Yes, he certainly said that 'we were right', but he also said - over and over and over again - that the anti-vaxxers are 'the winners'. Then he continued, saying 'You won, you won, you won - completely'. He said we should take the 'victory', and him the 'defeat'.
That language is unambiguously describing two 'teams' -- 'us vs them' - 'the anti-vaxxers vs the pro-vaxxers'.
It misses the much much larger issue -- that a global cabal tried to kill all of us.
Nothing he said mentioned the 'third team' -- the killing team.
I tend to agree with you. He's intentionally shifting the 'awakening narrative' from 'they tried to kill us' into 'which half of the population guessed right'.
And the words he chooses to describe HOW we were 'right' really pisses me off. He acts as if we were acting on pure emotion.
We didn't 'guess', and he didn't 'analyze'.
WE were the ones who actually analyzed. He just parroted the company line.
And now, as his final act - he wants to imply that we just 'got lucky'.
I think where he is still coping hard is his claim that people declined the vax based on distrust of government and big pharma.
The data required to make this decision was all there plain as day, but somehow his "fancy analysis" missed it. Mine did not.
Yes, the government lied, but what else is new. They also published the data showing the vax was dangerous, but I guess he didn't include that in his "analytics".
He's framing this as if he's taking the moral high road as the civil and rational intellectual stooping down to give credit to us crude dogmatists who got lucky.
In other words, the Zulus with their spears just defeated the British with their gunpowder.
You'll find that people who consider themselves the most analytical, logical, and emotionally detached will still cling to a bias in a way that is emotional, stubborn, and irrational, despite believing themselves to be above those impulses. Adams did that with the mRNA drugs, and now he's framing his concession as if our dogma (the reflexive distrust of government) achieved a rare victory over academics, so he wants us to have our tribal campfire celebrations and honor our mythical gods.
He still doesn't get it.
We didn't 'beat you', you dipshit. We stayed alive.
The enemy is not 'each other', the enemy are 'those who tried to kill us'.
He didn't say that, he said we were right, happy and healthy and people that took the vax are not
Yes, he certainly said that 'we were right', but he also said - over and over and over again - that the anti-vaxxers are 'the winners'. Then he continued, saying 'You won, you won, you won - completely'. He said we should take the 'victory', and him the 'defeat'.
That language is unambiguously describing two 'teams' -- 'us vs them' - 'the anti-vaxxers vs the pro-vaxxers'.
It misses the much much larger issue -- that a global cabal tried to kill all of us.
Nothing he said mentioned the 'third team' -- the killing team.
He still doesn't get it.
How many other people that were provax have come out and humbly admitted they were wrong?
When someone starts swallowing red pills, encourage them, don't criticize them.
Most people out there will never admit they were wrong. Kudos for him doing that. He certainly didn't have to.
I agree with your sentiment -- but one of the reasons that the world is in such sad shape is that most people don't understand who the real enemy is.
So, yes - kudos for his humility -- but the way he framed it perpetuates the 'us vs them' mentality.
He does get it. Which is why the statement is even more disingenuous. It’s a divisive statement. This is a prize one of us want to win.
I tend to agree with you. He's intentionally shifting the 'awakening narrative' from 'they tried to kill us' into 'which half of the population guessed right'.
And the words he chooses to describe HOW we were 'right' really pisses me off. He acts as if we were acting on pure emotion.
We didn't 'guess', and he didn't 'analyze'.
WE were the ones who actually analyzed. He just parroted the company line.
And now, as his final act - he wants to imply that we just 'got lucky'.
Still a normie like so many others like Tim Pool
once you start naming "who is responsible for covid and the vaccines" you become anti Semitic very quickly. slippery slope!!
I think where he is still coping hard is his claim that people declined the vax based on distrust of government and big pharma.
The data required to make this decision was all there plain as day, but somehow his "fancy analysis" missed it. Mine did not.
Yes, the government lied, but what else is new. They also published the data showing the vax was dangerous, but I guess he didn't include that in his "analytics".
He's framing this as if he's taking the moral high road as the civil and rational intellectual stooping down to give credit to us crude dogmatists who got lucky.
In other words, the Zulus with their spears just defeated the British with their gunpowder.
You'll find that people who consider themselves the most analytical, logical, and emotionally detached will still cling to a bias in a way that is emotional, stubborn, and irrational, despite believing themselves to be above those impulses. Adams did that with the mRNA drugs, and now he's framing his concession as if our dogma (the reflexive distrust of government) achieved a rare victory over academics, so he wants us to have our tribal campfire celebrations and honor our mythical gods.