“Somebody, after all, had to make a start. What we wrote and said is also believed by many others. They just don’t dare express themselves as we did.”
—Sophie Scholl, speech in court (February 21, 1943)
This is a tender topic that gives me no pleasure, but which is worse—making a fact-based speculation that a person’s illness and subsequent death were caused by the experimental injection OR stubbornly ignoring the snowballing evidence of mass harm and deaths inflicted on the victims who were deceived into believing a product was “safe and effective” and thus ensuring the massacre of countless others?
I’d rather be “impolite” than complicit in wholesale slaughter by participating in the collective delusion that everything is fine.
I’d rather be “rude” than remain silent in the face of insurmountable evidence that the globally coerced injection of an unsafe and ineffective product is wreaking historically unprecedented damage.
Truth hurts when you’re living a lie.
It’s called cognitive dissonance. No matter how hard you squint your eyes, reality will always come blazing through and expose your game of make-believe for what it is. You can only pretend for so long.
Denial is a warm blanket that offers temporary comfort, and it is understandable that one would wish to cling to it in the face of grief. But it only leads to more lies being propagated, more lives and health being wrecked.
I feel great compassion for Glenn Greenwald and his children, and I mean no disrespect by raising questions about his husband’s illness and death. I considered keeping this post private to avoid causing him pain should he stumble across it.
If it were me, though, I would want to know what killed my beloved—and if I found corrupt entities, agencies, governments, tyrants, philanthropaths, and lackeys were guilty of his homicide, I would want to hold them accountable and prevent others from suffering the same excruciating fate.
As the journalist who broke the Edward Snowden revelations, Glenn should understand it is our responsibility to ask questions. It is our responsibility to examine five-alarm indicators that a product is dangerous. It is our responsibility to call for the suspension of that product when evidence of harm is present.
While this piece arose from a discussion about David’s untimely demise, it really is about how all of us are coping with the bombardment of deaths we are experiencing in our own lives.
Some people think it’s inappropriate to ask about the cause of death. The fact-chokers will blast anyone who tries to understand what occurred and tattoo us as anti-vaxxer science-denying conspiracy theorists exploiting a tragedy to shame us into self-censorship. The Shut-up Playbook is oh-so-predictable.
What madness that we are forbidden from questioning why a young, healthy person died when our very survival as a species depends on understanding what causes unexpected deaths.
Say you have a tribe living in the rain forest. Some of its members discover a pond and take a few sips of the water. They start feeling ill, and some even die. All the people who abstained feel fine. None of them are dying or coming down with strange symptoms. The survivors would put two and two together and realize they’d better avoid that pond. And if they don’t figure it out but instead continuing drinking from that pond, the tribe will soon go extinct.
