29
   

Rising fascism in the US

 
 
hightor
 
  0  
Thu 3 Feb, 2022 10:46 am
@hightor,
And I want to add, I have no objection to Rogan hosting guests who oppose the Biden administration's covid response. Someone might make objections based on ideological opposition to vaccine mandates and I'm sure he could find experts in public health who disagree with the CDC on any number of issues. But I think he might have put a bit more thought into his choice of guests and the claims he allowed them to make, unchallenged:

Quote:
Ivermectin as ‘the end of covid’

Biologist Bret Weinstein said on Rogan’s show in June that a study suggested “ivermectin alone, if properly utilized, is capable of driving this pathogen to extinction.” He read from the study suggesting it was 86 percent effective in preventing infections.

“Crazy number,” Rogan said

Weinstein added: “That number is high enough to be, independently, the end of covid if we decide to make it so.”

The study at issue, though, was a meta-analysis, reviewing generally smaller, lower-quality trials done on the use of ivermectin on covid patients. One of the main studies it relied upon, from Egypt, was soon withdrawn over major data issues. One watchdog stated that removing the Egyptian study from the meta-analysis effectively “reversed” the conclusions (which the study’s authors disputed).

The study was also conducted by people affiliated with an interest group that advocates for the use of ivermectin, PolitiFact reported, even though the authors claimed there was no conflict of interest. High-quality studies have repeatedly shown ivermectin having little to no benefit.

There is, quite simply, no evidence ivermectin is anything close to the silver bullet Rogan’s viewers were told it was. And belief in these supposed panaceas can give people false hope, leading them to not take other precautions, like vaccines.

(Rogan also shared supposed evidence that ivermectin works as recently as this week, despite the story on which it was based having been corrected. Rogan later deleted the tweet.)

‘Mass-formation hypnosis’

Perhaps the one interview that set off the current imbroglio was Rogan welcoming vaccine scientist Robert Malone last month. Malone bills himself as a key figure in the development of mRNA technology and has since become a prominent skeptic of the coronavirus vaccines. He has often lodged wild, false and unproven claims.

Among the claims he shared with Rogan’s audience: the pseudoscientific idea that a “third of the population [is] basically being hypnotized” to believe the mainstream media and Anthony S. Fauci by something called “mass-formation psychosis.” Malone compared the situation to Nazi Germany.

The concept of mass-formation psychosis is not one broadly recognized by psychologists. Malone has since backed off using the word “psychosis.”

But here Rogan’s influence shows: The idea that people could be persuaded to follow health officials by effectively being hypnotized has gained significant traction.

The McCullough interview

While the Malone interview has gotten much of the attention, one of its recent predecessors shouldn’t be given short shrift. The guest last month was cardiologist Peter McCullough, who also spoke of “mass psychosis."

McCullough claimed the pandemic was “planned” and that early treatments were deliberately suppressed “in order to promote fear, suffering, isolation, hospitalization and death.” These are largely unfalsifiable claims, but they are baseless and wildly conspiratorial.

He claimed a coronavirus vaccine trial in Australia turned people “HIV-positive” and that the evidence for this was suppressed. The tests were actually false positives because of certain protein fragments used, and this is very much in the public record.

He claimed “the virus is not spread asymptomatically.” But in doing so, he cited a 2020 Chinese study that dealt with transmission after a harsh lockdown, not asymptomatic transmission. The other study he apparently cited merely indicated asymptomatic transmission in the study itself was not “substantial,” not that it hadn’t occurred.

The same study acknowledged it had “less data” on asymptomatic transmission, rendering such bold claims of no asymptomatic transmission far beyond the evidence. Data since these studies has made clear asymptomatic people can spread the virus, including in a study released around the time of the interview.

He also claimed “you can’t get [the coronavirus] twice” and that natural immunity was basically “permanent.” He said the government has effectively admitted this. This stems from a misreading of a Freedom of Information Act request. There is myriad evidence of people getting reinfected, and there has been for many months.

Rogan, to his credit, pushed back on this last one, saying he knew people who had multiple infections. But he and McCullough didn’t dwell on it. And the moment passed, with people who had contracted the virus free to believe they might be totally immune going forward.

Microchips

While most microchip conspiracy theories deal with the bogus idea that the vaccines contain them, Rogan has offered a slightly different take. In a May segment in which Rogan suggested that Infowars conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was increasingly being proven right, Rogan pointed to microchips as an example.

“When people are talking about actual microchips being injected into your arms to see if you have covid-19, he’s like, ‘I … told you, Joe Rogan,' ” Rogan said.

In fact, the devices aren’t microchips, but rather inert sensors that can detect if a person is getting sick, without the ability to transmit information electronically. Their production also predated the pandemic by years, and they aren’t for detecting the coronavirus.

Certainly, legitimizing the likes of Jones is bad, as is feeding already prevalent conspiracy theories that health officials want to introduce tracking devices into people. Whether that’s allegedly through vaccines or something else, the impact is similar.

‘Gene therapy’

Rogan in August echoed a claim that the coronavirus vaccines weren’t actually vaccines, but were instead “gene therapy.”

“This is really gene therapy; it’s a different thing,” Rogan said. “It’s tricking your body into producing spike protein and making these antibodies for covid.”

While perhaps somewhat innocently trying to get at the differences between mRNA vaccines and more traditional vaccines, this is wrong. Gene therapy involves modifying a person’s genes, which the mRNA vaccines don’t do. Instead, they teach cells how to recognize a coronavirus spike protein and fight against it.

Casting things in terms of “gene therapy,” again, echoes existing conspiracy theories about the vaccines. As with “microchips,” it invites people to believe the vaccines are significantly more invasive than they actually are.

msn
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Thu 3 Feb, 2022 10:57 am
@Lash,
Thanks for sharing the far right narrative with us.

It's bullshit. Nobody is defending anything Goldberg said. Most believe Goldberg spoke from ignorance, not malice, has given a full unreserved apology and is willing to learn.

Compare that to Rogan who hasn't apologised for anything and is deliberately spreading disinformation about the coronavirus during a pandemic. To make it even worse he makes it come across as open debate where opinions are challenged when it's anything but.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Thu 3 Feb, 2022 11:02 am
@Lash,
Certainly, the distortion and trivialisation of the Holocaust is more than irritating.
But this also includes the fact that in addition to the more than 6 million Jews, the other victim groups of the Holocaust (e.g. Sinti and Roma, homosexuals, people with disabilities, Poles, captured Soviet soldiers and other "subhuman Slavs") are too often totally forgotten.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Thu 3 Feb, 2022 11:08 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Great observation, Walter.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  -1  
Thu 3 Feb, 2022 11:11 am
@Lash,
Quote:
What I see is you guys (and popular media) falling over yourselves to defend Whoopi...


"Falling over yourselves"... really???

I'm sorry that you see it that way, assuming it isn't just a rhetorical trick to put me on the defensive. It wasn't my intention to "defend" her as much as it was to offer an explanation for her comments because I think some of the criticism was misguided. I don't think her comment was an intentionally "racist" remark, but an example of the culturally dominant narrative (gee, I hope I don't sound like maxdancona) overwhelming any alternative perspectives and institutionalizing a sort of "group think".

I was once in a discussion about the US experience in Viet Nam. I was pointing out that, in a legal sense, it wasn't a "war". Our country was never attacked, a declaration of war was never made. One person strongly objected to this, and actually became emotional about it. She had lost a son in the conflict and felt that I was diminishing his sacrifice by saying, in effect, that he wasn't killed in a "war". I was taken completely by surprise because I just don't think that way. Since then I've learned to be more circumspect on the topic – there are some arguments that just aren't worth having.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Thu 3 Feb, 2022 11:26 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Max Hastings says that he understands why so many scholars focus on the Holocaust in isolation he thinks it is a mistake.

It should be looked at in context of the occupation itself which was incredibly brutal, thousands of innocent civilians were butchered throughout Europe. In France alone there was the Oradour-sur-Glane and Tulle massacres amongst others. It was against the backdrop of a brutal occupation with regular civilian masscres and atrocities that the Final Solution and the Holocaust was formed.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Thu 3 Feb, 2022 11:57 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I appreciate that comment, Walter. It feels to me when people defend her or ‘explain’ for her, that is does trivialize the Holocaust and / or the real feelings of many Jewish people re this issue.
NealNealNeal
 
  0  
Thu 3 Feb, 2022 12:08 pm
@Lash,
Where did Goldberg get her silly idea? From "progressives" who are the truly dangerous people.
Mame
 
  0  
Thu 3 Feb, 2022 12:11 pm
@NealNealNeal,
NealNealNeal wrote:

From "progressives" who are the truly dangerous people.


Oralloy! You're back!
hightor
 
  0  
Thu 3 Feb, 2022 12:11 pm
@NealNealNeal,
Quote:
From "progressives" who are the truly dangerous people.

Citation?
izzythepush
 
  0  
Thu 3 Feb, 2022 12:18 pm
@NealNealNeal,
She got her idea from the same place you get yours, out her arse.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Thu 3 Feb, 2022 01:07 pm
@Lash,
Quoting a Letter to the Editor (NYT)
Quote:
To the Editor:

Re “ABC Suspends Goldberg for Comments About the Holocaust” (Business, Feb. 3):

I accept Whoopi Goldberg’s apology for her comments that the Holocaust was “not about race.” I forgive her. I do not believe she is an antisemite. But her failure to recognize the role of race and “racial purity” animating Nazi ideology reflects a woeful and increasing ignorance about the Holocaust among Americans.

According to a nationwide survey of millennials and Gen Z conducted in 2020 by the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, more than 60 percent of respondents were unaware that six million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust and nearly half could not name a single Nazi death camp. And more than 10 percent believed that Jews actually caused the Holocaust.

While we are rightly concerned about the impact of Holocaust denial, such ignorance may well lead us to the same frightening outcomes.

Remarks may not be antisemitic in intent, but they can still be antisemitic in effect. And at a frightening moment of rising antisemitism in America, manifest in recent days alone in hateful graffiti in Washington, synagogues vandalized in Chicago, and of course the attack on Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas, we must call them out when we hear them.

Joshua M. Davidson
New York
The writer is the senior rabbi at Congregation Emanu-El of the City of New York
Mame
 
  0  
Thu 3 Feb, 2022 01:17 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
That rabbi is absolutely right and it's downright scary and shameful that the populace is so ignorant of major world events. How could they not bloody know about the holocaust??? The Diary of Anne Frank was required reading when I was about 12, for Pete's sake.

So many Americans are ignorant of just about everything that doesn't personally concern themselves. I've seen those sidewalk segments on Jay Leno and, of course, Rick Mercer's "Talking With Americans". Seriously, they can't even identify the USA on a world map! And now they want to teach them even less and ban books. What the hell is going on down there?
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Thu 3 Feb, 2022 01:32 pm
Whoopi in my opinion does not set out to be a divisive or hateful person. She just falls into situations where she says things without realizing the consequences immediately. Such as defending Bill Cosby for a time, defending Mel Gibson after his offensive remarks, defending Ted Danson's black face routine. It would be possible to kick up a real **** storm about her except I think she is better than the sum total of things she's been known to say and do. Personally I make it a point to have the TV off when the TV show she's on airs. I have to rely on other sources to know what goes on. I didn't like her telling Bernie through the question repeatedly asked, "Why don't you drop out?" because it made me see she doesn't support what he is for, but I have enough good memories of a number of things she has done to still like her.
0 Replies
 
NealNealNeal
 
  0  
Thu 3 Feb, 2022 01:53 pm
@Mame,
Mame wrote:

NealNealNeal wrote:

From "progressives" who are the truly dangerous people.


Oralloy! You're back!

No. I agree with him on many political subjects, however. :-)
glitterbag
 
  0  
Thu 3 Feb, 2022 01:58 pm
@NealNealNeal,
He doesn't have opinions, he just has animus.
0 Replies
 
NealNealNeal
 
  1  
Thu 3 Feb, 2022 02:10 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
From "progressives" who are the truly dangerous people.

Citation?


"It's all about the Benjamin's".
izzythepush
 
  -2  
Thu 3 Feb, 2022 02:13 pm
@NealNealNeal,
Definitely Berkshires.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  0  
Thu 3 Feb, 2022 03:44 pm
@NealNealNeal,
Quote:
It's all about the Benjamin's.


AIPAC is part of a pro-Israel lobby in Washington, along with Christians United for Israel (the largest), the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a bunch of others, including some right-wing think tanks. That lobbies spend a great deal of money to influence policy, shape legislation, and cultivate cozy relationships with politicians is hardly a secret.

• the reference to the "Benjamins" would be applicable to any other powerful lobbying group, such as the NRA, the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, or the Chamber of Commerce.

• you haven't shown that Whoopi Goldberg got her "silly idea" from "progressives"

• you haven't shown that these "progressives" constitute any danger


Fail.




NealNealNeal
 
  2  
Thu 3 Feb, 2022 04:43 pm
@hightor,
Hightor,
It was a congresswoman who made this comment. In fact, Pelosi has her in a high position concerning foreign policy.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 01/18/2025 at 12:29:30