"Precious Little Public Talk About It"
Jeffrey Tucker's lament
I am not mad at Jeffrey Tucker.
I do not wish Jeffrey Tucker ill or harm or anything except the very best.
But I am having trouble understanding Jeffrey Tucker’s lament on X today.
Presumably referring to early 2020, he said, “The turning point of all things -- public trust, crime, longevity, border security, health, economic vitality, and population-wide incredulity toward all elites -- was the global pandemic response. And yet, there is precious little public talk about it. I find that amazing.”
I find that amazing too.
What I also find amazing - even more amazing than Mr. Tucker’s rejection of an idea for public talk on a platform he manages - is his and others’ acceptance that
a) a global pandemic occurred,
b) a pandemic declaration was warranted, and
c) the “response” should be & can be examined without little to no consideration of what was being responded to - and whether it was in any way legitimate (versus fraudulent and/or criminal).
Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but the way I remember things, there was only a response because government asserted that a threat existed. I am still not clear what the threat was — or why it necessitated any response of any kind, let alone emergency decrees and everything that followed.
I don’t see how anyone can say or imply that he or she cares only about a response to something without saying, “What was the something, exactly?”
And I remain perplexed by the reticence on the part of many who dissent from the official COVID narrative in some way, shape, or form to confront tough questions about the purported threat(s) in the months leading up to “the turning point”.
Perhaps there would be more “public talk” about the events if there were more encouragement and modeling of “public talk” about the facets of the COVID event that remain unresolved, unexplained, and far from settled among those who can agree what was done was wrong.
Related
There's no good answer (that I can think of). But at this point, I'll take ANY answer from the Brownstone brain trust as a start. Ideally from Mr. Tucker (whom I, too, wish no ill will). He did give you some "answer" a few weeks back, but it was so disjointed I can't recall what it asserted.
It's discrediting to Brownstone's raison d'être that it has danced around the most fundamental premise(s)-of-all for 4 years. Moreover, they "can't get there from here" if they/he just keep whining about "lockdown" and moralizing. The REPPARE project has shown promise, but it doesn't "bring it home" (it's still "in the box" and is likely to stay there).
For a while, BI/Tucker did seem focused on getting to the bottom of it, but that was 1-3 years ago. Remember the October 2022 piece, "The 70 Seconds that Shook the World" (https://brownstone.org/articles/the-70-seconds-that-shook-the-world/)? I think it's (past) time for Brownstone to "shake the world."
What fallout is Mr. Tucker trying to avoid? I suspect Dr. Bhattacharya (and others?) won't be happy if Brownstone "goes there," but that is not a good reason to pretend and avoid. Maybe it has to do with donors. Like you, Ms. Jessica, I don't get it.
This succinct piece serves up what has needed to be said for some time. Thank You. Bravo.
Well done.🎯
Well said