The nerve of this computer programmer! Here he is throwing shade on a medical doctor :
The billionaire philanthropist [oligarch] and his wife aired their concerns with multiple news outlets, detailing what they see as a series of errors in confronting a virus in the U.S. "You know, this has been a mismanaged situation every step of the way," Gates told STAT News. "It's shocking. It's unbelievable — the fact that we would be among the worst in the world."
According to Gates, a key error was appointing neuroradiologist Scott Atlas to help guide the White House's response to the pandemic rather than an epidemiologist or infectious disease specialist. Atlas has advocated letting the virus spread unchecked in order for the U.S. to achieve herd immunity [Nonsense, and attempted character assassination. Atlas supports shielding the vulnerable.]— an approach opposed by many public health experts, .
And on the great CDC:
The Microsoft co-founder also took issue with a recent move by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to discourage Americans who'd been in contact with someone with the virus but who were themselves asymptomatic from getting tested.
"It blows the mind," Gates said of the the CDC's revised testing guidance, which Atlas supports.
And on the FDA chief, doctor Stephen Hahn:
Gates also criticized Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn, who critics say exaggerated the findings of a Mayo Clinic study on the benefits of using as a treatment for COVID-19, the next day.
"We saw with the completely bungled plasma statements that when you start pressuring people to say optimistic things, they go completely off the rails. The FDA lost a lot of credibility there," Gates said in an interview Tuesday on Bloomberg Television.
The FDA would have to approve a vaccine to inoculate people from the coronavirus, but recent surveys show that a majority of Americans are concerned that poll last month.; a third said they would not get vaccinated, according to a Gallup
Look Bill, we know that you HATE SCIENCE so much it drove you to drop out from college but for the past six months it has been drilled into us (by the very outlets that rushed to spread this anti-authority outburst of yours) that it is not up to us, non-experts, to pronounce opinions on COVID, or to doubt the experts, particularly those in government agency jobs. So I don't know why you think you're special and exempt from these guidances but please CONFORM and get on with the sheep program!
What do you think you are? A wolf?!
The US military has been unable to find any evidence that the Russian government paid bounties on US troops to Taliban-linked fighters in Afghanistan, confirming what was already obvious to anyone who hasn’t had their brain stem hijacked by mass media-induced Russophobia.
NBC News reports the following:
Two months after top Pentagon officials vowed to get to the bottom of whether the Russian government bribed the Taliban to kill American service members, the commander of troops in the region says a detailed review of all available intelligence has not been able to corroborate the existence of such a program.
“It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me,” Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander of the U.S. Central Command, told NBC News. McKenzie oversees U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The U.S. continues to hunt for new information on the matter, he said.
“We continue to look for that evidence,” the general said. “I just haven’t seen it yet. But … it’s not a closed issue.”
McKenzie’s comments, reflecting a consensus view among military leaders, underscores the lack of certainty around a narrative that has been accepted as fact by Democrats and other Trump critics, including presidential nominee Joe Biden, who has cited Russian bounties in attacks on President Donald Trump.
Like many other critical voices, I said from the beginning that there was no reason to believe the Russian bounties narrative and that the mass publication of baseless and nonsensical claims circulated anonymously by US intelligence operatives constitutes journalistic malpractice. There is no excuse for a reporter to ever present anonymous CIA press releases under the guise of news, especially when they make no sense; the US-centralized coalition in Afghanistan is a hostile occupying force and there are an essentially limitless number of people there who require no financial incentive to attack them.
But this is exactly what happened. Once the news media had reported the unsubstantiated rumor given to them by anonymous spies, spinmeisters like Rachel Maddow began presenting it as an objective fact that had been fully authenticated, and from there the entire Democratic political/media class began months of loudly babbling about how suspicious it is that the US president hadn’t confronted Vladimir Putin and sanctioned Russia in response to this verified fact.
And it was never anything of the sort. It was fake. But now aggressions have been ramped up against Russia, Trump has been painted as a Putin puppet who hates the troops, Senate Democrats have introduced a bill mandating sanctions on any Russians involved in this imaginary conspiracy, and legislation has been passed making it harder for Trump to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.
The story did its job, and now that it’s proven false the same people who promoted it are uniformly ignoring the new evidence which clearly shows it to have been bogus.
This story has been so ubiquitously promoted within the establishment liberal echo chamber that it’s impossible to list all the dishonest portrayals it’s been given since June, but to pick just a few recent examples:
- Here’s a recent viral interview by Atlantic’s Anne Applebaum with former FBI agent Peter Strzok in which he falsely cites Trump’s refusal to strike back at Russia over the Taliban bounties as evidence that the president is “compromised” toward the Kremlin.
- Here’s Biden falsely attacking Trump for not confronting Putin about the bounties story.
- Here’s sitting US Senator Richard Blumenthal falsely claiming “Intelligence powerfully shows that the Kremlin offered the Taliban bounties for killing Americans in Afghanistan”.
- Here’s sitting US Senator Tammy Duckworth falsely saying “Donald Trump has gone 80 days without condemning Putin for putting reported bounties on our troops.”
- Here’s sitting US Congressman Ted Lieu falsely claiming “Putin paid money to the Taliban to kill US troops.”
- Here’s MSNBC star Joy Reid falsely asking why the president won’t “condemn Russia for putting bounties on our troops.”
- Here’s renowned Harvard professor Laurence Tribe falsely claiming that Putin “offered bounties on American troops killed in Afghanistan.”
Again, that’s just a very few very recent examples. Now that their claims have proven false, how many of these highly influential people do you think are using their massive platforms to spread awareness of this fact? Take a wild guess.
If you said zero, you are correct. In fact Democratic Party influencers are even continuing to promote the debunked Russian bounties story many hours after the report debunking it became available on mainstream platforms. Andrew Bates, Director of Rapid Response for the Biden campaign, just tweeted that “Trump is giving Russia a pass for putting bounties on the heads of American service members.”
Again, this is hours after it’s been public knowledge that this is a completely false thing to assert.
And we can absolutely expect this to continue. We can absolutely expect establishment Democrats to continue bleating about Russian bounties in Afghanistan for as long as it is politically convenient to do so. They never let the lack of evidence for their position get in the way before, and they won’t let it get in the way now. The arguments that they make for their power-serving position are not designed to reflect truth or reality, they are designed to serve power. That’s exactly what echo chambers are for.
An email published by WikiLeaks in 2016 was sent by Democratic Party insider John Podesta to billionaires George Soros, Peter Lewis, John Sperling, and Herb and Marion Sandler in 2007 with a detailed and structured overview of material the group had covered during a meeting they’d had in September (to read the email click ‘Attachments’ and then ‘2008 Combined Fundraising, Message and Mobilization Plan’). Among the thing these powerful manipulators discussed was the creation of a “robust echo chamber” to be used in the party’s interests.
On page two of the attachment:
“Control the political discourse. So much effort over the past few years has been focused on better coordinating, strengthening, and developing progressive institutions and leaders. Now that this enhanced infrastructure is in place — grassroots organizing; multi-issue advocacy groups; think tanks; youth outreach; faith communities; micro-targeting outfits; the netroots and blogosphere — we need to better utilize these networks to drive the content of politics through a strong “echo chamber” and message delivery system”.
And on page four:
“Create a robust echo chamber with progressive messaging that spans from the opposition campaigns to outside groups, academic experts, and bloggers.”
Usually, when you see the names Podesta and Soros presented together it just means you stumbled into a bad corner of the internet pervaded by sloppy thinking and an irrational trust in anonymous 8chan posts, but in this WikiLeaks email we actually get a useful glimpse into the reason people can keep babbling about something that’s completely divorced from the truth without being smashed by cognitive dissonance. The fact that echo chambers are actively created by establishment manipulators enables establishment-friendly narratives to remain afloat long after evidence should have sunk them.
Several weeks ago I tweeted “It’s clear that ‘Russia paid bounties to Taliban fighters’ is one of those narratives the propagandists decided to ram into mainstream consciousness until they force it to become consensus orthodoxy by repetition and sheer force of will, with zero interest in facts or evidence.”
This has indeed happened, and it will continue to happen. The oligarchs who rule over us have so thoroughly divorced the information ecosystem from truth that they can get people to believe just about anything.
They do this because they understand that humans are storytelling animals and you control the humans by controlling the stories. We will be unable to fight lies with truth until we collectively understand this fact as well as our oppressors.
Listening to Victoria Police's Luke Cornelius sure is something. Here's him at the start of the Melbourne lockdown:
"Participating in this proposed protest would be a serious and blatant breach of the chief health officer's directions and it jeopardises the health of the entire community,"
"The tinfoil hat-wearing brigade are alive and well in our community.
"They're taking every opportunity to leverage the current situation to serve their own ridiculous notions about so-called sovereign citizens, about constitutional issues and about how 5G is going to kill your grandkids.
"It's bats*** crazy nonsense."
Is it the place of a public sector bureaucrat in the violence branch to be speaking of taxpayers who pay his wages as "boofheads", "tinfoil" and "batshit"?
Why does a copper feel himself called upon to philosophize publicly on epidemiology, constitutional law, and morality?
A bureaucrat is a technical specialist for his field serving the citizenry and answerable to their elected representatives and courts. According to my elementary school civics teacher all public servants, but doubly so those who are armed and deal in violence (military and police) are supposed to be absolutely professional and apolitical.
So why is a cop general permitted to launch into ideological sermons? Into demonization and character assassination of the part of the taxpaying citizenry?
If the police have such strong opinions on best epidemiological practices and constitutional law what does that mean? That if a different democratically elected party was in power, which gave them different instructions, they would withdraw obedience?
After all, if it is up to the police to have an opinion on what is best medical practice in an epidemic they can not in good conscience do otherwise.
As far as I was taught it is up to the police to do as they are ordered, and it is up to those people's representatives who gave them the orders to justify their actions, and to defend and propagandize the logic behind them, but certainly not for the cops.
Properly his comments would be limited to something like:
"We are ordered to do so by the government you picked, so that is what we are doing, as you are paying us to. The government assures us it is the right thing to do, and the courts have not told us it is against any law, so for us that is that. For more you'll have to talk to our bosses (that you picked)."
They can talk about technical aspects of their activities, the numbers involved and the technical challenges they are facing but (according to my admittedly brief post-Communist civics education) it is not up to the police to have or espouse political (or medical LOL) opinions of their own.
It doesn't stop them from violating your rights, but it at least it stops them from insulting your intelligence with their batshit, tinfoil, boofhead nonsense as they do it.
Not to mention that once police starts to resemble a political party, or the armed wing of one, with strong political views of its own, you're no longer living in a democracy.
Is this the apolitical, technocratic police force of a liberal democracy, or the ideological "People's Militia" armed wing of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union?
"No one has the human right to infect other people and to place the entire Victorian community at risk."
"We're not idiots, and the rest of Victorians are not idiots."
"Stop playing us and the wider community for fools."
"Just for one moment stop thinking about yourselves."
"Spare a thought for the loved ones of the nearly 500 Victorians who have died so far."
This is a political speech. Why is it being given by a cop?