the 80’s. 😂 By the way, even if YMCA were open, I doubt you would have been able to speak your truth.
What a difference a few decades make! What year did you get in scuffle with the “ brilliant” journalist? Have you followed their success? Also, did you determine later that this person was only following strictly approved narratives in their writing and basically to keep their job?
Thank you. My email debate with that journalist was probably in late 2020. I just intuitively knew/know that he was writing the stories he was told to write ... and that would let him keep his job.
I had a similar debate/exchange over twitter dms with a respected retired journalist from St. Louis (fmr post-dispatch reporter) about spygate in 2018.
Unfortunately, I got kicked off twitter before I could figure out if I'd dented his psyche. He certainly was disturbed by the malfeasance I was presenting and in real time showing him how the press was "going along." I'd done my research.
Bill....Focus on America is hosting another Patriots Unite & Push (PUP) event in Huntsville, AL on Aug 24th. Speakers include Mike Lindell, Col Macgregor, Military Whistleblower LTC Theresa Long, MD (from Fort Rucker,) etc...
10 speakers from 830am to 530pm. Then after a dinner break, Prof David Clements will screen his movie Let My People Go starting at 7pm and conduct a Q&A about J6, J6 prisoners, and election integrity. He is a very dynamic speaker.
We'd love for you (and a guest) to come to report on our event. I truly believe you will leave with some incredible material for your substack. LTC Theresa Long's testimony about the damage done to our soldiers here in Alabama and the cover-up of it is horrendous.
Thanks, Alice. I will try to make that. It sounds like a great event with a fantastic roster of speakers. As you probably know, LTC Long was also the person who persuaded embalmer Richard Hirschman to go public with his photos and evidence of the white, fibrous clots.
That subject is at the top of the MSM's "taboo list."
I've met both LTC Long and Richard Hirschman but I did not know she persuaded him to go public.
We want to give you the tickets at no cost if you can attend. Think it over and let me know if you will attend. The tickets would be in your name and your guest's name, if applicable, and would be e-mailed to you. No pressure. I just remembered last year that you asked about a press pass--- we don't have those--- but it would be great to have some sharing/follow-up about our event. Last year's event was very powerful but it's important to have the information shared.
Go ahead and put me on the pass list and I will attend. I will bring my notebook and tape recorder and I'm sure will get several excellent stories out of this event, which I can share with my audience. I can also share info with my Brownstone colleagues.
Bill..... Very happy that you can come to our event! You will definitely get some great stories out of it. (I will strive to help you connect with the speakers). Richard Hirschman spoke at our event last year. He can tell you about it. I read your outstanding feature story about him.
Here's a feature story I did on Richard Hirschman where he explains the connection to LTC Long. They actually live about 20 miles from each other - and I live 30 minutes from Richard.
There's lots of Covid Contrarians in Southeast Alabama!
Bill, there's podcasts. If you did some, you'd have a larger audience, boom, than would have assembled in your average auditorium back in Carnegie's day. Garage Band is the app for editing, I believe that comes installed in the MacBookPro.
I think you are right. I'm tech phobic, but I need to get over that. My wife can help. The new celebrities all seem to be doing podcasts. This might help enhance my brand and make me some extra money too. Thanks for the Garage Band tip!
You can go simpler by just hitting the record button for a livestream. You can also just record a Skype call or a Zoom. You do not necessarily need to buy any special equipment. Just, please, please, do not aim the camera at the ceiling, or allow it to move while filming.
If it were me, looking to discuss the more interesting topics, I'd try rumble for a livestream first. And I'd also post on Odysee and Bitchute. I see many people say they're posting things on telegram, but telegram requires a cell phone number to open an account, so a lot of people such as myself avoid it.
There's a book, The Real North Korea, by Andrei Lankov. He describes how North Korea's teachers have false knowledge, because the Kim regime commands them to pass manufactured lies on to their students. Things such as made-up tales about the youthful heroism of Kim Il Sung.
This circumstance happens in a lot of subjects, not just covid and lockdowns. War is a good example.
"The Death of Free Speech", or title of similar theme, should appear exactly as the book entitled "The Accomplishments of Justin Trudeau" - blank. Make it as thick as you want.
Someone accused me of taking a Dale C course once!!! 🤣...The boss said make some name tags. Told him to make his own tags, I know my customers names. So, to prove a point - I introduced 32 people to each other over lunch (with no name tags) that I had met in the morning..I only had a list of their names the night before. I think a US Navy man taught me that one - the power of remembering names of the people who you meet 'when you're walking down the street' 😉
I initially thought about supporting Kennedy but his VP pick settled the issue. She seems so far out there and likely chosen for her monetary support. The bear cub story was just confirmation.
I read the post re starting a podcast but have you created an Covid Expert Resume and pitched yourself to existing podcasters as a potential interviewee?
The more you're interviewed, the more you can plug your Substack. I don't think audiences are necessarily gained by just one approach, but rather a variety of exposures.
If you haven't already, I would do all that you can to make yourself known to Rand Paul's staff.
Thanks for the tip. I've emailed his office asking him if he's interested in my "early spread" evidence. I have become buddies with a staffer on one of his Committees. She thinks exactly like we do, but I don't know how much interaction she has with Sen. Paul.
Everything is "Who you know" and who promotes your work ... or doesn't.
Maybe subscribe to his Substack and post a reply on every Substack post of his in which he addresses Covid? One or more of his staffers have to be managing his Substack.
Worse than shrinkflation is when the container size goes down and simultaneously the price goes up.
I had a 2 stroke motorcycle in my college years and oil started out at $1.95 for an imperial quart (1.14L) then a year later it was $2.05 for a litre and then a year after that it went to $2.15 for a US quart (0.94L).
Spot on Bill. I often could never find people who wanted to listen to what I had learned. I’d spend hours and hours deep diving and understanding a subject but because I didn’t carry a degree for that subject I wasn’t taken seriously. Like Special Education (I needed to for my kids,) and I had thoughts and insights for how the school could help them as well as others. They constantly threw up walls and boxed me in, because they were the experts and I wasn’t. In truth they were all constrained by a system set up to be a one sized fits all. They became experts in following someone else’s playbook, not in the actual disabilities. I had the knowledge and original insights, and could speak easily with anyone on the topic but was a threat to the status quo. Later I had to deep dive about the issue of bullying in our schools when my two boys were bullied ruthlessly all throughout middle and high school. . I researched so much and learned a lot from firsthand experience the impact on entire families. I had wonderful, amazing original ideas for how to turn things around in our schools, but the “dads” who coached the sports were stuck in 1980 for how to handle it, and the moms were too afraid of their own child becoming a target that they didn’t want to talk about it. Teachers and administrators believed a mother like me couldn’t possibly enlighten them any better than the academic institutions did so more doors shut in my face when I asked if I could share some insights. I could have offered so much that would have made our school and community a better place but was unable to because people don’t want to hear or listen.
Now today I’ve acquired a mass of knowledge about my own health conditions and a life changing diet and every doctor I try to work with doesn’t want to listen to anything I have to say.
There are two types of people. Those who know about Operation Northwoods and those who do not. The people who do, frame their lives through this knowledge. I suspect your covid sparring partner has never heard of ON.
Definitely spot on. BTW it's not "your truth". It is the truth. Truth is real, not someones opinion.
When I realized that the world had lost its collective mind and leaders were malgoverning the people, had abandoned all of the research and plans for respiratory disease, a century of study, hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars invested, tossed within weeks of panic, into the darkness of fear and nonsensical totalitarian control, I knew I needed more knowledge about what was happening. Knowledge = Power and all.
I filled my head with multiple degrees worth of university study on multiple subjects, informal autodidact learnedness, understanding and comprehension of subjects above most who hold actual degrees in the subjects. A voracious reader of advanced books, journals, papers, eighty+ hours a week. Lucky to have a spouse who understood I was obsessed with finding out more and more, insatiable quest for knowledge.
I did this for the first two years. On our far-too few occasions to go out and meet people, friends, I found it difficult to converse normally. I'd want to share all I learned, I was an open fire hyrdant of information that few people could drink from, even if they wanted to. Too much, too fast. Too many dots connected for people to keep up. I must've sounded like a madman. I was. Mad as hell at what I'd learned. And trying to inform others so they'd be mad as hell, too.
But they couldn't, nor did most want to take in all I had to share. It wasn't until I took a temporary position that allowed me to meet people in the community, short social visits, with time in between away from the computer screen so as not to continue to fill my head with research, able to work over thoughts and ideas, put them together in new ways in my head, that I was able to dial back all I wanted to say and focus on the most important subjects others could easily get their head around without overwhelming them. I'd learn though trial and error what could be grasped by others without making them uncomfortable, and be of service for those who'd listen - what they could do with the information - and deliver it in an entertaining, engaging way.
It was a process, I still practice it. Practice. I've not perfected it. But I'm better practiced at it. I have my stage from time to time, I do well with it. I've been in front of large audiences many times before. The challenge for those of us speaking to the subjects we write about and read others writings on is to focus all we know and wish to share on the wants and needs of the audiences we are addressing. They do not, nor could they know what we know. They will turn off and tune out the moment we take a leap into something we know is next that they aren't ready for, that they haven't connected the dots to understand. Connecting too many dots tires their brains out very quickly. Happens to all of us when we first meet a subject, details and leaps are hard to keep up with.
Simple. Keep it simple. You know the subject at levels of complexity far above your audience. Keep it simple, a few key points, and have a takeaway for them that's useful for them to do with the information you've shared. It can't just be "and that's how it really is, now you know, good luck out there!" My .02 suggestion. Fwiw.
You just summarized some of the main teaching points of Dale Carnegie. Keep it Simple Stupid. Focus on just one area and not 20 different areas. And think about your audience and what might resonate with them. When I speak at the Brownstone event, I'm supposed to keep my talk to 15 minutes. The group will then discuss the subject for 15 minutes - then we go on to the next topic and presenter.
So I've got to condense my talk to its most essential components. As we say in journalism, it's much harder to write short! Or give a short speech.
I write long. And meander. And do all the things I say not to do in a speech. Yet some people still like to read what I write. Making me a niche writer for those with the time and interest.
If I want my writings to reach more minds I'll have to become a good writer. And do the much harder work of writing short.
I try to mix up the article lengths - some short, some medium, some long, some very long.
Believe it or not, I cut text in every article I publish.
I remember from newspapers that a typical opinion column was about 750 to 1,000 words.
As a general rule, I try to keep my pieces to 1,500 words, but often go over.
A typical article takes five to 10 minutes to read.
Imagine being educated in pharmacology, biology, biochemistry and chemistry (and more) only to have it all flushed down the toilet during covid. Having that knowledge that told you this is all bullshit AND that all the other people with the VERY SAME educational qualifications (or even more) were on board with the bullshit. Six feet and masks work but normal (and relatively safe) drugs DO NOT work, nor, god forbid, does NUTRITION have any bearing on health. The frustration was complete hell. Screaming into the void was the best simile. Thank god for contrarians. I’m not sure I’d have remained as steadfast nor as sane without you all to back me up. 🙏🙏🙏
That's an interesting observation. Some of these credentialed people in the health and science fields must feel like they entered the "Twilight Zone."
When I was studying everything I could in 2020 I first explored the natural sciences, trying to figure out how to deconstruct The Science (TM) we were being admonished to unquestioningly follow that wasn't true to the hard, natural sciences, defied common sense. As all of the arguments against what was being asserted to be The Science were summarily dismissed without discussion I reasoned that The Science (TM) wasn't based in any hard natural sciences, followed no laws of natural science; they were based in soft social science. Social, behavioral, political science. Only the soft social sciences are that malleable, often self-contradictory, capable of morphing into the whims of leaders simply by co-opting the language of hard, natural science. Aka, psuedoscience.
That's when I shifted my research and discovery into the soft, social sciences, behaviorism primarily. I had learned that is one of the most common university disciplines that virologists today study, is how to change a population's behavior attempting to mitigate the spread of infectious disease, by altering perceptions. Behavioral Science is The Science (TM) of masking, contact tracing, lockdown, social distancing, etc.
And my study of behaviorism led me to the study of ethics, specifically bioethics. The different philosophies of ethics, Virtue, Kantian, Utilitarian. And that most governments subscribe to the Utilitarian variety. Lies in service to a greater good. Sacrifice of the few for the benefit of the many. Conceptually sound concepts. But vulnerable to misuse and abuse when the definition of "good" and "benefit" are subjective, not universally held, and the good and benefit is actually for the few, not the many, inverted. How Stalin's "break a few eggs to make an omelette" murderous dictatorial regime could be deemed "ethical." Every democidal regime in history has practiced an inverted utilitarian ethical model. Including the US/EU/UN today.
And the study of ethics, bioethics led me to the pseudoscience of eugenics. Third Reich, Fascist, Hitlerian master race science. That never went away. Was just rebranded. The pseudoscience that drove Jeffrey Epstein and his Black Book of VIP's to pedophilia, desiring to spread their "superior" seed into future man, after culling the current world population of "inferior" genes, ending the "generations of imbeciles" (SCOTUS 8-1 Buck v. Bell upholding eugenics sterilization - and euthanasia? - practices).
Here's where I check myself about not connecting so many dots and lose readers/listeners! But it's where it all leads. And the gene therapies, mRNA, all of it is inexorably linked and connected to eugenics. It all flows, fits like a glove. And the fact that the scientific "experts," even the ethics "experts" have thrown out all they knew since 2020 can only be because they are corrupt, cowardly and/or complicit with a eugenics agenda.
With your background you may find this paper interesting. Written nearly two-decades ago. Warnings we'd have been wise to heed, lessons we'd have been wise to learn, information that was ignored and dismissed - even by the author herself since 2020! Chock-full of concepts that apply to this Stack of Bill's, your experience and lead down many other rabbit holes. Like one of the scientists given prominent mention in this paper is Francis Collins. Yes. the same Francis Collins found in the middle of the pandemic campaign (p 43-46)
Genomics, Society and Policy, 2006
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/1746-5354-2-2-28.pdf
(excerpts below found in pages 41-43)
"Ethics Lags Behind
In recent genethics literature, George Annas examines the division between scientists and non-scientists and how this division creates obstacles for serious moral deliberation and critical developments in policy-making involving the social and economic implications of genetic research and technology. Annas explains how nonscientists believe that scientists “underestimate the danger in their work, and vastly overestimate its importance”. Scientists, on the other hand, believe the fields of social policy and ethics “lag behind” science, failing to keep up with advancements and progress in science and technology.
The field of genomics is as complex and mysterious as the human genome itself, and attempting to unlock the secrets of our biology does not follow without ethical and social implications. In determining what these implications will look like, non-scientists must work with and not against the scientific community by keeping up-to-date with what researchers are thinking and doing, the technologies they are using, and their immediate and future goals. Likewise, scientists have a moral obligation to consider potential harmful, social and psychological consequences of their research and technology; they must work with non-scientists to achieve a better understanding of the plurality of values held by the global community.
I believe Annas is correct in saying that social policy and ethics “lag behind” science. Non-scientists and scientists need to work together to achieve a collective understanding of the social and ethical implications of genomics. However, there are several reasons why ethics lags behind science besides the lack of effort and responsibility by scientists and non-scientists in trying to understand and predict the potential benefits and harms genomics research and technology may bring to the community.
Social policy and ethics lag behind because, first, there is a lack of public discourse and deliberation. While many scientific and non-scientific groups may discuss the social and ethical issues surrounding genomics, much of their discourse lacks critical evaluation and reflection. Even with a diverse representation, committees, though able to address significant social and ethical considerations for genomics, find it difficult to deeply analyse and evaluate these considerations given the plurality of values within their national and global communities."
...
"Public deliberation provides an open forum for pluralistic values and interests to be discussed and evaluated."
...
"Though exploring the resources and limitations of ethical theory is essential, ethicists and policy makers need to develop a dynamic framework through which we can begin to make ethical decisions and policies that cohere with the theories and applications of genomic research as well as with the values and beliefs held by our global community. This framework would encourage moral discourse and deliberation among scientists and non-scientists and would identify and critically reflect upon moral theories and principles, namely justice, and their limitations with respect to our pluralistic values and beliefs."
...
"Now, a coherence framework is not necessarily the “magic bullet” for opening lines of communication and creating a better forum for ethical deliberation and resolution. There are serious limitations such as governmental or political resistance for openly discussing all aspects of genomics, notably genomic knowledge used for offensive or defensive military action. Furthermore, the coherence framework may not be useful when there are power struggles among individuals who assume “expert roles” in ethical deliberation and resolution. Yes, I am talking about my own kind—the bioethicists—who have been trained in a variety of disciplines ranging from law to medicine to philosophy, but who, unfortunately, as Black puts it “are of little help in this hurtling new world.” With my lack of objectivity about this issue, I disagree; bioethicists can be useful in formulating new approaches to moral deliberation, contributing personal and hypothetical case scenarios that challenge our critical thinking about genomics and eugenomics, and synthesising a variety of perspectives among several areas of thought so that discussion is ethically based and not politically driven. But, I can also see where Black (and others) has difficulty supporting bioethicists and the discipline of bioethics. Black writes:
"The still emerging field of bioethics includes self-ordained experts who grant interviews to television talk shows and newspapers even as they consult as scientific advisors to the very corporations under question. The do’s [sic] and don’ts of genetic tinkering are being revised almost daily as the technology breeds an every-evolving crop of moral, legal and social challenges that virtually redefine life itself. It will take a global consensus to legislate against genetic abuse because no single country’s law can by itself anticipate the evolving intercollaborative nature of global genomics."
While I agree with Black that there needs to be a global consensus, in order to achieve this goal, a framework such as the one I recommend needs to be in place, as a starting point, to organise our ethical, legal, social, economic, and scientific ideas, theories, and knowledge, while eliminating our biases, fears, misunderstandings, misinformation, and the like—that which contributed to past abuses, including those associated with eugenics."
FF - The paper was written by Julie Aultman. Who is currently an Editorial Board Member of the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/editorial-board-and-staff
https://www.neomed.edu/directory-profile/aultman-julie-128199/
But, Julie Aultman was a big supporter of the Covid jab, pandemic mandates and even put out a statement on how there was no ethical conflict with hospitals being paid extra for covid deaths.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/apr/21/facebook-posts/Fact-check-Hospitals-COVID-19-payments/
About that "experts" forgetting all they knew, all they taught pre-2020. Tossed aside. In service, of utility to the regime. How very utilitarian of the ethics "expert."
Wow. It just goes to show that these people will bend "ethics" to their own will, and the underlying evil that they are courting with all their fancy language. They have taken virology/genomics beyond anything we ever needed to explore and turned it into a money making and control seeking venture--and that is all I will ever need to know about their intentions. By completely bypassing that which makes us "healthy" beings, with autonomy and individual rights (nutrition, healthy food, fewer chemicals added to the human/animal environment and food, healthy lifestyles/exercise/work and a sense of belonging/worth). All of this is completely disregarded in their quest for control of all things, including life itself, as stated above. Thanks.
If they didn't know what they were doing it could be passed off as simply ignorance. But they know. They write about, highlight the hazards in taking courses of action that lead to murderous totalitarian regimes. And then take those courses of action anyways. Arrogance and willful disregard makes the mens rea of them guilty as hell of crimes against humanity. It is inverted utilitarian ethics.
Here's another piece from a bioethicist who cites Aultman's paper. About Newgenics, CRSPR technology, designer babies, etc. and the need to avoid a Hitlerian future eugenics program:
Newgenics: Buck v. Bell, American Eugenics, and the Bad Man Test:
Putting Limits on Newgenics in the 21st Century
Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality, January 2020
https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1622&context=lawineq
Note: Anthony Fauci's wife is the Chief Bioethicist at the National Institute of Health:
https://clinicalcenter.nih.gov/meet-our-doctors/cgrady.html
And she, the top "expert" in national health bioethics says that Fauci and the entire pandemic enterprise is/was super-duper, completely, unquestionably ethical! How could you question their impeccable ethics?!?!
https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a32715031/fauci-christine-grady-nih-covid
Christine Grady, aka Mrs. Fauci, wrote about how ethical it is to mandate injections of experimental biotechnology!:
https://thenationalpulse.com/archive-post/fauci-wife-authors-paper-supporting-vaccine-pressure-campaigns
The guidance paper in her own hand:
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/s41271-022-00347-9.pdf
And anybody questioning Fauci's ethics or a conflict of interest with her work and his work is just a hater! They are above reproach, ethical beyond question!:
https://youtu.be/pf2cVoP5mRs?si=Dh1xNxq5yZn1qAEh
...Just like Aultman saying to question the payment for covid patients conflict of interest was mean-spirited and a dangerous distraction! Bioethicists are Olympic gymnasts when it comes to their ethical flexibility! The work of Edwin Black she quoted and disagreed with about the field of bioethics was right. She was wrong. Or lying.
Oh yes I’m quite familiar with Fauci’s ties to the wife lying her ass off to show the world just how ethical they all are. It’s similar in nature (imo) to someone telling me that a man can become a woman by just saying so. Why in the world do you think they are shoving all that down our throats? First it’s a lookie over here! Second it’s an example of a blatant lie being force fed to the general public with authority so as to legitimize their own actions with regard to “ethics” etc etc. It’s all a horse and pony show and they are a bunch of clowns who should be shitcanned into history sans job and any commiserate moneys being made. But sadly, because they have been elevated into positions of power they control aspects of our lives that are considerably imperiled by their very presence. This is the danger of such a vast and uncontrolled apparatus like the US Government. It must be deconstructed in a very severe manner.
Exactly. That happened. Those who should've known better, were educated, informed, "experts" in their own right by training and experience tossed it all seemingly overnight. On a whim. And blind trust. That those who they had esteemed, the sources they had always trusted could even remotely be wrong, and if they said all they knew before was false then, by gosh, all they knew before was false. A complete abdication of critical thinking.
Fauci's quip about things "changing at the speed of science" was nonsensical on its face. Science does *not* change very fast, especially not overnight in the middle of a panic and crisis. Anyone trained in the scientific method would *never* allow observations and unproven hypothesis - at the onset of a crisis - supersede peer-reviewed, RCT science proven and validated in patient, deliberative scientific inquiry that had stood the test of time and retesting over decades. Yet that's what Fauci (and those behind him) would have everyone believe about "the speed of science."
The "experts" who went/go along with it were/are fools, corrupt, cowards and/or complicit. It takes non-scientists and the few brave, principled scientists to oppose and resist the forces of a pseudoscientific Leviathan governing system that controls the information space high ground. Mass media and science/trade professional publications are completely bought and paid for by the Leviathan itself.
Hard to oppose with a ragtag band of misfits, contrarians, educated and uneducated alike. But with an abundance of common sense. It's been a feature of these times for authorities controlling information to frustrate us, make us feel helpless and alone, question our sanity. No doubt they'll continue, and even become worse, more censorious as the next "crisis" is dropped on us.
Also: Begin your talk or article with a straight news lead - what is called the direct or expository style - rather than opening by creating an atmospheric environment filled with environmental details. Make your point, then expand and defend - not the other way 'round.
This is great! You’re absolutely correct. I remember reading these books in early college and they helped me immensely. That was in the 80’s. 😂 By the way, even if YMCA were open, I doubt you would have been able to speak your truth.
What a difference a few decades make! What year did you get in scuffle with the “ brilliant” journalist? Have you followed their success? Also, did you determine later that this person was only following strictly approved narratives in their writing and basically to keep their job?
Just curious.
Loved this post! 👍
Thank you. My email debate with that journalist was probably in late 2020. I just intuitively knew/know that he was writing the stories he was told to write ... and that would let him keep his job.
I had a similar debate/exchange over twitter dms with a respected retired journalist from St. Louis (fmr post-dispatch reporter) about spygate in 2018.
Unfortunately, I got kicked off twitter before I could figure out if I'd dented his psyche. He certainly was disturbed by the malfeasance I was presenting and in real time showing him how the press was "going along." I'd done my research.
They are ALL clones. Whoever coined the term "pack journalism" knew what he was talking about.
Bill....Focus on America is hosting another Patriots Unite & Push (PUP) event in Huntsville, AL on Aug 24th. Speakers include Mike Lindell, Col Macgregor, Military Whistleblower LTC Theresa Long, MD (from Fort Rucker,) etc...
10 speakers from 830am to 530pm. Then after a dinner break, Prof David Clements will screen his movie Let My People Go starting at 7pm and conduct a Q&A about J6, J6 prisoners, and election integrity. He is a very dynamic speaker.
We'd love for you (and a guest) to come to report on our event. I truly believe you will leave with some incredible material for your substack. LTC Theresa Long's testimony about the damage done to our soldiers here in Alabama and the cover-up of it is horrendous.
Here is more info about our event:
https://www.focusonamerica.us/pup-patriots-unite-and-push
Let me know if you are interested.
Thanks, Alice. I will try to make that. It sounds like a great event with a fantastic roster of speakers. As you probably know, LTC Long was also the person who persuaded embalmer Richard Hirschman to go public with his photos and evidence of the white, fibrous clots.
That subject is at the top of the MSM's "taboo list."
I've met both LTC Long and Richard Hirschman but I did not know she persuaded him to go public.
We want to give you the tickets at no cost if you can attend. Think it over and let me know if you will attend. The tickets would be in your name and your guest's name, if applicable, and would be e-mailed to you. No pressure. I just remembered last year that you asked about a press pass--- we don't have those--- but it would be great to have some sharing/follow-up about our event. Last year's event was very powerful but it's important to have the information shared.
Go ahead and put me on the pass list and I will attend. I will bring my notebook and tape recorder and I'm sure will get several excellent stories out of this event, which I can share with my audience. I can also share info with my Brownstone colleagues.
Thanks, Alice.
I can’t wait to read this Bill! I saw Alice post this in c&c this morning and knowing I can’t go am excited that you will write about it!
Bill..... Very happy that you can come to our event! You will definitely get some great stories out of it. (I will strive to help you connect with the speakers). Richard Hirschman spoke at our event last year. He can tell you about it. I read your outstanding feature story about him.
Here's a feature story I did on Richard Hirschman where he explains the connection to LTC Long. They actually live about 20 miles from each other - and I live 30 minutes from Richard.
There's lots of Covid Contrarians in Southeast Alabama!
https://billricejr.substack.com/p/my-visit-with-historys-most-important
Bill, there's podcasts. If you did some, you'd have a larger audience, boom, than would have assembled in your average auditorium back in Carnegie's day. Garage Band is the app for editing, I believe that comes installed in the MacBookPro.
I think you are right. I'm tech phobic, but I need to get over that. My wife can help. The new celebrities all seem to be doing podcasts. This might help enhance my brand and make me some extra money too. Thanks for the Garage Band tip!
You can go simpler by just hitting the record button for a livestream. You can also just record a Skype call or a Zoom. You do not necessarily need to buy any special equipment. Just, please, please, do not aim the camera at the ceiling, or allow it to move while filming.
If it were me, looking to discuss the more interesting topics, I'd try rumble for a livestream first. And I'd also post on Odysee and Bitchute. I see many people say they're posting things on telegram, but telegram requires a cell phone number to open an account, so a lot of people such as myself avoid it.
Tech phobic is actually not necessarily a bad thing. We are living in strange times.
Toast masters is an organization I think you'd love
Find your local chapter
We don't have one in Troy ... but we need one. Maybe I could start a chapter. Thanks for the suggestion.
I worked in the senate in 1994, and attendance was required of us "youths"
I hated it at first but it really changed my life
It's free... and they have to listen. They'll help you polish your speeches.
Practice. Practice. Practice.
There's a book, The Real North Korea, by Andrei Lankov. He describes how North Korea's teachers have false knowledge, because the Kim regime commands them to pass manufactured lies on to their students. Things such as made-up tales about the youthful heroism of Kim Il Sung.
This circumstance happens in a lot of subjects, not just covid and lockdowns. War is a good example.
"The Death of Free Speech", or title of similar theme, should appear exactly as the book entitled "The Accomplishments of Justin Trudeau" - blank. Make it as thick as you want.
Someone accused me of taking a Dale C course once!!! 🤣...The boss said make some name tags. Told him to make his own tags, I know my customers names. So, to prove a point - I introduced 32 people to each other over lunch (with no name tags) that I had met in the morning..I only had a list of their names the night before. I think a US Navy man taught me that one - the power of remembering names of the people who you meet 'when you're walking down the street' 😉
There is a power in remembering names. Thanks for your post.
I initially thought about supporting Kennedy but his VP pick settled the issue. She seems so far out there and likely chosen for her monetary support. The bear cub story was just confirmation.
I read the post re starting a podcast but have you created an Covid Expert Resume and pitched yourself to existing podcasters as a potential interviewee?
No, I rarely pitch myself as a good guest ... but I probably should. I have been interviewed on three podcasts, which I really enjoyed.
The more you're interviewed, the more you can plug your Substack. I don't think audiences are necessarily gained by just one approach, but rather a variety of exposures.
If you haven't already, I would do all that you can to make yourself known to Rand Paul's staff.
Thanks for the tip. I've emailed his office asking him if he's interested in my "early spread" evidence. I have become buddies with a staffer on one of his Committees. She thinks exactly like we do, but I don't know how much interaction she has with Sen. Paul.
Everything is "Who you know" and who promotes your work ... or doesn't.
Maybe subscribe to his Substack and post a reply on every Substack post of his in which he addresses Covid? One or more of his staffers have to be managing his Substack.
Mr. Rice, edit please, "You or me might become"
"
Thanks. Will do.
It should be "You or I" ... right?
Correct. "Me" shouldn't be used as a subject.
I should have known that - now I do. Thanks.
Right.
Worse than shrinkflation is when the container size goes down and simultaneously the price goes up.
I had a 2 stroke motorcycle in my college years and oil started out at $1.95 for an imperial quart (1.14L) then a year later it was $2.05 for a litre and then a year after that it went to $2.15 for a US quart (0.94L).
I thought shrinkflation was bad when I wrote that story four years ago. It's gone to another (smaller) level in the last two years.
Spot on Bill. I often could never find people who wanted to listen to what I had learned. I’d spend hours and hours deep diving and understanding a subject but because I didn’t carry a degree for that subject I wasn’t taken seriously. Like Special Education (I needed to for my kids,) and I had thoughts and insights for how the school could help them as well as others. They constantly threw up walls and boxed me in, because they were the experts and I wasn’t. In truth they were all constrained by a system set up to be a one sized fits all. They became experts in following someone else’s playbook, not in the actual disabilities. I had the knowledge and original insights, and could speak easily with anyone on the topic but was a threat to the status quo. Later I had to deep dive about the issue of bullying in our schools when my two boys were bullied ruthlessly all throughout middle and high school. . I researched so much and learned a lot from firsthand experience the impact on entire families. I had wonderful, amazing original ideas for how to turn things around in our schools, but the “dads” who coached the sports were stuck in 1980 for how to handle it, and the moms were too afraid of their own child becoming a target that they didn’t want to talk about it. Teachers and administrators believed a mother like me couldn’t possibly enlighten them any better than the academic institutions did so more doors shut in my face when I asked if I could share some insights. I could have offered so much that would have made our school and community a better place but was unable to because people don’t want to hear or listen.
Now today I’ve acquired a mass of knowledge about my own health conditions and a life changing diet and every doctor I try to work with doesn’t want to listen to anything I have to say.
Our world has grown deaf. Speech is indeed dead.
There are two types of people. Those who know about Operation Northwoods and those who do not. The people who do, frame their lives through this knowledge. I suspect your covid sparring partner has never heard of ON.