This part stood out (names removed because it's beside my point and I could insert many names):
"After several failed attempts to engage [this person], I stopped trying. I write for and work with people who are looking for truth; I steer clear, as much as I can, of people who are actively avoiding it."
I have other "steer clear of" criteria, but that sums up an important one. Life is simply too short.
That’s very interesting, Jessica. I hadn’t seen it, either.
What caught my eye, scanning down from the quotation you highlighted was Katherine’s inference from the lack of response to her pointing out the synthetic basis of “pandemic preparedness”.
It wasn’t a nice thing to have to do & I’m grateful that Katherine did it anyway.
“My view, from reading the Covid-19 lessons-learned reporting and analysis by Lerman and Tucker over the past year or so, is that Brownstone Institute’s role is to protect the public health system and public health officials from public understanding of how HHS public health programs are actually just part of joint military operations with DoD”.
Those people who have realised that government is lying to them naturally look for others who have reached the same conclusion. If this happens to be the first time you’ve realised that there are people in positions of authority who will outright lie to you about really important things then, at very least, you’re looking for confirmation that you’re not crazy, that you aren’t wrong. Under these circumstances, such a person is likely to regard as an ally anyone who is challenging the official narrative. I certainly started like that.
However, I’ve long realised that a proportion of such “freedom campaigners”, while saying truthful things, baulk at some point & refuse to countenance other possibilities (eg the difference between exaggerating a threat to public health & there never having been a public health threat at all). Worse, it has been my experience that the proportion referred to above is high.
It’s uncommon for me to be confident at the time that they are limiting their statements knowingly. As time goes by, one’s confidence that they do know increases. That’s most upsetting. I cannot fathom how a person could have their understanding of the way the world works smashed, yet act in ways which preserve the prime deception. I ask the rhetorical question, do they think that, somehow, they will escape the consequences of whatever is to come?
Here, I suppose it’s possible that some “freedom campaigner” know that they’re revealing only part of the deception but don't think the end game is anything like as frightening as I think it’ll be.
This recent conversation between a new name to me, David A Hughes, and James Delingpole was one of James’ best (& he has had many very good guests).
David characterises this phenomenon very well, in his “Three camps” model. 1 holds those adhering to the official position. 2 is people exposing only some of the lies. 3 is those who will go where the evidence takes them.
I’m an admirer of KW also, just for the record. And of you, too.
Thanks, Mike.
I hadn't seen this article in 2023 (which I had) but it was restacked and caught my eye. https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/on-brownstone-coverage-of-global
This part stood out (names removed because it's beside my point and I could insert many names):
"After several failed attempts to engage [this person], I stopped trying. I write for and work with people who are looking for truth; I steer clear, as much as I can, of people who are actively avoiding it."
I have other "steer clear of" criteria, but that sums up an important one. Life is simply too short.
That’s very interesting, Jessica. I hadn’t seen it, either.
What caught my eye, scanning down from the quotation you highlighted was Katherine’s inference from the lack of response to her pointing out the synthetic basis of “pandemic preparedness”.
It wasn’t a nice thing to have to do & I’m grateful that Katherine did it anyway.
“My view, from reading the Covid-19 lessons-learned reporting and analysis by Lerman and Tucker over the past year or so, is that Brownstone Institute’s role is to protect the public health system and public health officials from public understanding of how HHS public health programs are actually just part of joint military operations with DoD”.
Those people who have realised that government is lying to them naturally look for others who have reached the same conclusion. If this happens to be the first time you’ve realised that there are people in positions of authority who will outright lie to you about really important things then, at very least, you’re looking for confirmation that you’re not crazy, that you aren’t wrong. Under these circumstances, such a person is likely to regard as an ally anyone who is challenging the official narrative. I certainly started like that.
However, I’ve long realised that a proportion of such “freedom campaigners”, while saying truthful things, baulk at some point & refuse to countenance other possibilities (eg the difference between exaggerating a threat to public health & there never having been a public health threat at all). Worse, it has been my experience that the proportion referred to above is high.
It’s uncommon for me to be confident at the time that they are limiting their statements knowingly. As time goes by, one’s confidence that they do know increases. That’s most upsetting. I cannot fathom how a person could have their understanding of the way the world works smashed, yet act in ways which preserve the prime deception. I ask the rhetorical question, do they think that, somehow, they will escape the consequences of whatever is to come?
Here, I suppose it’s possible that some “freedom campaigner” know that they’re revealing only part of the deception but don't think the end game is anything like as frightening as I think it’ll be.
This recent conversation between a new name to me, David A Hughes, and James Delingpole was one of James’ best (& he has had many very good guests).
David characterises this phenomenon very well, in his “Three camps” model. 1 holds those adhering to the official position. 2 is people exposing only some of the lies. 3 is those who will go where the evidence takes them.
https://substack.com/@delingpole/note/p-165648266 See 15 min 30 sec onwards.
All of these in Camp 1 & most of those in Camp 2 don’t want to speak with people like you or me.
Haven't found JD/DH podcast yet. But I did get a chance to listen to the Aug 2024 with you!
Question here: https://substack.com/profile/32813354-jessica-hockett/note/c-127847678?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=jjay2
Yes, I highlighted that part in a Note: https://substack.com/@jessicahockett/note/c-126116522?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=jjay2
Re: Hughes - I don't quite agree with that framework, as presented, but can listen to the interview when it's on an accessible channel