My hunch is that the ‘great man’ won’t reply this time, either because my sending address is indeed tagged for his spam folder, or because he does indeed regard my emails as a waste of his time.
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 10:58 AM
From: "rippon
To: "Chomsky,
Subject: ‘red traffic lights and covid jabs’
Dear Mr Chomsky,
This global campaign of jabbing billions of people (including children, where even those of toddler age are in the targeting sights of the jab-pushers) is an affront to science and basic human morality, e.g. the Nuremberg principles.
Anyone who backs this campaign is doing so out of a religious-type faith in the ‘science’ being peddled by global players, e.g. WHO, UN, big-pharma, GatesFoundation, many governments, big-media.
The ‘science’ behind the professed route to good public health (e.g. masks, lockdowns, covid ‘vaccines’) is a mixture of flawed (e.g. in the case of those who are acting in good faith but mistaken in their education, understanding and outlook), fraudulent (e.g. in the case of those scientists who know better but bury that knowledge to suit others, e.g. big-pharma paymasters) and immoral (e.g. in the case of those who are suppressing info about vaccine-damage).
You have thrown around idiotic phrases like “dedicated killer” to describe those, e.g. anti-vaxxers, who are against what is going on. You have made a mockery of your own professed faith in true-education (as opposed to indoctrination) and science (as opposed to ideology and religion) by speaking exactly like a religious fanatic yourself.
– ‘made a mockery’ because you have apparently read, let alone debunked (or cited anyone who debunks), none of the scientists and medics who strongly caution against this jabbing campaign, if not ‘vaccines’ (and, indeed, most allopathic drugs and invasive procedures) in general.
A particularly striking aspect of the covid propaganda is the way in which it radically changes the heretofore understanding of ‘vaccine’. Before 2021, everyone understood a ‘vaccine’ to be a jab you would take once (typicallly in childhood) to provide immunity to a virus and subsequently never worry about the medical status of anyone near you because you were protected. And that protection would be lifelong or, at worst, require a booster every decade or two.
Now you have readily swallowed the new definition: a vaccine is something that merely reduces the probability of illness and infection, and the protection can be mere months so that boosters might be required more than once per year.
You are apparently completely ignorant of the revisionist history of medicine and vaccines. It would be intellectually reasonable to disagree with that alternative and say why the establishment version of history is superior. But you don’t do that, so, regardless of the political position you take (pro-establishment), you have failed at a more fundamental level - as an intellectual. An intellectual could be of any ideology (e.g. pro-establishment, like you) but, as an intellectual, his first responsibility is to dissect and debunk the arguments of the other side.
But you have simply ‘argued’ like a juvenile, repeatedly bleating pat phrases (e.g. “the evidence is overwhelming”) to ‘support’ your position. And your ‘evidence’ is just instances of correlation.
If you ever do rise above juvenile mentality and focus on the more difficult problem of establishing causation instead of, like a child, focusing on the simple problem of spotting a correlation, then you might appreciate the alternative-medicine outlook. For example, antibiotics: the high presence of certain bacteria in a sick person does not mean that those bacteria are causing the illness, so ingesting an antibiotic to kill those bacteria is wrong-headed. The bacteria might be doing a clean-up job, so killing them could be exactly the wrong route.
The dissident perspective regarding covid jabbing is similar to that on nuclear power. The argument against nuclear power is that it’s a dangerous technology whose consequences cannot be controlled nor predicted adequately; but we do have good knowledge about the dire consequences for human health when things go wrong. Therefore, stop or, at most, proceed with utmost caution.
Now, you might regard nuclear power technology as perfectly safe and argue that we should race ahead with it for good reasons, e.g. prevent hospitals from losing power. What intellectuals and scientists (the ones with any integrity), who support nuclear power, endeavour to do is, take the anti-nuclear arguments, dissect and debunk them. Now we come to another field of brand new technology: covid ‘vaccines’. With this technology, you have abandoned the norms and conventions of intellect and science. You deliberately repeatedly choose to ignore the dissident science (e.g. from Mike Yeadon). You do not dissect and debunk it, nor do you cite any experts who do that.
If the dissidents are correct in their analysis and predictions regarding this global jabbing campaign, governments are now engaged in the biggest crime against humanity in history.
You argue that the practice of people accepting vaccines should have the status of a commonly understood convention/norm in society. But for anyone to argue anything, they should observe the conventions and norms of intellect and science. You don’t do that, which means that your ‘argument’ (an elevated term for your juvenile thinking) is mere mantra (“the evidence is overwhelming!”) and propaganda.
Now, in a free-speech society, and by the logic you espoused in past decades (when your mental faculties were still intact), you should indeed be allowed to spout dangerous garbage. The ‘logic’ you employ now says that people who oppose your desired norm regarding vaccines should be isolated because they endanger all of us.
You are advocating for a slippery slope because, as the realisation grows that the global jabbing campaign is a danger to public health, then your own logic dictates that you yourself should be isolated because you have abandoned the ethical norms of humanity that underlie all other norms (e.g. your desired vaccine norms), i.e. the norms of rational argument, thus making you a danger to all of us.
There is legal work going on around the world (e.g. by Reiner Fuellmich) to bring charges against the leading lights in the jabbing-campaign, e.g. Faucci, based on the fact that the science is fraudulent. This drama will probably take at least a decade to play out, not least because the drama surrounding another instance of totalitarianism (Nazi Germany) continues to play out many decades on. Apart from those, e.g. Faucci, implementing the plan, there are also the propagandists, e.g. yourself, promoting it. It is not clear at this stage against whom charges may be brought and whether that will include propagandists.
You may have nothing to worry about, though, because, in your nineties, you might pass away before anyone can arrest you.
You showed some cognisance of the responsibility of intellectuals in your youth (because you wrote a famous essay with that very title). The very first responsibility of them is to observe their norms of intellectual engagement (e.g. rational argument, the scientific method). You effectively (through your silence about it) declare openly your zero interest in the output of the thousands of scientists around the world who expose the scientific fraud that is underway - particularly now, but has in fact been the case with allopathic medicine for the last century. Now you show zero cognisance. Your position now, then, is not a good one, but it could at least be admissible if people took the view that you are not an intellectual anyway, so those norms don’t apply. That increasingly seems to be the case because, in a very recent excretion from you (on youtube), you argued, again, like a dumb teenager suffering Dunning-Kruger delusion - in your idiotic analogy between obeying red traffic lights and obeying vaccine mandates.
That, too, could be part of your way out of the avalanche of denunciation you now face: ‘The guy’s not an intellectual anyway, just another dumb f*cker at the bar who spouts ‘expert’ garbage.’
Your stupidity could save you from a fate worse than denunciation.
But you apparently do consider yourself knowledgeable and wise on the subject of covid (because, as you clumsily put it, you “follow the facts closely”); you apparently do consider yourself a person worth listening to.
In that case, then, either apologise and retract, or brace yourself for the consequences because the resistance might come after not just those implementing the fraud-based totalitarianism but the propagandists supporting it too.
Best wishes,
Rippon
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 7:49 PM
From: "rippon
To: "Chomsky,
Subject: Re: [EXT]advocating for apartheid
Another logical nonsense - to expect a “dedicated killer” to apologise; like the nonsense of expecting immoral people (jab refuseniks) to act decently (isolate themselves from society voluntarily).
Nevertheless, I am ready to meet your demand.
I apologise for making you angry.
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 7:32 PM
From: "Chomsky,
To: "rippon
Subject: Re: [EXT]advocating for apartheid
It is indeed a very serious crisis, but I have no responsibility to waste time with people like you who are trying to make it worse, and who – for whatever reason – are utterly immune to plain fact. Like the fact that unvaccinated people are 11 times more likely to die than vaccinated ones. That the US has the lowest vaccination rate among the wealthy countries and is the prime hot spot in the world of any functioning society. That in Idaho – to take the state you mention --hospitals have to cancel regular treatments because hospitals are crashing under covid cases, almost all unvaccinated. And on and on.
So to repeat, I have no responsibility to waste time with people unable to comprehend that they are dedicated killers, blind to the overwhelming facts before their eyes.
Period. From now on either apology or the spam file
From: rippon
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2021 11:08 AM
To: Chomsky,
Subject: Re: [EXT]advocating for apartheid
“I have no further responsibilities in this matter”
This is a very serious global crisis, so the responsibilities of any functioning adult cannot end, certainly not at this point, and probably not for years to come.
By your own logic, your current and ongoing responsibility in the matter of covid misinformation is as follows.
The problem (from your perspective) is that I am not a lone ‘moron’. Millions of people across the world (e.g. Idaho) reject the establishment covid narrative, but you yourself buy that prescription (masks-lockdowns-jabs) as the way forward.
Here are a few bullet points of what the rejection is based on:
-
The jabs are a serious hazard to public health (as ‘vaccines’ have always been). The mRNA brands don’t even qualify as ‘vaccines’; indeed ‘gene therapy’ is more accurate. It is extremely reckless to conduct this experiment in brand new biotechnology on the global population.
-
Coercing people into making themselves subjects in a human biology experiment breaches the Nuremberg principles.
-
The danger of covid (even if we accept it as significant and not hyped) is being used for political ends - a reset of the global economy by a globalist hegemony caste; the measures (e.g. lockdowns) are not motivated by a concern for public health but by an agenda to further concentrate power and control within that caste.
From your perspective, that (and much else from the resistance) is dangerous misinformation (worse, it is “moronic” “concoctions” “lies” “baseless” “confusions” “blind” etc).
Therefore, those beliefs must be thoroughly debunked. Since you “follow the facts closely” and command a global audience, you naturally have a special responsibility in that debunking exercise.
Since you “follow the facts closely” you will know the output of the leading dissident scientists (e.g. Dr Mike Yeadon, to name just one). The question to you, again, is:
How did you come to the conclusion that the output of the dissidents (e.g. Yeadon) can be rejected? Perhaps you have read some articles somewhere, from eminent scientists on the other side of the fence, where the dissident output has been addressed and debunked.
I myself have provided references to illustrate why I believe what I do. I am simply asking for better references, which you won’t have missed perhaps because you’re following the covid drama more closely than me. Those better references would do the decent job of addressing and debunking the dissidence, not the indecent job of simply dismissing it as ‘moronic blind baseless confused dangerous nonsense’. Dismissing and censoring dissidence tends to stimulate more dissidence.
By your own perspective and logic, then, you certainly do have further responsibility in this matter, as follows: Given what a major threat to humanity covid is, your responsibility is to draw upon your ‘close following of the facts’ to mitigate the dissidence, not to stimulate an entrenching and expansion of morons embracing dangerous nonsense.
(Again, I feel I’m borrowing an argument of your very own: ‘The Responsbility of Intellectuals’, written at a time when you were a Chomsky of the Chomsky-type rather than a Chomsky of the Hitchens-type.)
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 9:34 PM
From: "Chomsky,
To: "rippon
Subject: Re: [EXT]advocating for apartheid
I read your letters carefully, refuted each of your claims accurately with no fallacies logical or other.
If you cannot understand, sorry. I have no further responsibilities in this matter
