Twitler has messed up the ordering of my thread.

Anyways. I'll trudge on. Part 2

So far, so bad. Are we facing an inexorable slide into the mud of totalitarianism? Let’s look at some percentages.

“Usually it is only about 30% [of a population that gets] grasped in a mass phenomenon or hypnosis.  An additional 35-45% usually does not want to raise a dissonant voice in the public space because they are scared of the consequences."

26/
"Usually about 70% who shut up – 30% because they are convinced by the mainstream narrative and 40% because they don’t dare to speak out. And then there is an additional 20-25-30% who does not go along with the narrative and says it in certain situations.” (Mattias Desmet)

27/
This being the case, the task of the 20-30% is to persuade the 40% of those who go along with the programme for a quiet life or to fit into social norms; those who give lip-service to the narrative but are not true believers.

28/
Unfortunately, the people who have joined the Covid Cult as a reparative of psychological harms and an unconscious targeted cure for free-floating anxiety, this smaller group, the 30%, are solid gone, never to return.

29/
This evaluation lays out a strategy dissenters can take up in our argumentation; redirect free-floating anxiety and frustration in the undecided 40% from Covid to the greater danger; the totalitarianism which inevitably leads to terrible outcomes.

30/
Totalitarianism destroys societies, cultures, countries, and ultimately itself on the way. Ignore the 30% of irrational Branch Covidian cultists. The historical evidence is clear. Totalitarianism is far more scary than Covid.

31/
An alternative and more important narrative must highlight totalitarianism, fascism, and the technocratic biosecurity state as the very worst possible outcomes, much worse than a pathogen with a high survival and recovery rate.

32/

You May Also Like

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".