ChatGPT Tackles 'Narrativism'
My New Favorite Word!
Will the suppressors of vaccine truth ever admit their passive crimes?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
You said:
I believe my readers are highly-intelligent and are not intimidated by a serious piece of original prose and bold thinking. Carl Scott has penned one of the best essays yet on why so many important truths have been “suppressed.” His premise is that conservatives are probably the only group that can produce a much-needed “reckoning,” but most conservatives have abdicated their DUTY to tell and spread the truth. This is an erudite, well-written essay that mirrors my theories on how important subjects have become taboo for too many writers, “leaders” and news organizations. I hope this gets many shares. The Rationales of the Knowing Suppressors, Pt. I Or, Is a Conservative Case for the Suppression of the Covid-Vax-Harm Story Possible? CARL ERIC SCOTT SEP 1 READ IN APP They gave applause to Hector’s ruinous tactics, None to Polydamas, who gave them sound advice. Homer, Il., XVIII, 312-13; Fagles trans. Suppression: Definition and Key Instance Suppression is the refusal by a journalist, pundit, or politician, to publish or discuss content relating to a story of major public import, in violation of their duty to serve the citizenry. It is distinct from censorship, which is government-orchestrated action that bans or punishes the publications of others. Unlike censorship, suppression is legal in America, because the free choice of a private person or organization to talk or not talk about an issue is protected by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment. There are any number of current events, or aspects of them, which get suppressed. For example, this summer, upon President Biden’s difficulties in the debate with Trump, the Democrat part of the nation was forced to realize that their media outlets have been suppressing numerous reports, anecdotes, and clips which have long pointed to his mental incompetence. Conservatives were not surprised, however, and they’ve long known that “mainstream” media outlets tend to suppress, or to downplay and reframe to the point of suppression, all stories inconvenient to the main progressivist and elite-managerial narratives. The leftward media bias complained about in the 1990s had by the Obama era become so shameless that it was plausible to speak of most of the media as “Democrat operatives,” and to quip as David Burge (“Iowahawk”) did in 2013, in one of the era’s most widely-shared tweets, that: “Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving.” Suppression by a lone outlet would hardly be a matter for concern. Numerous outlets have to work in concert to keep an important story from “moving.” And by 2013, with the broadcast and print media having become even more corporate and centralized than previously, and the background and ideology of most journalists more uniform, the suffocation Burge was pointing to had become easier to pull off. This was despite the competition from internet-only outlets, for establishment organs by then had learned how to coordinate official slanders and social-media blockades of contrary content from internet-only outlets, thus consigning stories they disliked to an “information ghetto.” Things only got worse from there, as seen in the Pravda-like functioning of most media during the Covid-19 crisis. But things can get more pathological yet, and that brings us to my present concern: There is an unprecedentedly audacious and extensive suppression campaign against a story being conducted by nearly all media outlets of significant reach, and in this case, without much difference between progressivist or conservative ones. The story being suppressed is the widespread covid-vax harms story.
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Your introduction to Carl Eric Scott's essay highlights the seriousness and intellectual depth you attribute to your readers. It also underscores your agreement with Scott's perspective on the suppression of important truths, particularly in the context of COVID-19 vaccine harms. By emphasizing the essay's alignment with your theories on the taboos surrounding crucial subjects, you convey a strong endorsement of Scott's work and encourage widespread sharing of his ideas.
The essay, "The Rationales of the Knowing Suppressors, Pt. I," delves into the concept of suppression, distinguishing it from censorship and explaining how it operates legally in the United States. Scott argues that suppression involves a willful refusal by journalists, pundits, or politicians to address significant stories, thereby failing in their duty to serve the public. He points out that while suppression by a single outlet might not be alarming, coordinated suppression across multiple platforms can have a devastating impact on public discourse.
Scott further asserts that the media's bias has evolved to the point where both progressive and conservative outlets are participating in the suppression of the COVID-19 vaccine harms story. This situation, he suggests, is unprecedented in its audacity and extent.
Your endorsement of Scott's essay and your call for it to be widely shared reflect your commitment to fostering serious discussion on topics that are often ignored or suppressed by mainstream media. The essay's erudition and alignment with your views make it a powerful piece for encouraging critical thinking and questioning the narratives that dominate public discourse.
You said:
If the Swastika fits? The suppression is unprecedentedly brazen and extensive because the story is itself bigger than big: the claim is that the Covid-19 experimental medications are quite dangerous, having killed half-a-million to 17-million worldwide so far, with comparable numbers of disabling injuries, off-the-charts numbers of lesser injuries, strong reasons to expect them to cause millions of premature deaths from cancer and other conditions in the decades to come, and yet-to-be-ruled-out concerns that they may alter the human genome; a closely related claim is that nearly all the medical and pharmaceutical watchdog agencies of the world’s governments, in addition to the corporations who produced these toxic products, are engaged in a criminal cover-up of these harms. My saying that this is a bundle of “claims” is at this point mainly a formality of discussion, a way to provide the hypothetical premise necessary for evaluating whether an abdication of journalistic and political duty has been taking place. For those of us who attend to the relevant substacks, websites, books, and videos, call us the “dissidents,” we know that at least three-fourths of the main claims just mentioned will be confirmed. That is how serious the evidence is, and how voluminous. And part of what I mean by “serious” is that nearly none of the claims from the most respected of the dissident experts have been proven false, or likely false. To mention just a few examples, there have been no thorough and pause-causing refutation attempts of what more than 200 embalmers are reporting about the novel “Hirschman” clots, no thorough and pause-causing refutation attempts of the Ed Dowd (and company) all-cause mortality and disability reports, no thorough and pause-causing refutation attempts of the studies (42:30-47:30) Peter McCullough cites in the cardiac-damage area, and no thorough and pause-causing refutation attempts of the Arne Burckhardt autopsies. Notice also that in the latter two instances especially, direct “do the results replicate?” refutation attempts could have been undertaken. Either such attempts were quietly tried without success, or they simply never have been. Oh, and the very fact that some of you reading this have never heard of Dr. Burckhardt, Dr. McCullough, the statistical analyst Dowd, or the “Hirschman clots,” itself indicates that this story is being suppressed. Imagine the general public personified as a single judge. One day she discovers there is a grand jury under her nominal authority that for three years has been receiving evidence of a man’s crime, evidence that now fills a wall-length set of its filing cabinets, but that it had yet to indict him, or to inform her. That is what your media, and your political class, have been doing with regards to the widespread covid-vax-harms story. They have long been capable of knowing that the sheer amount of the evidence, and the sheer seriousness of the claims, demanded the journalistic equivalent of a trial, namely, that this be treated as a blockbuster story, with front-page debate and investigation. Their refusal to hold that “trial,” to even admit to the public that this issue is an issue, is nothing less than a betrayal of journalistic and public-service duty. A betrayal which both in its depth of sinfulness, and in its width of participation, is breathtaking. Now if you really are reading about the claims of widespread covid-vax-harms for the first time, the way I conceptualize suppression has it that your chosen inattention, that is, your chosen neglect of dissident voices and platforms in an era of increased censorship and suppression, is not part of the sin here. It helps it along, and is its own kind of lesser sin, but is something distinct. To offer one example, I was astounded this spring to encounter a very sensible clergyman who knew nothing of the vax-harm claims I have just related. Zip. Despite his general brilliance and Christ-likeness, and his attending to a number of conservative-leaning experts in his field who do engage in some reflection on current affairs, the suppression campaign had worked in his case. While strictly speaking he chose his ignorance, the suppressors made it the most likely of his choices to fall into. This three-part essay is not, however, about the phenomenon of chosen ignorance, either as it occurs among those regular citizens duped by the suppression, or among those journalists and politicians simultaneously duped by it and engaged in it themselves. Rather, it is primarily focused on, and addressed to, those leaders in journalism and politics who by now know, or strongly suspect, that there is something to the claims of widespread covid-vax-harms, and thus, that their chosen inactions have added up to a suppression of a key story.
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
This excerpt from Carl Eric Scott's essay intensifies the argument against what he sees as a widespread and deliberate suppression of critical information regarding the dangers of COVID-19 vaccines. Scott's contention is that this suppression is not just a mere oversight or a result of bias but a brazen and extensive campaign to bury a story that could have catastrophic implications if proven true.
He presents the claims as monumental: that COVID-19 vaccines may have caused millions of deaths and injuries, with long-term consequences that could be even more severe. Furthermore, Scott suggests that the organizations responsible for public health and safety, along with pharmaceutical companies, are engaged in a criminal cover-up to prevent this information from reaching the public.
Scott’s argument hinges on the fact that many respected "dissident" voices—those challenging the mainstream narrative—have not been adequately refuted. He lists several examples of evidence that have not faced serious challenge or replication attempts by the scientific community or media, which he sees as further proof of suppression.
The essay draws a stark analogy between the media and political class's failure to address these claims and a grand jury that, despite having substantial evidence of a crime, refuses to indict or even inform the judge. In Scott's view, this refusal amounts to a profound betrayal of journalistic and public-service duty. He suggests that many readers might not have heard of the individuals and claims he mentions because of this deliberate suppression, implying that the media has failed to fulfill its role as a watchdog and has instead become complicit in a cover-up.
Scott also acknowledges that some people, including well-informed individuals like the clergyman he mentions, may be entirely unaware of these claims due to the success of the suppression campaign. While he differentiates this chosen ignorance from the more egregious sin of active suppression, he still sees it as a significant problem that enables the suppression to succeed.
In essence, Scott's essay is a clarion call to those in journalism and politics who might suspect there is truth to these claims but have remained silent. He argues that their inaction is not just a failure but a willful participation in a betrayal of their duty to the public. By framing the issue in such stark terms, Scott challenges these leaders to break the silence and confront the potentially devastating truth he believes has been kept from the public.
You said:
And their number has been growing. True, most of our suppressors, and particularly the ones in professional conservative circles, fell into a pattern of avoiding the covid-vax-harm story without really understanding what they were doing. In many cases they assumed it “wasn’t their beat,” and that they were obliged to accept the statements from the official science agencies. They were duped, which explains much of their behavior in 2021, 2022, and possibly, in 2023 also. But 2024 is a different time. Most of the suppressors know enough by now to draw the necessary conclusion, which is this: the sum of their choices to avoid the topic can only be regarded as a choice in favor of continuing the suppression. (For further detail on a.) my usage of “suppression,” b.) how conservatives are engaged in it, and c.) how the widespread covid-vax harms story is itself but a part, though most important one, of a larger Covid/Vax Disaster story, see previous essays of mine linked to in this footnote.)¹ 2044 Imagine a scene two decades from now. An editor or executive of one of today’s conservative punditry/news outlets is queried by his adult son, age 30: “I’ve been reading up on the Covid/Vax Disaster, and particularly the Silent Massacre part of it, and some are saying that you must have played a role in the Suppression of that story. Is that true?” And since this son is sharp and well-informed, and so much evidence has stacked-up over the years, all the father’s deflections and excuses, which for so long seemed automatically effective, now fall flat. Thus, at some point in this painful conversation, our now-elderly editor or executive, for whom the word “conservative” once meant so much, connected as it was to other words and phrases of sacred import, must admit the truth, or at least the bulk of it. He was caught up in a niche-elite-omerta about the unfolding calamity. He helped his “conservative” elites help the progressivist ones, especially the key players in the medical, military, and intelligence agencies of the administrative state. He became a denier-via-silence of a set of their crimes which nearly everyone now regards as abominations, and ones which should have been the subject of every third headline. They were crimes which in certain ways had a close moral resemblance to the Holocaust, the Holodomor, and other totalitarian atrocities of the 20th-century, even if, yes, they were distinct by a number of fundamental legal definitions which classify degrees of intention, and also by being significantly less destructive in terms of cumulative body-count.² The son knows that the father’s articles or speeches in the times before the Disaster, or even during it, featured all those fine phrases about Rejecting ‘The Lie,’ about Core Principles, and so on; but alas, they condemn him now. And the scene may be adjusted to become even more painful, as the above one assumes what we should not: the continuance of our liberal democracies. Picture, then, the son-confronts-father scene in a 2044 where outright despotism or collapse has come. The son’s shaming of the Suppressor becomes aggressive: “Had you not gotten conservatives used to lying and staying silent for the sake of supposed ‘tactical advantage,’ then that, and then …[here follows a chain of causes]… and finally this, would never have happened!!!” It may in significant part be unfair, but, it has an undeniable core of truth.
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
This continuation of Carl Eric Scott's essay explores the consequences of what he views as the ongoing suppression of the COVID-19 vaccine harms story. Scott acknowledges that many of those involved in suppressing this narrative, particularly within conservative circles, may not have fully understood what they were doing at the outset. In the early years of the pandemic, he argues, there was a tendency to defer to official science agencies and avoid challenging the mainstream narrative, often because it was perceived as outside their domain or expertise.
However, as time has passed, Scott asserts that by 2024, the suppressors—especially those in conservative media—can no longer claim ignorance. They have seen enough evidence to recognize that their continued silence and avoidance of the topic amount to a deliberate choice to suppress the story. This, he argues, is a betrayal of the very principles these individuals once claimed to uphold, including the commitment to truth and the rejection of lies.
Scott imagines a future scenario, set in 2044, where an adult son confronts his father, a former conservative media executive, about his role in suppressing the COVID-19 vaccine harms story. The conversation is depicted as painful and unavoidable, with the father unable to deflect or excuse his past actions. The son, well-informed and sharp, is aware of the overwhelming evidence that has accumulated over the years, and the father's attempts to justify his silence fall flat. This imagined confrontation forces the father to admit that he was part of an elite circle that chose to remain silent about what has come to be seen as a major atrocity—a "Silent Massacre."
Scott draws a provocative comparison between the suppression of the COVID-19 vaccine harms story and the moral failures of those who were complicit in past totalitarian atrocities, such as the Holocaust and the Holodomor. While he acknowledges that the scale and legal definitions of these events differ, he argues that the moral resemblance is close enough to warrant serious reflection. The essay suggests that those who have participated in the suppression, whether through active denial or passive silence, may one day face the same kind of moral reckoning as those who were complicit in past atrocities.
The essay also contemplates a more dystopian future, where the consequences of this suppression have led to the collapse of liberal democracies or the rise of outright despotism. In this scenario, the son's confrontation with his father becomes even more aggressive, as he blames the father's complicity for the chain of events that led to the current state of affairs. Scott emphasizes that while such a future may seem extreme or even unfair, there is an undeniable core of truth to the idea that the suppression of truth can have far-reaching and devastating consequences.
Overall, Scott's essay is a stark warning to those in positions of power and influence, urging them to break their silence and confront the uncomfortable truths about the COVID-19 vaccines. He argues that failing to do so not only betrays their own principles but also contributes to a broader moral failure that could have catastrophic consequences for society as a whole.
You said:
Aims of This Essay The above sketch is not the key argument against conservative participation in the suppression. For one thing, while it turns on consequences for personal happiness, those guided in moral decisions by a Kant-like mindset, by a Glauconian or Adeimantian spirit(Pl., Rep., II), or most importantly, by the Bible’s truth that God has His “Eyes on You,” believe that far more decisive arguments against that participation exist. I sketch it because this essay is an attempt to step into the shoes of those I call the “supservatives,” i.e., the conservatives who suppress the story of the vax-harms. I will do so by exploring the best arguments they might make for what they are doing, and, by speculating about what they believe the consequences of this course will be for their own lives, and for the health of constitutional democracy. My main aim is to make those hesitating between the supservatives’ camp, and that of the Reckoning-demanding dissidents, realize that the first is destined, either sooner or later, to become the ground of spiritual and practical ruin. I want them to see that that camp’s best possible arguments--which by the very nature of the suppression cannot be openly voiced while it remains in operation—do not work, and cannot constitute some higher prudence. So on one hand, my aim is to make plain the choice, to bring the sword of division. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it, regarding his long struggles with the Nazi-accommodating church leaders, “the sooner the conflict is revealed in the clear light of day, the better.” (Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, 183) Bonhoeffers’ opponents in church leadership accused him of being a conflict-savorer, but he knew his stand reflected a fundamental choice, one between “Christianity or Germanism.”(183) I take a similar stand, involving lesser but still quite serious stakes: I say we must now choose between authentic Conservativism and a Narrativism of the Right. While Conservativism recognizes the perennial necessity in politics to utilize rhetoric, and in rare cases—mostly ones of wartime or emergency executive action--, tactics of outright deception, it remains a political creed dedicated to integrity, and to the open and truth-seeking public discussion essential to constitutional democracy. It expects a government class and a journalistic class committed at bottom to what certain classic liberal thinkers of the French tradition called publicité, i.e., a basic transparency about major issues. In contrast, the Narrativism of the Right is a new political path which aims to compete against the nearly all-lies-all-the-time Narrativism of the Democrat Elites with one of its own that will only lie, propagandize, and suppress a fifth or so of the time, and only about certain issues, such as the covid-vax-harms one. But a secondary aim is to explore whether there could be grounds for a dialogue of reconciliation between the dissidents who stay true to real conservativism, and a certain set of the supservatives. The certain set I have in mind are those who are for the suppression continuing for the sake of getting Trump in office, but ending it at some point once he has been elected, and has come through an initial period long enough to posit basic safety from deep-state coup, say, 100 or 200 days in. At that point, these would begin to publish the covid-vax-harms story. Sometimes, the Peacemaker must first bring Division. Distinctions and judgments insisted upon are part of this. Premises and Initial Conclusions Premise 1: The Claims of Widespread Harms from the Covid-Vaxxes Are Numerous Enough, and Convincing Enough, That They Would Be Highly Persuasive to Citizens Were They to Learn of Them from More Regular Media Channels. --Clarification 1.1: “Widespread” = 500,000 to 17,000,000 deaths so far across the world, with more expected; injuries 2x to 20x this amount, depending on how one defines injury. Again, note that the four key claims I listed and linked to above, which have in no way been refuted, nor even challenged in a pause-causing way. And for my own (limited) reporting on more recently-made claims, see: “Dr. Peter McCullough on the State of the Information,” “Recent Must-See Vids on the Covid/Vax Disaster, Part III,” “3 Quick Vids and a Graph,” and “Recent Must-See Vids on the Covid/Vax Disaster, Part II." Premise 2: Liberal Democracy Must Encourage Open Discussion of Issues, Especially Ones Which Widely Impact the Citizenry; Its Journalists Should Serve This Commitment. Up until the early aughts, most Americans took this premise for granted. As a supplementary prelude to this essay, I wrote “The Purpose of Open Journalism and Free Speech: Francis Canavan, the US Supreme Court, and the Present Crises of Censorship and Suppression,” which in large part consisted of quotations from court cases which spell out the arguments for this premise, though it ends with agreeing quotations from French liberal thinkers on the concept of publicité. The piece could have added in similar quotations from America’s Founders as well. Initial Conclusion A: Putting Premises 1 and 2 Together, It Is the Duty of Most Every Journalistic Outfit in Our Democracies to Provide Regular Coverage of the Covid-Vax-Harm Issue. Clarification A1: the time when this conclusion became undeniable, and thus, the time when this duty became binding, was no later than the end of 2022. Clarification A2: “regular coverage” means something in the neighborhood of 2-10% of all stories and pieces by an outlet. Clarification A3: “coverage” means specific discussion of the estimated numerical scope of the covid-vax deaths and injuries, and it means interviews w/ key dissident experts on the specific topic of covid-vax harms. For an explanation of how The Federalist cleverly violated the first requirement, and another of how Fox News cleverly violated the second, see the links in Footnote 1. Clarification A4: In addition to the duty of journalists and pundits, all national-level and state-level politicians from that point forward had a similar duty, albeit less pressing and subject to more qualification, to mention it to the public, to put bills requiring investigations and data releases forward, and to themselves pressure journalists to cover this story. Remember: every national representative has a website which they can use to push stories, regular opportunities to speak to the public, and aides who can put releases together for them.
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
In this essay, Carl Eric Scott attempts to step into the mindset of what he terms "supservatives," or conservative figures who have chosen to suppress the story of COVID-19 vaccine harms. His primary goal is to examine and critique the arguments they might make to justify their actions, while also exploring the potential consequences of their suppression for both personal integrity and the health of constitutional democracy.
Aims of the Essay
Stepping into the Shoes of Supservatives: Scott's primary aim is to understand the reasoning behind the actions of those conservatives who have chosen to suppress the vaccine harms story. He wants to explore the best possible arguments they might offer for their actions and consider what they believe the consequences will be for their own lives and for constitutional democracy.
Highlighting the Inevitability of Ruin: Scott argues that the path chosen by the supservatives—suppressing the truth to achieve a political end, such as getting Trump back into office—is destined to lead to both spiritual and practical ruin. He aims to convince those who are hesitating between the supservative camp and the camp of Reckoning-demanding dissidents that the former is unsustainable and ultimately destructive.
Bringing the Sword of Division: Echoing the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Scott emphasizes the necessity of revealing conflicts clearly and openly. He advocates for a decisive choice between "authentic Conservativism" and a new "Narrativism of the Right," which he defines as a political strategy that mirrors the narrative control of Democrat elites but operates with slightly less dishonesty and suppression.
Exploring Grounds for Reconciliation: Despite his strong critique, Scott also considers whether there might be a possibility for reconciliation between true conservative dissidents and a subset of supservatives. Specifically, he contemplates whether there could be a scenario where supservatives, after securing a political victory like Trump's re-election, might then choose to end their suppression and openly address the vaccine harms story.
Premises and Initial Conclusions
Premise 1:
Scott asserts that the claims of widespread harms from the COVID-19 vaccines are both numerous and convincing enough that they would be highly persuasive to the general public if more widely covered by mainstream media.
Clarification 1.1:
Scott defines "widespread" harm as potentially ranging from 500,000 to 17,000,000 deaths globally, with injuries potentially two to twenty times higher, depending on definitions.
Premise 2:
Scott argues that liberal democracy relies on open discussion of issues, especially those that have a significant impact on the citizenry. Journalists, in particular, have a duty to facilitate this open discussion.
Initial Conclusion A:
Combining these premises, Scott concludes that it is the duty of nearly every journalistic outlet in democratic societies to provide regular coverage of the COVID-19 vaccine harms issue.
Clarification A1:
The point at which this duty became undeniable, according to Scott, was no later than the end of 2022.Clarification A2:
"Regular coverage" should constitute approximately 2-10% of an outlet's total stories.Clarification A3:
Coverage should include specific discussions of the estimated numerical scope of vaccine-related deaths and injuries and interviews with key dissident experts.Clarification A4:
Scott also extends this duty to national and state-level politicians, who should have been raising this issue with the public and pushing for investigations and transparency.
Conclusion
Scott's essay is a pointed critique of those conservatives who have chosen to suppress the story of COVID-19 vaccine harms. He challenges the justification for this suppression and warns of the moral and practical consequences of continuing down this path. At the same time, he leaves open the possibility of reconciliation, suggesting that there may still be a way for these "supservatives" to redeem themselves by eventually bringing the truth to light. Ultimately, Scott calls for a clear and decisive choice between integrity and the continued propagation of a narrative that, in his view, is fundamentally at odds with the principles of true conservatism.
You said:
Premise 3: Because The Democratic Party Is All-In on General Censorship and Reality-Denial, and on Specific Protection of Elites Guilty of Covid/Vax Disaster Crimes, It Would Be Pointless to Concentrate Criticism of the Suppression on the the “MSM.” Democrat-controlled institutions and agencies will never repent of the original Covid/Vax Disaster crimes, nor of the connected suppression and censorship sins; for these are a subset of the overall sins of The Administrative State, an entity the Democrats worship and serve; additionally, all these sins and crimes illustrate the Party’s total acceptance of Narrativism. Thus, only a radical re-founding of the Democratic Party could make such repentance possible. Premise 4: Many if Not Most Conservatives, However, May Still Be Brought to Repent of Their Participation in the Suppression. Clarification 4.1: the same may also apply to other political groups not utterly corrupt in the manner of the regular Democrats, such as the libertarians, the old-school liberals (a la Barri Weiss), and perhaps, new groups of “democracy-first democratic socialists” which, as far as I know, have yet to be formed. Initial Conclusion B: Putting Premises 3 and 4 Together, the Key Ideological Ground We Must Fight Suppression-Acceptance off from Is That of Conservatism. This explains my focus. And it explains, if you notice me screaming about the Suppressionist sins, of say, Laura Ingraham, it doesn’t mean that I don’t notice the even worse ones of the Dem-apparachtiks in the “MSM.” The ground is key because, as I said recently said here: …conservatives’ souls, our ability to maintain friendships, and in the future to build institutions, are now all on the line with this issue. If conservatives, no matter how otherwise based, religious, risk-taking, and loyal to the deepest principles, keep admitting the disease of this silence into themselves, it will rot from the inside any impressive thing they might achieve during what we all hope will be Trump’s second term and a longer rebound of Americans into political sanity. And if you dislike the moralism in that, try this: Those conservatives who do not wield against their enemies this greatest free gift of rhetorical advantage that ever fell before anyone’s feet, this massive club spiked with ten-thousand shocking facts, among them thousands of videos of victims weeping over their disabilities or lost loved-one, facts which prove that the right’s long-voiced worries about the growth of the administrative state were entirely correct, indeed underestimated, and which utterly discredit scientism to boot, are political strategy dunces. Here’s the leader of the hour, himself not an intellectual, calling upon us to “Fight! Fight! Fight!,” and all these word-smiths, all these thinkers, many of whom congratulate themselves for their Bravery in identifying as “anti-Woke,” “post-Enlightenment,” “post-feminist,” or what-have-you, will not pick up that club!!! It’s as if they heard him say, “Do Not Disturb! Do Not Disturb! Do Not Disturb!” The Two Basic Categories of Conservative Suppressors The Unknowing Suppressors They still don’t see the evidence for premise 1. Again, their ignorance and confusion are their own fault, though to some degree those are the products of the Suppression working on them. It could be the case that this group still constitutes the majority of conservative suppressors—that is, I concede I could be wrong in positing that most of them know that the harms are widespread by now. But that doesn’t mean my concentrating our attention in this essay upon the knowing types, particularly in parts two and three, isn’t a better path to clarifying things. The Knowing Suppressors All of these accept premise 1, but will not admit this in public. Further, all of these either reject premise 2, or believe an exception to it must be made in this case. To reject premise 2 is to reject and oppose liberal democracy, that is, it logically must become an attempt to change it into something else. Therefore, those persons cannot be conservatives by any coherent definition, because conservatism correctly understood is a specific political creed dedicated to defending liberal democracy. It may be open to the application of pre-liberal and monarchist understandings to the defense and shaping of modern democracy, but it does not, outside of emergency situations deemed to be temporary ones, advocate returning to an essentially non-democratic or non-liberal regime. Thus, using new words to describe those “conservatives” who reject premise 2, such as the terms I have coined, “supservatives” and “Right Narrativists,” is fully justified.
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Aims of This Essay
The initial sketch of conservative participation in the suppression of the COVID-vaccine harm narrative is not the central argument against such participation. The sketch primarily focuses on the potential consequences for personal happiness, but this is not the most decisive argument. Those guided by a Kantian moral framework, a Glauconian or Adeimantian spirit as found in Plato's Republic (Book II), or by the Biblical truth that God is always watching, believe that far stronger arguments exist against participating in this suppression.
This essay attempts to step into the shoes of what I term "supservatives"—conservatives who are actively suppressing the COVID-vaccine harm story. I aim to explore the best possible arguments they might use to justify their actions, as well as speculate on what they believe the consequences of this course of action will be for their own lives and for the health of constitutional democracy.
My primary goal is to persuade those who are hesitating between the supservatives' camp and that of the dissidents who demand accountability to realize that the former path leads inevitably to spiritual and practical ruin. I want to demonstrate that the arguments supservatives might rely on—arguments they cannot openly voice while the suppression is ongoing—are fundamentally flawed and cannot be considered a form of higher prudence.
In essence, my goal is to clarify the choice at hand and to sharpen the division between the two camps. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer stated during his struggles with Nazi-accommodating church leaders, "the sooner the conflict is revealed in the clear light of day, the better" (Bonhoeffer by Eric Metaxas, p. 183). Bonhoeffer's opponents accused him of savoring conflict, but he understood that his stand represented a fundamental choice between "Christianity or Germanism" (p. 183). Similarly, I argue that we must now choose between authentic conservatism and a new, dangerous "Narrativism of the Right."
Conservatism, while recognizing the necessity of rhetoric in politics and, in rare cases, outright deception (mostly during wartime or emergency situations), is fundamentally a political creed dedicated to integrity, open discussion, and truth-seeking, which are essential to constitutional democracy. It expects a governing and journalistic class committed to basic transparency on major issues. In contrast, the Narrativism of the Right seeks to compete with the all-encompassing deception of Democratic elites by propagating its own, albeit less frequent, narrative manipulation—particularly regarding issues like COVID-vaccine harms.
A secondary goal of this essay is to explore the possibility of reconciliation between true conservatives and a subset of supservatives. This subset consists of those who believe the suppression should continue only until Trump is re-elected, with the suppression ending after an initial period, say 100 or 200 days, to ensure safety from deep-state retaliation. At that point, they would begin to openly address the COVID-vaccine harm story.
Sometimes, division is necessary before reconciliation can occur. Insisting on clear distinctions and judgments is part of this process.
Premises and Initial Conclusions
Premise 1: The claims of widespread harms from COVID vaccines are numerous and convincing enough that they would be highly persuasive to the public if covered by regular media channels.
Clarification 1.1: By "widespread," I refer to an estimated 500,000 to 17,000,000 deaths worldwide, with more expected, and injuries estimated at 2x to 20x that amount, depending on the definition of injury.
Premise 2: Liberal democracy must encourage open discussion of issues, especially those that widely impact citizens; its journalists should be committed to this principle.
Initial Conclusion A: Given premises 1 and 2, it is the duty of most journalistic outlets in democracies to provide regular coverage of the COVID-vaccine harm issue.
Clarification A1: The time when this duty became undeniable was no later than the end of 2022.
Clarification A2: "Regular coverage" should constitute 2-10% of all stories by an outlet.
Clarification A3: Coverage should include specific discussions of the estimated numerical scope of COVID-vaccine deaths and injuries and interviews with key dissident experts.
Clarification A4: In addition to the duty of journalists, national and state-level politicians have a similar duty to address this issue.
Premise 3: Because the Democratic Party is fully committed to censorship, reality-denial, and protecting elites guilty of COVID/vaccine disaster crimes, it is pointless to concentrate criticism of suppression on the mainstream media (MSM).
The Democratic Party will not repent for these crimes, as they are a subset of the broader sins of the Administrative State, which the Democrats support. Only a radical re-founding of the Democratic Party could change this.
Premise 4: Many conservatives, however, may still be brought to repent of their participation in the suppression.
Clarification 4.1: This may also apply to other political groups not entirely corrupt, such as libertarians, old-school liberals (e.g., Bari Weiss), and potential new groups of "democracy-first democratic socialists."
Initial Conclusion B: Given premises 3 and 4, the key ideological ground to focus on for resisting suppression is that of conservatism.
This explains the focus of this essay. If I criticize conservative figures like Laura Ingraham, it does not mean I overlook the worse actions of Democratic operatives in the MSM. The focus is crucial because the integrity and future of conservatism, as well as its ability to maintain friendships and build institutions, depend on addressing this issue.
Those conservatives who fail to wield the rhetorical advantage of exposing COVID-vaccine harms—despite overwhelming evidence and public outcry—are committing a grave strategic error. The failure to use this opportunity to challenge the administrative state and scientism shows a lack of political acumen.
The Two Basic Categories of Conservative Suppressors
The Unknowing Suppressors: These individuals still do not recognize the evidence supporting Premise 1. Their ignorance and confusion are partially due to the effectiveness of the suppression, but they are still responsible for their lack of awareness.
The Knowing Suppressors: These individuals accept Premise 1 but refuse to admit it publicly. They either reject Premise 2 or believe that an exception must be made in this case.
To reject Premise 2 is to reject liberal democracy and attempt to transform it into something else. Therefore, these individuals cannot be considered true conservatives, as conservatism is fundamentally dedicated to defending liberal democracy.
The terms "supservatives" and "Right Narrativists" are justified to describe these individuals, as they represent a departure from genuine conservatism.
You said:
The Two Types of the Knowing Suppressors These are the Indefinite Suppressors, and the Temporary Tactical Suppressors. The first want the Suppression to continue indefinitely, the latter want it to end fairly soon, early in what they hope will be Trump’s second term. And yet, by the very nature of the activity, no Knowing Suppressor will admit in public that he is. And we can expect that if a public Reckoning does come, many a Knowing Suppressor will pretend to have been an Unknowing one all the way through. In any case, in parts Two and Three of this essay, I will seek to articulate the main justifications which I assume these two types of knowing suppressors of the right would offer for their behavior, were they assured of the conversation remaining private. That is, I will provide two imagined dialogues, between myself and each of these two kinds of knowing suppressors. Stay tuned… 1 On a.) and c.), see “My Covid/Vax Disaster Lexicon,” on b.), see recent articles on why Fox News and The Federalist are guilty of suppression, and why Eric Metaxas is not; for my earliest protest against the pattern, see here, and for my most developed example see here. 2 We have every reason to expect that the total body count will wind up being quite a bit less than the 120 or so million corpses piled-up by the Nazi and Communist actions against non-combatants over the course of the 20th-century. At present it looks like the estimates by 2044 could not get beyond the 40 million mark, and if the injections yield less long-term damage than is feared, final numbers as “low” as 6-20 million deaths strongly-suspected-to-have-been-primarily-caused-by-the-CV-19-vaxxes could be possible. But given what little we know about the mechanisms of the various adverse events, and particularly with respect to immunity and cancer, much higher counts cannot yet be rationally ruled out. This is also a good place to underline my disagreement with those dissidents who by insisting that “mistakes were not made,” and by not providing tighter definitions of their own terms, seem to imply that the millions of deaths, whatever the final count winds up at, were intended, and intended by most of those involved in the various conspiracies to cover-up the harms. Make no mistake: health agency, corporate, and hospital/pharmacy actions to cover-up unintended harms are definitely crimes, but even if one of the wilder posited scenarios of “conspiracy to cull” or “conspiracy to experiment with new weapons” proved to be true, only the actions of the select group of masterminds would constitute intended killings (i.e., instances of first- or second- degree murder).
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Your essay seems to delve into the complexities of censorship and suppression related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the vaccine discourse, particularly focusing on conservative circles. Here’s a summary and some thoughts on the different aspects you’re addressing:
Premise 3: The Democratic Party’s Role in Suppression
You argue that the Democratic Party is deeply embedded in a culture of censorship, reality-denial, and protection of elites involved in the COVID/vaccine situation. This, according to your premise, is due to the Party's broader commitment to the Administrative State, which they both "worship and serve." Because of this entrenched position, you suggest that focusing criticism on the mainstream media (MSM) is pointless since these outlets are merely extensions of the Party's ideology.
Premise 4: Potential for Conservative Repentance
In contrast, you propose that conservatives and other groups (like libertarians and old-school liberals) might still be convinced to acknowledge and repent for their role in suppressing the truth about COVID-19 and vaccines. You suggest that the ideological battleground should be within conservatism, as winning over conservatives could potentially lead to a broader rejection of suppression.
Initial Conclusion B: Focus on Conservative Ground
You argue that because the conservative movement still holds the potential for ideological flexibility and repentance, it is crucial to focus on combating suppression within this group. You highlight that failing to address the suppression issue within conservatism could lead to the internal decay of the movement, regardless of any political successes.
The Two Types of Knowing Suppressors
You differentiate between two types of conservatives who knowingly engage in suppression:
Indefinite Suppressors: Those who want the suppression to continue indefinitely, perhaps to protect certain interests or narratives.
Temporary Tactical Suppressors: Those who hope to end suppression once certain political goals (like Trump's second term) are achieved.
You note the difficulty in identifying these individuals because they would never admit to their actions publicly. You also anticipate that if a public reckoning occurs, many who knowingly engaged in suppression might claim ignorance.
Imagined Dialogues in Parts Two and Three
You plan to explore these ideas further by presenting imagined dialogues with representatives of the two types of knowing suppressors. This approach could offer insights into the justifications these individuals might use to rationalize their actions.
Final Thoughts
Your essay seems to be an attempt to address the ethical and strategic implications of suppression within the conservative movement, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. By distinguishing between those who unknowingly and knowingly engage in suppression, you aim to clarify the moral and ideological stakes for conservatives.
The challenge you face is how to persuade those who may be deeply entrenched in their positions to acknowledge and confront the suppression. This is particularly difficult given the complexities of political allegiances and the potential consequences of admitting fault.
Your approach of using imagined dialogues could be effective in exploring these complexities and providing a deeper understanding of the motivations behind suppression. The success of this effort will likely depend on how well you can balance the moral arguments with the strategic considerations that may influence conservative behavior.
References:
