4 ms·

On the video [0] you can clearly hear him say that he knows a lot about bioweapons because he has been writing a book on the subject for the past 2.5 years. I

by lowkey 3y ago

On the video [0] you can clearly hear him say that he knows a lot about bioweapons because he has been writing a book on the subject for the past 2.5 years. I will assume good faith on your part and therefore infer that you missed the line at 0:30 seconds into the video, immediately before your quote begins where he says "There is an argument that .." There is a huge difference between saying "He claims ..." and saying "He claims there is an argument that ..." It also appears you missed the rest of what he said after you ended your quote, specifically, "We don't know if it was deliberately targeted or not but there are papers out there that show the racial and ethnic differential - and the impact of that. We do know that the Chinese are investing hundreds of millions of dollars to develop bioweapons and that we are investing hundreds of millions of dollars developing bioweapons. That's what all those labs in the Ukraine are about. They are collecting Russian DNA. They are collecting Chinese DNA so we can target people by race." The full quote is therefore, (adding the missing context in italics) "There is an argument that COVID-19 is ethnically targeted. It attacks certain races disproportionately. The races that are most immune to COVID-19 are, because of the genetic differentials among different races of the receptors - of the ACE-2 receptor, COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese - but we don't know if it was deliberately targeted or not but there are papers out there that show the racial and ethnic differential - and the impact of that. We do know that the Chinese are investing hundreds of millions of dollars to develop bioweapons and that we are investing hundreds of millions of dollars developing bioweapons. That's what all those labs in the Ukraine are about. They are collecting Russian DNA. They are collecting Chinese DNA so we can target people by race. " Reading the full quote in context, it is clear he is citing this study [1] which backs up his claims about the differential impact of COVID-19 by race. He also makes it clear in the full quote that "we don't know if it was done intentionally or not" He was clearly mis-quoted out of context in the article. Reading the full quote in context, it is not at all the damning statement you believe it to be. [0] https://twitter.com/ANTlWEF/status/1680476815993741312?s=20 https://twitter.com/ANTlWEF/status/1680476815993741312?s=20 [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32664879/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32664879/

zimpenfish 3y ago
"but we don't know if it was deliberately targeted or not [...] They are collecting Chinese DNA so we can target people by race" He is very clearly doing the "wink to audience" dance in this paragraph. Yes, it gives him plausible deniability because he hasn't come out and explicitly said that C19 is ethnically targeted but he's following the Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck "just asking questions and pointing things out and look, if the audience take something more away from that WINKS TO AUDIENCE what can I do?" bullshit.
- lowkey 3y ago
  I may be wrong here, and you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. In my mind he isn't doing a nefarious "wink to audience" or as some might say a "dog whistle." Instead he is genuinely saying that we don't know one way or the other but we should be open to the possibility of either option. One could, of course take a more cynical view and maybe that is the right course of action in a potentially adversarial situation such as this. To be fair, the same argument could be made of the US and their 46 recently acknowledged biolabs in the Ukraine alone. We have many others around the world. I'm not an expert in adversarial bio-warfare or geopolitics so I can't say for sure what the right course of action. I do however, love a statement he made in response to a question he was once asked by a reporter on how he would handle the potential of China invading Taiwan under his presidency. His response was: "Strategic Ambiguity" in other words recognize the threat, prepare for the threat, but don't show your hand too early so as to keep your opponent on it's toes. On a related note, RFK Jr. has, in my opinion, a truly novel view on how to engage with China in general. In his view, China is not interested in taking on the US in either a hot or cold war, and would prefer to compete with us on an economic rather than a military theater of engagement. In his view, and in mine, how you engage with your 'enemy' can have an enormous impact on how they choose to respond. If the US under RFK Jr. were to signal that we also have no interest in engaging militarily against China but instead that we wish to compete with them for economic dominance - well then we might just teach each other how to be good free market competitors, competing on the basis of hard work, productivity and innovation. As we look to compete with our rivals in AI, the next likely competitive threat - I would hope that this sort of framing would lend itself better to a China-US and even a global alignment on a policy framework that prevents an AI apocalypse.

by lowkey 3y ago

zimpenfish 3y ago

"but we don't know if it was deliberately targeted or not [...] They are collecting Chinese DNA so we can target people by race" He is very clearly doing the "wink to audience" dance in this paragraph. Yes, it gives him plausible deniability because he hasn't come out and explicitly said that C19 is ethnically targeted but he's following the Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck "just asking questions and pointing things out and look, if the audience take something more away from that WINKS TO AUDIENCE what can I do?" bullshit.

lowkey 3y ago
I may be wrong here, and you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. In my mind he isn't doing a nefarious "wink to audience" or as some might say a "dog whistle." Instead he is genuinely saying that we don't know one way or the other but we should be open to the possibility of either option. One could, of course take a more cynical view and maybe that is the right course of action in a potentially adversarial situation such as this. To be fair, the same argument could be made of the US and their 46 recently acknowledged biolabs in the Ukraine alone. We have many others around the world. I'm not an expert in adversarial bio-warfare or geopolitics so I can't say for sure what the right course of action. I do however, love a statement he made in response to a question he was once asked by a reporter on how he would handle the potential of China invading Taiwan under his presidency. His response was: "Strategic Ambiguity" in other words recognize the threat, prepare for the threat, but don't show your hand too early so as to keep your opponent on it's toes. On a related note, RFK Jr. has, in my opinion, a truly novel view on how to engage with China in general. In his view, China is not interested in taking on the US in either a hot or cold war, and would prefer to compete with us on an economic rather than a military theater of engagement. In his view, and in mine, how you engage with your 'enemy' can have an enormous impact on how they choose to respond. If the US under RFK Jr. were to signal that we also have no interest in engaging militarily against China but instead that we wish to compete with them for economic dominance - well then we might just teach each other how to be good free market competitors, competing on the basis of hard work, productivity and innovation. As we look to compete with our rivals in AI, the next likely competitive threat - I would hope that this sort of framing would lend itself better to a China-US and even a global alignment on a policy framework that prevents an AI apocalypse.