‘As for the Dissident Right, it seems that some people have adopted the irrational position of always taking the exact opposite position of anything the media says, which is just as dumb as believing the sun is brightly shining outside because the news says that it is raining’.
6 replies on “Quote about covid-19”
“Each day it becomes easier to know what we ought to despise; What modern man admires and journalism praises – Nicolás Dávila”
I’d say this is a good general rule, especially when it comes to judging the “modern man” and “modern journalism”, though Journalism does come with exceptions, though I suspected they all went through some kind of kosher approval, maybe not.
As to say, I agree with Richard. We shouldn’t take for granted that what the public speaks is automatically harmful, but to analyze, become familiar and decide whether it is or not, and to add;
Of course people won’t trust someone[*] who has falsely called for help when it never needed it, and thus at the time of a real emergency, when that cry of help is heard again, nobody will come.
[* Journalists, the State, Media]
Far more sober-minded and intelligent observers than Richard Spencer, Greg Johnson, and Hunter Wallace (none has any background in science) are questioning what you derisively and unnecessarily put into quotation marks the official narrative on this issue. Richard is just grandstanding, spouting his personal philosophies and trying to contextualize skepticism of the narrative he believes in as deriving from a dysfunctional personal political philosophy. He makes no cogent arguments, just engages in embarrassing, trite, wannabe “tough-guy intellectual” navel gazing. Are you making fun of him or actually promoting his misguided rant? I can’t tell?
Also, I detect a straw-man argument. No-one distrusts the official narrative purely on account of not liking the media. I’ve not noticed a single person expressing this position.
Curious… regarding the embedded video, it was JFG, not Spencer, the one who looked as a libertarian navel-gazer to me, to the point that I’ll never consider him seriously again (JFG also lost another recent debate, with Stefan Moly about morality).
Except Spencer didn’t make any rational arguments. My main point. I expect to see substantive arguments than ridiculous posing.
Do you really see nothing wrong with the WHO kidnapping threat that Spencer endorsed? This is why I want to see unassailable, evidence-based arguments for accepting the mainstream narrative on this issue. Extreme suggestions require extremely strong evidence. Which hasn’t been presented.
For the last time: I won’t discuss this topic here. You know who will gladly listen to you.