Cass Sunstein, the world’s leading anti-conspiracy-theory conspirator, has famously suggested that (9/11) conspiracy theories are so dangerous that some day it may be necessary to make them illegal. In the meantime, Sunstein adds, the government should “cognitively infiltrate” conspiracy movements and spread “beneficial cognitive diversity” in order to “disable the purveyors” of conspiracy theories.
In another memorable phrase, Sunstein says conspiracy believers are victims of “crippled epistemology.” Ostensibly this explains why “cognitive diversity” would be good for them. If we can force them to consume NPR and The New York Times and The Washington Post and The Economist, rather than watching nothing but Alex Jones, maybe they will become nice mainstream liberals like us.
But that is not what Sunstein really means. Like all Straussian neocons, Sunstein is speaking out of two sides of his mouth—one side for the inattentive unsophisticated masses, and the other for neocon insiders. The latter know the horrible, unspeakable truth: 9/11 really was a false flag, it was necessary for the future of Israel, its coverup is even more necessary, and that’s why (truthful) conspiracy theories are so dangerous.
So inflicting “beneficial cognitive diversity” on conspiracists doesn’t mean convincing them to supplement
Alex Jones with NPR. It means programming social media algorithms to spread lots of bizarre, untrue, normal-person-alienating conspiracy theories to crowd out the true ones. The best example is the sudden proliferation, in the wake of Sunstein’s book, of slick, high-production-values flat-Earth videos that were spammed at everybody on social media with any interest in 9/11 truth.
So what did Sunstein really mean, then, by raising the issue of “crippled epistemology”? First, he was overtly saying that most people in conspiracy movements (like the rest of the non-neocon-elite population) are pretty lame in their epistemology. But rather than trying to help them become better epistemologists, what Sunstein is covertly suggesting to his fellow neocon insiders is that this weakness should be exploited—that is, that their already crippled epistemology should be crippled even more, to the point that the “purveyors of conspiracy theories” become completely “disabled.” In other words, as the poor rubes hobble along on their epistemological bruised achilles heels, we neocons should target those heels with a shower of poisoned arrows: Flat earth! No viruses! Blame Jews for everything, not just what they actually do!
Which brings us to my friend Linh Dinh, who just wrote “shame on Muslim Kevin Barrett” for approving of “Jewish Ron Unz” and his supposed endorsement of The Economist and its positions on COVID, Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, Madonna, Diddy, Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, Miley Cyrus, gangsta rap in general and drill rap in particular, and transgender breastfeeding. My first reaction, of course, was to plead not guilty. I didn’t even know what drill rap was, Linh, until you accused me and Ron and The Economist of promoting it! I have never, ever deliberately listened to Madonna, Diddy, Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, or Miley Cyrus. And I can promise you that I have never even dreamed of transgender breastfeeding! (Or if I did, I must have repressed the memory deep into my unconscious mind, to await discovery by my Jewish psychoanalyst—another category I will never, ever have anything to do with.)
I do plead guilty to being Muslim. I took shahada 30 years ago, pray five times a day, attend Friday services here in Saidia, Morocco, and eat couscous religiously afterward. Ron Unz, however, is neither religiously nor tribally Jewish, and his favorite restaurant is Chinese, so I doubt he qualifies as a fellow Semite. Next time I’m in Palo Alto I’ll have to wave a bagel under his nose and see if he involuntarily snaps at it. (And though Ron had a Jewish mother and would theoretically be accepted as a kosher invader of Occupied Palestine, I think the odds of an Unz aliyah are rather slim.)
What’s obvious, when you think about what Linh doesn’t like about me and Ron Unz and The Economist, is that Linh is lumping together a whole lot of unrelated or loosely-related things he doesn’t like. Sort of like my wife does when she’s mad at me.
Lumping together a string of loosely-related but colorful and evocative images is what poets and myth-makers (and aggrieved women) do. And while Linh is and will undoubtedly remain a guy—far be it from me to accuse him of transgender breastfeeding or anything like that—he’s also a first class poet and photographer whose stock-in-trade is stringing together expressive, emotionally or viscerally impactful words and images. That’s what he’s good at. It’s his peculiar genius.
But epistemologically, Linh’s attack on me, Ron Unz, and The Economist is pretty lame. Epistemology addresses the question, “How do we know what we know?” In ordinary practical life, much of what we know consists of what we hear from people we trust. If we catch them lying outrageously to us, we may react by disbelieving everything they say, perhaps even assuming that everything they say is the polar opposite of the truth.
Though such a broad-brush heuristic might work reasonably well in ordinary life, or even with the pronouncements of the Israeli government, when it comes to mistrusting mainstream media, we need more nuanced approach. To the extent that MSM are the voice of the powerful, they tell the truth when it suits their interests, lie when it suits their interests (and can get away with it), and distort, spin, and selectively filter information to suit their interests. As in the case of Wikipedia, much of the quantitative, factual information in MSM is at least roughly accurate. It’s the narrative framing, and what’s emphasized versus what’s omitted, that makes MSM so grossly untrustworthy.
The same is true, by the way, of the medical and scientific establishments. It’s usually in their interest, and the interest of their superiors, to gather and report data reasonably accurately. (How could the king rule the realm without accurate measurements of what’s going on?) It’s often the studies that are not done, like large and well-designed vaxxed-vs.-unvaxxed studies, that are the biggest indicators of scientific fraud.
So when The Economist estimates that COVID has led to 30 million excess deaths—some from the disease, and some from direct and indirect effects of containment measures—should we agree as Ron Unz does, or strongly disagree alongside Linh Dinh? Uncrippled epistemologists need to evaluate the data behind the estimates. (What is your estimate, Linh, and where can we find data supporting it?)
Let’s imagine that Linh thinks the correct number is actually 50 million excess deaths, and that 49 million of them were caused by vaccines, lockdowns, and masks, and a mere one million by the disease itself. He is angry that Ron and The Economist are underestimating the number and misattributing the causes. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that Linh is right. Does that mean that Ron Unz agrees with The Economist’s overall analysis of COVID, as well as everything the magazine says about popular culture? Or that I agree with Ron or The Economist about excess deaths, COVID in general, or transgender breastfeeding?
Rather than ranting about irrelevant religious affiliations and pop culture decadence, Linh should have focused on the issue at hand: He disagrees with Ron Unz and The Economist about COVID and excess deaths. Then he should have directed his readers to better sources.
But Ron Unz’s article, and our interview, wasn’t primarily about the excess deaths and how many were caused by which aspect of COVID and/or the various responses. The issue at hand is the case that COVID emerged from a deliberate US bio-attack on China and Iran.
Perhaps Linh disagrees. He may think that COVID hardly killed anyone, while the vaccine has caused most or all of the excess deaths. Therefore COVID could not have been a bioweapon. Only the vaccine is the bioweapon. Linh seems to think the “Jewjab” is an ethnic-specific bioweapon designed to kill non-Jews, leaving Jews to inherit the Earth.
But is there any evidence for that? I’m pretty sure that Israeli, American, and European Jews are near the top of the list of the most-RNA-jabbed people on on the planet.
Linh thinks the anti-ZioAmericanEmpire countries aren’t jabbed: “As for Jewjabs they’re not available in Russia with distribution in Iran very limited. In China only Germans can be Jewjabbed!” A quick Google search tells us that in reality, 89.5% of Chinese and 55.1% of Russians are fully vaxxed, and that 73.63% of Iranians have had at least one dose.*
I travel to Iran often and have contacts in anti-ZioAmericanEmpire circles. Everyone there knows that their leadership, and later their country as a whole, suffered badly from the US-manufactured-and-unleashed COVID bioweapon. Iran suffered a serious wave of deaths and hospitalizations attributed to the bioengineered virus. Those people, as well as the Russians and Russian-sympathizers I hang out with, do not have a high opinion of Americans who think there was no COVID problem and that the vaccine is the bioweapon. And of course the authorities in Russia, China, and Iran have all done their best to vaccinate their populations, with the military, elites, and productive, educated people—those they can least afford to lose—first in line…just as in the West, Jews have been first in line for the jabs.**
So I think Linh’s position, to the extent I understand it, doesn’t line up well with the facts as those of us in the reality-based community experience them. Linh’s notion of Jewjabs is alliterative, poetic, and catchy, but it is also a bit flat-Earthish in its power to make red-pilled dissidents sound crazy to the newbies (our most important audience). Indeed, Jewjabs is such a flashy but epistemologically empty “anti-Semitic trope” that Cass Sunstein might consider it a shining example of the kind of “beneficial cognitive diversity” he wants the government to help spread among “conspiracy theorists.”
____
*Westerners including Western Jews have been overwhelmingly vaccinated with mRNA, while Russians, Chinese, and Iranians have used non-mRNA vaccines. So which is the Jewjab, Linh, and how is it supposed to work?
**Note that I am not approving of the jabs or claiming they are safe or effective. I never got one, am very glad I didn’t, and consider them unsafe and ineffective. If it weren’t for all the crippled epistemology going around, the people who designed both the virus and the failed mRNA “antidote” and unleashed them via their bio-attack on China and Iran would likely end up on trial in The Hague.
Dear Kevin, I think it is always wise to be slow to side with a protected, well connected man who is a member of the class of people ho has privilege in the US (same group that contains Harvey Weinstein, Alan Dershowits, Sam Bankman-Fried, Jonathan Pollard and a huge number of others who seem to be above the law) against a very fearless and honest man who as ejected from Western society for telling the truth about this unearned and dangerous Jewish privilege system. While it is tempting to huddle with the propped up side to catch a break for a while, Unz's position may well be another case of manipulation by those who seek to enslave us. My personal experience with Unz and my careful study into the COVID scam as someone who was already vax critical and big pharma critical showed me that while his website seems to be a free for all for all views, it was only when I tried to bring reason to his COVID death estimates that I found my comments censored on his website. Granted, most other times my comments were not on his articles. So maybe he just heavily curates responses to his own theories, but it made me very suspicious. Another reason I am suspicious is from my past experience being part of the same activist community as Noam Chomsky at MIT. We thought he was just a sincere critic of the US in order to help it become better country. We thought it odd how he always seemed to fail to notice the importance of the pro-Israel lobby and that when asked by Amy Goodman where he would live if not in the US well into the BDS movement, he glowingly said "Israel." He lavished praise on Israel and Amy Goodman couldn't have been more pleased to hear it. Years later come to learn he was connected to Geoffrey Epstein and at least on one occasion dined with Ehud Barak. Oh, I see. We thought he was a sincere patriot trying to make his country better, but he was really an agent for Israel trying to lay blame for all of Israel's crimes on the US. See his book "Fateful Triangle" in this new light, for example. Who is Ron Unz friendly with? Why did the debate between Ron Unz and E Michael Jones on the Killstream recently remind me of Noam Chomsky's style of dismissing valid concerns such as about 9/11 or the JFK assassination or the pro-Israel Lobby? Why is Unz not de-platformed from youtube and the old twitter management while E Michael Jones is/was? And most importantly I, as a person with a science background, ask, "why would Ron Unz feel the need to suppress dissenting perspectives of how to estimate COVID or jab deaths?" That isn't how western science resolves disputes. What value system does Ron Unz operate on to frame inquiry into scientific questions if not evidence based reason? What is the history of race selective bioweapons research in Israel? What do more expert researchers like Standford Prof. John Ioannidis and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi have to say about the risks of COVID vs. COVID jabs? What do researchers have to say about the dangers of the incentivized hospital protocols making a relativeley survivable disease much more dangerous? You are out of your depth on this one, Kevin. Not sure how Islam is on humility (or more likely your holdover values from being a leftist academic imbued with the Jewish revolutionary spirit), but if you come home to the founding faith of your civilization, Roman Catholicism, you can be reminded that it is wise to be humble. If, instead, you want to ditch the learning of your forebears and run away from this land instead of fighting to save it from those who seek to trample its important precedents of free speech, freedom to worship, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom to bear arms, and freedom from unreasonable searches among others, then maybe you should focus on things in your new home instead of slandering those who do have the stones to stand up to this monstrous attack on us all via the apparatus of Jewish privilege. In other words, if you want to pile on Linh Dinh based on your very weak grasp of the debate on COVID, you are going to have to come through me first. God protect Linh Dinh and all who suffer for trying to protect decent, hardworking, sincere people from the Jewish privilege apparatus and the demonic COVID jabs. And may God help you, Kevin, to seek humility and discernment. Logos is rising, Kevin. Don't work to impede it.
"viruses" have NEVER been scientifically proven to exist nor to cause contagion using CONTROLLED groups...not once...the three godfathers of "modern vaccines"...Plotkin Sabin Salk...are all jews...there's no way to know if "leaders" or certain groups were given placebo's or actual vaccines...there's real time evidence that shows there were excess deaths after the covid clot shots were rolled out...https://www.bitchute.com/video/Mun8dVQOVR7e/