TRIBUNE — The West has long believed itself safe from the Taliban movements, those goatherds who have made life impossible, condemned the intellectuals of Afghanistan to death or social degradation. We have ours. Wokism, covidism, and Ukraine have made them notable. Their contractual relationship with social networks has made them predators. They must see to the preservation of their small businesses of denunciation on the one hand, their respectability on the other.
As their influence is on the decline, to maintain the level of influence peddling they have grown accustomed to, they must radicalize. Stalking scientists with more severity is again becoming a priority, while collective hypochondria seems to be in freefall. L’Express takes over: Should researchers who slip up be punished? How can a researcher go wrong is the first question that comes to mind. The history of science takes a hit. The Express, like most disgraced mass media, like the deconspirators, debunkers, verifiers, trackers of fake newsdecryptors and other charlatan barbarisms, places the scientific condition on the same footing as that of an influencer. Science would be opinion.
Read also: Barely cleared of accusations by Médiapart, Raoult’s IHU attacked again
« For two years, scientists and researchers have never had so much influence. They guided the government [NDLR : un peu de propagande façon vieille école, au passage pour le gouvernement d’Emmanuel Macron]parade on the television set and granted countless interviews in order to popularize science with the general public. That would be the authorized scientists. Those who are not in research, but in political communication. But ” all is not rosy though “, releases the Express. ” From Pr. Didier Raoult to Laurent Toubiana, passing by Jean-François Toussaint, without forgetting the former Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier, many researchers have distinguished themselves by their slippages. » « Sanctions were rare », laments the author. They have been blocked, ridiculed, silenced, sometimes lost their jobs, an entire career devoted to science and medicine ruined; but social and professional death cannot be a sufficient fate.
See as well : “We can no longer accept these State lies” Christian Perronne
The author considers that the small audience still available to these personalities who, two years ago, were still considered luminaries, is due to the fact that journalists ” suck at science “. Understand: not like him. There is in the debunkers – whether they work for the big media or have their own little shop – that je ne sais quoi of pedantry observed in the Taliban. This dogmatic side of the ignorant and the definitive judgments that he makes of his victims. They feel omniscient.
The typical trait of the charlatan is to invent concepts to dress up the ridiculousness of their talk. Anything that in Molière’s time was already known. If they have this sovereign prerogative to decree the media, academic, social banishment of non-anointed scientists, it is because they hear everything and know better than anyone, from all disciplines. Endowed with rather mediocre academic backgrounds, without being brilliant autodidacts, orphans of any intellectual recognition before creating their kiosk of auditors, the great figures of the censurosphere, would have, according to them, knowledge comparable to that of the CNRS. or MIT together. In five minutes, they can decree that the contribution of a scientist is of the order of, neither done nor to be done, where for their peers, it would take several weeks, even months, to evaluate the scientific significance.
Read also: A delightful “Doctor in spite of himself”… and of a grating topicality
When Christian Vélot had alerted, in particular in the columns of FranceSoir on the risk of viral recombination of the vaccine administered indiscriminately on populations that may be in the process of transiting an infection and the risk of generalized vaccination. He had been called a conspirator by the censors, because Christian Vélot ” is only » PhD in biology and lecturer in molecular genetics. It is not ” not even » virologist. According to the Taliban, he should never have spoken on a subject that did not fall directly within his field of competence. However, the people who orchestrated his banishment from social networks and the media are not only not virologists, but not even scientists.
The charlatanism of the debunkers has had the effect that from 2020, informing about official statistics has become an activity that requires courage. Last week, biochemistry professor Éric Chabrière tweeted the figures from the DRESS, showing that a vaccinated person with a booster is twice as likely to catch covid as an unvaccinated person.
According to https://t.co/HObcIS55SA which uses data from the DRESS (Ministry of Health).
A vaccinated person is 1.5 times more likely to be covid+ than an unvaccinated person.
A vaccinated person with a booster is twice as likely to be covid+ than a non-vaccinated person.We can discuss anything but numbers https://t.co/wgalmiijIr pic.twitter.com/h90n2ABjIy
— Pr Chabriere (@EChabriere) June 24, 2022
Such an innocent gesture becomes reckless. Admittedly, since Elon Musk pretended to buy Twitter, this type of information has resisted the orcs of censorship. In February 2020, anyone who published figures from the Ministry of Health showing that there were no more intensive care room occupations than for the same period in the seasonal flu phase in previous years, would have been called ” Holocaust denier “. This pack of Taliban, without any scientific legitimacy, has the ability to delist sites, rot the lives of free spirits, silence essential voices.
« Verified and sourced they say of the distributed propaganda material. Sourced at their source and verified by themselves. When Emmanuel Macron announced ” 400,000 dead no matter what », this completely crazy verbal terrorism, fortunately unrelated to the facts, is never denounced, as a sinister fake, by the Obersturmführer of the info. Because this charlatanism, which finds favor only in statistical modeling, is fundamentally partisan. Not once, if only to give an illusion of equidistance, has he pointed the finger at one of the enormities imposed as truth, or even flushed out one of the conflicts of interest of the scientists on the plateau. On the other hand, he ruthlessly silenced one by one all those who had the cheek to point it out.
Le Canard Enchaîné has just released a “special file” on false information, taking up some of the clichés of the censurosphere. In several articles, the blogger Rudy Reichstadt is quoted. A subject of uncertain training, expert in mockery, denunciation, whose shop is called Conspiracy Watch, pompous inducted as ” Observatory of conspiracy » and conspiracy theories. Quotations from this Savonarola permeate the entire Duck file, which in its heyday would have been a choice victim. Too bad for the Duck. We missed him when we needed him most.
A strategy that works to destroy an intellectual or scientist who ” skids is to make him an anti-Semite, by the very fact. As a charlatan, a critical spirit is said to be conspiratorial and for Reichstadt, anti-Semitism is the antechamber of conspiracy. Ergo any scientist, journalist, intellectual, citizen ” slippery », is of antisemitic substrate.
Perhaps an old leftover from a conditioned reflex, in its special file, Le Canard devotes an article to the way in which censorship shops enrich themselves through their strategy of harassment. A taboo subject. Facebook has signed contracts with several media around the world to track fake news. And to be able to participate in the hunt, it is necessary to carry out globally homogenized criteria. Could there be a more precise mechanic for achieving groupthink? A question that the previous generation of journalists from Le Canard Enchaîné would have asked themselves. “ Only Liberation, which left the partnership with Facebook in March 2021, gave figures: officially 236,000 dollars in 2019. Each article debunked was paid between 800 to 1000 euros […] Le Monde and AFP, with much larger fact-checking cells, do not say a word, but there is no doubt that for the press agency which prides itself on being the “main fact-checking network in the world”, this is in the millions ».
The enormity of the conflict of interest is startling. These titles have an interest in demonizing to make numbers. And it is possible to invoice with double window, side social networks and side political power. Even with a triple window, when foreign foundations put their hands in their pockets. This is a business model of censorship and circular denunciation. Of course, there are some enlightened people who feel invested with a mission. Typically it is about this type of personality of which all in them, body and heart, claims the regimentation. But they are a minority. For the most part, censorship is big money. Hence the interest of stigmatizing free will and critical thinking, in order to maintain the herd of conspirators at a level of threat perceived as sufficiently serious. They are the predators of thought, we are the trophies.
But beyond the miserable bargain consisting in imposing this asphyxiation of thought and the ostracism of intellectuals, even the inducement to suicide of a certain number of them, as in the United States through the cancel culture, there is the infiltration of national education. Because of course, minds must be trained very early to consider critical thinking as harmful.
See as well : “What kills this country is the interpersonality of the elites” Éric Verhaeghe
Perhaps the day will come when a self-respecting group of parliamentarians will rise to make this offense against thought, in which defamation, harassment, influence peddling, a major offense against the right of the press, the rights of persons. Popular representation should demand information on the human resources of these propaganda outsourcing companies. What are the sources of the sourced and verified “, the method put in place, external funding, invoicing to third parties such as major social networks, the use of algorithms and keywords, dedicated exclusively to the harassment of dissidents, civil liability due to impact of the censorship of crucial health information, their undeclared relationship with power or foundations defending specious agendas, the authorizations given by whom and why to exercise this role of thought police. What is at stake is not only our model of society, democracy. It is intelligence, science itself.