Random Thoughts on the Passing Covid Scene

Substack citizen journalists (and readers) get the key issues ... But not the mainstream news journalists.

The Socratic Method has apparently now been debunked.

Thomas Sowell, one of my favorite columnists, routinely writes a column where he catalogues “random thoughts on the passing scene.” 

Here’s a random example:

“Stupid people can cause problems, but it usually takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe.”

What follows are a few of my random observations on the passing Covid scene … 

It’s not just Covid lies that bother so many of us; it’s the fact so many of us know common-sense solutions won’t be implemented.

Igor Chudov’s investment disseminates nuggets of truth …

Igor Chudov has recently started running dispatches culled from opinion polls from the Rasmussen polling organization. These polls show many Americans now “get” what’s happening. This is a good thing.

In a world with so many flocks of timid sheeple, simply asking a few non-timid questions is a good sign.

Now if the mainstream “news organizations” would simply run these poll results.

Igor tells his readers that he spent $199 so he could receive Rasmussen’s “premium” poll data. Because his paid subscriber base is growing, he can share more important information with his readers.

The more paid subscribers brave and smart Substack “citizen journalists” have, the more quality content such correspondents can produce; the less control the “gatekeepers of the news” will have in their effort to “control the narrative.” 

If more “one-person shops” that are producing alternative content become little news organizations with more staffers who care about revealing the truth, more important stories will reach larger numbers of  people. 

This represents an important “workaround” which allows many citizens the ability to get around the captured mainstream media. This is also a possible “solution” to correct false or dubious narratives. 

For the protectors of the corrupt Status Quo, this trend must also be viewed as a “threat” to their continued control. 

Per my observations, these people and organizations respond to threats to their control in a ruthless manner.

Surreally, many people are grateful their designated protectors are cracking down so hard on “extremists” and “science deniers.”

We are living in interesting times. I wonder if I’ll live long enough to see who “wins” this battle to control the narratives that control our lives.  

This probably is a real “existential battle.”

The Bad Cat Produces Another Good Article …

The “Bad Cat” hit a home run with a recent piece that shows that the root of all evil is manipulated “official” data. 

Most of the rotten trends and outcomes in our world were made possible by surprisingly simple changes.

If the people who matter most can change the most-important definitions, they can control the narrative, which allows them to basically control the world.

It’s not just “Covid” data or metrics, it’s economic data (for example, inflation, unemployment and recession inputs). It’s the data that purports to show “climate change” is the grave threat of our times.

Most of this data - and the changed definitions - are produced by government employees in obscure bureaucratic agencies. 

Politicians who are supposed to provide oversight of these agencies took a pass on performing this part of their job description. 

The watchdog press also never debunks or challenges the false data so the data and the definitions become sacrosanct; the “narrative” was first established … and then protected. 

Degrees of brazen …

It seems to me that the defenders of false narratives are becoming increasingly brazen, almost like they don’t care if anyone knows they are committing frauds and lies.

They must know they’ll never experience negative consequences as a result of their actions. 

Which prompts this question: How do they know this?

Steve Kirsch figured it out early on …

Steve Kirsch has become one of the most well-known Covid contrarians. Kirsch’s main complaint - the theme of many of his dispatches -  is that defenders of the authorized narratives refuse to participate in any real debate. 

Some “tells” are more revealing than other “tells” and Steve has produced the greatest tell of them all.

Jeffrey Tucker reports some good news ….

Jeffrey Tucker, the founding editor of the vital Brownstone Institute, recently posted that his office is getting many “angry” calls from readers, which prompted him to opine that the narrative might finally be changing. 

I think Jeffrey is right, but with a caveat. The narrative is changing in the universe of people who get their news from the “alternative” media.

But it’s not changing in the all-important mainstream media news rooms. 

Presumably, the phone lines at the  New York Times and Washington Post must also be registering many calls from readers who also suspect they are not being given the full and honest story on Covid topics and data.

But editors and reporters at these news organizations ignore these calls (and emails) … Or they don’t act on any reader pleas for at least one big story on, say, vaccine injuries and deaths, or the massive spike in all-cause mortality since vaccines were rolled out. 

In short, these “journalists” and editors ignore the results of the recent Rasmussen polls. 

“Public opinion” doesn’t matter if it doesn’t gibe with the expert opinions put forth by the CDC and people like Anthony Fauci.

So we have two distinct groups in America - those who “get” what’s happening and want dangerous policies to stop …. and those who either “get it” (but don’t care) … or reporters who fail to see the results that so many of their readers are seeing.

Maybe I’m wrong (always check your assumptions) ….

Or maybe I’m making a false assumption in thinking that mainstream news organizations are also hearing from irate readers.

It’s possible that nobody is contacting the mainstream media news organizations and registering their displeasure. 

This would mean the subscribers of these news organizations all endorse the way these influential news organizations are “covering” the news. 

Or maybe people like myself have largely given up registering complaints with the authorized news organizations because we know this effort would be be a waste of a phone call or email.

What we now have is a couple of distinct networks of self-confirming/protecting echo chambers.

Still - whether we like it or not; whether this is “fair” or not - one network is far more influential than the other. 

Is this scenario even possible?

I sometimes wonder what would happen if one or two prominent journalists at these big news organizations decided to follow-up on a “story tip” from readers who say they have evidence of vaccine injuries or deaths.

Could these journalists (if a few actually exist) even do this? Would their bosses allow them to work on these stories and then publish the results of these investigations?

If one news organization did publish such a story, would other journalists then follow with similar investigations and stories? Would the rest of the “pack” follow the leaders of the mainstream journalism pack?

If this DID happen, everything probably WOULD change.

But past behavior tells us future behavior …

All I know is that this hasn’t happened yet (and we are three years into this pandemic). 

Here, past behavior probably does predict future behavior. 

In the Bad Cat’s dispatch, he mentions how false or dubious data has also been used to frame the Climate Change debate.  

This “debate” (which is really not a genuine debate) has been going on for decades, with no major stories forthcoming from mainstream media sites that challenge the data or the overriding premise (that our planet is in peril).

This observation, or “lesson,” suggests that the mainstream media organizations can and will ignore counter-factual Covid information (and millions of personal testimonials from readers) for decades, or probably for the rest of our lives.

As much as I think politicians are over-rated (and actually caused most of our big problems), “politics” would be vital to to creating any real “solutions.”

And politicians do respond to public opinion (voters). 

But they tend to only respond to consensus public opinion - or opinion framed by the mainstream media news organizations. 

All of this this means I probably won’t live long enough to see “my side” win.

Let’s end with Socrates …

Socrates is credited with creating the Socratic Method, which simply asks pointed questions as a way to arrive at the truth. 

The Socratic Method was actually the core component of the Scientific Method.

Journalists are also supposed to use the Socratic Method to determine if “authorities” are really telling the truth.

Has the Socratic Method now been debunked? 

Who is still practicing it?

When and if it does return to the newsrooms of the New York Times, or the laboratories where scientific experiments are conducted, or committees in Congress, things will change for the better. 

But not before this happens.