This site has referenced Habermas’ Discourse Theory numerous times. But some examples beg for a new visit.
THREAD: Meet
, a Canadian law professor and health law ‘expert’ at the University of Alberta. During Covid, he notably defamed anyone questioning Big Pharma. But should a “science communicator” act this way? Isn’t the essence of science to challenge our own hypotheses and explore all possible options? What Timothy Caulfield did was equate those distrusting Big Pharma with Holocaust deniers instead. This association was made both directly and indirectly, as he frequently used the term “denier” in numerous posts—a term often linked with Holocaust denial. He also never questioned the ‘vaccines’ and public measures such as ‘masks’ and ‘lockdowns’. One should be cautious accusing others of corruption due to potential consequences. However, the attached evidence suggests otherwise. In April 2020, Caulfield received $380,000 to combat Covid misinformation, and a year later, a whooping $1,750,000. Under the hashtag #ScienceUpFirst, he cherry-picked data and discredited those with differing views—all in the name of science. Timothy Caulfield has acted as a digital witch-hunter for the past three years, which I’ll prove in subsequent tweets. I would strongly advise
to consider initiating disciplinary proceedings against this “anti-science aggressor” (to borrow Caulfield’s own phrasing). Otherwise, the institution may soon face scrutiny for its continued association with someone who appears to be an overtly unscientific propagandist. (I’m writing this thread in real-time, so please come back for upcoming posts or hit the notification bell on my profile!)
Seldom does one find such a clean and perfect example of second generation Frankfurt School, Critical Theorist, Habermas’ application of his discourse theory. The idea put overly briefly, is that a consensus is created by the people who wish to control what is believed, and any attempt to deviate from the consensus view, is destroyed by attacking the person introducing evidence to contradict the consensus view, as being evil by nature. In this case, by claiming that denying the value of the vaxx is equivalent to denying the Holocaust. Of course the communists don’t give a sweet God damn about the Holocaust, since they basically caused it, (and if you are not yet ready to accept that National Socialism was Socialism, the Soviets did their own version of it) just like they don’t care about women’s rights (as we see from the push for ‘trans-rights’ which are designed to obliterate Women’s rights). But they do care about how they can use public perception of these things to force the Revolution forward.
Also note that in this case, Consensus does not equal agreement. Consensus means a group, such as for example, Pfizer, the FDA, the CDC and parts of the executive branch will decide that everyone has to get the mRNA injections. It doesn’t matter that some or all parties know it doesn’t work and its tantamount to Russian Roulette. It matters that the consensus is followed and Discourse theory will be used to force it.
Please do watch the video below. It is a little dense, and does require concentration. But it is not long and is well worth it. Another key to the disinformation universe we now find ourselves in. For those too tight for time to watch all ten minutes or so, go to 4:45 and watch the next couple of minutes to understand how the concept of “consensus” differs in this use of it than how we are meant to understand the term from a non-club member. So to speak.
As an aside, for those who have not seen the excellent mini-series, Chernobyl, after understanding Discourse Theory, Soviet modus operandi as described in the series makes a great deal more sense. It is well worth the watch. But from our point of view, the value of the 5 part series is more in how communist thinking created the disaster and nearly several more than in the drama itself.
Also please read the whole thread on this Canadian scientism-ist here.
“Also note that in this case, Consensus does not equal agreement. Consensus means a group, such as for example, Pfizer, the FDA, the CDC and parts of the executive branch will decide that everyone has to get the mRNA injections. ”
Consensus therefore equates to lack of leadership, which as history shows it dissasterous.
“What Timothy Caulfield did was equate those distrusting Big Pharma with Holocaust deniers instead.”
They are applying the same Discourse Theory (words) to people who argue against the Climate Change agenda. Said climate change ‘deniers’ are now Holocaust deniers.