“We need to see the wood for the trees here. It’s not just about one chemical.” This is a very important point.
The smear strategy of the establishment tends to be:
1) Simplify an RFK/REN argument down to one chemical
2) Say why we cannot know for certain that this chemical is harmful (for example, no human trials)
3) Conclude that RFK and REN are pseudoscientists and should be ignored
But the onus of proof should be reversed. RFK should not need to prove why Atrazine is harmful. The establishment should need to prove why it is safe. Observe the following logic:
Assume a fantasy scenario in which RFK is wrong 90% of the time (a vast overestimate) and declares 100 chemicals to be harmful. This still means that 10 of these chemicals are harmful. This is a BIG PROBLEM. Removing these 100 chemicals (even if some are actually harmless) is still preferable to inaction because the downsides of inaction are VERY HIGH: record high infertility, testosterone decline, depression, etc.
When a liberal says: “you can’t know for certain the effect of Atrazine in humans.” The correct response is to agree and amplify: “yes! That’s exactly right. So exposing children to such a chemical is an insane risk.”
You have to wonder if you gave her something to think about. Props to her for reaching out and making the pretense of journalism. I’m guessing she didn’t have much to go on otherwise since the normie left is pretty ignorant on this stuff—or anything, really.
"published by Antelope Hill, a white nationalist publisher that also prints work by Adolf Hitler" lmao. I guess Penguin is a white nationalist publisher now.
“We need to see the wood for the trees here. It’s not just about one chemical.” This is a very important point.
The smear strategy of the establishment tends to be:
1) Simplify an RFK/REN argument down to one chemical
2) Say why we cannot know for certain that this chemical is harmful (for example, no human trials)
3) Conclude that RFK and REN are pseudoscientists and should be ignored
But the onus of proof should be reversed. RFK should not need to prove why Atrazine is harmful. The establishment should need to prove why it is safe. Observe the following logic:
Assume a fantasy scenario in which RFK is wrong 90% of the time (a vast overestimate) and declares 100 chemicals to be harmful. This still means that 10 of these chemicals are harmful. This is a BIG PROBLEM. Removing these 100 chemicals (even if some are actually harmless) is still preferable to inaction because the downsides of inaction are VERY HIGH: record high infertility, testosterone decline, depression, etc.
When a liberal says: “you can’t know for certain the effect of Atrazine in humans.” The correct response is to agree and amplify: “yes! That’s exactly right. So exposing children to such a chemical is an insane risk.”
She's a talentless hack who leans so far left I doubt she can get vertical, but she didn't seem to mess with your statements.
Perhaps the media defamation suits are having the necessary corrective effects?
And the publicity for you never hurts.
Never get off the boat!
Give them nothing.
Starve the Beast.
All interactions with the mainstream press by 'dissidents' always ends in tears so do not respond.
The solution to the Journalist Question is to not respond to inquiries, not even with 'No comment' (because that's treated as a comment).
Absolutely—these cunts never do anything in good faith
Scythians, unlike Mongols, didn't have stirrups to protect their family jewels from being mashed.
Another “physiognomy checks out” example
Never trust a woman with a tight, gummy smile
That Jacinda Ardern rictus!
You have to wonder if you gave her something to think about. Props to her for reaching out and making the pretense of journalism. I’m guessing she didn’t have much to go on otherwise since the normie left is pretty ignorant on this stuff—or anything, really.
Ariel Wittenberg.....early life, maybe?
"published by Antelope Hill, a white nationalist publisher that also prints work by Adolf Hitler" lmao. I guess Penguin is a white nationalist publisher now.
I thought Soren Kierkegaard was an existentialist philosopher, not a nineteenth century dangerous right wing bodybuilder extremist.
Ariel Nosferatu-berg