Every now and then I read the writings and postings of those with whom I share little in common so that I can observe the world through alternative lenses. Having been raised in a family in which “truth” was curated from a myopic, willfully occluded pious religious perspective – one that selectively curates passages from the Bible as “truth” while rationalizing out all others as irrelevant to the “times” – my impulse is, in part, a calibration on my own perspective and its derivative understandings. In point of fact, I don’t know that I’ve ever met anyone who celebrates “truth” who doesn’t conflate the term with a perspective entirely coherent to their own at the expense of all others. Truth, after all, is a weapon derived from the tyranny of hierarchy and its wielding is merely a feeble attempt to silence perspective. Like “laws” of physics or nature, their reification only precludes a genuine observation of the ever-unfolding evidence of infinitely orthogonal perspective limited only by dogma – both explicit and implicit.
A few days ago, I found myself reading a New York
Times op-ed (“Tucker Carlson’s Dark and Malign Influence Over the Christian
Right”, by David French, May 7, 2023) railing against Tucker Carlson’s
influence on what are classified by the author to be conservative, evangelical
Christians. Common to the critiques of
former President Trump, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and others, allegations of
misogyny, bigotry, and classism were strewn about with the publicly recorded
facts and rumor-based innuendo from former colleagues, leaked e-mails and the
like. To be abundantly clear, I do not endorse
or ignore the public record which includes moments I find ranging from
reprehensible to sophomorically crude. Given
my lack of familiarity with Mr. Carlson, I am in no position to comment on
veracity of the matters of private or collegial character. I can listen to Mr. Carlson’s content and –
common to virtually everyone I’ve heard in any media – find some content
interesting and some distasteful.
But a closer examination of the op-ed was the implication of
the diminution of the class of society labeled as the Christian Right. The underlying message was one of faux
consternation about the malleability and hypocrisy of the ‘religious right’ in
America. And, while I have much to say
about this topic in general, it was the moral superiority subtext that drew my
attention.
The article was shared (and ‘liked’) in many of the
communities who actively promoted the medical countermeasures (MCM) deployed
during the social sabotage marketed as COVID-19. Setting aside that ALL of the public
purveyors (media, governmental, and marketing prostitution) of the MCM have now
been forced by the evidence to disavow statements regarding masking, school
closures, safety and efficacy of experimental therapies, etc. (what a moral
observer might classify as a “LIE”); and setting aside the March 2023
publication “Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis
after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination” published in Clin Res Caridiol
which clearly evidenced death from the MCM (what a moral observer
might classify as statistically justifiable “MURDER”); we are invited to find
Mr. Carlson’s message unacceptable while paying no attention to the degree to
which religion – from Mormon to Muslim from Pope to Pastor – was used to coerce
the public into taking actions that, in the fulness of time have been shown to
be objectively false and deadly.
Be assured that this matter cuts closely to the bone. I’ve lost family, relationships, and all
manner of benefit for asking for accountability and transparency equivalently
applied. I have not asked for
agreement – just consistency. And to date,
I’ve not met a single person prepared to rise to that standard. While offering no evidence to refute a single
statement I have made in public or private over the past 3 years, I’m merely
canceled and ignored by those who once celebrated my uncommon perspective.
I’ve lived every day of my life under the specter of dogma
and its evil twins “right” and “shame”. And
it is with a bit of irony that I found myself agreeing with the author of the
op-ed in a rather fundamental way.
Insofar as the critique was on the idolatry of selective hypocrisy –
where stated values can be suspended for the “greater good” – I find myself in
vigorous agreement. And this is where
the article – if seen for its commentary value – has a great deal to offer. Would that we, as a society, examine the
degree to which religion has served as the syringe through which the opioid of
suppressing inquiry is delivered to the masses!
Would that we hold those in influence and power accountable to our
highest standards rather that “locker-room” trash talk! All fair points.
But, my dear New York Times reader…
Before we cast aspersions on the gullible religious right,
how about we engage in a dialog that includes enough self-reflection such as it
might inspire a bit of objectivity?
Where is the coverage on media suppression of now commonly accepted
facts that were classified BY THE New York Times as mis- or
disinformation just months ago? Where is
the effort to purge “Fact Checking” that was clearly false and misleading so
that besmirched reputations can be cleared?
Where is the author’s consternation in the FACT that we know have a
proliferation of speech suppression bills and laws that suggest that
questioning the narrative of authority is “domestic terrorism” while the very
institutions seeking defense have been indicted by their own evidence as having
lied to the public?
As recently as a few days ago, my statement that mRNA
injections were classified as “experimental gene therapy” by the FDA in April
2020 was “fact-checked” as “false”.
This, despite the fact that I am reciting the exact statements
made by Moderna and BioNTech in their SEC Filings of April and June of 2020.
“Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by
the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies
that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects,
mRNA-based medicines are designed not to irreversibly change cell DNA; however side
effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA
medicines despite the differences in mechanisms. The number and design of clinical trials and
preclinical studies required for approval of these types of medicines have not
been established…”
You think?
Apparently, the enlightened religious elite – those who
celebrate Mr. French’s version of morality – take solace in the presumption
that statistically estimated “lifesaving” triumphs over AUTOPSY based
evidence. After all, the Good Shepherd
always plays the law of numbers, right?
He stays with the 99 while leaving the 1 lost sheep to the wolves.
If COVID-19 taught us anything it should that dogmatic
belief, once again, has proven deadly. From
the early falsified models of “pandemic” to the carnage wrought by the containment
and MCM, we have seen humanity sacrificed on the altar of statistics and, lo,
no ram was in the thicket to save us.
The blade killed the children. But
let’s cut the crap! Let him without a
retracted statistic cast the first stone.
…and looking up, he saw no one standing there.
“Neither do I accuse thee.”
x
.jpg)
