Greg Johnson Debates the Truth About CoronavirusGreg Johnson
On Tuesday, April 28, Greg Johnson will debate the truth about coronavirus on two separate livestreams.
At 10am EST, Greg Johnson debated Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer. Tiina Wiik was the moderator.
To listen in a player, click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.”
At 7pm EST, Greg Johnson will debate Jean-Francois Gariépy on his YouTube channel The Public Space: https://www.youtube.com/user/JFGariepyVideo
To leave a superchat, go to the Counter-Currents Entropy page: https://entropystream.live/countercurrents
Greg Johnson on Coronavirus:
If you want to support our work, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every Friday.
Collateral Damage: The United Kingdom’s Lockdown Files
Died Suddenly: A Review
Koronavirus a jak změní svět
Ask A. Wyatt Nationalist The Great Reset & The Great Replacement
Contagion: Prophecy or Propaganda?
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 467 Riley Waggaman on Russian COVID Journalism
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 413 Ask Me Anything with Greg Johnson
The Reign of Covid
Great! Really looking forward to hear this.
This is fantastic! I have waited a long time for someone on the pro-lockdown side to come with some real arguments about why it’s not “just the flu bro” currently i am on the side of Anglin and JF and think that this has just been blown out of proportions by the media, and as a result politicians must get in line for fear of being massacred by the media. However, i do not believe that it is a hoax perpetraded by the elite to crush the middle-class like Anglin would have us to believe. If someone could persuade me and other dissidents with my stance on this, it is you Greg. Really looking forward to hearing you debate.
Even though I disagree with some of Gregs position on this topic, doing debates like this are a GREAT way to bring in new readers/listeners.
Every time any significant event happens we should be trying to get Greg, Jared Taylor etc etc in debates to discuss the issue. Its great marketing.
The debates that Greg was in that used to be on youtube in 2017 were some of the first content i consumed before discovering counter currents.
Now, what I think will be interesting in these debates will be: how is Greg going to escape the fact that so much of the data he is basing his positions on is garbage. The tests are not accurate for one.
Just going to drop this link here again.
Greg Johnson vs. Andrew Anglin
This is like one of those boxing matches they have to hold on a ship in international waters because it’s too hot for any nation-state to sponsor.
Like that one Simpsons episode from the 1990s, back when The Simpson’s was actually a good show.
It’s just the flu, bro.
AA is the Pope of the AltRight. Infallible
Great news. I trust that Johnson will merge the Hoax meme with the objective nature of the disease. The usual suspects are exploiting this Pandemic but this Bug is real and dangerous and I suspect a portent. I agree with Bill Gates. The Big One a la 1917 is coming. Forget about his vaccine though. Just more Medical pharmaceutical Usury and magical thinking.. But somebody has to get a realistic grip on this Pandemic – separate its reality from the various ideologies which are hitting upon it. I think Johnson has the discerning mind to do that
Apropos of nothing, I miss those little picture tags that used to appear at the bottom of the posts. There were little squares representing older posts. I LOVED those! Clicking on them introduced me to many many wonderful past posts I probably never would have seen otherwise. Why was that feature eliminated?
I hope I am able to listen in (work depending).
I believe both of these gentlemen do important work, and are the 2 most sincere online personalities in the dissident right.
Anglin has a reputation (deserved) as a troll, but I’ve read Daily Stormer for 5 years now, and I’ve seen his poignant side on many occasions. Even though he uses irony, humor, and memes to express his ideas, he takes his work very seriously and it shows in his writing. He also very rarely expresses and personal hostility toward his readership… He is good at keeping things framed in the realm of ideas rather than attacking the rank and file of the dissident right.
Dr Johnson is among the most thoughtful content producers in the dissident right. Greg is the intellectual ying to Anglin’s troll yang. Greg is terrific at explaining the moral underpinnings of dissident right thought and the virtue of taking our own side. The coronavirus issue is one that, in my opinion, doesn’t have a right or wrong (or left or right) position. I’m on the side of caution with this virus. I have no problem with the social distancing guidelines. But I also fully understand and appreciate the position of not wanting the economy wrecked and the middle and working class white man and woman left holding the bag. Both positions can be earnestly debated from a nationalist and antiglobalist, dissident point of view.
This should be good.
The flu is a sunk cost and Coronavirus isn’t. Remember that.
While I’m glad to see two of our most important thinkers together at last, I wish it was not in opposition to each other.
Perhaps next time, Greg and AA can collaborate on finding a solution to the WigNat Question.
Anglin victory by knockout in the 3rd round.
The debate got cutoff at around the 15:00 minute mark.
Everytime someone gets cutoff, I always get this thought in the back of my head that perhaps we’re in the first minutes of a nuclear and their area was just incinerated by some terrorist with a nuke in the back of his pickup truck.
Watching TV series’s like “Jericho” and other post-apocalyptic fiction probably leads to weird thoughts like this.
Seriously though, I hope you guys can get back online, I’m refreshing the page every 5 minutes to see if you can going again, or reschedule, or if your CC account was instabanned like Nick Fuentes’ TikTok was last week
I listened to both speakers’ opening remarks and Tina’s follow-up question. I’d like to make a few comments.
First, GJ has poisoned the well (a form of ad hominem fallacy) against anyone who would disagree with the measures taken against the spread of the virus. He alleges they are motivated by ideological considerations of a libertarian/individualist nature. So anyone who disagrees is tarred with that brush. One may disagree with the economic shutdown for non-ideological reasons.
Second, the C-virus emergency smacked from the beginning of a prog moral panic. If you disagree with them, you are a moral monster who wants to kill grandma. Everyone has to fall in line or face moral condemnation. The thinking at work here shows the feminization of our society: rationality always takes a back seat to compassion. “Don’t separate families!” “Welcome refugees!”
Third, the establishment response has NOT been “Do nothing.” Quite the contrary, it has been a shutdown of many countries’ economies and an extreme intrusion into people’s lives. Millions of people are out of work and in debt. Big business has not suffered the same fate. It is the shutdown that has favored globalism and elites.
Fourth, another fallacy: the “either-or fallacy.” It is not the case that we either do nothing or else shut down the economy. There are other options: one is to quarantine vulnerable groups and allow others to continue, while taking reasonable precautions, with their economic activity.
Firth, epidemiologists at Stanford University and elsewhere have argued on empirical grounds that the data does not justify such extreme measures.
Sixth, “Stay at home. It could save lives” was true before the pandemic. We are often willing, individually and collectively as a matter of social policy, to place quality of life above quantity of life.
Seventh, W.H.O. is a propaganda prog organization to which we should give little credence.
Eighth, people on our side are justifiably suspicious of experts who distort their fields for ideological reasons. Stephen Jay Gould and other race deniers are examples. Michael Levin exposed those people’s fallacies decades ago. Why now be so trusting of what experts say? They are the ones with an ideological agenda. Recall that the CDC gave us the myth of heterosexual AIDS moral panic in the 1980s with its statistical fallacies and lies.
Ninth, shutting down the economy also costs lives. Routine cancer screenings and checkups that could detect early warning signs of deadly diseases have been canceled. Substance abuse and suicide rates are up. “No deaths matter except coronavirus deaths” is the order of the day. If we really were interested in saving lives above all else we would close interstate highways or reduce the speed limit to 25 mph or outlaw red meat.
This is a prog moral panic used to increase elites’ power. It is the follow up to the Russia hoax, the Ukraine hoax, and impeachment. There is nothing that these people will not do. The virus exists, but there are more reasonable responses than the current one.
Rob Kittredge, excellent comment. There are so many holes in the mainstream narrative (which Greg seems to be upholding at least in part).
10th: Viruses don’t cause disease (cluster of symptoms). Their appearance in your body is a reflection of your overall health (“immunity” is one aspect of this.)
Blaming “germs” (viruses/bacteria, etc.) for one’s health problems is childish. Right up there with “evil spirits” of the past, to be cured by beating the tom-tom and uttering incantations; and, today, supposedly prevented by injecting a sickening list of chemicals. Time for everyone to grow up, to turn a page. Until this happens, we are sitting ducks for WHO, CDC, politicians, media, and every other party wanting to control the world.
I couldn’t have said it better myself and this has been my argument with many. I’d like to expand on what you’ve mentioned by stating that if our government was sincerely interested in saving lives they’d ban Monsanto, GMOs, preservatives, nitrates, and artificial ingredients in our foods (how many of millions die a year in this country due to illnesses that are directly linked to their poor diets?), alcohol, drugs, tobacco, abortion (2,899 babies aborted a day in 2019), and of course three big ones that are directly related to race-realism: cease all Third World/non-White immigration as many of these immigrants bring disease and violence into the United States, combat the gang violence that’s becoming a real pandemic in many of our cities, and lastly, end all interventionism and return all of our military to the United States in order to protect our borders and perhaps assist with cleaning up the rampant crime in many of our urban jungles.
A healthy populace is essential to a healthy, productive nation.
The median age of Americans who died from the Coronavirus is 75. They are disproportionately white Republicans who would have voted for Trump. If 5,000 to 10,000 die in a swing state, it could be the deciding factor in Trump losing in 2020.
I was able to listen to most of this. It was good. Anglin is not in his element with debates (this jogs my memory from when he debated Sargon of Akkad). But he did much better with this debate and didn’t come across unprepared or unfocused. I think Anglin has ADHD, (genuinely), which can be a good thing when you’re a writer and hyperfocused on your writing, but bad when you’re in a fluid debate and get distracted or thrown off balance. All in all, he did OK here.
And he definitely made good points that are worthy of our consideration. One thing that he sorta touched on but didn’t really get into enough detail on is the difference between the little guy vs the elites when the fallout from all of this is complete.
The elites are so far removed from 95% of us, that their lives will hardly be disrupted by this, as long as they still wield power. Think about it this way, someone who makes $150k/year (especially someone with no family), is “well off” under normal circumstances. They probably own a nice home, drive a nice car, have lots of toys and trinkets, take nice vacations. But they probably don’t have a lot of savings. Especially a younger person. Let’s take a 40 year old man. He might have 200k saved up, if he’s thrifty, assuming he really lives the lifestyle of someone making $150k/year, and assuming he hasn’t always made that kind of money. Now compare that guy to someone who makes 1 million a year. I’m sure the millionaire lives an even more indulgent lifestyle, but one would have to assume that if he’s earned that money through work and intelligence rather than hitting the lottery or an inheritance, that he’s managed to save a lot of money too. So who is going to be hit harder by an economic collapse? What if that $150k/year guy loses all his income? What if he is unemployed? How long will that $200k in savings last him? What about the millionaire? Let’s assume he has 5 million saved up. Who will be able to survive an economic collapse and not really suffer?
In other words, the guy with a comfortable $150k/year career is a whole lot closer to destitution than the millionaire, and is almost as powerless in this crisis as someone who lives paycheck to paycheck on a Walmart salary. So the “flu Bros” have a point about the economy. It does a whole lot more to rob the regular guy of power than it does to any of the oligarchs who pull the strings.
I’m not saying that there is a conspiracy here to install a world government. I think that’s a stretch. But I do think that the elites have no empathy for the middle class, and are perfectly OK with the middle class being wiped out.
Having said that, I’m still on the side of caution with the pandemic.
There is definitely a conspiracy to increase world government.
Sure, but I’m not of the opinion that this coronavirus thing has anything to do with it. I take it at face value.
To build on what Wilkinson said, I think someone who’s a little more “on their feet” like Ramzpaul or the ZMan would have presented the skeptical position better. Still; I enjoyed and hope to see Greg and AA continue to collaborate.
The debate with Anglin was great! It seems like the disagreament can be largely reduced to:
1. How reliable is the recent antibody data?
2. Are the elites confident they can manage the potential pro-populist political consecuences of an economic depression?
3. How crazy are the top elites? Where do their Epstein-related activities actually lie in the Eyes Wide Shut to Pizzagate spectrum?
Excellent discussion between Mr. Johnson & Mr. Anglin. These men, and their respective websites have become, so far as I am concerned, the top Nationalist Right sources for information—and, as it turns out, adult behavior, rather than the juvenile antics of others in the movement and their tiresome ad hominem attacks.
It is perhaps no accident that both men show a solid work ethic and produce much more usable material that most of the other players out there.
As to the corona cootie, I dismiss it as yet another example of mass hysteria in what has become a society (in the so-called scientific age, no less) that is more superstitious than our primitive ancestors of old.
As Mencken noted years ago:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
Corona now stands as the latest in a long string of bizarre fetishes that have infected modern America:
Global Warming, the delusion that there are more than two sexes, trannies, equality of the races, diversity is our strength, etc., etc.
The above fixations would have earned any advocating them a trip to the local looney bin and a padded room with a straight-jacket only a couple of generations ago.
Historical examples of mass hysteria make for an interesting study—the above-mentioned global warming hysteria, the overpopulation panic of the 1970s, we’re going to run out of oil! (also 1970s) the Salem witch trials—but my favorite is the odd hysteria made popular by the 1952 story by Aldous Huxley called The Devils of Loudun. This was made into a most interesting film (The Devils, 1971) by Ken Russell featuring Oliver Reed (as the condemned priest Urbain Grandier) and the beautiful Vanessa Redgrave as the Mother Superior of the convent.
The story revolves around an incident in France in the year 1634 involving the possession of a convent of Ursuline Nuns and the subsequent execution of a Priest, Fr. Urbain Grandier who was burned at the stake, having been convicted of bewitching the nuns of the convent.
What a great “dream team” line up of people!! Thank you so much for including Andrew Anglin!! I hold his viewpoint, but I read and watch yourself, Millennial Woes, and JF, and love and respect you all! Why not Ramzpaul?
I was watching the debate with JF on Youtube, and Greg is offering a really weak showing on the data front. This is irritating because the data is on his side. The antibody data is flawed; it used tests which gives false positives on nonrandom population samples . If it was true, then the infectiousness of SARS-Cov-2 would be frankly ludicrous.
Even SALON is able to thrash that data, and you should be opening the debate with that thrashing, not weaving the narrative of what elites were thinking. I agree with that narrative but it isn’t the data in question and won’t win debates, and it puts Greg on very weak footing from the get-go.
Another data point is that in the places that go off lockdown, people are still distancing, because the staying-at-home is largely ground-up. Movie theaters are still dead in areas that go off lockdown, as an example. This also means that comparing data from places that go off lockdown to say “see it’s not much worse at all” is wildly different from comparing against a dismissive flubro attitude.
The data-driven take is that Corona is deadly, but not apocalyptic. It doesn’t warrant total lockdowns outside of select areas for select time periods (now that it’s beyond containment) but does warrant fairly invasive government action and thankfully people are adapting their lives to reduce disease spread.
JF’s main argument was that coronavirus is nowhere near as bad as the H1N1 flu.
H1N1 caused an estimated 151,700 to 575,400 deaths worldwide in about 20 months, with no mitigation.
Corona caused 228,625 confirmed deaths worldwide in about 4 months, despite massive mitigation, and it ain’t over yet.
This was established by 10 minutes into the debate. The remaining 1hr 20min were just about JF being unable to see the forest from the trees and throwing tantrums.
We need a new model of intelligence. So many obviously high IQ people failed this corona test.
And JF accused me of being scientifically illiterate and innumerate.
I was quite taken aback.
Once again, Anglin stands head and shoulders above his detractors.
Dr. Johnson the position you take is just insane. You claim to be far right, something akin to a fascist, but then do not apply social darwinism and you take these soft humanitarian views? Saving lives? This Virus is eugenic, cleaning up an overpopulated planet of it’s deadwood. Who die from this virus? The elderly, the obese, the unhealthy and weak. It is perfectly eugenic, removes useless consumers, it is good for the environment. It should be allowed to run rampant. The more it kills the better it would seem to me. Great things happened after the black plague cleaned up the European genepool.
Your arguments sound like liberal humanitarianism, wanting to save the last few crippled years of the elderly, saving the obese from the consequences of their bad decisions. It makes no sense.
There are better eugenic and public health measures than letting pandemics run their course.
Social Darwinism is just sociopathy disguised as theory.
1. Sure. But they are not going to take place. Pandemics do take place. I think we have our finger here on the precise concept that, for all of your intelligence, is lost on you. I analyze a great many of your ideas and strategies through the lens of this concept.
2. Perhaps. Is it relevant? After all, a significant percentage of the white population is accurately described by this definition. You’ve never recognized this. The movement you wish to bring about doesn’t require moral posturing or even being in the right, as you argue. No, it requires cunning.
1) Better public health measures are already taking place.
2) You must be new to the Right if you think most Whites are sociopaths. Whites are the most altruistic people on earth by far — which is a big reason why we are going extinct. Blacks are the only population that could truly be called Social Darwinist.
The thing with the alternative to “sociopathy” is it requires a “reciprocity” which will not be forthcoming! The “common good” doesn’t really exist in multi-racial societies
What you describe is what our enemies would have people believe ‘eugenics’ means. Éordred. Not what it actually is, and what we stand for.
Wuhan Flu is disproportionately affecting black and brown people because they are far more likely to have HIV, heart disease, diabetes, asthema, etc, etc.
90%+ of those hospitalized have underlying conditions such as these. The majority recover, but the more co-morbidity, the more likely you are to die.
Listened to about half of the debate so far. Definitely worth a listen.
I would pay to see Greg debate Dr Anthony G Beck.
That would be an epic match up.
Not sure if you can make that happen CC.
This is the channel here : Balance Protocol
Apologies for being off topic, but I’d really love to hear Greg debate RT journalist, Caleb Maupin. Maupin has debated a couple of wrongthinker’s thus far, but I think Greg would destroy him.
JF is constantly reiterating that the swine flue killed more people globally, and yet it is only estimated to have killed a little more than 12,000 people in the US compared to the 12,000 people who die from corona virus on a weekly basis. Also, the fact that we now have an older population should make us be more cautious than before.
After 30 minutes, this just too painful to watch. I have no idea why some claim that JF “won” the debate, and I’m not interested in finding out.
The Anglin debate was kind of ok but the one against JF was a trainwreck. Johnsons points about liberalism are very good but he couldnt refute the data of JF in the slightest. The usual “muh low IQ wignat” whining, did not make him look better. I think he tried to use the situation to promote his stance on liberalism/libertarianism (which is very well articulated and i have no problem with at all) but failed really hard on the actual topic (covid19). Not a good look.
I disagree. JF got off to a poor start with an invalid H1N1 comparison, blew smoke about the only honest and valid measure of lethality, flashed charts as if they constitute proof and could be analyzed in a matter of seconds, and then resorted to telling people what to think, namely that I was scientifically illiterate. I probably was too nice to him at that point. I should have been more aggressive. That I do regret.
Re: Greg Johnson vs. Andrew Anglin.
Greg’s case for mass-killer corona was largely data-free.
There were strange flights of illogic too. Greg says that we’ve given ourselves an economic depression by shutting down the economy, and he correctly observes that it’s hard to rebuild an economy after it has been wrecked, but he not only favors the lockdown that is wrecking the economy but also thinks that the people who opposed wrecking the economy are evil.
Anyone who supports the lockdown also supports wrecking the economy, since the former must inevitably cause the latter. Put differently, if no one had supported the lockdown, the economy would not now be facing a possible collapse.
Anyone defending the lockdown, and urging that it be continued despite its bad effects, must deal with the Swedish model, which has thus far been successful. Sweden is a serious problem for those who believe that corona is massively more deadly than a normal seasonal flu.
Once the virus got into this country and began spreading, we had a choice of doing nothing, in which case we could have had tens of millions sick, and millions dead, and a wrecked economy, or taking radical mitigation measures, in which case we might have millions of sick, hundreds of thousands dead, and a less wrecked economy. The latter course is the only correct one.
As for data, I have been watching the same rising totals as anyone else can. As of today, we have
30% mortality rate for closed cases, 18% global. If the other 800K active cases resolve the same way, we are looking at more than 300K dead, and that is assuming no new cases coming along.
I am betting that we will have more than half a million dead by the end of the summer, more if people reopen too soon.
Sweden has had far worse results than Norway and Denmark, and the Swedes are likely cooking the books by not counting people with comorbidities, an arbitrary desideratum of the flubros here.
The “Treat it as the flu and ride it out” narrative IS evil, because it is motivated primarily by the establishment commitment to liberalism and globalization. The Left woke up from that stupidity, but the Right continues to double down, with a campaign of disinformation, rhetorical thuggery, retarded conspiracy theories, and astroturfed individualist protests from dupes.
The American Right has morally and intellectually discredited itself with its reaction to the corona pandemic.
“I am betting that we will have more than half a million dead by the end of the summer, more if people reopen too soon.”
Are you willing to bet money on it? I’ll bet you $10,000 in Bitcoin that by the end of summer(September 22nd) the US will have less than half a million dead from Wuhan Flu, regardless of lockdown status.
Neither of us can afford that bet.
How about I bet you a donut?
Ok, a donut then.
I am famous for donuts.
But seriously, what we are betting here is our lives/health, so we need to be very careful to assess the massive wave of sophistry and disinformation that springs from the same root as the flu bro meme: people who want to do nothing to stop this pandemic.
That seems reasonable, but the current CFR does not give us an accurate account of the true fatality rate – which would be the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR). Right now, we only have case data on the relatively narrow group of people who have been hospitalized. The vast majority of this group are elderly or have compromised immune systems; heart disease, hypertension and other diseases which put them at risk for any viral infection.
If we instead had a representative sample of society in the early case data, then I’d be very worried. Something which is as contagious as the flu is very hard to stop because by the time it’s discovered, it’s already too late. But things as contagious as the flu tend not to be very deadly because a successful virus is one that propagates itself, not killing it’s host before it jumps to another. This means viruses always become less deadly as they mutate.
The Spanish Flu had a mortality rate of 2%. We didn’t shut down the economy. Maybe we should have done so to save more lives? Honest question. But I think it’s interesting to consider that our ancestors were used to a tragic world and the perspective they had was one of accepting the tragic nature of life to the extent that it shouldn’t stop one from living it. Is this the wrong perspective today? Idk.
The “Treat it as the flu and ride it out” narrative IS evil, because it is motivated primarily by the establishment commitment to liberalism and globalization.
I’m certain that you’re wrong about corona; you’re certain that corona minimizers are wrong. We should be able to disagree about this without accusing the other side in one particular debate within our own ranks of promoting an evil narrative.
Sweden has had far worse results than Norway and Denmark…
Swedish Expert Prof. Johan Giesecke
I’m confident that this guy is right. I’m even more certain that his belief or disbelief in liberalism and globalization did not cause him to oppose lockdowns. He opposes corona lockdowns because, based on his knowledge and experience, he believes they are a bad idea.
In any case, corona maximizing is the establishment narrative, and corona minimizing is the anti-establishment narrative. Those two facts say nothing whatever about which narrative is correct, but they should prevent a maximizer from accusing minimizers of being “motivated primarily by the establishment commitment to liberalism and globalization.”
astroturfed individualist protests from dupes.
This is an element in the MSM maximizing narrative: Ignorant disbelievers in science have concluded (for some unscientific reason) that corona’s virulence has been exaggerated, and they fear that continued lockdowns will destroy the economy, so they demand a return to normality. Perhaps the MSM is telling the truth this time, but I doubt it, and increasingly the evidence indicates that the astroturfed individualists have got it right, despite their alleged inability to think.
COVID Not as Deadly as Feared
Re: Johnson vs. JF Gariepy.
Gariepy can be an obnoxious jerk with a flair for self-dramatization, even though (in my opinion) he is right about corona. His concluding remarks (summary: “Greg Johnson is Satan”) were childishly stupid.
“In any case, corona maximizing is the establishment narrative, and corona minimizing is the anti-establishment narrative. Those two facts say nothing whatever about which narrative is correct, but they should prevent a maximizer from accusing minimizers of being “motivated primarily by the establishment commitment to liberalism and globalization.” “
I first heard about the JF debate on Ramzpaul’s channel. I thought it seemed out of character for Greg to act the way ‘Paul said he did. I was right. I watched the whole debate, and if anything it was JF who seemed butt hurt for reasons that weren’t clear. Was he really so upset that greg disagreed with him? Or was JF driven by insecurity? I think the latter.
Greg even seemed to be trying to find common ground, but JF seemed to take greg’s lack of charts personally. Seemed dumb. I realized from this debate why I never clicked with JF and TPS. I’m just not into having to verify a bunch of data before I can agree or disagree with them. And an entire debate can be spent fighting about facts, when a reasoned argument would be sufficient. Keep up the good work Greg. JF seems to be self destructing. Let him.
Article by Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/covid-19-a-case-for-medical-detectives
“We’re running out of meat. What are we going to eat, uhh like, soy, or uhh, you know, canned soup?”
Right, because the only things to eat in life are meat or canned soup… It’s called veganism, Anglin. Stop being so insecure. Oh no you have to eat soy. It’s just a bean. You can be healthy on a vegan diet, and this country eats WAY too much meat. You should have already been reducing the amount of meat you eat. Animals have rights and if we don’t need to eat them then IT IS wrong to kill them for food. I’m not debating this. This is an objective fact. You don’t have to be a hippie to be vegan, and caring about animals is definitely not a liberal thing.
caring about animals is definitely not a liberal thing.
Scully is the author of Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy (2002), described by Natalie Angier in a book review published in The New York Times (October 27, 2002) as a “horrible, wonderful, important book… because the author, an avowed conservative Republican and former speechwriter for George W. Bush, is an unexpected defender of the animals against the depredations of profit driven corporations, swaggering, gun-loving hunters, proponents of renewed ‘harvesting’ of whales and elephants and others who insist that all of nature is humanity’s romper room, to play with, rearrange, and plunder at will.” Nichols Fox in a review published in The Washington Post wrote that Dominion is “destined to become a classic defense of mercy.”
I’ve heard of the book Dominion but I don’t think I can bring myself to read it. It’s just going to make me even more angry and jaded. I’m glad the author is right-wing though. Thanks for posting that Q&A session.
Andrew Anglin is a moron who is confused about the data. Corona surpassed 2019 flu deaths in one month. Anglin sounds like a confused boomer in the Breitbart comment section
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment