Peter “Jussie” Hotez

Dr. Peter Hotez was mentioned yesterday for his suggestion that hate crime laws be extended to the speech of anyone criticizing scientists bureaucrats he likes. Pointing out that Anthony Fauci lies about ‘the science’, for example, should be punished with jail time. Despite the fact that Fauci has admitted he lied.

Dr. Hotez naturally asked himself, “Who could take a new hate crime category seriously without new fake hate crimes?” Having anticipated the question, Dr. Hotez manufactured a Jussie Smollett caper implicating Sharyl Attkisson. Oops.

Hat tip to commenter Barry Meislin at The New Neo in Scientists must not be questioned or challenged by those on the right

Channeling Trofim Lysenko

Richard Feynman is likely to appear on every list of all time top 10 physicists.

He spoke extensively about the scientific method. For example, his 1974 commencement address at CalTech is a classic: Cargo Cult Science.

Shorter versions:

“No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literacy or artistic expression. Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious, or philosophical doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race.”

“Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.”

-Richard P. Feynman

This would be news to Dr. Peter Hotez, whose television celebrity appears to have convinced him of his privilege: Professor suggests it should be a federal hate crime to criticize Fauci and other government-funded scientists

First, why don’t they all just identify as black and trans, and put themselves on the hate crime list? Isn’t critical race theory science? Isn’t biological sex just a patriarchal scientific myth?

Since Dr. Hotez’ suggestion requires federal guns, and more police, isn’t his speech an incitement to violence over someone else’s speech?

And if we’re going to do hate speech law by profession, how can politicians (including the ones with extensive private security who want police defunded, AND who threaten private citizens on Twitter) possibly be excluded? They’d certainly come before bureaucrats with a PhD following their name.

Dr. Hotez had this to say this to say on MSNBC:

“[Yo]u saw it play out at the CPAC Conference where they said this is nothing more than an effort for power and control and they’re going to use — first, they’re going to force vaccines on us and they’re going to take away our Bibles and our guns.”

Dr. Hotez would have a stronger case if the White House hadn’t already mandated vaccines for the military, and said, “A national vaccine requirement is not under consideration at this time.

The very fact that they say they aren’t considering a mandate “at this time” means they ARE indeed considering it, whether they ever do it or not. Otherwise, they could have said, “No.”

It would also have been better for his contentions had the IRS not removed tax exemptions from Christian 501(c)3 groups becauseThe bible teachings are typically affiliated with Republican party and its candidates.”

His case would further have improved if there were not dozens of elected officials constantly telling us they want to cancel the Second Amendment.

These are not lies, I’m sure he believes what he said. What he said is elitist ignorance, however.

Dr. Hotez also could have built a more consistent, if not more convincing case, had he included a plea for hate crime law protection of scientists like Charles Murray, Brett Weinstein, and Judith Curry; journalists like Andy Ngo, Tucker Carlson, and Bari Weiss; and authors like Abigail Schier, Lionel Shriver, and J.K. Rowling.

The real attack on science and scientists is when “scientists” lie deliberately. Dr. Fauci has admitted to having done so about masks and herd immunity.

I close with another quote from Dr. Feynman:

“The only way to have real success in science, the field I’m familiar with, is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory , you must try to explain what’s good and what’s bad about it equally. In science, you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty.”

Lysenko? If you were looking for Dr. Feynman’s polar opposite, you could do worse than picking Trofim Lysenko. Dr. Peter Hotez would be a candidate for “not as extreme as Lysenko.” Hotez is not a complete fool in the scientific sense, and his ‘scientific’ authoritarianism is a milder form. But his arrogance is much the same, as is his lack of appreciation of the scientific method.

Pen control

We’re told the pen is mightier than the sword. We’ve known, for as long as we’ve had the concept of “sticks and stones,” that words can make people uncomfortable should they have to defend their ideas about how others should be made to behave.

Those cultural memes make our chief sword wielders nervous. And present an opportunity to manufacture a crisis that should not be wasted. The technological advances in speech clearing houses make it (momentarily) feasible for the whole country to become a State safe space, where never is heard a regime discouraging word.

Four concepts, three of them false, are necessary to this goal.

1-The defining characteristic of the modern Nation State is a monopoly on physical violence.
-Encyclopedia Britannica

2-Social (racial, sexual, etc., etc.) equity (identical outcomes) cannot be achieved without identity group targeted State intervention. Otherwise, the best we could hope for would be a necessarily imperfect equality before the law (identical opportunity). Ironically, identical outcomes will require a great deal of policing. The State is proposing to swear in our speech clearing houses.

3-Words are violence.
How the Left Turned Words Into ‘Violence,’ and Violence Into ‘Justice’ -Quilette
Brandeis ‘Word Police’ Highlights the Absurdity of Modern Progressivism -Newsweek

Words are apparently killing people as I write. The President has said of Facebook, “They’re killing people!”

After some Facebook pushback, he’s waffled a bit on who exactly are the murderers. Maybe it’s just a few Facebook users committing capital crimes. Well… a few would be the speakers… unclear if the apparently myriad listeners are just accessories after the fact. IAC, if we didn’t have Facebook there wouldn’t be any Facebook speakers or listeners. The regulatory threat exists despite Mr. Biden’s walk back.

Besides, the people getting killed would be those deplorables who read Facebook based on algorthims designed to “engage.” So, who cares?

No matter how you cut it, the question is free speech. In summary, the President can say ‘they’ are killing people. ‘They’ can’t say he is.

The official position is that we cannot depend on individuals to decide what they want to read or hear.

We have the technology to give the State the the pen control it needs to secure our right to think correctly. Still, it is not enough that the State possesses all the swords and all the pens. To ensure equity in ideation it follows that we cannot depend on individuals to decide what they want to say.

4-In some cases silence is violence.
How “Silence is Violence” Can Become Compelled Speech -Johnathan Turley

‘Silence Is Violence’: D.C. Black Lives Matter Protesters Adopt Strategy of Intimidating Random White People -Reason Magazine

This fourth item may seem over the top. But how are we going to enforce equal outcomes if private conversations are not controlled? How could they be controlled? The Lives of Others makes a suggestion. Watch it if you haven’t.

Mr. Biden’s press secretary assures us the State is just making suggestions about who Facebook should allow to speak, even as she suggests “banned on one should be banned on all,” and even as messaging apps are being eyed for government filtering: White House May Work With Carriers To Screen Anti-Vax Messages

The advantage to the State? No one will have the slightest skepticism about Dr. Fauci’s pronouncements, inflation, CCP virus lab leaks, penises in female shower rooms, Iranian nuclear ambitions, or immigration policy. The risk of regime change will drop precipitously. I don’t mean a mere embarrassment at the ballot box, but the risk of violent overthrow by bare chested people in furry hats, overtly parading in the halls of Congress based on the intel from unassembled Lego models of the building.

The people who told you the Steele dossier proved Donald Trump was a Russian agent, that Hunter Biden’s laptop wasn’t his (and if it was, the contents were faked), that Hillary Clinton’s private email system wasn’t a security risk, that coronavirus could not possibly have escaped a lab (which they absolutely did not fund), that it is anti-scientific to keep penises out of female shower rooms and off the women’s Olympic medals platform, that it’s Republicans who want the police defunded, that Kamala Harris had visited the non-existent border crisis two and a half weeks before she got within 800 miles of it (close enough for government work), that a Lego kit is evidence of insurrection, that starving Cubans are protesting because they lack CCP virus vaccines – which is the fault of the United States (protestors waving American flags notwithstanding) … have stepped up to the task of identifying speech they call ‘disinformation.’

They are saying “Trust us.”

The “Public Health” version of the 1st Amendment

There’s a vacillating post at Areo, titled The Promotion of Ivermectin: A Free Speech Edge Case, arguing that some modified limited hangout version of free speech should at least be considered when public health is the question.

On the facts, and given the performance of the ivermectin prohibitionists, it’s as near the free speech edge as Omaha is near an ocean.

The article’s case depends on a critique of the paucity of ‘gold standard’ Randomized Controlled Trials conducted on ivermectin. This is the only acceptable methodology for the CDC, FDA, and Dr. Fauci. The essential question is posed as “What if some people resist vaccination because they become persuaded ivermectin is an alternative?” Before we examine the precursors to the social media ban on discussing ivermectin at the behest of the gold standard exclusivists, let’s note that they have refused an opportunity to conduct a human challenge trail.

The boots-on-the-ground clinical evidence for Ivermectin is significant. There are very well respected practicing clinical physicians recommending it in their treatment protocols. The broad empirical data from Peru and India strongly suggest calling let’s-try-ivermectin proponents conspiracists is irrational. Nonetheless, that is our situation with government approved protocols and in Big Tach political interference.

Our “public health” apparatchiks might have a more acceptable case for prohibiting experimental use of a safe drug such as ivermectin in the midst of a pandemic if anyone still trusted them. If they hadn’t started out telling us CCP virus wasn’t a problem for the US; fumbled the specification, preparation, approval, and distribution of test kits; lied about masks, mandated masks, and then lied about lying about masks; insisted the virus couldn’t possibly have escaped from a lab with a sketchy safety history, that researched bat viruses, was at the epicenter of the outbreak, erased records, refused to cooperate with investigations. And to which they had supplied funds for gain of function research.

Meanwhile, they usurped power. For example, where is it written that the CDC has authority to order payment of rents suspended? Why wouldn’t we laugh out loud at practicing bureaucrats claiming they are very embodiment science?

If all this bullshit hadn’t been combined with a lofty display of their superiority, vaccination resistance would be much less a problem.

As if that performance is not enough to make reasonable people nervous, combine it with a Twitter/Facebook/Amazon political conspiracy to prevent us from talking about anything those same bureaucrats told us was ‘settled science,’ and what do you expect will happen?

People will take ivermectin doses manufactured for horses, because their doctors are prohibited from giving them appropriate safe doses. It’s less risky than following the ‘science.’

And we’re working on the voting thing

China Launches Hotline to Report Online Comments That ‘Distort’ History or ‘Deny’ Its Cultural Excellence

Well, we’ve gone them one better. We’ve privatized this function, setting up entire industries dedicated to trashing our history and punishing those who object. In China, taxpayers fund it. Here, people volunteer.